whatevsbro

Why aren't you replying to any of them if you're acting as the voice of reason here?

Exactly because the fraudulent bans are actually a widespread phenomenon, but that goes against what Matt's been telling us here.

Matt Cutts has always been Google's little PR-whore.

Back in the days, you'd always see him spring into action whenever Google was talked about in a negative light. Any doubts about "Don't Be Evil", or the sincerity of their "openness" or whatever, Matt would always be there, filling HN threads with his pro-Google propaganda.

You should just ignore his bullshit here. It's obvious that the leak is true - not because I say so, but take a look at "adsenseclient"'s posts and dig up some material and you'll see.

Do you want to understand exactly how a car works, or do you just want to go places?

"Welcome to France, entrepreneurs! It's a wonderful place to do business in, what with the lax regulation and light bureaucracy and all. Oh, and far be it from our economy to be drowning in taxes. Very far.

But don't you fucking DARE to become 'rich', you bastard! -If you earn more than our socialist overlords deem appropriate, we'll just confiscate 75% of the 'excess'. Fuck you, slave. But, you know.. welcome."

He does make good points about the legalese. Quite worrisome.

You can rest assured that all governments monitor their citizens to the best of their abilities.

Hence the US is entitled to listen to everything non-US people say, read everything non-US people write, search data not stored on US soil, monitor non-US financial transactions, etc. All without having to respect any law of any other country.

I hope you realize that the US most definitely does all of that inside the US too! The NSA's pretending to only target "Outsiders" only serves to make the all-encompassing surveillance more abstract, and thus somewhat more palatable to the local masses.

I flagged this and hope others do too.

Yeah, we shouldn't pay attention to politicians breaking their promises! It's not like what politicians do has any effect on our lives!

> we should not have rulers Explain "should not"?

It’s a violation of our rights, for starters. Second, it doesn’t benefit society at large. A ruler’s rule only benefits himself, and his cronies. And finally, as the “If You Were King” video explained, you can’t be a “good ruler” - there’s no such thing, because whatever good you’d like to accomplish, is financed by the immorality of robbing people for taxes. Besides, whatever you wanted to accomplish would require people doing something to that end, and they’d either do it voluntarily (and your rule would be unnecessary), or you’d have to force them and then you’re just being a thug.

Life's unfair. Rule of law applies in some sense - if I put my savings in a bank (UK), the government guarantees them even in the event of the bank going bankrupt.

That’s irrelevant, and not even a net benefit to society, again, because those guarantees cause people not to care which bank they put their money in. Without such guarantees, people would only use trustworthy banks, and banks would have to show trustworthiness through their actions. Besides, any deposit guarantee by the government is paid from money that’s been forcefully confiscated from everyone. Oh, and there’s a limit to how many deposit guarantees they can actually carry out without the economy imploding from inflation etc.

Why not apply the law more carefully and thoroughly instead of throwing it away?

Again, no rulers doesn’t mean no rules. You’re thinking of laws in a positive way, and there they represent common rules for people to follow, for the benefit of everyone. And that’s exactly the kind of laws/rules that would exist in a free society.

But the laws in our societies today are commands issued to us by governments. It’s always either: “You’re not allowed to do X”, or “You must do X”, and if you’re found to disobey the command, you will be punished. It’s important to realize that the vast majority of laws have nothing to do with our morals, they’re all about controlling/fleecing/ruling us and benefiting the rulers’ corporate buddies.

See: http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/23/burn-the-fucking-system-to...

> ”There are multiple classes of people, but it boils down to the connected, and the not connected. Just as in pre-Revolutionary France, there is a very strict class hierarchy, and the very idea that we are equal before the law is a laughable nonsequitur.”

Speaking of laws, what if I write down on a piece of paper that everyone must eat Surströmming ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=31... ) at least once per day. Does that mean everyone has to obey my command to eat it? No? -What if me and a couple of buddies convene around a table and formulate the rule in a more “official” way, maybe something like “all citizens shall be required to partake in Surströmming at least once per day”? -Would that be enough? Still no? -Well what if we make it a piece of parchment instead, and use a high quality fountain pen, and maybe even stamp a couple of pictures of eagles on top? Would my Surströmming decree turn into a rule that everyone is morally obligated to follow then?

Of course not, people would just laugh at my insanity. But what if I declared that I’ve got an army, a police force, and prisons and that anyone who disobeys my Surströmming rule will be thrown in jail? .. Funny how that works, huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ng...

You say this as if con-artists and careless people have never hurt anyone ever, and it's just an imaginary situation.

Nope, I’m just talking about the incentives involved. Sure, there are some snake-oil salesmen around, but they’re rare.

But we’re getting sidetracked here, and I’m trying to wrap this up some time soon. You’re thinking that governments protect us as consumers, and make sure our flights reach their destinations and that we’re not sold toxic crap for food and so on. But the reality is that no government bureaucrat needs to tell Boeing to make airplanes that don’t fall down and kill people, and that governments don’t, in fact, make sure everything we consume is safe.

