It's about an open source TLD registry, and it says it's about an open source TLD registry. That's not clickbait: It's perfectly accurate. The fact that it's Google is something you ought to be able to tell, because it's indicated by the domain, something HN always shows.
And just because the collective disagrees with you doesn't mean the site itself is an echochamber. Case in point: You haven't been censored in any way, even though you expressed a different opinion. The collective has merely decided that your comment isn't worth looking at. People can still read it.
In my opinion your comment, now removed, wasn't informative. You complained the title was clickbait and that you initially didn't want to click it (ok, then don't). Then followed about Alphabet's ever increasing privacy invasion.
The source "googleblog.com" next to the title on HN is clear enough. It's a company that open sources a project on github (https://github.com/google/nomulus). I don't think the announcement is disguised, spinned or misleading.
My downvote as off-topic came because it didn't address the announcement itself. To be honest I had the impression you read the title only, not the announcement itself.
That said I think the title techcrunch chose is clearer "Google open sources the code that powers its domain registry"
This page didn't, because it only profiles third party cookies - that is, your browser explicitly admitting which sites you're logged into. Privacy Badger, Disconnect, or uBlock will all handle that, as will simply disabling the browser setting.
That was pretty much my point: this is a "nice" profile. One that targets unintentionally identifying image like browser window dimensions can easily track you despite all of those precautions.
chilling effects need to be kept in perspective; for example, while I'm completely fearless about telling off the govt whenever I wish, no way I'm going to reveal how I feel about Snowden to the HN community: I'd be ostracized!
We should hope that all perspectives could be voiced here, if they are reasoned well and non-combative. If we feel strongly about something, it usually signals the end of thought and the beginning of belief. It's valuable to understand an angle that challenges popular opinion, so that we can question our beliefs, begin to think again, and remember that everything is a probability, rather than an absolute.
What about a negative opinions? OSTRACIZED!
Didn't like someone's show HN? OSTRACIZED!
Didn't make your post happy enough? OSTRACIZED!
Cuss a bit? OSTRACIZED!
Offend the army of apple/react/nodejs/cloud/social fanatics? OSTRACIZED!
Not that it matters, ostracization means losing a few HN epeen points, so meh :)
(In the interest of keeping topicality, one could argue the above are examples of chilling effects in a community)
>Not that it matters, ostracization means losing a few HN epeen points, so meh :)
people who care to take part and comment here might be more sensitive to social approval than the median - the quest for approval might ba a motive to participate. Therefore the loss of a few points might be more of a loss for them. In the long run that is not so good for the diversity of opinions, but so it goes...
I grew up the same way :) ... except he rubs me the wrong way, I think he's not at all interesting or clever, a completely banal failed ironic, with a deep streak of hate inside.
the name may be intended to be ironic, but the irony of the irony is that if you are interested in communicating about conducting one or more felonies, I would in fact urge you to use encryption.
I hate when people hate the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?" question because it's a valid question. You can answer, "because I fear the creeping growth of a surveillance state like in 1984", but then again, if you do that you no longer get to claim that other "slippery slope arguments are fallacies".
I've been a bigger privacy freak than all of you since before you were born, google my somewhat unusual name, you won't even find me. But still, I enjoy making fun of the groupthink that infects these types of communities.
Ignoring the arrogance, "If you have nothing to hide" isn't a valid question because everyone has something to hide. People have curtains and doors for good reasons, and everyone expects a certain amount of privacy in their lives -- but they don't realise how much they care about it until after they get screwed.
Oh, and it's not a slippery slope fallacy if we literally are headed towards 1984. Not even Orwell thought that social graphs would allow for automated analysis. The NSA doesn't need tele-screens when they have Facebook.
no slippery slope argument is a fallacy when the underlying process can best be described as a slippery slope. "Slippery slope" is not a fallacy, it's an analogy.
I'm in favor of crypto, privacy and the same things you are... I just don't lie about it: criminals are more interested in crypto than the average citizen, so are kiddy pornographers (for those of you who don't think that's a crime). So are "chinese dissidents", but seriously, there are more criminals out there.
my arrogance comes from my ability to be both smart and honest rather than a propagandist.
>if you do that you no longer get to claim that other "slippery slope arguments are fallacies".
You probably shouldn't be making that claim, to be honest. It's only a slippery slope fallacy if there's no historical evidence to support it. Part of the reason we record history is so we can tell whether a slippery slope might be a real danger.
There's several instances where a historical collection of information on citizens, done under claims to protect the people, turned into an oppressive regime, sometimes leading to the deaths of innocent citizens. The SS, Stasi and OVRA are all good examples, and a more current example can be found in China.
but... but... Arabs living in Israel are first class citizens, they are not forced to live on reservations, and they participate in elections and are elected to the Knesset, Israel's parliament.
