5 ms·

> They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it What makes you think the people denying it know about it though? E.g. if the head of Ap

> They're not "maintaining ignorance"; they're categorically denying it What makes you think the people denying it know about it though? E.g. if the head of Apple security got served an NSL, wouldn't that potentially prevent them from telling the company lawyers or the executive team?

pvg 8y ago
It's a curious forum we're on where on one day there are jiggabytes spilled over how journalists get technical things wrong and on another, they're so reliably accurate, technology organizations making the case reporting on them is inaccurate must have been infiltrated by men in black and have had hapless employees flashed with a neuralyzer.
- dang 8y ago
  Can you please not post unsubstantive comments? HN has 5M monthly users. Obviously there isn't going to be any consistency.
  - pvg 8y ago
    It's not an 'unsubstantive' comment. There is a very large section of users who are ardent believers in the 'Gell-Mann amnesia' effect. There are also seemingly many, many users, as the one I'm replying to and many who've posted similar, highly voted comments on this thread whose explanation for the discrepancies between the reporting on this story and the company responses amount to (in my view) to MiB but with different acronyms. I find that curious. Maybe you don't, maybe you think those users don't overlap much or at all, that's fair enough. But 'things people find curious about HN that you think maybe aren't' is not 'unsubstantive' so get of my case, oppressor!
    - tptacek 8y ago
      This is a rare instance where I agree that 'dang has jumped the gun. I don't see how your comment is insubstantial either, and I think HN's weird relationship with the news media is worthy of comment. No reasonable person reads the comment above to mean "literally everyone on HN has inconsistent beliefs about the press".
      - Alex3917 8y ago
        > HN's weird relationship with the news media is worthy of comment If I had said something about trusting Bloomberg or the media then sure. But that’s a completely different topic that’s not even remotely related to whether Apple’s denials on potential NSL issues are reliable.
        tptacek 8y ago
        How are those two topics not intimately related? The question of how reliable Apple's employees are is only relevant to the extent that you believe Bloomberg's reporters were competent in sourcing the story.
      - pvg 8y ago
        Thanks, now I'm regretting not going with the pithier 'ur mom has 5M monthly users' a little less.
        iplusplus 8y ago
        The trouble with incurring Dan's wrath is that he's right 99% of the time. That gives the impression that he's omniscient and benevolent, since 99 out of 100 random people will back his decisions. That puts those of us in the 1% in a terrible position. It's difficult to even figure out whether you did something wrong. And if you conclude that – against the odds – you seem to be innocent, what do you do? Dan has also given the impression that the community stands by his decisions. This is often not true, but he uses software tricks to make it appear true. As an example, he often flags comments manually, which immediately and unconditionally kills them and marks them as [flagged]. You can tell he does this, because it says [flagged] rather than [flagged] [dead]. I have been quietly gathering evidence for some time now: https://imgur.com/a/2GwVibp https://imgur.com/a/2GwVibp The worst part is, all attempts at trying to discuss the situation are ruthlessly rejected. And since you're bucketed into the same category as some very unsavory people, no one who cares will side with you. And all the rest don't care. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153219 Not 30 minutes ago, I tried – for the dozenth time – to extend an olive branch and agree to focus on the site's goal of gratifying intellectual curiosity. It was immediately rejected. As someone who is trying to write a book on Lisp, this must be the ultimate proof that the site is no longer about attracting bookish people. That may have been the original aim, but HN is now intended to be an entertainment site. If your comments do not entertain, expect to be hit. Hard. And the surest way to not entertain is to comment about social issues. Dan also likes to frame his moderation decisions as reasonable, and will go to great lengths to make them seem that way. For example, all of my accounts were banned two weeks ago, for three months. Dan called this a "probation", which is precisely the opposite of what probation is. He also said that it was possible to continue using HN, since there is a fine vouching system that will grab the good comments. Very few people read dead comments. I know. I've measured. Effectively, if you're hellbanned, you're screwed. But you turn out to be screwed for a subtle but important reason: It's impossible to post more than two comments every 5 hours. This is a sharp increase from the old limit of five comments every three hours. And if you have made any comment within the last 5 hours, you cannot submit anything. Any attempt to do so will be met with "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." HN also uses many tricks that make it appear the community is against you, when in fact it is the software. For example, I am reasonably certain that there exists a setting which will automatically downvote your comments in certain circumstances. Such a setting has the uncomfortable effect that it is completely impossible to present any evidence of it without appearing to be completely unhinged. All of this is to say: Thanks, now I'm regretting not going with the pithier 'ur mom has 5M monthly users' a little less. Please don't regret having original thoughts. HN is in the terrible position of having so much inertia that it no longer matters whether a moderator is behaving badly, or whether he is using software tricks to make it seem like the community is on his side. And since he is the de facto leader of HN, there is much to gain by being on his side, and much to lose by speaking out. And again, 99% of his decisions are correct. But when he makes 100 decisions a day, there are a growing number who are the recipient of harsh actions with no recourse. Any attempt at pointing this out is quickly and immediately silenced, and used as evidence that you deserve to be silenced. -- sillysaurus3, palish, shawn. The condemned. Proudly an HN community member for 11 years. I miss you guys.
- mynameisvlad 8y ago
  Apart from that not being remotely what's being said, HN is not one person, it's a lot of different people with different opinions, commenting on different articles.
  - pvg 8y ago
    I'm not sure what is 'remotely not being said' and I have some vague understanding of the idea HN is not one person. But there are definitely two (among many) strong tribes of HN-popular belief - let's call them the Gell-Mannicheans and the National Security Epistoleros. It's weird (to me) that they rarely meet in threads on stories concerning both! That could be because they live in different timezones or have different interests. It could be that the Epistoleros are just that much more numerous or that for some people epistolerism trumps gell-mannicheism. Or something else altogether. I find it a curious thing to observe and think about - it's not some underhanded 'zomg lolz, I have caught you in logic error' comment.
brorfred 8y ago
But the Bloomberg story says that they replaced thousands of servers. How would you get permission and funding to do that without saying anything?

