Google X Executive Accused of Sexual Harassment Still Works There, Employees Say - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassment-allegations-employment.html <comment><USER3> I had dinner with a friend last week who mentioned, almost in passing, that he had been reported to HR at Google. Was shocking, since I had worked with him at another company for a decade, and he had been very kind and compassionate, almost to a fault. He is a gay white male, but also a Christian (can't remember which denomination or whatever). He had assumed it was over something religious he had said, HR did not tell him and spoke (understandably) in pretty general / vague terms.

This person was weirdly resigned to their fate. They are a contractor, so maybe they're scared of being let go, but the vibe I got from him was just "that's how it is these days and I have to accept it".

I guess what creeped me out was how he never heard what the accusation was. It was very kafkaesque, a court you don't recognize for a crime you aren't told.

Again I want to emphasize he was in one of those positions Google does where they test you out as a contractor for 18 months before deciding to flip you or not, so it could have been related to that different kind of employment status.

<comment><USER4> DeVaul (the accused) admitted it and apologized.

<comment><USER5> Is that kind of like plea bargain though?

More trouble and potential negative repercussions than to fight about it than just fess up and make it go away?

I don't know the specifics of this case, could well not be, just wondering if it's possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've lived in San Francisco for a while, and it's impossible to socialize here without being confronted by polyamory and openly casual attitudes toward alternative lifestyles. The first time poly came up for me was a meetup at Twitter, of all places. After a couple years here it becomes a norm that everyone here has a kink and is pretty open about it. The people that go to burning man (I, too, am a burner) never fully decompress.

I say all this because I can totally see how someone normalizes to stuff the rest of the world would say isn't ok. I don't think DeVaul is a creep. I think he's lived in the SF cultural bubble too long. Whether he should lose his job for that, I don't know, but I'm one of those people who think intention is 80% of what matters in cases like this.

This is also why I think it's important that tech leadership expands beyond the bay. It's subtle (or maybe to some not so subtle) ways like this that highlight how people here think differently about what should be normal.

<comment><USER7> The problem was not kink. The problem was not Burning Man.

The problem was:

      a)Mentioning his relationship status ("poly") to a candidate during the interview

      b)Asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate was still waiting for response

This is textbook discrimination.

It's good to see him go.[1]

[1][https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at- alp...](https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alphabet-x- unit-is-out-6f583d1e-91e3-4a8b-ae2b-51fd4517ec74.html)

<comment><USER8> It is indeed wrong, for all these points. Even if you subscribe to the "its ok, its a cultural thing" Its wrong _for the company_

Why? because he is suggesting that said person can be hired because of a quality unrelated to what the company needs. It is at this point that "he is an exec and therefore creates value at the company far out weighing this 'temporary impairment of judgement'" becomes null and void.

His judgement is causing shareholder harm. Therefore the company should find someone who is able to provide the company with better value and judgement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11)

Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?

<comment><USER10> People have forgotten that we enshrined that as a legal right because we determined it was best for society (or, more likely, never thought about it). It's not just a legal principle; it's a principle of just society. When we ignore it in the corporate world or other aspects of private life, we're saying that we think mob justice and presumption of guilt produces a better world (or a better corporation, etc).

Of course, even in our legal system, all it takes is an accusation. How many people are currently serving times for crimes they didn't commit? I'd bet the answer is disturbing high, especially when the level of certainty is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do so many convicted of murder or other crimes later get proven innocent? If someone didn't commit a crime... you'd think there was quite a reasonable doubt.

<comment><USER11> Leaving aside that the person in question here has _admitted_ fault, so there's no question of guilt here...

I often marvel that some people seem willing to _completely_ ignore evidence that doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction.

Any information, whether an admission of guilt, an accusation, multiple accusations, direct observation, observation of borderline or boundary-pushing behavior, or anythings else, provides some amount of evidence. Start with some prior probability of someone engaging in bad behavior (of any type, this isn't specific to harassment), in the absence of any information. Update that probability based on what evidence you have. You now have some estimated probability of someone engaging in that bad behavior.

There's a threshold ("beyond a reasonable doubt", say 99%) where you'd use it to convict someone of a crime, depriving them of personal liberty to protect others and theoretically to attempt to reform them. There's a _lower_ threshold (50%, "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities") where you'd use in a civil case, such as a lawsuit. There's a still _lower_ threshold used for "probable cause", enough to get a warrant to investigate. There's a still _lower_ threshold for "reasonable suspicion".

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_\(law\)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof) for a wide variety of _legal_ standards _other_ than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the US legal system already applies, and some of the circumstances in which they apply.

So, continuing the same premise: there's a threshold (most definitely _not_ 99%) where you'd decide not to put someone in a position of power that they seem likely to abuse. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to use a quote from someone to endorse a press release. There's a threshold where you'd refuse to employ someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone attend a conference where they might harm others or make others unwelcome. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone babysit your kids. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to date someone, or be friends with someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide to make sure you're never alone with someone.

I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that _all_ of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest _caution_? Or do you see the benefit of taking _proportionate_ steps based on lesser probabilities?

<comment><USER12> First of all, as an aside, I think a silver lining to all of these controversial accusations is that many people are becoming more educated on standards of evidence and discussing what standard to use when. I think a better understanding of these concepts is probably the best way to find common ground.

> I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should > have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a > reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you > see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?

I absolutely agree. The question is, what standard would you use? Likewise, what standard would you want used by your employer if you were accused of something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it's amazing to compare the handling of this case with that of James Damore. Whatever you may think of what he wrote, he never physically assaulted anybody.

<comment><USER14> No, but for many Damore is guilty of wrongthink, and deserved his fate.

The fact that _your_ comment was downvoted without comment seems quite telling.

<comment><USER15> Right. Nowadays, physical altercations can be swept under the rug. Ideological ones, not having drunk sufficient amounts of kool-aid, generally cannot be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It is equal parts concerning and hilarious to me that actions taken at Burning Man are punished by an employer.

3/4ths of the tech industry would lose their jobs if such a rule was applied consistently

<comment><USER8> what one does in their own time is indeed nothing to do with the company.

Suggesting that one can get a job with one's employer if you just do x, is either fraud or gross misconduct.

If he had not mentioned the job then he'd just be an arsehole who discusses their sexual proclivities in an professional setting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Should take a LOT more than an accusation to get fired.

<comment> lucian-g Read the article - the title is misleading: it suggests he was just accused -- while he actually admitted the events took place

[https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual- harassm...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassment- allegations-employment.html) > Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his "error of judgment."

[https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin- misconduct-...](https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct- review) > In 2013, Richard DeVaul, one of the directors for Google's moonshot division X, invited job interviewee Star Simpson to arts festival Burning Man. There, DeVaul offered the engineer a back rub, asking her to remove her shirt. She felt coerced to at least receive a neck rub. She was passed over for the job without explanation. After hesitating for two years, Simpson reported the matter to human resources after seeing DeVaul rise to prominence in profiles from The New York Times and The Atlantic. DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an "error of judgment."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google- sexual-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual- harassment-andy-rubin.html) > In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an "error of judgment." He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> He's accused of sexual harassment for this at _burning man_? I thought part of the point of Burning man is sexual freedom? The expectation at burning man is that you will encounter nudity, sexuality, etc. It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club.

edit: 'seeing' at a swingers club is implying that some sexual move/request was made. That's the point of these clubs.

<comment><USER19> Does it sound plausible that the following thought crossed her mind: "I feel uncomfortable with this, but if I turn it down, the future of my career might be jeopardized."

> "It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club."

No, she did not complain about _seeing_ him there. You are getting mixed up. He actually made an advance on her there. That is also not okay for a boss to do in a swingers club either.

<comment><USER18> see my edit.

as to your first point, it's not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It's harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way.

If "something bad might happen to me if I say no" is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment! you don't need to be someone's boss in order to have the ability to do harm to someone.

Not hiring someone over a sexual denial, stalking, rape, spreading false rumors about people - these are all illegal for a reason - so that we can deny people without constant fear of harm.

What this google exec did was not harassment.

