Telegram App Says Apple Is Blocking Updates Over Dispute with Russia - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/technology/telegram-apple-russia.html <comment><USER2> Apple has now entered dangerous territory.

Over the last month they seem to have banned apps because some government out there didn't like that app. To make matters worse, those very same governments weren't happy with the app being removed from their regional app store but they demanded it removed from all app stores.

The VPN issue was a wake up call for a lot of developers. These apps were on the app store for years and because China didn't like these apps one morning, they banned it and referred to some arbitrary clause in the app store TOS.

The thing is this script has played out before. Twitter also had a vibrant ecosystem of third party developers. Those developers made Twitter into a billion dollar company. Then one morning, they decided certain classes of apps were not okay. This back and forth went on for months until there were barely any apps left. Twitter eventua

The same thing is happening with Apple. Several founders I've spoken to, all with big exits in the past, refuse to write apps first for Apple or Google because of the threat of getting "banned one morning".

Worse, VCs are now getting nervous in investing in startups where the app is the fundamental foundation of the business.

For any market to thrive, there needs to be transparency and stability. Just like Twitter, once developers are gone....they're gone. They won't come back and consumers will start wondering if the 1,000 dollar smartphone they purchased, with subpar apps, is really worth it.

<comment><USER3> There are now plenty of VPN apps on iOS App Store China, some of which have literal "VPN" in their names. Many were removed, but then many new are added. For example, I used an App called Wingy to connect to my shadowsocks server, and that app was removed during the purge of VPN apps. But then other Wingy- like apps appear, and I am now using one of them.

I don't know what exactly has happened though. Is Apple defying China's government in secret now? Or are Chinese regulators only concerned with GFW bypass on some special days that has passed?

<comment><USER4> had to ban all the good vpn apps to make sure users would download the latest ones with all the latest backdoor tech!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a fundamental problem with the single DRM-enforced app store model that Apple innovated, and which has been widely copied and lauded.

Once you implement that, you have to toady up to whatever governments exist, including oppressive/murderous regimes, to be in their markets.

If your ecosystem is just console video games, say, it's not that big of a deal; you have to either censor some games or don't enter certain countries at all. Might be unfortunate, but its not a fundamental human rights issue.

But if your ecosystem is about general-purpose apps and communication tools, you become complicit to some degree in all sorts of vile shit; oppression and forced relocation of minorities (China), mass murder of gay people (Russia), etc.

There's no way around this for Apple; they have to cave to government demands or risk being forced out of the Russian market. That wasn't inevitable, though; it's a side effect of the model they chose.

<comment> dane-pgp > If your ecosystem is just console video games, say, it's not that big of a > deal; you have to either censor some games or don't enter certain countries > at all. Might be unfortunate, but its not a fundamental human rights issue.

Be careful of the ground you might concede to the censors. Freedom of expression is most certainly a fundamental human right:

[https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/universal- declar...](https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/universal-declaration- of-human-rights-article-19)

It's easy to dismiss video games as "lesser" forms of art or expression, but we shouldn't underestimate the potential for games to convey significant social and political messages (both positive and negative).

In case a concrete example is needed of a thought-provoking video game with artistic merit, let me suggest this to those who haven't seen or played it:

[http://www.papersplea.se/](http://www.papersplea.se/)

<comment><USER6> There isn't a single source of truth on what is or isn't a "fundamental human right." It's a matter of opinion that differs across time and geography.

<comment><USER7> While it's not as universal as its name makes it seem, the UN uses The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights) That would be a good starting point since it already backed by some pretty powerful countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is presently an accusation by Telegram, nothing more. Sample of reasons why Apple may be doing whatever they are doing:

1) Telegram is prevalently used by Syrian fighters [1]. (Why they chose Telegram over Signal beats me.) As the Syrian conflict winds down, these fighters are returning home. That creates a security imperative for many governments, including in the EU.

2) Telegram recently ran an ICO that, at the very least, probably runs afoul of American securities law.

3) All of the reasons any app gets held up in review that are not "the Russian government pressured Apple."

TL; DR We have no evidence this is because of Russian meddling.

[1] [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/isis-telegram- app_us_59...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/isis-telegram- app_us_59259254e4b0ec129d3136d5)

<comment><USER9> All this points to me is the risks of owning a phone whose only way to add apps is to go through one company's own discretion. Unlike in Android where you can easily install apps from other app stores or just download the file.

<comment><USER10> Installing apps outside an app store also introduces other risks, it's not exactly one better than the other. Personally I'd love to sideload apps, but seeing how big of a mess that was on desktops leads me to believe most users are better served by a gatekeeper.

<comment><USER11> While that's probably true, Apple could bring to iOS what macOS has been doing for years: code-signed apps that aren't distributed through the App Store and aren't subject to any of the App Store's restrictions (and can't guarantee the ostensible security benefits), but can still be "disabled" by Apple if they prove to be bad actors. On macOS, there are actually three states for this: signed App Store apps, signed regular apps, and entirely unsigned apps. Users get to tell the system what to allow and disallow. There's no really good _technical_ reason for Apple not to allow at least the first two categories on iOS by now.

(That system on macOS is, for those who don't remember, called Gatekeeper!)

<comment><USER12> > There's no really good technical reason for Apple not to allow at least the > first two categories on iOS by now.

But then I can sign a jailbreak with my developer certificate and pass it around. Now, you're going to say that such a thing has never happened on macOS, but the fact that it _could_ happen because you've opened the door to it is something that should be considered.

<comment><USER13> As soon as it get wide enough they'd just block you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd given this challenge some thought in the recent past, specifically the challenge that the big app store owners are each generally susceptible to coercion by large nation-state actors in spite of being multinationally distributed.

There was a project I was involved in rather heavily (cyph // resulted in a pair of neat conference talks) where we'd accounted for the risks of apps being banned by making the entire application operate exclusively in a web context. To at least somewhat mitigate the related risks stemming from having to trust the cryptographic logic delivered by a web server every time you use the service, trust-on-first-use was achieved by mangling the living daylights out of HPKP in tandem with service workers in order to persist barebones codesigning logic used for validating cryptographic packages delivered from the web service. Alas...

All of this is to say that there have been multiple parties involved in addressing this challenge, each one thinking from novel angles in an effort to mitigate the risks posed by the threat of sanctions against secure messaging. As it stands, it appears there's now a rather glaring weakness: if a nation- state decides as much, they can just twist the arms of the walled gardens supporting your secure messaging client in order to:

1) deny access generally, reducing or eliminating the growth of the target space and improving target acquisition,

2) persist known vulnerabilities just long enough to exploit against a target.

Telegram has been criticized again and again for their security hygiene and for their architectural decisions. Signal's seen some of that heat quite recently, and I raise both of these because they speak pretty strongly to the bullets above: there's a chance we're seeing a live demonstration by a preeminent world power against one of the few tools dissidents are using to _literally_ stay alive.

If this demonstration succeeds without any sort of significant blowback (in the form of corporate or popular resistance or some other subversion or mitigation of the attack), there's nothing to stop any other major _party_ from trying it, regardless of whether they're a nation-state.

\---

Anyway, I'm keen on a deeper discussion here. Maybe the tinfoil hat's been a bit corrosive to my brain; counter-arguments are welcomed.

<comment><USER15> I guess my brain is too small to grok this all in one go but are you saying that

Russia is applying pressure to Apple (what pressure?) that prevents Apple App Stores in _all_ countries from accepting a new update of Telegram

I don't get this - why is Telegram not releasing updates in a UK or Japanese region? What pressure (besides the local russian court system) is being applied here

\---

In general yes I expect that app stores are the / a weak point in mobile encryption messaging, but it is only at the level of _major_ player threat model. These things are good enough for use against all but a State level actor targeting _you_ specifically (at which point leaving the country is probably good, if tardy, advice)

<comment><USER8> We don't have any evidence, apart from Durov's allegations, that Telegram's situation with Apple has anything to do with Russia.

<comment><USER15> So this is Telegram saying "oh we forgot to update for GDPR because err ... umm ... err ... Russia!"?

I mean we presumably do have Russian court Records from April, records that the Roskomnadzor went to court for encryption keys, and that there have been "shutting down entire segments of the Russian internet. Many small organizations, including language schools and museums, have been blocked as collateral damage." And evidence there was a demonstration with paper aeroplanes?

I am happy to accept that Durov has an axe to grind but Russia does look like a good suspect to start looking at first.

<comment><USER16> There is certainly evidence that Russia has a problem with Telegram. There is also evidence that Russia is trying to get Telegram removed from the app store.

What we don't have any evidence for is that these are in any way related to Telegram's inability to get updates approved by Apple. This is speculation based on the above claims which do have evidence.

<comment><USER15> Fair enough - this is essentially my own question above - what pressure can be applied by Russia to Apple to prevent App Store UK getting updates? If you have a legal dispute in country A does the prevent all counties getting updates?

<comment><USER17> > Fair enough - this is essentially my own question above - what pressure can > be applied by Russia to Apple to prevent App Store UK getting updates?

They can fine the company, ban import of Apple products into the country, block access to App Store, etc. Yes, that same agency.

It doesn't even matter _which_ regional section of App Store Telegram would use to publish app - users in need can switch between them and censorship agency can't see which part of App Store you are connecting to.

So Russian censorship agency's end goal should be to remove Telegram from all regional sections of App Store and use whatever legal or not-so-legal excuses to do so. Agency in question (Роскомнадзор) is notorious for their bullshit excuses to ban imports of food from Ukraine during all the trade wars even before all European food was legally banned for import.

<comment><USER15> Let me rephrase- yes they can impose a fine, harass employees, ban imports of iphones, but what can they do that will _work_ \- ie force apple to ban a well known app from the app store innsuch a blatant fashion.

Apple would be insane to comply with these demands, because it just opens the door for every other regieme to do the same.

So ... is Apple stopping Telegram from sending the updates? Are they doing it _because_ of Russia pressure?

or is there more?

<comment><USER17> >Apple would be insane to comply with these demands, because it just opens the door for every other regieme to do the same.

But they already did in China, right?

<comment><USER15> This it seems is something i missed - they banned VPN apps?

<comment><USER18> Yes: [http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/11/22/apple-can-promote- free...](http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/11/22/apple-can-promote-freedom- expression-china-block-vpn-apps/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Presumably Telegram doesn't know for sure why Apple is blocking updates... They are most likely getting stonewalled, with Apple not responding to any of their requests for information.

Telegram suspects that Apple is trying to appease Russian censors while keeping a low profile and plausible deniability. Perhaps Apple is buying time and showing goodwill to Russia while they negotiate a deal - who knows?

Acting on their suspicion, Telegram makes this announcement, putting pressure on Apple to unblock updates, or at least to stop stonewalling them.

It's a clever use of PR as a tactical weapon. And assuming that Apple was indeed stonewalling Telegram (extremely likely knowing Apple), I think it's perfectly justified.

<comment><USER20> Your assumptions are probably wrong. Most likely Telegram _does_ know why they're being blocked, they just aren't saying because they want people to assume malfeasance on Apple's part and they're hoping bad PR will convince Apple to approve whatever it is that they're currently rejecting.

<comment><USER19> You might be right... I think it's fair to say we're both guessing.

To me it just doesn't seem logical to resort to such a "nuclear option" over a review disagreement, instead of just complying, negotiating, or at least working around the problem in a creative technical way. It's not like Telegram is changing in some fundamental way since the last review... What could Apple be telling Telegram that is such a massive showstopper?

<comment><USER20> A lot of companies do tend to reach for the "nuclear option" of crying to the press when getting rejected even though they haven't yet gone through all the steps of trying to resolve the issue privately.

> _What could Apple be telling Telegram that is such a massive showstopper?_

Good question. I don't know. There are a lot of possibilities here and it's impossible for us to know what without Telegram telling us the actual rejection reason.

<comment><USER19> > > _What could Apple be telling Telegram that is such a massive showstopper?_

> _Good question. I don 't know. There are a lot of possibilities here_

I can't think of any. Can you name one?

<comment><USER20> Telegram wants to introduce a feature where they request access to your address book, request access to your photo library, search your photo library using CoreML for photos that appear to be indecent, and start sending them to all of your contacts. Telegram is really adamant that this is an excellent feature and they refuse to remove it when Apple denies them over it.

Or probably something else. But you get the idea. Telegram could have tried to introduce behavior that violated Apple rules. Or they could have snuck existing rules violations past Apple in the past and Apple finally noticed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Honestly, I don't understand why there are still details missing from this story. Durov is willing to share that Telegram hasn't been able to ship updates, but not the full reason.

Have they been actively rejected (and thus, provided a rejection reason)? Or have Apple just stopped approving their updates silently?

If it's the former, I don't know what app store guideline says "well, Telegram is banned in Russia, and so no more updates." If it's the latter, then I can understand the frustration -- but we don't know which it is. This nuance is important.

For all we know, the answer is the former, and the app store rejection reasons are for completely unrelated issues. But as per usual, we don't know the full story.

<comment><USER22> The certification process tends to only look for things that are Bad for Apple or Google, as almost anyone who's tried getting a big app update certified. Meanwhile, 1000 iterations of shareware calculators that you have to pay $4 to unlock the number 9 are accepted frequently. There's so many clearly crap apps out there that don't get a second look.

<comment><USER23> > shareware calculators that you have to pay $4 to unlock the number 9

This is probably made up/for comedic effect, but just in case it isn't, do you have a link?

<comment><USER22> Usually it's not like that, but they'll show ads on a calculator that completely matches the native calculator, until you pony up.

Other examples are todo lists that only allow you one group unless you pay them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does this dispute imply that Apple backdoors its own iMessage end-to-end encryption on states' request?

<comment><USER25> It's entirely possible, I'd speculate. I once called Apple tech support for help with my iPhone. So they could see what was going on right on my phone, they were able to remotely request a "screen sharing" session, which I had to click "Allow" on a dialog on my phone to approve. One can imagine that such an approval dialog is not actually required in a technical sense, and _theoretically_ a screen share could be remotely started without any such dialog/notification.