The occupied West Bank is land that was formerly claimed by--no, not by "Palestine", that wasn't actually a thing--the State of Jordan which also included the territory of Israel in its claimed territory; the state of Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank when the people living there (according to them, "Jordanians", but people you know as Palestinians) were politically destabilizing to the government of Jordan. To stave off the political threat (look up Black September), the state of Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank (and to Israel).
Israel only occupied the West Bank when Palestinian lawlessness and terrorist antipathy toward Israel resulted in numerous bloody attacks on the civilian population of Israel. Israel has a much better case for occupation/pacification than Russia does of its occupation and annexation of Ukraine. I (a non Jew) do believe that anti-Semitism is the root cause of so much more anger directed at Israel than is directed at (say) Russia. Think of other disputed territories around the globe. Only in the case of Israel is there so much bitterness by outsiders toward one side, the less violent side, the side that is actually a civilized democracy and obeys rule of law.
And now that I mention it, do you even know what Morocco has been doing for many years in Western Sahara? Look it up, look up Polisario... it's an ethnic conflict. People will read about that and tut-tut and say, wow, that's terrible what the Moroccans have been doing, but quickly return to condemning Israel. And they look at the Hutus and Tutsis and say "well, there is blame to go around on both sides", and now we turn our attention to the tiny state of Israel, largely surrounded by barbarous dictatorships who don't even treat their own citizens well, and low and behold, it's those terrible awful Israelis who are to blame, much moreso than the Russians or Moroccans. Somehow it doesn't seem like there is plenty of blame to go around in this case, eh?
I believe that there are two reasons for bitterness toward Israel.
1) anti Arab racism motivates the belief that "we can't expect Palestinians to behave any better" (hey, maybe we can't, but if you don't want me to accuse you of anti-Semitism, come out and say it)
2) anti Jewish racism motivates the belief that "still, that doesn't justify the way those people are reacting", even though we see plenty of other "peoples" around the world defending themselves.
What are the Israelis defending themselves against? Click around wikipedia for awhile and look at the sheer number of Palestinian attacks directed at Israel month in and month out every year for the past 35 years. Would you put up with that directed at you and yours?
> Arabs living in Israel are first class citizens, they are not forced to live on reservations, and they participate in elections and are elected to the Knesset, Israel's parliament.
Yes, but families are split along the borders and checkpoints that have been drawn up by Israel. As long as the territories are occupied, Israel, as the occupier, is responsible for basic human rights and needs in the occupied area. Especially when they stop trade going in, like the attack on ships headed for Gaza.
> 1) anti Arab racism motivates the belief that "we can't expect Palestinians to behave any better" (hey, maybe we can't, but if you don't want me to accuse you of anti-Semitism, come out and say it)
Look, the jews were right to use terrorist tactics in the Warsaw ghettoes, and I can understand why Palestinians (also Semites, by the way) resort to such tactics in the current conflict. ANC wasn't peaceful in South-Africa, and it can be argued that non-violence wouldn't have been able to, on its own, create the civil rights reforms we've seen in the US.
> 2) anti Jewish racism motivates the belief that "still, that doesn't justify the way those people are reacting", even though we see plenty of other "peoples" around the world defending themselves.
This is a little bit like saying the Nazis were worse, so why should we criticise how the British behaved in the Boer wars.
Israel is arguably a functioning, rich state with a strong military. It has the power to approach the situation differently than putting minors in indefinite detention for throwing rocks, for example.
Israel is no failed state - the main reason we think of the holocaust as terrible, isn't (in my mind) just the death toll and suffering, but the systematic nature of it. This isn't millions killed in ravaging civil war, but calculated atrocities.
Just because I want a peaceful resolution to the situation concerning Israel, doesn't mean I won't (or haven't) spoken out against Turkey or Iraq on the situation with the Kurds - to give another example. Or that I don't condemn the US for their many dirty wars.
> Only in the case of Israel is there so much bitterness by outsiders toward one side, the less violent side, the side that is actually a civilized democracy and obeys rule of law.
30 (mostly civilan) deaths to each Israeli? Yes, this is what you expect when you attack a mostly civilian population with trained soldiers armed with modern weapons.
I can accept that some people will argue that this is a "necessary" or "justified" response. But "less violent"? That is harder to accept. If this is "less violent" what would a "stronger" response look like?
As I said, click around wikipedia for number of rocket attacks, number of terror attacks, etc. initiated by the Palestinians, mostly against civilians. Regardless of how many more Palestinians are getting killed as a result, it's Arabs and Palestinians who rejected every previous set of borders (including "pre-67"), and Arabs and Palestinians (OK, it's not just Arabs and Palestinians, many other Muslim nation states join in with anti-Semitic diatribes) who continue to say right out loud that their intent is to push Israel into the sea, and who continue an armed struggle against Israel's citizens and Israel's right to exist.
