Conversation Hackers: How Trolls Work - <AUTHOR> http://www.cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=559:conversation-hackers-trolls-argumentation&catid=32:oliviers-blog&Itemid=34

<comment><USER2> "Apparently, the 'Flat-Earthers' who created the site were really Trolls who planned to attract Round-earthers, and confound them with silly arguments. Instead, other Trolls showed up and began arguing for both positions."

Wow... I've long been aware of trolls, and of websites frequently visited by trolls, and of subjects that only really serve to attract trolls, but I had never thought of the wheels-within-wheels situation of trolls creating a website on a trollbait topic specifically for the purpose of trolling it themselves.

Truly, the Internet is a monument to human perversity.

<comment><USER3> _Truly, the Internet is a monument to human perversity._

I figured this out years ago when I discovered most of the internet is porn.

<comment><USER4> At the risk of being downvoted, I'd like to point out that there's no possible remark or continuation of this line of discussion that will not be downvoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Was anyone else reminded of the ancient Greek philosopher Gorgias? Quote from the article:

"The conclusion of your argument is blatantly absurd, but every premise is correct, except one. The trick is to hide that wrong premise under an intricate discussion."

Gorgias on wikipedia: ""How can anyone communicate the idea of color by means of words since the ear does not hear colors but only sounds?" This quote, written by the Sicilian philosopher Gorgias, was used to show his theory that 'there is nothing', 'if there were anything no one would know it', 'and if anyone did know it, no one could communicate it'."

I do not mean to say that Gorgias == Troll, but that I recognize in Gorgias's arguments the same love of the challenge of arguing an insane position that the article introduces as part of the motivation of Trolls.

<comment><USER3> I haven't heard of Gorgias before but I was reminded of my Philosophy 101 class. The arguments we discussed do seem very trollish to me right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> From what I've seen, trolling is about power. Trolls act to make a mark on people similar to how graffiti artists make their mark on blank spaces.

If you suspect somebody is a troll, you shouldn't call them out on it. Trolling is about intent, and unless you're a mind-reader, nobody knows that but the troll themselves.

Trolls are not legitimate contributors to a conversation. You gain no information from them, so it's not worth engaging them. Suppress your desire to "correct" them, and suppress the urge to publicly inform the troll's victims that they are a troll. That's exactly what they're after.

I could be missing some subtleties, but these seem like the running themes.

</comment><comment><USER6> This article is just begging to be trolled. Just sayin'.

<comment><USER7> No, it is not! It shreds new light over the inner life of trolls of all times and trades.

Sorry... so much temptation ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I ride down the street blowing a dog whistle and encouraging all the neighbors' dogs to bark, am I an X hacker, and if so for what value of X?

</comment><comment><USER4> This article should be required reading for anyone creating a forum account anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER9> i wonder how many comments on this page have been and will be written and then deleted as their author decided that they knew better

</comment><comment><USER10> This article actually convinced me to start trolling sites to learn how to argue better and recognize bad arguments. (I will not do so here.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Trolling can make an otherwise dull day, more.... entertaining.</comment>


Business Lessons (I) Learned from Playing Dungeons & Dragons - <AUTHOR> http://www.javaworld.com/community/node/3156?source=JWNLE_nlt_java_2009-07-07

<comment><USER2> Another thing I would add is "knowing the skills and strengths of those in your party is just as important as knowing your own." If you know what your party members are capable of, it makes planning your own actions easier and significantly more effective.

We used to roll random characters, equipment and enemies to get used to playing in the shoes of another player and learn about all the different options available to us. Though, I have still never actually used grappling...</comment>


New JavaScript Coding School in Boulder, CO - <AUTHOR> http://www.codecraftschool.com <comment><USER2> Very cool, I'll just plug another web dev school that is just opening a little bit north in Fort Collins by way of Galvanize ([http://www.galvanize.com/courses/full-stack/fort- collins/#.V...](http://www.galvanize.com/courses/full-stack/fort- collins/#.VcJWEPlBngA))</comment>


The Man Who May One-Up Darwin - <AUTHOR> http://preview-elb-web-us-west-2.aws.ozymandias.com/rising-stars-and-provocateurs/the-man-who-may-one-up-darwin/39217 <comment><USER2> This is a personal profile without much scientific content, in a publication with annoying popups.

Here is the scientist's work: [http://www.englandlab.com/](http://www.englandlab.com/)</comment>


Audi and Amazon to try car-boot delivery service - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32431301 <comment><USER2> This strikes me as a bizarre idea, to be honest - I can't imagine many being comfortable with this, particularly in Germany, which is a pretty privacy- conscious nation.

Reading the title, I thought they might be doing something genuinely interesting, by subsidising the cost of the car so long as you have a space in it which Amazon had access to which can be used for ferrying goods from X to Y based on your normal travel patterns. i.e. using personal vehicles as deadhead capacity, effectively.

Edit: Further thought. What if they're about to deliver to your car, having found it from the GPS beacon, and you decide to drive somewhere. Are they going to chase you down the autobahn, waving frantically at you?! How will they manage delivery schedules?

I can't help but think that this is a logistics nightmare.

Edit: Further further thought. What if they can't fit it in your trunk? What if you park backed up to a wall?

<comment><USER3> It's not too far from having similar to a mobile Locker service. What if you didn't have a key to your trunk, but Amazon paid you $50 a month (or a more appropriate value)? They could have a delivery carrier put goods into your trunk before you left for work, and retrieve the goods while you were busy working.

In some ways, it's also like international drug running - identify users that work in the USA and live in Canada, break into their cars, and leave illegal materials there. Then your counterpart will break into their cars while they're working, and retrieve the illegal materials.

You're exactly right that "incidental driving" would be a complicating exception. But I cling to the delusional belief that all exceptions can be handled. :)

<comment><USER4> I imagine they'd assume the exceptions are a low percentage and abort if the car starts up. Either retrying again later or retrying again the next day with a conventional carrier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a car boot in the US: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Denver_bo...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Denver_boot.jpg)

<comment><USER6> Yeah I had to see the bbc.com label to understand the title

<comment><USER7> Hah! I was thinking the same thing. Being based in the US, I was very confused by what the headline meant. Even in the article, they never explain what a "boot" is.

Appears to be the trunk?

<comment><USER6> Yeah it's what we call the trunk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting idea, but I think this is more of a PR stunt than a serious endeavour. As of today, the DHL / Post already offers a range of services to make sure you don't miss your delivery, most notably a system of 1.000's of so-called "Packstationen", where you can pick up your parcels 24/7 using a chip card & PIN code.

</comment><comment><USER9> As someone recently observed, Amazon might have finally jumped the shark. It's great to try new ideas, continually test new methods, come up with alternatives, etc. But so far none of these recent things since airprime and firephone have worked out. It's been a case of one dud after the other. Is there any reason to believe these things ate anything more than publicity stunts on Amazon's part? These new ideas are not any more serious than any senior project in hs. These are things highschoolers can think up. I expect a little more from the people who brought us online retailing, next day delivery and aws.

<comment><USER10> They're an incredibly innovative company. As an innovative company they try out lots of different ideas. Most of those ideas are going to be relegated to the dustbin. But the ones that work can turn into billion dollar businesses.

Using car boots for delivery might not work with a single manufacturer, but it might work for all manufacturers. It might also work more effectively with driverless cars. Either way it's an experiment to push the boundaries of what can make their supply chain more efficient.

<comment><USER11> R&D, PR, and not paying taxes. The weird ideas don't really have to work out for Amazon at least for now. There is also internal knowledge and data being cultivated related to these 'flops.' As someone suggested (can't recall who), sometimes a company like Apple starts developing something internally so when they do an acquisition they have a pretty good idea on the model and have an existing team to integrate with. Unlike Apple, Amazon is choosing to put these stories in the news.

<comment><USER10> "sometimes a company like Apple starts developing something internally so when they do an acquisition they have a pretty good idea on the model and have an existing team to integrate with"

Believe it or not they do that at GoDaddy too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> ... so your boot isn't really 'locked' at all?

<comment><USER13> OnStar has been able to unlock your car remotely for 15 years... this looks like a creative use of that system. If you disagree, you should manually disconnect the OnStar system.

<comment><USER14> Up until ~2009MY cars, if you didn't pay for OnStar, they never activated your vehicle and they would never have access.

