Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg's are really bad - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/why-some-people-feel-billionaire-pledges-like-mark-zuckerbergs-are-really-bad/ <comment><USER4> There is no real explanation for why the pledge is "bad" except for the tired argument that the state is _good_ and private foundations imitating the state are _bad_. There is no further clarification or explanation; We are supposed to accept this as some sort of given, without pretext or afterthought.

Articles like this are _bad_.

<comment><USER5> That's not what the article said at all - nor the German billionaire. He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected government decide. You may disagree with that, but it is quite different from simply saying public good and private bad.

<comment><USER4> > _He said that having a few very wealthy people decide what were the most > important causes was bad compared to having the democratically elected > government decide._

This sentence is really amusing to me, because our democratically elected government, at least at the congressional level, is nearly all wealthy millionaires. So either way, important causes are decided by the wealthy.

<comment><USER6> Your argument makes no sense: the people control everything in a democracy, literally, by voting for their representation in government.

<comment><USER7> How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter? That's the point - <USER2> being representative with no accountability, there's only the binary ability to hire or fire with no ability to manage.

<comment><USER8> _How well does that representation actually fulfill the wishes of their constituency as a whole, let alone any individual voter?_

Yeah yeah yeah, being cynical about democracy is cool, blah blah blah.

I suppose you should, what, just burn the motherf*cker down and be done with it, then?

You know, in 50 years the GOP will be able to look back and point to one of their most brilliant victories of all time: actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise.

It's utterly brilliant. "Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level.

<comment><USER9> >"Starve-the-beast" neocon tactics taken to a whole new level.

I'm not sure you know what a "neocon" is. Neocons derived from Trotskyism and are found in both major U.S. political parties. Neoconservatism has done more to expand government than perhaps any other ideology present in American politics.

>actively sabotaging the activities of government, and then using the results of their very own actions to convince the electorate that government doesn't work and cannot represent them, despite the fact that they got themselves elected into the very system they claim to despise.

Ironically that strategy sounds a lot like a strategy that's been deployed by progressives. If you look at some of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy--healthcare, banking, housing, wall street, etc--those are the same areas which progressives hold up as free market failures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Krämer: So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?

SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.

Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.

...

"There's nothing necessarily wrong with the American system of tax-subsidized charity, of course."

"The critique is that this system affords too much power to the rich, whose decisions may not align with what's best for society. This is not to say that the government is a paragon of efficacy either, but it risks a lot to depend on a handful of mega-billionaires to be prudent, effective philanthropists."

"What genre of philanthropy will Chan and Zuckerberg invest in? Possibly anything. Their letter Tuesday set two missions, both ambitiously vague: "advancing human potential" and "promoting equality." They mention curing diseases, improving clean energy, promoting entrepreneurship, fighting poverty and hunger, empowering women and minorities, and so on.

The pair do not have a sterling track record when it comes to effective charity. One of their previous efforts, a high-profile $100 million donation to fix the schools in Newark, N.J., has been widely criticized as a failure.

Chan and Zuckerberg write in their announcement that they have learned from their past experiences with philanthropy. For now, they will start with their own community in San Francisco, focusing on education, health and "connecting people."

<comment><USER11> You make it sound like Zuckerberg's donation in Newark happened in a vacuum. It happened in tight collaboration with the school system, who stated needs and approved every step of the process. It's not like Zuckerberg stepped in and said "you shall obey!!!" Course in this case it just turned out that not only could the democratically elected government of Newark magically waste all their tax revenue, they were excellent at wasting donated money.

<comment><USER12> I do find it rather disheartening that a tech inventor and a PhD in Biology are being looked to as legitimate critics and saviors of public education.

<comment><USER11> Makes sense as the PhD's and government "experts" in education gave us the unpopular and widely criticized No Child Left Behind and Common Core, which hasn't done anything to stem the flood of unprepared kids going to college and the work force.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I'm sure GWB staffed his cabinet with "experts." Yes.

<comment><USER11> Well Obama has had 6 years to fix it. Which makes this less of a republican/democrat issue than a "why the hell aren't we copying Finland" issue. You know like why would government spend all this money on contractors and consultants to figure out a new way to do things when they could just copy a highly functional and successful system? Oh, corruption. Right.

<comment><USER13> > Well Obama has had 6 years to fix it.

In the world where Obama was a dictator and could unilaterally rewrites statutes, sure.

In the real world, Obama had just under two years (because Congressional terms start earlier than Presidential terms) with Democratic majorities in Congress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > _I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in > your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I > rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. > That 's unacceptable._

Or flip that around - is Krämer's implied solution not a case of the state taking the place of the individual?

Put another way, if you founded a company, created thousands of jobs for families and individuals, and made a fortune, why should the state be the one who decides what happens with your money? Why should the state have more of a right to decide which causes get your charitable donations than you do?

<comment><USER10> Because the structure that enabled you to amass that amount of wealth is flawed, and disproportionately rewards "you" over the network that actually did much of the heavy lifting. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be richly rewarded, just that it's gotten fucking ridiculous.

<comment><USER15> > Because the structure that enabled you to amass that amount of wealth is > flawed, and disproportionately rewards "you" over the network that actually > did much of the heavy lifting

This thinking is so poisonous and destructive and pervasive that I'm starting to wonder if it is either due to some natural law of human nature or some grand conspiracy to destroy modern society. Businesses are _not_ built on the charity of the "system". Everyone is compensated in the building of a business, in exactly the amounts they demand to be compensated. The government gets its taxes, the employees get their salaries and benefits, the shareholders get their equity, and the founder(s) get(s) the rest. At that point, everyone is squared. Risk is appropriately rewarded, and risk is an absolute requirement if you want great things to happen.

<comment><USER10> I could say the same about your black and white thinking using outdated Chicago/Neoclassic economic theories when applied to aggregate economies, but I digress.

I didn't say they were built on the _charity_ of the system, just that they were built _using_ the system.

You act like the first 50 employees of your stupid app company aren't taking a risk too. But they get 0.01%, while the founders get...? Fairly early on, you literally don't have enough time in a day to do it all yourself, even if you wanted to, so you're quite literally taking credit for more risk than you were actually able to take.

Considering Paul Graham's essay about how most of the work is ahead of you even when you start adding employees, how is the risk so skewed towards initial conditions versus the long path ahead?

This toxic thinking that a twentysomething takes more risk by trying to start his own company while early in his career deserves _orders of magnitude_ better compensation for the risk he took, over many career people that will have to be persuaded to risk their career and reputations on this new company, who have families, mortgages, and serious obligations to others?

He really took 1,000x more risk? Bullshit dude.

<comment><USER16> No one forced the employees to take 0.01%.

<comment><USER17> No "one" person did. But their circumstances certainly encouraged it. By that, I mean that if a person has a baby on the way, mountains of debt from school, an overdue rent payment, and no health insurance, then he or she may be forced to take a paltry salary. But hey, it's better than debtors prison or death, right? So let's call that social justice. Particularly with the absence of unions in many American industries and the overall inefficiencies present in the labor market, many individuals are not in a position where they can negotiate a wage that is worthy of the quality of work they provide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem with the American system isn't the culture of direct donations from private individuals. The problem is that too few people have the means to give: it's the distribution of wealth.

A culture where private people donate is really attractive. I know that I get a lot of joy when I help people out - I donate regularly to the causes I feel important (mainly Africa, as a Brit living in Netherlands I figure I owe them). As the article says, it improves social cohesion.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a society where "everyone" enjoyed the gift of giving?

<comment><USER11> In the US a lot of people who aren't billionaires or even millionaires donate a lot of money. And people donate a lot of time to their causes.

[http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable- gi...](http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving- statistics/)

[http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving- in-A...](http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving-in-America- Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This guy takes it as a given that the Government is well-run and wise. But what's the practical alternative for someone who instead thinks that the current political environment is toxic and insane?

<comment><USER10> You take it as a given that the private sector is well-run and wise.

Nobody is saying either solution is great. All it's saying is that: wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen, versus billionaires who may or may not be making relevant investments?

edit: Just downvotes, no response?

<comment><USER20> "wouldn't it be better to have all this power be in the hands of the democratically chosen"

This assumes the money in question belongs to the state to begin with, and we're merely deciding how it is to be allocated. That is not the case. This is not the rich deciding what to do with the public money, it's the rich deciding what to do with their own money.

I think we would all agree, regardless of level of income, we would rather our own money be allocated to the causes that we support, rather than the causes that 51% of people support.

<comment><USER10> "it's the rich deciding what to do with their own money."

No, I wouldn't agree on that at all. That runs entirely counterproductive to what our society is built on. This is the arrogance people talk about - <USER3> think you know what is better for people than they do.

