What Is an "Almost Prime" Number? - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/what-is-an-almost-prime-number/ <comment><USER2> In case anyone reads the article and wonders why 1 is not a prime number I'll give a brief answer.

A prime number has to have the property that not every number is a multiple of it. In the language of abstract algebra this means that the ideal generated by that number is proper (not the entire set of numbers one is considering).

Another reason for discounting 1 as a prime number is that considering 1 to be a prime destroys the uniqueness of prime factorization. For instance, 24 is uniquely, up to order of powers of prime factors:

2^3 times 3

If we allow 1 to be prime then I can write 24 as

1^17 times 2^3 times 3

or I can write it as

1^2 times 2^3 times 3

We lose the property that representations of numbers as products of powers of primes is unique. Thus we have a good reason to discount 1 as being prime and there aren't any good reasons to count it as a prime.

The definition given in elementary school is not the correct one. It's a working definition that works well and is correct for all positive integers except 1. In my experience people remember the definition of: "only divisible by itself and 1". Then they ask, "Why isn't 1 considered prime then?" It's because the definition given isn't correct.

<comment><USER3> > A prime number has to have the property that not every number is a multiple > of it.

I understand why this observation is true given the definition that excludes 1 from being a prime number, but I don't follow why this is a _necessary_ property of prime numbers (justifying the definition in the first place).

<comment><USER2> The definition of a prime number is arbitrary. We could have defined the term "prime number" to mean anything. The question is what concept do we wish to capture with the definition. If we allow numbers with the property that all other numbers in the number system are multiples of it then 1 is a prime number and this destroys uniqueness of prime factorization. Since we want to keep unique factorization it is convenient to exclude numbers that are called units (numbers in which all other numbers are multiples of it). Prime ideals need to be proper subsets of the number system or else we'd have to add the phrase

"Let P be a proper prime ideal"

to a vast number of theorems. This is inconvenient and allowing units to be prime doesn't give any benefits. Only headaches so it's best to just exclude them.

<comment><USER4> > it is convenient to exclude numbers that are called units (numbers in which > all other numbers are multiples of it).

Thanks for this explanation. I used to be puzzled about 1 being not a prime but now I feel better.

But can we also propose that 1 should not be considered a number? Because 1 is the unit with which all other numbers are measured.

<comment><USER5> > But can we also propose that 1 should not be considered a number?

That would (again) destroy a lot of useful properties without any benefit.

> Because 1 is the unit with which all other numbers are measured.

Not sure why this would make you question whether 1 is a number.

<comment><USER6> Some [0] have claimed that the Pythagoreans didn't consider 1 and 2 to be numbers, proper. This helps explain why.

[0] [http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/pythag/pythag.html](http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/pythag/pythag.html)

<comment><USER4> The referenced article mention this in passing without giving a reason. But didn't Pythgoras use musical whole number ratios like 2:1, 3:2 and 4:3?If so he must have considered 1 and 2 to be numbers.

<comment><USER6> Sorry to be lazy about citation. Here [1] is a peer reviewed article with better internal citations about Pythagorean mathematical perspectives on 1 and 2.

It has been argued [2] that the Pythagorean numbers were quite different from numbers as we think of them in arithmetic. The One (or Oneness), for instance, is more than the number one. However, because these views extended to at least 10, it isn't an argument for disincluding 1 & 2.

(BTW, [2] is probably the best thing I've ever downloaded from Kindle. Highly recommended. Be sure to read introduction.)

[1] Caldwell, C. K., & Xiong, Y. (2012). What is the smallest prime?. Journal of Integer Sequences, 15(2), 3. [2] Guthrie, K. S., & Fideler, D. R. (Eds.). (1987). The Pythagorean sourcebook and library: an anthology of ancient writings which relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean philosophy. Red Wheel/Weiser.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the references. I could only find this online which looks similar to what you have by the same authors: [https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL15/Caldwell2/cald6.p...](https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL15/Caldwell2/cald6.pdf) Looks very interesting. Reading it now.

<comment><USER6> Given that the Pythagoreans believed that "all is number" and worshipped "Oneness", I'd be surprised if they didn't consider one to be a number

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Similar amusing math terms are "almost everywhere" and "almost surely"/"almost never". For example, if you pick a random real number between 0 and 1, it will almost never be exactly 0.5. It's possible that you'll get 0.5, but the probability of getting it is exactly 0.

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

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

<comment><USER8> I think the proper interpretation of that is that you _can 't_ "pick a random real number between 0 and 1". After all, you would have to choose an infinite number of digits.

<comment><USER9> You absolutely can "pick a random real number between 0 and 1", at least for the sake of mathematical argument. But for an interval [a, b] a random real number will be x s.t. a <= x <= b is zero. That's because the set {x} has measure 0.

An even more fun fact is that the probability that the randomly chosen number is rational is also zero, by the same argument.

However, once one starts to try to describe a distribution over the reals, e.g.: "let X be a real number chosen from a uniform probability distribution over [0, 1]", then you run into serious problems. That example begs the question because there is no uniform probability distribution over that set.

<comment><USER10> There definitely is a uniform probability distribution over the interval [0,1]. It is given by the probability density function f(x) = 1. There's no uniform probability distribution over the reals, or over the integers, but defining one over a closed real interval is trivially easy. That's what "pick a random real number between 0 and 1" _means_.

<comment><USER9> I don't believe there is a uniform probability distribution over any interval of the reals.

Suppose such a distribution existed over [0, 1]. Then as we have shown before, the probability of choosing 0 <= x <= 1 is zero.

The second axiom of probability states the probability of one of the numbers being chosen must be is one. The third axiom requires countable additivity.

We can easily see that for our distribution, we cannot satisfy both at the same time. If we strive for the sum of probabilities to equal 1, then we end up with the sum(P(x)) = 1, but P(x) is everywhere zero.

The countable additivity never enters into this, but for any uncountable set of events a uniform distribution is impossible.

<comment><USER10> > I don't believe there is a uniform probability distribution over any > interval of the reals.

Then I'll observe that you probably shouldn't be trying to comment on this topic. I didn't just assert that there is one, I pointed out to you what it was.

The probability density function f(x) = 1, defined over the interval [0,1], is uniform (all values are equal, being 1) and covers an area of 1. That's all a uniform distribution is.

It satisfies the axiom which I assume you're referring to as the "second axiom of probability" in that the definite integral of the pdf over the entire interval is 1. It satisfies the requirement you're confused about in that the probability of choosing a number that falls into either of two disjoint subintervals is equal to the sum of the probabilities of (1) choosing a number falling into the first subinterval; + (2) choosing a number falling into the second subinterval.

> Suppose such a distribution existed over [0, 1]. Then as we have shown > before, the probability of choosing 0 <= x <= 1 is zero.

For fixed _x_ , the probability of choosing _x_ from a uniform distribution over the reals is 0. That is a special case of the probability that a value chosen from a uniform distribution over the reals will lie within an interval. The probability of drawing a value from within the interval [ _a_ , _b_ ], for any distribution, is the definite integral of the distribution's pdf from _a_ to _b_. As you can see, when _a_ = _b_ , this value is 0, but when _a_ ≠ _b_ , it isn't. The probability of choosing an _x_ such that 0 <= x <= 1 from a uniform distribution over [0,1] is 1, not 0.

<comment><USER9> Oh gosh, you're correct. It's been a while since I've done this (well).

<comment><USER11> Much respect for confirming to the rest of us reading this thread that your interlocutor's argument is the better one / yours is wrong. Having determined the correct answer, we all walk away correct, regardless of who was corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It might be interesting to calculate the 'primeness' of complex numbers and then render the values as shades of grey on the complex plane.

Some years I did something similar for the 'divisibility' of prime numbers and the result was pretty interesting:

[http://www.gibney.de/does_anybody_know_this_fractal](http://www.gibney.de/does_anybody_know_this_fractal)

The most common interpretation of a 'complex prime' is the gaussian prime. When rendered on the complex plane looks like this:

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gauss- primes-768x768...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gauss- primes-768x768.png)

Looks rather random. Maybe going from 'is prime or not' to 'primeness' would reveal some more insight.

</comment><comment> d--b I find it terrible naming. "Almost-x" is good but "2-almost-x" really sounds bad. "2-factor number" ? "2nd-order-prime"? Twime, Thrime? Even "2-quasi- prime" sounds better.

</comment><comment><USER13> Sub-prime :P

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't know what to apply it with yet, but as a programmer I can see this will be useful information.

