Hacker News Reader

Comment by vikingcaffiene | Hacker News Reader

IMO there's two ways to read this: either A) this is a baldly transparent attempt to "own the libs" and punish a company that the administration sees as a threat or B) they are too incompetent to understand the technical nuances of the case and are essentially morons. Maybe both? This administration can't be thrown out on their collective asses fast enough...

View on HN

> At an earlier stage in litigation, the Obama administration took a similar position, urging the Supreme Court not to accept Google's appeal.

Am I understanding this correctly that this has been a bipartisan position?

Ellison hosted a big fundraiser for Trump literally yesterday and Obama regularly golfed with Ellison. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist but it’s clear the guy is connected and it stands to reason it might influence the government position.

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/12/tru...

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/18/bar...

Edit: some suggest Ellison doesn’t play golf, that said Obama visited his courses regularly and I’m sure there were plenty of occasions where they interacted closely before or after the round.

This kind of false equivalence is what drives me nuts about the modern media environment. Presidents meet with people all the time, sometimes when playing golf. No doubt Obama had similar meetings (links or no) with Google execs on multiple occasions, right? No one cares when Trump golfs with people.

Clearly running a political fundraiser sits at a different level of influence peddling. We literally have laws to regulate that and disclose the activity (where disclosure of routine meetings are, in fact, protected by law as executive privilege)!

It's different. It's not the same. Saying "Trump did a favor because Ellison drove $2M to his campaing" has a stronger basis than "Obama did a favor because Ellison let him win at golf."

And I'll just say it: at the end of the day, people who believe "everyone is just as bad" are the ones who are likely to excuse the worst corruption in government via "well, at least it's my candidate doing the cheating".

> conspiracy theorist

In my opinion, a possible connection between fundraisers/golfing and political outcomes doesn't necessarily rise to "conspiracy theorist".

This is how United States politics work. The elite give money to regulate an industry.

Do elites ever give money to deregulate?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but that's not what my comment was about.

"conspiracy theorist" has, to a large extent, become a phrase used to describe a certain class of fairly nutty folks these days, rightly or wrongly. I was noting that it's possible that someone pointing out a possible political outcome based on money transfer/golf games can do so without being a member of that group, as its effectively defined today.

Either way, wherever the profit and or broader control lie.

I'm starting to think we should let/get someone to found Sirius Cybernetics and let them snap up the whole FAANG group, Oracle, etc just so they can be "first up against the wall when the revolution comes".

In short, yes. Elites will support deregulation, when it suits/benefits them.

The Trump Administration’s environmental deregulation drive is no doubt lobbied for, backed by, and funded in part by the Fossil Fuel industry.

> Do elites ever give money to deregulate?

Enron lobbied for deregulation

Larry Ellison doesn't play golf. He does own golf courses though. He is a fine athlete but golf is not one of his sports.

Fair enough but I bet there were plenty of times before/after a round where they interacted closely.

>He is a fine athlete but golf is not one of his sports.

Isn't this orthogonal? Golf has absolutely nothing to do with athleticism.

Wrong. Tiger in particular was seriously into fitness.

Tiger Woods on his old workout routine: “Well, I used to get up in the morning, run four miles,” Woods said. “Then I’d go to the gym, do my lift. Then I’d hit balls for two to three hours. I’d go play, come back, work on my short game. I’d go run another four more miles, and then if anyone wanted to play basketball or tennis, I would go play basketball or tennis. That was a daily routine.

https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/tiger-woods-revea...

I'm into fitness too: I go to the gym, I ride my bike for long distances, etc.

My job involves sitting at a desk and writing code; my athleticism has nothing to do with it. It's the same with Tiger Woods.

Obviously Tiger was into athletics because he felt it improved his golf performance - and was probably right in doing so, considering that it was his peak period of accomplishment.

Being into athletics helps my work performance too. Athletic, fit people live longer, are healthier, have fewer sick days, and it probably extends to mental performance too, which is important in programming. Being fit also probably helps combat physical problems stemming from sitting down too much, such as back problems.

I don't see the difference. Golf is not an athletic sport, and it's plainly absurd to try to argue otherwise. There's nothing "athletic" about walking around slowly and hitting a ball with a stick; even bowling is more athletic than that. It might take some skill, sure, just like playing a musical instrument like a piano takes a lot of skill, but there's nothing athletic about playing a piano either.

