Terrorism is not about Terror - <AUTHOR> http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror <comment><USER2> I do agree with most of what is said there, but it misses out terror groups like the KKK, that WERE about terror, and achieved (successfully) their aims through terror. They aided and caused the oppression of black people by carrying out a number of lynchings which left the wider black (and whites who might aid the black cause) community afraid of breaking the status quo.

This was a special case as the terror group was widely in bed with local policing, but it's a point to consider when discussing terrorism of the the 19th, 20th and 21st century.

<comment><USER3> > terror groups like the KKK, that WERE about terror

With all those silly titles, meetings, garments, and weird rituals that most often didn't involve black people... doesn't it sound like they were also about socializing?

They were a violent masonic lodge. _Let 's call ourself grand dragons, and burn a cross in the evening._

<comment><USER4> What nonsense. The KKK are directly linked to countless acts of physical intimidation, violence and murder perpetrated against the targets of their prejudice.

Military units socialize over dinner, doesn't make them less lethal. I'm sure Al Qaeda members break the bread together from time to time, doesn't stop them being terrorists.

<comment><USER3> > KKK are directly linked to countless acts of physical intimidation

Yes, so are other terrorists group. And politicians really do make policies but politics may not be about policy. Read up on the whole "X is not about Y" concept[1]. I found it quite enlightening.

[1] [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics- isnt-a.html](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This stood out, _" the preponderance of evidence is that people participate in terrorist organizations for the social solidarity, not for their political return."_

There was a foreign policy brief which basically said "People want to feel like they can make a difference." The more involved people are with running their community, the less likely they are to be involved in terrorizing it.

I don't know if there a good way to test that correlation though.

</comment><comment><USER6> There's a significant amount of willful of political amnesia in those 7 puzzles.

When one considers that Al Queda cut it's teeth, learning the effectiveness of political violence, by participating in resistance to Russia's Afghan invasion of the 1980's (with the eager assistance of the CIA), the nonsense purported in those 7 puzzles goes right out the window.

<comment><AUTHOR> First, let me point out that it is meaningless to offer a single counter- example as a response to a statistical generalization over thousands of terrorist incidents and hundreds of terrorist groups over the past century or so. You haven't even begun to argue on the same level. "Smoking is bad and cuts X years off life expectancy." "What willful amnesia! Don't you remember your uncle was a smoker and died at the ripe age of 85?"

Second, what the predecessors to AQ did in Afghanistan is irrelevant. They were fighting a conventional/guerrilla war against a government run by a foreign superpower, and were heavily funded by the rival foreign superpower and its regional nation-state allies like Saudi Arabia who viewed it as a matter of geopolitical survival w/r/t subversion to neighboring countries & global energy supplies. This looks nothing like their later terrorist campaigns and the lessons or success of one do not generalize to the global summaries of terrorist groups - not that you bothered to explain how the 7 puzzles 'go right out the window' in the first place.

<comment><USER6> I pretty much reject the entire premise of any sort of quantitative "statistical generalization", when it comes to "terror", because terror is an arbitrary qualitative generalization to begin with.

So, here comes this analysis that attempts to state facts as:

      1. Terrorists only target civilians

      2. Guerrillas only target uniforms holding weapons

...and never the twain shall meet!

These kinds of generalizations in social science are flawed from the outset, but now we try to plot the numbers anyway?

I don't buy into the idea that a heterogeneous mixture of non-state, civilian- killing groups can be boiled down to bald numbers. I think it's a mistake to even try.

I don't think targeting civilians is a rational goal, so how are you going to apply ratios to it?

<comment><AUTHOR> > I pretty much reject the entire premise of any sort of quantitative > "statistical generalization", when it comes to "terror", because terror is > an arbitrary qualitative generalization to begin with.

I don't think it is. While there are differences about edge cases, you'll find an awful lot of agreement among people about 9/11 or a random suicide bomber blowing himself up in a cafe. Terrorism can be reasonably defined, classified, and statistically treated.

> I don't buy into the idea that a heterogeneous mixture of non-state, > civilian-killing groups can be boiled down to bald numbers. I think it's a > mistake to even try.

If they really are heterogenous then they can be analyzed in more meaningful subgroups!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> TL;DR

Sorry but I could not get through this badly written incoherent article. This makes me question it's contents.

Or I am just dumb?

<comment><USER8> +1

There is a reason schools teach students to write using a specific template:

Thesis Argument Conclusion

This here is just a collection of random points. I imagine the author has a point he is looking to make but unless the article is edited it will elude most readers.

<comment><USER9> I understand his points. I am not sure why you guys are having difficult to understanding what he's saying?

<comment><USER8> Because he doesn't bother to make a coherent argument and I have plenty of better use of my time than try and parse what he is trying to say.

If you understand his argument - can you make an outline for us?

<comment><USER10> That terrorist groups are most about providing a sense of belonging for it's members than achieving political aims as evidenced by the fact that they routine achieve the former and almost never the latter.

<comment><USER8> Thank you - so that's his thesis. I guess it sounds a lot like gangs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They certainly doesn't care about 'winning'. It's a pure revengeful act. Vengeance only exist where law doesn't exist.

<comment><USER12> I would disagree. The conservative concept of justice practiced in much of the world (including in the US and in many Muslim gov'ts) is almost inseparable from vengeance.

<comment><USER11> How would you seek justice if your family is killed by an USA drone strike?

<comment><USER12> Is this rhetorical or are you begging for this question to be torn apart?

<comment><USER13> Its a valid question and Im curious how you would tear it apart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Off topic, but gwern, I've noticed you've gone on a reposting binge of your old articles (14 in the last 3 weeks). Any reason in particular that you decided to do this? And isn't this kind of thing generally frowned upon (maybe not that's why I'm asking)? Not that I mind, by the way; they're really high quality articles.

<comment><USER15> He is doing an experiment where he regularly posts one of his good articles together with two foreign articles he liked.

See his submission history and comment here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6466422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6466422)

<comment><AUTHOR> > with two foreign articles he liked.

And if I may say so, I'm a little disappointed in the performance of those submission - I thought many of them were better than my own article, but I think maybe 2 or 3 at this point have reached the main page.

<comment><USER16> Yup, many were better. But the thing is that they are long and you are not the author. Your essays are long too but since you are authoring them, they become popular. I think many just upvote you without reading your whole article.

<comment><AUTHOR> That would explain the patterns, yes. (I'm also annoyed at how HN keeps editing the submission titles. Seriously, who keeps wasting their time doing that?!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well, the US is pretty much in terror since 9/11

<comment><AUTHOR> A useful side-effect for many parties, indeed, but one that was not intended by AQ, not one of its goals, did not achieve any of its goals, and has badly hampered it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Terrorism is war. A very small group declares war on a very large group and uses weapons that reflect the disparity in means.

<comment><USER19> Terrorism can be thought of as a kind of voluntary sector war. I think in general people working in the voluntary sector do so because they get something out of it. Not necessarily anything sinister or material, but something of personal benefit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > terrorist organizations do not achieve their stated political goals by > attacking civilians;

Most terrorist groups have the concept of "legitimate target". This includes the armed forces, the police forces, government officials, etc. For people like the Mardi Gras bomber it would be people working at banks. They tend not to target "civilians".

> terrorist organizations never use terrorism as a last resort and seldom > seize opportunities to become productive nonviolent political parties;

> terrorist organizations reflexively reject compromise proposals offering > significant policy concessions by the target government1;

This is just game theory. You have the game "Chicken" \- two cars drive towards each other, the last to swerve away wins. Imagine two drivers walk arrive. One gets out of his car. He's alert, awake, aware, keen. Good odds, you think. The other driver falls out of his car. He's steaming drunk, with a bottle of bourbon in one hand and a crack pipe in the other. He takes his prescription glasses off, and stamps on them, and puts on some dirty cracked sunglasses. You realise that this guy is not going to swerve away, this guy is going to win "Chicken".

The government offers anything? You have the vocal terror group yelling "NO SURRENDER!!" while the political wing is secretly discussing how to accept the deal and what they need to do in return. This keeps the supporters supporting you in very polarised situations.

> terrorist organizations generally carry out anonymous attacks, precluding > target countries from making policy concessions;

I'm not sure what this means. Some terrorist organisations have press offices and use code words to declare actions. Others are umbrella groups allowing anyone to claim an action under that main name.

> terrorist organizations with identical political platforms routinely attack > each other more than their mutually professed enemy;

But the People's Front of Judea are the real splitters.

> terrorist organizations resist disbanding when they consistently fail to > achieve their political platforms or when their stated political grievances > have been resolved…

People use all sorts of things to define themselves. Some people define themselves as freedom fighter, and it's hard to re-define yourself when circumstances change. (You like Ruby now, but what about in 10 years?)

I guess it's interesting that terrorists fall into the same trap as most other people.

It's interesting to play games about "how many people could I kill if I had 5 people and $10,000" or "how much havoc can I cause with very little money", but that's not the point of terror. You only need to do a few things occasionally to have huge impact. Killing more people doesn't have particularly more impact, but does make people less sympathetic to your cause.

It was reasonably common to hear people say things like "I dislike the means they use, but the IRA have a reasonable cause" (although the much more common line was "terrorist scum") but killing more people would have stopped that pretty quickly.

