jccc

HN is not a car blog.

The point of clickbait is that the link will get reposted to all kinds of places online, with a headline that intentionally misrepresents the article to those readers and fools them into clicking.

(Original headline was “The 1986 Oldsmobile Incas Had The Wildest Dashboard You’ve Never Seen.”)

This headline would be much less effective if it told you the truth, that the car never existed:

“Unfortunately for us, Oldsmobile never went ahead and produced the Incas. They made a slew of other wild concept cars as well, but none of those saw the light of day either […]”

Yes but I think the point is even in that case anyone snooping would be drawn deeper to find something.

Purchases of alcohol at the grocery store are not individually logged and tracked by personal ID. I’m certain that is not what happens when I show my birth date to a cashier.

This doesn't simplify Ellsberg's argument but mischaracterizes it. He directly addresses the claim that his own and Snowden's actions were different, and offers specific, concrete examples of how they were in fact alike in important ways that go to the heart of the comparison.

Of course Ellsberg isn't the final word and I'm confident no one here thinks that. I assume it's okay by you if discussion continues rather than wait forever for "history" to tell us what to think.

Your view of Snowden is fairly well-known round these parts. If you're concerned about Ellsberg's name having outsized influence on the subject, it seems more in keeping with the spirit of HN for you to tell us why he's wrong in this op-ed rather than roll eyes at the idea of hearing Ellsberg's own response to Snowden v. Ellsberg.

A wonderful thing about history is that it's never really finished: No presumptuous authority can tie a ribbon on a topic and close it.

I don't bring in Ellsberg for his moral authority or to rebut or refute anything, but because he is himself the subject of the comparison. He addressed this exact comparison in a Washington Post op-ed.

Surely Ellsberg's own comments on Snowden v. Ellsberg and consequences are worth seeing in a thread on that very subject.

I’m not rebutting Maciej, I’m noting that Ellsberg already did answer this exact point in detail in the Washington Post.

I can’t imagine how that isn’t relevant here.

I don't think Snowden leaked those things because he wanted to protest the Espionage Act of 1917. I think he wanted Americans to see the content of what he leaked.

Fidel Narvaez the Ecuadorian consul in London helped Snowden get out of Hong Kong to the Moscow airport on the way to Ecuador with the purpose of getting him asylum (which had previously been granted to Julian Assange).

Joe Biden (then vice president) told the president of Ecuador by phone that relations between the U.S. and his country would "strongly deteriorate" if Snowden was given sanctuary there.

So sure, at that point "Ecuador didn't want him either."

I really don't care whether or not the U.S. planned for Snowden to be in Russia the moment they revoked the passport. The point is that he was trapped there by the actions of the U.S., and this was then used endlessly to insinuate all kinds of things about his motives and distract attention from the substance of the leaks.

He was in transit to Ecuador, which was going to grant him asylum. The U.S. government revoked his passport, trapping him in the Moscow airport.

One may believe that Snowden's location at the time the U.S. revoked his passport was chance, but it's obvious that it was then used over and over to smear him as a Russian stooge. And we can see this smearing continues to this day.

"Obviously his freedom to speak freely about his host country is extremely limited"

Do you think the Russian government would prefer that he not say things like this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/29/edward-snowd...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/world/europe/edward-snowd...

Ellsberg disagrees with you:

"Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-...

"Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree."

Also, Snowden was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government while in transit to South America, enabling the smear that he went into the arms of the Russians.

And further from Ellsberg:

"I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a 'fugitive from justice.'"

Video of the damper movement during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYSgd1XSZXc

In 1897.

"So in 1897 he approached the Indiana state legislature with a proposal: if they officially declared the proof correct, he’d let them use it free of charge, thereby saving a lot of money on royalties."

I’m hoping one of these days to use mine as a Unix terminal with an rs232 Bluetooth adapter I have.

From pg:

“Whoah, I had no idea about any of this till now...”

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1449861338390466561

This story and Jobs' reaction is not about the fluid meaning of the word "know." Jobs immediately caught on to the fact that Ali was lying to him about having a 150M offer, which he explicit admits:

https://twitter.com/apartovi/status/1447324896904638467

It is not about "someone who was convinced his company was worth more" being called a liar for saying he "knew" it.

> called someone who was convinced his company was worth more a liar for saying he knew it.

No, that wasn’t the lie. From the horse’s mouth:

“I was intentionally pretending we had another offer, and he detected it.”

https://twitter.com/apartovi/status/1447324896904638467

Each of the Five Eyes benefits, so one doesn't need to be the target of just Australian law enforcement.

Orwell's concern was Us, not Them:

"[Nineteen Eighty-Four] was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism, but I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office."

Right, but the idea is that Apple has lost ~$10,000 to support his MacBook Pro. That doesn't seem to add up to me.

"2 complete laptop replacements"

"Factoring in the cost of the complete replacements, it would be closer to 10,000 USD!"

I'm not sure how this $10,000 sum works unless you're saying you still have all three MacBook Pros rather than returning the first two.

I would assume the first two were returned to Apple and refurbished, not just immediately destroyed?

Of course it's quite possible that's what Turing was doing in this case. I'm not saying it wasn't.

My gentle objection from long experience is that gay men's motivations are so very often over-sexualized by people who are not gay men. Without good situational evidence, it's not a good idea to make that assumption.

Is there more detail to the story, or could it have been simply a common interest in logic and the like? As a gay man I can assure you that we aren't attracted to every allegedly good-looking male.

(I really don't mean this to be snarky, but I know forum posts have a way of making it seem that way.)

Um, if I click "Continue" am I agreeing to their cookie policy?

Is this popup a GDPR notice?

For anyone who doesn't see it: There's a giant blue box on the left that just says continue to lego.com, and then a giant yellow box on the right for going to their "Play Zone" for kids I guess.

Then in microscopic text underneath they only describe their cookie policy but say nothing about what you're agreeing to.

[EDIT] Okay, it seems there is a cookie-control thing underneath after you click. Only discovered it by meddling with the Inspector. But that whole first thing just really looks like a dark pattern.

I don’t understand how his comment could be interpreted as having been made in bad faith — I’m sure he made it earnestly.

I made my comment earnestly as well. I want HN to be the kind of community described by those guidelines, and comments like his work against that, all the more when coming from one of this forum’s most prominent members.

Please don’t do this here. The HN guidelines make clear the kind of community we’re going for is one that resists provocation toward the uninteresting. In particular:

“Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.”

“Please don't sneer.”

“Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Was that mainly a criticism of those developers, or of management?

[Edit:] Okay, I see now it's referencing this part that I'd forgotten:

"I read these articles about some of these people that have left. I know some of these people. They haven’t done anything in 7 years."

Apple was barely above comatose, running on vapors. The point was that even OpenDoc being "better" tech does not automatically mean Apple could/should make it into products and sell those products to customers. Apple needed to invest rapidly diminishing resources into actual products it can sell to actual customers that would save the company from imminent death.

Whether you like, dislike, agree or disagree with that argument, I don't think it can be dismissed as "platitudes about 'people over tech.'"

Jobs had to make bird's-eye-view decisions, and articulated that point of view pretty well here.

A similarly awesome--and much, much less expensive--deck of cards focused on writing by the screenwriter John August (Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, Frankenweenie):

https://www.writeremergency.com/

(Years before they made this, I was briefly acquainted with one of the creators not named John August.)