eBay bans assault rifle parts. Here's how sellers get around it - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-08-07/ebay-assault-rifle-parts <comment><USER2> FTA

>Despite the seeming clarity of SB 880, the difference between military-style weapons and civilian hunting rifles is a spectrum, not a bright line. "There really isn't a universally accepted definition of what an assault rifle is," said Kyleanne Hunter, vice president of programs for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "That's why this is so hard to police."

>While EBay sellers must use coded language to list AR-15 accessories, they can openly sell add-ons for the Ruger Mini 14, a semiautomatic rifle that can fire the same ammunition and be configured with a pistol grip and folding stock. "It becomes a really difficult proposition because it's virtually impossible to say, 'This is only for an assault weapon,'"

Now from the definition of "Assault Rifle" not to be confused with the AR in AR-15 which stands for Armalite.

>Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

>For example: Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.[17] Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges. Semi- automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities. Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

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

<comment><USER3>
      can fire the same ammunition and be configured with a pistol grip and folding stock

But attaching these to an otherwise legal Mini-14 is a _felony_ where AW bans such as California's apply.

The definitions in the last paragraph are not relevant to the former USA AW ban (1994-2004); all full-auto and select fire weapons were explicitly omitted.</comment></comment>


Why Bitcoin may soon be worth nothing - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2018/07/04/why-bitcoin-may-be-soon-worth-nothing/ <comment><USER2> What in the hell was that?! Is this supposed to be a news article or something.</comment>


Manually curated collection of resources for front end web developers - <AUTHOR> https://www.develophub.net/repos/dypsilon-frontend-dev-bookmarks <comment><USER2> Don't get it, links seem broken.</comment>


Expresso? The x spelling has considerable historical precedent (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/08/18/espresso_or_expresso_the_x_spelling_actually_has_considerable_historical.html <comment><USER2> I guess even if "espresso means not just 'fast' but 'pressed out'", spelling it with an x still would be kind of natural in English. After all, "to express" (from Middle English expresse < Old French espresser, according to OED) can also mean "to press, squeeze, or wring out".

<comment><USER3> You can also trace it back to Latin exprimo, exprimere, exprimi, expressus, which is why the linked article says that Italian (and implicitly also French) "corrupted the Latin root". (The Romance languages lost the /k/ in the consonant cluster in /ekspr/ → /espr/.)

The complicated part is that even though we _do_ have roots that preserve the x spelling and the /k/ pronunciation -- "express" and "expression" \-- we don't have the Italian "-esso" (or Latin "-essus") ending, so when we use the "-esso" it seems we must be borrowing an Italian word, which it would probably be most natural to borrow with the Italian spelling and pronunciation, unless we want to say "a pressed coffee" or "a pressed-out coffee".

<comment><USER4> > (The Romance languages lost the /k/ in the consonant cluster in /ekspr/ → > /espr/.)

One of the Romance languages that didn't lost it is Spanish, expresar is pronunced /ekspresar/

<comment><USER3> Oh yeah, thanks for that counterexample!

Portuguese has lost it in pronunciation but not spelling (unstressed ex → /iʃ/).

(But I should be careful generalizing about some of these things because sometimes you have later scholarly borrowings from Latin, so you can have some words with the modified original root and then some words with the re-borrowed root, maybe with a different pronunciation.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Essentially:

The x spelling is correct in French. At least some of the article's evidence for the 'x' spelling appears to have arrived in English through French rather than the original Italian.

<comment><USER6> I didn't understand this point (and I agree with Weird Al). Isn't it simply "café?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Someone pulled me up on this here in China the other day. Knowing no better I accepted correction. I wish I'd had this article then, which essentially confirms _espresso_ is exclusively a modern Italian form and nothing more.</comment>


Seth from Scvngr Tells America To Drop Out Of School and Join Incubator - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-priebatsch/drop-out-of-school-find-a_b_766641.html

<comment><USER2> From the article: "Most people probably shouldn't drop out of school, but for that small percentage of us out there who have a great idea burning up inside, dropping out is not just a good idea, it's the right choice."

That's hardly telling America to drop out of school.</comment>


Federal Judge Rules Trump May Not Block Critics on Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rules-trump-may-not-block-critics-on-twitter-1527100409 <comment><USER2> Current discussion (over 140 comments): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow. Didn't see that coming.</comment>


Ask HN:  What are some laws of physics inconsistent with one another? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> It's often stated that there is some kind of deep contradiction between quantum theory and relativity, so in an effort to add a comment here, I went off to google that, and found this: [http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of- inc...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of- inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity) where there's a pretty comprehensive treatment of the question, from which I'm not even qualified to reliably pull a quote.

In general, though, since reality is usually assumed to be consistent, at least for purposes of doing physics, any set physical _theories_ which have mutually inconsistent consequences wouldn't normally be elevated to the status of "laws" since the immediate implication would be that one or more of them must be erroneous, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an interesting question whether to ask about "laws" or "theories" in this context, because if I ask about "theories inconsistent with one another" then there are probably hundreds of answers, but none of them are interesting because most theories are wrong.

I was hoping to find examples of theories that are (a) popular, (b) haven't been proven wrong for at least several years. If there are contradictions between those and other, more established laws, then that's interesting.

I was hoping this submission might attract at least one upvote so that it appears on the 'ask' page and some of HN's fine physicists might see it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Can you give more context? Why do you think such laws exist in the first place? Sounds like a better question for Physics StackExchange.</comment>


Why is PostgreSQL Terrible? [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://thebuild.com/presentations/pgnordic-2018-terrible.pdf <comment><USER2> tl;dr It's not. Flagged for being an egregious example of clickbait.

<comment><AUTHOR> You did not read the slides. There are real problems with the design of PostgreSQL, esp. with the modern "many servers" (aka 'cloud') approach to computing.

Flagged for false accusations.</comment></comment>


WAPO: The secret life of Kim Jong Un's aunt who has lived in the U.S. since 1998 - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/the-secret-life-of-kim-jong-uns-aunt-who-has-lived-in-the-us-since-1998/2016/05/26/522e4ec8-12d7-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> The piece of the story I would really like to know more about is the details behind why they chose to leave NK.</comment>


New York Designer Putting Together Unofficial Spotify iPad App - <AUTHOR> http://www.appadvice.com/appnn/2012/04/new-york-designer-putting-together-unofficial-spotify-ipad-app

<comment><USER2> Making a tiled-based mockup with pretty pictures != making a real app that works well even in edge cases</comment>


Google Analytics Implementation Guide in 10 Steps - <AUTHOR> http://www.ganotes.com/google-analytics-guide/

<comment><USER2> Great guide.. Very useful.. Thanks for sharing.</comment>


Juan Enriquez Shares Mindboggling New Science - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html?1

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems particularly appropriate in light of Trevor's debut on MTV for Surrogates the movie :)

</comment><comment><USER2> That was nothing short of inspiring. I'm gonna do some biohacking this weekend - now - where did I put my eeg kit!</comment>


Eu-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-glyphosate-weed-killer-by-2022 - <AUTHOR> http://m.dw.com/en/eu-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-glyphosate-weed-killer-by-2022/a-41093018 <comment><AUTHOR> Distribution of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in agricultural topsoils of the European Union

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717327973)

[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Roundup_of_Roundup.php](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Roundup_of_Roundup.php)</comment>


Language Is the Scaffold of the Mind - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/language-is-the-scaffold-of-the-mind <comment><USER2> One of the most important realizations I've had about dealing with other people is that "thinking" is a generic term and does not describe the same method of action in everyone. As but a few examples:

\- Richard Feynman described an experiment he did to time himself counting to 60. He could do it while reading, but not talking. His friend John Tukey could talk while counting time, but not read.