<comment><USER15> A lot of public key cryptography involves computing a very large number that is a product of two prime numbers.</comment></comment>


Steve Wozniak Destroys Apple in Less Than 2 Minutes - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mslupski1/steve-wozniak-destroys-apple-in-less-than-2-minutes-dd5e71229a60 <comment><USER2> I live right next to a major google office and meet lots of web developers that are supposedly top tier who work there.

Every single of them uses ublock origin and specifically makes sure they are blocking google analytics and other trackers that some of them have worked on.

Something is fundamentally broken in tech when this is the status quo. Something needs to change. Bigly.

<comment><USER3> It's charging a reasonable amount for what service/product is provided, and not attempting to capture as much value as possible from people/society.

This is from greed and perhaps ignorance of how our individual decisions impact everything around us, a lack of empathy needs to exist here too; it's difficult to collapse or change existing systems as they hire people to fill specific roles that have specific responsibilities.

What's going on with Trump is hopefully at one end of the pendulum in a yin- yang cycle, and hopefully will soon quickly swing the other way - it could still have momentum and be swinging towards a horrendous global war however.

The bullies who took over North America from the natives, now other bullies trying to take/takeover North America again - primarily because people here are causing suffering and not sharing efficiently; replace "North America" with any continent or geopolitical name (or organization), and each is at a different stage/side of the cycle, being either a victim or the persecutor; some are self-aware enough and free from this cycle, though still impacted by the status quo.

I wish we could all just be adults, heal and help others heal from the past wounds which will lead to the childish behaviour of taking it out on others going away. The ego mind is a powerful coping mechanism that leads to these various degrees of insanity, greed, and scarcity thinking.

We heal through community, community is greatly lacking around the world. Leading community is a skill that everyone can develop - community starts with you. This construct or framework or path isn't very well defined or practiced - likely in part because there are so many people with deep wounds that it's a scary minefield to attempt to build deep connection with many people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Clickbait title, no matter the content is still unacceptable.

"After watching a few too many videos from Ted Nelson's YouTube channel, I found the gem that I clickbaited you with in the title"

<comment><USER5> Yeah, this thing reads like it was written by a drunk teenager. The Woz vid was pretty good, but I always enjoy hearing Woz talk.

<comment><USER6> Hahaha, yah it swings from a weird history lesson to a vague critique of apple to a tepid, specious criticism of "big tech" in general.

Edit: and it's no surprise it was submitted by its author.</comment></comment></comment>


Interactive service on Whatsapp - <AUTHOR> http://www.whatshash.com

<comment><AUTHOR> The people who created magic (sms based ordering system) can probably use this and serve their service worldwide without any sms cost.</comment>


Thoughts about Rust in 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Hisako1337/rust-in-2017-8f2b57a67d9b#.g50x9mmst <comment><USER2> > The documentation is hands down one of the best language documentations I've > ever seen.

I take you haven't looked much at documentation of other languages. For example, how to read a single text line from a TCP socket? Where do I need to look in the docs, starting with TcpStream struct?

<comment><USER3> Some areas of the standard library still aren't great; I'm working on it.

In this case, [https://doc.rust- lang.org/stable/std/net/struct.TcpStream.ht...](https://doc.rust- lang.org/stable/std/net/struct.TcpStream.html) has an example of using `read`, but it's not a line. If you type "line" in the search box above, the third result looks relevant: std::io::Lines. Which links you to BufRead::lines. The general docs for BufRead state "If you have something that implements Read, you can use the BufReader type to turn it into a BufRead." So boom, wrap it in a BufReader, call lines, then call next. Done.

I wrote that out to just to see for myself; we have more work to do! Always more work to do...

<comment><USER2> > Some areas of the standard library still aren't great; I'm working on it.

Oh, I don't doubt it. I'm not even saying that the Rust's documentation is bad. I only object to the claim that it's _one of the best_ (because I've used better ones). It simply needs more work to reach that state, as you seem to be perfectly aware.

> [...] So boom, wrap it in a BufReader, call lines, then call next. Done.

From my perspective, this is a non-obvious process. I couldn't find the solution on my own, and I'm not a newbie in reading documentation, as I have a habit of reading reference docs, which historically included learning most of Perl (which is not known for being simple) and, more recently, much of Erlang (which has documentation that needs proficiency in reading it).

To give some constructive feedback, put some thought to how can one discover from the documentation all the traits applicable to the situation (possibly avoiding using the search box, which I usually don't expect to provide precise results). If there was some connection _from_ TcpStream _to_ BufReader, I wouldn't have any problem with finding the latter.

<comment><USER3> Totally! std::net is an area I haven't touched at all. Whatever's there is the accumulation of whoever decided to write some things, no systematic work was really done to document it yet.

<comment><USER2> I actually sort of expected the documentation to be generated, not completely hand-written (mainly because I'm a fan of JavaDoc descendants, if they are used correctly). If this was the case, then the doc build tool would need to extract and present some additional information about the applicable traits.

<comment><USER3> The type signatures are generated, but the text and examples come from extracting documentation comments.

<comment><USER2> So I was right, it's a generated thing (obviously, a tool cannot provide the description nor usage examples).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I think I'm done with HN - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jalefkowit/status/1275615151891365888 <comment><USER2> > _while any mention of the fate of George Floyd and so many others who have > suffered and died at the hands of police gets aggressively removed from > discussion_

That's not even close to true—not by orders of magnitude and football fields. This seems like a classic of the notice-dislike bias ([https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment)): you've seen things that you didn't like in one discussion and weighted it more heavily than the by-far-most-discussed theme on HN of the last month.

That bias is so powerful that I'm not sure I've seen even a single counterexample, and it seems to make objective assessment impossible. I don't know what to do about it. We can't remove everything that somebody dislikes—there would be nothing left—but the presence of material that people dislike makes them draw extremely distorted conclusions. I believe this is an outcome of HN being a non-siloed site. Most other places on the internet, you choose your silo so you're surrounded by friendly views and don't encounter so many nasty things. Here, everyone's in one silo and it creates a shock experience. This leads people to dramatically false conclusions, but it doesn't matter because they feel intensely true. I wrote about this recently here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098).

<comment><USER2> Sorry for the wall of links, but I want it to be clear that what the OP says is at the far end of the swimming pool from the truth. HN has had massive discussion about George Floyd, BLM, the protests, police brutality, race relations in the US, and related topics. I bet we'd have to go back to Snowden/NSA in Summer 2013 to find something comparable.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23614128](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23614128) was on the front page all day today. Edit (12 hours later): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23628394](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23628394) is on the front page now. Below is a sample of other major threads on these topics. There are many more, but I suppose 52 is enough to make the point.

There are over 15k comments in these 52 threads alone. Let's double that and guess that there have been 30k comments on George Floyd-related themes. (I think that's conservative, since I came up with these 52 threads by ad hoc searching and there have been many others.) There have been 283k total comments on HN since George Floyd was killed (counting [dead] comments, which is generous since most readers don't see them), so if my guess is reasonable then over 10% of the comments on HN have been on these themes. On a site that seeks to avoid repetition, that is beyond massive.

For comparison, I picked the most popular technical topic I could think of, which is Rust. There have been 2664 comments on posts with 'Rust' in the title over the same time period—an order of magnitude less. When you're 10x bigger than Rust on HN, and someone calls that "aggressively removed from discussion", we seem to have left behind shared reality.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23522602](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23522602)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23579438)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23540162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23540162)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23528224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23528224)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23488307](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23488307)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23484574](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23484574)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23461607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23461607)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23406844](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23406844)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23409370](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23409370)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393914](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393914)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399533)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23390707)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385741)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397868)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23392393](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23392393)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379910](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379910)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23384556](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23384556)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379397)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23369873](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23369873)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23355572](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23355572)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347155)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23352785](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23352785)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23474974](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23474974)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23467912](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23467912)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23445980](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23445980)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23382954](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23382954)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23373329](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23373329)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23371048](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23371048)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23348464](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23348464)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564048](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564048)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23443410](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23443410)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23504445](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23504445)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442294](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442294)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23432463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23432463)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428606)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428432](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23428432)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23424245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23424245)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415447](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415447)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391669](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23391669)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23386626](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23386626)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385727](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23385727)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23382573](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23382573)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23349294](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23349294)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23604277](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23604277)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23599081](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23599081)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23586791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23586791)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23586228](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23586228)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23556608](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23556608)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23544749](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23544749)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23491226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23491226)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482979](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482979)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am pretty confused. What kindof discussion is expected? Searching for "police" or "BLM" on the site brings up many heavily commented threads.

Do they know the site has a search function? I didn't for a while. There's a search box on the bottom of the page

</comment><comment><USER4> On some of those peak days of BLM protests, I came on here and it was like the whole thing wasn't happening. It did seem strange.

