skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Tribalism" is not incorrect though. You mention Bradley Manning in hacktivist circles and they'll nearly unanimously tell you that man is a hero who didn't do anything wrong at all.

And then Snowden comes in and goes out of his way to mention in his interview that, 'oh by the way, I carefully chose specific things to leak as I didn't want to risk national security, I just want to help my country'. Gee, who does that sound different from?

But it won't matter that Snowden has chided Manning, because Manning is part of the tribe, and it's not enough that the tribe upholds his principles (which they surely share), but the tribe must also uphold all his actions.

I grew up for years only seeing this kind of tribalism amongst the GOP supporters (the types who idolized Rush Limbaugh despite his divorces and drug use, or claimed that waterboarding is OK because Ashcroft said so). It's quite disappointing to have seen that become such an issue outside of the GOP as well.
Marco's baseline assumption, if you read his full argument, is subtle. While it contains a few elements (as you've cited) of legacy support concerns - his principal thrust is not so much that you "can't afford to do so if it means cutting out your iOS6 users", rather, he primarily postulates:

"I don’t think most developers of mature, non-trivial apps are going to have an easy time migrating them well to iOS 7. Even if they overcome the technical barriers, the resulting apps just won’t look and feel right. They won’t fool anyone."

That is - the legacy app writers are going to have a huge challenge in trying to make their iOS 6 apps look "good" on iOS 7 - this is not a problem for someone starting from a greenfield scenario.
I did, before it hit Hacker News. The point he was making is that this is a massive look and feel disruption, and will be a rough transition for major players that have an established but now dated look and feel.

That isn't fragmentation. iOS 7 is still compatible with apps written for iOS 6 and iOS 7 apps will still work with iOS 6. The same cannot be said for ICS apps running on older devices. Even in-house apps like Chrome are ICS or bust. Even now, multiple years later, the most popular version of Android won't run Chrome or any other ICS exclusive apps.

However, iOS 7 apps will LOOK & FEEL out of place on iOS 6 and vice versa, which is where the disruption occurs. This isn't fragmentation, and no amount of arguing will make that the case.

On top of that, with the notable exception of the iPod touch 4, all iOS devices sold for the last four years will run iOS 7. That means this period of disruption will last for six months to a year, max. Once again, no fragmentation.
Indeed, ubuntu seems to be going a bad direction IMO. The other issue is that I frequently have issues with Ubuntu. I try to submit bug reports, but the bug report submitter crashes.

I would do it manually, but hey... I'm busy... and I'm just trying ubuntu out to give it another chance. Of course going back to debian+xfce I never have any problems.

/endrant
[citation needed].

Again, i have seen this in argument after argument. Nobody has yet provided any legal authority that states it is constitutional or legal for the government to compel forced lies.
They can compel silence, for sure.

There is plenty of authority in other contexts (IE not national security), that the government cannot compel you to speak misleading or non-truthful information.

I wish this idea that everyone must be lying because the government can legally, force them to, would stop.

I imagine someone started with the NSL gag orders, which compel silence, and then just started saying they compel you to lie instead (which they don't).

In fact, even the compel silence part of the NSL was found unconstitutional.
For what it's worth, I think he's right about it being an opportunity. If you can throw away some percentage of your potential market and leave them to your competitors, you might be able to work that to your advantage. This isn't really a novel concept; every major change in every major ecosystem undergoes a similar period.

I mostly take umbrage at the specific attitude taken towards this, when the same move in similar ecosystems (the ICS/JB upgrade, for example, which saw a huge market open up for "Holo-themed" apps) was mocked and derided as pulling the rug out from under users' feet.

iOS' consistency has been tirelessly lauded as a good thing, until Apple goes and changes it. I'm happy with progress and change, and am fine with the broken eggs required to make that particular omelette; I just think it's funny how the pundits' headlines change based on how their particular horse is doing.
Some of them do. I'll add in the expiry date to the redemption key page today/tomorrow.
I disagree. This seems to me like something that wouldn't have happened under the supervision of Jobs. I feel like the redesign of their UI hasn't gone far enough, that there attempt to copy other trends is different than what apple has done before.
I believe that with this update, apple has put the final nail in the coffin to remove the stigma of "it's apple, so it's better."
There are some theories that fall into a third category of "unlikely, hard to prove, probably false but intensely fascinating." A good example is Julian Jaynes's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind [1], which Richard Dawkins describes as:

"A book that is as strange as its title suggests. It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."[2]

By the way, the Wikipedia page about Jaynes' book uses part of that quotation, but cuts off the last sentence.