I think it was mostly a liability / strategy decision rather than a cost one, but you can imagine people calling up and begging OnStar to start a subscription when they need it and then cancelling immediately after. Or trying to subscribe if their car was stolen to track it down..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Neat, free Audis...

But seriously, which kind of person believes this is a good idea? It is obvious, that Amazon needs to track the vehicle until delivery ( with a system that may or may not be switched off, if not needed) and DHL needs a system to unlock the car. This is not a hard to explain security hole in a server that is invisible for the average person. It is granting physical access to your car to a total stranger. What could possibly go wrong?

<comment><USER16> Especially in Germany. I wonder if no one thought about the insurance companies when they thought this up. I bet they might have something to say about all this. Heck, when you sign up for insurance they want to know if your car is parked in a lockable garage or just on the side of the street. They also want to know who besides yourself will be having access/driving the car. The last thing I as a customer would want to is pay even more for car insurance cause the added liability changes my contract.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting idea. Are they saying only the Audi owner will be able to have his stuff delivered to his car? Isn't the car going to be where the driver is, most of the time?

How about being able to use your boot as anyone's dropoff point? Say you've got the car somewhere and someone needs their stuff delivered. They come by, hit an app for authentication, your boot opens, they take their stuff.

Lots of issues, but why not?

<comment><USER18> Actually...

What about "AirBnB for package delivery." I don't have this problem (UPS will leave stuff at my house if no one is home: they'll even put stuff inside one of the vehicles if it's raining or snowing), but it strikes me that "renting" out your house for the express purpose of letting UPS/FedEx/whatever drop off a package for someone who can't get packages delivered during the day might be a useful service.

Probably can't charge much per package, but if you're OK with random people showing up at your house to get packages, it might be a useful service.

And on another note, I just saw the first TV commercial for AirBnB. How long have those been running?

<comment><USER19> Amazon Lockers are already a service in select cities. Not sure why there hasn't been better penetration though.

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200689010)

<comment><USER18> I know about Amazon Locker; I was thinking in the context of a new business idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I used to explain the problem of of DRM as giving the delivery companies the keys to your house so they can not only stow the goods right in your shelves, but also help themselves to whatever you have there. It seems like people generally like that idea.

<comment><USER21> The service won't be viable if the delivery company can't solve the problem of trusting the delivery people.

So I think people are responding to you in terms of a viable service, where there is not much reason to distrust the delivery person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> boot = trunk

<comment><USER23> My first thought was a boot that your car gets when you don't pay your parking tickets.[1]

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Isn't this service incredible useless in Germany? DHL and Deutsche Post both offer a Abstellvertrag, which solves the problem sufficiently for years now.

For those who don't know: a Abstellvertrag handles the actions that need to be taken by the deliverer if nobody is home. For example, our postman delivers our packages at home into our garage.

<comment><USER25> Also you can get a box for packages that only you and DHL/Deutsche Post can open: [http://paket.de/paketkasten](http://paket.de/paketkasten)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Volvo is doing a similar service as well, which seems to precede this. [http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/01/business/volvo-roam- klas-b...](http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/01/business/volvo-roam-klas- bendrik/)

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm suddenly picturing epic car chases involving Audis being pursued by DHL trucks on the Autobahn.

Also, way to totally brush off the bigger news that the FAA's approved testing of Amazon's drone delivery :)

</comment><comment><USER28> I would imagine there is some sort of logic system that will only allow packages of a certain size to be delivered. Ie: no giant flat screen tvs being delivered to your trunk.

<comment><USER3> I would imagine there's already a system like this for the Amazon Locker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> A nifty idea, but I can see thievery being a pretty big downside to this. You're putting goods into an unattended box with easily-broken windows.

<comment><USER30> I think you might be overestimating the security provided by easily-broken windows and a wooden front door in a house.

They're probably both about the same?

<comment><USER29> I agree, though for high-dollar items you're usually required to be present to sign for an item. That, and your car may find itself parked in areas much seedier than where you choose to live.

<comment><USER18> It's more like "perceived high-dollar items."

When I lived in the city, UPS made me drive out to their depot in the suburbs to pick up a cheap white box PC because they wouldn't leave it with no one to sign for it.

However, they had no problem leaving my $900 Karastan rug propped up against the front door where it could get rained on/stolen, etc...

<comment><USER31> It sometimes seems pretty random. Going to the UPS or FedEx depot is a bit of a pain for me and every now and then I'll have to go and sign for something that in no way merits having to sign given that probably 99% of the stuff I get from Amazon just gets dropped in either my mailbox or by my front door. I think the last time I had to go to FedEx it was to pickup a broken P&S camera being returned to me as unrepairable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I've generally come to associate Amazon shipments with dinged packages, so I'd for one look forward to the circus that'll ensue from this.</comment>


Unsealed Documents Raise Questions on Monsanto Weed Killer - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html <comment><USER2> "The court documents included Monsanto's internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services."

This is the real story - Monsanto interfering with our ability to find out what is safe. But I'm sure needless endangerment of the health of ~tens of thousands of farmers will carry a stiff prison sentence for all involved...

<comment><USER3> I often see the opinion on HN that opposing GMO food is anti-science. I know this article is not about GMOs, but can we really say with confidence that the scientific research done on GMO food hasn't been influenced in the same way?

<comment><USER4> How is this article in any way not about GMOs? The whole point of roundup is that you can douse food crops with enormous quantities that would normally kill them, thanks to genetic modifications.

<comment><USER5> The whole point? We still spray roundup on many of our non-GMO crops. It's inconsequential, if not desirable, to kill the crop near harvest. Roundup had a couple of decades of use in food production before GMOs arrived on the scene.

Also, most of what you see coming out of the sprayer is water. The actual amount of glyphosate used in an application is minimal.

<comment><USER6> Yeah but glyphosate is not an aliment. Why would you eat something that is not an aliment ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What still gets me is how people could justify this type of behavior. I suppose, it's not just one person, but a group (possibly large) that are complicit in all of this. At the end of the day, Jim or Monica goes home and thinks "sure, I know this was an immoral course of action, but I'm glad we just got control of the narrative".

We see these scenarios in movies all the time, but I just wonder how people could do these things in real life? Are people really that short sighted that they think it's ok to own the patent on genes for a plant created in nature just because the law says so? And then on top of that, they make some nasty chemicals that kill things other than their patented plant.. I'm not a dystopian acknowledger really, but wow, life is stranger than fiction sometimes.

Anyway, I just don't understand how Monsanto could be seen by any rational person as a step forward in humanity's progress.. To me, they are a prime example of how humanity will self destruct at some point.

<comment><USER8> I'm going to Godwin myself here, but it kind of echoes Hannah Arendt's 'Banality of Evil' — this summary from Wikipedia covers it a bit, but I recommend reading the actual text, especially in the context of today's political climate... for those who aren't familiar, Eichmann was a Nazi on trial in Israel who was defending his complicity as "following orders."

"Arendt's book introduced the expression and concept "the banality of evil". Her thesis is that Eichmann was not a fanatic or sociopath, but an extremely average person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself and was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology. Banality, in this sense, is not that Eichmann's actions were ordinary, or that there is a potential Eichmann in all of us, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of stupidity which was wholly unexceptional. She never denied that Eichmann was an anti-semite, nor that he was fully responsible for his actions, but argued that these characteristics were secondary to his stupidity."

<comment><USER9> "Godwin"-ing is comparing your opponents in an internet argument to Hitler/Nazis, not relying on their historical example as an existence proof for how terribly our cognitive gaps can be exploited.

<comment><USER8> I'm comparing Monsanto to the Third Reich, so I considered it Godwinning (what an amazingly terrible phrase). Fair enough though, I don't disagree with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't really understand why the NYT is so terrible on ag policy issues--they could really do some of the heavy lifting here for us and at least try and evaluate the claims being made--like severity and concurrence rates being claimed by the plaintiffs.

The NYT apples to oranges study on rate of yield increase in countries that don't use GMOs (lower starting point) to countries that do (higher starting point) over the same time really undermines their editorial credibility on these kinds of issues with people, like me, who actually deal with agriculture.

<comment><USER11> Maybe its not the NYT's job to do these things, but rather just inform those who know better, such as yourself, that the docs have been un-sealed, and we can get better analyses of this previously-hidden material in order that lay people, such as myself, can better understand just how Monsanto have fooled so many people into poisoning the world with their highly profitable product.