Israel today is an advanced, modern, technological country, so yes, they "win" the conflicts with the Palestinians (and Lebanese Shiites) if you measure "winning" in terms of bodycount (which you brought up). But if you measure unprovoked attacks, it is the Arabs by a landslide, and in case where Jewish extremists attack Arabs, Israel follows a policy of prosecuting their own citizens. BTW, Lebanese Christians are Arabs, so are the Druze, and so are the Bedouins, and they largely prefer the Israelis to the vicious treatment they receive from their Muslim neighbors, cooperating in many ways with the Israeli armed forces.
Is Israel perfect? Not by a long shot, but neither is any other people or nation.
Well, I think we've both pointed to where our views come from, and it's probably not much point in discussing this further here on hn. I thank you for your interesting and measured input. These things do too often devolve into shouting matches.
I will respectfully indicate that it seems a little disingenuous to claim that attacks on Israel are "unprovoked". They follow a similar pattern to Israeli terror attacks on the British occupation government, and I would hope that there'd be room to find common ground among two prosecuted people, rather than simply replace one oppressor with another in the region.
For what it's worth, the hope I see for Israel and Palestine today stems from the non-violent protests against the occupation that includes many Israelis and Jews. This includes conscientious objectors and groups championing dialogue between people living in Israel and the West Bank.
Lack of dialogue is one of the cornerstones on which we build hatred, racism and violence. It is much harder to justify demolishing someone's family home in order to have a good killing field from your border wall, if you are friends with that family.
I see what you mean, but on the other hand, the Palestinians are occupied by Israel, barred from trading by Israel and Egypt, beholden to Israel for water and power - so one could say that if Israel lifted the sanctions Palestinians might not need to "keep going". Again I think the parallell to the Warsaw getthoes apply - the Jews and others interned could just have accepted their plight. But it would've been the wrong path.
I'm by no means saying Palestinians have a carte blanche - I'm just saying that calling the attacks "unprovoked" is a bit of a stretch?
| not any more but damn fess up about the Armenian genocide already
I read PP as talking about the Turks present day treatment of the Kurds, not their previously reprehensible treatment of the Armenians. Are you excusing the way Kurds are treated by Turkey? (and Iraq and Iran and Syria)
| I think what bothers me the most about all of this is how criticism of the national policy of the state of Israel is reworked by certain opponents as anti-Semitic attacks... Why is this?
Let's say extremes from both sides of any issue in general tend to over-exaggerate...
You seriously think that the worst part is unfair propaganda by Zionists that exists to such an extent that it overwhelms any countervailing anti-Semitic reworking of anti-Semitism into slanting of news against Israel? Given the huge size of Arab and Moslem populations around the world compared to Jewish populations, the survey results that show their complete acceptance of anti-Semitism, and given the long long and recent history of anti-Semitism all across Europe... given that, to what do you attribute this "worst part"? Are you alleging that the Jews control the media?
Also, while we are on the subject, what races are "some of you best friends"?
I'm not attempting to attack you personally or accuse you, just trying to shake your intellectual lapels a bit to reconsider your stance, for what I've noticed is that your question comes up in every single discussion of this issue, to the extent that it sounds like a mantra to me. Propaganda itself.
definitely interesting topic. Reading their analysis though, led me to believe they didn't control for enough obvious variables.
Let me go through a scenario to give an example: how much was Nokia worth to Microsoft? Their idea that "due diligence" would uncover a value, and MS should signal the due diligence and the value with the pennies in the offer price doesn't reflect the truth of the situation that nobody knew or could know the value.
I'm not talking about a hindsight analysis after the Microsoft's mobile strategy failed; let's say it had succeeded and Microsoft was now equal to Android and iOS in a vicious 3 way competition: how much of that value would you attribute to the parts that came from Nokia? How much of the value would be due to MS's software? whose marketing muscle was it? Since it would now be a threeway competition, profits would be thinner, how much of that could be predicted with "due diligence"?
You don't know, because nobody knows; these types of intangibles are on the balance sheet as Goodwill because it's not possible to put a value on them except immediately post facto an acquisition. Due diligence is to uncover that what they are selling is what you think you buying, not the value you think you can extract from it in combination with your own assets, that's a secret you keep.
You're right; there are many unknowns. But that doesn't mean you pull a number out of thin air. M&A teams use all kinds of models to make financial projections and calculate ranges for valuation. Even for the LinkedIn acquisition, other bidders backed away because per their calculations, the deal was getting too pricey.
The rounding thing I think is only a signal. When you get a rounded offer, you feel that the buyer has room to go up. When you get a precise offer, the signal is the buyer has an exact notion of how much this is worth to them, so they might not be willing to go much higher than their initial offer. It's a psychological thing which will probably have a smaller effect in a bidding war.