<comment><USER21> > Most terrorist groups have the concept of "legitimate target". This includes > the armed forces, the police forces, government officials, etc. For people > like the Mardi Gras bomber it would be people working at banks. They tend > not to target "civilians".

There's a definitional problem here. Typically, terrorism is defined as targeting civilians specifically. When your targets are institutional / military, it's called asymmetrical warfare.

The way you phrased it implies that there aren't many groups out there that target civilians, and that's emphatically not so. You have:

\- Al Qaeda's general strategy of targeting "the West"

\- The Boston Marathon bombers

\- The 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

\- The Unabomber

\- The 2008 Mumbai attacks

\- The 2005 London subway bombings

\- The 2007 London car bombs

\- PLO and other Islamist groups indiscriminate rocket strikes on Isreali settlements

All of these groups and organizations specifically target civilians.

<comment><USER22> >\- PLO and other Islamist groups indiscriminate rocket strikes on Isreali settlements

You're getting things mixed up a little bit here. PLO is not a terrorist organization nowadays, it has recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace 20 years ago and it has ceased violent activity in the seventies. It is considered Palestine's political representation at the UN.

Because of this even if it were bombing Israeli civilian houses this would be considered more of an act of war between states than terrorism. This is not to say that there are no terrorist organizations in Palestine, just that the PLO is not one of them.

<comment><USER21> The PLO is not a singular organization in the way we tend to think of organizations. They're more like a banner under which various groups place their actions. It has a leader, but he's more of a "first among equals" figurehead. He can make agreements, but his only way of executing them is to issue a decree and hope everyone complies.

This dynamic is one of the reasons why peace in that area has been very difficult to achieve. The other is that Israel consistently acts in a manner opposed to peace as it hinders their expansionist aims.

Palestine is being recognized as a state by both Israel and the UN, but that doesn't really make it a state the way we think of states. The institutions of governance simply aren't there. There's no way, for the PLO to, say, collect taxes legitimately. They are simply an organization looking to start up a state in Palestine, much like any revolutionary body. They don't have power, they aspire to it.

One can proclaim the PLO as a terrorist organization or not, that's none of my concern, but there's no question that they've engaged in terrorist attacks, and that's what I was referring to.

<comment><USER22> Well if one considers PLO more akin to a government, as the UN seems to do, then any act of violence they commit can't be considered terroristic, because of the monopoly of violence that nations hold. If you start counting that as terrorism so do Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden.

Again I'm not debating whether what the PLO does is right or wrong, I'm making a commentary on the free pass nations get when killing civilians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Fascinating reference to the Black September dissolution (covered here: All You Need Is Love ):

 _" My host, who was one of Abu Iyad's most trusted deputies, was charged with devising a solution. For months both men thought of various ways to solve the Black September problem, discussing and debating what they could possibly do, short of killing all these young men, to stop them from committing further acts of terror.

        Finally they hit upon an idea. Why not simply marry them off? In other words, why not find a way to give these men – the most dedicated, competent, and implacable fighters in the entire PLO - a reason to live rather than to die? Having failed to come up with any viable alternatives, the two men put their plan in motion.

"_

This makes sense--when you have no family, no ties, _no vested interested in the perpetuation of society_ , mad-dog terrorism doesn't seem unreasonable. It's easier to blow up a school, presumably, when you don't have kids in one yourself.

I think that improving economic conditions and availability of care to would be a major step in eliminating terrorism, as well as I imagine crime.

Conversely, current domestic policies in the US seem to be willfully ignorant of this fact.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra I come to realise that modern Muslim terrorism is also a tool of discouraging force actions by other classes and layers of citizens.

What they implicitly say, "we are muslim fundamentalists, everybody despises us and think we are stupid and what we do is hurt people", which makes everybody else think "hurting any kind of people in any case is bad since it makes you look like a muslim fundamentalist, and nobody likes muslim fundamentalists".

I can see this working.</comment>


Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_29110712/mountain-view-google-self-driving-car-pulled-over <comment><USER4> They didn't link to either of their sources, so I went and found them:

Mountain View Police Department blog post: [http://mountainviewpoliceblog.com/2015/11/12/inquiring- minds...](http://mountainviewpoliceblog.com/2015/11/12/inquiring-minds-want- to-know/)

Google Self-Driving Car Project Google+ post: [https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/j9ouVZSZnRf](https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/j9ouVZSZnRf)

<comment><USER5> Thanks! That MV police blog post says the traffic officer stopped the car to "educate the operators about impeding traffic per 22400(a) of the California Vehicle Code."

That section of the vehicle code says, emphasis added: "No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, _or in compliance with law._ " [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c7/a2/22400)

If Google's self-driving cars are limited by law to 25mph, and the car was not exceeding 25mph, then it was "in compliance with the law" and 22400(a) doesn't apply. It would be allowed to impede or block traffic, even if we human drivers would really prefer it to be going 45mph.

<comment><USER6> Is that required by law? FTA '"We've capped the speed of our prototype vehicles at 25 mph for safety reasons," the post explained. "We want them to feel friendly and approachable, rather than zooming scarily through neighborhood streets."'

Sounds like Google's decision to me. Either way, it's not a highway, so that section seems irrelevant. And "in compliance with the law" is quite a broad redirect.

<comment><USER7> > Either way, it's not a highway, so that section seems irrelevant.

(IANAL) "Highway" means road or street[1]:

> 360\. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained > and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway > includes street.

(I've never actually heard highway used in common speech that way; only in the vehicle code, but that I think is what would count here.) The article also seems to indicate this was El Camino Real, which is also CA State Route 82.

[1]: [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d1/36...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d1/360)

It should also be here[2], but that page is blank for some odd reason.

[2]: [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=VEH&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=&article=)

<comment><USER8> According to Woody Guthrie's fairly common usage of the term, you can walk on a highway in the United States of America, and nobody living can ever make you turn back or stop you. [1]

[1] [https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm](https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Google cars are licensed as Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicl...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle)

This means they are legally limited to 25mph and legally allowed to drive on roadways with speed limits up to 45mph.

NEVs let you have very light weight, inexpensive vehicles with exceptional economy… that would be instant death traps in a high speed collision. They don't undergo ordinary crash testing. Think of them as posh golf carts.

I looked into getting an NEV, but most of my local streets are 30mph and I can't in good conscience drive down them at 25mph.

<comment><USER10> It's no more dangerous than driving a motorbike. People do that all the time without worrying about the risk.

<comment><USER11> While they may not "worry" about the risk, they are certainly cognizant of it. Most wear helmets and gloves, many wear armor and leathers.

In the case of a NEV, it's a 4-wheel car with doors... Unless told otherwise, most drivers are going to assume they meet passenger car safety standards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think about this often. Every day in rush hour traffic I have to take a number of calculated risks in order to get to work. This usually crops up when making a turn onto a highly congested road. I could easily see a self driving car being too conservative to find a gap and pull out, leading to a furious string of drivers behind it.

<comment><USER13> The problem would be resolved quite nicely if _all_ cars were self driving, interconnected, and could be governed by a master plan.

<comment><USER14> The possible improvements would truly need mind blowing. I can't even think of a reason why those cars would have to stop asking the way if everything goes right. There would be no more need for traffic lights or stop signs to coordinate traffic between cars. You would still need them for pedestrians. However, if the traffic lights are integrated I the same system as the cars then the cars can just adjust their speed to not have to stop at the light. Their gain in fuel efficiency would be huge! As long as nobody jaywalks or we have cross walks without traffic lights or bicycles..

<comment><USER15> It would also be great when a traffic light turned green that all cars started moving at exactly the same time, as opposed to the delay where every car waits for the car in front of them to start moving with human drivers.

<comment><USER16> Fuck I hate it when people do that i.e. 99.99% of the time. Just go as soon as the person in front of you starts going and build your gap by accelerating slightly slower than the person in front of you _after_ you are on the other side of the traffic light.

<comment><USER17> Without having a gap before you start, how do you plan on stopping in time if the car in front stops suddenly? Which they might do if they see someone running the red light, or a pedestrian thinking there's just enough time to run across.

<comment><USER18> The needed gap is proportional to your speed. Starting speed from a stop is quite low so the gap needed is low. As you gain speed you expand the gap.

<comment><USER19> You can't all accelerate at the same rates and expect the distance between the cars to increase. The slow trundle off the starting line is needed to establish following distance.

<comment><USER16> That is why I said accelerate _slower_ than the person in front of you to build a gap. (Once you are on the other side of the traffic light)

When the light goes green everyone should go at the exact same time and acceleration. Because you just started moving your speed is very low, so you don't need a large following distance.

You are clearly one of the millions of people that doesn't understand this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well I for one would find a vehicle travelling at 40km/h in a 60 zone incredibly annoying, even if they're legally allowed to travel that slow.

<comment><USER20> How do you feel about cyclists on 35mph (60kph) roads?

<comment><USER21> I hate seeing cyclists on the very same road in question (El Camino Real in Mountain View). There is a substantial bike 'boulevard' network of side streets made safer for bicyclists, so it's mostly ignorance that brings people to bike down El Camino.

Check out the line of red dots in this accident map:

[http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2012/09/13/over-200-bike- relate...](http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2012/09/13/over-200-bike-related- injuries-in-five-years)

Considering that cyclists are expressly encouraged to use other roads, this thoroughfare is MUCH more dangerous to a cyclist than most of the rest of the city.

