Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html <comment><USER2> There's breaking reporting that Facebook _just_ had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants.

[https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121](https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121)

> BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now > "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information > Commissioner's Office..

[https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552...](https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552?s=19)

> To be clear, @facebook was trying to "secure evidence" ahead of the UK > authorities. Nice try, @facebook. The UK Information Commissioner's Office > cracking whip...British legal investigation MUST take precedence over US > multibillion $ company.....

Something VERY wrong is going on at Facebook.

edit, with another account:

[https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272](https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272)

> Facebook have confirmed that auditors and legal counsel acting on behalf of > the company were in the offices of Cambridge Analytica this evening until > they were told to stand down by the Information Commissioner. These > investigations need to be undertaken by the proper authorities

<comment><USER3> I seriously feel like I'm missing something here, why isn't Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don't think it's as simple as "more money," but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they've created?

<comment><USER2> Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

<comment><USER4> This fact has me more confused than anything.

What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious.

Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality profiles. [1?] However, it was open about CA optaining the data via the survey. (I'll provide a link as soon as I dig it up again). Suddenly, months later, this story is exploding in media and political rhetoric.

It makes me wonder if this isn't more about a concerted effort to force regulations to give someone control over these platforms?

After seeing what happened in the 2016 elections around the world, I'd imagine many people became interested in ensuring social media would work for them next time around.

[1] [https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to- self/e/5231252...](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to- self/e/52312529) (not -the- podcast I was trying to find, but still has the info as far back as November)

<comment><USER5> > Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months > ago.

Minor nit: Years ago.

The name Cambridge Analytica was being circulated in hacker circles since at least mid-2016. Thus far, the only new revelation was the Channel 4 reporting [1].

Security nerds have been complaining about Facebook's business model for _years_ and it fell upon deaf ears.

Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't understand what changed.

[1]: [https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica- revealed-t...](https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed- trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to- entrap-politicians-investigation)

<comment><USER6> Nothing changed. What happened in many of these cases (Weinstein, Facebook) is that the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times.

My only point (if there is one) is that, despite the massive proliferation of blogs and amateur media, it often takes a professional, salaried reporter to bring an important story into the public eye.

<comment><USER7> > the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of > professional journalists working for the New York Times

No. It was Ronan Farrow that originally broke the story. The NY Times took their sweet time before going after someone that was an ultra-major Democrat party donor. The Weinstein story was rejected by multiple "professional" news outlets.

The "professional" journalists working for the NY Times KNEW about the Weinstein story as far back as 2004, but spiked it under pressure from various Hollywood interests. Professional journalists aren't supposed to spike stories for political reasons and that's exactly that the Times did in 2004.

Weinstein's office in Tribeca was right downstairs from the Tribeca Film offices. It was on the 3rd floor. Spend a few hours in that building and you could probably have heard a dozen stories in whispered tones about Harvey. Some professional journalist from the NY Times should have had this story years ago. A high school journalist could have written this! And Kevin Spacey? Anyone who in Hollywood would have known about Spacey as far back as 2004, or perhaps earlier. It was an "open" secret. So open that it was a joke. It started becoming more "known" when Spacey was working with Sam Mendes on American Beauty in 1999.

Give me a fucking break. Professional journalists sat on this story, ignored it or conspired to crush it. It took a rookie, Ronan Farrow, trying to make a name for himself while on a personal mission against that horrible abuser Woody Allen for this to all break.

[https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/russell-crowe- ma...](https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/russell-crowe-matt-damon- helped-spike-a-weinstein-expose-in-2004-former-nyt-journalist- claims-20171010-gyxkn4.html)

<comment><USER8> And yet, almost everyone continues to insist that the system is more or less clean, even though it is blatantly obvious news and politics is lies and propaganda from top to bottom.

Bring on the smug downvotes boys, but until all media, social networks, and the overall internet can be brought _completely_ under government control, it will continue because there is simply too much criminal activity going on everywhere.

<comment><USER9> Quality authors afiliated to prominent prestigious publishers printed on the finest cloths imaginable. Not only were their words and the patterns extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing property that it was to be invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My greatest hope with all of the noise surrounding this, is that the engineers and employees at Facebook realize that Facebook and Zuckerberg's vision does not line up with reality. Zuckerberg believes that Facebook will connect people and change the fabric of society and communities for good in a way that was heretofore impossible.

Between Facebook's political issues and the happiness-depressing effects of its use, I think it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that Facebook is a net negative for society. This is without even taking into account the amount of PII that has been concentrated into a single entity (who monetizes it), or the effects of algorithmically appealing to people's desires.

A hundred years from now, Equifax, YouTube, and Facebook will be lumped into the same pile: companies who profit off of information about consumers. The algorithmic veneer that protects YouTube and Facebook will be gone by then.

I'm not trying to condemn anyone, and I'm not in the position of having to weigh providing for my family with making ethical choices.

But, I think it is clear that change for Facebook will not come from the top. It will only come as people leave.

