Background Matting: The World Is Your Green Screen - <AUTHOR> http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/background-matting/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is timely, given people using similar (but less effective) background techniques in Zoom et al.

It's especially impressive in the video clip where she shakes her hair, with no obvious flaws in the background replacement.</comment>


Traveling Salesman: the most misunderstood problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.nomachetejuggling.com/2012/09/14/traveling-salesman-the-most-misunderstood-problem/

<comment><USER2> The TSP optimization problem is polynomial time reducible to the TSP decision problem by binary search.

Suppose we have an algorithm D(TSP,C) which returns 1 if the TSP has a path of cost <= C.

Then the basic idea for an algorithm for the optimization version is :

      C = sum( costs of all paths in graph )
      while D(TSP,C) == 1:
        C = C / 2

Probably the greatest thing about having a polynomial time algorithm for an NP complete problem would be that it would allow finding the global optimum for any finite optimization problem in polynomial time.

<comment><USER3> A priori it would be a computer science revolution if this would have been missed by everyone until now. So forgive me to be particularly cautious with your proposal. What I think is missing in your analysis is that we are lacking a polynomial method to build an hamiltonian path with cost <= C. If we had, then we would apply your algoritm to optimize in polynomial time.

<comment><USER4> The above construction is a not a breakthrough and it is how I was taught in my approximate algorithms class. Also the way the optimization problem is usually defined is not as "give a circuit with minimal cost" but "what is the cost of the minimal-cost circuit?", which is easier to reason about in an approximate way.

<comment><USER5> Same here. Intuitively, a decider that can answer "Is there an answer less than X?" will give you one bit of the lowest cost each time you query it. Do it repeatedly until you have all of the bits, and you're done.

<comment><USER6> No nonempty interval of real numbers can be represented in a finite number of bits.

<comment><USER2> That's exactly what floating point numbers are: representations of real number intervals as finite length bit strings. The number of bits simply determines the granularity of the representation (ie. the width of the intervals).

<comment><USER6> Floating point numbers are approximations of real numbers, which isn't sufficient in this context. Solving a lossy representation of the problem isn't a reduction in the complexity theoretic sense.

<comment><USER2> In the case of this problem the set of possible paths is finite so it can, in principle, be sorted in order of increasing cost. The smallest cost delta between any 2 paths in the sorted list is the lowest cost edge in the graph (this probably assumes that all edge costs are positive) so you only need to continue the binary search until intervals of this size are reached. At that point the exact solution has been found.

EDIT: There might be multiple paths with the same minimal cost but binary search will still find this value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a major point of confusion for people who are new to the concepts, and I'm glad someone has taken the time to explain it in depth. And it's not just TSP that it happens with. Almost every popular example of an NP-complete problem I've seen is actually an NP-hard optimization problem corresponding to an NP-complete decision problem.

The bad part is that if you don't know better, you'll think "Wait, how the hell would you verify a correct answer to this without searching for an even shorter path?" And you'll be right, but you'll feel like you're missing something. Giving examples of CS that make people feel like they fundamentally don't understand CS is probably a Bad Thing.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the author actually adds to the confusion about TSP by being unnecessarily vague.

Both P and NP are classes of decision problems. That means they only contain problems that ask for a yes/no answer. So because TSP asks for a route, it is not just a decision problem, and can't be in NP. However, as the author mentions, NP does in fact contain the TSP-DECIDE problem in the way he defines it.

Moreover, the problem TSP of finding a lowest cost route can be solved by a polynomial time Turing Machine that can use a TSP-DECIDE oracle (i.e. call a constant time function that solves TSP-DECIDE). It is in fact complete for that class FP^NP ("= function problems solvable in polynomial time with an oracle for NP problems"), which means it is one of the hardest problems there. The class FP^NP contains all of FNP (NP for functional problems) and is believed to contain more problems -- so there is a good chance that TSP is not in FNP.

</comment><comment><USER9> Perhaps I simply know different people but I'm accustomed to Travelling Salesman, without explaining which version is intended, being given as the canonical NP-Hard (implicitly the optimal solution problem).

I normally see SAT given as the NP-complete example.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I've always seen SAT as the canonical example given. Though, when I did some reading into phase transitions in NP-complete problems, 3-SAT was usually the example given (and used).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, this is true, but it's also hyperbole. It's not really everybody misunderstanding the problem so much as simply not caring. People are sloppy with the terms "NP-hard" and "NP-complete" and use them interchangeably because it's usually not important. Usually they mean "NP-hard", and that is the significant thing.

Yes, it's wrong to use "NP-complete", but plenty of people who thoroughly understand the problem do so. Welcome to Computer Science, sloppy is par for the course.

<comment><USER12> And usually they just need to say that it's intractable, unless they're speaking about some kind of solver or approximation classes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ironically enough, I think this guy misunderstands TSP. I wrote this comment on his blog:

Let's define a new problem, TSP-cost-optimize, which returns the cost of the best Hamiltonian. It's NP-Complete, because it reduces to TSP-decide: Just do a binary search on the space of possible scores; even if that space is exponential, we're fine, since binary search runs in the log of the size of the space.

TSP-cost-optimize's certificate can be the steps of the binary search; that will be polynomial in size, since it's a polynomial number of TSP-decide certificates, and you can verify it in polynomial time.

Given TSP-cost-optimize, I can in fact provide a polynomial-time-verifiable certificate for the result of TSP-optimize: The result of TSP-cost-optimize on the same graph! So under your definition of NP, TSP-optimize is in fact in NP. (This also makes sense if you use the non-deterministic Turing machine definition of NP.)

What's not clear to me is whether given the result of TSP-cost-optimize, you can actually find a shortest path in polynomial time. But I expect you probably can.

<comment><USER14> I guess you could find the shortest path by iteratively deleting an edge and checking whether the best cost has got worse. If it does get worse, then put that edge back in and try deleting another edge. If it does not get worse, then permanently delete that edge.

I think this should terminate (after trying all edges once each) with an example of the shortest path (that consists of all remaining edges).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just a small quibble:

If you're going to provide a TL;DR: it's probably better to stick it up top. Otherwise, the people who DR because it's TL will likely never find it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Since optimization and decision problems are equivalent, what someone means by saying that an optimization problem is in np-complete is that its equivalent decision problem is in np-complete.

</comment><comment><USER17> TL;DR: For now TSP-OPTIMIZE is in NP-Hard but not (necessarily) in NP, so its not in NP-Complete. TSP-DECIDE is both in NP-Hard as well as NP, and is therefore NP-Complete.

</comment><comment><USER18> Thank you. I finally get what NP-complete is.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm so thankful. After 4.5 years of CS, the only class that taught me anything was my advanced algorithm class and I _learned_ enough to retain an immense amount of the information a year later. This is fun stuff and I hated it two years ago.</comment>


Why Does Facebook Hate This Woman? - <AUTHOR> http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2011/04/why-does-facebo.php

<comment><USER2> I don't think Facebook hate small advertisers, I think they do (1) Care about ad quality (2) Care about short term gain.

Facebook have really made a big drive to get rid of affiliate rebills, etc. as Facebook users view them as scams and they end up damaging Facebook's reputation.

From my experience if you have a legitimate business it's unlikely that FB are going to reject your ads. Facebook want your money, the only reason they'll not want your money is if the ads will cost them more reputational damage then the money they bring in.

I think their drive for short term gains has led them to some decisions which are damaging to small businesses (CPC pricing, no frequency capping), but thinking "they're out to get you" is just simple paranoia in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER2> The site you were advertising looks like a health scam site (not saying that it is; just that's what it looks like on first impression), did Facebook specifically reject your ad on the basis of your image or due to the nature of your site? (i.e were other ads with the exact same details approved)

<comment><AUTHOR> It was specifically rejected because of the image. "...The image included in your ad is not suitable to appear on Facebook..."

<comment><USER2> Interesting. A lot of advertisers have been complaining about ad cloning for a while, where companies clone the adverts from their competitors. I wonder if Facebook have introduced some sort of automated filter to reject clone images, etc. or if they're just manually rejecting the ones that have been vastly overused.

<comment><AUTHOR> On my blog fan page (visible from the site), I post funny pictures several times a day -- it's a habit I got into months ago.

I've found lately that if I pick up a funny pic from the web, sometimes FB recognizes it and won't take it. But if I shave it some -- change the dimensions -- then it goes through okay.

So yes, there is something going on there.

<comment><USER2> I guess it's a copyright detection thing then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I see from a link via RiderOfGiraffes

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1737491>

that TinEye has been discussed here on HN plenty of times before. I have recently been using TinEye

<http://www.tineye.com/>

to trace the provenance of images I see on the Web. (I learned about TinEye, in fact, from an MIT alumnus who was wondering about whether a Facebook ad image was computer-generated or a photograph of an actual person. The image is a photograph of a famous model.) Whatever exactly it is that Facebook is doing to enforce its policies, it plainly has technical means for identifying images that duplicate other images, and then some set of policies for resolving doubts in doubtful cases into decisions about whether or not an advertiser can use a particular image. Just stay within the rules, and all should be okay.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, TinEye was used here, as indicated in the comments over on the blog.

