Judge throws out entire Apple/Motorola case - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/in-bid-for-patent-sanity-judge-throws-out-entire-applemotorola-case/

<comment><USER2> As a technology founder who later got an MBA, I've found a divide among the technology and business camps on patents and trademarks.

Tech people I know generally agree that patents and copyright stifle innovation. They may once have helped, but no longer.

Business people I know believe patents help create entrepreneurship. They think about it from a founder's perspective (they haven't founded companies themselves) and think patents would help that person establish a foothold against incumbents. They ask, "Without patent protection, how can someone get paid for their creation?"

As I see it, the business people don't have relevant experience. They're talking about a myth that doesn't exist anymore if it ever did. People who innovate and create have relevant experience and know how patents and copyright are used in practice.

At least this judge understands too. I hope his acts catch on.

The more relevant question seems "Without patent protection, how can patent lawyers get paid?" because patent lawyers is what the system creates, at the expense of technological innovation, as I see it anyway.

<comment><USER3> > Tech people I know generally agree that patents and copyright stifle > innovation.

How do copyrights stifle innovation?

<comment><USER4> I just heard a great example on the radio the other day. The piece _O Fortuna_ was written by Carl Orff in 1936. In 1991, fifty five years later Orff's family sued to keep the Belgian group Apotheosis from releasing a heavily sampled version.

Now I don't know exactly how much the Apotheosis version adds to the body of culture. Most new music is crap, after all. But it does represent artistic innovation, and it was definitely stifled.

<comment><USER5> If someone had asked, "how do patents stifle innovation?", we'd get a thread full of stories of independent developers and startups with useful products being sued because some tiny detail of their product, likely some _de rigueur_ aspect of modern UI, violated some obscure patent. Nest vs. Honeywell might be a good example.

What you have in those stories are cases of valuable enterprises that usually benefited in no way from the disclosures in the original patent; the patentholder and the "violator" are usually standing on the shoulders of the exact same giant.

So, what's the equivalent scenario for copyright? The a band called Apotheosis couldn't do a remix of _O Fortuna_? One supposes there's a valid case to be made that we're all somewhat worse off for not having access to that remix... but it's hard to put it on the same plane as a startup being sued out of existence because something they designed and implemented was inherently fenced off by a patent monopoly.

So what's the better example?

<comment><USER6> His example is copyright stifling culture. That's a separate issue.

As far as stifling innovation, one only needs to look at the recording companies. The resistance to new technologies, easier ways of accessing "content" - that's definitely restricted by the application of copyright laws. One recent example is Zediva. Copyright then ends up concentrating on a few companies that were able to make deals, rather than ones that are continually innovating in technology. Look at how long it took to get "legal" access to The Beatles music as MP3s.

I don't think you can see copyright as not stifling innovation in those areas.

But, I suppose, we could argue that it's just the horrible overapplication of copyright laws that are stifling innovation. A weaker copyright system would probably work out just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As welcome as this news may be from technical and common sense standpoints, I'm not sure if it's a good thing from a legal one. This whole affair seems to me (and I may be wrong) like one judge deciding that the law is bad, and thus that the suits are meritless. While this seems great as long as you agree with the judge's view, I think it opens a pandora's box.

Imagine if a right-wing Christian judge tosses out anti-creationism lawsuits, or pro-RIAA judges toss out anti-RIAA lawsuits. Even worse, imagine a judge indirectly on the RIAA payroll! Granted, these are all a long ways away from this case, but I believe that applauding this judge's actions is the wrong reaction.

<comment><USER8> I don't follow. If a judge tosses out a _bad_ suit, it is a good thing. If they toss out a good suit, that's bad. We want judges to do the right thing.

Your view is what: that we don't want judges doing the right thing because the legal systems is somehow karmicly bound to follow it with a bad decision in some other case?

To hell with that. Posner is a hero right now. I say we celebrate.

<comment><USER9> We want judges to uphold the law, not rewrite it. We have legislators for doing that, and it is very much by design that those jobs are _separate_.

If there are bad laws on the books that are only sporadically enforced, then people are being denied the very fundamental right of _equal protection_. That's never good in the long run.

<comment><USER10> If you want judges to uphold the law, you must remember that the law allows for jurisprudent behaviour from judges that shape internal problems of the law and legal systems.

That is to be upheld too. There are bad cases that try to use bad laws, this was the one. You seem to be on the other side of this but that doesn't make it so that there was any 'rewriting' done by this judge. He upheld the law as in, sides were not allowed to give proof of infringement based on their own 'specialists'. Because that can turn the court to a circus as is always the case when people end up comparing rectangular shaped objects. This set the tone for the conclusion in a massive patent troll case. This may happen more and more from now on and it will bring needed change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085502>

</comment><comment><USER12> Now that this has happened, I am wondering what the direct implications of this are to the industry (especially the 'dismissed with prejudice' part).

edit: added the "to the industry" part.

<comment><USER13> It the plaintiff can't file suit again with the same patents against the same respondent.

<comment><USER12> I wasn't clear (just updated the previous comment).

What I am wondering is - does this lead to the entire patent industry coming crumbling down? I am expecting that part might not be likely, but I am trying to figure out what part is to be expected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> s/Motorola/Google/g

</comment><comment><USER15> "Posner complained that Apple's attempt to get an injunction restricting the sale of Motorola phones would have "catastrophic effects" on the mobile device market and consumers."

\- the moral of the story is steal and get the stolen goods into as many 3rd party hands as possible, so that by taking it away from would cause chaos and outrage. "Don't be evil"? That's criminal and evil at perfection.

<comment><USER16> I'm not sure if you're being a troll, but I'll bite anyway.

This is about consumer choice: Motorola clearly does not have any device which effectively competes with the iPhone. Further, allowing Motorola to pick and choose who it competes against (remember, they are arguing that, as the holder of a patent required to implement a standards-compliant device, they get to play gatekeeper for the mobile phone market) is plainly against the interests of the consumer.

<comment><USER17> Motorola's request for injunctive relief is a different animal than the Apple request at issue in spacestation's comment. The denial of Motorola's request involves their own claim/classification of their patent as necessary for all cell phones and therefore subject to a fairly licensed classification (FRAND.) Posner seems pretty amenable to a mechanical license in that case, but Motorola failed to provide evidence of a fair price for such a mechanism. Further, he suggests Apple has invented around this patent anyway and it isn't actually 'necessary.'</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you do your Press Release? - <AUTHOR>

I am getting started on marketing for a personal project, and would like to announce it to the world. I've never written a Press Release and would like some first hand experience. Tips, tricks, anecdotes...go wild!! <comment><USER2> I write a blog post and submit it to HN and Reddit.

... of course, I'm HN's resident champion at poor marketing, so you'll probably want to find some other options rather than following my example. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's more than i've done at this point. I'm specifically looking to write a press release and submit to a site like prweb. I get the gist of submitting links to social media sites, but I'm not sure of how well I can write an objective compelling article that "traditional" media will care about.</comment></comment>


Yahoo Bug Bounty Program is Now Live - <AUTHOR> http://yahoodevelopers.tumblr.com/post/65622522325/the-bug-bounty-program-is-now-live

<comment><USER2> A big yahoo bug is you cannot register an account without giving them a mobile phone number.

I don't own a mobile phone with a phone number.

Very strange way to register people.

<comment><USER3> Please email firstname.lastname@example.com to claim your $15,000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not long ago, there was a submission about a bug reporter didn't get any kind of reward (except a coupon) for reporting a bug for Yahoo!

Kudos to Yahoo! for listening to community's feedback.

<comment><AUTHOR> Relevant blog post by Yahoo! from earlier this month:

[http://yahoodevelopers.tumblr.com/post/62953984019/so-im- the...](http://yahoodevelopers.tumblr.com/post/62953984019/so-im-the-guy-who- sent-the-t-shirt-out-as-a-thank-you)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Shame that Microsoft still have such a terrible bug bounty programme.

[http://www.microsoft.com/security/msrc/report/bountyprograms...](http://www.microsoft.com/security/msrc/report/bountyprograms.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER6> "we promised to that our program will would address the following areas:"?!

</comment><comment><USER7> But I wanted the tee-shirt! (we're never happy)

<comment><USER8> The rewards bullet point says you can still get a shirt if you want. Hope is not lost!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Someone you should tell them about the mother of all security bugs: NSA has full access to their datacenters.