<comment><USER20> "it's not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It's harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way."

That is not a correct interpretation of US law. Sexual harassment in the workplace includes any unwelcome sexual conduct. Quoting from [https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html](https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html) :

> Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual > nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often > play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the > distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but- > tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to > discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD ¶ 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977) > (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual > conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. The Eleventh Circuit > provided a general definition of "unwelcome conduct" in Henson v. City of > Dundee, 682 F.2d at 903: the challenged conduct must be unwelcome "in the > sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that > the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive."

The specific legal definition is at [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11) . Note that "repeated" in not in that definition.

For example, going back to the EEOC guidelines: "in "quid pro quo" cases _a single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to the granting or denial of employment benefits._ " That seems to be the exact issue at hand, yes?

Furthermore, even in the context of 'hostile workplace', which is distinct from 'quid pro quo', Barrett v. Omaha National Bank established that even "a single, unusually severe incident of harassment" may be enough to "constitute[] actionable sexual harassment".

"Not hiring someone over a sexual denial" is quid pro quo harassment, hence illegal. Was there some other law you were thinking of which made it illegal?

"If "something bad might happen to me if I say no" is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment!"

Which why the law doesn't say that. The same EEOC guidelines say:

> In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to > create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated > from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not > serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the > hypersensitive."

It then gives an example:

> Example - Charging Party alleges that her coworker made repeated unwelcome > sexual advances toward her. An investigation discloses that the alleged > "advances" consisted of invitations to join a group of employees who > regularly socialized at dinner after work. The coworker's invitations, > viewed in that context and from the perspective of a reasonable person, > would not have created a hostile environment and therefore did not > constitute sexual harassment.

and, regarding hostile workplaces:

> As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet > which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the > conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate > Title VII."

<comment><USER18> I appreciate the legal perspective.

It seems rather reasonable, but leaves a lot up the the interpretation of the judge/jury if it goes to court.

There's also something to be said for public social opinion/corporate standards which are distinct from law. Google has its own set of rules based off of public opinion that are only allowed to be more strict than the law. I think this deserves more discussion than the current law as far as this point about hypothetical harm is concerned - law follows public opinion and right now the law is kept very general.

I'm glad we agree that "something bad might happen to me if I say no" is irrelevant to the law, and I argue it should be for public opinion as well. It's unfortunate how common this refrain is, but I think it is the minority opinion.

<comment><USER20> Do you understand that your previously stated views concerning the definition of sexual harassment aren't correct?

"I think this deserves more discussion than the current law"

You were the one who connected this issue to the law when you wrote that '[n]ot hiring someone over a sexual denial' was illegal but not sexual harassment. I wanted to show how that characterization was incorrect.

"I'm glad we agree that "something bad might happen to me if I say no" is irrelevant to the law,"

I have no idea what you are talking about. Quid quo pro harassment specifically concerns the topic 'something bad might happen to me if I say no' \- it's very relevant.

<comment><USER18> I think we are talking past each other a bit.

Not hiring someone over a sexual denial _is_ sexual harassment. Not sure where the miscommunication happened there. Its literally the ground I stood on when saying 'something bad might happen to me if I say no' is a bogus way to culturally define SH' \- because that's true of all human interaction. Law is what helps make us forget about the fact that my neighbor could stab me if I deny them something they want - yet we don't make it illegal for our neighbors to ask us for things - which is what some are proposing.

We are talking about 2 things here:

1\. should it be legal to make a sexual advance even though you could theoretically harm them if they say no.

2\. should it be legal to not hire someone because you sexually denied them.

I'm using the fact that #2 is already illegal to strengthen my point that #1 should remain legal and culturally acceptable, and that doing otherwise is ridiculous.

<comment><USER20> You said that a sexual advance on its own is not sexual harassment, but rather that multiple sexual advances are required before it can be termed sexual harassment. I pointed out that US case law says that even a single incident of an unwanted sexual advance may be severe enough to be considered sexual harassment under US law. I do not think you accept that your personal definition is not appropriate when discussing the workplace.

Since (I assume) you are involved in a workplace, I think it's important to let you know, in order to help reduce the misinformation about what sexual harassment law actually covers.

Your "theoretical" in #1 has two common interpretations. 1) minor or abstract, as might be perceived by the 'hypersensitive'. This is already rejected by case law and widely agreed that it is irrelevant.

But theoretical can also mean 2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct. As examples #2, antimatter was theoretical in Dirac's 1928 paper, and discovered by Anderson in 1932; Neptune's existence was theoretical when Bouvard used perturbations in Uranus's orbit to deduce that Neptune existed, before Galle observed it in a telescope.

It is not hard to come up with examples where the a supervisor may make an unwanted sexual advance where employee does not know if there will be negative job consequences to saying no, but does not say 'no' for fear of the - at that point - theoretical negative consequences for saying no. Eg, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson.

> Taylor treated her in a fatherly way and made no sexual advances. Shortly > thereafter, however, he invited her out to dinner and, during the course of > the meal, suggested that they go to a motel to have sexual relations. At > first she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job > she eventually agreed. According to respondent, Taylor thereafter made > repeated demands upon her for sexual favors, usually at the branch, both > during and after business hours; she estimated that over the next several > years she had intercourse with him some 40 or 50 times.

The District Court originally declared "if respondent and the supervisor did have a sexual relationship, it was voluntary and had nothing to do with her continued employment at the bank, and that therefore respondent was not the victim of sexual harassment." The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed. This is the court case which determined that sexual harassment can be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Nor must there be actual negative consequences. It is the unwelcomeness which makes it harassment, and from the Meritor decision, 'harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment'.

The legal question isn't "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sexual harassment?" but "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sufficient level of sexual harassment so as to constitute workplace discrimination?".

<comment><USER18> For your first 2 paragraphs, yes. Agreed.

I don't understand the distinction you're making between "1) minor or abstract" and "2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct." Could you elaborate on #1.

Again I also want to make the point that at least for this discussion I'm putting myself in the position of someone who is _creating_ the law - <USER2> following it. But yes we should know what the current law is and what the case law is - yes. It can help us guide us there. So thanks for your insight there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Accused != convicted.

The article itself says that 48 people (13 of them seniors members) were fired for similar claims. It's not as if Google was turning a blind eye.

<comment> lucian-g confessed != accused

> In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his "error of judgment."

Quote comes from [https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin- misconduct-...](https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct- review)

> DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has > since apologized for an "error of judgment."

<comment><USER22> Apologizing for an error of judgment does not mean admitting to the details of the accusation.

<comment> lucian-g I find your answer disingenuous.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google- sexual-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual- harassment-andy-rubin.html)

> In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an "error of judgment." He said X > decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he > did not realize she had not been informed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> << As the Times reported, DeVaul, whose title is "director of rapid evaluation and mad science," told a young female job candidate during a 2013 interview that he was in a polyamorous relationship. Later, when he saw the woman at Burning Man while she was still waiting to hear back about the job, DeVaul asked her if she would take off her shirt for a back massage. >>

This certainly does not seem something that warrants firing, and might even be correct behavior depending on circumstances (e.g. if he had reason to believe she would not feel coerced or otherwise be happy consenting).

<comment><USER24> There is no universe in which a (non sex work) job interview is the right venue for a conversation about your sexual proclivities. FFS.

<comment><USER25> I have known many interviewees/ers that talked about their queerness in tech interviews.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why no preview and no ninja edit on HN? - <AUTHOR> Given how everybody on HN is constantly praising "agile", TDD, "fail fast", "incremental changes, etc... I'm surprise there isn't a preview or a ninja edit (ability to made and edit for x minutes after a post/comment without showing as an edit) on HN.
I see the preview functionality as the posting equivalent of TDD, and ninja edit as the posting equivalent of Continuous Deployment.
I always get the little formatting that is available wrong, and find the fact that you can only get one go at writing your comment without being marked as "edited" at odds with modern software implementation methods. <comment><USER2> In what way does HN show that you edited a post?!