<comment><USER21> Actually, it is, at least using your own arguments. The money in this case actually does belong to the billionaire. He earned it under the legal environment decided by our democratically chosen government. And he gets to keep what the democratically chosen government decided is his to keep. And he gets to choose how to spend it, because the democratically chosen government has decided to afford him that freedom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The trade is this: if you made $100 and your marginal tax rate is 20%, you can either (a) let the government spend $20 however it sees fit and you spend $80 however you see fit (which may be an $80 bottle of wine); or (b) you spend $100 on any charitable cause you see fit (which must meet certain requirements).

That doesn't seem like a bad trade to me, especially since rich people have fairly low marginal tax rates.

<comment><USER23> And that's how the US ends up with horrible roads, transit quality going down, and so on.

<comment><USER24> Terrible roads seem far too local of a problem to be due to philanthropic billionaires diverting wealth. Quality seems to vary distinctly by county or city; I once lived near a city line where the line was demarcated by the abrupt transition from flawless asphalt to a minefield of potholes. Neither was a particularly famous, wealthy, or powerful county, and neither had resident billionaires.

No, I'm more suspicious of measures like California's Prop 13, as well as county and city level management.

<comment><USER23> Well, tax loopholes in general lead to less taxes. Which leads to budget cuts.

For example, look what happened in the UK: [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david- cameron-letter-cuts-oxfordshire)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Anyone who thinks that the federal government will spend money better than a charity is free to give it to the IRS. They accept donation. But no one believes this is a good idea, as evidenced by the fact that such donations are _many_ orders of magnitude less than Americans donate to charity.

<comment><USER26> This is a really important point to make. The government may be democratically elected, but that doesn't mean that much, because of how the political system works. When people have the choice directly, they don't vote for the government. Also, comparing track records, the government has a really bad one when it comes to actually helping the poor, not just giving them enough money not to die.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Perhaps the German government can make good decisions about where to spend money, since I know they put lots of money into science and culture, but I wouldn't trust the US Congress to do the same.

The US federal government is far more likely blow it all on the military weapons systems or funding tax cuts that benefit the wealthy rather than funding guinea worm eradication or anti-malaria initiatives in Africa. The typical US congressman is unwilling to spend money altruistically on things that aren't perceived as directly benefiting the United States.

Sure, billionaires aren't saints either, but I think it's far more likely that they'll donate to causes that are geared toward having a positive long-term impact on humanity as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER28> 50 billion dollars is about 1/2 the budget of the State of California for a year. It's really not that much in terms of government expenditures. However, If used creatively, it could have a huge impact on the world, but that takes vision. Money without creativity and vision does nothing except raise the price of everything.

<comment><USER29> Precisely. The article hasn't been justifying the claim that large charitable donations are bad; it has being justifying the claim that not taxing charitable donations is bad.

But I'm not inclined to believe that, since I can reasonably believe that the increase in charitable giving from not having the tax is more significant than the gain from having the government control 20% or so of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Someone recently suggested this book [1] to me. I'm still reading it, but enjoying the ride so far.

The 'shift of power away from the government' argument is just one of the arguments made in the book, and author Linsey McGoey discusses it much more thoroughly than the article does. See quote /a/

[1] [http://www.versobooks.com/books/1959-no-such-thing-as-a- free...](http://www.versobooks.com/books/1959-no-such-thing-as-a-free-gift)

/a/ The second concern is that philanthropy, by channelling private funds towards public services, erodes support for governmental spending on health and education. Outspoken observers such as Michael Edwards, a former executive at the Ford Foundation, point out that private philanthropy is no substitution for hard-fought battles over labour laws and social security, in part because philanthropy can be retracted on a whim, while elected officials, at least in theory, have citizens to answer to.

</comment><comment><USER31> Yeah, rather leave that money to the state who will spend it on actually useful things such as new wars that will make the military-industrial complex even wealthier.

This kind of thinking unfortunately is common in continental Europe, particularly in Germany and France. This is not all about the common good or democratic legitimacy. It's really all about redistribution of wealth and getting back at "the rich". It's about slave-moral thinking that strives to punish the well-off and make everyone feel equally miserable.

</comment><comment><USER32> Article suggests the Chan Zuckerberg initiative is non-profit, but I'm reading from multiple other sources that is definitely not the case.

Not sure who's right, but if it's not WaPo, then that's some terrible fact checking and kinda invalidates the whole article.

Edit - Chan Zuckerberg is a for profit, that will fund non profits, so WaPo is actually incorrect.

<comment><USER33> I don't think that level of detail is publicly available yet. And even non- profits start out as an LLC, and then gain that designation, so that _could_ be what's happening here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The argument doesn't make much sense to me. Each government is basically a single decision-maker that already has a very large budget. Just by watching the news, we know these decisions aren't always all that rational (though democratic!). Giving more money to a government doesn't increase diversity of funding sources at all.

Starting another large foundation creates a new source of funding with an independent decision-making process. This increases diversity in sources of funding. (Though not as much as breaking it up into multiple charities.)

Whether it's a net improvement or not depends on whether their decision-making is better than average. Unfortunately, little can be done about charities with poor decision-making (there are no market forces, and corruption is possible). But at least it's independent.

</comment><comment><USER35> IMO both have their merits.

Governments are good at solving broad, societal level problems. If they weren't, they would be overthrown and replaced. But they're remarkably inefficient at solving individual, specific problems: they can do it, but it will take 4x as long and cost 10x as much as it should. Also, government intervention is limited in scope - it's hard to be philanthropic outside your constituency.

That's where philanthropists can step in. There are some problems that don't provide enough benefit to any single government to throw weight behind solving, but that require massive resources. Bill Gates' anti-malaria campaign is a good example: no country with the money to fund a malaria eradication program has significant rates of malaria.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm curious why this dropped completely off the home page? Do posts get nixed by mods? If so, why this one? [I don't really care, just curious about the HN moderation process]

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd appreciate if Dan would chime in, but I think it likely triggered the "Flamewar Detector". I think this is based on a ratio of Upvotes to Comments, possibly adjusted by flags, but I don't think it's been fully described.

This isn't a perfect system, as sometimes contentious conversation can be better than non-discussion. But overall it's probably a good to have a temporary throttle until a moderator can make finer grained fixes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> There are two trains of thought in the comment section: one that argues because the billionaire made the money himself (unless he/she inherited it) he/she should be entitled to distribute it and the other that he/she may be better positioned to do so than the state. You can argue that the billionaire was only able to make so much money because the country/state he/she lives in provided the necessary infrastructure and environment. Paid for by the tax payer. As Warren Buffett famously said:"Had I been less fortunate and be borne in another country I probably would have become lion fodder." Hence, he/she should pay his taxes as a payback to the taxpayer. You can also argue that the billionaire, because he/she is so successful, must be better in determining what to do with his/her money than the state. However, research suggests that many successful entrepreneurs had significant luck (as Buffett's quote suggests too). Take successful hedge fund managers for example. It also runs against the idea of Democracy. Because if you follow through with this line of thought you may well abolish any elections and leave it to the billionaires to decide who rules - which is almost the case in the US, isn't it?

<comment><USER38> Tangent: >leave it to the billionaires to decide who rules - which is almost the case in the US, isn't it?

I realized a few years ago that this is the end result in any organization, but some German beat me to it in 1911.

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

>Michels theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would be very interested in seeing what percentage of the "social" donations are going to "Religious" organizations, per country.

<comment><USER20> Just because an organization is religious doesn't mean it can't provide social benefit. The air quotes seem unnecessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The maximum estate tax rate in the US is 40%. Sure, donations are tax free, but the donated assets amount to at least 2.5 times what the government would have gotten.

Is it acceptable to have the privilege to choose where your fortune will be allocated when you give away a supplemental 150% of it? Maybe it's not or maybe it is; I would strongly lean towards the latter.

</comment><comment><USER40> One of the arguments here in Germany is that if these billionaires were actually paying taxes, the country would have more money and there would be less to pledge. Generally the thinking is that public sector should run many basic services and should provide/organize enough welfare to those in need.

</comment><comment><USER41> It depends on what you like. Many people are probably happy that organizations like the Ford Foundation will advocate globalist left-wing anti-Americanism _forever_. Bill and Warren and Mark's money will do the same as well, no matter their intentions. O'Sullivan's law.

There's no point in arguing about whether the state is better suited to handle the money. It would actually be better off cashed out, piled up, and burnt. Literally. A tiny deflationary event vs. eternal troublemaking.

<comment><USER23> I'll just let you know that without the money spent by the German government you wouldn't have mp3, or AAC.

You wouldn't have most of modern technology, nor would you have Wendelstein 7-X.

You wouldn't have DHL or T-Mobile.

Sure, they waste lots of money (BER, S21, Elbphilharmonie), but still they manage it better than the private sector ever could.

The top politicians earn less than the managers of any company at that size — Merkel earns 216'000€ a year. The CEO of even middle-sized companies end up making far more than that.