Didn't help for this particular person, and I got four emails this morning all claiming she was a different person.

It's a great tool. Highly recommended. Anybody posting images should use it.

The problem is what to do when you get a negative result. If Facebook wants to start requiring paperwork for every little 160 x 120 ad image that's fine with me: I'm a photographer and would love taking a weekend and shooting some stuff. But I'm not sure that a negative result on a Google or TinEye search is indicative that copyrights are being violated. If it is, there's a hell of a lot of material on the web (and Facebook) that needs to be removed. As indicated in the article, it's not whatever the rules are or aren't: it's the selective enforcement that can drive folks nuts.

<comment><USER4> > _But I'm not sure that a negative result on a Google or TinEye search is > indicative that copyrights are being violated._

Be sure. Since 1952 copyright has been assigned by default to the creator of the content, and unauthorized use is a violation of that right, except...

> _If it is, there's a hell of a lot of material on the web (and Facebook) > that needs to be removed._

...that it can be argued that much of the memeish usage of images falls within the "fair use" or "fair dealing" provisions of the laws. Using it in a commercial advertisement like you intended to does not and would be illegal.

EDIT: IANAL but I like to have some idea of the law before using other people's content.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just want to be clear that this was a $5 experiment that I intended to share, post, and blog about for purposes of learning about Facebook advertising.

I'm not claiming fair use, simply saying that, for the amount of money involved, I was happy with doing as much diligence as I could and then be willing to remove the ad if it was in error. And as far as I know, copyright had nothing to do with the ad being rejected. My theory as expressed in the article was that it was the effectiveness of the picture, not copyright, that caused the problem. After all, I got the image from reading an article about posting ads on Facebook. In that article it showed several FB ads with this image on it. I thought that if the article was about posting ads, and this image was included, then there was some implied warranty. Like I said, I'm not trying to make excuses, simply explain. At the time I wasn't too terribly interested in the providence of the image, simply learning how all the pieces come together for an intended effect. Having said that, I'm perfectly happy with using the image in a blog article about the image itself -- if that's not fair use I don't know what is.

As of right this minute, none of us know who this person is or what kinds of protections are involved. Since I have received multiple claims to know who she is, and since they are all different people, I believe it is reasonable to expect that the image is of insufficient resolution as to be identifying of any one particular person. So -- unless something changes -- we can never really _know_ , at least in the fashion you indicate. There is a huge amount of material on the web that falls into this area, and a lot of murky edge cases. For instance, FB thinks it is okay to post the same image on my website's fan page, even though FB runs ads on those pages? FB can use the image for it's commercial purposes but I can't use it for mine? All those "memeish of images" you refer to -- much of it on FB feeds -- isn't an issue for FB for purposes of placing their own ads?

There seems to be some serious inconsistencies here. I'm probably in error, so I apologize to whomever I might have offended. But I am not happy at all that I understand the current state of things to the degree necessary. I don't think anybody does -- I think at the end of the day it's a personal evaluation of risk. I'm also not happy that I wouldn't inadvertently do the same thing again -- that I'm not, in fact, doing it right now, by sharing funny pictures I find with my friends on FB.

That's really screwed up.

I could argue on and on about this -- but I have no desire to do so, or to use the image in an ad. I strongly feel that some folks would have taken that risk, and that it is a reasonable decision to make, and it bothers me that so many people would let their judgment of what's too much risk for them be the rule for everybody else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So from what he's posted it appears that Mr. Markham thinks that ignorance of copyright status of an image means that he can do what he wants with it; when it actually means the complete opposite. That casts sufficient doubt on the actual reasons behind what he's writing about that the posts loses any value, except to promote his website. The title of this post even reads like a linkbait ad you'd see on Facebook; quite a turn-off.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am pretty sure "famous grey shirt girl" is actually Jose Lima's wife.

<http://digamma.net/btfwiki/Jose_Lima%27s_wife>

<comment><USER6> That looks nothing like the "grey shirt girl" _to me_. There's more to a person than a large bosom and blonde hair, and actually even those 2 features of the two pictures look radically different.

But, I could very easily be wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> To me, what is a bit disheartening about all of this is that if you want to advertise to Facebook's massive user base, you have to play by Facebook's inconsistent rules and enforcement; there's not much of a way around it. And the system is not set up to help you succeed. It is instead set up to bend and morph in whatever way helps Facebook, no matter how positively/negatively it affects those actually purchasing the advertising and fueling the growth.

Of course it is within Facebook's rights to structure their platform as they see fit. It is just a bit sad that those services and brands with the largest power bases seem to throw their weight around in the most antagonistic ways imaginable.

<comment><USER8> It's hardly an inconsistent rule for them to say essentially "we know this isn't your image, use one you own".

<comment><USER9> Does facebook have any legal liability if their advertisers use copyrighted images?

<comment><USER2> Interesting point, I don't think anyone's actually tested it in court. For Facebook photo sharing where they're merely a hosting site FB probably has the DMCA protection, but for their Ad Network it's potentially more ambiguous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Facebook's ad filtering is actually kinda retarded, and you're right: they definitely accept/reject based on advertiser size. I tried running a little ad using a picture of a pair of feet on a scale and it got the "doesn't meet the standards" message. However I see pictures like that all the time, with quite frankly little discernable difference except the name of the company running the ad. I'll have to try it and see if it gets through with a Facebook landing page.

<comment><USER11> Was the image your own, or did you copy it from somewhere? If you copied it from somewhere, what are the chances that it's a common enough image for FB to know you don't own the copyright?</comment></comment>


Adobe's online image editor previewed - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/07/adobes-online-image-editor-previewed/

<comment><USER2> Adobe is one company that has made all the right moves in recent times (acquiring Macromedia being the prime example). This elephant can dance. Every product they have to offer is a de-facto industry standard. It comes as no surprise that they sense the threat Web 2.0 poses to their business and are moving to squash it by embracing it.

</comment><comment><USER3> As far as competition is concerned, I think that until Adobe offers a widgetized version that can be integrated into other photo-sharing sites (which is clearly where the money is to be made in this market), fauxto/snipshot/et.al. don't have to get too worried...

<comment><USER4> The fauxto web site doesn't make it clear that they do offer a widgetized version. That change would help them.

The snipshot web site doesn't have news. Since they're a small startup, it would be reassuring to see activity there, for those of us thinking about integrating with them.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Ryd.io – Manhattan Blocks Clustered via Taxi Drop-Offs - <AUTHOR>

http://ryd.io/
As a capstone project for Galvanize's data science immersive I took another look at the NYC Taxi data set. A ton of analysis has been done on individual rides/cars and I was curious about what story would be told by looking at this data through the aggregate.
Through the clustered map you can identify different 'personalities' of the city with a birds eye view. Check it out here http://ryd.io/cluster_map
I've just spent past couple weeks working hard on this project and would love to talk to anyone about it if they are interested.
After the conclusion of the program I'm excited to join a new data team and work on awesome problems.
Feel free to contact me with any questions
Tech: Backend - Python, Flask, Jinja Front - Bootstrap, leaflet, ajax Graphic - Originally in matplotlib/Cartodb and styled in photoshop Data Analysis - Python + stats packages
gkamradt {at} gmail <comment><AUTHOR> clickable - [http://ryd.io/](http://ryd.io/)</comment>


IoT Dashboard – A live dashboard companion for AWS IoT - <AUTHOR> https://www.bevywise.com/iot-dashboard/ <comment><USER2> This looks quite nice, but I'd love to see some more screenshots of widgets and dashboards.

As an aside, I've only worked with Azure's IoT platform, not AWS' \- anyone know how the compare?

<comment><USER3> I'm working on IoT Core. It's good, about what you would expect.

Most everything is solid. Typical AWS issues that there are policy things that only "make sense" (loosely) after you've failed at them many times.

My specific annoyance right now is that there is no cross-region compatibility, and the Device Registry has no backup and restore, so you are on your own if you want to take your device registry, back it up, and deploy to a different region.

I haven't used the Device Shadows because it's outside my use case but seems like a feature most people would want.

I have no major complaints.

<comment><USER2> From the Azure side, I'm also pretty happy with it. I only really have 2 gripes.

First, the docs make it sound much harder than it really is, especially around certificates and device registration.

Second, the limitations. I don't know what AWS is like, but Azure _loves_ their limitations. For a service that's meant to scale globally, it's a real PITA for some deployments. It's not an issue for many, but when it is, you're constantly trying to come up with clever ways to avoid them.