Also, there is the delay option in your profile, which does sort-of work to give you a preview (although it is a bit of a clunky way) [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> First off, how would anybody but you know that you had edited a comment?

Second, why would you care?

Every single comment I post (including this one), I read over before and after posting, and make edits so that it reads better. That is how people write things. It's not something you should be embarrassed about (or whatever it is that compels you to post this).</comment>


The cookie law is dead, you're welcome - <AUTHOR> http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/the-cookie-law-is-dead-youre-welcome/ Last week we laid down a bitter ultimatum to the guardians of the cookie law: Go Ahead And Sue Us. We stripped our sites bare of cookie warnings and begged them to do their worst. <comment><USER2> To all the people bashing the EU e-Privacy directive [1] (the "cookie law"): have you bothered read it all?

If so, could you please pin-point which part of the directive you do not like? Which part are hard to implement? Can you also explain us (with the same verve used to bash the directive) how your national implementation is even worse than the EU-wide directive?

The directive is quite short, definitely shorter than a review of a new Mac OS X release. Give it a try.

Spoiler: the word "cookie" is not used in the law, only in the explanatory preamble.

[1] latest consolidated version of the EU e-Privacy directive [http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLE...](http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002L0058:20091219:EN:HTML)

<comment><USER3> This part:

>Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well- informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose.

Could certainly be interpreted to mean that users must actively accept or refuse cookies before accessing a website. I don't like this because the inconvenience outweighs the privacy benefits, in my opinion.

<comment><USER2> That part is not part of the law, just introductory text. The law says in Article 5:

«3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia, about the purposes of the processing.

This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.»

A site can store data on a person's computer only if that person has give its consent to it or if it is technically needed. Your ad campaigns, your A/B tests, your detailed analytics are not technically needed and I want to have a say on whether they are going to be stored in my computer.

Please note that many national implementation explicitly allow for broad mechanism like "accept all cookies" buttons during installations as long they are set or clicked by the user and are not simple defaults.

<comment><USER3> Whether it is in the recital or the enacting terms is irrelevant, I quoted the recital because it is a little clearer.

The effect is the same - sites have interpreted the law to mean that a pop-up prompt is necessary. I think that the inconvenience of this outweighs the benefit. You might disagree, but don't try to make it sound as if everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The EU cookie law is so stupid and full of holes that it's absolutely ridiculous. Also nobody seems to know how to implement it properly so most people just don't. This includes a lot of government websites and EU organisations, even the EU's main website <http://europa.eu/> doesn't comply with the law.

If ever there was a bad case of Politicians trying to reach a noble goal (in this case caring about a users privacy) but not having a clue about the technological means to reach the goal this is it.

Maybe EU needs a technology commissioner.

<comment><USER5> It's worth noting that this law wasn't produced in the usual way, and there was not much in the way of industry involvement in the legislation' s drafting process. About 15 months ago, I commented:

> I think it was not so much that the community was ignored, but that the law > was passed under unusual circumstances: usually the lobbyists inform the > legislators, who defer to industry on the specifics. Here the lobbyists > mostly hated the legislation, but legislators were more responsive to > privacy activists because of widespread public concern. So the law is a > triumph of democracy over technocracy.

> And I think that's reflected in the legislation. The principles are OK, but > the detail does not match up with practice. Hence the law is some way from > being something workable.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2587995>

So I don't think this is really the politician's fault, so much as problems with parliamentary process. Your idea of a technology commissioner might be helpful, but the whole problem here is that the EU Commission did not guide the legislation, with the drafting being driven by parliament.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I do enjoy a self-propagandising and excessively hyperbolic headline.

In principle the law has an honest objective to increase user awareness of cookies. I just don't understand all the developers on here jumping around at the outrageousness of the law when the ICO in the UK is obviously taking a relaxed approach to enforcement.

Obviously the problem is that a law as drafted could be applied as drafted however I think there is room for a pragmatic approach here which acknowledges a) the type and sophistication of the site and its users b) the type of cookies being used and c) the risk of a user being harmed or making a complaint.

<comment><USER7> Increasing awareness of cookies is not very helpful. People don't give a rats heini about stuff like that.

All it does is make things more confusing causing customers to drop off.

And I still don't understand what is so bad about them being able to profile me. I want them to do that so I can get better ads / better communication in the future.

<comment><USER6> I think the problem is that you are aware of this profiling in the first place. Many are not. At least if they are informed, they can make a decision as to whether or not they care about it.

I don't know where I lie on the divide between those who value the input that targeted advertising can bring and those who are vehemently against any form of tracking. The problem I think is the uneducated majority in the middle. They may browse one site and then wonder why ads from that site or for a similar product are suddenly appearing. They have no awareness whatsoever that information about their browsing habits is being collected.

I personally think it is a more preferable situation to have an educated populace opting in to that form of collection of information than to have an uneducated one who has no comprehension that companies are engaging in this sort of behaviour.

I accept it is likely to be relatively harmless in many cases, but as I saw, I would rather than an informed opt-in or at least knowledge that this was taking place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems that the bigger companies (BBC, Amazon, etc.) have just gotten away with having a link to their cookies policy in the footer, while the smaller guys (e.g. the web dev place I work at) have been scared into placing often intrusive JS notifications that grab the user's attention needlessly.

If the average user were to even understand what cookies were, I could see at least some reasoning behind the law, but as it stands, it's like having a prompt at the petrol pump that asks you if you consent to something in your fuel that's there to help your engine - most people don't know about it and don't want to be bothered being asked the question in the first place.

<comment><USER9> The BBC had an annoying popup banner thing.

<comment><USER8> Just checked and you're right... bad example, I should have checked before I posted. There are, however, plenty of larger companies that did just use a link in the footer (Amazon was one). The day before (IIRC) the deadline for having the law applied, the ICO decided that implied consent could be used, thus making a link in the footer perfectly okay.

<comment><USER10> The ICO's interpretation of the privacy law requires the user to understand that continued usage of a website will result in tracking (i.e. alert them until they agree), so the BBC's version complies better with the recommendations.

That's what they mean by implied consent – the user can use the website so long as they understand the situation, they don't have to physically agree. A lot of websites then decided to take their own meaning from the term "implied consent" without reading the document.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I admit to not spending the time to read the actual law text (mainly because it seems so ridiculous), but can't it be worked around using other technologies?

If the law bans cookies, can't sites just switch to using WebStorage/IndexedDB/webkit FileSystem to achieve the same thing, but not using cookies? Thus actual bad guys have a workaround, and the good guys who keep using cookies because they're useful are apparently breaking the law.

Does the cookie law ban other technologies or can we just shift to a new tech not covered by the law?

<comment><USER12> CTO of an adserving company here. The law states that explicit consent is required for third-party tracking cookies.

The law doesn't specifically say cookies either: it is deliberately vague to mean any data stored on a client's pc. So flash cookies, webstorage, etc all fall under this category. This is due to the law's original intent to fight malware / spyware.

A basic summary of the relevant parts of the law can be found here: <http://www.aboutcookies.org/default.aspx?page=3>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm fairly sure that the EU issued a directive and not regulation. The member state takes these directives and decide whether to (and how to) implement them into the statutory law of their country.

The rest of Europe looked at this directive and decided not to implement it 'ad pedem litterae'. You don't see any other countries with stupid little cookie notices plastered all over their websites.

The United Kingdom on the other hand, has a long history of misunderstanding the purpose of directives and implementing them without due consideration or manipulation.

Thus, the EU Cookie Law is misnamed. It is the UK Cookie Law.

It followed from the EU Directive 2002/58 on Privacy and Electronic Communications: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Privacy_and_Electr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Privacy_and_Electronic_Communications)

Directive... Directive... Directive...

Don't blame Brussels. Blame the UK government.

More on regulation and directives here: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8160808.stm>

</comment><comment><USER14> The maximum fine can add up to 450.000,- _per violation_. AND: By lay, if you add third-party plugins (analytics or social widgets) to your INTRANET you also need to comply to the cookie-law. How about that?

<comment><USER15> I am not sure how they could enforce it against an INTRANET at all.