<comment><USER42> uhh, DHL was started by three folks in California.

<comment><USER23> And is owned by Deutsche Post nowadays, a German governmental entity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm curious, with the LLC structure of the Chan Zuckerberg organization, there is more flexibility than a non profit. Are there any checks at all to ensure that it is actually operated as a charity? For example, thinking generations ahead, could a Mark Zuckerberg III go against his ancestor's wishes and take the private company in a totally different direction and not actually do any charitable work with the money?

</comment><comment><USER44> _> It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires._

Complaining about that is missing the forest behind the trees. With Citizens United and general ineptitude of the legislative branch to produce any significant fixes to the system, that power is long transferred.

</comment><comment><USER45> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10670604](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10670604)

</comment><comment><USER46> Peter Krämer is actually also one of the few billionaires who is in favor of reintroducing a high wealth tax in Germany.

</comment><comment><USER47> > It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires.

And who owns the state? Last I checked, it was billionaires.

</comment><comment><USER48> I personally trust Mark Zuckerberg more then I trust our government with the money. I think it will go a lot farther. I wouldn't say that about every billionaire though.

</comment><comment><USER49> Politicians should decide how your money is spent, not you.

<comment><USER23> Voters should decide how taxes are spent, not billionaires who evade taxes.

<comment><USER50> Tax avoidance =/= tax evasion. One is legal, one is not.

<comment><USER23> One of them is breaking the law, the other is working around it – but the intention is the same.

<comment><USER50> Not in my mind - no one pays more tax than they need to. Are we saying that _every person in the country_ has the same intention as illegal tax evaders?

It's hypocritical to point out someone who is avoiding tax just because they are doing it on a larger scale than you unless you voluntarily pay more taxes to the government than you need to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is JWZ's opinion (in strong terms):

[https://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/12/zuckerberg-has-not- donated-...](https://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/12/zuckerberg-has-not-donated- anything-you-gullible-credulous-pinheads/)</comment>


Best site to create a landing page from a template? - <AUTHOR>

Hello! I need to use a service to create a first version of the landing page for a product we want to create/pitch. Since we're in a very early stage, we don't want to spend much resources on it. We just need it to help support our pitch and will probably have lots of changes.
I'm thinking on something along the lines of squarespace or wix. Any recommendations?
Thanks a lot! <comment><USER2> If you're talking just a landing page - consider unbounce.</comment>


Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot Beta 1, Released - <AUTHOR> http://www.webupd8.org/2011/09/ubuntu-1110-beta-1-has-been-released.html

<comment><USER2> OMGUbuntu have a (fairly similar) review: [http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/09/ubuntu-11-10-beta- release...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/09/ubuntu-11-10-beta-released- reviewed/)

The offical Ubuntu site has more juicy details: [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneiricOcelot/TechnicalOverview/Beta...](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneiricOcelot/TechnicalOverview/Beta1#New_features_in_Oneiric)

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like most of this release is about tweaking Unity. I was really excited about it at first, but I switched back to classic Gnome after three months. The extra screen space is nice, but it was too easy to lose my bearings.

<comment><USER4> I got used to it after a couple days. My home computer runs Unity while my desktop at work runs classic Gnome (with 10.10 - I'm waiting for 11.10)

My biggest complaint is that Unity took all my super bindings from Emacs. I had to do a lot of remapping for it to work on both machines.

<comment><USER5> Just change the hotkey for the Unity panel - in the compiz plugin configuration, the Unity plugin.

<comment><USER4> But then I'd have to manage custom bindings for both Emacs _and_ Unity. It was easier to avoid collisions in Emacs and let Unity use Super for whatever it wants (which is useful, BTW)

<comment><USER5> I found that Unity doesn't like Super+R or whatever other combination you enter. It doesn't always seem to "catch" the combination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > We had to revert from unity-window-decorator to gtk-window-decorator for > performance reasons. This means that the "1 px border" for resizing window > is back temporarily.

I hope "temporarily" doesn't mean until 12.04

<comment> mike-cardwell I hope this means my brand new laptop with a Core i5, 8GB of Ram and an SSD will now have the performance to run the standard bloody desktop. I'm currently using the classic desktop on 11.04 because my laptop starts crawling on Unity after short periods.

<comment><USER7> if you have got the sandy bridge processor, do NOT give into increased- graphics-performance temptation and upgrade to the 3.1 kernel.

There is a 76% power regression vs 2.6.3x kernels [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_31_power_regress&num=1)

<comment><USER8> You can always download and install the latest kernels while keeping the older versions as backup. No need to worry about GRUB settings either as that's all handled when you install the kernel debian packages.

Only caveat to this is you might have to reinstall your graphics driver for the new kernel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone know if it will do any good for the dual gfx card laptops? These new acer series laptops have two graphics cards on them. One is the intel on board and one is the nVidia G-Force. It uses a technology called nvidia optimus to select one of them according to need. But Linux seems plain confused and always uses both the cards I think. Thus on windows laptops run for 4:30hr with everything turned on and it is just under 2 hours for linux.

<comment><USER10> Optimus requires driver support to perform the switching, which so far nVidia has refused to even think of adding for Linux. Since their drivers are closed, there's not much more that can be done. It's possible that support might eventually make it into nouveau, the open-source NV driver, but it's not there now.

(On top of that there are some bits of X that need to be rewritten to be able to fully take advantage of card switching conveniently, but last I heard people were working on it.)

If power is your concern, most BIOSes will let you disable the nVidia card and force everything through the Intel hardware. But the obvious downside to this is you never get to use your fancy graphics hardware.

<comment><USER11> In an nVidia Optimus configuration, there is no actual switching between the IGP and GPU. The LCD display is connected only to the IGP. The discrete GPU is connected only to the PCIe bus. Therefore to display anything from the GPU, the contents of the GPU framebuffer RAM need to be copied over the PCIe bus to the main RAM and displayed using the IGP. The Windows drivers use "Microsoft detours" in the Display Driver Interposer to seamlessly direct graphics API calls from applications to the IGP or discrete GPU.

<http://www.nvidia.com/object/LO_optimus_whitepapers.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No sign of fixes for the various bugs that cause Sandy Bridge systems to crash on suspend/hibernate and at random times, and adds an extra power regression: the self-destruct button has been expanded to more systems: <https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/837266>

<comment><USER13> Isn't that a kernel bug and not a Ubuntu bug?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can someone explain to me exactly what the advantage is of hiding the menu bar contents behind mouseover?

<comment><USER15> Something like 28800 pixels on typical monitors these days?

<comment><USER16> Putting it that way without mentioning that it's only 1.4% of the 2073600 pixels available on those same displays is a bit misleading, don't you think?

<comment><USER17> It's a much higher fraction of the _vertical_ space available though, which is terribly underprovisioned on modern displays. We're all trying to scroll vertical text content on a screen intended for watching movies, and it sucks.

I haven't had a chance to actually try this yet, but it looks great from the shots. Gnome 3 is doing similar things with hot corners and I like that too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seems to be lots of love for Unity here. Where are my haters at?

I'd rather punch myself in the eye than use Unity. First thing I did was switch back to classic Gnome.

I think Linux Mint is heading in the right direction with Gnome. Also been thinking about switching to Xfce since I've been using the CL a lot more.

<comment><USER19> I'm using an embarassingly old Ubuntu release on my main machine and Unity on a test machine.

I've really tried to like Unity but I simply hate it. The machine I'm using doesn't show that many bugs. I'm patient with bugs - they'll fix them, they fixed them in the older release. It's not that.

The bar side is OK-to-mediocre but the lack of a main-menu/start-menu completely crocks the thing. WTF. I can't find my apps, the apps I have installed. I've looked quite a bit. WTF were they thinking? Their particular search thingy sucks but that's not the point - even if it was great, I'd _also_ need to know the stuff that is "just there". Sure, maybe I am an idiot for not knowing the names of the obscure graphics program I just installed and want to use but I don't think I'm the only idiot with this problem and other interfaces are forgiving for us idiots.

It seems like there are two kinds of users that wouldn't be bothered by Unity. Those who only use the browser or about two-three GUIs and those who only use the command line.

For all I know, these might a majority but as a former Windows power user, I suspect that there's an important minority of Ubuntu users and potential Ubuntu who'd like to use a wide variety the existing Linux GUI. Ubuntu has essentially excluded us.

And its not just that Windows/GUI "power users" are a fair share of Ubuntu users but that I think we'd be the best ambassadors/evangelists if Ubuntu is to get off the ground - those who use the OS as only a launchpad to start a browser won't have a strong opinion and the average person isn't going emulate those ten terminals to get their work done.

I can see the "everything slightly confusing must be destroyed" ethos leading to an "OS" consisting of a brightly color candy-machine interface with two buttons, "browser" and "off". No one will be confused but it will still suck.