> Golf has absolutely nothing to do with athleticism.

Golf has more than a little to do with athleticism, though, like many, especially individual, sports, it's possible for amateurs to play at (often, an approximation of) it without much athleticism.

Well, one thing: shoes with cleats. :)

What is this even referring to? Google didn't file this petition until 2019. It had previously petitioned the Supreme Court in 2014 before Oracle's appeal. The circumstances were quite different then.

At face value, maybe. But it's worth noting that this administration tried to stop the AT&T-Time Warner merger while suggesting that it would go through if Time Warner divested itself of CNN. I supported the action, but not the reasons why- it was a legislative hurdle that aimed to take out a source of journalism that was critical of the administration.

That in turn has colored my opinion of any antitrust action this administration takes, and I wouldn't be shocked if this action had some sort of corrupted subtext as well. I wouldn't trust this administration to perform antitrust actions for the sake of antitrust actions, but rather for some sort of ancillary benefits.

That has been a common pushback to many media/broadcasting mergers though. It presents a real threat to freedom of the press when a broadcasting company absorbs a media company as they can more easily suppress stories that don't serve their interests.

CNN being critical of the administration is immaterial (practically all large media outlets are). The concern from the administration seems justified rather than malicious in this case.

I think the suggestion that the admin's position on the AT&T/TW merger wasn't biased by CNN's existence as a moderate news outlet is extremely disingenuous, since multiple judges found the opposite to be true.

As well, if they cared about freedom of the press in the face of media consolidation, Sinclair wouldn't have been able to buy up so many local news outlets. But Sinclair runs stories that praise the administration, and Sinclair has impunity when it comes to acquisitions.

No.

The Obama administration took the position that SCOTUS should not take up the case, because Google was likely to win on the argument that it had a fair use claim (making the copyright issue moot), and if it didn't, then you could consider both the "is it copyright?" and "is it fair use?" concerns simultaneously.

Both. 50 years of people cynically saying "all politicians are crooks". And now we have legitimate sleazeballs running the country and nobody believes it.

On the one hand, Google is huge and needs competition. On the other hand: not this way. Antitrust and monopoly laws exist for a reason, but if you look at telephones in the 80's and microsoft & intel in the 90's, better lawyers get you around that.

We need trustbusters with teeth. Especially for tech. I wish the EFF was 100x larger.

One of the most jarring things about the impeachment saga was Trump supporters defending him by saying "all presidents do it". Fundamentally the issue is norms are easy to break if a bunch of people don't know what they are and don't care enough to find out.

You may be missing the point. When you look past the double standard, the criminality (collusion, corruption, embezzlement, lies, favorable pardons and lack of prosecution) is disproportionately on one side.

And of course there’s the tiny detail that Trump had to conquer the corruption of the Republican Party first to even broach the Democrats. See all the #nevertrump senators that prioritized #resisting Trump in spite of their constituents and his support amongst the party.

The government caused the phone monopoly and the slap on the risk had nothing to do with Microsoft's missteps when it came to the internet and later mobile. Microsoft still has the same dominance on the desktop that they had during the 90's.

The action in the 90's wasn't to break up their desktop dominance, it was to prevent them using that power to dominating the internet too.

That might have been their goal, but do you really think that it had anything to do with the rise of Google, Facebook, Amazon and the resurgence of Apple?

What had more effect on IE being toppled by Chrome, the government or the most popular website advertising it on their front page and bundling it with third party downloads?

If Microsoft had built adblockers into IE from the beginning there would be no Google. But that was a strategic error, not due to law. And people were definitely on the Google bandwagon in part because of Microsoft. The "do no evil" motto was a direct shot at MS, and everybody felt relief.

Only the geeks cared about the “do no evil”.

Fair point.

Local Loop Last Mile CLECs Yup I remember 1994 very well like yesterday in fact.

It was the control over individual customers that mattered not any particular market. The ‘94 act would have been quite prescient to be defending open internet access when first drafted in the early eighties.

The government definitely played a role in AT&T's monopoly, but to say they caused it is playing it very fast and loose.