<comment><USER12> The problem is that lay people are the audience for NYT. Most of the population won't really understand it, honestly. If they wanted to make sure someone informed knew, they could have easily reached out.

The truth is that this was published without because it is an issue that gets folks to read, making their job of selling newspapers easier.

<comment><USER13> And this happens _everywhere_.

My favorite example is the coverage of the Dawn Wall rock climb a few years back. It was 'news', but there was very little time pressure for coverage, there was (almost) no divisive/political aspect, and the technical aspects were easy to break down to lay-reader level. Plus, there were thousands of online guides and experts willing to clarify context and terminology for free. It should have been covered _flawlessly_ , just because there was nothing standing in the way of that.

And instead, the results were shameful. There was no real harm done, but most of the articles were less accurate than a Simple English Wikipedia page would have been. It made for an interesting demonstration of how atrocious any form of expert-knowledge news is, even by sites like the NYT, even on uncontroversial topics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a scientist, I had read the research on glyphosate and felt pretty safe about it. The surfactant used with it seemed more dangerous, which tells you a lot. But what do I do if the science, was just untrue? This is the ugly secret about science I keep discovering the longer I am in it. Science is great, but people are so fallible.

<comment><USER15> I agree.

As a biologist, Glyphosate and it's concoctions aren't a concern in terms of environmental exposure. The concentrations simply aren't there.

<comment><USER16> There have been many studies in recent years examining the sub-lethal effects of agricultural dosages of glyphosate on honeybees. Newer research is showing conclusions of long-term negative consequences. Renewed studies have been done in the face of devastating managed bee losses, which widespread deployment of ag chemical combinations are undoubtedly direct contributors.

Glyphosate application is susceptible to extensive drift, affecting non-target vegetation and animals potentially hundreds of meters from the target site. Beyond direct exposure, this results in habitat destruction for many organisms.

It seems like we're a long way from claiming there is no environmental concern. The effects on non-target organisms through both direct exposure and indirect exposure through ecosystem (food, habitat, etc) changes may be far more widespread than we realize.

<comment><USER15> >There have been many studies in recent years examining the sub-lethal effects of agricultural dosages of glyphosate on honeybees

Poorly done studies, whose effect pales in comparison to neonicotinoid (and other) pesticides.

The authors of said studies clearly have a conclusion looking for data.

>Glyphosate application is susceptible to extensive drift,

This is true of all pesticides and doesn't impact the chemicals specific effect.

>It seems like we're a long way from claiming there is no environmental concern

The media is a long way away. The scientific consensus is crystal clear however.

Much like other hot-topics such as GMOs, Global Warming, and Vaccines, there are those who ignore data and cite specious articles to support a false debate among experts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I won't defend Monsanto's behavior here, but this is all arising as a response from the IARC's determination that glyphosate is a potential carcinogen. As a cell-biologist/biophysicist, this determination seemed primarily politically motivated by anti-GMO crusaders - existing evidence really doesn't seem to support it. Glyphosate isn't at all like known mutagens. Longer-format critique: [https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/06/iarcs-disgrace-how-low- ca...](https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/06/iarcs-disgrace-how-low-can-activist- science-go/)

<comment><USER18> My problem with glyphosate isn't related to health concerns. It's related to the fact that I grow crops (grapes) which it drifts over and kills, and roundup ready (and even worse, the new 2-4d resistant GMO corn/soy) now means there's nowhere safe in the entire northeast to grow anymore.

Every spring I come out to find many plants damaged. Infuriating.

Farmers behave entirely irresponsibly with it and if it's damaging my grapes imagine what it's doing to the natural ecosystem, riparian buffers, etc. near their farms. 2,4-d can drift for several miles and both volatilize on hot days.

<comment><USER17> Thanks so much for the insight (grew up on a small farm in the northeast)! I'm curious how much worse you've found the "drift-killing" of these newer chemicals than traditional herbicides - are farmers simply being more reckless with application of glyphosate and 2,4-d or are they intrinsically more volatile?

<comment><USER18> RoundupReady GMO corn and soy means they just blast the crap out of it without fear of where it will go. They are supposed to pay attention to wind speed etc. and I suspect most _try_ but every year I get damage from one of the three -- glyphosate, 2-4,d [the worst], or glufosinate (most harmless).

And again my concern is primarily ecological. It will kill any herbaceous plant. Natural plant diversity within any wooded area nearby is going to be a problem.

The other issue is that while glyphosate itself may be unproblematic from a health POV the formulations it comes in (stickers, spreaders, applicator solutions) are known to be nasty but are not required to go through the same kind of testing or disclosure really.

So spraying RoundUp near streams etc. means the detergents that it is bound up with are getting into the water system. Which is trouble for amphibians, fish, and insects at least.

Glyphosate is known to be safe for mammals, at least for now. I have been known to use it here or there. I have my sprayers application license, tho I don't really use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Monsanto always reminds me of their lobbyist that says it's even drinkable..

Guess if he drank it and then watch it: [https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM](https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM)

<comment><USER17> Oh come on - this is a disingenuous stunt masquerading as debate. Salt is safe to drink, but I'm not going to down a mystery glass filled with putative 5 molar solution of it on stage like a trained circus animal.

<comment><USER20> Normally I would agree, but the lobbyist said that someone could "drink a whole quart of it" without any ill effect.

<comment><USER21> I get the sentiment, and it makes for good TV, but you could also drink a whole quart of urine without any ill effect and you can be sure I would decline that opportunity.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, but if you JUST SAID you would be perfectly willing to do so to make a point, it (rightly) damages your credibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Glyphosate/Roundup is basically the amino acid glycine with a phosphorous structure tacked on [0]. Glycine is the simplest possible amino acid.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Chemistry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Chemistry)

One theory is that glyphosate causes harm because it gets weaved into protein chains instead of glycine. Proteins made with roundup don't work the same as proteins with glycine. Experiments to figure out if this is what's happening would be relatively simple and cheap.

Now that lots of weed are resistant, farmers will have to figure out how to farm without this shortcut. Roundup is obsolete, so nothing of value will be lost.

<comment><USER24> Anthony Samel, a chemist researching glyphosate, has already practically proven this weaving is happening.

He is finding glyphosate in everything that has proteins in it. Especially things that contain gelatin, where gelatin is made out of animal collagen, and collagen is the most abundant protein in mammals.

For example gummy bears, protein powders, nutritional supplements, and even in vaccines (several vaccines contain gelatin). So we are eating it, getting injected with it, and it is integrating into our own proteins as well.

<comment><USER25> You mean Anthony Samsel ? If so, he's known to have published shoddy research along with Seneff that makes wild claims about glyphosate being the cause of many ills like autism and celiac disease based on correlation and without much evidence

Steven Novella thoroughly debunks this: [http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new- bogeyman/](http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/)

Edit: spelling

<comment><USER24> You do understand that there is a vast financial interest in "debunking" scientific findings like this?

The first red flag that there are corporate interests behind any "debunking" effort is that an actually serious finding is not discussed openly, but various outlets immediately go for the discredit and debunk method.

That's corporate modus operandi 101 for burying inconvenient people and data.

<comment><USER26> You shouldn't try to generally debunk debunking, becaust it's a completely irrational thing to do. Just explain where a specific criticism fails.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From the article, it just shows that emails had suggested academics edit and sign their name to documents written by Monsanto. It appears that everyone involved claims they never actually carried through with this.

Anyone else see evidence that they actually did it? It wouldn't surprise me if they did. I'm genuinely curious.

<comment><USER28> That's all I saw as well. It just looks like someone spitballing over email. That being said, I looked up some information regarding the safety of glysphosphate using Ames testing and other methodologies. It looks to be safe according to this presentation-pdf by the European Food Safety Authority: [https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22863068/glyphosate_e...](https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/22863068/glyphosate_efsa_en.pdf/dc25996f-53b3-c9a7-f0d7-415169061a02)

Anyways, one could argue that the studies have been tampered with by dastardly Monsanto agents. Also it's a presentation and I didn't follow through to the studies themselves, I just trusted the information as it was presented.

I'm going to trust that glysphosphate is not a carcinogen and that multiple protection agencies worldwide haven't been duped/sold out to Monsanto. The cost of independent testing by any competitor or curious party is low, these are just toxin tests and Ames tests that have to be done. If it really was a dangerous carcinogen, Monsanto would have its pants sued off already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Good thing this sort of thing doesn't happen in heath care.

It would totally destroy people's trust in the medical industry if, for example, drug companies did this sort of thing.

