Officials arrest suspect in $4 billion Bitcoin money laundering scheme - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/officials-arrest-suspect-in-4-billion-bitcoin-money-laundering-scheme/ <comment><USER3> Related discussion at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14858495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14858495).

</comment><comment><USER4> "Conventional financial institutions comply with anti-money laundering regulations that make it difficult for criminal organizations to use their payment infrastructure."

Yes, yes of course. Just like how HSBC physically expanded their teller windows to make it easy for Mexican drug cartels to make cash deposits.

[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc- execut...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc-executive- resigns-senate)

<comment><USER5> >Just like how HSBC physically expanded their teller windows to make it easy for Mexican drug cartels to make cash deposits.

I can't seem to find any mention of this in the linked article?

<comment><USER6> OP didn't link to the right article: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/14/hsbc- money-...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/14/hsbc-money- laundering-fine-management)

<comment><USER4> My bad, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The timing of this and the bitmixer.io [0] voluntary shutdown a few days ago is a bit strange.

0: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14843373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14843373)

<comment><USER8> Yes, the takedown of AlphaBay and Hansa darkmarkets, the bitmixer.io shutdown, the arrest of this guy and the BTC-e exchange 'down for maintenance' are all related, I would guess.

The person arrested is allegedly named Alexander Vinnik, according to [https://thebitcoinnews.com/alexander-vinnik-admin-btc-e- arre...](https://thebitcoinnews.com/alexander-vinnik-admin-btc-e-arrested- greece-4-billion-bitcoin-money-laundering/) \- but no idea where they got that name from.

<comment><USER9> "Alexander Vinnik" comes from updated Reuters article (with photo):

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest- idUSK...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest- idUSKBN1AB1OP)

<comment><USER10> Worth noting that BTC-e owner's name was Alexander and he was supposedly Russian.

<comment><USER10> [https://twitter.com/ReutersTech/status/890232366320553984](https://twitter.com/ReutersTech/status/890232366320553984)

It's confirmed

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They should at least say he is the owner of btc-e.com to give it context. The site was used by cyber criminals but it was also a legit operation, much like HSBC.

<comment><USER8> Do you know for sure that this is related to btc-e ? It's the most likely suspect (it is currently 'down for maintenance' and it was started in 2011, the same year mentioned in the AP story), but I can't find any concrete evidence of who the owners of btc-e actually were.

The site has always hidden its origins, and the only information I could find was that the founders' names are supposedly Aleksey and Alexander, based on [https://www.coindesk.com/btc-e-recent-issues-caused-surge- us...](https://www.coindesk.com/btc-e-recent-issues-caused-surge-users/)

<comment><USER9> Confirmed by Reuters now:

>BREAKING: Russian man arrested in Greece connected to BTC-e cryptocurrency exchange - <USER2>

[https://twitter.com/ReutersTech/status/890232366320553984](https://twitter.com/ReutersTech/status/890232366320553984)

UPD

>A Russian national arrested in Greece on Wednesday on suspicion of laundering criminal funds by switching them into bitcoins is a key person behind the BTC-e crypto-currency exchange, two sources close to the exchange told Reuters.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest- bitco...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest-bitcoin- idUSKBN1AB27W)

<comment><USER12> BTC-E was run out of Bulgaria in the beginning, surprised this guy didn't learn from the dozens of arrests of Russian credit card processors who violated US gambling laws and went on vacation/lured to meetings into extradition areas like Greece or Turkey. This arrest was apparently over laundering Ransomware coins [http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/07/26/btc-e- responsible-launderi...](http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/07/26/btc-e-responsible- laundering-95-ransomware-proceeds/)

BTC-E was famous for it's one word replies to technical support tickets like "works" and "try" when he wanted you to try something again, and of course the troll box on the front page that was a never ending source of problems like naive users being fished for information on their account details or tricked into pumping up the value of some altcoin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Money "laundering" is used to hide transactions from view so that the parties involved in the transaction can avoid scrutiny or legal consequences for their actions.

The DoD accounting scandal is an example of the US Government effectively laundering massive sums of money to evade accountability:

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/us-army-audit- account...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/us-army-audit-accounting- errors/index.html)

Also, governments use other tactics that are illegal in the private sector extensively, such as fudging their accounting to hide market volatility.

[https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2006/ts061506cc.htm](https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2006/ts061506cc.htm)

Governments care about private sector money laundering mainly because it can be used to conceal tax evasion. If drug lords and human traffickers simply paid their fair share of taxes chances are money laundering would not be on governments' radar.

<comment><USER14> What? Laundering often ends up with them paying taxes - for instance by putting tons of cash through a laundromat. Taxes then paid, the criminals are free to spend it as they wish. In fact, that's like, sort of the entire point of it.

Money laundering (as an offence) is just a crude tool to make prosecutor's lives far, far, easier.

<comment><USER15> I suspect this is what's happening in Canada - billions of dollars of "under the radar" money is coming into Canada to buy real estate, but the construction & trades jobs it creates and resulting boost it provides to GDP makes the government happy to turn a blind eye to the source of this money or that they make no direct taxation revenue (and refuse to audit certain people who are obviously breaking the law).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Media outlets claiming that the arrested guy is also a suspect for MtGox theft. [https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/890256080965599232](https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/890256080965599232)

I've personally looked at BTC-e's trade histories and am not inclined to believe this. BTC-e's weak security track record also doesn't exactly support this theory either.

EDIT: I guess wizsec came through [http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking- open-mtgox-1.html](http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html)

>To be clear, this investigation turned up evidence to identify Vinnik not as a hacker/thief but as a money launderer; his arrest news also suggests this is what he is being suspected for. He may have merely bought cheap coins from thieves and offered a laundering service. He is, however, a crucial piece of the puzzle, as he will have likely known who he was dealing with and laundering for, and so represents a major breakthrough in the case. We assume that law enforcement will now be taking the appropriate next steps to pursue all the remaining angles and hopefully identify the other individuals involved as well.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is the inherent problem with Bitcoin. It's just not anonymous! Imagine a dollar that has a history of every transaction written on it. Monero is the coin you want.

<comment><USER18> Monero, dash and zcash are the big three that have anonymity right? Any other big coins in the space?

<comment><USER19> Unfortunately Monero is the only one doing it right: all transactions are enforced private by default. Dash and zcash offer confidential transactions as an opt-in feature, but so few people use them that it draws additional scrutiny when they do.

At this point in time it's "Solo Monero" for privacy.

<comment><USER18> Private by default, but the default of 2 foreign tx seems to be largely what people use. It'd be fun to trace it and start to show the probability that a given tx traces to a given public key. I imagine that the older tx have closer and closer to a uniform probability across older addresses. Might make for a good data vis project.

<comment><USER19> Concurred. I hope they increase the default mandatory mixin level.

<comment><USER18> Why do you assume that the default is too low? There are obvious tradeoffs here, some analysis would do the coin good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open- mtgox-1.html](http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html)

He is guy who has been identified in MtGox hacking

</comment><comment><USER21> Weird that [https://www.xbtce.com](https://www.xbtce.com) is still running. Seems there are very few trades (3 in the last hour) being made but the "order book" is flashing away like nothing is wrong. Chat is also dead...

<comment><USER22> Lots of exchanges get caught eventually doing what your posts suggest BTCe is doing

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So they arrested him for running BTC-E and claim the exchange is a money laundering scheme?

<comment><USER24> Not necessarilly. It could be that _some_ of BTC-E's activities/his non BTC-E activities may have been money laundering.

For example, if you run a USD-BTC exchange, and I mail you a suitcase full of money, then withdraw it as BTC, you would almost certainly be aiding money laundering.</comment></comment>


Explainable Deep Learning: A Field Guide for the Uninitiated - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14545 <comment><USER2> This is a review paper. It's long. Past the first sentence I find it readable and well organized. It mentions some of the work on interpretability I'd expect to see, Finale-Velez, Rudin, Wallach, and LIME, but does not appear to mention Shapley. The bottom line conclusion is "In the end, the important thing is to explain the right thing to the right person in the right way at the right time." That's both an obvious truth and a differentiating mindset in research-first space. It's worth a skim.

<comment><USER3> > This is a review paper. It's long. Past the first sentence I find it > readable and well organized. It mentions some of the work on > interpretability I'd expect to see, Finale-Velez, Rudin, Wallach, and LIME, > but does not appear to mention Shapley. The bottom line conclusion is "In > the end, the important thing is to explain the right thing to the right > person in the right way at the right time." That's both an obvious truth and > a differentiating mindset in research-first space. It's worth a skim.

People want to know whether some mathematical formulas can work. Then how do they work? Then what can make them work in a different way.

Explanability or interpretability leads to controllability at the end.

I rather see NNs with semantic meanings instead of semantic meanings from NNs. If human would like to control NNs, why not make them meaningful modules that can be composed like a regular program.

For example, instead of using CNNs or RNNs, we simply make a model by stating the definition:

Jaywalk :: (p: Person, scene: Image) := p in scene & exist s: Street in scene, walk_cross(p, s) in scene & not exist z: ZebraCross in scene, inside(p, z) in scene

Here predicates, walk_cross and inside, are neural network modules that might be used in many different problems. We can identify cases where the model make wrong predictions and modify the definition accordingly.

