PrlConf 2016 is cancelled - <AUTHOR> http://www.jonprl.org/prlconf.html <comment><USER2> I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1]

However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology.

Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere.

It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not longer think the thoughts.

This is the height of intolerance I have ever seen. Left to this guy, thinking absurd stuff today about various issues (not even acting on it) should banish on from society when it is discovered in 2 decades.

I unreservedly condemn such intolerance and declare it far more dangerous than folks who think Africans are a lower species. One is an uneducated thought the other a dangerous totalitarian action.

[1][https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129](https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129)

<comment><USER3> Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a time, though never as horrid as his.

<comment><USER2> But really, don't you think it's ok to have very "offensive" beliefs? I hope you are aware it was once reprehensible to think the earth revolved around the Sun and you can get killed for "blasphemy"

I believe you are operating under the same principles of censorship AND punishment for ideas you do not agree with.

I'm sure you you strongly believe his are "obviously bad". But that's how people in the places above think too.

Now, it would have been very different if his political views were a topic of conversation at the conference but to the best of my knowledge aren't. So how do both of them tie up.

I do not know what your religion or denomination is (or if you have one) but I know a lot of people who will not let you work for them (say develop a website) if you do not in private believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and savior.

You are acting alike sir.

PS:

1\. Would you act the same if it was a black dude that wrote the same thing/has the same ideas he has?

2\. To what extent should he be ostracized? Can he get investment in your VC firm for a photo app? Get a job at your company managing servers? Open a bank account?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

PPS: What he wrote is very very insulting and reprehensible to me and I'm sure many others.

<comment><USER3> My belief (which you are free to disagree with!) is that the nature of Yarvin's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I feel that each person is a whole human being, and I do not believe that someone can just leave something like "Blacks are suited to slavery, Europeans to mastery!" at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do anything for our speakers and attendees who are not comfortable sharing a stage or a room with him. My job as an event organizer is to make sure that conditions are comfortable for the people who have entrusted me with their safety. I did my best, but to be honest, every possible choice before me was distasteful, and I chose the least odious path I could.

I decline to answer your questions about hypotheticals (a black person who says the same thing, or a hypothetical VC firm, etc.). I believe these are interesting questions, but I do not believe that anyone can come up with a set of rules or laws that captures precisely the outcomes we wish to see; as a result, I retreat to a far less ambitious perspective, where I intend to deal with things like this on a case-by-case basis using empathy and common sense, taking the unique circumstances into account.

I hope that this helps, and I recognize that you may not agree with the choice that I made. But I did my best.

<comment><USER4> "My belief (which you are free to disagree with)". However, you are not free to express such disagreement or even discuss it. Expressing ideas with which the "right people" disagree is grounds for scorched-earth attacks on every aspect of your life until you can be brought to heel.

(I find slavery and support for such reprehensible. Such ideas should be openly confronted and countered directly by expressing superior ideas. For example, the idea that all human beings have inherent value and should not be subject to the use of force inherent in slavery.)

(While I'm criticizing ideas, I'll criticize a couple more: 1. It is deceptive to imply there is was some threat to the safety of attendees. (The linguistic sleight of hand of "physical and emotional safety" is the giveaway. It combines and attempts to equate two unlike things.) 2\. The repeated references to "solidarity" are a dressed up form of tribalism, placing loyalty to "us" or "our team" over clear thinking. (It's the left's equivalent to how some on the right use "patriotism".))

<comment><USER5> > the use of force inherent in slavery.

The article in question mentions agreeing to willing slavery, i.e. without the use of force:

> Once we get this far, we are almost all the way to Carlyle on slavery. We > have not agreed that a man can be born a slave, but we agree that he can > sell himself into slavery. That is: he can sign a contract with a master in > which the slave agrees unconditionally to obey and work for the master, and > the master agrees unconditionally to protect and support the slave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The post by Curtis Yarvin cited as cause for PrlCnf to withdraw from LambdaConf (since no one has mentioned it yet):

[http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why- carl...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carlyle- matters.html?m=1)

I personally feel that LambdaConf could have reached out to the many brilliant minds in the functional programming community and chosen a speaker more reflective of their values. Yarvin's assured us all he's going to give a technical talk, not chat about the merits of entering into a contract of slavery. But LambdaConf has taken a risk by giving him a pulpit to speak from, and it's up to each attendee to decide whether that sits well with them.

It still wouldn't sit well with me, nor were the PrlCnf organizers willing to tolerate it. They're making a conscious choice to answer Yarvin's invitation with a boycott - another form of free expression. Other LambdaConf attendees may do the same, if they feel Yarvin is sufficiently extreme in his views.

And that's freedom of speech in action.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's always fun to see how "free speech" is used to defend troglodytes' right to proclaim their superiority by virtue of their race and sex, but the people who have anything to say against those opinions are told they're being too sensitive, participating in "outrage culture", infringing on someone's rights, etc. The right to be an asshole and the right to call out their assholery is the same right.

In this case, an individual has opted not to participate in an event that a racist is speaking at; not because he thinks the racist will spout racist things during his talk, but because being involved with racists is repugnant to him. That's his right. Are you going to force people to participate in events against their will to protect the feelings of a racist and proponent of slavery? Who's being overly sensitive now?

Lambda Conf made a choice that they're willing to work with the racist proponent of slavery. That's their choice. It's the choice of everyone else to say, "Nah."

No one is exerting force against anyone else in this story. No one is threatening violence. No one is calling the cops. This is literally a free speech story on all sides. Individuals are making choices about the kind of community they want to be a part of, and a lot of people are voting with their feet that they don't want to be part of a community that welcomes a self- proclaimed racist and proponent of slavery.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

And, for the folks who say, "This was years ago, under a pseudonym!" Did I miss where he has renounced his earlier writings? Did I miss the apologies? Did I miss where he owned up to the incredible amount of bullshit he spouted for years? I'm not saying he has to do those things; he can say and believe any thing he wants. But, time passing does not mean he's changed his mind on these subjects, and given the extremity of his views...I think it requires more than mere silence for me to believe he has changed.

In short: I wouldn't want to participate in a community that tolerates racist proponents of slavery. It doesn't make me "sensitive". It means I choose my friends and peers with care.

<comment><USER8> > Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

"Sorry, you wrote this and we don't like it, therefore you're not invited to this conference on an irrelevant topic" or "… therefore we're not going to a conference to which you _were_ invited" is not valid criticism of an idea.

<comment><USER7> Who decides which conferences I will be forced to attend in order to avoid hurting the feelings of white supremacists?

Conferences are private entities that choose their speakers using a variety of metrics. No one is entitled to a speaking spot at a tech conference; the organizers look for speakers that will attract attendees, generate (positive?) buzz, provide good talks, etc. If the people attending the conference and helping with the conference don't want to hear someone who has written in favor of white supremacy speak at length on some topic unrelated to his white supremacist beliefs, why should conference organizers offer him a speaking spot? Who decides who gets to speak, if not the conference organizers?

And, in this case, the conference has decided to ignore the history of the speaker, and the opinions of _some_ conference attendees, and have him speak. That is, again, their choice. I think it's gross, but I'd never suggest they should be prevented from allowing this person to speak. I would not _attend_ a conference with this person as a speaker; not because I'm afraid he'll infect my mind with his peculiar and anachronistic brand of racism (I've read a number of his essays, it would not be exposure to some novel idea), but because I think white supremacists should be shunned. Literally. They should be ignored so hard in our communities that they opt out of them, seeking spaces more friendly to their positions.

Lambda Conf has every right to have someone who thinks slavery is a rather nice idea speak at their conference. Other people have every right to criticize that decision and opt not to participate in that conference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Summary: PrlConf 2016 is being cancelled because Curtis Yarvin[0] is speaking at another conference, LambdaConf, and has written (elsewhere, under a pen name) about political viewpoints that are not mainstream, progressive political viewpoints.

The LambdaConf people are aware of Yarvin's political writings, do not agree with them, but decided to let Yarvin speak anyway if he agreed to their terms, which he did (these are Yarvin's own words to LambdaConf[1] on the subject):

> _One: I'm a writer, not an activist. I'm neither a leader nor a member of > any kind of organization. I promote only one kind of action: reading old > books. I've explicitly denounced any other form of "direct action," violent > or otherwise. Instead I promote passive unresistance, or "passivism." > Frankly, any "follower" who needs me to explain this is a dangerous fool and > hasn't read enough old books._

> _Two: Politics of any sort is out of scope at a functional programming > conference. I pledge to treat other LambdaConf guests as if they were > colleagues at a large company or fellow students at a university, and > neither utter nor show any content that's out of scope or otherwise > disturbing. My pen name has been "doxed," but professionally I behave as if > it was a secret._

> _Three: violence is unacceptable and frankly preposterous at a functional > programming conference, even over an issue as charged as strict versus lazy > evaluation. The strongest possible pledge is to not respond with verbal or > physical violence even if assaulted myself. I have no hesitation in making > this pledge._

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

[1] [http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf- inclusion](http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion)

</comment><comment><USER10> If you're going to start a massive drama based on accusing someone of saying something bad, please _quote the bad thing directly_. When you call someone an "advocate for slavery", I check your accusation for links and verifiable quotes. If there aren't any, then I reflexively assume this is someone who ran over your dog, stole your girlfriend, and said nothing of the sort. Thank you.

