The Universal Data Structure - <AUTHOR> http://elbenshira.com/blog/the-universal-data-structure/ <comment><USER2> "Hashes are always O(1) reads, inserts and writes."

Maybe, once you've found a location to read, insert, or write to. The author neglects the runtime cost required for the hash algorithm itself, which may not be trivial; computing the hash of a string key is typically an O(n) operation.

Furthermore, unless a suitable table size is selected, integer keys (should one use a map like an array) will eventually hash to the same value, requiring even more time to iterate through all the remaining values that match that key until the desired value is found.

"I don't know why you would ever use [a linked list] over an array (or a hash)..."

Here's why: because arrays take up space whether you use it or not. Linked lists don't suffer from this problem, but at the cost of 1-2 pointers per item. Has the author seriously never managed memory before? Please tell me this article is a joke.

<comment><USER3> It's even tagged "bad-theory." I think it's pretty clearly a joke! A really good one!

<comment><USER4> "And we can't forget our favorite JavaScript interview question of all time: If you only had twenty-four hours to implement arrays in JavaScript, how would you do it?"

<comment><USER5> Aren't they just objects that have integer properties; that's why you can

        for (k in ['a', 'b']) {
          console.log(k);
        }

and get back 0, 1? However:

        var a = {0:'a', 1:'b'};
        for (k in a) {
          console.log(k);
        }

_also_ outputs 0, 1.

Edit: turns out, you can even have doubles, too:

        var weird = {3.14:'hello', 6.28:'world'};
        // for loop above emits: 3.14, 6.28
        console.log(weird[3.14]); // emits 'hello'

<comment><USER6> > Edit: turns out, you can even have doubles, too:

That's because Javascript doesn't actually have integers, it just has "Number":

> The Number type has exactly 18437736874454810627 (that is, 264−253+3) > values, representing the double-precision 64-bit format IEEE 754 values as > specified in the IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic

[http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-8.5](http://www.ecma- international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-8.5)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a perfect example of the kind of humor that belongs on HN. Actually had me nodding along in parts, then screwing up my face at others. By the time I was sure it was satire, I was committed enough to see it through to the end.

Best of all, I expect sincere discussion of the merits of the argument in this thread. Well executed, and _heh heh_.

<comment><USER8> Is this blog post a dig on Rich Hickey's talk 'Simple Made Easy'?

<comment><USER7> Just speaking for myself, it seemed like a pretty good-natured mix of thoughtful musing on the nature of universal computation, and gentle mockery of the idea that universal computation means there's one right answer for anything. I'd be surprised if it's meant to skewer any one viewpoint in particular.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is an acceptable description.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Like a well trained Pavlov dog[1], reading the title brought "Lua table"[2] to my mind, the most flexible data structure I have worked with, by far.

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

[2] [http://www.lua.org/pil/2.5.html](http://www.lua.org/pil/2.5.html)

<comment><USER10> > reading the title brought "Lua table"[2] to my mind, the most flexible data > structure I have worked with, by far.

Which is not necessarily a good thing. PHP's array and JS's Object are essentially the same thing.

<comment><USER11> Lua tables accept arbitrary objects as keys, and make a difference between `foo[1]` and `foo["1"]`.

Plus all the metatables goodies: weak key and/or value references, prototype inheritance, ...

<comment><USER12> > Lua tables accept arbitrary objects as keys, and make a difference between > `foo[1]` and `foo["1"]`.

That sounds... completely normal? Python dictionaries will do that too. So will Java HashMaps.

<comment><USER13> There is another subtlety that values associated with integer keys are stored as an array. dicts and HashMaps don't do this.

<comment><USER14> And not even all integer keys! Lua will efficiently handle sparse arrays using tables.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Having read over the entire thing, I have only one issues with it: The Universal Hash structure is only universal if the language implementing it permits you to create cyclic structures, so you can manipulate the "pointers" or relevant language concept to create the cyclic structures. There are a handful of languages that don't permit that, such as Erlang, and some languages like Haskell that permit you to use "tying the knot" to create cyclic structures [1], but ones that can sometimes be difficult to manipulate after the fact.

In those languages, you'll probably need to use a data structure well known for its simplicity, efficiency, and broad cross-language-platform compatibility: The Resource Description Framework's graph model. Graphs are also a well-known candidate for "universal data structure" [2]. Also, it's semantic, which is a _clear_ advantage over the entirely not semantic UniversalHash, because semantic is better than not semantic when it comes to universal semantics of semanticness.

Semantic.

Otherwise, the article is pretty solid and all serious developers should definitely consider implementing it forthwith, as they will find it a very, very educational experience. I know I've seen people implement this model in Java before, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that it was an education for all involved.

I'm going to say "semantic" one more time, because it's been my observation that the more you say it, the smarter you sound, so: semantic. Oh, yeah, that's the stuff. Mmmmmmmmm.

[1]: [https://wiki.haskell.org/Tying_the_Knot](https://wiki.haskell.org/Tying_the_Knot)

[2]: Seriously, if you really do want to discuss the "universal data structure", perhaps because you want to analyze data structures very generically for some mathematical reason, graphs really are a good candidate. Not necessarily RDF graphs, which are both bizarrely complicated while lacking simple features; the three blessed collection types are a weird combination of features.

<comment><USER16> Do you really need to create "true" (i.e. language level?) cyclic structures? Shouldn't you be able to simulate cyclic structures at the cost of requiring more space (and probably time) to compute the simulation?

<comment><USER15> That would get into the stuff at the bottom, when you simulate other data structures within your data structure. A non-cyclic data structure can simulate cyclicness with IDs on nodes and things that store links... it's generally how you do it in Haskell, in fact, since while saying "it can't" do true graphs is perhaps a smidge overstrong it is certainly not practical to try to modify knot-tied structures. (I've seen the question "How would I do a graph?" repeatedly on /r/haskell, and "use IDs in a map" is generally what comes back.) But you're putting a layer on top of your store.

(By the by... you know you can trust me, because... semantic. Semantic.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "...We propose that many, and maybe even all, interesting organizations of information and behaviour might be built from a single primitive operation: n-way associative lookup. ..."

[http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011003_abmdb.pdf](http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011003_abmdb.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER18> While this may be a mockery, title probably alludes to _Universal Design Pattern_ [1], which is not so easily dismissable idea.

[1] [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/10/universal-design- pat...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/10/universal-design-pattern.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> This had me worried:

"God-given axioms, which is academic lingo for a truth we accept purely by our God-given logic, like: if something is not true then it is false, something cannot exist in an empty set, something logical is logical."

But then I saw this and started laughing:

"Remember when everyone used tables to lay out their HTML? Well, that proved to be a horrible way to do things, because tables are inherently inflexible. It's a strictly geometric constraint. Now we all use divs and CSS, because we get a much-more flexible CSS engine to define our layout. Postgres and her SQL friends are all table based, just like the <table> of 1999. Don't be 1999."

<comment><USER20> Why did the axioms bit have you worried? OP is pretty much exactly right, except for the part where we accept it by our "logic". Axioms are simply true, end of story; logic does not apply to axioms themselves, only how they can be used in relation to other axioms.

<comment><USER19> Axioms are simply something that you accept as true to build a model. There is no 'simply true, end of story' or 'proven by logic' to axioms.

Many axioms maybe picked because they seem 'obviously true', (or more likely, because they are useful) but that doesn't make their truth simple or make them the result of logic. (For an example take a look at the existence of infinity).

Additionally, the 'axioms' he lists are all what I would generally consider tautologies. (Although you might argue that the first one is actually an axiom of bivalent logic systems).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Satire, aside, I think a very short addition to the last line holds a lot of truth:

"A hash is simple. A hash is fast. A hash is all you need _to start with_ ".

I can think of plenty of good reasons to stop using a map/hash/associative array in code, but I can't think of very many good reasons not to _start_ coding with associative arrays as your default data structure. If there's a performance/memory problem, fix it later. I've seen a lot more code suffer from premature optimization than I've seen suffer from using data structures that were a little too inefficient.

</comment><comment><USER22> _When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson_

Using hashes as a first choice data structure is not necessarily a bad idea. 1] Until profiling a working implementation demonstrates otherwise, other data structures may be premature optimization.

[1] Clearly an improvement over the Lisper's association lists.

<comment><USER23> It's not an improvement over _small_ association lists. At least in Common Lisp hashes are pretty heavy and assoc lists will outperform them if there are less than ~100 elements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ehh, relational databases already proved that "sets" are the true universal data structures. Anything can be built upon them, including (hash)maps.

<comment><USER25> A relation is equivalent to a map from its key to its non-key attributes. (A hash-map is just an implementation detail in how a map/relation is implemented.)

So, really, that's not a _different_ universal data structure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The Poe's law is strong in this one. It had me going.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wish they had used the word "map" in place of "hash" throughout this entire article. The use of hashes is an implementation detail and wholly irrelevant.

<comment><USER28> > The use of hashes is an implementation detail and wholly irrelevant.