This is much human friendly development than tweaking parameters. After all, not everyone is fond of programming in NNs directly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think there ought to be a distinction between _explainable_ (what does this neuron activate most strongly on?) models and _interpretable_ (what do the model's parameters tell me about the data?) models.

The distinction is this: explanations can only be made _ex post facto_ , about why the model acted a certain way based on specific inputs; interpretations can be made based on the model's parameters themselves, i.e., "feature X is very important and feature Y is almost always ignored and I know this because my NN is one layer deep and all the weights for feature X are large in magnitude and all the weights for feature Y are small in magnitude." This does not require specific inputs to be fed, and specific outputs to be studied, so is a different concept and why I am suggesting we make the distinction explicit.

<comment><USER5> Zachary Lipton has a really good taxonomy of the different things people refer to when they talk about interpretability and explainability here:

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.03490.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.03490.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm surprised there is no mention of capsules and capsule-routing algorithms.

Capsules are groups of neurons that represent _discrete entities_ in different contexts. For example, a 4x4 pose matrix is a capsule representing a particular object in different orientations seen from different viewpoints. Similarly, a subword embedding can be seen as a capsule with vector shape representing a particular subword in different natural language contexts. More generally, a capsule can have any shape, but it always represents only one entity in some context.

In certain new capsule-routing algorithms -- e.g., EM routing[a], Heinsen routing[b], dynamic routing[c], to name a few off the top of my head[d] -- each capsule can activate or not _depending on whether the entity it represents is detected or not in the context of input data_.

Models using these algorithms therefore make it possible for human beings to interpret model behavior _in terms of capsule activations_ \-- e.g., "the final layer predicts label 2 because capsules 7, 23, and 41 activated the most in the last hidden routing layer."

While these new routing algorithms are not yet widely used, in my humble opinion they present a promising avenue of research for building models that are explainable and/or enable assignment of causality at high levels of function composition.

\--

[a] [https://research.google/pubs/pub46653/](https://research.google/pubs/pub46653/)

[b] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00792](https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00792)

[c] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09829](https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09829)

[d] If you're aware of other routing algorithms that can similarly activate/deactivate capsules, please post a link to the paper or code here.

<comment><USER7> It should be pretty obvious why, they don't work as well as what is standard. This is about ways to explain the models we get good performance with.

<comment><USER6> Not sure I agree, for two reasons. First, capsule networks have been shown to outperform standard architectures in at least some tasks (see the above papers). Second, and perhaps more importantly, the large and growing chorus of people -- from corporate executives to government regulators -- asking for models that are "explainable" and "interpretable" really couldn't care less as to what kinds of models are used. (In my experience, non-technical people with decision-making power are almost always willing to trade performance for better explainability/interpretability/assignment.)

<comment><USER8> If you want interpretability you can use Transformer and look at the attention heads. Or, like in a recent paper, train a language model to give textual justifications for its decision.

<comment><USER6> Yes. Been there, done that (by "that" I mean looking at attention heads, not generating verbal "justifications" \-- the latter is on my want-to-try-it list, even if only out of curiosity) :-)

FYI, Vaswani-style query-key-value self-attention mechanisms can be understood as a type of capsule-routing algorithm -- one in which the capsules are in the form of vector embeddings (each representing a token in a context), the activations are in the form of attention heads (representing which input tokens are most active for each output token), and the number of input and output capsules is the same (for every input token there is an output token).

Here, I'm talking more generally about using capsule-routing algorithms in which the capsules can be of any shape (they can be vectors, matrices, or higher-order tensors), the activations can be computed via different proposed mechanisms (including self-attention of course), and the number of input and output capsules need not be the same (e.g., with some algorithms it's possible to have a variable number of input capsules and a fixed number of output capsules).

As I wrote elsewhere on this thread, the routing algorithms I find most interesting are those in which each output capsule is a probabilistic model that "must explain input data better than other output capsules" in order for the capsule to activate.[a]

[a] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067556](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067556)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For those interested in this area for PyTorch models, take a look at Captum ([https://captum.ai/](https://captum.ai/)). Still a lot of work to do, but we've provided a number of algorithms described in this field guide in the library. Always looking for collaborators and contribution of others.

Disclosure: I support the team that developed Captum.

<comment><USER10> That's really cool! My Deep Learning class used Captum for our assignments with GradCAM activations; it's a very convenient tool for interpreting model activations on images.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thanks for posting. This seems interesting. It takes a while to get to making good points but they provide a good overview of how the various parts of safety, trust, ethics are explored by various explanatory methods like visualization, model distilation, and "intrinsic" methods. It seems like they're not actually addressing the issue of explainability but more the tools that are available for trying to debug extremely large programs composed of matrix multiplications and function applications. It seems like "explainable" in this context really means "debuggable" and "debugging tools".

Because fundamentally neural networks really have a debuggability problem. It's impossible to say if the program/code is actually correct and I'm not sure how visualization is actually going to solve the problem of correctness. If someone explained something to me I'd want to know why it actually addresses whatever problem they claim it addresses and their reasons of appealing to distilled models would not convince me because as long as we are looking at a compressed version of the program then why would we conclude that the larger program is actually correct and never misclassifies a pigeon as a stop sign? So if I can't be sure that a pigeon will never be classified as a stop sign then what has been actually explained and of what value is it?

</comment><comment><USER12> Lost me at the first sentence.

> Deep neural network (DNN) is an indispensable machine learning tool for > achieving human-level performance on many learning tasks.

Not to be pedantic, but words matter. Is anyone actually claiming that deep learning achieves true "human-level performance" on any real world open-ended learning task?

Even the most state of the art computer vision/object classification algorithms still don't generalize to weird input, like familiar objects presented at odd angles.

I get that the author is trying to write something motivating and inspirational, but it feels like claiming "near" or "quasi"-human performance, with disclaimers, would be a more intellectually honest way to introduce the subject.

<comment><USER13> > Is anyone actually claiming that deep learning achieves true "human-level > performance" on any real world open-ended learning task?

No, but the text you quoted doesn't say that.

Human level performance in this context means humans perform no better than some algorithm on some specific dataset.

Incidentally, that's also how you get to claim superhuman performance on classification tasks. Just include some classes that aren't commonly known in your dataset, e.g. dog breeds, plant species, or something like that. ;)

<comment><USER12> > No, but the text you quoted doesn't say that [deep learning achieves human- > level performance

Uh, it says DNNs are indispensable for achieving human level performance. That clearly implies that this level of performance is achievable, despite all evidence to the contrary.

<comment><USER14> This is a weird interpretation of that sentence. There are lots of fields where human-level performance has been achieved. See Go, for example.

<comment><USER15> Maybe you need an RNN to help parse that sentence!! :-)

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

etc</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Aaron Swartz's FBI File Released - <AUTHOR> http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/02/19/aaron-swartzs-fbi-file/

<comment><USER2> Just a note about redaction -- my personal experience with FBI redaction is that it is completely subjective based upon the person who happens to be doing the redaction. There isn't some giant conspiracy to omit facts -- sometimes the person redacts too much, other times they screw up, etc. I've had names redacted on one page, only to appear non-redacted a few pages later. Even in cases where I've sent in death certificates for certain names (I know for a fact who the redacted person is), the name is still redacted in the output. I'm sure it is a very laborious, human process and all such processes involve a lot of errors.

<comment><USER3> Having had a great deal of personal experience with the FBI and the channels and management they're required to use and satisfy, I can verify that it's entirely accurate that everything is down to the individual. It's exactly the same kind of bureaucracy people complain about in large companies, except that the very bare possibility of change we hold on to in large corporate environments is not present.

Working with that organization in particular will teach you very quickly about the kind of immense roadblocks that exist to even the more "moderate" of conspiracy theories. Not only are they beholden to absolutely everyone, they don't have time to make things up or bury facts. Obviously there are exceptions, but this and most other government agencies are just loose conglomerations of individuals doing a never-ending amount of thankless work with the reward of being scrutinized and accused of every possible crime at every possible turn.

I hold government and its agencies in no high regard, because people are people and we all suck in our own way, but suggesting conspiracy at certain levels is just laughable.

<comment><USER4> "Having had a great deal of personal experience with the FBI [..] suggesting conspiracy at certain levels is just laughable"

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

Read that. Unless you can pinpoint how everything changed radically since then, I say heh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazon handed over his account details with very little prodding. No mention of a warrant. Making connections from AWS is probably more incriminating than making them from your home internet connection (your home connection has certain protection)

</comment><comment><USER6> While we're talking about it... I sent in a FOIA request recently, and it came back a few days ago as 404 File Not Found. I previously sent in requests in 2009 and 2010 and never received replies. From talking with others, they claim that these requests should be on a record and that my 2013 request should have returned evidence of my 2009 and 2010 requests. Does anyone have a scoop on this?

<comment><USER7> Can you post these responses online? Especially the 404 one. Just curious.

<comment><USER6> I am traveling at the moment, but I could type them up when I get back. Shoot me an email reminder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems odd that his whole file would be an entire 23 pages in its entirety, and amount to 21 releasable pages without a single page relating in any way to anything other than publicizing the PACER records.

Surely they have more...

<comment><USER2> The FBI is part of the DoJ but I'm not sure if it is a fact that the FBI was involved with what went down recently. The DoJ has a separate FOIA process, so I am assuming that an FOIA can be made to them for all files related to their prosecution. I'd be shocked if some person or organization has not already started this process..

edit: DoJ FOIA <http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-request.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> FYI, Aaron himself posted his FBI file back in 2009:

<http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/fbifile>

Has anything else been added since?