<comment><USER18> I agree with everything you said. The whole point behind technology should be accessibility for everyone. Geeks (guilty myself) tend to get into a bubble where we forget about the rest of the world. And there's just something about the Hacker mindset (which most people on HN have) where there more complicated it is, the cooler it seems. Instead of having the mindset of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.", Geeks/Hackers tend to think "If it ain't broke, lets break it!!!"

Linux Mint is based upon Ubuntu/Debian. Give it a try. If you're a Windows power user you'll probably really like it. And all the commands you learned in Boontoo will work in Mint.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was a big fun of ubuntu, and used it on my desktops and laptops, but in last few years Skype became a major tool for me, to communicate with my team, and since there is still no good Skype for Linux, I no longer use ubuntu. On a desktop I use Mac OS, laptop is no longer my central tool, and most of the work from the road I do on my iPad. Thinking to get a book air for long trips, where iPad just can't cut it yet :)

also, unity so far has been a disaster... I know about 5 friends who still use ubuntu, they couldn't use it with unity, and I helped them to get old gnome back. Hopefully unity will gets better, but this change I think was too big and wasn't optional. I think they lost a lot of users because of it.

But I still use ubuntu on some servers of mine.

<comment><USER7> Use skype (w/ video) on android.

I fully expect Microsoft to drop Skype support for Linux .. or atleast give a seriously stunted binary to get around anti-trust, that I am using Android as my full-on communication tool, including video conferencing.

I see skype-video on the S5PV210 Samsung chipset android tablets already (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfwI1c93KqA>). Atleast in Asia, you can get resistive 8 inchers with Gingerbread for sub-$200.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I tried it today morning (by doing an upgrade from 11.04) and the unity panel kept restarting every two seconds.

Don't try it without a backup yet.

<comment><USER21> Upgrading like that may cause some issues (I had issues upgrading from 10.10 to 11.04) so maybe doing a fresh install would make it work better.

<comment><USER5> Well I had very similar (or worse) problems when upgrading from 10.10 to 11.04, but when they released the Narwhal, the update went smoothly.

It's quite a difficult task to provide the update facility, last time I checked, Linux Mint recommended doing a full reinstall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's interesting how much they want to include Openstack at the moment. On one hand side it is trivial to add the Openstack PPAs and install the new version yourself. On the other current upstream versions are quite far from being usable in a real environment and major redesigns are planned...

Why are they pushing for inclusion out of the box so hard?

</comment><comment><USER23> Unity stamped over a bunch of my keyboard shortcuts, so I took the opportunity to learn xmonad (with gnome classic) and haven't looked back.

<comment><USER24> XMonad is great. For anyone who finds it a bit daunting I recommend Bluetile[1]. It's a great introduction to the best window management system I've used (I really miss XMonad on OS X.)

[1] <http://www.bluetile.org/>

<comment><USER25> I have a Linux, OS X, and Windows machines on my desk (for doing cross- platform development of Firefox). XMonad is definitely my preferred WM for getting things done. OS X and Windows both have attempts at nice features, but they feel so frustrating to use in comparison.

Lion actually improved that a lot: Fullscreen apps integrated with Spaces gives a large part of what I use X<onad for. If they'd combined that with Windows 7's snapping of windows to half-screen, that would cover 75% of my XMonad usage. It's really a shame that XMonad is Linux-only. (Or that Firefox users expect Windows&OSX ports, depending on your perspective).

<comment><USER26> I use Sizeup under osx to get window snapping via keyboard shortcuts. It also gives you a set of shortcuts to throw the current window to different desktops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> unity is cancer. I loved it when it was just maximus for better screen state on netbooks and a few dashboards... but now, that's a travesty.

it's so wrong that they are adding feature and features to try to 'fix' it. tabs in the bottom, filters on the right... it will became a full window manager on the dashboard soon. just kill it.

i'm happy back to good old debian.

<comment><USER28> Oddly enough that is what I have done as well. Squeeze is nice and stable with backports for Firefox/Iceweasel and LibreOffice and Gnome.

Then I started fiddling with dwm as a window manager and dmenu as application menu and have not looked back...

<comment><USER27> i went back to ion3. i missed it and didn't know :)

i'm impressed how much debian and ubuntu are the same after you install the non-free firmware package.

now i'm wondering if ubuntu is giving a lot back to debian or just doing minimal changes. but i promised myself to stay out of distro politics a long time ago</comment></comment></comment>


Free/cheap real time stock market API's - <AUTHOR> Looking for a good solution for pulling real time stock market data. A list of some of the data I want to pull can be seen below:<p>•	DJIA •	S&P 500 •	Nasdaq •	Euro Stoxx 50 •	FTSE 100 •	Nikkei 225 •	Global Aggregate Bond Index (LEGATRUU:IND) •	Global High Yield Index (LG30TRUU:IND) •	EUR-USD •	USD-JPY •	GBP-USD •	WTI Crude Oil<p>Preferably the API would have a python client that can be used or over HTTPS is also fine. <comment><USER2> Getting real time market data is not cheap and with good reason, there are many companies/firms that rely on that data to make money so the exchanges and other 3rd party companies that have access data can sell for high prices. If you want delayed prices there are a bunch of places to get that (Google and Yahoo are two major ones) but other than that I would not trust real time data that is from a free/cheap provider.</comment>


America's suburbs: An age of transformation - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11449846

<comment><USER2> It was jarring when the informative article suddenly called the views of some "nonsense".

</comment><comment><USER3> It's amusing that Economist's authors confuse 'homogenous' with 'homogeneous' and editors don't catch the mistake.

<comment><USER4> 'Homogenous' is a synonym for 'homogeneous'.

See: <http://www.answers.com/homogenous> and <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homogenous>

<comment><USER3> Not according to OED (see [http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50107551?single=1&qu...](http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50107551?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=homogenous&first=1&max_to_show=10)):

Article for homogenous only has two meanings listed: 1\. Biol. = HOMOGENETIC 1. 2\. Surg. Of transplanted tisssue: = HOMOPLASTIC a. 2.

I suppose the confusion in everyday speech made it into American dictionaries, but I still find its appearance in a magazine perceived to cater to intellectual snobs amusing.

<comment><USER5> While the OED may be considered the definitive source for the vast majority of words, many entries reflect the last print publication in 1989, and are not as in-step with modern usages. Language is continually evolving, and as always, it is best to consult a variety of sources.

<comment><USER3> I prefer "changing" to "evolving" to describe this phenomenon. It is certainly interesting to observe two unrelated words with similar spelling become synonyms in less than 20 years.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How we halved our memory consumption in Rails with jemalloc - <AUTHOR> I recently wrote a blog post on how we halved our memory consumption, and drastically increased speed, in our Ruby on Rails app just by switching to jemalloc: https://medium.com/rubyinside/how-we-halved-our-memory-consumption-in-rails-with-jemalloc-86afa4e54aa3
If anyone has any thoughts, or other tips for performance optimisation, please do leave a comment! <comment><USER2> Please read the guidelines dor this site and submit your blog post the normal way: Title and URL, without text. You can put your commentary in, well, a comment.</comment>


China Built a Vast New Infrastructure to Imprison Uighurs - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/china-new-internment-camps-xinjiang-uighurs-muslims <comment><USER2> This was discussed here just yesterday:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24292962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24292962)

</comment><comment><USER3> _BuzzFeed News identified 268 newly built compounds by cross-referencing blanked-out areas on Baidu Maps with images from external satellite data providers_

Pretty cool. Trying to hide the facilities made them easier to find.

<comment><USER4> CCP always does such bad propaganda thing. Ironically Everything it tried to hide was always exposed fairly quickly, things it doesn't hide turns out to be less known

<comment><USER5> You don't need good propaganda when no one is allowed to argue against it.

There is one view point in China, free reeducation for anyone that disagrees.

Locally we now have "fact" checking to helpfully ensure everyone only hears the one "truth"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's disgusting that nothing will be done because everyone is addicted to cheap goods from China. If we cannot break free from current economic arrangements even after the pandemic, we will never be able to do so.

<comment><USER7> Any trade agreement should have basic human rights mentioned in the first paragraph.

This is something we _can_ actually fight for.

<comment><USER8> Even if it's in there, it won't be enforced.

Manufacturing is entrenched in China. Before you can threaten China, you need to have a backup plan. Otherwise, it'll call your bluff, like it's doing already.

<comment><USER9> > Even if it's in there, it won't be enforced.

Please stop spreading learned helplessness. Problems are solved in baby steps. You start with legislation. Without it, nothing will proceed.

<comment><USER10> I don't see their comment as hopeless, but more as a necessary shift of target. We can demand all we want, but as long as we can't survive without them, we have no leverage. Punish businesses for violations in their supply chain and make them move production back home. Only then can you start demanding.

Orange Man tried to skip the first step and you see how well that worked...

