Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | max_'s comments login

Leo DiCaprio said that, Martin Scorsese has watched every movie ever made until 1980. [1]

Made me understand how seriously he takes film.

[1]: An interview with letter box on Killers of the Flower Moon on YouTube


Why did he stopped then?

The numbers of films produced per year has dropped significantly over time.


I think there too many movies now.

He can't watch all of them. But I am sure he does watch some recent movies.


It still blows my mind that browsers don't provide features this out of the box.

The MHTML format [1] has been around for 25 years and was natively supported by multiple browsers for decades. Modern browsers have regressed in functionality.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHTML


Chrome does support it:

https://i.imgur.com/HF7GXEI.png


I think they do? Have you tried hitting cmd+s or ctrl+s? You can save webpages like that.

But I don’t know if they can compress everything into a single html file though.


Last time I tried that it saved a static version of the current DOM, instead of the page source. I'm assuming that the reasoning behind that is that most people want to save a snapshot of what they are currently seeing, and that this is the easiest way to have somewhat reliable results for that.

Alot of the CSS & JavaScript is usually broken with ctrl+s.

A great option used to be the mhtml format chrome. (It had to be enabled in chrome flags)

But mhtml seemed to be removed from chrome since recently.


So true. Monolith is using libraries made by Mozilla for their Rust-driven browser engine (which I believe, never happened to be). I really would love for it to be a part of some browser one day, the demand is clearly there. Nobody likes to have a file+folder abomination on their drive, or some shady formats like .webarchive

Time for an end to end encrypted Git Service.

Time to start large scale poisoning of repos.

Reading the comments here is now making me even more skeptical about society.

It really looks like;

It is a waste of time to take risk yourself and expose unethical practices conducted by the powerful.

Because,

A) The masses don't really care (I expected riots and protest).

B) You may mysteriously die.

C) Your death instead of sparking an outrage will mostly be labeled a "conspiracy theory".

Given these three items, I can very confidently predict this in the future.

0. We shall have less exposés.

1. Corporations and other powerful entities will engage in more unethical behaviour.

Due to majority of worker being spinless and complicit to corner cutting and other unethical practices.

2. Powerful entities will know they can get away with evil if they leave enough blanks in the engagement.

Since the masses will label these as conspiracy theories. And they will be stuck in these academic "plausible deniability" kind of foggy minds.

With this, I expect powerful entities to get away with more evil deeds.

In a crowd of a hundred, 50 percent of the wealth, 90 percent of the imagination, and 100 percent of the intellectual courage will reside in a single person—not necessarily the same one.

— Bed of Procrustes


> Due to majority of worker being spinless and complicit to corner cutting and other unethical practices.

I think companies that might end up doing that kind of stuff first off cultivate that culture. Either in their entire company, or with the people who are going to engage with criminal activities. Security people, upper management, ... Like in the ebay case linked above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal#Stalking...

I'm not sure we can deduce that most employees of the corporate world are cynical and unethical from just individual cases like this


I’m disappointed that so many people immediately jump to conspiracy instead of more common/likely conclusions.

He already gave his deposition. And the information is on the record. It was also him suing Boeing, he was not a witness for the government or some other party in these proceedings.

I’m 100% supportive of a thorough investigation.

I’m 100% against running with the idea that this man was murdered without any evidence of it.


> I expected riots and protest

Why did you expect this?


> Due to majority of worker being spinless

Are you seriously accusing most employees of being pions?


I think you heavily under estimate what normal people motivated by money are capable of doing.

In my friends highschool, some businesses guy was paying highschool kids (16 - 17 ish) to strangle car owners and steal their cars. They were later caught.

Also, watch or read Killers of The Flowers Moon.

The problem with planned murder is that it is all hidden, and the details are fuzzy. So there is alot of reasonable doubt.

But trust me, there is alot do planned killing going on out there.


Out of interest do you have an article on the case at your friend's school?

> normal people motivated by money… strangle car owners and steal their cars…

Those are not in any way normal people. If someone makes it to 16-17 y/o without acquiring that fundamental moral lesson, I would not characterize them as normal, whatever the cause of that failure.


I think what I meant was that they "looked normal".