<comment><USER3> Our use cases are almost certainly different, but I can think of no ways I've had to workaround or deal with scaling. AWS seems super happy to let you use as much data as you possibly can (obviously).

Yes, registration can be complex! JIT reg, JIT provision, PSK reg at birth, certs, keys, tokens. We're even doing something really goofy because our device never touched the internet directly, always through a middleman, so it's been double complex and revolves around custom authorization and temporary tokens. I see how we could simplify by doing JIT-R with PKI but don't have the resources on the device. I don't fault the providers for making it seem like it's complex, it definitely can be!

I suppose it's annoying that a "job" in AWS costs $0.03 per device, and that can be any issued job using their API. So you "could" use their setup to reset() but mostly it's their OTA Update agent which is good, but when you're looking at 100k eventual devices, every firmware update is $3k. Which is also fine if it's an update you need. If it isn't, you threw away $3k. The OTA Agent is very good though, rollbacks, logging, canary rollout, etc.

I worked right with AWS on this project so Azure or GCP wasn't an option. And now I know the system so it's unlikely as a small team I'll look into Azure next time. But I guess that's how it goes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've checked the code and saw a lot of comments and missing pieces as for example: donutWidgetValueInjecter, verticalWidgetValueInjecter

put it to run and as you may see the widgets dont show too much: [https://imgur.com/a/qIuHQ0I](https://imgur.com/a/qIuHQ0I)

let me know when you finish it :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you cderivan for your in depth review / usage of the product and your valuable feedback.

This is our initial version. So we have added the most used widget to this. As you said, we have donuts, switch and widgets for publishing messages ( managing devices) which will be enabled in the subsequent release of the Bevywise IoT Dashboard.

We have done a demo setup for the currently available widgets here at [http://iotdashboard.mqttserver.com/](http://iotdashboard.mqttserver.com/)

Look forward to revert back to you with the next version !!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> All of the images aren't working on your site right now. Maybe the HN traffic brought it down, but it's a little difficult to visualize without pictures.

<comment><AUTHOR> Try refreshing the page and check whether you can see the pictures.</comment></comment>


Obama sets $126M for next-gen supercomputing - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9209918/Obama_sets_126M_for_next_gen_supercomputing <comment><USER2> Maybe the next generation of supercomputers can figure out how to pay off the debt this funding creates.

<comment><USER3> My reaction is more like... $126m? That's it?

"IBM won a $244 million DARPA contract in November 2006 to develop a petascale supercomputer."

<comment><USER4> Similarly the prosthetic mind controlled arm took 100 million dollars to develop:

[http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/11/coming-soon- the-100-mi...](http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/11/coming-soon- the-100-million-dollar-robotic-arm/)

Meg Whitman could have either had a sweet robotic arm or a super computer for the cost of a failed political campaign.

<comment><USER5> I remember her cost per vote acquired was something like 8$?

That kind of spending has an anti-democratic vibe to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The budget proposal is for more than $126M split between the Office of Science ($91M) and the National Nuclear Security Administration ($36M). For the first time this is called "exascale"; in the past it was known as "extreme". Advanced computing gets $465M at DOE, of which this is part. The actual numbers are all speculation as the budget is the work of Congress and not the straw man proposed by the President.

Exascale computing presents major technical problems. See the short note by Peter Kogge in IEEE Spectrum, [http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/nextgeneration-s...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/nextgeneration- supercomputers/0), and the 2008 DARPA report, [http://www.er.doe.gov/ascr/Research/CS/DARPA%20exascale%20-%...](http://www.er.doe.gov/ascr/Research/CS/DARPA%20exascale%20-%20hardware%20\(2008\).pdf) .

The problems scaling traditional supercomputers into the exascale range are many and include, for example, the fact that that current computers require about 1.5 to 4 MW/PF.

The US used 61 billion kilowatt-hours of power for data centers and servers in 2006. That's 1.5 percent of all US electricity use, and it cost the companies that paid those bills more than $4.5 billion. This is expect to double by 2011. [http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/nextgeneration-s...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/nextgeneration- supercomputers/0) A BOE computation says that if we were to simply scale petaflop computers to a single exascale cluster the power consumption would be 4GW, or roughly 10% of all US electricity used in the US in 2006.

Clearly computation on this scale is not a priority or the real money is elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER7> _Exascale systems are 1,000 times more powerful than the Tianhe-1A, the Chinese supercomputer that was recently ranked as the world's fastest._

Alright, who here watched Watson on Jeopardy and now thinks what ever 1,000 times more powerful computer they build will have strong-AI?

<comment><USER8> The heavily statistical techniques used in Watson won't turn into a strong AI just by throwing more computing power at them, any more than I can turn into a horse by walking on my hands and knees while snorting periodically.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/13863110/The-Unreasonable- Effectiv...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/13863110/The-Unreasonable- Effectiveness-of-Data)

(Wow, that analogy ended up a little more disturbing than I'd intended.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love how the only justification of why the government might need such a computer, or why this spending might be a good idea, is "it will be bigger than China's".

<comment><USER10> A lot of the government's supercomputer funding is much more practical than that: its about doing simulation on nuclear weapon assemblies. During the cold war, nuclear weapons were not designed for long lifetimes or to be upgraded after construction. Most of our nuclear stockpile is or will soon be past its design lifespan. We can't just replace them with new weapons because of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (yeah, it hasn't been ratified, but no administration is excited about breaking it and effectively telling everyone on Earth that the US has no interest is sticking with the NPT).

So we have weapons assemblies that are degrading every day and we need to ensure that they work (i.e., they detonate when instructed to and more importantly fail to detonate when NOT commanded to). Physical inspection and retrofitting is extremely difficult because the assemblies were not designed for that. So the only option left is massive simulation. Which is what Lawrence Livermore and the other national labs do. China's got nothing to do with it. Without supercomputers, the US lacks an effective nuclear deterrent (or at least, confidence that it has an effective deterrent).

<comment><USER9> _"(or at least, confidence that it has an effective deterrent)"_

Well that's the key isn't it. The only effective way to use nuclear weapons is to "not" use them. They could just as easily just release a few press-releases saying "oh yeah, we checked it out and these things totally still work", and almost as if by magic, they _would_ continue to work.

<comment><USER10> But no one would believe that. It just wouldn't be credible. This isn't a new problem; it has been building for decades. Components age. Materials fracture. Seals crack. Everyone knows that and you can't wish that knowledge away.

I mean, the national labs that are charged with ensuring the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile are not some tiny 5-man operation in the middle of nowhere; we're talking about thousands of people working an hour away from San Francisco, very much plugged into the local university and tech scene.

<comment><USER9> It's not like they are publishing in detail all of their findings currently. For all we _really_ know, they _already_ are bluffing, and just using all the money for hookers, blow, and blackjack.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What have you recently learned about yourself? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I am capable of domestic violence, despite a lot of evidence in my life that suggested I would never do such a thing or even need to worry about that side of myself.

<comment><USER3> Similar. In my case not violence and not necessarily targeted at other people, but I surprised myself how twisted my morals can get.

I even contemplated suicide about it. Of course people come rushing and tell you that you have a mental illness because no one in his right mind would think of killing himself for something that might as well not happened as no one took notice of it. But it is in my mind and I have to life with my mind.

Then again, centuries ago people raped and murdered and yet aspired to become great people. And some did. Certainly they never thought about ending their lifes merely because a million other people hoped they would die in a ditch.

<comment><USER4> Whatever it is you've done, or thought about, you should remember you always have choices, and one of the points that's crucial to making the best choices is... your past does not have to determine your future. Regardless of our past, we can change our future. Our ability to do so is governed by how intrinsic our past has become in shaping our current identity, how much we need to hold onto that past to feel like we know ourselves. Ask yourself this, if you could start life afresh, what would you want to do with it that you're not doing now?

<comment><USER3> An often repeated thought. Yet at some point (usually when children or rape is involved) people tend to suddenly forget about tolerance or sympathy and throw around death sentences, castration or torture. There are certain mistakes one can not do even once in most societies. And in some cases, or rather in some countries you won't have a life to return to (or you're dead in the first place).

<comment><USER5> I think, one should carefully choose the thoughts to derive one's actual moral standards from. We have constant access to all kinds of information with vastly varying moral standards and that certainly lowers the inhibition threshold quite a bit. In a traditional social setting it's much more difficult to think about anything you want, because there are fewer stimulating responses.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Do you mean that it's easier to do something bad because we are surrounded by bad things happening? Or that it's easier to get rotten thoughts because we know so much about things that happened, are happening, or that were justified in ancient times?

<comment><USER4> I think what 3rd3 was saying is that we can choose the morals we live by, but without being limited by societal norms the range of choice we have for defining our morals is too broad.

I'm not sure which of your comments that 3rd3 was picking up on, but that's what 3rd3's comment seemed to say.