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like there are a few more pages, but most of it seems to overlap with what Aaron already posted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone else find it weird they included his social security number (page 5)? With the amount of detail they included it seems as though it would be fairly easy for someone to use any FBI file on a deceased person for fraudulent purposes, ID theft, or accessing accounts at companies who may not realize he is deceased yet.

<comment><USER11> Your social security number becomes public record once you die.

The situation with the Social Security Death Master File (SSDMF) / Social Security Death Index (SSDI) is very similar to the situation with PACER.

List from Nov 2011, obtained legally by <http://ssdmf.info/>

[https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7193029/Social_Security_Deat...](https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7193029/Social_Security_Death_Master_File_20120321)

The SSA would love to insist that redistribution is illegal, because the price of the SSDMF is outrageous and a cash cow, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. The SSDI is public record, and because it's a database with no creative element, it's not copyrightable even if it were compiled by someone other than the government.

Official sources for the SSDMF:

<https://www.ssdmf.com/>

<http://www.ntis.gov/products/ssa-dmf.aspx>

<comment><USER12> It would be really meta if Aaron had snarfed this one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It makes me sad the NYT story brought on extra heat. As a journalist, it stinks when collateral damage like such happens in the name of "truth" or some other subjective good. Good reminder to be careful what you say to the press.

</comment><comment><USER14> Many of the pages were the same with different redactions, but the FBI withheld 2 claiming privacy, sources and methods, and the danger that physical harm would come to someone if they released them.

\- Dan Wright, FireDogLake.com

<comment><USER15> Minor note: we don't do signatures at the end of comments on HN.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

"Please don't sign comments, especially with your url. They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile."

<comment><USER14> Sorry about that. First comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Any non-scribd mirrors?

<comment><USER16> Just click the download button below the document. Here's a mirror if you can't access scribid for whatever reason: <http://www.filedropper.com/126146785-aaron-h-swartz-fbi-file>

<comment><USER17> The requires logging in, not exactly "pro privacy."

<comment><USER18> What about this: [https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14707221/random/126146785-Aaron- H-S...](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14707221/random/126146785-Aaron-H-Swartz-FBI- File.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How much do you want to bet that someone manually goes through to scrub the personal information on every page...any other reasons the white out boxes would be so inconsistent?

<comment><USER19> This is correct. Redactions are typically handled manually. In the legal industry, for instance, this task is typically assigned to contract attorneys or paralegal staff.

There are of course auto-redacting solutions available, but due to the nature of the documents (scanned, inconsistent formats), and the potential consequences of either mis-applying a redaction or omitting one, manual verification is required.

<comment><USER20> > In the legal industry, for instance, this task is typically assigned to > contract attorneys or paralegal staff.

Or junior associates :(

<comment><USER21> Hmmm--do I detect a bit of personal knowledge of this activity?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand. Was this file officially released?

<comment><USER23> Yes. Under the Freedom of Information Act, anyone can request US government documents (such as FBI files) and the relevant agency will send you the unclassified parts.

<comment><USER22> For any case or only for cases that were closed? And they don't even remove SSN, addresses and phone numbers?

<comment><USER24> You can request a file on any deceased person, and they'll give it to you in most cases.

Social security numbers of the deceased are also public information. Helps to prevent identity theft issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Why are documents from legal proceedings worth millions of dollars? Aren't they public domain?

<comment><USER26> From the file:

"PACER normally carries an eight cents per page fee, however, by accessing from one of the seventeen libraries, users may search and download data for free."

And:

"The two accounts were responsible for downloading more than eighteen million pages with an approximate value of $1.5 million."

~18MM pages at $0.08/page ~= $1.5 million

So downloading a document is stealing printing fees from the courts, apparently.

My personal favorite part of the file so far:

"The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that the PACER system was being inundated with requests. One request was being made every three seconds."

I actually applied for a programming job with the Federal Courts in San Antonio about a decade ago when I was desperate for work. Cattle-call interview with ~100 easy questions, then they'd call you back that afternoon for a panel interview if you did well. I was criticized for dressing "too casual", despite wearing $400 worth of new clothes I couldn't afford. Apparently, suits are needed for programming, which also involves crawling around courtrooms installing equipment. Got the job offer a few days later for $55K/year. I mentioned that the newspaper ad said the position paid $78K, and politely attempted to negotiate. Five minutes later, I got an email saying they were rescinding the offer. Classy folks.

<comment><USER27> I hope you're happily employed now!

Posting your experience with the Federal Courts is helpful, thanks.

<comment><USER26> Thanks! Very happily employed now at a former startup that I also interviewed with back then. Decided not to go with them at the time because their 5-year plan was to sell the company within a year and move on to something else. They got bought out, I found another job, and when I got sick of that, got an interview here through a friend, and wished I'd started 6 years sooner.

Somewhat back on topic, since my current company was built on RSS initially, I doubt I'd even have this job without Aaron Swartz.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


OtherOS Supported on "3.21OO" - <AUTHOR> http://geohotps3.blogspot.com/2010/04/otheros-supported-on-321oo.html <comment><USER2> I hope this becomes an example for other companies in the future-- if you make your platform more closed than it needs to be, you will have things like custom firmwares, jailbreaking and other such attacks made by customers looking to utilize their own devices.</comment>


Why the immune system is so damn complicated - <AUTHOR> http://yarchive.net/blog/medicine/immune_system_complexity.html <comment><USER2> The immune system's basically the product of an arms race between humans and microbes. It's complicated because different mechanisms are independent: Adding a new mechanism allows it to kill a few more microbes without subverting the effectiveness of existing mechanisms.

Humans have an intrinsic advantage in that they're big creatures that can use strategies not available to single-celled organisms. E.g. having different specialist cell types that signal each other, or altering the homeostasis set point to change the ambient environment (fever).</comment>


You Can't Multitask, So Stop Trying (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2010/12/you-cant-multi-task-so-stop-tr <comment><USER2> Huh? Why can't we? My mom's been doing this for I believe the moment I was born? What do you expect the definition of multi-tasking? Doing one other task with two hands at the same time?

Even doing just one job, you are multi-tasking. How about me typing, I'm not just typing these words by my mind, I use it with my hand. So just the basic thought of that, I'm multi-tasking.

I can't even comprehend how can one can't multi-task. Even when you walk, you're not just walking, you're also balancing that's also a multi-tasking I believe.

<comment><USER3> Typing with your hands while thinking with your brain is a different kind of multi-tasking to walking down the street while using your eyes to stare at a screen when you should be using your eyes to look where you are going.

<comment><USER4> Or worse, driving your car. A friend was recently almost killed by someone texting at the wheel :(</comment></comment></comment>


WordStar: A writer's word processor - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/wordstar-a-writers-word-processor/ <comment><USER2> This brings backs a lot of memories, not because of WordStar but Turbo Pascal. It used the same keyboard shortcuts and editing features which contributed to its success and created the concept of IDE.</comment>


Drivers who keep their windows down are exposed to 80 percent more air pollution - <AUTHOR> https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/drivers-who-keep-their-windows-down-are-exposed-80-percent-more-air-pollution <comment><USER2> You can smell car exhaust even when there's not many cars on the road; if it's bad enough you can virtually taste it. Sitting at the lights is the worst. All that shit going into your lungs. And I don't even live in India or Vietnam, where the air pollution is unbelievably bad (literally - I did not truly get how bad it is in Delhi until I went there, even having seen photos) and people are just living in it, day in and day out.

In 5-10 years one of the things that will be recognized as a marker of privilege will be breathing clean air. We're going to see a diaspora out of the city and into the countryside... for the people who can afford to do that (and where the countryside offers clean air)

Air pollution is arguably the biggest health crisis in the world, and it has been a problem for decades. We're only just realising it, and it's still taking too long. It's taken decades to get climate change into people's minds, but right now today air pollution is having much bigger effects.

<comment><USER3> >We're going to see a diaspora out of the city and into the countryside

I think that instead we will see cleaner air in cities since the economics of electric/hybrid cars will win, especially in city traffic. This trend can already be seen in SF where zero-emission hybrids and electrics make up a decent percentage of the traffic.

<comment><USER4> You talk about these things like they are the future. But western cities are already much much cleaner than 40 years ago. The move to electric cars and more livable cities is just the continuation of a fight that has been going on at least since the industrial revolution and adoption of hygiene.

<comment><USER5> Long before the industrial revolution. Horse manure and slaughter runoff were huge sources of disease in cities even before coal smoke took over the air.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > " According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), air pollution kills an > estimated seven million people worldwide every year and nine out of 10 > people breathe air with high levels of pollutants."

This is approximately half the deaths we would expect worldwide if no country was to do anything and we'd let COVID-19 rage through our societies.

Why is our response to air pollution so drastically different then? We don't even implement a single day lockdown to reduce pollution for a single day. I'm sure air pollution also disproportionately affects young children and damages their lungs as opposed to Coronavirus.

This world is so weird.

<comment><USER7> You can't really prevent pollution deaths easily. You'd need to retrofit thousands of factories, construction sites, billions of cars, etc.

The solutions for Covid are quite simple in principle but our lack of discipline in minor things is killing us.