<comment><USER11> I don't disagree with these sentiments, but the hope that engineers/IT staff will leave is wishful thinking. I speak from my own experience which my differ from others in other industries/regions/countries but, I find people who work in tech to be generally dispassionate with regards to the downstream effects of their contributions. I think that's because:

a) We're often small cogs ...

b) ... working on often interesting technical problems that require much detail ("think down here" I was once told by a manager, who put his hand to the ground, "not up here" he said putting his hand up and waving it[1]) ...

c) ... and we don't always get to choose. Not everyone is a superstar who can leisurely choose which exciting opportunity to pick and choose. And yes, most of us have rent/mortgages/children/ other obligations to concern ourselves with.

...even if we aren't necessarily all amoral.

1 Luckily I outlasted him in that company. :-)

<comment><USER12> I think the reason is (d), that most employees believe in the company's mission and do not think they are working for an unethical company, but instead that the company is being unfairly portrayed.

<comment><USER11> Most in Facebook or most in general in tech companies? If the latter, I'd bet my life that most people couldn't care less about visions or missions, which is more the realm of Founders, very young employees and marketing materials. I'm sorry to state it that harshly...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Stamos had been actively engaging with security researchers on Twitter over the past few days about CA with heated discussions:

> I have deleted my Tweets on Cambridge Analytica, not because they were > factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312)

Archive of those deleted tweets: [https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680](https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680)

EDIT: Stamos responds to news:

> Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's > true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring > emerging security risks and working on election security.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

<comment><USER14> Wondering what he thought would be him doing "a better job weighing in"? It seems like his deleted tweets were apparently too honest? i.e. in arguing that there was no data breach, he argued that FB's API and TOS allowed (without oversight) for all app developers to do the kind of data harvesting Cambridge Analytics did? That was well-known by developers, but I guess it's different stating it as an official policy.

<comment><USER15> Translation, "I pissed off my boss"

<comment><USER16> If he's leaving anyway why would he really care?

<comment><USER17> Stock options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While it is buried in the article, an interesting data point that I noticed as a former alum of the team is that the FB security team has apparently been picked apart and divided up between the prod and infra orgs. Being able to stand apart from these two massively powerful entities within FB and tell them when they were screwing up had been one of the moderating influences between the desire of the prod team for 'increase engagement, fuck privacy', and the desire of the infra team for 'move fast, screw safety.' This will not end well...

<comment><USER19> It also relieves Facebook of any sufficiently necessary capability to surveil, centralize, and manage risk.

Given the firm's susceptibility to GDPR and its newfound position under the microscope of a series of international criminal and counter intelligence investigations, this would seem objectively to be the wrong move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's response to all these events has been the weakest and lamest that I have ever seen from any leadership, regarding controversial issues that involve a company of this size...and that's hard to beat when you have the likes of BP and Volkswagen... Do they really think that just ignoring the issue will make the problem go away?

<comment><USER16> When have they really ever had their feet held to a fire on a controversial issue? Zuckerberg is still a pretty young guy, despite his position and all he's done he's still inexperienced in some things. Ever since he started Facebook things have pretty much gone his way. Maybe he just doesn't instinctively know what to do.

<comment><USER21> In which case he knows exactly what to do, which is shut up. There's nothing he can say right now that will make things better.

<comment><USER22> My guess is he's been cognizant of the magnitude of this disaster all along.

This is why he had been getting his picture taken driving tractors. It was an act of image management, not because he planned to run for office.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> >"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network's chief operating officer..."

This is quite a telling - advocating for transparency and disclosure put this individual at odds with the C0O Sheryl Sandberg. It's worth noting that Chapter 6 of Sandberg's very successful book "Lean In" is titled "Seek and Speak the Truth."[1]

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

edit COO

<comment><USER24> Her conference room is also called "Only Good News"

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> CEO of Cambridge Analytica caught on camera saying they have used bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians.

[https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica- revealed-t...](https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed- trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to- entrap-politicians-investigation)

<comment><USER26> wow.. that's the most damning report i've ever seen on how politics is manipulated in this modern age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the "It was not a breach." He's a technical guy, and this wasn't a technical hack. It's like a lock manufacturer wanting to let everyone know that the customer had the door open, and their locks weren't broken.

But in this case, he wasn't just a lock manufacturer, he was in charge of security for the home.

I can't help but think of Steve Jobs parable of the Janitor and the Vice President[0]. Reasons stop mattering at his level. Part of the job was to convince Facebook that these permissions were bad for privacy.

Stamos likely knows this. To me, it looks like he resigned when he realized he couldn't persuade the other executives of things like this.

[0] [http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the- difference-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference- between-a-vice-president-and-a-janitor-2011-5)

<comment><USER28> I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the word "breach" is reserved for specific security incidents that fall above a certain threshold. Something like if X amount of users were affected it must be considered a breach, which means the company must alert the authorities and alert all users who have been affected.

If he's saying it wasn't a breach it's probably because it doesn't fit the actual criteria for considering something a breach, but doesn't mean he's trying to downplay the severity of what happened.

Edit: difference between a data breach vs. a security incident - [https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security- essentials/whats-t...](https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security- essentials/whats-the-difference-between-a-data-breach-and-a-security-incident)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Facebook's chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the > company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal > with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former > employees briefed on the matter.

This opening sentence is frightening, I would rather have learned that FB executive disagree about how to deal with FB "role in ___NOT_ __spreading disinformation "

<comment><USER30> FB is big enough to have developed factions and I can totally see Zuck not being up to the task of controlling them.

