iPad Hack Statement Of Responsibility - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/21/ipad-hack-statement-of-responsibility/ <comment><USER4> Twelve months ago on this very site it was discussed how a private company named Path was, without permission and certainly illegally, stealing the entire address books of users and uploading it to their own servers. The CEO of that company appeared right here on this board personally (not surprising he follows this board as he has invested in YCombinator projects [[http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/08/25/yc- com...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/08/25/yc-combinator- start-ups-guess-which-will-be-worth-a-billion/)] ) and not only defended his actions but justified them, proud of the fine work of data theft he engaged in. [<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3563368>] He also said in a comment on his blog that these actions of stealing entire address books was a common practice in industry: "This is currently the industry best practice" [<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3563639>]. And in fact it turned out that companies as large as Twitter were also engaging in the same type and manner of data theft [[http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/14/business/la-fi- tn-tw...](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/14/business/la-fi-tn-twitter- contacts-20120214)].

At that time some HN members, possibly some of the same ones here attacking this hacker (perhaps with good reason), defended the data-theft-for-profit actions of these companies.

These two positions are not consistent. People may wish to pick a side of this issue and stick to their position if they wish to be taken seriously, or frame a coherent argument why it is acceptable for corporations to engage in data theft from individuals but the reverse should be severely punished with prison time and other penalties.

Those who genuinely believe that weev should be prosecuted and imprisoned for his actions may wish to consider if the same call should be made for criminal proceedings against the larger scale and more clearly profit driven data theft actions taken by large and well funded companies such as Twitter, Path, Facebook, Apple, and many others.

<comment><USER5> Oh my God. Did you really just write a holier-than-thou post comparing Dave Morin to weev? Have you even bothered READING anything weev wrote?

A lot of people will never speak out against weev because of his scorched earth tactics. His list of enemies is a lot longer than a few Feds.

<comment><USER6> Yes, weev is an ass. I personally believe that, at some point, he probably _has_ done something worth jail time. But this isn't it, and neither is being one of the worst trolls on the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If anyone thinks weev deserves any sympathy, you don't know the full story. weev had malicious intent and wanted to harm AT&T by exposing users data. Instead of doing anything remotely rational he took all the data and wanted to sell it.

Laws take into account indent (mens rea) and there is a lot of evidence in his indictment that he wanted to profit off this act. He shouldn't be compared to Aaron Swartz

<comment><USER8> I know weev personally. He's "an unsympathetic defendant", and probably the 9th level Internet Troll, but his goal was fundamentally speech -- he wanted to draw a lot of attention to the issue, and embarrass ATT (hopefully enough that they'd stop being such fuckups about security), etc.

He wasn't trying to profit from this. If that had been his goal, he would have been a lot more stealthy.

It's arguable that he had "cleaner" motives in his act than aaronsw -- some people say aaronsw wanted to release all the files he recovered to the Internet (although there's no proof of that); weev just wanted ATT to suck less.

weev has _said_ things far worse than what's alleged in this case (that they wanted to compile a list and direct market the users); yet, if you judge him by what he's actually done, he's just an asshole at times, but basically reasonable. Fortunately just being an ass isn't a federal crime (although I guess conspiracy to be an ass is).

<comment><USER9> So he committed a crime and wrote words that characterize the intent behind crime in such a way as to increase prosecutorial interest and sentencing. Now you are saying he was just joking around when he said those things?

Perhaps it's true, but it's stupid and it's hard for me imagine anyone taking that explanation seriously, certainly prosecutors and judges.

If you walk into a bank with a gun and ask the teller for money, then say "just kidding", .... Good luck.

<comment><USER8> Yes, weev is an idiot. Yes, weev is abrasive. Fortunately neither of those are themselves crimes.

Weev has always taken _anything_ and turned it into drama. That's the whole Internet Troll thing. A normal defendant wouldn't, when faced with a chance to reduce his sentence by 1-3 years by "accepting responsibility", post something like this to the press. It basically screams "upward departure" to a judge, while at the same time rallying people on the Internet, which doesn't really mean so much inside a federal ass-rape prison.

<comment><USER9> There is a difference between being abrasive and openly declaring unlawful intent. While the latter is not (always) illegal, it is a legitimate factor for prosecutorial discretion and sentencing.

<comment><USER10> Where was he openly declaring unlawful intent? The court transcript is on the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When you hear of horrible stores like that of Aaron Swartz and the author of this insightful article Andrew Auernheimer it really paints a picture of just how afraid the US government is of the Internet. People lament China for their great firewall and control over its people and yet the US is starting to look more and more like China everyday. This is how revolts against governments start, absurd laws and persecution of innocent people which eventually pushes people over the edge and if they don't kill themselves they uprise and society gets thrown into disarray which only results in more oppressive laws and absurd persecution, it's a horrible cycle.

All this guy did was exploit publicly available information. It seems the US is now sending people to jail for pointing out other peoples stupidity. Sure he probably went too far with the whole, "I want to embarrass AT&T thing" but trolling is not hacking and it's not like Andrew had to bypass any form of security to get the info in the first place.

Anyone would swear this guy found a way to steal credit card details...

<comment><USER12> eh, this article doesn't paint the whole story.

<comment><USER11> It doesn't need to paint the whole story. If the dude committed any overly serious crime, he'd still be in custody right now awaiting sentencing. They don't let you out on bail if you're a serious offender. I'm sure there is more than meets the eye here, but given the the spotlight being shined upon hacking cases like this of late, it's not hard to believe that what this guy says isn't what went down. Andrew was obviously a troll in every sense of the word, reckless and irresponsible but by no means did he have to bypass any security measures to get the email addresses. I would argue it's the equivalent of a bank leaving it's doors unlocked, alarm systems deactivated and lights on and someone walking in and taking money, then the bank complaining they got robbed, but this situation is blown way out of proportion and a metaphor like that would be over the top.

What he did is no different to someone writing a script that scours the web looking for email addresses (a tactic spammers have used and gotten away with for years), except no trickery was required to get the addresses AT&T were handing them over unknowingly without recourse. This can't even be considered a hack, more of an exploit if anything.

The stupidity of wanting to embarrass was no doubt a really stupid move to make, but definitely not some security defying hack. People shouldn't be jailed for acting like idiots, AT&T should be the ones being scalded for allowing this to happen in the first place. A company has a responsibility to keep customer data safe, AT&T should be no exception to that rule.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From Wikipedia:

 _"On 20 November 2012, Auernheimer was found guilty of one count of identity fraud and one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization. Auernheimer tweeted that he would appeal the ruling."_

Is the problem that the laws themselves are terrible, or that the laws are being misused by overzealous prosecutors? I mean, if changing a public URL is considered "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization"... Or is this just not the full story, and he really was trying to do some "bad" stuff?

But if not: what can be done to change the law? Is appearing "soft on hacking" such a bad idea that politicians just won't support something better? Or is it really difficult to craft laws that actually _do_ criminalize "bad" activity, without also technically criminalizing innocent activity?

What can be done?

<comment><USER14> The problem is that there is little consensus on what the boundaries in digital space should mean. Law makers, not without a certain logic, approach things from the principles of private property. Is changing a public URL considered "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization?" Well why would you do it, intentionally? Would you jiggle my door handle to see if that would unlock it? And if it was a crappy lock and jiggling it did unlock it, would it be unauthorized access to my property if you then walked in the door?

There is a line of thinking in the tech community that accessing data you're not supposed to access is only "bad" if you do something "bad" with it. But in meat space, we enforce fences in their own right, whether or not there is any other criminal activity involved. Arguably, doing so makes the larger problem of ensuring that their _isn't_ associated criminal activity more tractable.

Actually, real world example: over the weekend someone stole my phone out of my (unlocked) car while it was parked in my apartment building's garage. Now, let's say he hadn't stolen the phone. Just rifled through the glove box and center console. No harm no foul, right? Of course not. We presume there is no good reason to be looking through someone else's car, even if you fully intend not to take anything.

Now, that doesn't mean we should treat digital boundaries the same as physical ones, but I don't think it's as obvious as some people in the tech community make it out to be that there shouldn't be penalties (of some sort--the magnitude of such penalties is a whole another debate) for intentionally violating digital boundaries, regardless of how well they are protected.

<comment><USER15> It's not likely that someone would get a long jail sentence for breaking into your car and not taking anything. If they had never committed a crime before, they'd probably get a fine or probation. There are usually monetary thresholds for a crime to be considered "grand theft" (a felony) vs. "petty theft" (a misdemeanor).

<comment><USER16> And if weev had seen the exploit, thought to himself, "heh, that's funny," and not gone back, he would not be headed to prison. But, that isn't what happened.

<comment><USER10> If he found it and then sold it to a government agency, he'd be rich and not in jail. Selling exploits to the government is a lucrative business. Google "CIPAV", for one.

<comment><USER17> Are you suggesting that the government would have purchased a bug in AT&T's website?