pvg 8y ago

It's a curious forum we're on where on one day there are jiggabytes spilled over how journalists get technical things wrong and on another, they're so reliably accurate, technology organizations making the case reporting on them is inaccurate must have been infiltrated by men in black and have had hapless employees flashed with a neuralyzer.

dang 8y ago
Can you please not post unsubstantive comments? HN has 5M monthly users. Obviously there isn't going to be any consistency.
- pvg 8y ago
  It's not an 'unsubstantive' comment. There is a very large section of users who are ardent believers in the 'Gell-Mann amnesia' effect. There are also seemingly many, many users, as the one I'm replying to and many who've posted similar, highly voted comments on this thread whose explanation for the discrepancies between the reporting on this story and the company responses amount to (in my view) to MiB but with different acronyms. I find that curious. Maybe you don't, maybe you think those users don't overlap much or at all, that's fair enough. But 'things people find curious about HN that you think maybe aren't' is not 'unsubstantive' so get of my case, oppressor!
  - tptacek 8y ago
    This is a rare instance where I agree that 'dang has jumped the gun. I don't see how your comment is insubstantial either, and I think HN's weird relationship with the news media is worthy of comment. No reasonable person reads the comment above to mean "literally everyone on HN has inconsistent beliefs about the press".
    - Alex3917 8y ago
      > HN's weird relationship with the news media is worthy of comment If I had said something about trusting Bloomberg or the media then sure. But that’s a completely different topic that’s not even remotely related to whether Apple’s denials on potential NSL issues are reliable.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        How are those two topics not intimately related? The question of how reliable Apple's employees are is only relevant to the extent that you believe Bloomberg's reporters were competent in sourcing the story.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Thanks, now I'm regretting not going with the pithier 'ur mom has 5M monthly users' a little less.
      - iplusplus 8y ago
        The trouble with incurring Dan's wrath is that he's right 99% of the time. That gives the impression that he's omniscient and benevolent, since 99 out of 100 random people will back his decisions. That puts those of us in the 1% in a terrible position. It's difficult to even figure out whether you did something wrong. And if you conclude that – against the odds – you seem to be innocent, what do you do? Dan has also given the impression that the community stands by his decisions. This is often not true, but he uses software tricks to make it appear true. As an example, he often flags comments manually, which immediately and unconditionally kills them and marks them as [flagged]. You can tell he does this, because it says [flagged] rather than [flagged] [dead]. I have been quietly gathering evidence for some time now: https://imgur.com/a/2GwVibp https://imgur.com/a/2GwVibp The worst part is, all attempts at trying to discuss the situation are ruthlessly rejected. And since you're bucketed into the same category as some very unsavory people, no one who cares will side with you. And all the rest don't care. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153219 Not 30 minutes ago, I tried – for the dozenth time – to extend an olive branch and agree to focus on the site's goal of gratifying intellectual curiosity. It was immediately rejected. As someone who is trying to write a book on Lisp, this must be the ultimate proof that the site is no longer about attracting bookish people. That may have been the original aim, but HN is now intended to be an entertainment site. If your comments do not entertain, expect to be hit. Hard. And the surest way to not entertain is to comment about social issues. Dan also likes to frame his moderation decisions as reasonable, and will go to great lengths to make them seem that way. For example, all of my accounts were banned two weeks ago, for three months. Dan called this a "probation", which is precisely the opposite of what probation is. He also said that it was possible to continue using HN, since there is a fine vouching system that will grab the good comments. Very few people read dead comments. I know. I've measured. Effectively, if you're hellbanned, you're screwed. But you turn out to be screwed for a subtle but important reason: It's impossible to post more than two comments every 5 hours. This is a sharp increase from the old limit of five comments every three hours. And if you have made any comment within the last 5 hours, you cannot submit anything. Any attempt to do so will be met with "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." HN also uses many tricks that make it appear the community is against you, when in fact it is the software. For example, I am reasonably certain that there exists a setting which will automatically downvote your comments in certain circumstances. Such a setting has the uncomfortable effect that it is completely impossible to present any evidence of it without appearing to be completely unhinged. All of this is to say: Thanks, now I'm regretting not going with the pithier 'ur mom has 5M monthly users' a little less. Please don't regret having original thoughts. HN is in the terrible position of having so much inertia that it no longer matters whether a moderator is behaving badly, or whether he is using software tricks to make it seem like the community is on his side. And since he is the de facto leader of HN, there is much to gain by being on his side, and much to lose by speaking out. And again, 99% of his decisions are correct. But when he makes 100 decisions a day, there are a growing number who are the recipient of harsh actions with no recourse. Any attempt at pointing this out is quickly and immediately silenced, and used as evidence that you deserve to be silenced. -- sillysaurus3, palish, shawn. The condemned. Proudly an HN community member for 11 years. I miss you guys.
mynameisvlad 8y ago
Apart from that not being remotely what's being said, HN is not one person, it's a lot of different people with different opinions, commenting on different articles.
- pvg 8y ago
  I'm not sure what is 'remotely not being said' and I have some vague understanding of the idea HN is not one person. But there are definitely two (among many) strong tribes of HN-popular belief - let's call them the Gell-Mannicheans and the National Security Epistoleros. It's weird (to me) that they rarely meet in threads on stories concerning both! That could be because they live in different timezones or have different interests. It could be that the Epistoleros are just that much more numerous or that for some people epistolerism trumps gell-mannicheism. Or something else altogether. I find it a curious thing to observe and think about - it's not some underhanded 'zomg lolz, I have caught you in logic error' comment.

brorfred 8y ago

But the Bloomberg story says that they replaced thousands of servers. How would you get permission and funding to do that without saying anything?