<comment><USER22> _There is a substantial bike 'boulevard' network of side streets made safer for bicyclists_

NOT that is segregated from through traffic (as opposed to Bryant St, in Palo Alto, on which car through-traffic is blocked every couple of blocks.

Best route I found parallel to El Camino was Church/Latham to the Palo Alto border, then a slight jog over to the pedestrian/bike bridge behind the shopping center (was Tower Records for years, forgot what it is now). Then, work your way to Bryant.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, actually, the bike route network for Mountain View is really terrible in comparison to Palo Alto! But that's a different discussion... I see bicyclists on El Camino in Palo Alto at night without lights all the time!

<comment><USER23> I'm really excited that the towns around here are contemplating making the bicycle boulevard network easier to use AND making El Camino safer to bicycle on.

Right now there's often an unpleasant choice when traveling by bicycle: take stressful main streets or spend 50% more time navigating complicated winding side streets. Making the main streets less stressful and making the side streets more direct should make both choices better.

It'll probably take many years but the local governments are really starting to think about it a lot and there's even some funding appearing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In autonomous mode do they pull over properly if A. getting pulled over and B. emergency vehicles are whirring about doing their thing?

<comment><USER25> I can't wait for a hacker to make a "Get-out-of-my-way" gun out of blinking lights that makes all the Google cars in front of her pull over.

Maybe she could build it out of IR LEDs, so it's not obvious to humans. :)

<comment><USER26> Impersonating a police car is, unsurprisingly, already a crime:

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

States have similar laws for other emergency vehicles. E.g.: [http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/2...](http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00947.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS)

<comment><USER27> Does this apply when you're not fooling any person? As in, you're not trying to impersonate a police officer per se, you're fooling the vehicle's police detection into assuming a police vehicle is coming.

<comment><USER28> > you're fooling the vehicle's police detection

Sounds like impersonation to me.

The "person" in impersonation refers to the entity being imitated, not the entity being deceived.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, but is a couple of infrared lights enough to be considered "police"? What if I yell "VWEEEWOOOWEEEOOO" and someone mistakes that for a legitimate police siren -- am I still impersonating police, or is that person incredibly stupid?

<comment><USER29> intent matters.

If you say "Here's some infra-red lights. They simulate enough of a police car for other cars to change their behaviours" you're not going to have a fun time in court.

<comment><USER30> Why does everyone think that the entire law system is like tax code and finance laws? You (usually) can't just break a law because you found a technical loophole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This car was driving a bit too conservatively: However, this highlights my own experience trying to follow traffic laws. First, speeding: I figured out that the time saved speeding wasnt enough to actually help - theoretically, I could save 2 minutes if things went well. It is upsetting when people follow laws and safety instead of normal local social driving standards.

So long as we are mixing drivers and driverless, I think we'll need to close the gap while the problem exists. Laws that reflect driving and better enforcement paired with continual updating to driverless cars so that they can safely manuever in traffic without causing problems.

<comment><USER32> Safety and posted speed limits are often not super compatible; the _safest_ thing, in most road conditions, is to be driving relatively close to the speed of the surrounding traffic, even if that means exceeding the posted speed limit.

(in other words, speed itself is not dangerous except in certain situations -- like sharp curves or wet/snowy/icy roads -- speed _differential_ is dangerous)

<comment><USER33> You're basically saying that everyone should defect because everyone else does. Which may well be true for a single human driver, but is probably not how autonomous cars as a whole should be programmed.

Nor does it support the claim that "speed itself is not dangerous". If everyone were driving slower, everyone would be safer (which we may actually be able to achieve once a sufficient number of law-abiding robot cars displace human drivers).

<comment><USER34> >If everyone were driving slower, everyone would be safer

But that's always true. All the way down to 10mph speed limits.

The job of speed limits is not maximum safety at the cost of everything else.

In practice, people can tell the design speed of a road and mostly follow that, no matter what the signs say. Defecting or not doesn't matter very much.

<comment><USER35> > In practice, people can tell the design speed of a road

I think there have been quite a few studies showing most people think they are above average at driving. I don't think people do this at all. I think they are overconfident, hurrying apes, with no real conception of stopping distance or kinetic energy, aiming to just miss each other with these multi-ton projectiles. It's sadly not surprising how many people are killed on the roads.

<comment><USER36> > It's sadly not surprising how many people are killed on the roads.

In 2013, US, total number of traffic deaths was 32719. Total number of miles driven: 2,946,000,000,000.

Miles driven per one death: 90,039,426

It's not even one-in-a-million chance of dying. It's one-in-90-million chance. That is really very good odds. Driving is really quite safe and getting safer all the time. Cars manufactured today have safety systems and braking ability, traction control and other safety measures that are basically incomparable to cars made 20-30 years ago. The speed limits are still the same for everyone though. The whole point of a car is to quickly get from one location to another.

<comment><USER37> > _It 's not even one-in-a-million chance of dying. It's one-in-90-million > chance. That is really very good odds._

For you individually. Multiply that by the amount of drivers and the average amount of miles driven, and you get multiple deaths per day - almost one hundred a day, actually, in 2013.

The individual odds make drivers feel safe - and thus behave like idiots - <USER2> the result is tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths annually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Going at an unusually low speed can attract police attention up here in Oregon. The legalization of recreation cannabis has increased the number of non-alcohol intoxicated drivers. Apparently one sign of DUI of cannabis is going too slow for traffic conditions.

AFAIK no driverless cars around here (yet), but there are plenty of other potential hazards for motorists, like pedestrians and bicycles on narrow, twisty, dark and wet streets this time of year.

Ideally it calls for everyone to be patient, careful and vigilant. Above all be thankful if born with great reflexes, on the road alas only a few are so gifted.

</comment><comment><USER39> Personally i think it is quite obvious that a self driving car a tool that you use. And therefore you as a user is accountable for the actions/damage you inflict with your tool.

No different that using a gun and shooting someone by accident.

<comment><USER40> A gun isn't very autonomous, though. As tools become increasingly autonomous, it might not always be fair to place blame on the end user rather than the manufacturer.

<comment><USER41> I agree with this. But why use a gun-analogy when you can use a car-analogy?

<comment><USER39> Did honestly not think of it :O

But i like to go with stuff that is emotionally loaded when i compare stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm curious how it works. How does the Google car know that it's getting pulled over?

<comment><USER43> It probably doesn't. Google doesn't let their cars roam freely yet; they always have someone inside the car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I thought Google was building the little 25MPH self driving cars for senior communities, campuses, and such. But they're running them on El Camino Real.

They apparently registered the small self driving cars as what California calls a "Neighborhood Electric Vehicle".[0] A NEV is limited to 25 MPH, and cannot be operated on a road with a speed limit above 35 MPH. It's one step above a golf cart. Local municipalities can limit their use on faster streets, if they so choose, but they don't have to.

There's a related flap over high speed electric bicycles. They're supposed to be limited to 20MPH, but some can reach 40MPH, and a few can reach 50MPH.[1] They only have bicycle-grade wheels, brakes, and pothole tolerance[2], which is a problem. At what point is a driver's license, or a motorcycle license, required, what's allowed on a bike path, and do you have to have pedals?[3] There are now three classes of electric bikes in California, one of which doesn't have pedals but is still considered a "bicycle". There are also electric mopeds and electric motorcycles.

Trying to fit all these vehicles on the same road and bike path system is difficult.

[0] [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr37) [1] [https://www.electricbike.com/stealth-bomber- review/](https://www.electricbike.com/stealth-bomber-review/) [2] [http://www.levassociation.com/worldwide- legislation](http://www.levassociation.com/worldwide-legislation) [3] [https://www.electricbike.com/california-ebike- laws/](https://www.electricbike.com/california-ebike-laws/)

<comment><USER45> I regularly exceed 40mph on my road bike, on downhills at least. It's fine.

I'd agree that you shouldn't be in the bike lane at those speeds (though in much of the UK they are few and far between and mostly consist of a bit of paint on the side of the road). That's what roads are for.

<comment><USER27> 40mph? Really? Not 40kph? Because holy fuck -- once I managed to go 50kph for a minute and that's incredibly FAST.

<comment><USER45> Yeah. I hit 46mph the other week on a long fast descent. That's nothing particularly out of the ordinary; especially compared to pro cyclists - <USER3> Cancellara reportedly exceeded 80mph on the Tour de Suisse in 2009.

Here's a fun video of a 2011 TDF descent: [https://youtu.be/MSmhgOFGl_M](https://youtu.be/MSmhgOFGl_M)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> What's more interesting is they purposefully made it look like that. /ot

</comment><comment><USER47> Speaking of which, how does a fully autonomous car know it's getting pulled over? Does it have some algorithm to detect police lights?

</comment><comment><USER48> So how does a police officer stop a self driving car?</comment>


Open Salaries, is this ludicrous? (senor...no flames, por favor) - <AUTHOR>

1.we have open sourced up and down the stack 2.some of us have opened our lives on social networks 3.openstack, openflow, democratized CRM.
some of us are hooked to gadgets that didnt exist a few years ago, some of us bear it all out on social network and some of us believe privacy is irrelevant. so then why.....
our salaries be any different. And why is this important......... well this could play some meaningful role in the immigration debate. and we all can see what our peers and bosses are paid. <comment><AUTHOR> obviously i didnt read an earlier post on this topic, see here - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5282374>.