<comment><USER5> That captures exactly what I was trying to describe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That I should actually give myself some credit and that I'm not that bad. I gave a talk on Javascript[0] recently when I went to Malaysia. I thought I did an extremely terrible hatchet job. The audience thought otherwise, and I took quite a long time (like a few days) to adjust to the fact that I did okay.

edit:

[0] slides if you're interested: [https://speakerdeck.com/chewxy/underhanded- javascript-how-to...](https://speakerdeck.com/chewxy/underhanded-javascript- how-to-be-a-complete-arsehole-with-bad-javascript)

</comment><comment><USER7> I turn into a bumbling idiot when asked to code in front of anyone. Since I'm out of work, this is a bit of a problem. :P

</comment><comment><USER8> I've not been valuing myself. Being good with people and social situations as well as engineering and problem solving is valuable. At least that's what I'm having to remind myself. And I'm starting to believe it!

The only real problem is when I'm programming or furthering my tech skills I feel like I'm short changing the social side. Same thing going the other direction. As I'm getting more comfortable with the tension between the two modes I'm feeling good about my potential as a consultant.

</comment><comment><USER9> That I spend an unhealthy amount of time on HN. In my defense, my day job is as dead end as it gets.

</comment><comment><USER10> That I thrive in relatively structured work environments (as frustrating as they can be), but fall into apathy and depression in more horizontal/adhoc/Valve style places. This doesn't bode well for my potential move to SF/SV...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> \- I find it very hard to relax over the weekend. But when I manage to do so, it helps my productivity for the week a lot.

\- I can't stop something I don't like about myself merely by being aware of it.

</comment><comment><USER11> That, every year, I'm becoming more and more cynical.

</comment><comment><USER12> I worry a lot about others thinking I'm a retard.

I have practically no chance of getting a job in software development or something similar.

I'm prone to being misquoted, which is probably worse than being misunderstood (I learnt I was prone to being misunderstood when I was about six).

I really enjoy hideous data structures.

<comment><USER13> Why would you think people would view you as a retard? From your example below, you can do FizzBuzz, and I am sure at least writing some basic program.

There, if you have difficulties to express yourself, it's just a matter of interview training. I am sure you will do well.

<comment><USER12> > _Why would you think people would view you as a retard?_

In the past, I have been classed as dumb by many different people. The term "intelligence" is hard to define, especially these days with lumps of silicon and metal being used to predict the weather up to five days in advance and simulating nuclear detonations. Because of this it is very open to interpretation. The closest I've got to a reasonable definition is nicked off Greg Chaitin, a researcher in information theory:

      Furnish an intelligence with a block of data, if the intelligence can compress the data, it has achieved some understanding of it.

When it comes to writing basic programs, I'm most experienced in C. Something simple can easily turn into 600 lines of drunk double dutch.

> _There, if you have difficulties to express yourself, it 's just a matter of > interview training. I am sure you will do well._

Unfortunately, I hardly ever get interviews. I have trouble getting a minimum wage job. The last interview I attended I mentioned writing a C program to determine the positive square root of two to fifteen decimal places without resorting to the standard library. As soon as I started trying to explain how it worked (just successive approximations then squaring the answer to check it), I think I blew their fuses.

<comment><USER13> That sounds very odd to me, because you write proper sentences and express yourself very clearly by writing. If that can help you, I can arrange with you a mock interview on skype and tell you if I think there is something wrong with the way you speak (please note that I am not a native English speaker and have a strong French accent). Feel free to contact me on my email on my profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's not a recent thing, but it gets clearer and clearer to me that I am far less in control of myself than I like to think. I mean this in the "Power Of Habit" sense- I run far more by routine than I'd like to think, and this leads to some suboptimal outcomes across all spheres.

</comment><comment><USER4> Plenty, but picking one lesson... aside from death, guilt is the biggest block to building positive momentum.

<comment><USER4> Another lesson is that I seem to have picked up at least some narcissistic tendencies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> That I am not aware of some expectations I have of others until after they have been broken.

</comment><comment><USER16> It all goes back to childhood.

</comment><comment><USER17> That while I can really easily and quickly get myself engaged with an idea I come up with, I can't come up with an idea that doesn't suck...yet

<comment><USER12> > _... I can 't come up with an idea that doesn't suck...yet_

Don't be hard on yourself, Sir James Dyson's invention of the bagless vacuum cleaner sucked loads, yet he's made millions.

<comment><USER17> Ha :) I guess it beats spending ages on something that sucks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am not very good at badminton.

</comment><comment><USER19> That I have to absolutely get out of IT, because it has become a soulless, mind-breaking, and exhaustive way to be exploited by idiots. I suppose any job is like that, given how Western society is organized these days. But I have no other useful skills and though I have a work ethic, my CV is such that if I even applying for a bar job, or busing tables, ... "why the hell are you applying for this job?" I'm stuck and can't get over this reluctance to burn all my savings trying to change my direction in life.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have to get out of IT entirely? I thought IT is a big enough field that no matter what kind of job you have, you're able to find something almost opposite of it. I'm sorry to see that I'm wrong. What is it that you need that you can't find within the IT field?</comment></comment>


Rocket Engine Pulled From the Ocean Definitely Belonged to Apollo 11 - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/bezos-apollo-11/

<comment><USER2> We already have intact F1 rocket engines (in fact, some scientists recently test-fired a gas generator from one), but getting some of the F1's used during the Apollo 11 mission is absolutely fantastic.

One of the F1s is expected to ultimately go to the Seattle Museum of Flight. I look forward to getting to see it.</comment>


Competition and profit don't work in health, education or prisons - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/face-the-facts-competition-and-profit-dont-work-in-health-education-or-prisons <comment><USER2> Neoliberal bullshit will continue to march on because the public has largely accepted it while not even knowing it exists. It doesn't help that both major parties in the U.S have neoliberalism as their policy starting points.

It's been a brilliant bit of marketing to be able to dress inefficient privatization as freedom and choice. It's a built in political defense. Anyone who opposes objectively failed policies are enemies of freedom and capitalism.

<comment><USER3> capitalism isn't perfect.

[http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Types_of_ma...](http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Types_of_market_failure.html)</comment></comment>


Dropbox Raises $250M In Funding, Boasts 45 Million Users - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/18/dropbox-raises-250m-in-funding-boasts-45-million-users/

<comment><USER2> Of course, now the question is: what are they going to do with this $250M? The only new feature that has really come out of Dropbox recently is the API, and even that has been in development for some time.

<comment><USER3> They could make a land grab for enterprise users. There's tons of stuff you could do with that money to make Dropbox attractive to corporations.

<comment><USER4> This one. Making Dropbox more friendly to small-medium businesses: a black-box "dropbox appliance" you put on your LAN (or just the software, in a nice neat Ubuntu package to replace Samba), selective sync and access-management, user groups, encryption, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Impressive that Dropbox only raised 7.2 million before this round.

</comment><comment><USER6> Congrats guys! I'm really pleased with Dropbox's success. It gives me encouragement to stay focused on solving unsexy but fundamental problems.

<comment><USER5> I actually think Dropbox has a very sexy business model.

It's the Silicon Valley darling with the least amount of flaws in the business model, imo.

Too many others need to police their users to take their cut, e.g. AirBnb.

<comment><USER6> Now, in hindsight, when it's getting billions of dollar valuations, yeah it looks sexy. But when it was starting out?

Google, Microsoft, Apple were going to eat its lunch _any day now_.

You have to download a desktop client? Dude, the future's all about web apps.

All the real money is in social recommendations for the colour of your next toilet roll.

<comment><USER7> > Google, Microsoft, Apple were going to eat its lunch any day now.

Sure, there was potential serious competition, but not yet. It was still a big opportunity just waiting for someone to come and do it right.

It's the kind of service that everyone has a use for and many will pay for. Hook 'em with a free 2GB, and sell extra storage - a very solid business model.

<comment><USER6> Heh, I don't know why your comment reminded me of this old gem:

 _Of course, no one wanted to comment on how lucky I was to spend time reading software manuals, or Cisco Router manuals, or sitting in my house testing and comparing new technologies, but that's a topic for another blog post.

The point of all this is that it doesn't matter how many times you fail.It doesn't matter how many times you almost get it right.No one is going to know or care about your failures, and either should you. All you have to do is learn from them and those around you because…

All that matters in business is that you get it right once.

Then everyone can tell you how lucky you are._

[http://blogmaverick.com/2005/05/30/success-and-motivation- yo...](http://blogmaverick.com/2005/05/30/success-and-motivation-you-only- have-to-be-right-once/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> And they STILL cant offer users encryption.

<comment><USER9> But everyone else is using it now so who needs encryption anyway?

Sorry for the snark. I agree with you but trying to raise a raucous about client-side encryption seems to be useless at this point. I only hope they use some of that funding to implement encryption at the very least for those who want and would use it. Even to make it an add-on price is better than no client-side encryption. But then we still have to trust the actions of the binary executable to not do some other nefarious things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is iCloud going to be a threat for dropbox?