<comment><USER31> lol he's still 100% responsible, as he chose the people who chose them, and is responsible for the culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > _He has been overseeing the transfer of his security team to Facebook's > product and infrastructure divisions. His group, which once had 120 people, > now has three, the current and former employees said._

So with Stamos's departure/resignation, Facebook will have also reorganized its structure to not have a dedicated security team? Or at least one at the same level in the hierarchy as product and infrastructure?

<comment><USER19> This would be the correct way to read it is my impression. They've essentially folded their centralized technical risk management apparatus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> With the benefit of hindsight, it seems almost cute how strongly the DOJ went after Microsoft in the '90s, when they were just victimizing competitors rather than destabilizing democracies.

</comment><comment><USER33> "Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security." 2 minutes ago

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

<comment><USER34> Note that doesn't contradict the NYT story, which claims that he essentially gave 8 months notice in December, which he would now be ~3 months into.

<comment><USER35> Makes you wonder why are they running this story now then. Hell of an interesting timing, almost as if to fit a narrative.

<comment><USER34> Probably because they just learned about it? Doesn't seem all that complicated.

<comment><USER19> If anything, it wouldn't surprise me if the CA revelations led current staff to speak out to the press to make the internal division known. Alex is pretty effective as a leader; I'd be shocked if the vast majority of his team, if not his entire team, did not have his back on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Stamos has weighed in on twitter:

>Alex Stamos >Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security. [https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

>To be clear, the security team has never been prevented or discouraged from investigating any Russian activity by any executives. >Josh Sternberg >The NYT reporting that Facebook Chief Information Security Officer, Alex Stamos, leaving the company. He lost the debate to Sandberg and other execs on investigating and disclosing Russian activity. …

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680)

The question in my mind is - what's the real story? You don't go from a team of 120 to a team of 3 for no reason, and Stamos hasn't denied that reporting.

</comment><comment><USER37> "Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook , often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network's chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters."

</comment><comment><USER38> I guess this had already been brewing for a while:

"After his day-to-day responsibilities were reassigned to others in December, Mr. Stamos said he would leave... He was persuaded to stay through August to oversee the transition... executives thought his departure would look bad".

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd love to hear what current FB employees have to say about this. Why do you continue working for FB?

<comment><USER40> Perhaps a healthy dose of Fuck You money?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Didn't he also leave yahoo for practically the same reason?

<comment><USER42> Kind of, and it's why I liked him initially. But with every Facebook screwup and his _defense_ of that screwup with bogus excuses (possibly directly from Zuckerberg, but irrelevant), I gradually started losing my respect for him, just like I've lost my respect for Carmack. Carmack could have been working for SpaceX and living his biggest dream (working on space stuff), but instead he's wasting his time and potential in a democracy-destroying company like Facebook.

History will not be kind to those that continue to help or defend Facebook to keep its influence in the world and power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> > Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating > and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of > other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network's chief > operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked > not to be identified discussing internal matters.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. He was for disclosing this information which ostracized him from the other executives who don't seem to care at all in regard to how their data is used as long as they profit from it.

<comment><USER44> The injustice!.

<comment><USER45> It's right there in the quote: "...according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters".

And before you criticize anonymous sources: that's how journalism works. The publication, the New York Times in this case, takes on the risk to its reputation on behalf of their sources to allow information from unauthorized sources to become public.

Edit: editing your post to erase your embarrassing ineptitude to read (and to make the people correcting you seem foolish) seems kinda assholish.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Stamos sure knows how to pick stinker companies.

<comment><USER41> I mean, maybe that's true, but I'm not entirely certain it's a fair assessment. Yahoo and Facebook are arguably some of the largest targets (different eras of course). Being a CISO at both and _not getting fired from either_ are huge achievements, given the CISO is generally a sacrificial role (largely ignored when done right, and beheaded if something goes wrong, regardless of your actions).

So either way, he picks hard jobs. The question is, does he truly step down when he feels he's got no remaining option to protest (which is quite respectable IMHO).. or is he simply outmaneuvering the board when his spidey senses tell him they are about to drop the axe because of recent corporate sins? Either way, style points for both I'd say.

<comment><USER46> I will stop short of calling him Machiavellian, but he sure does have convenient timing. Great points!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It sounds like the COO and CEO view the spreading of disinformation as a feature of the site.

</comment><comment><USER48> When Stamos left Yahoo, I assumed it was because of the leaked accounts information. I wonder if he saw similar compromises at Facebook that were not disclosed.

</comment><comment><USER49> Why can't we legislate regulations on Facebook, like Europe is set to do? They've already done the hard work by laying down the groundwork.

<comment><USER50> For the same reason the US was the one who brought FIFA to court. It is easier if an "outsider" makes the first move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Leaving FB? Exporting all your posts/data is easy: Login > little arrow at top-right > Settings > "Download a copy of your Facebook Data"

<comment><USER52> This is gold. Because it shows you info that's not accessible through the interface, like whom you unfriended or who unfriended you.

It even shows which advertisers have your info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> My hope is this will prompt people to delete their Facebook data (as much as they can now) and then their accounts...

</comment><comment><USER54> Stamos's response

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

</comment><comment><USER55> I think its time to ditch Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm reposting just this link from another (my) comment below, because I find it incredibly relevant and insightful to anyone who wants to understand how adtech, news and Facebook combined programmatically to create a divisive (but catchy) morass of news:

[https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our- feeds-e86511...](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our- feeds-e86511488de)

</comment><comment><USER56> Hmm just posted by @alexstamos:

"Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security."

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=2...](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=21)

</comment><comment><USER57> Update from his twitter account:

> Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's > true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring > emerging security risks and working on election security.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

</comment><comment><USER58> One day a team of talented psychiatrists will explain how a group of people who spend countless hours by solving "freind-of-a-friend-of-a-friend" types of puzzles for living can act in shock and awe over this "data breach"

</comment><comment><USER59> collusion with more politicos

[https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign- director-f...](https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/)

</comment><comment><USER60> What gets me is that people are usually ok with stuff like this until it's being used to promote ideas they don't support.

</comment><comment><USER61> well, somebody is going to be scapegoated at FB when FB's attempt to push full weight of the blame squarely on CA fails. And Security Chief i think wouldn't be a bad scapegoat ... I expect some other high people also to leave to avoid being made to take one for the team.

</comment><comment><USER62> Alex Stamos claims to not be leaving Facebook as reported.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

</comment><comment><USER63> What does it mean when they say "Stood Down"?

</comment><comment><USER64> Only thing I want to know: did he sign an NDA?

<comment><USER65> Of course he did - C-level officer close to hugely controversial issue, leaving the company in 6 months. It'll be predicated on an NDA, some sort of success metrics for the transition process, and a monster golden parachute.

<comment><USER66> Worth noting that CSO / CISO isn't really a C-Level position. They usually report to the CIO or CTO and are leveled at VP or whatever one one or two levels below what the "real" execs are.

You'll notice he isn't listed as an exec in their SEC filings, which include their CEO, COO, CFO, Chief Product Officer, VP Business and Marketing Partnerships, CTO, and VP General Counsel.

That tells you a bit about how important tech companies really think security is. In fact you will often find the head of HR among that group before you'll see a CSO.

It doesn't matter though, as it's incredibly rare for a CSO to actually know anything about security. Stamos is an exception. I'd wager that you can likely count the number of CSOs who have ever written an exploit on one hand.

<comment><USER67> Often not true. I've always advocated that the CSO report to the CEO, and that is how it came to be. I was listed on the exec page, and the current CSO is now as well.

Not reporting to the CEO is a mistake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> of all the 1000s of companies collecting user data, the full focus of the world is now on this one? why is that?

<comment><USER50> Because they have a lot of data. Because they leak like a submarine diving with its hatches open. Because they have a history of being scummy.

Google could find it self in the same boat.

Technologys hydras are as dangerous as the mythical ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> People have been openly complaining about sexual impropriety in Hollywood for decades. There were comedic references to Harvey Weinstein [1] and Kevin Spacey [2] in shows like 30 Rock and Family Guy. Suddenly people started caring. What changed was the cultural moment of the 2016 election. Specifically with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, the Mueller investigation may have taken a turn towards them in recent months.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU)

<comment><USER5> > Suddenly people started caring.

Yes, but _why?_ And why now, rather than years/decades ago?

There's another layer to these stories that I'm very interested in.

<comment><USER70> Probably a critical mass. It's just like technological adoption: there's an early adopters group and then the masses come in waves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> >who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists.

This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?

<comment><USER72> "When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

 _Some_ (qualified with the half-hearted _I assume_ ) is pretty much the opposite of _the overwhelming majority_.

[http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement- speech/](http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/)

<comment><USER73> "they're rapists" doesn't make sense here. I'll bet 100 to 1 he said "their rapists".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Time for Facebook to pivot, and pivot quickly they must.

edit: Daniel Ive of GBH Insights supports this notion: "Changes to their business model around advertising and news feeds/content could be in store over the next 12 to 18 months," Ives wrote in a note to investors. [http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares- fall/](http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares-fall/)

</comment><comment><USER74> I don't believe this story. The same Alex Stamos who did

[http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram- RCE.php](http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-RCE.php)

Suddenly he's so concerned about transparency he's leaving over it? This report seems very fishy. All the sources are "according to current and former employees." Not one person willing to go on record?

</comment><comment><USER75> I'm sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they _attempted_ to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcome.

I admire his devotion to his candidate, and for trying to find an explanation for her defeat. But sometimes the correct explanation is the simplest one: she was just unpalatable to many voters. Deal with it, and spend your energy finding a better candidate next time, rather than trying to blame Russia or Facebook for influencing even a single vote, which likely did not happen.

<comment><USER76> This is the elephant in the room. U.S. based interests spent _billions_ to influence public opinion here and abroad.

But less than $1 million spent by a Russia media organization (to maybe attract viewers?) and some trolls tossed the election? I'm more than skeptical.

This is a distraction campaign if here ever was one.

<comment><USER77> Well, that's what makes Cambridge Analytica so good, they have the data, and they're cheap. They just needed to target undecided voters in swing states, and through trawling Facebook data, they knew which voters to influence, and how to influence them, because they also have their psychological profiles. And how do you target them? By posting Facebook ads where you define your "target market" so narrowly that it basically hits individuals.