Even before the government sanctioned their monopoly, AT&T was becoming a monopoly using strategies that the feds were arguing were anti-competitive and in violation of antitrust laws. You could argue the government first acquiesced their monopoly with the Kingsbury Commitment in 1913.

In the '20s and '30s, the government allowed them to resume buying up local carriers and established the FCC to set rates, but there was still tension and antitrust suits up until the '50s.

Like any relation, the government's and Ma Bell's was always "complicated".

they were pursuing a number of antitrust cases against them. Needless to say, AT&T's relationship with the federal government and regulators wasn't static over the next 60-70 years. Sometimes it was at odds, sometimes it was symbiotic.

But they were on their way to owning internet communication. They were trying to make it so the only way to communicate was to use office products with Internet Explorer. Fortunately, they didn't get very far.

how many hands do you have :)

The story could largely be reduced to: Giant Multinational sues Giant Multinational; both gain support of other Giant Multinationals while World's Most Powerful Government sides with plaintiff Giant Multinational.

The EFF needs to 100,000x larger to influence this level of game.

Throw shoes at Ellison. 10000s of shoes with flyers in them about FSF ;)

This is just another iteration of BSD vs UNIX.

This is so silly. It's like every toy compiler has to pay a license because it looks like "C", even if you make money and other software with it.

As long as they did not "literally" steal the code, I don't see any reason to bother with Oracle's defense.

The same thing happens with MPAA and others, where the actual creators hardly get much but "abstract" corporates get a lot. How long should the copyright law hold? No more than the lifetime of the author. They have made a corporation an abstract person, giving it all sorts of inalienable rights. Lulz ... if that's how you want to go, every time someone in a company commits suicide, the entire corporation needs to be charged with murder and the entire team needs to be thrown in jail and be charged for murder. Every privacy violation would be espionage charges .....

Actually as a corporate person companies are restricted in a very important way: they cannot represent themselves in court, whereas a general partnership can present a partner in court. The fact that directors are employees and only some shareholders may be members actually divided the powers innate to a real person and causes it to be impossible to present a single individual capable of acting in full cognisance and responsible liability for the incorporated company. This saves the law from unimaginable pain.

> they cannot represent themselves in court

So a corporation can screw many people with legalese, pretending to be everyone's friend and no one gets blamed. It sounds like a convenient loophole to me.

What the fuck is the CEO for then? Its comical because most people treat corporations as the CEO. A vs B is very different from naming names.

It's been continuously escalating, like a ratchet strap, and I don't understand how you see this as much different than what previous administrations have done.

They just don't care about hiding shit anymore because nobody understands/does anything significant to revolt.

Don't forget the fundraising efforts by Ellison for the same administration supporting them in this.

From the article:

>> At an earlier stage in litigation, the Obama administration took a similar position, urging the Supreme Court not to accept Google's appeal.

Did Ellison do a fundraiser for Obama as well?

He did not. Ellison has been a reliable (though not particularly partisan) republican for years.

Well, that kind of casts doubt on the whole "Trump is doing this for contributions" if Obama was on the same side of the issue then.

The Holder DoJ never weighed in on this case at all, to my knowledge. This is a civil suit.

I'm going by what the article said.

OK, I looked it up. These are pretty different briefs. The Holder DoJ petition asked the supreme court not to take the case, in a situation where the Federal Circuit had reversed a previous win at trial for Google by saying that "APIs can be copyrighted", something the trial court had assumed not to be the case. So the DoJ was basically taking a position on copyright law here. The supreme court agreed, refused to hear the case, and the net effect was that the Federal Circuit sent it back for another trial on whether or not the court-declared copyright infringement was fair use or not.

The situation now is that Google won at court again. The jury found the API reimplementation was fair use. And the Federal Circuit overturned the trial court again, saying (I'm not making this up, though obviously I'm paraphrasing) "The jury trial we demanded before was invalid because this infringement cannot be fair use as a matter of law, we just forgot to tell you that earlier."

That is, the Federal Circuit is behaving badly here, effectively shopping around for a basis to force a trial court to find for Oracle. The time for principled legal arguments was literally six years ago, this is just partisan hackery.