They might want to fix that one first, before caring about the tiny little ones. It doesn't look like they are in a hurry to fix that one yet, though:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/10/30...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- switch/wp/2013/10/30/even-after-nsa-revelations-yahoo-wont-say-if-it-plans-to- encrypt-data-center-traffic/)</comment>


My Google HR Response - <AUTHOR> (throwaway account) Reply following approach by Google (due to Stackoverflow etc), then rejection on sending CV.
Thoughts? Do you hire non-degree holders?
---
Hi (HR person),
Thank you for your reply. I had to think about this for a bit, as Google is the first company/client I have ever had ask about my degree (or lack of).
Unlike other disciplines like mechanical engineering or architecture, we programmers can start at an early age building virtual things, exploring complexity and simplicity. Many of us spend a considerable amount of time studying the science, rather than just coding.
I have had a lot of exposure to CS graduates over the past year, at a highly regarded UK university. Of those I encountered, most of students were doing it because they were bright and didn't know what to do with themselves. Some "downgraded" (as they saw it) from maths or physics because it was harder than they thought. Of the remainder, half were ego driven coders and half were actually any good. The very few that were good nearly dropped out because they were not excited enough (and some of them even ended up coding cool things alongside me).
You can't build amazing things without science, and the Internet means I don't require a degree to learn the science to build cool things. I can do that on my PC, right here, very cheaply and efficiently.
I do accept that the cost of exploring what excites you most without the formal structure of a degree has its costs (such as being filtered out of Google's hiring process) ... despite this I wouldn't go back and earn a degree if I had a time machine, so that's a cost I happily accept.
One of the beautiful things about programming is its immediate availability to all who want to learn ... even those who decide to do things differently.
I hope Google would in future take a longer look at people learning on their own steam, in their own time and out of love.
Regardless, I've very much enjoyed talking with you and I hope you find great candidates for the positions.
Thank you for your time! (me) <comment><USER2> See the 'lying' thread. Yes folks hire non-degree holders, Google doesn't. When I was working there and talking/dealing with HR and the Google Hiring process I once tried to refer a non-degreed friend but they were having nothing of it.

Basically at the time (2007 - 2009) they had a very firm "No degree, no job." And a more insidious, "if you get acquihired in and the job you are in would normally fall under this rule, and you don't have a degree, we manage you out of the company."

Given the size of some of their later acquistions I don't know if they could stick with that model or not.

<comment><USER3> They've loosened up a bit. I was acquihired as an engineer without a college degree. And thus far, I don't think I'm getting "managed out", but perhaps they're just doing a bad job of it.

That said, I don't know what they're doing for people who apply the "regular" way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting stuff :) I'm glad things are going good for you. I could understand it more if I just fired off my CV to them, but Google approached me ... though I suspect they approach a lot of people ... a lot.

<comment><USER2> I was asked by an engineer about using my contacts to 'get him into' Google, I suggested that he do three things:

1) Make sure he had a LinkedIn presence

2) Create a Github account and put one or more projects in it, preferably written in one of Java, Python, or C++

3) Register with StackOverflow and build up some karma.

Then let the trawler pick you up the next time it goes by :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know if this is really strictly true. There are a handful of people I know of who got hired at Google the "regular" way and they don't have CS degrees. One has an undergrad in Electrical Engineering and a PhD in Pure Math, although he's worked as a software developer basically his entire career. I know people with Computer Engineering degrees who work there. And of course outside of core eng people are all over the place. Which is probably not relevant to your situation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good stuff. They still have a degree though. I don't, by (foolish?) choice. Interesting that 'a degree' seems to be the approach rather than a specific CS degree though, thanks :)

<comment><USER4> Yeah, cold comfort, sorry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's annoying that even if you have a degree in Theoretical Linguistics or something absurd like that, you can still get a software/hardware engineering job at Google. Google really need to think harder about their approach to hiring if they want to remain a powerhouse. What happens when, in the near future, the computer science graduating pool (i.e. the "bubble") becomes flooded with losers who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to building a great product for the web or anything else?

<comment><USER6> I agree with your point but I don't know if theoretical linguistics is really such an absurd degree to show programming aptitude. It's quite an analytical subject and the structures of natural languages do have some parallels with the structures of programming languages, plus of course natural language processing is a big area of computational research.

When I was choosing a degree I often heard that people with Classics degrees found it easy to get recruited as programmers. I have no idea how true that is but my former boss took that route. I dropped out of my CS degree and often wish I'd studied something language-related instead.

(I didn't really know what CS was before I started studying it - what I really wanted was to learn to take my programming to the next level of turning little 100-line programs into real projects, which I know now is almost unrelated to theoretical CS and really just needed a little more reading and a lot more practice. This was in the days before StackExchange and Github, or I might have worked it out in time to save myself from being yet another CS dropout.)

<comment><USER7> I'm put in mind of Larry Wall, although I don't know whether he is a "theoretical" linguist.

Also, my father has told me (being more of that generation), and I have read, that many early entrants into the CS field had backgrounds in linguistics.

That said, the described Google policy of degree trumping ability, I find disappointing.

However, from a point of analysis, it's a simple filter, and after applying it, a "premier" venue like Google will still have a significant oversupply of highly qualified candidates.

But... it puts me in mind of Google's reputation for support: You only get a response if you're one of "the important people".

Don't count on your "looks", Google; they don't last forever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I sympathize with the rather cold response from Google. However that was not a response from Google HR -- it was a response from a contract recruiter, and Google has hundreds of them. Because Google sees so many resumes that they can be picky. You may very well indeed be a top notch candidate so don't take it personally.

That said, as a Googler, I understand why they will hire non-SWE with phds in chemisty, neuroscience, or particle physics or what have you -- it's because Google has unique problems to think about that are not just pure software engineering. For instance, how do you scientifically evaluate the current search quality and ensure that it continues to improve? Google is very research-oriented and data-driven, and this spills over into the SWE work so it's not always 100% about building good software.

<comment><AUTHOR> I 100% agree with you wrt to their reasoning. It does seem sound given the problems they are trying to solve requiring diverse skills etc. Interesting that they contract it out. Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Quality of the degree - is that a issue or do they just look at ticking a box? Reason I ask is that I'm sure there are countries out there who for a small donation will give you one. Utterly useless but does afford you to say - yes I have a degree.

Still if Bill Gates applied, I guess he'd get rejected as well. Same with Zuckerman, many others as well. Guess your qualified to start a big empire yourself by not having one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well let's hope my startup goes well then!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note: Google approached me after seeing my stackoverflow account and other things on the Internet. After a very nice email chat, I sent my CV and got rejected due to no CS degree ...

<comment><USER9> I do feel HR departments have too much control in hiring process's. Sadly education descrimination is one such area still fully allowed by law, despite the lesser paper educated person being more able to do the job.

Bottom line if they are letting alot of talent slip thru the nets due to this rigid policey then eventualy they will create competition.

One does wonder when you read all these stories of big companies formed by people who quite doing there degree's half way thru and then read about a big company insisting that all employee's have a degree. Just have to laugh and move on.

I was once at a interview were the HR people were assholes like that though the IT manager in a seprate interview was blown away with my skill's and demostrated abilities and offered me more than what I was asking for, I turned them down due to the experience I had in the HR interview prior to the technical interview and told them why as well. Took a lesser paid job at a company called RAND who I had also interviewed with that same day. Had HR not been so rude and downright insulting due to my age etc, then I would of taken there job offer. Retrospectivly though I did make the best choice in the end, which was comforting.

<comment><USER6> HR definitely have too much say in IT hiring in many places - I suspect many CVs go in the bin for not matching the exact acronym or buzzword on HR's list, when any technical person would see extensive experience of the same or highly related technologies just listed under different names.

I am a little biased as another dropout but many technical job adverts here in the UK not only specify a degree but that it must be at least a 2:1 from (whatever HR/the manager thinks is) a "respected university"!

5 years ago I applied for a technical support job at an extremely low salary (I was relocating and applying for anything I saw) and got a phone call saying they'd got my CV but needed to know if I had a degree. I'm sure finishing my degree in formal derivations of algorithms would have been highly useful for a job crawling under desks looking to see if any cables had fallen out. Luckily in the month it took them to phone me and ask I'd found a much better job.</comment></comment></comment>


Georgia Southern QB: roadside drug test wrongly showed bird droppings as cocaine - <AUTHOR> http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/i-team/georgia-southern-qb-says-roadside-drug-test-wrongly-showed-bird-droppings-as-cocaine <comment><USER2> Turns blue? It sounds too much like the Scott test ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt(II)_thiocyanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt\(II\)_thiocyanate)), which any chemist will tell you reacts positive with any amine. _Of course_ bird shit tests positive, as will your garden-variety antihistaminic and many other household medications.

It's just nothing but a fishing expedition for probable cause so that police can exercise their contempt for black youth.

<comment><USER3> Hah crazy, it is a scott test. this is the exact packet that he's using. You can see it on the youtube video someone posted below. They also say it turns pink and that's the positive test. But the directions on that site say it has to be blue.. and some nonsense about a bunch of vestibules that the guy just all shakes together it seems? Unclear.

[https://www.copsplus.com/sirchie-narkii-test-07-scott- reagen...](https://www.copsplus.com/sirchie-narkii-test-07-scott-reagent- modified-box-of-10)

Here's the directions on the website:

Confirm suspicions of cocaine presence using the NARKII Test 07-Scott Reagent from Sirchie®. The improved presumptive test utilizes a three-vestibule system to identify powdered cocaine, as well as cocaine bases, crack and freebase. To administer the test, place a small sample of the suspected substance in each of the three ampoules. The first vestibule will melt, creating a blue solution if the sample is pure powdered cocaine. A cocaine base will form hard blue specs that float in a pink solution. Both forms of the substance will dissolve into a pink liquid in the second container. The third ampule will have a burst of blue, that later separates into a pink over blue solution when mixed with either powdered or cocaine bases.

This is hilariously sad. These cops have 0 training, or are out for blood. I'm thinking Hanlon's Razor.

EDIT: Here's the video timestamp where you can see the packet: [https://youtu.be/c7j-Ijo2TYw?t=545](https://youtu.be/c7j-Ijo2TYw?t=545)

Side note HD bodycams are pretty good, surprised you can see and read this packet that clearly.

<comment><USER4> What's especially sad is that there have been cases in Florida that were tied back to officers thinking that a negative test meant that it contained cocaine.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside- drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html)

>When we examined the department's records, they showed that officers, faced with somewhat ambiguous directions on the pouches, had simply misunderstood which colors indicated a positive result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > He said it took several miles before Werts agreed to pull over. Werts said > he was only looking for a lighted spot and called 911 to let them know > that's why he wasn't pulling over immediately.

That's a very smart move, to position yourself in a safe place and notify dispatch of your intent in the moment. This is nearly the picture-perfect example of protecting yourself from police, and yet Werts was still jailed on shoddy cause.

Policing in America still needs a reckoning, now. Crime is middle-high in cities, and small municipal and state police are trying so hard to justify their cost increases with COMPSTAT figures. And if you're trying to rock the boat the least, go for young black men. It's a miscarriage on a terrible scale.

<comment><USER4> >That's a very smart move, to position yourself in a safe place and notify dispatch of your intent in the moment.

I completely disagree. It's not up to the driver to choose when and where they comply with law enforcement. Most officers aren't going to find driving for several miles after being pulled over to be reasonable. If he had just pulled over immediately this probably would have just been an expensive ticket and he would have stayed out of jail. I'm not saying that the police response is reasonable, but even going as fast as he was, while that can be justification to arrest someone that's still up to officer discretion and being respectful and clearly not impaired would probably keep you from being arrested.

<comment><USER6> Actually, what the driver did is specifically recommended in many jurisdictions...partly due to the problem of people impersonating police officers.

Also, blind obedience is gross. It's our duty to think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Werts: "I pulled over last night to clean my car and it didn't come off with > that little thing you use to clean it with."

> Deputy: "That's a lot of bird poop man."

Clearly it was too voluminous to be bird shit. Must be cocaine! I just, wow.

<comment><USER8> Because I, too, put my extremely expensive product, which is a fine powder, on the outside of my moving vehicle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It really did not look like cocaine. They might know what bird poop looks like, but definitely not cocaine...

that aside, lets assume for a second that it was in fact cocaine

are you now responsible for whatever people do outside/on top/in the vicinity of your car while parked?

<comment><USER10> Only if you're black in America.

<comment><USER9> I satisfy none of the conditions you list, but I am still tentative regarding visiting/moving to the US.

Cops there seem to have way too much power, and a worrying amount of them make use of it with enough regularity that there is never shortage of news regarding it.

Things are crap in Europe too, but it hardly ever gets that bad here.

<comment><USER11> The size of the country means extreme events should be more common and more extreme than in a European country even if it's no worse. Europe as a whole has its own problems, just of a different nature - like ongoing terrorism and sexual assaults. They also don't have such a big underclass of poor and hopeless people in geographically concentrated areas like America has.

<comment><USER9> as I said, things are crap here too, in many diversified and creative ways.

I am from Italy and we have crippling corruption and criminality problems, even though we have a fifth of the population in 0.03 times the land area. I am familiar with the problems that scare tourists away :)

I would only like to point out that you quote terrorism and sexual assault as things comparable to your own police force abusing power over your citizens. I think there are a few important differences.

<comment><USER12> Police abuse is a travesty and must be stopped.

That being said, unless you live in a high crime area, you are unlikely to have much if any interaction with the police at all.

And when you do, it will likely be friendly.

Basing your decision on a fear of police abuse is like people who don't swim in the ocean because they are afraid of shark attacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's like police racism, stupidity and corruption had a footrace and it's too close to call.

<comment><USER11> Why are people assuming racism? There isn't actually any evidence for that in this case, is there? He was pulled over for speeding just like anyone else would be, and was slow to stop which would have made the cops extra suspicious no matter his race. He was also a man which means a higher chance of being a criminal - could it actually be sexism you're mistaking for racism?

<comment><USER14> > Why are people assuming racism?

Because a huge number of black people in America describe a frequency and quality of interactions with police that are vastly different from white people's described experiences, claims which are backed up by horrifying anecdotes (like this story, or the seemingly weekly story of some other small town police department that was "shocked" to find it had officers in the local KKK chapter) and larger scale statistics on law enforcement.

That is a strong prior. Coupled with the utter stupidity of testing bird shit on the outside of a car to see if it's cocaine, it seems entirely fair to conclude this was motivated by some amount of racism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> God forbid we might get associated with SJWs and actually admit that black people are treated fundamentally worse and more suspicious by authorities in the United States. And it's being encouraged from the top.

<comment><USER11> There isn't an easy balance. Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately represented as crime victims because they live around other blacks or Hispanics. How can the police protect them without the focusing on the most likely perpetrators? If they were to treat everyone equally, it would make things worse for the victims. The beneficiaries of that change would be richer white people who would get more policing in their already safer neighborhoods, as well as black criminals who could evade justice more easily.

<comment><USER16> Your argument is undermined by a flawed assumption:

> How can the police protect them

The goal of the kind of policing described here is not to protect the population they're harassing members of. It is to harass them to help maintain a racist status quo.

> There isn't an easy balance

This kind of enlightened centrism serves a similar purpose. Don't defend bad practices if you don't support them.

<comment><USER11> Cocaine causes serious problems for black people. You're surely not proposing ignoring it?

> It is to harass them to help maintain a racist status quo.

Have you got some evidence for that? The idea of systemic racism is not that. It's an emergent phenomenon that isn't driven by anyone's desire to harass people or be racist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks like they can arrest the crows now that they've got probable caws.

<comment><USER17> While I appreciate a good pun as much as the next person, I don't think "crow" is the most appropriate bird to use for that joke: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Full bodycam video of the interaction is at: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7j-Ijo2TYw&t=1295s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7j-Ijo2TYw&t=1295s)

Courtesy of 'PoliceActivity' channel. I am not related to teh channel in any way, just a subscriber.

</comment><comment><USER19> On tangent, I wonder if birds can be used to deliver drugs successfully.

<comment><USER20> Carrier pigeons, but not at any weight worth the trouble.

<comment><USER21> Is it an African or European pigeon?

<comment><USER22> Better to use a European pigeon, less likely to get pulled over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> All police departments should shut down for a day for racial bias training.

<comment><USER24> More than just that. That need to learn to actually respect people as people and learn a little humility. There's too much "I've got a gun and that means I'm right and you do what I say no matter what" style thinking among police in America. Teach cops to back down if they have the slightest degree of uncertainty, and honestly, fire and permanently bar major offenders from legal professions for life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> As an aside, what a horrible website to read an article. Weird things were highlighted and it suddenly switched to a full screen ad.

</comment><comment><USER26> Police is after birds now?</comment>


Dvorak: Don't Trust Web-Application Servers - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295642,00.html <comment><USER2> A big problem with the article is that they throw up "Trust" as this gigantic, vague moral litmus test and anything you "can't trust" is evil and To Be Avoided. In typical fox news fashion the article is so laden with presuppositions that it's hard to discuss rationally.

There's an important distinction between what happened with WGA and the "Software as Service" model in general. Namely, that WGA is a mostly superfluous add-on only there to protect against piracy. The fact that the system shuts down or locks up when WGA is not available does nothing to support what the users bought the OS for in the first place.

It's true that you can't trust 100% uptime from web servers. Millions of Myspace users are pretty solid evidence that people can live with this. The advantages of the server-based method are generally appreciated by customers, who are also generally aware of the drawbacks. In contrast, users tend not to appreciate being treated like criminals and having their OS crashed on purpose because it couldn't complete a minor validation step.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The crazy premise in this story is that MS represents great technology> MS radically messed up their online service > therefore online on-demand services are a bad idea. Yikes!

</comment><comment><USER3> An argument gone too far.

Which is more likely to happen?

a. Google, Amazon, Yahoo, or <other host> goes down and loses all of your data.

b. Your hard disk crashes and you have no backup.

<comment><USER4> There's a (I don't know whether to call it a fallacy, but I will)...there's a fallacy that Jumbo Jets are safer than automobiles. This assertion is easily derived from looking at death statistics from each vehicle. But then, such statistics involve random parties. You or I aren't random drivers and so we may be very safe or very dangerous on the road [1].

Anyway, the average person's data is much more likely to disappear than that on google's server clusters. But if you are diligent, you can have backups that work 99.9999999 percent of the time quite easily.

[1] Of course, on roads, the guy driving in the other lane is pseudo-random, so... But there is no other lane with computers.

<comment><USER3> I am ALWAYS concerned about this (some may call it fanatic). I back up everything twice every night. Hit the safe deposit box once a week. Always have one thumb drive with me, another hidden. Print hard copies of recently changed code.

What if I have a break-in? What about a fire? How about lightning? (Already lost 2 servers that were protected - it happens.) What about a flood?

Sometimes I wonder why I don't just store everything on the "cloud". One of these days...

<comment><USER4> _Print hard copies of recently changed code._

Okay, that's nuts. ;)

Source code shouldn't be a problem. It practically backs itself up: 1) Production server(s), 2) Test server(s), 3) Development server(s), 4) Source control server.

<comment><USER3> "It practically backs itself up"

I'll rank that up there with "Step on it! We're only doing 90!" as famous last words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> i think this article takes what happened to WGA in the wrong direction. I think the lessons to be learned from the WGA outage is that critical systems should avoid relying on external services or at least provide a fail safe mechanism.

Also, as far as I can tell from the article the servers that went down were not hosting true web applications that users log into, just web services that some desktop software relied upon. There are plenty of other network services that desktop computer need to function correctly (for example DNS). Perhaps the WGA failure should server as a lesson in risk management and designing applications with decent failure modes.

</comment><comment><USER6> Proving that no matter what the topic - everything on Fox News is knee-jerk, under-reported, and over-simplified.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, this seems to be from PC Magazine and just reprinted in Fox.

<comment><USER6> Man, i'm 0 for 2 today.</comment></comment></comment>


Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald: AUAA - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/ <comment> grey-area _Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law....Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren 't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determining our futures._

There are lots of really interesting and cogent replies from Snowden on this thread already, I'd encourage everyone to check it out.

<comment><USER2> I find the rest of that specific comment particularly amazing:

> _How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today > are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate > the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens ' > discontent._

> _How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the > application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if > they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will > implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, > but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights._

> _You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of > government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major > technology providers. The idea here isn 't to fling ourselves into anarchy > and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must > always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and > that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and > individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where -- if > government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the > citizen -- we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new -- and > permanent -- basis._

> _Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. > But it 's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are > precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy._

> _We haven 't had to think about that much in the last few decades because > quality of life has been increasing across almost all measures in a > significant way, and that has led to a comfortable complacency. But here and > there throughout history, we'll occasionally come across these periods where > governments think more about what they "can" do rather than what they > "should" do, and what is lawful will become increasingly distinct from what > is moral._

> _In such times, we 'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the > law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to > our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it > toward just ends._

I like his idealism, but I just don't foresee the substantial changes that he's calling for occurring any time soon. Frankly, most people don't give a shit, and there are just too many vested interests involved to ensure that can't happen (e.g. Koch brothers donating $1billion dollars in the next election cycle, Citizens United, etc). Sure, there will be some pandering by both sides of the aisle next election about how _they 're_ the only true candidate that will protect individual rights, but once they've been sufficiently elected and absorbed by the machine, they'll continue along the trend that started 50+ years ago. Obama was a constitutional lawyer ffs.

But hey, as long as gas prices are low, Netflix stays up, and I can get my $10 Domino's large pizza delivered to my front door, I'll vote for whoever sounds good and promises me the most shit. /s

<comment><USER3> This question from the AMA directly answers your point:

Question: _Mr Snowden, do you feel that your worst fear is being realized, that most people don 't care about their privacy_

Answer: _To answer the question, I don 't. Poll after poll is confirming that, contrary to what we tend to think, people not only care, they care a lot. The problem is we feel disempowered. We feel like we can't do anything about it, so we may as well not try._

The full answer is worth reading: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/coup51w)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Much like physics post-Manhattan project, an entire field of research that was broadly apolitical realized that work intended to improve the human condition could also be subverted to degrade it. [1]

What an incredible analogy.

[1]: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/coutuaq)

<comment><USER5> At the end of the day is anyone arguing it was a bad thing that the Americans got to the bomb (and used it) before the Germans, Japanese or Russians did? I'd hand the button over to someone like Truman over Hitler or Stalin any day of the week.

Do I like the tools the NSA has in its possession? No. But I am happy they got there (and have access to them) before the Chinese, Russians or Arabs did. Are there going to be disasters like Hiroshima and Nagasaki thanks to these tools? I don't think so.

Will the NSA and the government misuse the tools and make mistakes? Definitely. Their effectiveness must be constantly monitored and questioned. (Huge respect for Snowden for making that possible.)

But these tools aren't going anywhere until all the embarrassingly smart technologists around here stop wasting their time pretending to be lawyers (the law and lawmakers aren't going to get us out of this hole) and design better tech to stop the next Boston bombing, Charlie Hedbo style attack or ISIS recruitment drives.

<comment><USER4> >But these tools aren't going anywhere until all the embarrassingly smart technologists around here stop wasting their time pretending to be lawyers (the law and lawmakers aren't going to get us out of this hole) and design better tech to stop the next Boston bombing, Charlie Hedbo style attack or ISIS recruitment drives.

You're wrong on two counts.

1.) It's American foreign policy that created anti-american Islamic extremism. It's American foreign policy that __must __fix it. You cannot expect tech to fix the problems of that. Technologies are tools, nothing more. Terrorists and tax payers are technology users alike, and that will always be the case. (Sidenote: anyone who is intelligent should hate the word 'terrorism', it is blatantly doublespeak.)

2.) These spy tools are going to die, because we can make technology that makes them infeasible. Indeed, we already have. Tor is reportedly unstoppable by the NSA. GPG exists and falls under the same category. The way things are headed, the only thing that will change with time is that tech companies will embrace encryption and help the general population of innocents to stop being tracked.

Those that care enough (eg: terrorists, libertarians, anarchists, and nerds) have already taken back their freedom... And will continue to do so. And there's nothing those 3 letter agencies can do to prevent it, because they've shown their hand. Anyone who has taken a cryptography class / a theory class knows that it's an unwinnable battle to try to fight RSA... It's just a matter of time before someone persuasive enough gets the message through to policy makers.

<comment><USER6> > It's American foreign policy that created anti-american Islamic extremism.

That's a very reductionist analysis. The Muslim Brotherhood has existed since the 1920s. However, it was a secular, Marxist, anti-colonialist ideology that was most successful in the Arab world for the next few generations. Then these secular Arab states lost the Six Day War, and failed to provide either good governance or economic opportunities for their populations.

The reason that Islamists have become so powerful is that the governments of many Arab countries have proven themselves to be completely bankrupt. If you're young (and the population pyramids in places like Egypt are very fat on the bottom), and you have very few economic opportunities, and your society is incredibly corrupt, then a radical change becomes very appealing, particularly if the people advocating that change are seen as pure and uncorrupt. The fact that Islamist groups oppose the US is one aspect of their appeal, but it's really only one factor. The fact that Hezbollah and Hamas are actively opposing Israel, while Egypt made peace with Israel in 79 is also a factor.

<comment><USER4> I'll be the first to admit I'm a dumb 20 year old that largely doesn't understand the world. You seem to know a great deal about the intricacies of the history in the middle east. I know nothing. I'm genuinely curious, though, do you think there is no argument for what I said?

>If you're young [...], and you have very few economic opportunities, and your society is incredibly corrupt, then a radical change becomes very appealing,

I recall looking at the revolts in Iran in 2009 [1] and what I saw was fundamentally different than what you see with ISIL. I saw people disenfranchised with the middle east governance and culture, but they were not angry or vindictive. They were productive and wanting to change things. I think that exists in the middle east, and I think that they're separate from Islamic extremists.

Meanwhile there's the anti-American camp... Is their hatred because of our actions?

* We funded Osama Bin Laden. [2]

* We trained people fighting for ISIL. [3]

* We killed 130k+ innocent civilians in the region in the past decade and a half. [4]

I think it's plausible. Sure, they might dislike us even if we hadn't done those things...

That being said, I think reasonable people in the middle east have reason to dislike America. (I think any reasonable person has reason to dislike America's actions.)

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_presidential_elect...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_presidential_election_protests)

[2]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA%E2%80%93al- Qaeda_controvers...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA%E2%80%93al- Qaeda_controversy)

[3]: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west- training-s...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training- syrian-rebels-jordan)

[4]: [https://www.iraqbodycount.org/](https://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

<comment><USER6> The comparison between Syria and Iran is a bit strange. These are two completely different countries. Syria is primarily Sunni, Iran primarily Shi'a. Syrians speak Arabic, Iranians speak Persian. The two countries have different systems of government, different histories, different cultures.

When young people are angry in Iran, they're angry at a theocratic, clerical government. When young people were angry in Syria, they were angry at a secular, socialist strongman. If you're disaffected in a theocracy, you don't become a supporter of theocracy. If you're disaffected in a Baathist regime, then it's natural to become an Islamist.

To my knowledge there has never been much evidence that the US funded Bin Laden in the '80s. The CIA funded Afghans to fight the Soviets, and some Arab Islamists were also fighting the Soviets. My understanding is that the CIA did not fund the Arabs. (My source for this is Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll, which is excellent).

The Guardian article you're citing is actually talking about something completely different than US training of ISIL. There are many factions in the Syrian civil war. ISIL is one faction that emerged out of al-Qaeda's Iraq branch with some members from the dredges of Saddam's regime. These people have been fighting the US for over a decade. There are also groups that oppose both ISIL and the Assad regime. These groups are being supported by the West.

All of that being said, I agree with the fact that the invasion of Iraq produced extremism. However, the place to start when studying the Middle East is not "What did we do to these people that caused them to hate us." What happened is much, much more complex than that.

<comment><USER4> Wow, thanks for typing that up. You're really knowledgeable!

I generally thought of Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Jordan sharing the same political and cultural climates. It's very interesting to hear that they're so different, I had no idea.

What do you think that America should do / shouldn't do to try to stabilize that region? How do you think America should be fighting terrorism?

More importantly, as we're on HN, how do you think that NSA data collection plays into it all?

<comment><USER6> I appreciate the complement. I've read a lot about the region and have traveled a bit, but am not an expert.

If we could resolve the Israeli/Palestinian issue that would be a great help. However, I don't think anyone is optimistic on that front. If the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are successful (and it looks promising) then at least one very scary scenario will be on the back burner. Pretty much everything else looks very grim.

I don't think that the NSA stuff will have any lasting impact on US relations with the Middle East/perceptions of America in the Middle East. It may have an impact on our ability to understand what's going on in the region, but I think that's very hard to assess from outside the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A good thing about America is that while the "politics" lag behind citizens and US companies try at least to solve partially the problem. I liked these bits:

 _Google encrypted the backhaul communications between their data centers to prevent passive monitoring. Apple was the first forward with an FDE-by-default smartphone (kudos!)_

We often denigrate US and his biggest companies like: Apple, Google or Microsoft.

So I agree since then in the politics nothing big has been changed but I'm glad to see that now we take care about things like https or generally how our data is protected.

<comment><USER8> Companies won't solve the problem, because the problem is in a different domain.

"Our data" may be sort of safe, but the civil rights are being eroded, which is a much bigger issue. Having such powerful entities living in complete independence from the government, and with complete unaccountability, is a social disaster.

Besides, the data owned by a user in the more "immediate" sense, may be sort of safe, but don't forget that you're not the only possessing data about you; there is a large ecosystem, and such entities will be always a step ahead in the game.

In absence of accountability/civil rights, such entities are completely free to rape you, independently of your technical private defenses.

<comment> grey-area _Companies won 't solve the problem, because the problem is in a different domain._

I think this is an interesting question, because it intersects with the rise and fall of the nation state - at some point (perhaps that point has already been reached) corporations will have greater reach and greater power than nation states and individuals will start to feel less allegiance to the state of their birth. Will they start to look to companies to protect their rights?

I disagree that laws which govern a nation state are the right level for this sort of issue or that nation states are more trustworthy - those are precisely the laws which have been subverted and used against us in order to subvert encryption of websites, sim cards or any of our other communications and allow recording of it all. Just as one example of how easily our laws are subverted the man in charge of supervising UK surveillance can be bought for a few thousand pounds for trivial matters:

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/23/mp- malcolm-r...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/23/mp-malcolm- rifkind-clings-on-to-chairmanship-of-intelligence-committee)

International law is even worse. Even with the relatively good accountability and civil rights in the US (for most citizens most of the time), the US government has arrogated the right to kill you without trial, detain you indefinitely without trial, or torture you without legal recourse because to give you legal recourse would endanger state secrets. Such is the state of our civil rights - they are selectively applied and withdrawn by the state as it suits them, and words like traitor or terrorist are used to put someone beyond the pale of civilisation and therefore outlaw.

Here is what Snowden had to say about it on that AMA:

 _How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights._

I agree with that - what is effective is moral certitudes which individuals agree and act upon, not nation state law or international law which are so easily ignored or subverted. That means technical solutions, not legal ones, though I agree it is better to rely on neither the nation state nor the corporation in proposing solutions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _We have to ensure that our rights aren 't just being protected by letters on a sheet of paper somewhere, or those protections will evaporate the minute our communications get routed across a border._

Reminds me of Lessig's "Code is Law".

[http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law- html](http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html)

</comment><comment><USER10> The AMA says that Citizenfour will be on HBO tonight, in the UK it'll be on Channel 4, 11:05 Wednesday and 4od after that.

<comment><USER11> And it's currently free.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/couuobz?context=3)

 _The movie is currently available for free as the movie is used as a public evidence in a lawsuit_

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Snowden 2016

Is there any legal reason why this couldn't happen? Edit: aside from age if we're talking presidency.

<comment><USER12> Following up on my own question...

 _Section 3 prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason._

 _Section 3 was used to prevent Socialist Party of America member Victor L. Berger, convicted of violating the Espionage Act for his anti-militarist views, from taking his seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920._

\- source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Participants_in_rebellion)

And as far as pardoning oneself as president, it's possible: [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/19...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/can_president_clinton_pardon_himself.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> HBO here in Colorado was scheduled to show Citizenfour at 7pm local time. At approx 6pm I turned it on to get it ready. Black and silent. Continued black and silent up thru 9pm local when it was supposed to have ended. All other cable TV channels and local/public channels have worked normally during this period that I can tell. HBO worked fine yesterday and every day before for as long as I can remember. Unprecedented black out.

suspicious is saying it mildly. I wanted to post this here and on Reddit for public record in case this is evidence of a censorship attempt by NSA/gov or aligned entity.

I feel like a tin foil hat wearer to even post this but its frightening enough and serious enough that it should be recorded somewhere, as insurance.

Colorado, a dominant provider of local cable TV service, hesitant to say which city. again, all other channels are working normally. and HBO had no similar blackout effect observed by me ever before. so the cause is both unknown and suspicious.

<comment><USER14> Whoa, really? What cable provider?

<comment><USER13> its one of the two local dominant ones but I'm not sure which. I'll try to find out tomorrow. I'd say the city but this topic is already terrifying enough considering the nature of the "adversary", haha, oh man. if you email me I'll tell you city. I'm hoping to see reports from others. I find it hard to believe it would just be one person, one device. surely whoever/whatever did this would do an entire region/provider combo, at a minimum

10pm local. checked again. still black and silent. all other channels fine still, showing shows.

<comment><USER15> We've just been watching it here in Sunnyvale, CA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's the reason this is being flagged?

<comment><USER17> "Snowden", "NSA", and similar keywords are auto-flagging triggers. The HN team has algorithms in place to minimize discussion and awareness of these topics.

See: [http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking- really...](http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really- works.html)

"It appears that any article with NSA in the title gets an automatic penalty of .4".

<comment><USER18> There hasn't been any penalty on NSA/Snowden stories for a long time. I'm surprised to see this even come up, since I've commented on it quite a bit and thought the information had gotten around by now.

"Minimize awareness"? Obviously we don't try to do that, nor would we ever want to, or even think that way.

The reason there was a penalty—the mildest possible—was procedural. For several months after the Snowden news broke, HN's front page was overrun with copycat stories that were simply follow-ups and added no new information. Many users complained about this, and they were right. So we applied the best tool we had available, with the intention of taking it off when the flood died down, and so we eventually did.

<comment><USER19> That doesn't appear to be the case:

        7.  Hacking Oklahoma State University's Student ID (snelling.io)
            94 points by samsnelling 5 hours ago

        9.  Introduction to Facebook's Flux architecture (ryanclark.me)
            204 points by wayfarer2s 8 hours ago

        11. Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald: AUAA (reddit.com)
            376 points by ahamdy 4 hours ago

Maybe there is some forgotten code in there somewhere?

<comment><USER18> You can't compute story rank from just points and timestamps. The story is being weighted by user flags, by the fact that it comes from a source of a lot of flagged content in the past, and possibly by other factors. But none of that has anything to do with NSA, at least as far as the code is concerned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Similar to the HN penalty, reddit also seems to have some Snowden countermeasures in effect. It was a very popular IAmA, but the Android AMA app, displayed only 2 answers for it, and the 3 people who wanted to answer, Laura Poitras, Ed Snowden and Glen Greenwald, were limited to about one answer per 10 minutes, so for the whole hour they could answer about 10 questions. This limits usability and civil interactions a bit.

People should really choose boards without such censorship in place.

<comment><USER21> I love that you completely guessed the incorrect answer, and then moved right to calling it censorship and critiquing Reddit based on your assumption. Snowden's account was rate-limited because accounts with no activity are more scrutinized for spam purposes. If the other accounts were (and I see no evidence of that, since Glenn Greenwald has done his own AMA before), it's the same reason. That limit exists because new account creation is so trivial. It also exists on HN in different ways, you forget.

It took me several thousand comment karma on Reddit until I stopped noticing the rate limit entirely. I can't speak to the Android issues.

Either way, the moderators worked it out; there was some confusion about the accounts downthread. I don't begrudge someone speculation, but when you then immediately move to acting on your speculation and decrying a community incorrectly, you should probably check if you're correct first.

<comment><USER22> Specifically Snowden was commenting on two different accounts. I assume his Android AMA app messed up due to their being so many authors to the AMA.</comment></comment></comment>


Logic Lunch Counter - <AUTHOR> http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/12/logic-lunch-cou.php

<comment><USER2> I really like this article Daniel. It's a very interesting talking point regarding the kinds of discussion that happen on the internet.

Here is a related article about the "Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy"

<http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. That's a good link too.

I found myself drifting towards attacking the Ad Hominem, probably because it's done wrong so much. But the general point is that _all_ logic critiques are in themselves flawed in some way. For instance, how else would two people discuss something rationally without one person saying something like "If I understand you correctly, you're saying X. But X doesn't make any sense at all to me" To which the other person can yell "Straw Man! Straw Man argument!" like a little schoolkid or they can try to move on towards some kind of reasonable discussion.

Intent and nuance count a lot, I think. And these are the very things that are toughest to do well on the 'net. (sigh)

<comment><USER3> It's not tough to do well if your aim is really to "discuss something rationally." Most of the time, people are not trying to discuss anything in particular, or understand anything better; they're just trying to socialize, and whatever they're arguing about is just a medium in which to play games of flag-waving and oneupmanship. (I know that sounds dismissive, but I'm not trying to crap on it; I do it too. It's just the way it is.)

It's silly to look at the result and say, well, you would communicate better if you did X, because that's not the goal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> All I'm taking from this is that people often misapply shallow knowledge of logical fallacies.

Look, not all reasoning is equally good, and the fact that no essay is a mathematical proof doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out problems in reasoning. If someone sees mysterious lights in the sky and thinks that it was aliens, that's not _entirely_ invalid -- but because of a false dichotomy and confirmation bias, the assumed probability of the lights being aliens got exaggerated.

tl;dr version: fallacious reasoning should be guarded against not because it automatically destroys any argument containing it, but because it skews our estimates of probability.

<comment><AUTHOR> _because it skews our estimates of probability_ is based on a group understanding of the situation applied through many filters and not by some appeal to universal tenets of logic. Each of these fallacies carry subjective and conditional baggage not understood by many commenters.

If you got that, then you don't need the article. I'm just not sure from your reply if you got it.</comment></comment>


Why Amazon Should Keep Publishing Rape and Incest Porn - <AUTHOR> http://www.onthemedia.org/story/amazon-incest-porn/

<comment><USER2> At first, I was shocked. Then, the argument actually makes a little sense.</comment>


What's Behind "Tech" versus "Journalism" - <AUTHOR> https://www.getrevue.co/profile/caseynewton/issues/what-s-really-behind-tech-versus-journalism-260861 <comment><AUTHOR> > Journalists and their allies rallied to Lorenz's side, myself included — no > journalist deserves to be harassed or threatened. Other investors and those > sympathetic to Srinivasan's anti-journalism threads joined in the shouting. > From a distance, it seemed like little more than the latest salvo in a > conflict between journalists and Silicon Valley that has escalated > significantly this year.

> But what if you take the whole discussion of "tech versus journalism" and > reframe it as "managers versus employees"? Then, I think, you get closer to > the truth of what's going on.</comment>


How Tube stations got their unusual names (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20170208-how-tube-stations-got-their-hilarious-names <comment><USER2> I wonder why this is positioned in terms of tube stations?

The answer for every single one is: because that's the name of the area the tube station is in.

So why isn't the article just about where do these places get their names from? Why the extra level of abstraction to make it about the tube stations?

<comment><USER3> That's not exactly true or at least the truth is often a lot more complicated than that.

For example: Turnham Green tube isn't at Turnham Green. It's at a park called Acton Green common (which also isn't in Acton, it's in Chiswick). Turnham Green (the actual green) is actually closer to Chiswick Park tube, which is also near a park which isn't called Chiswick Park.

Turnham Green tube station is named that because it's where the battle of Turnham Green happened in the English Civil war.

<comment><USER2> > The answer for every single one is: because that's the name of the area the > tube station is in.

> That's not exactly true

It is exactly true!

Covent Garden tube station is in Covent Garden.

Elephant & Castle is in Elephant & Castle.

Cockfosters tube station is in Cockfosters.

Tooting Bec tube station is in Tooting Bec.

Knightsbridge tube station is in Knightsbridge.

Maida Vale tube station is in Maida Vale.

Aldgate tube station is in Aldgate.

Piccadilly Circus tube station is in Piccadilly Circus.

Queensway tube station is on Queensway.

Shepherd's Bush tube station is in Shepherd's Bush.

> For example: Turnham Green

That counter example isn't in the article!

I didn't say anything about any tube station names not in the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> See also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_\(game\))

<comment><USER5> I'll go first; are you okay with Central Standard rules?

 _Stockwell_

<comment><USER6> Nonsense... according to the Revised Standard Rules of 1892, subsection 19, paragraph A stroke 2, a player whose name starts with the letter 'a' may not play Stockwell on the first move of the game!

<comment><USER5> Can we have the ruling? There's an exception to that rule for gentlemen carrying a pocket-watch, but I'm unclear if it applies to Central Standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> quite funny when translating them into German:

 _" London Underground Map Freely Translated into German"_ [https://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/ubahn/m/londo...](https://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/ubahn/m/londonundergroundmapgerman.html)

<comment><USER8> That's great! I saw a similar map of the Sydney CityRail network, with anagrams.

Icy Trail: [https://transportsydney.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/icy- trai...](https://transportsydney.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/icy-trail- map.jpg)

CityRail (original): [https://berry.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/sydney- to-be...](https://berry.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/sydney-to-berry- train-south-coast-line.jpg)

<comment><USER9> Oh! Thank you, that's brilliant. (Hate Sperm here)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The _Infanta de Castile_ (Elephant & Castle) etymology is quite compelling, and could presumably be the origin of the cutler's trademark.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Cutler...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Cutlers) has a heraldic description of the cutler's arms which has "... at the top a head of an elephant [cut clean with red?] with golden tusks" (my own interpretation of the language used), no mention of a castle.

<comment><USER11> The article directly states that this is station is named that because of the guilds coat of arms.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I'm just saying it seems they could've got it backwards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Something I think I would miss if I ever moved to the US (particularly the west coast): all of your place names sound like they were made up by property developers or estate agents. Maplewood this and Ruby Valley that. In the Old World (or at least England), every place name has a story - Cheapside, Scunthorpe, Billericay, Westward Ho! (including he exclamation mark), etc. Maybe those don't sound like places you'd want to live, but then again it doesn't make every place feel like a product in a catalogue.

<comment><USER5> Someone once defined suburbs as "The place where they name the streets after all the trees they cut down"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I always wondered about Elephant & Castle. Turns out it is named after a medieval guild of craftsmen whose crest included an elephant carrying a castle. Who would have thought.

</comment><comment><USER14> These place names are interesting no matter where you look.

E.g you can look at the Moscow metro and the history of station names, and see how they've been updated over time and what they're in reference to. E.g Октубрьская.

Or in Barcelona where you have, say, Paral-lel, named so because the main avenue runs parallel to the equator.

<comment><USER3> I heard that one of the Russian words for a train station comes from a misunderstanding. When a Russian delegation came to London to see the Victorian train network they were taken to see Vauxhall station. They asked what it was called (the station) and were told "Vauxhall", so in Russia stations are called "вокзальный" which sounds something like we in England would say Vauxhall.

<comment><USER15> Вокзал in Russian is the train station (or less commonly to large bus stations or to airports with appropriate modifiers: автовокзал, аэровокзал). For pronunciation and etymology refer to [1]:

Borrowed from English Vauxhall (former site of a pleasure garden). The ending was influenced by зал (zal, "hall"). The spelling фоксал (foksal) attested in 1777 is from French facs-hall, from the same English source. The transportation sense derives from an epithet for the Pavlovsk train station building, which at one time served as both a passenger lounge and a place of entertainment.

[1] [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B7%D0%B...](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BB)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The note about what circus means in Picadilly Circus taught me something about where I grew up: the roundabout where some 5 (or 6 I forget) roads meet at one end of the high street in Tankerton, Kent is called Tankerton Circus.

<comment><USER17> Here, Fiveways roundabout connects four roads. It's not grand enough for "circus". No-one knows exactly how many roads enter and leave the Magic Roundabout in Swindon. It changes with the phases of the moon and quantums.</comment></comment>


WhatsApp passes 500M active users, 700M photos and 100M videos shared daily - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/04/22/whatsapp-passes-500-million-active-users-says-700-million-photos-100-million-videos-shared-daily/ <comment><USER2> The power of Erlang. I was kind of shocked when they introduced the size of their engineering team. Erlang has claimed to be more productive environment than other languages/environments but having a small engineering compare to other high-scale organization is surprising. Also, their work on BEAM is great.</comment>


Nate Silver: Double Dip or Not, Economy Is Falling Farther Behind - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/double-dip-or-not-economy-is-falling-farther-behind/

<comment><USER2> _While Washington was busy debating whether or not to sabotage the recovery by failing to raise the federal debt ceiling_

Up to now, Washington has thrown every Keynesian trick in the book at this recession, and it doesn't seem to have had a substantial impact. I think the original stimulus would have had a better impact if it had included a lot more infrastructure investments than "give a man a fish" type expenditures. I'm not a student of economics, and I won't try to pretend to be one on this forum, but haven't we run out of Keynesian options if we want to continue with the current economic policies?

Nate Silver's leading line above makes me think of Germany [1]. They were the only government to take a position of austerity, were widely criticized for it, but they're the only major Western economy that rebounded from the economic crisis. The U.S. government, on the other hand, lacks the unity and political will to lead a turnaround.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/world/europe/14germany.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/world/europe/14germany.html)

<comment><USER3> _Up to now, Washington has thrown every Keynesian trick in the book at this recession, and it doesn't seem to have had a substantial impact._

I don't think this accurately represents the arguments of the Keynesian economists. Krugman, to pick an example, calculated that high unemployment rates would cause us to miss out on at least $3 trillion of wealth creation, and he called for about $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment. The government would capture perhaps 25% of the restored growth in taxes, so the federal government would come out at least $750 billion behind. But in theory, America as a whole would be wealthier. (All numbers from memory.)

The actual "stimulus" consisted of about $700 billion, of which maybe $350 billion was actually spent on things that Krugman thought would help the economy. He predicted that this was far too small to have any real impact, and that we would therefore spend years in a weak economy. (We later spent additional money on unemployment insurance; I don't know how this affects the models.)

So while you could very easily disagree with Krugman's theory, his models accurately predicted the results of the stimulus: A minor, temporary boost that would be insufficient to actually fix anything. So at least one high- profile Keynesian called it correctly, although you might argue that he just got lucky.

Personally, I don't know enough economics to have an informed opinion on my own. But we have at least 15 million Americans who _should_ be creating wealth, and who are currently sitting around doing nothing. I'd love to see that get fixed, especially because the last 20 years of Japanese history suggests that if we alternate between rounds of weak stimulus and austerity measures, we might be stuck in this economy for decades.

<comment><USER2> I remember Krugman writing that a $1.5 billion stimulus was needed, but is a stimulus of that magnitude really feasible? We spent half that and had trouble with funding enough "shovel ready" projects. I think it's harder to infuse $1.5 trillion into an economy than he takes for granted, without pissing much of it away.

<comment><USER4> So you're going to argue both sides of the question? You're really going to argue that every trick in the book has been tried, and that the amount that non-lying economists recommended to spend wasn't feasible? Which is it?

In actuality, the correct answer is that there are a vast supply of projects going undone for lack of money - crumbling bridges, roads, water pipes, sewer pipes, high-speed rail, just to get started - and that if there had been the political will to spend money on those types of manpower-intensive projects, the economy would be in much better shape today. (You get new bridges, smooth roads, AND a working economy.) Instead a vast amount of money was spent, most of it going to benefit a few thousand of the richest people in the U.S., who have dutifully saved their profits in off-shore tax havens, creating no economic benefit.

<comment><USER2> I'm not arguing. Economics is so closely tied to politics that economic debates become just as tedious as political ones.

When I think of economics, I think of the quote by statistician George Box, _"All models are wrong. Some are useful."_ Economic models are more prone to error than mathematical models in science because they are so complex and can't really account for the human element. And ultimately, their usefulness is subject to their ability to be implemented.

<comment><USER5> I did not down-vote you (as a matter of fact, I up-voted you because I am not a fan of ninja down-voters and I think that you ask interesting questions). However, it is evident that you are not a formally trained economist.

Economics is _not_ closely tied to politics. If you ever want to have a look at what real economics is, please go to <http://ssrn.com/> and read some economic articles on subjects that interest you. One thing that you will rapidly notice is that politics has almost nothing to do with formal, academic Economics (and this consitutes the _great_ bulk of the activity that goes on in the field of Economics).

It is worthwhile to distinguish between normative economics and positive economics. Positive economics, which constitutes the majority of the discipline, seeks to describe, explain, and record economic phenomena. Normative economics, which is the louder minority, seeks to prescribe solutions to problems by using economic theory.

The problem with modern Economics is that the loudest voices within the field are listened to because of their political viewpoints and not their economic expertise. Dr. Krugman in particular has the habit of mixing normative and positive economics without providing a careful distinction between the two. This is a huge problem, and it makes the entire field look bad. However, what can economists that are not popular do about this? The mass media has very little interest in impact studies of obscure policy changes done in third world countries, so we just keep churning away in the background.

While I would not say that George Box is wrong outright, I would say that this quote from him is not entirely accurate as it could be when applied to Economic modelling. You see, by definition an Economic model is merely a simplification of a real world phenomena. Of course, all simplifications are "wrong" because they are not intended to be "right" they are merely intended to be approximations.

Economic models are more prone to error than Mathematical models and models in the Natural sciences because they are, in essence, brutally simple models of Human behaviour. Their usefulness is not subject to their ability to be implemented, but is is subject to the context of the problem at hand and what the expectations are for the model.

For example, one thing that I did recently was to analyze some time series data to analyze a market for seasonality. The predictions of my model for the next two quarters were not even close to being exact, but the seasonality estimates were spot on. A model's usefulness must be determined within the context of its overall purpose.

<comment><USER6> I think whether economics is closely tied to politics depends on what you're asking after. There are two sets of economists: social scientists and engineers. The latter seem to work primarily for government and their work _is necessarily_ closely tied to politics. But there are plenty of economists who like to propose solutions to current issues who don't work for the government.

The former are less tied to politics, but much more closely to it than, say, physics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Fun exercise: If something grows at 3.5% per year, how long does it take to double in size?

Answer: About 20 years. The exact answer is ((log 2)/(log 1.035)).

<comment><USER8> A handy rule of thumb for doubling is 70/(rate of growth).

<comment><USER7> Yes... Unfortunately, some people think that's the correct way to calculate doubling time for _all_ rates of growth. Some pop investing books even elevate that rule to some kind of magical status.

One way to see why it's a good approximation is to do a Maclaurin series:

(log 2)/(log(1+r/100)) = c/(log(1+x)) where c=(log 2) and x=(r/100)

= c/(x - [x^2]/2 + [x^3]/3 - ...) ~ c/x = 0.693/x = 0.693/(r/100) = 69.3/r ~ 70/r

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another concern might be that the jobs are (slowly?) (rapidly?) being created, they're just not being created in N. America. Growth might be suppressed until this trend reverses or new activity appears to soak up the unemployed.

<comment><USER10> Well, sure. As the economy moves to be more global, jobs previously held by the US are now moving to China. Just a few weeks ago Goldman Sachs announced layoffs in the US, but added jobs in Singapore and Brazil. This is only going to continue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting way to look at the economy, but I am not sure I buy it since the growth since the last war was really fueled by the fact that only America had unharmed factories.

<comment><USER12> So-called 'trend growth' has been fueled by fossil fuels, with massive increases in the ability to exploit oil fields quickly, occurring since the 40's.

Basically, civilization is a heat engine, where prosperity, power, industry is directly tied to how much energy we can burn. Increasing prosperity demands increasing energy.

In the case of the US, oil production peaked in 70's, and the US has struggled to increase oil supplies since then. The show-downs with OPEC in the 70's that led to bad recessions are an example of the struggles.

As of 2005, World oil production has been basically flat. There's plenty of oil left, the problem is that despite trillions of dollars of CAPEX, it just can't be pumped fast enough to support 6 billion humans at increasing living standards.

Hence, World prosperity is probably staying level, but redistributing itself Eastward towards Asia.

edit: Per NBC, there are 45 million Americans claiming foodstamps in order to feed themselves. That's a very scary contrast with how the US normally thinks of itself.

<comment><USER13> >Per NBC, there are 45 million Americans claiming foodstamps in order to feed themselves.

That number is set to increase with severe cuts to entitlements and the unlikelihood of another extension of unemployment benefits.

Americans have really drunk the Kool-Aid on the notion of American exceptionalism. The idea that America is somehow special, possessed of some manifest destiny and unable to lose has been so deeply engrained in the American psyche, and for so long, that even now the notion of failure seems too fanciful to enter the common narrative. America is not special. It's been favoured by politics and luck, but there's nothing keeping it on top besides continued prosperity. Look at Japan for an example of what could easily happen: a high-tech economy with a massive banking and manufacturing sector, that collapsed then...never really restarted. There are, in fact, many parallels between the Japanese and American recessions. While Japan is still a massive innovator, the benefits have not trickled down to the average Japanese citizen. China long ago took over as the biggest economy in Asia, and could easily supplant the US globally if current trends continue.

To face these challenges, the US has...Congress. The leadership vacuum in Washington is downright depressing. Amidst bitter political bickering, the disaffected masses turn to the demagoguery of the Tea Party, further perpetuating the political morass. Can anyone see a viable, _achievable_ solution? Cutting the deficit is critically important, yet any proposed method of doing so seems likely to hurt the economy at a time when it simply can't take it. Everything seems poised to get much worse before it gets better.

<comment><USER14> America is exceptional, just read the founding documents, there's been nothing like the American experiment in liberty before or since. That freedom resulted in unprecedented prosperity and innovation. The Tea Party movement seeks to restore that, and their plan of budget austerity is the only path forward. The other way-- profligate spending and stimulus-- is the path that Japan took and it failed.

<comment><USER13> That you believe that just further speaks to my point.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Inferring Canada's hockey-watching from water usage data - <AUTHOR> http://blog.canoe.ca/canoedossier/2010/03/09/portrait_of_a_nation_peeing

<comment><USER2> This is a really cool graph to see. The gold medal hockey game was the most watched television event in Canadian history by far with 80% (26.5 million people) of the country watching some part of the game. I'm sure that just about every water utility in the country has a very similar graph for water usage on that day.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great work. I'm seeing an analogy here between this and cryptanalysis using power consumption data.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone have a link to the full size image?

<comment><USER5> [http://www.patspapers.com/blog/item/what_if_everybody_flushe...](http://www.patspapers.com/blog/item/what_if_everybody_flushed_at_once_Edmonton_water_gold_medal_hockey_game/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm bemused to observe that this was essentially the plot of _Flushed Away_.</comment>


The cult of WeWork - <AUTHOR> https://www.propertyweek.com/insight/the-cult-of-wework/5098454.article#.W75jF-5u1FM.twitter <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17931209](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17931209)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been in my WeWork for nearly 3 years. As a (largely) solo worker it made a massive difference to my working life, and I've made the money I've spent on it many times over from meeting people there.

Some people live and breathe it. If I was 22 and an employee of someone, and still into drinking a bunch of beer every night, I'd probably live and breathe it too. Your work life and the people you meet would be better than 90% of your friends.

That said the gloss wore off for me in about 6 months. You realise you can't be 100% productive and drink beer every day. Events are great, but most of the time it just means I have to find somewhere quiet to work. Etc. Etc.

That said, I'd still recommend it in a heartbeat. I have no intention of moving unless I have to. The staff are great, the internet is super fast, and I love it at the weekend when it's mostly a big, empty quiet, well stocked building.

<comment><USER4> That's a question I've always had about WeWork (or other co-working spaces, I've never really been in one, except for events).

Do people actually really socialise and meet other people? I'd expect that people go there to work - knowing myself for example, I'd put my headphones and work without talking to anyone, because, well, I'm here to work and need to get shit done.

Can you clarify this to me? How to do you meet those people? I DO believe it'd be very valuable for me to meet and socialise with most WeWork workers, but don't really see how this happens. Except as you mentioned, through the events at night.

<comment><USER3> Yes - some people are very, very social. There are a good number of people that have drinks towards the end of the day - like any other office-y environment, you just need to take the leap to talk to people. Of course I've seen people here who never speak to anyone, but the larger percentage people do talk.

Personally - I'll come in, say my good mornings to the people I know, sit down and put headphones on and power through. Occasionally I'll go make a drink, where I may have ten minutes of screen break / water cooler chat. There's proper 'social' drinks once a week, and probably 1 or 2 other 'events'. At the drinks especially it's easy to just say "hey" and get talking. It's easier if you're a hotdesker and you see that face every day. Otherwise you'll bump into people throughout the day. You just need to chit chat - "Hey, that smells good, what is it?" / "Sorry, can I just grab the milk from behind you? ... I don't think we've met before..." etc.

I gotta say it was invaluable to me - I had maybe 5 years at home beforehand and I'd be bouncing off the walls by 6pm. Social interaction, even lightly, is very beneficial.

Hope that answers your question!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why does so much of the news these days sound like the introductory chapter to a 1990s soft sci-fi novel?

Yesterday I read about Papua New Guinea establishing a cryptocurrency zone that's exempt from local laws and can issue its own passports. Today it's a coworking space founder who acts like a cult leader, has his own festival and wants to build entire towns owned by his company (and is funded by a shadowy Japanese conglomerate — pure William Gibson!).

<comment><USER6> Cory Doctorow once said that good sci-fi doesn't predict the future so much as it anticipates the present.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I tend to view WeWork as the AWS of Office Space. It's hard to make real estate "sexy", but they've done it. I totally see the value of the WeWork culture & community. You go to WeWork for the affordable office spaces and amenities, you stay because of the community connections you build.

That being said, this article just seems weird. Ofcourse it's a company that's "cult like", if it weren't, it's just be another shared office space provider. WeWork is definitely tapping into something unconventional, maybe even a market that other traditional real estate guys just don't see.

As Reid Hoffman might say, they're Blitzscaling. Sure it may not be efficient, but if done right, WeWork will emerge as a new kind of market leader a la Amazon, Uber etc. Instead of moving to Silicon Valley, it may be that innovators around the world join a community like WeWork.

</comment><comment><USER6> CEO's wife, on stage, sitting beside her husband: "You helped him create the biggest family in the world. A big part of being a woman is to help men [like Adam] manifest their calling in life."

This is awkward and uncomfortable, no matter what lens by which you consider it.

<comment><USER8> I would charitably read it as her describing her own presence in her husband's life and how exactly she's there for him. I'd take it as her talking about herself as a woman, and many people do thrive in supporting roles as opposed to leadership ones. She's every right to describe what womanhood means to her.

It might still be awkward and uncomfortable to hear (I would balk at any talk of making a company be like 'family', for example), but I wouldn't take it any further than personally disagreeing with the sentiment. No one is ever going to agree on a single definition of what family means, or what men and women are here for.</comment></comment>