<comment><USER7> Why call it a shift of target?

If I have to get groceries, but to do that I have to put on my shoes first, is that then a shift of target?

We just have to make sure that in X years, the trade agreements have been updated. We can leave the rest to the politicians.

<comment><USER10> Because trade agreements are simply the wrong target. Even without a trade agreement with China, companies would still use Chinese parts if it were cheaper. Through things like blatant tax evasion, countless privacy violations and the like, companies have shown that they value money over absolutely everything, including the law.

We can put whatever we want in the trade agreements and it won't matter. But if the companies are held accountable for their supply chain through high fines and things like even license suspensions, they will work to solve the problem because it's in their interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Boycotting "Made in China" labelled products is not effective enough. How would you motivate large population groups to engage globally? Politicians and democratic countries should force China to stop torturing their own citizens based on religious or ethnic affiliation.

<comment><USER12> Even if you do so, they will just put different label. Hello, "Made in Vietnam"!

<comment><USER13> Luckily, customs officers do not believe product labels, they have more reliable sources of information like port of departure. I guess, this documentation also could be faked, just hope it's not that easy. Vietnam is a competitor and adversary of China, they would try preventing "hijacking" of their products

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just buy less. Western consumerism gave China it's power. Have a leader who the world believe he acts in good faith regarding ideals, and not busy subverting ideals for game and profit.

But no, you'll choose power and war.

<comment><USER15> Just _der Wille zur Macht_ at work.

After reading and accepting that thesis, the world has become a much more obvious place for me personally.

<comment><USER16> I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I do think if you explained your idea further, you'd get your point across better. Not everyone has read Nietzsche in the original German.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What's the background here? Why does China need to do this?

<comment><USER18> Short version as I understand it - there was a little bit of Islamic terrorism a decade or so ago. China decided to address it by basically wiping the entire religion and culture out of existence. Thus why they call them "deradicalization" and "re-education" camps. Their PR story is that they're trying to take "suspected Islamic radicals" and reeducate them to "integrate into mainstream Chinese society".

In practice, this seems to mean that if you're the wrong religion and so much as breathe funny, off you go to the camps, where you will be basically tortured and brainwashed into adopting Han Chinese culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> When I was traveling around Xinjiang about two years back it was obvious something was going on.

In Korla everyone getting off the train had to submit to a retinal scan, presumably so authorities know all the ingress and egress into town, going to a park involved going through a checkpoint. To get into any train station at all involved 3 levels of checkpoints, the first checkpoint started before you got to the plaza before the train station, so checking in took about 3 hours. In Kashgar the old city had checkpoints at every corner. The entire province only had 3G, the moment you cross over from neighboring Gansu your China Telecom signal dropped from 4G, so sending videos or even pictures is very difficult even on weChat, if you try to do it through a VPN the experience is even slower.

Some checkpoints were vigilant, but in my experience most were just bored. One checkpoint basically forgot to check my ID because I was seated all the at the back of a van. Young Uighur men or woman sometimes with a Han standing around or sitting at a chair with a desk in the middle of the street, writing down the names of everyone who crosses his "stand".

What surprised me the most was that most of the guards manning the checkpoints in towns, highways, at gas stations (which involved a full car search in order to pull into) were Uighurs themselves. I get the impression you basically went to jail or joined the security apparatus, a modern variation on a old Chinese strategem of using barbarian to fight barbarian I guess.

The whole experience changed my perspective on human beings in general. At the end of the day, when I got back home the only conclusion I could come to wasn't even about China or Chinese, if we look at the long span of human history the only thing I can arrive at is human beings in aggregate have a high tendency to do shitty things. Goodness exists in individuals but as soon as we have to appeal to the common denominator of a group or groups more often then not being a piece of shit is the easiest and most expedient.

<comment><USER20> Amen to that last statement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Unrelated to the article content: is there any way to "escape" from full screen maps embedded in a webpage? I scrolled down to the map of detention facilities and found that I could no longer return to reading the article because every interaction with my screen just manipulated the map.

</comment><comment><USER21> They are apartment complexes.

[https://twitter.com/_tchiek/status/1299386623390617601?s=20](https://twitter.com/_tchiek/status/1299386623390617601?s=20)

Sorry for not getting caught in this anti-China craziness that has gotten Americans into a frenzy very very recently.

</comment><comment><USER22> It all started with the "July 2009 Ürümqi riots" and then escalated after the "2014 Kunming attack".

<comment><USER23> Can't really collectively punish a community for crimes of few, that's no justice.

<comment><USER24> I agree wholeheartedly. Let's discuss this along with lifting collective sanctions imposed on Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. That is a form of collective punishments that starves civilians. I'm very cynical about the outrage re: those "re-education" sites. Not because they're benign but because nobody bats an eye when America commits similarly heinous acts. It seems like a convenient deflection tactic.

<comment><USER13> Nope. Ban on hi-tech products and weapons do not affect starving civilians in any way, this is solely responsibility of ruling dictators. Exactly like it happened in Russia, in response of banning hi-tech from exporting to Russia, our authorities imposed ban on importing food and medications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Karl Marx on religion "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

A popular song: Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, too

The CCP is simply following a core tenant of communism. From the perspective of the ideology, they are freeing people from religion.

A much more important quote, a warning about accepting new ideas that too few heed today as always: "Let us keep our minds open, by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mould the world. But don't keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! There are still things in this world which are true and things which are false; acts which are right and acts which are wrong, even if there are statesmen who hide their designs under the cloak of high-sounding phrases.". — Walter Kotschnig November 8, 1939

<comment><USER26> Well an atheist scientists perspective that "the big bang came out of nothing" makes as much sense as any religious text to be honest.

<comment><USER27> Very true. Big bang was actually first formulated by a Belgian Catholic priest: [https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum- collections/cosm...](https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum- collections/cosmic-horizons-book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang)

<comment><USER28> It's also likely wrong, see dr robitaille's work, sky scholar on YouTube.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's important to realize that Xinjiang is a colony of China. China took over Xinjiang in the past few hundred years; historically, kingdoms there were independent. Sometimes they had tributary relationships, other times they were allies of the Chinese kingdoms. Colonialism takes many forms and Europeans don't have a monopoly on it. The Uyghurs have rebelled many times and even formed short-lived states, the last before the Mao era. What was a territorial annexation has taken on ideological (the Chinese state demanded ideological adherence in art and politics just like in the rest of China ), economic (Xinjiang is rich in mineral resources), and settler-colonial (Han Chinese have been moving into Xinjiang in large numbers) aspects.

<comment><USER30> In "the past few hundred years" the US took over the American continent and cleaned up exceptionally well.

In a world of global competition singling out Xinjiang as a colony while ignoring how China's biggest military threat is literally built on top of colonial conquests isn't a fair comparison. Where is the line that makes Xinjiang a "colony" while New York isn't? Is the US going to magically move its navy back to its side of the Pacific and stop waving it menacingly around China's oil shipping routes if China carves out Xinjiang and Tibet?

<comment><USER29> I'm explicitly trying to draw a parallel between other colonial states and China. This isn't absolving other colonial states in any way.

The colony-empire relationship is a just a node along the gradient of territory and domination. The relevant thing here is the continued persecution of the Uyghur minority and the annexation of territory, and continued resistance. It's similar to Kashmir under India, Palestine under Israel, and East Timor under Indonesia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I am a Chinese. I don't think anyone outside Xin Jiang knows any details about these.

My wife is from Xin Jiang. She is not Uighurs. I have been to Xin Jiang. I don't think non-Uighurs in Xin Jiang knows the details about these.

They are like secrets. You know something is happening. But you don't know what exactly is happening.

<comment><USER32> It's almost like their second part to this story interviewed people who had been there and been in those camps...

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Imagine how much positive impact Bezos could have on this if Amazon led the way on identifying China's reliance on western money to continue funding cultural genocide. He could spend have of his money on this and still have $100,000,000,000 to play with.

<comment><USER34> Bezos must do what is right and delist China products or atleast enforce country of origin on Amazon products

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> John Oliver recently made a episode on the subject (China & Uighurs: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17oCQakzIl8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17oCQakzIl8) The Communist Party of China (CPC) are running sinicization and antireligious campaigns of ethnic and religious minorities. The totalitarian and authoritarian countries don't make good neighbors. China will be making inroads into Taiwan soon if the world does not act.

<comment><USER35> China is already more powerful than most of the world. The uphill battle that lies ahead will be way harder than dealing with nazis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> To those that believe that they would not have turned a blind eye during WWII to the systematic extermination of Jews, the current generation has been given a similar challenge. Where is your cancel-culture now? How will our children think of us?

<comment><USER36> Some of us don't have much power. I denounced it online several times, that's all I can do.

People like Lebron James, who thinks of himself like a freedom fighter, when he criticized China he ended up saying he was misinformed and he wasn't educated about the issue.