So obviously Google is appealing to SCOTUS (they took the case this time, for obvious reasons), and the DoJ is jumping in to pick a side in the substance of the actual case, something they really didn't do earlier by requesting that the appelate victory stand.

Whataboutism does not in any way dismiss the fact that Ellison's fundraising efforts for the current administration could play into this. Especially given the behavior of the justice department over the past few months.

It's not whataboutism. I am demonstrating that two politically opposed administrations came to the same decision. This implies that the basis of the decision may not be campaign contributions.

I agree... I upvoted your reply as you have a legitimate question there.

> It's not whataboutism. I am demonstrating that two politically opposed administrations came to the same decision.

Except you didn't actually demonstrate that, since they involve different appeals which did not present the exact same questions to the Court.

To demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate you need to look at the two petitions and the briefs submitted by the two administrations, and see how much the two administrations agreed on whatever questions, if any, were common to the two petitions.

Note that the questions presented were different in the earlier appeal, particularly, because the District Court had ruled against copyrightability, fair use was not a developed argument.

Does it matter? Every time without fail when I argue on HN that government involvement in tech is usually negative I get downvoted to oblivion.

But then when the same government interferes and is on the "wrong" side of popular geek opinion there is an uproar.

That's how issues work, there are different stances that people feel positively and negatively about. People here are generally pro-net neutrality, which involves at least some FCC intervention and enforcement. It's not a blanket libertarian vs. statist situation.

they're not incompatible: All industries have to be regulated, because they are made to make money, not to regulate themselves. When the regulator is not doing their job properly, there's the uproar.

TL;DR: Government should regulate industries, but it should do it for the greater good or people will complain.

Yes and industries only make money if they get customers to give it to them. The government should step in to counter negative externalities.

For example was different phone manufacturers using different cables really enough of a negative externality for the EU to step in?

> Yes and industries only make money if they get customers to give it to them.

That only works if you have choices that aren't just the same megacorporation with different names. In reality, most people have less voting power in their wallets than it appears.

Wait, when people disagree with you on an issue then they downvote you.

However, when you are talking about the same government, when they agree with you, will upvote you?

This, right here, is a broken system. People should only be able to upvote or downvote another person, but not both, whenever they are talking about the same government!

> the same government

The same branch of the same country, but with changes in who occupies it they can be vastly different.

I greatly dislike the "both sides are the same" narrative, but there were some strong elements of consistency regardless of occupant.

The current administration is an entirely new beast that reflects the whims of a single individual. We are in uncharted waters now.

It is the same government. Every power the current administration has at its disposal was granted or expanded at some point in the past into what it is now. The Trump administration is not a paradigm shift toward obscene federal executive power, it has been this way for a long time.

The small-government counterargument has always been "You are not going to like this new power when it's inevitably in the hands of the wrong person". That has always been ignored--the Whig theory of history ruled as enlightened new theories for social management demanded more and more centralized authority for the greater good.

Now that the chickens are home to roost and someone truly offensive to the left has been elected, they are doing the world's biggest surprised Pikachu face. But the capacity for human self-deception is infinite, as for example the very same people panicking about imminent fascist takeover are simultaneously panicking that anyone other than the government has guns. So I don't believe that any event can shock the hubris out of smart people and their tidy moral rubrics.

While the last thing I want is a “War on Guns” because it will end up just like the “War on Drugs”. It will give another excuse for the government to enforce laws much more harshly on poor and minorities.

But at the same time, it’s just silly to think that a reason to own guns is in case the government wants to impose martial law. We are talking about the government with the largest military in the world - with tanks, jet fighters, bombs etc. The 2nd amendment is not going to protect you from a hypothetical fascist government.

This assumes they throw a ‘martial law’ knife switch and instantly the armed forces turn into fascist enforcers willing to slaughter their own families rather than protect them.

Clearly not realistic.

why do you take at face value that with enough propaganda that people wouldn’t all of the sudden classify their own neighbors as “them”? Isn’t that just what happened in Rwanda?

Isn’t that the definition of a civil war?

But if you are convinced that the military would turn on its own people, doesn’t that still make the whole “we need guns to protect ourself from a potential fascist government and we are going to run around in the woods and prepare” silly?

A civil war seems entirely possible.

The idea that the military would stay unified and be on one ‘side’ of a civil war does not.