\- Temple Grandin described thinking of a word as seeing every individual example of that item she's ever seen.

\- Some people claim to be visual thinkers, but there are blind people who are still perfectly able to think. Likewise with deafness. Clearly neither of these can be the only basis for thought.

This was an "a-ha" moment that explained a lot of human behavior.

For example, why does my manager put me in a noisy room and still expect me to write software, and propose "headphones" when I complain about the noise? He doesn't use silence as a scratch space for thinking. On the flip side, I don't understand why he cares if the lights are on. That's decidedly less important to me than whether we have extra toilet paper.

This article does confirm that thinking is not merely talking to one's self, which seems obvious to me but apparently is not a universal belief. Questions like "Multi-linguals, what language do you think in?" puzzle me because I don't generally think in _any_ language, up until the point where I need to generate words. It's like asking what language a(n instrumental) symphony is written in, or what the key signature is of a painting. The question is a type error.

<comment><USER3> > Some people claim to be visual thinkers, but there are blind people who are > still perfectly able to think. Likewise with deafness. Clearly neither of > these can be the only basis for thought.

I don't dispute your conclusions, but I think you might be taking the idea of visual thought too literally. It doesn't necessarily mean a rendered view of a scene, but rather can encompass abstract visual-like spaces such as control flow graphs when thinking through the proof of a program's correctness

<comment><USER2> You may be right. Though, I recently ran across the concept of "aphantasia", e.g., [1]. Apparently not being able to visualize what my friends and family look like is not normal! Or being unable to recall colors.

There's even this [2] "test", which claims that most people when told to imagine a red star will "see" an actual image, which I'm still trying to understand.

I can think about control flow graphs in my head, but it's not exactly visual. (You could also represent any graph as a table, of course, but I don't think of it in tabular form, either.) The visual is more like the means of communication. Similarly, in math, equations and procedures aren't always how I _do_ work, but they are often how I _communicate_ what I've done. I wonder if that could be what other people mean when they speak of visualization. When I'm asked to compute 19*21, I'm not literally expanding (x-1)(x+1), but that's essentially what I'm doing, and if you asked me to explain, that's probably what I'd say. Thoughts are simply a different medium (than words or graphs or equations or music), and every serialization method I've tried so far is extremely lossy.

[1]: [https://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/cant-visualize- you-m...](https://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/cant-visualize-you-may-have- aphantasia.html) [2]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/aioyga/simple_a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Aphantasia/comments/aioyga/simple_aphantasia_test/eepc14o/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?"

― George Orwell, 1984

<comment><USER5> "In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible"

To accomplish this successfully depends upon a strong interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: that your language _determines_ your thought. Most linguists disagree with this principle. Just because you have no word for a chair does not mean you couldn't use one, and just because you have no word for love doesn't mean you can't feel it.

(However, a weakened from of the hypothesis — that language merely _influences_ your thought — is frequently accepted.)

It's also worth pointing out that not all people think explicitly in words. Such a person would be impervious to the Party's methods of thought-control, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> At first I thought this might be just a retread of Sapir-Whorf, but it isn't. The article discusses how language taken from an adult mind (such as for people with aphasia) doesn't affect their ability to think. But doing this to a forming mind has drastic consequences.

</comment><comment><USER7> Funny that Wittgenstein is mentioned, but his "ladder" is not:

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them (he must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it). He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world alright."

<comment><USER8> That metaphor of the ladder - at least on the surface - has a parallel in Zen Buddhism. There's even a Koan about climbing to the top of a ladder, then taking one more step.

It reminds me also of another famous expression, that language is the finger pointing at the moon. In that sense, one might say that Wittgenstein's propositions are also meant to be a finger that points to a truth beyond itself.

<comment><USER7> That parallel is why this quote had such strong staying power for me. I don't know of another Western philosopher that describes so clearly a concept so similar to enlightenment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Language is definitely the most self-important part of the mind, and the only part proclaiming itself as "indispensable". The voice in our heads is most definitely telling us "if I wasn't here saying these things you'd be dead by now."

The math part of your brain never shouts equations at you to guilt and cow you into submission to do things you otherwise wouldn't or forego opportunities to quell the demons within. We also never consider that losing another faculty would "completely stop our ability to function", but we do think that about language. This article proves otherwise (its just another function, like math or the ability to do spatial reasoning).

<comment><USER10> The sex drive is the most self-important part of the mind. It's the only part proclaiming itself as "indispensable". The feeling in our pants is definitely signalling to us "if I wasn't here feeling these urges our species would be dead by now."

<comment><USER11> There's still generic variation to the point where for some people this isn't a drive. Sure, it's a trait which self-selects itself for removal, but it's likely polygenic, which means it is much more likely that it can persist across generations despite being selected against. A lot of these things are non-intuitive, like how altruism can persist across generations despite being similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My wife has anomic aphasia. She can reason and think OK, but she has difficulty in coming up with the words to express herself. In some cases circumlocution works. In other cases, twenty questions works. We also rely on our ability to finish each others sentences.

On the other hand, the calculator and scheduler are pretty much gone. If it is three now, and dinner is at six, the fact that dinner will be three hours from now is a separate fact.

The mind is a collection of apps.

<comment><USER13> Is this a condition she's always had, or acquired with time/age?

<comment><USER12> It is the result of a stroke. Small to moderate strokes can result in an array of fairly specific impairments.

Congenital malformations could conceivably do the same, but likely brain plasticity at an early age can compensate for missing tissue in many cases. It might explain certain learning disabilities.

<comment><USER13> I'm sorry to hear that.

Though yes, as you noted, brain plasticity would likely compensate, at least somewhat. As I've grown older, I've increasingly noticed that there are many people who do seem to have fundamental deficits in organised thinking and linguistic abilities. More often written, but also spoken. Sometimes as elements of another condition (e.g., Parkinsons), but in many cases apparently either congenital or aquired through early environment.

<comment><USER12> I'm very fortunate to have her with me still.

Brain capabilities probably vary as much as other phenotype characteristics. No one without the genes for it will be able to do a good still rings gymnastic routine. And at the other end of performance, many will struggle to finish a 5K. But the fact that you can't run well doesn't mean that you can't shot put or swim well. The use of IQ as a single dimension obscures a multiplicity of abilities.

<comment><USER13> I've wrestled with (and mostly fought against) single metrics of quality for most of my career, though being able to articulate what the problems are has only come to me relatively recently.

Quality is ultimately suitedness to task, and tasks vary. The more specialised a task, the narrower the quality component parameters, much of which may come from disabling rather than enabling characteristics. Anna Karenina / rocket- science principle: there are many ways to get a complex thing wrong, generally only one narrow path to getting them right.

The breadth of evolutionary adaptations displayed by life on Earth, or even within the narrower scope of Olympic athlete body morphology, is an instructive lesson. None is globally "better", each is adapted (or selected) to purpose or goal.

[http://files.newsnetz.ch/story/1/7/0/17034522/19/topelement....](http://files.newsnetz.ch/story/1/7/0/17034522/19/topelement.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Slightly related: any Lojban speakers here? :)

Linguistic properties of Lojban:

\- is designed to express complex logical constructs precisely.

\- has no irregularities or ambiguities in spelling and grammar (although word derivation relies on arbitrary variant forms). This gives rise to high intelligibility for computer parsing.

\- is designed to be as culturally neutral as possible.

\- allows highly systematic learning and use, compared to most natural languages.

\- possesses an intricate system of indicators which effectively communicate contextual attitude or emotions.

\---

Applications of Lojban:

\- Lojban as a speakable language

\- Lojban as a literary and cultural language

\- Lojban as a means of creativity

\- Lojban as a potential machine interlingua

\- Lojban as a programming language

\- Lojban as a speakable logic

\---

More information: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban)

Some songs in Lojban: [https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ZA'O+by+Djemyna...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ZA'O+by+Djemynai)

</comment><comment><USER15> The dimension that interests me, is the way, we, human, ascribe words to emotions. I may feel sad minutes before I associate this feeling with the word "sadness." Upon identification, the word "sadness" may bring other connotations, which enhances or detracts from my initial raw emotion. Which is the cause and which is the effect—do I feel more sad because I recognize the word "sadness?" I can identify sadness in other beings (ie. dogs). Do I, as a human, really need the word "sadness" to help me understand my emotion? What do I call the state of raw emotion prior to the word association?

</comment><comment><USER16> The obligatory link to the excellent Radiolab episode "Words" was missing from the comments. Here it is: [http://www.capradio.org/news/radiolab/2014/07/16/radiolab- wo...](http://www.capradio.org/news/radiolab/2014/07/16/radiolab-words/)

<comment><USER15> What's it about?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a cool article. It raises all kinds of interesting questions.

I've often wondered if it's possible to have consciousness as we experience it without language. When I think, I do so in words so I can't imagine how I would do that without words. I also wonder if you lack language; say you were raised by wolves; would you create one in your mind.

</comment><comment><USER18> STephen Plinker would disagree with this idea that language is the basal layer of thought. Intention and mind first, language as a filter later. It's kinda reductive to say that your thoughts are your words. Words are like structures in the waves of water your mind produces

</comment><comment><USER19> Slightly off topic, but I once had music described to me as follows: music is to time, as architecture is to physical space. It really changed how I thought about music and how it's experienced.

</comment><comment><USER20> They are adjoints. William Lawvere's "Adjointness in foundations" as well as Godel's "Completeness theorem" say that much.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Once we acquire language, we can live without it.

Do you think they meant - "can't"

<comment><USER2> No. Why do you ask? The entire article supports this subtitle as written.</comment></comment>


Predator Drones being used domestically against Americans - <AUTHOR> http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211,0,5744305,full.story

<comment><USER2> So, who wants to work on a project to build an open-source drone that can shoot one of these things down? I mean, seriously, if the government can have this technology, then We The People should be able to arm ourselves with counter-measures, no?</comment>


Ultraviolet-LED Maker Demonstrates 30-Second Coronavirus Kill - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/optoelectronics/ultravioletled-maker-demonstrates-30second-coronavirus-kill <comment><AUTHOR> > Working with researchers at Korea University, in Seoul, the company showed > that its Violed LED modules could eliminate 99.9 percent of the SARS-COV-2 > virus using a 30-second dose from a distance of three centimeters.

Unfortunately, the company did not disclose how many of its LEDs were used to achieve that.

</comment><comment><USER2> They use LEDs to sterilize water bottles for hikers. I wondered how long it would take for this to get in the news.</comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find studies that link office plants to productivity - <AUTHOR>

As part of a cost cutting measure at my workplace we've just had all the office greenery removed. In it's place we've got nothing but drab grey walls to look at.<p>If anyone knows of any papers that have been written that link office greenery to increased productivity could you post them in the comments.  This way I might have an argument to take to the Higher-Ups about getting the greenery reinstated. Thanks <comment><USER2> I found an article [1] which cites "The Effect of Live Plants and Window Views of Green Spaces on Employee Perceptions of Job Satisfaction" [2], by googling for "study shows plants office"... I was sure I would find a PR fluff piece with those terms!

See also [3]

[1] [http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco- friendly/plants...](http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco- friendly/plants-office-environments-460520) [2] [http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/...](http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/183) [3] <http://www.plantcultureinc.com/whyGreen.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> This disturbs me. In spite being an avid gardener, I really can't see how watering a couple of plants actually costs any money (or how removing them saves any). With that being said, I too would like to see these studies

<comment><USER4> The contracts that most offices have with professional "gardeners" cost significantly more money than you may expect. If only hoop's office management would have realized that some people may be willing to take on some of the maintenance.

EDIT: Here's a presentation through the Green Building Council of Australia that highlights the benefits of indoor environments on productivity. Note however, it is sponsored by a company that offers the previously mentioned contracts.

(PDF) [http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/70/2886/Meet%20the%20Stars-%2...](http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/70/2886/Meet%20the%20Stars-%20People%20Plants%20Productivity%2014%20April%202010.pdf)

Here is a study published in the American Society for Horticultural Sciences' HortScience journal: [http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/18...](http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/full/43/1/183)

<comment><USER3> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe have everyone sign up to water and care for the plants, then petition your boss and explain how you are solving the problem. Things like this show leadership so have side benefits as well.

giving a study which shows how the boss is wrong is probably not going to be that effective. A solution on the other hand is great. Also, try not to make it us vs. them

</comment><comment><USER6> There are probably more plants in most prisons than your office. Something to think about.

</comment><comment><USER7> Are you not allowed to bring your own plants in and care for them?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I would be allowed but quite a few people want them back so I'd rather try and solve the problem for the entire office rather than just for myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Time for a new job!</comment>


Two Years as a High School Mentor - <AUTHOR> http://nullprogram.com/blog/2016/09/02/ <comment><USER2> That sounds like a wonderful program, and that student sounds significantly more prepared for the working world than most recent-graduates I've met.

If I were the company, I would re-think not paying interns. I understand that they don't know anything when they come in and need their hands held, but an unpaid internship limits your pool of students to those who are well-off enough not to have to work. Paying even minimum wage could open doors for poor students who would otherwise be unable to engage in the internship because they have to wait tables or flip burgers to help provide for their family.

<comment><USER3> It's not necessarily about the usefulness of the candidate but more the freedom it provides.

If he was paid he would need to work on chosen projects, not what he wants to work on.

<comment><USER4> "If he was paid he would need to work on chosen projects, not what he wants to work on." I don't think that has to be true. It's not inconcievable that a company pays an intern for undirected research.

But that speaks to the problem posed by this program: it blurs the line between mentorship and internship.

Mentorship is always unpaid and strictly for the benefit of the student.

Internship should always be paid (unpaid internships are legally questionable) and are founded on employer-employee relationships, which are almost always for the benefit of the employer first, then the employee.

While its great that the company supports mentorship, and that it worked out so well for the mentor and mentee in this instance, I feel like the ambiguous structure makes it a hard model to follow at many workplaces.

<comment><USER3> Unpaid internships are allowed if the intern isn't a) treated like an employee and b) the intern can't do work that would otherwise be considered that job of an employee. That's exactly what is happening here.

He was not doing the job of an employee nor was he treated like one.

As soon as he started doing the work an employee would normally be tasked with they put him into the payroll. They did the right thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> happy-go-lucky I wish I had a mentor like him.