<comment><USER8> GP's point is fair though. Many developed economies are spending literally hundreds of billions of dollars tackling COVID. Have we done proper cost/benefit analyses to verify whether that money could save or improve more lives in other areas?

<comment><USER9> Look at the response to things such as mass shootings which, statistically, represent a small fraction of the total murders committed. Terrorist attacks (in the west) receive a disproportionate amount of attention compared to other problems as well.

Perhaps it's because these things can disrupt anyone's daily life seemingly at random. Pollution on the other hand is just part of our daily lives. There are other things which fall into that category as well such as smoking, fast food, alcohol, etc.

Perhaps we as a species, rightly or wrongly, fear the unexpected more than we fear the status quo, even if the latter is more harmful than the former. So we allocate resources to fix the former but not the latter.

<comment><USER10> I mean, there's good reason for this. Air pollution is manageable because it's known, the market and people can take it into account and try and make informed decisions. Terrorists attacks do not have this property and the variance of the people they kill is quite high. This makes it hard to ignore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Professor Prashant Kumar, Director of GCARE at the University of Surrey, said: "To be blunt, we need as many cars as possible off the road, or more green vehicles to reduce air pollution exposure."

We need to stop using ICE vehicles. All the other people on the street are even worse off. The people driving the cars are also _causing_ the very pollution this mentions.

<comment><USER12> Unfortunately, brake dust and tire rubber also represents a surprisingly large amount of particulate matter as well. I wish I had the source, but it was far more significant than I ever would have guessed.

(I have an EV, a gasoline powered sports car, and a diesel SUV (with particulate filter and urea injection))

<comment><USER13> EV regen braking partially helps with the brake dust, at least. May be counteracted by the tire rubber because EVs can be driven in a more "spirited" way.

<comment><USER12> Great point.

I also find it humorous that the busybodies who insist that stop signs be installed every block of their neighborhood arterial have to suffer from the resulting air and noise pollution.

I drive 'spiritedly', but I suppose the tire wear due to hard cornering is not nearly offset by the saved brake pad and exhaust emissions!

<comment><USER14> So you're getting mad at people who are reacting irrationally to you speeding through neighborhoods?

I think there's more than one problem here.

<comment> kube-system Stop signs are a pretty bad solution for traffic calming, though. The key to effective traffic calming is to shape drivers' natural behaviors, not authoritatively demand it.

A stop sign that serves no purpose than to slow people down will piss off drivers more than anything, and lead to people speeding between signs or running them. It will make your street noisier as impatient people aggressively obey the signs.

A typical neighborhood would be much better off if traffic was calmed by adding kerb extensions or narrowing the lanes.

I think the above commenter might share my frustration that local politics is often full of people unknowingly demanding the wrong solution to their problem.

<comment><USER15> As someone who lives in a neighborhood full of stop signs (just about every other street is signed), I find that it actually does _exactly_ what you're saying, i.e. shape drivers' natural behaviors.

Almost everyone elects to drive on one of the nearby "thoroughfares" rather than stop and start all the way through the neighborhood. So I see stop signs as the perfect solution.

I'd agree this wouldn't probably work on a road that sees heavy traffic already though.

<comment><USER16> Except where I live they also put stop signs on the thoroughfares. Some places just have messed up traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting compared to other study showing that cyclists are least exposed to pollution on their commute: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/cyclists- exposed-to-less-air-pollution-than-drivers-on-congested-routes-study)

<comment><USER18> ...only because they spent less time commuting

>All the commuters set off at the same time, and the cyclists were by far the fastest, arriving in 11 minutes, half the time of bus and car travellers.

Buses and cars still do better when you're measuring pollution per minute

<comment><USER19> That Guardian article also mentions "green routes", taking side streets or pedestrian / bicycle walkways. There's a lot less pollution in those areas than on a busy road.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Cruel irony that cyclists, part of the solution, inhale the worst of the problem.

<comment><USER21> This is why it would be only fair if there was regulation that said that a car's exhaust must end in the cabin.

<comment><USER22> While we are at it, let's make sure that any toilet flush goes directly back into one's water supply and disposal of waste and trash takes place in the household's garden.

<comment><USER23> We used to have a system where people ejected sewage into the street, too. It's telling that you equate air pollution to sewage, and then imply that pumping it into the street constitutes proper disposal.

<comment><USER24> I think you are missing GP's point: a parent post to theirs is suggesting piping exhaust gasses from cars into the very small space that cabin has. Our sewage does go to rivers, lakes or seas (a huge environmental issue as well), so GPs example is quite to the point, because that's the equivalent in water use (with the benefit that our apartments are bigger and we do not reuse the water right away so there is more time to filter waste out).

If you still don't get the parallel, let's move one step up: all greenhouse gasses produced from your energy use in your apartment have to stay in (including those from coal power plants, grocery production and delivery...). Sorry, no opening windows for you to get your own CO2 out to other people.

My point is that air is a shared resource, and thus a shared responsibility. But someone turning the narrative extreme does not help drive any solution forward (I am reminded of Stan's dad Randy getting a Prius in Southpark).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Seems like the focus should be on not poisoning the air in the first place.

<comment><USER26> My dad was telling us how, given that my spouse drives a lot of highway kilometers to work, we should totally get some air filter. A few days later I randomly realized: why don't we put that filter on the _exhaust_ if it's so bad?!

<comment><USER27> It would only work if exhaust filters were mandatory for all cars, since the environment is "free" to ruin for anyone it doesn't make economical sense to install an exhaust filter unless you're legally obliged.

<comment><USER26> Sure, we already have a load of regulations to make cars less pollutive. Would this be unreasonable? People are already putting this in their car, just not on the business end.

It's also not just other drivers or the poor environment: a huge number of people (I'd speculate that it's the majority) live near busy roads. Adverse health effects from breathing near a busy road are common knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > air pollution kills an estimated seven million people worldwide every year

<comment><USER29> Imagine if climate change is actually a liberal hoax, and the only thing that cleaning up the air would do is make it easier to see Starlink at night and save seven million souls a year. Still seems worth it.

<comment><USER30> Taking your situation at face value, in that case people would spend a lot on filters but keep carbon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I was surprised to learn recently that there is a cheap and easy to take action that will reduce your exposure to air pollution while driving: Replace your passenger-compartment air filter with a HEPA filter! Most cars made in the last 15 years or so have an air filter right before the AC. You can, for slightly more money, replace this with a HEPA filter. I haven't tested, but this will probably be very effective, since the car is such a small space and there is so much pollution outside.

Replacing the filter is an incredibly easy job on most cars. You don't need any tools or even to open the hood. You just pull out your glove box, and then the filter slides in and out.

I honestly think that in terms of health, this might be the action that has the highest ROI. (Amount of health improvement per amount of time / money invested.)

</comment><comment><USER32> "The study found that commuters who turn on the recirculation are exposed to around 80 percent less harmful particles than those who open their car windows."

Doesn't that mean they have 5 times more exposure, not 80% more?

<comment><USER33> It depends on how they calculated percent change, but looking at the journal article, you are correct. From the abstract...

> Compared with recirculation, PM2.5 and PM10 were higher by up to 589% > (Blantyre) and 1020% (São Paulo), during windows-open and higher by up to > 385% (São Paulo) and 390% (São Paulo) during fan-on, respectively.

The headline should read 400% more to reflect the 80% reduction. This is a massive failure of the university press office and I think your comment should be at the top.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The article says "in-car air pollution" and does not once mention toxic emissions from BPA, flame retardants, lead, chromium and other materials used in automobile interior construction. Is that a solved problem?

</comment><comment><USER35> I can't stand having my windows down, at least at any speed over like 30mph.

The pressure differential messes with my ears. I can't understand people who cruise around with the windows down.

<comment><USER36> It really depends on the profile of the car. Some have almost no bad pressure/sound effects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Huh, the headline is very general, but they did the study in poor cities...

At least in the EU/US there are emission standards that have to be met for cars to be legally allowed on the road. I wonder how that affects things.

Then again, Dieselgate has shown that almost all car manufacturers make their engines to barely pass the imperfect test, but that real life driving is way worse than the pollution figures on paper.

<comment><USER38> The regulations are indeed shit. The conditions of the tests do not correspond to anything realistic.

Just look at the curve of the WLTP test on Wikipedia : [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_V...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Vehicles_Test_Procedure#/media/File%3AClass_3b.svg)

Who drives like this? 1 minute to reach the high speed on the high speed test for example. The speed is never maintained, it's either accelerating or slowing down.

Today you see hybrids cars with tiny batteries that are close to useless just to meet regulations. In practice these hybrid cars smoke a lot, because it's cold and the battery is cold, because it's warm and you want AC, because you need to not drive too slow in the traffic, because the battery is already empty.

When the diesel gate happened, the French minister of the environment decided to test many cars on a track. They never published the results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Cabin filters were invented for a reason.

Change them at regular intervals, or, in extra heavy traffic, put the recirculator on.

It'll make the air stuffy, but will keep it cleaner than it would have been otherwise. Don't keep it on for too long though, as the CO2 levels will start to rise and you might begin to lose concentration.

<comment><USER40> >put the recirculator on

...and yet, the majority of cars (IME) default to recirc off.

