I Got Myself Arrested So I Could Look Inside the Justice System - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/i-got-myself-arrested-so-i-could-look-inside-the-justice-system/282360/ <comment><USER2> I'm sorry to be a curmudgeon but I don't like this guy at all. He wasted valuable city resources on an experiment the outcome of which he should have predicted, being a criminal attorney in Roxbury.

Why were the police and the criminal justice officials apparently angry with him? Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police profile people and to "prove" that getting arrested and jailed can be a violent and unfair experience, someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a cash register.

It's not so much that he prevented one of these other cases from being pursued, but that he seems so oblivious of the effects of his actions. Thus, it seems perfectly natural and reasonable for them to say, "OK, you make twice the salary we make yet you wanna be a petty criminal? Poof, you're a petty criminal. Enjoy sleeping in the bed you made, and here's hoping you will be permanently cured of f##king with us in the future, a##hole."

The police are set upon from all sides. If they bend the rules, they are severely punished. If they don't bend the rules, and the rules don't always apply the way liberal suburban white folks might imagine they do on the street, then they get castigated for not "doing their job" i.e. catching the bad guys. At the end of the day, not catching the bad guys is the biggest sin in law enforcement, because it's the mission. If you fail the mission, you're facing demotion, punishment, deprivation of public support and sufficient budget, and the public will view you with contempt and disgust.

I'm not justifying that that diabetic guy who wanted his sugar pills should be denied his pills. I'm not justifying that the police handle the lower socio- economic cases more brutally, giving them bruises and cuts that the suburban white boy somehow was spared. I'm not justifying racial profiling.

Yet, to walk a mile in their shoes, both the police and the criminal justice system as a whole, is to see the world a little differently from the average Atlantic Monthly reader or Hacker News reader.

Just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER3> > Because while he was playing his little game, to "prove" that police profile > people and to "prove" that getting arrested and jailed can be a violent and > unfair experience, someone else was getting away with a purse snatching, or > beating up an ex-girlfriend, or playing the knock-out game, or emptying a > cash register.

You're missing the point that police profiling is already focusing attention on people not committing those crimes, or that plenty of people are getting away with the same behaviour but not facing any consequences for their actions.

Police stop and search someone because that person is black - they're missing the real crook.

Police don't take actions against white kids - they're missing real crooks.

> I found myself spending most of my time prosecuting people of color for > things we white kids did with impunity growing up in the suburbs. As our > office handed down arrest records and probation terms for riding dirt bikes > in the street, cutting through a neighbor's yard, hosting loud parties, > fighting, or smoking weed – shenanigans that had rarely earned my own > classmates anything more than raised eyebrows and scoldings

Whether these crimes deserve any police attention is something that could be discussed, but surely we can agree that prosecuting black kids but not white kids is something that drives inequality in society?

<comment><USER4> I agree with the general point, but _" riding dirt bikes in the street"_ is possibly not as innocent as it may seem.

In rural areas riding dirt bikes on the street might conjure up images of a couple of brothers tearing around a few fields, generally making a mess but ultimately just doing it to have fun. In cities however there is _often_ (by no means always, but _often_ ) something else going on.

At least in Philadelphia, gangs use dirt-bikes and 4-wheelers to 'patrol their turf' and flee the police (who are largely powerless to stop them, as they travel in groups of 10 or more, and all split the second a cop turns his lights on). In these instances it isn't harmless fun, they are basically neo-'biker gangs'. It is a big problem in north and west Philadelphia.

<comment><USER5> Over here in The Netherlands, about 10 years ago, there was a lot of commotion about a group of white supremacy-gangs wearing Lonsdale bomberjacks, and people wearing those were banned from certain clubs, etc.

According to your logic, in this case, everyone wearing a Lonsdale bomberjack would have to be arrested, and they would have to be banned by law? Isn't that outlawing the symptom, instead of outlawing the actual problem?

EDIT: Apparently this was not just an issue in The Netherlands, but more widespread: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/147...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1473185/British- firm-Lonsdale-tries-to-lose-Nazi-image.html)

<comment><USER4> > _" According to your logic, in this case, everyone wearing a Lonsdale > bomberjack would have to be arrested, and they would have to be banned by > law? Isn't that outlawing the symptom, instead of outlawing the actual > problem?"_

What? No. Just no.

It may be different in the Netherlands, but in the US riding dirtbikes on public streets is illegal. The bikes themselves are not street legal. The bikes don't have plates, turn signals, mirrors or horns. They are not registered with the DMV. In Pennsylvania they are _wildly_ in violation of noise laws for motorcycles (they drown out conversations _indoors_ when they pass on the streets). Totally unlicensed and almost certainly therefore uninsured (which is again illegal). Riding bikes of any sort in gangs is further illegal, breaking all sorts of traffic laws.

This going after dirt-bike riders is not about going after a symptom or superficial attribute of some other crime. It _is_ the crime. _It is the actual problem._

If I were saying _" go after cars with spinney wheels"_ (which are perfectly legal) or _" go after people wearing only red or blue"_ (which is perfectly legal) then your comparison would be apt, but that is not what is going on here.

<comment><USER6> You might want to just clarify since I could imagine it being a regional language issue- a "Dirt bike" is a type of off-road motorcycle, not a human- powered bicycle.

<comment><USER4> Ah, good point. A dirt-bike is basically a stripped down off-road motorcycle. Fast, loud, and cheap.

<comment><USER7> That clarifies it for me. I was imagining a bicycle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is simultaneously the funniest and most tragic thing I've read in a long time. It's nearly unbelievable.

It reminds me a bit of Eddie Murphy's skit for SNL where he dresses up in white-face so he can experience society on the other side. This is almost as funny as that skit, no exaggeration. The tragedy is that this story is true.

<comment><USER9> What part of this did you find funny?

<comment><USER8> I hope I'm not remiss in perceiving strong dry humor throughout the first half of the story. My favorite part is where he looks at the cop in the car and keeps right on spraying:

 _As I moved the can back and forth, a police officer in an Interceptor go- cart saw me, slammed on his brakes, and pulled up to the curb behind me. I looked over my shoulder, made eye contact with him, and resumed. As I waited for him to jump out, grab me, or Tase me, he sped away and hung a left, leaving me standing there alone._

And in the next paragraph...

 _I woke up the next morning and Fox News was reporting that unknown suspects had vandalized City Hall. I went back to the entrance and handed the guard my driver's license and a letter explaining what I'd done._

Fox News, unknown suspects... Maybe it's just me, but this had me laughing out loud.

<comment><USER10> I bet the police dispatch described the suspect as a young black man wearing jeans and a black hoodie.

<comment><USER11> African-american male Between 5'5" and 6'2" between 16 and 30 years old about 150 to 200 lbs.

Sprinkle some crack on him Johnson...

<comment><USER12> I'm glad someone else made this reference. The first half of the story reminded me of Chappelle's "I'm sorry officer - I didn't know I couldn't do that" bit

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
      The judge [...] ordered three years of probation, a $1000 fine, a $250 surcharge,
      a $50 surcharge, 30 days of community service, and a special condition allowing police
      and probation officers to enter and search my residence anytime without a warrant.

Wow. Perhaps I'm naive, but I was unware that a first-time, nonviolent misdemeanor could be grounds for removing your 4th amendment rights.

<comment><USER14> So were you under the impression that incarcerated persons could not have their cells searched without a warrant, too?

The 5th and 14th amendments provide that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, _without due process of law_ ". He was convicted of a crime. The punishment can include random searches, drug tests, ankle monitors, etc., as long as it is provided for by law.

<comment><USER15> So you are saying that crime is a crime even if it's first-time, nonviolent misdemeanor and you can be deprived of life, liberty or property if due process of law happened?

That horribly low standard for a justice system. Especially that due process of law basically boils down to judge deciding what tickles him the right way.

<comment><USER16> So do you think that crimes should have no legal punishments? Really?

<comment><USER15> I think crimes should have punishments proportionate to the damage done. At the same time I'd like punishmeants themselves to cause as little damage as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't "get" this article.

The beginning seems to be him talking about how difficult it was for him to get the police to think he was suspicious. The article was really interesting, and it seemed to be a point about racial/socio-economic profiling.

But once he got into the system, he was treated terribly. Probation, not being allowed to visit his family, for a misdemeanor.

\--

Honestly, his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied evenly, it's just that it was harder for him to get the police's attention while he was wandering around in a suit and tie.

<comment><USER18> > _Honestly, his conclusion sounds more like justice /is/ being applied > evenly, it's just that it was harder for him to get the police's attention > while he was wandering around in a suit and tie._

Not really. The idea is the system is flawed both ways:

At first, he was ignored because he was white, well groomed and such. (Racism).

In the second part, he was punished harshly not because suddenly the system made a u-turn and decided to "apply justice evenly", but because they didn't appreciate him making waves and questioning their practices.

<comment><USER19> To be fair it would be nice for a black journalist do the same in a suit and tie.

<comment><USER20> I hope that was a joke because I don't see how that would be a smart thing to do even for the purpose of investigative journalism. Unless he or she has a way to quickly call mayday if things start to go wrong which they most likely will. The criminal justice system is fairly dangerous for blacks, especially men.

<comment><USER19> It's not a joke, but I do take your point. I just think investigative jounalism is the best way to expose this shit. Frankly I'm pretty isolated and don't see or take for granted this level of racism. It shocks me.