He loves the money coming from China more than anything else. I want him to be reminded by this. He put his millions before human lives, just like some nazi collaborators did.

<comment><USER37> ==He loves the money coming from China more than anything else. I want him to be reminded by this. He put his millions before human lives, just like some nazi collaborators did.==

All of this could be said about our current President and his family. He has far more power than LeBron James, maybe we should hold him accountable?

<comment><USER38> To play devil's advocate: the west is now in a soft Cold War with China. Given China's opaqueness, any media report about China has to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially considering how the media has acted as the mouthpiece of the state in the past (most notably in the entire Iraq WMD fiasco).

So while I certainly don't doubt that China is oppressing its minorities, I'm also loathe to believe _every_ media report about it.

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but very objectively, western media does not have a track record of being truthful when it comes to Cold War opponents.

<comment><USER37> I don't understand how this is playing devils advocate. How does it relate to what I said?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I can't believe this isn't something people are rallying for. Nor can I believe the mainstream media is hardly talking about it. The lessons from WWII aren't stories that we should memorise as fun trivia facts.

<comment><USER40> Well... everyone could stop buying stuff on Amazon when you know it's mostly made in China, but then again everyone wants cheap 'stuff' (and iPhones).

<comment><USER41> And than? The whole system depends on cheap supply of goods. Look what happend during the lookdown in China And it's not people want cheap stuff, most only can afford cheap stuff. Money is a finite source, the more some people have, the less have others.

<comment><USER42> We can get cheaper goods from other developing nations

<comment><USER41> Lower quality or equal worse human rights. You need a lot of man power and environmental ignorance to feed our needs.

<comment><USER13> China became a synonym of low quality, whereas Vietnam has an experience of being production hub for Nokia in a best company's years. Also, there are few countries where situation with human rights worse than in China. In India and Vietnam it is definitely better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Everywhere else communism and Islam are friends so why in China they are enemies?

<comment><USER44> Your statement is wrong in two ways.

1) Communism and Islam can by no means be considered "friends", reason being the antireligious policies that are inherent in Communism. You should read less Breitbart.

2) China can hardly be considered a communist country, it has been turning rapidly more capitalist ever since the official introduction of the 中国特色社会主义 theory in 1987.

<comment><USER45> Google translates that as: > Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

What does that mean? I had guessed you were referring to special economic zones, but that predates 1987. Thanks in advance.

<comment><USER44> Basically, it is the theory China used in order to justify the switch to State Capitalism. Here's more on the theory:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_charact...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > This project was supported by the Open Technology Fund, the Pulitzer Center, > and the Eyebeam Center for the Future of Journalism.

Hmmm

> The Open Technology Fund was created in 2012 as a pilot program within Radio > Free Asia.

Okay

> Based on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia was established in > the 1990s with the stated aim of promoting democratic values and human > rights, and diminishing the Communist Party of China.

> Radio Free Asia was founded and funded in the 1950s by an organization > called "Committee for Free Asia" as an anti-communist propaganda operation, > broadcasting from RCA facilities in Manila, Philippines.

So an article funded by a clearly biased anti-China propaganda organization that uses flimsy satellite imagery evidence to accuse a country of massive human rights abuses in order to rile up their population for another cold war that will feed their military industrial complex for many more decades. Great.

</comment><comment><USER46> My heart bleeds hearing about Uighurs suffering. And I welcome these kinds of posts. At the same time I am wondering why news about Palestinians are flagged and filtered away on HN. I read Haaretz on a daily basis, and what I read about this corner of the world makes me lose my faith in humanity.

</comment><comment><USER47> I know and understand as single persons we don't have much power to do anything. But if you live in a western democratic nation, time to use that machinery. Call your Senator, MPs whoever your representative is. Let them know inaction in the face of this atrocity is unacceptable. Keep calling all Senators or members of parliaments. It might seem to have no effect, but significant changes come when many people demand something. It has to start somewhere.

Here is a site for resources and actions you can take [0].

0\. [https://www.saveuighur.org/act-now/](https://www.saveuighur.org/act-now/)

</comment><comment><USER48> Yes, this is bad. I think we can all agree on that.

But does anyone have sources on _how_ China got into this situation? They wouldn't be detaining Uighurs at this scale for no reason. So what's the history behind this?

I left a separate comment here of someone else who commented on the article with a potential background reason (terrorism?). Although I'm not sure if can rely on just that one comment, and would love to hear what HN thought.

A part of a civil discussion requires that we understand and seek out the argument from all parties. As a society, we need to evolve from one-sided arguments.

<comment><USER49> Much has been written in the Chinese academic literature about the need for new policing strategies in Xinjiang. Here's a reading list with English summaries: [https://xinjiang.sppga.ubc.ca/policy-documents/chinese- acade...](https://xinjiang.sppga.ubc.ca/policy-documents/chinese-academic- discourse/) Of course the original articles are all in Chinese.

<comment><USER48> Thanks! This is great. It appears that China's argument for Xinjiang are:

1\. Anti-terrorism / Religious Extremist Activities 2\. Poverty alleviation

We have certainly seen similar situations play out in the past (e.g. US & Middle East), with different approaches. China's approach is to eliminate "ethnic separatism" through these "re-education camps". Not ideal, for sure. But what would be a better solution?

If we had terrorism in the US -- in fact, an entire state of people subscribed to that mindset -- what's the best way to deal with that?

(This is, ofc, assuming China's terrorism claims are real)

<comment><USER32> The Chinese government itself admits that these people aren't formally charged with any crime and that criminals go to different prisons. As they aren't actually terrorists, this entire line of logic doesn't apply.

The Black population in the US is disproportionately impoverished. Should we round them up into re-education camps?

It's policy based entirely in ethno-nationalism (racism).

The US had a Civil War over separation and slavery, but we didn't establish re-education camps for all the people who were on the losing side. You didn't see Germans forced into re-education camps after WW1 or WW2 (at least on the non-USSR side).

I don't know of ANY instances of this kind of re-education thinking in first- world countries. Even third-world countries don't usually consider this moral. It's basically limited to second-world (communist) despotic countries. In recent times, I've heard people talk about re-education camps in the US, but (big surprise), they're always alt-left (communists, antifa, whatever).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Reposting the top comment on the article, was wondering what HN thought about this:

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

Godfree Roberts:

We created terrorists in Xinjiang, just as we did in Afghanistan. They murdered thousands of Chinese and, now that China has them under control, we make up stories about them.

US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981: "The CIA programs in Tibet, which were very effective in destabilizing it, did not succeed in Xinjiang. There were similar efforts made with the Uyghurs during the Cold War that never really got off the ground. In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is anathema to any state. I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies on the part of the European majority". 8/31/19

<comment><USER48> For those of you who are downvoting this comment, it would be much more productive if you just reply and speak your mind here.

<comment><USER32> > We created terrorists in Xinjiang, just as we did in Afghanistan. They > murdered thousands of Chinese and, now that China has them under control, we > make up stories about them.

This argument is made in bad faith given the author's statements below. In any case, the Xinjiang had attempted to get out from under China's thumb for centuries. Does that "murdered thousands" suddenly give moral permission to imprison, torture, and sell the organs of millions -- especially millions who's only "crime" in this argument is having the wrong ethnicity. Finally, the red revolution in China killed millions and then famine killed millions more.

> I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones > applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in > the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies > on the part of the European majority

Nobody alive today is rounding up American Indians (instead SCOTUS is giving back half of Oklahoma). Can someone's children be held accountable for their parent's actions?

That said, if the Chinese gave the Xinjiang and Tibet the same level of autonomy that the US gives reservations today, I doubt anyone anywhere would be complaining about anything. Once again, this is a bad faith argument.

> US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. > Department of State from 1979-1981: "The CIA programs in Tibet, which were > very effective in destabilizing it, did not succeed in Xinjiang. There were > similar efforts made with the Uyghurs during the Cold War that never really > got off the ground. In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in > support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is > anathema to any state.

The whole point of a banner is to serve as a rallying point for like-minded people. If some random person on the street starts waving a nazi flag, does that suddenly mean everyone turns into nazis?

A banner can only rally people who think they hold the position that banner represents. The US could wave a religious banner, but unless the people already agreed, it wouldn't build up support (it's not possible to parse whether Xinjiang didn't rally because they didn't want to join or the rallying cry was not heard).

If anything, the fact that the US tried to empower people to fight for their independence from a despotic, racist regime who hated them should at least be neutral if not morally just.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Buzzfeednews article on hackernews. slowly turning into reddit

<comment><USER51> I'm amazed how this link even made it to the HN front page. What's the relevance does this article have for hacker news?