<comment><USER41> What percentage of the air in the cabin actually passes through the cabin filter? Cabin filters are too small to filter the amount of air required for more than one human, let alone a packed car with 5 or more. Air gets in through seams and gaps and cars aren't very airtight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I haven't seen this in the comments but its one reason I wonder why convertibles sell so well in the UK. I have a sun roof and i hardly ever use it because i hate the smell of exhaust. I may use the sunroof on a coastal road once in a while but not for long periods. I chose the car i drive because it has a hepa filtration system built into the climate control. I agree with comments about pollution but i must add that as a motorcyclist for a decade in London i blamed most pollution on short journeys like school runs. During school breaks the roads were much cleaner. So getting everyone to commute to work by bike won't fix the problem when from experience most of the pollution is parents taking kids to school!

</comment><comment> rv-de But if the window is up, nobody can listen to my music. Which is necessary for me to self-medicate my ADD ... :(

</comment><comment><USER43> Am I the only one who noticed the headline and article say completely contradictory things?

<comment> Const-me I did, but I think that's an English language issue. Apparently, by "keep windows down" they have meant "keep them shut down". Completely counter- intuitive to me, vast majority of car windows move the other way, down to open, up to close.

<comment><USER44> I'm not sure I follow: in both the title and article, keeping windows down means allowing air from outside through the windows, no? Surely closing the windows cannot expose one to more air pollution than opening them?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Emissions Analytics found that emissions of particulate matter from tire wear can be 1,000 times worse than from tailpipes.

[https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127424_study- particula...](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127424_study-particulate- emissions-from-tire-wear-is-higher-than-from-tailpipes)

This is a rapidly increasing problem as more EVs, which are very heavy on tire wear, generate more pollution. Good idea to stay on top of alignment: [https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/unusual-tire- wear.10...](https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/unusual-tire-wear.108481/)

<comment><USER46> >The hatchback's tires emitted 5.8 grams of particulate matter per kilometer

This number seems incredibly suspect. It's far too high. That rate of loss cannot be sustained. Either their research is wrong or loss levels off dramatically and quickly. At that rate of loss the tires, across 4 tires at 27 lbs each, would evaporate in 8500km and realistically be unusable after under a thousand.

<comment><USER47> That might be right for an F1 car, they go through two sets of tires a race.

<comment><USER48> It says "hatchback", so: no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Sponsored by your friendly manufacturers of auto cabin air filters.

[In all honesty, my auto's cabin air filter is _always_ far dirtier than the engine's air filter.]

</comment><comment><USER50> It's a shame, because I like to keep my windows cracked every so slightly. It helps me hear where all of the cars are around me.

</comment><comment><USER51> In pandemic times I only ride e-hailed taxies with the window opened at least 50%.

Guess it's a matter of picking my poison.

</comment><comment><USER52> Another way in which the poor are disproportionately affected.

Driving a beater with no AC in the summer? All windows down.

</comment><comment><USER53> Dang, not looking good for the convertible lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER54> I know people who live next to a busy highway. They are scientifically proven to die a few years before their high income peers living in a nice secluded villa. Not all animals are equal.

</comment><comment><USER55> I always use 64x drivers for my windows 10. I don't use open source drivers but only proper ones from the manufacturers. I don't think this would expose me to more air pollution.

<comment><USER56> It might not, but your "proper" drivers may be of poor quality and expose you to other issues.</comment></comment>


Are You Popular? - <AUTHOR> http://www.archive.org/details/AreYouPo1947 ...wow. <comment><USER2> The only thing that could have made that worse (aka better) is a 40-year old Bette Davis stealing the show as the "bad" teenager.

</comment><comment><USER3> No.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not. Should I /slit?</comment>


Camera Restricta: A disobedient tool for taking unique photographs - <AUTHOR> http://philippschmitt.com/projects/camera-restricta <comment><USER2> This gets an A for quality agit-prop art in my mind; I immediately started coming up with objections as if I was actually going to be using one. My first was "what if I want people I know in my photos?" My second thought was "You could just include a highly rated photo someone else took in your photo roll," followed by "But what about licensing?"

We could also imagine Camera Commons: distributed by EFF and Google and Yahoo, and encourages you to take photos places that have no CC-licensed photography that rates highly on flickr, but all your images are CC0 licensed. The better your average rating, the more frequently they send you new models.

</comment><comment><USER3> The camera could take his one stage further - when you pick the camera up in a well-photographed location, it just downloads the most popular shot from there. This would save you the effort of framing your shot entirely, and you'd always end up with a perfect picture :)

<comment><USER4> For a less absurdist but similar idea, it would actually be really neat to have a tool that can take a group of your photos and match them with one popular CC-licensed one that adds more context to the scene.

e.g. you and your friends at the base of the Eiffel Tower, and the album automatically has a suitably well-framed picture of the landmark as a whole added as a backdrop, that kind of thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is everyone missing the point? Yea sure this doesn't accurately determine whether a picture is original. Of course it's not practical. Of course you would not buy this. That isn't the point. This project is itself art.

<comment><USER6> This is kind of amusing reading a bunch of engineers try to apply engineering thinking to art.

<comment><USER7> I think they're "playing along" and trying to make a piece of performance art about people not recognizing performance art or art criticism, a statement against lack of artistic creativity, or whatever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A nice theoretical exercise but I slightly disagree with the rationale. In a popular area, an artist could have a different view from others. Perhaps it's the late-morning mist, another person in the view, sun rays at a different time, or maybe a new lens and different settings that lets you view the space in a totally different perspective.

Also taking a picture in a new or unpopular area doesn't make it more worthy than other pictures. Perhaps the place is unappealing and bland.

<comment><USER9> And dramatically underestimates the need for additive photography. Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots, New York during and after 9/11, etc., would all be blocked out by this.

Moreover, my vanity photos would almost certainly be excluded. I'm certainly not the first guy to take a photo of Haleiwa during the Triple Crown of surfing, but my photo is likely the only one that has me in them, and that, along with the memories that photo will evoke, are definitely not things I want to exclude from my life.

Understanding that this is probably a political statement (of which I'm not entirely clear yet), it's certainly a damned disturbing one.

<comment><USER10>
        > this is probably a political statement (of which I'm
        > not entirely clear yet)

From the article:

        <title>... disobedient

        > The European Parliament recently voted against a
        > controversial proposal that threatened to restrict
        > the photography of copyrighted buildings and
        > sculptures from public places.

        > The camera could be funded or subsidized by public
        > and private sector institutions with an interest in
        > regulating photography in certain places.

<comment><USER9> Thanks. I mean, I see that, I'm just not entirely sure how this is a response to it. Probably I'm just missing the link between copyright and 'already photographed', and/or whether or not that itself is a part of the commentary, or if it is just an implementation detail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The forum equivalent would be similar to ROBOT9000[1] by xkcd. Could this idea be extended to image sharing sites? An r9k for imgur?

[1] [http://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/14/robot9000-and-xkcd-signal- at...](http://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/14/robot9000-and-xkcd-signal-attacking- noise-in-chat/)

</comment><comment><USER12> FWIW, you could classify this as "Interrogative Design," a practice accelerated by Krzysztof Wodiczko, who lived under communist oppression in Poland, but now has had cushy positions at MIT and Harvard [1 ]

He focuses a lot on projections now, but in the past and his students have, made lots of "fake devices" or in Chris Csiksmihalyi's practice "edgy products" which typically misfunction in order to start conversations or get us to see things outside our usual waking trance. In a way, they're like small hacks that hackers do which invert or reveal power relationships.... (the big difference is these art projects don't usually always actually work -not that they really have to though, but if it often creates confusion and/or animosity from real hackers). Anyway, there are lots of great pieces in this category, see [2] and there are many more.

Protip: Once you start to see things through this lens, you'll realize that so many other actual projects have unintentional profiles as Interrogative Designs

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

[ 2 ] [http://www.interrogative.org/projects/](http://www.interrogative.org/projects/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Almost all photos are copyrighted and not licensed for my use. In practice I rarely worry much about it, and I doubt it is very common to think "I must take my own photo of the Washington Monument, because how else will I get permission to decorate my travelogue?" but still. It is great that image data is so abundant, but it's a shame that it's also artificially scarce.

</comment><comment><USER14> You want to restrict the number of similar pictures, not the number of pictures taken at a specific spot. So you should decide based on the what's in the view of the lens, or after taking the picture.

Imagine a polaroid camera that shreds the picture if it's deemed not original enough :)

<comment><USER15> That could be useful in all sorts of comments. A music composition app that destroys any work that's too derivative. A Twitter client that blocks repetitive tweets. Maybe Hacker News comments could benefit.

<comment><USER3> A hacker news bot that auto-posts common messages would save us lots of arguing time. e.g. Whenever a submission references some c/c++ code, the bot could auto-post a whole thread of arguments about 'why are people still using this insecure language?', thus saving HN denizens from posting and arguing over the same thing...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know if it constitutes a trend, but I've noticed several thought experiment projects like this that attempt to automate decision making in some way. The other one that comes to mind is the cell phone signal-blocking chair [1] that's somehow more convenient than turning off your phone (?)

It's kind of funny to watch us all try to use technology to save us from the adverse effects of technology.