I think some hardcore expose work will have to happen. And I Mean seriously hard core. Like sacrifice an eye to hold an embedded camera type hardcore.

Wishful thinking, I know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting aside about the author's accidental ability to elude two members of the NYPD counterterrorism division:

"Two Intelligence Unit detectives arrived and testily walked me outside to a waiting unmarked police car. Court papers show that they'd staked out my apartment to arrest me, and that I unwittingly kept eluding them. In one dramatic instance, two officers had tailed me as I walked down Eastern Parkway. I'd entered the subway station at the Brooklyn Museum, unaware that I was being followed. One of the officers had followed me through the turnstiles while another guarded the exit. The report states that the officers then inexplicably lost contact with me."

<comment><USER22> I wonder if the "inexplicable" part has to do with the desire not to be the officer who has to deal with the hassle (paperwork or whatnot). "Oh yeah, gee I dunno, we lost him."

<comment><USER23> That's exactly it. The guy was about to get on the subway and go who knows where. The cop probably wanted to make sure he got home for dinner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> [http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/09/46357.htm](http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/09/46357.htm)

Alternative take on what has happened here.

>>> This reporter accompanied Constantino on one of those trips, watching as the lawyer handed a guard his passport and driver's license. After calling City Hall staffers from inside the guard booth, the officer told Constantino to come back the next day.

>>> Instead, Constantino dramatically turned himself in at Manhattan Criminal Court that Friday, after the stop-and-frisk protesters were convicted of disorderly conduct.

>>> "Your Honor, I refuse to leave this court," Constantino told the judge. "I am choosing in peace and love not to leave this court."

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

The purpose of getting arrested was to protest the Stop and Frisk laws in NYC. It seems like Bobby Constantino is milking the story for all its worth though, and turning it into something else.

Not that it is a bad perspective or anything, but I think it is important to remember his original purpose for getting arrested.

<comment><USER25> Wow, I wish I could upvote this a dozen times. No surprise here, the guy painted the story in the most supportive light possible.

This is not news, this is a political piece. He's free to publish such a thing, but people need to be more discriminatory when giving so much weight to his "facts".

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a great article, and I really appreciate this paragraph:

> But in between the important cases, I found myself spending most of my time > prosecuting people of color for things we white kids did with impunity > growing up in the suburbs.

However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things that are dangerous, namely gang activity.

In not going after the author, the police simply did the analysis they are required to do: is this guy a threat within _the spirit_ of the law?

Now, obviously there are shortcomings in the heuristics the police are using here. It's not okay to conclude that someone is a threat because they're a black teenager in a hoodie and aren't a threat because they're a white professional in a suit. But I don't think we really want a mechanical justice system that follows the mere letter of the law instead of the spirit. We don't want police to ignore the distinction between someone tagging a public building to make a point, and gang members tagging a private building to "make a point."

<comment><USER18> > _However, I think he ignores a really salient distinction: a lot of these > "crimes" like the laws against graffiti, exist not because the acts > themselves are particularly heinous, but because they're proxies for things > that are dangerous, namely gang activity._

Millions of people do graffiti -- and very few of them have anything to do with "gang activity".

This "proxy" notion doesn't hold. Neither would such retribution to such "offences" be fair even if it was so.

In fact, sending people to jail for such trivial stuff is a more effective introduction to serious crime than their initial offences.

<comment><USER27> The conditional probability that someone will tag given that he is a gang member is high. Gangs mark their territory in this way. The legislators, probably not even knowing who Bayes is, feel free to reverse the conditional and say that the probability someone is a gang member given that he tags is also high.

At the least, they are not fully independent events, so it's not totally idiotic. If you combine that with broken window theory, it makes a lot of sense [to the cops] to rely on such statutes as a way to fight gangs at the same time as other petty crime.

<comment><USER28> you've reversed the condition. what matters is the probability they are a gang member given they tag. in gang fueled areas this probability will be high. at a general average, it's probably very low.

<comment><USER27> Legislators are bad at math. Didn't you know?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The author hypothesis is that criminal profiling is based on race. A simpler hypothesis is that such profiling is based on looks. Now, instead of wearing suits, if he wears baggy jeans that almost fall off his butt, puts on a few tatoos, nose rings to match, and starts doing seemingly illegal things. And if the cops still don't stop him, then maybe being white has something to do with it.

<comment><USER30> Allowing people to discriminate based on cultural markers like baggy jeans instead of skin color is creating a loophole. It's analogous to the voter disenfranchisement laws after the civil war. You can say that you're not barring black people from voting, that you're only barring people who fail a literacy test. But if the effect is that you mostly ban black people, then it's a de facto racial discrimination.

<comment><USER31> We're talking about a culture that esteems criminality - that jeans style is prison fashion. People don't get to choose their skin colour, but they do choose what they wear (and no, you don't need a $2000 suit to avoid police harassment, a $20 one will do just as well).

<comment><USER32> If you have to wear a business suit to avoid police harrassment then your society is fucked. And large sections of society adopting prison fashions doesn't tell you that those people are all criminal, it tells you that your society jails too many people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Do we really need to punish people with prison for non violent crimes?

We might as well call in the Criminal Punishment System, or the Government's Justice System, as it doesn't engender my views of justice, and nor should it for you.

<comment><USER26> > Do we really need to punish people with prison for non violent crimes?

No, and when it comes to white people in the suburbs we largely don't do that (except serious financial crimes).

When it comes to the inner city and gang activity, that's not so clear cut. What are you going to do, issue monetary fines?

<comment><USER34> Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any hell then good for you, I guess.

What are you going to do, prosecute black/brown teenagers with extreme prejudice while giving white teenagers a ride home and a stern talking to? And then wonder why the statistics wind up how they are, why so many black kids don't have a father in the house?

If more policy-makers had to deal with this situation in their neighborhoods, seeing their nephews get locked up with hardened criminals, the situation would change. They don't, so it doesn't, and young black men turn into statistics.

<comment><USER26> > Teenage boys are idiots. I was one, most of us were, if you never raised any > hell then good for you, I guess.

Yes. The difference is that in the inner city, they're idiots without fathers, without authority figures, living in an environment where that power vacuum is replaced by gangs. Teenage idiocy amounts to a qualitatively different threat under those conditions. It's unfortunate that black or Hispanic kids are far more likely to find themselves in that situation than white kids, but does that mean we should treat gang-related graffiti intended to intimidate the same way we treat some dumb suburban kids playing a prank?

I'm not saying that our approach is the best one. I'm saying that there is more to the story than "zomg, the police are oppressing minorities!"

Look, I live in one of the most inner-city inner cities (Wilmington, DE). It's a place where the murder rate is comparable to Bogota, Colombia, and where there was a shooting this year on Main Street (rumor is more than one, and in one case the target was a public bus) just blocks from the central business district.[1] It's a really complicated situation. On one hand I feel bad for the kids without fathers, etc. I lament the de-facto segregation and oppression that continues to exist as a direct consequence of de jure segregation and oppression.

On the other hand, this shit isn't all theoretical and academic, and life isn't all about idealism. I have a wife and a kid and we live here and sometimes walk home from work late at night, and I'm not going to complain if the police crack some heads in the process of keeping the gang violence to a low simmer. I think this makes me less morally culpable than the other middle/upper class people, who have just abandoned the city altogether and live in homogenous enclaves in the suburbs, just driving in for work and quickly shuffling the distance from their office to the parking garage every day.

[1] Once, my dad and I were driving around trying to return a rental truck late at night and he suggested we try again in the morning because the place made him uncomfortable. This is a guy who was in Yemen in the 1990's when the civil war broke out, was in Afghanistan in the shadow of Tora Bora while the U.S. was fighting the Taliban, was in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake...

<comment><USER35> There's a lot of implicit circular reasoning in this post.

1\. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated harshly.

2\. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's must be a bad one. (goto 1)

The other circular problem that exists is this:

1\. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on record) are probably going to do them again.

2\. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are bad.

3\. There aren't a lot of options or opportunities left but to do bad things. (goto 1)

<comment><USER26> Nothing circular:

> 1\. The neighborhood is bad therefore everyone in it deserves to be treated > harshly.

How people deserve to be treated isn't the sole consideration. It's also relevant how people must be treated in order to maintain a certain level of order.

> 2\. Look how many heavy sentences are handed out in the neighborhod. It's > must be a bad one. (goto 1)

Did I say anything about sentences? My evidence was murders and shootings (on a per capita basis).

> 1\. People who have "done" bad things (as evidenced by heavy sentences on > record) are probably going to do them again.

Yes, it's called "recidivism" and is an empirically measurable phenomenon.

> 2\. We don't want to give bad people any real jobs or opportunities they are > bad.

I'd be happy to pay more taxes to support those things. But people like me who have the money to pay taxes aren't going to continue to live in a city if they feel like it's unsafe for their wives to walk home from work at night. It's a sad truth of life, but if you cater too much to the concerns of the poor, you'll drive out the people with the resources to implement the programs to alleviate those problems. See, e.g., Detroit or Wilmington or Camden, etc.

<comment><USER34> Yeah, but this all makes sense as long as it's someone else. "I don't care if there's gross miscarriage of justice for hundreds or thousands of other people as long as I feel safe" is what you're saying.