Not in this case. An ordered map implemented as a tree has the same interface but with very different operation complexities

<comment><USER27> My comment was meant tongue in cheek. Maps are _the_ universal data structure: they can be used to map any input to any output. The rest is just an implementation detail.

One might even call them "functions", but that ruins the joke.

<comment><AUTHOR> I missed an opportunity here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >"I hope you're convinced. A hash is simple. A hash is fast. A hash is all you need."

Hash tables are cool but they are far from being the only thing you need.

The problem with this kind of subtle satire without a disclaimer at the end is that some people would fall by this and blindly follow it (collisions weren't mentioned not even once nor cache misses).

<comment><USER29> I don't think the satire was particularly subtle!

<comment><USER28> Given the number of comments with "Please tell me this is a satire" in this thread, I would say it wasn't particularly explicit.

<comment><USER19> Then they obviously didn't read to the end:

"Unlike most academic work that has little to no practical implications, I think blindly following the stuff here will prove to be incalculably beneficial for you."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Jonathan Blow made the point recently that academic programming language writers always make the same mistake of trying to take an idea and fully radicalize it.

When you go from "Objects are super easy and useful in this language" to "Everything Is An Object" you basically doom yourself to using objects to implement a bunch of stuff that doesn't really make sense as objects and could be implemented much easier as another data structure.

Big-brainded academics love the challenge of "ooh, can I make _everything_ an object?" because they are always free to decrease the scope of their research a little to compensate for the implementation taking a long time. And the more phenomena you can contort into agreement with your thesis, the more scholarpoints you get.

Blow advocates "data-driven programming" which, as a rule of thumb, I translate in my head as "don't move anything around you don't have to."

For example, rather than just copying a giant array of JSON objects over the wire when you only need some image URLs each with an array of timestamped strings, you write the code that serialized that data. And if you do that a few times, write the tooling you need to make that kind of thing easy.

The pitch is that it's not more work. And I'm kind of convinced. It just gets rid of so much pollution when you are debugging.

Your first cut of things is often a little weird: "do I need a generator generator here?" but typically you realize that a simpler solution works just as well in the refactor.

When you hack in a "wrong but easier to sketch out" solution into your code as the first try, it often just lives like that forever. Correct, confusing code often collapses into correct, simple code. Simple, functional-but-wrong code just seems less inclined to self improvement.

And I am continually surprised by how many problems, when simplified down as much as possible, are best described with the basics: functions, structs, arrays. You need fancy stuff sometimes for sure, but most of our human problems are trivial enough that these blunt tools suffice. I just often won't be able to see it until I've renamed all the variables three times.

What's interesting is I've been doing JavaScript programming this way, and Jonathan Blow is... shall I say... not a fan of JS. But I think the concepts translate pretty well! It's just instead of targeting raw memory, you target the DOM/js runtime which is actually a pretty powerful piece of metal if you have the patience to learn about the runtime and keep thinking about your data every step of the way.

</comment><comment><USER31> It took me until:

> Hashes are always O(1) reads, inserts and writes.

To realise that this was a joke.

</comment><comment><USER32> Good tongue-in-cheek. Technically, however, the hash was outdone by the Lisp CONS. CONSes could represent every conceivable data structure in 1959 and they were eaten raw by the CPUs of the time. But then, there were not so many people available for the following-blindly part.

</comment><comment><USER33> That's one of the reasons I love awk (actually, gawk): this is the only data structure it has.

<comment><USER34> It is* also true for PHP - almost any data structure internally is just a linked hash map.

*or was, I am not sure about current state

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Basic had that. It was called arrays - yay for A$()

</comment><comment><USER36> This... this is just very, very dedicated satire, right?

Let's replace main memory with hash maps and then _implement existing data structures on that_.

Yes. This is satire.

<comment><USER37> Also note that the post is tagged as 'bad-theory'

<comment><USER38> "Unlike most academic work that has little to no practical implications, I think blindly following the stuff here will prove to be incalculably beneficial for you."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> While this is satire, it brings to mind some bit of industry history. My first reaction was, "you want to define a type class called Associative because you're talking about an _interface_ , and that got me thinking about OOP vs. Haskell's type classes (a superior approach) (...and then I realized that the OP was a satire.)

The major historical selling point of object-oriented programming (OOP) to the Forces of Evil-- not all business people are "Forces of Evil; really, there are some great business people out there, and so I'm referring specifically to cost-cutting mini-Eichmanns who've attempted to commoditize, humiliate, and infantilize us with "user scrum stories" and a culture of mediocrity-- was that OOP (after diverging far from Alan Kay's original vision) would allow the Forces of Evil to replace high-cost experts with teams of mediocre programmers, and thereby ruin the balance of power. Culturally, it worked (the culture of mediocrity is well-established in the software industry); economically, it failed (because large teams of mediocrities are actually fucking expensive, because a "10x" engineer only costs about 1.5-2.5x an average one).

The sales pitch for OOP to the Forces of Evil was that OOP would make it possible to hire a couple of low-paid body-shop programmers too stupid to recognize the OP as either (a) satire or, missing the joke but still correct, just wrong. Smart wizards in the open-source world and at companies like Google would do the actual engineering that made efficient hash-maps possible, and CommodityScrumDrones would staple shit together using topologies thereof, without really understanding any of the technologies they were gluing together, and probably ignorant of why these things are sometimes called "hashes" in the first place.

The problem is that when CommodityScrumDrones grow up and become middle managers and get to start making technical choices, they often make bad ones. They reject PostgreSQL as too hard to too old and use some NoSQL JSON storage engine that was a "Show HN" project 17 days ago.

Even though the CommodityScrumProgrammer phenomenon has been a massive failure in economic terms-- the Forces of Evil have won on ego terms but utterly dominating their targets, but they've _lost money_ \-- it has been a cultural success that has inflicted mediocrity, anti-intellectualism, and subordinacy to "The Business", on the software industry. And now we have people calling important technical shots who have literally _no idea_ why the OP is either satire or wrong.

<comment><USER40> Why was this guy down voted? Everything he said is correct, if a bit hyperbolic at points.

This is relevant: [http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented- progr...](http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming- is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end)</comment></comment>


Facebook Found Nigerian Scammer "Doesn't Go Against Community Standards." - <AUTHOR> I reported a fake profile to facebook and they rejected it, said..
"We reviewed the profile you reported and found that it doesn't go against any of our Community Standards." https://i.imgur.com/ZYbZAJf.jpg
Scammer is still on the loose! https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100037670460985
How can you recognize a Scam? 1. The profile does not have a username in the URL yet 2. Right click the profile photo and do a google search on the image this will lead to some results taking you to sites that use the same profile picture
3. Click on "Friends" and look at the Followers, if that Veteran has Friends from Nigeria then you know its a scam 4. That Profile has contacted you via Messenger / Chat and you have no Friends in Common, asking for something 5. Profile Photo AND Cover have been "Updated" Recently before you got contacted
Facebook could have at least made that person "Verify" itself, but they didn't.
Watch this Documentary to learn more: https://youtu.be/U4kCN7TZ6us?t=368 <comment><USER2> > 3\. Click on "Friends" and look at the Followers, if that Veteran has > Friends from Nigeria then you know its a scam

I get how to you this is a scam, but to the 200 million Nigerians it's not. And Facebook is both.

> 2\. Right click the profile photo and do a google search on the image this > will lead to some results taking you to sites that use the same profile > picture

And this can be a good attack vector to DDOS someone, make up sites that are fake to take down their legitimate accounts. Facebook gets attacked multiple ways.

It's hard to know if Facebook here just has too much spam to deal with and it's not worth the time for one report compared with taking down 100 accounts through other means.

The fact Nigeria is one of the poorest countries in the world ([http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/NGA](http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/NGA)) and has this image of being so Cyberpunk is kinda neat to me.

They cause real actual harm, yes, but then so do rich people. And the harm done in Nigeria having 90 million people on less than $1.9 a day is so large it doesn't even make the news.

<comment><USER3> I think you missed their point. This list was meant as a holistic way to judge the scamminess of an account. All data points are therefore important and not necessarily distinctive on their own.

Bringing up the living conditions in Nigeria is really out of left field, as it isn't topical at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had the same experience a few years back. Saw a "promoted" page for a service that claimed to crack Snapchat accounts for a few, with tons of compromised or fake accounts commenting that it works. Not only was their service a scam since it's impossible, but even if it was true it would still be against the TOS and illegal in most countries.

What do you think was this criminal company's response? Yep, "not against the community guidelines".

</comment><comment><USER5> I have compiled a data set of enough scammer's info (names, contact info) that has nearly the word count as the first Harry Potter book. In the early days, I would report these profiles, but the service generally said they weren't going against any policies even when they flagrantly asked for money in their public profiles.

<comment><USER6> Post them to [https://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=66](https://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=66)

They are a group of volunteers who verify and counter advanced fee fraud by wasting their time and increasing opportunity cost.