</comment><comment><USER2> Did you sleep through grammar in elementary school? Your comment is almost unreadable.

<comment><AUTHOR> i hear you. too much coffee. thanks for participating. cheers!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What can my non-tec co-founder do before our launch? - <AUTHOR>

Hey!
We're building a social media platform. Its target group on long term? Anyone. Like Facebook, like Twitter. And the bad thing as usual with this kind of startup ideas: it only works with a lot of people.
I want you to throw in ideas: What can my non technical co-founder do to market the app upfront and after launch? He can only do things where it is not neccessary to develope. What would you do?
Consider all business-related tasks as done (strategy, business model(s), etc.).
Note: he has "fulltime". 3-4 month until launch.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards the ug dev <comment><USER2> Sure your long term target group is everyone, but you need to start with one niche group. Your partner can get the ball rolling in user recruitment. You should have a basic site up with your key product proposition and collect emails. \- He can speak to different groups of people (a class of students, an interest group etc) to get them onboard in one go. \- He can start doing business development - find marketing partners, sponsors, distribution partners, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> What we already did is: set up a pre-registration (~1k mails atm). We're also present on social media platforms.

I'm with you to start with a niche.</comment></comment>


Guillotine Simulator Using The Oculus Rift - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/65510054

<comment><USER2> this is a damn scary perspective</comment>


Linux SSD partition alignment tips - <AUTHOR> http://www.void.gr/kargig/blog/2012/01/11/linux-ssd-partition-alignment-tips/

<comment><USER2> I've theorized that if you set the filesystem block size equivalent to the erasure block size of the drive, then you could eliminate write amplification. Thoughts?</comment>


The Government Protects Our Food and Cars. Why Not Our Data? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/sunday-review/data-protection-privacy.html <comment><USER2> Probably because the threat is relatively new. It took hundreds of thousands of deaths and decades to get us to the current mandated safety standards for cars. It's going to take a while for tech to catch up.

<comment><USER3> Heck, most people in government simply don't even understand the issue, let alone figuring out how to solve it.

AFAIK only one US 2020 presidential candidate atm is even talking about data rights.

<comment><USER4> This is a good argument for term limits. The old timer's holding on to their power is not doing anyone any good.

<comment><USER5> Term limits don't seem to stop old timers from getting elected though, they just mean a variety of old timers get elected.

(Not that there aren't other good reasons to prefer a variety of politicians getting elected over a single one)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Because our food and our cars are something made by someone else that we will buy in the future, at which point the government's involvement ceases. "Our" data is something that is generated by us, about us, and is ongoing. The last thing some of us want is the government even having access to it much less charged with "protecting" it.

<comment><USER7> This "directionality" is the first thing I thought of too. Unlike these other things, data originates with the consumer. Also, the transfer between consumer and platform usually does not include a financial component so it's not "commerce" in the usual sense. The issues involved are just as important despite these differences, the need (however great or small) for regulation doesn't change either, but such differences definitely affect what kinds of regulation might be appropriate or how they might be applied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Largley because of a paralyzed legislative branch, heavily indebted to corporate donors, compounded by a polarized public that is largely too distracted to focus on this fundamental problem.

<comment><USER9> Plot twist: zooming out of the USA, you've just described most countries.

Incidentally, _countries_ as a concept may greatly distract the so-fragmented public from many a no less fundamental problem...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> These days I can't help but read every NYT piece as a desperate plea to the govt for a rescue operation from its tech usurper.

Also, the govt is demonstrably worse at protecting information than any FAANG, and they are all abiding by GDPR which is the right regulation IMO

<comment><USER11> GDPR is literally the government protecting people's privacy and data. That's what this article is advocating for.

<comment><USER10> In practice, aren't FAANG giving same protections to Americans? I know they didn't have to, but I thought they would since it would be easier to maintain in long run

<comment><USER12> This argument only holds if it wouldn't affect their profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Because some of us want our government not to protect our Food and Cars as well. Data is one area where humanity has made the fastest progress compared to Cars and Food.

<comment><USER14> Care to elaborate? Outside of unleaded gas, most externalities in the car industry seem to progress slowly in the absence of regulation.

Technology in cars can be rapid but seems to ignore those externalities

<comment><USER15> > _Technology in cars can be rapid but seems to ignore those externalities_

Many regulated risks in automobiles are not _external_ , which is I think where they're out of bounds. I think a certain amount of regulation to ensure consumers are informed of the _internal_ risks of an automobile is reasonable; but the government really oughtn't tell you how safe your car must be _for you_. _Externalities_ , as you say, are the appropriate domain of regulation.

For some people, it may be preferable to have better fuel economy at a lower price (i.e. Honda can make the Honda Insight again) even if the operator risk is higher; but they should not be allowed to drive a vehicle without adequate stopping, acceleration, and speed, or one which poses excessive risk to fire and rescue workers, other motorists, or pedestrians, or has excessive emissions in their use case.

Right now, emissions regulations on automobiles focus on manufacturer fleet emissions (which is an unabashed pro-incumbent regulation), and emissions on a fixed test cycle; but this means you can pay for the privilege of being in the upper section of a fleet's emissions. Similar with the regulations on stopping speed, acceleration, and pedestrian safety: it seems to often depend on the class of vehicle, and so you can pay for the privilege of worse safety externalities.

<comment><USER14> I think the issue is one of pragmatism. CAFE standards are meant to be an average to allow some vehicles to be designed to meet very different end use needs. Same with the test beds. There's definitely room for improvement.

My point was that automotive manufacturers are not particularly incentivized to improve on areas that don't align with their bottom line. Are you advocating for more regulation in terms of performance parameters?

<comment><USER15> > _Are you advocating for more regulation in terms of performance parameters?_

I'm saying I'd prefer consistent (between vehicle classes) regulation of performance parameters which have externalities; and the abolition of non- normalized fleet-based targets (since they privilege the largest manufacturers). If the goal is to reduce external risk, the threshold of acceptable risk should be the same for all motorists as a matter of fairness.

A possible alternative to CAFE is a specialized cap and trade market. I get that they did think a bit about this stuff when they implemented it, but I feel like it has weird effects in practice, especially when gaming it enters medium-long term corporate strategy.

I think it would be spectacular if inefficiency was purchased on a per-vehicle or per-lot basis from manufacturers who exceed the target, and efficiency was sold in turn to those. Not sure how these transactions would be cleared, but I'm sure something reasonable could be worked out. This would do away with adjustments/exemptions based on vehicle footprint (CAFE targets currently differ based on mean vehicle footprint).

<comment><USER14> I think I agree in an idealized sense, but also think if this approach was taken it would decimate the ability to create certain vehicles, especially those used in heavy-duty applications. I don't know the history of CAFE standards but it may very well have been a practical choice...either get some form of progress or dig our heels in on an idealized version that never gets adopted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Maybe because of population growth. Food and car failure is directly linked to mass deaths and diseases, potentially decreasing the population, free data flow is linked to better business decisions, and therefore wealth for starting families, potentially increasing the population.

So if population growth is your priority as nation, it could make sense to allow free data flow if you ignore potential long term side effects that could counter this.

The downsides of free data flow and the permanence of personal data are mostly affecting the mental health of people which could result in more deaths from drug abuse and other self destructive behaviors, or even civil wars long term.

This of course could contradict free data flow as a viable strategy for long term population growth.

A battle between short and long term politics, with long term politics being clearly at a disadvantage because they're less obvious and harder to predict/measure, and harder to sell in political campaigns.

</comment><comment><USER17> If the US government protected your food, people would not be sold so much crap full of carcinogenic additives or cooked up in chemical vats.

As for cars - the government protects car _manufacturers_, if at all. And that's also in the form of "anti-protection" of public transport...

Finally - how would the US government protect your data if it's intent on getting its hands on a copy of as much of it as it can, then mining it and searching it for various purposes? (Snowden revelations)

PS - The firewall blocks me :-(

</comment><comment><USER18> Because that would grant the government the power that enables it to become a worse perpetrator even than the big tech?

<comment><USER19> I think Snowden showed the government already is a much worse data privacy perpetrator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> That is a confusion if shared words being assumes in the same meaning. Data protection is fundamentally nothing like car or food safety. The other two can literally directly kill you. Data also acts "at a distance". If I smash a cooy of your car or poison a copy of your lunch it won't harm you in any way. Not so if sensitive information leaks.

Not to mention the abuse potential is fundamentally massively different. It isn't apples to oranges but apples to formica countertops

<comment><USER11> Financial products exist only in databases and they can't kill you, yet they're heavily regulated for good reason.

<comment><USER21> That's because the data there counts the amount of money they owe their customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Data protection" goes against the spirit of free software and it is similar to patents and copyright.

</comment><comment><USER23> > The Government Protects Our Food and Cars.

I wish they would stop protecting cars and start protecting people. 40,000 die every single year due to cars, and over 4 million injured or disabled.

</comment><comment><USER24> Many people die in car accidents and die from food poisoning. How many people die each year from unprotected data?

Disclaimer: cannot read the article

</comment><comment><USER25> The great public works of the 21st century, the Hoover Dams of our time, will be privacy-preserving digital infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why not our information? Nationalise the New York Times!

