The Drone that Killed my Grandson - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?hp&_r=0 <comment><USER2> The American citizenry tends to be OK with this kind of thing as long as it happens far away from us. But imagine the reaction if the cafe where this occurred were in the US, and the drone was controlled by a foreign government. That singular event would ignite a US invasion or possibly nuclear assault against the country responsible.

People in other countries are also _people_. They have the same reactions and emotions that we would when a foreign entity blows up their businesses, families, and friends. We have so far been lucky that none of our victims have had the military power and political will to retaliate in the vicious and violent manner that we would. That will not always be the case, and I do not look forward to the day when our own brutality is visited upon us.

<comment><USER3> I respect your views and comments and the above is correct and mournful and valid.

But it suffers from something too common around here - dispassion. Looking at the wider, geopolitical implications, a step back from the facts and keeping things on the level of "people" \- not _that_ person.

I read your comment first, then dived into the article. I expected to agree with you, but I just felt mounting horror, outrage and a realisation that things are beyond a line I never knew existed. So here is my comment

Jesus H Fucking Christ on a Stick! We are blowing up American Citizens sitting in cafes and legally it's "untouchable". Are we that fucking removed from reality that its ok to murder people with no trial or comeback. It seems its ok to blow away the son and grandson of other country's government ministers and not expect a war, a prison sentence, or even a mention on CNN

Are we that fragile as a civilisation that the tiny amount of damage terrorism presents is actually a threat? What did I miss - I thought we had industry, welfare, science and ingenuity. Stop murdering people.

I am writing to my MP but mostly I would like some figures - there was a twitter thing that reported gun murders. Can we do the same for drone murders?

<comment><USER4> Seems to me like the horrendous part is the bit where you take a citizen, accuse them of terrorism, stick them on a "kill list" (wtf!), then execute them without further due process of law. Bear in mind that "terrorism" now covers people like an 82-year old catholic nun demonstrating at a nuclear plant.

If that's not anti-constitutional, your constitution ain't worth shit.

If it is anti-constitutional, your system of "checks and balances" ain't worth shit.

Either way something fundamental is very broken there.

<comment><USER5> It is not _something_ , Government of USA is running lots of programs without any checks and balances necessary for a functional democracy. And surprisingly, this very govt is interested in bringing democracy to other countries.

<comment><USER6> There's a running joke about that.

I feel weird linking to an image macro on HN, but it is sadly relevant.

[http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/34530200.jpg](http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/34530200.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It should be noted that some people believe that governments should also be held accountable for killing innocents that are foreign citizens. I realise that "but he was a citizen" holds some cachet with the American national story, but really it shouldn't. An innocent is an innocent, and the concept of 'collateral damage' has no place outside total war.

<comment><USER8> That is sort of an interesting issue. "Oh but he is a Citizen!, you see. Constitution something, something...".

If he wasn't a citizen and just a local goat herder. Meh, who cares. Ok, kill him. That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions. Now even as far as Constitution goes, this is wrong. But what if the piece of paper signed couple of hundred years ago, allowed it. Would that make it ok? What about all the other people in those countries, murdered by US pilots from Langley by a push of the button.

"Oh but we don't deliberate target civilians, we are an exception, not like those other terrorists, these are all accidents" everyone would chime in. But are they? How can we be sure? If the contracts to build drones and the jobs involved in killing terrorists are paid related to how many terrorists are killed. Pretty sure soon enough the'd find way to target as many civilians as necessary in order to keep busy. An added benefit is that each person killed probably spawns a couple dozen future terrorists. Can't imagine a parent, sister, child of a victim not wanting to inflict likewise damage to the country that did this to them.

<comment> grey-area _That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions._

It also damages the reputation of the US throughout the world. That has effects on US business, and US citizens when they travel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The sad and dangerous thing that has happened is that a new category of criminals has been made: Terrorists. Once someone is put in that category all his rights cease to exist. It's sort of like the outlaws of medieval Europe.

The only right thing to do is to start treating terrorist suspects exactly like those suspected of any other crimes, be it murder, theft, rape etc.

<comment><USER10> This is a good analysis but I think it misses the mark a bit.

The problem is very much one of terrorism. The basic idea of terrorism is to erase the boundaries of the battlefield. The worst possible reaction to that is to do the same, but that's increasingly what we've been doing. In order to be capable of fighting a war effectively (even while acting purely defensively) the rules of the battlefield must necessarily be very much different from the rules of civilized society.

Increasingly the ideas that police should act like soldiers, that soldiers should be used for policing, and that the protections inherent in the criminal justice system are now outmoded and no longer useful in fighting terrorism have taken hold. But this has occurred concomitant with the expansion of the "battlefield" in the "war on terror" to encompass no less than the entirety of human civilization.

The result is that while the terrorists may have knocked a few holes in the walls we have put up between civilized society under the rule of law and the near-anarchy of the battlefield the governments of the world have gleefully participated in shooting vastly more holes in those walls.

<comment><USER11> The governments of the world aren't the only ones responsible; much of this has been cheered on and done with the gleeful support of their citizenry.

<comment><USER12> I don't recall a pro-expansion-of-governmental-power stance becoming the majority in any country after late 2005. I could be forgetting something, but my impression has been that (at least in the US) the public response to the war on terror was, for a short while, overwhelmingly positive and then, for a much longer period, in favor of more governmental restraint.

<comment><USER13> The war on terror was never controversial. Iraq was controversial because it was seen to be totally irrelevant to the war on terror and because it cost American money and lives. Aside from a liberal fringe who quickly decided gay marriage and the symbolism of having a black president was more important than extraordinary rendition and torture, no one cared about anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My first reaction was "What the fuck?" (Sorry for the profanity)

Imagine an alternative scenario wherein the grandfather had created his own drone that killed some random government agency dude (by mistake). He'd been labelled a terrorist. But, now the government officials that killed his grandson aren't terrorists because they work for the government.

What a skewed definition we (and the media) have set for terrorism! Sigh!!

<comment><USER15> This guy's son was a bad enough dude that he got put on a terrorist kill list. I think we should at least consider that we might have an unreliable narrator.

Edit: what I said was that folks should, like with any article, do some investigating before they jump to conclusions. I merely stated that the close ties to known terrorists provides more motivation for this.

But yall are obviously just looking for any opportunity to get all righteous, so keep down voting and not even reading what I said.

<comment><USER16> You're assuming he was a "bad enough dude" with no evidence to support that assertion. The burden of proof is _always_ on the accuser. If he was accused of being worthy of death, let's see some documentation to support that.

At present there are no answers, no explanations, no reasons given besides his death and the fact he and his father were on a hit list.

<comment><USER17> No explanations given by the author. Here is some general background on the father: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al- Awlaki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

Edit: Note I am not defending the killing of the grandson by any means. However, I did notice that the father was tried in a court in Yemen, and the judge ordered him to be apprehended "dead or alive." [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/08/Cleric- say...](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/08/Cleric-says- American-devils-must-die/UPI-61991289245343) I was just surprised that people are so suspicious of any claim that the father was anything other than an ordinary citizen minding his own business, yet accept the narrative presented in the original article at face value.

eksith asked for evidence that the father was a "bad dude." I provided some. It is perfectly fine to argue that this isn't justification for death, but that wasn't briancaw's point. This merely seems to indicate that the narrator might not be providing the most balanced perspective.

<comment><USER16> Let me ask again... what evidence do you have that _he_ specifically deserved to be killed without explanation?

Let me put it in another way, since the question doesn't seem to be making sense to you: If your father happened to be Timothy McVeigh, should the government target you for death?

Edit: I just read your edit and I apologize for the tone of my post. It wasn't called for. I could blame the lack of coffee or that I was tired, but the fact is, these types of stories really bother me and I didn't think it through before posting.

I'm sorry.

Edit2: My request for evidence was for the _son_ ; not the father. The primary subject of the article was described as a typical 16-year old with the misfortune of simply being the son of an alleged terrorist. Where was the evidence that he deserved death?

<comment><USER15> If Timothy McVeigh's son left to go hang out with his dad who was actively a terrorist and then ended up dead I would dig a little deeper before acting like our entire intelligence community is evil.

<comment><USER18> If a sixteen year old kid wanted to see his father, whom he hadn't seen in years, you'd have to dig a little deeper?

Seriously?

Like.. Ignoring everything else wrong with this story, that's still pretty fucked up for you to even imply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is what amazes me about our country:

We can get riled up over being told by mainstream media that we are being watched despite whistle blowers telling us so for years, incited by the same media to riot over an incident that happens every day untelevised, and not bat an eyelash when our own citizens are assassinated for the world to see by our government.

"Today, nobody cares… but tomorrow, they will…"

<comment><USER20> Hold on. Why do so many civil liberty proponents such as yourself insist on dismissing and trivializing the Trayvon Martin case?

Isn't it possible to care about both racism and wiretapping/drones/secrecy a the same time?

Isn't racism one of the most serious issues in the US?

Why are you so sure any riots were 'incited by the media', rather than an autonomous response from the many people directly affected by racism?

<comment><USER21> Both are serious issues, but the mainstream coverage and outcry over the Trayvon Martin case drastically overshadowed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's. It's very telling of the power of those in government and mainstream media and how if they stamp you as a terrorist and drone you without due process, most of their constituents will accept it without a second thought.

<comment><USER22> Serious, no, tapping is serous the drones are HORRIBLE!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> An important note (that doesn't justify US government in any way, just completes the picture)

 _The father of the boy was Anwar al- Awlaki[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al- Awlaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) from wikipedia: U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda._

 _With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet."_

 _U.S. officials say that as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), which had 3,000 members, al-Awlaki spoke with and preached to three of the 9 /11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members. In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the father of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008–09 before the Fort Hood shootings. During Al- Awlaki's later radical period after 2006–07, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack._

According to the original article though:

 _The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government's claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. He did not deserve to be deprived of his constitutional rights as an American citizen and killed._

<comment><USER24> Writing nasty things about the US on a blog is not illegal. Helping plan a terrorist attack is, but unfortunately there's no evidence that Awlaki actually did that except some heresay from the government. The question is, should we allow the government to assassinate Americans without any trial or oversight just because they claim to have some secret evidence?

<comment><USER23> What I wrote to your ... sibling?... there is an authorization to use military force against _those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons_.

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

Again I am not sure if this is enough legal justification to kill a US citizen without a trial.

<comment><USER24> Apparently it is enough legal justification since there hasn't been anything close to a serious legal challenge it. The more interesting question is whether it is morally justifiable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ok, I love how this page seems to have been swarmed with DOWN WITH THE US IMPERIALISTS, and AMERICA == TYRANNY style comments.

The parent article is _incredibly_ slanted - the author ever so conveniently forgets to mention that his son was a senior Al-Qaeda recruiter, who was "advisor" to the 9/11 bombers, the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber and a whole host of others.

Even his own Yemeni government tried him in absentia, and ordered him captured "Dead or Alive".

You can argue that the death penalty is wrong, and he should have faced a US court (although I somehow down he or say Osama Bin Laden was likely to actually show up in a US court, even if given half the chance).

However, please don't be another ignorant reader who doesn't know where Yemen is, or any of the context here.

<comment><USER26> So, it is okay if Denmark or India drop a bomb on wherever David Headley is in USA, killing him and whoever is with him. And, it is also okay if Headley's child is killed in another drone strike on US soil. As per Mr. Gibbs, the child's father should have been more responsible.

<comment><USER27> He's in federal prison--effectively for life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is the wiki page for Anwar al-Awlaki, the son of the author who was the target of the drone strikes. It is worth reading for some context on the family.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al- Awlaki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

<comment><USER9> Context on the family? Is the son guilty of his father's crimes?

<comment><USER28> The article is written like they were just some regular americans on vacation in Yemen. If my child was out recruiting for Al Qaeda, and preaching to the 9/11 hijackers, I'd hope that I'd be more self reflective about what I could have done differently. Maybe take some responsibility instead of complaining in the New York Times. The son isn't guilty of the father's crimes, but the father may have some responsibility for the son's crimes. The grandson is an innocent victim, but he wasn't targeted. That's an ugly mistake.

<comment><USER29> How can you define a precision drone strike as 'he wasn't targeted'?

<comment><USER28> Because precision means location, not who is at the location.

 _According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna._

He wasn't on the target list, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. If they knew he was there and were secretly targeting him, Obama should be impeached.

<comment><USER30> "Because precision means" … something different to what "normal people" mean when they use the word "precision", just like when we use the words "collect" and "no", and our congressional oversight somehow misunderstands us…

(or, alternatively, "because that was the least imprecise targeted attack we were capable of at the time")

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> How are we still allowed to be a member of the UN? If these aren't war crimes then they're surely still crimes, just you know, not-war crimes.

What boggles my mind is how these countries allow the US to run drone strikes on their citizens. I mean, Yemen has a government and they're like, "Yeah sure, target and kill innocent people and blow cafes and shit up in our country. Cos you know, terrorism and all that."

</comment><comment><USER32> "Our position needs to be reiterated, and needs to be very clear. The fact that the U.S. has administered the death and homicide of over 1 million civilians in Iraq; the fact that the U.S. is supporting the deaths and killing of thousands of Palestinians, does not justify the killing of 1 U.S. civilian in New York City or Washington D.C. And the deaths of 6,000 civilians in New York and Washington D.C. does not justify the death of 1 civilian in Afghanistan." ~ Anwar Al-awlaki; October 2001

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM)

</comment><comment><USER33> I do not understand how these extra-judicial killings cannot be challenged in a US court of law, in a democratic republic like the USA that attempts to "promote" "democracy" around the world.

Checks and balances... and yet, in this case, there aren't any. How the hell is that supposed to work, and what can be done about it? That's not rhetorical, what can a US citizen do about this?

<comment><USER34> > what can a US citizen do about this

Recall your elected officials or not vote for incumbents. Especially those who sit on intelligence, judicial or defense committees.

I have a problem with an Executive and paramilitary bureaucracies (CIA) that feel no civilian visible court has jurisdiction over them and no one should hold them accountable for their actions or mistakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Personal POV: if we have Democracy in US and its fine to drone other countries' people in the name of fight with terrorism, then I am looking forward to the day of Iraq being a full blown Democracy, which is the day that the former President George W. Bush (as seen by many Iraqs as a hard-core terrorist) will be droned down on US soil for a war crimes he committed in Iraq.

</comment><comment><USER36> The first comment (as of right now) makes me sick to my stomach:

"Why are we providing a platform for families of terrorists to advocate against American national interests? They should have considered the consequences of targeting the United States and its citizens with violence before they walked down that path.

Our intelligence services and armed forces have done a commendable job keeping Americans safe. I thank them for their service, and for keeping my family safe.

I have no time or desire to listen to this sorry speech about human and civil rights from someone who did not stop his son from advocating violence."

</comment><comment><USER22> Isn't this a war crime because they are not at war with ? Telling you the rest of the world hates America land is the enslaved.

Ps.: I tend to avoid products made in any crappy country, this includes the US.

<comment><USER37> No it is not an international "warcrime". As everybody is labled enemy combatant after the fact (as in "after the killing is done"), it is totally in line with the international war. There does not have to be an official declaration of war, to use war-like tactics (and to kill so called enemy combatants).

But what does might count as a war-crime, is the fact, that the us mostly shield their drone operators with civilian shields. The drones are for example operated from German military bases, that are embedded in civilian regions. A drone-pilot is a combatant, as he clearly fights.

So these combatants are embedded in a country, that is not part of this conflict. Shielded by (for a fact) foreign civilians. And shielding is outlawed by international law regarding war and war-like conflicts.

So the US just might use this argument in their favor, as the Al-Qaeda clearly used the 16 year-old (and the other civilians) as shields - so Al-Qaeda would be responsible for their death (or so a perverted ruling might go).

The (not so) "fun" fact here is, that this (the shielding of US drone-pilots) happens with the knowledge of the German government and that they do not only not seem to care, but nobody here in Germany does give a damn, as nearly no one (journalists) tells these facts to the people.

Some (say Afghan) combatant could just walk up to these drone pilots and shoot them in the head. It would be an act of a war like conflict (like shooting a soldier in battle). It would not be a "normal" crime. OK, but nobody would look at it this way. It would be labeled an act of terror.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Irony:

[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: ...

I suppose this is next:

... He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: ...

I don't know whose name to throw on this, though. King George, King Barack, ??? I suppose we need some kind of voting system overhaul (runoff, proportional, ???) to end the rule of the corporate sponsored 2 parties.

</comment><comment> grey-area This raises some questions which I think it's important to answer if you support this sort of drone strike, or even if you are just sympathetic to the concept of targeted assassination of suspects.

Is it legal to kill people on secret suspicion, rather than after conviction in a public court of law?

Is it legal to kill families and associates as well as the suspects themselves?

If this is legal for the US in Yemen, why is it not legal on US soil?

Is it legal and permissible for other nations to drone people in the US?

</comment><comment><USER39> The author's son, Anwar al-Alwaki, on why the world hates the US: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jf462h_Is](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jf462h_Is)

</comment><comment><USER40> Very sad that people die, but the father has blood on his hands and was a justified target. I also doubt that the son was just hanging out with his mates playing Chess. He was probably with his Dad's lieutenants.

<comment><USER21> You'd be surprised. Chess is a popular game in that region. I know I've played a few games there. Sometimes you're just playing with anyone in the cafe that wants to. You might not even know them.

<comment><USER40> Playing chess with his Dad's lieutenants then :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If we surrender all our civilization progress just because of a "war against terrorism", then the terrorism has won and we are not better than our opponents.

</comment><comment><USER42> Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad man, who lured a lot of young men to their deaths by his toxic propaganda. He exchanged emails with the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and who knows how many others. Wikipedia has a long, long list. I feel bad for his son, but not as bad I feel for his victims.

I notice one thing that is missing in Anwar's father's article is any sense of remorse-- any sense that Anwar's actions were wrong.

Bad things happen during war. Sometimes people are killed who shouldn't be. But when the instigators of said conflict refuse to take responsibility, I have no sympathy. Save your tears for someone who deserves them-- like the women who are killed in "honor killings" by assholes like this, the countries that are third world shitholes because of theocracies, or maybe the prostitutes Anwar apparently favored. But not for people who start a war, and then whine about the casualties to their side.

</comment><comment><USER43> I guess I fail to see the point why a Drone is somehow less appropriate than killing with a rifle or dropping a bomb from a manned cockpit? Is there anyone in the world that actually thinks one is somehow worse than the other?

"To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder." \- Albert Einstein

Agreed, Albert. Drones included.

</comment><comment><USER44> Truth justice and the American way: Judge and jury for Americans, cowardly drone strike murder for sub-humans.

</comment><comment><USER45> I have no words. There is just nothing

</comment><comment><USER46> Drones will get cheaper to manufacture and then America will have a problem again. As they had with the nuclear arms race.

They could send drones to a foreign country but that would just make that country send their drones to America.

Until that happens America has got the upper hand but boy will any one appreciate the irony when Americans get killed by foreign drones.

Don't make everybody out to look like a terrorist and expect them to not get pissed off and become what you made them look like.

Hell this guy might not have been a terrorist before but now that he lost his entire family terrorism might not sound that bad.

I'm waiting for the day they mess with the wrong family.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is terrible but honestly the majority of Americans will not know much less care that this happened. Most could not even name their mayor. If you asked most American's what Yemen was they would probably think it was some sort of fish or something.

We need a leader. Like a MLK that can rally us to fight for stuff like this. Though I appreciate all the efforts that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the rest of the black leaders do. If stuff like this continue we will all have bigger problems then overzealous neighborhood wanabe cops

</comment><comment><USER48> I don't get it. Isn't Yemen friendly to the US? That's why they allow these drone strikes, right? So why not just go and arrest the guy?

</comment><comment><USER10> Watch this as well: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0)

</comment><comment><USER49> Part of the related legal battle happens tomorrow:

"Oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be heard by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on July 19, 2013, at 10:00 am. "

Source: [http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings](http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings)

</comment><comment><USER50> Suppose the US government is right, and it is totally OK to indiscriminately kill a bunch of bystanders and innocents to get to a single target who allegedly is an enemy.

Isn't it OK then to selectively, cleanly, kill one alleged enemy with Polonium tea?

Why these two cases get so different coverage?

</comment><comment><USER51> An absolute disgrace that a so called democracy can have a list of people its going to kill...

</comment><comment><USER52> its a shame there is not such outcry about the many pakistani and other nationality civilians who have been and continue to be killed regularly by drone attacks... they far outnumber all of the american military personnel who have died in service over the last 10 years, except we have indiscriminate proportions of women and children and not people who chose to become tools of perhaps the most evil regime in the world today (at least when viewed from the outside objectively) :/

can we start trying us government officials as war criminals as if they came from any other country on the planet please?

</comment><comment><USER53> One of my questions is, what can I do?

Which politicians have power/control over this situation and who are their funding sources?

Which of these funding sources can be pressured based on SEO/growth hacking/bad press?

</comment><comment><USER54> are we the new, improved version of hitler's nazis? or is it the corporate greed looking to maintain the military-industrial complex that is looking for targets?

</comment><comment><USER55> Who would have guessed that this submission's comments would be dominated by 9/11 truthers? Fascinating.

Keep these great posts coming!

</comment><comment><USER56> For a deep dive into this watch/read [http://dirtywars.org](http://dirtywars.org).

</comment><comment><USER57> Colateral damage aside, doesn't bombing rescuers and funerals classify as terrorism?

Seriously...

</comment><comment><USER58> whats the point of killing random people?

</comment><comment><USER59> _The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government's claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. He did not deserve to be deprived of his constitutional rights as an American citizen and killed._

Surprised he wasn't charged, just as a formality. At least then they would have said he "refused to answer to an arrest warrant...blah blah...plan to kill Americans." Unless the matrix is playing tricks on me, he did admit to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al- Awlaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) a lot of stuff that we call terrorism. Generally speaking, if you refuse to surrender, they can't take you in and are plotting to kill someone, the police can kill you.

But to throw a freaking bomb from 10000 feet in a cafe just to kill a person...that's a huge no-no. It just doesn't win you any friends. If it was his car, I could see it, traveling with dangerous people, is dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER60> So, with the kill lists, it's 'one hop' that's 'allowed'...

</comment><comment><USER61> I'm sorry but I find it hard to empathize with a man who himself and his son Anwar have taken so much from this country in terms of education and opportunity and returned nothing but religious vitriol, anti-american rhetoric, and bloodshed.

<comment><USER62> Prove it.

The US Government didn't.</comment></comment>


BlackBerry Messenger could have saved BlackBerry - <AUTHOR> https://hall.com/blog/blackberry-messenger-could-have-saved-blackberry/

<comment><USER2> Why is BB chasing consumers and not enterprise?

Consumer was about 80% of their revenue, I can't find a source for this currently but it was very high.

<comment><AUTHOR> Android and iPhone own (and will continue to own) consumers, BB's best chance was to own the enterprise and they blew it.

<comment><USER3> With BYOD, I can't imagine a enterprise-only RIM being successful in the long term as iOS and android move into the enterprise space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It was still the best typing experience I ever had on a phone.

</comment><comment><USER5> No, sadly not even messenger would have or could have saved them. The youth in the UK flocked to BB as it was a cheap platform. Nowadays they can get cheap(er) Android handsets that run more apps, and do a lot more. Also, the networks (in the UK at least) started chucking lots of text, voice and data allowances for increasingly lower costs, so even the previous bundled aspect was no longer an appealing factor of the BB as a platform.

I had a Z10 - I tried to like it, it did have some innovative ideas. But, it got far too warm. The battery life was a disaster, far far worse than any previous phone I have ever had. The updates were not really fixing any of the major bugs, and in the end, it became harder to justify keeping it.

The worry now is like Nokia, BB most likely has a large warchest of patents, and what happens to them?</comment>


Wikipedia (English) starting to migrate to MariaDB - <AUTHOR> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-December/064994.html <comment><USER2>
        The main goal of migrating to MariaDB is not performance driven.  More so,
        I think it's in WMF's and the open source communities interest to coalesce
        around the MariaDB Foundation as the best route to ensuring a truly open
        and well supported future for mysql derived database technology.
        Performance gains along the way are icing on the cake.

</comment><comment><USER3> Several months ago I noticed Wikipedia's Ganglia (cluster performance monitoring software) is publicly accessible. Check out db59 (mentioned in the note) amongst the other servers:

[http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/latest/?r=hour&cs=&ce=&...](http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/latest/?r=hour&cs=&ce=&s=by+name&c=MySQL%2520pmtpa&tab=m&vn=)

If you want to see a bunch of other cool public Ganglia instances you can do a search something like:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22show+only+nodes+matching%...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22show+only+nodes+matching%22)

<comment><USER4> Any reason why the load on db59 is so high? Are they trying to stress test it?

<comment><USER5> I couldn't say the reason, but the I/O for db59 [[http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/latest/graph_all_periods.php?h=...](http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/latest/graph_all_periods.php?h=db59.pmtpa.wmnet&m=cpu_report&r=hour&s=by%20name&hc=4&mc=2&st=1355622088&g=network_report&z=large&c=MySQL%20pmtpa)] is much higher than the other servers as well.

Also, despite the switch on db59 happening a few days ago, there doesn't seem to be a significant change in overall CPU usage: [http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/latest/graph.php?r=month&z=...](http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/latest/graph.php?r=month&z=xlarge&h=db59.pmtpa.wmnet&m=cpu_report&s=by+name&mc=2&g=cpu_report&c=MySQL+pmtpa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hopefully this will get more people to adopt mariadb and be free of the legal and upgrade uncertainties of mysql. I installed it a few weeks ago and the result is -exactly- like mysql.

[http://blog.mariadb.org/mariadb-foundation-to-safeguard- lead...](http://blog.mariadb.org/mariadb-foundation-to-safeguard-leading-open- source-database/)

</comment><comment><USER7> How does MariaDB compare to Percona?

<comment><USER8> It's a drop in replacement for MySQL, you can use the _storage engines_ that Percona provide such as ExtraDB so maybe it shouldn't differ at all?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> TIL MariaDB is to MySQL what Jenkins is to Hudson.

<comment><USER10> How long until there is something similar for Java? Let's play name the products that need to be saved from Oracle.

<comment><USER11> Arguably the other JVM-hosted languages are exactly this.

<comment><USER12> Agreed, but I think s/he meant 'JVM' rather than 'Java'.

<comment><USER10> I didn't. But I should have! Thank you. I so often forget those "little" details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wikipedia seems like the perfect system for a document store like CouchDB. I would be curious to know if they examined it and, if so, found it lacking.

<comment><USER14> So, there's some legacy here. 10 years ago, there wasn't anything really like CouchDB.

<comment><USER15> Document DB's aren't an invention of the past 10 years. SAS was invented in the 60's, Lotus Notes in the 80's. XML Databases were all the rage during the dotcom bubble.

The difference today is that open source projects have made document stores and 'nosql' technologies more accessible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In case anyone else was wondering about InnoDB like I was:

<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/MariaDB/Storage_Engines>

MariaDB has XtraDB, which is a drop-in replacement for InnoDB; I'm not sure if it's encumbered or not, given it's Percona's fork of InnoDB.

(Does anyone have any experience using XtraDB that they can relate?)

<comment><USER17> Which storage engine is Wikipedia using (MyISAM, XtraDB or Aria)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Note that unless your mysql server has _more_ than 4 (physical) cores, you aren't going to see any performance improvements from any variation/fork of mysql. 8 cores is where things start to diverge under load.

This website has some benchmarks to prove it: <http://vbtechsupport.com/606/> <http://vbtechsupport.com/657/2/>

Also [http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2012/02/18/mariadb-5-3-4...](http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2012/02/18/mariadb-5-3-4-benchmarks/)

But there are other reasons to look at mariadb/percona.

<comment><USER19> What about MariaDB5.5 and MariaDB10.0 performance compared to 5.3?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why do they care about whether the technology is derived from MySQL or not? Postgres makes way more sense for pretty much every application out there now. What am I missing?

<comment><USER21> They aren't starting from scratch. Migrating your database is a complex and risky project, and not the kind of thing you do unless you have a very clear, very pressing reason, like horrible performance and stability issues, or saving tens of millions of dollars in licenses. Migrating to MariaDB is more like upgrading a minor version, with minimal risk and zero downtime. And they have a lot of experience in MySQL, almost all of it transferable to MariaDB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Which database system Wikipedia is currently using?

<comment><USER23> MySQL

<comment><USER14> Well, MySQL plus a text store.

MediaWiki, the open source software that Wikipedia uses, now officially supports MariaDB.

<comment><USER24> I use MariaDB on my Mac for most things that require MySQL. It's a drop in replacement for most things. Is there a special edge case with media wiki they had to solve or is it now just formally announced as being supported?

<comment><USER14> So, it's pretty much a drop-in replacement. But as with everything, time m ust be spent testing and so on before rolling it out to production. I believe a transition to MariaDB has been planned for a while now.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How the brain builds new thoughts - <AUTHOR> http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/10/how-the-brain-builds-new-thoughts/ <comment><USER2> Link to the actual paper:

[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54763f79e4b0c4e55ffb0...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54763f79e4b0c4e55ffb000c/t/55df22aee4b03934d928ad6b/1440686789157/an- architecture-for-encoding-sentence-meaning.pdf)</comment>


Long S - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s <comment><USER2> Interesting that the article doesn't mention Greek lowercase sigma which has similar rules:

> uppercase Σ, lowercase σ, lowercase in word-final position ς

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

</comment><comment><USER3> The interesting part: "The long s survives in elongated form, with an italic- styled curled descender, as the integral symbol ∫ used in calculus."

<comment><USER4> The notation for the indefinite integral was introduced by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in 1675 (Burton 1988, p. 359; Leibniz 1899, p. 154). He adapted the integral symbol, ∫, from the letter ſ (long s), standing for summa (written as ſumma; Latin for "sum" or "total").

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is very interesting:[https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/google- ngrams-vs...](https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/google-ngrams-vs- long-s/)

The word "fuck" was used a lot in the 1600s according to OCR.

<comment><USER6> Well the OCR were humans :) Before Google produced the Waymo (or Maps?) datasets with recaptcha, it was book digitalization. I remember always being frustrated when I had to enter the long as as f to make the captcha go away...

<comment><USER7> That's true. When the recaptcha was two words, one of it was the control word (which would make you fail the captcha if wrong) and the other was the word you were actually OCR'ing. I would always enter the control word correctly and put "fuck" as the other word. I would get it right 90% of the time :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you'd like to be able to use the long S in Emacs, there's a minor mode for that: [https://github.com/aaron-em/long-s-mode.el](https://github.com/aaron- em/long-s-mode.el)

It's an older one and I apparently haven't put it on MELPA yet. I can, if there's interest.

<comment><USER9> "Copyright (c) 2013 Aaron Miller. All rights reverſed. ſhare and Enjoy!" Heh!

I'm not sure bulking up melpa is worth it for the infinitesimal number of people who would find it useful.

Tangentially I really wish letters eth and thorn had not disappeared. They were certainly better than what we've got now, the 'th' digraph for both.

<comment><USER10> In English the voiced/unvoiced distinction stopped mattering so merger of eth and thorn was warranted. A digraph is a sad compromise, but given sh/ch digraphs its now just a given standard in the language's orthography. It might be fun to use better letters for all of English's digraphs, but that ship has probably sailed at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The long S is also problematic for OCR: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cafe&year_star...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cafe&year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3)

(Google ngram viewer is pulling the word "case" with a long S from the many legal documents in its corpus)

</comment><comment><USER12> On a related note, I have been looking for good references on cursive writing. While there are many references for cursive writing popular in the US such as D'Nealian, Zaner-Bloser, etc. there aren't many as many references for joined- up writing popular in the UK. I was looking for something where the joined-up style resembles printscript as much as possible. Here are a few resources I found during my search for anyone interested in British-style joined-up handwriting:

\- [https://www.cursivewriting.org/joined-cursive- fonts.html](https://www.cursivewriting.org/joined-cursive-fonts.html)

\- [https://linkpenfonts.co.uk](https://linkpenfonts.co.uk)

Although the second link is the more recent website, I like the fonts presented in the first link.

</comment><comment><USER13> In ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the phonetic sign for the S sound was a vertical bar bent around at its top end: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Ancient_Egy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Ancient_Egyptian#Uniliteral_signs)

Apparently it's officially called "folded cloth", U+132F4.

I wonder if there's an actual lineage here, or if it's just a coincidence that the S sound is represented as a curved vertical bar across millennia.

<comment><USER14> I've wondered if it's shaped after a snake as the sound matches up ("sssssss").

<comment><USER15> Perhapsss sssurprisssingly, the sssnake letter is "N".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto- Sinaitic_script](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Faſcinating!

(backſ-away-ſlowly)

<comment><USER17> Should be "backs" because long-s isn't used if it's the end of the word.

<comment><USER18> > Before a hyphen at the end of the line a long ſ must always be used, for > example Shaftſ-bury.

<comment><USER19> That's when hyphenating a word, not between different words linked by hyphens.

<comment><USER20> That's exactly what a hyphenated word is.

<comment><USER21> No. "Hyphenating a word" here means when a whole word is split by a hyphen to continue on the next line of a justified column of text. In that case only, a long s is used before the hyphen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> These days you usually become familiar with that letter through looking at title pages for old books on Wikipedia.

<comment><USER23> The still use it on the street signs hereabouts, writing "-straſze" instead of "-straße".

<comment><USER24> Interesting, where is that?

Wikipedia has an example of a street sign with "ſs": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waldstra%C3%9FePirna.JPG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waldstra%C3%9FePirna.JPG)

And of course there are the street signs in Berlin which use a very weird ß, but it's still an ß as opposed to a "ſz" combination: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berliner_Stra%C3%9Fe.JPG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berliner_Stra%C3%9Fe.JPG)

<comment><USER25> I absolutely love the typographical choices used for Berlin's street signs. There are multiple variants but I'm talking about the posted one. It also preserves the old tz-ligature[0], the vertical descender on lower-case Y[1], as well as both the ch- and the ck-ligature which (being an antiqua font) are mostly realized in terms of careful kerning [2, 3, 4].

The font is both pleasing, readable, breathable, and has these nods to Germanic typographical heritage. It's really lovely. Among my favorite details pertaining to living in Berlin.

[0] [https://www.xn--untergrund- blttle-2qb.ch/fotos/Strassenschil...](https://www.xn--untergrund- blttle-2qb.ch/fotos/Strassenschild_luederitzstr_berlin_1.jpg)

[1] [https://live.staticflickr.com/3730/9668177465_bde765c591_h.j...](https://live.staticflickr.com/3730/9668177465_bde765c591_h.jpg)

[2] [https://fhxb- museum.de/xmap/media/S16/T1815/image/fhxb_jh_k0...](https://fhxb- museum.de/xmap/media/S16/T1815/image/fhxb_jh_k02_0430_11_1500px.jpg)

[3] [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/M%...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/M%C3%B6ckernstra%C3%9Fe_Schild.jpg/1024px-M%C3%B6ckernstra%C3%9Fe_Schild.jpg?1575558184352)

[4] [http://www.w-volk.de/museum/encke01.jpg](http://www.w-volk.de/museum/encke01.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was momentarily confused by these when I saw them in some old journal articles on PubMed. There's a load if you search a really generic term and sort oldest to newest.

</comment><comment><USER27> I had to read the caption of the poster in order to see that it was "Paradise Lost" and not "Paradise Loft" ...

<comment><USER28> I first came into contact with the long s while reading (IIRC) Antoine de Lavoisier's memoirs (or papers?) on the nature of diamond. It was very unnerving to read, as I couldn't see the difference with an "f" before enquiring more about it, and reading the wikipedia article.

I couldn't find the exact reference, but the book was along the lines of that one (French): [https://books.google.fr/books?id=yr3OAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22](https://books.google.fr/books?id=yr3OAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22)</comment></comment>


Is Bootstrap development starting to stall? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/graphs/contributors <comment><USER2> Yep, stalled for sure.

There are only so many _' issues'_ that a framework can solve and _make things easier_ for you. Why not take advantage of a few basic features right? Why re- invent the wheel?

Perhaps this is the answer.

You can only rely on the framework to get you so far. These frameworks have become a crutch for developers.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd argue that it might be a good thing. Should it take infinite energy to solve the problem of creating a decent CSS framework that works in modern browsers?

<comment><AUTHOR> The challenge is that frameworks like TWBS and Foundation provide web developers with a great boost in productivity when trying to hammer out a product. They can spend more time on building a quality product and less time on the minutiae. It also creates a shared vernacular for the developer and the designer to work with. Without it, things are more grey.

Obviously some people hate these frameworks, and that's totally valid too, but for some people, they really are a boost.

<comment><USER4> I interpreted d33's comment along the lines that maintaining a matured framework _should_ need less effort than it took to initially build it, so it would be natural that the amount of changes is shrinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No - It did not stall. The contributions graph are ONLY for commits on master branch. As you can switch to other branches - you can notice that they have 2k,3k or 4k commits ahead of master. Its being actively developed. But not much on master branch. Just on different branches. Mostly on v4-dev branch.

</comment><comment><USER6> No.

<comment><AUTHOR> No?

<comment><USER7> I mean, maybe? What's a 'stall'? Are we measuring commits/day? Is it important to have a constant number of commits/day throughout the lifetime of the product?

Why can't something like this be considered 'feature-complete'? Suppose at some point we run out of major features to add and infinite refactoring to do, and will only fix bugs? Will the framework be considered 'stalled' then, or merely 'mature'?</comment></comment></comment>


France passes law forcing online platforms to delete hate-speech within 24 hours - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/14/france-passes-law-forcing-online-platforms-to-delete-hate-speech-content-within-24-hours/ <comment><USER2> How long until internet companies decide that relatively small and litigious markets aren't worth their time and simply ignore laws like this?

If every country with an economy the size of 1 or 2 large US states start making up their own censorship laws and trying to force companies to enforce them, at some point this causes huge inefficiencies.

I can see two end states to this:

1\. If the censoring country has enough international legal influence, companies will probably have to block users from that country from using their services.

2\. If the censoring country does not have enough international legal influence, the company ignores them and the government has to explicitly censor its citizens' internet connections.

I kind of prefer the second because it's more visible and dramatic - I think a lot of people probably aren't even aware when their country has censorship laws.

This also creates economic opportunities for two classes of alternative content distribution:

1\. Content distribution based out of legally friendly countries, a la the Sultanate of Kinakuta. Expect to see the media start using terms styled after "tax haven", like "cybercrime haven", for countries that don't enforce US/EU censorship/copyright laws.

2\. Content distribution based off of peer-to-peer networks that are harder to wage lawfare against. Bittorrent, IPFS, etc. fit the bill here.

<comment><USER3> There is a third possible 'end state', which is that each restrictive country with a large market ends up in a 'sandbox'. This could look a lot like the Great Firewall, but outsourced.

<comment><USER4> Isn't there already a de-facto sandboxing by language?

<comment><USER3> Not really, many countries share languages but not regulations. In addition to that, many people move from one country to another, while staying in touch with their old friends.

Facebook has also been working hard on their translation features to reduce language barriers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Poor admins and moderators... I genuinely never understood what the fuss is about. Hear me out here. I spent a good amount of time of my life living abroad. Almost 6 years to be exact. And this was during a time when commenting stuff online was relatively rare still. That said, an eastern European in a western European country is inevitably going to face racism/xenophobia. If you are a man it will hit you even sooner. And if you are in the late teen age group like I was, I'd say give it 2 weeks tops, regardless of your background. Sure, it was unpleasant but I felt far worse when someone from the crowds stood up for me. I've lived in eastern Europe in the late 80s and 90s, do you honestly think that some moron blabbering is making me feel insecure or threatened? I'm more than capable of standing up for myself if it comes to that, let them talk. If I'm not doing anything about it, chances are I've worked out that this is the best course of action. If anything, that helped me become who I am today and made me a lot more resilient. Fun fact, some of the people who gave me the hardest time coming in are the ones who have me a hand several years later when some dark moments hit me. And I can't thank them enough till this day and though we live on the opposite ends of the continent, we are now close friends.

And till this day, whenever I hear some "hate speech" as they call it, I don't even bother registering it in my brain. "Yeah, cool story bro".

My point is that censoring and forcing people to work like machines around the clock to hide comments is completely redundant. What this does is forcing people to fragment the internet into decentralized echo bubbles, where the two camps can ramble on about their own views and claim that that's how everyone thinks. And historically that has never worked and thinking that it will now is beyond absurd.

Threatening someone personally in public is one thing and it should be dealt with accordingly. But the general "f {insert any nationality, race, religion, etc.}"... Meh... Ok, whatever...

<comment><USER6> Fully agreed. Just "hate speech" on its own seems like a non-issue.

If it gets to a point where it obstructs your way of life or people spewing that kind of language are following you and such, it sounds more like "harassment" or "threats", and we already have laws in effect that protect people against that. Same with calling for harm to certain groups of people, as that would fall under "inciting violence".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hate speech definition: 'abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation'.

How can this possibly be enforced? This is Bowdlerization of online debate. (removing material that is considered improper or offensive from (a text or account), especially with the result that the text becomes weaker or less effective).

Hate speech will just be pushed underground, it doesn't solve anything or make anything go away but it does reinforce 'the establishment view', something the French ENA currently have a tight control on.

<comment><USER8> This is a very broad term on this law.

"prejudice against a particular group."

So if I call Trump supporters "ignorant red necks and backward people," Will it be considered Hate speech?

Or when people say:

"White people are <slurs> <negative adjective>"

Will that be considered hate speech too?

Disclaimer: I am a "protected" minority, but I am in favor of free speech. Even if what you say is ugly or garbage.

PS. I consider downvotes here as offensive and "hate speech".

<comment><USER9> From what you can see in France or more broadly in Europe, the hate speech is only characterized when you really offend the minorities (or some persons belonging), and more specifically when you do so by yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them. This is worse when you call to harm them.

In your examples, which are clearly mere slurs, you do not try to sound objective in your bad depictions of them.

In my experience of what can be seen in the news, your risk something more if you are telling, for example, "white people just damage all the books they touch in bookstores, because they never care how they handle them".

<comment><USER8> Yes,

But this broad _" yielding a kind of wanting-to-sound-objective argumentation to harm them"_ is where the devil is.

I can consider the downvotes "hate speech" because they were targeted at me as a "protected minority," and it does not consider my emotions. I felt very depressed about it, and HN did not make accommodations to make me feel safe expressing it without any prejudice.

And I demand it to be removed.

How about when people use master and slave names on Tech? -> [http://antirez.com/news/122](http://antirez.com/news/122) I feel sick because of my past as a slave descendent.

We can find offense and hate in anything if we care to look deep enough.

It is more about "WHO" will be censored than about the message. Will it be used to repress science? News? What if News become "hate speech"? Or science?

<comment><USER9> But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies.

And the example of master/slave is at most insensitivity, not at all hate speech.

Hate speech is really more characterized than that. Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning, often using abusive generalisations at each of their sentences...

I understand your point though, and I agree, the law itself should be a lot more specific, explicitly.

<comment><USER8> _" But the first example is just unspecific, and attributing the downvotes to some reason is difficult without real replies."_

That is hate speech, can you see? You can't see it because you are __privileged __.

That is the reason only me as a "protected minority" can relate and say what is or not hate speech against us.

You simply can't understand our life experience.

\--> by simple "twist" I can bend your intent and make you a _hater_

Does the Law have space for replies? Don't think so. Who will decide a reply is good enough?

 _" Besides true insults and slurs, those are for example the theories that make some minorities the cause of societal problems by blunt reasoning"_

I think it is more of "think about the children" slippery slope.

You sell it about a "good excuse" then later abuse it.

The countries that seems to implement it are doing it most in a way to curb criticism to some govt policies than protecting "groups". Then every criticism about govt policy is "hate speech".

E.g: govt decides to give iPhones to X group.

If you complain that will be "hate speech"?

Again this is very lax and prone to abuse.

We as good intended and polite can see it has to be more specific but the "govt" _does not_.

Are we smart than people that make laws everydays? I don't think so.

Then I rather not have it.

Better hate people for what they think/say than for what they hide.

<comment><USER9> Yes, but the point is whether the judge will buy that or not. There already is a crime of hate speech in France, and until now the tribunals do not fall in the traps of the kind of manipulation you emphasize. Of course I hope it will stay this way...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Who decides authoritatively what is or isn't "hate speech" within the 24 hour period?

The conclusion TFA makes seems likely: these services will just err on the side of "delete first, ask questions later" to protect themselves from liability, making all sorts of legal expression impossible.

The current state of online publishing is really sad, and getting worse. Very few modern services used for hosting can be used to publish legal yet fringe or controversial opinions, which should terrify you even if you don't agree with those things.

We're moving toward a world where a dozen large companies will be the final arbiters of what can or cannot be published, regardless of what the law says. If you can't see why that's a grave threat to society, I question your imagination.

...and that's just in peacetime. Imagine the special wartime requirements that will apply to these services if their hosting nations ever feel legitimately threatened.

<comment><USER11> Being made fun of for anything that people biologically cannot change is hate speech. It's not some complicated quagmire of laws you are trying to make it out to be.

<comment><USER10> If only content moderation and human expression were that simple. Alas, it is not to be.

If you read it carefully, I just "made fun of" people who are unimaginative. Is that an innate trait? Should my content be censored?

Should a comment on a video of a tall person that says "how's the weather up there?" be censored using criminal liability?

This criminalizes even hosting the discussion about what beliefs along these lines are or are not correct. Someone posts about their (mistaken) beliefs, in essence asking about a disproven theory correlating race and IQ. Other people correct them, educating them as well as any other lurkers. Should the sysadmins go to jail for not deleting the entire thread?

Being wrong on the internet should not be illegal.

There is absolutely not a bright line, and it is somewhat naive or perhaps even dishonest to claim otherwise.

<comment><USER12> > If you read it carefully, I just "made fun of" people who are unimaginative. > Is that an innate trait? Should my content be censored?

Given that reddit is banning the word "retard"... the answer may soon be "yes, it should".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 'There are multiple levels of fines. It starts at hundreds of thousand of euros but it can reach up to 4% of the global annual revenue of the company with severe cases. The Superior Council of the Audiovisual (CSA) [0] is the regulator in charge of those cases.

'Germany has already passed similar regulation and there are ongoing discussions at the European Union level.'

[0] [https://www.csa.fr](https://www.csa.fr)

<comment><USER14> >there are ongoing discussions at the European Union level

I suspect that if the EU really does implement this, the US will likely make it against US law to obey media censorship requests from other countries against speech that the First Amendment protects. They probably should have done that a little while ago (curating content under the request of a foreign government should be one of those things that revoke your Section 230 privileges), but better late than never.

Other countries dictating what can and cannot be said on US services is already a big problem, and will only get worse, and the EU's bargaining position is much weaker than China's given that the vast majority of EU citizens use US services.

<comment><USER15> It is not constitutional for the US to make it illegal to remove content. Regardless of why you would remove it.

The 1st Amendment cuts both ways there - you can't be punished for _removing_ something from your billboard. That's your freedom as a US entity to decide what you express. The reasoning behind why you removed content (a violation of your website's terms, a request from a foreign government, contractual obligation with McDonalds to not host Pink Slime videos in exchange for $1MM a year) doesn't matter from a constitutional perspective. So the US government revoking a protection of an existing US law as punishment for an expression (removing content) would be an unconstitutional violation of free expression.

<comment><USER14> They can certainly make it illegal to pay any fines, though.

Also, >you can't be punished for removing something from your billboard.

Sure you can, you can just be treated as a "curator" rather than a "publisher" and thus liable for your curated collection. That's the whole point of S. 230, after all.

<comment><USER16> There is nothing in S. 230 that distinguishes between curators and publishers. It says:

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as > the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information > content provider.

"Information content provider" is:

> The term "information content provider" means any person or entity that is > responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of > information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer > service

In fact, the point of S. 230 was to allow sites to block and filter offensive material without that making them liable for the material that their filtering or blocking did not remove. There's a decent history of how this came about on Wikipedia [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> But what in case of the abuse of the system? Administrators will end up deleting whatever is reported. Not to mention it can be used in political fight.

<comment><USER18> there are things in it to punish people abusing the system too

<comment><USER19> To use a US example, I doubt there are many perjury charges prosecuted related to DMCA takedowns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I bet this will induce deplatformization.

You do not react the same way if you are a platform (in which case you just deactivate or delete the contents as soon as it is flagged by anyone), or if you are yourself responsible for your website (in which case you will fight to defend that you don't need to take down the contents).

My big question is: is AWS, or any other cloud-based hosting system, considered a platform under this law?

Just asking because, even if I am ready to be 100% independent from platforms when they mean FB or Youtube, I certainly am not ready to get rid of cloud hosting...

<comment><USER15> > My big question is: is AWS, or any other cloud-based hosting system, > considered a platform under this law?

They'll probably go after the first point of contact they can find in the chain hosting the text they don't like.

Facebook would clearly be hit with the demand before Level3 would. A peer-to- peer message board that is mostly decentralized, but has a homebase in AWS to coordinate the swarms? Yeah, probably AWS is going to be told to do what they can to take it down.

To soapbox for a second - this kind of policing is ridiculous on its face from my perspective as a US citizen. (And that's coming from someone who has no issue with companies themselves moderating their websites, I think that's a natural solution to cultivate the online community that the site operators desire. But the government compelling them to do so is beyond the pale.)

<comment><USER9> Uh... okay, then, if you are truly self-hosted (meaning, there is a big whirring, heating server in your living room), then would your internet provider company be compelled by the law to cancel your subscription?

Because, this is only the continuing of this logic...

<comment><USER15> Probably. Or they'd subpoena your ISP and send you a letter to take it down if they could identify you personally.

But who knows. Dumb laws like these are rarely thought out to a meaningful degree of detail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Following some links back from that article reaches this: [https://www.numerique.gouv.fr/actualites/remise-du- rapport-d...](https://www.numerique.gouv.fr/actualites/remise-du-rapport-de- la-mission-de-regulation-des-reseaux-sociaux/)

(there is both a French and an English PDF at the bottom). Interestingly to me, one of the main concerns of that writeup is the non-transparency of the editorial function of social networks, e.g., the secret algorithmic choice of what posts/tweets to show you and what order to present them in.

This kind of suggests that a service can avoid some amount of censorship attention simply by acting more as a neutral carrier, instead of the current tendency of the large players to present a filtered and adjusted view.

</comment><comment><USER21> france is such a weird place. In some ways it's a very free society. In other ways it's not free at all. Don't most of the euro countries have weird laws about hate speech like this?

<comment><USER22> It can be argued the U.S. is the "weird" country for not restricting hate speech. It's not just the EU, most countries regulate hate speech. This is not perceived as restricting freedom, because it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets (one person's freedom ends where another's begins).

<comment><USER23> > it protects the freedoms of the group the hate speech targets

Which freedoms would that be?

<comment><USER24> I can think of no freedoms that I lose if I am simply mocked, insulted, or criticized. To lose freedom, we have to mix in something else, like for example a targeted harrassment campaign.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think it was a long time coming. Ever since Yahoo ruling ( also in France ), the internet was in a downward spiral. I am not arguing it is a good thing, but the trajectory was clear for a while.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's easy to forget these days that we in the Western world are not all one big house with the same rules, and reality checks can be jarring. It behooves us to remember the differences, lest we be overly shocked when we see a diner in an American restaurant carrying a sidearm or a European getting arrested for teaching a dog the Nazi salute.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder what'll happen to postings by gilets jaunes now. That's still ongoing BTW, coronavirus notwithstanding.

</comment><comment><USER11> Good. I would much rather have a good amount of censorship then let bigots hide behind the "free speech" argument.

<comment><USER28> I hate bigots as well, but I hate your kind of thinking even more.

<comment><USER26> "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."</comment></comment></comment>


The new way your boss can tell if you're about to quit your job - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/04/11/new-way-your-boss-can-tell-if-youre-about-quit-your-job/ <comment><USER2> I've spent the past two years building a non AI, non ML, human based approach to talent development and retention, so I can safely call BS on IBMs approach.

People leave for a multitude of reasons, and while some are more common than others, every person has unique motivations and needs that drive their choices.

Sometimes it's money.

Sometimes it's the commute.

Sometimes it's the work.

Sometimes it's their manager.

Sometimes it's.......

We encourage companies to think about how to coach and train their managers to identify these needs at a human to human level, rather than relying on a computer to try to figure this out. Building a meaningful relationship between a manager and a report is critically important, and if you do this, you're far more likely to know well in advance when someone is thinking about leaving because it'll have been discussed.

The move towards quantifying employees is a bad one and will backfire long term if it comes with further atrophy of the important skills every manager needs to develop.

Shameless plug- I do free mentoring for managers every day of the week. Would love to help anyone out there who is a manager or leader and needs someone to talk to.

[https://freemanagermentors.com](https://freemanagermentors.com)

I also own a company that runs a remote cohort program for managers and leaders, which focuses on helping managers be their best for their people.

[https://connect.eagerlabs.com](https://connect.eagerlabs.com)

It's my small way of trying to help make sure we don't cede responsibility for being great managers to computers, just so we can say we "use AI".

<comment><USER3> JFYI, Mr.Parker Pyne (Agatha Christie, circa 1934): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Pyne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Pyne)

>He has a theory that there are five main types of unhappiness and all are logically solvable.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing. Hadn't ever read those novels (just sometimes see BBC remakes of the books).

While I don't try to make people happy, I feel like I should put that on my business card :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > For instance, the system spotted one software engineer who hadn't been > promoted at the same rate as three female peers who all came from the same > top university computer science program. The women had all been at IBM for > four years, but worked in different parts of the sprawling company. While > her manager didn't know she was comparing herself to these women, the > engineer was all too aware her former classmates had been promoted and she > hadn't, Gherson said. After the risk was flagged, she was given more > mentoring and stretch assignments and remains at IBM.

There is no evidence she was planning to leave in the first place. I'd like to see a proper experiment that shows higher retention in a double blind, this sounds like marketing BS.

<comment><USER5> It also sounds more like it's a sales pitch to implement personal development like the Valentine's Day approach to relationships. Make an effort once a year and hope it's enough. Why would it take so called AI to do what her line management should be implementing as standard across the board for anyone, let alone top university grads?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wasn't that old Big Data/ML joke how big corporation supplied ML solution vendor with all available data to search for correlations and the result was: "People are more likely to quit job if they visit linkedIn".

</comment><comment><USER2> Non paywall version: [https://www.unionleader.com/news/business/the-new-way- your-b...](https://www.unionleader.com/news/business/the-new-way-your-boss- can-tell-if-you-re/article_1d0df8a1-9d9d-5f09-a8d0-be26e2585e92.html)

<comment><USER7> It might be non-paywall, but it's GDPR blocked.</comment></comment>


Shan Zai and open fabrication - <AUTHOR> http://www.tigoe.net/blog/category/environment/295/

<comment><USER2> Very excited about the ideas expressed in this article. There is a quite open hardware revolution that's about to tip.

The open source cheap tools mentioned are very readily available, <http://bit.ly/LvFB9>, and they're getting even cheaper by the second. Hacker spaces, <http://bit.ly/DRTYB>, are springing up everywhere so knowledge is definitely being passed down globally.

Its always bottom up innovation that manages to disrupt. Open Source software paved the way, I can't wait to see what Open Hardware will do. Very exciting indeed.</comment>


Show HN: Only Real Men Haircuts - <AUTHOR> http://haircutsbros.com

<comment><USER2> I noticed a few douchebags were pictured here.</comment>


Social networking for energy conservation [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCxuNlm7AZY&feature=player_embedded

<comment><AUTHOR> This is an innovative project which aims to help people reduce their energy consumption by giving them tools to monitor and compare their usage with that of their friends.

It's currently in contention for the GE ecomagination prize which seeks to find the projects with the most potential to make the world more energy efficient.

If you this like this project your vote will be appreciated. In order to do you you'll be required to signup to the GE ecomagination site at [http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=i...](http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ct/ct_a_view_idea.bix?c=ideas&idea_id=EE1E9A56-02A7-4679-B7AE-00656FE348F4)</comment>


JavaFX: Call to ARMs - <AUTHOR> https://justmy2bits.com/2016/03/12/javafx-call-to-arms/ <comment><USER2> I had hopes for JavaFX as well. But I dont see it soing places anymore without massive corporate backing. All the secondary APIs are pretty much clean-room designed and lack some consumer-developer insight on how its used. I encountered missing API surface, missing layout logic, huge feature holes etc.

The WebView is just unusable. It segfaults the JVM if you use it wrong, and I had like three different ways I did that. It is practically impossible to control the behaviour of the navigation and Network fetching, which I really need to do.

Also it is just way to slow. All the widgets are coded like they are the only thing the app is for and contain huge object trees for the simplest blip. CSS support was (there have been efforts lately) just very clunky and half done.

Passing Events to/from a backend to the UI Model is still very clunky because of the Single Thread thing of the UI. It collides with the Binding semantics, which only really work inside one thread.

It really needs a slim down, and lots and lots of elbow grease to polish it into a state where it can be the base of a nice and big ecosystem.

The Design itself is rather modern and feels OK with Java8.

<comment><USER3> I pretty much agree with most of this with the exception of the single thread comment as all modern UI toolkits (and most old toolkits) are single threaded.