<comment><USER52> You've been a member for long enough to know that the guidelines for posts are: "Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Do you guys remember when a Chinese soldier beat up someone who was holding the Koran? Well, except, it didn't happen:

[https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-video-chinese-soldier- beati...](https://factcheck.afp.com/no-not-video-chinese-soldier-beating- uighur-muslim-having-copy-koran)

Also, when are people going to stop using satellite imaging as a proof of evidence? I mean, let's not forget the whole casus belli for the last Iraq war, where there was clear evidence of WMDs from all those satellite images right? I mean, what's so different from the satellite image there and also a random business park in the UK (besides the labels and tags of course, and I used to be imprisoned in one of those blocks for most of my day that some people would like to call an 'office'):

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-1.2900712,1099m/dat...](https://email@example.com,-1.2900712,1099m/data=!3m1!1e3)

There's quite a few good answers here on Quora which I reckon are worth a read about the situation:

[https://www.quora.com/What-are-Uyghurs-doing-to-fight- back-a...](https://www.quora.com/What-are-Uyghurs-doing-to-fight-back-against- the-mistreatment-they-receive-from-China)

<comment><USER54> The Chinese people are great. The country is awesome but the current government is tyrannical. We know that millions died under Mao yet he is still praised. That alone is enough for me to distrust the CCP.

<comment><USER55> This sums up my feelings about it as well. I have been to China. I know Tibetans with heartbreaking stories about the direct impacts of government tyranny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This is another distraction for the current BLM movement and thousands of death per day due to covid. I see a lot of hypocrite comments and I just want to laugh. Meanwhile on the streets of Detroit or Baltimore ghettos, kids/teenagers are under the influence of criminal culture and facing generation after generation of poverty they may never come out of. And I see no one even trying to figure out a solution.

<comment><USER57> And what does this have to do with the article? Every time there is a post about the Chinese state committing some evil act, there is a post like this - whataboutism at it's finest. Usually written by a new account, usually written in a way that makes it seem like English isn't the primary language of the poster.

<comment><USER56> Of course it does. They are all problems human beings facing when we trying to put different cultures together and live in harmony and create prosperity. If you can't even figure out what's happening near you, how can you assume you will even have a total understanding about something happening on the other side of the earth??

<comment><USER57> Because it's off-topic? It deflects from the discussion of how a totalitarian state is essentially committing genocide and tries to compare that to social problems in the U.S., which are not nearly on that scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Definitely bad and needs international attention.

China's soft power will ensure that most countries won't go beyond the usual virtue signaling.

Also keep in mind that the USA still has the most imprisoned people in the world by a large margin:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarce...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate)

[https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/...](https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_prison_population_list_11th_edition_0.pdf)

<comment><USER59> Do USA imprisonment do organ harvesting? Perhaps the current imprisonment really is just a front to solve organs shortage.

<comment><USER60> Do China imprisonment do organ harvesting?

<comment><USER27> There is some evidence for this: [https://www.businessinsider.com/china- harvesting-organs-of-u...](https://www.businessinsider.com/china-harvesting- organs-of-uighur-muslims-china-tribunal-tells-un-2019-9)

<comment><USER61> Although anything is possible, this is no evidence, and I hardly believe it.

People lives are worthing much more than their organs when they are used for labor so I don't see any reasonable benefit from doing that. Plus, Falun Gong has a long history of fighting this, still without any evidences brought to the table, so I have some doubts about their assumptions.

The issue in Xinjiang is already serious enough, no need to add some unconfirmed facts which may just make us lose credibility if they're proved fake.

<comment><USER62> > People lives are worthing much more than their organs when they are used for > labor

I absolutely disagree with this claim. Forced labor is inherently inefficient and barely cost-effective, especially in the modern age of mechanisation and the lessons of soviet GULAGs proved just as much. Especially so in China, which in no way suffers from a shortage of labor force.

<comment><USER61> It's true that China doesn't suffer from a shortage of labor force. However, wages raised a lot, and almost-free labor is more interesting financially. After second thoughts, I think it may be possible that on a regional scale, local officials would find such practice highly profitable.

The party goal is not to be highly profitable (they are already), it's to stay in power as long as they can. Of course money can help in that goal, but such practices, if they leak and are confirmed, would just erode the stability of the state. I feel the cons are too high and pros too low, politically, to do such atrocities on a country scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The thing is, there is a definite anti China sentiment within the present US government and many western media sources, in the sense that they seem to have a definite desire to villify China in recent times.

So the claims presented by them are suspect in intent, since it seems so evidently to suit their own world view.

While Chinese propaganda is suspect as is any propaganda, much western reporting is also politically informed and therefore suspect.

Most reports on this topic going around are not from people on ground, whereas western media including Reuters and BBC surely have people on ground in China, what have we heard from them in actuality?

Recently BBC had people sent to such a camp and even filmed it. Surely there is some political indoctrination going on, but nothing like the 'Concentration Camps' as is being claimed in this article.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia- china-48667221](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-48667221)

<comment><USER64> These article have been decried as being staged by the chinese government. Here are other articles, from the BCC, about Uighurs:

       https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53657604
       https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszl3q
       https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w172x2ys9gxqv4g
       https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08lf6zk
       https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50166713</comment></comment>


Formulanimations: ladybug [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_xM_jD08OM <comment><AUTHOR> To quote the video description: "A mathematical image. There are no meshes, 3D poly models, no program or software package, no renderer, no global illumination. Instead, mathematical expressions define the shapes, placement, color (and light), shadows, movement, camera lens simulation, etc. Think of the "batman formula", but for grownups instead of kids.

Realtime version and source code available here: [https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4tByz3"](https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4tByz3")</comment>


New York State Is Set to Loosen Marijuana Laws  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/nyregion/new-york-state-is-set-to-loosen-marijuana-laws.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Coloradan here.

No matter how dangerous and unhealthy you think marijuana is, confrontational relations with law enforcement and pre-trial detention for marijuana possession are much more dangerous and unhealthy. Prison is violence, and lets drop the Newspeak: arrests result in prison.

Its time to end Prohibition. Its time to legalize it.

<comment><USER3> Chris Hayes nailed it last night:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo)

<comment><USER4> That is an amazingly well delivered monologue. Never heard of this guy, must keep tabs on him, I have new-found respect for mainstream journalism.

<comment><USER3> Like Chris Matthews, he has a tendency to talk too much and over his guests, but he's pretty bright and has solid progressive cred. The guy I really enjoy is Steve Kornacki, who fills in sometimes.

<comment><USER5> I too wish Chris Matthews would let his guests talk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Barely_ loosen. Like the most mundane loosening possible. Great job, New York Times headline copywriter.

<comment><USER7> Isn't it a bit of a slippery slope (in a good way - if you support legalisation), in that it's a much bigger change of policy to go from no use to a few uses than it is to go from a few uses to many uses. I'd think this is a big step even if it's short-term impact is extremely limited.

<comment><USER8> The fact that NY laws regarding marijuana would directly conflict with Federal law is significant. As more states defy the Federal prohibition of marijuana, it creates more tension between the states and the USGOV. Eventually with enough tension of this kind, Congress will have enough political cover to actually do something.

<comment><USER9> Their isn't actually any conflict between state and federal laws, as there is nothing in the federal laws that requires states to make marijuana illegal. The whole idea of a legal conflict is just a conservative talking point.

<comment><USER10> The conflict has nothing to do with the federal government requiring the state government to outlaw marijuana. The conflict is, possessing, selling, or in any other way distributing marijuana is a federal offense. From the Controlled Substances Act [1]

"§ 844. Penalties for simple possession.

"(a) Unlawful acts; penalties "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug or narcotic offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug or narcotic offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a person convicted under this subsection for the possession of a mixture or substance which contains cocaine base shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, and fined a minimum of $1,000, if the conviction is a first conviction under this subsection and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 5 grams, if the conviction is after a prior conviction for the possession of such a mixture or substance under this subsection becomes final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 3 grams, or if the conviction is after 2 or more prior convictions for the possession of such a mixture or substance under this subsection become final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 1 gram. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay."

1\. [http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm1487...](http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can someone tell me how marijuana is currently treated by the police in New York? According to the article, New York has "long one of the nation's most punitive states for those caught using or dealing drugs", but according to Wikipedia, marijuana is decriminalized in New York, which as far as I understand the term means that those caught with marijuana only get a relatively small penalty.

<comment><USER12> For quite a long time now, simple possession of under an ounce has been treated as a civil infraction. Anything else (sale, cultivation) is still a crime, of course.

[http://norml.org/states/item/new-york- penalties-2?category_i...](http://norml.org/states/item/new-york- penalties-2?category_id=876)

<comment><USER13> Even still, when combined with stop and frisk the penalties aren't applied very evenly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This may be the tipping point regarding federal policy. With marijuana laws already effectively off the books in California, Washington, Colorado, and more, there just isn't anything the federal government can do to make up for it. The average state prosecutes more marijuana possession cases than the federal government, and now states are deciding not to do this.