If nothing else people here should stop pretending they're above the zeitgeist. How many others remember the slashdot threads on 9/11, for example? This is a big defining moment in our times worth more conscious observance. Tech cares too.

<comment><USER5> Maybe HN (and the web) has become less US-centric and more global? In Europe the issue is marginal to say the least, in Asia I believe they don't even consider it news-worthy, and so on. The opposite of "defining" for most of the planet.

<comment><USER6> Weren't Europeans on the street marching in solidarity? I wouldn't dismiss it entirely as a US issue.

<comment><USER7> Global solidarity demos against racism gets lost on US-only centrism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As someone who is not American, the BLM issues while important are not really something which I see needing to dominate every form of media I consume, especially those dedicated to more technology related issues.

It is also nice to have a broad range of topics which are intellectual based also. Given the emotional nature of the protests, it wouldn't be surprising that if such a topic was left unmoderated it would lead to a lot of mirrored content and information.

</comment><comment><USER9> There are plenty of appropriate places to talk about BLM and other world events. Just because the community here may not be focused on it doesn't make it a bad community. Frankly, when sociological discussions show up here it's kind of awkward.

<comment> joe-collins Perhaps they're awkward because they're unpracticed.

In most tech threads, the top comments are often those with an insider opinion or "back in my day" tale. A sociological thread doesn't typically lend itself to those. And I assume HN has a far smaller proportion of experts (and less motivation to snag that ego boost from flaunting wisdom) on the trending topics (e.g. black persons and other victims of police brutality) than it would for, say, such-and-such Ruby feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a younger person, I agree, it is very disappointing. I would've guessed YC more prescient than to not realize there are tectonic cultural shifts heavily worth deep discussion happening.

I've noticed that sometimes, when people rise through ranks or otherwise mature in the world of business, they become disconnected from regular humanity and forget that emotions are real signals.

<comment><USER11> (since this whole story is flagged)

As an older person, this is another iteration of the same shit and unfortunately nothing will change.

Part of the reason it won't change is that a bunch of upper-class white people try to make it all about their sociological theories instead of the really simple premise of "cops aren't accountable and that's not ok". They're spending their effort going after Scott Alexander, who's generally on their side on this stuff, for his insufficient group loyalty. It's a total self-own, constantly from these people, and it plays right into the cops' hands.

We're up against a lot of resistance and there's no room for selfishness like that.

<comment><USER12> Yea anti-racism is a modern religion. It's counterproductive, and I expect a net-negative backlash than useful reform and change. No longer is it ok to affirm the human dignity and the equality of minorities. Racism is _assumed globally_ so the question now becomes how is a person instantiating racism, not if a person is instantiating racism. It's screwed up and bizarre.

<comment><USER13> It's _especially_ screwed up and bizarre because this whole fuzzy, religious outlook thoroughly obscures the relevance of _real, actual, systemic racism_ in the workings of institutions like criminal justice (including policing) in the United States. Here you have the _clearest_ argument for systemic racism being a real dynamic even in a developed, largely-free country like the U.S. (and presumably it's no coincidence that CRT, from which we get this notion in the first place, originated from a subfield of _legal_ studies), and yet you probably wouldn't know this from looking at the progressive debate on this issue, which simply sticks to its meaningless, mindless religious tropes. Quite mind-boggling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not sure why anybody's upset that HN didn't have much discussion on, above anything, George Floyd. HN discourages (and always discouraged) "me too" style remarks, like "Oh that's awful", "that's outrageous", or "that's gross injustice!" But exactly what other reasonable opinions are available here?

I mean, would _you_ want to see people discussing here whether Derek Chauvin was justified in killing George Floyd? Because I don't.

<comment><USER15> I think there's a lot more to discuss other than Derek Chauvin's culpability. HN is full of really bright people; I'd love to hear what they think about tech's role in enabling police brutality like this to exist, and what is in our capacity to do to help solve the problem.

<comment><USER14> And if I search for "police" I see 5 discussions with 100+ comments in the past week alone! So I think there's a lot of discussion regarding police brutality, just not about Floyd's murder itself. (Well, I guess some people might wish HN had even more discussion on police brutality, but we're veering into meta-meta-discussion.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think there are enough threads on HN saying that vegans are right, and evil egg-eating vegetarians are wrong. Therefore, I have concluded that HN is a den of evil egg eaters. I just don't feel safe reading opinions of people who have their moral compass compromised in this way.

So I think I too am done with HN.

</comment><comment><USER17> Done with caring about comments here that aren't links to resources. Karma system is dysfunctional, and socialization here isn't too meaningful coupled with the guidelines. I'm about to lose points, but as far as I am concerned real community here is dead. But I respect the decision to leave.

<comment><USER7> [https://hckrnews.com/](https://hckrnews.com/) or use search

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There's been about a thread a day about BLM. There's been one thread, one day about Scott Alexander.

</comment><comment><USER7> Probably upset mods are effective, and can't be bothered to search or use [https://hckrnews.com/](https://hckrnews.com/)

</comment><comment><USER18> "And I think I'm done with it" and posts on HN. This topic was discussed to death - right now the story right under this is another tech company yielding to the speech police mob by doing another master branch rename. This topic has suffocated anything of relevance in the last weeks.

<comment><USER19> > anything of relevance

What about this discussion is not relevant? I remember HN getting over COVID about a month ago too.

<comment><USER18> It's against the rules for one - but those only apply to some.

<comment><USER7> All stories by time [https://hckrnews.com/](https://hckrnews.com/) and search. The final sorted daily list ofc won't go against site policy. Lots of these political stories each day though, some of them heavily posted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Flag this accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Appeal to authority with internet points

> Moan that HN won't support you spilling your politics that already fill your > twitter feed over into the site, despite many alternatives existing

> Recognize it's a free site and it can do what it wants

> Assert it's wrong, and doing wrong, by disagreeing with you, that voice of > karma-provided authority

> Post your Twitter rant to HN for attention

> HN democratically removes your rant

> Whimper on Twitter that HN, the site you're apparently done with, aren't > facilitating your anti-HN rants, implicitly encouraging your following to do > some bandwagoning

God only knows what drama this person would be capable of if HN kowtowed and facilitated their self-approved topics for discussion.

Why ask for Reddit 2.0 when you can just stick to Reddit.com?

<comment> blaser-waffle Indeed. This is a stripped down tech news aggregator for niche audiences.

A thread or two on big cultural trends of the day makes sense but this isn't reddit or twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I see the opposite; I think there are too many posts and comments about BLM. They are also heavily skewed in support of the movement, so anything skeptical gets flagged/downvoted.

It seems like this user demands a silo where his views are not questioned. Certainly HN is better without people like that.

</comment><comment><USER23> That's the unfortunate reality of the tech community and really privilege itself. It's uncomfortable to acknowledge the misfortunes of others. It's a sad norm of American culture, especially when it pertains to black people.

<comment><USER2> I agree with you about it being uncomfortable to acknowledge the misfortune of others. We could go deeply into that question. But I hope you're aware that the claims the OP made are not true at all—HN has had dozens of threads and tens of thousands of comments on the cluster of topics related to George Floyd (BLM, protests, police brutality, racism). This has been the most-discussed theme of the past month by far, supplanting coronavirus, and 10x more discussed than any of the most popular technical topics.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Oh wow, this made it to the front page and it just got flagged! I was going to say how i really don't care about mainstream news topics worming their way to HN but man, this is crazy. I understand downvotes and bans but flagging this and shadowbans are hitting below the belt.

Is this site for the intellectually dishonest? If not this b.s. needs to stop. How many "I quit facebook" posts make it to the front page all the time? How many social activism related topics make it to the front page. Counter argument to those who say it's not relevant: technology made these protests possible and technlogy is where the fight is happening right now.

I hope the moderator team (@dang) pays attention to this.

<comment><USER2> I did pay attention, because the OP's claims are false. When people say false things about HN and try to gin up outrage with them, I unfortunately feel obliged to respond.

If you haven't seen these comments, and are willing to read them, I'd be curious to hear if you feel like there's anything that remains unaddressed. I listed 52 threads but it could just as easily have been 102.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624916)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962)

Since you mention intellectual honesty: do you think the OP or any of the people who jumped to the same false conclusions will correct anything? I would be surprised if they did, even though acknowledging a mistake of this nature is the bare minimum that intellectual honesty requires.

Edit: on reflection, that last bit crossed a line and I owe the OP an apology. It's one thing to go on about intellectual honesty in general but there was a specific person in the mix and I should have left more room for the possibility that I was misunderstanding him, especially since I know how easy that is on the internet. I was doing the very thing I was complaining about—jumping to conclusions! Sometimes it takes a while to realize this, but it's embarrassingly obvious now. I've told the OP that I'm sorry, and want to say so publicly also.