<comment><USER14> I don't think they can either. But it's in the law. It's completely crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This all looks like typical political rhetoric to me. The politicians think _something_ must be done-- OK, here is _something_ , let's do it! It doesn't matter that this _something_ isn't the _right_ thing, because now "I did _something_ about this problem. Re-elect me."

</comment><comment><USER17> According to <http://www.cookie-checker.com>, the top 3 uses 65 to 85 cookies(!) Law or no law, I still think this is quite heavy in the light of privacy.

</comment><comment><USER18> Cookies in the UK may end up being treated like weed in the Netherlands: technically illegal, but not prosecuted even when out in the open.

</comment><comment><USER19> Are you required to give the cookie notice if people log in to your site (and you only use cookie's _after_ that point)?

</comment><comment> saw-lau Grammar pedantry: surely it should be 'The cookie law is dead. You're welcome.'?

</comment><comment><USER20> not quite yet, fingers crossed though, the legislation is unabashed bullshit, i've been recommending my clients hold fire in spite of the fact this would be billable work for me, because it is so arse-about-face.

</comment><comment><USER21> So is your site apparently.

</comment><comment><USER22> One day we will all wake up as slaves to a great machine smarter than any human, we will live, eat, laugh, cry, and die by the machine. And it will know best.

Don't question its authority over you. It's judgement is flawless, divine and infallible. it never makes a mistake.</comment>


Being quarantined by the Chinese government sounds pretty ominous... - <AUTHOR> http://aproductguy.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/life-in-the-big-house/

<comment><AUTHOR> Another interesting (and more negative) account of being quarantined in China can be found here: [http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/journal...](http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/journal_of_the_plague_years_sh.php)

</comment><comment><USER2> we still love ya mike! but we need you to get inside the Plastic Bubble. as in NOW.

\- dave mc

ps - GeeksonaPlane miss u & hope u get back home soon :)

</comment><comment><USER3> dmc - if i promise not to sneeze on people and stop licking doorknobs, can i stay out of the bubble?</comment>


Advanced Go Concurrency Patterns (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://talks.golang.org/2013/advconc.slide#1

<comment><USER2> Is there a performance comparison anywhere between creating a big API of channel, each for every different task that you may want to achieve ( let's say add/search/remove from a global slice), versus simply performing mutex to protect the state mutation ?

I've seen a golang informal chat where one of the golang team member advertized using mutex instead of having a huge select, but i wonder if anyone has real experience of the two here.

<comment><USER3> RWMutex (or Mutex if every op is a write op) is faster since it's just a couple counters and atomic AddInt. Channels are more intuitive for some tasks, and less for others. Don't try to use channels anywhere, especially when you're just synchronizing access to something.

Source: Have written and benchmarked many, many Go programs.

<comment><USER4> s/anywhere/everywhere/ ?

<comment><USER3> Sorry, yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Video here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDwwePbDtw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDwwePbDtw)

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone know what pros and cons this pattern have compared to callbacks? I note most UIs developments still use callback approach.

</comment><comment><USER7> I like these slides that are hosted on golang.org -- navigating them on the browser gets a bit restrictive though. I figured if you "Print/Save to pdf" from your web browser, you can get a nice pdf copy.

</comment><comment><USER8> Excellent talk, even if you've seen it before.

Note that the slide viewer scrolls horizontally across the first few slides, but you need to use the keyboard (spacebar) to advance further.

</comment><comment><USER9> > This talk was presented at Google I/O in May 2013.

<comment><USER10> ...and discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5760532](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5760532)</comment></comment>


Many people think AI could make better policy than politicians - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1576057/could-ai-make-better-policy-than-politicians/ <comment><USER2> Most randomly selected people could make better policy than politicians. Politicians don't make bad policy because they are stupid, they do it because it serves their interest in some way.

</comment><comment><USER3> All this shows is that at least 25% of people do not understand AI in any way.

<comment><USER4> This. In all fairness an AI could make policy, but probably not good policy. People think anything relating to AI is cool, but forget the scary side of it, like with Gpt-2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> First, show me an AI that can make better video recommendations.</comment>


Removing E-Guven CA Certificate - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/27/removing-e-guven-ca-certificate/

<comment><USER2> Good to see browser vendors show some teeth, even if it is a small CA. I hope the same kind of aggresive action is taken when a big CA screws up.</comment>


Microsoft takes on the free world  - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ <comment><USER3> At least it's down from 283 mentioned in 2004: [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/02/1459211&tid;=155](http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/02/1459211&tid=155)

With IBM backing Linux, all Microsoft can do is start a nuclear war that will not end well for it.

"I'll see your 235 and raise you 6,000."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> cliff notes: But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - <USER2> - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68.

<comment><USER4> _"It's a tinderbox. Patent law's going to be the terrain on which a big piece of the war's going to be fought. Waterloo is here some where." --Eben Moglen, Executive director, Software Freedom Law Center_

This is a very sobering article - MS's way to cripple the Open Source software movement now that MS's products are beginning to loose steam. Let's hope Richard Stallman will be able to slay the Goliath.

<comment><USER5> David vs. Goliath is a nice story, but it's always better to have someone bigger on your side. MSFT has a huge warchest, and therefor a big advantage going against the FSF. I'd look for support for the cause of free software from the likes of GOOG, IBM, and YHOO (assuming the latter isn't bought by MSFT); companies that make a lot of money by not paying the MSFT tax.

Now, could MSFT acquire/bribe all its deep-pocketed natural adversaries in a patent fight? My opinion is not; they don't have _that_ much money, and the GPL limits their ability to engage in cross-licensing maneuvers.

Still, this story makes me want to chant: "Hey, hey, ho, ho, software patents have got to go." I can't think of a damn thing s/w or business process patents have ever contributed to innovation. (Counterexamples welcome.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hopefully, this time the dispute will go all the way to the supreme court, and we will get a ruling that makes the whole IP environment more predictable. At least for startups and smaller players without huge legal resources, as well as for those who would like to invest in them, the current uncertainty is worse than any probable ruling.</comment>


I really need a Web Developer's job. Suggestions? - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
I am the first year CS student and I really want to stop getting money from my parents and earn my own. So, I want to get full or part-time job as a Web Developer (PHP, MySQL, jQuery). I have 3 years experience in each field.
Could you suggest any good sites where I could find this type of job? I need salary just to pay my rent and to buy food. That would be enough. I tried freelancer.com and other similar sites, didn't like them very much.
Thank you for any suggestions. <comment><USER2> Do you need to stop taking money from your folks, or is it a pride issue? That is, can they afford it or not?

Honestly, if it's not something where you need to do it to help with the family's well being, I'd strongly consider just continuing to leech off them for a while, at least the first couple years in college. Paying your way is great, but worrying less about that kind of thing is more conducive to learning.

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of students freelance. You might want to start out advertising on CL for local businesses. It will be slow initially, but you will pick up speed.

How much do you need to make a week? How many sites do you think you can do a week? Halve that and you'll know how much you need to charge.

<comment><AUTHOR> I need to make at least 200$ a week. I could do probably about 2-3 sites per week (depends on sites too).

<comment><USER3> Here's something worth trying.

1\. Look for existing businesses in your local area that already has a website, preferably a small site.

2\. Go to <http://www.howtogomo.com/en/>

3\. Run a report on their site. If their site looks terrible on mobile, that's the one you'd want to work on.

4\. Email the report to them and tell them you can help them build a mobile version. Set your prices low at first. Say $150 for the first page, and $50 for each additional page. Tell them you will host it for them for free for the first year (tell them you normally charge $120 per year - you must do this. It is repeat revenue every year you see). Keep bumping up the rate until you get only 3 sites to do each week, otherwise your studies will suffer.

5\. Use ZURB's Foundation template. It renders mobile pretty well.

You can host your stuff on a small vps. If you are dealing with static sites, I've a VPS at Linode. I'm ok with helping a student out - no charge. Contact me when you need it.

