noibl

Several good points of clarification. My own phrasing leaned heavily on "abstract".

Your substitution...

- passing around butt-plugs and dildos to my students

+ [giving] out sex toys to kids

...is an example of exactly the kind of transcription error via which controversy ignites into hysteria. If we are to interpret your intent charitably, we must also charitably assume that abstract anatomical models (sex toys) are a useful and valid demonstration tool in the context of sexual health education.

The first part of this sounds very closely related to something called Rogerian argument [1] which aims to find new opportunities for consensus by building on views already held in common.

The bit about assigning probabilities is interesting, precisely because I can think of very few contexts in which it would be of use to me. People seem to have little tolerance for shades of uncertainty when expressing views, whereas privately we think in probabilities all the time. It's as though we play a kind of poker where our need to conserve our 'stack' of reputational authority makes us relegate the actual ideas in contention to mere 'hands' to be represented, bluffed, and trivially discarded when a more amenable certainty presents itself.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument#Rapoport's...

It's nighttime and there is no wind. That's the downside of extrapolating from real-time data.

A couple of highlights from Australia's energy transition story in the last few days, which show some of the work being done at state level in spite of a largely renewables-hostile federal government over the last several years:

the Western Australia grid ... reached 82 per cent renewables for a half-hour period on October 30 ... and it is likely that new peak is the highest for any gigawatt-scale grid in the world.

South Australia ... has established the world’s highest share of renewables – as a percentage of demand – in any gigawatt scale grid in the world, when it reached 146 per cent on September 14. The excess is, of course, exported to the neighbouring state, in this case Victoria.

-- https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-stunning-wind-and-solar-leap... [2022-11-04]

[NSW is seeking] solutions on replacing 10GW of coal capacity that is likely to leave the grid within the next decade.

Those plans are being accelerated by fast-tracked closures of the main coal generators, including Liddell early next year, Eraring in 2025, and Bayswater as early as 2030. Vales Point is expected to close by 2029, leaving Mt Piper with the only uncertain closure time.

-- https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-formally-declares-its-third-... [2022-11-04]

big companies like google or facebook (which, according to the website, do not support net neutrality [why would they, right?])

It doesn't quite say that. It says[1] that they didn't sign up to the event on the 12th. However, news outlets are reporting otherwise.[2][3] The Internet Association, which they founded, launched its petition site[4] on Monday. Microsoft is now also a member. Apple, for whatever reason, is not.

Google also has its own 'Take Action' page[5] but I'm not sure how old it is. Mark Zuckerberg has publicly stated support for net neutrality.[6] But both companies have been criticized[7][8] in the past for using a self-serving interpretation of the term. And, as the recent EU ruling against Google reminds us, telcos are not the only internet gatekeepers we need to worry about.[9]

[1] https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants

[2] https://www.recode.net/2017/7/8/15938164/net-neutrality-day-...

[3] http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/google-amazon-protest-against...

[4] http://iadayofaction.org

[5] https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.h...

[6] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881

[7] https://www.facebook.com/notes/access-now/open-letter-to-mar...

[8] https://scroll.in/article/717663/double-standards-facebook-a...

[9] https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/eu-google-antitr... (this article was written a year ago by someone who gets funding from various telcos and Microsoft: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scott_Cleland )

Heh, probably not the best example of cheap TV. $3.8m wouldn't even pay for a single House of Cards episode.[1]

But it still works as a good example of the economics: "With Netflix spending a reported $100 million to produce two 13-episode seasons of House of Cards, they need 520,834 people to sign up for a $7.99 subscription for two years to break even. ... That sounds daunting, but at the moment, Netflix has 33.3 million subscribers, so this is an increase of less than 10 percent on their current customer base."[2]

[1] http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/caa-agent-discloses-net... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/econom...

A compiled cache of common javascript libraries.

Benefits: speed, privacy (less interaction with CDNs).

I found this article to be more informative:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/giant-leap-for-nuclea...

Who says this?

Since you jogged my memory, here's one person who has said it: Richard Clarke, U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism 1992-2003 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3769442

we can be sure that any country capable of doing economic espionage has been doing it, is doing it, and will continue to do it, no matter the rules, no matter if they get caught, no matter the hypocrital public posturing of their leaders.

Why can we be sure of this? Simply from a rudimentary game-theoretic analysis? Isolated incidents of industrial spying aren't enough to show that this activity is as ubiquitous and inevitable as you say it must be.

The personalisation idea sounds a lot (but not exactly) like what Hubski[1] is trying to do. There is still a certain amount of manual work involved in 'following' individuals and exploring tags (a la del.icio.us) but I find the resulting combination of a personal feed with comments on each item from the wider community quite effective. Of course, for a system that accommodates diversity to work, there must be actual diversity within the group. I'm not sure Hubski is big enough to have that yet.