<comment><USER27> I've seen one instance where the NYT seemed to recognized their complicity in the problem

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/data-privacy- trac...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/data-privacy- tracking.html)

I was pretty proud of them then

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I know that HN's libertarian views often conflict with the top down EU bureaucracy. But when I heard about GDPR here in europe I thought to myself - that looks very close to what all those people have been wishing for - and its actually here now.

It remains to be seen if it holds up in practice what it offers in spirit. But the idea that companies are forced to think about my personal data as if it was payment credentials, with similar rigor, and penalties, just sounds so awesome to me as a customer.

In the EU personal data _is_ protected as if its cars, food, trains or planes. And honestly its great :)

</comment><comment><USER29> One would wonder.

I am pro this idea. I am not sure it can be done via technical means alone.

But, govt is super dysfunctional too.

We, as people, have work to do in the US.

</comment><comment><USER30> The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) could not even protect the information of people with security clearances.

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

Trey Gowdy's questioning of the people in charge of the OPM is a classic:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK- zEGjxuAA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK-zEGjxuAA)

<comment><USER31> The GOP is anti-government and spares no chance to demonstrate that.

That doesn't forgive the failure, but instead of saying "let's fix it then", the answer is always: private enterprise!

<comment><USER30> Other than Trey Gowdy being a member of the GOP, not sure what you're criticizing here. His line of questioning was not partisan, and got to the heart of the matter - their lack of competence and ability to follow regulations and/or written contracts.

The OPM had a serious data breach, and demonstrated a marked lack of ability to do their job. To date, they have not been held accountable, unless you count the stern questioning.

What remedy would you prescribe to fix OPM? How would you hold them accountable?

<comment><USER31> The NSA ostensibly provides "cybersecurity" support and services -- they should be partners in securing government infrastructure. Maybe they were with OMB (but clearly not enough).

Accountability is good and should happen. Thus far we've seen very little accountability for data breaches in the private sector, so they're not alone.

I don't know the answer as to how to make accountability _really_ work in general -- because it becomes game theory of how to create that space without becoming paralyzed by fear to act.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Review: Microsoft's Zune HD is a nifty media player - <AUTHOR> http://www.suntimes.com/technology/ihnatko/1775373,ihnatko-zune-hd-microsoft-091609.article

<comment><USER2> _Previously, a Zune would at best be wedged underneath this table's short leg to keep it from wobbling._</comment>


Phoenix AZ meetup - <AUTHOR>

Are there any people on this group from Phoenix that would be interested in having a get together? <comment><USER2> What about a Saturday? I'm in the process of moving back to the Midwest but I still might be able to make it?

</comment><comment><USER3> Tucson here, when/where were you thinking?

</comment><comment><USER4> Sure!</comment>


Ask HN: Career in J2EE or Android? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Android.

A seismic shift is happening, web app work now primarily consists of api or infrastructure work, and not as much user experience as ... say just 3-5 years ago

Web apps will still be around but everything will be mobile-first or mobile- only in just a few years ... get ahead of the tidal wave.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do what you like most. In both technologies you can have a great career (if you're good). In the end, doing what you like is most important.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd vote for Android as well. It is backed by Google, there is a demand (I'm even seeing universities looking for Android developers these days) and it could put you close to the next big thing (e.g., wearables or whatever)

</comment><comment><USER5> J2EE if you want to work in big corp and get paid a lot for mind numbing boring tasks.

<comment><USER6> Also, there's a lot of contract work in J2EE, which means you can have very flexible schedule (say a couple months of vacation per year), and still make a lot of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Clojure?</comment>


Exploit Development Course for Windows - <AUTHOR> http://expdev-kiuhnm.rhcloud.com/

<comment><USER2> This is really good. I got the most value out of the UAF section; browser UAFs are mostly a PITA to exploit but more or less the most common browser bug. Moving from spray & pray to reliable exploit is a big jump. Available information is mostly fragmented, out of date and truly understanding an exploit by reversing it takes ages. Unfortunately the conditions are rarely "golden", you're lucky when the exploitation is as clean as in the examples.

Rule #1 of exploiting is really "have a good bug", I think triage is one area of tradecraft that isn't covered enough.

The shellcode section is a little quirky though; for POCs it makes a lot more sense to just generate with metasploit or shellcode archives. The "code ripping" approach used is valid, but time consuming and bloated.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your review.

I'm sorry you didn't like the shellcode section (I disagree on the "time consuming" part), but I'm happy you found my course useful. The way you talk you're most definitely not a beginner, so maybe you didn't need my course :)

I hope beginners won't find my course too difficult. I learned exploit dev on my own in about 5 months so I know how difficult it is to get started.

Honestly, I'm probably the one who got the most out of it. Writing such a course teaches you a lot.

<comment><USER2> Hi! Seriously, was really useful to me. Please keep going! :)</comment></comment></comment>


The Eternal Value of Privacy (2006) - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal_value_of.html <comment><AUTHOR> This didn't seem to have gotten much attention at all in the past on HN. Sharing it again now that privacy seems to be more visibly valued online than it was more than a decade ago.

 _> Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

> Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the > watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

> Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The > real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under > threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative > scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, > security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition > of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we > have nothing to hide._</comment>


Startup Wants to Put Ads in Low-Earth Orbit to Ruin the Sky for Everybody - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencealert.com/a-russian-startup-wants-to-put-advertising-in-low-earth-orbit-because-they-re-capitalist-scum <comment><USER2> I used to do a lot of stargazing with my telescope in Brooklyn back in the 1970s. My son now does a fair amount. We already have too much light pollution. Not to mention, the amount of objects that need to be tracked to prevent collisions with scientific orbiting elements. I remember the movie Hancock, and the red heart on the moon as a way of creating empathy in people. A soda or fast food ad, jeez...

I guess there will be a whole industry of garbage collection or destruction of space debris that doesn't eventually burn up in the atmosphere.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is such a horrible idea! Another startup should work on cheap anti- satellite missiles. Joking of course, but just sayin.

<comment><USER4> __You __might be joking. Displaying ads at Dusk and Dawn. This is physically sickening.

The only thing I would say is shooting the satellites down would be the least efficient means of removing them from the sky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is it people seem to want to take the worst ideas from dystopian science fiction and make them reality?

<comment><USER6> For the same reason bad apples do other immoral and evil acts: Money!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This sounds like either a joke or vapor ware designed for PR.

I would be willing to bet any takers here (a gentleman's agreement) to be fulfilled via PayPal transfer $100 USD that this does not actually happen in the next 5 years (or ever for that matter).

Let's save the outrage for things that might actually be a threat.

<comment><USER8> Well since your time span is indefinite I guess someone would have nothing to lose by taking the competing stance but everything to gain if God forbid that actually happens. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is _literally_ an episode of Dilbert.</comment>


Obsolete attributes in HTML 5.1 - <AUTHOR> https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/obsolete.html#element-attrdef-a-charset <comment><AUTHOR> Running down the list of attributes was a really interesting historical look at the design trajectory of HTML.

There's some good ideas in there, that nevertheless became obsolete.

Many things I didn't know, such as: datasrc, datafld and dataformatas attributes for declaring dynamically generated content.</comment>


Google Glass evangelist: It's not worth the headache - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57618825-71/google-glass-evangelist-its-not-worth-the-headache/ <comment><USER2> Definitely not my experience, I have no such eyestrain or headaches and this is actually my first time hearing of someone having had this experience. I've heard of people having such problems with video games too but I feel like it's equally rare. I've been active in Glass development ([http://openshades.com](http://openshades.com) and [http://wearscript.com](http://wearscript.com)).

I think CNET is just looking for attention out of a non-issue, I've done interviews with them about Glass before (I won't bother linking, they don't deserve any more attention) and I felt then (and see in this article too) a desire to just dig up any morsel of controversy without a real appetite for balanced reporting. Specifically while being interviewed they dug for red meat that could confirm people's negative suspicions and in my case I had nothing negative to say and they still tried to spin it that way. I had to fight to get them to quote me accurately and they still refused to change blatant misquotes that served their narrative, I can't really emphasize how frustrating it is to have someone twist your words around to try to get a few more people to click on their post.

Tips for anyone doing tech press interviews: choose your outlet wisely (it wastes a lot of time fixing a poorly written article), refuse to do interviews that aren't recorded (either video, audio, or over email) as they will "hear" what they want, and insist on seeing a draft before they publish as a condition to the interview.

<comment><USER3> It's not all that far fetched to think that it would give headaches to some people. I know people who get headaches from using their smart phone, or computers in general. Why not Google Glass.

<comment><USER2> The plausibility of an argument isn't a good measure to use because that's exactly the problem I have with this reporting, they come up with a plausible narrative 'a priori' that fits people's pre-conceptions and then justify it with random tidbits they can drudge up. Since people can naturally agree with such statements it makes correcting them substantially harder.

I know literally hundreds of people who use Glass daily and have never heard this once. Now it's on the front page of hacker news as a "thing". I don't doubt Chris is telling the truth about his experience. I'm just generally bothered by tech bloggers (in this case CNET) wanting to feed people intellectual junk food that they are looking for without any real concern for the damage it does to the industry they are reporting on. Reporting on legitimate problems with technology is beneficial because it opens a dialogue that ultimately makes it better, making "mountains out of mole hills" just distracts everyone and creates a fog of confusion.