<comment><USER10> No. AT&T is willing to do anything the gov wants. Now, say it was a hole in Gmail? I bet there's government agencies, foreign and domestic, that would buy that for sure.

<comment><USER17> There seems to be a pervasive notion that because mass-exploitable remote code execution vulnerabilities have a market value, _all_ vulnerabilities do. That's not true.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wasn't sure whether this is a spoof or not. Is he serious when he writes - "I did this because I despised people I think are unjustly wealthy and wanted to embarass them. "

That was his admitted rationale - that he was seeking to embarrass people he despised because they were "unjustly wealthy?"

<comment><USER19> There are plenty of ways to embarrass people that are legal, and possibly moral. The question is: was this one of them?

<comment><USER20> Another question would be is: does harvesting emails embarrass the, in his words, the "unjustly wealthy"? Is it the CEO or one of the board members that is responsible for web server configurations?

Obviously pure speculation (mixed with cynicism) recalling this story of the email harvesting I have no problems imagining a conversation like this occurred:

PR Flack: "Sir, we had a little PR snafu today and millions of email addresses of paying customers were exposed."

CEO: "So what?"

PR Flack: "Well it looks bad sir."

CEO: "Fine, shitcan some 50K a year nerd in one of data centers and then issue a press release indicating how seriously we take customer privacy".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As a person coming from a former Soviet satellite republic, I must say, that the more I read,the less and less difference I see between the countries that are well known for disregarding human rights and the "land of freedom" - <USER2> US. The only difference I can think of is that they probably won't shoot you in the broad daylight, like it happens in Russia. But other than that, the image is complete - if you do something the government doesn't like,they can absolutely destroy you. They can put you in prison without a court order, freeze your assets for indefinite amount of time, spy on you, send agents to follow you, deny you the information why they are doing this, and they do threaten journalists to not write about some cases or risk prosecution for violating "national security". I am honestly sorry for people who live in the US and happen to do something that their government perceives as wrong.

</comment><comment> miw-sec-work weev still thinks that AT&T 'published' this information. AT&T had no intention on 'publishing' this information, he abused their system in order to obtain it, then he leaked it.

No weev, you found a bug in their web app, then _YOU_ willfully published other peoples personally identifying information for your own fame and glory. Unfortunately, someone who's name and details you leaked didn't like that, and called in a favor. The DoJ came after you hard.

Your little tech crunch article chooses to omit crucial facts, and you are riding on the back of AAron Swartz again. You are nothing like AAron.

<comment><USER22> But they did publish it. Just because they didn't _intend_ to publish it doesn't mean it wasn't published.

Right now the URL I'm looking at has "id=5095821" in it. If I change that to "id=5095822", I'm looking at something else published by Hacker News. But by DoJ standards, I'm "hacking" and have broken the law if HN didn't deliberately publish it.

weev is an ass. But he didn't hack anything.

These cases are trying to set a standard of "security by intent". There is no such thing. It's like my internet banking saying "To access your bank account, please type in your account number. Be careful to get it right or you'll be looking at someone else's account"

<comment><USER18> He certainly hacked it - but that's not necessarily pejorative. Your average individual couldn't just try entering the number into AT&T - weev had to spoof the user agent, and, make some intelligent guesses as to what valid CCID's would be.

It's not the world's greatest hack, but it certainly was using the system in a manner that I'm certain AT&T did not intend. The IRC logs indicated that they knew what they were doing was likely criminal, and if AT&T discovered them, would "sue" them.

Whereas I'm guessing PG would be fine with you incrementing the number on the HN URL. And I'm pretty certain that's not criminal behavior.

It's important to note, that just because weev was hacking the AT&T site, didn't mean it was a _criminal_ hack. In my mind it barely crosses the line - and he gets punished somewhat, but I'm thinking a week in jail and 30 days community service - not the silly levels that the feds are going to in this case.

<comment><USER21> So what you are saying is, that AT&T could have made a webpage with all user data in plain text,and just write at the top in capital letters: "YOU ARE ONLY INTENDED TO LOOK AT YOUR OWN DATA, DISREGARD EVERYTHING ELSE" and it would be magically ok, because you know, if you look at other people data then you are not using the webpage as it was intended to? Because this is basically what they did. Yes, an average American individual would not know how to change the URL,but that does not mean that the data was secure. And AT&T has all legal obligation to keep their customer data secure.

<comment><USER18> I'm not saying AT&T was in the clear. Obviously just requiring a reasonably easy to guess number to secure an email address is amateur hour. But, at the same time, just because web security is easy to break into, doesn't give people free reign to go traipsing through and pull out what they can.

Keep in mind - 99% of the population wouldn't have been able to figure out how to spoof the user-agent to get into the AT&T site, and most of those that could, wouldn't have gone beyond extracting a couple IDs, and then notifying AT&T.

Weev's sin (if not felony behavior) was extracting 100,000+ personal email addresses, and the exposing them for the sheer purpose of embarrassing people he despised. Do I believe he engaged in illegal behavior? Yes. Do I believe it merits years in Jail? No.

With regards to legal obligations - In California, the closest I can find is Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22575-22578 [1]. It is a requirement for site collecting personal information to "conspicuously post its privacy policy on its Web site"

I can't find any laws in California that require the securing of this information beyond that, though.

[1] [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=bpc...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=22001-23000&file=22575-22579)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is one side of the story. I'm not going to form an opinion, and then criticize the US government, weev, or AT&T, without seeing the other side.

<comment><USER24> Good call. [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/01/goatse-security- trolls-...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/01/goatse-security-trolls-were- after-max-lols-in-att-ipad-hack/)

<comment><USER25> Ars Technica lost a lot of respect with me yesterday when they stated in the analysis of Mega's security that symmetric encryption is inherently less safe than asymmetric.

Also the quoted article does not appear to show considerable insight on internet security.

Sheer directory traversal should never be considered a criminal act.

Of course if they had followed through with the stock manipulation, this would warrant criminal punishment.

Although of course stock manipulation is only punishable if you're not a bank or hedgefund which is sad.

<comment><USER26> In the actual chat logs (which Ars ignores), another chatter brings up shorting the stock, weev explicitly says shorting the stock would be illegal and that if someone wants to do that, not to involve him. Aside from the fact that no one did it and this was obviously silly chat room banter to begin with, weev is actually showing intent of _not_ running afoul of the law.

Later in the chat, another user says that weev should post the leaked data to a public mailing list, and weev says no because that could potentially be criminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can someone clarify something for me? As I am no American, I try to understand, if making public the email-addresses of the iPad-owners was anything remotely illegal (AT&T wise).

If so, why didn't weev just show law-enforcement - maybe with press present? Why not stage it so, that it is a deal between you and a press-outlet, a live showing of the problem, with a DA (or police/FBI, what ever) present?

I know, it only works, if the API, making personal-email-addresses public was illegal. But if so, he would have shamed AT&T, he would have "normal" people caring, not only the internet-bubble and he would be relatively save in terms of legality. Or wouldn't he?

</comment><comment><USER28> Despite how similar cases of Swartz and Auernheimer seem, and despite later's appeal to social justice and freedom causes, I must admit I still have a hard time mustering sympathy for him. At least not even close to the sympathy I have to Swartz. I know justice has to be blind, but I'm not in the jury, so I have the luxury not to be. For me, the difference in approaches is striking. On one side, we have somebody who contributed to RSS and Reddit - I am not a big fan of Reddit, but one doesn't have do be a fan to recognize it's a major establishment in the Internet society - and on the other side, we have what? GNAA? I can't read minds, but to me, it just seems that while Swartz was moved by genuine concern and willing to overstep some boundaries, for Auernheimer it was much more about overstepping bounderies, creating mayhem and pissing people off, and the cause came just as a convenient channel to direct his destructive energies. That doesn't mean that I wish ill to Auernheimer - <USER3> wish that his sentence would be light and involve as little jail time as possible (by now realistically it looks like there would be some) - but I must say if we want to change public opinion about overprosecuting computer crimes, guys like Auernheimer don't exactly help the cause.

</comment><comment><USER29> The internet was created by "hackers" and is kept running by "hackers". The only way to make the internet more secure is through "hackers".

Government, and the laws that are drafted, will not make the internet more secure. My general feeling is that laws against hacking will only result in a less secure internet. This, in turn, will lead to more laws against hacking. And so on...

</comment><comment><USER30> Pardon my language, but what the fuck happened to this country.

<comment><USER24> People started believing everything they come across that happens to fit in with a narrative they've accepted.

<comment><USER31> What else is new?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "I did this because I despised people I think are unjustly wealthy and wanted to embarass them." -- This is what makes weev "not Aaron". Aaron wanted to further the human race, not embarass people just for the sake of it.

<comment><USER22> "Different from Aaron" isn't a legal defense. This guy is an ass, but he's not a criminal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm sure this is common knowledge. But this is his "troll" organization - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_Ameri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America)

</comment><comment><USER34> whatever his intention was, data was publicly available

in one way it is no different than AT&T posting all the emails in a public webpage!