<comment><USER26> While true they can access a phone based on the user opting in, there's likely a high degree of "security" around how and when this can occur including the necessity of a user opting in.

Tim Cook has taken a very public stance on privacy and the addition of police- unfriendly encryption of data. So, there's much to lose if news were to come out undermining that position.

He probably would not be going so far out on a limb personally if the reality of the privacy/security/encryption were just for PR. His integrity is dependent on that position being true.

Slowing things down for political purposes in entirely another matter, and well within the realm of probability.

<comment><USER27> I know this is not really on topic, but forensic companies like Cellebrite can unlock/get the data from almost any iOS Device.

Remember, those were the guys that unlocked the San Bernardino iPhone.

Android full encryptions are harder/impossible for them, a Cellebrite person told me half a year ago.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute)

[https://www.cellebrite.com/en/products/ufed- ultimate/](https://www.cellebrite.com/en/products/ufed-ultimate/)

<comment><USER12> > forensic companies like Cellebrite can unlock/get the data from almost any > iOS Device

I don't think this is true. Essentially Cellebrite gets ahold of an unpatched exploit that Apple then quickly fixes; that's far cry from being able to unlock "almost any iOS Device".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Please note that Telegram is not a Russian company; it is registered in Great Britain. Russian government doesn't have any jurisdiction over it.

Also, russian users are less than 10% of Telegram userbase.

So now Apple is putting sanctions upon a British company just because Russia says so.

This sets a dangerous precedent. What will we see tomorrow? China, Thailand, Iran and North Korea kicking apps they don't like out of App Store? Apple banning apps on political grounds?

<comment><USER5> Apple already does ban apps on political grounds, even pretty innocuous just- the-facts type apps:

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/538kan/apple- just...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/538kan/apple-just-banned- the-app-that-tracks-us-drone-strikes-again)

And yes, I think you are likely right: we will see apps banned at the behest of the Chinese government, given the size of their market. (North Korea, perhaps not.)

Apple painted themselves into this corner when they decided to become the gatekeeper of what iPhone users are allowed to install.

<comment><USER13> We already see that, but it's more subtle. They aren't banning those apps worldwide, just delist them from their Chinese store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The App Store guidelines [5] indicate that, with regard to a single app, the app author (Telegram) "must comply with all legal requirements". Telegram agreed to this requirement when they published their latest update two months ago, and so Telegram – not Apple – is liable for illegality.

Apple received a notice of illegality from Russia regarding Telegram, a third- party app. This notice was inappropriately delivered to Apple, who currently has no responsibility for Telegram. Telegram's compliance with Russian law is not Apple's problem unless a Russian court orders Apple to de-list Telegram. Until such an order occurs, Apple has no reason to de-list Telegram.

Therefore, I believe that Apple did three things:

[1] Apple temporarily suspended Telegram app updates worldwide after receiving a notice of illegality.

[2] Apple immediately forwarded the notice of illegality to Telegram, without any assertion of validity.

[3] Apple notified Telegram that they may resume updates by either declaring in writing to Apple that Telegram is legal in Russia or de-listing Telegram in Russia.

And Telegram did no things:

[4] Telegram has refused to declare in writing to Apple that Telegram is legal in Russia, and has refused to de-list Telegram in Russia.

And Telegram, after two months of refusing to act on [3], is trying to pressure Apple into giving up on [3] using the "woe is me" GDPR excuse.

[5] [https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#leg...](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#legal)

<comment><USER28> > "must comply with all legal requirements"

Every country has its own legal requirements. As Telegram is a British company I assume it must comply only with British laws, right?

<comment><USER29> Telegram may absolutely ignore non-British laws and refuse to concern itself with them. Independent of laws, Apple may refuse Telegram access to the App Store if a guideline is not met.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is why I will never own an Apple phone. No one should have the power to decide what can and can't be installed on your devices.

<comment><USER31> So you've never owned a game console either?

<comment><USER32> That's not very far fetched.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Tweet from Founder/CEO of Telegram: [https://twitter.com/durov/status/1002653210245586944](https://twitter.com/durov/status/1002653210245586944) ("Thank you @Apple and @tim_cook for letting us deliver the latest version of @telegram to millions of users, despite the recent setbacks.")

</comment><comment><USER34> What else do people expect from a closed ecosystem? Vendor bowing down to disreputable nation-states' requests. Check. Out of date apps with vulnerabilities. Check. Impossible to verify security of said system or apps. Check. Complete opaqueness from the vendor. Check. And this is from a vendor that supposedly values both security and privacy ... not that any others are any better.

</comment><comment><USER35> Theory 1: It's because Russia, a market with a very small iOS user base, can pressure Apple into doing what it wants.

Theory 2: It's because Telegram raised more than a billion dollars for a virtual currency that does an end-run around Apple's in-app payments.

Based on Apple's past actions, which one is more likely?

<comment><USER36> The ICO didn't mention anything about doing an end-run around IAPs, and even so, such functionality isn't integrated in the app.

How can Apple justify penalising something not in an app? Why is the Kindle app still up, despite the fact that Kindle ebooks don't go through IAP?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> From all the articles I have read about this Telegram seems to offer no evidence to supports its case. Further more it claims its only iOS, and not macOS. And I personally have gotten at least several updates for at least the mac version over the past month.

<comment><USER38> On a Mac you have the option of downloading and installing the app directly from the Internet rather than from the app store. On iOS you don't, so there is a clear difference.

<comment><USER39> My macOS Telegram updated, from the AppStore, 2018-05-31.

<comment><USER38> My point is that there is no point in blocking any updates on the MacOS appstore, as it can just be side-loaded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Russia banned Telegram on its territory in April because we refused to provide decryption keys for all our users' communications to Russia's security agencies"

Why does Telegram have decryption keys for all their users' communications (or do they)?

<comment><USER40> For private chats Telegram uses end-to-end encryption and they cannot read the chats. Of course, they control the clients though, so they could update their clients to also send the chats to Russian intelligence and it would be hard for anyone to notice.

<comment><USER41> Telegram isn't E2E encrypted by default.

You need to choose an "encrypted" chat.

They have been criticised over this for many years now.

<comment><USER42> Also desktop telegram client doesn't have e2e, only mobile one.

<comment><USER43> Which is why I can't use it because most of my messages are sent from desktop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If anyone here is interested, I started on a new project called Chatdog ([https://chat.dog](https://chat.dog)) to create an alternative to Telegram, et al. Telegram forces you to download their app and provide your phone number to join a room. Chatdog doesn't require any personal data and can even be used anonymously!

<comment><USER45> But you require scripts from a lot of 3rd parties, which may or may not respect my privacy.

Maybe consider using a CDN or hosting necessary scripts on your server?

<comment><USER44> All scripts are on Cloudfront except for when someone shares a YouTube video or Twitter tweet. Google Analytics and Typekit are the only third-party scripts that are always loaded. I do need to add UI to allow users to disable these.