<comment><USER11> No, because there are even today a lot more non-apple users than there are apple users and dropbox is platform agnostic.

It may cause them some lost sales but nothing threatening.

<comment><USER12> And in addition, myself including, all apple users are not 100% apple users. I have macs, linux and android and dropbox works with all of those.

<comment><USER13> That's the big deal breaker really. You have to be _pure_ Apple at home, at work and on your devices for iCloud to be a replacement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Congrats to Drew and the team! Dropbox is really a fantastic product.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm guessing the founders took a decent chunk off the table...

<comment><USER16> Yes, that seems to be pretty much the norm these days. But at valuation of $4B (as reported by TC), $250 million is just 6.25% dilutions so founders (and other early investors) did get a pretty good deal.

<comment><USER15> Could be participating preferred, accumulating dividends, etc. There's a lot more to it than straight %.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So when is Dropbox actually going to be profitable? If you have 45 million users and you can't be self-sufficient then maybe the business model doesn't work.

<comment><USER17> I just figured with 45 million users why would you need $250 million.

<comment><USER18> Of course if they're profitable, with that kind of user base they could keep growing organically. Perhaps they see some potential strategic investments that would give them lasting competitive edge, and that need big money.</comment></comment></comment>


40 years ago first packet sent on the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/40-years-on-the-Internet-transmits-every-aspect-9187484.php <comment><USER2> _" On Aug. 27, 1976, a team led by Don Nielson, then assistant director of telecommunications at Menlo Park engineering firm SRI International, drove a specially equipped van 6½ miles south and parked at Zott's. They ran a cable from the van's radio to a computer set up at a picnic table out back and used the radio to connect to another computer at the SRI office and on to Boston. The Internet was born."_

The internet (ARPANET, at the time) was born when the first packet was sent several years earlier, on 29 October 1969.[1]

This article seems to describe the first time that mobile equipment was used to connect to the ARPANET, which is interesting, but not the birth of the internet.

Also, a network connection on a dedicated radio link was a fun experiment to do, but it didn't make possible the widespread mobile deployment of the internet we have today. That required the building of a cellular phone network capable of sending data at high speeds, which happened many years later.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#ARPANET_deployed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#ARPANET_deployed)</comment>


Is it legal to sell Bitcoin? (USA) - <AUTHOR> After looking around it appears there is no easy answer. I also wont be taking any responses as "legal advice".
I will break it down to a simple example.
Lets say A friend wants to pay me $500 for some bitcoin because they dont want to go through hassle of setting up an account on a exchange. Is that legal?
Please post links to sources because I dont think strictly opinion is helpful. <comment><USER2> Don't think it's illegal. There are even ATMs where one can do that.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have read FinCen guidelines and not being a lawyer its not clear to me. In one part it seems to say its fine but in another it appears to be able to fit into "exchanger"

I find it odd to have not found an easy clear answer to this at this point.</comment></comment>


First Ever Austin HN Meetup - <AUTHOR> http://austinhn.eventbrite.com

<comment><USER2> Can't make it (have to do the Awesome Foundation party at that time), but great job hosting one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Still RSVP! For now we don't have much planned and are literally just trying to get the Austin HN'ers together first, and then we can figure out a POA!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Please upvote, spread the word , and keep alive!</comment>


Charting Public Transit's Decline - <AUTHOR> https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/charting-public-transits-decline <comment><USER2> > The supposed social, environmental, and economic development benefits of > transit are negligible to nonexistent. Federal, state, and local governments > should withdraw subsidies to transit and allow private operators to take > over where the demand still justifies mass transit operations.

Cato being Cato, I see. All of their "research" papers could basically be replaced with the phrase "Government: bad", repeated the desired number of times.</comment>


The Post Katrina Classroom: How New Orleans is using the free market to reform schools - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/magazine/17NewOrleans-t.html?ref=magazine

<comment><AUTHOR> N.b. This article is sort of a sequel to Paul Tough's November 2006 article about KIPP, so unless you've read that one already the second half of this article might not make much sense:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magazine/26tough.html></comment>


Ask HN: Is it too late to avoid wasting my summer? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in my penultimate year in an honours CS course at a Scottish University, and have failed to procure an internship or any work experience over the summer. I'm based down in the South East of England (just outside Reading), and have pursued a few places in London, to limited success. Most recently been rejected from Twitter after interview (one of the nicest rejections I've had!).
I don't think I'm unable to apply myself, having had several years of experience in programming in a few languages (Python, C, Java, JavaScript, Haskell...) and having done projects relating to coursework, hackathons, and fun.
It feels like it's too late to do anything relevant to computing, for experience, except at the expense of money. Last summer I did an internship in my CS dept. at university, and whilst the experience was valuable I made a loss overall. This compounded over term time, and I'm now £1800 overdrawn with a limit of £2000; so whilst I don't want to concentrate on the money issue, it is an issue that does have to be addressed. I may have an offer for a place in Edinburgh, but I don't think it is going to pay enough to be able to live there, and I really don't have the buffer to be able to afford another loss.
It feels really late in the day to find an internship nearby, and my university term starts again in September. Is it too late? Should I just look at getting an ordinary retail job, damn the consequences for my CV? I suppose I could try to do FOSS stuff in my spare time.
Would there be small companies in commutable distance that wouldn't have even considered interns still? It seems like most formal application processes are long over. Is it worth my while continuing to cold email companies?
Thanks for reading this far. I'd love to hear any input anyone can give on the matter. <comment><USER2> If you can show you can deliver, a small company is more likely to be able to take an intern. But finding small companies is somewhat tricky. Go to talks, hackathons, user groups, stuff like that to meet people, but try to filter out blowhards from people who might actually employ you.

Remember that companies find recruiting good developers hard, so if you can ship, someone will employ you.

Oh, and cold e-mailing is fine, but _try to not sound desperate_. Say something vague that an opportunity fell through or whatever and that you are interested in doing an internship with them. You can start now, and you are skilled in X/Y/Z, as shown by A/B/C.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's far from too late, if you identify your goals and focus on them.

Get involved with your local tech communities. Spend a few evenings with local tech groups. You'll find a broad cross section of technologists at your local hackerspace [1] who will be happy to talk shop. Check Meetup for local groups related to your favourite languages. If there isn't one, start it.

Hotdesking at a local business incubator is a way to make connections, advertise your presence and concentrate on $project while you seek out opportunities.

If money is your primary concern, then sacrificing a few days a week to balance the books will pay off in peace of mind as you prepare for your final year.

[1] [http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/United_Kingdom](http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)

</comment><comment><USER4> What is your primary motive, experience or money?

1\. If it is experience, then find an open source project to contribute. Mozilla, VLC Player, that come to my mind. The upshot is you get to work on something that is huge, and if you work hard enough, and your patch gets accepted, it will shine on your CV.

Of course, on the flip side, no money is involved.

2\. You want to earn some bucks? Elance, Odesk. Create a profile, and start bidding. Simple as that.

My recommendation: Go for open source. You will learn more.

</comment><comment><USER5> Have you thought about freelancing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds interesting — but how would I go about finding the work in the first place?</comment></comment>


Wikipedia bans agenda-driven editor, but punishes the messenger too - <AUTHOR> https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/banning/ <comment><USER2> Wikipedia internal solidarity politics are just messed up if you approach the inner circle. There is no fixing it. There is a lot of behind the scenes back scratching, horse trading, and manipulation via back channels between the members. Just stay away from them and avoid their gaze. It has also been like this, it isn't new nor does it mean there is impending doom for Wikipedia. It is just how it is. It is like the black whole at the center of the galaxy, you want to just stay away from it.

<comment><USER3> Well, some people care about an organisation's internal politics. That's basically what the "delete uber" movement is, otherwise why would the clients care how they treat women internally?

But in the case of Uber, the internal company politics don't really affect my ride from point A to point B. The editorial policy within Wikipedia however may have an impact on the content I read. Particular on politically sensitive topics, it is important to keep a critical mind and be aware of the intentions of the authors.

<comment><USER4> Seems like an awfully big jump. You can have a crapload of internal politics without harassment, sexism, or anything like that. You'll probably also get some of those in any sufficiently large group of people, but it's possible to respond to them well _and still be a political minefield_ in terms of interpersonal relationships and power games.

<comment><USER5> Avoiding situations like this has swung me around to the profound organization health effects of regularly shuffling director+ level personnel (e.g. every 2-4 years).

What you lose in efficiency (as they refamiliarize themselves) -- you more than gain in healthier politics, cross-organization cooperation and knowledge, and overall following of rule of law / documentation.

<comment><USER6> Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm. He was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being reassigned he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years.

Another example friend lives in a small rural town. The county sheriffs department rotates deputies every two years. Because the deputy needs to be willing to arrest respected members of the community for drunk driving and not be taking bribes from the local meth dealer.

<comment><USER7> > _Reminds me of chatting with a director level manager at a fortune 500 firm. > He was on vacation between assignments. When I asked why he was being > reassigned he said the company moves them around every 2-3 years._

This is a healthy practice in larger organizations. Not only does it avoid the concretion of personal politics but it exposes managers to a breadth of experience, which is useful if they are promoted. It also ensures that the organization has stretched its adaptation muscles regularly, and is not brittle in the event of personnel turnover.

<comment><USER6> One of the issues I found with the first company I worked at was because there was little turnover there wasn't a lot of horizontal knowledge transfer that you get at more dynamic companies. Meant their processes, technologies, etc were stale and getting more stale as time went on. Which is why I left.

Best thing that happened to them was they let one of my utterly burned out coworker go, followed by exit of myself and another more sr engineer. Which forced them to hire three outsiders within a short span.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The idea that _anyone_ (including me and you, dear reader) is free from bias, especially when discussing politics, seems painfully obvious after reading lots of history. And yet, the claim that this or that person or organization is 'neutral' is very common.

Further, the desire to create a 'neutral' 'encyclopedia' online is presumably what drives the entire Wikipedia community. I'd wish for a Wikipedia that consistently allows all viewpoints to be given an opportunity to be presented on any given topic, but I have no faith that such a thing is possible given the pervasiveness of the idea of neutrality and the interests at work to preserve that myth.

<comment><USER9> That is nihilism, plain and simple.

You can recognize bias and try to avoid it, like Wikipedia, by requiring credible citations and having processes to avoid editorial bias from impacting the end result (which it obviously did, eventually, as we're reading about here). Like CNN, the WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, WP, and many other sources of information (across the political spectrum) do every day.

Or you can go the route of Fox news, take a pronounced editorial bias that takes clear precedence over reporting facts. I would post video of Jeanine Pirro or Hannity, but it seems unecessarily crude.

<comment><USER10> >having processes to avoid editorial bias from impacting the end result

>like CNN, WP, NYT

Um... really? Are you saying those three specifically aren't putting out very biased results? You could be left of Marx and know that isn't true for those three specifically. Esp CNN!

The only explanation here is a different topic, that you yourself are so biased that you think CNN is putting out good journalism.

<comment><USER11> CNN, WP, and NYT basically do just present the facts in their reporting. To the extent that it's a big deal when they put out a falsehood and people have gotten fired. Opinion sections are obviously different.

<comment><USER12> At least during the 2016 primaries, they were basically just mouthpieces of the Clinton campaign.

<comment><USER11> That's just not true.[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump- hacked...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the- media/)

<comment><USER12> [https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton- campaig...](https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign- intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/)

The Clinton campaign specifically asked the news media (including CNN, WP, NYT) to increase coverage of Trump (as well as Carson and Cruz). This is so that they'd either have someone easier to beat in the case of these 'pied piper' candidates, or pull a stronger opponent farther right come the general.

Nate Silver didn't know about this in March of 2016 when he wrote that article.

<comment><USER10> This is the most inconvenient truth of the entire 2016 Campaign. Hillary requested Trump to be propped up as someone she "knew" she could beat. If she had just played fair, she might have actually won against Jeb who the GOP actually wanted.

Don't like Trump? Thank Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the media for playing along.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wikipedia is like a microcosm of public politics, large version of a high school social system, or maybe a cult.

There's cliques, arcane rules, and always always an agenda. It would make for a fascinating study on human behavior and how it relates to politics in the real world. Wikipedia internal politics are a scary beast fraught with peril. And the actual content suffers horribly.

<comment><USER14> Indeed, it's always fun to read about a controversial topic one day and find a totally different article the next. Then watch the talk where some news- sources are unacceptable when they support the wrong narrative but unsubstantiated blogs can be used to push the right one. It's fascinating although a little scary.

<comment><USER15> Any examples?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think the most productive move that folks critical of Wikipedia can make is to create an alternative. It's unfortunate that Jimmy Wales and his clique comport themselves the way they do, because Wikipedia would be much stronger if they didn't.

I find it useful for browsing on subjects that interest me but I don't tend to use it for subjects that are too controversial. At least superficially. And yet given what I know about the biases of Internet denizens I have to wonder how much of what I expose myself to is accurate and not the result of some weird personal biases.

I also consider the citations listed in the footnotes which gives me a bit more confidence than none, I suppose.

<comment><USER17> How would any alternative be any less biased?

<comment><USER18> I had an idea that you could create a Wikipedia with the same content, but allow for certain, more opinionated alternative articles. A link to these would be incorporated into the UI of the site and by default the best, most neutral one would be shown but you would suspend neutrality on the alternative articles. All the other Wikipedia policies would still apply.

<comment><USER19> For example, Wookiepedia shows the cannon articles by default, but at the top you're able to select the Legends version of the article, which uses sources that were retconned. Just replace Legends with a different name/bias, and add multiple tabs.

<comment><USER18> Precisely my idea!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Fivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking; they are quite ...selective... with the truth. Take everything they say with a barrel of salt, and keep your eyes peeled for what they _leave out_.

Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked all the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large samples of his edits; a hellish job!). The facts just weren't there to support that assertion.

KalHolmann was ultimately NOT the messenger here, and was also not the person who brought the arbitration case. In fact, when KalHolmann was explicitly invited to help sort things out, they couldn't back out fast enough. What little KalHolmann _did_ do brought more heat than light to the situation.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Philip Cross cannot be said to be an agenda driven editor; people checked > all the evidence (One person went so far as to hand-check and score large > samples of his edits; a hellish job!). The facts just weren't there to > support that assertion.

Philip Cross edits in different areas, e.g. jazz and film. He's highly prolific. He needn't have an agenda in all areas to be called an agenda-driven editor in other areas. And the fact that he's made over a 100,000 edits means someone who approaches an examination of his edits by looking at a small random sample of his total output (as the editor you mention did) is not likely to come up with anything useful (I think this was pointed out to him). So to say "the facts just weren't there to support that assertion" is not really true. We've documented his editing in three articles now:

* [https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/)

* [https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html)

* [https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/evidence/)

Readers can make up their own minds.

> KalHolmann was ultimately NOT the messenger here, and was also not the > person who brought the arbitration case.

Who was the messenger, then? As far as we're aware, he was the Wikipedia editor who attempted to notify the community to the problems when the story emerged. Only to be shut down by admin Guy - who, it should be mentioned, appears to be an acquaintance of yours: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_155#meatball:ExpandScope_wrt_User:Philip_Cross)

> In fact, when KalHolmann was explicitly invited to help sort things out, > they couldn't back out fast enough. What little KalHolmann did do brought > more heat than light to the situation.

He withdrew because of the way he was treated by Wikipedia admins, including Guy (your friend/acquaintance), and the arbitrators who started censoring his contributions. Anyone can read his contribution to the case here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=84...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845422299&oldid=845421753&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FBLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles%2FEvidence&type=revision) and the edit history which shows editing of his contributions (mostly permanently deleted now by the arbitrators): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Evidence&offset=&limit=500&action=history)

> Fivefilters.org is very good at cherry-picking; they are quite > ...selective... with the truth.

You've not really demonstrated that with your contributions here.

<comment><USER20> I am basing myself on those pages you mentioned. I already communicated to you about some of the omissions I noticed before. I am explicitly cautioning readers who read those pages that I noticed a lot of unbalanced omissions. They can then be on the lookout for that and indeed check and decide for themselves.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think your earlier comments contained much substance, but were more an attempt to deflect and defend a Wikipedia admin with whom you are perhaps acquainted. But I will link to those earlier comments below for the interested reader. We've had three articles about this story discussed on Hacker News, including this one. Here are your comments on the previous articles, and my replies:

* A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109849](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17109849)

* Update: The agenda-driven edits of Philip Cross and Wikipedia's response: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17169786](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17169786)

<comment><USER20> I'm familiar with a lot of wikipedia editors. That doesn't mean I agree with all of them all at once. (Even if that was possible, which it definitely isn't :-P )

As you observed: after reading your first story, I managed to convince JzG to at least consider changing tack wrt Kalholmann. Which they did!

Unfortunately Kalholmann was a very bad choice for a champion. In fact, they decided to post Personally Identifying Information right in full view of the arbitration committee; even after being advised not to! (this behavior is at best unethical, arguably illegal, but definitely against the rules!)

In practice, the ironic fact is that JzG turned out to be more effective for your cause than Kalholmann!

I guess I'm just surprised that you're still sticking with your old story, even despite the added clarity of 20/20 hindsight.