They were just attending classes like their class mates.

It's not like they had a horns on thier head or walked around with pitchforks that made them obviously seem like killers.


Agree, not normal. Then again, what percentage of high level executives or contractors with companies like Boeing are "normal"?

"Normal" means common here, and the fact that common people happily commit heinous acts is nothing new. E.g. the holocaust was comitted by "normal" people.

Moral grandstanding won't change the fact that civilization is rather thinly veiling the violent ape in most of us


>Moral grandstanding won't change the fact that civilization is rather thinly veiling the violent ape in most of us

I don’t think civilization is a panacea here.

To my mind, civilization is not exactly a strict synonym of peaceful generous enlightened humanism. Of course as a phenomenon it can encompass this kind of behavior, but just as well as it can help foster genocides, war and torture.

Holocaust didn’t happen despite civilized minds, it happened specifically through a civilizational scheme.


All There is to Know About Adolph Eichmann by Leonard Cohen

EYES:……………………………………Medium

HAIR:……………………………………Medium

WEIGHT:………………………………Medium

HEIGHT:………………………………Medium

DISTINGUISHING FEATURES…None

NUMBER OF FINGERS:………..Ten

NUMBER OF TOES………………Ten

INTELLIGENCE…………………….Medium

What did you expect?

Talons?

Oversize incisors?

Green saliva?

Madness?


Back in Finland I saw an incredible play: https://www.tinfo.fi/en/NPfF-Plays/48/I-Am-Adolf-Eichmann - the utter banality of the thing, how the convicted mastermind behind the genocide was "merely solving ongoing logistical problems". And how the trial turned into a massive media circus, likely letting a number of equally culpable war criminals off the hook.

Turns out there is currently a fresh play in works that may have some of the same undertones: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-trial-of-eichmann-world-pre...


Go watch the recent movie "The zone of interest".

https://youtu.be/GFNtVaAuVYY?si=jiQlDA9Z1EKnPZ0Z


About 3% of the male population has Antisocial Personality Disorder (ie, sociopathy). That could be described as normal - we're talking 1 person in 33. You'd probably meet one at a party. Nature no doubt builds some people to be killers.

Now most of them aren't going to kill anyone because that would be dumb. But that is a pretty decent pool of people who would consider the idea for money.


Boeing has about 150,000 employees (from the 2022 company report). US workforce is 23% women.

What if one of the 3465 males had its job at risk because of Barnett?

150,000 * (1-23%) * 3% = 3465


3% strikes me as a pretty extreme minority, which makes it seem like the opposite of ‘normal.’ They might be more common than most people think (IE, 1 in 33), but that isn’t something that makes them normal.

3% is 3465 Boeing employees. That doesn't seem so minor.

150,000 * (1-23%) * 3% = 3465


>once again offering users nothing in return for their hard work.

What does this guy want users to get? Is the platform not enough?


I took two points from this part of the article. First, that the expected exchange for years was "users create content, the companies provide the platforms and show ads to pay for it". But over time, the companies have not just adopted new ways of profiting off of the users (which may feel more exploitative than simple advertising) but also reduced the functionality of the platforms.

And second, that if there are vast amounts of money to be made off of all this activity, it's fundamentally not just for all of that money to go to the people who run the infrastructure, rather than some of it also going to the people who create and moderate the communities that make the infrastructure worth money at all.

If most of the money flowing in to a company like Reddit went directly toward improving the user experience, then maybe the original deal that "the platform itself is your reward" would still be fine. But as soon as there are executives and investors getting big cash payouts, that means that a whole lot of user-created value is being siphoned off: the deal doesn't feel nearly as fair anymore.


He's a former journalist: https://www.wheresyoured.at/about/

He resents how social media destroyed traditional media via free labor from users, that statement a perfect reflection of that sentiment.


I mean, traditional media was never big on paying the people it interviewed or the people that were photographed (or owners of the objects photographed) unless you were some “celebrity” with an agent.


I just want them to stop ruining every good platform out there. The enshitfication process of Twitter and Reddit has been remarkable in this sense.

I think this is the idea behind the post, users shouldn't "get" anything, they just need to stop destroying every good online experience left.