<comment> non-entity r/ScamBait used to be a sub to find scam callers to bait. Sadly reddit kinda shut them down on the premise of "posting personal information" or something of the sort, despite most of the numbers being 1-800 numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Facebook enforcement has been sloppy recently. I think AI has actually made things a little worse, lots of false positives and false negatives, and they stubbornly stick to a decision for no apparent reason. It's likely just a bunch of different SOPs for specific reasons which they can't disclose.

</comment><comment><USER8> I run a website that attracts a lot of scammers. I have reported their fake profiles to Facebook and got the same response.

I also reported their Gmail addresses to Google and nothing ever happens. If Google did want to review, they'd just need to google the email address I provided to see for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER9> Facebook is a cesspool ... the sooner it goes the way of Myspace the better it will be for all of us.</comment>


Show HN: Make your selfie more attractive - <AUTHOR> http://objctify.me/ <comment><USER2> I only get the error "cannot identify image file".</comment>


You've been scraped - <AUTHOR> https://blog.hackenproof.com/industry-news/new-report-unknown-data-scraper-breach/ <comment><USER2> [edit]If this indeed is LinkedIn they are _not_ forced by lay (GDPR) to come clean. The data was not stolen but scraped.</comment>


Insanely Useful Google Chrome Extensions Every Developer Should Have in 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/front-end-weekly/10-insanely-useful-google-chrome-extensions-every-developer-should-have-in-2020-603e832abca2 <comment><USER2> Title should include the words "web site" after "every" and before "developer".</comment>


Ask HN: Good tech recruiters in SV? - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone know of good tech recruiters in Silicon Valley?<p>Ideally the recruiter is experienced working with companies that require data engineers. <comment><USER2> Aline Lerner is great: [http://blog.alinelerner.com/](http://blog.alinelerner.com/)</comment>


Google Declares War on the Password - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/01/google-password/ <comment><USER4> There is an old RFC that explains the problem in very simple terms. Security need to be transparent, or it fails. If the user need to see and use security in order to be secure, the user will eventually do something to render the security ineffective.

If you got passwords, users either pick easy ones or write them down next to the device that needs them. If you require physical "key" items, user leaves the key next to the computer that needs it.

When designing a security system you need to acknowledge this limitation, and design the system with it in mind. Running between "something you know" (passwords) to to "something you know and has" (Two-factor authentication like password and phone), and now back to only "something you have" (an USB key) won't solve the problem.

<comment><USER5> I have known a fair few people over the years who have had security tokens to be able to login at work.

They all keep them on their key chain so I don't agree with your premise.

The only thing I never understand is why, like the device pictured, they're designed with strings and thin plastic instead of chains and a beefy case.

<comment><USER6> Because they're expected to be kept on a keychain which is commonly kept in one's pocket and which you'd rather not have filled up with chains and bulky cases?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Used one of these before (YubiKey) - they are an utter pain in the arse.

The contacts get dirty, they dont fit some USB ports properly, they die regularly, are absolutely no good if you don't have a USB port handy (my desktop for example doesn't have a USB hole in the front or on the keyboard or monitor, resulting in crawling around under my desk to authenticate) and to be honest quite fragile.

All it does is act as a USB HID keyboard and pump some text down when you press the button on it. It's basically about as secure as an RSA key but requires physical electrical contact with the machine.

No thank you.

(For reference <http://bigv.io/> uses these).

<comment><USER6> FWIW, I've had one at work for a year now and I've had nearly none of the problems you've mentioned. It's fit into all USB ports I've tried, the contacts are still fine, it hasn't died, it doesn't seem fragile (or at least hasn't broken yet) and I haven't had to crawl anywhere to plug it in. The most annoying thing (apart from the general annoyance of a second authentication step) is that I can't use it via my phone; a screen on it would be handy for that.

<comment><USER7> I'm glad you've had success. You must look after yours better than our clients did!

<comment><USER8> Man, I've just got it on my keys and shove them in my pockets... I wonder what your clients were doing with the things...

<comment><USER7> They're in the financial services industry so they are the manifestation of the infinite monkeys theorem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me to RSA SecurID:

"In a 21 March 2011 email to customers, RSA essentially admitted that the information stolen from their internal network could allow an attacker to compromise a SecurID-protected system without having physical possession of the token."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_SecurID#March_2011_system_c...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_SecurID#March_2011_system_compromise)

So passwords are a bad idea, but I'm not sure if I want to replace a problem with a different one.

<comment><USER10> This is actually why two factor authentication is great. In this instance, users were still protected (at the least) by their PIN.

This is somewhat equivalent to losing your ssh private key. Yes, it's bad, but your passphrase should ("should" -- at least it's not an immediate breach like losing a password or clear text private key) buy you enough time to revoke and replace the key.

<comment><USER11> Exactly. Until we can come up with a better system the rule of thumb is:

1) Know something

2) Have something

Its somewhat easy for a potential cracker to gain access to either one of the two, but extremely difficult to have both.

Hell, when I used SecurID at one of my first jobs you had a PIN to go with the token number, almost like a salt to your password. Even if they had the key they wouldn't be able to access my accounts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Google already has the two-factor authentication with Google Authenticator for iPhone and Android. I use it for my Google account and (this is the awesome part) other websites that use their API to add their auth keys to the Google Authenticator app on my phone.

<comment><USER5> I'm actually not a fan at all of the OAuth craze.

What happens when you want to leave Google services?

You will be locked in. I remember the days when everyone had hotmail. At some point you will want to leave gmail or google apps. Genius move on their part though.

<comment><USER13> I understand your point, but I do think Google may be a bad choice of examples. If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I am), they have or are implementing some data liberation functionality to download your data from their systems.

My work blocks Google Account access so I can't quite verify this for you, but I believe it's there. I'm not sure how far it spreads across their product offerings though at this point.

<comment><USER14> Their information site on exporting your data: <http://www.dataliberation.org/>

The tool to export data from some of their services: <https://www.google.com/takeout/>

You can set up an IMAP/POP connection to GMail and copy your emails out. gmvault (a third party tool) uses that to make backups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Many "middle-brow" dismissals here.

I think if a mammoth like Google pushes forward strongly enough, it might achieve some results. And it probably takes all its mass to push this particular piece - the almighty and alstupid password, away.

I'll bet that human beings in 20 years, looking back at our times, will point fingers and say "How we have been so silly! Passwords are the worst authentication mechanism, and so obviously flawed! How come did we not use x or y?"

I see another thing that they will point fingers at: the human driven cars: this is so frightening, when you think about it. You have this thousands kilogs wheeled machine, driven by almost anyone including drunkyards, grannies, people who just married and people who just divorced, and a sec of inattention and you send families to the grave.

<comment><USER16> Actually, I think passwords are a brilliant authentication mechanism that will continue to have a place in computer security for many years to come. When used correctly, a password implies the presence of the correct _brain_. Not a device that can be lost or stolen, not even a fingerprint that can be lifted. Authentication based on information stored in your neural network might not be suitable for everyone, but at least among competent professionals, I don't see mobile phones or USB dongles replacing the passphrase on my PGP key anytime soon.

<comment><USER17> I agree with your statement with one minor change: _a_ password (or better, passphrase) is a brilliant authentication...

Passwords (plural) are just about the worst authentication mechanism. While brains are good at remembering one such token, needing to remember many for many different sites (and which ones go to which) is simply untenable. Additionally, the ability to easily compromise them through phishing makes them awful.

I wonder if there'd be a way to cleverly move the hashing (that all servers _should_ be doing) to the client side such that all of the above problems could be solved. It would confound password changes, however...

<comment><USER18> There is. Or, a variety of ways, really. Two major ones:

Option 1: your passphrase as a salt + the domain name + bcrypt = password. Lots of detailed schemes exist for this, including ones you can do on a piece of paper with a little math so you don't have to trust your computer. Inventing them seems to be a hobby for crypto people, or something - I've seen many dozens.

Option 2: you use random passwords, and store them behind your passphrase somewhere. Password managers.

At no point does your _single_ , secure password enter anyone else's hands, so you don't need to trust them to hash it. If one is compromised, none of the others are.

<comment><USER17> Yup, exactly option 1. But browsers need to support this intrinsically and universally. By salting with the domain name, you remove phishing.

Password managers (especially in terms of built-in browser support) are generally a one-machine solution. Yes, there are ways to sync them to mobile devices and the cloud and such, but there's a lot to be desired in terms of portability. I currently use 1password, and it works great for me. I set my mother up on it, too, but it's only a 90% solution for her as she's not quite technically proficient enough to ensure it works all the time.

My question was more if there'd be a smart way you could add one more level of indirection such that: 1) individually compromised passwords could be changed and 2) the master password could be changed without affecting every single site.

Ideally neither situation would be necessary, but servers will be compromised.

<comment><USER18> I'm personally not a fan of 1, and I don't know that it can ever work to complete satisfaction. Two reasons:

1) domain names change sometimes. especially with the current trend of weird ending domains, and "www.getx.com" which later becomes 'x.com' when they finally pay the squatters. Or a rebranding, or subdomains, etc. How do you handle changes, without recording them? Proactively you can change your password when such a thing occurs, but that's not a reliable assumption.