In any case it is obvious from the Middle East that people with guns can in fact stand up to the US military quite successfully.

We are dealing with a cult here. The fact that the statement about shooting someone on 5th Ave and not losing any votes is clearly true shows that this is beyond reason.

I don't take any pleasure in saying any of this; I'm not interested in besmirching the values of others that I do not share. But what is happening is crazy. The President of the United States is advocating that anybody who does not blindly support him is the enemy; and that those enemies need to be "dealt with".

This is way beyond "America, love it or leave it".

Why didn't we just bomb Al-Qaeda into oblivion in 2 weeks? Why couldn't we just shoot communism in North Vietnam? Martial law and occupation are ultimately enforced by infantry patrols. Plus, tanks need fuel and governments can't carpet bomb their own cities.

But it's not just about resisting hypothetical martial law in the future. It's about having a free culture now. Just like encryption, it is the difference between power deriving from consent the governed and an open-air prison and also has legitimate use for personal protection. The mere fact they don't want you to have it is reason enough to keep it by tooth and nail.

You can't bomb your way to democracy. Let's say that a foreign country bombed your farm/business and killed all of your family. Are you going to thank them for it or are you going to swear vengeance?

Are you aware of the reports that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were multi-trillion dollar failures?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

> the very same people panicking about imminent fascist takeover are simultaneously panicking that anyone other than the government has guns

Well, you've just proven yourself wrong. I am panicking over a fascist takeover and I don't think that only the government should have guns. I also know that I'm not alone in this sentiment.

> So I don't believe that any event can shock the hubris out of smart people and their tidy moral rubrics

Does this include yourself?

There are no uncharted waters. “The other side” makes equally bad decisions when it comes to tech because they believe that the government is the answer to too many of the worlds problems. Even if their intentions are good, they don’t have enough of a grasp on technology to understand the ramifications. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Some of the more forward looking liberals warned against executive orders when Obama was in the White House. They said that be careful about the precedent it was setting. Now those same people are bemoaning the current administration.

It’s always dangerous to give government more power.

This is a false equivalency. The overreach of the federal government is a topic worth exploring but this is different: this is a unification and consolidation of power into the hands of one man.

And to avoid getting too political I'll avoid questioning the loyalties and competence of this individual. I don't care if it was Obama or Bernie or Daffy Duck, this is a dangerous situation and it's compounded by the acceptance/acquiescence of a startlingly large portion of the population.

It’s not the consolidation of power by one man. Congress could pass a law to stop any of his executive orders anytime they wanted to. The court could stop a few of them.

In order for Congress to pass a law it needs to make it through the Senate. Mitch McConnell owns the Senate right now. Note the behavior of the President's supporters during the impeachment trial, they were all dutifully in line.

Compare that with a previous generation where the GOP leadership went to the President and told him they could not support him because he had gone too far, and Nixon therefore resigned.

Justices Roberts was a figurehead at the trial and his actions were supportive of the outcome.

This is not "normal"; this is not the democracy I learned back in the day.

I'm surprised this isn't a part of the official HN guidelines, it would be good to adopt it from Reddiquitte:

> (Do not...) Downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it. Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion. If you simply take a moment to stop, think and examine your reasons for downvoting, rather than doing so out of an emotional reaction, you will ensure that your downvotes are given for good reasons.

Downvotes should not be used as an "I disagree" button, that is what the reply button is for.

What this case demonstrates is that the fantasy of government-free tech is just that, a fantasy. Governments are going to be increasingly involved in issues that only techies used to care about, and it behooves us to make sure that involvement is as benign as possible.

This should’ve been clear to everyone from the get go, when research into electronic computers began during WWII under the aegis of military codebreaking.

Realistically it's too late for that. Industries that want to be apolitical need to actually behave apolitically, one look at the circus of blatantly political employee activism at google and other big companies demonstrates that tech can't be trusted to be adult enough to accomplish that goal.

> Industries that want to be apolitical

Industries, pretty much without exception, don't want that.

I'm guessing the comments you are referring to are more specific than a broad reading of "government involvement in tech"? My first thoughts were "DARPAnet, automobile safety standards, ... etc.". Reading it as "regulation of communications", I find myself leaning more towards agreeing with your sentiments.