[1] [http://inhabitat.com/take-a-break-from-the-wired-world- with-...](http://inhabitat.com/take-a-break-from-the-wired-world-with-this- awesome-signal-blocking-offline-chair/)

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure this project does "automate decision making." I'd argue that the intent is to encourage you to expand your photographic reputare beyond generic tourist snaps and other bland over-done photos.

My biggest criticism isn't the intent which I think could be legitimately useful. My issue is that they make assumptions about a photo's originality based purely on GPS coordinates, which is too simplistic.

I've taken terrible photos in unusual locations (e.g. taking pictures of pretty flowers in a field). I've also taken amazing photos in tourist traps by finding a different perspective, or just happened across a great picture opportunity.

In an ideal world this camera would use GPS and aim to determine how generic your picture really is (e.g. shooting straight up into the bottom of the Eiffel tower isn't original, sorry. But shooting the Eiffel tower with a bunch of toy Eiffel towers on a souvenir stand in the foreground is at least a little).

<comment><USER16> What I meant by "automate decision making" is that there _should_ be some measure of critical thought that goes into taking a photograph. How will I compose the frame? What am I really trying to capture?

This camera answers "Do a lot of other people take photos here?" which, as you point out, is an overly simplistic measure of a good photo.

But if you take this idea a little further and run some of that fancy deep- learnin' stuff of on your photos to search for common photography tropes (Oh, a macro shot of a flower? Pfft. Been done!), then you're just relegating more of your critical thinking to a machine.

<comment><USER17> I just see it as a way to snap people out of their patterns.

I try to be a photographer, and I know I myself get caught in patterns of shitty bland photos that I look at a year later and roll my eyes ("this thing has RUST on it!!! [snap] [snap] [snap]."

We both agree it may not work, but the concept is compelling if nothing else.

PS - To be frank however, if you really want to escape patterns one of these "one photo a day" challenges for a year that give you specific themes might be a better answer. If the themes are thoughtful it can help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I kind of wish it worked the opposite way: only allowing you to take pictures near other photo locations. That way you have to make a 'photo-journey' to get new locations in, and you'll leave a trail of experiences in your wake.

Then maybe someone could find a way to stitch those photos together.

</comment><comment><USER19> I had the same agitated reactions upfront. However, the same software presented differently, and suddenly youve a fun option to travel around a city and expand your photography. It could be a fun option for some, and obviously could be used maliciously as a form of control. All that said, though, this being the highlight of the camera is ridiculous. The times I want a regular camera with normal societal uses greatly outweighs the fun of this: Furthermore, I am an artist, and would find that this would greatly reduce my photography - sometimes surreal things happen in mundane but popular places.

</comment><comment><USER20> Many social platforms exist because of the power of their restrictions (twitter, snapchat, etc). I wouldn't be surprised to see this trend spread to rest of technology. I don't want technology that can make me anyone/anything; I want technology that will help me to be exactly who I want to be, and nothing else.

<comment><USER21> A restriction is not the same as preventing you from doing something. It should be called Camera Preventica.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why cannot photographs be simply for the reason of memories?Not everyone person who clicks them uses them for blog posts and aims for maximum number of shares. If I like particular moment,I would like to click a picture a of it.I would like the picture to be my own ,because I would have a descriptive commentary in my head for the picture.A single location being photographed 'too much' is really not an issue which needs solving does it.I like the use- case which requires the parent's permission for a child's picture.

But apart from that,I see this feature being exploited quite a fair bit.

PS : I am not trying to add destructive comments here.But imagine going on a 20k vacation with a 5k camera being told you are not allowed to click a picture.

</comment><comment><USER23> This reminds me of the wider-angle tourist shot of all the dozens of people taking the same "Look, I'm holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa!" pictures at the same time.

While that is certainly ridiculous, and this camera would prevent it, I am not a fan of buying tools that restrict how I may use them. You would have to pay me to use it.

I think a better way to accomplish a similar goal would be for the camera to give you a score for your photos. Zero points for duplicate photos. Lots of points for a photo that has never been taken before. Give out prizes and badges to the people who top the leaderboards.

But no, if I see "photography prohibited" on my camera, it's getting pwned and patched, or it's going in the trash.

<comment><USER24> martin parr:

[http://www.phaidon.com/resource/263-54.jpg](http://www.phaidon.com/resource/263-54.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I won't comment on the pragmatic side of this. But it is flawed even on the idea level, as it completely disregards time. And as we all know it "You could not step twice into the same river".

</comment><comment><USER26> Now if we could only apply the same technology to Hacker News comments.

</comment><comment><USER27> By "disobedient tool for taking unique photographs" I was expecting a camera that added some sort of noise/glitches/features to pictures to make them unique.

As an art project, it sounds provoking to restrict a fellow photographer to reinterpret an ordinary/popular scenery.

Looking through the lenses of an engineer, the GPS alone won't tell accurately enough the direction at which you are pointing. Would be nice to take that into consideration, forcing a building to be photographed from every angle.

</comment><comment><USER28> How about an augmented reality viewer that shows exactly where every known photo has been taken (say, showing the image planes floating in their space)? or a "photosynth" virtual camera that deduces, from other pictures taken nearby, what a photo would likely look like if taken from that spot (opposite of camera restricta, have camera deducia)?

</comment><comment><USER29> I wonder what the creator's thoughts are about Microsoft's Photosynth project - which relies on multiple photos of the same thing (like tourists would take).

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

</comment><comment><USER30> I think this is an awesome attistic statement, especially going the extra mild to build the camera. People might actually use this if it was an iPhone app. "400 people took photos of sushi in this location, proceed?". That would be really kind of a funny way to limit shitty photographs.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's bizarre that a photographic artist would want a tool that would essentially stiffle creativity (various lightings, lens filters, other artsy effects) ... I don't understand the point they are trying to make.

<comment><USER32> Yeah, I have absolutely no idea why anyone would buy this.

"Oh, it's a camera that won't allow me to take whatever picture I want. And it makes staticky, clicky noises, sounding like an ill dolphin. Just what I've always wanted in a camera!"

Can anyone give me a compelling reason why I should consider buying this thing?

<comment><USER33> why should you buy it? Because it's a work of art, and not a consumer device, mainly. Because it doesn't make logical sense.

It works as art and has value because it creates the things that we are talking about in this thread.

<comment><USER32> Why should I support so-called "art" that wants to restrict what I can do? Why should I spend any money on this garbage, when a digital camera from any Big Box store is clearly superior?

<comment><USER34> It was made as a political protest of legislation that was intended to block the amount of photography of buildings whose design was copyrighted. Unfortunately, it wasn't really a /good/ protest of such, so the discussion has become more a discussion as to if there's artistic quality in the banal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The most subversive thing about this device is its use of the WebAudio API.

</comment><comment><USER36> I want the internet to increase freedom, not restrict it. This is one camera I would never use. Besides, a GPS location is not a satisfactory representation of a photography's uniqueness.

<comment><USER37> Are you really judging a prop of a conceptual art performance as you would judge the next camera from Canon?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think the coolest part is the Geiger counter for number of images taken in an area. Having that playing while you walk around a new city could be a lot of fun.

<comment><USER39> It would be interesting to have a map of this and explore a new city by going to the spots with the most photos. It'd mainly be the tourist spots but it'd be more exciting than regular sight-seeing as you'd never know what you were on your way to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I do not care for the implicit commodification of human experience that flows from this proposal.

</comment><comment> r-w What if someone wants to take a snapshot on vacation as a way of remembering when they were last there? Maybe make an exception for photos with new faces. Also, who takes selfies/snapshots with a camera anymore? Everyone has a smartphone. Someone should pitch this to Apple.</comment>


Show HN: Command-Pal – The hackable command palette, inspired by VSCode - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/benwinding/command-pal <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

This is a small project I've been working on. It's a configurable _command palette_ library, which can easily be included in any website/webapp (works on mobile too!).

Demo: [https://benwinding.github.io/command-pal/demos/cp- advanced/](https://benwinding.github.io/command-pal/demos/cp-advanced/)

 _Command Palette 's_ are one of the best UX features you can include in an application and are beloved by many (searching in the HN site, almost all comments mentioning Command Palette's are positive)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=command%20palette&sort=byDate&type=comment)

Is this useful? Anyway let me know your thoughts!

Cheers,

Ben</comment>


Could Media Get Too Smart about Consumers? - <AUTHOR> http://techonomy.com/2013/11/media-get-smart-consumers/

<comment><USER2> Not to nit-pick but the "a" in that font ("15px/20px Swift") is completely distracting...

<comment><USER3> Couldn't read past the first two sentences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of a story I read where a father calling up target because they sent his teenage daughter a bunch of coupons on pregnancy related products based on her past purchases. Turns out target was correct... Still, they now try and disguise things by adding more random products to those coupons so it's less obvious when they figured out such things.

The problem IMO for online marketers is if your only doing one add you need to target the most likely purchases which get's you back into the creepy.

Edit: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how- targe...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target- figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/)

<comment><USER5> That's blogspam from Forbes. Actual link: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping- habits.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html)

Based on Charles Duhigg's very good book about habits.</comment></comment>


Employees Who Say vs. Employees Who Show - <AUTHOR> https://www.karllhughes.com/posts/sayers-vs-showers <comment><USER2> I'm sure there are people out there that are impervious to feedback and believe they have all the answser.

I've also seen countless of young engineers starting to welcome managers' feedback and "showing" their will to improve. Then, gradually,noticing their management incompetence (technical and/or managerial) and start "saying" stuff to avoid confrontation.