<comment><USER78> Actually, I suspect what makes Cambridge Analytica "so good" is that (big data aside) it was revealed just today: they use bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians, amongst other illegal techniques...

[https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica- revealed-t...](https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed- trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to- entrap-politicians-investigation)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How Are You? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Mostly good. Celebrating 10 months of being sober and leaving my last job.

Just spent the past two days rolling out a new Elasticsearch cluster for work that was giving me panic attacks for weeks (first time "architecting" on that level). Things went really well, so I can probably sleep alright before a big "investors meeting" later this week.

Idk, I feel good. I just think I could probably sleep a bit more and be better.

How are _you_?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great job on the sobriety. I never had an issue with alcohol and virtually never drink it, but I struggle with sugary foods, so I think I get the challenge, in principle. Awesome job on the development stuff as well.

I'm doing good. I finally wrapped up a project (the second edition of my book) which allows me to take on new projects that excite me.

I have some challenges to overcome but I'm pretty optimistic about the future. And yeah, I too struggle with sleep (I average 6.5 hrs). I find the Apple Watch app SleepWatch quite useful and of course diet and exercise help with sleep as well.</comment></comment>


Fight back, have your own PRISM ... - <AUTHOR> https://my-prism.com/

<comment><USER2> White text on a pure red background is murder to my eyes. I don't care that you think it's urgent... when I can't read the text because my eyes are too busy bleeding.

</comment><comment><USER3> Also I can't read anything that slides, and I'm a fast reader.</comment>


Work Less - <AUTHOR> http://thinkvitamin.com/fully-carsonified/work-less/ <comment><USER2> After participating in Rails Rumble a couple of years ago a fun idea I haven't been able to shake is if it'd be possible to work 20 hours a day Saturday and Sunday and then take M-F off (plus, you'd have less online distractions during your "workweek," since it'd be everyone else's weekend).

<comment><USER3> M-F off is highly overrated if one's passions involve other people. I have it any time I want. Unless the people important to you also have free time at 2 PM on Tuesday, it turns into lots of fungible book-or-gym time, and the little old ladies at the gym will ask you why you aren't at work.

<comment><USER2> Oops, I meant to reply to this. It would especially appeal to me right now because my wife stays home with my 4-year-old daughter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law>

"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."

</comment><comment><USER5> I think it's funny a lot of comments are saying they would be angry about not being able to work on that Friday. I'm not particularly sure why you would be upset if your employer offered to pay you 40 hr/week salary and only expected you to work ~32 hours.

They place value in that day assuming you will use it to rest. Working on it would be counter productive to what they see it being useful for.

<comment><USER6> Loss of momentum. When I'm coding, and I'm on a tear, I generally won't stop for drinks, food, or any other outside distractions. It's this exact reason that I abhor the cubicle culture so much, as it tends to invite distractions, generally when I'm in the midst of my greatest productivity.

If I'm on a roll with something, I don't want to chance that I'll come back from a three day weekend every week and have to remember where I left off, or spend that time trying to get back in the groove.

One of the best places I worked (now defunct) allowed for you to work hours per week -- if you worked over, you were credited it for the next week. It was great to crank out marathon sessions, and then, between projects, you could take the remainder of the time off, to rest. So if I spent 7 days straight on a project, I could take 4 days to rest and be 'neutral' on my schedule balance (assuming 8 hour days).

<comment><USER7> The majority of Carsonified employees do not, however, code. I think this distinction is lost somewhere in all the anti-moonlighting ranting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The founding premise of this article is that "you get more done just before you go on holiday" which I've never noticed.

I also think it's inaccurate to assume that folks generally have "hidden capacity" that will miraculously allow them to get done in 4 days what would normally have taken 5.

All this boils down to is profit margin on your work: if you're able to build a pricing model where you bill clients enough to fund 15 people taking an extra day off per week, then you can move to a 4 day work week. If not, you can't.

</comment><comment><USER9> By induction you should be able to get your entire week's worth of effort done in an hour if only you put yourself under enough pressure. As you can see, there is a flaw in this argument.

<comment><USER10> I can't quite put my finger on the logical fallacy here, but there must be one.

For example, applied to a compression algorithm, it fails, too, yet we have lossless compression.

<comment><USER9> No, the difference is lossless compression algorithms have a defined lower bound on how packed the bits can get. No such lower bound has been asserted here in terms of compressing your work, just the idea that you can drop 24 hours off the end of the week with no loss of productivity. Clearly 24 hours is arbitrary, why isn't Thursday a half day?

A more sound argument would be one with actual data and measurements about how reducing the workweek affected overall productivity of the team. Without that it's just opinions and guessing.

<comment><USER10> >No such lower bound has been asserted here in terms of compressing your work, just the idea that you can drop 24 hours off the end of the week with no loss of productivity. Clearly 24 hours is arbitrary, why isn't Thursday a half day?

No such lower bound is defined, but one need not be. The OP is merely stating that the lower bound is 32 hours or less. He's not dropping 24 hours off, merely 8 (or 9, that par is unclear).

As another commentor points out, the lower bound on compression algorithms varies by input. This is likely true here, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wrote this article and I'd like to comment on all the angry "I can't believe they won't let me work on Fridays" comments.