<comment><USER46> I had to accept a script from platform.twitter.com before I could close the SignIn/Register modal. Here's a short gif.

[https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/HelplessAlienatedClownanemone...](https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/HelplessAlienatedClownanemonefish)

The app looks great though :)

<comment><USER44> Thanks for reporting this! Yes, apparently the Twitter script is always loaded also. I need to add logic to only load it when needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm surprised that nobody is talking about how Telegram raised pre-ICO of billions of dollars even when it was obvious that this type of censorship will be possible.

Mobile apps should not do ICO, period. It's irresponsible for someone to try stealing uneducated people's money while promising something that's impossible to achieve.

Realistically speaking there are only two players in the market: Google and Apple, both of which will happily comply with governments and regulators since they have no business in allowing gray area businesses, and that's a good thing.

However when you raise ICO, you're basically promising the censorship resistant future while fully knowing that it's impossible to achieve what you promised because your app is built on top of these centralized platforms.

This is on a completely different level in terms of scam factor when compared to naive idiots promising things like "putting grass-fed cows on the blockchain", because literally it's impossible to build a censorship- resistant, decentralized mobile app and they are the ones who know this the best.

I point this out because it looks as though all the press coverage seem to be focused on how Russia and Apple is censoring Telegram and Telegram is the victim, when Russia and Apple did nothing different from what they used to do. Russia has always been this way, and Apple has always tried its best to fight for user privacy but did make compromises when they really had to. It's great that Apple is doing its best to fight for user privacy but to be frank, Apple shouldn't be the one to blame here.

It's Telegram who decided to promote itself as a "censorship resistant decentralized blockchain application" to raise billions of dollars, and they got to this position because of this stance they had to take in order to raise the money. The only losers in this case are the idiots who invested in Telegram's ICO.

<comment><USER48> "you're basically promising the censorship resistant future" where did telegram say anything remotely like that? They did an ICO for a utility coin. They have been honest about being centralized. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're putting words in their mouth and accusing them of theft for not meeting your fabricated expectations.

<comment><USER47> ICO is short for Initial Coin Offering. And the coin is cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies are only valuable when they are not censorable. This is why there's a controversy around coins like XRP (from Ripple) because most of the coins are owned by Ripple and their architecture is designed in a way that they can very well censor transactions.

But even Ripple pales in comparison to something like Telegram, because Telegram is a mobile chat app, which is as centralized as you can get. Not only does it depend on iOS and Android, but also all push notifications must go through APN (Apple Push Notification) or FCM(Google Messaging). In fact, messaging apps are arguably the most centralized apps out there because of these features. And this is why it's so easy to censor these apps.

So if your app can easily be censored, and if your coin is useless if your users can't use the app, what else do you think they were claiming?

<comment><USER49> I am willing to bet that you haven't read the Telegram white paper. ([https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ucUeKg_NiR8RxNAonb8Q55jZha0...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ucUeKg_NiR8RxNAonb8Q55jZha03WC0O/view)) They didn't raise all that money to build out their chat app. They are looking to make a digital currency that can handle volume and is practical for day-to- day purchases, compared to the primarily speculatory coins that exist right now. The $1.7B they raised came from 175 accredited investors that purchased the entire supply of utility tokens in the pre-sale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Is Signal reporting any issues?

<comment><USER51> Signal is down for me right now. I am also seeing lot's of people mentioning the same thing on Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> This is likely a false accusation.

If Apple acquiesced to Russia's demands, Apple would have: 1) removed Telegram from the App Store in Russia, and 2) prevented Telegram from using the Apple Push Notification Service to distribute non-blocked IP addresses to clients.

More likely, updates are being rejected for another infraction. Telegram should publish the App Store reviewer's criticisms publicly, and provide more context before making public denouncements.

<comment><USER53> Knowing Apple I would be very surprised that it is a false accusation.

<comment><USER52> Interesting, you don't think this is an odd punishment if this was about Russia?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> At the same time alternative clients are getting their updates just fine (like Teleplus and Loopy).

<comment><USER12> There are a multitude of reason why this is the case. It might be that Telegram in particular did something that pissed Apple off, or that Apple is ignoring third-party clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> If they seriously believe that protecting customers security is important, they shall not encourage their user to use Apple products. Android is also bad for this.

</comment><comment><USER56> Discussion at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17195072](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17195072).

Edit: actually that article contains much less information and the discussion is correspondingly less substantive, so I've taken the 'dupe' marker off the current post. Carry on.</comment>


Privacy? Google and Ubuntu Partner - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2020/07/09/google-and-ubuntu-desktop-linux-flutter/ <comment><USER2> Can I consider this as strategy to against Microsoft (and Apple)? To reduce market share of Windows?</comment>


Eve Dev Diary (Oct-Nov) - <AUTHOR> http://incidentalcomplexity.com/2016/06/03/oct-nov/ <comment><USER2> This is great. Not sure why there is no discussion here. Maybe people missed it?</comment>


Log2 ( (distance to moon) / (thickness of paper) ) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2+(+(distance+to+moon)+/+(thickness+of+paper)+)

<comment><USER2> Oh come on ... the right question is [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ceil%28log2+%28+%28dist...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ceil%28log2+%28+%28distance+to+moon%29+%2F+%28thickness+of+paper%29+%29%29) , to which the answer is of course: 42

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> ...in other words: fold a paper 42 times and you reach the moon.

<comment><USER3> And only 8 more folds to reach the sun!

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2+%28+%28distance+to...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2+%28+%28distance+to+sun%29+%2F+%28thickness+of+paper%29+%29)

Ain't exponentiality awesome?

<comment><USER4> And only 41.46 more folds to reach the size of the observable universe! :)

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2+%28+%28size+of+uni...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2+%28+%28size+of+universe%29+%2F+%28thickness+of+paper%29+%29)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This makes me wish wolfram alpha were social. I'd love to be able to have a conversation about interesting formula and results.

<comment><USER6> That's a great idea. You can share interesting results with @WolframFunFacts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ftfy: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ceiling+of+log2+%28+%28...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ceiling+of+log2+%28+%28distance+to+moon%29+%2F+%28thickness+of+paper%29+%29)

</comment><comment><USER8> What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything...?</comment>


My little project maybe useful for other Freelancers - <AUTHOR> http://onlinejobsalert.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I never know how to get any of my ideas out there. So I thought this time I'd just put a link out there, maybe some of you here are Freelancers on freelancer.com or scriptlance.com, or any of the other communities I might add or joi in the future.

Any feedback, if even to say your site sucks would be greatly appreciated.</comment>


Why Your New (Startup) Idea Doesn't Suck Yet - <AUTHOR> http://noahc.net/2010/12/13/why-your-new-idea-doesnt-suck-yet/

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, but this article didn't go anywhere close to where I thought it would go. After the first four sentences, it provided me with no value or insight whatsoever.

I think you're trying to say an idea is good if it "sucks", but this is a pretty pessimistic way to view the world and did not result in a pleasant read. I think I figured out what you are trying to say ("just do it"), but your writing style does not accurately portray your message.