<comment><USER4> So you are saying we should not trust Chris, instead we should trust you.

I would surely trust more if the private forum for Glass owners was not private at all, so that we could rely on hundreds of different experiences.

As for being in HN frontpage, good to see people are interested also on real life experience and disavantages of new tech.

<comment><USER2> That's not what I'm saying at all (quite the opposite, I specifically said I don't doubt his experience). I also am glad that people voice their experiences good/bad with tech, that's what I'm basing my opinion on. My issue is not with anything Chris did, it's that any negative statement is amplified because it grabs attention and positive statements are generally 'boring' as news.

I do agree with your comment about the forum and I've lobbied for that to be opened up myself on numerous occasions. I think it's largely for legacy reasons at this point since people assumed their posts would be private it's tricky to make them more public than they had expected, but there are highly active communities on G+ that are public.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you don't want the disadvantages of a display and what you care about is the video recording use-case, feel free to check out my product Epiphany Eyewear.

[http://www.epiphanyeyewear.com?design](http://www.epiphanyeyewear.com?design)

I know self-promotion is frowned upon and I'm sorry for that, but manufacturing & programming this product is all I do 15 hours a day x 7 days a week, so at this point it's my whole life and I feel like this is a relevant opportunity to mention it for people who are looking for an alternative / complementary product to Glass. Cheers!

<comment><USER6> I would actually gladly pay for the opposite - a wearable display without the camera.

<comment><USER7> That would destroy the effects life video-logging will have on social interaction.

I look forward to what happens to cultures when it is impossible to be an asshole without ending up on Youtube -- especially violent crime will be impossible, when a large portion (10%+) of the population have logging of what they see.

(It would also need fast uploads, preferably triggered by e.g. pulse increase if not exercising, so criminals can't just destroy the logging mechanism.)

Disclaimer: I don't know if I will like or approve of the effects, just that it is an interesting thought experiment. There are lots of benefits/disadvantages. For positive ones, think Russian car cameras and meteorites; catching one-in-a-billion events. For negative ones, consider when someone is very stressed out because of a loved one's death.

Edit: Thanks eterm, but effects on culture are certainly way too complex to predict.

<comment><USER8> May I recommend "The entire history of you" one of a short series of films shown on TV. (All 6 so far have been very good.)

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/)

"In the future,thanks to the Grain, a chip which can be implanted on a hard drive in the brain,every single action that a person makes is recorded and may be played back."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been using one at our office now for a day. My experience so far: \- It doesn't work well with contact lenses, I find it hard to focus on the screen as it's so close to my eyes \- You look like an idiot any time you try and do anything. To activate the device you have to tap the side or look upwards to the moon. To take a photo you have to wink. What instead happens is it doesn't recognise your gesture first time resulting in an awkward squinting exercise. \- People universally have agreed it makes the wearer look stupid (perhaps attaching it to prescription glasses would be less obvious) \- It's actually quite tiring talking to yourself after a while \- This thing is heavy. Hurts your right ear after a while \- It gets warm, resulting in side-head sweat \- If you are looking in someone's direction as you are looking at the screen it creates this almost soul-less void in your eyes, making you look dead. \- Voice recognition at least for British accents isn't great so far, but it's not bad

</comment><comment><USER10> While I haven't used Google Glass yet, I can't imagine being productive (or being able to relax) while using it. I usually try to disable as many potential distractions as possible when working. I don't have mail notifications, I don't have chat notifications, I don't even have a clock that shows the time on my desktop. I'm way more productive when handling those things on my own schedule (e.g., batched handling of email every few hours).

Using something like Google Glass would probably drive me crazy. I wonder how (and if) Google Glass users can get productive work done. Do you wear Glass while you do things such as coding?

<comment><USER2> It's designed to be out of your way, when you get a message for example it plays a soft chime that you can hear but nothing pops up. For something to come up you either have to tap it or tilt your head to see what the notification is. With your phone you'd have to take it out, unlock, open the app that made the noise, and put it away. The interface is quite streamlined since it is intended for quick notifications. Of course anything that notifies you of something could be distracting but since it only does so for high priority emails and in a way that's easy to ignore I don't think it is. In your case though, if you specifically don't want anything to interrupt you while coding then I'd just say don't use it while doing that? My personal style while coding is more event based (short time intervals per-task), I regularly pop between different projects and try to keep everything busy all at once (e.g., cluster going full tilt, 3d printer chugging away, teams tasked with work). Glass works well for me, I can triage emails by lifting my head up when I hear the chime without moving my hands from the keyboard while typing. Everyone has their own personal style that fits with the type of work they do and how they like doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was very disappointed with my Google Glass experience. Incredibly difficult to setup - it never synced properly with my Android devices, couldn't get it to scan my wifi network, and baffling controls.

Add to all of that I never found a single compelling use case. It was an interesting, but frustrating, novelty.

<comment><USER12> I was ready to go when I signed up to be a beta tester. I was ready to transform my entire, dull life just to seem more active for the beta phase (We want active testers!) but then Google called my bluff and asked me to fork over $1,500. Ouch! I was expecting maybe a third of that.

Did you feel disappointed with losing out on the money, or did that aspect not factor into your afterthoughts much?

<comment><USER11> I borrowed one for a few weeks from a friend.

<comment><USER13> Do they feel disappointed with spending all that money? Was their experience the same?

<comment><USER14> Most likely yes. Otherwise why lend it out for several weeks ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I used glass a couple of times and i was underwhelmed by the technology. The screen is tiny and of poor quality. Controls aren't all that great. Battery life is terrible.

So yeah, it's fun and novel for a few minutes, but not much more. I'm more excited by some better use of frame mounted displays like the oculus however.

<comment><USER16> Same here. My employer joined the program/is looking into Glass as a potential market.

While my boss was constantly amazed and happy like a child on Christmas Eve, I .. was utterly disappointed. The battery (supposedly fully charged before I ever got near that thing) died a couple of times, the thing got warm to the touch, the display is unreadable/tiny/useless and the controls are weird, if we're friendly here.

At least I could witness that this thing HAS an appeal to some people - I just don't understand why and don't think the technology in its current state is good for anything but novelty anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> While I think Glass is a flawed concept, remember this is a single anecdote. This is not evidence of the product causing headaches.

</comment><comment><USER18> _I was wearing Glass every day, all day long; I would wear it to Starbucks; I would wear it to the mall; I would wear it driving, and I would wear it at my office. There wasn 't a minute I didn't have it on._

Maybe that's the problem? I wear mine in moderation and I've never had any pain problems with it on.

<comment><USER19> I often wear mine for days at a time with absolutely no problem. People are different; saying "never had any problems" really doesn't mean anything in this sort of situation. What's fine for you and I might well not be for others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wish google was less opaque about procuring a google glass. I did their begging/twitter spam but was not one of the chosen few. They do not even release projections on when they will release more. They never email me even though I signed up for their list. Oh well....

<comment><USER21> Want my invite? Let me know how to reach you. (I thought about buying it and returning it after 30 days, but feel like that's kind of a dick move. And no way I'm actually laying out 1500 for it.)

<comment><USER20> Hey, Yes pretty please and thanks! email@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder about headaches from getting punched by people who don't want to be recorded.

>Will someone now invent the equivalent of a missile shield defense that prevents you from being photographed when, say, you're out on the street?

I've idly wondered about this before. Some form of glasses/hat/other wearable that detect google glasses and direct a laser into their camera. I'd wear those.

<comment><USER23> Heh. Glass looks bad enough... imagine seeing people walking around with little swivelling laser turrets strapped to the side of their head.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hey, just to provide a counterexample: I wear Glass a lot and don't experience headaches. I also wear glasses all the time. I really enjoy the technology, and I just wanted to say it might be a person-specific factor that makes Glass cause headaches, if it does.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't like wearing them if I have a headache already, but they don't cause me to have one. My headache with them is other people.

<comment><USER26> About your other people comment, it's a two way street. Other people also get headaches from the obnoxiousness of these devices.

If someone is sitting next to me glancing at my smartphone screen, it's usually not a big deal. But if they might be recording my screen, that's more likely to be a big deal. Even though it can be a mix of perception and reality, I think privacy issues are the root cause of the discomfort with these devices.

This is the kind of headaches I thought were being talked about when I saw the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> When I wear sun glasses for a long period of time I get headaches. I find they restrict blood flow to parts of my head above my ears. So it could be just the physical design/weight/tightness of the frame. There's no way I could wear my sunglasses for 8 hours straight and they aren't carrying any kind of special electronics.

<comment><USER28> Consider looking into some larger frames -- I had the same problem, then my wife bought me some sized sunglasses (from Persol) that fit my giant head perfectly. No more headaches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The second argument he's raising is that the novelty and thus the daily use has worn off.

What I gathered from the first users of Glass who said it was amazing... was also that they were the center of attention all day long, people interested in them and the device, wanting to touch it, etc. If that novelty's worn off, or if people get tired of the attention, I can imagine it's not that great a device anymore.

</comment><comment><USER30> Welcome to wearing glasses

</comment><comment><USER31> Have there been many cases of this? I mean, I know people who can't wear 3D glasses for long, people who can't stay in front of a computer screen for very long and so on. So is it a problem with the technology?