Dawkins provides a good summary of the book:

"Jaynes notes that many people perceive their own thought
processes as a kind of dialogue between the 'self and another internal protagonist inside the head. Nowadays we understand that both 'voices' are our own - or if we don't we are treated as mentally ill...

"Jaynes's suggestion is that some time before 1000 BC people in
general were unaware that the second voice - the Gilbert
Pinfold voice - came from within themselves. They thought
the Pinfold voice was a god: Apollo, say, or Astarte or Yahweh or,
more probably, a minor household god, offering them advice or
orders. Jaynes even located the voices of the gods in the opposite
hemisphere of the brain from the one that controls audible
speech. The 'breakdown of the bicameral' mind was, for Jaynes, a
historical transition. It was the moment in history when it dawned
on people that the external voices that they seemed to be hearing
were really internal. Jaynes even goes so far as to define this
historical transition as the dawning of human consciousness.
There is an ancient Egyptian inscription about the creator god
Ptah, which describes the various other gods as variations of Ptah's
'voice' or 'tongue'. Modern translations reject the literal 'voice' and
interpret the other gods as 'objectified conceptions of [Ptah's]
mind'. Jaynes dismisses such educated readings, preferring to take
the literal meaning seriously. The gods were hallucinated voices,
speaking inside people's heads. Jaynes further suggests that such
gods evolved from memories of dead kings, who still, in a manner
of speaking, retained control over their subjects via imagined voices
in their heads. [2]

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicamer...

[2]: http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&printsec=front... (page 392)
I disagree that it's a revolution but think it's a much needed refresher. They also introduced some features that I think they've been lacking. It's a much better upgrade than 5 and 6 IMO.
CDNs are only useful for things that can actually be cached, and which have been accessed recently. Static content is easy, and I'm sure Github does it, but dynamic content doesn't benefit as much for a CDN.

As another note, anyone doing a DDoS is going to target parts of the system that are more intensive. They'd just skip the cached things and go after the ones that have to be regenerated.
> And the OS is specifically built to handle that.

Then it does a pretty crappy job. Why does the Play Store silently block apps from your device if this is the case? Why does every Android dev publish a list of supported devices? Because it's nowhere close to this simple, and can't be solved by improvements in the OS, which by the way don't reach the vast majority of users, hence the problem.
But there wouldn't be any reason for the US to attack Germany. If they want us out we'll leave. Were I president we'd leave whether or not they wanted us to.
You'd think Star would be a little bit gunshy about wearable electronics. I kid, Star if you are reading this, I'm kidding!
That's tangential to my point. It may be a bad idea to pursue any specific criminal into Yemen. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that sovereign states can do so because in a lawless country there is no "cannot" in the face of physical ability to act. "Should" is a wholly different question.

This distinction is not irrelevant. In our system of government, courts decide "can" while the political process decides "should." But we have a tendency of equating the two, and responding to every instance of "shouldn't" with "you can't do that!" "Can" Obama pursue terrorist suspects into Yemen with force? Yes! Should he? Who knows.
The only way anything big ever gets done is through conspiracy.

After all, a small group of individuals who conspire to achieve a goal is basically the root of both progression and destruction right?
"Prior to that, most Christians understood that parts of the Bible describe real truth, but within the mold of figurative stories."

Citation needed, otherwise you're just making stuff up. =)
Well, my personal experience is that things break on different Android devices for various and sundry reasons despite the existence of dp. If apps run on the iOS simulator you rarely find issues on an actual device except performance issues. But you'd better test on the Note 2, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab, Nexus 7, HTC Desire C, LG Elite, ...
What technical countermeasures do you suggest? Check out what this guy has to say about resistance: http://youtu.be/3ftfEXxFC4Q?t=28m53s
Yes, i'm going to describe internal security procedures in detail to a stranger.
Suffice to say, the idea that random people in some nebulous "network security" group have access to all traffic related PKI (or whatever) is barely worth responding to.

Google is not made of idiots. It is not a startup run in a garage where every the "IT guy" has access to all the private keys.
Got it! Just pushed an update to force https.
Thanks so much for linking that... I think my own head just exploded from considering what you just wrote.
Tips for Writing Functional Programming Tutorials
Just the fact that we have to start websites like these, and march Capitol Hill to make the government realize its mistake is depressing, infuriating, and is gently, gradually tapping at a hot, steaming teapot of rage within every rational individual's psyche.

What is the root cause? How did this get so incredibly bad? Is it the fault of the public? Is it the public's fault we are in an Orwellian state of Soviet-era Germany? Or does Hanlon's Razor apply here?

In any case, there needs to be more action than just bandage measures like petitions and phoning your Congressman. This level of government negligence deserves an uproar, and sadly we're not getting it because many trust government, and are not skeptical in the slightest about it.