Kagi shows the way forward: monthly subscription to not get an enshittified product. And once one service gets enshittified, the user will move their subscription to another service.


I will be buying this.

The best predictor that a stock is going to do well is bad financials.


Another good indicator is if HN assumes it will tank


The problem with such issues of data misuse is that people only provide 2 solutions.

a) Go off grid. Don't use The tech that these cars make.

The problem with this is that it is impractical for people that use see alot of value in using this tech.

b) Pass more regulation.

I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's doesn't stop them. It just means corporations are willing to misbehave as long as they can play the legal gymnastics and pay rudimentary fines.

Now, The third option which I see would be the best but isn't talked much about is the promotion, and installation of homomorphic computing or homomorphic encryption.

I am not a cryptographer so I really don't fully understand it's limitations. But adopting this would simply make all these data abuse issues vanish.

Cryptographers, why hasn't homomophic Computing or homomophic encryption been massively adopted?


> isn't talked much about is the promotion, and installation of homomorphic computing or homomorphic encryption

Sure, the car company will homomorphically encrypt your driving data when it sends it to its own servers.

You’re trying to solve a social problem with technology. That doesn’t work.


>Sure, the car company will homomorphically encrypt your driving data when it sends it to its own servers.

You can encrypt the data such that the insurance companies cannot target any particular individual (which is my problem her) but they can use the data to improve their insurance pricing models.

I have no problem with a health insurance company using population data to find out how many are susceptible to say cancer.

But I have a problem when they use this data to over price a particular individuals insurance because their gene say that they are susceptible to cancer.


> encrypt the data such that the insurance companies cannot target any particular individual (which is my problem her) but they can use the data to improve their insurance pricing models

We already have population claims statistics, a product of regulations that require reporting. What insurance companies want is discrimination within the variation.


Of the solutions:

a) Impractical because cars are needed for daily life and there’s no incentive for automakers to not sell your data.. so all cars will unless this becomes a compelling enough product difference to move the needle on profits,

b) Legislation/regulation that creates the right incentives isn’t easy, but certainly doable.

c) Impractical because homomorphic encryption is absurdly computationally expensive, is still not a fully unsolved problem, and.. in what universe do automotive companies implement this far fetched and expensive means of privacy without sone.. err.. regulation?

It doesn’t seem to be superior to option b)


Which specific regulation do you think has a history of not being impactful? I find that the devil is in the detail in this argument because most regulation us massively impactful and helpful and I find that the talking point that we need to get rid of it is generally loudest from those who would profit the most from not following those rules anymore.


GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse.

The problem with English law, is that you have to explicitly declare what is wrong a head of time. So we just end up with endless needs for regulation ls.

If we had legal systems like Hammurabi Codes, they work work way better.


You'd be surprised what French data authority (CNIL) has to say about this[1]:

> Any use of personal data for an objective that is incompatible with the primary purpose of proces- sing is a misuse that is subject to administrative or criminal sanctions. > For example, a mechanic cannot sell the vehicle’s technical data to insurers to enable them to infer the driving profiles of their policyholders.

There may be a lack of enforcement, but it seems this type of data may be protected under GDPR.

[1] https://www.cnil.fr/sites/cnil/files/atoms/files/cnil_pack_v...


With good encryption we wouldn't need to spend alot of time trying to enforce these laws


As a corporation, would I use your encryption standards if I stand to make money legally by not using them? You'll need to enforce encryption usage to force me to use these. Which currently requires these kind of laws.

What do you have in mind to ensure standards that are good for end-users are put in my place?


> GDPR for example has done nothing to protect people from this particular case of data misuse

You’re using one badly-written law to discard a category.

Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?


> Why not look at the FDA? When was the last time you were poisoned?

How many deaths happened because of excessive regulation, extreme delays, and overall refusal to acknowledge other medical bodies' acceptance of treatment?

The CATO institute, a Republican think-tank, put a number on FDA drug law alone from 20000-120000 deaths per decade. (I was aiming at another more impartial org, but sigh)

https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-pa...


Side note: CATO isn’t a particularly credible source. (Like Greenpeace.)