We don't have an adversarial relationship with our team. We're not checking every word of the contract and neither are they.

We're all working towards a greater goal and we're all doing what it takes to get there.

If someone wants to do some extra freelance work on a Friday, then we don't hassle them about it. However, if they do that, they're missing the entire point: they're getting paid a full salary, but only having to work 4 days a week for it.

Why not just take Friday off and enjoy it? The whole point is that a good work-life balance is healthy, fun and fulfilling.

If the money isn't good enough (even though we pay well), then maybe it's not the right job for you.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything here.

</comment><comment><USER6> "write it into their contract that they agree not to work a second job on their day off."

In particular due to the exact language ('day off' vs. 'days off') -- If an employee's schedule is Mon-Thu, are they free to work the weekends at another job (but not the Friday), or is all moonlighting prohibited?

Are they free to work on their own projects on their off days?

If I'm showing bias, I apologize, but I'm a little bit offended that an employer would attempt exercise control over what their employees do in their off time. I'm not saying it isn't ever justified, but if the requirement is that they only work 4 days a week, then they're free to do what they will with the fifth, unless the assertion is that they're actually 'working' five days a week, and are just ordered to relax on the fifth day.

<comment><USER12> This seems a bit silly. The employer's objective is to spend capital on keeping employees extra- rested and extra- content, in order to maximize productivity and minimize turnover. If you try to nerd your way out of their plan, they'll meet the objective some other way; for instance, they can simply demand that everyone show up to the office on day 5.

A 32 hour work week is such a huge benefit that I can't imagine anyone _actually working on such a team_ trying to subvert it. It's totally reasonable to have side projects and even to work a second job. I think a reasonable person stuck in the situation of wanting a second job while working for the 4-day company would simply leave the team.

<comment><USER13> Haven't anybody noticed it's actually 36 hour work week, not 32?

M-F 9am-6pm = 4 x 9

<comment><USER14> They likely take lunch.

<comment><USER15> True, but in a salaried job in the UK, it's typical to include those hours in your total (though not if you're paid by the hour). At least in my experience. So if you're "at work" 9-5 M-F, that's still a 40 hour work week.

<comment><USER16> Status quo for a "40 hour week" at my current employer is 8-5 M-F with an hour lunch. I tried it for six months and decided it was a bad idea.

I was able to renegotiate things to 9-5, but my manager acted like it was this really unusual request and wasn't I lucky that they were willing to let me work "less than 40 hours."

That left me wondering, what do other people consider full time in this industry?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is similar to what I went through dropping work down from 7 days a week to 6, and then to 5. Clients always appear. If they had their way, I would still be working all 7 days a week, preferably 24 hours a day.

As to those who are commenting about being "forced" to take the day off, I am not sure you are getting the point the author is trying to make. The whole point is not being burned out. Adding another job is a great way to reach burn-out faster.

Notice I say "job." In my book, this does not include hobbies. Which, to the outside observer, may look like work only because I use many of the same tools.

And if you really want to work that hard (and it was easier to get away with it when I was younger) maybe this is not the right employment for you...

FWIW. I have cycled through burn-out several times, and I prefer living a healthy lifestyle, if at all possible.

(Edited to be a bit less harsh than my first wording - Sorry).

</comment><comment><USER18> I would honestly _love_ to find a workplace that did this in Canada. To be fair, I'd consider moving back to the UK for that. Bath is beautiful too. I worked in Cornwall as a supply / substitute teacher for a few months. The landscape took my breath away every single day.

</comment><comment><USER19> I feel like this is a bit optimistic. There are people who waste time in a 5 day work week environment; and those same people will waste a proportionate amount of time in a 4 day work week as well because that's just the work pace theyre used to.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think this is a bit idealistic. Especially in the entrepreneurial world, with your mind constantly spinning on new ideas. Sometimes it can even be challenging to take the weekend off.

The one thing i just love about this is the "Do Something Cool". This is something i have tried to do even on my weekends, something as simple as take a 2-3 hour walk. Or try and get lost and find my way home.

Silly stuff like that, but the second you truly relax and let your mind wander you actually start to be MORE creative. I would love to instate something where employees must take a one hour walk a week!

</comment><comment><USER21> You mean people don't work 7-to-12 days in a row until they crash, then take a day and a half off, and repeat the process over again? Pfft, lightweights.

</comment><comment><USER22> Would it still be productive when the 5th day is a company-wide hackathon?</comment>


Apple JavaScript Coding Guidelines - <AUTHOR> http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/ScriptingAutomation/Conceptual/JSCodingGuide/OOJavaScript/OOJavaScript.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40006539-SW2

<comment><USER2> This is a really terrible guide. I just skimmed it and found several major errors:

1\. It's pretty well accepted that constructors should be capitalized. This is a minor style problem compared to everything else.

2\. The entire section on "freeing" objects is just wrong. Not going to bother explaining why.

3\. This is wrong:

       MyChildObject.prototype = MyParentObject.prototype;

Your entire inheritance tree will share a prototype, and adding a property to one constructor's prototype will add it to all of them, even the parents. You need to do something like "MyChildObject.prototype = new MyParentObject;" or "MyChildObject.prototype = Object.create(MyParentObject.prototype);"

4\. The copying section contains a for-in loop without a obj.hasOwnProperty(name) guard.