I've no formal CS background. When I started off learning fundamental programming concepts, I chose Python as my first language and during the honeymoon period I felt as if I was going to learn the art inside out in no time. I had no idea what was going on under the hood and was stupid enough not to give it a thought. Then, after some fiddling around with Python, I started wondering if something was amiss. The computer I was using was running Windows and I was under the impression that Linux was only for seasoned programmers and not for an aspiring programmer like me. I was all on my own and somehow my intuition told me the proprietary OS was unduly restrictive and I felt locked up with no leeway at all. After consulting some Linux communities, I thought it's about time I wiped Windows and tried a couple Linux distros and freed myself. First I learned the command line, then C and then I went back to Python and that's when it all made sense.

</comment><comment><USER5> I had 4 internships in software engineering and 1 in web management during high school, if you include the summer afterwards. Four were paid, one was not. I also know quite a few friends with SWE internship experience in HS, but more often than not were in unpaid positions.

I wanted to poke a hole in the idea that unpaid internships are a good thing. Spending hours of my time on someone else's project, regardless of what I'm learning, feels wrong. The fact is that I'm 'working' for the employer and therefore deserve to get paid.

Being paid also makes me more productive and motivated to finish the project I'm working on and learn in the process. Unpaid internships feel loose and unorganized, while when real money is involved both the employer and student feel obligated to help each other.

If you want to go unpaid, you're best off at an educational institution as a student helper or at a nonprofit. I just haven't seen unpaid internships with actual companies work well for the student or employer in that case. The burden on the employer is often too much for them to be able to offer any substantial help to a complete newbie while attending to their own responsibilities. Newbies need to code themselves or in class before they're ready for internships.

That's my experience.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I had two internships in HS. Both were paid. To be fair, I did have enough prior experience to be somewhat useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've got to say from personal experience mentoring is a go-to solution for programming.

That's how I learned. I bugged a retired developer to help teach me how to program and after enough pestering he did.

We basically pair programed for an entire summer.

If anyone wants details on my experiences I'd be happy to help.

<comment><USER7> How did you end up meeting your mentor exactly?

I'm interested in hearing some more details.

<comment><USER3> Well when I was around 12 I started playing minecraft. I had some friends who told me about it and got me into the game. When I started playing I got into hosting my own server and fell into the configuration/server ownership side. I eventually wanted to implement my own features and didn't know how to do this.

At the time the community was small enough that I knew the owner of Essentials (one of the larger game extensions, called "plugin"). He was one of my friends who helped me setup my server, taught me some basic linux commands, and told me to go for it. I asked him for help to teach me how to program and he, essentially, said fuck off and ask my other friend who maintains a small part of my plugin.

I asked this guy to give me a hand and he said "show me some code". I showed him what I had been working on and he basically said he couldn't help me over text. I pressured him to make a voice chat server so he could then help me. He had never done this but after exercising my innate ability as a 12 year old to annoy the crap out of someone he ended up folding and setting one up.

We've basically been talking and working together for almost every day for the past 7 years on average more then 4 hr per day. We've worked on game engines, plugins, scripts for our own needs, websites, etc. You name it and we've done it.

It essentially boiled down to being at the right IRC server at the right time with the right interest in the subject matter. It started out as a game for me and ended up being something I liked more then the game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Your mileage may vary.

What worked with one student won't work for everyone else.

Part of the responsibility of a mentor is to tailor the approach to one that works for the mentee.

I can say for sure: His approach would fail for many (most?) students. It's great it works for some, but let's not generalize it to everyone. I personally am glad I was not introduced to programming this way.

Python definitely can work better than C/C++.

Using an IDE can definitely work better than Emacs/vim.

His approach is almost the _ideal_ \- and the thing with ideals is that they work for only a few. It's a very tough lesson I had to learn. I had a very strong background in many technical topics (physics, programming, mathematics), and was known for it. People would occasionally come to me for guidance and advice.

I failed almost all of them by behaving in a manner similar to the author.

Why?

Because the ideal approach, where you must get all of the fundamentals really well before moving on, doesn't work for most. Heck, even _I_ did not learn everything that way. I felt it was better than the way I learned and I was wrong.

With most people, you have to provide a more measured approach. Teach some basics, and then give them fun stuff. Then go back to some more basics, and then some more fun stuff. Insisting on C/C++, with pointers, on Emacs, delays the "fun stuff" quite a bit to the point where many students feel (incorrectly) "Maybe this isn't for me".

An analogy in mathematics: In some universities (e.g. East Europe), mathematics majors are taught analysis before _any_ calculus. Their calculus course is actually the real analysis course we have in the US. Start with sequences, limits of sequences, convergence, metric spaces, compact sets, Bolzano-Weierstrauss theorem, all of this leading up to limits of continuous functions. And only _then_ do we tackle derivatives and later integrals.

I mean, after all, why should we teach people derivatives if they do not understand metric spaces well, right?

Imagine if all engineers learned calculus this way. Most would drop out.

The optimal education for the brightest tier of folks is suboptimal for the majority. (And perhaps vice versa, although I have doubts on that).

</comment><comment><USER9> Some of the confusion is the language is of internships and employment, the behavior is more apprenticeship and early journeyman level.

Historically its very unusual to pay apprentices full rate. Nothing, or room and board, or more recently a sliding scale of 50% pay for 50% of formal apprenticeship completed. I've seen three internship situations where grunt labor pay results in grunt labor tasks being assigned instead of learning happening.

In the very long run programming is likely to fracture much like the building trades, where most will get an apprenticeship then journeyman then master coder job, there will be some scientists doing research in the trade, and there will be some engineer/architects doing advanced design and verification work. I suspect welding will be a good model. There will be certifications and tests and levels based on industry (or in the coding world, based on language).

</comment><comment><USER10> Great article. Jealous of the mentee (I didn't start programming until college), but impressed with his success.

</comment><comment><USER11> I really like the choice to start with C, I've always felt that is the best approach as well. Learn what is really happening from the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER12> I originally posted this is as a reply to someone who commented about learning programming well before college on the article, but I think it could spark an interesting discussion here, so I'll paste it:

"I'm self-taught and started at 11. I'll start college next year. Would you be so kind as to provide some advice to someone who is in a similar position to you a few years ago?

It all started out as a center of interest among others, but grown into a passion, and today I know that I will work on software development. I've gained some experience along the way - worked on real-world, revenue- generating projects for relatives, read through a lot of technical books, and learned varying amounts of Python, Ruby, C, C++, JavaScript (client- and server-side), and Rust. As well as some HTML and CSS. I learned how to use the command line, how to administrate a UNIX system, the basics of information security (just enough not to make overly stupid mistakes as a developer), among (many) other less important things.

Python was my first 'real' programming experience. I 'know' C, but I wouldn't trust myself to write production software in C without a lot more experience. I can read C code, but writing a sizable amount of _correct_ C is not an easy endeavor. I wrote a few production utilities in Ruby and recently started to dabble in Rails. I got interested in game development and read a lot on the matter, so I just _had_ to learn C++. I did for about four months before learning JavaScript seriously. I learned to use JS client-side, and server- side with Node.js, which I used to sell Steam trading bots for peanuts. More recently, I learned Rust, which has been my most pleasant experience so far (static type checking, memory safety, close to the hardware with C-level performance? Sign me in!), and the language in which I've invested the most. I contribute to open-source projects whenever I can, hung out a lot on the #rust IRC channel and on the /r/rust subreddit for some time, and used the language to write a few small production utilities (a few kLOC).