Boeing wants to make money through manufacturing and selling airplanes. Boeing’s customers, the airlines, want to make money by selling flights to people. Airlines need airplanes, but both need customers to make any money. It’s crucial to both that the planes are as safe as humanly possible. I have no idea what happened in Korea, but there’s no way around what I just said there. Korean Air does not need a US government bureaucrat to order them to do whatever they can to keep receiving money from their customers.

Why do people today buy and sell harmful foods that taste nice

Well why do they? We’ve got governments to protect us from harmful food, right?

Why do we need environmental regulation stopping companies dumping neurotoxins in local waterways?

I don’t know. Why do we need regulation to prevent BP from spilling a shit-ton of oil in the Gulf of Mexico? -Oh wait.. :p

Why do we hear about problems in Foxconn factories?

This might be related: https://techpresident.com/news/wegov/24772/absent-labor-unio...

> Given that Chinese government prohibits independent trade labor unions, and that the sole official union, All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) has done little to represent workers, it appears that human rights and labor organizations have stepped up to fill that gap.

In other words, the Chinese government is preventing Chinese workers from forming effective unions.

Why is there such a thing as an obesity epidemic, if people stop buying things that hurt them?

That’s a separate issue. I meant food that’s actively harmful, in a way that gets noticed. But people can stuff themselves with fast food for ages before suffering any permanent damage from their lifestyle.

People don't buy harmful things? People won't make harmful things? As if!

Of course they do. But governments don’t protect us from ourselves either! That's our job regardless of whether we have rulers.

At its highest ever price, all gold ever mined put together would be worth ~8 trillion dollars. The USA GDP is 17 trillion dollars, for the USA alone. (Both Wikipedia). Where are you going to get enough gold to back the entire economy?

We’ve got astounding numbers of “nominal wealth” floating around, but that doesn’t mean precious metals wouldn’t do just fine as a foundation for a sound currency.

There’s a lot to talk about in economics, but check this out: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmT6-ChKpaiIVu2fhEIsNtQ

” Since the 1950s, annual gold output growth has approximately kept pace with world population growth of around 2x, although far less than world economic growth of some 8x" There are ~192 countries in the world. How many use a gold standard now? 0.

Of course they don’t, because a gold standard places limits on what governments can do. That’s exactly why the world’s governments got rid of it.

Interesting point about the police.

Indeed. Watch this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IO...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list...

Stay tuned for a response. I'm going to work now, but will write to you this evening (GMT+2).

The concern is that OpenBSD fellas are fragmenting the project and they are also asserting that OpenSSL team was doing things wrong for a long time.

Fragmenting? Aren't they making a separate, alternative implementation?

Either way, the whole open source field is chock-full of "fragmentation", with countless precious little snowflakes rushing to fork and re-implement anything and everything under the sun to get it just the way they want it. I doubt whatever fragmentation might happen with OpenSSL is a cause for concern, especially when the OpenSSL codebase is objectively bad.

The video presenter says "don't pay taxes, don't follow laws".

I agree that telling people not to pay taxes is a bit silly when doing that will get you hauled to jail. But that brings us to the video's point: we should not have rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U

Rule of law keeps buildings built to a safe standard, keeps food edible, keeps water drinkable, keeps airlines basically safe, keeps employers from abusing employees with low wages and no safety codes, keeps businesses from wrecking and polluting the local town/city environment.

There's too much to unpack there. But having no ruleRs doesn't mean having no rules. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, the so-called rule of law only applies to us little folks, not Wall Street banksters, for example.

If you commit fraud, you go to jail. If a banker commits fraud, he will face no negative consequences. He'll just be collecting massive bonuses for wrecking the economy.

As for the other stuff, if you build a shit airplane and it crashes, you'll have a hard time convincing people to buy more of your airplanes. No one is more motivated to make sure Boeing's aircrafts are safe than Boeing itself.

The same applies to food. If your food products harm people, no one will want to buy them, and you won't get any money.

But this only works all the way in a free market, where all exchanges are voluntary, and thus, everything is subject to competition.

How much are you really going to be able to keep of your earnings if you have to personally guard it 24/7 because there's no police, no law, no way to stop someone stronger taking it without followup, and no banks you trust?

This is a common sticking point, and I was stuck too. But then I realized that whenever someone wants to hurt you somewhere, a police officer will not materialize there to protect you. The government doesn't actually prevent any crimes, it only discourages (ordinary) people from committing them. The same kind of discouragement can be arranged without a government, and will work a lot better because it's based on voluntary co-operation, and therefore can't be bribed to look the other way.

And how much is that money going to be worth anyway if there's no government to say that it has value by fiat?

Gold was happily used as a currency for ages, without anyone decreeing that it has value. Money just doesn't work that way. Gold was used exactly because everyone wanted it (ie. it had universal value), it was durable, divisible, and so on.

Our fiat currencies only have value because governments force us to pay taxes in them. Otherwise no one would use such unreliable currencies.

the fact remains that OpenSSL is very widely used on Windows and yanking it out without providing a drop-in replacement option is a bad idea

The LibreSSL guys are not yanking anything out of Windows, they're just providing an alternative to OpenSSL, for all the world to use, for free.