<comment><USER30> Not sure if sarcasm.

Seriously, do they do that?

<comment><USER31> With literally billions of dollars on the line what do you think?

<comment><USER32> > With literally billions of dollars on the line

That's EXACTLY the reason big corporations and pharma would cheat to conceal truth from their products. The stake is too high to lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Some of the connections out there between glyphosate, it's effects on gut bacteria, the rise IBS/Crohn's Disease/Celiac and even connections autism are pretty incredible.

The autism speculation has gone on for as long as it has because we have an information vacuum and nobody is outright publishing a "cause". Until that vacuum is filled, you leave people free to speculate. Most of what I've seen at this point (recently from a lady at MIT[1] who presented in a Congressional Hearing) points to a serious need for a study of aluminum...and glyphosate supposedly allows a lot more aluminum into your system.

Would be great if we could get a study on both independently and both combined.

1 - [https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/](https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/)

<comment><USER34> > Some of the connections out there between glyphosate, it's effects on gut > bacteria, the rise IBS/Crohn's Disease/Celiac and even connections autism > are pretty incredible.

Can you point to some credible sources that show these connections? The only time I've ever seen Glyphosate linked to these ailments is from quack doctor Mercola or fake news sites like Natural News.

<comment><USER33> Look up the MIT professor linked above and her research.

<comment><USER34> A brief search reveals that her assertions are based purely on correlation, with no actual links.

* [http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp](http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/glyphosate.asp)

* [https://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-i...](https://www.biofortified.org/2015/01/medical-doctors-weigh-in-on-glyphosate-claims/)

* [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/)

* [https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate...](https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate-herbicide-vaccines-frightened-parents-know/)

She does seem to be loved by Mercola, captain of the fake science team.

<comment><USER33> Agreed. But it's still a lot stronger than random anecdotes and, if nothing else, warrants further study. I'm not making any claim beyond that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Seems like every other day when special interests were allowed to do something they should not have been due to their large financial backing.

Corruption isn't as obvious in the U.S., but never mistake that as lack of prevalence.

</comment><comment><USER36> Sounds like corruption to me.

Interestingly, the primary reason people I know who eat organic or non-GMO foods are doing so specifically to avoid glyphosate and other pesticide/herbicides.

<comment><USER37> >Sounds like corruption[...]

Specifically Regulatory Capture[1]

>The records [...] indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Duplicate post of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13873798](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13873798) (which is also on the front-page)

</comment><comment><USER39> There are several shill accounts on Reddit that pop up to defend Monsanto in every thread. I would be interested to see how much money companies like Monsanto are spending on disinformation campaigns. I bet it's much more active than we are aware.

<comment><USER40> Agree here. Definitely some comments in this thread that look suspicious...only because Monsanto already does this on a closely related platform :) Hi Guys! Thanks for tuning in!

<comment><USER40> My suspicions are only getting worse as I click through some comment history. Really? The debate on GMOs is the _only_ discussion on HN you want to partake in?

<comment><USER41> mail firstname.lastname@example.com with evidence/suspicions you have of shilling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Monsanto always reminds me of their lobbiest that says it's even drinkable..

Guess if he drank it and then watch it: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM)

<comment><USER42> So they only know it's safe because people try to commit suicide with it and fail?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Next thing you know we will find out lobbyists are writing legislation!</snark>

Seriously though, is the content of the research valid, or not?

<comment><USER44> Conflicts of interest throw serious doubt on the validity of the research. There's always a certain degree of trust in the people who do every phrase of the research, and obvious biases should at least be reason to not draw strong conclusions from the research. Especially if they're going out of their way to not upfront about the conflict of interest / bias.

<comment><USER43> You don't trust Monsanto, someone else only trusts Monsanto, and I don't trust anyone. But _trust_ doesn't matter because the system isn't built on trust. It's built on peer review and repeatability.

Right?

<comment><USER45> The underlying incentives can influence which studies make it all the way to publication. This has happened with drug trials, for example; if you don't force drug companies to pre-register trials and publish the results after the fact for _every_ trial, they can run multiple for the same drug and only report the ones that show favorable results.

I could imagine something similar happening if you wanted to "prove" the safety of a particular herbicide. Run tests for carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, whatever across common test species A, B, C, D, and E. D shows significant adverse effects from exposure to your product. The others don't. Silently drop the D results, write up the "proof of safety" from the others, and optionally launder the origins of the research through unaffiliated scientists. Repeat for a few years and later a completely independent researcher may say "all N of these published papers used sound methodology, and a meta-review of this high-quality subset shows no demonstrated risk at ordinary exposure levels." That last researcher won't know about the deliberately introduced systemic error that influenced _which_ results were published.

<comment><USER43> But that's exactly the logic global warming skeptics use - there are underlying incentives to arrive at certain conclusions. If you find yourself in the business of having to defend or attack incentives and influences, you're not addressing the science. Instead, you're just playing in the politics.

If bad science is making it to publication, or bad science is being accepted by other scientists, then it's not really science. Right?

Don't mistake my statements for justifying the lack of transparency Monsanto has apparently engaged in. It's unfortunate, for sure, and those who are carrying their water should be castigated for it. It's not in the spirit of good science.

But it's reasonable to think that had they been transparent, it wouldn't have been published. Because we have decided their _underlying incentives_ are bad (and consequently, the _underlying incentives_ of others are good). And that's not in the spirit of good science, either.

<comment><USER45> _If bad science is making it to publication, or bad science is being accepted by other scientists, then it 's not really science. Right?_

That's a very interesting question. I used to be a researcher myself. I love Feynman's "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." In practice, I would say that there are often incentives for researchers to fool themselves, and researchers do sometimes succeed in fooling themselves and their colleagues. The practice of science has a better capacity for correcting these errors over time than other practices, but I wouldn't retroactively declare a paper "not really science" just because later scientists falsified its findings. (E.g. in chemistry, reports of iron-catalyzed reactions that actually turned out to be catalyzed by traces of platinum group metals in the iron. How did the incentive to report something new and wonderful -- reactions catalyzed by a very cheap catalyst -- influence the original researcher's experimental design and evaluation of the evidence? Unknown.) Nor would I declare that a publication showing "compound X does not induce cancer in mice" not-really-science even if it turned out later that the same researchers silently dropped a line of inquiry that showed X _does_ induce cancer in rats.

I tend toward thinking that social phenomena -- including the _practice_ of scientific research, or the _practice_ of religion -- are defined by what their participants _do_ rather than what the ideal definition _says_ they should do. So bad science is still science (if the practitioners are still recognized socially as such), bad Christianity is still Christianity, and so on.

These issues are more visible when there's a lot at stake outside the scope of the published findings (global warming, tobacco health impacts, etc.) AGW skeptics are not exactly _wrong_ to mention incentives, but I think they're weighting incentives backwards. I think that many of them see the likely policy implications of certain research conclusions and motivated-reason their way backwards to an exceptional level of skepticism about the research itself.

I myself think that AGW skeptics are wrong, that GMOs are a facially neutral tool with potential for both benefits and harms, that herbicides too present both harms and benefits, and that industries trying to influence research to their own financial benefit (Monsanto here, drug companies with drug trials, food and beverage companies with nutrition research...) is both bad and common. This article that we're discussing _does not_ make me think that glyphosate is more harmful than previously reported. I still require affirmative research findings in that direction to change my view. It _does_ make me think that regulatory agencies should be sufficiently funded and staffed to set up their own experimental design and trials for safety, because industry-linked research (worse, facially independent but covertly industry- linked research) is incentivized toward affirming safety rather than investigating it neutrally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I look at things like the articles claim:

>> The safety of glyphosate is not settled science.

and then Monsantos claim:

>> In a statement, Monsanto said, "Glyphosate is not a carcinogen."

>> It added: "The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world.

which is backed by "leading regulatory authroities around the world" and then I reflect on the CO2 / climate change issue which is also claimed by a lot of people to be settled science. I just found that comparison (mine, not the articles) interesting.

</comment><comment><USER47> Why is it that people take a hysteria based approach to GMOs/glyphosate but the same people claim global warming is solid science?

Can the scientific method be trusted or not?

<comment><USER48> > _Can the scientific method be trusted or not?_

The scientific method can be trusted, but how it is implemented can not.

Science only considers something to be "fact" or "true" when a large (and usually expensive) study has been conducted, the results have been peer reviewed, and the results are then published.