<comment><USER25> So you don't like it when people accuse you unjustly either. I can understand that.

<comment><USER2> It's more about people accusing HN unjustly. The structure of the forum leads people to false conclusions very easily—I wrote about this at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098). It's easy for people to get stuck in a negative distortion which doesn't benefit anybody.

We can look at and acknowledge the problems on HN—certainly there are many problems—and at the same time see that there is also something unusually creative and positive at its core. I think the way for this positive core to develop further is for the community to get a more accurate reflection of itself.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-godwin-technology-ethics-20190430-story.html <comment><USER2> I agree with the idea, and so does the IEEE.

[https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html](https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html)

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members, and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

1) to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

2) to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;

3) to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;

4) to reject bribery in all its forms;

5) to improve the understanding by individuals and society of the capabilities and societal implications of conventional and emerging technologies, including intelligent systems;

6) to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;

7) to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

8) to treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;

9) to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;

10) to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not needed, we hackers - more or less - already have one for about 35 years:

1) Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about the way the world really works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!

2) All information should be free.

3) Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.

4) Hackers should be judged by their acting, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.

5) You can create art and beauty on a computer.

6) Computers can change your life for the better.

7) Don't litter other people's data.

8) Make public data available, protect private data.

Originally penned down by Steven Levy in "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" and slightly modified by the CCC after that.

Source: [https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics](https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics)

<comment><USER4> >All information should be free.

>protect private data.

How do you reconcile these? Data is information. Or is this another free vs Free (Kostenlos vs Frei) situation?

<comment><USER5> Using the first part of the "protect private data" line

Make public data available.

<comment><USER6> So then why are Facebook/Youtube getting criticized for not censoring the New Zealand shooter broadcast _fast enough_?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't speak for others on this, but I do have one: [https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics](https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics)

Like medical and legal professionals, it is concerned with professional ethics. Many people would be surprised to find their personal ethics are not present.

<comment><USER8> Every single time I've seen a public call for a code of tech ethics, the call is justified by discussing professional standards, but quickly switches to calling for legal entrenchment of the author's personal ethics.

On the blogs of notable programmers, best practices for security sit next to demands for closed-shop union membership. In comments sections (like this one), avoiding malicious dark patterns comes alongside demands that no programmer work for the US military. In the news, respecting user data is paired with enormously controversial positions on censorship and encryption.

This is far from the only reason codes of tech ethics have yet to gather major attention, but I think it would suffice even if the others disappear. Professional codes like the ACM's are valuable, but attempts to popularize and enforce them are derailed by attempts to add in specific personal ethics.

<comment><USER9> Personal ethics vs what? What do you consider universal, and why?

<comment><USER10> In their post they are contrasting personal ethics vs professional standards (which would pertain to how work is done, I would say).

A code of professional standards could say, for example, You have to keep clear notes for decisions made for each revision for a period of 5 years. A list of compilers that a serious "Software Engineer" will use. Establishing norms that might improve the overall quality of work done.

To some degree, I think a code like that one is really a kind of personal marketing or branding or something.

<comment><USER8> Thank you, that's exactly the contrast I'm trying to draw.

I hope neither of your examples makes it into an ethical code for software developers, but that doesn't make them bad examples - those are the sorts of things that appear in other fields. If a professional code more detailed than the ACA & IEEE ones were to arise, I'd hope to see more timeless things like "best practices for authentication" (e.g. passwords salted and strongly hashed) or "not unduly exposing personal information" (e.g. don't accept identifying information without SSL).

A lot of professional codes are definitely branding exercises more than standards of behavior. In particular, codes with lots of concrete requirements or specific corporate backers usually aren't much different than becoming an MCSE or Certified Scrum Master. Legal and medical codes are substantially better, but they're also much older and enforced by government-backed licensing cartels. Civil engineering is probably the most recent and broadly accessible field to get a strong code, but the parallels are obvious: engineers own specific projects with known uses, and their errors are directly lethal. Realistically, I don't expect software to see an Iron Ring sort of obligation unless the field's best practices stabilize and errors with real- world harms become common.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Professional ethics is not the right approach to fixing the problem with user data. As the Equifax hack shows, the problem is not limited to the tech industry, and it's a problem of incentives at the corporate level, not the individual contributor level. We need corporate regulation.

User data is an asset, because you use it to make money, and it is a liability, because it can be stolen and misused. Companies currently get all of the benefit but very little of the risk. If user data had to be insured then there would be a financial incentive to only keep what's needed, and to treat it more carefully.

<comment><USER12> > If user data had to be insured then there would be a financial incentive to > only keep what's needed, and to treat it more carefully.

Interesting thought, how would you imagine this would work in practice? Insurance against what? In the event of loss, who would make a payment to who?

There are "cybersecurity" insurance policies available to companies now but they really only cover the cost of mailing notification letters to impacted people and sometimes the cost of credit monitoring for a year. They're way overpriced and usually not at all worth it. I suspect that isn't really what you had in mind though?

<comment><USER11> The insurance payouts for a breach could go to the affected users or to the government, I don't think it would matter much. The important part is that companies need to pay to retain user data. The insurance would have to be mandatory for large companies.

<comment><USER12> I agree there needs to be a cost to companies who lose user data but I fear insurance would be a way to compensate users for the loss without incentivizing corporations to mitigate the risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't wait till software development is as ethical as the medical and legal industries.

<comment><USER14> So, prone to negligence and high fees?

<comment><USER8> Point well taken, but that's underselling the problem by a lot. The American Psychological Association has a clear, strong code of ethics, but worked to help the CIA design torture programs. Not just 'psychologists' but _the APA itself_.

Codes of professional ethics seem to offer some defense against total indifference to malpractice and incompetence, as with civil engineering restrictions. People holding out for them to do more, especially around conscious decisions like political work, seem to seriously overestimate what they've achieved in the past.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yes, technologists should. However, that does not prevent those who would violate those ethics. Laws are in place to do this.

Facebook is just trying to shift the blame to its employees. Gross.

<comment><USER16> Yes, we don't have a major problem with technologists behaving unethically. We have one with corporate decision makers behaving unethically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no?

And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...

<comment><USER18> Making missile guidance software is wholly unethical and is what we should be striving to prevent engineers from working on.

<comment><USER19> The alternative to guided missiles isn't peace, it's carpet bombing.

<comment><USER18> The planes needed to drop those bombs have software too.

<comment><USER20> It's perfectly possible to build very devistating weapons without computers. For example Little Boy & Enola Gay; and Fat Man and Bockscar. The Uranium, Plutonium, and Hydrogen bombs we're built without and do not contain computer. Ditto for the P38, B29, F104, &c.

Software makes our world go round, but it's not a necessity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Doctor and lawyer ethical codes work because there is a state sanctioned licensing authority. If you try to practice law or medicine without a license, you will be arrested.

Because of that, the ethical codes have teeth, as the medical board or bar can strip you of your license and thus the ability to practice for ethical violations.

There is so such equivalent to the medical board or bar for programmers. Anybody who has the inclination can program. Because of that, any ethical codes will be just words. In fact, companies may actually pay more for people willing to violate these codes.

While I think ethical codes are good, I don't think they are worth having a licensing authority. I am happy that anyone with the ability is allowed to program and that I don't need a state license.

</comment><comment><USER22> The ACM tried to revise its code of ethics not long ago. The process a bit rough because there are very very different interests and perspectives within the organization, not to mention difference in norms between nations (like China).

They did try, though. They went just far enough that it's almost possible to suggest that one couldn't adhere to the current code and still work for Google, Facebook, or China in any engineering capacity. But I still don't really expect them to start penalizing members, as the ACM seems to see itself a lot more as an academic/research group than professional org.

</comment><comment><USER23> > unjustified physical or mental injury

I don't subscribe to "mental injury" as a quantifiable or philosophical harm. There is no way to protect against interpretation or experience, that necessitates increasingly complex and ineffective measures to adapt to subjective and possibly aberrant, mental states. This will always devolve into a discussion of normality, which is immoral at the core.

> 2.6 Perform work only in areas of competence.

This perhaps, can be salvaged. I would not agree to this as-is. How _anyone_ measures competence is too open, given the state of software development.

</comment><comment><USER24> [https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics](https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics)

[https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html](https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html)

These seem like good starting points to me.

<comment><USER25> The problem is that unless there is a licensing body that enforces adherence the ethics, they will be ignored. Doctors and lawyers have such licensing requirements, tech does not. The question is not what the ethics should say, but whether or not tech should require licensing to be involved in it.

<comment><USER24> Then establish something comparable to the PE concept for software engineers, and require it for certain categories of software (aviation and medical software already have to get certified, have a Professional Software Engineer on the hook too, and then extend this to other types of software systems like certain financial, legal, or personal data systems).

<comment><USER26> +1 I've long advocated for a higher degree of professionalism and credentialing to establish a minimum bar of competence. Unfortunately, people who only work on yet-another-Rails-SaaS thing complain that excludes those that are not formally credentialed. Even then, try asking a customer of said SaaS product if they would trust something not built with a high degree of professionalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't disagree that perhaps software developers should be on board with a code of ethics, but this is a false dichotomy between the decisions of doctors/lawyers when providing services, and the decisions of technology companies on the whole. Companies that exist to make profit, in this case generally by monetizing user data in some (often questionable) form. It seems to me like the ethical responsibility bit lies more with the directorship and management of these companies, and not the Joe Bloe software dev that's working on making emojis display correctly in IE.

<comment><USER8> I frequently see people dismiss this with "programmers have an obligation to think about the possible uses of their work". That's not false, but I think it seriously underestimates the depth of the problem.

The simplest difference between professions with clear ethical codes (doctors, lawyers, civil engineers) and ones without is that professions with strong codes provide _outcomes_. A doctor treats a specific patient, a lawyer litigates a case, a civil engineer builds a specific bridge. Even indirect work like medical research has specific recipients and a fairly clear course for future use. Programmers, like chemists or machinists, frequently create _tools_.

Alfred Nobel famously created his prize in atonement for the destruction caused by his invention, but he invented and marketed dynamite for use in mining and construction, where it provided real benefit to humanity. Edward Teller spent the second half of his life championing civilian uses for nuclear power and atomic bombs, having seen the world reshaped by fear of a weapon he hoped would be demonstrated to prevent future wars.

The beauty of professional codes in medicine and law is that they achieve moral good without taking heavily-disputed moral stances; if doctors do no harm and refuse instructions to do so, harm will generally be prevented. A chemist studying nitrates or a programmer designing GPS guidance has no such guarantees; the same work is very likely to create both good and bad in uncertain amounts, depending on where it's put to use.

<comment><USER26> The case I like to bring up was the Volkswagen emission scandal. The executives where pointing fingers at "well shucks, these engineer's must have done it and not told anyone". Having a strong sense of ethics would be to stand up and say "I can't do that lest I risk my license so fire me".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't think you can compare the relationship of a company to customers, to that of a one-to-one relationship of a doctor or a lawyer. The company acts as a third party with very different (and often directly conflicting with the end user) aims that creates a much harder ethical situation for a developer to navigate and creates confusion as to who has the responsibility to sound the alarm.

I think of something like legal or medical confidentiality, which can involve their clients doing pretty horrible things but it being the "ethical" thing to not reveal that. If one takes this same thing to a Facebook scenario, does the developer who works for Facebook then have the obligation to protect the confidentiality of Facebook even if they're doing awful things? Would it be any different where a lawyer is working for a horrible client, trying to use the law to do things that are a net-negative for society, but ethics would put their obligation towards their direct client rather than society at large.

If one then wants to write a piece about ethics, one should start with examples of fields with ethical codes that have a structure closer to the relationship of users/Facebook/developers.

<comment><USER12> > The company acts as a third party with very different (and often directly > conflicting with the end user) aims that creates a much harder ethical > situation for a developer to navigate and creates confusion as to who has > the responsibility to sound the alarm.

This is very similar to structure I operated under as a corporate attorney at a bank but also as the Chief Information Security Officer. I owed a duty to the bank, as my "client," and also to the bank's clients, whose information I was charged with protecting. You are indeed correct that it's a difficult and uncomfortable situation to manage. I always tried to be a "zealous advocate" for the bank in all matters except those related to privacy and I'll be the first to admit that much of my zealous advocacy was indeed a net-negative for society. I did ultimately leave because of a disagreement over how to respond to (or in their case, chose to ignore) an ongoing breach of customer accounts.

All of that being said, I don't think it's an impossible ask with a bit of help from the government. I also served as the AML Officer and in that capacity I had the absolute final say on all matters related to money laundering thanks to the PATRIOT Act. The only way to override my decision would be a board vote. I never had any "disagreements" about how to handle an AML situation because my decisions were final while my decisions as CISO were merely a recommendation that management could (and did) ignore in order to save time, money, and bad PR.

<comment><USER29> > I'll be the first to admit that much of my zealous advocacy was indeed a > net-negative for society

Curious to find out more about this, and how you felt about it while you were doing it, if you're willing to talk about it.

<comment><USER12> Oddly enough I loved working for a hedge fund. The attorneys at the SEC and the attorneys who worked for the funds' clients were all brilliant. I could "zealously advocate" but it was an equal match. The SEC (though overworked) know what they're doing and often have industry experience so they understand how the business operates.

When I moved to investment banking, where the state regulators play a bigger role (with a much smaller budget) and the clients are wealthy families instead of investment funds, that's when it started to feel dirty. State regulators are... at best woefully ineffective and at worst completely clueless as to how the industry operates (they tend to be career government people).

Not meaning to offend anyone's politics but I often told my friends that I was Kelly Anne Conway putting forth an argument that was really kind of a stretch. I felt obligated to advocate but I also felt the regulators and auditors really should have objected or tried to negotiate but they almost never pushed back. Sometimes because they just didn't care but more often because they didn't know any better.

At the hedge fund, a "win" was collaborative and strategic and felt like I had earned it. At the bank a "win" felt a lot like bullying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The challenge here is technologists have shunned labor organization to my knowledge which is what I understand controls the cited fields. Different economic model applies to most people in technology compared to law and medicine. Smells like a buzzword article. Maybe the cloud companies could implement a code and create barriers to deploy "unethical" code... that might work.

</comment><comment><USER31> I see people in technology doing border-line dishonest and unethical things all the time. They're called marketing, sales, and product management. I've rarely known them to go by the name of software developer - in fact they're usually the ones to dig their feet in against misrepresenting things or doing stuff that violates privacy or user expectations, etc.

</comment><comment><USER32> Here's what I don't want:

I don't want ethics exams and accreditation requirements to constrain software development to people with traditional software backgrounds. The cost of a traditional college education in the United States is easily five or six figures, and socioeconomic forces means that black people face systemic barriers to getting access to that education (versus whites, indians, asians, etc.). I want there to be more YCs, more Startup Schools, more Lambda Schools, and I want them open to immigrants and non-US-citizens, too.

I also don't want ethics exams to constrain supply. A lot of software withers on the vine because there's no "business case" for it, but if there was a way to divorce the need to put dinner on the table from how much people (or advertisers, or...) are willing to pay for software, then there's a lot of software that is yet to be written that could make the world better (say, enabling the creation of more art and music, or something).

<comment><USER33> The same could be said for doctors and lawyers though, and I don't think we complain too much about having less unethical doctors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> See ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct at [https://ethics.acm.org/code-of- ethics/](https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/)

Here are the main points:

      1. GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES.

      As an ACM member I will

      1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being.
      1.2 Avoid harm to others.
      1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
      1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
      1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.
      1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property.
      1.7 Respect the privacy of others.
      1.8 Honor confidentiality.

      2. MORE SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

      As an ACM computing professional I will

      2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness
          and dignity in both the process and products of
          professional work.
      2.2 Acquire and maintain professional competence.
      2.3 Know and respect existing laws pertaining to
          professional work.
      2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review.
      2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer
          systems and their impacts, including analysis of
          possible risks.
      2.6 Honor contracts, agreements, and assigned
          responsibilities.
      2.7 Improve public understanding of computing and its
          consequences.
      2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when
          authorized to do so.

      3. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP IMPERATIVES.

      As an ACM member and an organizational leader, I will

      3.1 Articulate social responsibilities of members of an
          organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of
          those responsibilities.
      3.2 Manage personnel and resources to design and build
          information systems that enhance the quality of working
          life.
      3.3 Acknowledge and support proper and authorized uses of
          an organization's computing and communication
          resources.
      3.4 Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a
          system have their needs clearly articulated during the
          assessment and design of requirements; later the system
          must be validated to meet requirements.
      3.5 Articulate and support policies that protect the
          dignity of users and others affected by a computing
          system.
      3.6 Create opportunities for members of the organization to
          learn the principles and limitations of computer
          systems.

      4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.

      As an ACM member I will

      4.1 Uphold and promote the principles of this Code.
      4.2 Treat violations of this code as inconsistent with
          membership in the ACM.