You appear to be rather prone to cherry-picking. I'm not sure whether this is by accident or on purpose. (I'm also not sure if it matters; either way it causes harm!) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Unfortunately Kalholmann was a very bad choice for a champion. In fact, they > decided to post Personally Identifying Information right in full view of the > arbitration committee; even after being advised not to! (this behavior is at > best unethical, arguably illegal, but definitely against the rules!)

Care to provide some evidence?

Worth pointing out that Philip Cross never claimed to be using a pseudonym. In fact he claimed the opposite, right on Wikipedia: stating that he wasn't using a pseudonym. He linked his Twitter account to his Wikipedia account. None of this was exposed due to sleuthing/doxxing - it was simply what he himself stated. So there was understandably a lot of confusion around posting personally identifiable information (ie. his name) when he himself claims on Wikipedia that that is what he's called and he's not operating under a pseudonym.

Also, did you see Guy/JzG's own doxxing effort? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Intimidation_campaign) (he outed someone and another admin had to revision delete his outing). Curious that you don't consider that a big offense, but are happy to accuse Kal Holmann of something without providing any links.

> In practice, the ironic fact is that JzG turned out to be more effective for > your cause than Kalholmann!

It's hilarious that you're still attempting to defend JzG. How can we know he was more effective? We can't see how this would have turned out had JzG not interfered. So why speculate? But there's plenty he did wrong, and faced no consequences for, which we are attempting to highlight.

> I guess I'm just surprised that you're still sticking with your old story, > even despite the added clarity of 20/20 hindsight.

You've done little to bring clarity here.

<comment><USER20> Right, so JzG clearly had it in for you. And yet somehow their actions ended up getting the exact result you were hoping for (as reported by you).

In the mean time Kalholmann was your best friend ever... and somehow every time they tried something, they got themselves in more trouble and ultimately got sanctioned by the arbitration committee. (also as reported by you)

Yup, right, clearly your narrative makes perfect sense here. Good job, well done. ;-)

( Just because someone doesn't immediately prostrate themselves and profess their undying loyalty to your cause, that doesn't mean they can't effectively be your friend-du-jour. Vice versa, just because someone does _say_ they support you doesn't mean they're automatically competent and able to help.)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Right, so JzG clearly had it in for you. And yet somehow their actions ended > up getting the exact result you were hoping for (as reported by you).

We never said JzG had it in for us. We highlighted problems with his conduct in relation to the case. And what we consider the double standards of the arbitration committee when it came to certain parts of their decision.

> In the mean time Kalholmann was your best friend ever... and somehow every > time they tried something, they got themselves in more trouble and > ultimately got sanctioned by the arbitration committee. (also as reported by > you)

Your comment here suggests that you think the arbitration committee can do no wrong. We're highlighting what we think is unfair treatment in this case (with supporting evidence). The fact that the story got voted to the front page of Hacker News shows that many others find it convincing too. The many comments here also show that people have had their own experiences of unfair treatment participating in Wikipedia.

> ( Just because someone doesn't immediately prostrate themselves and profess > their undying loyalty to your cause, that doesn't mean they can't > effectively be your friend-du-jour. Vice versa, just because someone does > say they support you doesn't mean they're automatically competent and able > to help.)

You're stating the obvious here, but we don't need to talk about hypotheticals. We can examine the conduct of everyone involved. We've tried to support our position by showing evidence of what we consider is unfair treatment. I haven't been convinced otherwise by your contributions, but maybe others will be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Some of the back story to this is an argument between journalists Oliver Kamm and Neil Clark.

Not picking any particular side, but there seems to have been some real life disagreement that is playing out on Wikipedia.

[1] [http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/neil_clark.html](http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/neil_clark.html)

[2] [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the- philip-c...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross- affair/comment-page-1/)

[3] [http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-sign-of-times- vici...](http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vicious- vendettas-of.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> My initial reaction to this was that this was typical. I was similarly treated. But frankly, I know Guy and something doesn't seem quite right.

I'm not certain we have heard the full story on this.

One thing I will say: I often regret creating the admin's noticeboard. It helped centralise control and the incidents offshoot is a cesspool of conflict. It often is not managed well at all.

<comment><USER22> I gotta say that, after reading this,[0] I am very glad that I never started contributing to Wikipedia.

0) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive299#Philip_Cross)

<comment><USER23> I don't know Guy, but purely from that linked discussion (Guy on George Galloway):

> _He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way_

That is, without any need for further context, a statement of bias, and if the user Guy is espousing such views of relevant subjects here they absolutely shouldn't be involved in decision-making of any kind on this topic. This follow-up statement is worse again:

> _... and allow PC to definitively clear his name_

Presumption of innocence is one thing, but presumption of a future outcome of arbitration is quite another.

It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset, and it's not good.

<comment><USER24> Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not.

Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. Look at Assange. First he was hailed as a hero in the West; now he's looked at as a Russian agent.

<comment><USER23> > _Are you saying that people can 't be controversial in "not a good way"? I > hope not._

Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good way" or "not a good way" will always be subjective, and representative of a biased viewpoint. Noone is completely unbiased but espousing such a viewpoint publically on a thread about arbitration isn't in keeping with responsibilities of Wikipedia's admins.

> _Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion._

The popularity of the opinion should not be a qualifier for it to make up a part of a Wikipedia aministrator's discourse on non-biased arbitration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Tweet from Jimmy Wales:

[https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/994264792062885895?s=...](https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/994264792062885895?s=21)

<comment><USER25> Sounds like there's a lot more to this story than it seems at first...

I really hope this is not based in some right vs left wing political drama and is legitimately about abusive behaviour.

Listening to the BBC show (as I'm not very familiar with this story), it sounds like it's a lot of one and a little of the other [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csws6q)

<comment><USER24> Certainly feels like someone found a reason to kick a right-leaning admin off Wikipedia. Just because someone has an agenda and seek out negative information about people, doesn't mean said information is wrong.

<comment><USER26> But it does mean they have an agenda.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Cue the people trying to claim that anyone in this entire world is unbiased. I'm biased, you're biased, everyone's biased. CNN is biased, NYT is biased, Fox News is biased, NPR is biased. We should all stop pretending that our own news source is unbiased. It's simply not true.

<comment><USER28> Sure, but a reputable source actively tries to mitigate bias. Not to mention, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of factual information as opposed to news publications that often deliberately focus on their own opinions rather than facts - not that editorials are inherently bad, just that news publications are distinct from encyclopedias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> English wikipedia on various aspects of 'British' history is pretty biased and prejudiced. There is the typical careful framing to tilt perception positively and negatively as required, such a desperate bunch.

</comment><comment><USER30> I guess I won't donate this year.

</comment><comment><USER31> This likely won't have huge concequences for Wikipedia, but they lost at least one donor.

</comment><comment><USER32> ugh, i think it is time to scrap the internet. everything is being corrupted to the extend there is no point imo

<comment><USER33> I really miss the web from 10 years ago. It felt so liberating back then. Everything felt so open and genuine. I made so many friends in the early days of the internet. I don't even know how, forums, MSN messengers, games. You'd just add people and talk to them for hours.

Now the internet today seems to be mostly ads, corporate corruption, government censorship, and political outrage. It's a shame. I don't enjoy the internet half as much anymore. Maybe it's more my age or that I'm used to the technology now, but it really feels like we lost something innocent and special about the early days of the internet.

<comment> maze-le I don't know how old you are, but my bet is: its an age thing.

Actually I miss the web from 1999-2004 for the exact same reasons you do, and 2008 was already way downhill for me. But when I think about it a bit more carefully... How old was I at the time? 14-19... An age where almost everything is exciting and new: music, parties, friends, philosophy, technology you name it. I can easily apply this sentiment to most categories of interest during this time period.

I wonder if in 15 years from now, the people around 30 will rumble about how wonderful it was back then, when it was all the rage to be on Instagram etc. and how easy it was to connect to people, and how quickly you could organize events via social media.

<comment><USER34> To add more anecdotes to the fire I definitely find myself pining for the 97-2000 days. Slashdot, goofy Geocities pages, good times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Everything looks good here. The biased Wikipedia editor can no longer edit pages on post-1978 British politics. The whistleblower can no longer speculate on any editor's off-wiki behaviour.

No more biased edits from the accused, and no more witch-hunting from the whistleblower.

Relevant quotes from article:

      Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978
      British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed
      after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter

      KalHolmann is indefinitely restricted from linking to or speculating about
      the off-wiki behavior or identity of other editors. This restriction may be
      first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter

Well done Wikipedia.

<comment><USER23> > _no more witch-hunting from the whistleblower._

I think the issue raised is the definition of Holmann's actions as whistleblowing or witchhunting.

If it's the latter, that would seem to imply he shouldn't have engaged in that witchhunt, in which case the ban on Philip Cross would definitely not have come to pass. Are you saying this should be the case?

If it's the former (whistleblowing), it can't be defined as witchhunting and you must agree Holmann should not be restricted.