Government should be involved when there are major externalities that the market won’t address. Most die hard free market economists would agree with that.

For instance, they must regulate communications because the airways are limited and a free for all would render communications useless.

The government getting involved in basic research is also necessary sometimes.

Respectfully, ( that's a cool name ) but I think you're missing the point here by reducing it to this bipolar conflict between politically insecure acting out and idiocy. I think it's a much cooler and bigger picture.

I think the case is actually very interesting, and not clear cut. It's going to be interesting to find out what the law means as applied to software in this way. I think it's fascinating. A real test between the 'old power' of the law, and the 'new power' of software, I think seeing this play out and considering the implications is incredibly interesting, and as tech people, we're the best placed to enjoy how interesting is.

All the shrill rhetoric of both sides and press aside, I think it's a very significant case even if they weren't massive companies (...tho maybe it couldn't have come this far if the companies hadn't been able to afford it).

In a similar, but less glamorous vein was the LinkedIn vs somebody data scraping case, the outcome of which was very interesting and meaningful. Anyway, I hope people can appreciate the significance of the case without dismissing or simplifying it in this shrill, childish way, and can think about the software implications, which are probably going to be very interesting.

I mean when it's all done we'll probably get to know where we all stand more clearly with software, licensing, re-use and so on, and probably new opportunities we don't see clearly now will become possible because of how the law is figured regarding this. I think that's fascinating, and has nothing to do with idiocy or politics.

> At an earlier stage in litigation, the Obama administration took a similar position, urging the Supreme Court not to accept Google's appeal.

Both parties don't seem to understand the issue, for what it's worth.

Please elaborate on the details of the case. You seem to be keenly aware of the nuances.

I haven’t been following the case, but please let me know why you have reached the conclusions that you have.

If Oracle wins it cements monopoly control of the computing ecosystem. Each megacorp will have their own API moat around their business. LEGO will be stoked.

It really just extends the x86 status quo to the software world.

Another reason: IP fights in the geopolitical arena esp with China, who can provide their implementations for any commercial APIs.

Google and Amazon both fucked up by weighing in on political campaigns.

And now they're shocked, shocked, that getting political with your monopolistic companies carries some political risk.

The solution is easy enough -- don't talk about politics at work -- and in particular not if you're the CEO.

Is it too much to expect our government to not play political games?

Is it too much to expect politicians to not play political games?

Sure, that'd be great, but it's never happened before and will likely not happen for the foreseeable future.

I expect better.

This is the best point I've seen in this thread so far. Companies should just stick to their business interests and leave politics and social engineering to others.

Um, isn't this exactly what Microsoft did up until they got slapped with that antitrust trial in the late 90s? They found out the hard way that not playing the game can be very costly for the company.

It'd be nice if it wasn't like this, but it just isn't; this country is too corrupt for huge players to just ignore politics, when their competitors don't.

> Google and Amazon both fucked up by weighing in on political campaigns.

What are you referring to here? The fact that executives had and expressed political opinions, or are you alleging that they put their fingers on the scales?

1) Oracle is about as sleazy as it gets.

2) Oracle’s Chief Sleazeball recently hosted a fundraiser for Trump.

Mostly because Larry Ellison, Oracle's CTO hosting a fundraiser for Trump.

Or C) Money. There's the whole Ellison/Trump fundraiser thing which might make Oracle's argument fall on more accommodating ground.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/12/21135722/larry-ellison-...

Edit: Beat me to it!

I know Trump is a politician, but he seems to focus on the culture war and Twitter, not high level corporate battles the masses rarely pay attention to.

He's not a politician, he's a reality show host. He just happens to be president too.

What does that have to do with my point?

I know Trump is a reality show host, but he seems to focus on the culture war and Twitter, not high level corporate battles the masses rarely pay attention to.

Does that make my observation worth thinking about?

If one observes Trump presidency, Trump amplified previous admin policy rather than changed direction. If I have to bet a $1000 dollars on this - the previous administration has similar policy but much tamer version of it.

Trump doing this for Larry Ellison doing a fund raiser for him, is simplistic mid-manager level thinking!

Just curious, why are all the comments mentioning Larry Ellison's fund raiser downvoted?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com