Regards.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for your advices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If your parents aren't sweating you about the money, don't sweat them. Look at your local Craigslist.</comment>


What would you lose if your Gmail, Flickr or Facebook were deleted? - <AUTHOR> http://www.lookafteryourdata.com/

<comment><USER2> Google has a virtual team which provides this information for all their properties: <http://www.dataliberation.org/>

<comment><USER3> I haven't found a way to extract google talk chat logs though.

<comment><USER4> They're not accessible along with email? (I haven't actually tried, I have to admit -- on the TODO list)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These issues are certainly nothing new.

I had years of emails from the late 90s happily stored with Excite's webmail. Then, after one or another merger they instituted a policy of deleting any account that had not been signed into within 90 days. I had moved on to using desktop pop3 mail, and that was that - they deleted all of my archived messages without any recourse or so much as an apology.

I don't believe there had been any sort of export, download or backup option, either. I should have learned from that, but lo! Netscape did the same thing to me not long afterwards.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

I made this site as a quick way of telling less technically minded why and how they should take a copy of their cloud based information.

I must have a ton of facebook friends who have photos on there that would be permanently lost if their profile was deleted or hacked or whatever.

<comment><USER6> Thanks! I was looking for a Gmail backup - backupify.com for quite a while. Now however, thinking hard whether the risk of adding 3rd party backup service is higher than just relying solely on Gmail :)

<comment><USER7> There was a back-up service once that was revealed to store the log-in data a while ago; it was a pretty big thing.

There is absolutely no point in taking a leap of faith when it comes to handing over control of sensitive data.

<comment><USER8> It was emailing the login credentials to a gmail account (supposedly) for development purposes and was 'accidentally' left on in production.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Change my MX record, bitch a little bit and then get back to work.

<comment><USER10> You forgot the "brag about how you aren't affected because you do things The Right Way(tm)" part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I save GMail via POP3, Google Docs with a Python script, and I keep originals of Flickr and Picasa photos. Fairly easy to do.

<comment><USER12> Yes, Gmail can be installed on your own domain, POP3 or SMTP all your other accounts and you're set.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd lose some meta-data about which photos I thought were worth uploading.

</comment><comment><USER14> Looks like they've got spam already (Backupify), and the Gmail method sounds out of date (download quota?) despite the site apparently being new on May 2, 2010 (via the blog).

Personally, nothing. I duplicate everything important, often in multiple locations, though I should probably TrueCrypt my backups for paranoia's sake. Given my password store, in multiple locations, I can change all my site's passwords in _minutes_ if someone gets one.

I'm thinking of putting my ssh keys into Tarsnap, as they're single-location- only right now. Any Tarsnap users have an opinion of it?

<comment><AUTHOR> whats out of date about the Gmail method? (download quota as in your ISP data, I live in Australia, our internet still has limits, I know people on 5-8gb plans, if their Gmail is 1-2gb thats a fair bit)- Feel free to edit the page with a different wording though!

I don't have much of a problem with Backupify, as its another method that people can use, but I've updated the posting to have ($$) in the name to denote that it costs money. My hope is that there is a bunch of different methods for each different cloud based service, so I'm happy for Backupify to be one of those, would be good if there were more free ones for some of the products it covers though :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Gmail + IMAP + offlineimap = Synchronization + Backup

</comment><comment><USER16> I've lost too much data over the years to do anything other than treat GMail as a super fast, convenient way to access my mail in the cloud.

I have Thunderbird setup on pop3 and treat the downloaded mail data as if it were my only copy. Regular backups etc.

Flickr and Facebook don't hold anything I don't already have in my Pictures folder.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd gain some free time and the reminder that nothing in my gmail or any social site really matters.

</comment><comment><USER18> Gmail...just emails really nothing earth shattering.

Facebook...I just post and have a couple pictures up. Again nothing earth shattering.

I don't use Flickr.

I guess I don't lose much at all.

</comment><comment><USER19> I use Google as my offsite backup, so I would lose pretty much nothing except for my email address. That would be a pain.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't know. Maybe I would feel liberated?

</comment><comment><USER21> Nothing.

<comment><USER22> Same as me.</comment></comment>


Starlite, the nuclear blast-defying plastic that could change the world - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5158972/Starlite-the-nuclear-blast-defying-plastic-that-could-change-the-world.html

<comment><USER2> Being a little short on independent verifications, I wonder if it is even for real?</comment>


Stop Excel from changing large "numbers" (text) to scientific notation - <AUTHOR> https://excel.uservoice.com/forums/304921-excel-for-windows-desktop-application/suggestions/10374741-stop-excel-from-changing-large-numbers-actually <comment><USER2> If i had to guess this would break thousands of obscure in-house excel sheets, crafted over decades, on which tens of thousands jobs and careers depend ;-)

Which i guess is why Microsoft never fixes even quite obvious bugs in Excel, for example like here: [https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/313567-scientists- rename...](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/313567-scientists-rename-genes- so-excel-wont-reformat-them-as-dates)</comment>


Show HN: Breaking a meaningless world record: computing Γ(1/4) to 500b digits - <AUTHOR> https://andrewsun.com/blog/2020/05/28/breaking-a-meaningless-world-record-computing-gamma-1-4-to-500-billion-digits/ <comment><USER2> after 5 weeks of seeing cryptic screenshots on discord of ycruncher it's finally done!

</comment><comment><USER3> Pretty cool! Lovely use of ANSI colors in that terminal.</comment>


ADAM - An iPad-like device from NotionInk, India - <AUTHOR> http://www.notionink.in/adamoverview.php

<comment><USER4> Major Victory if the "transflective LCD" is at least partially usable in sunlight. My iPad becomes an extraordinarily effective mirror the instant the sun comes out.

<comment><USER5> b/w mode works in sunlight.

<comment><USER6> worked nice on Nokia N810 tablet

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been watching this device for a while, it truly is one of the most promising non-Apple tablet devices. The android jungle is being filled with creatures, and they are starting to breed :)

</comment><comment><USER8> _where hardware talks to software more often_

that sounds silly enough that they might be on to something. i had to think about that for about 30 seconds. then i realized, that is probably the name of the game in this semi-embedded/tablet space. the fact that they are so focused on that, to the detriment of making sense, is a good sign, i think.

<comment><USER9> I thought about it for 30 seconds and didn't get the light bulb. Could you share your thoughts?

<comment><USER10> [hardware]---constant-jibba-jabba--->[software]

<comment><USER8> Right. :) Basically, it sounds like they're utilizing the hardware as much as possible. '...more often [than other tablets or than would seem normal]'. I.e., more gpu or more specialized use of the hardware, less general-purpose cpu.

The interesting thing about Steve Jobs' final argument in his letter is that he fully recognizes the importance of this in the embedded space, and he gives that as a reason for avoiding middleware layers. But this is obviously a curious point, considering Flash has been ramping up towards GPU-based things since before the iPad was probably first planned.

Anyway, one can debate all one wants about the colorful histories of Apple, Adobe, and recently tablets, etc. These folks seem focused. Good luck to them all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> With the cancellation of Courier and Windows tablet, I would't hold out for this.

Yes, there is a working demo but until I see a release date, I won't take this product as a contender against the IPad.

<comment><USER12> I share your skepticism, but this has nothing to do with Courier.

Courier was a concept video, not a piece of hardware or software. It was never a working demo, or anything close to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's a video of the actual device in use here:

[http://www.slashgear.com/notion-ink-adam-flash-ipad- comparis...](http://www.slashgear.com/notion-ink-adam-flash-ipad-comparison- app-competition-0873197/)

<comment><USER14> The notionink.in site is terrible, and I went into this prepared to be entirely dismissive of whatever the video contained, but I was really impressed. It looks like a legitimately cool device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The eInk option is what would make this a winner for me. The other bells and whistles are nice too, though.

</comment><comment><USER15> now... I'd gladly pay as much as for an iPad for a device that gives me (a) the basic functionality you'd use on an iPad (web browsing, calendar, pdf viewer) but also (b) enables you to use any kind of application, including your own, without paying extra for a "developer account" or requiring to jailbreak the thing.

That said, yes they have a prototype, but are they any closer to market than the WePad (also Android)?