You can only agree with one of the above and remain logically consistent.

<comment><USER20> Kalholmann didn't open the arbcom case, and they didn't provide the bulk of useful evidence. I'd say they were neither whistleblowing nor witchhunting; just producing more heat than light (sadly).

<comment><AUTHOR> KalHolmann's post about Philip Cross' conflict of interest was posted on 18 May 2018 on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard. It ended with the following proposal:

> I request that Philip Cross be topic banned from editing George Galloway and > the other "goons" with whom he is at war—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, > Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media > Lens— all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann > (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Five minutes after posting that, your acquintance Wikipedia admin Guy rejected it, as he'd done the previous attempt (also within minutes).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI)

As it turns out, two months later, the arbitration committee essentially ruled agreeing with his initial request (and in fact broadening the ban to all of post-1978 British politics).

So your claim that he was "producing more heat than light" is nonsensical.

<comment><USER20> Be that as it may initially; ultimately JzG relented, opened an Arbcom case, and explicitly invited KalHolmann to put forward their position.

One of KalHolmann's key actions in response was to seek to be removed from the case entirely! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles/Workshop#Remove_KalHolmann_as_party_to_this_case)

Do you deny that this happened? Would you put forward the position that KalHolmann changed his mind later? Or (checking the record) do you see that mostly other people took over and examined the case instead?

<comment><USER20> \-- seeing your other comments, I do see some timeline issues in the above statement which I need to doublecheck.

(+edit): Ah, here's the first statement by KalHolmann on 26 may, which is a bit more ambiguous.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=843054921)

It could just be that KalHolmann isn't sure of their footing: It's still not the most brilliant of openings in building a case against Philip Cross of course. I was disappointed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't speak for Kal, but if you examine his actions from the start (I quoted his 18 May 2018 post, which precedes the one you linked, here it is again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&direction=next&oldid=841905271#User:Philip_Cross_has_COI)) it appears he simply wanted to notify the community of Philip Cross' conflict of interest and to suggest a topic ban to prevent Cross from editing pages of people he had a conflict of interest with. There is nothing to indicate he wanted to open an arbitration case, nor be party to one. So that all occurred because of Guy (JzG) who after blocking all of Kal's attempts to start a discussion about this, finally started one himself in which he misrepresented the issue (by making the whole dispute to be about Galloway) and falsely accused Kal of being a supporter of Galloway, among other baseless accusations.

In light of that, Kal Holmann's statement which you linked above makes perfect sense. He was dragged into an arbitration dispute by a Wikipedia admin (Guy/JzG) who you seem very keen to defend, and then posted a statement denying the accusations levelled against him. Wikipedia arbitrators end up punishing Kal but say not a word about Guy/JzG's actions.

<comment><USER20> Well, if Philip Cross's alleged conflict of interest were to be examined and dealt with, ultimately it would need to be looked at by the arbitration committee. Once you understand that, other things start falling into place.

JzG changed tack because I poked them and pointed them at your story.

JzG went back to admin's noticeboard to gather further input, and people confirmed that an Arbcom case would indeed have merit.

At that point, the Arbcom case became inevitable.

Now, as an honorable human being, you can't go and start something, and then when it happens turn around and get cold feet.

I'm a bit disappointed in KalHolmann because they ran away when things Got Interesting.

I'm also disappointed in you because your stories turned out to actually not be as well researched as they seemed at first blush.

I now regret my own part in this :-/

<comment><AUTHOR> > Well, if Philip Cross's alleged conflict of interest were to be examined and > dealt with, ultimately it would need to be looked at by the arbitration > committee. Once you understand that, other things start falling into place.

Not true. The community is more than able to reach a decision without arbitrators. As was done when they voted to topic ban him from George Galloway.

> JzG changed tack because I poked them and pointed them at your story.

That doesn't excuse or explain his shutting down of Kal Holmann's initial report of conflict of interest - there was plenty in there deserving of discussion whether one looked at our story or not. And part of Guy/JzG's 'changing tack' was to misrepresent the issue by making it out to be a dispute mainly between Philip Cross and George Galloway, confusing other editors in the process. Something that the arbitrators also failed to comment on in their decision, but appeared to be aware of because they re-titled his arbitration case from "George Galloway" to "BLP issues on British politics articles" and later expanded the scope of the ban even more to "post-1978 British politics". Quite a jump from Guy's preferred focus of just Geroge Galloway.

> Now, as an honorable human being, you can't go and start something, and then > when it happens turn around and get cold feet.

You're not making sense. Earlier you wrote "KalHolmann...was also not the person who brought the arbitration case." So why are you now saying he started it and then got cold feet?

The fact is he didn't start it. Guy/JzG requested it and dragged him into it with false accusations. I started to participate in the evidence phase of the arbitration case myself and was alarmed at the way the arbitrators were treating Kal so I withdrew too. The rest of the evidence we published on our own site. I won't rehash what I've already said in my other replies to you here regarding this, they're easy enought to find. You seem determined to misrepresent this story without providing any useful evidence. Bit rich to be accusing us of "cherry picking".

<comment><USER20> The wikipedia community disagreed with you there. The consensus was in favor of sending this to the arbitration committee, with the topic ban being a temporary first fix. And it did go to arbcom, and arbcom did take action.

On the one hand, JzG is obviously not your yes-man; this particular person has a mind of their own and presented the case from their own perspective. That said -on balance- their behavior came out in your favor. (as is abundantly clear now that we have 20/20 hindsight)

Kalholmann was given every opportunity to set/correct the record from their own perspective, but they just didn't take it. Hence my dissapointment.

You and I are working with the same set of evidence. I guess the main difference (if even that) is that I'm not just reading the partial account on your site, but I am also reading directly from the primary source including the bits that your team have left out.

Obviously our interpretation differs. ;-)

I guess only you yourself can know whether you are deliberately spinning things; or whether you are genuinely personally convinced by the narrative that you present.

<comment><AUTHOR> > The wikipedia community disagreed with you there. The consensus was in favor > of sending this to the arbitration committee, with the topic ban being a > temporary first fix. And it did go to arbcom, and arbcom did take action.

You miss the point. You wrote "if Philip Cross's alleged conflict of interest were to be examined and dealt with, ultimately it would need to be looked at by the arbitration committee." I was pointing out that that is not in fact true. The Wikipedia community can make decisions without referring everything to the arbitration committee. I wasn't expressing an opinion about whether this case should or should not have gone to the committee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Agenda driven editor sounds exactly like the kind of editors you need for an encyclopedia. If you have no agenda, won't you just sit at home and watch TV?

</comment><comment><USER37> So this website is going to lose its raison d'être? Also his soft-grey on white background is hard to read.

Edit: It's just in my browser of choice that it appears as grey on white. It looks much better on Chrome.

<comment><USER38> What is your browser of choice and why is it displaying websites incorrectly?

<comment><USER37> IE.

I don't think I need to explain why some website might not display correctly with it, even if most website are displaying correctly. But I haven't look why this one in particular is not working.

<comment><USER39> I'm no expert, but I guess it might be a font that renders differently on IE vs Chrome / other browsers - or it's a font not supported and what you're seeing is a less legible fallback.

<comment><USER37> Well it's not a font problem, the issue is that the background in IE is white, whereas it's dark grey on chrome. It's readable, but not very legible.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry about this! I should've checked on IE. Just have and Edge shows right background colour but chunky font which is difficult to read. And IE 11 shows white background. We used Typora to write this up and used its bundled Night theme. Assumed it had been tested in IE, but appears not. I'll make sure we fix this soon.

Edit: It's also possible that we tweaked the CSS it generated, which might have caused this, so I'd rather not blame it on their theme before I test it.

<comment><USER37> Considering the IE marketshare, I don't think it's much of a problem to not test on IE (or even Edge). And I'm less bothered by a browser compatibility issue than illegible design.

Also on Edge I see the same white background as on IE, but I'm on Windows 10 1703, if it's a version dépendent bug.

<comment><AUTHOR> It appears this was related to CSS variable support.

Typora's themes use CSS3 variables which aren't supported in IE and weren't supported in Edge until more recently. I tried on Edge 42 (EdgeHTML 17) when I said the background colour displayed correctly. Perhaps you're using an older version of Edge (the version is displayed at the bottom of the settings panel).

In any case, I've added CSS to set the background colour without using CSS variables. It now shows correctly for me in IE 11 too.

Thanks for letting us know.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mapping China's Tech Giants (By Australian) - <AUTHOR> https://chinatechmap.aspi.org.au/ <comment><AUTHOR> This research publish on April. They also have executive summary to explain how they make this map / report. [https://www.aspi.org.au/report/mapping- chinas-tech-giants](https://www.aspi.org.au/report/mapping-chinas-tech-giants)

</comment><comment><USER2> Wow this is a cool map, very interesting!</comment>