I think AT&T must be sued for poor security

</comment><comment><USER35> As long as the court of public opinion is in session here, who is this guy? What other good/bad stuff has he done, outside this case?

<comment><USER36> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev></comment></comment>


What do you call this? Side by side purchase options? - <AUTHOR>

Anyone have any idea if there is a term for this kind of side by side purchase option comparison?
http://imgur.com/gmlWO
Is there an easy way to implement this other than to hand code it (or create an image)? <comment><USER2> <http://imgur.com/gmlWO>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks cpt1138. I didn't know how to add the link.

Any ideas on if this presentation has a name or term of art?</comment></comment>


System Monitoring for Developers - <AUTHOR> http://stephenhaunts.com/2013/01/02/system-monitoring-part-1/

<comment><AUTHOR> Covers basic architecture and deployments.</comment>


A 119-Word Local Crime Brief Became Facebook's Most-Shared Story of 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/facebook-most-viral-story-texas-child-predator.html <comment><USER3> I wonder how much of a factor randomness was...

It's the social media equivalent of winning the lottery...somebody is going to win, and trying to explain why a particular post went uber-viral may by futile.

<comment><USER4> Unlike certain kinds of lottery, there's no reason to assume that "somebody is going to win".

<comment><USER5> What? There has to be a 'most shared story', so something _does_ have to win, unless you're going to get nitpicky about 2 stories that each had 49,994 shares or something.

<comment><USER4> It is perfectly conceivable for no particular stories to have much nonlocal impact, with nothing going viral. Sure, there'll be a 'most shared story', but that doesn't need to be a _meaningful_ position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's just the vagueness of the headline. "Our Area" could be any area, so everyone who saw it wanted pass it along because they thought it applied to them.

<comment><USER7> Newspaper stories used to have a "dateline" which gave the place-of-origin and the date the story was written, usually followed by the writer's name. The AP style guide had detailed rules, abbreviations, and even disambiguation - <USER2> Portland, which Springfield?

Nowadays, TV and newspaper web sites frequently make no mention of the date of a story, and the location is rarely given. Worse, the geographic area served by the medium is often maddeningly vague, with general hints like serving "the five valley area", or "the gateway to the Snake Navel river," or "the tri- county rural-plex".

Those are nice for the local readers and the advertisers/chamber of commerce, but for the random remote internet reader they convey almost no useful location information. Please, old-media web-site admins, put your medium's location somewhere close to the top of your home page. A state or province, a town, or even an area-code. Also, get off my lawn.

<comment><USER8> > Newspaper stories used to have a "dateline" which gave the place-of-origin > and the date the story was written, usually followed by the writer's name.

Actually, the dateline is _far_ more important than that. I didn't always know this, but the dateline is actually a contract telling you where the _reporter_ was _in person_ , and is the difference between the "hard" journalism of yesteryear and the "soft" web journalism of today.

Read this investigation [0] by the NY Times into the story of Jayson Blair, whom they fired after discovering he was faking sources for his articles. It talks a lot about journalistic integrity and was the first time I learned that datelines weren't just where the article happened but also the journalist giving you their word that they were there, on the ground.

Once you learn this, you start to see it everywhere. For instance, a recent article about the deep freeze we had here in Chicago (we hit around minus 50 degrees F with windchill for a couple of days) talked almost exclusively about Chicago, a little bit about the Midwest in general, and a single sentence towards the end about Michigan. The byline? Detroit, MI. Now you know why!

[0]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/times- reporter-w...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/times-reporter-who- resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html)

<comment><USER9> > _around minus 50 degrees F_

== around -45.56C ([https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-50+F+in+C](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-50+F+in+C))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> OT: I think it's interesting that to illustrate viral sharing on facebook a share button is surrounded by a hundred mouse pointers. Will the mouse pointer be the next floppy disk save icon? Considering how much of facebook comes from touch screen users, the mouse pointers seem a bit antiquated.

<comment><USER11> Great observation.

<comment><USER10> I suppose a picture with a hundred fingers might come off as a bit creepy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> TLDR: the headline was "human trafficking [...] in 'our area'", which when shared virally sounds like it's in everyone's area.

In case you didn't want to wade through 20 paragraphs of boilerplate about social news sharing before getting to the obvious punchline.

<comment><AUTHOR> The story brings up other possible factors too, such as the nature of the engagement and the types of users (individual, as opposed to publishers) who were re-sharing it. Sensational headline alone isn't an end-all explanation for why a brief from a radio station w/ 7,000 followers would go viral.

<comment><USER13> John Mulaney has a skit in his I'm New In Town special that I think sums this phenomenon up.

> there's a hierarchy in the New York Post [...] different people that they > don't like. [...]And if you pay attention, you can start to identify some of > the rankings that they have.

> [...]Um, the number one thing that you can be in the eyes of the New York > Post is an angel. An angel is a child who has died. That is the best thing > that you can be in the eyes of the New York Post.

> [...]Down towards the bottom of the spectrum, there are pervs. Pervs touch > tots

People are drawn to news about "bad guys" and for some reason, sexual predators seem to be the most compelling kid of bad guy. Which likely also explains their popularity in crime drama plots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can anyone link to the original fb post? I'd love to see what caption people used when sharing it.

</comment><comment><USER15> "By clicking "Agree," you consent to Slate's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and the use of technologies such as cookies by Slate and our partners to deliver relevant advertising on our site, in emails and across the Internet, to personalize content and perform site analytics. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information about our use of data, your rights, and how to withdraw consent."

No thank you.

<comment><USER16> That one didn't bother me as much as Oath's, which includes:

> ... We (Oath) and our partners need your consent to access your device, set > cookies, and use your data, including your location, to understand your > interests, provide relevant ads and measure their effectiveness. ...

I mean "access your device" and "including your location"? But maybe they're just being more honest about it all than Slate is.

<comment><USER17> Well, if you actually read Slate's "privacy policy", it's pretty horrific too. It lists vast amounts of data they collect, both personal and (what they consider to be) non-personal (which can include your geolocation and browser fingerprint, apparently), and lots of ways they use it and share it; but it's not at all clear how I'd be able to opt out of having them track me, share my history with all their favourite partners, etc.

There's no way simply reading an article creates a "legitimate need" for all that.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, I should have expected that :(

> ... but it's not at all clear how I'd be able to opt out of having them > track me, share my history with all their favourite partners, etc.

Actually, Slate seems quite accessible via Tor. So that's an option. But I don't use HN via Tor, so switching to a Whonix VM just to read stuff, with no shared clipboard, would be painful. And as well, I don't like creating correlations, so I wouldn't want to use a Whonix VM that I used for actual work.

> There's no way simply reading an article creates a "legitimate need" for all > that.

I totally agree.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate - <AUTHOR> https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=212164DA-EF6F-42E4-91E6-F1544014D134 <comment><USER3> Facebook Counsel says:

 _Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are closely related to the creation and spread of inauthentic communication such as spam—as well as used to carry out disinformation campaigns like the one associated with the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company located in St. Petersburg._

Authenticity Policy went partially out the window when non-.edu addresses were able to register, and eventually completely out the window when new account registration was opened to everyone. Not really sure how big F can claim they have any sort of Authenticity Standards for user accounts. It seems to me that they encourage people to make multiple accounts, throwaways, business only accounts, pages for celebrities, pretty much everything but using your real name is encouraged at this point.

They [Facebook AND Twitter] also count "impressions" as the number of times something appeared on screen, which is laughably inaccurate for how "impressed" some piece of news or media became on someone's psyche.

Still no mention of a veracity metric or any sort of Bullshit-o-meter by neither Facebook, Twitter, nor Google.

Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint:

 _I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt- out rating system would not infringe freedom of speech or freedom of press, but would inform users as to the veracity of content and its disposition._

Clinn Watts, friend of veracity, thank you for this timely and appropriate suggestion. I pray the big players take heed to your idea.

<comment><USER4> Nutrition labels treat the symptom, not the cause.

IMO the root cause is a neglected and underfunded education system, that does not adequately prepare people for the levels of psychological manipulation the will experience in the form of marketing.

Sure, a nutrition label might help, but it's kind of passing the buck - "We don't need to fix our education system, people just need to be able to count to five so they know how many truth stars this article has, then they can make up their own mind!"

<comment><USER5> Education might be the root cause and it might be neglected but in the US it certainly isn't underfunded.

Source: [http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/21/jeb...](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/21/jeb- bush/does-united-states-spend-more-student-most-countri/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FB: $100K in ads barely made an impression on the election. Nothing to really worry about

Also FB: Come buy our ads!

Zuck man, either you have the power or you don't. I get trying to save face, but I didn't get that feeling from them. It felt to me that they really are that dissonant.