</comment><comment><USER16> been following this company for a while, really fascinating design. Hope they keep the pixel qi screen in their final product

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm still not sure whether i should buy a tablet or not. But if i buy one, i will definitely wait for this one. From my point of view it has a lot of strengths compared to the iPad. The screen in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is completely game changing if:

1) they can do it

2) the price is sub $700

If they can do that, the Slate, iPad, etc. can go home now.

<comment><USER19> I think they sure can do it. They have come so far. My gut feel about the price is ~500$.

What will be interesting to see is the apps. Apart from the browser what apps will the iNotion have?

<comment><USER18> But isn't that just it? It will have the entire web of apps. And they're all free.

<comment><USER20> You mean just like the iPad can run web apps for free?

The same web apps that everyone decries for not providing the rich experience of native apps?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I thought it was entertaining to see their website looking _very_ similar to Apple's.

That said, Steve Jobs has pissed me off enough recently that I hope this gains traction.

Apple and Facebook have gotten too uppity with our rights. With all the other sh*t going on in the world at some point people will have had enough and will start pushing back on this crap.

</comment><comment><USER22> The transflective display is definitely a plus.

I can't believe Apple didn't put something like this on the iPad.

</comment><comment><USER23> Is it any 'iPad killer' with similar to iPad screen? 768 lines IPS is much better then 600 lines (TN?) screen.

</comment><comment><USER24> Despite the great number of horror stories, India is a successful exporter of software; less so for hardware. Has any Indian startup managed to create a consumer device that is used worldwide? If not, ADAM could really be a first. An exciting prospective.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't understand this:

 _"It's not a tablet or an ebook reader, it's a new species"_

Is that marketing hyperbole or did I miss something fundamental about what they are doing?

<comment><USER4> I read it as: Tablet = Works great in Dimly lit areas (Backlighting) eBook Reader = Works Great in Sunlight.

If true, then it really is a new species, neither iPad nor Kindle.

<comment><USER26> The capabilities of Google Earth and Maps would make for a killer travel guide. There's one problem, however. LCDs don't look so great outdoors in the sunlight. The transflective screen would make such a use feasible, comfortable, and possibly slick.

<comment><USER27> You also need a cellphone connection to use google maps/earth. If you're exploring a city, i think the phone form factor is more convenient. If you're out in the wilderness, you probably don't have an Internet connection.

<comment><USER7> I believe they are planning models with 3G and wifi :)

<comment><USER27> wilderness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Well, these guys are touting themslelves as ipad killer.. <http://bit.ly/aYhAXY> possibly wrong strategy for a startup?

</comment><comment><USER29> this is the best demo i have seen of the adam tablet, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQvefuCHZds> Im very excited, i hope it measures up to the iPad and other tablets, it seems to have some very cool features

<comment><USER30> I wonder if there is any newer videos. Its a nice idea with the swivel camera

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Does anybody know about a release date?

<comment><USER32> June apparently, which isn't that long after non-US countries get the iPad.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Great looking product - they'll have a hard time out-marketing Apple though. This seems like a market where second place is as good as dead.

Good luck to them.

As a side note - there's at least a billion dollars to be made by the first company that develops a fingerprint/smudge free screen - every used iphone i've seen looks gross

Also 1080p on a screen that small is v.nice. The high DPI should make for a nice ebook reader.

<comment><USER34> It'll play 1080p content, but not at 1080p (unless you're using HDMI) - <USER2> screen resolution is only 1024*600, which is lower than even 720p.

<comment><USER33> Oops I read '1080p Full HD video playback' as 'has a full HD screen' - <USER3> thinking maybe :)</comment></comment></comment>


Beyond Good Cop/Bad Cop: A Look At Real-Life Interrogations - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2013/12/05/248968150/beyond-good-cop-bad-cop-a-look-at-real-life-interrogations

<comment><AUTHOR> A number of things stood out to me in this piece.

First was the fact of confession bias: even if unconsciously, once we've heard a confession, we tend to discount information which would contradict it. I've seen a similar general trend: if someone tells us something we tend to believe them, reality notwithstanding. People pay attention to words.

There's the PEACE model for ferreting out truth and falsehoods, which dismisses many of the "physical indicators of lying" notions:

 _That model is: Lying and anxiety have nothing to do with each other, and lying and body language have nothing to do with each other. However, lying creates a cognitive load, and the more you lie, the more elements you have to juggle, and if you keep going back and asking for more and more details, eventually that system breaks down. ... What the PEACE technique helps you do is find out which part of the story is verifiable and which part isn 't._

I've found that cues of coherence and specificity in stories are helpful to me in assessing the veracity of both personal interactions and of academic / topical research.

In the interview, Douglas Starr also mentions the case of people who've appeared on TV or in public making appeals to find the perpetrator of crimes for which they were later convicted on evidence (and by all appearances accurately) -- the displays of emotion these people present don't show any of the physical signs of lying that the Reid method is based on.

And finally, the behavioral tricks employed by investigators and by which subjects operate which tend to result in false confessions are telling. The pressure to confess, and the sense of the subject that confessing will somehow make things better (it almost always doesn't) are both psychological traps which tend to produce a false result.

Even in areas far removed from law enforcement or interrogation, I see valuable lessons here.

</comment><comment><USER2> _This American Life_ recently featured an episode on (false) confessions. I found one of the stories in particular quite painful: the suspect who confessed just in order to get the interrogation over with, the cop who didn't realize that they had spoon-fed the suspect the facts to support their own confession. Give it a listen:

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/507/c...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/507/confessions?act=1#play)

<comment><USER3> Warning: may cause uncontrollable sobbing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" [T]hat's unfortunate because for every innocent person that's put away, the person who really committed the crime is still on the streets."_

... and it's unfortunate because we put away an innocent person! I'd rather be stolen from a few times than interrogated, tried, and jailed.

</comment><comment><USER5> There is a popular lecture on youtube where a defense attorney and a police officer give some interesting insights in the criminal investigation process.

[http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc](http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc).

</comment><comment><USER6> Here's a question. We all know that if you're interrogated by the police, we don't want to say anything without a lawyer present, regardless of our total innocence. So, say the cops show up at your house and arrest you. What's the best way to find a good criminal lawyer in this situation? If I learned anything from watching The Practice it's that the good lawyers aren't the ones who advertise in the phone book. Normally to find a professional of any sort I would look for personal recommendations and/or do some Google research, but that would be difficult from an interrogation room. Should we all find good local criminal lawyers now, on the off chance we're ever suspected of a crime?

</comment><comment><USER7> If your attorney isn't in the room, there's no such thing as a "Good Cop". If your attorney is in the room, there's still no such thing as a "Good Cop", so listen to your attorney.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why do sites like this disable pinchzoom for mobile devices?

<comment><USER9> Alternatively, why do mobile devices ever allow pinch zoom to be disabled? It's such a useful accessibility feature for anyone with less-than-perfect eyesight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Long story short, if you are arrested CLAM UP AND ONLY ASK FOR YOUR LAWYER, SAY NOTHING ELSE.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's unfortunate the New Yorker put its piece behind a paywall...it is an excellent read and makes important contributions to the topic.

As someone already commented, This American Life did an episode on confessions: one involves a woman who was coerced using the techniques described in the OP (the New Yorker piece goes into detail about her case)...and the other focuses on a teenage boy who refused to say anything, even decades later...both stories are incredible to listen to, the latter, especially, as the formerly accused man may have been the most Zen-accused- child-murdering-rapist in history:

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/507/c...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/507/confessions?act=1#play)

And another commenter has already pointed out the Don't Talk to Police video:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=youtu.be](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=youtu.be)

(I can't believe it only has 3 million page views given how often it's brought up in most techie/political threads)

Both the TAL and the Youtube are worth listening/watching...the latter provides the theory, the former provides the practice.

</comment><comment><USER12> Sounds like they're trained to attack when they perceive signs of weakness. Being intimidated == being guilty.</comment>


Bitpacking and Compression of Sparse Datasets - <AUTHOR> http://moderndescartes.com/essays/bitpacking_compression <comment><USER2> [http://roaringbitmap.org/](http://roaringbitmap.org/)

<comment><USER3> +1 to this. OP is using the wrong flavor of compression for the task at hand. OP, look up sparse bitmaps.