I like to think that this is a great track record for a 16-year-old. However, my perception of my own skill level is what I'd describe as unstable. Sometimes I'll read through some particularly technical HN threads and feel like a pretentious idiot who knows no more than the bare basics. At other times I'll read stories about college graduates and 'professional' programmers with 5 years of experience who cannot seem _much_ less skilled than me, and I'll feel like I don't even need to go to college.

So I turn to you. Enlighten me. What new things will college teach me? How should I approach it?

Here's my GitHub profile in case you want to take a look: [https://github.com/yberreby/](https://github.com/yberreby/) "</comment>


Nigel Farage, Leader of the UKIP: Break up the Euro-zone or EU will collapse - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ6_Ey_MJV4

<comment><USER2> I love Nigel Farage. Like many other libertarians, he's been able to predict these sort of economic disasters years ahead of anyone else.

Just a couple of videos with him:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96j0A7IXQKo>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhXqCTd8JQ0></comment>


Was it worth paying €41.7bn to bail out Irish banks? - <AUTHOR> https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/was-it-worth-paying-41-7bn-to-bail-out-irish-banks-1.4036792 <comment><USER2> Part of the problem is too much centralization of the control of $. This arrangement could be fine if people (and companies) where held accountable for their mistakes (No bailouts).

What I mean: Normally, you wouldn't trust all your money to one bank or financial adviser, because if they make bad bets you could lose your money. But because of the bailouts, it puts an hedge on your downside risk, so you feel more comfortable with outsourcing the responsibility to a small number of parties to manage your money, because if they fail, you in part (mostly them), will be bailed out.

This ignores the fact that there were individuals that were more responsible with their money that ended up being the losers in this arrangement and were extorted of their money.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have bailouts, but what I am saying is that if we are forced to do it, we should do it to such an extent that it addresses the root cause and provides economic incentive to be more accountable for ones actions.

<comment><USER3> > too much centralization

The purpose of a capitalist, laissez faire economy is to decentralize control. Turns out the result is central planning by a cartel of magacorps.

<comment><USER2> I think you calling our current system "capitalist" is giving it more credit than its due.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-financial- crisis](https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-financial-crisis)

This is a great course about the financial crisis of 2008.

They walk through the similarities between the Irish bailout and the American bailout of their banks and then they walk through the differences and point out why the Irish bailout turned out soo poorly and why the American bailout was a great success.

The course is very approachable for even a novice in monetary theory.

<comment><USER5> I haven't taken the course, but one of the instructors personally benefits from more people thinking the American bailout was a great success. Their free course for people without any prior knowledge is unlikely to be a trustworthy source.

<comment><USER4> > I haven't taken the course, but one of the instructors personally benefits > from more people thinking the American bailout was a great success. Their > free course for people without any prior knowledge is unlikely to be a > trustworthy source.

Alternatively you could argue that no one knows the material better given that they were there at ground zero and the ones who actually made the decisions.

I mean, I see where you are coming from but I hope I never become as jaded as your comment comes across as being:)

<comment><USER5> >Alternatively you could argue that no one knows the material better given that they were there at ground zero and the ones who actually made the decisions.

This isn't an alternative. This can be true, and they still have no reason to present an unbiased view in this course.

You should definitely be jaded enough to question the truth of someone spending billions in public money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Government says we can't spend money to help the homeless, or the poor, or the sick. The budget is tight and we can't afford it. But when it comes to bailing out banks, there is endless supply of money coming their way. It's strange how that works.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure how it worked in Ireland. But when we bailed the banks out in the US, it was through a loan that they paid back in a year.

Lending someone IMAGINARY money to avoid, potentially, the next Great Depression doesn't really seem like a bad decision, to me.

Giving REAL money to the homeless is much more controversial. I'm not saying I oppose it. It's just this notion of one or the other -- at least from how things went down in the states -- doesn't really make sense. It was apples to oranges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I doubt it. Don't forget: consumer bank balances were generally protected by government guarantee, so 'people would have lost all their money without the bailout' just isn't true.

Bailing out these failing for-profit businesses—privatising profits and socialising losses—is a moral hazard. That is unfair and bad for competition.

But there is more than that. Even if the money was apparently eventually repaid, like in the UK, then even if you ignore inflation, this had a huge opportunity cost. The money could have been put to good use, but instead the public debt ratcheted up, which became an excuse for austerity.

</comment><comment><USER9> Not a single mention of Iceland, which decided not to bail out their banks (mostly because they couldn't afford it), and didn't fare so badly with it.

<comment><USER10> IIRC Iceland's banks provided services mostly to clients outside Iceland, thus the impact of their default affected foreigners who had a negligible role on Iceland's economy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Michael Lewis wrote a good article about the Irish bailout in Vanity Fair: [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/03/michael-lewis- irelan...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/03/michael-lewis- ireland-201103)

"Not long ago I spoke with a former senior Merrill Lynch bond trader who, on September 29, 2008, owned a pile of bonds in one of the Irish banks. He'd already tried to sell them back to the bank for 50 cents on the dollar—that is, he'd offered to take a huge loss, just to get out of them. On the morning of September 30 he awakened to find his bonds worth 100 cents on the dollar. The Irish government had guaranteed them! He couldn't believe his luck. Across the financial markets this episode repeated itself.

People who had made a private bet that went bad, and didn't expect to be repaid in full, were handed their money back—from the Irish taxpayer. In retrospect, now that the Irish bank losses are known to be world-historically huge, the decision to cover them appears not merely odd but suicidal. A handful of Irish bankers incurred debts they could never repay, of something like 100 billion euros. They may have had no idea what they were doing, but they did it all the same. Their debts were private—owed by them to investors around the world—and still the Irish people have undertaken to repay them as if they were obligations of the state. "

<comment><USER12> It was panic. They guaranteed it, probably with a lot of pressure from other EU nations to stop a run on other weaker banking systems around the EU. Haggling with investors to only return some of the money would've ended up in court and would've taken forever, they couldn't afford the time.

<comment><USER13> From the parent article:

> A political investigative blog called Guido Fawkes somehow obtained a list > of the Anglo Irish foreign bondholders: German banks, French banks, German > investment funds, Goldman Sachs. (Yes! Even the Irish did their bit for > Goldman.)

Germany wanted to protect their own banks(/ers) and investment funds from losing money to the detriment and disregard of everyone and everything else.

<comment><USER12> Yes, but also, the euro simply wasn't designed to handle the magnitude of what was happening in the financial crisis, it didn't have a central bank capable and government capable of stepping in to support the banks the way the FED did in the US.

In other words, they were trying to prevent pure unmitigated chaos, the kind of chaos that leads to outright depressions.

This crisis was only 10 years ago and already people seem to forget just how bad it was.

<comment><USER13> That's unrelated. My point was the Irish government could have burned the bondholders (German/French banks) and let the losses hit their profits instead of piling the Irish taxpayers under a mountain of (private) debt.

<comment><USER12> It isn't unrelated, it is entirely the point. The Irish don't have their own currency, when you don't have your own currency you don't ultimately control your own affairs you share them with the others who use that currency.

<comment><USER13> How would the burning of private bondholders to the tune of €140 billion have affected the Euro currency?

> you don't ultimately control your own affairs you share them with the others > who use that currency

The currency had nothing to do with it. The only thing which would have absolutely forced them to stand over it would have been existing EU law - which there was none.

The European Central Bank can't legally stop issuing currency to Ireland just because some French or German banks got burnt.

<comment><USER12> Because the euro isn't just a currency, it's the entire banking system as well. The euro doesn't work as a currency without a banking system to transmit it because people have bank accounts with banks... not the central bank.

If a bunch of German/French banks suddenly get 40billion in losses what happens next? They will have to panic sell their remaining good assets to remain solvent, that transmits the problem on to the other banks that they have invested in. Because the EU banks all tended to lend money to each other.

So you end up with the problem transmitting around europe (and beyond) but it's worse because everyone is trying to sell everything at the same time to remain solvent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How did this bailout go so bad? At least in the US the government eventually (kind of) made money on its TARP program. Would be interested to know how the programs differed.

<comment><USER15> Did the US gov really make any money on it, or did it pay the banks through another channel (such as non-returnable Fed-printed loans) so the banks can "give back the TARP money." (a PR win for both the gov and the banks, but still a net loss for the public). I may have read something on this a few years back.

<comment><USER16> There's also a question of why the government wouldn't continually try to maintain this revenue stream if they were indeed making profits, as opposed to only using it as a last ditch effort to contain widespread damage?

<comment><USER17> Because there aren't any insolvent-but-otherwise-fine banks around?

<comment><USER16> So is the argument that the bailout was zero-sum, but the government came out ahead(and the banks lost), or was it value producing to bail the banks out?

<comment><USER18> The theory of bailouts is that they are value-destruction-avoiding, like bankruptcy restructuring. The banks lost a lot of money on the mortgage backed securities, but lost much less than they would have had those assets been sold at fire sale. The government came out slightly ahead; it got a part of what value wasn't destroyed in a catastrophic unwinding of the banks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> USC a tax of 8% on all earnings before any deductions, such as pension contributions which is where normal income tax kicks in has been in place since the crash. It was supposed to be temporary but will probably never be repealed. That and having the highest mortgage rates in Europe in order to get the banks into profitability are how the ordinary people will be paying for this for the rest of their lives.

<comment><USER13> > having the highest mortgage rates in Europe in order to get the banks into > profitability

That is not the case. Any EU bank can sell mortgages in Ireland. They choose not to because there is not a functioning property market. Homeowners who don't pay their mortgage can't be kicked out of their home by the banks and also those same homeowners just can't walk away and put the keys back in the letterbox.

The first reason being the most problematic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Have you looked at their balance sheets recently? Irish banks will be back again for more sooner than you might expect.

</comment><comment><USER21> How about not having a financial system based on debt and loans?

No more need to have a crisis</comment>


Remind HN: Adobe patched Flash, try the new Ninite (YC W08) site to update - <AUTHOR> http://updateflash.org/

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry it's not much more than a version checker for OS X, we're still working on building Ninite for that. As a consolation prize there is an iOS easter egg.</comment>


How Universities Fail Women Inventors, Confirm Gender Bias - <AUTHOR> http://www.women2.org/how-universities-fail-women-inventors-confirm-gender-bias/

<comment><AUTHOR> What's particularly interesting is the fact that based on two identical sets of invention docs (but one tagged with female names and pictures and the other with male equivalents), both male and female technology licensing officers were "more likely to report that they would dissuade the female inventor from starting a company".</comment>


How I Stole Someone's Identity Using the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=anatomy-of-a-social-hack&sc=rss <comment><USER2> This is why you absolutely need to safeguard user passwords. 60-70% of your users will use a variant of their email password for your app as well. Normal people don't memorize or write down 10 passwords, or even 2. Lose a user's password, you've cost them their bank accounts.

<comment><USER3> You sorta missed the point. Kim never gave a single password out. The "security questions" on one of her accounts allowed access to her account by anyone who could answer them. The weakness was largely her college's fault for having such weak validation, and also her fault for using that email as the secondary for her GMail.

<comment><USER4> I don't think he missed the point. The point is that user management of multiple passwords just doesn't work. This includes the reusing of passwords for multiple accounts and there being too many disparate password recovery schemes. There is too much asked of both implementers of web apps and users of web apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's been talked about before, but the "password reset" concept really needs to be looked at. Compromising somebody's e-mail means you have access to everything they've ever signed up for, because every site has a password reset and lots of them just send an e-mail without any further questions

<comment><USER2> What's the solution to this? Phone support? You can add "secret questions", but users will lose those too.

<comment><USER6> I've never found myself in a situation where I REALLY need to reset a password to a free web service.

I've had to reset school and bank related passwords, which I've done in person or over the phone.

I have reset passwords for free web services, but I could've lived with just making a new account. If I forgot my password, it's because I'm not using it - if it's free and I'm not using it, chances are I don't really care about it.

I've never had to reset my password for free web services I CARE about, because I use them regularly.

What I'm getting at is - do free services really need unverified password resets? If it's a paid service, it's easier to justify the cost of phone support.

<comment><USER2> If you keep your company's business in a Basecamp account, and you lose the password, what are you going to do? Give up and spend the money for a new Basecamp account?

People forget passwords _all the time_. Spend some time in an F2k IT department; they have whole teams of people and actual application development projects dedicated to trying to solve this one problem.

<comment><USER6> Basecamp isn't free, so they can likely devote a few more resources to a slightly more stringent password reset system than, say, icanhascheezburger.com.

What I was trying to put forward for discussion is the idea that if a site can't do password resets "properly" (by phone? or something more secure than the example given in the article) then maybe it shouldn't do it at all, and that this might not be as catastrophic for the user as it seems, since the site is less likely to be essential.

Looking at what I use online:

\- all my server stuff: Extremely important, but it's my own problem.

\- online banking, bills, etc: Important stuff, not free. I'd be really upset if I got permanently locked out, but all can be reset by phone.

\- Digg, Reddit, News.YC, even Facebook: Not important stuff, free. I wouldn't really care if I have to make another account.

\- Gmail: This is the only one which doesn't fit. However, I use it daily, so I'm not going to forget my password. On the flip side, if I used it only once a year, it obviously wouldn't be that important to me.

Yeah, I know it's not very realistic, and it's probably not something I'm willing to practice myself. Consider it a thought experiment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is why the answer to my secret question is always my password.

</comment><comment><USER8> Do people think that a decent OpenID provider would sort this out?

I quite like the idea of using an OpenID provider for everything which had very strong authentication (e.g RSA fob). You'd only need to log in a couple of times a day with a login timeout of an a few hours.

<comment><USER9> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199784>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I got caught like this once. Someone hacked a forum I visit, and they got the same password I used for my email. Luckily they didn't do anything, and I changed my password before any damage was done.

Now I have about a dozen different passwords. And to tell the truth its really not that confusing, I have one main one for BS stuff, but all the vital information usually has its own password.

</comment><comment><USER11> That domino effect was rather obvious. A slightly less obvious dangers: [http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/the-unexpected- dang...](http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/the-unexpected-dangers-of- social-media/)</comment>


President Obama creates new cyber sanctions programme - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32151406 <comment><USER2> > sanction "individuals or entities" that pose a cyber threat to the "national > security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the > United States,"

If you detangle the weasel words, this is basically "emergency executive powers to do whatever we want to people we don't like, as long as we can tie it back to the internet". Combined with the existing surveillance dragnet, that's horrifying.