<comment><USER7> Skip past the FB/Google/Twitter Lawyers at the hearings and listen to what the Security experts are saying.

The tech companies are only reacting to whats happening on THEIR platforms, but the big picture emerges only when looking across multiple platforms and the dark web. This makes sense to me, as modern day marketing/targeting happens across as many channels as your budget allows. The target is not just spending his entire day on one site.

I am no fan of Zuck or FB and what chaos they have enabled, but things have escalated way beyond what one tech company can counter. We are going to be borrowing lessons from China soon to get a handle on this mess.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately, I agree...

Sorry Cory Doctorow, but the 'open' web is going the way of the open ranges of cattle drives. There's too many banditos robbing stagecoaches now, we need the Cavalry. As you say, this will end in a 'Chinese' manner. Nationalism and borders have proved to be stronger than the net.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > 56% of total ad impressions were after the election.

> Most of the ads appear to focus on divisive social and political messages > across the ideological spectrum, touching on topics from LGBT matters to > race issues to immigration to gun rights.

> Many of the ads and posts we've seen so far are deeply disturbing—seemingly > intended to amplify societal divisions and pit groups of people against each > other.

"Deeply disturbing". The contrived pearl-clutching really is something else. Disturbing for whom, exactly? One ad apparently talked about saying Merry Christmas again. This is the 'meddling' they speak of.

And this is what the media does 24/7\. Every day they shove divisive social and political messages down our throats.

What is the crime here?

<comment><USER9> You don't see the Russians attempting to influence the US elections via social engineering as a problem?

<comment><USER8> Not any more than I saw Obama's threat to put Brits to the back of the queue in trade if they voted for Brexit.

Paying to promote ads is a pretty common thing. It's as problematic as any other ads that are designed to influence you - so pretty much all of them.

<comment><USER10> > Paying to promote ads is a pretty common thing. It's as problematic as any > other ads that are designed to influence you - so pretty much all of them.

Right. The real problem is we've allowed ad companies to mediate not only commercial spaces but now also personal interactions. So propaganda shows up not only in public spaces but also in seemingly private ones like a Facebook wall where it's hard to track and near impossible to counter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hey Russians! If you guys have worked out how to get the herd to stampede, then why for the love of cabbage, do you need to use this skill to just cause randomness???

I mean can't you guys get the herd to buy Russian iPhones or line up for Russian super hero movies or something?

I really can't understand what the Russians have gained here. If Mueller's final report says the Russians had a major influence on the election, then what happens? I can't imagine it being good for anyone.

<comment><USER12> Are you serious? Donald is SIGNIFICANTLY more pro-russia than Hilary would have been. Ex-post facto that justified it. Actions of Donald: 1\. Intense skepticism of NATO (Russia hates this). 2\. attempted to remove sanctions 3\. Return spy compounds 4\. America turning inwards and rejecting its international role as the hegemonic power and guarantor of western institutions. 5\. The russians have preferred the republicans for a few years now since they were viewed as being more real-politik.

But mostly Donald wasn't hilary. Putin HATED Hilary for complex reasons linked to 1\. bill clinton's expansion of NATO 2\. What putin perceived as american support for violent regime change i.e. which he viewed as an existential threat. This included Hilary speaking in public in support of Russian dissidents and her exulting in the overthrow and execution of gaddafi (while she was secretary of state) 3\. Hilary was basically an anti-russia hawk in general.

It seems the active measures campaign was never expected to result in Donald winning. I think the reasonable expectation was that hilary would be discredited and ineffective after winning with no clear mandate and intense resistance by the right. It was by no means random. It is intensely idiotic to think a nation state ruled by a canny, KBG trained, dictator would invest substantial resources and risk American retaliation to cause 'randomness'. His actions had chaotic results to be sure...but he had clear goals.

"If Mueller's final report says the Russians had a major influence on the election then what happens? I can't imagine it being good for anyone."

and the alternative being we close our eyes and pretend not to see? hopefully it would result in a return to paper ballots and hardened cyber security all across the Western world.

At this point though, we all know what the Mueller report will say in its generality. YES the russians had major influence on the election. Denying that at this point is delusional! Mueller is more about what role auspices of the trump campaign violated the law in their acceptance of russian aid...that is still somewhat of an open question as to degree and the level of criminality but it is quite clear that the Trump campaign had some amount of communication and coordination with agents of the Russian government.

<comment><USER13> To prove successful influence on elections, one would have to prove that the content of the ad influenced a voter's choice of candidate. This is hard, if not impossible to prove, by anyone, and Mueller certainly isn't the authority on why someone in Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida voted the way they did. These 3 states sealed the deal for the election.

What is proved so far is attempted Russian influence on elections. This has been the status quo since the cold war. Had the question been asked in 2012 or 2008, the answer would have been yes as well. In 2017, the nature of spreading information to consumers has transformed dramatically thanks to the increased reach of social media, and the decision of the Russian government to use social media as an attack vector. This is par for the course in world geopolitics, as the United States government has engaged in principally the same thing for years across the world.

Also slightly off topic but - when a candidate says "Read my lips, no new taxes", or "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", and somebody votes for them, but instead they act against the interests of the voter, isn't the net result that the voter has been duped, regardless of by whom?

Regardless, I am curious about this particular anti-Russia wave though because it seems to be treated more seriously than other cases. For example when a sitting President says "Tell Vladimir this is my last election, after the election I'll have more flexibility", and also blasts the opposing candidate on the debate stage by joking that "the cold war ended 30 years ago" when he suggested Russia was a threat to American interests - is this not a good enough case for collusion with the Russian government to ensure that potentially objectionable geopolitical decisions are postponed till after a Presidential election so that a debate regarding their propriety can be absent from the political discourse during the campaign?

There is also the issue of large sums of money flowing to Washington lobbyists to influence members of both parties in the legislative branch, which is now being uncovered as part of the Mueller investigation - again this is not particularly new, as Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Tony Podesta etc. made a lot of money doing exactly this for countries all over the world for decades.

The strongest case against the President would be if there was proof that Julian Assange's source for the DNC and Podesta emails was either the Russian government or someone working for the interests of the Russian government. These emails were very damaging to the Clinton campaign, but contained true information, nonetheless. Given that Podesta chose a trivial email password, it's also likely that some other entity had access to his emails. The challenge then would be to prove that the Trump campaign was a co-conspirator in this exercise, by perhaps coordinating the timing of certain releases with the appropriate campaign rhetoric, etc. What's also equally likely is that the campaign was clueless about the entire thing, and unwittingly profited from it. In that case, there would need to be evidence that if there are pro Russia decisions being taken by the executive branch or the military, and that these decisions are being made as a result of suggestions coming from the Kremlin. This, of course, would far exceed "influence on the elections", but "influence on the executive branch". Given that there is already Russian money flowing into Congress, this puts two thirds of the government in the pockets of Russia - i.e. unprecedented levels of corruption and probably some degree of treason as well.

For some unsolicited perspective - speaking as someone living in India - <USER2> geopolitical impact of an America that was supposedly free of Russian influence has not been a net positive for the world in my view. There have been a number of bad decisions and messes created in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and others. I'm somewhat confident that President Putin is not all that interested in whether Gorsuch or Garland takes Scalia's place, but is rather more interested in furthering his personal game of Risk that he plays on the world map. If the US government is now effectively a Russian puppet on the world stage, this is selfishly somewhat comforting since the Russians have been political allies with India for several decades. Putin violates the sovereignty of Russia's neighbours, as does China with India and others, as does the USA with countless interventions around the world, often seating a sympathetic figure as the head of state in other countries to facilitate this kind of thing in exchange for good deals. I find it difficult to accept that Hillary Clinton would have been a better outcome for the rest of the world given her decision making for the past 30 years of public life, and her track record as US Secretary of State. I don't know if we would be better off with two Putins as opposed to one Putin and one puppet Putin, if that turns out to be true in all of this. Major world powers like the USA, Russia and China are in a constant battle for territory and resources, which is something we could frankly all do without.

<comment><USER12> To be honest I find a lot of what you wrote here irrelevant. The goal of mueller is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that russian support was effective. We can't prove what caused millions of trump voters to be persuaded. (However, I think it is clear it had a significant effect). He is investigating crimes not causality. Frankly whether it worked or not doesn't really matter-the crimes committed by american citizens in the process and how to avoid similar actions by foreign governments again are what matters.

As for your statements about 2008 or 2012 I would need a lot of citations for claims about russian interference in those elections.

Your statement about this current anti-russian wave is wildly off base.

Comparing an innocuous diplomatic statement and a line during a debate with a prolonged and consistent pattern of contact between campaign officials to obtain intelligence provided by the Russian government through hacking....

Moving on-yes- lobbying is bad.

The next paragraph where you talk about Podesta is baffling to me. The strongest case against the president (note these might not actually be crimes- often the cover-up is more damaging and criminal) is that his campaign officials met with agents of the russian government (who represented themselves thusly) and intelligence services to proffer damaging material on a domestic political opponent. Your contention that it is possible that "the campaign was equally clueless about the entire thing" is belied by the fact that three of the key principals (Manafort, Kushner, Don Jr) in the trump campaign met with agents of the russian government...(among many any other incidents).

Hell there was a new york times article this very day about how the trump campaign was aware of the DNC hacks months before it became public knowledge. Donald trump cheered the hackers on in debates. Claiming the campaign was entirely unaware is dead wrong.

You then mention how there needs to be a demonstrated pattern of pro-russian behavior. I mentioned a fair few above-adding in that trump still has not implemented a recent round of sanctions.

To the geopolitical point-the actions of America are very far from perfect. I have many frustrations with the actions of my government. But I do not know if the world would be much more stable if America did not exist and neither do you.

I assure you- the united states is not a russian puppet and will never be so.

<comment><USER13> > However, I think it is clear it had a significant effect

How is it clear though? This is my analysis of the RCP average - there are clear events that are showing an impact on the polls, but I am unable to see any swing that is significant enough trending downwards for candidate Clinton that would give merit to the theory of a significant effect.

([https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/g...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html))

We see candidate Trump overtake candidate Clinton around July 26, which coincides with the release of the DNC emails by Wikileaks, wherein a systematic bias against candidate Sanders is revealed to the public. Apart from this, candidate Trump trails in the polls by mostly 3-6 points.

The decline in numbers for candidate Clinton seems to trend again between August 25 and September 8. August 25 is when the Clinton campaign declared that pepe the frog is a symbol of the alt-right, and denounced the supporters of candidate Trump's campaign as racists. Given that pepe the frog's history as a beloved meme is widespread, including on platforms like Twitch.tv and in several online subcultures, many of which I am a part of, and are completely apolitical, I'm quite convinced that the reaction to this kind of failure to connect with younger voters would have hit her in the polls.

Note also that on August 26, she went on the Jimmy Kimmel show and performed a gag where she opened a pickle jar, to steer clear rumors of her ill health.

On September 9, she made the famous "Basket of deplorables" comment, which shows yet another negative spike - it seems like every time she goes on the offensive against the candidate's support base, she starts to lose favour.

On September 11, she fainted at the 9/11 memorial service. During this entire period there is a significant downtrend in her poll numbers. The polls are most certainly reflecting major popular stories from the campaign.

The week of October 7-14 is again significant here. The Access Hollywood recording was released to the public on October 7, and the John Podesta emails were released the same day. During this period, the polls appeared to have a very sharp negative impact on candidate Trump, whereas candidate Clinton trended upward.

On October 16, the stories from John Podesta's emails finally break in the mainstream media, with CNN's Jake Tapper suggesting that it is illegal for the public to read them. This is where candidate Trump begins to make a comeback in the polls.

On October 28, Director Comey announces that the investigation into candidate Clinton's use of a private server has been re-opened, because emails were found on a the laptop of Anthony Weiner, during an unrelated underage sexting scandal involving Weiner - this causes a very clear nosedive in poll numbers for Clinton, which recovers sharply on November 6, when Director Comey once again clears her of all charges.

For me to accept that "Russian influence" via ads or some other propaganda machinery had a significant impact on the minds of the voters, I think it ought to be visible somehow in the polls - since this is true of nearly every other major development in the campaign. The only theory to validate that would be that the Russians somehow played a part in the Wikileaks drama. Julian Assange has offered to be a witness for the Mueller investigation but has been ignored.

The other controversial figure who had information about what was going on with Wikileaks was the infamous Kim Dotcom, who, in 2015 said that Assange would be targeting candidate Clinton's campaign, as early as 2015, referenced here:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-14/kim- dotco...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-14/kim-dotcom- julian-assange-will-be-hillary-clinton-s-worst-nightmare-in-2016)

Dotcom has also offered to testify, but has not been taken seriously, yet is the only person is known to have had knowledge of the Wikileaks operation an entire year before it happened.

The idea that there was a significant impact seems to be an unfounded hypothesis in the face of actual data.

> As for your statements about 2008 or 2012 I would need a lot of citations > for claims about russian interference in those elections.

Page 5 and 6 [https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf)

> Comparing an innocuous diplomatic statement and a line during a debate with > a prolonged and consistent pattern of contact between campaign officials to > obtain intelligence provided by the Russian government through hacking....

I don't agree that calling it innocuous makes it innocuous. It's clear that the President wanted to take action once it was politically expedient to do so, and promised flexibility on issues once a second term was secured. It is rooted more in politics and less in diplomacy.

The consistent pattern of contact to obtain opposition research obtained through hacking is identical to the effort to obtain opposition research through spying, which is alleged in the Steele dossier. The only difference between these dirty tactics is that the Clinton campaign maneuvered around the law to get the opposition research, likely owing to their decades of political experience. Both are essentially the same crime in principle. It's also important to note that it is clearly known that coordination in the latter case existed and it yielded a result as well - i.e. the dossier. In the former case, there is an investigation to uncover the evidence, and until now no evidence has surfaced that there were meetings or other discussions showing collusion, nor that there was any sort of yield of damaging information that surfaced as a result of the meetings. I think the distinction between the two campaigns is important in the context of the outrage against collusion with the Russian government or agents of the Russian government, because both campaigns were happy to engage in it, but went about it very differently.

In the case of the famous Donald Trump Jr. email and meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, she was not known to be working for the Russian government at the time, and was retained by Fusion GPS - who was ironically working on opposition research against President Trump. She was able to get a meeting under the pretext of providing opposition research, there was no indication that she was an agent of the erstwhile Russian government, so to prove that a crime is committed because they took a meeting won't really hold up in court, nor should it to a reasonable and fair minded person. What it does is certainly give the appearance of impropriety and a willingness to accept opposition research, which is certainly not unprecedented.

> The strongest case against the president (note these might not actually be > crimes-often the cover-up is more damaging and criminal) is that his > campaign officials met with agents of the russian government

In my comment I said that the strongest case would be that the President not only worked to get elected but continues to do so. That would be fairly treasonous.

> Hell there was a new york times article this very day about how the trump > campaign was aware of the DNC hacks months before it became public > knowledge. Donald trump cheered the hackers on in debates. Claiming the > campaign was entirely unaware is dead wrong.

Many of us around the world cheered the hackers on - Secretary Clinton is a very unpopular person to millions :)

Not sure why but these news sources are conflating Secretary Clinton's emails from her private server with the DNC emails. They are not the same thing. There are 3 classes of emails - Clinton, DNC and Podesta. The latter two became public during the campaign. The first never came out - this is the dirt that they allegedly had, and the public has not seen the 33,000 emails to this day.

Given this distinction, the NYT and other reporting is a little misleading. There was ample reporting on the possibility that Russia specifically had compromised the Clinton private server emails prior to this. It was public speculation for a very long time, much before the George Papadopolous email to his professor friend. Former Defense Secretary Gates said the odds were quite high.

Jan 2016

[http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266674-former-defense- se...](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266674-former-defense-secretary- says-clinton-server-may-have-been-compromised) [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3412251/Former- secre...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3412251/Former-secretary- defense-says-odds-pretty-high-China-Iran-Russia-got-access-Hillary-Clinton-s- private-email-server.html)

Feb 2016

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/02/12/...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/02/12/vladimir- putin-hillary-clinton-emails/)

March 2016

[http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/investigation-hillary- sent...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/investigation-hillary-sent-dozens- of-emails-on-her-blackberry-from-russia-and-china-raising-risk-profile/)

If I were a betting man I'd wager heavily that the emails were definitely seen by foreign governments - 33,000 were never released to the public, and still have not been, so even if all of this were true, the fact that the emails never became public sort of proves that the result of the alleged collusion never materialized during the course of the campaign. The only stuff that came out was DNC and

> I assure you- the united states is not a russian puppet and will never be > so.

If it comes to light that the executive branch is working to further Russian interests, and so are the members in Congress who are lobbied by folks like Manafort and Podesta, then it would be very difficult to argue otherwise. Currently, the jury is still very much out on the former, since what is being trumpeted by the press is thus far betting heavily that a smoking gun will emerge to prove that there was collusion that yielded some exchange.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> [RETRACTED]

<comment><USER15> Why ask pointed hypotheticals when the transcripts are right in front of you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Could we just, you know, get some examples of these stunningly effective ads that have the power to sway elections? Is that too much to ask? Or would we find out that these ads that the Dems have been hyping up are nothing more than run-of-the-mill memes?

<comment><USER17> > these ads that the Dems have been hyping up

The post under discussion is an article by Republican senator Lindsey Graham.

Here's an interesting example I saw in [1], although I don't know if it was foreign-originating. It's an official-looking ad for Democrats that tells them they can vote from home by texting "Hillary" to a 5-digit phone number.

[1] [https://www.c-span.org/video/?436454-1/facebook-google- twitt...](https://www.c-span.org/video/?436454-1/facebook-google-twitter- executives-testify-russia-election-ads)</comment></comment>


Biology is the New Tech: Letter from a conference on CRISPR - <AUTHOR> https://airmail.news/issues/2019-7-27/should-the-rich-be-allowed-to-buy-the-best-genes <comment><USER2> I'm more than happy to let the rich buy the best genes first, if that means that everyone else will get to buy them later.

Is the implied attitude that if the rich get something first it shouldn't exist at all? If gene therapy follows a progression like mobile phones, that would good for humanity. First it's super expensive and only a few get them, but it becomes much cheaper within a few decades and eventually almost everyone can have one.

<comment><USER3> > _I'm more than happy to let the rich buy the best genes first, if that means > that everyone else will get to buy them later._

Why would they sell it to you later?

Even more so, why would they even need most people (say 80% or so)? Automation wins and AI means they don't have to, in order to maintain their status quo and build things.

It's more likely for the west to become the same way large parts of the third world already are: some highly advanced zones cut off by walls, police, private armies etc. (which get the genes) and huge areas of slums...

<comment><USER4> Because the rich are no more evil than the rest of us and, all things being equal, would rather their fellow man be as happy, healthy and fulfilled as they are?

<comment><USER3> I, along with millennia of common wisdom, doubt that the rich are "no more evil" than the rest of us.

<comment><USER5> A good portion of HN readers are rich. If you take the perspective of an average 3rd world laborer, vast majority of HN readers are rich, likely including you. Maybe we're more evil than average, but I have to admit, I haven't noticed.

<comment><USER6> Humans are communal creatures who have particularist ties to people in their own society. If we want to speak about the intentional beliefs of the rich, I think we need to take an intra-societal view rather than a cosmopolitan one.

Five reasons why the rich tend to be worse people:

1) Humans only need some modest necessities to live and a stable income to be secure, and beyond this, our desires are largely manufactured and driven by status

2) Unlike in the past, today, the higher our income the longer hours we are likely to work

3) There are many people who are poor and destitute and need money orders of magnitude more than the rich

4) People have a tendency to search for legitimations for their actions, and so the rich try and justify their wealth as a result of merit, natural inequality, work ethic, etc.

The rich are disproportionately driven by status, spend less time with their friends and family - and indeed their lives are absorbed in instrumental gain - hoard wealth at the grave expense of others, and are given to excessive pride and covetousness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> this whole article is hilarious. biology and genetic engineering is way way more complicated than anything we've done as far as software and hardware goes. performing a few tricks does not equal we can enhance anything we want any way we want it. my guess is that we're a few decades away from really understanding the underlying mechanisms that would allow us to truly enhance ourselves. some will say that we can edit DNA today - while that's true we have a limited understanding of what we're doing or what the effects might be. Evolution is great because it wipes out all of its errors and you only see the beautiful end product. Now, do you want to be a guinea pig and/or be the unfortunate outcome of these experiments?

also: [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667997/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667997/)

another point that a lot of people miss is that super intelligence means nothing if you don't have the right environment and the right opportunities. being wealthy exponentially increases your chances of a good outcome and it's almost orthogonal to your IQ.

yet another point is that if we continue to destroy our ecosystem no matter how smart individuals get we're all collectively doomed.

<comment><USER8> I can pretty confidently say that we will never fully understand human cell biology/biochemistry. The interplay between proteins, genes, metabolites, etc is mindbogglingly complex. I say this as someone who works as a chemical biologist and uses CRISPR/Cas9 in my work to perform gene editing in cancer cells.

We are still quite a ways away from performing real editing in humans, and even then it's gonna be a crapshoot. Most traits are polygenic, and we don't understand how tweaking one gene will effect distal biology.

<comment><USER7> never is a long time but I definitely agree with the sentiment of what you're saying/describing

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The tourism angle mentioned is the real deal killer for these regulations.

If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill- health on their children by withholding these technologies is morally wrong) will just fly to Singapore. Even if you could enforce this, not every country will. 5+ standard deviation increases in many traits is on the table: [https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection#iterated-embryo- selec...](https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection#iterated-embryo-selection)

If we make this illegal here, we will be as children compared to those in China or Singapore.

The potential increase in IQ is so high that any country that defects from a global ban, even a smallish one like Iran say, would quickly be producing the vast majority of all genius-level intellects.

A global ban is just is not a stable equilibrium.

From a balance-of-power perspective, we would expect huge shifts in future power to those countries that embrace the technology. An absence of taboos against human enhancement may be a more important factor in this than current scientific achievement for predicting global leadership in the next couple generations.

In islamic culture, traditional scholarship places the point of ensoulment anywhere between 40 and 120 days after conception. Our western taboos around this topic, likely even our western secular taboos, derive from a belief in ensoulment at conception.

This simple doctrinal dispute may end up having huge consequences. And may allow islamic cultures to return to a position of scientific power, likely shared with China and other Asian countries who similarly do not share our taboos.

<comment><USER10> I think you're placing far too much faith in genetic determinism. Intelligence is a highly fluid concept with no widely accepted defining characteristics. To think that geneticists can just "pick and choose" genes to add to an embryo that will reliably result in genius level intellects is absurd. The human mind is not a tomato plant or a wheat kernel. It's a highly complex system that requires a multitude of biological and environmental factors to flourish into an above average intelligence.

<comment><USER11> This is a belief just like God making man and animals on separate days.

We have DNA and (partly) heritable traits just like tomatos and wheat. The only reason modification (eg CRISPR) was done later in humans vs other organisms was due to ethical not technical reasons.

We have easily obtained metrics that work as a proxy for intelligence like IQ, educational attainment, elite professional success, number of patents, publications etc.

As for having many genes being responsible for a trait, Fisher showed in 1918 you can perform selection even if there were an infinite number of loci involved, see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal_model](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal_model)

<comment><USER12> >> educational attainment, elite professional success, number of patents, publications etc.

None of these are meaningful measures of intelligence.

<comment><USER11> They correlate and as I said are 'easily measured.. proxies for intelligence'

You can't just sequence people who have accomplished great things and are widely recognised as geniuses as there aren't enough of then and they're busy.

We need huge sample sizes. Ideally, you'd sequence a million people and have them sit rigorous tests, interviews etc. But it's way cheaper and faster to have them tick boxes on forms.

<comment><USER12> >> They correlate and as I said are 'easily measured.. proxies for intelligence'

You're going to have to provide meaningful evidence to back up the assertion that numbers of patents (as well as the other criteria listed) actually correlate to higher intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 70% of rich families lose their wealth by the second generation. [http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose- wealth/](http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/)

90% is lost after that. [https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/why-wealth- barely-last...](https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/why-wealth-barely-lasts- for-3-generations-d409e5f28106)

<comment><USER14> Maybe if they were able to put superior genes in their offspring they'd be able to move that metric.

<comment><USER13> That implies that it has to do with genes in the first place. Perhaps there's an argument there. However, I would also consider that the size of an estate may grow, but not exponentially (at least not indefinitely). Yet, the size of a family tree does grow exponentially.

<comment><USER15> Genghis Khan would like a word with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Be very careful what you wish for. There is some evidence that debilitating, even deadly, genetic disorders correspond to higher-than-average intelligence.

 _Only about 2% of the U.S. population is of full Ashkenazi Jewish descent, but 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century, 25% of the winners of the Fields Medal (the top prize in mathematics), 25% of ACM Turing Award winners, a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners, and 38% of the Oscar-winning film directors have either full or partial Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

...

Today's Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a number of congenital diseases and mutations at higher rates than most other ethnic groups; these include Tay–Sachs disease, Gaucher's disease, Bloom's syndrome, and Fanconi anemia, and mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2.

...

At least one of the diseases in this cluster, torsion dystonia, has been found to correlate with high IQ._

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

<comment><USER17> The concept of "Ashkenazi Jewish" does not correspond as strongly as you might think to a homogenous genetic make-up. Ashkenazi Jewish people come from a wide range of European and Middle Eastern genetic make-up, and you'll find as much diversity within Ashkenazi Jews as there is between Ashkenazi Jews & Europeans / Ashkenazi Jews - eastern Mediterranean basin. The higher rate of heritable disease is due to isolated communities marrying lots of first cousins etc (historically speaking). But there were many such dispersed & distinct such communities.

<comment><USER16> I wasn't suggesting that the term corresponded to a homogeneous genetic/ethnic makeup. I was only suggesting they win a lot of "smart people" type awards and also are known to suffer at high rates from genetic disorders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> how about the hubris that we could ever possibly know what the "best" genes are, save whatever is currently desired for our current, extremely limited viewpoint on what "best" is. It's like reaching a local maxima and thinking you found the peak, but in the grand scheme of an evolutionary timeline were a factor of 100x away from what the real "best" was

<comment><USER19> "Best"? No. But evolution isn't even trying, and only gave us what we have by trial and error. Most of those errors are worse. We're descended from the mutations which were not worse, but _every_ mutation was random and unplanned (by any reasonable use of the word), all the way back to the primordial soup.

<comment><USER16> Evolution is largely a winnowing process. What doesn't die before it can successfully reproduce "wins."

This is the explanation behind genetic disorders being more common in certain populations. Sickle Cell Anemia (2 copies of defective gene) is terrible, but Sickle Cell Trait (1 copy) protects against Malaria. Having one copy is advantageous in areas where Malaria is endemic.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say _evolution isn 't even trying._ Bacteria apparently produce more mutations than normal in hostile environments, apparently a form of gambling on _anything_ being better than what we are d meoing currently.

<comment><USER19> That last paragraph is an interesting perspective, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> They are rich - I don't have the confidence that they can be stopped in this age of lopsided wealth/power concentration. Better to let them be the guinea pigs evolving the technology to become stable and inevitably common. When everyone is able to buy genes, we will all be at a new square one.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd highly recommend Radiolab's "G" Series of mini-podcasts that cover material pretty pertinent to the discussions in these comment sections. I really enjoyed the entire series. Here is the abstract for it:

 _Radiolab's "G" is a multi-episode exploration of one of the most dangerous ideas of the past century: the concept of intelligence. Over six episodes, the series unearths the fraught history (and present-day use) of IQ tests, digs into the bizarre tale of one man's obsessive quest to find the secret to genius in Einstein's brain, reveals the ways the dark history of eugenics have crept up into the present, looks to the future with a controversial geneticist who has created a prenatal test for intelligence, and stages a raucous game- show throwdown to crown the smartest animal in the world._

</comment><comment><USER22> There are superior gene combinations that are not known or are poorly understood, such as high bone density, resistance to acute radiation exposure, faster environmental adaptability, greater pulmonary volume. By higher bone density I mean 3-5x greater than normal. These supposedly superior conditions are things that actually exist and boost performance, but they also impose stress on other health systems. After accounting for complexity superior is in the eye of the beholder after consideration for what factors/goals are most desirable.

<comment><USER23> Strong bones but death st sge 50. It will take as long as fifty years to learn that. Or maybe this system will be easy to fix forward and hack. I mean evolution is clearly going to result is modularism as a design principal and separation of functions of chemical pathways. Not like hacking some hand crafted assembly code by a dead mad genius, it wont be like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is this even possible? Buying the best genes as if you could buy an Armani suit.

What this should say is "Should the rich be able to saddle their children with untested, unproven genetic technology in the hopes they can select for traits that give them competitive advantage in their social world, no matter what the side costs are?"

The answer should be no. If you want to breed children like show dogs, it doesn't matter how smart they are in the end, you've diminished them.

<comment><USER25> >The answer should be no. If you want to breed children like show dogs, it doesn't matter how smart they are in the end, you've diminished them.

this is called 'choosing a partner'

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Perhaps a different way of asking the question is 'will the rich be buying the best genes?'

And the answer is 'yes' because they already are, in limited ways.

But we may be overlooking the breadth of the 'rich' in the future. Most humans today are far more rich than anyone else alive in the recent past. If this trend continues into the future, the accessibility and affordability of gene selection will make it commonplace.

</comment><comment><USER27> The bigger issue seems to be determining what "best" means. While there are a handful of diseases associated with specific genetic variants that could obviously be cured, the traits people would likely try to optimize (e.g. intelligence) seem to involve a complex combination of genes and environment, and an attempt to select for such genes could incur some potentially negative side-effects.

<comment><USER28> It seems like your two sentences don't really fit together.

"Best" pretty clearly means higher IQ in this context.

The fact that the practical engineering required to accomplish that will involve setbacks, failures, costs, and suffering doesn't mean that we can't define the goal.

<comment><USER27> Agreed that intelligence is a good thing, but the question is about whether there is a set of genes that are "best" for producing it. At the moment it's unclear which genes those are, and even if we found some genes related to intelligence, they may have other negative consequences that make the idea of a "best" set of genes questionable

<comment><USER28> Well, to add some data:

Intelligence genes discovered by scientists The Telegraph, Dec 21 2015 [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science- news/120617...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science- news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html)

Many similar articles, not all about the same discovery, at this DDG search:

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genes+for+intelligence+found&t=ffa...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genes+for+intelligence+found&t=ffab&ia=news)

<comment><USER27> Yes, there is surely evidence that intelligence is heritable, but it's worth giving the research on this a close reading. Current approaches can only explain 10% of the variance in intelligence ([https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104)), plus the effects from the environment. My main issue with the article though was the assumption that a "best" set of genes exists without futher discussion (in addition to obvious ethical concerns)

<comment><USER28> I was just responding to this: "intelligence is a good thing, but the question is about whether there is a set of genes that are "best" for producing it. At the moment it's unclear which genes those are"

Basically just noting that we now know at least some of those genes.

Many more will be found. Some will have other deleterious effects, and we'll figure that out too. The cause-and-effect of genotype and phenotype will be slowly decoded. It's just a matter of time; there's nothing unsurmountable here at all.

<comment><USER23> If there are 200 mind trait affecting genes you are saying a 2^200 search is fine.

<comment><USER28> That's... Not how any of this works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What's the point of money if you can't spend it on the things you want?

<comment><USER30> What's the point of life if the things you want can only be bought with money?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Look at it this way: a lot of smart people contribute to common goods, e.g. scholarly progress. So in a way, it'll benefit everyone.

I understand the counter-argument. But isn't a bit of a strange feature of the world that people kinda don't _want_ more people to be produced with a higher IQ than themselves?

<comment><USER32> Genius-level heirs who aren't psychopaths would be a great thing actually. If we had this a generation ago, maybe our leaders would have been smart enough to act responsibly about climate change.

<comment><USER33> The climate problem we have right now wasn't caused by incompetence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> i mean, the rich already gets the best education, the best healthcare, etc...

<comment><USER35> Having your tuition paid for does not equal getting the best education. Lots of dummies graduate from the world's top schools simply because of pedigree.

<comment><USER36> But such people with connection can often be found employed in powerful organizations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This guy thinks gene A makes you smarter, gene B makes you stronger, gene C makes you taller. And then rich people will buy gene A, B, C and become smarter, stronger, taller, and then richer still. And poor people will be poor forever.

In reality gene A makes a protein a, which triggers an increase in the expression of genes B,C,D, and a decrease in the expression of genes E,F,G. They in turn trigger other and other effects, so there's a cascade of cause- effects that we have no chance to model/simulate/understand, at least not now, and not in the next 30-50 years. The end result is that gene A may make you smarter, but also more prone to macular degeneration or leukemia. Do you think rich people will take the chance ?

<comment><USER38> I've long wondered if genes are more like seeds to a fractal. Evolution works great, but I suspect it results in a chaotic system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> People don't seem to be talking about Crime and Policing, btw. If Criminals get super-intelligent, then we are going to need super-intelligent Policing. This is a smaller fractal of the Military competition aspect, but the dynamics are similar. Ultimately, once this tech becomes reality, it will be impossible to contain for this reason alone. You can't have Enhanced Cops themselves imprisoned in a way that they can't spread their genes.

</comment><comment><USER32> Someone has to beta test genetic enhancement before it becomes mainstream. If it is currently expensive, only the rich can pay it... or pay other people to be the guinea pigs.

It understandably hurts traditional western sensibilities, but genetic engineering is the inevitable cusp of evolution. At the base it's natural selection, then civilization added social selection on top, and finally tech will finish the pyramid with genetic engineering.

</comment><comment><USER39> Tech became tech because it was unregulated. Biotech is anything but, in the west.

<comment><USER40> Tech also became tech because of massive centralized investment from the defense industry.

<comment><USER39> Would be interesting to compare DARPA spending in the 70s with the current levels of NIH spending

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I attended Isaacson's Aspen panel on CRISPR this June. He said his next book is on biotechnology. He wrote the definitive biography of Steve Jobs and some major scientists.

</comment><comment><USER42> I see a major tasks for philosophers to collaborate with these scientists so that they have the best awareness of what they are doing.

Not that it will ever happen but one can dream.

</comment><comment><USER43> No. I don't believe Human gene-editing will enhance socio-economic divides. For one thing genetic enhancements is incredibly hard. There will always be some risk of side-effects. Even without side-effects there will be huge problems in coordinating multiple changes and making sure they are actually beneficial. This is especially so for traits like intelligence. And you don't get a do-over in Humans. If the treatment doesn't work as intended, you still have a child.

We're very far from routine genetic enhancements. Multiple Decades, in my opinion. Even single-mutation treatments for serious diseases should not become routine in the next 10 years.

On the other hand these treatments could be relatively cheap, once the technology has progressed far enough. At the very least, it would be beneficial for any society to pay for any health- or intelligence-improving treatment for any parents who want it.