I think there's a point now where it makes sense writing to Congress and asking exactly what Congress thinks they can accomplish in this area without lifting the federal ban.

</comment><comment><USER15> Loosing laws on medical marijuana? Catching up with Canada circa 1990s. United States is so progressive these days.

<comment><USER16> is recreational use of marijuana legal anywhere in canada?

<comment><USER17> Vancouver maybe?

<comment><USER18> Definitely not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The article makes him sound like an opportunistic follower.

 _" the latest of several instances in which he has embarked on a major social policy effort sure to bolster his popularity with a large portion of his political base."_

<comment><USER19> That's politics for you. One of the many reasons it's taken so long to get this far with the legalization effort is that politicians are utterly terrified of being seen as soft on crime or not being for the safety of children or whatever the stupid political buzz-phrase of the moment is that tangentially supports the drug war.

Once more states see how it works out for the few that have dared to step forward, expect the rest to fall in line relatively quickly. The economic benefits alone are impossible to ignore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "executive action that would allow limited use of the drug by those with serious illnesses"

Because this substance is so dangerous that it may only be used if you're on the verge of dying. "limited use" of course :)</comment>


Show HN: Retilik – Discover What People Think About You - <AUTHOR> http://www.retilik.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey I am the founder. I would love to have your feedback on this app and answer any question you have. Have fun.</comment>


Ask HN: How does your team manage software releases? - <AUTHOR>

My co-founder and I have been working for the last few months to create a web application for software teams to plan & manage production deployments, http://releaseboard.com. We've built Release[Board] to solve our frustrations surrounding release communication and planning. Does a product like Release[Board] improve your team's existing process? Are you happy with your current process? <comment><USER2> I watched the video, and don't understand the value-add here. Our team uses a number of tools, chiefly Pivotal, and we've never had a problem. Everyone knows what they need to do before releasing because they have Pivotal stories, and then when the weekly release comes it's not a big deal—the guy running the deploy sends out a warning email, it gets deployed to staging, there's a few hours of buffer for people to notice any kinks, and then it gets deployed to prod.

<comment><AUTHOR> @tsm, thanks for the feedback. The purpose of this Ask:HN is to help us validate if there is a market for our product, and your comments are appreciated.</comment></comment>


Nintendo said a total of 300k accounts have been hacked - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/09/tech/nintendo-300000-accounts-hacked/index.html <comment><USER2> Neither this article nor the previous one ([https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/24/tech/nintendo-accounts- hacked...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/24/tech/nintendo-accounts- hacked/index.html)) mention how this breach took place, but I'm guessing it's reasonable to assume that this was related to credential stuffing.

<comment><USER3> This hit me, and my Nintendo account was using a unique keepass generated password.

<comment><USER4> Did you have a Nintendo Network ID linked to your Nintendo account though? Was that NNID password secure?

<comment><USER3> That is quite possible, I do remember some linking at some point, will have to check.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Source (Japanese) [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/support/information/2020/0424.htm...](https://www.nintendo.co.jp/support/information/2020/0424.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> SpyCloud did an interesting writeup on at least one credential stuffing tool used months ago in this attack: [https://spycloud.com/technical-analysis- nintendo-account-che...](https://spycloud.com/technical-analysis-nintendo- account-checking-crimeware/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Another month, another hack on Nintendo accounts... What is up with their security?!

<comment><USER6> Not unlike Apple and Sony, when a hardware company starts making web-apps, chances are it's not going to be very good.

<comment><USER7> It's strange, because Nintendo has such good first-party game development skills, develops entire operating systems for their internet-connected consoles (including security architectures spanning hardware/software).

Even some of Nintendo's top brass have had strong software engineering skills: in the late 1990s, during the development of Pokemon Gold & Silver, the team was struggling so future Nintendo President Satoru Iwata developed and implemented a compression algorithm.

The skills are certainly there.

<comment><USER4> Developing software that fulfills functionial or gameplay requirements is going to require a very different skillset compared to fulfilling security requirements (user stories become abuser stories, and they aren't always easy to wrap your head around).

Corporate Japan has also lagged behind western companies in this area. The book Business Management and Cybersecurity by Shinichi Yokohama dives into this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Japan has slipped very far behind in so many areas, it's really quite sad.

<comment><USER9> Massive account breaches isn't in any way a Japanese-only problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> And this is a service Nintendo charges for. How much of that is used to prevent things like this? Or maybe they just budget for the occasional hack happening so they can give people refunds?

<comment><USER11> Actually this specific breach was with Nintendo Network ID which was an older login system with the 3DS and you didn't have to pay for it.</comment></comment>


Google Removes Boomerang Parent App for Using Same Approach as Family Link - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/useboomerang/posts/3005795149539047 <comment><AUTHOR> More information came via email:

> _Hi_ ,

> _Google 's automated app review process has removed Boomerang Parental > Control from Google Play due to violating their Deceptive Behavior > guideline. In the meantime, Parents can still download our app from our > website and buy/renew their licenses via our web dashboard._

> _I 've read the guidelines multiple times. They are written to be quite > ambiguous, nothing supports the violation we have been flagged for which is > "CAN'T UNINSTALL APP". The guidelines claim "Apps that modify device > settings or features with the user's consent but do so in a way that is not > easily reversible." "Easily reversible" comes down to a matter of opinion._

> _In addition, I have reviewed a few of our competitors this morning, whom > are all still live on Google Play and include the same protection as > Boomerang Parental Control is being removed for. I 'm trying to get Google's > California-based team's attention as the outsourced Appeals Team has been > absolutely useless (quoting template answers). This is an ongoing situation > and I will keep emailing our user base updates (good and/or bad)._</comment>


John McAfee Releasing Data on Corrupt US Officials - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1137777348919681024 <comment><USER2> I am skeptical of anything McAfee has to say by default, although I'd look at any evidence he presents.

As a general matter, it seems like saying "if anything happens to me I'll release 31tb of data" is highly risky. If you persuade any anti-American actors that you're telling the truth they might decide they could hurt America by killing you. Could some Russian or jihadist not just waste him to see what he has?

</comment><comment><USER3> What happened to "John McAfee Vows to Unmask Satoshi Nakamoto Within Days" from 2 months ago? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19733915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19733915)

"John McAfee Vows to Unmask Crypto's Satoshi Nakamoto, Then Backs Off" [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-23/john- mcaf...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-23/john-mcafee-vows- to-unmask-crypto-s-satoshi-nakamoto-within-days)

</comment><comment><USER4> Probably ran out of drugs, alcohol and bullets for a few hours and got bored.

<comment> dfeojm-zlib Exactly. He's in almost the same bucket as Roger Stone: a one man MSM troll machine.

Maybe he's out of viagra too... gofundme required.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is just a bitcoin scam.</comment>


The Sports Industry's Obsession with Meaningless Metrics - <AUTHOR> http://maxwendkos.com/2011/08/18/the-sports-industrys-obsession-with-meaningless-metrics/

<comment><USER2> As a sports fan, I wonder what's specific about the sports industry in this analysis? Vanity metrics are an issue for any business with a digital presence.

Maybe left unsaid is the idea that sports organizations are used to relying on numbers to assess on-field ability, and it now permeates their social marketing strategies as well? Still, this is a mistake I've seen many businesses in plenty of far-flung industries make.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right - this isn't specific about the sports industry. However, sports properties do tend to be a bit behind the rest of the business world when it comes to understanding and successfully adopting new media. It's a shame, because they're playing on such fertile groups. Few brands are so lucky to have such a captive and engaged audience.

This article was targeted at the sports industry because a) I'm working on a sports startup and b) it was written for SportsNetworker - a sports business blog.

Is there an e-mail address I can reach you at?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't see anything here unique to the sports industry, just an instance of a single sports team having a perspective of social media that I think is common to many entities across a variety of industries.

Also, a minor note: teams can push content to "fans" on Facebook as well. Status updates from things I like do show up on my news feed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Re: uniqueness, you're right. Take a look at my reponse to dwolfson20's comment.

Re: Facebook page status updates, some do, some don't. Take a look at the pages you "like" and check out how much of the published content has never appeared in your feed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> They're in business, too. I've too often seen where management pursues some meaningless metric with no understanding of how that number is arrived at.

Sometimes, I think that the ability to make fancy yet meaningless spreadsheets is, at least as far as management is concerned, my most valuable technical skill. And that depresses me.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's understandable that businesses are seeking metrics to measure the effectiveness of their initiatives, but problematic when they give credence to completely useless numbers solely because they haven't yet identified effective metrics.</comment></comment>


Calculating solar panel shading in Python - <AUTHOR> http://pingswept.org/2009/03/16/calculating-solar-panel-shading-in-python/

<comment><USER2> Yes, you really can do just about anything with Python. And there's probably a library for it.</comment>