Self reexamination and accepting feeback is great to improve but what if the feedback is just plain wrong or contradictory ?

A lot a "sayers" in your team can be a red flag for your management skills.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _I take notes every week on every employee I manage to track specific > instances of positive and negative things they're doing. This is really > helpful for tracking behaviors in one-on-one reviews._

This seems to be on the micromanaging level of things. If you have to operate at this level, you're trying to "control" the all of the elements of the team dynamics, instead of letting the dynamics work for you.

A team is a team because it operates together. It isn't just about the manager-employee relationship.

> _Give specific expectations and behaviors that you want the employee to > execute. Don't be vague or use words like, "better" or "more". Be specific > by saying, "You need to complete all stories within 25% of your estimates > this month."_

This seems a bit metric-driven and metrics with a distribution of disproportionate work is going to drive bad culture and bad habits. The low- hanging fruit will drive metrics high for one individual and, if they're gaming the system, it will be obvious; but if it's all down to metrics, they're getting the job done, right?

<comment><USER4> I don't look at taking detailed feedback notes as micro-managing, but rather as a way to make sure employees get valuable, specific feedback.

As an example, if my boss said, "hey, you're not really doing that great," but didn't offer specific examples of how I underperformed, I'd be frustrated and not likely to improve. If she said, "Last week at the product meeting, I noticed you were staring off into space and then had to have a question repeated. Are you okay?" I'd be a lot more apt to open up a conversation about things that are bugging me.

I guess I take notes so that my feedback can be specific and not general, not so I can tell employees exactly how to do their jobs.</comment></comment>


Rails 5.0.0 beta released - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/releases/ <comment><USER2> They have switched to puma as a default. Kinda sudden for me. Puma is great though!

</comment><comment><USER3> Great to see that Rails still has so much momentum!</comment>


The End of Hypocrisy - <AUTHOR> http://cryptome.org/2013/10/end-hypocrisy-with-leaks.htm <comment><USER2> In our society many of us subconsciously or sometimes consciously turn down the volume of our own conscience, because we'd rather not come face to face with our hypocrisy, our complicity with banal and not so banal evil [1], because we don't want to give up the benefits. In the Internet tech community, its ultimate manifestation is how we pretend we do not earn our livelihoods from advertising, something most of us deep down know to be evil [2].

[1] The Banality of Systemic Evil, [http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the- banality...](http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality-of- systemic-evil/)

[2] No free lunch, no free web, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6624666](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6624666)

<comment><USER3> > In the Internet tech community, it's ultimate manifestation is how we > pretend we do not earn our livelihoods from advertising, something most of > us deep down know to be evil [2].

Thank you for calling out this one. I've been harshly criticized in the past for pointing out Google, which is beloved amongst geeks, is ultimately an advertising machine, and the reason they push many positive/geeky initiatives is because they have total consciousness of that ("Don't be Evil") and don't want to lose their talent pool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > most U.S. politicians do not recognize just how two-faced their country is.

> Hypocrisy is central to Washington's soft power -- its ability to get other > countries

> to accept the legitimacy of its actions -- yet few Americans appreciate its > role.

> Liberals tend to believe that other countries cooperate with the United > States because

> American ideals are attractive and the U.S.-led international system is > fair. Realists

> may be more cynical, yet if they think about Washington's hypocrisy at all, > they

> consider it irrelevant.

This is just astonishingly brilliant. It is exactly the perception of the rest of the world but I never saw it so bluntly articulated in the American media.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure about that. The claim that [insert political force here] is able to claim legitimacy only through hypocrisy is one of the oldest in politics, and the article does little to sustain the questionable assertion that most US politicians don't recognize the power game they're playing.

It also misses the obvious corollary: other countries' hypocrisy is key to their willingness to accept US soft power when it generally aligns with their interests. (And yes, they're being just as hypocritical when they do _selectively_ draw attention to America's hypocrisy) The article's claims that pre-Snowden "Chinese officials, although well aware that the Americans were acting hypocritically, avoided calling them out directly" are easily falsified by a quick search of Xinhua [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-01/24/c_131...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-01/24/c_13148512.htm) [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/10/c_138...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/10/c_13822179.htm)

There's nothing remotely novel about other countries' willingness to assert that the US is hypocritical (particularly when on the defensive) and nothing to suggest they won't continue to maintain the relationship despite the "shock revelations" of the last few years, which, if anything, are rather less surprising and compelling than the "shock revelations" of the generations before. If half a century of coup d'etats sponsored by American spooks can't dent the prestige of America's push for "global democracy", it's hardly going to be dented by hard evidence that American spooks also _spy_.

Just because Snowden woke up some of those so uninterested in politics they find claims of US hypocrisy novel doesn't mean the rest of the world was asleep.

<comment><USER6> 'The claim that [insert political force here] is able to claim legitimacy only through hypocrisy is one of the oldest in politics,' and it sounds like something from Noam Chomsky's playbook too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > That's because most of the world today lives within an order that the United > States built, one that is both underwritten by U.S. power and legitimated by > liberal ideas. American commitments to the rule of law, democracy, and free > trade are embedded in the multilateral institutions that the country helped > establish after World War II, including the World Bank, the International > Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and later the World Trade Organization.

Gee, all of this sounds pretty good! But as the author acknowledges, this is all "underwritten by U.S. power." I couldn't have put it better myself. If the cost of maintaining that power is some hypocrisy, then I say: there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.

The article reaches the core issue but has trouble grappling with it. Would any other approach be better than the one the U.S. is currently taking? Would it be beneficial to the developing nations of the world for the U.S. to abdicate its hegemony, leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China? Or would it instead be better for the U.S. to stop with the hipocrisy, and be clear about its naked intentions to maintain its power? Would the existing multilateral order survive that revelation? Or is the current, if hypocritical, state of affairs the best: for the U.S. to foster the current international order while acting behind the scenes to maintain the power that "underwrites" that order?

<comment><USER8> "Would it be beneficial to the developing nations of the world for the U.S. to abdicate its hegemony, leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China?"

The US is not limiting itself to keeping Russia and China in check, and that is the problem. Hardly anyone would claim that the US should abandon Taiwan to its fate. Yet at the same time, why is the US military being used to expand the reach of US businesses? Why are we in the business of support cruel dictators, and even overthrowing democratic governments in favor of dictatorships? Why continue the embargo on Cuba? Why do we ignore the UN when it suits us, then use the fact that a country ignores the UN as a pretense to attack it?

<comment><USER9> The answer is that we shouldn't be doing these things, but that the 50 years that have elapsed since the peak of the Cold War, in which both the Soviets and the US had influential voices espousing _preemptive nuclear strikes_ , is in world-historical context the blink of an eye, and it's going to take time and effort for us to shake off the strategies and positioning we (often foolishly) adopted to win that war.

Except for the UN thing. While I agree that the UN is used (on all sides) as a fig leaf, we haven't waited for countries to disobey the UN as an excuse to attack them, but rather used the UN fig leaf as part of a justification for wars that had already been decided on. In the case of Iraq II, that was a grave mistake on our part, but the mistake has little to do with respect for the UN. The UN is simultaneously important and undeserving of much respect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish HN contributors were more careful with their link titles. The actual article title, "End Hypocrisy with Leaks," is altogether different, and inestimably more reasonable, than the absurdly titled "The End of Hypocrisy."

<comment><USER11> "The End of Hypocrisy" is the actual title of the article, as you can see a few lines down in the linked post and wherever it is published elsewhere: [http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140155/henry- farrell-...](http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140155/henry-farrell-and- martha-finnemore/the-end-of-hypocrisy)

"End Hypocrisy with Leaks" is in fact the editorial title of this Cryptome site.

<comment><USER12> The FA Title is (actually):

The End of Hypocrisy: American Foreign Policy in the Age of Leaks

You can't discount the context of the subheading in a written/paper published title. IMHO. I don't think this is pedantic, as the linked article made it fit (which is why HN guidelines say you should try not to editorialize).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think there is another element in this and that is a form of self-deception. Obviously the US establishment tries to put a good propaganda face of some of its seamier actions. It can, and I think does, reach the point where there becomes too great a cognitive dissonance, and people begin to fool themselves and their own intellectual community with their own lies.

For example - is the US for or against Islamic extremism? Is it for or against a more secular society in the Middle East and Muslim countries? Most people here, or college-educated NPR or Fox News listeners I know think it is against it, and that the US wants to promote a more secular, moderate form of Islam around the world, as do allies like Israel. The problem is that all evidence over the preceding decades is against this. The US and England threw out the secular, democratic Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s, and then the CIA helped the Shah's Savak jail or kill off anyone in the country supporting a return to a secular democracy. Almost unbelievable nowadays, Israel supported, including financially, the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah against what it saw as the more existential threats of the PFLP and the PLO.

What has the US been doing in the past few years? Supporting the most theocratic countries such as Saudi Arabia, where as it has been in the news lately, there are crackdowns on women who want to drive cars. The remains of the secular, pan-Arabist, Nasserite parties have been what the US has attacked in recent years - Iraq and Libya. Obama recently made the call for more intervention in the secular, Nasserite government of Syria and , surprisingly, some mainstream opinion noted he would in some fashion be supporting Al-Qaeda - which is true. Which is yet another case - the US supported the overthrow of the secular, socialist Afghanistan in order to put into power the mujahideen forces which later became Al Qaeda.