We have those animals called "politicians" to blame for that.

So, if people really want to change, lead a march on Capitol Hill. Be attention-seekers, make a change for the better, not for the worse. Let your life have value, and use that value against the worthless individuals sitting at their desks in Washington.

Just do something worthwhile, not sitting behind that sRGB display of yours. Painless encryption, countermeasures, protests, whatever -- we need to do something.
They aren't bound to tell you they are not doing that. Again, i'm not sure where people get this idea.
They may be compelled to be silent about it, but not compelled to lie.
Link to actual thing:
https://www.stopwatching.us
EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-gro...
Well, it would certainly at least make a better fitness function for a genetic algorithm.
This. The more amazing thing is how many people believe that any content published in the NYT/MSM is largely true and unbiased.
But still, revoking a lawyer's visa for defending someone even elsewhere is pretty sketchy if you ask me.
It's on point. Obama claimed a day ago that "nobody is listening to your calls". Give me a break -- that defines "the big lie".

Nobody said the US government is a bunch of Nazis. But the US government is following a public relations play book that is similar many ways... A deeply disturbing development.
The (theoretical) security value of proving a secure connection to uglyrandomletters.cloudfront.net is significantly less than the value of proving a secure connection to TheSiteYouTrust.com.

When a group of U.S. ISPs first started working on anti-phishing solutions, we realized that the problem with SSL is that apparently nobody told users they needed to check anything but the golden lock icon to verify security. "Oh, look, I have a secure connection to bankofamerica.b1llingprovider.com, seems legit".
The last part of your argument reminds me of back home where rednecks with confederate flags would say "THEY HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN US! THOSE MINORITIES ARE TAKIN' OVER".

Perhaps (well, hopefully) I'm reading into your comment too much though.
Well done. Nice site design and beautiful high res images.
For Clément: with rage in our hearts, never forget, never forgive
You can use things like Duplicity which locally encrypt backups and then store them to arbitrary cloud services.

The problem is, if the data is opaque to the cloud service, it is very hard for it to do anything other than passively store and retrieve it, at which point it is not really a cloud service at all.

And even then: they can give logs to authorities showing what you accessed when and from where, they probably know your credit card and billing details.
Marco's not attempting to communicate clearly in the sense of "push data down foobarbazqux's infohole." He's trying to communicate clearly in the sense of "grab foobar's attention, state his perspective provocatively, and attempt to not only reach an audience but make them think and talk."

Clearly he's succeeded, from the conversation going on in this post. Marco is occasionally pretty obnoxious, and his ideas are frequently not always well thought-out, but I like writers who attempt to be not only clear, but compelling.

Paul Graham has plenty of terrible essay names, and plenty of terrible essays at that. One of the things that frustrates me about him as a writer is that on occasion he attempts to strike an "objective" tone while offering a skewed and entirely subjective perspective. Besides, conveying pure abstract information should not be the point of an essay. Tone, emotion, purpose, and construction should all be deliberate. Otherwise you get Mashable—ultraspecific titles geared to ultraspecific articles which are so drained of anything beyond pure bullet-point content that you could train a machine to read and interpret it. It's such a waste.

It takes you two seconds to click on a link and look at it, ten seconds tops to decide if you're going to gain something by reading it. If you're clicking on so many links per day that twelve seconds here and there is putting a dent in your productivity/well-being, then there is a worse problem here than ambiguously-titled essays, and ironically, it's a problem that you'll start to solve by seeking more challenging pieces of writing to tackle to distract yourself from the constant useless information mill that the Internet so readily provides.
Here's where I get depressed about this whole thing: how will we know change has occurred? I mean, say in the best case scenario the government admits it was wrong and promises to stop the monitoring programs. How exactly are we supposed to know it has happened? I don't see why they couldn't simply start up a new secret program using the exact same resources and keep it from the public eye.
It would be alarming if a lawyer and his client were using facebook for privileged communications. That's your first hint you need a new lawyer. If they can't understand Facebook's TOS they can't possibly defend you.

But, seriously, these are foreign nationals. We've had a longstanding distinction between foreign and domestic surveillance. Think of it this way, would you really want to need permission from Pakistan to surveil Osama bin Laden? He was an enemy of the USA and he was being harbored by Pakistan. Different rules apply in that case than in a domestic case.
I really do think I get the thrust of his argument. I just don't think it holds up.

Let me ask this - why wouldn't app makers just migrate their apps to an iOS7 look and let the (by the arguments in this thread) vanishingly small non-iOS7 contingent deal with something that doesn't fit the theme of their system? If 90% of your userbase is going to be running iOS7, wouldn't it make more sense to just let 10% of your userbase have an app that doesn't feel like it matches the system (but definitely looks nice) rather than risk someone coming along and making a nicer-looking version of your app to steal the other 90% of your userbase?