<comment><USER26> Not just me, but everyone who wants to live in the city and feel safe doing so. I.e. the hundreds of thousands or millions of other people. Life is messy, and human interactions are messy, and all that comes to a head in cities where people live in such close proximity. Creating sufficient order to let the majority feel safe _is_ an important consideration that deserves its due weight. Ideally, that's achieved without trampling on anyone's rights, but a slavish focus on rights to the exclusion of security will just cause people to "opt out."

To put it another way, I grew up in a lily-white upper middle class suburb surrounding by morally righteous people who believed it was better to let 10,000 guilty go free than to send one innocent person to jail. That was easy to believe in a town where political assassination was more likely than gang- related crossfire.

<comment><USER34> I don't think you're the majority in your neighborhood, from what you described. I lived in the hood for a few years once, I knew what I was doing, minded my own business, and I didn't want police to crack other people's heads for me to feel safe. I get that it's different if you have a family, I don't live there anymore. But perpetuating the system through more hopelessness isn't going to work in the long term.

<comment><USER26> > I don't think you're the majority in your neighborhood, from what you > described.

The majority of people in Wilmington are hard-working folks who deserve to live in a safe neighborhood as much as any suburban family. They aren't involved in gangs, and steer clear of the kind of activity that might get them hassled by the police.

> But perpetuating the system through more hopelessness isn't going to work in > the long term.

You know what won't help the situation? Focusing so much on the rights of the people committing crimes that you ignore the mass exodus of middle class people looking for safer surroundings. Chicago has lost 200,000 black people in the last decade, and I guarantee you they didn't leave because of police profiling. They left because the police have utterly failed to get a hold of the gang activity pervading the south side. And of course these were the kind of people you didn't want leaving: the ones that can afford to.

<comment><USER36> >They left because the police have utterly failed to get a hold of the gang activity pervading the south side.

I don't think this is even vaguely true. They left because of the property bubble raising prices, the crash shattering the black middle class, the dismantling of Chicago public schools, and having the half of the city that they occupy being utterly neglected by the administration.

Crime is bad in Chicago, but crime is down in Chicago.

>And of course these were the kind of people you didn't want leaving: the ones that can afford to.

No, it isn't. Most of the migration is people moving South, where they have family, because they can't afford to live in Chicago anymore. This city caters to upper-middle class white suburbanites and the cream of the small town Midwest to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

<comment><USER26> I don't think there is any argument that crime is a major factor that's driving people, predominantly blacks, out of the city. The neighborhoods with the highest population losses include some of the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates: [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct- edit-x...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-edit- xproject4a-crime-1027-20131027_1_curb-crime-homicides-middle-class-families). In some of these neighborhoods, crime is up in the last 20 years!

Moreover, the public school situation is intertwined by the security situation. There is never going to be an improvement in the quality of Chicago's schools until gang influence is removed from the school grounds. Kids can't learn in an environment where the gangs are bigger authority figures than the teachers and parents.

<comment><USER36> >I don't think there is any argument that crime is a major factor that's driving people, predominantly blacks, out of the city.

Other than that people started leaving the city before the latest rise in crime, and that crime is vastly

[http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Could-See- Fewes...](http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicago-Could-See-Fewest- Murders-Since-1965-234056831.html)

down since I was growing up here?

>There is never going to be an improvement in the quality of Chicago's schools until gang influence is removed from the school grounds.

I think you're mistaking the cause for the effect. It's the horrible schools that largely create the gang problem, a gang problem that has drastically declined since the 70s and 80s, post-crack.

<comment><USER26> Chicago lags other major cities when it comes to the overall decline in crime (and thus is getting more dangerous relative to other cities even as crime goes down). While New York had less than 1/5 as many murders in 2012 as it did in 1990, Chicago had only 1/2 as many murders in 2012 as it did in 1990. Moreover, crime in certain neighborhoods has even gone up since then: [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct- edit-x...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-27/news/ct-edit- xproject4a-crime-1027-20131027_1_curb-crime-homicides-middle-class-families) ("The homicide rate per capita on the West, South and Southwest sides today is higher than it was 20 years ago, and the gap between safer and more dangerous areas is wider.", "The citywide homicide rate has fallen because certain areas — basically the entire North Side — are safer and mask the increases in the killing fields to the west, southwest and south. Some of those areas are now just as violent as or more violent than they were 20 years ago.").

> It's the horrible schools that largely create the gang problem

That's utterly absurd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think there should be kind of mystery shoppers for justice system. They'd commit misdemeanors and get arrested so they can report how they were treated to improve operation of police and justice system and to weed out personnel that doesn't obey the law or neglect procedures.

</comment><comment><USER37> > From Brownsville to downtown Manhattan, I would estimate that I passed more > than 200 police officers, some from a distance, some close enough to touch.

Wow, is police that common in NY / the states? That's more police than I have seen in my entire life.

<comment><USER26> To provide more context: in 1990, London and NYC were of a similar size (~8 million) though NYC was and is quite a bit more dense. London had 184 homicides. NYC had 2,262. This past year London was down to 86, versus NYC's 414.

<comment><USER38> To put that in more context, the murder rate in America is 10 times that of the next developed country.

The murder rate in NYC and Chicago is higher than Mexico City

<comment><USER39> That's because Mexico City's murder rate was so bad that the country plowed an avalanche of money into it, resulting in the world's densest police coverage; it also assumes that murders in Mexico City are reported as reliably as they are in the US, which is a dubious proposition.

Mexico's various other cities are world leaders in violent crime; Juarez has a murder rate over 147/10k, more than 10x Chicago's, and that again assumes that everything is reported in Juarez, which is extremely unlikely.

For whatever it's worth to you, neither NYC nor Chicago makes the top ten _for the US_. Chicago witnesses an astronomical number of murders, and is for that reason a national disgrace, but the rate isn't anomalous for the population. Chicago is a huge city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> 3 years of probation for a single graffiti tag? Talk about proportions here.

<comment><USER41> The point of the 3 years seemed to me to be mostly making an example of the author to discourage civil disobedience.

<comment><USER42> You know what I never understood? The concept of "making an example" out of someone in the justice system. How can we give one individual a sentence that is exceptionally harsher than the norm and not have that sentence be considered unusual as in cruel and unusual? The whole point is that their sentence is unusual for the circumstance. How is this in any way a just and equal, and legal for that matter, application of the law?

<comment><USER39> It really depends on what you're "making an example of".

The words "making an example" are just a way of describing deterrence, which is a core function of the criminal justice system.

Deterrence is intrinsically neither good nor bad. It depends on what you're deterring. If it's arson, deterrence makes a lot of sense: it's fun and easy to set fires, and very easy to underestimate or disregard the harm those fires will do to others. If it's political tagging, deterrence makes much less sense. The justice system needs to extract a penalty for damaging people's property, but politically-motivated tags are a low-intensity problem.

Beyond deterrence, criminal penalties must account for the inefficiency of policing and the rewards to crime. A 1:1 damage/penalty system is intrinsically ineffective; it makes crime a rational decision.

It's easy to agree here that 3 years of probation for tagging in a deliberate attempt to get arrested to make a political point is abusive.

<comment><USER43> This describes how deterrence is justifiable, not how it is fair.

<comment><USER39> What is the difference between justice and fairness?

<comment><USER43> "justifiable" \- defensible, makes sense

"fair" \- treating people equally

In other words, I interpret the original question as: "how is making an example not considered unusual?".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> In a similar vein, I would highly recommend the book _Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing_ [1] by Ted Conover.

The author was a journalist who wanted to do a story on the prison system in New York State. The Department of Correctional Services froze him out and refused to give him any sort of access or interviews. To get the story, he actually took a job as a correctional officer officer in Sing Sing prison and worked there for a year. His account of the entire experience is fascinating. I think the whole discussion around these sorts of issues could really benefit from more accounts like this that introduce some transparency into the criminal justice system.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Newjack-Guarding-Sing-Ted- Conover/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Newjack-Guarding-Sing-Ted- Conover/dp/0375726624/)

</comment><comment><USER45> _We avoided inner city streets because they were dangerous, and we relied on the police to keep people from those places out of our neighborhoods. Whatever they got, we figured they deserved._

i find the last statement just as disturbing as the rest of the article. carrying this sentiment around plays a big part in the apathy we see all around us, towards most of the atrocities being committed these days.

<comment><USER46> That's exactly the point, of course. He changed his view by experiencing criminal justice in the city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Is there anywhere on the planet with a functioning criminal justice system? Where should I live if I don't want to live in fear?

<comment><USER26> Lots of places that have low violence, low social instability, high social homogeneity, high socioeconomic equality, etc, to begin with have correspondingly docile criminal justice systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Works bombs, mixing Works Toilet Cleanser and Aluminum foil in a 2L plastic bottle were popular in my high school. I can't imagine the charges the children would get today if they were brown. Lucky for them they lived in rural NC.

<comment><USER4> > _" I can't imagine the charges the children would get today if they were > brown."_

The answer is _" threatened with expulsion, arrested, and charged with multiple felonies"_. Google or HNSearch "Kiera Wilmot".

<comment><USER49> She was obviously guilty of CWB. (Chemistry While Black)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> "Simply carrying those items qualified as a class B misdemeanor pursuant to New York Penal Law 145.65."

Are you serious ? And I make fun of Indian laws.