The problem comes when the people paying for research only pay for research they want to be "true" and nobody will pay for research leading to things that might not be so good for sales.

As an example - think about how much money it cost to do a study on this Monsanto chemical to find out if it's "safe". Monsanto are paying for the study - do you really think if that study finds out it's not safe that it will be peer reviewed and published and then considered "true" (that it's not safe). Or will the whole study be swept under the rug, and therefore never be found to be unsafe in the eyes of science?

How many multi-million dollar studies have ever been conducted, peer reviewed and published (therefore making them "true" in the eyes of science) that tell us really anything in today's world is "bad" for us? I'm willing to bet that number is close to zero. Any published study was paid for by a system with very, very strong interests in the results, so science will only ever "learn" what the people with money want it to.

<comment><USER49> "Science only considers something to be "fact" or "true" when a large (and usually expensive) study has been conducted, the results have been peer reviewed, and the results are then published."

If it hasn't or can't be replicated by and independent entity it's not good science. Peer-reviewed is simply not a high enough bar to consider something fact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm always reminded of my Wall Street trader friend, and his chat with me:

From 9:30 to 4, I'd kill my mother to make a dime on a trade. My own mother, that's how driven I am to make money. I'd kill her on the spot for that dime if I could get away with it.

Of course, after 4, she's my mom. And I'd love her to death. He works for a very well respected Wall Street Firm.

Food for thought. What people will do for money.

<comment><USER51> > What people will do for money

Or: What people will say to impress their friends

<comment><USER52> I'm not sure what kinds of friends would be impressed by such things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Quote: "People should know that there are _superb scientists_ in the world who would disagree with Monsanto and some of the regulatory agencies' evaluations, and even E.P.A. has disagreement within the agency," ... (emphasis added)

Without addressing the article's basic thrust, which seems meritorious, this talk about "superb scientists" contradicts the most basic premise of science, which is that science rejects authority, relying instead on evidence -- some superb, some not. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

Worse, to begin a debate that pivots on the authority of scientists only invites a reply in kind -- whose scientists are more authoritative, more "superb"? The process quickly loses any resemblance to science.

So for those responsible for the tone of this debate, it seems there are two goals. First, achieve some immediate, tangible goal. Second and more nefarious, turn a scientific debate (relying on evidence) into a political one (relying on eminence).

</comment><comment><USER54> Another example of a company's liberal use of email to discuss potentially incriminating things (ie, ghostwriting studies). The glyphosate stuff still seems debatable - the PR team could handle that easily - but now we have employees on record acting shady and conspiratorial, that just makes them look more guilty.

I wonder if we'll ever enter a time where people won't be dumb enough to put this stuff down on paper and just assume an FBI agent will read anything they write in email at a future date? Especially when you work for such a villianized company like Monsanto... with so many people chomping at the bit to bring them down.

From another perspective this is (still) a golden era of criminal investigations.

<comment><USER26> There's selection bias here. In my experience people rarely email or write dubious stuff down and prefer to meet in person or informally off-site, but obviously all the people who get caught due to what they've emailed or written down did email it or write it down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Is there a way to avoid foods with roundup? Is it allowed in organics?

<comment><USER56> Typically you don't need to worry about non-gmo food being contaminated with roundup - a scandalous fact about roundup is that it tends to kill plants that are exposed.

You also don't need to worry about contamination of e.g. water supplies. Glyphosate tends to adhere to soil pretty well, where it is eventually consumed by microbes. Glyphosate isn't absorbed through the roots and isn't effective as pre-emergence herbicide.

The real safety challenge with roundup is the surfactant use. Glyphosate alone just isn't very effective without the surfactant to punch through the plants' waxy outer layers. These surfactants do cause loads of problems.

Note that there are actually very few GMO foods - it only makes sense to develop them for high volume crops. Anything you can buy whole or minulally processed (e.g. an ear of corn) is going to be untouched by glyphosate, even though gmo corn does exist.

[http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor- gly...](http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor- glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html)

<comment><USER57> I wouldn't be so sure.

[http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/seminis- performance-s...](http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/seminis-performance- series-sweet-corn.aspx)

<comment><USER56> Thanks for that! I stand corrected.

Apparently they've had this product out for about a decade now; coincidentally its been about a decade since I've really done my research. Time sure does fly and its easy to forget that biotech, like any other tech, moves quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> This is beating a dead horse... but look up the ties between Hillary and Monsato. Monsato is one of the most crooked, and corrupt corporations out there.

</comment><comment><USER26> The best thing they can do for public health is to jail Jess Rowland for a very long time, and prosecute the scientists who took payments to add their names to papers that Monsanto wrote and Monsanto itself for conspiracy to commit fraud. My guess is that searching for payments between Rowland and Monsanto will be exceptionally and immediately fruitful, and that should result in prosecutions for people within Monsanto who planned and approved those payments.

None of that will prove whether there's any connection between glyphosate and cancer, but it will do a lot to make sure that studies that are done by Monsanto are signed by Monsanto, and regulators might second-guess themselves for a moment when they see an easy buck to be made by becoming corrupt.

This comment counts as government fan-fic for all the likelihood that anyone will see any punishment here other than a fine for Monsanto resulting in an immediate stock bump for being lower than expected.

</comment><comment><USER59> It is common in many fields for a small group to produce 'agreed text', that other parties then sign off on

* PR pieces ( [http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html) )

* Legislation ( [http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1005Newsletter...](http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1005Newsletter/UK-corporate-update-December-2016/Pages/Prospectus-Regulation%E2%80%93text-agreed.aspx) )

* Standards Body text ( say Oracle for OpenJDK, MS for Mono ) ( [https://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/nisd-draft-text-...](https://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/nisd-draft-text-agreed.html) )

The NY Times itself will accept Associated Press articles ( say on an Afghan Election result ) and mostly just clone the words 1-to-1.

<comment><USER9> Maybe that's okay in PR and legislation.

But not in _science_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Free market only works when properly regulated.

<comment><USER61> Time and time again we see regulators working for the monopoly corporations, not against them. Monopolies like Monsanto only exist /because/ of regulation. If the market were free, both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete. In a regulated market, neither of them do.

Edit: Realize there's a good chance you're being sarcastic, but responding anyway since there are many people who'd take this at face value.

<comment><USER62> > both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete.

what does the EPA have to compete against? They regulate! Unless you mean monsanto could choose to be regulated by a different agency, whose funding comes from monsanto, hence regulators will tend to weaken regulation to get "business"!

<comment><USER61> Nobody, which is exactly my point. In an actual free market, people would still want consumer information (e.g. Consumer Reports magazine, Organic- certified labels). Therefore, consumer information companies would be required to compete with each other by offering better products i.e. accurate information, and a solid reputation.

The EPA has a terrible reputation and a long track record of failures, but it doesn't matter, because they have a state-enforced monopoly. They can take bribes all day long. However, if they existed in a competitive market, their reputation would be ruined and the market would be ripe for new competitors to enter.

<comment><USER63> And what is to stop those consumer information companies taking similar bribes. Especially without any regulatory agencies. Or do we just need another free market for consumer information on the consumer information companies.

<comment><USER61> When there's competition, reputation matters, since consumers have a choice about who to trust.

> Especially without any regulatory agencies.

The history of progressive regulation is agencies protecting monopolies from competition, not protecting the public from economic abuses though that is how it is advertised. Corporations _want_ state-enforced regulation because it allows them to cartelize. [1]

[1] [https://mises.org/blog/rothbard-progressive- movement](https://mises.org/blog/rothbard-progressive-movement)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Sell some great cars that "cheat"? Slapped down. Sell poison the world with and cover it up? Nothing will happen.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is the complaint:

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU/view)

Its basically a motion to compel an EPA guy to go under oath and sounds like the complainant had some run ins with Rowland.

The complainant, Marion, makes some claims about the effects of glyphosate without really citing any scientific evidence. Marion also claims there is a lot of evidence to back it up, but if so why not cite it?

"Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms."

So we have to take her word that Rowland didn't keep up to date with the literature? I find that hard to believe that someone would still be in a position that requires constant learning to keep their job.