<comment><USER3> "This is a really terrible guide." would be just enough to sum up this guide. If you're JavaScript newbie just skip it all along and spend that saved time on reading anything from someone like Douglas Crockford.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "To create a new member function, create a new anonymous function and assign it to the prototype property of the object. "

I prefer not to use anonymous function. I will use named function so that my stack trace is comprehensible when I am debugging.

      myObject.prototype.memberMethod = function()
      {
        // code to execute within this method
      }

becomes

      myObject.prototype.memberMethod = function memberMethod()
      {
        // code to execute within this method
      }

Also, what's up with naming the constructor function as 'myObject'. JS prototypical nature is confusing as is and using an example like this can only make it harder to understand.

<comment><USER5> Indeed, however you have to be careful about the outer scope that the assignment is happening in (because of IE): <http://kangax.github.com/nfe/#jscript-bugs>

The other option, if you are on Webkit, is to assign something to the `displayName` property of a function or method. This is explained really well here: [http://www.alertdebugging.com/2009/04/29/building-a- better-j...](http://www.alertdebugging.com/2009/04/29/building-a-better- javascript-profiler-with-webkit/)

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I should have added the warning about JScript bugs. At least the first two bugs listed on that page has been fixed in IE9.

<comment><USER5> Do you have a link regarding IE9 fixing the NFE bugs? Googling "ie9 named function expression" didn't yield particularly good results. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good if you want to program JavaScript like Java/C++, but bad if you want to understand JavaScript. At first glance I did not find no mention of "functional programing" in JavaScript, it's a real shame cause that's what's JavaScript is good at. And of course using setters and getters is pointless because it will blow up in IE and unless you want to mess with the DOM, there is no real reason to use them.

</comment><comment><USER7> This made no sense to me at all, but I suspect that I may have a deeper misunderstanding of what it's trying to say:

"Assigning a member function to a prototype should not be confused with assigning an anonymous function to a member variable of a class, which only adds the function to a particular instance of the class"

I thought that by setting this.somefn = function() { blah; }; in the constructor, you are adding the function to the prototype of the object, with the name "somefn". At least, I have implemented a fair amount of code this way and used classical JS inheritance without any apparent issues, I would like to know what the difference is both practically and theoretically.

<comment><USER4> As v413 wrote, the main difference is how the function is linked to the instance. If you define a member function inside the constructor, that member function is assigned to each and every object separately. The function code is not shared across all instances. This is extremely unintuitive if you are coming from a statically typed OOP language like Java/C#. To get a behavior similar to what Java/C# gives you, you should use prototype.

To demonstrate the concept, I created this code example:

<http://jsbin.com/utuso3/edit> [Click on 'Preview' button to run the example code]

I hope that made sense.

<comment><USER7> Thanks (and to v413), this does make sense. I hadn't thought it through that each call to the constructor will create a new function object, which was pretty apparent once stated and I re-examined the code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's slightly concerning that Apple use the word "class" in this document. JavaScript has no concept of "class".

<comment><USER9> But people know what you mean when you say it. It's a style guide, not a language definition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty simple, but a couple flaws: #1 - delete should only be used on properties. #2 - The example for inheritance is not quite right as the constructor member and the instanceof relationship no longer works as it should.

</comment><comment><USER11> From the toolkits: "JavaScript toolkits enhance productivity but often carry a significant memory footprint that may slow down your JavaScript application. When using a toolkit, try to reduce the toolkit's footprint to just the APIs that you use in your application."

This somewhat hints to me that Apple will come out with a framework that allows more modular includes or compiles similar to closures system. This is somewhat a hit to jQuery's "all-in-one" setup.

</comment><comment><USER12> Looks pretty sparse and as everyone has said, not the best out there. MDC probably still has the best 'official' documentation thus far.

<comment><USER11> I don't think the intent is to really be a reference for javascript methods, at least for now. Apple releases "Coding Guidelines" as more of a style guide and suggested patterns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a designer first and foremost, I've only recently discovered using getter/setter JavaScript functions as a way of faking MVC. It's definitely something worth looking into if you can't warrant the use of a full library like BackboneJS.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, but I don't follow - what has using getter/setter to do with MVC?

<comment><USER13> Oops, sorry I never follow this up.

What libraries like Backbone all have in common at the core is that they use setter methods to trigger custom bound listeners/events . When these custom events are fired, they update the multiple variables/objects that are bound directly to them. For someone who is learning JavaScript OOP for the first time on my current project, this makes a lot of sense and seems pretty exciting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why does it require JavaScript to load a script about JavaScript?

<comment><USER15> Probably because people who are interested in reading about JS probably have JS-enabled browsers and aren't using NoScript.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I wrote this to make note taking on YouTube effective - <AUTHOR> https://www.tuberslab.com/ <comment><USER2> I am trying it and looks fantastic.

But the UX needs improvement. I tested just the offline version using Firefox. This is what could be improved:

\- When I reload the video, all my notes were lost. The notes should be persistent with autosave feature (web storage or indexed db).

\- The youtube UI is already cluttered. Why bother to hide the editor buttons? The buttons should be always visible.

\- The copy to clipboard doesn't work for me (Firefox issue, maybe?).