</comment><comment><USER51> To me the whole problem comes down to one of discretion. The police officers in the beginning of the story had too much discretion. By not arresting someone defacing city hall, they trivialized a property crime. The author intimates this was because of his race or at least his appearance. Maybe so.

Next the judge exercises his discretion to come up with a non-standard sentence for the crime. Any non-instigator first offender would have gotten the slap on the wrist. A minority, we are lead to believe, probably much worse. Same crime but the discretion is wide in the sentence.

Later, the issue swings the other way. He has some real cause to go the rally in honor of the fallen student. Here, the discretion is taken away from the parole officer.

Discretion is power. In some instances, society grants too much discretion. In others, too little. We know this is the case but it still shocks us and we like to second guess.

</comment><comment><USER52> The first officer had it right: "What are you, some kind of asshole?"

<comment><USER53> To sad, there is no link to down-vote a comment.

<comment><USER54> there is, you just need more karma.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This reminds me of the work I read about Nellie Bly (Elizabeth Cochrane) doing around mental health and institutionalization in the late 19th century ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly#Asylum_expos.C3.A9](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly#Asylum_expos.C3.A9)). It's not a complimentary comparison for our criminal justice system.

</comment><comment><USER56> He made eye contact; he didn't run; and he's surprised the policeman left him alone? Hasn't he seen any real criminal behavior or maybe a painting of it in a fine art gallery? I'm glad he got his wish though, but for a minute I was worried he wouldn't.

</comment><comment><USER57> Criminal justice system as it exists has lots to answer 1) What is the purpose? 2) Is it getting achieved 3) What kind of people are administering the system 4) Why biases exist? 5) What should citizenry and political authority do? 6) Ultimately - what is the true conscience of the society?

</comment><comment><USER58> The article's description of racial profiling brings to mind a statistic that the ACLU reported a few weeks ago (it was also featured on HN): _in U.S. federal courts, blacks are about twenty times as likely as whites to be sentenced to life in prison for non-violent crimes._

</comment><comment><USER59> So, the author set out to prove how unfair the justice system is between races, and to some extent he did show that. But, didn't his experience also show that a white person was treated just as by the courts as any other person? Am I missing the point of this article?

<comment><USER24> He's just ranting aimlessly, probably because he's pissed off about his probation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> People could be assholes. I'm sure this sort of mistreatment happens all the time, and I'm sure that the reason for it is because people behave as described by the Stanford Prison Experiment.

</comment><comment><USER61> There is a lot of BS in the PC thing with profiling. I'm an Eastern European. Almost all Polish people I know work in construction or baby sitting, etc. However, none of them or us Polish immigrants blames the United States for that. Or the Government. They know they aren't educated very well, so they don't finger point to any type of discrimination for their fate. But somehow there are people there, like some Latinos I know who just don't even try. They just want to be illiterate all their life. One Lady I know who is from Mexico doesn't even teach her children English. Doesn't want them to speak English in the US. But blames US for her shitty job and standard of living.

This is a little bit too much even for me (an immigrant) to stomach, you know?

If they voted Obama into Presidency… what racism? Bunch of racists and secret Ku-Klux-Klan lovers voted for a Black President? Like really, some people have way too much time on their hands. If I can be consulting for 60-100usd/hr after 6 years of living here, why some people need to steal and deal drugs instead is beyond me.

There is equality in Cuba and Canada. If these people are for real why don't they just immigrate there?

I will be honest. I see a Pole in the US I think he is doing construction or picking up garbage or baby sitting, taking care of elderly. I see a Mexican I suspect he doesn't speak English. I see a black person I check if my wallet is safe.

Everybody does that. Trying to change the way we think about Blacks without them changing their ways is never going to work. Not all Poles in the US are in the construction business. Not all Mexicans in the US are illiterate. Not all Blacks in the US are criminals. But big chunk of all these peoples are, so it's good to be opened minded and don't pretend that things like AIDS epidemic in DC being on levels with Sub-Saharian Africa aren't true. Because they are. And this isn't fault of anybody else but people who live there and make choices they do. I came to this country with 300usd in my pocket. I could have excuses to do nothing and portray myself as a victim too. But who does that in this country?

<comment><USER62> I think there is a lot wrong with this comment. Perhaps since you're an immigrant you're not familiar with the concept of institutional racism[1].

Regarding Obama's 2012 Election: according to [2]and[3], 62 million of 221 million possible voters cast their ballot for Obama. ~28% of citizens voting for you does not really signal the end of racism in the US.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#Institutio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#Institutional_racism_in_the_United_States) [2][http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html](http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html) [3][http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/pop_vote.h...](http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/pop_vote.html)

<comment><USER61> 28% of citizens voting or number that's as low happens every election. And the reason for it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism)

And has nothing to do with racism.

If institutionalized racism in fact existed it wouldn't have allowed us to have a Black President in the first place. Actually, it wouldn't allow Obama to even be considered a contender. You can talk your talk but the facts speak for themselves. The Leader of the Free World (or however you want to call it) is Black. What type of institutionalized racism built in the system in the US would allow for that? Because the institutionalized racism is a myth, we do have a Black President. If you want to find out what institutionalized racism is look at apartheid system that existed in South Africa and not at the United States. IMHO, you are intellectualy dishonest to suggest racism in the US. Try having a black president in any of the European or Asian nations. Go doing shopping with a black person in Paris. You will find out what a real racism is. When I worked for IBM there was this Black Lady hired by us. She was late her first day for 2 hours. When gently asked by the Manager what happened, she started yelling at him and never showed up at the office. A month later we find out she sued IBM for racism on false accusations that the Manager didn't like her skin color. The Manager's wife is Black. There institutionalized racism if you talk about "affirmative action". That's the only example of institutionalized racism I can see in the US.

And any _arguments_ instead of usual Marxist "there are a lot of things that are wrong in what you say" ????

<comment><USER62> No. I think the idea of inverted totalitarianism ridiculously abdicates the individual's role in our society, but I don't care to argue that point.

The point I was making is that you cannot use the election of Obama as confirmation that racism is dead. If the argument you make is that "Obama isn't elected if racism exists" you have zero facts behind you.

Giving you the greatest benefit of the doubt you could assert as fact that 28% of the voting eligible population isn't racist. Again, being as generous as possible to your (in my opinion horrible) argument 72% of the voting aged populous _may or may not_ be racist.

That's a FAR cry from "no racism to see here, move along". You simply provide no facts at all to support your position. I grant you that racism is a difficult and nuanced issue, but dismissing it cavalierly is sad.

<comment><USER61> The point I was trying to argue with you was _institutionalized racism_ not racism in general.

Again, as I said before, there is no _institutionalized_ racism in the US. And the Obama success story is a great point to see that. US being racist society can be disputed if you want to. Personally, after living for a long time in the US, I can assure you that I couldn't see any racism in the DC area, but yeah some, very little, in LA area. In DC, people -- and really white people - take pride in being open. I mean like they are proud of this that there is no racism in their life. For me saying there is racism in DC is a ridiculous lie. In LA, maybe. Then maybe in places like Alabama it is common place. I don't know. But I'm not buying even for 1 nanosecond an idea of _instituionalized_ racism in the US which is the claim you made and I responded to. And again, I can't even imagine 10% of Brits or Germans or French (forget Japanese) voting for Black President.

Again, from personal experience, I met a Black American in Paris. He was originally from Texas (San Antonio). He told me that the trip was life changing experience for him. Because he experienced what racist _society_ is. In France. Not in Texas.It is just this bad in super-hyper-liberal Paris compared to backwards Texas. He said he has never, ever experienced racism in San Antonio. There are a little subtle hints, but it's not like you go to a restaurant and hear "Get Out!!!". Which happened to him in Paris. Just one incident. There were more. But then to be honest, I heard that too on occasion when in Strasbourg (France) talking Polish, so maybe they just don't like anybody who isn't white French. Again, I'm not making whole movement and covering my life in tears because of that. Somebody else made money that night on my meal, right?

Another thing you conveniently didn't address is affirmative action which is a great example of institutionalized racism in the US. The Law says if you are Black - purely based on race - it is easier for you to get to certain schools, or to certain jobs. And whatever the excuses you might have for it, if you are looking for examples of _institutionalized_ racism - that would be great example.

And to give you full disclosure Poland is a racist as it gets. I have a good comparison. Yes, there might be still issues in the US, but to say there is _instituinalized_ racism is a little too much. Maybe on a personal level some people are prejudiced or racist, I understand that and I'm not denying that. And it's a shame. But institutionalized?

I stayed overnight at friends place in New York, Brooklyn. I got quite bad allergic reaction about 3am and had to go outside. A lot of Black guys, really - if you forgive me - criminal type. Nobody cared about me. I was just wondering on the streets, the reaction was to cat, I couldn't go back to the apartment. I took a few pills and decided for a walk. Nothing happened to me, I was ignored. I wasn't even scared after initial 10 - 15 minutes. Then cops show up from nowhere. All white 5 of them. There are shady types all over the place, they approach me and on of them yells "And what is your f __ing problem?! ". I explained, showed him the hives and they went their way. But I was the only guy stopped. Now invert the situation. Don't you think if you were the only Black there and others where White, you'd feel targeted by the cops. I know I was. Because clean and shaved, wearing nice clothes white guy isn't a common sight in this area of Brooklyn. That's why they approached. Am I yelling racism left & right? No, I don't give a crap, I'm happy I survived and I'm happy with my life and career. And some people just see racism everywhere they turn their heads to. No, there is no institutionalized racism in the US. Some people are racist. I'm not their psychiatrist, I can't help them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> [http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

There's nothing new in the article. He proved nothing other than dressing decent makes a good impression, we all knew that. Nothing of race or the justice system in general was proved one way or the other in my opinion.