<comment><USER3> No, it doesn't mean that the executive branch can do "whatever [it] wants", it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system.

That's a lot of power, but it isn't unlimited power.

<comment><USER4> It can seize assets from any foreign national based on the standards of evidence they've used in the past to declare someone a "hacker".

Under the CFAA, accessing a web page as an unauthorized person would probably be justification enough.

<comment><USER5> You're missing the part where criminal intent is required.

<comment><USER6> Aaron Swartz didn't have criminal intent. Look how that turned out. Even if he hadn't committed suicide, look at how that _would have_ turned out.

Intent speaks to motivation, which speaks to the internal workings of one's mind. That may be relevant in a criminal trial. But it's far too nebulous of a concept to be considered when they're deciding whether to freeze your bank account. So they won't, no matter what lip service they pay.

They will "freeze first and ask questions later." We all know it's the truth.

<comment><USER7> He certainly did have criminal intent in that he knew what he was doing was against the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Given the U.S. Government's laughable ability to properly classify "hackers" apart from script kiddies, security experts, programmers, I.T. admins and any other computer "expert" where does that leave anyone in the I.T. industry that a politically influential corporation [i.e. Sony et al.] takes a dislike to? A software engineer posts a politically embarrassing YouTube video and is arrested as a hacker and thus a cyber terrorist under the guise of "national security"?

<comment><USER9> Reminder that not using a browser to access a website has been construed as hacking.

Reminder that 90% of development tools are hacking tools. Subversion has subversion right in the name.

<comment><USER10> > not using a browser to access a website has been construed as hacking.

Huh? I haven't heard that one before?

The whole 'hacking tools' thing is just ignorance. As if wireshark and port scanners have no legitimate use. "We don't understand these things therefore they are scary"

<comment><USER4> [http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/reporters-use- google...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/reporters-use-google-find- breach-get-branded-as-hackers/)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/30...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/30/the- free-web-program-that-got-bradley-manning-convicted-of-computer-fraud/)

> That Manning was convicted of computer fraud seems to suggest that using > wget on a U.S. government computer to download large numbers of files can be > considered the digital equivalent of trespassing – even if it's on turf > you're otherwise allowed to access.

I think is what he means.

<comment><USER11> What the... This is a _simple_ distinction.

Computer fraud means using a computer to do something you're not authorized to do. He was not authorized to use wget, he used it, thus he committed fraud.

He was authorized to access that "turf," but not with wget. Why? Specifically for the reason he did it: it's a risk.

Whatever your opinion on whistleblower protections, this is not a risky judgment.

<comment><USER12> Does any American website enumerate in their terms of use the software that you are allowed to use to access them? Could they?

<comment><USER11> No, but I'm almost certain that the DOD's filesystem likely includes a "using any unapproved software to access this system is considered unauthorized."

It's almost as if there's a difference between DOD classified file storage and google.com.

<comment><USER12> _Could_ it be done with a non-DOD site? If not, why not?

Could I make a website that immediately drops you onto a landing page that says _" The rest of this website may only be accessed using Safari. Use of Firefox, Chrome, or any other software constitutes unauthorized access."_?

<comment><USER13> Yes, you could make such a website, but I doubt that it would mean anything in court.

Manning was active-duty military, accessing classified military systems. There are all sorts of duties, laws, and regulations that apply to that situation that don't apply to a civilian accessing some random website on the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> First of all, this article doesn't have a single criticism of this?

It is really scary to me that our lawmakers are enacting legislation for topics they have absolutely no personal experience with. Their decisions are based on what can only amount to 100 hours, optimistically, of information sessions given by people representing multinationals with agendas.

All I want to know is what the hell constitutes a "malicious cyber activity". Is that as innocuous as U.S. v Auernheimer?

<comment><AUTHOR> This article is by the BBC. Most of us Brits consider it a national treasure for providing relatively unbiased and often deadpan reporting on news topics. :)

That's not to say that there couldn't have been criticism if another source provided them with some, but the BBC tend not to provide their own 'opinion' as a criticism (think Wikipedia).

<comment><USER15> I work with a bunch of Brits and they say the BBC leans heavily left like NPR here.

<comment><USER16> I read/listen to a bit of both (despite living in Denmark), and they strike me as leaning upper-class more than anything else, especially NPR. High culture, art museums and classical music, cultured fancy vacation destinations (Venice! Paris!), that kind of thing. Which all strikes me as more bourgeois than left. The upper classes aren't very culturally conservative, and are embarrassed by reactionary groups with lower-class bases, like UKIP or the Tea Party, so could be grouped on the left if your idea of left is opposing such groups. But they aren't very left economically, and keep their distance from lower-class movements on the left too, anything that gets too "red".

In a Danish context I would imagine the archetypical NPR listener voting for the Social Liberals, who are basically in the exact center (socially liberal, economically free-market, but not radically so in either category).

<comment><USER9> In the US there is no economic left. The left and right are distinguished by their social policy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I submitted the Politico article yesterday:

[http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/new-us-sanctions- forei...](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/new-us-sanctions-foreign- hacker-cyber-spy-116579.html)

> President Barack Obama said Wednesday that the U.S. will now treat foreign > hackers and cyber spies like terrorists and nuclear arms dealers.

There is also the medium post he made about it [claiming legitimate security researchers won't be targeted, not that I really believe that]:

[https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/a-new-tool-against- cyber-...](https://medium.com/@PresidentObama/a-new-tool-against-cyber- threats-1a30c188bc4)

To be honest, it sounds like Obama is positioning all "hackers" as "terrorists" and "foreigners" in the public view. I fully expect him or the next President to declare a "War on Cybercrime".

It also means, as of today, the Treasury can literally freeze all of the assets of any non-US citizen on circumstantial evidence. Lets face it, the case against North Korea for the Sony Hack is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. Its indicative but none of it truly is proof.

It also pretty much creates a situation where the Executive can freeze the accounts of anyone it doesn't like on circumstantial evidence. Eventually, if they continue the "hackers == terrorists" mantra...they'll start throwing them in prions without trials. And let us be honest, we all know this is where it is going to go eventually.

To the average person, the computer is a magical box. This makes it the perfect weapon for a terrorist group with the right type of fanatic to engage in cybercrime to fund their operations while simultaneously the perfect tool to suppress people on the basis of circumstantial evidence that the public, frankly, doesn't understand.

I doubt it would ever be used against a US Citizen but already we have security researchers being treated like criminals when they try to enter the US. And, frankly, we have some obligation to say "Hey, this isn't right".

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm a little surprised that this BBC article doesn't mention the ongoing DDoS attack on GitHub by China.

Does it seem like this programme could give US authorities the power to sanction the Chinese government over something like a DDoS attack?

EDIT: Ah, looks like GitHub is back to normal. Maybe the attacks are over now?

<comment><USER18> This is exactly what this is. China and Russia have legitimized cybercrime. Its done openly with approval of the goverment. See Brian Kreb's expose on various cyberwarrior Russian companies that operate with impunity.

The US can identify these companies and sanction them, which is something they should have done long ago. If you don't want sanctions, don't attack our infrastructure or citizens. Autocratic one party states need to be reminded that we won't stand for this shit any longer. What China did to Github is inexcusable and deserves a response.

<comment><USER19> > What China did to Github is inexcusable.

How do you know it was China? An IP address does not mean the person sitting behind the computer is Chinese. The person could just as easily be controlling a botnet from a VPN while sipping a latte in a coffee shop in Palo Alto.

<comment><USER20> Read the details of the attack. It's not a botnet. The attack works by injecting malicious JavaScript into common websites within Chinese borders, and doing this _only_ for visitors of these files from outside China.

Only the Great Firewall (or the website owners, ie. government-controlled Baidu) can possibly do that.

[http://www.netresec.com/?month=2015-03&page=blog&post=china%...](http://www.netresec.com/?month=2015-03&page=blog&post=china%27s-man- on-the-side-attack-on-github)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> DPRK attacks film studio = sanctions, counterattack, TO WAR!

China attacks Github = nothing, silence, heads kept in sand.

The attack itself is irrelevant. The scale of response is only related, inversely related, to the political size of the attackers. Small countries and individuals are to be punished. Large countries holding billions of US debt are to be forgiven. The extent of damage done doesn't enter into the equation.

<comment><USER22> The United States hacks and counterattacks China all of the time.

The reason for calling the DPRK's attack on the propaganda creation of the State Department 'cyberterrorism' and 'cyberwar' is that it aligns with US foreign policy (SK's official policy now is to pursue reunification).

NK is going down - China is more complicated. We do hack and counterattack China though, all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I haven't done any research into what this executive order actually does but language like "not one we expect to use everyday" makes me nervous. This sounds like down-playing. Laws written with good intentions are often used later in ways and at frequencies with which they weren't designed.

<comment><USER10> If they say "we don't expect to use it everyday", that means they expect to use it every hour.

<comment><USER8> no, just on days where they need to shut someone up ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So, are the U.S. going to sanction themselves?

<comment><USER25> Good question. Should the US be sanctioned for DDoSing North Korea? Should the US be surprised when China enacts similar legislation?

<comment><USER26> > Should the US be surprised when China enacts similar legislation?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama label such an act by China as an "act of war".

<comment><USER27> I would. Doing that without any follow-up erodes your credibility. And the US is not going to go to war with China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It is like the only tool the US government has to handle this problem is a hand grenade. No precision.

All it is going to take is one lazily worded law / executive order, and anyone in the security space could have the possibility to go to jail if enforced broadly.

<comment><USER8> You'll be fine, just don't piss off anyone that has influential lobbyists... like the communications, media, banking or oil & gas companies, the NRA, any corporations or financial transactions that politicians have stakes in, anyone in authority or anyone that could make your life... uncomfortable. You'll probably be fine. Maybe :P

<comment><USER28> I'm pretty sure if the government wanted me in jail, they could do so.

As the machine gears turns and laws are created as time moves forward, I don't see any other outcome then total lock down. All liberties and freedoms are gone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can we get spammers labeled as terrorists?

<comment><USER8> Can we also get the guys who keep leaving unsolicited advertising on my car at the station and also on my front doorstep despite a sign on my front door saying "No junk mail" classified the same?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sidestep Congress with a 'national emergency.' Really necessary?

<comment><USER31> The mechanisms of "national emergency" and the IEEPA are both products of congressional oversight. If they didn't want him to be able to do that, they could repeal the IEEPA. Of course, this is pretty silly: if they put this executive order to a vote in the House, the only flak Obama would get is that he is not also bombing China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I submitted the RT story yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9305942](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9305942). The RT article has a copy of the executive order, which is a legally binding law enabling _" promulgation of rules and regulations"_ until it (hopefully) is reviewed and struck down by the judicial system as being unconstitutional. Given what we've seen historically from this White House and Congress, I'm not holding my breath.

This legally binding order gives the US Government the right to lay claim to assets held by individuals and corporations who may _" constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States"_, all without prior notice.

Laws and legal contracts provide us a trusted system by which we may operate within a society. By 'sweeping off' certain rights, that trust is effectively eroded to the point implicit trust is all that remains of the 'contract' held with the governing body, in this case the US Government. This opens up the path to abuse of power by certain individuals by enabling them to hack the remaining (implicit) trust to suit their own needs.

While cyber criminals should be held accountable for their actions and the acts they commit can create additional suffering for individuals, corporations and communities, I don't feel eroding trust of the governing body of a country is the most logical approach to combatting crime committed by the criminals. Implicit trust in things of importance, especially infrastructure, never ends well for the parties trying to trust each other. FWIW, this is an opinion based on trust observations seen while working on infrastructure, which is not necessarily a fact of all our reality. At the very least, this is a complicated issue.

There are certainly other avenues available to us for addressing criminal behavior on the Internet. Those avenues are most likely technical in nature, and are clearly well beyond the responsibilities (or abilities) of The Office of the President of the United States.

It _feels_ like the US is currently in a massive bought of cognitive dissonance: wanting to stop attacks while (at least for some) holding our freedoms as individuals to high levels. As with most duality situations, this will resolve itself at a future date in one way or another. For all of us, I hope this is done in a transparent, trustworthy and LEGAL way.

I would add that implementing technical measures to combat these attacks in and of themselves could be considered violations of this Executive Order as they may judged by the government at will: _" any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States"_.

 _Cyber-enabled activities likely to result in a threat_. Think about it.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think this is a pretty clear sign that hackers should seriously consider a mass exodus from the United States. This decision might not be right for everyone, of course, but neither is having your life destroyed because of the foolish executive orders.

</comment><comment><USER34> I guess its a start, even if the irony seems a bit thick with NSA on the forefront with offensive cyber operations.

Has there been anything similar to Stuxnet from China?</comment>


Show HN: PantryPlan – Eco-conscious menu planning service - <AUTHOR> https://pantryplan.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all. I have been working on PantryPlan for the past year (ashamed face) and I think it is more than ready for prime time.

The current service is split into two tiers, self-serve and sous chef. Self- serve is your typical SaaS offer where you get to click buttons and plan meals yourself. Sous Chef is a plan where someone (read: me) plans your meals for you without having to worry about technical limitations or UI.

The twist is that rather than throwing meals out at random, PantryPlan plans meals by trying to use up what you already have on hand. The menu planning algorithm isn't just a fetch command, it takes into account variables like whether you liked the recipe before, what ingredients you like or dislike, measurements of the ingredients, numbers of ingredients... tons of others as well. :)

Also, I made a coupon for you all: hackernews. It is $10 off the first month, so self-serve will be $2 and sous chef will be $20.

<comment><USER2> to me the biggest issue is dietary restrictions with most meal planners. diabetes, lactose intolerant, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that is something I've heard repeatedly. There is a small amount of restrictions possible using "Ingredient Blacklist" which blacklists can blacklist ingredients that contain the word "cheese" or anything else someone can think of.

The issue with that solution is obvious.

The big issue that is preventing rolling this feature out is the recipes I collect aren't usually tagged with dietary restrictions so it is up to me to figure out how to tag recipes correctly using what ingredients it contains.

I would rather the feature be correct rather than a rough MVP since my partner has severe food allergies and I know how frustrating it can be.

I will work on implementing this into the SaaS offering.</comment></comment></comment>


I Built a Speed-Listening App - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@maxdeutsch/i-built-a-speed-listening-app-c6d2e3704713 <comment><USER2> Would be awesome with a uwp app for this, so you could continue listening across device.</comment>