Not really a smoking gun, if this is all there is

</comment><comment><USER65> From the Wikipedia plot summary for the movie "Michael Clayton":

 _" Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), U-North's general counsel, discovers that Arthur had come into possession of a confidential U-North document detailing the company's decision to manufacture a weed killer it knew to be carcinogenic."_[1]

[1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton_(film)#Plot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton_\(film\)#Plot)

<comment><USER57> That there is debate about the health effects and environmental impact of glyphosate is a huge improvement over many previous pesticides which where obviously toxic to humans and environmentally persistent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've been telling HN about this, and mostly derided for it. I was working as a sysadmin for a bigag company in 2010 or so, who touted themselves as good ol local farm people who take care of their own. Come to find out, the millions the owner got to fund his extravagant lifestyle (besides from daddy), was from selling some of the genetic modifications to Monsanto. I was in the middle of my Decartes reset after getting back from Iraq, and dug into Monsanto.

Monsanto is one of the worst companies in America. As a constitutionalist, my primary issue is with their blatant undermining and corruption of the legal process, for example a SCOTUS who formerly worked for them refusing to recuse himself from relevant cases, infiltration and takeover of the top positions at the FDA and other regulatory capture issues, and the stifling of free speech through their massive propaganda machine, which includes online.

As a military person, I came to find out they were the ones who had been responsible for agent orange in Vietnam. Something many of my friends and family have directly had to deal with. (to be fair, it was a different business than the current Monsanto, the same in name only)

I learned they were one of the main sources of lobbying to allow patenting of organtic material (so they could patent genes in their gmos), that they created the BT killer strain of seeds designed to prevent farmers from saving their seeds, (incidentally Monsanto gmo seed business has been tied to large numbers of farmer suicides in India), and have brought legal action against farmers who saved their seeds. They have participated in farm mergers in aquisitions to the point that almost no farm is truly a family farm anymore, and they have been involved in illegal waste dumping more than once.

Once I learned all these things, I quit the job on principle. As luck would have it, the good ol rich guy who "would always take care of his people" subsequently, a year later, sold the company and fired half the staff... and now the local "community", despite protests from many of the farmers, decided to give Monsanto a 5.8 million dollar tax break to built a state of the art facility because it will "bring jobs".

To top it all off, our anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws seem to be completely dead and ignored, because the Bayer Monsanto $66bn merger seems to be full steam ahead at the moment.

They have created a sitution that requires more chemicals, causes more nitrogen runoff, have drastically reduced seed diversity (therefore setting up a massive crop failure potential across many crops), and continue to ignore GMO warnings.

Having sysadmined in a bigag company with a genetics department, and at a genetics company, my primary issues with GMO's is that there is a lack of rigourous scientific testing, especially over longer time frames. It wasn't uncommon to see a new GMO go from testing to prod within a year! That's not enough time to truly understand the implications of those kinds of products. Not to mention, as the article suggests, that they have artifically affected the actual science to be in their favor regardless of the real results.

If there ever is ecocide, Monsanto will be the primary hand to have caused it. I am willing to bet roundup will be the new agent orange. And finally, for your viewing pleasure:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM)

Relevant past comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9009446)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12893325)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559024)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12398969)

</comment><comment><USER66> Monsanto also developed another herbicide, Agent Orange. Areas were it was used are still affected to this date.

</comment><comment><USER67> Probably my old University -- University of Missouri which is currently under the tight control of Monsanto.

</comment><comment><USER68> They use glyphosate profusely around trees in parks here. No need to cut the grass so precisely.

</comment><comment><USER69> Please use the original title.

</comment><comment><USER70> roundup is 125 times more toxic than glyphosate

<comment><USER71> Do you have a source for this very specific fact you brought to the table?

<comment><USER70> BioMed Research International Volume 2014, Article ID 179691

'Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles'

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/)</comment></comment></comment>


2018 Engineering Gift Guide - <AUTHOR> https://engineering.purdue.edu/INSPIRE/EngineeringGiftGuide <comment><USER2> Turing Tumble[1] is wonderful, happy that it got a mention. I thought it'd be a great idea for our office as we've got a lot of staff here who love logic puzzles, but my 4yo daughter at home had the first try and she won't let it out of the house now.

The game feels like a physical version of The Incredible Machine or Zachtronics games. It's essentially a marble run on a board which you can add logic gates to. There are two different colours of balls which serve as input, and the puzzle specifies what output you require.

The later puzzles in the book are much too complex for my daughter but she has actually been able to solve the easy ones on her own. She uses it creatively too, making machines which she likes to show off to her mum and I.

Even without my daughter enjoying it I'd keep it at home because I've found the puzzles really fun and is satisfyingly tactile. I'm hoping they create a community puzzle repository for people to contribute to - might be a good project idea for people if they don't though. Highly recommended.

[1]: [https://www.turingtumble.com/](https://www.turingtumble.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> A bunch of gift guides are coming out lately. Here's the fsf one:

[https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v8/](https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v8/)

(saw mozilla post one recently too)

<comment><USER4> "Stay away from iPhone". Predictable behavior from FSF but still disappointing to me in 2018, given iOS is one of the hardest targets from a security perspective with a comprehensive guide on techniques used [1] and offers an excellent overall user experience.

[1] [https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide....](https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Others have mentioned why iOS is not on the FSF's list of good holiday gifts. However, I did find their "Proprietary surveillance" page to be hilariously bad: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary- surveillance.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary- surveillance.html). There are a couple of good things on there, but the majority of it seems like it was written by a 12-year-old who searched Google for "[thing] is spying on me" and took bullet points on what showed up.

<comment><USER3> Can you give a more specific example? I found some of the sillier inclusions had some decent information behind them, after poking around.

For example, it lists Adware Doctor under MacOS, which seems unfair, but the context is that its #4 in the app store at the time of the article:

"Researchers allege the developers of Adware Doctor, the 4th highest ranking paid app in the Mac App Store, have found a way to bypass Apple restrictions and collect sensitive user data."

Some of the headlines could definitely use rephrasing though.

<comment><USER5> I can go over macOS and iOS, since I actually know about most of the issues raised:

> Adware Doctor, an ad blocker for MacOS, reports the user's browsing history.

This isn't macOS's issue. This is Apple having a poor App Store review process/sandboxing holes/whatever. This is the same as saying "malware exists on macOS, even on the App Store" (which I would have accepted as a valid point), but without this context it's misleading.

> Apple admits the spying in a search facility, but there's a lot more > snooping that Apple has not talked about.

The "spying" mentioned has since been fixed; Spotlight searches now send a generic location to Apple. The "more snooping" link has its own, similar issues.

> Various operations in the latest MacOS send reports to Apple servers.

Same issue with Spotlight, from Yosemite, being called "various operations in the latest MacOS".

> Spotlight search sends users' search terms to Apple.

…how else would it search the web? Also, the same issue.

> The DMCA and the EU Copyright Directive make it illegal to study how iOS > cr…apps spy on users, because this would require circumventing the iOS DRM.

Not true. The DMCA (which is not Apple, mind you!) does not restrict me from inspecting applications (which is mentioned in the linked article)–I just can't distribute my methods to other people.

> In the latest iThings system, "turning off" WiFi and Bluetooth the obvious > way doesn't really turn them off. A more advanced way really does turn them > off—only until 5am. That's Apple for you—"We know you want to be spied on".

…this is literally what it sounds like. It's stretching "automatically reenabling Wi-Fi and Bluetooth if you forget to do so" to "Apple is doing this so they can continue spy on you".

> Apple proposes a fingerprint-scanning touch screen—which would mean no way > to use it without having your fingerprints taken. Users would have no way to > tell whether the phone is snooping on them.

This thing doesn't even exist, and fingerprint data never leaves the device anyways.

> iPhones send lots of personal data to Apple's servers. Big Brother can get > them from there.

This is saying that iOS devices send call logs to iCloud, which it uses to keep it in sync across devices. The argument is that Apple doesn't let you turn this off if you use iCloud, which is valid, but it's disingenuous to say that "Big Brother" can now access this information because there are dozens of other parties that have this information as well.

> iThings automatically upload to Apple's servers all the photos and videos > they make…The iCloud feature is activated by the startup of iOS..

If you enable iCloud Photos. The "activated by the startup of iOS" means that the daemon handling this launches when the phone boots, not that it instantly enables when you set up your new iPhone.

> Unknown people apparently took advantage of this to get nude photos of many > celebrities.

…this was straight up spear phishing.

> Apple can, and regularly does, remotely extract some data from iPhones for > the state.

This is a twisting of words in the article, which states that Apple turns over things on their servers that they have the keys to. They are not remotely pulling information off of iPhones.