That said, even though I agree with them in this case, that bolsters the case for regulation being effective. If the FDA were ineffective, pharmaceuticals could “play…legal gymnastics and pay rudimentary fines” to get around their power. In other words, the magnitude is undisputed; we’re debating the sign.


Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people. Monitoring devices so that you can "make them safer" or "save the children" or whichever other BS reason they give is easy to give them a pass on.


> Poisoning people is accepted as wrong by most people

Sure. It was still prevalent prior to the F&DA of 1906.


Then why is it not more prevalent now that the FDA is owned by the food-producing cartels?


How is GDPR badly written?


> How is GDPR badly written?

Enforcement is fractured. It’s a mandatory-complaint driven model, which is both intensive (every complaint demands manpower on both the regulator and regulated’s sides) and prone to abuse (known tactic for quashing European competition: herding complaints). All that means it’s ambiguously burdensome, which means there is a fixed cost to compliance even if you aren’t doing anything wrong.


I mean the one thing GDPR did was scare the ever living daylight out of quite a few engineering teams and executives. Which honestly was what they industry really needed, people just needed to consider the data collection a bit more.

And fines have been levied and are levied constantly. It's mostly a man power problem as to how many, but the fines pay for more man power in some places so it all works out. It's just slow, which is why people always complain that nothing ever happens.


Since nobody answered the question, the reason is its terribly absolutely insanely slow. It's possible, just requiring hundreds of thousands or millions of times as much work as say, a normal lookup in a database.


> I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's doesn't stop them.

that is such a funny thing to say. Car industry is heavily regulated and car companies do work with the regulation. They are already regulated on safety, fuel standards, dimensions... Adding data protection into the mix makes sense.


The auto industry has fought tooth and nail against safety requirements[1] and still fights today against more stringent fuel standards[2][3].

Not only would they fight regulations like data safety that would open them to potential litigation when lose the data or sell it to the wrong player, but they would win. Privacy isn't the political football that the environment is, and you can't point to death statistics like you can with safety issues.

[1] https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/revisionist-histo... [2] https://texasclimatenews.org/2022/03/19/decades-of-lobbying-... [3] https://www.cbtnews.com/auto-lobby-group-warns-fuel-efficien...


they fight it because it works and impacts their bottom line, i dont see how that's evidence that regulation is ineffective as a whole because people can just find loopholes


I don't think regulation is ineffective as a whole, but I do think that regulation won't be able to curb the industry's hunger for data or its incompetence in how it collects it. I believe this is the case because the industry will fight just as vigorously to collect this data while regulators will be less invested in stopping it. I believe regulators will be less invested in stopping it because there has been a steady degradation in our expectation of privacy in this area since smart phones. Any auto industry lobbyist just has to point out that tracking your driving habits and selling that data to insurance companies is little different from what google and apple already do.


The fact that they will fight it does not mean we should not try it. At least in EU the GDPR gives quite a bit of power to regulate this.


If I am a corporation and I am willing to break regulations, how will you force me to use homomorphic encryption? Why should I pass on gathering data that I can resell?

The average buyer won't understand or care about it so there is no direct pressure from consumers. I think regulations is not optional (and homomorphic encryption may be mandated if viable?). Breaching regulations is often a "cost of doing business", but some recent regulations (such as GDPR) can actually create very large fines in many countries. So it seems that what may be needed is good enforcement and measured penalties. Another deterrent would be having penalties that are not money.


> Breaching regulations is often a "cost of doing business", but some recent regulations (such as GDPR) can actually create very large fines in many countries.

This is the issue with so many laws. Stricter fines basically never deter would be offenders from committing the crime. What deters people is a high chance of getting caught.


Do companies ignore regulations? Sure, some do. But saying 'they will just pay the fines' ignores the fact that we could make the fines existential, or punish board members by kicking them out of the industry. The answer to 'the regulation we haven't even tried won't work if we do it improperly' is 'let's do it, and do it properly'. I have no idea what homomorphic encryption is, but rarely do 'let's add more tech to magic bullet a human problem of incentives' solutions work.


Homomophic encryption simply means that the data is encrypted in a way that the person working with it cannot use it arbitrarily.