<comment><USER35> This is kind of grossly simplified though, isn't it?

> 1.2 Avoid harm to others

So no smart weapons which minimize collateral damage?

> 1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.

So no Sci-Hub? What about bad copyrights?

> 1.8 Honor confidentiality.

What about whistleblowing?

<comment><USER7> It's worth mentioning that the text you are responding to is the overview. The ACM offers greater detail that addresses your concerns: [https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics](https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics)

> So no smart weapons which minimize collateral damage?

This section is concerned with indirect and unintentional harm. Weapons tend to be a problem for every ethical system. Here, my reading would be that weapons should work as intended.

> So no Sci-Hub? What about bad copyrights?

What is a bad copyright is not a question for the ACM code of ethics. You'll find a more detailed examination of intellectual property in the full code of ethics.

> What about whistleblowing?

An excellent question! I'll just quote from the discussion directly:

> Computing professionals are often entrusted with confidential information > such as trade secrets, client data, nonpublic business strategies, financial > information, research data, pre-publication scholarly articles, and patent > applications. Computing professionals should protect confidentiality except > in cases where it is evidence of the violation of law, of organizational > regulations, or of the Code. In these cases, the nature or contents of that > information should not be disclosed except to appropriate authorities. A > computing professional should consider thoughtfully whether such disclosures > are consistent with the Code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I might have missed it when scanning the article, but nowhere did it mention how the formal ethical codes for docs and lawyers are backed up by licenses and review panels and exams. Are they proposing the same regulation before allowing someone to build an app?

Would they call for the same for journalists too? Arguably, the media has an equal need for ethical oversight, but we generally prefer the media to be free of partisan interference.

I believe journalists and technologists are better off without state or federal licensing to enforce ethical codes.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why would tech workers go the way of medical professionals and structural engineers and all these instead of going the way of financial engineers?

</comment><comment><USER38> I participated in the Order of the Engineer ceremony ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer)) when I finished my degree, and I think it wouldn't hurt for more people to do so. I have met very few people wear the ring on a regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER39> What's silly here is that things that are harmful only happen with hindsight and scale. I don't think anyone at FB understood what Cambridge Analytica would turn into, because it came from a program of trying to help advance researchers. When things are new, you assume the best for them. Only once time passes do you understand all the unexpected ways people can abuse it.

</comment><comment><USER40> Ethics was a required 2 credit course in my university computer science studies. It isn't some new idea, but I guess it isn't an industry standard yet. I'd agree anywhere the opportunity to do harm exists there should be clear ethical standards established.

<comment><USER41> I studied business and we also had ethics classes. But nobody really took it seriously. I think there is a strong ethos in medical industry, and think it would be good to see it in startup culture. I think this is a point of this article.

<comment><USER42> At my university every major has a specific ethics class as well as taking a general ethics class. The classes were a joke. All we talked about in Computer Science Ethics was gender/race imbalance in the field. An important issue no doubt, but when with Facebook stuff going on, creating weapons, EU privacy laws, and a bunch of other topics out there it was extremely frustrating being in the class.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> For every ethical software developer, there are 10 who will work for Cambridge Analytica and there is nothing you can do about it.

It's a fools errand; at most serving the purpose of 'feeling good about yourself' rather than any societal impact

<comment><USER44> There are also doctors who help criminal gangs steal kidneys. That doesn't mean there's no point in bothering to have them all swear an oath in medical school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Ironically technologists seem to have higher ethical standards than doctors and lawyers. Hell, the entire US medical system revolves around financial assault of the infirm.

<comment><USER46> Medical system vs medical professionals are very different. You can't solve systemic issues with individualized responsibility. It's not that doctors are bad, it's privatized healthcare that is causing the problem, and requires systemic solutions (since it's clear the same problems don't exist under other systems).

What's really happening here is that Facebook wants to push for blaming individuals, because it let's them keep doing whatever unethical things they want to, since they know that individual responsibility is toothless in the face of such a massive system like itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> We do have an ethical code. "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering" book sums it up nicely. The ethical codes such as those of ACM or IEEE are good examples.

</comment><comment><USER48> Let's write a code of executive ethics instead. All this ressentiment at tech workers needs to be channeled into something actually productive.

</comment><comment><USER49> [http://archive.is/DpMS0](http://archive.is/DpMS0)

</comment><comment><USER50> Just don't be a piece of shit. If you need a list of rules to do that, lord have mercy on your soul.

<comment><USER51> Different people view being a piece of shit differently. It's good to codify standards no?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> No we shouldn't. Obey your personal codes and follow the laws.

Tech is fun. Let's keep it that way.

<comment><USER53> So we shouldn't have a code of ethics because it would make tech "less fun"?

That's actually a good demonstration of why we _do_ need a code of ethics.

<comment><USER54> A code of ethics is meaningless for "tech" (whatever that is.) Medicine and law have licensing. Violating professional ethics can result in a loss of licensing. In "tech" there isn't such licensing, thus a code of ethics is just a platitude. There is nothing stopping you from writing your own code and following it.

As far as a code for all of tech, who would write such a thing? And how would it be enforced? And who would be obligated to follow it? Just people that write code? Or what about designers? And if designers have to follow the code, that would mean that they can be "kicked out" for non compliance, which means they have to be "allowed in." So how does that work? Professional licensing for designers now too? A four-year degree along with a test on the Bauhaus and Human Interface Guidelines?

As far as licensing, that would make tech less fun. What would be the licensing requirements? Would it be like a coding interview with ridiculous whiteboard algorithm examples? Would you have to pass a test on front end frameworks? How about a test on Kubernetes? Would you have to have a degree in "tech?" Steve Wozniak wouldn't have been eligible to work on Apple I. How about the Wright Brothers? They worked in a bike shop, how were they qualified to invent airplanes with engines? A proper authority ought to have shut them down promptly because clearly they weren't qualified to be working on flying machines! The Bicycle Mechanics Code of Professional Ethics expressly prohibits working outside of the scope of your training and licensure right? Howard Hughes wasn't a professional engineer, yet somehow he helped design the fastest airplane at the time.

You want ethics? Then act ethically. But the last thing we need is a gatekeeper organization deciding who is worthy or not to invent the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I am usually not averse against regulation but one advantage of tech is that it's still the Wild West where it's possible to innovate quickly and change things. Lawyers and doctors are in much more controlled environment where not much innovation is happening. I am also not sure how to determine what's ethical or not.

I much prefer laws like GDPR where there is a set of rules everyone has to follow.

<comment><USER54> Medicine is innovating a lot more than some ride-sharing, restaurant rating, social-local photo sharing app startup.

<comment><USER55> No. I work in medical and progress is much slower. In a lot of tech you can try something and get immediate feedback. In medical you have to wait for years and spend a ton of money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> this won't help with corporate malfeasance at all.

</comment><comment><USER57> Programmers/technologist often work for those who only work money... ethics generally do not work in such places...

<comment><USER58> I actually had the exact same thought on different lines. A software code of ethics will be toothless without a financial code of ethics. But a financial CoE is antithetical to finance's goals.

Edit: to be clear that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one!

<comment><USER59> A code of ethics is backed by law at least for the most part (sometimes ethical and legal principles might even clash). And here is the biggest difference. For doctors or lawyers unethical behavior leads to losing the license to practice. There's no such thing for coding.

<comment><USER42> Do you believe there should be?

<comment><USER59> In principle (because the technicalities are way too complex to address here and now) there's no reason specific fields in programming couldn't require a license, like a clearance needed to work with sensitive data.

Coding is more and more used to build the backbone of future society. It's about time we recognize the criticality of the whole industry (not just the coders themselves). Having no ethics code for this is not very different from accepting when soldiers invoke the "superior orders" defense.

It may very well turn out that it simply can't be applied to this field but to get there you have to at least consider it first.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Eye Tracking Study on CamelCase and Snake_case [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.kent.edu/~jmaletic/papers/ICPC2010-CamelCaseUnderScoreClouds.pdf?s=so <comment><USER2> I find the experimental setup disappointing. As set up, each identifier is surrounded by a fluffy cloud outline, in complete isolation from any surrounding text, testing only the ability to distinguish between identifiers that differ in one or two letters only in the middle (versus the beginning or end, as would more frequently be the case). In practice, long identifiers with such subtle differences are a problem in any naming scheme.

What they did not test is the speed of visual chunking of lexical elements, something that is (in my guess) more important than the ability to distinguish between mostly-identical strings. Underscores have fallen out of favor because of this more important visual confusion, where identifier beginnings and endings are less apparent.

Of course, this study suggests that our IDEs should perhaps surround variables with fluffy cloud outlines to aid with underscore variables. :)

</comment><comment> java-man excellent study. we need a similar study for K&R braces vs straight ones.