EDIT: I have been informed that Jon Sterling may have read an out-of-context quote in which Yarvin may have been summarizing 19th-century philosopher Thomas Carlyle, whom Wikipedia describes as a "satirical writer", and not had his dog run over after all. ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159)) But also he might really believe it, and I'll only have to read about 1.5*10^5 words to be sure.

<comment><USER11> The individual in question is Curtis Yarvin aka "Mencius Moldbug".

Quote: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg)

Source: [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why- carl...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-carlyle- matters.html?m=1)

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

<comment><USER10> Thank you for the links. I really feel like they needed to be part of the original post.

Yarvin's writing is... rather too voluminous for me to feel confident that I know what he believes, in so little time, but I did see a few things in that seven-year-old post which made me question the interpretation given:

> "Lifetime employment and slavery are, of course, practically synonyms, and > indeed the same phenomena of reciprocal loyalty and dependency were said - > repeatedly, in my memory, in the '90s on NPR - to emerge."

> ...

> "Carlyle is in fact ready to be as indignant as anyone over these abuses. He > reasons: since slavery is a natural human relationship, this bond will exist > regardless of whether you abolish the word. And it does - if only in broken > and surreptitious forms."

This leads me to think that he's using words in a non-standard way. An unwise way, given the response it's gotten him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him to speak anywhere if I thought he was going to say things like that. But I'm really not okay with seeing someone attacked for beliefs I'm not sure they actually hold, in domains unrelated to those beliefs, by people who don't appear to be trying to be charitable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The program committee feel that we cannot possibly organize a workshop under > the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and > fascist views over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and > speakers.

Ummm, none of those views are to be expressed at LambdaConf. There is no threat to anyone's physical safety, and the only threat to anyone's emotional safety is solely self-originated.

Under the circumstances, I cannot have anything to do with Jon Sterling, because I can't trust that he will behave like an adult in a pluralistic society.

</comment><comment><USER13> The invitee in question: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin)

</comment><comment><USER14> From the linked site within the linked site:

> _The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was > a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. > Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker's political views, which were > penned under a pseudonym years prior._

Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the political views (repeating that: political views, _not actions_ )

..of someone else who was supposed to be at a parent conference.

Continuing on from the OP link:

 _> we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and fascist views..._

Unless the person in question was expressing those views at a technical conference, this is a _shockingly_ disingenuous and dishonest statement.

> _..over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers._

And the appeal to "safety" is the cherry on top. Words are, by themselves, harmful to this person? What the FUCK is "emotional safety"?

These kinds of knee jerk reactions are more harmful to the free exchange of ideas than ten thousand /pol/'s.

<comment><USER15> Just so everyone's on the same page, some of the thoughts in question:

[https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129](https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129)

<comment><USER16> Also, he's no garden variety racist. He's the creator of the "Neoreactionary Movement" [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement)

Regardless of whether or not you think a racist should or should not present (be paid to speak? Edit: they are not paid to speak at this conf although some expenses are covered) the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing.

<comment><USER14> _the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing._

Unless he is speaking about pro slavery and pro fascism, I have absolutely no reason to care.

Can we _please_ learn to separate technical concerns from nontechnical concerns? And before anyone starts replying with "they're one in the same!" \- only under certain circumstances. If the subject of the talk is garbage collection in a programming language, what the speaker believes about anything other than garbage collection in a programming language is IRRELEVANT.

<comment><USER11> Why do you care so much what other people think and do? You don't care? Then don't. Other do care? Let them, since you don't care keep not caring?

<comment><USER17> this seems more like meta-caring. i may not care about what anyone writes in a book, but it can be concerning when people start burning books they dislike.

<comment><USER11> Nobody's burning books here, a number of people refuse to associate with Moldbug entirely, and one of them had a workshop at lambdaconf which they cancelled. That's about the extent of it.

And then Karunamon comes in and asserts that no, they can't have freedom of association and they must judge others by Karunamon's standards only.

<comment><USER14> I said nothing of the sort. I said can we please stop having knee-jerk reactions like this? Everyone who would have benefited from the conference was directly harmed by this immature, foolish decision.

<comment><USER11> That's exactly what I've written: you've decided that you wouldn't mind associating with Yarvin, and that Sterling shouldn't mind either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Will we see a similar reaction when anti-white or anti-male speakers are invited to speak at conferences? Or are there groups that it's acceptable to insult and denigrate?

<comment><USER6> Give me an example of a tech conference speaker who professes the belief that white guys lend themselves well to being enslaved. I certainly can't think of one off the top of my head.

Is it possible this isn't a real problem faced by the software community?

<comment><USER18> If you're going to respond, please stick to what I said instead of what you imagined. Thanks!

<comment><USER19> No, they had an entirely correct response. The context is a country which notoriously acts with unusual violence against its Black population, since its "founding fathers", up to basically being a police state as far as many Black communities are concerned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The red star signature is a nice touch. I wonder if Mencius qualifies as a kulak?

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

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm disturbed by the amount of CSS that was used to try to make the page look like it hadn't been styled.

Font choice: "propagandaregular". Are we being trolled?

<comment><USER3> Sorry about that. This note replaced our "call for proposals", which had much more formatting. Also, I'm a shite web developer, so there's that.

<comment><USER22> What does prlconf have to do with lambdaconf? How does a speaker at one conference cause the _closure_ of another conference?

<comment><USER11> It was collocated with lambdaconf and essentially happening within lambdaconf: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1W...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1We6DAJ:www.jonprl.org/prlconf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

<comment><USER21> [Wikipedia]

In programming languages, closures (also lexical closures or function closures) are a technique for implementing lexically scoped name binding in languages with first-class functions. Operationally, a closure is a record storing a function[a] together with an environment:[1] a mapping associating each free variable of the function (variables that are used locally, but defined in an enclosing scope) with the value or storage location to which the name was bound when the closure was created.[b] A closure—unlike a plain function—allows the function to access those captured variables through the closure's reference to them, even when the function is invoked outside their scope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The announcement is written on behalf of the program committee but signed only by its chair. The cached version of the page doesn't say anything about a program committee either. Who is on the program committee other than Mr. Sterling?

</comment><comment><USER24> I a brown person. I am curious what will not allowing him speak achieve. Will it teach him a lesson? Would he change his views at a deep fundamental level?

</comment><comment><USER25> If you really want someone's ideas to be discredited, let them express them and then refute them in a debate like format. Let them get exposure and if their ideas are wrong or bad it will be evident to anyone who is listening.

Silencing people because "I don't like what they say" is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER26> It all comes down to this argument [0] in which he attempts to defend the offending opinion that has been linked to everywhere ("Why Carlyle Matters" [1]).

I agree with the commenter that he does seem to be trying to deflect as he avoided using the word 'intelligence' or 'character' and carefully used an anecdote hiding behind a third-party in response. His own response suggests that he lost respect for the Native Americans for not making good slaves -- I wonder if he really means that, I honestly rolled my eyes at it.

I think the paragraph that people are angry about is just _stupid_. Even if you believe that the brain/character/intelligence can be affected by our genes, it doesn't immediately follow that 'slavery' is therefore due to character or intelligence. When I read that paragraph a few thoughts ran through my head like "this person needs to think about people's feelings before writing his thoughts down" and "are you sure well-adaptedness is the right frame to use when looking at slavery?" and "why does slavery have to be such a slippery concept to you? could it be that you're trying to build a motte-and-bailey in advance."

That said, I still do not think that the wrong beliefs warrant no-platforming. This is a tech conference and not a political one, and even if he was to speak politically informally it is better that reprehensible political views are said out in the open where they can be deconstructed and quashed.

Of course left-leaning people have every right to remove themselves from the room if they do not want to be near him; as are libertarians allowed to bow out from events like Strange Loop.

Either way the Streisand Effect [2] is at full force here. It's surely great for Urbit and Curtis Yarvin's weird politics. Maybe next time we can avoid giving him free publicity?

Edit: It looks like he responded to that comment, and his response is actually pretty decent. He thinks of talents as distributed and none of them carry special mystical significance to him (even intelligence.)