\- The Save button down't give me any feedback. What it means? After I clicked it I realoaded the page, but just part of my notes was retrieved. Mostly was lost.

\- What is summary write mode? I tried to write something, save, switch to note taking mode and returned to summary. Just a blank summary.

\- The topic is about the full note, I presume. If yes, maybe it's better to change the label to note title or description?

\- When the user start taking notes, the video should stay paused until manual play (When text lost focus? shortcut? A second ENTER?). Enable autoplay inside options.

\- Add a shortcut to allow the user start typing insted of clicking on the text editor.

And the hard features to implement:

\- Allow to export notes into a file, with the images for printing.

\- Allow to save the notes into a json, with images, to allow reloading offline notes.

Thanks for this amazing application.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so so much for the feedback.

1) Yes I don't save the notes locally. Never thought of this offline scenario. Will implement soon.

2) That makes sense. I thought hiding the buttons could reduce the distraction while watching videos. But, as you mentioned, youtube ui is already a busy place. no point. Will do.

3) I'll test and fix it tomorrow if it is replicable.

4) Partly retrieved? Thats worrying. May be there could be a bug with refreshing. I'll test it. I'll add a feedback on save button as well.

5) Summary pad is something I use to compose a complete picture of the video from notes taken. Summary going away is worrying, I'll double check.

6) Topic is like a folder. I normally watch multiple videos on a topic. So, I tag them with same topic and then I can filter them by topic on my phone.

7) Ok. I'll introduce enable/disable autoplay option in settings.

8) Short cut to focus is a fantastic idea.

9) That would be fantastic. I'll see how I can do it.

10) I am not sure If I can get that much space from extensions. Offline support is going to be tough. But will try.

I can't thank you enough for the feedback and encouraging words. I'll update once everything is fixed. Have a fantastic day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hey, interesting product and good work with the launch too. But I'm not able to register and getting "SignIn Failed".

Also, you may also want to check [https://lanes.io/](https://lanes.io/) \-- It gives similar capability.

<comment><USER3> Ok, so I registered via website and then tried logging to the extension and it worked. When I tried registering through the extension, I was getting above mentioned error.

<comment><AUTHOR> oh.. I'll look into that asap.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just tried to replicate myself. It seems working fine on chrome and firefox on a mac. May I know on what you were trying registering?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I would love to receive some feedback on this if someone had some time. I completed MVP in a month, but polishing it took about 4 months( after hours and weekends). Still not finished though. I am planning to add more Note apps integrations as they open their APIs. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER4> A FYI: On Safari, the text renders on top of the images on the website. Layout issues.

<comment><AUTHOR> oops. How embarrassing. I own & develop on a mac. But, still ignored Safari. :( Will fix it during lunch break. Thanks for spotting.

<comment><AUTHOR> I fixed it. Thanks again for spotting it.</comment></comment></comment>


All Drugs Should Be Legalized Immediately, Says Harvard Prof - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/all-drugs-should-be-legalized-immediately-says-harvard-prof-2010-10 <comment><USER2> While I agree with the sentiment, I don't know that heroin, crack, or crystal- meth should be included in the lot of legalized drugs. They border on poisons, and their existences are due solely to the drug war. Chemical modification to make the base more potent for smuggling and then cut on location have driven the trade to formulate stronger product per-gram so that it can be easily transported. In doing so they have become near poisonous products.

If we take opium and Heroin for example Heroin abuse was not ramped until the availability of opium and laudanum where no longer available. Opium, despite the fear mongering, is a relatively safe product with few deaths attributed to it, it was also the drug of choice among opiate abusers until it's abolishment at which point Heroin became the primary substance of choice due to availability. The same can be applied to the coca leaf and crack.

We should legalize the natural forms of these drugs and we will see the market for the expensive hard stuff dry up.

<comment><USER3> I think that _not_ including these forms of the drugs you mentioned will entirely defeat the purpose of legalizing all drugs in one fell swoop. Aside from their scary chemical properties, you should take into consideration that the people who are addicted to these drugs are often driven to desperate situations because of their illegal status and resulting cost. Having known several heroin addicts, it is not realistic that they would reduce their intake to opium willingly even if that meant they are within legal rights to do so. The same goes for cocaine; many people graduate beyond the use of cocaine to crack because simple powdered cocaine fails to fulfill their need or because their nasal cavities are too damaged to suffice.

What I am saying is that I believe your idea of waiting for the market for processed drugs to "dry up" will inevitably mean creating a class of drug users who will continue to be persecuted until they presumably die out. This seems remarkably inhumane.

<comment><USER4> _many people graduate beyond the use of cocaine to crack_

Cocaine is a gateway drug to crack?

According to this NSDUH study (<http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm>):

In, 2009, there were 617,000 people, aged 12 years or older, who used cocaine for the first time. During that same period, 94,000 tried crack for the first time.

If many people 'graduate' beyond the use of cocaine, I would expect I larger number of first-time crack smokers.

<comment><USER3> True, I simply based this off of the addicts that I have known. It is totally anecdotal, but from the time I spent with them the consensus was that powdered coke was no longer desirable to snort after long periods of time and so they would move onto smoking it. It wasn't very long before many of them switched directly to crack. I suppose if I ran in different circles I would have seen people switch to injecting instead.</comment></comment></comment></comment>