Next issue: Virtually any improvement in Health, especially during childhood, will lead to higher intelligence, body height and muscle mass. The reason is that the foundations for those traits are "grown" in a specific period of time, using the resources available. If a child gets less nutrition, less time in school or gets sick, those traits are negatively affected. That means not only gene-treatments improve intelligence, but so do vaccinations, antibiotics, antihelmintics and better hygiene.

</comment><comment><USER44> I am sure these best genes will "trickle down".

<comment><USER45> You're right in the sense that these genes will propagate into the rest of the population. However:

1\. Rich people are more likely to get into a relationship with other rich people.

2\. At least for the next 100 years, it's likely the tech will improve at a rapid rate. That means by the time those high IQ genes spread to children, we will already have identified even better genes. People who can intentionally apply this technology to their designer-babies will stay ahead of the curve.

3\. Sexual reproduction is a random process. If we begin to understand genetics well enough, we will almost always be able to get a better, more effective combination of genes by hand-picking them (or letting a computer decide) than by letting sexual gene recombination spin the wheel of fortune.

We're definitely looking at a future where the ruling class will have a huge genetic advantage, and will be able to maintain that advantage because of the huge cost associated.

<comment><USER46> A counter point, it seems that wealth and the power it provides already provide such a huge advantage that the effects of genetic editing may end up being a negligible.

I wonder about the preservation of wealth though. As other posts have pointed out, most wealth is lost within a generation or two. Genetic engineering could end up being used to modulate risk taking behavior and decision making, in an effort to mitigate this. That could have a big effect on the structure of society if successful...

<comment><USER45> Right now, in America and Europe, if you work hard, you have a decent shot at becoming wealthy, or upper middle class. Once genetic engineering enters the picture, wealthy people will have a genuine intrinsic advantage.

<comment><USER46> True, and to add one more point, poverty presently brings a along environmental factors, such as stress, toxic exposure, poor nutrition, that tragically impact brain development and leave people with an analogous intrinsic disadvantage later in life. On a positive note, I think these things are well within reach of fixing in our society and leveling the playing field.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-poverty- affec...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-poverty-affects-the- brain/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Genetic improvement, just like eyeglasses and unlike college admission, is not a zero-sum game.

</comment><comment><USER48> I wonder whether anti-vaxxers are against gene modification or not? On one hand, their children may truly be immune and not need vaccines. But on the other, they might think the procedures will give them even more diseases.

</comment><comment><USER49> Was biotech previously not tech? What an odd thing to say.

</comment><comment><USER50> Yes!

</comment><comment><USER51> Didn't bother to read the article, because the title seems silly. Firstly, we don't have a clue about the genetic architecture of intelligence, so genetic engineering is a ways off. Secondly, what is GRM ("Genetic Rights Management") going to look like? Copy-protection of genes almost seems like a contradiction in terms.

<comment><USER52> GRM can be as simple as a corporation owns rights to certain genes and thus owns a part of the income of those who happens to have these genes. Yes, children inherit the genes and thus owe to that company. The GRM rights can be bought or sold, like IP rights. Various regulations will determine how much we owe per gene.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> People have been calling IT the "Information Revolution", but that has really only just begun. The singularity will (has) happen(ed) in meat before silicon.

Cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight- circuit_model_of_conscio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight- circuit_model_of_consciousness)

This is activation in the "neurogenetic" circuit. We know that the soma thinks: "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698) With a little practice you can establish two-way communication with this aspect of yourself ("neurosomatic" circuit) and engender e.g. accelerated healing, &c.

Now that we know that CRISPR-style genesplicing is possible, it seems likely that it could be taught as well. In other words, go into a trance and mutate yourself.

Our DNA already contains the coding for self-splicing, in fact it's littered with quiescent viruses in all degrees of viability. So we have all the biotechnology we need to practice self-modification of DNA now. Grok your cells! Go forth and mutate!

<comment><USER54> > Now that we know that CRISPR-style genesplicing is possible, it seems likely > that it could be taught as well. In other words, go into a trance and mutate > yourself.

Well that seems like a "bit" of a logical jump...

<comment><USER53> It's not easy to unpack the train of thought there, and it would take a book (at least) to do it justice. Let me see if I can sum it up...

Your brain is a powerful feedback-based information processor. It's whole deal is to get your DNA into the future. Now it's learned about the existence of DNA. (Maybe from reading Dawkins.) And it's also learned about easy gene splicing with CRISPR. So as a bio-computer dedicated to self-replication, it has entered into a very strange loop.

I'm saying that this loop doesn't require any external hardware. You have a brain, you have cells, they are already connected, so you have your lab and Neural Network General (non-)AI already.

If you can convince your brain to try it (and this is where hypnosis comes into play) there is no reason to suspect that it wouldn't be able to figure out how to self-hack your own DNA. Just explain what to do and let 'er rip.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: About Computer Science Testing - <AUTHOR>

I am a college student who has recently been discouraged by some of the exams in one of my computer science courses.
The problem that I am facing is receiving mediocre grades (C- through C+) on my first two exams. Though I feel I grasp the material and understand the concepts I have not done well on the testing.
On the other hand I have gotten near perfect grades on the projects.
I am wavering between encouraged and discouraged and don't really know which is appropriate. Any insight would be appreciated. <comment><USER2> I'm also a college student, but not sure how much authority I have on this matter.

Grades (I think) are only an approximation of your knowledge. Take them with a grain of salt, unless things like financial aid or enrollment hang in the balance. I've gotten F's on a few exams before, but I've also gotten two fantastic internships. Grades won't reflect that.

What kind of things did your professor dock points for? Simple mistakes? Or are they conceptual mistakes? Do you feel that the exam material is relatively important? And did you learn?

I (personally) wouldn't worry about what to feel, but instead took towards a goal (like working at Google!).</comment>


Kotlin/JVM library and CLI to scrape posts and attachments from social networks - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SokoMishaLov/skraper <comment><AUTHOR> Cli tool and kotlin library which allows scraping posts with media and other meta info from various sources without any authorization or full page rendering. Based on Kotlin/JVM coroutines and JSoup.</comment>


Ask: word processor with latex algorithm viable?  - <AUTHOR>

Since the MSWORD annoyed me on its layout and too many mouse operations, I am planning to write a word processor with latex layout algorithm (for browser or mobile devices too). It should be much smaller in binary size and run super fast by initial estimation.
Will I have any chance to survive? Am I crazy?
BTW, I am also an online graphics editor maker of Torapp guilloche designer on http://www.torapp.info. <comment><USER2> I know that Scrivener supports Latex and other formats via Multi Mark Down. It's well regarded by some writers. Since I am not clear exactly what you are trying to accomplish, I can't tell how relevant Scrivener's success is to your project.

<http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php>

</comment><comment><USER3> How does what you propose compare against something like LyX?

<http://www.lyx.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Lyx does not have pager and its realtime layout engine is worse than word.

<comment><USER4> Could you be more specific about the things Lyx does worse than Word? For me, most of its WYSIWYM-features work pretty well.

For what it's worth, the most annoying thing for me have been the tables, which overflow in awkward ways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Will it offer realtime rendering?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. It is basically a word processor with realtime latex layout algorithm.

<comment><USER5> There are a few apps doing that already:

\- <http://www.bakoma-tex.com/> \- <http://dev.midnightcoding.org/projects/gummi></comment></comment></comment>


Vote up if you want YC to remember your cookie for longer than a few hours - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER3> Ok, I just made cookies expire in the distant future. This new release also has more protection against various kinds of abuse.

<comment><USER4> Moral of the story - post a topic instead of using the feature request post? Or would that get annoying too quickly?

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't encourage overusing this technique.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Vote up if you want to see the Arc source so you (ostensibly) can fix it yourself...

<comment><USER5> It wouldn't save any time to see the Arc source, since it runs on their servers, and PG would have to check any fixes to see if they worked and didn't ruin everything, which would probably take more time than just doing it himself.

I'm all in favor of Arc being released, however, even informally and without any promises of updates.

<comment><USER4> It's a joke - I know we couldn't fix it, I just want to see the source. :)

<comment><USER6> Isn't it just 30 lines of _elegant_ Lisp code? Write it yourself unless, of course you want the Holy Lispirit come onto you when looking at PG's code :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Go and find this request on the Feature Requests page and upvote it there. <http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=363>

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm all for seeing a decent login screen as well. It would take - what? - <USER2> seconds to toss the CSS at the top of that page?

<comment><USER9> I disagree. Since I spend a total of less than a second on the login screen whenever I log in, I could care less what I see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Turn on auto-complete in Firefox and Internet Explorer and it's just a matter of clicking Login. PG has said in the past that you are logged out whenever the server is restarted.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's still an extra 2 clicks each morning ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> My login lasts for weeks. Is this just a matter of session vs stored cookies? If so, it should be easy to write a little bookmarklet which makes your cookie non-session.</comment>