I bet straight braces would be faster to process.</comment>


Falcor[JS]: MVC for an Asynchronous World - <AUTHOR> http://moduscreate.com/falcor-mvc-for-an-asynchronous-world/ <comment><USER2> Where to find Falcor sources?</comment>


How to Find and Recruit a Killer Advisory Board - <AUTHOR> http://blog.earbits.com/online_radio/how-to-find-and-recruit-a-killer-advisory-board/

<comment><USER2> Unless your goal is to just be the online radio some subset of HN users listen to you guys really need a better marketing strategy than churning out blog posts for HN.

There's a bunch of music sites and blogs, work your contacts and get cuddly with anyone who can get your startup on or referenced on those sites where tons of music aficionados can click thru and see earbits the music startup, not earbits the blog about startups.

<comment><USER3> What makes you assume that blog posts are all they're doing? Wouldn't it be better to assume that these blog posts are just a small fraction of their marketing strategy?

<comment><USER3> Since people don't typically act irrationally, why not assume that if they're still doing it, it's because it's working by some metric that they're measuring?

I guess I just don't understand the default-hostile attitude.

<comment><USER4> _Since people don't typically act irrationally, ..._

No? I see it all the time. Not with everything, but at least a few things, especially when something is near and dear to the heart.

People often believe the things they really _want_ to be true, and rational calculation doesn't figure into it.

Not to say that the Earbits wave is or is not based on some measured plan, just that repetition of behavior is no indication that someone has made a rational judgement.

In any event, the user 'earbitscom' is clearly interested in one thing: <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=earbitscom>

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I should have specified that I was using the word rational in this way: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory> namely, "that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage"

<comment><USER4> Right. I'm rejecting that claim. Quite often people do things that clearly do not fit rational choice theory.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, let's just stop the speculation. My team is focused on all kinds of marketing. We were just written up in TheNextWeb, were just interviewed by Earwolff, were on Eye On Business in Orange County, have closed two very large marketing partnerships scheduled to launch soon, as well as are launching some great contests designed to draw eyeballs. We've written 29 blog posts in May, 65-75% of them are album reviews, recaps of the week's new music releases and information about festivals and concerts. The other 25 are either about startups, music industry chat, or both.

Has it proven beneficial to us to write about our startup experience and post to HN? Yes, it has. And based on the number of votes our posts have received, people find the information valuable. We'll try not to make it so frequent that it's annoying, but the content is relevant for this forum and it has driven some great, very feedback-oriented tech people to our website, which is important for not only early adopter traffic but also getting smart people to tell us what they think of our product.

In other words, it's not the core of our marketing plan, but it's not an accident and we'll try not to abuse it. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you can get introduced it's normally more effective than an e-mail.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's absolutely true. Some people don't yet have those connections, just like we didn't, and I think you can still shoot for those people. It's different than investors, who almost never take meetings with people they don't know. The kind of advisor you want to work with should be friendly enough to respond to someone they have never met, and probably doesn't get the volume of email that an investor gets. That's been my experience anyway.

<comment><USER5> E-mail is easy to send but is not as effective as an introduction for that reason. You might see if you know someone in common and ask them to introduce you. Expecting an advisor to be friendly to strangers is a high bar.Ditto if you are trying to reach prospects or partners.</comment></comment></comment>


LHC May Have Found Crack in Modern Physics - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/lhc-crack-physics/ <comment><USER2> "...a certainty of three sigma, so there's about one chance in 100 the result is a fluke."

This is a very incorrect way of summarizing the result.

When will popsci writers ever get this right? Hypothesis testing _cannot_ tell you the probability that a hypothesis is true. It also cannot tell you if the result is a "fluke." What it _can_ tell you is the probability of seeing the data assuming the null hypothesis is true. Without knowledge of the prior probability of the hypothesis, you have no right to say anything about the probability of the result being a "fluke" or not.

This is commonly misunderstood. Perhaps I can illuminate it with an example.

Suppose I take a coin out of your pocket--a good old American quarter. I then proceed to flip it six times and egads, I get six heads. The chance that a fair coin flips the same way six times in a row is 2/(2^6), or 1/32--close to 3%. Whoo hoo, that's more than a two sigma result.

Does that mean there's only a 3% chance the coin is actually fair? NO! If you _assume_ the coin is fair, there is a 3% chance the coin flips the same way six times in a row. There's a huge distinction in flipping the conditional. Going by the infinitesimal number of quarters in circulation that wouldn't flip fairly, we'd say before any experiment that there's an overwhelming chance the coin is truly fair. So there isn't a 3% chance the result "is a fluke," if by "is a fluke" we mean the coin really is fair AND the coin flipped in a surprising way. We KNOW the coin flipped in a surprising way, and if we know that at least 99% of quarters are fair, there's probably a near-100% chance that the data can be called a "fluke."

This is all to say, if the prior probability of your null hypothesis is high, one unlikely result should not impress. You are merely demonstrating that unlikely things happen--and with so many coins and people flipping them they _should_ be, from time to time.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value#Misunderstandings>

[http://invasiber.org/EGarcia/papers/MatthewsFinancialTimes.h...](http://invasiber.org/EGarcia/papers/MatthewsFinancialTimes.htm)

tldr; what the article says --> P(Fluke|Data) != P(Data|Fluke) <\-- what the statistic means

<comment><USER3> > _What it can tell you is the probability of seeing the data assuming the > null hypothesis is true._

Sigh. When will internet explainers ever get this right? :-) Your explanation cannot be literally correct because, if the null hypothesis is true (the coin is fair), the "probability of seeing the data" is exactly the same for all possible sequences of six coinflips. What hypothesis testing actually does is arbitrarily pick a class of data that's "at least as extreme" as what was actually seen, and report its total probability.

To quote Eliezer Yudkowsky rephrasing Steven Goodman's example:

> _So lo and behold, I flip the coin six times, and I get the result TTTTTH. > Is this result statistically significant, and if so, what is the p-value - > that is, the probability of obtaining a result at least this extreme? Well, > that depends. Was I planning to flip the coin six times, and count the > number of tails? Or was I planning to flip the coin until it came up heads, > and count the number of trials? In the first case, the probability of > getting "five tails or more" from a fair coin is 11%, while in the second > case, the probability of a fair coin requiring "at least five tails before > seeing one heads" is 3%._

Also see the "voltmeter story": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_principle#The_voltme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_principle#The_voltmeter_story) .

<comment><USER2> > arbitrarily pick a class of data that's "at least as extreme" as what was > actually seen

You are absolutely correct, in my haste to explain one misinterpretation of p-values, I stumbled into another gross oversimplification. The correct way of saying it must always involve some language about the deviation or extremity of the data being at least as great as observed.

It goes to show that proper reporting of p-value statistics takes a lawyerly craft with language; while writing the post I had to consider what the mathematical interpretation of "is a fluke" should be. I think the definition I chose is what most people will interpret it as. However, the word fluke just means "unlikely chance occurrence" on its own, so saying "there is a 1% chance the result is an unlikely chance occurrence" is uninformative if taken literally. It has to imply one of two things:

1\. You are referring to the null hypothesis as the unlikely occurrence, i.e. "There is a 1% chance the null hypothesis is true [therefore making this data surprising]."

2\. You are temporarily _assuming_ it is true to make such a statement, i.e. "There is a 1% chance of seeing data at least this surprising [if the null hypothesis were true]."

Someone that does know what a p-value is might be generous and think you meant the latter, which is a correct statement. However, I think that most people hear it the first way.

The fact that p-value reporting (when properly done) involves thinking through double negatives and conditions that are easily ignored probably indicates that it's time for other measures of significance to become better accepted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For a writeup of this that includes some _gasp!_ physics, see the excellent Résonaances blog [http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2011/11/lhcb-has-evidence- of...](http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2011/11/lhcb-has-evidence-of-new- physics-maybe.html)

For something slightly more comprehensible than that, but a lot more useful than bloody _wired,_ try Sean Carroll: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/11/14/...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/11/14/new- physics-at-lhc-an-anomaly-in-cp-violation/)

For more LHC/higgs gossip see this recent article from Not Even Wrong <http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4136>

</comment><comment><USER5> Most important I even learned in physics graduate school was "physics research has many more 3 sigma effects than it should." Part of it is that if you do 100 searches you are going to see one three sigma effect. Couple that with reporting bias (only the interesting stuff is reported).

<comment><USER6> As far as I know, 3 sigma implies 1 in 370, not 1 in 100. (Still insufficiently unlikely for a conclusion.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule>

<comment><USER7> And it certainly does not imply "one chance in 100 the result is a fluke". Will science journalists never learn how to interpret a _p_ -value into English?

<comment><USER8> I imagine about 200 years after scientists finally stop getting it wrong, so almost surely never.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's maybe worth noting that the Nobel prize in 2008 was given to three Japanese (two actual-Japanese and one Tokyo-born American) scientists for the prediction and inclusion of CP-violating broken symmetries in QCD: [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/200...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/)

</comment><comment><USER10> This would actually solve one of Physics' most important unsolved mysteries about the beginning of our Universe, Baryogenesis: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis>. Less of a crack and more bridging a huge gap in our understanding, I would say.

<comment><USER4> [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/06/04/...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/06/04/marketing- cp-violation/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article acknowledges _"...so there's about one chance in 100 the result is a fluke."_ and then this from a particle physicist... _"I'm not betting my pension on this result standing the test of further data..."_

Why is this article getting so many up-votes?

<comment><USER12> This result points the direction for future research.

<comment><USER11> > This result points the direction for future research. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can somebody explain why this 0.8% difference between the decay rates matter? I understand that this will give us a better understanding of what happened at the big bang, but will this also translate into practical applications?

Not trying to criticize or diminish this finding btw, I'm just wondering if these findings we get from LHC will translate into something to get excited about in the near future - like, I don't know, alternative energy sources maybe.

<comment><USER14> You mean something like the World Wide Web? ;-)

If you know the results and applications beforehand, it is more engineering then research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "LHC does exactly what it was built to do".

<comment><USER16> Except it didn't - yet. This is only a 3 sigma result which is so low this should never have even been reported.

<comment><USER17> 3 sigma is significant enough to warrant external investigation. 5 sigma is the realm of the interesting...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's that you say? A new study overturning old physics?

I bet $200 that the new result won't pan out.

</comment><comment><USER19> If they take the actual data from the Fermilab results, could they get a quantitatively higher accuracy?

<comment><USER20> Yes, but not at the six sigma level which is needed (error propagation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I fully expect them to destroy the Earth by the end of 2012.

</comment><comment><USER22> That bunch openly discriminates people according to origin.

"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y)" [where Y>X] -- LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report

ISBN: 9290831693 <http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264></comment>


With donations against cancer, the Pr0gramm community has made cancer aid crash - <AUTHOR> http://www.t-online.de/digital/internet/id_83466874/pr0gramm-community-laesst-mit-spenden-gegen-krebs-seite-der-krebshilfe-abstuerzen.html <comment><USER2> Man, this is a complicated story. The strategy of protesting Krebs' writing by donating to an German anti-cancer website (Krebs = cancer in German) is definitely interesting.

At the surface level, it's an attack on Krebs, but there's a secondary thing going on here.

Krebs' main investigation was on Coinhive, a group which embeds Monero mining scripts in pages which run on page visitors' machines. But in his criticism of Coinhive and its association with Pr0gramm, it seems he may have cast too wide a net, doxxing and accusing Pr0gramm users who may not have anything to do with Coinhive. Instead of apologizing for this, he doubled down on it, typifying Pr0gramm users as basement dwellers who anonymously post nastygrams and threaten journalists with death.

Donating to cancer research is a direct response to _that_ : it shows that Pr0gramm users are at least not _only_ bad--they also do things generally considered altruistic, like donating to cancer research.

Both sides have definitely dirtied their hands: at least _some_ Pr0gramm users _are_ mining cryptocurrency on other people's machines through Coinhive, and Krebs has definitely made the false insinuation that Monero's anonymity is only useful for criminal activity. The open question is whether this behavior is typical of Pr0gramm or Krebs has actually accused Pr0gramm users who weren't involved in Coinhive.

I don't know who is in the right here--I simply don't have enough information to know. What information I do have comes from sources which are clearly biased. But it's interesting to see how even at this level, security cases are being tried in the court of public opinion.

<comment><USER2> An aside to this story which I find interesting:

I definitely think that mining cryptocurrency on other people's machines without their consent is malicious, and I am glad that the security industry is treating this as an exploit. This shares similarities with ads in webpages, which run without my consent.

However, unlike ads, mining scripts don't grab my _attention_ without my consent, they only use my _processing power_ , which is something I would be willing to negotiate for the right website. I'd be happy to click a button which says "Allow nytimes.com to mine cryptocurrency on your browser while you browse their website", for example. There would need to be secure systems in place around this sort of mechanism--I'd rather have this implemented by the browser than as a JS script--but this might provide an alternative to pay models which sites seem unwilling to try, and ad models which I am unwilling to agree to.

<comment><USER3> This is exactly what happened on Pr0gramm.

The users of the platform are not the people who include Coinhive on hacked websites. Pr0gramm simply allowed its users to voluntarily mine in their browsers and be rewarded with a premium account. The main benefit of a premium account is, that no ads are shown on the site.

<comment><USER4> > The users of the platform are not the people who include Coinhive on hacked > websites.

They're apparently basement dwellers. Hint: basement dwellers don't pay their own electricity bill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think uncovering the person / company behind Coinhive is not a bad idea. However, in doing so, Brian Krebs did several extremely questionable decisions and moves:

\- publishing material by users he knew had trolled him to further the agenda that this is a right-wing site (it is not, the site has a huge fan base of Bernie Sanders and other leftist politicians)

\- look at his tweets and headlines (on Vice Motherboard for example) that are used to promote the story: They are almost exclusively focusing the the Mathias Moench part, which is completely irrelevant to pr0gramm, Coinhive, and even the mindmap.

Given that, his whole article reeks of sensationalism, not journalism. This is fake news. Seeing reporters report about a thing you know well instills me with me with dread about how I believe their articles about the things I don't know well. I lost all the respect I had for Mr. Krebs work, and I am one step closer to losing respect for all journalists. Which isn't a bad thing, being aware how biased and badly researched publications are is not a bad thing.

€dit: typos

<comment><USER5> And yes, I understand that "German nazi separatist site registered on millionaires son who hired a hitman to kill his parents with a machete responsible for hottest crypto malware of the year"

sounds great to push the story. Except that it could not be farther from the truth. I just wasn't expecting someone who calls themselves an investigative journalist like Brian Krebs to try to beat the Sun (or Bild, for Germany) at their game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the article:

 _Am Abend änderte sich die Auseinandersetzung dann, nachdem ein Nutzer, "BassT87", einen Screenshot als Beleg für eine 25-Euro-Spende an die Krebshilfe postete. "Ich habe den Rummel um Herrn Krebs mal zum Anlass genommen, meinen Teil gegen Krebs beizutragen. Vielleicht macht der ein oder andere es ja (statt dem drölftausendsten Meme) ja nach..."._

In english:

 _In the evening, the dispute changed after a user, "BassT87", posted a screenshot as proof of a 25 euro donation to Krebshilfe. "I took the hype about Mr. Krebs as an opportunity to do my part against cancer[Krebs]. Maybe one or the other will (instead of the thrwelvethousandth meme) imitate it..."._

This is really the kind of absurd humour I like...

(Edit: format)

</comment><comment><USER7> Krebs = Cancer in german

This is apparently in protest of this article by Krebs: [https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/who-and-what-is- coinhive...](https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/who-and-what-is-coinhive/)

Which according to some screenshots on pr0gramm also contains bullshit users fed to Krebs in an attempt to toll him. [0]

But the obvious problem here is the unnecessary doxing of people, just because Brian doesn't believe someone can compile a CPU miner with emscripten as one single person.

[0] [http://img.pr0gramm.com/2018/03/28/b99c8ddc182d29f0.png](http://img.pr0gramm.com/2018/03/28/b99c8ddc182d29f0.png)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Following the doxxing of the people behind pr0gramm.com the community knew that retaliation by ddos or other bad methods would not work for Brian Krebs, who enjoys DDOS protection by google. So they started a donation raid on the German Cancer Help Foundation, because Krebs literally tranlates to cancer in german. The raid is ongoing and unconfirmed sources talk about 11k donations. The avarage ammount seems to be > 15€ with at least one single donation of 10k€

rel. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16678536](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16678536)

<comment><USER8> I don't understand?

They're getting back at Krebs by donating to a charity?

<comment><USER3> The word "Krebs" in German translates to crab as well as cancer. They are donating to the charities that work against cancer and are commenting "Krebs ist scheiße" which would translate to "Cancer is shit" as well as "[Brian ]Krebs is shit".

<comment><USER9> But aren't they still, in essence, donating to charity to get back at Krebs?

<comment><USER7> I think it's more of a peaceful protest against his questionable journalism practices rather than getting back at him.

But yes.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>