[1] http://hubski.com/about

Heh, I like that.

Is there a way to subscribe to change notifications on ToS docs from a specific company?

Surprised Ars didn't mention this:

"Microsoft switched to Word (from Internet Explorer) as its rendering engine with the introduction of Outlook 2007 and hasn’t looked back (errr, forward?) since. Despite the email community’s efforts and a well-intentioned response from Microsoft, this means that HTML and CSS support in Outlook has remain virtually unchanged between versions 2007, 2010 and now 2013."[1]

Nice.

[1] http://litmus.com/blog/outlook-2013-still-powered-by-word-no...

Sorry but that's bullshit. What you've said is that the guy simply got caught and therefore this was not a case of responsible disclosure.

The letter doesn't say that. No other sources say that. You're the only one saying that.

An admission in writing is not the same thing as a disclosure.

You're using uncorroborated dates in a document that's clearly worded to paint the student in the worst light possible to infer a 'detection' which it doesn't mention and for which there is no evidence. You're then sharing your inference as documented fact. That's a smear.

The letter says no such thing. I don't know why you've taken the trouble to post this falsehood twice in a short thread.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5096170

Actually the letter says nothing about detection and all other sources[1][2] about this matter agree that the 'detection' took the form of a voluntary disclosure, which was rewarded with an NDA demand under threat of arrest.

So it seems you are the one twisting the facts for reasons unknown.

---

[1] "Al-Khabaz immediately alerted the head of information technology for the school about the breach in the Omnivox software used by the college. At first he was thanked for the discovery." -- http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1318163--montreal-studen...

[2] "they discovered that by exchanging other student numbers in the encrypted links, they could easily obtain information such as the social insurance numbers, home addresses and phone numbers of more than 250,000 students. Al-Khabaz said he informed the school’s head of information technology immediately after discovering the vulnerability in the school’s Omnivox software and was congratulated for the discovery." -- http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/canada/story/2013/01/21/montreal-da...

1. It's a fact that there are many competing theories about why the DoJ were so passionate about this case.

2. There are also many competing opinions on which reforms would be appropriate or sufficient in the wake of what was done to Aaron Swartz.

3. It's not surprising, nor is it inappropriate, that Wikileaks would be advocating for more sweeping reforms and adjustments in how we look at the application of judicial force in these situations.

Remember that it is a core contention of Wikileaks that the channeling of power within and across organisations and the loci of that power and decision-making are at the moment dangerously obscure to the public. Of course they would be looking for signs of that in this case.

To the extent that there is evidence for ulterior agendas, it's important. Lack of evidence makes it, as you say, murky -- people see what they want to see. But it's also true that you can't find what you're not looking for.

To put it another way: There are conspiracy theories but there are also conspiracies, and systemic mal-alignments of purpose. Formulating conspiracy theories without evidence is the opposite of helpful. But identifying unforeseen patterns of collaboration can help us reason defensively about situations we, as a public, will never have adequate information of.

Thanks.

> being an anonymous organization

It isn't. It has a very public and (quite deliberately) accountable director who has made several detailed statements about the purpose and goals of the organisation. Several of its staff are also well known but that's not the important point. Also, the statements themselves have a distinctly altruistic character and they stand, like a declaration from any group of people, independently from the personalities involved.

> but that's something we have to take on faith

As one would with an individual. What ulterior motive? I'm willing to accept that the organisation's actions have at times been questionable in terms of effect. But to say that its aims are not altruistic is a different kind of claim altogether.

> As for being benign ... Wikileaks' most famous alleged collaborator is in a military prison

I see; you're working with a definition of 'benign' as 'harmless' rather than 'doing good' or 'doing more good than harm'. So the test is whether anyone was harmed as an outcome of the work done. If you can't see the harm in Swartz's case I don't know what to say, especially when you mention Manning as a victim of leaking.

If we go by the second definition, 'doing more good than harm', which I think most would accept as being more reasonable, then I think the US government's statements about the harmlessness of Manning's leak[1] coupled with outcomes such as the Arab Spring shows (and this is a fairly low bar) that there is no stark contrast to be drawn.

> But they had necessarily different paths.

Whether Swartz was involved in Wikileaks work isn't really in question here. The question is whether there's a moral distinction between the different entities' goals and actions ('altruistic' and 'benign' being unavoidably value-laden terms).

I find it impossible to agree with you about that but I appreciate you taking the time to make the case.

[1] http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/wikileaks/43110/white-house-said...

Wait a minute. Your claim is this: 'Aaron really doesn't need the association with Wikileaks'. In support, you offer only 'especially as his supporters attempt to portray his work as benign and altruistic'. I'm trying to understand how this supports the claim. It would seem it could only do so if Swartz's actions were somehow in contrast to Wikileaks in the context of those terms.