Here is an example, I would for instance use Google Maps for Navigation but Google or any other third party would have no idea where I am going.

I used it in the first company I worked for and it works beautifully.

A) and B) work but they are not as effective as homomophic encryption.


Barring regulation, why would car manufacturers currently profiting off the sale of this data spend extra money voluntarily implementing something that cuts off their revenue stream?


Or why would one car manufacturer cut off a revenue stream that their competition has.


The keyword here is "use".

Homomorphic Encryption reduces the breadth of computations that can be ran on the gathered data, by making it inaccessible outside of the specific homomorphic scheme that was chosen. So yes, in that sense it cannot be used arbitrarily.

However, the results, i.e. knowledge derived, from the chosen computations can still be shared arbitrarily, which IMO is a much greater issue, as the need of the result sharing will inform the computations that can be done within the scheme.

Who defines the computations? Surely not the users, and lacking regulations, also surely not regulatory bodies.


> use Google Maps for Navigation but Google or any other third party would have no idea where I am going

You don’t need homomorphic encryption for this, just local route processing. In the case of car data, the auto companies aren’t doing any useful processing of the data for the user. Homomorphic encryption is irrelevant.


I think a problem in this area is that if one avenue of data collection is denied, another one will be implemented and it becomes a game of whack-a-mole.

For example the USG is forbidden from collecting communications from US citizens, but that does not keep it from buying this information from private domestic sources or from other governments.


We did not freeze the ability to pass legislation or have courts decide on the constitutionality of governmental processes. Have you given up on democracy?

Why is everyone so quick to say 'well, they are getting away with it, might as well let them' instead of trying to use our processes for the purposes which they were designed?


Because they tend to build-in exceptions and only the likes of R Paul and 1990s Sanders would object. At the state level you saw Newsom and co. argue for increased minimum wage --except for restaurants serving bread -ala Panera. They are not, by and large, honest.


Strangely enough, I know the answer to that, if memory is serving.

Homomorphic encryption is where you can compute on the encrypted data without ever decrypting it.

Logically, it sounds like a pipe dream to me, but apparently it's a thing.


Why is it a pipe dream I know companies that use it. And it serves their purposes well.


I said it sounds like one, not that it is one. I don't know enough about the implementation of it to comment intelligently, but logically it seems to me that if you can compute on it, then it's likely to leak the data, or at least some metadata about the data.

The truth of the matter may be something other. Life is not always logical.


> know companies that use it

We can only do a limited set of operations homomorphically. Moreover, it’s more power intensive than conventional computation. In most cases, local computation is the more effective (and secure) solution.


> I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's doesn't stop them.

I work in the automotive industry. It is very heavily regulated. The majority of people have never heard of ISO 26262 but it's keeping billions of people safe every day. Data privacy can work in the same way.


> The problem with this is that it is impractical for people that use see alot of value in using this tech.

I would be happy to turn down the tech, but I wonder how long until I can't feasibly buy a car (or a car I want) without it...


> I am a Hayekian and I believe that regulation will not help with people that know the ins & outs of the regulation, also it's doesn't stop them. It just means corporations are willing to misbehave as long as they can play the legal gymnastics and pay rudimentary fines.

So you try nothing and are out of ideas. Amazing.

> homomorphic encryption

Let me get this straight, you think regulation is too hard because corporations don't want it, but you don't see any problem with homomorphic encryption, which is difficult to implement, poorly understood by consumers, AND provides privacy guarantees that corporations don't want?

Really?


The Nature of Technology is a book by complexity theorist, Brian Arthur.

In the book, Brian Arthur describes technology and how it evolves.

You might find the book interesting if;

a) You want to develop a few frameworks that will help you develop insights on how to come up with possible inventions or tech start-up ideas.

b) You are interested in how to come up with policies or strategies for corporate research departments, educational institutions, or government policies that will foster the creation of new technology.

c) You want to comprehensively understand if technological progress will slow down or speed up in the future.

In this blog post, I describe a few takeaways from the book that answer those questions and hopefully inspire you to pick it up.


Send me an email. Email in bio.


Can I email you too?


me @ elorm dot org I’ll send you one.


Sent


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: