Homebrew Cask – CLI workflow for the administration of Mac binaries - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/phinze/homebrew-cask <comment><USER2> I'm constantly impressed with Homebrew. The team that maintains it always outdoes themselves when it comes to building new things to make using software on a Mac the best experience possible.

On top of that, every single interaction I've had with the project through Adam, Mike, Misty, etc has been a downright pleasure.

I wish there was a simple way to donate to the Homebrew project (besides the kickstarter for brewbot). I've checked out this thread on Github but it seems closed: [https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/issues/20482](https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/issues/20482)

If the devs are reading this, consider setting up a link even if it is just to get you all a few beers.

<comment><USER3> Amen to that! Our project is actually independent of the Homebrew team, but we very much model ourselves on the great work they're doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool to see this up on Hacker News. The project has been growing quite a lot over the past few months.

We've expanded from managing the installation of just apps, to now include support for installing Font's, Widgets and QuickLook Plugins.

We've now also got separate repos for alternate app versions as well as fonts, you can find them @ [https://github.com/caskroom/](https://github.com/caskroom/)

If anyone has questions we're normally hanging out in #homebrew-cask on Freenode

</comment><comment><USER5> The only "downside" that I see at the moment is that it doesn't recognize apps that are installed in another way. Given that I've installed most of the software that I need already it makes Cask much less useful to me. If there was some way to let Cask scan your system and know that I've already installed google-chrome and adium that would be cool.

Quite a few of the apps I use (iTerm2, ST3, Chrome, Adium, etc.) update themselves periodically. I wonder how Cask deals with that?

<comment><USER3> > Quite a few of the apps I use (iTerm2, ST3, Chrome, Adium, etc.) update > themselves periodically. I wonder how Cask deals with that?

Sparkle-based self-updating apps will self-update in place. For apps like that, the current policy is to have a Cask version of 'latest', and letting the apps self update.

I've been doing this for some time and I've found it works out AOK. It's nice to be able to click the "Update & Relaunch" and know I'm not messing anything up. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are a few things I don't like about this homebrew-cask. My biggest issue currently, now that the installation path can be specified as /Applications instead of ~/Applications[0], is that it makes a symbolic link from its install location to the Applications folder. Since the standard for GUI applications on OS X is to have some built in update system, I just want the applications to be copied to my install location and left alone. This means it would only automate the install process which I think would be better then managing their lifecycle.

[0]: [https://github.com/phinze/homebrew- cask/blob/master/USAGE.md...](https://github.com/phinze/homebrew- cask/blob/master/USAGE.md#options)

<comment><USER7> I believe if you're going the Homebrew route you're accepting the cask's versions of things as a means to synchronize installations. This could be handle for teams that need to be using the same versions of specific libraries or apps, system administrators who want to manage upgrades paths, etc.

It could also be as simple as "that's the way it works because that's how homebrew works". It's all symlinks, and I personally am a fan because if I want to cleanup what's been done with Homebrew it's very easy.

I do completely understand your point, and agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure there are situations where you wouldn't want things simply copied and left to run/update on their own.

<comment><USER6> I don't think this synchronizes installations since the forumla[0] are overwritten with each update. If someone updates one of them the specific version you downloaded elsewhere will not be downloaded again. I definitely understand why homebrew works this way, but the logic for symlinking the applications is all in this extension[1] so this could easily be changed. I agree that symlinks is better for tools typical to homebrew but for this it's not like it symlinks your preference files so you're not actually cleaning up any junk if you uninstall the application through cask, it's the equivalent of just dragged it to the trash. Also the applications will still attempt to update so it's not managing versions that way either.

[0]: [https://github.com/phinze/homebrew- cask/tree/master/Casks](https://github.com/phinze/homebrew- cask/tree/master/Casks) [1]: [https://github.com/phinze/homebrew- cask/blob/master/lib/cask...](https://github.com/phinze/homebrew- cask/blob/master/lib/cask/artifact/app.rb#L20)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The README summary is a little clearer than the link title: "Get the elegance, simplicity, and speed of Homebrew for the installation and management of GUI Mac applications such as Google Chrome and Adium."

</comment><comment><USER9> Speaking of which, is anyone working on allowing Homebrew itself to do binary package management? The lack of binary package management is one of the main reasons I give when people ask me why I mainly use Linux on my Macbook Air. I understand this will add the complication of needing to host the binaries somewhere, but it would be quite useful, since some packages take a long time to compile.

<comment><USER10> It already has this kind of functionality, it is called bottles and most of the bigger packages like Qt are already available as binaries. Recently I've noticed that some of the smaller ones are also becoming available which is nice.

<comment><USER9> Oh cool! I did not know that. I'll still be sticking to Arch Linux though. I'd have a hard time adapting to using a non-tiling window manager full time.

<comment><USER11> I moved from a tiling WM to OS X a few years back with no big issues. Even then there are partial solutions such as [https://github.com/ianyh/Amethyst](https://github.com/ianyh/Amethyst)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've used Cask for a few months now and it's been great as promised. Developers are responsive and accepted my formula additions quickly.

So glad to see it on HN; can't recommend it enough.

</comment><comment><USER13> Trying it out, and pretty happy so far, but I also have a lot of applications that I've previously installed manually, and I'm finding it tedious to install via cask then delete from /Applications and hope everything migrates over properly. It is more challenging with stuff like iStat-Menus which I'm really not sure how to migrate.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wrote about Cask as well as other tools sometimes back, [http://ashishb.net/tech/mac-101-migrating-from-gnulinux- to-m...](http://ashishb.net/tech/mac-101-migrating-from-gnulinux-to-mac-for- software-engineers/)

</comment><comment><USER15> I have been using this for the last month. Very useful, especially the Brewfile.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is there some way to also automate installs from the App Store?

<comment><USER3> Alas there is not AFAIK. For all the research I've done on this, the only conclusion I've been able to draw is that the MAS is anti-automation (if not in intent, at least in its current design). :(</comment></comment>


Matting and Hinging of Works of Art on Paper (1981) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/SmithBrown.PDF <comment><USER2> I want to say that if you're half-serious about art, spend some time learning these kinds of techniques—how to present artwork without damaging it much.

You will usually have no idea which pieces of art you make or own are the ones that will someday become precious. The artwork may be owned by, a depiction of, or created by someone who disappears from your life. Or you may be that person who disappears from someone else's life. Or you may realize that the art has something special in it that you can't replicate.

Art doesn't last forever but it's not too much effort to get an easy hundred years out of it, most of the time.

(As a minor note—if you have photographs on fiber-base paper, the techniques for mounting are often a bit different than the ones in the linked article. This is because fiber-base paper has a powerful tendency to curl.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't disagree, but I find the idea of archival materials interesting. Does Van Gogh's cheap yellow diminish his art? Or to put it another way, folk art isn't lesser just different and mostly in the mind of the beholder. All these techniques work with Elmer's and corrugated cardboard. Matting and framing is mostly about presentation not preservation.</comment></comment>


Our Stay at Nakagin Capsule Tower Tokyo Japan - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> You forgot the URL?</comment>


Stand up to lose weight, beyond diet and exercise - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencealert.com/study-discovers-internal-biological-scales-monitoring-weight <comment><USER2> Why did you change the title? "Scientists Discover an Entirely New Biological System That Regulates Body Fat", as the article has it, is a lot more informative, less clickbaity and less misleading.</comment>


No, Journalism Is Not 'Safe' from Automation - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@CM30/no-journalism-is-not-safe-from-automation-a54c5eb6df5d <comment><AUTHOR> Thought I'd post about this, because so many sites seem to be assuming journalism is a 'safe' career in the dawn of AI.

However, they fail to realise that the average journalist is not doing investigative journalism or breaking the next Watergate scandal, but doing something more akin to grunt work.

<comment><USER2> I like reading articles where writers seem to think that programming will be automated away before their jobs are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wonder what role will Google play in this. I mean, will it simply continue to evaluate "based on quality" (and other external factors), which would mean that as time goes by more robot-written articles would rise to the top, or would it take a hard stance against robot-written articles, just as it did against article farms, and find a way to ban all or most automated articles?</comment>


Try mouseover Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Only appears to happen on .com</comment>


Building a global IoT data network in 6 months - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@wienke/the-things-network-building-a-global-iot-data-network-in-6-months-adc2c0b1ae9b#.r7m9n8458 <comment><USER2> This project looks great! I don't have much time now to read your specifications etc, sorry. But I have one question: I understand that the Things can send data using low power to the cloud, how did you designed your system for the opposite direction, send data to the Thing like commands, without spending too much energy with the RF receiver? Is the receiver always ON? Is it really low low power?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a question we hear quite often. The LoRaWAN specification [1] defines three classes of devices. Class C nodes are powered on all the time, which indeed has consequences for the energy consumption. For more energy constrained devices, Class B offers some kind of scheduled rendez-vous, and Class A devices only receive downlink messages after (in response to) sending an uplink message. This allows nodes to switch of their radio when they don't need it.

[1]: The LoRaWAN specification be downloaded here: [http://www.lora- alliance.org/For-Developers/LoRaWANDeveloper...](http://www.lora- alliance.org/For-Developers/LoRaWANDevelopers)

<comment><USER3> For comparison, BLE always uses scheduled rendezvous (B), and Thread supports always-on, and unscheduled wake-up type devices (C and A).

The downside of scheduled rendezvous is that both devices need accurate clocks, and they have to communicate regularly (once every few seconds) to maintain synchronisation.

Nice that LoRaWAN supports all three anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Love what you guys are doing here! Very happy to help!

</comment><comment><USER5> Good post, nice summary of a great venture so far

</comment><comment><USER6> Do you guys know of any other projects of networks where the infrastructure is owned/crowdsorced by the public?

<comment><USER2> The only low power wide network for IoT I know about is Sigfox ([http://www.sigfox.com/en/](http://www.sigfox.com/en/)) but it is not crowd owned...</comment></comment>


Ask HN: On H1B right now, can I be a co-founder? - <AUTHOR> A friend and I have been working on an exciting software project for a few months now. He's a US citizen and I myself am staying in the US on a H1B while working for a big software company. We would like to incorporate, but I'm really not sure about what that means for me from a legal standpoint.
Would I be breaking any laws if I were to be the co-founder? What happens once we receive any kind of investment, can I pay myself anything? Supposedly you can't have a "salary" unless you have a H1b, so can I get myself a H1B sponsored by my own company? Is having equity against my H1B in the first place? Can I even "work" for this corporation or do I have to use some kind of loophole?
And yes, I went to talk to an immigration lawyer already about this and he basically asked for an extra couple of grand out of me just so he could spend time researching this question, and even then he said he couldn't guarantee to find an answer and might require additional cash :| <comment><USER2> Yes, you would be breaking a law if you are a co-founder of a US company while on H1-B.

>The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non- immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the United States.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa>

Many people get this mixed up. Non-immigrant visas mean you can only do what your visa specifies that you can do.

A student visa is a non-immigrant studying visa. You can only study.

H1-B visa is a non-immigrant specialty work permit visa. i.e. you are working within your area of study, for a pre-approved company that has sponsored you your visa.

It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but I spent a lot of time researching it and speaking to multiple attorneys while I was trying to do the same thing. I eventually decided to return home, for a number of reasons.

That being said, I have friends that have done it and not gotten detected, but that's a fool's errand. You are risking the company if you do that.

<comment><USER3> You can easily transfer your H1-B to another company (the one you hold equity in), it is not a big deal. What you can't do is work for both companies at the same time.

<comment><USER4> I thought one of the stipulations of the H1-B was that you couldn't self- sponsor ?

<comment><USER5> That's right, but your co-founder(s) can sponsor you, and indeed you them. Provided that you could in theory be fired (a three person board for example) then you can be classed as an employee for the purposes of the H1-B.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Legally, you can be a co-founder of a company while you are on H1-B. But, you can not participate in business activities and you can not take salary.

You can get H1-B visa sponsored by your own company. Manu Kumar of K9 Ventures was able to do this, read [http://k9ventures.com/blog/2009/09/24/my-story-and- support-f...](http://k9ventures.com/blog/2009/09/24/my-story-and-support-for- the-founders-visa/)

It should be easier for you with a US citizen co-founder.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have a guess for what "business activity" means and where you draw the line? And yes, YANAL.

Great link by the way, thanks. This guy has to jump through so many hoops just to stay in here, and seems like he was always a couple of weeks away from being kicked out.

<comment><USER6> You are not allowed to do any sort of work for your company including programming, business development, marketing etc. You can only be an inactive partner in the company.

But practically speaking, you could get away with it while two of you develop the software from your apartment. USCIS is not going to monitor what you have been doing on your computer at home.

It would be difficult when your business grows and have employees & customers. Make sure that you are able to transfer H1-B to your company by then.

I guess founders of few YC and TechStars companies come to US on Visa Waiver Program or Visitor visa for few months and work on their startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can _own_ anything that it is legal for any American to own (except for guns and a few other restrictions). So you could definitely have ownership interest in the company.

I would look for a better immigration lawyer - IME many of them are on the lower rungs of lawyerly proficiency to begin with and are dumb, fat, and happy as a result of collecting thousands of dollars to basically help you fill out paperwork.

Finding one that already has experience helping someone with what you want to do is key.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point. I'd have to find someone who's had tons of experience with both corporate and immigration law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yeah, you'll be breaking the law, whether you receive money or not. You cannot do any work for the company. Think of it this way: even if you went out and painted fences for people, you'd be breaking the law. You can't do anything for anyone, aside from volunteering.

I do not know the process for the company to get an H1-B quota, but the likelihood is that it will cost more than you think. If you can't afford the immigration lawyer, you can't afford to play these games with the US government. It's dangerous for both the company and yourself.

You're pretty screwed here (this is the H1-B working by design). What I think I have seen in the past is the immigrant actually leaves the US for their home country, work for the company there, then once its off the ground, you come back.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yeah, that's illegal. But let's look at what you _could_ do instead.

I believe you can co-own an American company as a "normal" foreign citizen and be in the US from time to time for a couple of weeks, as long as you go home to your resident country in between. I know some business people who actually do that, jetting back and forth between two or three countries where they are involved. It's a pretty interesting lifestyle, too, as long as you can afford the plane tickets and (at least) two separate homes.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think you can do two things :- 1) Incorporate the company, and sponsor a part-time H1B using it. You can have two H1Bs active at the same time, but only one can be full time. This way you will be able to keep your day job. You will need to pay yourself salary, and pay taxes to uncle sam.

2) Sponsor a full time H1B with your own company. You will need to quit your day job for this. But its possible. Salary requirement is more strict for full time position.

IANAL. This is based on my research from a few years ago.

</comment><comment><USER11> My understanding is that you can own a company (or part of one). However, you most definitely _cannot_ do any work for it or take any salary, because your current visa is not sponsored by it. (You can only ever work for your visa sponsor).

Now, what about quitting your current job and having your own company sponsor you? My understanding there is that you cannot have "control" over the company that sponsors you. I quote "control" because this is where things get fuzzy and I'm not entirely sure how it's defined. But if you want to be "co-founder and c[et]o" of your company, then no...

Despite all this, it can be done. You can "game" the system by, for example, having your cofounder be the only (legal) founder and sponsoring you, where you'd be only a "regular" employee. Or hiring and American and claiming that you never do any work (you just have ownership), and that he/she does. Keep in mind that these examples are going against what the law intends (even though only the second is outright illegal), so the government can and will screw you over if they find out.

Long story short: sorry, you're in a bad situation. I'm the exact same boat... It's doable, but you'd be playing with fire. Be careful!

(Obvious disclaimer: IANAL)

Edit: posted prematurely..

</comment><comment><USER12> I see a few people suggesting that you start a new entity and have that company hire you. Be very careful about this since the DHS specifically tries to prevent this type of setup. In fact, it is very difficult for a startup to prove that they are a 'real company', and having paid employees, an office (pictures help), and money in the bank are almost a must. I've been through this a bunch of times (even with companies that have raised a series A), and it still took 4 months of writing letters before the case was approved.

Secondly, don't make the mistake of trying to hire yourself as the CEO/CFO/C-something, since an H-1B only applies to a 'specialty occupation' as was correctly pointed out. This means that it is much easier to convince the DHS that you are eligible for a visa if you are 'applying' as an engineer, product designer or what have you vs. a general management/C-level position.

</comment><comment><USER13> What follows is hearsay but it might give you an idea of where you stand.

Some co-founders in the latest YC batch are on H1B. I do not know how this can be done but maybe you could look through a list of founders, locate the non- Americans and ask them (by guessing their email, maybe?).

You cannot start a LLC in the US all by yourself, but that should not be a problem if your co-founder is American. He can start it. I've heard that your startup cannot sponsor your H1B visa unless it can be shown that you can be fired, which is not possible unless you give away a lot of equity.

I've heard of someone who was on H1B, attended Startup School, walked around trying to talk people into sponsoring his visa so that he can start his startup, and finally got someone to do it. I'm on H1B and just started sending out feelers.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> This seems like a possibility, and definitely better than giving up altogether :)

Was this the list of 2011 batch you were referring to? [http://us.pycon.org/2011/blog/2011/03/07/pycon-2011-live- sta...](http://us.pycon.org/2011/blog/2011/03/07/pycon-2011-live-startup-row/)

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> BadassFractal, thank you for asking this question - I'm in the same boat and your question produced an interesting discussion.

I'm wondering whether you're considering to found a company _somewhere else_, e.g. Hong Kong or Taiwan or any other business-friendly place? In that case both you and your cofounder can own shares of the company, you can work(?) for this company, etc.

Obvious disclaimer: IANAL

<comment><AUTHOR> I always have the option of going back to the EU and working from there, but as you can understand, most of us would rather be in the country where the majority of the company will be located.

Can you expand on the concept of a country being business-friendly? Wouldn't I be able to work for an American company anywhere in the world, or would my country of residence be able to restrict that?

<comment><USER14> Locations like Hong Kong has very simple tax codes etc. It arguably easier to found a company their than in some EU countries as well.

<comment><USER14> This one is from an article that's at the front page now ('Moving to Singapore'): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There are so many creative (and risky) ways to do it. One way is get your h1b thro a small consultancy which in turn contract you to your company. There are a lot of smalltime bodyshop companies which can do it for you but this requires that your company makes enough money to pay for the consulting company (atleast $50 per hour/2k hours per year)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes you can but you will need to get your H1-B transferred to the new company.

Non US-citizens can hold equity in C-Corps (not S-Corps), but that by itself does not allow you to live or work in the US. You would need to you get your H1-B transferred to the new company, but this is not a particularly difficult process.

</comment><comment><USER16> Talk to an immigration laywer. (Someone who specializes in this, _not_ a general laywer.)

</comment><comment><USER17> umm... does anyone know how vinod khosla(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Khosla>) start so many companies(Sun Microsystems) just after graduating? I believe he was not a U.S citizen and had come to the U.S only for his education.

</comment><comment><USER18> Homeland Security USA episode 203: Startup Founders

Starring:

BadassFractal the startup founder

H1B the visa

OnlyCash the lawyer

HN crowd the wannabe lawyers

Live now on Hacker News

</comment><comment><USER19> On H1B you can't _own_ a company.

You must be an _employee_ of your H1B sponsored company.</comment>


Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/social-justice-bullies-the-authoritarianism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3?section=suggested <comment><USER2> Every time I try to argue for intellectual honesty, I get labeled "part of the problem". Every time I try to encourage people to listen to others and treat them equally because it's _a good thing to do_ and not because they identify as a feminist, I am met with hostility. If I make friends with someone of a different background than me and then mention them at all in a discussion about equality, I am accused of tokenism, because I'm cis-het white male scum (hey, thanks for asking, but I'm not all those). I am tired of this abusive rhetoric. I want real feminism, real equality, whatever label you want to use, and it starts with treating people with respect and conducting honest dialogue.

<comment><USER3> You don't want to hold up the author as intellectually honest. He sneaks in a propaganda organ on par with the Party from 1984 as one of his sources without admitting that is what they are. :/

[http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/](http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/) runs some of what he is using as "evidence". They are pretty clearly a political organization with an agenda. If the author wasn't in the same vein, he'd have disclosed that or used someone else.

\---

EDIT:

For example this guy:

> Your post feels eerily reminiscent of pro-industry conservatives pointing at > snow and saying,"Global Climate Shift is a fallacy!" Maybe he used a poor > source (though i think you'd have a hard time finding any data aggregator > that does not have some political lean), but amongst how many credible ones? > In my industry, the last day on the job is all that matters. On a 50 day > job, 49 perfects mean nothing if the one bad one is on the last day. I > always hated this; IMO it has no place in logical debate/discussion.

Since I'm rate limited and people are making various claims I'm going to point this out:

It isn't a "data aggregator with a political leaning", it is literally owned by an institution founded exclusively to further a single political party.

[http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=...](http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81)

> Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition, publicly voicing their > dissent over the consensus regarding climate change. - See more at: > [http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=...](http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81#sthash.9OlZIp6f.dpuf)

If you actually look at the list you find a bunch of people like these folks:

> Donald R. Buechel, MD, Walter R. Buerger, MD

They strongly imply its "climate scientists" when in reality its anyone they can claim has a Phd.

These are trained liars who lie through omission regularly. That isn't anywhere near "the same" as a newspaper with a political leaning.

To hold them up as a source when you claim you are being intellectually honest [and not disclosing what they are] really is dishonest.

<comment><USER4> I'd argue that this is not an instance of dishonesty. The ideologies of groups like the one you linked to, despite being radical, are quickly becoming mainstream.

You've got an author in a mainstream newspaper who can write that due process shouldn't exist, and this is taken seriously in the current political climate.

You've got an ideology that asserts your identity is more important than the content of your character, and this is taken seriously.

You've got an ideology that states literally any dissent is at least bad, at most hateful, and this is taken seriously.

The example you link to is not dishonest because it is not meant to be an example of "everyday" thoughts by everyday people, it is meant to be an example of radicalism becoming mainstream.

<comment><USER5> I'm sorry, but I think everything you've written is utterly backwards. Nobody outside the internet takes seriously the ideas that due process shouldn't exist, or that identity is more important than actions, or that dissent is morally harmful.

And "Conservatism" in its hard-right, Koch-and-Paul incarnation is _already_ mainstream. It _has been_ mainstream ever since Ronald Reagan -- not just mainstream but _the_ mainstream, in the sense that it _keeps winning elections_ , no matter what the San Francisco digerati think of it.

(And for reference, I'm very hard-left. I don't _like_ that the Republican Party wins elections; I just also don't _pretend it doesn 't happen_ and then claim the Tumblr Left is somehow mainstream!)

<comment><USER6> Fallacies abound.

>Nobody outside the internet takes seriously the idea that due process shouldn't exist. The _Internet_ is made of people. Do these people (you and I and everyone ITT) not exist in the real world?

>...ever since Ronald Reagan. Do you honestly believe a Golden Age actor invented Conservatism? Crazy town banana pants

>...the Tumblr left is somehow mainstream. main·stream ˈmānˌstrēm/ noun noun: mainstream

        1.
        the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.

Isn't mainstream more of a reflection of Common Knowledge then ubiquity throughout subgroups? Regardless, the idea that leftishness is somehow an underground thing is CTBP. Full disclosure, I am an intellectual anarchist. THAT is a fringe group.

I am not trying to hate, i just disagree with what you said, and i am sorry if you feel offended by anything i wrote, but i am not sorry for anything i have written.

<comment><USER5> >The Internet is made of people. Do these people (you and I and everyone ITT) not exist in the real world?

The internet is mostly made of a _strict subset_ of people who exist in the real world, and the people who make up The Internet, in the sense of internet- centered subcultures, are a very _small_ subset of all real people.

The fact that an idea or ideology is loud, or even possibly dominant, _within our subculture_ is not even _evidence_ of its being dominant within _society as a whole_. Most of society are _nothing like us net-folk_.

>Do you honestly believe a Golden Age actor invented Conservatism? Crazy town banana pants

What I _said_ is that he brought it to mainstream electoral dominance, particularly after the social-democratic Postwar Consensus.

> Isn't mainstream more of a reflection of Common Knowledge then ubiquity > throughout subgroups?

Right, hence why we need to check to make sure that what _we_ think is common to think _among our friends and cliques_ is actually common among the population as a whole -- because our friends and cliques are _not_ representative samples.

>Regardless, the idea that leftishness is somehow an underground thing is CTBP.

Don't be silly. It's not _underground_ , it's just a comparatively small minority of the total population. In the United States, for instance, if I recall the numbers correctly, I believe that roughly 40% of the population self-report as conservative or conservative-leaning, 10% as independent/undecided, 20% as liberal or leftist, and 30% as moderate/centrist. So in total, there are fewer devoted leftists than devoted rightists, and fewer devoted anything-ists than self-declared non-ideologues.

And of the people who self-declare as leftists, only a minority will be _Tumblr_ leftists.

So yeah: a tempest in the internet's teacup doesn't mean that a bunch of authoritarian identity-politicking liberals are taking over the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure how other tech individuals feel about these issues, but with the accounts of mass public shaming by everyone against perceived injustices and their supporters I feel like the best thing for myself is to say and do nothing at all. Until the tone of the discussion changes I think many people will continue to feel this way as well

<comment><USER8> I think that's a good response, but I'd suggest adding some listening and learning to it. The Internet is accelerating some important cultural changes.

For example, look at the speed with which gay rights have happened, and how quickly society changed. In my view, that's because the Internet has drastically increased the ability of people with minority viewpoints to be heard.

What does that feel like for somebody with the old opinions? It has to be hard. For their whole lives, something they didn't like was actively hidden from them out of fear. They just never had to accept that gay people were real humans. So now they have a whole reservoir of views and habits and comments that are no longer appropriate. Many surely feel uncomfortable enough that they just shut up in public.

And I think that's fine. Their views and habits and comments were part of the social structure that oppressed gay people. Nobody wants to hear them anymore. I think it's best for everybody if they say nothing in public. They should instead take some time listening to the gay people whose voices they previously ignored. To the extent that they need help working through their opinions, they should do that privately, with people already sympathetic to them, rather than demanding that the world help them process things.

<comment><USER7> I don't agree with the sentiment that those who are afraid of speaking up are supporting bigotry or inequality. I hope my comment doesn't imply that I would support those things, or belong to those with 'the old opinions'.

<comment><USER8> I'm sure you don't _want_ to support those things. I don't either. But I expect we both accidentally do. Let's look at the previous example to gay marriage, interracial marriage:

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve- black-...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white- marriages.aspx)

For a long time, it was the near-universal opinion that it was wrong. Now it's the near-universal opinion that it is fine.

When opposition was the dominant opinion, nobody thought that was supporting bigotry and inequality. Then there was a long period where one side believed it was bigotry and one side didn't. Now everybody sees it as bigotry.

For a long time, opponents of interracial marriage were comfortable sharing their views. Supporters were afraid of speaking up. Eventually supporters started speaking up energetically. Opponents did the same:

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Rock_integrati...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg)

Eventually, the tide turned. Opponents generally didn't lose their opinions, but they became afraid to speak up because of possible social consequences. And eventually a generation grew up that doesn't even question the topic.

Why does this matter? Well, either A) all racism, sexism, etc, have now been eliminated from society in this manner, or B) most of us harbor some bigoted, erroneous views that we haven't collectively recognized as wrong.

I believe it's the latter. That's certainly been my personal experience as I've come to learn about these topics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This piece belongs on HN as much as any of the pieces that spring up and are flag killed about feminism i.e. it doesn't.

However, the fact that it is on HN and has received quite a bit of support let's me know I'm certainly not alone in my frustration with the modern social justice movement, their antics, and its creep into the "tech media".

It is an incredibly divisive, hate-fueled movement based on flawed, debunked statistics and what amounts to a game of oppression olympics. Where once the type of person to spout their hateful rhetoric would be simply ignored, through social media they have been enabled, given a voice to, and been able to form an echo-chamber with other similarly deluded, hate-fueled people.

Through their network they have wielded an undue amount of power and we have unfortunately witnessed the result of it in real life, as a man who landed a probe on a comet millions of miles away had his team's achievement pushed to the back in favour of the furor over the shirt he wore while doing so, and who then wept on TV as a result of the sheer level of hate he received.

We have seen GitHub shamed for its rug championing unity in meritocracy, who then quickly moved to throw the "problematic" rug into the trash amidst the furor from these online "feminists".

We saw two people lose their jobs and have their names ran into the ground online by these "feminists" over a bad joke at a tech convention.

And the list goes on.

They have become simply too large to ignore. Their presence, and their narrative, drives so many clicks that we now see the "tech media" latch onto it, give their toxic views air and promote their narrative in the name of gaining clicks.

Facts no longer matter when it comes to these people, only the narrative. It doesn't matter that Ellen Pao was proven to have no case against Kleiner Perkins and was exposed as an incredibly shady person while doing so, you wouldn't tell she lost as the media driving this narrative cherry picked that which was convenient to the narrative and brushed over everything which was not.

I could go on about this, but all I will say is that I'm glad to see backlash against this movement increasing. I'm glad to see more speaking out against it. I'm glad to see their hashtags on Twitter being used against them, and I'm _extremely_ glad to see some of their champions like Sarah Noble being held accountable in real life for the hate they spew online.

<comment><USER10> I think this is a bit disingenuous. I have definitely seen many articles on the web playing "oppression olympics" pitting supposedly privileged and oppressed groups against one another in literally _every possible category_ , but these are usually met with scorn from rational individuals who identify as feminists or social justice warriors who believe that it harms the relevancy of actually oppressed minorities. There are fringe groups on every topic -- just as the Tea Party isn't representative of the visions of Libertarians and Islamic extremism isn't representative of the views of most Muslims, most radical exclusionary feminism isn't representative of the views of the vast majority of feminists.

And as for Pycon 2013, most feminists I know argued that Adria had done enough by complaining to staff and had no right to post the employees' names and pictures on Instagram/Twitter/whatever, and that the individuals involved did not deserve to lose their jobs. But being a jerk isn't a prerequisite for being a voice for a traditionally oppressed group. It's just a result of being impassioned and hopelessly misguided, both traits that are indicative of naïveté rather than malice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you > would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim > sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the > validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was > tacitly denied by their philosophy. —George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Well, doesn't that sum up the modern West in a nutshell. War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is quite unsurprising, since the political system in the United States is very authoritarian.

The entire political discourse lies between the authoritarian center (Democrats) or the authoritarian far right (Republican). There are no real libertarians. There were a few fringe candidates in the past (e.g. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul) who were basically unelectable, and there are a few fringe candidates now (e.g. Rand Paul) who have begun singing the tune of authoritarian government to get elected.

</comment><comment><USER13> If anyone hasn't had the chance, I highly recommend reading Scott Alexander's "Meditations" series, particularly the ones on superweapons and bingo:

[http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html](http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html) [http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html](http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> The prerequisite for civilized discourse is that arguments should stand or fall on their own merits. To evaluate opinions on the basis of the sociopolitical identity of the author, and to shout down those who do not pass this test, is pure prejudice indicative of intellectual debility.

I enjoyed reading the contrarian comments attached to the article, because they were revealingly thin on argumentation. My favourite one was "this is not a good article", closely followed by the inscrutable "you need to come to terms with the idea that you're more libertarian than left-wing."

</comment><comment><USER15> "When Fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-Fascism!"

\- Huey Long

<comment><USER16> "It's hip to be square"

\- Huey Lewis

<comment><USER6> "Uncah Donald, Uncah Donald!"

-Huey, Dewey, and Louis

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would agree in general that the left has appropriated and advocates the kind of extreme, life-changing response to perceived enemies that it has accused the right of using. I do think that ultimately there will be backlash against this. The left mentions routinely that it has demographics on its side, but I could just as easily envision them being perceived as having gone too far and being the 'establishment' that people will eventually work to rebel against - though at that point, it may be too late.

</comment><comment><USER4> This article appears to have fallen off the front page rather precipitously. It was at position 5 last I looked, and now that I refresh the page, it's not even there anymore - older posts with fewer votes are now far above it.

Would any staff care to chime in? It seems as if this posting was penalized.

<comment><USER18> Note: not staff

There is (used to be?) a flamewar detection algorithm built into the larger ranking algorithm that would penalize stories which sparked rapid discussion accompanied by frequent downvoting.

<comment><USER6> Kind of sad. A case where the algorithm is wrong. This is not a flame war, rather it is a passionate discussion between opposed ideologies. The nefarious tentacles of PC culture infecting the maths. Maybe they should add a word search for certain terms ( _No, idiot_ , _fucking moron_ , _you are dumb_ ) as well as rapid responses and downvotes to determine if it has gone all _Reign of Fire_ up in here...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is this really a millennial thing? While the prominence may be a recent thing, the mindset discussed in the article goes back a long way.

<comment><USER9> The mindset may not be a millennial thing but its prominence in modern society most certainly is. Where once the hate-fueled rhetoric these kinds spew all day and night would have been written off as the delusions of a bitter lunatic, social media has given them a platform to find those similar to them, to network, to organise, etc. and those people tend to be within the millennial age group.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is like some kind of Clickhole parody that mashes up MRA literature with How Millennials are Destroying the World(TM). There's no discussion to be had because the author's engaged in a dialog in his head about what the counter argument is and decided to format his thoughts in regards to that. Pepper a little Orwell here and some allegory there and you've got an article that shows exactly what's wrong with this argument - a refusal to listen to reason and instead substitute your own perception of how the world works.

<comment><USER4> Except, for that part where he directly responds to a WaPo author who thinks due process isn't a thing that should exist.

<comment><USER8> The WaPo author explicitly says, "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it's a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system."

The Medium piece conflates social justice and legal justice. Slavery was legal, so forcibly returning slaves to their owners was legally just. However, we came to recognize it as a moral wrong, something socially unjust. Eventually, we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first.

<comment><USER4> What is the end game in a world where an accusation of a crime is accepted as factual, and any questioning of that accusation makes one an apologist for the crime _at best_?

The legal system is supposed to be a reflection of society's morals. If you challenge the moral framework, by asserting that an accusation should never be questioned, you challenge the legal framework by extension.

<comment><USER8> Nobody is saying that accusations should never be questioned in court. But we live in a society that, outside of court, treats rape victims very differently than victims of other crimes. The dynamic is lampooned here:

[https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-usef...](https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-useful- rape-analogy/)

It is that aspect of the moral framework that people are attempting to change. Like it or not, society has collectively acted to excuse rapists for millennia. That has been gradually declining; at least now it's a crime that is taken somewhat seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I stopped hating my generation (born 1983, so I'm just barely a Millennial rather than an Xer) when I stepped back and looked at the picture in its totality and realized that we _looked_ bad because (except in athletics, where objective genetic talent rules the day and rich parents or producers alone can't make a career) most of the prominent Millennials were produced by the worst of the Baby Boom generation.

First of all, authoritarian leftism isn't new. The ex-leftist neoconservatives of 2003 who got us into the Iraq War? They weren't the civil rights activists or the hippies. They weren't the ones fighting for desegreation or womens' or gay rights activists. Rather, those people were the communists, Stalin- defenders in the 60s, the left-wing authoritarians who swung right when they were older and richer. It's not really a loss that they went from left to right in the Reagan Era, as they were assholes the whole time.

Anyway, someone being a jerk on Twitter is not the same thing as what the Weather Underground was up to. For good and bad, we're pretty moderate in comparison to the Baby Boomers.

I stopped hating Millennials when I realized that the worst of us are _products_ created by the worst of the exiting generations. You can find anything in any generation, so one bad apple (or few) says little about the generation and much more about those who endeavored to find it. And a young generation will be defined, when it is young, based on the uses that older generations find for it. Evan Spiegel? Lucas Duplan? Miley Cyrus? Justin Bieber? Lena Dunham? They're detestable, but they reflect on _their producers_ , the ones who made their careers, and not on "our generation" in any meaningful way. If you look at the currently small-- and it's small not because we suck but because we're still young and most of us haven't had a chance to get started yet-- percentage (in the arts and business) of prominent Millennials who are actually self-made, the picture is _a lot_ more flattering.

<comment><USER22> > Evan Spiegel? Lucas Duplan? Miley Cyrus? Justin Bieber? Lena Dunham? They're > detestable, but they reflect on their producers, the ones who made their > careers, and not on "our generation" in any meaningful way.

I'm with you otherwise but this line of reasoning is pretty dubious, a sort of counting the hits and not the misses approach.

It doesn't reduce well. If we blame the boomers for "producing" millennials why can't we just turn around and blame the prehistoric Madison Avenue types that produced the boomers[0], and so on and so forth.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture- Consu...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture- Consumerism/dp/0226260127)

<comment><USER21> My point is that a large percentage of the people who are prominent _right now_ are the ones who had lift from the worst of older generations. They're not reflective of the generation as a whole, or what we will be when some of us actually get into real power.

Right now, the oldest Millennials are 33. In 15 years, it will be different.

<comment><USER22> Perhaps, I suppose we'll have to see. One could also make the argument that these guys who are becoming billionaires will only spawn whole cottage industries of metastasized douchebaggery in 15 years (ala Peter Thiel) but I'll concede it's possible that there's a pending cultural shift that will dwarf all this just over the horizon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Cheap synopsis: MRA tries to make make a cogent case without the overt whining, misogyny, bigotry. Still a privileged rant. Author may be feeling strident in the wake of Rolling Stone's retractions and recriminations.

<comment><USER4> You just proved how you either didn't read the article, or read it and completely missed the point as the author _directly addresses_ what you're complaining about.

It's very telling (and actually directly proves the author's point) that the best criticism you can come up with is the author's identity (i.e. a personal attack, i.e. an adhom) rather than a concrete problem with his ideas.

<comment><USER23> No sir, I don't do my very best here on HN. I have a day job. Nice try.

<comment><USER6> Completely beside the point. Many here have a day job. Horrible try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My god, why can't white cis males handle any criticism? It's as if people live in paralyzing fear of being called a name. And then can't wait for an opportunity to say "Aha! You're now exactly like your oppressors!" WTF? If you can think these things are the same, you automatically prove you do not actually understand anything. And yet you preach, and preach...

<comment><USER6> I'm here, I'm white, I'm male. Criticize me. Let's see how well your blanket statement holds up...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The problem here is that there is also an equal opposite force.

Pretty much all of those who use the derogatory term "SJW" turn out to be misogynistic right-wing bullies for whom feminism equals evil, and who think rape threats are free speech. The whole gamergate movement is utterly disgusting and spreading. (For instance, the right-wing bullies are now terrorizing the Hugo awards.)

It's a movement towards intolerant extremism from both sides.

<comment><USER6> Really?? So by using a term, whether quoting, asking, or actually applying, you can infer deep motivation? That is a pretty awesome skill... or maybe you are being the change you refuse to see...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> While the author has a couple good points [there is alot of 1984 kind of Doublespeak in Western culture and it is getting worse] and there are those overzealous individuals who will use false information to push an agenda...

> The fact of the matter is, this particular brand of millennial social > justice advocacy is destructive to academia, intellectual honesty, and true > critical thinking and open mindedness. We see it already having a profound > impact on the way universities act and how they approach curriculum.

The first link in this paragraph is:

> [http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6356](http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6356)

Student petitions, not actual changes. That entire site is backed and run by people with an agenda:

[http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/](http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/)

The mere fact political propaganda from a known biased source would be used as "evidence", honestly, shows the OP has the same biases as the SJW but from a different direction.

Intellectually honesty isn't repeating stories from a well known political organization that solely exists to train future conservatives to spread their message as fact [without disclosing that is what they are].

\---

Since I'm rate limited I'll reply to the accusation below here:

> Your argument is simply ad hominem. Either the ideas themselves are wrong, > or they're not. It doesn't matter where the information came from. If Hitler > told me about gravity that doesn't mean there is no gravity just because I > learned about it from him.

Hitler in a clown mask coming to tell you about how the Jews are ruining society. The author knows its Hitler, but he doesn't tell you. All the while claiming he is a paragon of intellectual honesty and the opposition is not.

That is the actual comparison and why him doing this is a problem.

<comment><USER26> Your argument is simply ad hominem. Either the ideas themselves are wrong, or they're not. It doesn't matter where the information came from. If Hitler told me about gravity that doesn't mean there is no gravity just because I learned about it from him.</comment></comment>


American Lawbreaking - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175733/

<comment><USER2> This past Friday we had a game of Capture the Flag in my city's financial district. About 600 people came out... no warning given to the cops, no permission, nothing. Was a good time, our side won 2-0 (go blue!) thanks to some solid defense. We were warned at the start of the game to obey traffic laws (ie, don't jaywalk), because the police response to events like this isn't freaking out and cracking down like you'd expect, or saying "go have some fun" like others would expect. Rather, it's "Sweet, we'll make quota in one night!"

Afterward I went to a parkour jam in a nearby district park with some well placed ledges that lead to the potential for a lot of stunts. After 20 minutes, we noticed a cop car on the street, partially hidden by a wall -- looked like they were watching us, so, as an inquisitive sociologist, I went over to ask them what was up.

As it turns out, they were there for an unrelated reason -- to watch that road because of an illegal left turn onto it out of the entertainment district. Basically the way their trap works is that everyone is drinking in their vehicles, and the illegal turn gives the cops the opportunity to check the vehicle for alcohol, and let them off with a warning if they don't find any. Pretty clever, really.

I asked them about parkour, pointing to my friends in the park behind me climbing, jumping and rolling around. They told me that technically it's illegal under a bylaw that bans games in public areas -- the same law which renders ball-hockey in the street illegal. Then they went on to say that this gives them full authority to break it up and issue tickets if they wanted to, but police policy is to only ever enforce this law if they receive complaints.

Thus, in this one evening, I saw three approaches to laws and law enforcement:

1) Policy designed for monetary gain; if they really wanted to stop the jaywalking, they could've just told us all to go home, but handing out tickets for it helps them make quota, so they let us play.

2) Laws which exist as an excuse to investigate for other laws; by having apparently unreasonable traffic restrictions, they can crack down on drunk driving without invading people's privacy.

3) Laws which exist as an excuse to punish related but unlegislatable behaviour; in the case of both parkour and ballhockey, the issue is "creating a public nuisance," not the specific behaviour being done. However, a nuisance is hard to define objectively, so when it, in the mind of the cops, becomes subjectively a nuisance, they instead use another, easy to define but unreasonable, law.

In all three cases we have laws that aren't actually intended to prevent the behaviour they prohibit, but each does so in a different way... and that was just one evening and discussions I had with three police officers, I'm sure many more examples abound.

</comment><comment><USER3> _That's why drug legalization is happening in a wholly different way. Over the last two decades, the FDA has become increasingly open to drugs designed for the treatment of depression, pain, and anxiety—drugs that are, by their nature, likely to mimic the banned Schedule I narcotics. Part of this is the product of a well-documented relaxation of FDA practice that began under Clinton and has increased under Bush. But another part is the widespread public acceptance of the idea that the effects drug users have always been seeking in their illicit drugs—calmness, lack of pain, and bliss—are now "treatments" as opposed to recreation. We have reached a point at which it's commonly understood that when people snort cocaine because they're depressed or want to function better at work, that's drug trafficking; but taking antidepressants for similar purposes is practicing medicine._

This guy really needs to read more Erowid if he thinks that pharmaceuticals are closely matching the effects of many drugs. As far as I know there are non-Schedule I opiates and stimulants, and basically all of the benzodiazepines are legal-but-controlled. But the pharmaceutical industry is not exactly stumbling over itself to create a legal version of LSD or prescription Salvia or one-a-day his-n-hers Ecstasy doses, and I don't know of any legal analogue to marijuana (much less any particular strain).

<comment><USER4> _In the drug context, asking Congress to legalize cocaine or repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is a fool's errand._

Medical cocaine is legal and has been used for years to treat nose bleeds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You know you're in trouble when the thugs are in the street waving their arms proclaiming vice is virtue, and a system of selective enforcement by a ruling class is a practical and acceptable solution.

<comment><USER6> You just described basically any place at any point in history.

<comment><USER7> You must live in LA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > _Every week, in various ways, you probably violate the copyright law. How? > ... Or if you ... play DVDs at a house party._

Isn't that perfectly legal under the cape of Fair Use? In fact, the article doesn't even _mention_ fair use, and seems to blatently ignore the fact that we as consumers have the _right_ to "copyright infringement" for personal uses, like mix tapes/discs, or private, non-profit showings and sharing with friends.

> _It features news on the Potter films and books, essays on the works of J.K. > Rowling, and a large gallery of fan art. It is also, at least to a copyright > lawyer, an orgy of copyright infringement—including massive unauthorized use > of characters, images, and the creation of "derivative works," like fan > art._

Once again, isn't most of this considering Fair Use, in the same way that parody of a copyrighted work is considered fair use?

Or am I completely off my rocker and misunderstanding the purpose and coverage of Fair Use?

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if godel has any say here: it seems to me that it's impossible to actually create a perfect set of laws.

You can't legalize "it" (speed limit, drugs, copyright, whatever), but zero tolerance enforcement doesn't work. On the other hand if you set guidelines (we'll tolerate small amounts) people will go right to the line - so you don't.

Instead you look the other way most of the time.

And it works.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> When you get to the section, be sure to look up Nixon's response to that Commission's report.

</comment><comment><USER10> How can a law abiding trucking companying compete with all those speed limit breaking truckers: UPS, FedEx, DHL, USPS, ...?

</comment><comment><USER11> Fuck the police. An odd mix of sadistic bullies and good guys who cover for the bullies out of a misguided sense of kinship.

Viva la revolution!</comment>


Linus Torvalds on security - <AUTHOR> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950 <comment><USER2> The fundamental dispute here is that security researchers want Linus to take a vow of silence on any bug they report to him, which vow extends all the way into how Linus manages the git repositories.

Look, there are two ways to read this comment from Linus.

On the one hand, there's the batshit crazy read, which sincerely believes that data theft, fraud, and privacy violations are on equal footing with performance, reliability, or even data corruption problems. The difference between security flaws and bugs is that _bugs don't have adversaries behind them_.

But all that really tells us is that Linus has never talked to anybody who worked for a bank.

On the other hand, there's the weary pragmatist's read, which understands what 15 years of withering pompousness from security experts takes out of a development team. These are people who not only want their bugs at the front of the line, but have talking points for Linus to adhere to at the same time.

It's refreshing to see him tell my industry to fuck off. We deserve it.

T'so has the final, true, correct read on this. It's not Linus' job to manage Linux security. There are hundreds of people better situated to do that job. If you don't want Linus spilling the beans on your press release advisory, don't let Linus find out about it. Problem solved.

<comment><USER3> _If you don't want Linus spilling the beans on your press release advisory, don't let Linus find out about it. Problem solved._

In fact, Linus has specifically said in the past that he does _not_ want to be told about security issues. If you find a security issue in the linux kernel, report it to vendor-sec.

<comment><USER2> That's _not true_. Reporting vulnerabilities to vendor-sec enrolls you in the politics of vendor security, which many reasonable people could make a case for avoiding. Linus isn't saying "don't tell me about your security problems". He's saying "take your talking points and shove them up your ass". On that one single point, he's absolutely right.

<comment><USER3> _Reporting vulnerabilities to vendor-sec enrolls you in the politics of vendor security, which many reasonable people could make a case for avoiding._

Responsible disclosure, i.e., making sure that fixes are ready before an issue is announced, requires vendor coordination. The politics is unavoidable if you want to do things right -- although, speaking as someone who is on vendor-sec, the politics really is rather minimal these days.

 _Linus isn't saying "don't tell me about your security problems"._

I didn't claim that he was saying that _today_. I said that _in the past_ he has said that.

<comment><USER2> "Responsible disclosure" is a marketing term. Linus may be wrong about the importance of security flaws relative to bugs, but that doesn't validate the self-aggrandizing omerta of security researchers.

Vendor "coordination" of security flaws often works to the detriment of users. For one thing, cliques like vendor-sec gossip and share findings with the "cool kids", ensuring that every interested party _but_ the operators knows what's coming a week before the advisories are published. For another, it substitutes the judgement of people like you --- who, no offense, don't run real world systems or make real world risk assessments about real assets --- for the judgement of the people who are not like you, but who could potentially disable or work around vulnerable systems far in advance of "coordinated patches".

PS: "I said in the past, not today!" --- if you believe in what you're saying, say it and then defend it with evidence. But don't slam competing projects just because you think nobody's going to call you on it, Colin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree with Linus here. My first foray into the world of real software was a computer security class I took in college (taught by DJB, not known for being kind and polite about security problems). Basically, I thought that if I found a minor security problem in some unimportant app, I was God because I was _so much smarter_ than whoever wrote that app. This is the kind of attitude you're encouraged to have by the community.

Then I started writing my own software. I try to write things securely as possible (security is usually == to correctness, which I always want), but if I miss something, I don't really care. If you are using my code, you should read it and make sure I didn't fuck up something stupid. If you are a "security researcher", I definitely want your patches... but if you are going to call me names for writing free software that you find useful... I just don't care. Sure, the bug will be fixed... but security bugs are just like any other bugs. All bugs need to be fixed. To do that, you need to send a patch.

So I get exactly what Linus is saying here. If you want to be respected in the open source community, write code, and patch existing code. Everyone has egos, but ignore don't let that distract you from what matters -- code. (Hey, I even have a tshirt that says "Code Matters" on it, so it must be true!)

</comment><comment><USER5> I am sure Theo will have a subdued, low-key response.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't think he's exploding at all ('cept for maybe the comments about the OpenBSD crowd).

He has a very valid point: all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important.

Security bugs are just a special case of normal bugs, a test condition unaddressed.

<comment><USER2> That's _not_ a very valid point. None of the boring normal bugs cost my mom her credit score or, for the months it takes to resolve the problem, her savings account balance. There has also never ever ever been an X11 bug that took down the Internet.

There is also a CS-theoretic difference between "all the boring normal bugs" that emerge during variations of normal use cases, and the much larger, much harder to model class of byzantine failures that occur only when components of the system are forced to operate at odds with the the system as a whole. Security failures are byzantine failures. They are, at the very least, extremely difficult to predict and plan for.

<comment><USER6> From what I've seen, most security bugs chain a few normal bugs together. One oversight here, another there, combine them and you have an exploit.

The valid point I think Linus is getting at (perhaps I'm reading too much into it) is that if you solve normal, boring bugs, you prevent the much trumpeted security bugs from ever coming out. By heaping praise on the security team and ignoring the careful programmer who writes good code and eliminates bugs before they exist, Linus sees the community move towards a crisis-solving mode rather than a crisis-prevention mode. His view is that it's far better to focus on writing good, solid code that tests robustly rather than hyper- focusing on security at the cost of everything else. This is not to dismiss the importance of security; instead, it is a fundamental focus shift -- thus the example of OpenBSD, where Linus sees security paranoia has subsumed everything else.

<comment><USER2> The valid point you're making is not Linus', it's Theo's.

It's OpenBSD's approach --- and they pioneered it --- that "all bugs are eventually exploitable". That dogma, which some people say has served them well, contributes to the impression that OpenBSD is (1) fascistic about technical matters that at first glance seem more about vanity than about security, and (2) hypocritical in the extreme about what actually happens in their codebase.

What Linus is saying really doesn't have anything to do with security. What he's saying is, "my job is to improve Linux, and if you give me a valid bugfix, I will treat it the same way I treat any other important bug".

<comment><USER6> Ah, thanks for the clarification.

I read too much into Linus's words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Security has it's place. There are certainly gobs of value to having a security focused platform, that benefits even those who view it as a bunch of "masturbating monkeys".

But in Linus' defense, it's not like the Linux platform has ever benefited from anything OpenBSD did. Like OpenSSH, which the OpenBSD team developed and pretty much every Linux distribution takes advantage of...

<comment><USER2> It's too bad, because we'd benefit from another well-maintained implementation of SSH. OpenSSH has had its problems.

<comment><USER8> i can't wait to see matasano's cross-platform ssh implementation that will be bug free now and forever. let us know when you guys write it.

<comment><USER2> I don't know where you're reading the "I could do it better" part from. The Internet does have a history of "hard" protocols being deployed almost entirely from a single gene pool: BIND, CMU SNMP, and SSH are three great examples, and two of those three are epic security failures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think that Linus is speaking out of his ass this time. Probably looks so arrogant because Theo and him don't like each other and the OSS universe is too small to their egos.

OpenBSD mindset is to achieve security through excellence. Everyone can look at their code and perceive its quality: everything follows the same coding guidelines, it's well commented and easy to understand, every important commit in the CVS has to be reviewed by at least another commiter, errors are handled early... after looking at it, Linux looks a mess.

That obsession about security leads to a software product that shows robustness and quality. Yes, Linux outperforms OpenBSD in many areas, it has been ported to more architectures and has more functionalities. But, still, Linux could learn a lot about OpenBSD as a project.

<comment><USER2> I too have perceived the excellence of OpenBSD. For instance, at Arbor Networks, I had the distinct pleasure of using OpenBSD to manage traffic flows from ISP backbones. When processes malloc'd over 64 megs of data, UVM deadlocked. After writing a passive kernel debugger using KVM to produce repro steps and diag dumps for their team, I was informed that Theo didn't really understand how Cranor's UVM worked, that it was crappy code from Cranor's thesis and all Cranor's fault, and that there was no way I would find anyone who could fix it.

There is indeed a lot Linux can learn from OpenBSD, but imitation is probably not the right way to go about it.

OpenBSD's track record on security is not unblemished.

<comment><USER8> i'm confused what your rant about theo is supposed to mean. you found a problem but didn't know how to fix it, so you presented it to theo and he said he didn't know how to fix it either? he didn't write the code in question and no one on the team (at the time) knew it well enough to change it. what's your point?

no one's security record is unblemished and i don't think anyone from the openbsd project would say it is.

<comment><USER2> The code in question was the virtual memory system. That's what UVM is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _"... To me, security is important. But it's no less important than everything 'else' that is also important ..."_

Security for linux to me is what the desktop is to the Internet. Sure it's important but hardly relevant where OS security is a hosting task. I'm surprised Linus is really reported as much as in the past. The time of worring about the single machine OS kernel while interesting is simply not relevent in the new era of Internet OS.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is it a job requirement for tech super geeks to have the maturity of a high- school kid?

<comment><USER12> That's called "speaking one's own mind" as opposed to corporate doublespeak devoid of any meaningul sense, so common in corporate meeting rooms.

The beauty of not being paid for what you do is the luxury of being able not to bother with bullshit.

And yes, security is overrated. All major "security" problems have always been DOS attacks that have NOTHING to do with "breaking" into anything. The biggest problem with computer "security" is the widespread adoption of "anti-virus" softwares. That plague does more harm than viruses themselves.

<comment><USER2> First two grafs: dead on. Amen.

Last graf, first thr---two sentences: crazy talk.

Last graf, last 2 sentences: dead on. Amen.

<comment><USER13> I count only four sentences in his last paragraph...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If some explodes so rarely (like him), at least he has to do it special!

(I liked it.)</comment>


Amazon gains wholesale pharmacy licenses in multiple states - <AUTHOR> http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/amazon-gains-wholesale-pharmacy-licenses-in-multiple-states/article_4e77a39f-e644-5c22-b5e6-e613a9ed2512.html <comment><USER2> Apparently better for consumers in general now that there's more competition. One Industry I really really want them to enter is Consumer Airlines. Service in most airlines sucks, like big time. Can't wait for Amazon Airlines with Prime Video and Internet available for all.

But of course I know that's a distant dream unless the Prime Air works great.

<comment><USER3> Isn't Amazon notorious for bad customer service though? That would prevent them from disputing the industry.

<comment><USER4> Amazon's customer service to consumers is exceptional, but the service they give to their merchants is horrible and extremely incompetent.

<comment><USER5> Yes. Business customer service is terrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is going to be interesting. Drug wholesaling is a tough business with razor thin margins. Wholesalers don't make much off of branded drugs because the big drug companies have most of the negotiating power. It's not unusual for their cut to be in the tens of basis points.

They make the most money off of generic drugs and often use arbitrage as a revenue source when price increases happen. Price increases for generic drugs have been weak lately and it's hurting them.[1]

[1][http://www.drugchannels.net/2017/09/drug-wholesalers- struggl...](http://www.drugchannels.net/2017/09/drug-wholesalers-struggle- slower.html)

<comment><USER6> > razor thin margins

That's everything amazon does besides AWS

<comment><USER7> Yeah razor thin margins is barrier to entry that amazon sees as an opportunity not a threat.

<comment><USER8> Not exactly - Amazon has traditionally entered spaces with...not exactly razor thing margins, but margins with some wiggle room. Even their grocery play was on 'higher end' groceries and not a razor thin market like Acme/Shop Rite/Kroegers.

<comment><USER7> They then proceed to wrench out that wiggle room to drive out the established players and create an impossible barrier to entry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Being able to order their medication and have it delivered the same day is going to be huge for lots of people. Sure, Amazon won't make much money but add everything else they sell and you have yet another reason why you can stay in the Amazon eco system for all your shopping needs.

</comment><comment><USER10> If it takes Amazon to fix American healthcare, god bless them. What a total cluster fuck healthcare is, and if that's what they want to fix, I'm very supportive. Putting $5k into their stock tomorrow

<comment><USER11> Serious question: How is a cut throat capitalist company gaining the ability to push pills going to fix American healthcare?

<comment><USER12> American healthcare is completely non-competitive. No pricing competition, high barriers of entry, and completely entrenched players. Any new players would be a win.

<comment><USER11> The main issue with American healthcare besides the price of drugs, insurance and care (which Amazon could help solve but is essentially a secondary conidition) is the philosophy around healthcare in general. It's all reactive. To solve healthcare America needs a better diet made up of actual food (not psuedo-food products), more exercise (cities designed for walking and biking not driving), doctors that aren't incentivized to sell drugs, no drug adverts etc. Basically to focus on prevention not reaction.

<comment><USER10> For starters, doctors are in a modern guild system. They artificially limit the number of medical schools, increasing the salaries of licensed doctors while limiting the supply. As society ages and needs more medical services, the poor are continually priced out as the supply of doctors is limited artificially.

Although extraordinary unpopular if you speak to doctors (as I have found), drastically increasing the number of doctors would do wonders. I'm sure there is a percentage (2%?) from poor countries that would pass in America as average quality.

Next, transparent pricing. Laser eye surgery has radically improved in quality while decreasing costs because insurance (typically) doesn't cover it. People want it, but must pay out of pocket, so they shop around and elect to laser eye surgery on their own terms. The result is increased quality at lower prices. Not every medical procedure is this way (such as the emergency room), but perhaps if I needed a knee replaced, and until I did it I merely walked with a cane, I might shop around for the best price and value.

Until transparent pricing happens, and the supply of doctors meets demand, we will simply be passing laws to further warp free market incentives. My hope is that amazon increases the influence of free market mechanics into this horrible system.

<comment><USER13> Medicine cannot be managed by capitalism. Elements of the industry can, but the basic elements of care giving and treatment basically amount to "pay me or die". The moral hazard in withholding care from some to be able to raise prices on others is too great.

Capitalism is great when the incentives line up without creating moral hazard; which they do in a lot of areas. But we as a society can have different priorities, and I do believe that there is a basic level of health care that should be free to all. If you want better care or if you disagree with what is provided, you're free to shop outside the system.

<comment><USER12> But you could say the same about food. "Pay me, or starve". But in their greed, food makers have made food cheap.

<comment><USER13> That's because food is easy to grow. Stone Age people seem to have figured it out. Medicine is much harder..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> They're coming for you too CVS and Walgreens.

<comment><USER15> That's why CVS is trying to buy Aetna. They're going to be everything from your insurer, to your walk in clinic to your pharmacy. Maybe they'll buy a hospital chain and go full stack.

<comment><USER16> so Kaiser Permanente, basically

<comment><USER17> Kaiser still has the "everything in the same building" advantage. There are some down sides to Kaiser, but seeing my doctor, getting immunizations, having blood drawn for labs, having prescriptions filled and being out the door 45 minutes after I arrived isn't one of them. It's damn convenient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does this imply that Amazon will be in the place to negotiate drug prices? Trying to understand what could change given how a lot of PBMs appear to be wed to insurance groups (and now CVS looking to buy Aetna). What would be the next step, buy an insurance company? Or is it a matter of exposing the true cost of drug prices and drive the market costs down?

<comment><USER12> I don't think they would be in a position to negotiate prices anymore than CVS/Walgreens are. Their upside would mostly be changing the delivery method.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yep, a pharmacy coming to a Whole Foods near you. Circle of life.

</comment><comment><USER20> Amazon Basics generic drugs? That could be very interesting.

<comment><USER21> Not really. FDA approval is already the Amazon Basics of generic drugs. If it says Acetaminophen 500mg, that's what you're getting, nothing more, nothing less, within a very narrow tolerance, entirely regardless of brand.

Not so with batteries or HDMI cables, and thus brands add meaningful value in that space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Cvs big fear is drone delivery.

Amazon will solve last mile.

<comment><USER23> Why do they need drones for last mile, they can just use their own existing delivery infrastructure. Drones might be cheaper/better/faster in the long run, but, they aren't _required_ for this to work.

<comment><USER22> My comment was totally anecdotal from a big data insider who said cvs is already extremely concerned drones remove store visits..

<comment><USER21> The "technology" required is the same as the postal service have provided for centuries (think pizza delivery for more urgent situations). Sounds like that insider is spending too much time on pop business sci-fi and too little time understanding basic facts about logistics (and, very likely, regulatory restrictions).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hey whatever it takes to bring down the awfully (and artificially) inflated prices of pharmaceuticals in this country (USA), the better I'll feel. If it takes Amazon getting in on the act - assuming pricing gets better - I'm in favor of it.

<comment><USER25> Walmart has a large pharmacy business. They attempted to enter the market and bring prices down (they succeeded in a small way, on a selection of common generic prescriptions). I'm not sure what Amazon can accomplish beyond what Walmart was able to with thousands of pharmacy locations. Hoping Bezos & Co. shake it up though, maybe they'll figure out something new.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe to compete against Express Scripts and drugs stores, to a degree, but a by-mail pharmacy has a very steep hill to climb in terms of in- person/telepresence pharmacist expertise.

<comment><USER27> Express Scripts is primarily a PBM. It's not the same business

<comment><USER28> They did $51 billion in network revenue and $43 billion in home delivery pharmacy revenue in 2016, and their revenue mix has been trending more toward the pharmacy side over the last few years.

[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1532063/000153206317...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1532063/000153206317000004/esrx-12312016x10k.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just _think_ of all the interesting data they will aggregate!

<comment><USER8> HIPAA would like to have a word with you.

<comment><USER30> > "It'd be cool if you kept that data encrypted at rest and kept track of > every time it's accessed. Oh, you guys have a physical form everyone fills > out when they access files? Perfect." \- HIPAA in practice

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Finally my dream of getting my _cough_ legally prescribed meds _cough_ dropped by a drone straight into my hands or mouth may come true!

<comment><USER32> Looks like thousands of Afghan children beat you to the punch there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> sounds bad for the opioid problem

<comment><USER34> That's a doctor issue, not a pharmacy issue. Although they're probably going to need some warehouses with higher clearance levels / restricted access to do this.

I'm all for Amazon filling prescriptions, healthcare is hugely inefficient and any bargaining power Amazon can wrestle away from pharmaceutical companies probably won't negatively impact the consumer.

<comment><USER35> > I'm all for Amazon filling prescriptions, healthcare is hugely inefficient > and any bargaining power Amazon can wrestle away from pharmaceutical > companies probably won't negatively impact the consumer.

I doubt RX prices will decrease if Amazon enters the market. Wal-Mart, Costco, and Express Scripts buy, warehouse, and dispense millions of drugs to patient members and drugs prices have barely moved.</comment></comment></comment>


Donald Knuth's Fantasia Apocalyptica - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbvsKpPnQao&list=PLvixIGKr5sJffdfwecygYqhXsgz-EBCC8 <comment><AUTHOR> just realized this was already discussed 2 months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19950245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19950245)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> """ Fantasia Apocalyptica World Premiere Composed 2012-2017 by Donald E. Knuth Performed by Jan Overduin Illustrations by Duane R. Bibby January 10th, 2018, Studio Acusticum, Piteå, Sweden

\---

About the composition :

The Biblical book of Revelation, also know as Apocalypse (Uncovering), is a mystical work that is filled with symbols. It consists chiefly of a dream that was recorded in the first century A.D. by Saint John the Divine. The dramatic events in this famous dream run the gamut of human emotions, as they highlight crucial aspects of life, death and spirituality.

During the 60s, Donald Knuth became fascinated with the ways in which the author of Revelations emphasized many different numbers (2, 3, 3.5, 4, 7, 12, 24...) and gave them symbolic significance. Knuth soon began to wonder about the possibility of creating a pleasing musical work that would incorporate Revelation's numbers and other mystical symbols in essentially their original order. In 2011 he noted that such a project "may be crazy, but a 'muse' has been encouraging me to embark upon it for more than 40 years. ...I'm intrigued by the fact that so many artists and writers have been inspired by [Revelation], for nearly 2000 years by now; thus I can't resist the thought that perhaps I too might be led by these ancient words to create something that might be newly meaningful to people of the 21st century"

The Greek text of Revelation, which contains almost exactly 10,000 words, has therefore been closely followed as the source of this composition. Knuth identified more than 100 principal motifs in that text, and assigned a musical equivalent to each of them. One hears these motifs repeatedly building on each other, as they eventually become familiar.

Some of the the motifs are melodic; for example, 'God' is the three-note theme 'sol, mi, do'. Some are rhythmic; for example, a double-dotted rhythm represents royalty. Some are harmonic: 'man' is a Tristan chord, 'servant' is a Petroushka chord. Some are musical idioms: 'angel' is an arpeggio, 'grace' is a grace note. Some are musical basics: 'woe' is a blues scale, 'elders' are a chromatic scale, 'lion' is an octatonic scale', 'sweet' and 'sour' are major and minor, 'prophet' is a contrary motion, 'sun' is a palindrome, 'gold' is close harmony, 'blood' corresponds to notes that are clotted together. Some come from trigrams of the I Ching: 'earth' is down-down-down, 'heaven' is up- up-up, 'fire is up-down-up, 'water' is down-up-down. Some come from nature: 'lamb' is a bleating sound, 'horse' is a whinny.

Some motifs are effects attainable only on a pipe organ: 'star' is a Zimbelstern, 'name' is a pedal point; 'open' and 'close' are represented by opening and closing the boxes that surround the pipes.

Some motifs in this translation in this translation invoke the syles of great composers: 'seal' alludes to Alain, 'truth' alludes to Bach, 'mighty' alludes to Beethoven, 'voice' alludes to Borodin, 'throne' alludes to Brubeck, 'cloud' alludes to Debussy, 'word' alludes to Franck, 'temple' alludes to Gershwin, 'book' alludes to Hindemith, 'worship' alludes to Messiaen, 'blasphemy' alludes to Schoenberg.

Since the book of Revelation encompasses a huge variety of different events and emotions, no one style can appropriately represent the whole story. Therefore Fantasia Apocalyptica is an eclectic mix of many styles: Ancient Greek music; medieval chants; changeringing; Baroque counterpoint; near- Eastern folk music; shape-note singing; spirituals; calypso; Romantic symphonies, chorales, and combinatorial patterns; atonal music; jazz and Broadway; rock and rap. The music of contemporary ring tones is also present. All of these styles work together as parts of a unified whole, thanks to the versatility of a pipe organ.

Fantasia Apocalyptica also pays homage to dozens of choral compositions that have been based on Revelation. Sometimes the settings of the same text by different composers from different eras are found to fit together extremely well. """

via [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvixIGKr5sJffdfwecygY...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvixIGKr5sJffdfwecygYqhXsgz- EBCC8)</comment>