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/d1dh7u7)

[1] [http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c...](http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1)

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

</comment><comment><USER27> Note the red star at the bottom of the page

</comment><comment><USER28> If urbit were any good I might be inclined to disagree, but not even the technology holds up. I invite anyone to try to read the source - it looks intentionally obfuscated.

</comment><comment><USER29> It is correct and proper to shun and revile a person who actually advocates slavery.

To say, "Well, as long as he is not advocating slavery at the con, that's fine." is ridiculous.

Throw the racist evil nasty bum out and let someone else who actually deserves the timeslot talk.

<comment><USER30> Where is the line though? Should radically conservative parts of the south bar anyone who has advocated for gay marriage from speaking at tech conferences?

<comment><USER18> I think this and the growing list of similar circumstances establishes "she/he/it offended me" as a valid reason to blacklist anyone.

Whoever gets to define Bad Think is in a position of incredible unchecked power.

<comment><USER7> I'm curious how much power you believe a programming language conference can exert on someone? You've called it "incredible unchecked power", but what does that mean here? Power to do what? Ask someone not to speak? Is there some other "power" being wielded that I'm not grasping?

You seem to be making a "slippery slope" argument; I guess on the basis that you're afraid any unpopular opinion can get one ostracized. But, slippery slope is generally considered a fallacy, and this is a great example of why. The conference organizers themselves have gone to great lengths to talk about all of the various and wildly differing beliefs held by participants that _no one considers controversial and worthy of mention_ ; right, left, religious, atheist, gay, straight, black, white, brown, all of these things are OK with everybody (by some reasonable definition of "everybody"). No one is suggesting Republicans/Libertarians/Democrats/Socialists shouldn't be allowed to speak or participate. We can all agree to disagree on those concepts and have civil conversations about other subjects without it being a big deal.

Civil people can disagree without suggesting some people are genetically predisposed to being slaves and that others (conveniently, the person making the suggestion among them) are naturally predisposed to be their masters. And, there's where the problem lies. One can't reasonably "agree to disagree" with someone who considers an entire race to be subhuman; at least, I can't. That's, frankly, a person I want to be as far away from as possible. I certainly don't want to be a participant in a community that welcomes that person.

<comment><USER18> I'll describe it a different way:

Either:

\- It is wrong to denigrate _any_ group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is okay to denigrate _any_ group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is wrong to denigrate _certain_ groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category. Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action. And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have.

The programming language conference is just the setting.

<comment><USER7> _" Either:

\- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category."_

Because someone has said that supporting slavery is deeply, possibly unforgivably, wrong?

Your third category is "religion, race, ethnicity, etc". Where does "believes some people were born to be slaves and others were born to be their masters" fit into that?

Again, you're making a slippery slope argument, in what you call a "different way", but it looks the same to me. Perhaps I'm still not understanding you.

Am I understanding that you believe no groups should ever be denigrated? So, we shouldn't denigrate white supremacists and neo-Nazis? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate mass murderers? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate dictators? How about religious fundamentalists who prevent girls from getting an education because they are girls? Can I denigrate them? They aren't physically hurting anyone, they aren't "violent". But, I think the civilized world should shun them.

There are, in fact, groups that most of us denigrate. I don't think repugnant beliefs should be considered sacred or free from criticism. Who makes those decisions? Well, I do, you do, organizations do, sometimes governments do.

 _" Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action."_

You're begging the question, and not answering mine.

 _" And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have."_

I have not seen that. Has this person lost their job because someone doesn't want to go to a conference with them? Though I would be _entirely_ comfortable with overt racism and support of human slavery being a firing offense at any company.

Again, slippery slope is a fallacy. Supporting slavery is not a religion, a race, an ethnicity, an age, a gender, a sexual preference, or any other protected class.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Turndownforwhat.JS - <AUTHOR> https://nthitz.github.io/turndownforwhatjs/ <comment><USER2> Calm your divs.

But leave one div crazy. That yo party div.

</comment><comment><USER3> One question...how do you turn it down.

</comment><comment><USER4> Well this certainly made my day.</comment>


The not-so-sorry state of SSL in Python - <AUTHOR> https://developer.rackspace.com/blog/the-not-so-sorry-state-of-ssl-in-python/

<comment><USER2> Gah. Just let python2 die already. It's achingly close - more and more linucies are shipping with python3 as default. Efforts like this take more energy than fixing the last few problems with python3 would.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you document analytic events? - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I'm a software developer and I've been in different teams where I always found the same problem: how can we document analytic events in a nice way?
Website example: 1. There is a home page with a Sign in button and a Sign up button.
2. There is an event fired when the Sign in button is clicked and it is stored in Mixpanel/Google Analytics/whatever 3. There is an event fired when the Sign up button is clicked and it is stored in Mixpanel/Google Analytics/whatever
Problem 1: Someone (non developer) wants to check how many people clicked on Sign in -> they need to know the event name to be able to check it out (imagine a more complex situation with many events and many interactions)
Solution to problem 1: We create a wiki with a list of all the events and a description on when they are fired
Follow up problem: We need to rename the event OR add/remove properties to the event OR trigger the event from a different place OR delete the event -> a developer goes and updates the code -> they forget to update the wiki -> the documentation is now outdated
General problem: it is hard to keep up to date documentation on analytic events.
I was wondering how do other people handle this? At the moment we are using Typescript if that info is any useful.
Thank you! <comment><USER2> I am a big fan of Sphinx

[http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/index.html](http://www.sphinx- doc.org/en/master/index.html)

which is sorta like "Javadoc" except you can make custom "domains", out of the box

[http://www.sphinx- doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/d...](http://www.sphinx- doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/domains.html)

for instance you can document C++ or http APIs. It's pretty easy to write your own domains and I wrote an RDF domain that can used to represent just about anything that you can represent in RDF.

It's particularly good when you need to link multiple domains such as an API and its documentation in code, for instance you could document the event definitions in comments in your typescript code and have sphinx cut them out and make user docs for them.

It's an excellent answer to the problems of code and documentation although I have a few complaints such as they made an RST reader without making an RST writer, it uses global variables way too much, etc. But really I don't know anything that attacks the problems that is better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting! I will check it out, thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This problem can be so detrimental for teams who want to measure the success of their products it's hard to put into words (ಥ﹏ಥ)

This is exactly the reason why we built Avo ([https://www.avo.app](https://www.avo.app)). It's designed for everyone on the team: product managers, analysts, data scientists and developers. It works by generating code derived from an analytics spec, which you create and maintain in a user friendly web app.

You can check it out and reach out to me email@example.com, I'm happy to help any way I can.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you build your own analytics system which I did when I needed one, data was stored in elasticsearch as analytics events, then I had a query that told me every property that was used.

Since one of the things that was in my properties was an identifier added in build stage for every analytics call in the code if I wanted to figure out what analytics properties came from what lines of code it was relatively easy.

So could track when properties were added, spread of their usage, and using git blame figure out who added it. But we were also a small team so usually I added it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is not a bad idea for building the event list, but it doesn't solve the problem of documenting when or by what the event is triggered, something that a product owner or a data scientist that don't know the code might want to know to do some analysis (Sorry, I forgot to mention it needed to be for non developers)

<comment><USER4> well that is what the normal analytics functionality of the system was, basically on meaningful events you would make a call to analytics function and pass it an object with the properties you wanted to analyze, it would add some global properties and send it off.

There were of course various levels of abstraction, but sure I would know when an event happened because a user scrolled by a widget on an external site, on the main domain, when they clicked on the widget, liked it etc. all the normal things you would want to capture if you are measuring widget interactions across sites.

on edit: So in your first scenario - if a non developer wanted to look over all events they might see that there were events named "hotspot seen", "hotspot hovered", "hotspot clicked" and so forth.

In those ones actually there was the widget id that hotspots where in and of course the original interaction id so you could draw a graph of how many users progressed from hotspot seen to product liked and so forth. But at some point a non developer is going to probably have to ask a developer or elasticsearch expert - I need this data out of the system and summed in this way.</comment></comment></comment>


Elementary Number Theory - <AUTHOR> http://wstein.org/ent/ <comment><USER2> the content of this book is a little odd: it seems narrowly oriented towards getting enough number theory to understand RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and elliptic curve cryptography.

i very much enjoy a book with the same title but by burton:

<http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/html/0071244255.html>

it contains a lot more of number theory and a little cryptography too.

<comment><USER3> "...in the context of cryptography, computation, and deep open research problems."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There must be dozens of books named "elementary number theory", is this one somehow special?

<comment><USER5> It's free?</comment></comment>


If You Talk to Bots, You're Talking to Their Bosses - <AUTHOR> https://howwegettonext.com/if-you-talk-to-bots-youre-talking-to-their-bosses-cd8e390c242f#.lqozk891f <comment><AUTHOR> "Amy is keen to tell you that her ability to schedule your meetings is "like magic," rather than, say, the end result of using venture capitalists' money to pay highly trained machine-learning software engineers."

Bots and AI seem to have a conflict or trade off, which seems similar to all computing technologies, namely user experience. We should want to design interfaces which appear like magic, that have less friction to the user. Should bot / AI interfaces seem as easy to use as web pages? Do we really deceive for this class of technology? If we do, then I would suggest that virtual reality would have more ethical consideration. When we live in VR, our immersion levels skyrocket, we behave more closely to our true selves. Combining the two - AI/Bots in Virtual Reality could provide an even greater challenge.

<comment><USER2> I agree that E-Prime is interesting and so is Korzybski and all that, but novelty accounts and single-purpose accounts aren't allowed on HN, so we've banned this one.

The threads are supposed to be conversations, and such accounts make them less so. For good conversation, people need to feel that they're communicating in good faith with other individuals. Anonymity is fine on HN but there needs to still be a person, not an abstraction, at the other end.</comment></comment>


Top 10 Secure Coding Practices - <AUTHOR> http://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/Top+10+Secure+Coding+Practices

<comment><USER2> "The only system which is truly secure is one which is switched off and unplugged, locked in a titanium lined safe, buried in a concrete bunker, and is surrounded by nerve gas and very highly paid armed guards. Even then, I wouldn't stake my life on it."

(the original version of this is attributed to Gene Spafford)

<comment><USER3> Sounds like an Austin Powers movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm going to point out that in practice, #8 ( _Practice Defense in Depth_ ) rarely works.

The reason is simple: it's Hard to bulletproof any one security control, and the cost of getting controls even slightly wrong is the same as not doing it at all.

It can be tricky to come up with an example of a system that met a real-world security requirement only because a stack of security controls held together despite breaks the individual controls. Windows XP SP2 is a famous anti- example. Secure runtime: good! Security development lifecycle: better! Memory corruption vulnerability: often still game-over!

For assessors of applications (I'm one), the words "defense in depth" are usually blood in the water. It's code for, "we made a bunch of assumptions here, but that's OK because use modsecurity".

<comment><USER5> I've never understood "defense in depth" to be in the context of a single application. Rather, an entire _network_ will have "defense in depth" if it has such things as a firewall with proper rules at every gateway, machines with proper virus protection that aren't running silly services, and users with proper responsibility to not run things sent to them via e-mail.

In that context, if a supposed "hacker" wants to gain access to files on machine X, they may be able to penetrate gateway A, router B and firewall C, but they still will be blocked by NIDS D or end up in honeypot E.

<comment><USER4> The cold, hard truth is: "defense in depth" really means, "don't do anything wrong".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Unfortunately something as simple as input validation often does not occur. It baffles me when I look over at code from contract work or I come into a new job and see GET requests modifying the database, and POST's going completely unchecked. Madness!

<comment><USER7> what bothers me most about the PHP community is that it's taken for granted that you should have to do all that yourself from scratch every time.

<comment><USER8> i think that any php developer who uses any substantial framework would disagree with you.

<comment><USER7> most PHP developers don't use frameworks. there have been no "substantial frameworks" for nearly all of PHP's history, and the attitude among common users is that PHP isn't responsible for helping you out with security.

it doesn't help that coding style in nearly every PHP book I've seen is insecure and unmaintainable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm surprised there aren't any good comments about the photo.

</comment><comment><USER10> 0) Use a dynamic language with garbage collection.

<comment><USER11> Are you kidding or referring to a specific such language? I.e., PHP is arguably the most popular such language on the server and it's also the most insecure.

<comment><USER12> It's even easier to shoot yourself in the foot with compiled languages like C or C++ (strcpy, etc are especially dangerous)

<comment><USER11> Easier to create problems than in PHP? Naw, just different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think that #4 - "Keep it simple" is such a key part of creating secure applications. I think that as software is modified and grows and expands and more people touch the source we add in complexity that often blows away the security of the software. We need to make sure that we consistently apply our security conscious programming skills throughout the entire project.</comment>


The Making of a Olympian - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-gaming/article/2008-07/making-olympian# <comment><USER2> So what happened next? How did he do at the Olympics?</comment>


The real source of Apple device IDs leaked by Anonymous last week - <AUTHOR> http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/10/13781440-exclusive-the-real-source-of-apple-device-ids-leaked-by-anonymous-last-week?lite

<comment><USER2> So from what I gather, the UDID's leaked all belong to people who have downloaded an app that Blue Toad has either created or published content through. Does this seem correct? I doubt they have 1+ million publishers.

<comment><USER3> Blue Toad seems to be essentially a white label app company, something like a CMS for apps. They'd have many publishers, who'd have many apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Duplicate of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4500479></comment>


Wall Street Journal now the #1 selling US newspaper - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE59904820091010

<comment><USER2> It's no reason for celebration if your main competitor and #1 drops 17% and you only gain 0.5% compared to a year earlier.

That means your industry is in serious trouble.

<comment><USER3> ... And you gained .5% because you can count online subscriptions as subscriptions. They didn't break it out but I bet they had a similar dive in paper sales.

<comment><USER4> Keep in mind that WSJ charges a substantial fee for online subscriptions, and probably ends up profiting more on them than on paper subscriptions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Working link: [http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-us-wall- street...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-us-wall-street- journal-circulation,0,1945968.story)

</comment><comment><USER6> But how does the print revenue compare to the online revenue?

You have to wonder if the WSJ pay-wall is keeping more of their readership in the dead-tree world vs something like the NYT.

<comment><USER7> Why would WSJ care? Either way, the readers pay.

I'm not a huge fan of Murdoch, but I respect him for insisting on the simple principle of charging money for his product, while the hyposphere keeps twitting on how he "just doesn't get it".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Being the king of the hill on a sinking ship isn't exactly impressive.

<comment><USER9> That was one painful mixed metaphor.

....

Response to dschobel above. Nytimes stats:

[http://publishing2.com/2007/07/17/newspaper-online-vs- print-...](http://publishing2.com/2007/07/17/newspaper-online-vs-print-ad- revenue-the-10-problem/)

        *  Online unique users (12 month average): 13,372,000
        * Print circulation – weekday: 1,120,420
        * Print circulation – Sunday: 1,627,062

        * Total advertising revenue: $483,594,000
        * Online advertising revenue: $51,000,000

<comment><USER8> You're right. Shall we go with "king of a hill of quicksand?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sad. I used to read it when I had the chance, but now I pick up the FT out of principle.

Worth quoting Paul Krugman: """

1) The WSJ editorial page is wrong about everything.

2) If you think the WSJ editorial page is right about something, see rule #1"""

<comment><USER11> It's been a few years since I read it, but the WSJ had some of the best primary reporting of any periodical on the market, and certainly the best of any daily.

Yes, the opinion page was bad, but I thought the purpose of a newspaper was news.

<comment><USER12> You mean opinions like this: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html)

I sometimes agree or disagree with the opinion page, but in general I find it thought provoking.</comment></comment></comment>


Free Speech Champion Mark Zuckerberg Announces Plan to Censor His Employees - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/free-speech-champion-mark-zuckerberg-announces-plan-to-1845097521 <comment><USER2> Free speech advocates should be celebrating this decision, rather than trying to portray it as something evil.

"Employees shouldn't have to confront social issues in their day-to-day work unless they want to." \- What part of that is bad?

Regardless of your opinions, your ability to do great work should be separated from your ability to have social/political arguments.

Much like you shouldn't force anyone at work to be Vegan, because you are, or to avoid Gluten, because you do, you also should not insist that employees participate in discussions that are otherwise none of their interests.

Making sure that employees can ignore the social noise and continue to do their job is a net positive - better for the employer, and better for the employee.

<comment><USER3> >Free speech advocates should be celebrating this decision, rather than trying to portray it as something evil.

>"Employees shouldn't have to confront social issues in their day-to-day work unless they want to." \- What part of that is bad?

>Regardless of your opinions, your ability to do great work should be separated from your ability to have social/political arguments.

That seems to be ignoring that the discussion these employees were wanting to have was about the societal impacts _of their work_ , not some abstract discussion about societal issues - I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to be exposed to a discussion on the societal impacts of their work.

Especially when the impacts are as extreme as murder (Kenosha), genocide (Myanmar), or furthering conspiracy theories (Qanon)

<comment><USER2> In my opinion the difference is whether you have the discussion from your free will or because it is being imposed on you.

The stance of the loud is: "This is an important issue and we should all talk about this until the society is better!" But that actually disenfranchises the quiet ones who just want to get work done. Not everyone cares, and forcing them to care is wrong.

It doesn't sound like Zuck will stop you for sitting around the lunch table and discussing the issues, but he will make sure that no one calls you names, or passes you for a promotion ..etc, for wanting to opt out.

I don't really have any information on what's happening on the inside, but judging this from the information we got publicly, it really seems to me as a way to enable every employee whose voice is being outnumbered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Censorship champions are really desperate for any hint of hypocrisy to distract from their own lack of principles. Oh, so you think the global forum you run should allow other viewpoints, but the internal forum for your company should be moderated? Incredible hypocrisy indeed.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how he feels about auto-promoting the most controversial divisive opinions to his employees to drive internal engagement?

Think he's onboard for that?

</comment><comment><USER6> I think quashing divisive conversations in the workplace is generally a healthy thing to do for the well-being of your employees, however Facebook has put itself in a unique position which also makes the move hypocritical.

</comment><comment><USER7> You have an endless number of outlets to organize and discuss your political views in 2020. Any political discussion at work is likely to be of low value anyway due to one-sidedness, which stems from the high-risk nature of presenting out-of-line views with one's primary income at stake.

It's very well documented that some people in high places can't control their emotions when it comes to politics (im thinking of the video where google execs are crying about Trump's election, which is always hard to find on Google for some reason). I would not be comfortable sharing my views at the Google (if i had any). I'd probably dye my hair pink and buy those thick- rimmed glasses to avoid raising suspicion that i might be apolitical.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is legalism, if you have enough money, certain laws don't apply.</comment>


Show HN: Likemind just got HTML5 web app for desktop and mobiles - <AUTHOR> https://www.getlikemind.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Likemind is a social network for meeting new people, no dating involved :) How do you like our new HTML5 app that supports web users and also mobile (Android, Windows Phone, iOS) users? :)</comment>


Unique phishing method using fullscreen API - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@409h/unique-phishing-method-to-look-out-for-the-fullscreen-api-e6cd08a6293a <comment><AUTHOR> Many years ago, I wrote an email to Steve Jobs saying that apps can easily spoof the MacOS password dialog. The solution is to show people a specific phrase they pre-chose in the OS, displayed in the textbox when they put their cursor in the textbox, and cause a delay (and maybe colorful animation) so they may stop if the phrase doesn't match.

With websites you can do the same to prevent clickjacking, or an alert if there is no textbox.</comment>


CSS only web components with no JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://cquanu.github.io/light/?ref=hackernews <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone, I'm trying to build a CSS Framework with common web components without Javascript, less nesting, less code. Is not perfect yet. Feel free to help out with project. Let me know what you think :)</comment>


Voronoi Diagrams on the GPU - <AUTHOR> http://rykap.com/graphics/skew/2016/02/25/voronoi-diagrams/ <comment><USER2> [I can see the images in Chrome, but not in IE11.]

I like the images, but when you move the "yellow fish" all the other points move randomly. I'd prefer a similar image where all the other points are fixed.</comment>


Astonishingly real Audrey Hepburn shills chocolate in new commercial - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/28/4039144/audrey-hepburn-resurrected-for-galaxy-chocolate-commercial <comment><USER2> That copyright line at the bottom of the video freaked me out more than the video itself. William Gibson would be proud:

 _"Audrey Hepburn(tm) (C) 2013 Sean Hepburn Ferrer and Luca Dotti. All Rights Reserved."_

</comment><comment><USER3> Imagine what'll happen if technology eventually makes this kind of reconstruction possible for hundreds of dollars instead of the six- or seven- digit [1] sum presumably spent to produce this ad.

[1] US dollars.

<comment><USER4> It will democratize the ads - your corner shop or plumber will start putting similar ads. Subsequently, we will grow immune to these ads as we are now to junk/spam mails (not emails).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Everybody involved in this is an arsehole and should be ashamed.</comment>


The Tragedy of Mozilla - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a perfect storm of misinformation and divisive politics. Doesn't seem like Mozilla did anything to correct or control these impressions though.

</comment><comment><USER3> The issue is California's law to make the contribution public. It forces people to make political decisions based on who's going to pay them in the future.

</comment><comment><USER4> Iceweasel, here I come.</comment>


The 2nd Amendment should protect the Internet, not your AK47 - <AUTHOR> http://byjess.net/the-2nd-amendment-should-protect-the-internet-not-your-ak47/ <comment><USER2> "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence . from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. " Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

<comment><USER3> Those are quotations from really instructed people in the current state of the art.

> the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference

Any data on this, all data suggests that were there are more guns there are more deaths, apparently evil interferes can buy guns too.

<comment><USER4> Unless you exclude suicide, in which case you see as more and more millions of guns are produced every year, murder (and even homicide overall, which includes self defense and accidental homicide) rates are at their lowest point since any time between 1998 and 2004 depending on which specific metric you look at.

It is intellectually dishonest to include suicide when talking about "gun deaths."

<comment><USER2> Furthermore, the suicide rate in "gun-free" Japan, at Number 7 on the global list of national suicide rates with 23.8 per 100,000, dwarfing the comparable rate of 11.8 in the heavily-armed United States, which comes in at Number 41.

<comment><USER4> This is an interesting statistic. What is the source, the WHO?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This argument would make a lot more sense in terms of the _First_ Amendment.

Conflating it with a media topic du jour (gun control) just weakens the argument, for me at least.

<comment><USER6> There is a long history of cryptography-as-munition (ITAR, Wassenaar, etc.), and during the crypto wars of the 1990s, a second amendment defense was something people discussed many times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "first they came for guns, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a gun owner. Then they came for the internet, and there was nothing I could do to stop them."

<comment><USER8> Because IEDs couldn't be fashioned from ingredients found at your local hardware store...

<comment><USER9> based on the quote, assuming a lack of internet, would the average person know how to fashion a basic bomb?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I get the metaphor but the argument is flawed. The Internet should be protected under the first amendment, specifically freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There should be no reason that what someone publishes on a blog should not be afforded the same protections as what is published at a newspaper (within reason wrt slander/libel/defamation).

</comment><comment><USER11> Isn't this what Freedom of the Press is supposed to guarantee? And Freedom of Assembly? I don't see why we have to stretch the 2nd Amendment when there's one right before it that does what we want.

</comment><comment><USER12> Great concept. I think it stretches credulity to call the internet a form of "arms", but the point is very well taken -- open access to information and unrestricted communications, along with the right to assembly in its online forms -- should be a basic part of U.S. freedoms.

<comment><USER13> It also stretches credulity to argue that the right of citizens to defend themselves from tyranny in a militia means it's acceptable to own and keep a semiautomatic high-calibre firearm with a 50-round magazine for personal use.

<comment><USER14> _It also stretches credulity to argue that the right of citizens to defend themselves from tyranny in a militia means it's acceptable to own and keep a semiautomatic high-calibre firearm with a 50-round magazine for personal use._

No, it really doesn't. Especially when you consider that the SCOTUS has found the 2nd Amendment to refer to an _individual_ right[1]. The "militia" stuff is a red-herring these days.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller>

<comment><USER13> A respectful note from the rest of the world: the current, conventional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is _batshit crazy_.

It would be hilarious if it didn't predictably result in over 30,000 gun deaths a year.

<comment><USER15> I'm going to guess that Switzerland doesn't share the opinion that America's gun laws are "batshit crazy".

Every citizen who has served in the military (most of them due to compulsory duty), is required to keep a fully automatic weapon in their house.

You have a country where a young man can do his grocery shopping with a military rifle across his back and no one bats an eye:

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Car...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Caroline- Migros-p1000507.jpg/450px-Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg)

I'll also guess that Israel has similar feelings too.

<comment><USER8> I'm sure that military service:

1) Is a better filter of those that shouldn't own a gun.

2) Trains a certain level of responsibility / respect for the weapon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "A well informed populace being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to access the internet shall not be infringed."

<comment><USER17> That makes the point pretty well. Also, sounds like the start of a good 28th Amendment.

<comment><USER16> If the British were overthrown with Facebook and Twitter rather than an armed revolution, I'm pretty sure this _would_ be the 2nd Amendment.

You know the alternate universe where it was "One click by land, two clicks by sea" and Paul Revere's Ride consisted of opening at least two dozen tabs to post in different forums, plus a half dozen IRC channels...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The author is incorrect when he assumes that tanks/aircraft/artillery have any bearing on how easy it is to control a population armed with rifles.

If you're outnumbered 10-to-1 by people with AR-15s and AK-47s and IEDs who can fade in and out of the civilian population, you simply aren't going to be able to maintain control over a vast land area like America. At best you will have fortified "Green Zones" with tenuous control over some major metropolitan areas.

All the firepower a modern state can bring to bear is only useful if you want to destroy whole cities. If you want to _control_ them, it's still very much a street-level game of rifles and IEDs.

</comment><comment><USER19> The writer commits a common fallacy:

" In 1791, that check meant arming the citizens with rifles and muskets. Those were the effective tools of the revolution back then. But since we started rolling tanks, bombers, and aircraft carries off the assembly lines, the citizens ability to match power with our potentially 'tyrannical' government is nil."

To be clear, a bunch of farmers with muskets in the late 18th Century were not capable of beating a late 18th Century military in the field, or "match power" with it. Armies weren't formed for kicks, guys: they were by far the most powerful means of projecting force of the day. We mythologize the American Revolution as being a bunch of sharp-shooters who beat the dumb redcoats by not being an army, but that's not true. We had to form an army, with artillery and cavalry support, with discipline, that formed into ranks and did army things, to win the Revolution. We also used people with experience in the British Army to form the Colonial Army, and got plenty of help from the French and the Germans.

What a militia of disorganized people with guns could do, then and just as much now, is provide a visible, nettling presence to occupiers that allowed an actual rebellion to form around them (or, more likely, fail to form around them). Our disastrous adventure in Iraq should make it perfectly clear to anyone doubting it that tanks, aircraft, and cruise missiles do NOT make a militia irrelevant to the occupation of a country.

</comment><comment><USER20> The Daily Kos (of all places!) published a wonderful defense of the Second Amendment. Regardless of its application to the Internet.

[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why- liberal...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals- should-love-the-Second-Amendment)

<comment><USER15> The media like to paint gun owners as far-right republicans, but I've always been amazed by the number of left-leaning folks who have a positive opinion of firearm ownership.

The folk singer Bruce Cockburn (he did "If I had a rocket-launcher") is a big supporter of firearm ownership. I saw a documentary about him a few years back. It was funny to see a hippy with pierced ears, blonde hair and an alternative fashion sense hanging out with a bunch of rural, plaid wearing red-necks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The author is overlooking the point that, even with all the military might of the US, if it truly becomes tyrannical and rolls into parts of the country it deems "rebellious," there's a lot of firepower out there (ca. 300M guns) to overcome, and a lot of loss of life involved.

<comment><USER22> I agree 100%. If needed, I'm sure the NRA could get 500 million or so to start a militia. They may not be in the best state physically, but that's not needed for guerilla-style warfare. But I think we're a long way off before that happens (even though the gov't is already pretty corrupt).

I agree with the author that the Internet is a much more powerful tool in terms of affecting policy in Congress. We saw that with SOPA/PIPA, and I bet we'll see it again if there's another bill that similarly tries to restrict our freedoms. It's not perfect, but it effectively amplifies a single voice and can even replace physical organization.

<comment><USER18> > If needed, I'm sure the NRA could get 500 million or so to start a militia.

There are only 309 million people in the United States, so that would be quite a feat.

<comment><USER22> Type-o, I meant 500 thousand...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You can turn the internet off with a little reconfiguration. Or cut some cables; it's not /that/ redundant.

You can't turn off 300M firearms, or (guessing) millions of people willing to use them.

Anyway, the 1st amendment is the one he wants.

<comment><USER24> When the police starts going door to door, collecting guns, how many you think would be left from the 300M?

<comment><USER15> How do the police know that you have guns? In most US states, there is no registration of guns.

When you purchase a gun from a gun store, you fill out a form 4473, for the purposes of a background check. The ATF has a record of gun transfers, but not a list of who currently owns a gun. If they recover a gun from a crime scene, then can go through the records to see who was the last owner.

The kink in this system is that private sales of guns is legal in most states as well. No background check, no record keeping required, just a good faith effort to ensure that the person you're selling it to can legally own a firearm.

So if the police come knocking on your door and ask for your guns, you can simply say "I sold it 2 years ago, but unfortunately I didn't keep any information on the new owner." The police would then need to have probable cause to search your residence for the weapon (which they very well could get depending on the evidence they have).

Collecting all the guns in the US won't be an easy task.

<comment><USER24> My question was sincere. I'm quite sure that some share of the guns would be voluntarily handed over. I was after a estimate on this share.

"Collecting all the guns in the US won't be an easy task."

Definitely not, but I would think that to be something an oppressive government would try to do. In that case, the police might not ask nicely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I basically agree -- even if all guns were banned, I'd probably confine myself to voting, organizing, pushing for legal changes, etc. If it ultimately failed, I'd move somewhere with more liberal gun laws, like Canada.

If cryptography and free speech were banned, and the legal routes were exhausted, I'd use cryptography and guns or other energetic chemical reactions to resist what were clearly "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Guns and crypto: better together.

</comment><comment><USER25> This seems (to me) more a 1st amendment issue - freedom of speech/press/petition?

<comment><USER14> I don't know... given that the US government has classified crypto as "munitions" in some situations, I'm not so sure that it doesn't make sense to consider the Internet as "arms" in a sense. OK maybe it's a _bit_ of a stretch, but it's not completely implausible.

<comment><USER22> From a Google search (using the noun version):

> Munition: Military weapons, ammunition, equipment, and stores.

I already think that classifying crypto as "munitions" is a pretty big stretch, and if they try to lump the entire Internet in the same group, then we might need to use the 2nd amendment in it's original meaning (call up the NRA and get a real militia going).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> the author thinks (incorrectly) that the prefatory clause overrides the operative clause. The operative clause being that "the _right of the people_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But, for the record, at the time the "militia" was considered to be every able bodied male in the country.

</comment><comment><USER27> Interesting idea -- the pen is mightier than the sword after all, right?

</comment><comment><USER28> I tend to agree because I feel like we've moved to a point where influencing the masses is more important than having militias or arming ourselves to fight a tyrannical government. I think the protests and resulting ongoing changes in the arab world these days proves the power of communication and the spread of information.

I actually owned an AK-47 and a lot of other weapons and I did enjoy shooting them but I got rid of them when I moved to NYC. Part of living in a community is making sacrifices. If it scares the crap out of my neighbors that I have weapons I'm okay with getting rid of them as long as we all agree that we will work together to fight crime and any tyranny we might encounter, however rare. I believe in that unspoken agreement.

<comment><USER29> "I tend to agree because I feel like we've moved to a point where influencing the masses is more important than having militias or arming ourselves to fight a tyrannical government."

"more important" why must it be one or the other and not both?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The Second Amendment is controversial and deserves to be. These were men who just overthrew their British government, violently. They were maltreated, but their government was far from the most tyrannical at the time. In 1775, you'd rather be an average American colonist (healthier, richer, taller, more literate) than an average European. Now the Irish... they had something to complain about regarding British tyranny. For the Americans, it was more gray. They had to "invent" the right to overthrow an oppressive or ineffective government because that's exactly what they were doing.

The Second Amendment _is_ the right to violently oppose government if it becomes tyrannical and violent, and it's the right to use the most effective weapons available. (In 1789, they were muskets and swords. Problem: in 2012, they're much more powerful and frequently used for illegal and harmful purposes.) It's a bizarre construct, because it's unclear where the line between personal violence (objectively illegal) and overthrow (which would be treated as illegal, even if it's held as abstractly legitimate) is. We also learned in the 1860s that this whole idea (of legitimate overthrow) is extremely dangerous.

In 2012, governments are less powerful. We have a relatively libertarian government, despite protest to the contrary. Consequently, there is absolutely no good reason for a violent revolution against in the US against the government. (Corporations, especially in the multinational theater, require a separate debate.) In fact, we have a legitimate, effective mechanism for firing bad government officials and the problem is that _we don't use it_. Incumbent politicians have more job security (< 2% firing rate per year) than Silicon Valley software engineers. That's on us.

I agree that the best way to "revolt" against bad government is to use nonviolent tools to delegitimize incompetent or crooked leaders. Right now, the political structures that exist to enable that (periodic elections, removal from office by the people) work. They work well, and no one is violently preventing them from doing so, so violence is neither necessary nor morally acceptable. What we should be doing is using legitimate means (e.g. Internet) to remove incompetent leaders from office. If, however, the U.S. turned into Syria (which is extremely unlikely) I'd disagree.

The problem right now is that a gun that is fired on a person in the US is, statistically, more likely to be used in suicide, by accident, or on an innocent person, than on a criminal. We don't have a tyrannical government, nor do we have that much crime.

Ultimately, I'd say that "government" itself doesn't have the right to make certain firearms illegal, but that the people have the right (as an aggregate) to give up that right and to take it back. Personally, I'm willing not to have the right to own an AK-47 (seeing as I don't have one, and have no desire ever to own one) if it will prevent senseless massacres like last week's. But the distinction is important. The people are _giving up_ the right to have one, in exchange for increased safety.

</comment><comment><USER3> The 2nd amendment is like a parabola from the bible, you can give it any meaning you want. I am pretty sure nuclear bombs are arms but nobody is crazy enough to pretend it includes those. But those would destroy a tyranny for sure (along with anything else).

<comment><USER26> 1\. I think you mean parable. not parabola. 2\. You can give the second amendment any meaning you want, but unless it is the same meaning as the authors of the amendment, you're wrong.

(from another HN comment) "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

<comment><USER3> > unless it is the same meaning as the authors of the amendment, you're wrong

Yeah, lets ask them what they mean... Oh wait, well, we will have to ask you right?

<comment><USER29> At least in regards to the 2nd amendment what the authors meant is very, very clear. See the top HN comment.

<comment><USER3> No, is not very clear, they don't even mention firearm calibres, gun power, machine guns, the drug war, automatic weapons, chemical weapons, missiles, nuclear artifacts, criminals with guns, tanks and other kinds of military vehicles, grenades; basically because back then those things didn't even existed or where not considered relevant. Today is a very different world that they didn't imagine even in their wildest dreams; is a romantic but childish illusion that their words can be literally applied to a world so different to the one they saw.

<comment><USER31> I'm nitpicking, and/or don't understand what you've written, it appears that you're making an argument for repealing the second amendment rather than making an argument that it isn't clear what was meant by the second amendment.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Surprising Insights From HubSpot's $35M Mezzanine Round - <AUTHOR> http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/91669/Surprising-Insights-From-HubSpot-s-35M-Mezzanine-Round.aspx

<comment><USER2> It's good to see that startups that are generating revenues and solid profits can have access to this type of financing, resulting in no/little dilution compared to VC funding (like all mezz funds I guess HS has had to issue warrants). I'm curious to know the cash vs PIK component/terms of this instrument.

The mezzanine market is huge (but not as big as it used to be in 06-07) and a great bridge-to-equity instrument if an IPO is a viable option. Kudos to HubSpot.</comment>


A Tiny Startup Racing Google to Build a Quantum Computing Chip - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600711/the-tiny-startup-racing-google-to-build-a-quantum-computing-chip/ <comment><USER2> Funny how Google's name is essentially dropped into the article (and the lead) in a purely clickbait style. Guess not even MIT is immune to it.

<comment><USER3> I don't know if you've ever read an MIT press release, but they overhype and misrepresent the science coming out of their institution like it's going out of style. It's endemic in nearly all universities, especially the big name ones. This should not be a surprise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hmmm.

There are like 5 superconductor guys and 3 ion trapping guys, so I guess they're going for superconductor qubits. Unless they're doing way better than the superconductor groups in academia, I wouldn't hold your breath, it's still pretty far from a workable technology.

<comment><USER5> Also pretty clear they are going for superconductor qubits given that they say they are using dilution fridges, the founder worked at IBM, and did his PhD on superconductor qubits...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We're living in an interesting time. The first group to get a working qbit based computer will be able to break all current encryption. We will very rapidly have to switch to quantum encryption to protect ourselves.

You can be damn sure that the NSA and the other three letter agencies are working hard on this problem, and definitely would not share if they get there first (if they haven't already).

<comment><USER7> You don't need quantum cryptography to defend against attacks that employ quantum computers.

There was an interesting talk on classical encryption algorithms that resist quantum attacks by djb and Tanja Lange at 32c3 last year, see [1,2,3].

TL;DR:

\- Shor's algorithm kills factorization-based algorithms like RSA, DSA and including elliptic-curves-based DSA,

\- Grover's algorithm allows faster (O(sqrt(N) instead of O(n)) brute-force searches, which means for the same level of security, one needs to double AES key size,

\- there exist classical encryption algorithms that have so far resisted quantum-based attacks, e.g. hash-based signatures, Goppa code-based asymmetric crypto,

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XeBvdm8vao](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XeBvdm8vao)

[2] [https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7210-pqchacks#video](https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7210-pqchacks#video) (in German)

[3] [https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/3yppbz/post_quantu...](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/3yppbz/post_quantum_cryptography_at_32c3/)

EDIT: formatting

<comment><USER8> There's been some good work in Merkle Signatures in recent times. I posted a bunch on Schneier's blog here:

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/friday_squid_...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/friday_squid_bl_470.html#c6692293)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good luck to them, and here's hoping that they can make some progress.

In case this leads to the usual "what's so hard about quantum computing that these big companies are struggling with it, and how can a small company possibly hope to beat Google?" let me try to explain.

Quantum computers seem to do some stuff more efficiently than any classical computer can. Exact proofs are hard to come by. (The classes are BQP and BPP, with a straightforward proof that BPP is in BQP. We now have a bunch of oracles Q Such that BQP^Q /= BPP^Q, but that's not necessarily a proof because of course we now have oracles A and B such that P^A = NP^A but P^B /= NP^B. So we have "some evidence" that quantum computers can do things faster than classical computers, but it's not hard proof yet.) Those parenthesized concerns aside, quantum computers seem to be more efficient than classical ones at some tasks.

We call by the name "interference" this property which crucially dictates how quantum computers do stuff differently. Essentially, instead of using probabilities with real numbers between 0 and 1, quantum mechanics uses _scaled rotation matrices_ , which we call "amplitudes" and often represent as complex numbers. We bound the scale factor between 0 and 1 and interpret its square as a probability, which yields the same result as multiplying the complex number by its complex conjugate, or multiplying the matrix by its transpose: these are all mathematically equivalent. In this framework, if the qubit |0> produces an amplitude-pattern _f_ ( _z_ ) on some screen (hence you'll see | _f_ ( _z_ )|^2 as the pattern) and |1> evolves to _g_ ( _z_ ), then the "quantum superposition" _a_ |0> \+ _b_ |1> (where _a_ , _b_ are complex numbers) evolves to produce the pattern | _a_ _f_ ( _z_ ) + _b_ _g_ ( _z_ )|^2, which might show some sort of "wavy interference pattern" wherever the original patterns | _f_ ( _z_ )|^2 and | _g_ ( _z_ )|^2 overlap.

These interference effects can also be seen over multi-bit quantum states like the system _a_ |00> \+ _b_ |11>. In such a circumstance we call those two parts "entangled", and we can prove that there is no precise quantum description which "separates" the two quantum-bits. However physicists have proven a crucial theorem in quantum mechanics: _when you look at one of those entangled-parts in isolation, it behaves according to classical probability laws_. This is derivable purely from the mathematics of these complex amplitudes and we usually call it "tracing out" the rest of the system, if you want a convenient jargon term.

What entangles a system with a quantum-bit? _Anything which interacts differently based on whether the quantum-bit is 0 or 1._ The intersection of these two concerns -- the universality of entanglement and the classicalness that entanglement creates -- is the thing which makes quantum computing complicated. The very interference effects which make quantum computing powerful disappear the moment that "anything else" entangles with our precious quantum bits: and this includes any part of the external world (so the quantum state needs to be well _isolated_ from anything that is not its logic), but also the computer itself (the complicated "quantum gates" that we need to implement to guide the state in whatever direction it's going). If any of those things entangle passively with the quantum state, the parts that we can measure stop showing interference effects and start acting like classical probabilistic mixtures.

This problem in general is called "decoherence" and it is the hard problem in the "DiVincenzo Criteria", which are the 5 joint concerns of quantum computation. So there are basically 4 other things that you basically are not allowed to compromise to kill decoherence: (a) a qubit-centric system of states |00...0>, |00...1>, ... |11...1>, which (b) can be initialized to a known starting state |00...0>, and then (c) its qubits can be manipulated by a set of universal quantum gates, which then (d) are measured to be either 0 or 1.

So that's where somebody who has a really bright insight about solving this "decoherence" problem could really leap light-years ahead of a bunch of highly-paid engineers and scientists who lack the crucial insight.

<comment><USER10> Passive error correction has made blindingly good progress in the last few years.

<comment><USER11> cat codes, man.

<comment><USER10> Can you contact me at my HN handle at gmail.com? I might have some technical questions for you - I'm looking to start a thesis project on many body localization as it applies to these sort of systems with nonlinear drive terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looking forward to Prof. Scott Aaronson [0]'s response to this.

[0] [http://www.scottaaronson.com/](http://www.scottaaronson.com/)</comment>


LinkedIn is cheating the users - <AUTHOR>

When you apply for a job on or via LinkedIn you can see how many that applied or clicked the link before you. You can then make a judgement call, is it worth applying when 50 already did? But LinkedIn trick us. The click/apply counter doesn't match the clicks. They want to keep the clicks down so people get trick to think they have a better chans to get the job then they really have. In thet way more people apply and LinkedIn ears more revenue. <comment><USER2> Is this still true after a certain number of hours? If the counter itself doesn't update a database value in real time (which is entirely possible when they use Squids for caching), then there will be a certain delay between the click and the processing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it is true. At least I tried one job ad and clicked on it with different devices and different IP:s. Still nothing. I know that they job that I applied for is very popular (not the link the the comment). So my clicks would count til at least 20 and from different devices 10. My friends have clicked as well, but it´s stuck on 8. And I buy the once a day update, but it has been weeks :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Well, over one week has pass by without any change. So strange...

</comment><comment><USER3> [citation needed]

<comment><AUTHOR> Just try to click on "Apply on website" and see if the counter changes. [http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=5243091&...](http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=5243091&goback=%2Enmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1&trk=nmp_rj_job)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Still no change :s</comment>


Cornell University Ergonomics Web (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/ <comment><USER2> It says "THIS WEBSITE WILL BE CLOSING DOWN ON DECEMBER 31, 2018" \- anybody knows why?

</comment><comment><USER3> This website has been around since 1993 and now it's closing down?

Edit: It's said that for over a year.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it a good time to change jobs in the Bay Area? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a Product Manager in the social space and really eager to work on something more challenging and solve hard problems. Given the current status (uncertainty) of the US economy, would it be wise to join a new company/industry at this time? Should I wait till mid next year? Unlike most of you Software Engineers, our jobs are not that layoff-proof especially when we are new hires.<p>(Also, shameless plug: if you need a "hacker" PM from social games background, drop a reply) <comment><USER2> I'm not sure about the morality of this (perhaps it isn't "right" to do), but I would suggest getting a job lined up in a company that you want to work for before you quit your existing job.

<comment><USER3> Of course it's right and an absolutely normal thing to do.</comment></comment>


Hardware_directory: all the resources to build your Hardware startup - <AUTHOR> http://directory.hardwareclub.co/ <comment><USER2> Well done, HXC!</comment>


Intelligence-driven marketing: A shift from data-driven marketing - <AUTHOR> http://kdm.digital/intelligence-driven-marketing/ <comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone here use marketing automation software?</comment>


How Apple Gets All the Good Apps - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20130312/how-apple-gets-all-the-good-apps/

<comment><USER2> Can't we say the same about the PC market? Sure, Apple doesn't make mobile apps for any other devices but it doesn't sing the same song when it comes to PC. Apple makes the official versions of Itunes and Quicktimes for Windows. Why? Because its business at the end of the day! You can't play adamant when you are not the market leader, it will cost you in money. The same reason, you find all official Google apps for Windows PC and iOS but not a single one for Windows Phone.

Its a simple motto for all companies, let's keep our differences aside when it come to raising that stock price.

</comment><comment><USER3> For an alternative body to that headline, you could say:

A) A 30 year history and culture of setting and raising the bar in application design, attracting like-minded designers and developers to their platforms who continually one-up Apple's own efforts. B) Coherent, stable, powerful application frameworks C) Relatively fixed device specifications

<comment><USER4> Maybe it's

1). Have a reputation for charging more for hardware and attract people willing to pay more

2). Create devices that take advantage of people with more disposable income

<comment><USER5> Ah, that tired myth again. iPads and iPhones are overpriced, unless you consider the competition, then they look like a better value. Ah, what?

At the end of the day, its just good execution, Apple hasn't mis-stepped in a while and seems to be doing everything right. But if you want to justify your own alternative purchasing decisions by seeing Apple as overpriced, please go ahead.

<comment><USER6> You can't say it's a myth when it's based on opinion. If people have the opinion that iProducts are overpriced, then they are because "overpriced" is completely subjective. Simple as that. There's no myth, but the fact that you're tired of hearing it does mean that people think it.

I am of the opinion that Apple products are overpriced. They really have no value for me or other people like me who want more choices and more control. I don't like their whole culture or ecosystem, so really any price is too high. Furthermore, in purely practical terms there's nothing that I can't do on an Android device.

<comment><USER5> But you see, its not opinion. The prices for iProducts and their competitors are public info. They are either overpriced with respect to equivalent value products or not; the truth is easy to see.

The ones who ignore the truth are just experiencing cognitive dissonance, and there are quite a few of them left over from the PC era.

<comment><USER7> Value is an opinion. The Nexus 4 provides me with more value than an iPhone 5, yet costs nearly half. Therefore the iPhone is overpriced, right?

<comment><USER5> Obviously the nexus 4 is a good deal, and if we see more android phones with those specs selling for those prices, we can begin to call iPhones overpriced (I.e. google isn't just selling these phones at cost). Still, there are plenty of head on reviews that can't make up their mind which one is better even with the huge price delta.

I haven't actually seen any nexus 4s for sale yet in my market (china) beyond a few smuggled in. It will be interesting to see what happens then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article doesn't really explain how at all. It just makes a simple observation that competitors to Apple in mobile platforms are releasing their apps on iOS as well as their own operating systems.

This seems like a classic example of how new entrants to a market try to attack the leader. Get people attached to using your services on the leading platform, then claim (perhaps valid if you cripple your iOS offering in some way) that the integration is better on yours.

<comment><USER9> Most of those apps are not crippled to get people to switch. They're crippled because of Apple's policies.

Specifically you can't make another browser be the default. You can't make another browser period, you can only skin the one that's built in. So no V8, no JägerMonkey, no Gecko, etc. Google Maps can't be the default map app. The Kindle app can't sell books. The Amazon MP3 app can't sell music. (or at least can't competitively sell)

And on and on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mossberg's got an interesting observation here, but he's missing a really important point: Apple's core profit engine is selling hardware. Amazon and Google make money by selling services and non-hardware goods.

Since Amazon/Google make money regardless of platform, they have an incentive to produce content for Apple's platform. Since Apple only makes a real profit if/when you buy their hardware, they have no incentive to do the same.

<comment><USER11> From the article: "...it stems from the different business models of the big rivals. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are primarily software and services companies, though each makes some mobile hardware (Google through its Motorola subsidiary). But Apple, while famous for making good software, sells that software almost entirely through iconic and expensive hardware, from which it makes the vast majority of its money."

I think he covered that the different companies have different business models.

<comment><USER10> Shit - I missed that! Good catch - I only watched the video :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apple doesn't sell software or hardware. They sell 'experience'. And for the best experience they design their own hardware that is optimized for their own software. Their competitors on the other hand have different focus. AMZN is all about consuming (or buying) content from any device. GOOG is all about information access regardless of device. Most of MSFT's revenues come from selling software.

Simple analogy would be - MSFT doesn't sell the games that it creates for xbox on other platforms.

</comment><comment><USER13> Yes, because what is an android user gonna do without Apple's Maps?

<comment><USER14> Probably get directed to the Atherton Train Station last night, only to discover CalTrain doesn't stop there on weekdays. (Apple Maps Pointed me to HopStop, which correctly recognized that Atherton TrainStation was NOT where I wanted to be)

Let's just say I won't be trusting Google Maps to get Transit Directions which involve Caltrain in the near future. Standing out there in the cold at 10:00 at night after a 30 minute walk quickly cured me of that bad habit.

<comment><USER15> I'm from Toronto, and I've been in Palo Alto for the last month, and all I know about Atherton is that you do not want to be there.

<http://imgur.com/a/aNPaI>

<comment><USER16> I would hate having to deliver packages there with all these paranoid people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So the secret is that they get all their own apps and the best apps from their competitors?

I guess the benefit is entirely predicated on whether the user cares for the default apple offerings. I don't personally care for the vast majority of them.

<comment><USER18> "their own apps" + "the best apps from their competitors" minus "their own apps" does _not_ correspond to a single competitor's offerings - which is Apple's advantage, according to Mossberg's logic. His argument's got little to do with Apple's own apps (not that they have particularly much of a presence either - even on their own devices.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Google's artificial intelligence app Google Now and its payment app Google Wallet are AWOL on Apple devices. " - ironic how quickly that might (soon?) change...

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/12/4096074/google-now-for- ios...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/12/4096074/google-now-for-ios-teased- in-alleged-demo-video)

</comment><comment><USER19> Who cares? Who would want the iPhone's map or iBook on Android? Ask Windows users forced to use iTunes for their iPhone if they like it. Ask Safari users on Windows (oh sorry, I forgot - nobody uses it).

Apple is a hardware company, their strength is to control the hardware and the OS. Apps they make for other systems are crap.

<comment><USER20> The article mentions Siri, iMessage, iWork, iPhoto and FaceTime. I don't miss Siri, iWork or iPhoto, but the lack of FaceTime and iMessage is definitely noticed when most of your network uses Apple products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It doesn't. Compare Dropbox on Android with Dropbox on iPhone.</comment>


Heart patient: Apple Watch got me in and out of hospital - <AUTHOR> http://medcitynews.com/2015/07/heart-patient-apple-watch-got-me-in-and-out-of-hospital-fast/ <comment><USER2> The story is an early example of why the future can't get here fast enough. Within a decade we'll all be wearing smart watches:

[https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/in-the-future- everyo...](https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/in-the-future-everyone- will-wear-a-smartwatch/)</comment>