On an unrelated note: Does anybody know when Glass will be available in other countries? I've been interested in obtaining a pair for a while but I'm not sure how to go about it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Interesting. Jeff Jarvis, who's also generally quite gung-ho on Google (and Glass early adopter) seems to have also seen the bloom go off the rose:

"I just called Google begging to get out of +Google Glass." (Feb 4, 2014)

[https://plus.google.com/105076678694475690385/posts/4hWFG7XY...](https://plus.google.com/105076678694475690385/posts/4hWFG7XYpC1)

</comment><comment><USER33> A dude gets two headaches and now Google Glass is a health hazard? Hardly a wealth of data points. Maybe it had something to do with being filmed for 8 hours by a Korean documentary crew - that sounds pretty stressful if you're not used to it. This article is typical cnet link bait.

</comment><comment><USER34> I used Google Glass once... The migraine set in after only a few minutes. It was horrible.

It felt like I was using a 60 Hz CRT monitor, so I suspect that the problem is that the refresh rate is too low.

Also, the eye strain of looking up in a weird way certainly didn't help!

</comment><comment><USER35> I just checked ebay and there were hardly any Google Glass(es) on offer. So it seems to me users are not abandoning it in droves. Or is it all offline, the next nerd is already qeueing behind you to take over your glasses?

</comment><comment><USER36> Or you could not wear it for 8 hours a day. I wear my glasses for half that amount and I get headaches, to wear it everywhere is insane. I'd figure it would be more of a situational thing than anything.

<comment><USER37> 8 hours a day? If I had a pair, I'd wear them 16-18h / day.

<comment><USER14> That's exactly what us billion or more people who wear glasses do. Wear them all day ;)

<comment><USER37> Yup, I'm a glass wearer as well ;).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think this problem is fixable with technology. Or sometimes it can just happen to a small number of people, just like 3D glasses.

</comment><comment><USER39> Do we know whether Chris regularly wears glasses or not?

<comment><USER40> I do not wear prescription glasses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This google glass. I do not understand.</comment>


How Google is priming its Next Billion ambition in India - <AUTHOR> https://factordaily.com/google-next-billion-india/ <comment><USER2> Sometimes I wish people wrote concise stories. This one goes on forever. It is not a book that we need to learn everything from the beginning. Interesting is this comes 2 days after Google India has lost a huge tax case: [https://www.medianama.com/2017/10/223-itat-google-india- tax-...](https://www.medianama.com/2017/10/223-itat-google-india-tax-evasion/)

<comment><USER3> more countries need to do this, just because you have no local physical presence doesn't mean you get to avoid paying taxes

<comment><USER4> The tech sector essentially exists the way it does today by dint of the slow pace of the law vs. technology. In short, this is a new robber-baron period, and it will probably end just as messily for everyone involved.

But hey, who cares when people think they're magically smart enough to avoid the consequences of their actions...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> With 65% of the population under the age of 35[1], India will be a tremendous market over the next 20 yrs. That is the reason why you see Google, Facebook, Amazon all playing a role there, which will only accelerate.

But to activate this market India needs to get its act together on sociopolitical front. And I'm barely optimistic about that.

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

<comment><USER6> Can you elaborate on the socio-political front? I am trying to understand how politics and social dynamics prevent the penetration of technology.

<comment><USER5> Sure. Zukerberg is right now in China, not for tech rollout but to navigate the politics. 42 countries currently block parts of open internet and the trend is growing. In India the people successfully defended net neutrality by pushing back on facebook's free offering. So on…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> OT: Can someone explain why 3 votes made this the 3rd post on the frontpage?

<comment><USER8> What's even stranger is that your post is always auto-closed. No matter if I open it, log in, log out .. whatever. Whenever I reload this page, your post is auto-closed.

<comment><USER9> I default-collapsed it because it's so offtopic. I guess that has a catnip effect when a thread is at #1. But consider how irrelevant all these comments are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> let's hope china (or somebody else) crushes their dreams. seeing the same big four dominate everything over and over and over is getting tiresome.

can GOOG/FB/AMZN die already?

<comment><USER11> That is a very strange sentiment. I would prefer them being overtaken by a better (US/India or any moderately free country) company. I would prefer they not be crushed by an oppressive regime.

<comment><USER12> I disagree. Power consolidation into a handful of multinational corporations has the potential to destabilize the globe more than a single oppressive regime. If dozens or hundreds of countries require these companies to function, that takes power from the country's citizens(if it's a democracy) to the hands of the powerful within those multinational corporations.

<comment><USER11> "potential to destabilize"

Potential evil vs actual oppression today?

<comment><USER12> Potential _global_ evil vs actual country-wide oppression. The strength of a corporation capable of population-wide cultural and psychological manipulation shouldn't be taken lightly.

<comment><USER11> You think China is not on its path to global evil? E.g. Silk Road, Taiwan, 9-Dash line, String of Pearls strategy etc.

<comment><USER12> No. What in my comment made you think I think that?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lidl whisky costing £13.49 named best Scotch in the world - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/lidl-whisky-scotch-best-world-competition-award-alcohol-supermarket-a8798941.html <comment><USER2> I am trying to wrap my head around this.

This was supposedly coming from the following website [http://www.worldwhiskiesawards.com/winner/whisky/2018](http://www.worldwhiskiesawards.com/winner/whisky/2018)

But have search low and high to find the Lidl Whiskey Queen Margot, but i have been unable to find it in any awards.

From a quick google search various website spread the same news, but none actually link to a reputable source for this.

As far as i can find Lidl won the chain supermarket last year whiskey award while Aldi have just earned a Gold Medal at the 2018 Scotch Whisky Masters awards.

The two winners are the Highland Black 8-year-old Blended Scotch and their Glen Marnoch Islay Single Malt.

Can someone please enlighten me if i am wrong ...

Edit: Just found this link [https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/02/28/fak...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/02/28/fake- whisky-news-no-that-lidl-whisky-is-not-the-best-in-the-world/) That explain that the so called websites are really as expected ... not to be trusted.

<comment><USER3> I've also been digging around and eventually found that "Winners will be announced on 28 March 2019" on their site so I'm guessing the winner hasn't officially been announced yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> In what category and what was it up against?

The only link I could find in any article was to here: [http://www.worldwhiskiesawards.com/winner/whisky/2018](http://www.worldwhiskiesawards.com/winner/whisky/2018)

And there it says the Johnnie Walker Gold Label won best blended.

Edit: Newspaper linked to last years results. Apparently this years results haven't been announced yet and will only be announced on 28 March 2019.

<comment><USER4> 'World's Best Scotch Whisky' according to the article.

A lot of these Lidl/Aldi awards don't stand up to scrutiny.

<comment><USER3> _' World's Best Scotch Whisky' according to the article._

Which is weird because that is not a category World Whiskies Awards lists on their competition site. The closest category they have that this would fit in would be Blended 12 Years & Under

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> that's a fake news, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/02/28/fak...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/felipeschrieberg/2019/02/28/fake- whisky-news-no-that-lidl-whisky-is-not-the-best-in-the-world/#643475f864f5)

</comment><comment><USER6> Netto isn't going that sit by and let Lidl just dominate like this.

</comment><comment><USER7> I hope that I will not forget to try it when I will be in Germany.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Same thing as Aldi's whisky last year.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can you get it in the u.s.?

<comment><USER9> Lidl is just getting started in the US where liquor laws are nonsensical so i would guess not, especially since the only stores i know of are in NJ & PA. NJ - they wont be paying $1M+ for a license, of which they can only get 2 for the company in the whole state, plus they are a discount grocery store; and PA - only state stores can sell hard liquor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This site is unwatchable on safari ios.

So is the whiskey any good?

<comment><USER11> Tried it a while ago; surely it's not Lagavulin, but it's good.</comment></comment>


Jobs's Great-Man Theory of Technology - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/-i-jobs-i-s-great-man-theory-of-technology/278720/?google_editors_picks=true

<comment><USER2> I knew Steve Jobs personally, and what I can't understand is why people who write these articles don't mention the obvious -- Steve was a narcissist. Because narcissism has been studied so thoroughly, this insight sheds a lot of light on his behavior. (The Isaacson book explicitly discusses Steve's narcissism.)

People need to realize that narcissists are secretly terribly insecure and very defensive about who they are, what they know, and their worth as people. Steve showed all the classic indicators -- I think he was perpetually insecure about his technical knowledge, especially in the early days when people (including me) would brush past him to get to Steve Wozniak.

More here: [http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus](http://arachnoid.com/ChildrenOfNarcissus)</comment>


A young mother dies after refusing chemotherapy - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/young-mother-dies-refusing-chemotherapy-social-media-fuelling/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_pso-tw_registration_regeditorial-twfeed_subsawareness_A155_A252_C010636&utm_source=tmgoff&utm_medium=tmgoff_pso-tw&utm_content=registration_regeditorial&utm_campaign=tmgoff_pso-tw_registration_regeditorial-twfeed_subsawareness_A155_A252_C010636 <comment><AUTHOR> The full title is "As young mother dies after refusing chemotherapy, how social media is fuelling the rise of fake cancer cures" which is too long for HN.