2) versioning. If you have to change a password every X time periods, how do you track which version you're on? without a database? you could salt it with the time the last password was created, but what about time zones? different calendar systems (did I set that password in china, or jerusalem, or canada...?)?

All of which leaves you with a database of some kind in some (fairly likely to occur) situations, which means you essentially have a password manager. As you point out, a 90% solution simply isn't good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wish for a future in which I can just sit down and my computer uses all sorts of heuristics to determine whether it's me or not, and authenticate.

* Checks my posture.

* Checks the sounds I make while sitting neutrally.

* Checks the positions of my hands.

* Checks my overall frame.

* Checks my eye and shape of face.

\---

Hopefully, all of these little things add up and in the end it can determine quite easily whether it's "me" or not.

I hate typing in passwords, it's a pain in the ass.

<comment><USER7> That's ok until you fuck your back up one day or hurt yourself in some other way.

"What do you mean access denied - I've just got a back ache!"

<comment><USER19> I don't see way I can't update this hypothetical heuristic collection. :)

<comment><USER20> If you can update it, trivially, presumably without using the heuristics themselves, someone can update it for you. Now you have a new problem (securing the method for updating the heuristics.)

Although a counterpoint to this would be using more unique points of reference like the iris, fingerprints, etc, things not likely to change.

<comment><USER19> We can secure that using the current heuristics.

<comment><USER21> Your solution to not being able to login is to login and change settings?

<comment><USER22> Think of it like Paxos. As long as a majority of unique data points agree, allow access. That way if your back is out which results in your posture being unrecognized, the other factors can still form a quorum and grant you access. There could be 20 such factors weighted by "difficulty to forge", so that a fingerprint counts 15x as much as posture for example. Then if you successfully authenticate with, say, 80% on all data points then the system can allow you to train a new factor.

<comment><USER23> Exactly! It becomes a machine learning problem. There was a post about this a while back ..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> How about collaborating with Mozilla on BrowserID?

<comment><USER25> Isn't that solving an orthogonal problem

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _They see a future where you authenticate one device — your smartphone or > something like a YubiKey — and then use that almost like a car key, to fire > up your web mail and online accounts._

> _That means that if someone steals your card or your smart-ring, you'd > better report it stolen pretty quickly._

I won't be surprised if thieves devised a method to extract online credentials from a stolen device in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. Since any password you have on your mobile device is unlikely to be strong (the article specifically mentions that you won't need a strong password on your device), it will also be a piece of cake to brute-force it. Meanwhile, you're without a phone, desperately looking for a payphone or Internet cafe where you can contact Google. Too slow.

<comment><USER26> This isn't necessarily true.

At Clef(clef.io) we're storing keys on your smartphone and they're protected by a PIN wall. We used PIN-based encryption to keep a rooted device from being vulnerable to attackers. Generating the keys from the PINs take long enough to make a brute force attack time consuming. Since users can deactivate their devices remotely if they're stolen (so the public side of the key pair is deleted and the private side is worthless), even in cases of device theft, their identity is protected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> They don't currently provide ways to force password age rules for corporate google users. So corporate clients that want to use google apps are currently forced to use an IdP that does this for them. They have the tools to allow for it, we even give corporate customers a way to use Google Apps accounts and force 2-Factor auth and password aging without things like Active Directory. Also not providing the ability to change session information is, well, a little off putting for some. It's not that it's a war on the password it's just that they don't want their services to be something you actually have to log into (chromebook experience).

</comment><comment><USER28> Part of this discussion should be how a very large organization called the US Military solved this problem with smart cards. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Access_Card>.

Those of you how own Dell or HP Computers - you may notice that most of the professional grade laptops have smart card readers built in. My guess is this is due to DoD purchasing requirements. Of course, the MacBook doesn't have a smart card reader and thus you start to look for solutions like the YubiKey.

<comment><USER29> The military didn't solve the problem. They solved an easy variation. The problem is not just "How do I make it easy and secure to access the systems I control?" but "How do I make it easy and secure to access all systems?" The military implemented 2-factor auth and unified their systems to support it. This is very nice, but doesn't solve the broader problem. Military employees are still struggling with the same "million not-very-secure passwords I can't remember" problems as civilians, because they military does not control all or even most of the systems they interact with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This seems like an interesting solution to me. Obviously we have gotten to a point where our computing power has rendered the kind of passwords that most people can easily remember and use fairly trivial for many password cracking methods, and so there is a clear need to develop a convenient method of using more complex methods of authentication.

The idea of using a smartphone as a central area for things such as identification and payment(Google Wallet) has been something i've been interested in for a while, and something I think could be amazing if we manage to work out a few kinks that are in the way of making it a viable option.

For this to become a reality i think there are 3 main things that would need to happen: 1) Battery life on smartphones would have to become a lot better, I don't want to have to worry about if I'm going to have enough battery at the end of the day to pay for dinner, get into my car, etc. 2)The ability to remotely clear data on a device that may have been stolen need to become a standard. 3)There need to be some sort of authentication between the user and the device in order to approve the use of stored authentication.

</comment><comment><USER31> In 1998 Bill Gates (American Banker article, and elsewhere) said that the future of ecommerce was based on replacing passwords with smart cards....hmmm how did that work out :)

Remember AMEX Blue? they stopped sending out card readers almost immediately, but continued sending the smart cards out and running TV ads with all sorts of Terminator like special effects to promote how secure its smart cards were.

It was a huge marketing success, but the smart card part was never used.

Security is an illusion.

Actual conversation.... Naive dev: Hey Big Bank, we invented this revolutionary perfect authentication technology! no more hacks! Big bank: why would we want to redirect the hackers to a new attack that we don't understand, cannot model, cannot assign a stable cost to, and would almost certainly expose even worse flaws in other parts of our systems? as long as fraud is between X and Y %, we WANT the attacks to use the current vector. Naive dev: ooooooooooooooohhhhh (world view changes)

<comment><USER32> _...said that the future of ecommerce was based on replacing passwords with smart cards....hmmm how did that work out :)_

You're totally wrong. Probably because you're living in the U.S., where it's still the stone age from that standpoint.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_card>

Here in several european countries people are doing just that:

\- using a Java SmartCard (your identity card) + a card reader (not hooked to the computer) + a PIN to connect to your online bank but _ALSO_ to challenge/response any VISA/credit card transaction.

If I'm not mistaken there are about 200 millions citizen in Brazil who have a Java SmartCard as their identity card (as a medical care card I'm sure, identity I don't know for sure).

I think it's a bit early to decide that it failed and that it's an illusion. There are probably hundreds of millions of people who are carrying daily a Java SmartCard and using it to perform kinda safer online transactions.

MITM attacks over unsuspecting users are still possible using "mocking birds", but it's becoming harder and harder to game the system.

<comment><USER31> Well since it was an article in American Banker, yeah, I'd say that he was referring to the US.

Also, thanks for the down vote based on hard facts: "probably hundreds of millions", "kinda safer". [http://www.techspot.com/news/51037-trojan-bypasses- two-facto...](http://www.techspot.com/news/51037-trojan-bypasses-two-factor- authentication-steals-465-million.html)

An identity card is not a commerce solution -- there is no cost/benefit analysis for governments, they just decide which vendors should get lots of money (I know, I was one of them! Thanks governments!) We did this in the US and now there are no fake passports here in the US, we win! Ooops... [http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/hackers_clone_...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/hackers_clone_r.html)

A card reader not hooked to the computer --- nah ,that can't be hacked: [http://media.blackhat.com/bh- us-12/Briefings/C_Miller/BH_US_...](http://media.blackhat.com/bh- us-12/Briefings/C_Miller/BH_US_12_Miller_NFC_attack_surface_WP.pdf)

smart card PINs, those can't be hacked: [http://blogs.gartner.com/mark- diodati/2012/01/15/deja-vu-%E2...](http://blogs.gartner.com/mark- diodati/2012/01/15/deja-vu-%E2%80%93-the-sykipot-attack-on-smart-cards/)

For a thoughtful presentation of both sides, try: [http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/econrev/pdf/3q08sulliv...](http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/econrev/pdf/3q08sullivan.pdf)

I think you'll see that it concludes much the same thing as I mentioned the banks (here in the US anyway) conclude: the costs are not worth the theoretical "kinda safer" gains in security.

Security is a nuanced, no-one-solution-fits-all, dynamic, evolving systems engineering problem. The adversaries are smart, but more importantly have common sense (unlike governments and consumers) - they will exploit weaknesses in the weakest link. Replace passwords with smart cards, no problem - <USER2> will go after the next link. The (US and EU) banks know this -- they all employ layered fraud and security measures --- despite consumers who may have unquestioning faith in the perfect security of smart cards.

And when you come back in 5 years and payment cards are still NOT being used in the mainstream (US anyway where cost vs. benefit is important), please have the courtesy to up vote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why can't we just all get along, and say, for example - instead - <USER3> "rsa_key.pub" is all we need, and if we ever get a logon prompt, look for that file on USB media instead ..

I mean, that would work, wouldn't it? I suppose for it to work, though, we'd have to have an actual .. you know .. OS Company .. again.

</comment><comment><USER34> Note that <http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/persona/> uses public/private keys for authentication.

The password is used to access those keys at the identity provider.

Replace the identify provider (idp) by a token. Bang. Much easier than rolling out yet another standard.

</comment><comment><USER35> The Yubikey would only work if there was an absolute guarantee that a hacked kernel/drivers would not be able to access the memory.

The way I can see it working is if there is a private key on the device, inaccessible to the host hardware, and the crypto stuff is done _on the device_ \- so the Yubikey was effectively the client. Auth service sends challenge to the browser which sends it to the driver which asks the yubikey wtf, the yubikey responds to the challenge, and the response is sent to the browser and back to the host.

But this would all fall down if there was even the slightest chink and your host hardware could be modified to access/save the keys on all of the Yubikeys when they are plugged in.

<comment><USER36> I think it already works that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> As long as it is not implanted somewhere into my body, I will lose it at some point.

I would love to have some other solution but I don't see this as one. I grew up remembering passwords and I'm pretty good at it now.

But if you have something for under my skin, we can talk again.

</comment><comment><USER38> The biggest problem I see with all of these proposed ideas is that people often need to be able to share access to accounts with others. Yes, sharing a password is the wrong solution to that, but usually it's the _only_ solution, and it will be until there's an accepted standard procedure for providing limited access to your account via somebody else's key.

</comment><comment><USER39> I hope that this will not be only Chrome-ready, and will work on all Desktop operating systems.

<comment><USER40> Whatever shape it takes on, it's a Google-only thing. Being a Google-only thing means that it will ( _maybe_ ) solve the password problem... _for Google_.

So which desktop is runs on, or even phone, tablet or any other form factor, is irrelevant.

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article, it seems google-agnostic:

So they've developed a (as yet unnamed) protocol for device-based authentication that they say is independent of Google, requires no special software to work — aside from a web browser that supports the login standard — and which prevents web sites from using this technology to track users.

<comment><USER40> So... change "Google" to "web browser". That is still a scope constraint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > _That means that if someone steals your card or your smart-ring, you'd > better report it stolen pretty quickly._

Well, yes. But you'd hopefully have a master passphrase to open the "smart- ring" device, making theft less of a problem.

</comment><comment><USER34> "passwords dont work"

then...

"we'd use the token, but for important operations, a password would be asked"

people just don't understand what they write ;)

</comment><comment><USER42> the blog comments by 'TopicalSquirrel' are pretty awesome

</comment><comment><USER43> On top of my head I can think of it being stolen. Unless you need a password on top it (ironic, no?)

and then ... _" Under threat of a boycott, Intel Corp. backed down slightly yesterday from a controversial plan to add a security feature to its computer chips, but privacy advocates said the change doesn't go far enough to ease their concerns.

Privacy groups fear that the new feature, sort of a Social Security number hard-wired into computers, would be used to monitor Internet users' activities online, allowing companies to collect marketing data on them. "_ [http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20126770-245/intel- chips-l...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20126770-245/intel-chips-let- web-sites-check-your-computers-id/)

Personally I'll stick to passwords, little by little they will add code and "features" to that usb stick. Call me paranoid but Google has more than enough info on me and what I search /ed for.

</comment><comment><USER32> Before everyone just on my throat saying I'm a naysayer I'll state that I love the idea.

However why oh why on earth is the YubiKey challenge/response optional?

Why can that thing work in a mode where it simply "dumps text"?

It's terrible that it's optional because it means that I cannot be sure in which mode that thing is operating right!?

But I love the idea: we need more physical tokens doing challenge/response and less "let me store this in my phone's 'master app of all the passwords'" snake oils.

</comment><comment><USER44> ID person by his bio-field/magnetic field who should be pretty unique. Any other password management and external devices will come and go.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there any other topics in FP then simple composition and CT - <AUTHOR> Most of the articles about functional Programming are either simple descriptions on composition and currying or about how a monad is   just a monoid in the category of endofunctors. I wonder if there are no other topics in this field. <comment><USER2> The articles on [https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/](https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/) are pretty good, particularly the ones about "Railway-Oriented Programming" ([https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/recipe- part2/](https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/recipe-part2/))</comment>


Objects are not Hash Tables - <AUTHOR> http://gbracha.blogspot.com/2009/11/objects-are-not-hash-tables.html <comment><USER2> In Python they most certainly are, since ultimately _everything_ is a hash table in Python :)</comment>


An Analysis of the YC "Open Sourced" Documents In Layman's Terms - <AUTHOR> http://www.sachinagarwal.com/2008/08/an-analysis-of.html

<comment><USER2> Nice analysis, especially the highlighting of the effective veto power over acquisitions in the protective provisions.

To nitpick, I think Agarwal's wording about the liquidation preference gives the impression the term sheet implements what's called 'fully participating' preference, where even after collecting the preference amount, they also share in the remaining money.

IANAL, but I think the wording actually implies a 'non-participating' preference: series AA can take the preference amount, or convert to common and share pro-ratably with commons, but not both.

To picture the difference: take Agarwal's example of selling 10% for $10K. But then imagine the company is sold for only $110K. With fully-participating preferred, I believe the investor gets their $10K liquidation preference, then also 10% of the remaining money, for a total of $20K. With non-participating, they could take the $10K liquidation preference, but then they would share none of the rest with the common. Instead they will choose to convert to common and get 10% of the total, $11K. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

<comment><USER3> Well, Agarwal says the remaining is split on an "as converted" basis which implies non-participating preferred. So it seems right to me!

<comment><USER4> Definitely should be clarified in the article, though. I had no clue what _as converted_ meant despite some casual research into common terms. I doubt people totally new to term sheets would have a clue about participation based on what's there now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good simple primer to those just starting out.

If you're getting into the nitty gritty, I suggest checking out the great folks at Venture Hacks, Get Venture, and Startup Company Lawyer. I know that the Venture Hacks guys hang out here from time to time.

<comment><USER6> I'll put up a post on <http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com> about these docs at some point in the near future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> We need a startup that simplifies the funding process and turns these documents into a single sheet with no more than 4 paragraph. Seriously this 10 page contracts have to go.

<comment><USER8> Indeed, that would be great. But just the act of simplifying the docs to a standard set of usable (because they're balanced) documents is a _major_ step forward.

Kudos to the YC team for another innovation that is sorely needed. This should have a great impact well beyond the startups that they fund themselves.</comment></comment>


Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Gets $750,000 Back - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/megauploads-kim-dotcom-gets-750-000-back-120428/ <comment><USER3> I come from New Zealand, and I'd like to chip in that if anyone thinks the behaviour of the NZ Govt is confusing then they probably aren't aware that NZ Govt is eagerly gunning for a Free Trade Agreement with the USA

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZ- US_relations#Proposed_Free_T...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZ- US_relations#Proposed_Free_Trade_Agreement)

This is my personal speculation but it's also the spirit of what was behind the new "three strikes" copyright law (which almost no citizen wanted) introduced to NZ in September 2011 which makes NZ ISPs do the police work of the MPAA/RIAA

<http://3strikes.net.nz/information/law-basics>

The next thing that is going to be attacked is the New Zealand abolition of software patents - [http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/opinion-us-heavies-nz- software-...](http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/opinion-us-heavies-nz-software- patents-ck-106373)

Please don't downvote this if it comes across as "anti-US" - it's not meant to be and I'm only posting a collection of facts which I think everyone here would find interesting about US-NZ tech relations

<comment><USER4> Sounds like a de ja vu of Hew Griffiths: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Griffiths>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _New Zealand authorities didn't investigate the US request, but Judge Potter > said that the Attorney General is not required to evaluate the legitimacy of > the US order._

So the NZ Govt will seize your stuff just because some other country tells them to do so, without even making sure that all the paperwork is in place? Is that the same standard of evidence they use to justify domestic searches and seizures?

<comment><USER6> I think that the "legitimacy of the US order" refers to the evidence that will be presented to the US grand jury, not the search warrant in New Zealand. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act [1] requires that the Attorney General be satisfied that the request be related to a foreign criminal matter, but they do not have to ensure that the order would be held up in the US.

[1] [http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0086/latest/D...](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0086/latest/DLM274456.html)

<comment><USER5> That makes more sense, though it still looks like a dangerous abridgment of due process if the country that actually seizes the assets feels no need to launch an independent investigation to find out whether or not the allegations have any merit.

<comment><USER4> I hope the NZ government revises their extradition treaty in this light. USA has a legal reputation of trumped up charges to force a plea deal despite no trial. Especially if they can play the card of 'money laundering' which legally allows them to seize every asset and cash.

USA is becoming a very dangerous country.

<comment><USER7> It's been that way for awhile, mostly due to the War on Drugs (although the War on Terror also helped kick things into gear on the surveillance side).

Given the sum of world history, I don't see how this ends well.

<comment><USER8> We are now between two stable states - the US will not be as an important player in the early 21st century as it was in the late 20th - and a lot is at stake right now. I can only hope we can all elect governments wise enough to ensure a smooth transition because trying to prevent - or even postpone - <USER2> will only make it more violent and unpredictable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hopefully we'll see a stricter application of rule of law going forward. What's happened up till now is an appalling example of the US government forcing domestic police forces in other countries to do things that violate their own laws.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's a start at least!

</comment><comment><USER11> Wheres David Lange when you need him...</comment>


We don't know what to do if a satellite gets hacked - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/4255/what-happens-if-satellite-hack-cyberspace <comment><USER2> This is more of a legal article. I'm curious how we would get it back under control if it got hacked. I'm surprised they're not getting hacked as it is.</comment>


Show HN: A chrome extension to memorize facts and notes - <AUTHOR>

If you want to you can read about the design process here goo.gl/bQGcu6<p>You can download it via github at https://github.com/nashmaniac/Muses <comment><USER2> Not bad! You need a better word-removal algorithm though. You need some natural language processing that can detect nouns, and remove the nouns. Other than that I'm intrigued :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Working on that.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Will growth hacking make my product worse? - <AUTHOR>

I'm building a product, I have a very good retention rate D1 63% D7 55% D30 40%, It's good as it is (maybe). I have 2 options: improve it to make current users more happy or think on how to change the product to make it more "viral"...please advice <comment><USER2> The two are really the same thing most of the time (though you could find exceptions if you try). Then again not everything that makes users happy will get them to refer you. The perfect middle ground would be to add a feature that adds value, and where inviting others is naturally a part of it. If your growth hack doesn't add value to the current users you'll be swimming upstream anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, when I say growth hack I mean that inviting new users adds value to current users always, but "the perfect middle ground" keeps been middle, I mean, let's be honest, I change the product to make it grow, not because current users are unhappy...maybe most of the product do it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Assuming you are doing something honest, (not black-hat etc.)

If you improve it to make current users [love your product], then it will go viral by word of mouth.

Err on the side of being awesome to your current users. Especially if they are paying.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing blackhat, the product is free (at the moment) so I can't invest in SEM, I have a live chat in the product where users can send feedback, and all of them like the product, others are asking for features that I can add but it takes time with a small team.

So the question is relax and improve the product or worry about the "virality"

Thanks for the advise!

<comment><USER3> It is worth thinking about virality or marketing in general of course. The question is whether it is worth devaluing the product for it. Probably can be answered on a case by case basis but try to think of ways where you do something that increases both virality and the value of the product. Win-wins!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> With those kind of retention numbers you should probably raise money so that you can do both. (Improve the product and market it.)</comment>


Netflix Viewing Seen Swelling U.S. Cable Bills - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-30/netflix-viewing-seen-swelling-u-s-cable-bills-next-year-tech.html

<comment><USER2> Horizontal integration: when profit requires you to discourage your customers from using your product.</comment>


QSearch - personal Facebook timeline search engine. - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/facebook-qsearch/ffkoifhnfeoofalpnnohfdlomcgkamcn?hl=en

<comment><AUTHOR> QSearch - the fastest facebook timeline search engine in the world.

Search the information of you, and anyone you care. No longer scrolling-down for seeking previous posts; Qsearch now helps you recollect any information you love!

You can use QSearch to discover the fan page. Find the story and experiences.</comment>


How can I use my MMO experience in my Resume - <AUTHOR>

I am a Solutions Architect/Infrastructure Architect who is also likes to play EVE online.  I was the HR manager for a 2500 player corp (the largest single corporation in the game) and was wondering if any one has any suggestions as to how I might apply this experience to my resume? <comment><USER2> Unless you are actually applying to a company in the video game industry, I would highly recommend that you avoid trying to use this as legitimate bullet point on your resume. In my experience, unless a person is a game player themselves, it is very difficult to see the value in such a potion, or organization skill required to maintain it. In fact, a great deal of people might see it in a bad light, which of course is the opposite of the intended effect.

That said, if you are certain that you want to go this route, make sure you mention it only briefly, and couch the experience in terms that are a bit more obtuse than you would otherwise. For example, instead of saying your position was for a guild in EVE, state that it was a leadership role in a 2500+ strong online community. Emphasize the elements of the position that directly relate to the skills that a prospective employer would hire you for. Most importantly, keep it short, very short. It should be the icing on the cake for an employer, almost an afterthought, something that solidifies their interest in you. And if you find yourself in a place where you need to explain the position further, don't start gushing about the gameplay aspect of it, stay steady and calm and direct any conversation about it towards the importance of the role and the responsibility and trust you carried while you held it.

<comment><USER3> " For example, instead of saying your position was for a guild in EVE, state that it was a leadership role in a 2500+ strong online community. Emphasize the elements of the position that directly relate to the skills that a prospective employer would hire you for"

I couldn't have said it better

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Your job descrp. sounds like its in the corporate world. That culture demands professionalism at the forefront.

I wouldn't put this in my resume but mention in the interview I think that'll help them relate to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Even though your in-game experience could really have been helpful to your work skills, I think putting this in your resume might backfire, PR departments wouldn't take this seriously.

<comment><AUTHOR> So far, that has been my thinking. It has helped me build quite a few IRL skills.

<comment><USER5> Having the skills is far more important than how you acquired them. I'd just emphasize your communication skills and organizational abilities in broad terms, unless your interviewer is also an EVE online addict. Then, by all means, disclose it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've heard of WoW guild leaders putting it on their resume. Not sure how they pulled it off, though.

</comment><comment><USER6> Also, what is a "Solutions Architect/Infrastructure Architect"?

<comment><AUTHOR> I design networks and systems that exist between stakeholders, vendors and support providers and internal IT groups as well as design the network infrastructure itself (Logical data flow, physical structure etc etc). Last project was to design and implement a network to provide tele-health and network services to 100 health centres in native communities throughout the province where I live utilizing a large provincial network called the SuperNet.

<comment><USER6> Dang, impressive. Also, it honestly sounds kinda nerdy. Which means the people interviewing you might be kind of nerdy? In which case, include it. (I would go with the other's suggestion though, of presenting it Briefly and with an emphasis on the skills.)

I volunteered for a presidential campaign and put that on my resume-- I scrubbed the paragraph a lot to be very broad and not contain any hints about which presidential candidate I was helping, and tried to focus on the actual skills. (Lots of customer service and communication with a very tired and over-campaigned Iowan voter population.) I think it helped, I got some opportunities in interviews to talk about the experience. I would have a good "story" about your item ready, some kind of EVE-online HR dilemma that is easily translatable to the real world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Don't.</comment>


No Russian - <AUTHOR> http://skibinsky.com/no-russian/ <comment><USER2> > Big business is subject to federal mafia clan wars.

This can be summarized with one word "corruption". Corruption that is deep, toxic, and permeates every sphere of life. From small things like getting a passport or drivers' license. What kind of grades kids will get in kindergarten, to large things like the government appropriating and stealing billion dollar companies.

Corruption becomes a way of life and it spreads like a disease.

It is hard to describe how it feels. You know as corrupt as US is, one can at least have a little hope that the judicial system will work. At the end of the day if someone commits murder and they are caught, you know there will probably be a good trial. In these countries (at least where I am from), one can commit murder and then there is a price you pay to the prosecutor, police, judge to make it "go way".

If you start a business, and are very successful you might pop on the radar of the local mafia, who has members in the local government. They will ensure that your business has not "paid all the taxes" or that your immigration paperwork "was not in order" and kick you out of the country and take your business.

Going through life you see this. Colleagues in school who fail everything and don't do work are getting top grades in a final exam. You try to pass a drivers' exam and you are getting deliberately failed with hints that a bribe is necessary for you to pass and so on. That is very stressful and it something I am not used do and don't want to be used to. Others, on the contrary, thrive and prosper in that environment.

<comment><USER3> Recent news confirm this. >> Pavel Durov the former CEO of Russia's main social network, VKontakte and founder of Telegram quit his job at the beginning of this month saying, "it has become increasingly complicated to stick to the principles we once founded our social site upon." Speculators gave an educated guess that Russian authorities have been pushing for more and more censorship on the site. Two days later, he apparently "unresigned," but that wasn't the end of this story. >> [http://arcticstartup.com/2014/04/25/lithuania-pavel- druov](http://arcticstartup.com/2014/04/25/lithuania-pavel-druov)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> See however the previous extreme plane shootings, around 370 deaths total, by the US and Ukraine:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655)

"shot down by the _United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes_ on 3 July 1988," "All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died" "The Fogarty report stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down.""

and

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812)

"shot down by the _Ukrainian military_ over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001" "Ukraine eventually admitted that the disaster was probably caused by an errant missile fired by its armed forces.[1] Ukraine ended up paying $15 million to surviving family members of 78 victims ($200,000 per victim)."

<comment><USER5> Most people will probably say the key difference is that the US incident was a mistaken attempt to defend an imminent attack, rather than a terrorist attack. Being perhaps more cynical, I would say the key difference is that Russia is not the biggest kid on the playground.

<comment><USER6> Summing all the evidence, I would say this was a mistake shot down too.

<comment><USER5> But presumably not a situation where the attackers mistakenly thought they were shooting down an aircraft that was about to attack them.

<comment><USER7> They definitely thought it was an Ukrainian military transport plane. I don't see how the distinction between enemy military transport plane and enemy fighter/bomber is of any importance here.

<comment><USER4> How do you know what "they" thought?

<comment><USER7> Version about rebels taking passenger plane for AN-26 seems plausible, considering that rebels themselves seemed to believe it in the first minutes after the event (I am judging by the reaction of their mouthpieces on Russian internet which I happened to see with my own eyes).

Anyway that's not the point, the point is that even if (people may still doubt) the rebels downed the plane, _at worst_ they thought of it as of an Ukrainian military plane, ie they had no intention to kill noncombatants, it was definitely not an 'act of terrorism' as Ukrainian govt wants to paint it.

<comment><USER4> How can you know if "mouthpieces" are real rebel commanders or just some hotheads in their mommies' basements (or Russian equivalents of such)?

<comment><USER7> I am talking about Boris Rozhin's livejournal ('colonelcassad'). That's about as close as it gets to rebels' mouthpiece, being probably the most popular social media outlet with separatist viewpoint (not to be confused with Russian govt's viewpoint). Of course he is not an official figure of any kind, but if anyone can be trusted to be able to tell legit sources from 'hotheads in their mommies' basements', that's him.

<comment><USER4> It's a journalist from Crimea, Nobody you should consider to be fully informed with what rebels do. I can imagine he's now a kind of a war reporter, but in wars there are a lot of rumors. Nothing can be more probable than that somebody actually saw the crash and produced the rumor that that's an achievement of the rebels and the journalist repeated it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is one of the typical rants by Russian immigrant who enjoyed top quality free education in USSR/Russia which made his success possible (+ no student loans), left during turmoil of 1990-2000s and still judging Russia on that bad memories basis. Article is full of clichés and gives general FOX news feel while reading. I lived in Moscow in 2011 and I'm part of that creative class he mentions and no one in my social network was supporting the protests. I doesn't mean that we are happy with all that happens - we just believe in slow and steady hard work towards better Russia and progress so far proves that it's working. Stop blaming Russia for everything - you're not USA State Department! :)

<comment><USER9> Confirm that. I'm from Yekaterinburg, and Max rant seems to me just exagerated imagination of someone who haven't been here for decade.

<comment> xor-ed-wolf It's easy to understand the author's hidden sentiment that Russia is very ineffective state currently and depends too much on natural resources export and enforcement. But what bothers me most is that all of those former Russian immigrants sit in their comfortable chairs somewhere in Nebraska and yapping endlessly while not giving a sparrow's effort to research the actual situation and suggest anything to improve it. Instead they spread xenophobia and popularize knee-jerk reactions to events. I.e. they're just hatred-filled idiots who waste our time on reading them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have quite a few problems with Western media stating that it's Putin's fault.

\- There is a lack of motive (seriously why would he?)

\- There is a lack of identity (if it were the Separatists, are they really controlled by Putin to that degree?)

\- The murder weapon happens to also be in the hand of the Ukrainian army (19 systems, 3 of them stationed in the range of the crash site) [2]

\- The Ukrainian air control obviously let the flight deviate quite a few kilometers of the "usual route" which goes south of Donetsk. [1]

\- The lack of prosecution in the case of Maidan snipers (and evidence against the Ukrainian gov't as being behind it) and the Odessa fire.

I am not saying who it was or who it wasn't. I just state that I seriously doubt anyone who claims to know it right now.

[1] [https://twitter.com/VagelisKarmiros/status/48992616773114265...](https://twitter.com/VagelisKarmiros/status/489926167731142656/photo/1)

[2] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/us-ukraine- crisis-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/us-ukraine-crisis- airplane-buk-idUSKBN0FN03H20140718) 2nd paragraph

<comment><USER11> > lack of motive

It was most likely a mistake.

> There is a lack of identity (if it were the Separatists, are they really > controlled by Putin to that degree?)

Top members of the rebels group, including the leader, are Russian citizens and former members of the FSB.

[http://20committee.com/2014/07/19/donetsk-rebels-and- russian...](http://20committee.com/2014/07/19/donetsk-rebels-and-russian- intelligence/)

> The murder weapon happens to also be in the hand of the Ukrainian army (19 > systems, 3 of them stationed in the range of the crash site) [2]

If the Ukrainians were responsible, why are the rebels trying to cover up all the traces and why are they interfering with the international investigation? (Also, the source you quote is from Russian media, which are inherently biased, much more so than the multiple other sources whose evidence points towards Russia-backed rebels)

<comment><USER10> I can certainly not say you're view is wrong and I didn't know of the group membership (thanks for that). Still, my 2ct

Motive: The motive "mistake" is a motive that works for both sides.

Identity: The membership in the groups "Russian" and "former FSB" is at most an indication. "All former FSB members that are Russian shoot down passenger air planes" holds as much as "All Germans kill jews" and "All jews kill Palestinians"

Murder weapon: The thing is, I assume Western media is as biased as Russian media. The very fact they rarely even consider Ukrainian govt participation (as they should also with the Maidan sniper shootings) makes me wonder what side I should trust less.

This view is partially based on the WMD allegations in Iraq and the use of chemical weapons by Assad, both of which can be considered "false flags". Re Assad, see [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world/middleeast/new- study...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world/middleeast/new-study- refines-view-of-sarin-attack-in-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

<comment><USER11> > Motive: The motive "mistake" is a motive that works for both sides.

Yes but as I said, if this was a mistake from the Ukrainian part, the rebels would have everything to gain to prove it. But all they seem to be doing right now is strongly interfere with the investigation.

> Identity: The membership in the groups "Russian" and "former FSB" is at most > an indication. "All former FSB members that are Russian shoot down passenger > air planes" holds as much as "All Germans kill jews" and "All jews kill > Palestinians"

That's not the point that I made there. The most likely explanation is that it's a mistake. Russia gave the "separatists" (which are truly agents of the government) a sophisticated anti-air weapon. Someone used it against a plane, only they messed up and ended up shooting down a civilian airplane. I am pretty sure that the Kremlin is super pissed off that this happened. This doesn't change the fact that: the "separatists" are Russian agents (who are maybe a bit too much on the loose?) and that Russia gave them the weapon that lead to this mistake. I'm certainly not saying that Russia wanted this plane to be shot down (and that seems very unlikely, considering how much backlash they are facing now).

> The thing is, I assume Western media is as biased as Russian media. The very > fact they rarely even consider Ukrainian govt participation (as they should > also with the Maidan sniper shootings) makes me wonder what side I should > trust less.

I would disagree. Of course, Western media are biased, but the bias they have is mostly done through capital (big media groups with ties to politicians). Russian media is a propaganda machine. Despite all the flaws of our Western countries, they are still less corrupted and less susceptible to propaganda than Russia.

> The very fact they rarely even consider Ukrainian govt participation (as > they should also with the Maidan sniper shootings) makes me wonder what side > I should trust less.

It's a sad thing but that's something to be expected of "general consumption" media. Of course they will paint Ukraine as the good guys and Russia as the bad guys because it serves their story. But that doesn't mean that Russia isn't the bad guy here, and most of the evidence points that way.

In particular in this plane crisis, it has to be said that neither the USA nor the EU want to be involved in Ukraine. A war over there would be yet another mess (like Yugoslavia was). So far the position of the EU and the USA has been fairly tame, but the fact that Russia was caught red-handed delivering weapons to wage their proxy war (and annex some new territory to "the Greater Russia", which is Putinism's ultimate goal), changes things, and the USA and the EU may have to get reluctantly involved if Russia doesn't back off. Considering that the USA and the EU don't have much to gain or to lose in Ukraine (because let's face it, Western people don't give a shit about the fate of the Ukrainians for the most part, as has been demonstrated by the previous very weak involvement during the riots; and due to the fact that Ukraine has very little to offer since they don't have any significant natural resources), I'd say that Western media (and in particular more specialized media you can find on the web written by analysts and not general purpose journalists) are much more likely to be trustworthy on this.

> This view is partially based on the WMD allegations in Iraq and the use of > chemical weapons by Assad, both of which can be considered "false flags".

The WMD allegations were largely countered by many of the Western media (in particular in Europe). France refused to participate in that war.

PS: An interesting read: the AmA of a Ukrainian man who lives in a rebel controlled zone on Reddit yesterday: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2b72ir/iama_ukrainian_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2b72ir/iama_ukrainian_who_currently_lives_on_the/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> He's mostly right, although I'd correct a few important things:

* Putin's approval is now at 86+%, an all-time high,

* and it's universal across socio-economic classes. A lot of young bright facebook-equipped software engineers are Putin's fans.

* even a _lot_ of first-generation Russians in US absolutely love Putin, for the sense of belonging to a great empire which he gave them (finally someone stood up to evil America!)

* because of the above, any dissenter is basically a pariah

Just keep that in mind.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is not a serious article. It is a rant.