<comment><AUTHOR> My point was more that as you engage your idea by actually doing something it becomes more real by facing real world problems. During this process it starts to suck. That doesn't make it a good idea, it makes it an idea grounded in reality.

I think suck doesn't describe the idea as much as it describes the validation process. The validation process can suck in a number of ways. Don't wimp out during the validation process, though, you might be onto something.

Not sure if this created any clarity at all for you. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the article though! Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The different phases of suckage are great insight.

Actually he is right - iIdeas and execution matter.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not really ingeniously written - but he definitely gets the point right. There are so many problems between a first mental draft and a finished product that you can never anticipate - in other words: fail faster.

</comment><comment><USER5> He starts with wrong assumption. When they say "It's about execution" they are not talking about testing it. They are talking about 'doing it - being it' without which the ideas is of no value what so ever.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well said!!</comment>


U.S. backs down in fight with Harvard, MIT over student visas - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-14/harvard-and-u-s-make-deal-on-foreign-student-visas <comment><USER2> I'm not relieved. Or, only partially relieved.

One of the core arguments was that the Feds can't pull funds for their stated purpose, which was to encourage/force schools to open ("The government has provided no reason for its abrupt and unexplained shift. That is unsurprising, since... its purpose—as expressed by Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli—is to 'encourage schools to reopen.' In essence, Defendants are using the vulnerability of international students as leverage to force a broad reopening for reasons wholly disconnected from the underlying statute and regulation... Defendants have thus violated the APA by promulgating a policy based on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.").

I think there's a good chance that the admin backed down here so that there's no pre-existing precedent implying (or explicitly stating) that they can't use purse strings and other extra-congressional-intent mechanisms to force K12 to open in August.

<comment><USER3> The federal government _did_ use the threat of withdrawal of highway funds to get all 50 states to lower the speed limit to 55.

<comment><USER2> _CONGRESS_ used the threat of withdrawal of highway funds to get all 50 states to lower the speed limit to 55.

From my quote of the amicus brief: _Defendants have thus violated the APA by promulgating a policy based on factors WHICH CONGRESSS DID NOT INTEND IT TO CONSIDER_

( the all-caps is for emphasis because I can't see italics well anymore and HN doesn't have bold; I'm not yelling :) )

<comment><USER4> But the rest of HN can see italics just fine. Don't use caps. It is annoying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A well known religious University near me just started offering "in person" (wink wink) classes where attendance would not be taken. I was proud to see it.

<comment><USER6> Actually, most universities don't take attendance. It's a waste of time, it punishes pro-social behavior (there is no good reason for people feeling sick to go to class), and it's infantilizing. "Attendance required" often means "we will notice if you never attend, and then will feel less bad failing you if you don't do your homework either".

<comment><USER7> My law school classes took attendance. Rigorously. Because time management is a critical skill for attorneys, judges don't tolerate any amount of unannounced absenteeism, and missing filing deadlines can be and often is _extremely_ costly, not just for you but for your client. (Also, taking attendance weeds out the liars. The ABA has strict attendance requirements and you're not supposed to get a degree if you miss them.)

If was a very tough transition because, of course, both in undergraduate and in professional life lackadaisical attitudes were tolerated, especially so long as you otherwise performed the substantive work.

We all love to rationalize away those things we dislike doing. But there was no wiggle room to rationalize it away in law school. I'm sure the military is similar.

<comment><USER8> > I'm sure the military is similar.

Ironically, Roll Call is a formal concept in the military and rarely used after training. But the concept of accountability certainly exists.

This varies by country, branch of service, and job, but it's fairly common for young airmen (enlisted troops) in the USAF to be docked pay after showing up late to work a few times. The punishment usually goes something like a stern warning-> light paperwork-> paperwork in your permanent file and formal counseling. The next step is non-judicial punishment (named so because your only option is to accept the harsh punishment or be court martialed), which could mean any combination of confinement, demotion, forfeiture of pay, or several other things. The only things left after that are being discharged or sent to prison. And that's for being late to work. If you backtalk the wrong person you could be demoted with no warning.

And I know the Air Force Academy takes attendance every class because I had to. The registrar would occasionally audit the attendance system and notify the department chairs of instructors that didn't log their attendance.

<comment><USER9> Muster is taken every day, every watch, in the Navy at least. It's a formal process with a formal report that is submitted to the ship's admin department, and then they submit a muster report up to the ship's immediate superior.

It's taken very seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Elementary school politics. This would be a hilarious sitcom if it weren't for all the thousands of people getting hurt by this dysfunctional joke of a government.

<comment><USER11> A part of me believes this is more feature and less bug of the government. "Blame the disfunction, not the leadership thats elected every 2 years".

<comment><USER12> How is this not a bug? A straightforward patch would be the introduction of FPTP and moving the executive role from the office of the head-of-state to a body controlled by congress.

<comment><USER13> Ranked Choice Voting, which is now the law for all elections in the state of Maine except the Presidency, is a way to help ensure that the winning candidate has been chosen by at least 50% of voters, even if the winning candidate wasn't the first choice for all voters.

Adopting RCV seems to me like one of the best ways we can improve the health of the US's democracy going forward.

Any voters Massachusetts can vote this November to have RCV statewide, just like Maine, from local elections up to the US House and Senate elections. I've volunteered with the group [1] helping Massachusetts join Maine in leading the way.

[1] [https://voterchoice2020.org/](https://voterchoice2020.org/)

<comment><USER14> RCV is an improvement on FPTP -- almost anything would be! -- but Approval Voting is even better. It is easier to implement (the ballot doesn't change at all, just the way it's counted), simpler for voters to understand (you just vote for every candidate you approve of), much less susceptible to strategic voting and not at all to strategic candidate selection, and therefore much less likely to return an anomalous result.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Am I the only one thinking fighting to rid the country of the students resourceful enough to study in Harvard and MIT is madness? I would rather give them citizenship without even waiting for them to graduate.

<comment><USER16> For the sake of circumspection, I suppose a counterpoint to your thinking might go like this......

These institutions receive an abundance of high-quality applications every year and choose only a few; for every admitted international student, several amazing domestic applicants are rejected. The government does not need to bend over backwards for the international students who won the admissions lottery, because they already have a huge advantage. Rather, it might prefer to fight for the interests of its own citizens, whose advancement is in their personal best interest as well as that of the nation.

If an international student follows the established legal processes whereby a foreign person can become an American citizen, he, too, can benefit from a system that protects the interest of American citizens.

<comment><USER17> The counterpoint to that is that international students are a cash cow for universities.

They aren't taking away seats from domestic students. They are subsidizing the ability for more domestic students to study there.

<comment><USER16> Only a small fraction of MIT's revenue comes from tuition.

[https://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html](https://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is the guy who decides visa policy not able to understand the plan coming from the guy who decides defense policy? We need the smart people here, not there.

</comment><comment><USER19> This article doesn't seem to go into much detail. Does anyone know if this applies to all colleges or just Harvard?

I'm digging around online now but my search skills are failing me

<comment><USER20> All colleges. Harvard was only among the first to challenge it.

<comment><USER19> awesome, thanks for the info :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > _They cited time zone differences, unreliable or state-managed Internet and > armed conflict in some of the students' homelands._

I think it would be enlightening to see transcripts of the moments where each side said something convincing to the other.

Like...did Harvard representatives walk in and say "You know that this shit matters, right?" and then did the US representatives say "Oh shit. You're right. We never even thought of that." ? Or was there more to it?

There has to be more to it than that, right? "Struck a deal" implies that both sides gave something. So what did both sides give? Or did the US just walk back a move made without any foresight whatsoever when someone asked if they'd thought about the consequences?

<comment><USER22> It probably something like " these foreign students bring billions of dollars to US". We'd really like to keep these customers.

<comment><USER21> But how is that striking "a deal"? That doesn't sound like giving something to get something.

<comment><USER23> When the landlord who votes for trump doesn't get his rent from University students...it means something

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm honestly displeased with this ending. Universities that want to commit 100% learning online should not charge full price.

Universities that are 100% online before Covid should not be able to grant visas as they have no campus.

There is a LOT unregulated, unlegislated here and a lot that needs to be organized now. Many organizations will continue to set unacceptable standards for education and in my opinion need to be reigned in. MIT, Harvard's global relationship, albeit special by influence and money, should have to follow what the government sets. Government should have edified that universities without campuses cannot grant visas as well as a variety of other things.

In short this is a missed opportunity and a waste of time, much like many/all plans of this administration.

<comment><USER25> I do not disagree with your opinions about tuition or universities that were 100% online prior to the pandemic, but the original rule and subsequent retraction little to do with either point. None of these rules (directly) concern tuition money and it would be nearly impossible at the moment for a foreign student to work through the U.S. visa program to study at remote schools that do not have a history of issuing student visas.

By the far the largest group of students effected by the policy are foreign nationals that did not return to their home countries in the spring and would be subject to immediate deportation in the fall depending on their school's form of instruction. This was a purely vindictive and xenophobic move by the administration. I was extremely happy to hear of this policy reversal. It (at least temporarily) removes some pointless stress on millions of students who already have more things to worry about than they should.

<comment><USER24> EDIT

<comment><USER26> He/she explicitly said he/she doesn't disagree with you. Why are you asking this question?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Another example of the haphazard throw-it-against-the-wall approach of what our country has chosen to have as our national experiment.

This cannot be good for either side. Do we want to live in a system where if you hadn't been paying attention to the news for 1 week, we might have kicked >100,000 people out of the country?

Is this ADD-style, whoever yells the loudest, social and political system working well for anyone? How do we get past this?

<comment><USER28> Executive branch is overpowered partially because the senate refuses to do its job. The original intent was for the senate to be slower moving and "cool" house legislation leading to slower moving governing structures. Over time, the executive branch was given additional power to "get stuff done", and we find ourselves in the situation we have today.

<comment><USER29> > the senate refuses to do its job

It's not really the Senate's fault. Opposition parties almost never vote with government parties in any democratic legislature, so you shouldn't expect them to in the US.

The real problem is the outdated system that is set up to (1) only allow two major parties to exist, so a European-style coalition government isn't possible, and (2) require both major parties to agree in order to pass any legislation.

<comment><USER30> Why outdated? Coronavirus stimulus pckage became law on 27th March in both the US and Germany (Europe's model democracy). So it's arguably a good thing, consensual things happen quickly, controversial things take a long time.

<comment><USER31> The laws may have passed on the same date, but they were not the same laws. In functioning democracies, laws passed in response to health and economic emergencies have something to do with health and economics. In USA, Congress just unanimously (well, except for Thomas Massie) gave rich people trillions of dollars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> For many it is a sigh of relief. I am almost afraid of hitting administration too much for fear of having them dig in again.

</comment><comment><USER33> Excellent. The system worked this time. People challenged executive branch action through the judicial system and the executive branch backed down.

But this should never have been an issue to begin with, think of all the unnecessary stress and anxiety this has caused for the hundreds of thousands of international students impacted by this.

<comment><USER34> > But this should never have been an issue to begin with, think of all the > unnecessary stress and anxiety this has caused for the hundreds of thousands > of international students impacted by this.

More importantly, the long term damage is done. The noise was heard loud and clear that America is only as competent as its leader. Prospective future students are likely going to be ultra careful before choosing this country.

<comment><USER20> The number of foreign students is at an all-time high.

<comment><USER34> > The number of foreign students is at an all-time high.

Don't get me wrong but do you always look at historical numbers to predict the future?

<comment><USER35> I think you are being downvoted because... well, exactly what other methods did you have in mind? Using trend data to predict future data seems pretty run-of-the-mill to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm not a lawyer, but how is it Harvard and MIT had standing in court for this case?

<comment><USER37> Others gave you good answers but also consider this. There are thousands of PhD students who create value for these universities. They not only do research, help research being made, they also teach others. Kicking all these people out of US due to whims of ICE harms universities' financial interest as well. Universities are not making their education remote because they choose to do so. They're doing _precisely_ to protect students and faculty. It's capricious for ICE to see this and conclude "if you do that then I'll kick all your students out of this country". Universities invest in PhD students, they're part of faculty.

<comment><USER38> FWIW, it is helpful to understand that this isn't ICE making policy randomly but in fact just enforcing the regulations surrounding student visas. The existing regulations were relaxed in March but the underlying regulatory idea is that you don't need a visa for online education and online education is not sufficient for a visa to be issued.

I tend to think that it was premature to rescind the temporary waiving of the oversight regulations, but that isn't the same thing as saying the underlying regulations don't have a rationale basis.

<comment><USER37> (AINAL) No I don't think you're correct, which is what I (and others) were trying to explain. Which is also why MIT and Harvard (and many other universities) sued ICE. Here, copy paste from another comment:

> 19\. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case. Defendants' actions will > cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk to Plaintiffs' ability to > achieve their educational missions unless halted by this Court.

> 20.Plaintiffs also have standing to assert claims on behalf of their F-1 > visa-holding students, who face the imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk > of harm to themselves, their families, their educations, their short-term > and long-term health, and their future education and employment prospects if > Defendants' actions are not halted by this Court.

[0]: [https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_fil...](https://www.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/content/sevp_filing.pdf)

What you're missing is universities are making their classes online not because they're offering online education, but because _they 're forced to do so_ in order to protect students and faculty ( _including_ F1 students) from a pandemic. F1 visa specifically gives students right to protect themselves from such risks.

If universities switched to remote education e.g. to cut cost or to experiment with online education methods, then you'd be right. But the argument here is that universities do this because students and faculty face irreparable damage or death, and therefore there is no basis to deport to F1 students.

<comment><USER38> I tend to agree with you but I don't think your argument contradicts my statement. You are basically arguing that the health emergency still exists and the exemption should remain. I think that is a defensible argument, but that doesn't mean that the underlying logic (you don't need a visa to take an online course load) is invalid. If the health argument went away you would still be left with that underlying logic.

<comment><USER37> Yes, I think we agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The school closures are going to hurt universities far more than most know: Sports activity revenue.

</comment><comment><USER40> Foreign students are big money for the Industrial Education Complex and the loss of that revenue presented a real threat. Since the alumni of the IEC, no matter what political party, run, well, everything, the idea had no chance. At best it was political theater to agitate the base.

</comment><comment><USER41> Such an embarrassing blunder, of many blunders, for this administration.

<comment><USER42> I was under the impression that the law that was already in place was that purely online courses were not allowed. And that it had been in place for a long time. After coming out and stating "this is already the law", and resulting pushback against it, the thing changed by this administration was to allow purely online courses for visa students.

Are you saying that allowing purely online learning for students with visas is a blunder, or am I misinformed about this?

<comment><USER43> The blunder was retracting the special exception made during Spring 2020 that allowed F and M visa students to take online classes.

The pandemic is far from over, especially in the US, a fact which is obvious to everyone. The retraction is pure stupidity. Of course it would be unreasonable to ask int students to attend in person classes given the situation.

<comment><USER16> I have been on the fence about this policy, for the following reason.

On the one hand, it seems overtly xenophobic and anti-intellectual. On the other hand, I don't see why an international student needs to be in the United States in order to participate exclusively in online classes.

Even if the issue is a lack of human welfare (eg unsafe neighborhood) or necessary infrastructure (eg slow/inconsistent internet) back home, an international student could live somewhere else and probably save a ton of money in the process.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER44> Time zones a big factor. Note that this is about online classes (live), not a MOOC.

I wouldn't want to expect a student in Sydney to stay awake at 3AM to follow a lecture at Harvard at 1PM.

The same is true for office hours with professors and TAs. You have a huge disadvantage in getting information if you are in a bad time zone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Show of hands, who looks around today at the biggest challenges and problems we face, the ones that affect the greatest numbers of people the most perniciously, and that need swift & decisive solutions at almost any cost, and concludes that they're the ones having to do with foreign students being in the country taking online classes?

<comment><USER46> a) The government can do more than one thing at a time.

b) Given that so many startups were founded by immigrants who studied here I would consider it a pretty important issue to address.

<comment><USER47> Yes the government can do more then one thing. However the US government has finite resources so why should it expend resources on kicking students out but not on more useful things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Can someone explain how foreign students taking online classes gives them 'full rein' and is a threat to national security?

> ICE also contends that a full slate of virtual coursework compromises > national security by giving foreign students free rein within the U.S., and > says a freeze would undermine "the deference afforded administrative > agencies in complex and interrelated fields like immigration enforcement."

<comment><USER49> ICE stated they would have "free rein" not "full rein."

The argument is essentially that by allowing students to take online classes, they are free to travel anywhere within the united states. With mandatory in person classes, they would be restricted to being near campus.

The federal government would have a harder time keeping track of students, as their schools would no longer really have an idea if the students are nearby or not.

Which as others have pointed out, really grasping at straws, and if there is a a legitimate concern here, I'm certain that schools could come up with a system to keep tabs on their students visa holders.

<comment><USER50> > they are free to travel anywhere within the united states.

Theoretically that's true for on-campus courses too. Most (at least that I know of) universities don't track attendance. So the students are still free to travel anywhere as long as they keep submitting online assignments and are physically present for any exams.

<comment><USER51> Attendance is tracked at any university with students that receive federal aid... So most of them.

<comment><USER52> This is so obviously wrong. Source: I went to a public state school less than 10 years ago and I (along with many other students) received federal aid.

90% of the classes I took didn't require attendance, and the ones that did were mostly general studies courses for freshmen (like basic lab sciences or language classes). None of the major-related courses required attendance or had it as a component of the final grade (which in my case would be maths and CS classes). Obviously, you still had to attend midterms and final exams. And each of those classes would have a couple of prodigies who would attend zero lectures and still end up doing very well in the class (with many more who attempted that and failed massively, but still).

The only way of legitimately interpreting the meaning of your reply is that universities receiving federal aid are required to submit the list of students registered for each course. That has nothing to do with attendance though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Is this administration very incompetent, or very sadistic?

If they rescinded the order, means they:

1) Didn't think through the consequences, or the legality of the order.

2) They just wanted to crate some chaos, and mess up with the foreign kids, while posturing to their base

3) Force universities to stay open in the middle of the pandemic in order to help Trump's reelection bid... (not sure how breakouts of covid infections at colleges will help him)

<comment><USER54> #2 - This was just a big distraction to get the ADD media to forget about Russian bounties on US troops.

<comment><USER55> How about we start requiring proof before we just endlessly allow unnamed sources to dictate our outrage? The Russian Bounty story has all sorts of problems.

[https://fair.org/home/in-russian-bounty-story-evidence- free-...](https://fair.org/home/in-russian-bounty-story-evidence-free-claims- from-nameless-spies-became-fact-overnight/)

This is a theme of the media: use unnamed sources with no ability for stories to be independently verified and then create an anti-Trump scandal over it. Over and over we go through this.

<comment><USER56> Do you not see a problem with media outlets requiring sources name themselves when speaking out against someone in a position of power? I'd much prefer the current situation of corroborating a scandal through what is often multiple sources in multiple publications if the alternative is not hearing about scandals that do exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Kind of strange that the Trump administration would pull back on this one considering they locked up kids of illegal immigrants in cages ... there must be lots of GOP Harvard alumni then.

</comment><comment><USER58> It's not "US" it's Trump backs down from a rage comment he thought on the spot. That's how crazy the world has become.

</comment><comment><USER54> This program was a wild success beyond Trump's wildest dreams.

No one is talking about Russian Bounties on US troops. Crisis averted.

He just keeps on winning!

<comment><USER59> Are you serious?

To me this adds to the picture of an administration who is about to loose the forthcoming election and is acting more and more eratic.

But I am not American so I cannot tell whether this is actually convincing to the broader electorate?

<comment><USER60> > _To me this adds to the picture of an administration who is about to loose > the forthcoming election_

I wouldn't be so sure, there is still a lot of time before now and the election. We saw the lengths the administration is willing to go to in order to win. Blackmailing the Ukraine to make up lies about their political opponents is just the worst thing we know about, and as disgusting as it was, the aftermath of that shows that half the country supports this type of behavior as a means to an end. I seriously doubt we'll see a transition of power during this election.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Yeah this isn't a viable way to formulate public policy. It isn't new either, happened with the travel ban early on. Soft power, and even the viability of a country, depends on certain long-term guarantees, guarantees that the current administration has blown away completely.

I'm pessimistic that even if a change in administration occurs early next year (and that is a _major_ if), there would be anything any administration can do before the next Donald Trump takes office 4 or 8 years from now. I'm betting that the next "Trump" will be far smarter and won't make this one's mistakes. And if the Republic falls, no place on Earth will be safe.

That's not a reason to lie down and die. It's a reason to fight back with the frenzy of despair. I hope a quarter million dead by December will be enough. Enough for folks to remember that elections have consequences.

</comment><comment><USER62> This is genius. If you assume that the Trump Administration did this to show their base that they're serious about deporting foreigners to garner election votes, then you can conclude that they've managed to do that with as much publicity as possible at virtually no cost financially.

It's likely they knew this would never go through and didn't want a knockdown drag-out fight in the courts. However, they still capitalized on a situation and should be congratulated for that, regardless of whether or not you agree with the politics.

I would hope that the DNC would learn this tactic and employ it equally as well in the future.

<comment><USER63> I'm sorry, what? You think it's a good thing for our politicians to waste everyone's time by pushing policies they _know_ will never pass / will be struck down in court, just to win political points? IMO this sort of thing is exactly what's wrong with the political climate right now. This sort of behavior makes it all about "us vs them" and shuts down any sort of nuanced discussion about what's best for the country.

<comment><USER64> Dude, you have no idea what happens behind closed doors. It's absolutely a common political move to fight for something you don't really care about and then use it as a bargaining chip to get what you do want.</comment></comment></comment>


Experience Your Computer Desktop in VR - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjE6qXd6Itw <comment><USER2> I suppose it's early days, but I was surprised that what you see in this VR is limited to what your monitor(s) can display. I would expect a VR UI would be its own "monitor" output, similar to how a PDF printer is its own printer. What I mostly saw in the video was two monitors (active areas) in a 360 degree field of essentially nothing.

Not to belittle, it's cool, but it's not enough to make me want it.</comment>


Show HN: A Simple Background Generator I Made - yury-n http://background-generator.com/ <comment> yury-n input: icons, emojis, illustrations + layout algorithm + colors

output: neat background of any size</comment>


Microsoft Teams goes down just as Europe logs on to work remotely - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/16/21181300/microsoft-teams-down-outage-europe-remote-working-coronavirus <comment><USER2> I'm in an office in the North East of the UK and MSFT Teams is working fine.

<comment> jerome-jh Worked fine in France as well, all morning.

<comment><USER3> Works for my kids as well but it is a bit slow.

FWIW the Teams client seems to work a lot faster than the website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> COVID-19 is going to be global scale proof of work for remote work - both for companies and for networks.

<comment><USER5> Genuinely, I think this will backfire and it will be proof that remote working isn't for everyone..

<comment><USER6> I don't think it's going to show anything worthwhile as the whole pandemic thing is a huge confounding factor and the adoption has been hugely ad hoc. In particular people are going to suddenly find themselves working from home in completely unsuitable conditions and the whole social distancing thing means normal remote ideas like coworking spaces and coffee shops aren't really an option.

As someone who has been remotely working mostly from my home for two years today I'm joined by my wife and a three year old and a five year old. My work desk is in the living room as our house is teensy and trying to do anything of substance with two kids is very hard! On top of the added stress caused by the global situation being a distraction in itself.

My wife should be remote working but a last minute change meant it's now up in the air whether her office will actually allow VPN access. This is after they issued her with a brand new laptop, monitor and so on. So now she's spending the day at home tidying up our storage.

Remote work in this context is nothing more than trying to keep the wheels turning and people expecting the benefits that come with doing it more deliberately are definitely going to be disappointed.

<comment><USER5> I agree. I work remotely quite often, around a week every month - but I do feel like productivity has been reduced just because people around me also have reduced productivity, are less available on IM, etc.. I also miss going into the office and being there physically, even though I don't really sit at my desk, it's nice to have the space there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Let the people managers keep complaining how remote work is not going to work .In the meanwhile i share my amazing tip.

If you are on ubuntu and want to remote desktop to windows machine try this opensource amazing freerdp tool

$ sudo apt install freerdp2-x11 $ xfreerdp '/u:domain\username' /p:PasswordSuperSecret /v:hostname.com /w:1920 /h:1080 -grab-keyboard /monitors:0 -themes -wallpaper +fonts +clipboard -decorations

</comment><comment><USER8> In italy some big universities (like those in Milan) started using microsoft teams for streaming lectures and indeed they already had problems last week. My girlfriend who studies there said she was constantly disconnected from the service each 2-3 minutes and had to wait the same time to reconnect successfully

</comment><comment><USER9> Zoom and similar providers must be having to ramp up capacity quite significantly at the moment!

</comment><comment><USER10> Would it be better if instead of relying on centralized servers, we used p2p solutions like Jitsi, which is based on WebRTC? Some universities and companies could even set up TURN servers for public use

</comment><comment><USER11> I doubt these outages will hurt Microsoft at all.

</comment><comment><USER12> I am sure that AWS, Azure and Google Cloud will be the next victims of COVID-19. There's just no way to scale infrastructure up as fast as necessary. People think about cloud as 'elastic' but there's a fixed number of data centers with a fixed number of servers in each at any give time.

<comment><USER13> Are you suggesting GCP/AWS/Azure will run out of capacity because of higher usage?

<comment><USER12> I am. They weren't built for the times with EVERYONE needs to scale up at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My manager forced me to use teams, and I gotta say its down half the time, messages go late. Its basically as bad As skype and there is no reason it should be better in the future.

Microsoft is terrible at making product and will remain so for the future.

<comment><USER2> I don't really mind Teams, but the fact you can't drop an image in to a chat to upload it like you can in Slack _really_ annoys me.

<comment><USER15> You could already do that in MSN Messenger like, 15 or 20 years ago.

<comment><USER16> Well Teams is not a direct descendant of Messenger, so it's not like they broke that function. For me that's not a good point.

But, for the record it doesn't work for me either.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


In the Joints of Their Toes: A ruse that gave rise to the spiritualist movement - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/11/04/in-the-joints-of-their-toes/ <comment><USER2> > Two hundred years earlier [...]; in the mid-nineteenth century they became > show-business celebrities.

As Chesterton wisely almost said "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing,— they believe in anything." ( [http://www.chesterton.org/ceases-to- worship/](http://www.chesterton.org/ceases-to-worship/) )

</comment><comment><USER3> Drunk History just did a version of this story: [http://www.cc.com/full- episodes/0kxro9/drunk-history-sibling...](http://www.cc.com/full- episodes/0kxro9/drunk-history-siblings-season-4-ep-406)

</comment><comment><USER4> On the subject of Doyle's interest in Spiritualism, a fascinating account of:

 _A Haunted Friendship - Houdini & Sir Arthur Conan Doyle_

[http://www.prairieghosts.com/doyle_houdini.html](http://www.prairieghosts.com/doyle_houdini.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Newage rhymes with Sewage.</comment>


Kauffman's Litan: Proposed 'Protections' for Angel Investors are Unnecessary - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-e-litan/proposed-protections-for_b_511284.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Key points from article:

1\. Under existing law, startup companies can raise money easily and quickly from "accredited investors." There is no need for the companies or the investors to gain approval from any state or regulatory official.

2\. This would change if Section 926 of the Dodd bill is included in any final reform legislation. That section would require, for the first time, companies seeking angel investment to make a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would have 120 days to review it. This would both raise the cost of seeking angels and delay the ability of companies to benefit from their funding.

3\. The negative impact of the SEC filing requirement would be aggravated by the proposed doubling of the net worth or income thresholds required for investors to be "accredited."

</comment><comment><USER2> this is really bad.</comment>