<comment><USER64> _> ... unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon_

Interesting new phenomenon: People doing an "audit" of the justice system by themselves arrested.</comment></comment>


Who's At Fault, Developer or Tester? - <AUTHOR> http://www.suryasuravarapu.com/2009/08/whos-at-fault-developer-or-tester.html <comment><USER2> > _No software can be 100% bug-free, we all know that._

I didn't know that!

<comment><AUTHOR> well, now you know :-)

<comment><USER2> Perhaps I'll avoid taking the train home tonight, in that case.

<comment><USER3> I don't believe that to be a true statement in general, but I would claim it about a system above a certain level of complexity without a formal proof, or tests covering every possible input(which is usually unfeasible.)

Every software project worth building is above that level of complexity, and it typically doesn't have that formal proof or test suite. Therefore I would claim every system in the wild is more than likely not bug free(or at least not proven to be ). Your train ride home should be safe though because (at least when I worked in industrial automation) there are rules against software in safety devices.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Germans still don't agree on what reunification meant - <AUTHOR> https://outline.com/rsj4nP <comment><USER2> On the night of the unification former Kanzler Helmut Schmidt said in an interview live on TV:" It will take one night, 9 months and 40 years for Germany to be reunited!" Very wise.</comment>


Last day - turning Parliamentary records into searchable db (boingboing.net)  - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2013/03/06/last-day-of-fundraising-for-pa.html <comment><USER2> Say what you want about the state of American democracy, but our freedom of information laws and steps (small as they may be) in releasing digital data are far ahead of our EU counterparts. It's a common complaint I've heard from European journalists when discussing watchdog journalism, that the legal advice U.S. journalists have for getting public records has no real parallel in the EU.

In the OP's case, the data is ostensibly public, but not in a useful form. There are many parts of the U.S. gov that don't post great records, but beta.congress.gov and federalregister.gov are a couple of the best government records sites I've ever seen and contain more than enough compilable data to hack on</comment>


The Cabal: Valve's Design Process For Creating Half-Life [1999] - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3408/the_cabal_valves_design_process_.php?print=1

<comment><USER2> An oldie but a goodie.

To me the most important steps were:

1\. Creating the demo level with the explicit goal of making it as fun as possible, then deriving a design theory; and

2\. Playtesting, playtesting, playtesting, playtesting and then doing some more playtesting.

<comment><USER3> 0\. Finding the sweet spot in balancing quality of experience and ship-date.

A lot of game developers are so scared of shipping late that they put out crap as soon as its even remotely stable. They spend most of their effort on the ship-cycle treadmill rather than making the ship-cycle subservient to their desire to make excellent games. The same goes for many other creative endeavors such as software, books, movies. It takes serious guts to take a look at something that is nearly ready to be put in a box and sold to customers, and that has a realistic and high chance of turning a profit, and to say "no, it's not good enough". Even more so when you don't have a clear plan how to "fix" it.

On the other hand, it's easy to give in to the temptations of perfectionism and put off shipping indefinitely. Valve has managed to strike a balance, actually managing to ship games people love even after significant rework and even after significant time-lags (Team Fortress 2 spent almost a decade in development).

<comment><USER2> Valve had the luxury of having enough cash-in-hand to scrap work in progress and start over. It was self-funded from the start. Most publishers wouldn't let you do that.

So this is one case where the development method is part of the story -- the business story impinges too.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you grow this product? - <AUTHOR> Hi!
I'm running PDFShift (https://pdfshift.io), an HTML to PDF conversion API for a business that needs to automate this.
I compete with other similar SaaS but also against library (like Weasyprint for Python, mPDF for PHP, etc) and software (like WKHTML2PDF).
My main sources of acquisitions right now are Quora (I've answered tons of questions) and AlternativeTo. I have great reviews on Capterra, G2Crowd, and AlternativeTo with at least 4.5/5 stars, which I mention on the website.
I'm working with Google Ads since I believe it's the best place for me to be (people are interested in my service when they need me the most, hence the results of a query like "how can I convert HTML docs to pdf in php") but they doesn't show great results so far... - I'm working on improving them as of now.
Even though content marketing sounds great, I don't have much to say regarding converting HTML docs to PDF: it's a pretty basic tool.
That's why I'm turning to you, masters of growth, to help me figure out to grow the business to 5K, 10K and beyond.
Thank you in advance for your awesome inputs :) <comment><AUTHOR> Here are the links for those interested:

* PDFShift : [https://pdfshift.io](https://pdfshift.io)

* AlternativeTo : [https://alternativeto.net/software/pdfshift/](https://alternativeto.net/software/pdfshift/)

* Capterra : [https://www.capterra.fr/software/184246/pdfshift](https://www.capterra.fr/software/184246/pdfshift)

* G2Crowd : [https://www.g2crowd.com/products/pdfshift/](https://www.g2crowd.com/products/pdfshift/)</comment>


Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/09/magic_leap_neither_magic_nor_leaping/ <comment><USER3> I think what's missing from this discussion is the demo is apparently really, really good. Google didn't put ~$500m, and Alibaba something like $800m, just on a whim, or some investment thesis. And everyone I've spoken to who's gotten the demo is a believer.

I think this article suffers from an overly binary view of technology -- if it isn't market ready, it's vaporware. No, there's probably some real tech there (aforementioned demo), but miniaturizing / productizing is still a risk. I think the blowback has something to do with the marketing itself, and Abovitz's amazing idiosyncracies. Neither of those indicate anything about the tech, but (absent any public information) it helps fuel the hate.

And from what I understand about their likely approach, it's definitely more aggressive than the HoloLens. I don't personally think that nearfield focus in a headset is that valuable, but that's just a guess. If light field displays are the tech that takes AR over the top -- from curiosity to a new computing platform -- then Magic Leap is really well positioned, vis a vis a large lead and big IP portfolio.

Also, with ~$1.4 bn raised, they're too big to fail.

<comment><USER4> Facebook bought Oculus for 2 billion, and what were they buying there? Oculus had a prototype cobbled together using off the shelf parts by a teenager in his garage, a successful kickstarter campaign, and John Carmack jumped on board.

And that made Oculus worth two thousand million dollars to Zuckerberg.

The acquisition sent a strong signal, though. Shortly afterwards a bevy of competitors, big and small, started throwing out offerings.

Maybe signalling is the only reason to make these outrageous investments. Google thinks AR is important, a massive bid on an early frontrunner can kickstart an arms race which generates talent and knowledge, and even if ML fails, so long as AR in general succeeds, a consumer tech company such as Google will be able to benefit from it.

<comment><USER5> > The acquisition sent a strong signal, though. Shortly afterwards a bevy of > competitors, big and small, started throwing out offerings.

In the case of the HTC Vive, given the timings of product development cycles and marketing campaigns, that was just a coincidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> sometimes i get tired of all the fakeness in the world. it seems to corrupt every part of society and makes me sick thinking about it. theranos, magic leap, and a lot more. everything seems to be overhyped bs, while the only successful things are essentially avenues to cram ads down your throat and brainwash you to spend money you don't have.

<comment><USER7> I'd like to break this down a bit. Firstly, why is this so frustrating.

On a practical level, it's frustrating for engineers because to operate as engineers we have to work for these companies. It's not just the fakeness, it's the bad management that comes with it. They dilute the pool of possible good companies that we could work for.

They also increase the cost of doing something actually worth while. Salaries get higher, cost of living increases.

So that's why these companies are annoying to engineers. It's not just people being bitter exactly...

\---

The next question is why does this happen?

Firstly, tech investors are not great at DD of science/basic technology startups. Maybe they hire external consultants to do the DD (due diligence). Maybe they rely on their friends (prior investments/contacts). So they roll the dice, invest in some company that looks safe (founders worked a Google etc. etc.) and their friends like.

Then you get one big investor who throws a bunch of cash in. A large number of other investors throw in as well. They assume that first, big investor did the DD.

This is an easy play for the investors. They don't have to do much work. It's easier than say, doing the DD on a smaller seed stage play.

Once it gets bit enough, I guess they assume that they can crush other players in the same area just because they have a stack of cash.

TL;DR: They don't do the DD, it's easier to make big bets than lots of small ones.

It would probably be better for us, if the cash that was thrown at Magic Leap went to fund 2000 seed stage investments. But investors would find that too hard to do...

That's my take anyway. I'd be interested to better understand what others think.

<comment><USER8> > to operate as engineers we have to work for these companies

Surely you don't mean _software_ engineers. There's a whole big wide world outside the ongoing bubble, and in entire honesty I've never quite found "move to the Valley, work for a startup" to be the no-brainer it's so often been represented. In particular, the quality of life really doesn't seem to be there, at least not reliably; we hear horror stories all the time from people who've gotten hosed in what seem to be the same relatively small set of ways, at a rate that suggests there's more going on than random chance or sour grapes.

And the cost of living in that part of the country is no joke, too. Remote working would solve that, but very few companies take it at all seriously - many fewer than want to be perceived as doing so. It's understandable why they don't, but the transparent duplicity is a bad look. Without remote? Sure, the pay's probably better than you'll find almost anywhere else, but you either plow three quarters of it into cost of living, or spend four hours a day commuting.

Meanwhile, in the "enterprise" companies at which Valley _biens-pensants_ smirk and sneer, one finds often enough that among the various fiefdoms, there's one or two with a savvy director and a team full of smart, capable people who have everything they need for the asking, and whose job is to solve problems the organization would otherwise find entirely intractable - sort of 18F or USDS, if you like, except in an industry context and with less politics to worry about, and as well or better paid. The trick is knowing where to look and how to bring value.

And unicorn valuation isn't the only startup bubble, either. From where I sit, comfortably outside it, the whole tech entrepreneurship scene has gotten amazingly up itself in the last few years, just like it did in the run-up to the last bust. Buying into the mythos might feel nice, but unless you're a founder it also makes you easier to exploit than you might otherwise be, and even if you are, it ties you to a sector that's itself beholden to more or less every vagary of financial fortune. Sure, engineering is a profit center in a company like that, whereas in the enterprise world it's usually a cost center. But next time the market takes a nosedive, who's in better shape? Someone in a profit center of a company that found its runway suddenly shortened to negligibility and collapsed for want of money? Or someone in a cost center of a company with the cash reserves and ample profitability to get through lean times effectively intact?

<comment><USER9> >Meanwhile, in the "enterprise" companies at which Valley >biens-pensants smirk and sneer, one finds often enough that >among the various fiefdoms, there's one or two with a savvy >director and a team full of smart, capable people who have >everything they need for the asking, and whose job is to >solve problems the organization would otherwise find >entirely intractable - sort of 18F or USDS, if you like, >except in an industry context and with less politics to >worry about, and as well or better paid. The trick is >knowing where to look and how to bring value.

True. But please tell the second part to the story too. Those innovative teams, can discover cold-fusion, and they will be locked in and ignored- or even worser, there idea would be patented to be held hostage in lawyercabinetscryo until a advancing humanity is willing to pay the ransom.

Those startups have only runway to loose and everything to gain- they will not throw away a discovery this way.

<comment><USER8> I do what I do because I like solving problems. I do it where I do it because I like to have a strong supply of new problems to solve, and because I want to be well and reliably paid for the value I add in so doing.

Discovering and inventing new things hasn't really been a major part of that, because the problems I solve, the problems very large companies tend to have, rarely require it; the question is less one of coming up with novel tech and more one of applying tools and ideas that already exist in ways that are novel to the organization because the relevant knowledge and expertise is hard to come by without specializing in software as a career.

If you want to discover new algorithms or invent the next React or C#, then working for a large corporation outside the tech industry may not be the best option for you. But there are many more kinds of problems to solve than those.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The problem is honesty isn't rewarded anymore. Someone working hard will be beaten by someone who tells all the fancy stuff...I know a lot of startups that raised millions, but their tech and growth is totally non-existent. I did some research and a lot of companies have little to no social media presence, yet are "growing" crazy. How do people find them?

Add network effect and you get overly hyped stuff that don't deliver. I wish startup accelerators relied more on experienced, reputed judges in the startup's field instead of growth gimmicks. Online contests/challenges seem to be the way to find really good tech startups.

<comment><USER11> I see the same phenomenon and think it's the opposite.

Raising millions is not a reward. I understand why you think that way since I used to think that way too. But I learned the hard way that raising money is nothing more than the price you have to pay to get to somewhere you want.

So what _IS_ reward? Obviously, if your business does well and "growing" crazy, that's your reward. That way you didn't even have to give up your control over the company and still managed to outsmart others who wasted tons of money and didn't even get anything done.

That's the reward you get for working hard honestly. I also used to think that honest people never get rewarded, and that was a couple of years ago when I was looking at all the pointless apps getting funded. Now if you look back, none of them are alive. Even the ones that were growing like crazy all die off, because most of the ones that grew like crazy were designed to grow like crazy in a synthetic manner instead of organically growing based on the value they provide to users.

So the lesson is, just look at your customers. If you see that more and more people are using and buying your product, that means you are doing something right. You don't need validation from investors and the press.

p.s. You can buy press anyway. Once you have enough money and traction just hire a PR agency and pitch a story for a guaranteed spot on relevant publications. This is much better than these VC funded startups wasting money doing the PR piece when they have no substance.

<comment><USER12> > Raising millions is not a reward.

They get paid for the X years it takes their startup to crash, probably quite well.

Afterwards, they are considered an "Experienced entrepreneur" and thus more likely to get their foot in the door to more negotiations, given press time etc.

What part of this is failing?

<comment><USER11> In most cases the companies that fail after X years have been failing for at least X-1 years. This means these guys were under total stress for X-1 years.

One has no idea what that feels like if they haven't gone through the process.

Another thing is, you're pretty much locked into that company for X years. Even if you realize on year 1 that it's not what you started out to build, you still need to go with it, otherwise you're seen as an irresponsible prick, and people won't see you as "experienced entrepreneur". Most of the times what happens is you either trick yourself into thinking that it will work, or compromise your initial vision into building something mediocre that generates money (For example you may start out thinking you will build the next generation social network that will change everything, and end up with a behavioral targeting ad network)

Imagine wasting X-1 years of your life working on something you no longer "truly" believe in. That part is failing.

If you still don't agree, try raising money and starting a company, and work on it for X years. You will understand.

<comment><USER13> > In most cases the companies that fail after X years have been failing for at > least X-1 years. This means these guys were under total stress for X-1 > years.

> One has no idea what that feels like if they haven't gone through the > process.

> Imagine wasting X-1 years of your life working on something you no longer > "truly" believe in. That part is failing.

> If you still don't agree, try raising money and starting a company, and work > on it for X years. You will understand.

please, enlighten us with the hardships of being paid lots of funny money, and spending even more funny money, on something you know is going to fail for X-1 years, but you keep doing it anyways because ???

<comment><USER14> Have you ever worked hard on something for many years and faced the prospect of it still failing? It's painful to think about your baby dying. Startup founders generally don't do it for the (usually below market) salary.

<comment><USER15> > Have you ever worked hard on something for many years and faced the prospect > of it still failing?

Not with someone else paying for it, and knowing I'll still be well-regarded even if it fails.

<comment><USER14> That definitely reduces the risk vs. funding it yourself, sure, but founders are still investing a large chunk of their life into it, and that's not something people usually breezily write off. Having other people funding it can actually increase the amount of guilt and stress you feel about failing - you let down the people that believed in you. For most people, that hurts.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and make snide remarks about founders who you think are wasting others' money paying themselves cushy salaries (most pay themselves far below what they'd make at Google), but I don't think you're really in any position to until you've put yourself out there in some similar fashion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The first video was known to be fake back in 2015, when they released another video that explicitly stated no visual effects were used. And my guess is the second video isn't fake, but it's using their non-miniaturized technology. This is not news.

Unlike Theranos (where people's health was also at stake), if/when Magic Leap fails, their investors will lose their money and capitalism will go on - <USER2> is how things are supposed to work.

<comment><USER17> "this is how things are supposed to work."

No - the information from ML boils down to falsehoods - this is not how 'capitalism' should work :)

Granted, it does sometimes happen this way.

More limited investment, with reasonable hype, a longer time frame might have worked better - as a lot of the $$$ spent on ML today will be on marketing, overhead, unecessary staff.

Granted, even if they do go bust, they'll have made some tangible progress that will be leveraged elsewhere.

Google is a big investor - it could be that if ML goes bust, the Google can take hold of the IP, and probably end up hiring a bunch of people and carrying it on. That said, since Alphabet they operate differently.

<comment><USER16> Company lies to _sophisticated_ investors. They fail. _Sophisticated_ investors who did not do proper diligence lose their money.

Yes, that's how capitalism works (technically, America's mixed market).

Now, if Magic Leap were a public company that lied to the public, yes I would be totally in favor of regulatory/civil, maybe criminal, investigations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "In general, signal theory says if you have a good way of proving something and a noisy way of proving something and you choose the noisy way chances are it's because you couldn't do the good way in the first place."

</comment><comment><USER19> I keep getting Magic Leap confused with Leap Motion.

though at least the latter has a proper, released product...

<comment><USER20> Leap Motion with a DK2 even is actually really good!

<comment><USER21> Especially after their Orion release last year. I'm really excited [1] about Leap Motion 2.

[1] [https://johnrockefeller.net/leap- motion-2/](https://johnrockefeller.net/leap-motion-2/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> That these guys are a bunch of snake oil merchants has been obvious from day zero. Sometimes the overwhelming stench of bullshit is a little too difficult to ignore.

<comment><USER23> But one wonders why there has yet to be an exodus of talent from Magic Leap.

I suspect the work is interesting for the engineers but nobody has the heart to tell the C level execs that what they are trying to sell the public is bullshit.

<comment><USER24> There has already been an exodus of talent. I know one personally, and know of a lot more. They lock them down with non-disclosure settlements. Bad management, internecine politics, the whole caboodle. A pity, because it could have been very good, but they went with exactly the wrong team, and insisted people move from the Bay to Florida, which didn't help with retention.

<comment><USER25> Can confirm. Work there now. Major leadership failures across the board. Engineering talent is mostly there. The "wrong team" starts at the C-level.

Looking for an out in FL now -- finding it very hard to maintain salary. May move back to west coast, but not quite ready for that yet.