<comment><USER4> Are these really sparse? He is working with Go boards. Go games are usually hundreds of moves and by the end of the game, most of the board will be populated with stones, so on average somewhere under half of all recorded intersections will have stones (the crowded late game positions balance the empty early game positions). Sparse matrix representations usually require a lot of sparsity to shine, I was under the impression.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Regarding the benefits of knowing your data on compression: rearranging the dimensions of a dataset can also yield interesting increases in compressibility.

For example, you can store your position records arr[T][X,Y] as arr[X,Y][T]: that is, sequences of bits representing how each point on the grid evolves over time, rather than sequences of bits representing boards. These single- position time-series should both be more internally predictable (lower entropy), and more isotropic (having similarity with other features, allowing secondary compressibility) than the original ones, and you should be able to repopulate the in-memory 3D array from the serialized representations in roughly the same time (ignoring caching effects, because a 19x19x28 array is a very small array.)

Of course, this doesn't always work: the same magic _could_ be applied to videos... but decompressed videos _do not_ fit easily into memory, let alone are they small enough to ignore cache-coherency during reads/writes, so actually _doing_ the dimensional transforms is a bit implausible. (But if we _really needed_ a video squeezed 10x more than we do today, and were willing to spend hours on both ends doing so, it'd certainly be possible.)

</comment><comment><USER6> > If you know the structure of your data, you can easily do a better and > faster job of compressing than a generic compression algorithm.

I'd change this to: the ease of doing a better and faster job of compressing than a generic compression algorithm will be a function of the data's Kolmogorov Complexity.

You can easily know your data's structure (e.g. strings no larger than N bytes containing natural language in a line-separated file) and not be able to (easily) do better than a generic compressor due to the complexity of the required compression / reconstruction operations.

<comment><USER7> Not quite; I would describe it as moving the complexity into the algorithm. For example, even though the bitpacking from the post achieves fast good compression, it is unable to compress floats in general; merely 1.0 and 0.0. The knowledge of that correspondence has been moved into the algorithm.

<comment><USER8> > For example, even though the bitpacking from the post achieves fast good > compression, it is unable to compress floats in general; merely 1.0 and 0.0.

Fewer bits does not always mean better compression, particularly if the data has other patterns which is destroyed by the packing.

With Apache ORC, I found out that if you bit-pack data to say 7bits vs leaving it as 8 bits, the 8 bits version compressed much more with Zlib than the 7 bit version.

This had to do with the data getting a bit offset into the previous byte sequence, until what was a sequence of repeating bytes turned into a pattern which repeats far less often.

Leaving the extra bit in place, helped Zlib dictionary encoding and huffman work much better than trying to save a bit.

The final kicker was that the 24 bit sequence was faster to read than a 23 or 21 bit sequence, but purely due to the fact that the word aligned stuff can be decoded in SIMD.

I'm no better at guessing what would work - "whatever works ... works, so try them.".

<comment><USER9> Your comment, particularly the degradation in byte alignment leading to worse subsequent compression, reminds me of the following Hacker News comment by NelsonMinar from then end of November 2016:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13049894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13049894)

>It's crucial to evaluate encoding space usage in the context of compression. For instance gzip(base16(data)) is often smaller than gzip(base64(data)) for practical data. Even though base64 is more efficient than base16, it breaks up data across byte boundaries which then makes gzip significantly less efficient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Informative read, seems like the author learned some things and empirically discovered that his/her solution was ultimately a case of balancing trade-offs in generality vs specificity. As stated in the "Conclusions" section toward the bottom of the page, "If you know the structure of your data, you can easily do a better and faster job of compressing than a generic compression algorithm."

</comment><comment> Const-me I recently used LZ4 compression to save RAM used by infrequency accessed data in my app.

LZ4 is 1.5 times faster than Snappy, the compression however is better:

[https://www.percona.com/blog/2016/04/13/evaluating- database-...](https://www.percona.com/blog/2016/04/13/evaluating-database- compression-methods-update/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Try ZDtandard. You can spend as tune compression speed vs. compression ratio. Decompressing is always fast.

It was recently released: [https://github.com/facebook/zstd](https://github.com/facebook/zstd)

</comment><comment><USER12> RDF HDT (Header Dictionary Triples) is a clever storage format for linked data.

[http://www.rdfhdt.org/hdt-internals/](http://www.rdfhdt.org/hdt-internals/)</comment>


Overnight Success: It Takes Years - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001207.html <comment><USER2> I don't think these graphs are (in all fairness) accurate. Twitter by all accounts has had about a year+ headstart on Friendfeed and if you compare the two assuming the same starting point, Friendfeed are doing OK.

I agree with Paul, it takes years of effort to become an overnight success.

</comment><comment><USER3> The thing that everyone seems to forget about exponential growth is that it starts out very slowly.</comment>


Ask HN: Your MVP or Customer's MVP? - <AUTHOR>

If your startup is not the first-mover, what would your strategy be to build a MVP? How would you define your MVP?
Would your approach be different for B2B apps versus a social platform?
Was reading Robert Scoble's blog on "Why I'm treating startups more critically lately" and was wondering how one would approach it. In our case, we are targeting customer's definition of MVP for our startup.
https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/NN7YJRT7S8m <comment><USER2> I'd argue that if the definitions don't overlap, you're not interpreting the word "viable" correctly.

EDIT: That came off snarkier than I meant it. What I'm getting at is that if you think you have a Minimum Viable Product, but your potential customers don't agree, then the product is actually not viable at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> :) True. That is why it is essential to continuously engage with potential customers while defining what goes into the product.

If we were to work in a closed box environment "assuming" what is required for MVP, we may end up iterating a lot internally. It is essential that what we build is what we validate with customers as "must-haves" for first version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This was sort of recently touched on, and I had comments there which I will rehash here, perhaps more thoughtfully.

My definition of an MVP is "the minimum product you can produce to test whether there is a market*"

To me, this means that an MVP for a B2B app can be plain, and can even be boring in fact. It can have only one feature. It doesn't need social sign in buttons. It doesn't necessarily even need graphics except where they are required by the application.

The point is to be able to put forth a feature to potential customers that will either save them time or save them money.

This allows you to get your product in front of customers as quickly as possible without worrying about anything other than "the app" that you can sell. If you can get your customers to open their wallets for "the app", then you can get after everything else.

Depending on where you're at in your lifecycle, that may obviously vary.

If you're pitching to investors, or if it is a social app, then obviously design matters significantly more. Fluff matters more. In social apps, or user-facing apps, design is often either a key differentiator or even a feature.

If you're launching in a space with a proven market, then MVP takes on an entirely different term. You don't need to see whether or not people will pay, you just need to figure out how to get them to pay for your app versus existing competitors.

In your case, your focus should shift dramatically, and should instead be very polished, if not close to perfect. Not being the first mover means that the market is at least tested, if not proven. If there is somebody doing the same thing, then you need to launch as close to perfect as is possible while being quick to get to the door.

This isn't necessarily an easy task, which is generally why the "get to MVP as quickly as possible" is such an important goal, and why that mantra is so often repeated by seasoned entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, industry experts and analysts alike

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent points. I like your point that in an established space, the focus should be on polished features.