> This may have improved with iOS 8 security improvements; but not as much as > Apple claims.

Article tries to argue that people who have a 4-digit PIN, which is used to encrypt data on the iPhone, can be hacked if the PIN is bruteforced.

> Users cannot make an Apple ID (necessary to install even gratis apps) > without giving a valid email address and receiving the verification code > Apple sends to it.

You can do this with a phone number now, AFAIK. Mostly because not everyone has a email address.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the details, i will reread some of those links

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great list - "fun toys, games, books, and applications to engage girls and boys ages 3-18"

Although Exapunks is on there, which is still on my wishlist.

</comment><comment><USER7> So many (LEGO® clones) building bricks in this catalog...

Anyway, wooden _Bi-Plane_ on p.19 would be awesome gift!

</comment><comment><USER8> Marble run is a safe bet for a surprising range of ages

<comment><USER9> Are you talking about Turing Tumble or a different marble game?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Boiler Up

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm getting a Proxy Error, is it one of the gifts?

<comment><USER12> The best kind of gift is a proxy error from a website.

Not only have you saved yourself some time you would have otherwise wasted on that site, you saved some energy too by downloading fewer bits. The planet thanks you.</comment></comment>


The Making of Apple's Emoji - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@agzmn/the-making-of-apples-emoji-how-designing-these-tiny-icons-changed-my-life-16317250a9ee <comment><USER2> Must be an incredible feeling to have designed and drawn what is fast becoming a core part of our language.

Although looks like the pile of poo and ice cream no longer use the same swirl:

[https://emojipedia.org/pile-of-poo/](https://emojipedia.org/pile-of-poo/)

[https://emojipedia.org/soft-ice-cream/](https://emojipedia.org/soft-ice- cream/)

<comment><USER3> They are still the same in WhatsApp

<comment><USER4> WhatsApp seems to be an interesting case with regard to Emoji history anyway. Am I right that they appear to have copied Apple's emoji library at some time in the past and reused those on all platforms (except iPhone, of course) instead of the native emoji symbols that those platforms also started to provide? Are they still doing that today?

I remember talking to confused Android users many years ago, when all this Emoji and WhatsApp craze started (I'm from Germany, where there are a lot of Android users and WhatsApp is king among messaging services due to its multiplatform capability, while iMessage isn't used nearly as much due to its inherent limitation to iOS) and people saw me using Emojis in other apps on iOS that were not WhatsApp. They were like "hey, how did you get those cute WhatsApp icons out of WhatsApp and into that other app?". It got pretty clear that many Android users associated the Emojis directly with WhatsApp instead of recognizing them as a feature provided by the operating system, and that seems to have been caused mostly by WhatsApp copying the iOS Emoji library early on, when Android did not yet have Emojis or had different-looking ones.

<comment><USER5> Not only did they ship the iOS ones on Android for the longest while, but they recently started testing a completely self-designed set of emojis on Android that looks unlike any other!

See [http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/03/whatsapp- introduces-...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/03/whatsapp-introduces- emoji-set-latest-android-beta-v2-17-364/) and [https://emojipedia.org/whatsapp/](https://emojipedia.org/whatsapp/) for the full list.

<comment><USER6> My girlfriend recently switched to iOS just because she wants those emojis back for WhatsApp. Can't even blame her!

<comment><USER7> Hieroglyphic society....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I liked the old Android emoji much more and was disappointed that they lost the race for becoming the standard. It used to be possible to express the emotion of being content that is not exaggerated by showing teeth or blushing [1], and "weary face" could be used to humorously express exhaustion [2] while it now seems to stand for "my house burned down" [3] (I especially miss "weary cat face" [4]). The Apple emoji look like they were designed for people with emotional agnosia.

I guess one could argue that emojis are supposed to express the essence of an emotion to the fullest extent, but just like with color pigments it is nice to have dilutions.

(At least they got rid of that awful, awful grinning emoji [5].)

[1] [https://emojipedia.org/google/android-4.4/smiling-face- with-...](https://emojipedia.org/google/android-4.4/smiling-face-with-open- mouth/)

[2] [https://emojipedia.org/google/android-4.4/weary- face/](https://emojipedia.org/google/android-4.4/weary-face/)

[3] [https://emojipedia.org/apple/ios-11.2/weary- face/](https://emojipedia.org/apple/ios-11.2/weary-face/)

[4] [https://emojipedia.org/google/android-4.4/weary-cat- face/](https://emojipedia.org/google/android-4.4/weary-cat-face/)

[5] [https://assets.change.org/photos/2/by/dr/IcbYdrlxwuCPHHJ-800...](https://assets.change.org/photos/2/by/dr/IcbYdrlxwuCPHHJ-800x450-noPad.jpg?1474087343)

<comment><USER9> There's a study that was done on that grinning emoji - and the miscommunication it can cause. I'm glad they fixed it: [https://grouplens.org/blog/investigating-the-potential- for-m...](https://grouplens.org/blog/investigating-the-potential-for- miscommunication-using-emoji/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> See also this interview with Susan Kare, who designed the first set of icons for Mac:

[https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/primary/intervie...](https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/primary/interviews/kare/trans.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> _> I had no idea that within a few months of completing such project, it would revolutionize our culture's way of communicating_

I'm pretty sure emojis were all over the internet before apple - forums, chat apps, IMs etc? Were they the first ones to include them in the default SMS app or something?

<comment><USER12> I believe they were used a lot in Japan and Apple created them initially for that market as well. They were one of the first to make them accessible in the west though.

<comment><USER13> IIRC, for the longest time, you couldn't even get the emoji keyboard on Western devices without some sort of weird kludge.

<comment><USER14> Putting a magic number into the "magic number" app unlocked emoji on any iThing iirc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Smilies on the old phpBB [0] forum software etc. must've been around for longer than emoji. This[1] particular set gives me a lot of nostalgia, but I can't remember what forum software it was packaged with. Things got pretty extravagant, I can't really imagine these[2] being useful in everyday conversation (potentially slightly NSFW)! Hell, even MSN Messenger had them.

Looking at these brings back all kinds of memories from the BBs I frequented a decade or so ago.

[0] [http://i.imgur.com/LuZeOn7.png](http://i.imgur.com/LuZeOn7.png)

[1] [https://4.img- dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58700537/8eea8bf...](https://4.img- dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/58700537/8eea8bf64a73466d8929da0488d74605)

[2] [https://forums.somethingawful.com/misc.php?action=showsmilie...](https://forums.somethingawful.com/misc.php?action=showsmilies)

<comment><USER16> > Smilies on the old phpBB [0] forum software etc. must've been around for > longer than emoji.

Emoji started appearing in the late 90s; phpBB is "only" 2000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can someone explain to me what these parent could be about?

> It should be noted that although Raymond and I, Angela Guzman, are the > original Apple emoji designers responsible for the initial batch of close to > 500 characters ( _and were awarded a US patent for them_ )...

<comment><USER18> Probably a design patent, which is a completely different thing than a patent you get for an invention. It grants someone an exclusive right to an ornamental design.

<comment><USER17> Interesting, had never heard of a Design Patent before. Or at least was not actively aware what that is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What is Raymond's full name?

<comment><USER20> Raymond seems to be Raymond Sepulveda - [http://www.xanthic.net/about/](http://www.xanthic.net/about/)

<comment><USER19> Thankyou

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What about Willem Van Lancker, who claims to have created 400 of the 500 original emoji characters at Apple?

[http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/emoji-2012-12/](http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/emoji-2012-12/)

</comment><comment><USER22> I just noticed that HN strips out the unicode emoticons.

For example here's supposed to be a smiley face:

(but it's not there)

[http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/263a/index.htm](http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/263a/index.htm)

<comment><USER23> I think comments are in ascii, not unicode.

<comment><USER24> ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

HN strips out a bunch of emoji unicode, but some unicode is allowed to get through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> //OFFTOPIC

The author says:

>>Designer at Google with a RISD sleeping pattern.

What is an RISD sleeping pattern?

<comment><USER26> She's referring to the Rhode Island School of Design, her alma mater.

<comment><USER25> Thank you. I thought it was some disorder or type of polyphasic sleep or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I remember first seeing emoji on Github and that they were very early those emoticons. I'd love to know more about the story there. I did some Googling and found nothing...