<comment><USER26> Are they at least paying you a Bay Area dev salary? Curious if they used retention bonuses with a big cliff? I for one will never take a job with a vesting cliff if I can help it.

<comment><USER24> NDAs of anything about the company for departing employees too, which is what I meant to say

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It doesn't matter if their tech doesn't yet work. Augmented reality is inevitable and someone will make it happen. Now, the logic is that whoever pours the most money into it will win the race and with patents be in a monopoly position. It's a gamble, but they have a likelihood of succeeding with money and hard work. That's what they've sold to their investors.

<comment><USER28> I'd hazard a bet that augmented reality already peaked with Pokémon Go.

<comment><USER29> Pokemon Go isn't real AR though, it's just a phone app that uses the device's camera. You need dedicated hardware to do real AR. I'm withholding judgment until I see that.

<comment><USER28> It mixes a virtual world with the real world; thus augmenting the real world. I would argue that a fine grain occlusion (individual pixels) vs coarse grain (movable display) isn't that big of a difference with immersion. Consider that we are immersed with our phones quite a bit already.

In addition the lack of 3D isn't that big of a deal given the brain fills in the details with other cues. E.g. People that go blind in one eye can adjust quite well to the lack of 3D.

I personally would love a HUD for my sporting activities; e.g. Skully. But my phone is perfectly fine as a daily driver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > Quick guide to spotting non-existent tech

> \- Refusing to give a launch date

> ...

> \- Confusing working hard with making progress

Some of these are valid, but some are _inevitable for any tech that is actually revolutionary_. Magic Leap's actions seem so far to be consistent with both theories. It's kind of unfortunately true that it's impossible to distinguish between the exaggerated-for-media-coverage-sake case and the actually-world-changing-but-really-technically-difficult case.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's easy to fool those who want to be fooled. The likelyhood that these people developed electronics 10x smaller with 10x performance is roughly the same as my cold fusion reactor in my garage delivers free energy for all. If someone pulled that off they wouldn't need to fleece investors for their money.

</comment><comment><USER32> I lost any respect I had for that company when they released that whale video referenced in the article. Complete marketing hype nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER33> Benedict Evans doesn't seem like the kind of guy to fall for BS though, let alone defend it. And surely at least one of their investors had the technical due diligence capability to investigate how much computing power is in the demo "rigs" and be able to know if such power can be "miniaturized" into a consumer product by year X, perhaps allowing for a little software optimization on the way too.

<comment><USER34> Well now he does seem like that kind of guy, apparently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Sounds like Magic Leap is making the same prelaunch communication errors than Hello Games did with No Man's Sky : creating high expectations without showing much, which causes expectation to build up when people imagination feels the gaps, and cause backslash in the shape of frustrations.

But to be fair, author does the exact same thing than he is accusing Magic Leap of : making claims without displaying anything to back them up. He states that Magic Leap won't happen, just like flying cars. Based on what, except his frustration of not seeing the product? Same there : "The truth is that Magic Leap cannot get its huge prototype working in a much, much smaller version". Starting a sentence with "The truth is" doesn't make it true by itself, we need evidences.

As far as I know, maybe author is stating exactly what will happen, but I can't agree with him given so few evidences.

<comment><USER36> What do you mean by errors? They both get to keep all the money = win.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I have a theory secretive + massive hype = emperor without clothes

</comment><comment> norea-armozel This is why I'm steering clear of AR since no one wants to show off the actual prototypes for various reasons. And frankly, I don't blame them for wanting to protect their technology but the fact remains if you can't show us a live and real demonstration of the devices in question then there can't be a product to buy because it effectively doesn't exist.

</comment><comment><USER38> The article mentions a large helmet. Any pictures of it around?

<comment><USER34> The best thing we have so far is this revealing illustration tweeted by Rony Abovitz himself:

[https://twitter.com/rabovitz/status/807077358624772098?ref_s...](https://twitter.com/rabovitz/status/807077358624772098?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

<comment><USER39> I believe this picture from wired is supposed to be of "the beast" that they use for demos: [https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1200/wp- content/uploads/20...](https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1200/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/ff_magic_leap-eric_browy.jpg)

There are drawings of something more helmet like in their patents, like this one: [http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0758367&homeurl=http%3A%...](http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0758367&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph- Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3DD758,367.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD758,367%2526RS%3DPN%2FD758,367&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page)

<comment><USER34> Aren't most of the illustrations in their patents just unattributed tracings of other people's work?

[http://gizmodo.com/magic-leap-ripped-off-those-awesome-ui- co...](http://gizmodo.com/magic-leap-ripped-off-those-awesome-ui- concepts-1682716916)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> But why do people think it can project _dark_?! I understand the dimly lit room demo video, where the ML graphics are all brighter than the environment, but how can you make dark whaleskin over light timber flooring _by adding light_?

</comment><comment><USER41> It's unlikely that 500m or 800m investment is 1.) all in cash or 2.) given out on day 1. If there are proper investor controls in place, cash is likely staged in and noncash vests over time as milestones are hit. At least, I hope that is the way it is setup...

</comment><comment><USER42> Similar tech, less hype, perhaps more 'real': [http://www.roadtovr.com/realview-holoscope-ar-headset- hologr...](http://www.roadtovr.com/realview-holoscope-ar-headset-hologram- display/)

</comment><comment><USER43> I saw an AR demo earlier this week using a google cardboard type setup with a phone screen and it was fairly compelling already.

Based on this cheap setup I'm confident we'll see something mind blowing in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER44> They have some interesting, cool tech. It may not be miniaturizable (or it may be, dunno). But the hype about them is way too big. They have essentially put themselves in very tough spot.

</comment><comment><USER45> This comment is interesting :

> If you were investing millions into something, would you not request a > personal demo where you actually see the demo for yourself, in your own > time, and see how it works?

I know I would.

</comment><comment><USER46> I believe that will be a lot of frustation when they finally launch something. But I dont believe that Microsoft Hololens has "fallen short" as they say. I believe the Hololens demo was great and transparent on how the tech is, how it shows, what it takes to produce. Not a "magical" new sci-fi world made real, but definitely more close to reality than flying cara.

<comment><USER47> Are you joking? Just watch the Hololens announcement trailer [1] and tell me it's as good as that.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aThCr0PsyuA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aThCr0PsyuA)

<comment><USER14> Nothing looks at all like that when actually using the Hololens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The author of this article needs to try Hololens. The technology is definitely here.

<comment><USER49> HoloLens is being pushed with much of the same rigged demos. As a review from a few days ago mentioned-

"Maybe Microsoft is saving all the wow factor for its keynotes, but my demo was a less refined and less capable version of what we've seen in on-stage demos. My experience, while impressive, felt like child's play AR compared to what's been in Microsoft's keynotes."

Microsoft unveiled it well over a year ago, and still when people can actually try the device the demos are a fraction of the myth presented in their keynote. And of course these things always rely upon the development of technology, but we often get 80% and think the last 20% is the easy part when really it's the extraordinarily difficult barrier between realistically credible and a toy.

The projection technology (the field refraction grid) is very interesting, and the environment mapping is fantastic, but the resolution of the device makes the demos farce out of the gate -- the total overlay resolution is 1268x720 max (in most realistic scenes much less), so when you see someone demo something like a web browser in their AR display, if you ever see the demo it's just entirely unusable (far too low of a resolution) unless you move directly in front of the projection occupying the majority of your FOV, at which point what is the point.

The technology will improve, obviously, but right now it definitely falls in the category of gimmick to me, with several generations before it's remotely as usable as being pitched.

<comment><USER50> It is used by NASA and they are stupid as per your post.

Where did you see the "rigged demos"? It works as shown in the demos if you even understand what it can do and do not. Your 20 minutes on hand demo never shows/teaches you any thing.

<comment><USER49> It is hardly "used" by NASA. As a conceptual study for the whole premise of AR they have tried it out in concert with Microsoft, but the project has gone entirely silent. And no, it doesn't work as shown in the demos -- it's very low resolution and has movement and 3D mapping issues. It will obviously improve, but I wouldn't be dropping thousands on a first generation unit, as it is certainly money down the toilet.

<comment><USER50> You are the first one to say it has "3D mapping issues". I can send you links with experts saying Hololens is the holy grail of 3D mapping and tracking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Sounds like Magic Leap developed schpilkaz in their genektagazoink. The demo was like buttah. Like a big stick of buttah. I love Rony Abovitz, but he's a little ibaboodled in the kebbie. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: Magic Leap is neither magic nor leaping. Discuss.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiJkANps0Qw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiJkANps0Qw)

<comment><USER51> You see, this is the type of comment that tears me on HN. On one hand I actually lold, on the other, it added nothing but some humor to the discussion. What is the guideline here? We sure don't want to become 'insert failed or failing aggregator here'. Or the race to the bottom, who gets the 1st clever chuckleluck comment in, contest of internet points and paid marketing. So I made this comment instead.

<comment><USER34> Good meta-discussion. I assumed the article's title was a reference to the SNL skit, but there weren't any more references or allusions to it in the article, so I though other people who didn't recognize the skit might appreciate a reference. I hope my other post linking to their TEDx talk balanced out my frivolity! ;)

<comment><USER52> You don't have to apologize for your post (... to me, anyway, who laughed out loud). There is value in humor that is separate from information yield.