All of the historical evidence, from World War II until recent months shows the US opposes secular governments in these countries and supports Islamic fundamentalists and radicals. Yet for some reason, not only does US propaganda say the opposite, not only do Fox News watching blue collar Americans believe this, even NPR or Fox News listening college educated Americans believe this. College-educated Arabs know what the truth is, but somehow the reality hasn't penetrated the US.

Usually propaganda is just shading the truth, but for the Arab world, the news just openly lies. I watch talking head shows where they still say that Ahmadinejad said "Israel should be wiped off the map". I've heard this repeated for years over and over and over. It's just not true, a look at his remarks in Persian said he absolutely, certainly never said the word map, and even the rest of the translation is somewhat shaded. It's too good a lie to be bothered going into that, so this lie, which is now widely known to be a lie, is still endlessly repeated on in the US news media.

<comment><USER14> First i want to make clear when i say USA i'm talking about US government and US politicians, not it's people or the US "nation".

> is the US for or against Islamic extremism?

USA is neither for or against something , USA has interests. If islamic extremists could be manipulated easily , they would be USA's best friends. The truth is they use to be,during the cold war. USA "won" the cold war in Afghanistan by helping the Mujahideen. USA used to back Saddam Hussein , heck , USA used to sell weapons to Iran too. USA has no problem with dictatorships as long as it serves US interests(south america). And it still supports the Saudi regime , which is not very democratic to say the least.

The issue is , you cant act that way abroad and not damage things at home on the long run. That's happening now, all these NSA programs would have been shut down (officialy) if they were exposed 30 years ago. Now most politicians think it's for USA's own good.

IMHO Ben Laden and his crazy folks, won their war against USA somehow. They did not weaken USA with the attack, USA did weaken itself with its response, and exposed itself as hypocrite and not exceptional.

9/11 should have made core US principles stronger , it weakened them. Remember after 9/11 99% of the nations on the earth were behind USA, even most middle eastern countries. Is it still the case today?

Still i dont believe in USA downfall. As a nation, USA has something no other nation has ,the capacity to re-invent itself over and over. That's what will save them, not it's politicians.

<comment><USER15> > USA is neither for or against something , USA has interests

Sure, but his point and the point of the author was that they have been _hypocritical_ about it, and making people believe that they _are_ for certain things, such as democracy, and so on. They were very convenient excuses to start attacking other countries.

Now they say they are "against terror", while causing themselves terror to many others in Middle East, and creating situations that instead of making US safe, they put it in _more_ danger with their actions.

So their points are that the leaking age, is the age where such hypocrisy will have very short lifespan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What we are seeing now is the end, not of hypocrisy, but of credibility.

The prediction that institutions founded in a limited information environment (and their extant policies specifically) will simply continue in an unlimited information environment by simply changing rhetoric, are exactly that: predictions.

That is to say, if a hypothetical swindler cannot profitably swindle when the veracity of her lies are easily checked. The article proposes that our imaginary trickster need simply start telling the truth to continue prospering.

</comment><comment><USER17> This article is being hypocritical in itself.

The main reason that the US is losing face is not because it can't maintain the hypocritical position it had before. The main reason is that most of the revealed behaviour of the NSA is either illegal or entirely unethical. This goes far beyond hypocrisy.

> It may attempt, as the former head of U.S. counterintelligence Joel Brenner > has urged, to draw distinctions between China's allegedly unacceptable > hacking, aimed at stealing commercial secrets, and its own perfectly > legitimate hacking of military or other security-related targets.

How is hacking another country to steal military or security related secrets ever "perfectly legitimate"? It may appear to be so from the US side, but it is never going to be legitimate from the other side.

And I'm sure that the UN (which has been founded by many countries, not just the US) has something to say about this as well.

</comment><comment><USER18> Great analysis both from the original post and commenters. Given everything that has been said I get the feeling that the most expedient way to promote democracy and freedom in your country if you have oil is to very clearly align with the US until you come to power and accomplish your original goals. The question or not is whether you can be candid/honest about such a policy of realpolitik with your fellow countrymen while you work towards building a democratic system.

If you were an iranian revolutionary that wants democratic change, you could probably go further and craft a foreign policy that plays to equally to the interests of the US, China and Russia, while crafting a democratic domestic policy.

</comment><comment><USER19> "programmers who are good at crafting defenses for their own systems know how to penetrate other people's computers, too"

This is not strictly true. There is a big difference between identifying/exploiting bugs in software and defending a network from attack. Within the context of government spending, this is the difference between funding reverse engineering/binary analysis/buying 0days and funding the training of systems administrators.

<comment><USER20> at the micro level, it's true that those activities are different, but in the big picture, they are so close, and those people are interacting so much with each other.

There is also the big offense/defense hypocrisy, like buying guns and missiles to protect people (instead of armors and bunkers), and mixing offense and defense to make some behavior more publicly acceptable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The hypocrisy elephant in the room:

"NEVER FORGET" but "NEVER REMEMBER" (that 9/11 was the result of the US (CIA) recruiting and playing Osama bin Laden).

</comment><comment><USER22> America is young, and this is no special time in history either...

As a non-expert I was/am unsurprised by the content of these leaks whose 'revelations' in the broad sense are mere common sense - but more surprised that they happen at all. Are Americans so discontented? Apparently so...

</comment><comment><USER23> Why is hypocrisy a bad thing? Entirely serious question, since it's the basis of the entire article.

<comment><USER24> From Wikipedia:

"Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie."

And lies are basically bad.

<comment><USER23> > And lies are basically bad.

Are all forms of deception bad? If so, then okay. If not, then what forms of deception are bad, and what forms are not, and which class does hypocrisy belong in and why?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "signed a formal deal affirming India's right to civilian nuclear energy despite its having flouted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by acquiring nuclear weapons."

How can India be said to have _flouted_ this treaty when India had never signed it ??

</comment><comment><USER26> > Although the current administration has curtailed some of the abuses of its > predecessors, it still has a long way to go.

That sentence is how history will judge 2013.

</comment><comment><USER27> "Liberals tend to believe that other countries cooperate with the United States because American ideals are attractive."

In the ongoing debate between politically-controlled versus theocratically- controlled law, the majority of the world population finds the "American" ideal (rather French-revolutionary, no?) of politically-controlled law not particularly attractive at all. The system amounts to asking the population to vote every few years for politicians who will invent new laws. The question then becomes: How many new laws do we need before all our needs for new laws are finally and entirely satisfied? The theocratically-controlled alternative on its side says: The only one who can create new laws and further restrict your freedom, may not even exist. So, my question becomes: What exactly would be wrong with that?

<comment><USER23> Yeah, that line confused me too. I've actually never heard anyone make the claim that people cooperate with the United States because our ideals are attractive.

I've heard that immigrants immigrate here because of that, and I've heard patriotism justified by this, and I've heard that our culture is seductive, but I've never heard that governments find our ideals attractive or anything remotely like it.</comment></comment>


On the utility of filing bugs - <AUTHOR> https://ricaud.me/blog/post/2017/04/On-the-utility-of-filing-bugs <comment><USER2> There are two problems that discourage bug-reporting in my view.

One, people now want everything in an instant. Even one click seems to ask too much these days. The typical bug reporting system might require you to log in, then fill out something that looks like your taxes. Since this is optional and people have other things to do, they will not help.

The second problem is bigger: zero feedback, zero evidence of the worthiness of time spent. Many bug reporting methods are black holes. When people barely want to set aside time to help in the first place, wasting their time is a sure way to keep them from ever helping you again.

I feel that bug reporting and tracking should be separate. Do not force users to have accounts and figure out your database or write an essay. Create low- barrier reporting methods (like direct in-app commands or E-mail), and COMMIT to having a _dialog_ so submitters are not left wondering. Provide easy, in- software ways for users to gather information that you need.</comment>


Fairness in Machine Learning [video] - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/248490141 <comment><AUTHOR> This was a tutorial for NIPS 2017. Slides are here:

[http://fairml.how/tutorial/](http://fairml.how/tutorial/)</comment>


Datastream.io – Real-Time Anomaly Detection Using Python, Elasticsearch and Kibana - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/MentatInnovations/datastream.io <comment><USER2> This looks really interesting. There are a number of "peak identification" tools for scipy but this is the first anomaly detection set I've seen. It will be interesting to see how, from a process point of view, it handles things like SPC rules.</comment>


A History of Matlab - <AUTHOR> https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3386331 <comment><AUTHOR> I used it a lot before Python and R became mainstream, while at University. It was (still is probably) a great environment. I wonder how much of Python and R Data ecosystems where inspired by MATLAB. I guess matplotlib owes a lot to MATLAB plotting. I remember enjoying a lot the overall IDE (cell execution before Jupyter notebooks) and the learning resources, such as the great Higham & Higham MATLAB guide.</comment>


Automatically extracting Git workflows from shell history - <AUTHOR> http://nbviewer.ipython.org/7460616

<comment><USER2> This is very cool. It should be a lot easier to design new tools like git-flow if you have hard data on how people use Git.

It'd also be interesting to compare how Git is typically used compared to, say, Mercurial or even Subversion, in order to quantify criticisms people might have of other tools.</comment>