<comment><USER28> GitHub is not so old, it started in 2008 IIRC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm missing two smiley icons:

-big hypocritical smile

-not impressed

And I'm missing the option to create and send my own emoticons as SVG.

<comment><USER29> I basically want all the old Yahoo Messenger smileys, updated for higher resolution displays: [https://usefulshortcuts.com/yahoo-messenger/smileys- emoticon...](https://usefulshortcuts.com/yahoo-messenger/smileys- emoticons.php)

We have a billion emojis yet we're missing some of the basic ones...

<comment><USER30> Those were great, the hug for example is so much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder if Sundar would be willing to attend Unicode UTC meetings.

</comment><comment><USER32> Either I'm too old or I don't get how to use Emojis. I only use them to add tone or express my feelings or attitude so I use maybe five to ten most common emoticons. Eggplant, ice cream or almost any kind of other "factual" icons are completely useless to me. I would rather have more readable and expressive emoticons than hundreds of useless figurines. It would be nice to see if people indeed use them.

My favorite emoticons are Koloboks [1][2]. They are very expressive and adorable. There were also static versions of the emoticons and they were almost equally as expressive.

[1] [http://www.en.kolobok.us/content_plugins/gallery/gallery.php...](http://www.en.kolobok.us/content_plugins/gallery/gallery.php?smiles.2) [2] [http://www.en.kolobok.us/content_plugins/gallery/gallery.php](http://www.en.kolobok.us/content_plugins/gallery/gallery.php)

<comment><USER33> Its about being a standard. The good thing about Emojis is they are part of Unicode and are now almost baked into everything natively. Vendors have slightly different art, but the same meaning is always conveyed. And there's a whole lot of them. It's like a international standardized pictogram language, and no surprise it became popular in Asia first. Just think about how you can already use Emojis to do some basic communication with someone on the street of Beijing or Tokyo.

<comment><USER34> > but the same meaning is always conveyed

Debatable. [https://medium.com/matter/lost-in-emoji-translation-apple- vs...](https://medium.com/matter/lost-in-emoji-translation-apple-vs- android-648fdd57ca25)

Old article, and Android is/has ditched the blobs, but still highlights the importance of the art in conveying the same meaning.

<comment><USER35> That article misses the gravest one in my opinion: toy water gun vs actual gun [https://emojipedia.org/pistol/](https://emojipedia.org/pistol/)

<comment><USER36> That has to be the most idiotic emoji implementation - clearly not what the Unicode Consortium intended, and borderline against the specification.

<comment><USER37> > clearly not what the Unicode Consortium intended, and borderline against the > specification.

While I think the change was a bit silly so this this hyperbolic and unfounded statement.

The specification merely states "pistol" and uses a silhouette of a gun as it's reference. Even if you argue that the reference is clearly an automatic pistol (reasonable) the specification in fact specifically states _" The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts."_

So, as much as I disagree with the change (the intent was... well meaning if, I think, misguided) it is not only _not_ "against the specification" \- it's directly in line with guidance of the specification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> These just about symbolise everything wrong with the modern web.

Whereas the humble ascii emoticon was a fun exercise in pareidolia--as an emotional aside to whimsically add a little lightness to proper writing, they have now been standardised, streamlined and commercialised, and are used as a substitute for proper writing, turning everything they're supposed to represent into a lie--a Web of lies.

Popularity seems to be the death-knell for anything cute, quirky, quaint, or mildly amusing with its initial charm being brutally curb-stomped by the one- size-fits-all boot of commercial interests.

> it would revolutionize our culture's way of communicating

Thanks for that :'( Sic transit gloria mundi. And no, I'm not being snooty: I am _that old_!

</comment><comment><USER39> First of all, I absolutely loathe emojis and hate that they are on by default with no (easy) way to disable (turn into flat glyphs in the color of the text, not :some_stupid_name: as some applications offer).

Having dozens of sets of emojis that look quite different doesn't help either (on web in particular). And there's not that much coherence within the sets either. Apple in particular is really bad at this. For example, beer[1] looks like a photo, whereas crap[2] is in a completely different style. Each individual one can be nice and well thought out, but it makes them all look bad if they don't fit together.

(Twitter's are much better in this regard)

1\. [https://emojipedia.org/beer-mug/](https://emojipedia.org/beer-mug/)

2\. [https://emojipedia.org/pile-of-poo/](https://emojipedia.org/pile-of-poo/)</comment>


Court Rejects Government's Secrecy Claims in EFF's Hemisphere Suit - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/victory-court-rejects-governments-secrecy-claims-effs-hemisphere-suit <comment><USER2> TLDR: in 2013 a Seattle activist got a presentation on Hemisphere (a program that allowed the NSA to access AT&T's call records database) accidentally due to a standard FOIA request. The EFF sued after it was denied further information from their own FOIA request and now the courts have ruled that the government used unfounded FOIA exemption claims to heavily redact or withhold 260 pages. These pages will now go through a detailed review and released after proper redaction.

</comment><comment><USER3> This would be an ideal opportunity for the other 3 of the big 4 domestic telcos to come out, if they can, and expressly say that they do not have a similar operation. The optimist in me hopes they will, the realist in me acknowledges that they all have programs that provide warrantless access to this information.

</comment><comment><USER4> The missing exclamation mark ("Victory! Court...") from the article's title really changes the way this reads.

<comment><AUTHOR> The weird part is, I put a ! originally, and HN's software gave no indication that it'd strip it after submission.

<comment><USER5> It always does that.</comment></comment></comment>


What About Trump's Comments on H1-Bs? - <AUTHOR> http://cis.org/miano/what-about-trumps-comments-foreign-workers <comment><USER2> America would be just fine with zero H1-B workers. There is zero deficiency in IT numbers that qualified Americans cannot fill. The issue lies with companies being cheap and disavowing Americans in favor of more profit to please the ever-demanding shareholders. I left for-profit IT in favor of non-profit IT to avoid being replaced by a foreigner. I make less, to be sure, but I'm not worried about my job being handed to an outsider who has no stake in my community.

I'm deeply in favor of killing the entire H1-B program. If American companies don't want to hire Americans, Americans should not buy from them. I'm willing to bet that if enough people got angry at Apple for letting the Chinese build iPhones instead of bringing that work back home. Apple make more than enough profit to allow Americans to have those jobs. Imagine their products saying "Designed and made in California" rather than simple "designed" here.

I tend to lean far right politically with exception being made for work- related issues. I am firmly pro-union and pro-protectionism, especially as it relates to Americans and their jobs.</comment>


Google changed the Chrome icon in the latest dev build - <AUTHOR> http://chromestory.com/2011/03/google-chromes-new-logo-now-in-the-dev-version/#comment-9093

<comment><USER2> It does look a little crappy at 32x32, but hey - it _is_ the dev build. I expect that it'll be cleaned up before it hits general use.

Also: linking to a comment way down the page? Bad form.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that; I just grabbed the URL from the address bar and didn't pay attention. I wasn't trying to highlight my comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's not bad. I like the simple design of it.

The previous logo had some details that got lost at smaller resolutions and the icon itself was kind of a nondescript colorful futuristic object. This one looks more like an icon and doesn't leave me asking, "What is it?"

<comment><USER4> It's not bad, but its design is somewhat dissonant compared to the more common saturated, glossy, and photorealistic icons on Mac OS X.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I just noticed it this morning. I saw my dock as and thought "What the hell happened to the Chrome icon?!"

The new icon is really terrible. It might look okay at 256×256, but the tiny little 48×48 taskbar icon looks like a child drew it in MS Paint. It is by the far the ugliest icon I have on my taskbar, desktop, and start menu combined.

</comment><comment><USER5> A mock-up was linked on HN a few days ago, it was quite close to the real thing. I still think non 3d-logo's look really ugly on the OSX Dock. (another example: Handbrake.) Ah well, replacing the icon is easy anyway.

</comment><comment><USER6> Definitely a good idea to change the icon. The old one looked like an evil robot eye. Not the best imagery for a company trying to convince everyone they aren't an evil robot...

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if it's supposed to make it clear that it's a dev (i.e. unpolished) build rather than the stable one.</comment>


The Golden Age of Drug Trafficking - <AUTHOR> https://news.vice.com/article/drug-trafficking-meth-cocaine-heroin-global-drug-smuggling <comment><USER2> "taken as a whole, the systems used to move illegal drugs around the world comprise a logistics network likely bigger than Amazon, FedEx, and UPS combined."

I'm calling bullshit on this</comment>