<comment><USER53> Reference humor has no value. But sure, it feels good if you get the reference.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


APK Downloader - <AUTHOR> http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/ <comment><USER2> VIRUS WARNING!

Clicking the Download & Install Now button gives me a popup that says to go to evozi.com/l.php?go=apkinstaller which tries to download APKDownloaderv200_downloader_by_APKDownloaderv200.exe

McAffe detects this as Artemis!5D95FF710F55

I guess to be fair the popup does warn you that the installer may contain extra software.

<comment><USER3> Hi, the link you clicking contain some extra software, please use another link for direct extension download or use Online Downloader.

<comment><USER2> Um maybe you shouldn't bundle viruses as extra software?

<comment><USER3> we do not put any malware or virus in it.

<comment><USER2> Care to explain why my virus scanners says your exe installer contains a virus and why [https://lekensteyn.nl/apk-downloader/](https://lekensteyn.nl/apk- downloader/) says you package spyware?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This should be part of the Google Play desktop website, and it's actually abuse of the open Android platform by Google that it isn't. (Yes, it can still be abuse if developers can technically host APKs elsewhere in the same way that any monopoly can be abusive).

I can see Google banning this or trying their best to block this pretty quickly though and shows just how far Google has fallen from being open. I could be wrong though, will be watching this website with interest (and using it to download all my apps, for sure). Props to the creators.

EDIT: For those wondering why Google would be bothered by this - the Google Play app distribution channel is the big factor that requires Android device manufacturers to pay their license fees for Android and prevents them from forking the platform. An Android device without Google Play is an automatic no-buy for most consumers. However, if APKs - even just free ones - could be downloaded onto a device without Google Play, then it allows users and manufacturers to easily bypass a lot of the lock-in.

<comment><USER5> I am sure Google would ban this pronto. This reduces their ability to exclude other forks of Android from using the app store.

<comment><AUTHOR> When I saw this, the first thought that came to my mind was "How long till Google sends a Cease and Desist letter to the owners of this service!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Found the source that these guys are ripping off to make this extension: [https://lekensteyn.nl/apk-downloader/](https://lekensteyn.nl/apk-downloader/)

<comment><USER6> Can we change the link to that? This is really handy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Unable to edit the post since it is too late to do that. But have submitted another story with an appropriate title - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6668889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6668889)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Have you ever wanted to get your hands on the latest game, only to find that > the Google Play thought it wasn't compatible with your phone?

As an android game developer... if we tell Google Play a game isn't compatible with a particular device, there's generally a very good reason for it.

<comment><USER8> I don't doubt this is true for you, but there are an increasing number of apps on the Play Store that are hardware-exclusive (typically Samsung exclusive).

A number of broadcasters cut deals with Samsung to give their VOD apps exclusivity on Galaxy hardware, and the Twitter Android Tablet app is currently not available on the Nexus 7 due to an agreement with Samsung.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As an Android game dev, I'm not sure I like it. How is this not distributing my copyrighted material without permission? Just because my app is available free of charge, doesn't mean it can be freely distributed by the website owner.

And it's not just a control issue, it creates actual problems for me as a developer. It makes it easier to create rip-off's of my APK or adding malware and rehosting the package, or extracting my sound and art assets. And you know some of these users will be contacting me for support when something breaks because they are sideloading the app. I also can't automatically roll out new versions of the app to these users, causing fragmentation of the user base or bad reviews and ill will if I have to ban their old app version from my online backend.

While all of the above already happens to some degree today, I don't look forward to it becoming common practice. I'd actually prefer you not download my completely free (with no ads or IAPs) game at all if you won't do it through a channel I've setup.

</comment><comment><USER10> The only reason that I connected my Android phone to a GMail account is to access Google Play and download clean apps. Lots of third-party websites offer various apks but many are infected with malware.

So, assuming Google won't block this, I won't be needing a GMail account to use Android (without Google apps) from now on? Nice!

<comment><USER5> Hope this frees up Android from the clutches of Goggle

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is really useful.I'm sick of all those online apk downloading blogs full of spam.Thank You.

</comment><comment><USER12> Also, as a Blackberry 10 user this will come in very handy. It can be sometimes tough to find more obscure apps outside of the Play store, nevermind trying to keep them updated.

<comment><USER13> This is what I used to use it for, on my Playbook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are other ways to get the apk if you have an android device. There is an app called "App Backup and Restore" that allows you to backup the apps that you have installed (without root). If you place the backed up app in dropbox, you have it available anywhere.

<comment><USER15> That requires you to first install it through the play store. Side loading like this lets you install apps without Google being able to snoop on what you install on your device.

edit: Actually, that's not true for the browser extension. You have to provide your gmail login and your device ID. Bleh...

<comment><USER14> Fair enough. You do, at least, get the added security of the downloading app having been reviewed by google before inclusion in the play store so that it is less likely the app you backup with it has a rootkit. Given the articles that have been floating around on HN about how easy it is to fake the security on apps, I would say it still has its use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Seems like a pretty innocent workaround for some limitations. If you use it you should know that the app might not work 100% on your device.

</comment><comment><USER17> I am certain that this violates Google's ToS.

</comment><comment><USER18> Nice try.</comment>


The future of VR with Jaron Lanier, and why we should we all quit social media - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cim2xIKUF9o <comment><USER2> A lot of people have positioned themselves as "VR experts" over the past 3-4 years. There's a whole industry subculture around it. None of them are any more insightful than anyone else, and they tend to just spew cliche memes (in the literal, not the "doge" sense) and mindless technobabble. This video seems to fit right into that.

<comment> T-A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier)

positioned himself as VR expert in the 80s...</comment></comment>


QEMU heap overflow flaw while processing certain ATAPI commands - <AUTHOR> http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2015/q3/212

<comment><USER2> > _Deployment of patches or mitigations is NOT permitted (except on systems > used and administered only by organisations which are members of the Xen > Project Security Issues Predisclosure List). Specifically, deployment on > public cloud systems is NOT permitted._

What is the rationale for this?

<comment><USER3> > The decision not to permit deployment was made by the group that, at their > discretion, disclosed the issue to the Xen Project Security Team.

Xen has, in the past, worked with major cloud service providers to get patches deployed early. Perhaps the view was that the major cloud providers aren't enabling cdrom to begin with, or are using stubdomains, so it wasn't worth risking the broader exposure; or perhaps there were past incidents with early disclosure by cloud providers.

<comment><USER4> Note that it says "by the group that disclosed the issue". Xen's security process says that it's the people who disclose issues to xen-security that get to make this decision about pre-deployment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> turn off stuff you don't need! features are the source of bugs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Although I guess for many, it's a fairly important feature if you're creating a new disk image.

<comment><USER6> Agree. There have been several vulns in the fringes of QEMU device emulation code before but typically in lesser used devices (floppy etc). OTOH it's very common to use CDROM emulation to install systems and I'm sure there are plenty of admins who leave the ISO exposed to the guest "just in case".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Note that without a separate Linux privilege escalation exploit, running QEMU in a least-privilege "container" for each VM should help stem the bleeding.

<comment><USER8> How often is that how it is run?

<comment><USER9> All the time if you use libvirt. Also libvirt adds SELinux protection on platforms that support SELinux.

<comment><USER10> > All the time if you use libvirt.

Does it? Afaik libvirt requires AppArmor/SELinux for this.

<comment><USER9> cgroups and SELinux protections are separate. See: [https://libvirt.org/cgroups.html](https://libvirt.org/cgroups.html) Also: [https://libvirt.org/drvqemu.html#security](https://libvirt.org/drvqemu.html#security)

<comment><USER10> But cgroups do not provide isolation, just better resource management.

<comment><USER9> If you bother to read the second link I posted, you'll see that cgroups does both (some) isolation and resource management. It's a layered scheme however and you absolutely should be using SELinux which is where the really comprehensive confinement happens.

<comment><USER10> I read both links, and the "isolation" provided by cgroups alone will not prevent exploitation of this bug (or any other, for that matter).

<comment><USER9> You can flat out wrong about this, as you have been in your other answers. I am an _upstream libvirt committer_ so I do know a fair bit about what libvirt can do. The fact is that the isolation of cgroups will prevent various denial of service bugs, and also access to non-whitelisted devices.

It is nowhere near as comprehensive as SELinux isolation, as I clearly said way up there in my initial response -- which is also the reason why when you use Docker on RHEL, most of the security comes from the additional SELinux protections Red Hat have added.

<comment><USER10> I agree with you that cgroups protect against denial of service attacks, and that the device whitelist provides some additional security (I actually did not know about the latter, so thanks! TIL). Thinking about it, if you exclusively use block devices for storage, this is a lot better than I expected.

But still, this is nowhere from a "a least-privilege container for each VM" as you suggested.

(I'm a heavy libvirt user myself - thank you for your work on it!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How likely is exploitation, given that the QEMU binaries are compiled with all available mitigations/hardening flags?

</comment><comment><USER11> Is KVM vulnerable or just Xen?

<comment><USER9> Yup QEMU is vulnerable. Various details and patches in the Red Hat bug here: [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243563](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243563)</comment></comment>


Show HN: OctoCSS, Minimalistic "Fork Me on GitHub." - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/muhammadmuzzammil1998/OctoCSS <comment><USER2> The image seems to have white background while the triangle itself is kinda light gray. The padding between the image and the sides of the triangle is kinda off as well.</comment>