They're not under any obligation to support Windows, no matter how bad you want them to.

Consider going to Thailand for this. They've probably got the most experienced MtF genital surgeons in the world.

Someone has probably taken it upon himself to threaten these devs in a nasty (and perhaps illegal) way.

Someone, you say? How about just stating the fucking obvious: That "someone" is The US Government, and this is just standard gag-order fare. "Stop developing the app, or we will fuck up your life. Oh, and don't say a word about this to anyone, or we'll fuck up your life."

This insanity is obviously unconstitutional (for starters), but since the USG obviously doesn't give a fuck anyway, what with the all-encompassing surveillance and all, this has become just business as usual.

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qp...

I like watching tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nutjobs, so I'd like to recommend these:

https://www.youtube.com/user/JosieTheOutlaw1/videos

https://www.youtube.com/user/corbettreport/videos

https://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos

Hmm.. This person was a sociopath a decade ago. I wonder if she's not a sociopath anymore.

(Yeah, not directly comparable, but she is still very much a sociopath, just like all other high-ranking politicians. True, this is just an assertion I'm making, so take it for what it's worth, but please do think for yourself.)

Finding someone that knows a given static site generator is much harder.

Sure, but what exactly is there to know about it? :) -How to get it to generate a static site from a content directory?

I can't see how learning to use a static site generator could be difficult. Wouldn't people mostly just be editing the content and re-generating the pages, etc?

They tend to believe that they can live outside the law.

No, they just don't think highly of the laws we're all under today. They see that a victimless crime is not a crime at all.

All this guy had to do was go to his employer and say

All his employer had to do was not be retarded little bitches.

Try and find out if the CTO is the only problem, ie. he's not conspiring with the other founder.

If the CTO is acting alone, get rid of him and continue with the business. If not, ruin their fundraising chances, cut your losses and move on to bootstrap a business on your own.

A prolonged fight won't do you any good.

That's a good attitude. Political correctness is insane.

But you don't need a new throwaway account for each "bold" statement you make. Speak up, though. The world needs more people waking others up.

Next up, "Norway forces everyone to have good taste in music".

This is just yet another example of the insanity of governments and the world we live in. The only way governments affect societies is through force, coercion. Any law is a command, and you will be punished for disobeying it, regardless of whether it makes any sense whatsoever.. and only a handful of people see any problems with this.

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that if you can invest your 401k wisely, you might as well cash it out.

The reason for this is that you're not going to get that pension anyway, because the Western world's economies are barely holding together even as we speak. No one knows what will happen, but some of us know that something bad is going to happen.

It's fundamentally quite simple. Dozens of trillions of unpaid liabilities are just not going to get paid, and most Western governments are getting even more indebted each year. Using money you don't actually have will have consequences even for governments.

Whether your current plan is a wise investment for that 401k is another matter. I'd consider other plans too.

I think half of the Facebook business model is based on people accidentally clicking things .. How can Facebook fix this?

- Why fix something that's not broken? It's working exactly as Facebook intended it.

I honestly do not believe we will make it more than 1 or 2 more generations without complete social collapse

Our economic house of cards will be crashing down within ten years. You should probably worry about that first.

Besides, over- or under-population being a problem is related to the economy too. It's all about having enough resources and jobs for everyone, right? The best possible thing any government can do for an economy is to keep its hands off of it and let people produce and accumulate wealth.

Then there's the US police state, which probably won't take long to complete. That's another much more pressing concern than whatever might happen with regard to the population.

How about just switching to the best Java IDE on the market: IntelliJ IDEA? Sure, you'll have to pay for it, but you get what you pay for - both ways.

Here's the important part:

Coinbase provides your full transaction history to the FBI, FinCEN and IRS every day. They are under a gag order.

Carmack and Abrash are extremely smart, and certainly aware of the privacy implications of Facebook acquiring Oculus.

They know they'll be helping Facebook rape the world's privacy in currently unimaginable ways, but they've got a world-class team doing some serious fucking software engineering, so they don't really care.

Much like for a "quant" on Wall Street, ethical concerns take a back-seat to getting to grapple with lovely, sciency challenges.

Let's take a look:

I think it is going to be positive, but clearly many disagree.

Positive for you, or positive for the world's sheeple?

Much of the ranting has been emotional or tribal

Ah, those silly emotional people, group-thinking and being all irrational (unlike Carmack about his technical work). What's there to be emotional about? It's not like there's anything wrong with a police state (like the US or UK) knowing everything about you!

but I am interested in reading coherent viewpoints about objective outcomes.

He wants us to make a compelling case for how the state knowing absolutely everything about you could possibly be a bad thing. But it has to be objective - you know, exactly like his own view on the matter.

What are the hazards?

How could Carmack possibly have a clue about the hazards, what with Snowden's revelations and all? It's like, impossible.

What should be done to guard against them?

How about making sure governments all around the world don't abuse the information they gather on everyone? -Oh wait, you can't.

What are the tests for failure?

Oh I don't know. Find yourself in a gulag for thinking/saying/doing things the government finds vaguely uncomfortable? --> "Ohhhhhhhh, right. This is a bit of a problem."