To me the key message to take-away is: * less features is good, as long as they look complete in itself. * finding those initial customers who are willing to work with you "despite" the less features is critical.</comment></comment>


The Cardboard Bike - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-cardboard-bike?c=gallery

<comment><USER2> $2M is quite the goal. I don't expect this project to make that much funding.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you, that the goal is two high, but the general idea of a bicycle made of recycled cardboard looks interesting.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any Advice for SAD Sufferers? - <AUTHOR> Happy Autumn HN...
So London has become pretty bleak over the last couple of weeks. Being a bit older I'm getting much better at noticing the effect it has on me - especially when I look back at how I've felt during this period over the last few years.
I'm guessing I'm not the only one here that sees a drop in mood and productivity, or feels a general lethargy as the days get shorter and the sun fails to appear..?!
With that in mind, can anyone offer advice on what works for them or what's worth giving a go over the next few months?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> As I have gotten older I've noticed my mood and demeanor does actually change (took me way too long to figure it out) if I don't get enough sun time, even after as little as a week of grey days. So I'll hit the tanning bed (no they are not evil) for 15 minutes a couple of times if I can't get outside (the best is sun but it just isn't always possible). It really does help me, not as good as getting outside in the sun for 30 minutes does but it helps. I am not advocating going to a tanning bed to become a piece of leather, but when you use them responsibly it can help us manage things like SAD, they still aren't a great substitute for Sun but I've used them to help when I really am noticing it.

Also you can check out SAM-E which is a supplement in the U.S., but I think it might be regulated in some of Europe but not sure. I have found SamE is helpful even if I can't get outside or to a tanning bed for a quick session. SamE affects your serotonin levels and helps to balance you out. Obviously if you are taking any other similar meds/supplements probably best to check with a Dr or pharmacists about it, but it can help.

And of course, exercise is a great help and should be one of the first things to try if you don't already do it regularly. IMO doesn't need to be a workout necessarily, but do something active where you will use your muscles and sweat. I say use your muscles because I have tried yoga/stretching before and it doesn't seem to help as much as doing a more physical activity. I know Yoga can be very demanding, but I obviously am not at that level and at least for me I have found doing something that taxes my strength/muscles and forces my body to respond/repair is what seems to do the most good for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Strength training has been the single most effective way for me to influence my emotional state.

Strength training is different from 'exercise' in that you're progressively becoming stronger over time by repeating the stress and adapt cycle to build lean muscle, bone density, neuromuscular capacity, and joint strength.

The chemicals/hormones this natural process produce reshape your perception of the world. It's really powerful stuff. And it's really easy to do.

There are excellent programs to accomplish this which even if done poorly produce dramatic results.

I'm speaking from personal experience.</comment>


Britain announces 15 years in prison for reading banned literature - <AUTHOR> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/10/britain-considers-15-years-in-prison-for-reading-banned-literature/ <comment><USER2> This is a terrible click-bait title. It is, as far as I can tell, completely factually inaccurate.

"Amber Rudd set out her intention to change the law to increase the maximum penalty from 10 years."

[https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620](https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620)

Someone in the British government has proposed increasing the penalty for what seems to be streaming terroristic material online. That's the story.

<comment><USER3> There is no penalty for these 'crimes' in most western countries because the activities are covered by freedom of speech etc and are not crimes.

The fact that the UK has been stumbling towards totalitarianism for a long time doesn't change the direction it is going in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm amazed at how totalitarian the u.k is and, more surprising, how the population provides such little resistance.

<comment><USER5> One could say the same about the US, but there are large groups of resistance in both countries. The mainstream media doesn't always cover it. The UK Labour Party is the largest and most radical party in Europe for instance. And there are many protests all over the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The linked article misrepresents the BBC report it is based on. The article suggests this is already the law. The BBC reports it is a proposal made at the Conservative Party conference.

<comment><USER5> Yes it's not a law, but still quite an astonishing proposal.

<comment><USER6> Agreed!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > British lawmakers have announced 15 years in prison for taking part of > banned literature. However, the threat of prison only covers new story > formats that lawmakers think don't deserve the same kind of protection as > old-fashioned books: it's only people who watch video on the Internet who > will be put in prison, and only when they watch something that promotes > terrorism, whatever that means this week.

How do they discern intention? What about videos that auto-play? Like, what if a nefarious website wanted to cause others harm or mock the law?

This seems preposterous.</comment>


The Infinite Space Between Words - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-infinite-space-between-words/ <comment><USER2> This raises an interesting question: If there was a conscious AI system running on a computer, what kind of time scales would it actually perceive? It's not like the AI would experience time on a CPU cycle-by-cycle basis.

I would be surprised if we had an AI that perceived time in "steps" smaller than 10ms, unless it was a system specifically designed for extremely fast reactions. I would guess that an AI would be backed by, basically, an event loop that handles "sensory" data X times a second. Sure, it might do a lot of computation in each tick. But even if it does extensive predictive simulation or data analysis, I doubt the AI would be conscious of that simulation process, any more than we are aware of our own internal predictive models. We just _predict_.

<comment><USER3> It's kind of the opposite of what you're talking about, but I'd recommend reading "Permutation City" by Greg Egan (if you haven't already). The main premise is that in the future, human mind uploading is possible, but there's some upper limit on computation that prevents the uploads from running at real time. Instead, they are simulated at something like a ratio of 17 to 1. The story explores concepts of isolation as a growing society of uploads becomes more and more detached from the causality of "reality." The real world isn't a place you can conveniently interact with when you run 17 times slower than everyone in it. Plus there are interesting segments about an uploaded person having himself simulated with greater and greater real time between each simulated timestep, and with "skipped frames" that are imperceptible to the one being simulated (e.g. counting from 1 to 10, where you have the memory of having said "9" and being about to say "10" but the "frame" where you said "9" was never actually simulated and it skipped ahead).</comment></comment>


25 Years of PHP (By the Creator of PHP) - <AUTHOR> https://youtube.com/watch?v=wCZ5TJCBWMg <comment><USER2> Great talk</comment>


Ask HN: How does one increase their reputation on SO - <AUTHOR>

Trying to kill two birds here about interesting technologies - with an experiment.
I'd like to better understand 1) Github pull requests for document editing/collab, the examples seem very interesting - and 2) what it takes to get more rep on SO.
Not "write good answers"..  Everybody knows that. I'm talking about the unwritten rules that maximize the time spent in gaining points.  Max the time spent helping others, if you must look at it that way.  SO points is very interesting to me as a currency, they do have value and alot of expensive devs time is spent in earning them.
If you have any really smart, helpful tips please join this experiment via pull request to https://github.com/dpweb/Getting-Reputation-on-Stack-Overflow
They should be white hat, in that they don't break terms of service or game the system directly, such as create a bunch of fake acocunts and upvote your own stuff, etc..
Thx, <comment><USER2> > If you have any really smart, helpful tips please join this experiment via > pull request to [https://github.com/dpweb/Getting-Reputation-on-Stack- > Overflo...](https://github.com/dpweb/Getting-Reputation-on-Stack-Overflow)

This is a classic example of self-reference -- the answer to your question is buried in your question. The way to "get more rep" on SO is to provide "really smart, helpful tips" with some steadiness and reliability. Or be funny. Or both.

It's very simple, not rocket science.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will use another example. Getting to the front page of HN. How does one max the probability their article on the front page of HN? Submit interesting content. OK great. How do I get more traffic to my blog? Write good content. Those aren't useful answers. They're true, but everyone knows that already. Good content is a factor (among many - is my theory).

People have done (imo) pretty in-depth studies and research on the best day, time, subject lines, who submits - gives you the best probability you'll be on the front page. I'm just applying that concept to SO.

Maybe it makes absolutely no difference what day/time I post to HN. Same could be for SO, I would like to see proof before I accept that as fact. It's an experiment. Thanks for the feedback tho.

<comment><USER2> > Submit interesting content. OK great. How do I get more traffic to my blog? > Write good content. Those aren't useful answers. They're true, but everyone > knows that already.

Okay, but do you realize what you're saying? If you don't want to hear that you need to produce more interesting content to win readers over, then you're asking for ways to play the system -- methods that go beyond (or beneath) the traditional approaches.

> Those aren't useful answers.

Yes, for a sufficiently broad definition of "useful", one that includes, or possibly requires, cute cat pictures.</comment></comment></comment>


Hatebase: How It Works - <AUTHOR> https://hatebase.org/how_it_works <comment><USER2> Language is a product of time and place. What about text that wasn't "hateful" at the time it was written, but now is questionable?

</comment><comment><USER3> > [https://hatebase.org/privacy](https://hatebase.org/privacy)

500 Internal Server Error

That's what I expected tbh.</comment>