I'd like to add that the deployment was also a nightmare as javafxpackager is horribly broken in many small ways. Basic things like support for UWP targets or modern UI on Windows (not the look actually running in the metro environment) is missing. Integration with Swing is horrible, for the life of me I can't understand why this wasn't the first thing implemented in FX and why it has a separate thread from the Swing main thread...

Looking at the history of programming only one scene-graph API ever gained major traction and that was Flash. It did that thanks to amazing tooling from Macromedia that mostly hid the fact that it was a scene-graph API.

SVG failed as an API (it has moderate usage as a file format but not as popular as the newer Canvas API). iOS has a sort of Scene-Graph API in core- animation but that isn't used as much and it's really simplistic. Most samples mention the immediate mode API, OpenGL or Metal. There is XAML which isn't exactly a glaring success either... I think it's time for the scene-graph folks to admit that it looks good on paper and can be pretty amazing, but the "market" has spoken... Repeatedly. Scene graph is nice but when something performs badly you have no clue, too much happens "under the hood" and developers don't like that.

<comment><USER2> Yes, the single threaded design is the way to go. The authors elaborated their position on it and understandably came to the conclusion that multi-threaded updating support will just explode the complexity. But since they obviously thought about this Problem, I don't understand why this issue does not get more attention API wise.

There is the javafx.concurrent package, but that just gives you the low-level stuff Tasks/Futures. But what I really want is property binding ( or something more declarative than manually hooking Task-lambdas everywhere ) between the backend threads (which are mandatory since you don't compute in the UI thread) and the UI. You end up duplicating your models because this is really hard otherwise, even though you might only have a viewing App with little logic and could just use the JavaFX Observables as your model properties. Then you have 2 models (MVVM yay) which need to be synchronized, and right now its just loads of Platform.runLater wrapped lambdas everywhere.

So the platform kind of forces the MVVM thing, but does not give you much support of doing it in an idiomatic or clean way.

I dont really have a good solution for this either, I think DataFX goes there but I have not tried it.

But this is all really criticism on a rather high level. I did some cocoa stuff, and my hair fell out. Id rather wrangle JavaFX than cocoa any day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One irony regarding JavaFX is that the original JavaFX Script language[1] was probably among the best frontend languages ever created (better than TypeScript or Elm in many ways, IMO). It is powerful, typed, and easy for JS developers and designers to learn, plus it's designed for CSS integration. When it was abandoned by Oracle (good decision), it was forked [2], maintained and improved for some time, and then withered. I hope someone would take it[3] and write a JavaScript/HTML backend. It has pretty good tooling (IDE support) that could probably be used.

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

[2]: [http://javafx.steveonjava.com/accouncing- visage/](http://javafx.steveonjava.com/accouncing-visage/)

[3]: [https://github.com/visage-lang](https://github.com/visage-lang)

<comment><USER5> I also miss JavaFX Script.

In my head it was destroyed by trying to improve it.

IIRC the first versions just worked and was amazing with live scripting etc. I even made an applet that was popular for a while.

Newer versions added more and more complexity before you could get anything done (again IIRC).

Feels a lot like Symfony: started small and focused and ended up as multiple smaller projects including a dependency inversion container but at some point along the road the magic was lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> For our customers it is all about WPF, Qt and Xamarin.Forms.

The few customers that still require Java desktop applications have no desire to move away from Swing.

I really don't see a bright future for JavaFX.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's always interesting to see the only people who ever talk about JavaFX are either Oracle employees or people who have a financial interest in JavaFX, such as the author of this piece whose business is based on JavaFX.

<comment> jmcdonald-ut I'm not sure what this comment is trying to insinuate? I mean sure they might have a financial interest, but they're also writing about stuff they know well since they use it.

<comment><USER8> Basically that talk about and use JavaFX are those with a vested interest in JavaFX as a platform in and of itself. Rather than hearing from people who are more interested in the programs that you'd make with JavaFX.

The connotation is that there isn't much adoption of JavaFX outside of a small (Sun/Oracle-centric) group, which has largely always been the case with JavaFX.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> disclaimer: I am not a java developer

a few months ago I wanted to write a small desktop app which i wanted to distribute for Linux, mac & window in that order of priority. My first implementation was in Qt but faced significant problems with building for different platforms, providing binary files that would just work, etc.

JavaFx was the next choice and damn the development experience was amazing, it was fun to write even when i had no prior experience with either Java or JavaFx but distribution became a problem again, the JavaFx classes weren't found on other peoples systems, people in the javafx irc told me that it should be available for everyone on jre 1.8 but alas no solution was found.

I finally shipped a electron app (shudders)

p.s. i found the javafxpackager but it didn't work, i am doing something wrong definitely but there aren't enough people talking/writing about this that i could refer too.

</comment><comment><USER10> >Throw in RoboVM who successfully AOT compiled Java byte codes to native Objective-C to facilitate Java running on iOS and others who contributed to the Android port, and we were now ready to take on the world!

I wonder if he knows the fate of RoboVM.

</comment><comment><USER11> With Oracle increasingly looking to win in Oracle vs Google court case JavaFX might have future after all.

</comment><comment><USER12> Oracle can revive JavaFX, if they develop something like ReactFX, JavaFX target React. They have all the infrastructure with Nashorn, SceneGraph, etc.

</comment><comment><USER13> must be a rule that the vast majority of informational sites, blog sites, tutorial sites regarding Java look hideous. Looking up tutorial sites on JSF, this 'great' front end coding framework and there's not one site that can manage a nice looking website, not even barebones nice. All are hideous.

<comment><USER10> Incompetent people always blame the tool. It would seem your issue has more to do with design which JSF has nothing to do with.</comment></comment>


Pigouvian taxes: When the interests of individuals and society do not coincide - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/economics-brief/21726709-what-do-when-interests-individuals-and-society-do-not-coincide-fourth <comment><USER2> _" Research may have guided the initial level of a British landfill tax, at £7 a tonne in 1996. But other considerations may have boosted it to £40 a tonne in 2009, and thence to £80 a tonne in 2014."_

While it is a theoretical issue, this particular example seems overly harsh, many tax introductions like this are phased in, so that people are given fair warning and time to change their behaviour. I can't find full documentation but certainly in 2009 it was already decided that the price should rise by £8 pounds every year until it got to £80

</comment><comment><USER3> great exposition about taxes on externalities often being sub-optimal. part of the problem with pigouvian taxes as the solution to externalities is that taxes are often viewed with skepticism because of the association with either a big black hole of waste or one of greedy corruption, so you get all kinds of resistance (not to mention the primary resistance of the "greedy wanting to greed").

but the general idea of pricing in externalities is a neceesary, and possibly an ingenious, way to keep our greedy selves in check for the good of the whole. it's only fair that individuals and small groups of people shouldn't exploit collective resources for only themselves. benefits shouldn't be privatized while costs are socialized. they should go together (private benefit with private cost, public benefit with public cost).

more to the point, "making sure all costs are paid for" by the prevailing party is much more palatable over the vagueness of taxation. external costs should be assessed and charged appropriately and the proceeds be used as much as possible to prevent or restore the resources used and/or the damages caused. the government will need to be involved at a regulatory level, but taxation doesn't seem to be it's most successful intervention option.

</comment><comment><USER4> Since the (excellent) Economist is behind a paywall, this is the description of Pigovian Taxes from Wikipedia:

 _A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied on any market activity that generates negative externalities (costs not internalized in the market price). The tax is intended to correct an inefficient market outcome, and does so by being set equal to the social cost of the negative externalities. In the presence of negative externalities, the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity. In such a case, the market outcome is not efficient and may lead to over-consumption of the product. An often-cited example of such an externality is environmental pollution._

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

</comment><comment><USER5> I would like to see more taxes like this, with "free allowances" below which one does not need to fill in any paperwork or pay anything.

For example, have a car and have it produce 50 tons of co2 per year, don't worry. But if you have a power station and it produces 2500 tons, you have to measure it, report it, and pay co2 tax on it.

But if you leave your car running at full throttle hooked up to powering all the houses in your street, you'll have to pay.

<comment><USER6> An alternative would be have the pigouvian tax on power stations, but at a rate where it is cheaper to buy from the line than hook up an ICE to a generator. Tax regimes should always take market effects and enforcement into account.

Thermal efficiency of a good ICE: 38%

Thermal efficiency of a good natural gas plant: 54%

Average power line losses: 8-15%

[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota- gasoline-...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline- engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent)

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

[http://blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management- energy-...](http://blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management-energy- efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/)</comment></comment>