The only way this becomes an actual talking point is if there is some reason that vendors can't upgrade their software to iOS7 guidelines, and that's the point at which you begin to experience fragmentation.
Just remember, if you ever want to visit the US and you are not an American, you must be much more supportive of American foreign policies than most Americans are!
Google Calls for Transparency but is Google better?
"But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish." That's the last sentence of Google's statement about PRISM, NSA and FISA.

Some might wonder: Google calls for more transparency, as it means freedom, but webmasters have been calling for transparency ever since Panda and Penguin hit. They claim that Google destroys their Google rankings without telling them what the reason is.

Sure, there are the Google Guidelines, which, in a few sentences, describe what's allowed and what's not. But the U.S. has the Patriot Act, which also describes in a few more sentences what the government is allowed to. So where's the difference?

I guess the reasons for suppressing transparency are:
Google's reason to suppress transparency: To avoid spammer abusing SERP's.
Governments reason to suppress transparency: To avoid terrorists and criminals hurting the country.

So my question: Should a company blame the U.S. government for something it obviously does as well, suppressing transparency?
What I find scary is that if the government can keep the secret rulings of the secret court secret at will, what is the point of bypassing even the nominal oversight that the secret court provides?
Private messages on facebook are well, owned by facebook.

In the future, hire a lawyer competent enough to read facebook's TOS.
you can live your entire life and never fly. if you are a citizen of the world communicating inside the US (or internet traffic passing through the US), evidence seems to indicate that some portion of your communications are being recorded and stored under the pretense of fighting terrorism. everyone communicates. these are worlds apart as from each other.
"But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish." That's the last sentence of Google's statement about PRISM, NSA and FISA.

Some might wonder: Google calls for more transparency, as it means freedom, but webmasters have been calling for transparency ever since Panda and Penguin hit. They claim that Google destroys their Google rankings without telling them what the reason is.

Sure, there are the Google Guidelines, which, in a few sentences, describe what's allowed and what's not. But the U.S. has the Patriot Act, which also describes in a few more sentences what the government is allowed to. So where's the difference?

I guess the reasons for suppressing transparency are:
Google's reason to suppress transparency: To avoid spammer abusing SERP's.
Governments reason to suppress transparency: To avoid terrorists and criminals hurting the country.

So my question: Should a company blame the U.S. government for something it obviously does as well, suppressing transparency?
I'm not convinced. They seem to share a very high level "clean" theme, but there are enough differences to make me feel it is not a knock off. It does make their old design look rather gaudy though.
Notoriety still provides some protection and the illusion of things being consistent is still important. More likely if they want to go that far, they will look for something else unrelated to charge him with, like wire fraud or something.

That could be deterred by a threat to leak more, but then that becomes a dangerous game for both sides.
I feel you might be taking that statement out of context. To me it seems the slide was explaining that most communication traffic travels through the United States (as demonstrated by the graphic) and the statement you quoted is an explanation of why that is true.

Just to make clear my meaning: A communication between two neighboring countries might still pass through the USA because the price is cheaper despite the length of data travel being greater.
I noticed something curious on page 10 of Apple’s iOS 7 Transition Guide[1], in the section “Things Every App Should Do”:

”Examine your app for hard-coded UI values – such as sizes and positions – and replace them with those you derive dynamically from system-provided values. Use Auto Layout to help your app respond when layout changes are required.”

Now, I may be reading too much into this, but the use of the word ‘when’ sounds to me like Apple is preparing products with other resolutions than are on the current iOS devices. I think there would be a market for a budget iPhone with a smaller screen, and a high-end iPad with a larger screen.

Also, the icon size for apps is different in iOS 7. It’s going up from 114x114 to 120x120.

[1] http://es.slideshare.net/evgenybelyaev16/transition-guide
> I mostly take umbrage at the specific attitude taken towards this, when the same move in similar ecosystems (the ICS/JB upgrade, for example, which saw a huge market open up for "Holo-themed" apps) was mocked and derided as pulling the rug out from under users' feet.

I would love to see such an example. As a follower of many Apple themed blogs, I saw nothing but good thoughts directed towards the release of ICS, which was a sorely needed UI revamp. I don't remember anything even close to this sentiment being expressed.
No. I am just seeing a difference between occupation and having troops from foreign allies stationed on one's soil. If all non-local troops are "occupation" in your book, then I guess the US are occupying South Korea also? And Italy? And Israel?
The (only credited) consultant is Thomas Knowles (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3240364/).

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-knowles/a/272/830