"The population at large is, statistically speaking, not very bright. Many are deranged from overuse of alcohol or drugs."

<comment><USER14> ... and yet it is a quite accurate portrayal of the current situation in Russia. I should know - I'm Polish and my country was annexed by Russia on several occasions.

I would add that the western EU countries seem to have learned nothing from history. Trying to appease a country with ambitions to become an empire, that annexes neighboring countries -- let's see, haven't we seen that before?

<comment><USER8> And if we are going back to the times of Polish annexation we can remember Polish people robbing Russia, burning Moscow, trying to put Polish dude on the throne and best part - exploitation of Ukrainians :). And yes, Poland is also known for imperial ambitions. Generally European history is full of wars and mutual blame. Take UK for example - conquered by French and ruled by German dynasty.

So once again, please, stop blaming Russia, go on with your life, build better country for you to live in.

<comment><USER15> That's what we're doing. But Russia again started changing borders of our neighbor. This is scary stuff.

<comment><USER8> NATO is expanding and Russians were not happy about that way before current situation. Being Crimean myself I would say that so much feared 'annexation' was forced on to Russia by Crimean local establishment. Not that Russia was against it though. As a matter of fact - throughout 23 of the Ukrainian independence it was never less than 65% of Crimeans that were ready to join Russia.

Ukrainian crisis is the result of building nationalistic state in the country with two different cultures, frequently incompatible. And also grave incompetence of the Ukrainian government leading to escalation of the conflict.

Poland and Baltic states - these countries are outright hostile toward Russia, yes, it has historical reasons. But now it's easier to trade and use economic power than to conquer and control territory. These countries are part of EU, and Russia will never - until forced - engage in any military confrontation with them.

<comment><USER16> I think saying "NATO is expanding" you mean that Ukrainian choice of signing agreements with EU left Russia no choice.

From Ukrainian point of view, they are an independent country - which may, at different times, get into different unions with different partners.

So, Russian (actually, Russian government) point of view that any Ukrainian motion towards EU signals a threat to Russia doesn't justify Russian hostilities, because Ukraine is an independent country. And when Russia in turn decided to protect its perceived interests, it went against that independence - and all things associated with that.

<comment><USER17> Ukraine is acting in its (perceived) interests, and Russia -- in its own. Where is the problem?

The thing is, there is a handful of superpowers in the world, which dictate the geopolitical motions. A smaller country bordering a superpower can be friends with it, be strictly neutral (see Finland) or be friends with opposing superpowers (see Ukraine). The last scenario means you are asking for all sorts of shit to happen to you. It's not "good", but that's how things are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Complete and total bullshit, based on US propaganda against Russia. I live in Russia and build my second IT business here. Most of my friends are entrepreneurs from Moscow and other cities.

Of course there is corruption, autocracy and alcoholism. It is there for several hundreds of years, and we have to deal with that. But situation is actually getting better with time. You can't change loves of millions of people in an instant.

Propaganda is an interesting point. In fact, I think it is not strong enough to counter the massive western information war against Russia. I read BBC and NY times regularly, and constantly notice biased and one-sided view.

I think that the author fall victim to the NY Times style propaganda articles about the evil Putin, connected it with his experience and decided to support it. I don'think it is a objective point of view and it does not describe reality.

<comment> xor-ed-wolf It's confirmation bias at work. People often can't control their "reptilian brain" effectively. Having some superfluous idea they only find confirmations to it all around all worse if they are emotionally unstable at the moment.

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I honestly don't know how to feel about this. It's really just as deceptive in presenting a clear cut and linear case about the other side, as if geopolitics really are this straightforward, and not actually a cryptic clusterfuck. It's just as pandering as Russian propaganda, or any form of propaganda.

That and, for what it's worth, I can see there being just as big of an incentive for Ukraine, as for Russia, to take down MH17. In fact, I found the immediate pinpointing of the blame on Russia to be strange. If they were the perpetrators, then they shot themselves in the foot. It's just a baffling and asinine strategic decision.

<comment><USER19> The problem is, it wasn't intentional. They seem to have thought they were attacking a Ukrainian military plane. There wasn't any strategy in this.

<comment><USER20> So hitting Ukrainian planes is OK? There wasn't any kind of terrorists that I'm aware of who got access to such a sophisticated weapons. And no one of those 'monkeys' could even handle with that 'BUK'. It's obvious that only trained army team could make this launch and it's obvious for us(Ukrainians here) that after brutal annexation of Crimea , this sick freak wont stop until he gets punched in the face. He doesn't understand any other language other that rude force. Ukraine is weak, much weaker that Russia now. Mostly because the very same Russia-oriented mafia clans. Former government of Ukraine is now hiding in Russia and they wont be judged there. Russia's mission number one was to prove that Ukraine is a failed-state. This is the main reason why all this happening. Max explains the rest in his post.

<comment><USER19> I never said it was okay? I said there wasn't any strategy to it. Don't put words in my mouth.

I was only saying that it wasn't intentional, there was no strategy behind it, so you can't really ask "What were they thinking" because they _weren 't_. You knee-jerked yourself into oblivion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can anyone seriously think of a reason why Ukraine, the Rebels or Russia would have downed that passenger plane on purpose?

Because I can't.

Whoever shot it down, obviously thought it was a military aircraft. They made a mistake.

If it's a mistake, it's not murder.

<comment><USER15> If you operate AA unit without knowledge how to detect civilian planes its a bit more then mistake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great read, I like how author's perspective and distance helps him see through a layer of lies and propaganda. I have russian and ukrainian friends and they confirm everything said in the post, they left their home countries because they didn't feel safe there.

</comment><comment><USER23> > If Kiev government survives, it will fairly quickly unlock economic benefits > of non-mafia, free economy.

...maybe. The rest of the Ukrainian political elite is also fairly corrupt, actually. So I expect it to take a decade at the very least. See, for example, Romania and Bulgaria.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/19/world/europe/m...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/19/world/europe/malaysia- airlines-plane-victims.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER24> As much as most of it may be true, Russia's fault in the Malaysian plane shoot-down hasn't been proved, even the crash site hasn't been examined properly, isn't it too early for such conclusions?

<comment><USER25> It wasn't proved, but there is not a believable alternative scenario.

There are videos of transported missiles, intercepted calls, orders of obstructing access to crash site... John Kerry even says there is "Enormous amount of evidence" for that scenario. Still not 100% sure, but 99% yes.

<comment><USER26> For a country to officially start condemning or placing blame on Russia there would have to be irrefutable evidence I'd say. I wouldn't want to get into a seriously heated conflict without being 100% sure, so even 99% wouldn't be good enough if I were in the driver seat. Result being people all standing around, shifty-eyed, 99% sure Russia and the separatists are behind the shooting, no one dares throw the first punch with 99% certainty.

<comment><USER22> But what kind of evidence do you consider irrefutable? This is a murky situation where officially there are no russian soldiers in Ukraine and the 'separatists' are just volunteers who happen to have military training and access to russian weapons. You know, nothing special, such things happen in every country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Seems like the stereotype of the self hating Jew now has its counterpart in the self hating Russian.

While all deaths are deplorable being a world power means killing people you disagree with. And unlike the US of to a small but quickly growing extent China Russia lacks the geopolitical power to change the rules of the game.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Modern Russia is not a weaker version of Soviet Union "empire of evil." This capability is, thankfully, long gone." \- empire of evil is still alive and well, after defeating the Soviet Union and is still seeking for new proper enemies (will it be you, China?).

</comment><comment><USER29> He's trying to rationalize his personal hate of russians. I've heard a lot of such speeches from 1980-90 emigrants, usually they have no idea what's really going on here.

</comment><comment><USER30> At least facebook/twitter/github/most google services not blocked in Russian....

<comment><USER8> Living in UK I can say that something is terribly wrong with freedom of speech and objectivity of mass media - Russian media reports all possible scenarios, blames Putin, Ukraine, rebels, but UK press is all focused on blaming Russia. Where's the alternative? UK media is free to blame Russia? Remember that Russian gay propaganda ban? So much noise, and at the same time Saudi Arabia executes gay people and there's no USA/UK campaign against it.

<comment><USER31> Show me just one blame for Putin from Russian mainstream media. Or someone calling separatists a 'rebels'. They prefer to hide them under credible- sounded 'militia', you'll have to knew it if you're watching kremlin TV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is HN a proper place to feed politic trolls?

<comment><USER33> which part is trolling?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Who are you? Durov its you?:)

<comment><USER34> I was wrong.

[http://ain.ua/wp- content/uploads/2014/07/204243_101501575974...](http://ain.ua/wp- content/uploads/2014/07/204243_10150157597457191_42296_o.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is one of the most racist articles I've read in a long time.

But it's the US enemy, so I guess it's okay to write:

"The population at large is, statistically speaking, not very bright. Many are deranged from overuse of alcohol or drugs."

You could easily replace the word "Russian" with the N-word and post this article on some white power blog.

<comment><USER36> And this was written by a Russian.</comment></comment>