<comment><USER2> I think that "How social media is fueling the rise of fake cancer cures" is a better title. Sometimes the recommendation is to use the subtitle when the main title is not very informative. I think that in this case the second part of the title looks better.</comment></comment>


MailChimp threatens legal action against an open source side project - <AUTHOR> http://imluke.me/post/56195948472/popular-uis-meets-mailchimp

<comment><USER3> Regardless of who is in the right, their letter was more professional and polite than this OP response. The author is mistaken to think this is a pushy or aggressive letter, compared to an actual pushy or aggressive legal letter.

PS: In the U.S. (if not the rest of the English speaking world?), if you want to use an honorific for a woman but don't know which she uses, always use "Ms.", never ever "Miss." "Miss" implies a woman is unmarried; "Mrs." implies that she is married and the surname is her husband's; "Ms.", appropriately for professional communication, makes no assumptions about her marital status.

<comment><AUTHOR> Arguing on HN is probably a moot point, but I'll try anyways. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware they could have gone about this in a much more aggressive way. But to go through their lawyers right away was a much more aggressive response than what I would have expected from MailChimp. I guess that's the totally correct legal response, but why not just send me a quick message?

<comment><USER4> Who would you expect to receive a message from? Presumably this happens more often than you think, and the company protocol is to get legal to deal with it. I think you've misinterpreted this as in any way "aggressive" \- this is just a company trying to tie things up as efficiently as possible. Sure, you'd like an informal response, but when a company is operating at the scale of Mailchimp, that doesn't seem realistic.

I was also quite impressed by the tone of the message from Mailchimp legal - probably the clearest, most polite takedown request I've seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a dick move by the OP.

MailChimp made it very clear they realise his intent was not malicious, and the language of the letter further shows this. He reproduced their UI (branding included) without permission and posted it online as open source. The way he has handled this (especially the ranting blog post naming MailChimp's lawyer) is extremely unprofessional. If anything needs to be boycotted it's his consulting business, not MailChimp.

</comment><comment><USER6> The response to MailChimp's letter is distasteful at best. I don't know how MailChimp found out about Luke's work, but I imagine having a Dev contact someone infringing on their work is not normal procedure for any company. Lawyers are paid to do this professionally, however Ms. Danin's letter goes above and beyond, illustrating the issues they have and their reasoning behind it. They could have had court documents (in the US anyways) show up at your door, or the site / files could have been forced offline by working with the host.

Your response reflects poorly on you. I would say it was fair to mention your employer as it's listed on your public github profile, and it isn't clear that your employer isn't aware. Additionally, I'd imagine you'll be receiving more removal requests from the other sites you replicate.

Also, releasing your files under the MIT license prohibits you from restricting them to "educational purposes", at least to my understanding, but I could be incorrect here.

<comment><USER7> That's basically true. The MIT license generally doesn't provide for any restrictions. That's why it's so awesome.

But ultimately, there's no legally binding rules about using the MIT license. I can "use" the MIT license and then say, "Only cats who can ride motorcycles can use this code", and then, while MY license is "based" on the MIT license, it now has a totally valid motorcycle cat restriction. Cause I added one.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for clearing that up. I'm a little fuzzy on where that can be done - <USER2> on github, if you set it to the MIT license, can you define the additional rules within the license section? does putting the "educational use only" anywhere on the page apply? I'm not a coder, and this normally would not apply to the work I do, but it is interesting seeing how these things play out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The letter from MailChimp seems completely fair.

Publishing PSDs of someone else's website—regardless of who made the PSD—is a dick move. Doubly so given that the authors resources contain _the original companies branding_ and image resources ripped right from the original pages.

<comment><AUTHOR> Legally, I completely agree, they're allowed to. But by that same token, hundreds of PSDs are posted on Dribbble every day. As Allan, the designer for Designer News and Layervault, said when I asked him if he wanted me to take the resources down, he said 'Why? It's wonderful'. Same thing from Heroku. I'm not saying that MailChimp isn't allowed to have the resources taken down. I never presented them as anything other than a learning resource — something that is extremely common in design.

<comment><USER8> Every day tens of thousands of pirate TV episodes are posted to Usenet, but that doesn't make it legal.

There's nothing in your little agreements—or lack of one with MailChimp—giving you the right to parade around as if they have harmed you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
        Had someone from the MailChimp design or development team reached
        out and asked me to take the resource down, I totally would have understood.
        I greatly admire their work and respect their talents immensely.

It's like they teach this in asshole 101. You can tell someone is being unreasonable every time this argument arises, "I'm not upset about the bigger picture, I'm upset about meaningless-detail x!".

<comment><USER10> It's a tone argument, which is toward the bottom of PG's hierarchy of disagreement, not to mention many other places (e.g. random google hit [http://lucereta.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/tone-argument-as- lo...](http://lucereta.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/tone-argument-as-logical- fallacy/)).

<comment><USER11> It's not a tone argument.

An argument from a legal department is a threat. And if it's not actually a threat, it's certainly a very significant perceived threat.

And lawyers and society definitely understand that.

The letter itself wasn't terrible, but it definitely contained a threat, and claiming it is a tone argument denies that.

Also, do you have a reference to PG's "hierarchy of disagreement"? Sounds interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That was as polite and professional a take down letter as I've ever seen. Although the OP might prefer to get the request from the lead designer, that is not the designer's job. It's the lawyer's job, and this lawyer actually does seem to have way more of a clue than most that write these letters.

</comment><comment><USER13> MailChimp just set an example for how to craft a strong legal notice while not sounding like a dick. Color me impressed.

</comment><comment><USER14> > However, they chose to go through their legal department, and for that I've > lost respect for their company. I'll no longer be managing my project's > email lists from MailChimp.

Of course they chose to go through their legal department, it's their job, not the designers. You can't seriously have lost respect for MailChimp because a lawyer was doing her job. Maybe the designers were too busy, oh I don't know, designing?

</comment><comment><USER15> What a great paragraph: clean, logical and completely valid.

"Further, while your intentions appear good, those who download the UI file may not act so altruistically. For example, a nefarious downloader may use the file to set up a fake website to lure unsuspecting users to log in or to try to trade off their own service or product as part of our brand (5). We've seen both of these situations happen before, so they aren't just products of our paranoid imagination."

<comment><USER8> I'm quite impressed by how well it was written actually. You'd be very unlikely to get a response like that from any other company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I personally can't blame them. It's an exact copy of their site, which makes further replications very easy and encouraged. Their letter to Luke was very nice, hardly pushy at all.

</comment><comment><USER7> I agree with just about everyone here so far.

What the OP has done is take someone else's work, duplicate it, and post it online for free without their consent. Then get all bothered when the company did what companies do, ask their lawyer to sort it out.

And the lawyer sorted it out in the nicest possible goddamn way I've ever seen a lawyer sort something like this out.

That others were OK with it doesn't really matter. That's up to each team, each company, and one saying "OK" doesn't automatically make every other company obligated to say OK.

All that matters is the OP took someone else's hard work, copied it, and posted it online without consent.

</comment><comment><USER17> OP is on flaky legal ground reproducing and distributing other's designs without permission as it is; but then to suggest that MailChimp is in the wrong, simply for, in a very polite, even friendly, letter, acknowledging their brand and their legitimate copyright, and asking OP to play fair...wow.

Also, he wanted someone from MailChimp's design or development team to reach out to him? Really? Maybe they're busy, you know, designing and developing things! This is not a design or development issue. They have legal council to worry about copyright and brand dilution issues.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've seen much more aggressive emails and letters, although I think this could have been better-resolved with a phone call to attempt clear up the immediate issues (e.g. proper attribution, terms and conditions) before even bringing up the word 'legal.'

MailChimp's concerns are _quite_ valid, and to an extent you _have_ to enforce IP issues, but OP is right that this happens all over the internet. If you lookup 'Dropbox' on Dribbble, you'll see tons of reproductions and remixes of their UI. I see OP's PSD as something made out of respect, and something provided to the community as an educational resource.

That doesn't change MailChimp's legal rights -- but regardless of who is right and wrong, I think a lot can be accomplished among adults having collaborative conversations. I think MailChimp is asking "How can we protect our IP?" instead of "How can we protect our IP while continuing to engage the designer and developer community?"

</comment><comment><USER19> Deny yourself using one of the best products on the market because you overreacted? That's normal

</comment><comment><USER20> I found the email from MailChimp is highly professional and very reasonable, even though it's their right to get mad.

</comment><comment><USER21>
        Had someone from the MailChimp design or
        development team reached out and asked me
        to take the resource down, I totally would
        have understood.

This is what happened, and yet here we are. You did something they weren't comfortable with. They sent you a friendly, personal letter asking you to please not do that. You responded with an irate blog post and ran to HN for support. Why should anyone be sympathetic?

</comment><comment><USER22> First of all -- I think the letter from MailChimp was very polite and straightforward. The posters expectations (hopes?) are insane

That said, what are the rights around "clean room" implementation of website designs? If I simply pull up a site on another monitor, and build a clone of it from scratch (omit the logos of course), what are my rights?

Sadly, it appears the Popular UIs guy didn't even bother removing obviously trademarked and identifying logos. His argument that "sharing PSDs is a great way to learn" doesn't explain why he left logos in the work.</comment>


List of places with "Silicon" names - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_with_%22Silicon%22_names <comment><USER2> One omission is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_peach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_peach) (Atlanta), which was perhaps omitted from this list because a peach is not a place.</comment>