Yet you refuse to say whether you think Wikileaks' work is either benign or altruistic. Your opinion of how Wikileaks would characterise itself is of no benefit in understanding the basis of your claim.

And now, instead of answering a straightforward binary question about a claim you did make, you want me to go and ask a whole bunch of other people about claims they didn't make?

I understand less and less.

So... you are implying a contrast or not?

> especially as his supporters attempt to portray his work as benign and altruistic.

Are you implying some kind of contrast?

The word 'meltdown' is apt.

[Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_...

> since we were completely outgunned and outmanned by the competition

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html#fsCanvas

Opera has always been outmanned and yet consistently been close to or ahead of the curve.

I would say this is more about arbitrary and unhelpful platform restrictions and Opera being characteristically pragmatic about that (lawsuits notwithstanding).

Going forward, are Microsoft and Opera now both to be contributors to the WebKit project? :)

> May you explain where I lose the plot?

I guess, if I were to pinpoint, it would be with the words 'stir it'.

BTW, I neither deserve nor need an apology from you. Don't be sorry! We're just disagreeing. And I really do think we have a fundamental disagreement about priorities here. Apologising doesn't resolve that (though I acknowledge I haven't articulated my side of it very well).

I don't know why someone would send you hatemail over you expressing an opinion. That doesn't sound right at all.

---

> People make notice of how "well" all was handled and say "let's give them a chance" and order.

I think that's fine in cases where the 'mistake' clearly (or with reasonable doubt) was an actual mistake. This applies to outages, billing issues, product quality issues... Hounding on Twitter, not so much.

> I personally don't use such techniques because it can easily backfire.

I think if the reasons why they backfire were more important to businesses than the fact that they backfire, everyone would be a lot happier.

Thank you for your post, which again starts off sounding reasonable and only later loses the plot completely.

> On week #1 you fuck up and apologize. On week #2 you make the sale.

Have you considered developing this into an ebook?

> Send all insults and hate to my inbox (address on profile).

What?

---

[Edit before seeing reply:] With apologies in business, you want the reader to believe what happened was a mistake, an error, and that it doesn't reflect on your internal ethical code (corporate or personal). In order for that to happen, people need to know that you recognise that you did the wrong thing, but that's only half of it. They also need to figure out whether you're likely to do more bad shit in the future. And your ability to transmit that information to them by talking about it is extremely limited. So: don't fuck up! Because it's really not a marketing opportunity.

You were doing well up until:

> With the gained attention, market a new product

> For once, it seems Microsoft has a better option.

Not for the first time. * { box-sizing: border-box; } is a staple of mine.

> WebKit is the new IE and it's destructive for the web.

Microsoft has submitted a patch to the WebKit project to extend the open source rendering engine with a prototype implementation of the Pointer Events specification that the company is also working on together with Google, Mozilla, and Opera. ... The first specification, Touch Events, has been essentially abandoned.[1]

> The mobile web is at this point not even usuable on a non-webkit browser. This is bad for the web. You are doing it. Please stop doing it.

There's no need to hector web developers about this. (I assume that's what you meant by 'you'.) It's mostly up to the browser makers to hash this out. Microsoft's contribution to Webkit was an exemplary and, from what I can see, much-welcomed response to Apple's patent shenanigans over Touch. Let's just give it time.

It's worth bearing in mind that Android (which ships Webkit by default) is currently the only mainstream mobile OS that even allows unrestricted use of independent browser technology, which is partly why Firefox Mobile is only available for that platform.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/micros...

It's clearly stated that he's quoting Franklin -- "America's first great scientist."

Here are some other statements about Franklin from Wikipedia which might illuminate the meaning (and maybe Norvig's assessment of the quote's relevance to computer science, information retrieval and Google):

Franklin was foundational in defining the American ethos as a marriage of the practical values of thrift, hard work, education, community spirit, self-governing institutions, and opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious, with the scientific and tolerant values of the Enlightenment. In the words of historian Henry Steele Commager, "In a Franklin could be merged the virtues of Puritanism without its defects, the illumination of the Enlightenment without its heat."[3] To Walter Isaacson, this makes Franklin "the most accomplished American of his age and the most influential in inventing the type of society America would become."

Franklin never patented his inventions; in his autobiography he wrote, "... as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

His inventions also included social innovations, such as paying forward. Franklin's fascination with innovation could be viewed as altruistic; he wrote that his scientific works were to be used for increasing efficiency and human improvement. One such improvement was his effort to expedite news services through his printing presses.

According to the channel on freenode, full, up-to-date, and prefix-free flexbox support is on track to be enabled in the stable version of Firefox that is released exactly 12 weeks from tomorrow.