declan (u/declan) - Readit News

declan commented on Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online nbcbayarea.com/investigat... · Posted by u/mbgaxyz

komali2 · 8 years ago

You made me scroll through the youtube TOS to see if that was considered a violation.

As far as I can tell it's technically not... in fact, I can't even find a blanket "YouTube reserves the right to remove any content, for any reason, whatsoever" statement. They don't actually need to state that in the TOS, because they do have that right, but, still.

declan · 8 years ago

Section 4(J): "YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time."

Section 6(F): "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice."

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

declan commented on The curious case of high blood pressure around the world economist.com/blogs/graph... · Posted by u/known

esaym · 8 years ago

>"diets that include too much salt"

Hasn't that been debunked I thought I read? I certainly hope so.

I had the pleasure of visiting with my Grandma's sister who was down for the holidays with us. She did not eat much of our cooking as she stated that her doctor had her on a "low sodium diet". She said she couldn't eat alot of things she liked, but it wasn't so bad as there was no restriction on sugar intake so she "gets to eat all the sweets" she wants.

And that was demonstrated several times at the dessert table and by the several bags of candy she brought with her from back home. I was quite dumbfounded.

declan · 8 years ago

If you have normal blood pressure (normotensive population), then a high-salt diet has no association with cardiovascular events and death:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... /"Compared with moderate sodium intake, high sodium intake is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and death in hypertensive populations (no association in normotensive population), while the association of low sodium intake with increased risk of cardiovascular events and death is observed in those with or without hypertension. These data suggest that lowering sodium intake is best targeted at populations with hypertension who consume high sodium diets."/

Eating too little salt can result in increased risk of cardiovascular events and death: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558770/ /"we cannot extrapolate that lowering sodium consumption would reduce cardiovascular risk or premature death. In fact, randomized controlled trial evidence suggests just the opposite: that lower sodium intake may lead to worsened cardiovascular disease and earlier death."/

Low salt == higher risk of a heart attack resulting in death: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540421 /"Among 3681 participants followed up for a median 7.9 years, CVD deaths decreased across increasing tertiles of 24-hour sodium excretion... Lower sodium excretion was associated with higher CVD mortality."/

Salt intake is not associated with blood pressure, although body mass index and age are: https://academic.oup.com/ajh/article/28/3/362/2743418/Relati... /"Considering their squared partial correlation coefficient, age and BMI were the most important parameters relating to SBP [systolic blood pressure] level. Salt intake was not associated with SBP in either sex after multiple adjustments."

If you do have high blood pressure, supplement with potassium: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26039623 /"Potassium supplementation is associated with reduction of blood pressure"//

Salt intake is not linked to heart problems for adults 71 to 80 years old: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart... /"we observed that sodium intake estimated by FFQ [food frequency questionnaire] was not associated with mortality or risk for CVD [cardiovascular disease] and HF [heart failure] in a cohort of adults 71 to 80 years old. These findings extended to sex-based and race-based subgroups and in participants with and without hypertension at baseline."/

declan commented on US Senate bill on “any digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency” congress.gov/bill/115th-c... · Posted by u/fcanesin

NwmG · 9 years ago

Thank you very much for this description. I did not understand the implications or effect the change had. My question is - as a number of exchanges operating in the US (polo, kraken, GDAX) require Id's or some form of verification, what changes are really required? New AML/Compliance departments?

Also will individuals P2P transmitting cryptocurrency have to perform these same checks?

declan · 9 years ago

I think there is a big difference between merely requiring IDs (which as you say may well be the case today) and being subject to thousands of pages of regulations, of which requiring IDs is only a subset. For example, a big part of those thousands of pages of regulations has to do with submitting SARs--suspicious activity reports about customer activity--to the Feds. They have a handy web interface, complete with a FAQ, for you to use to submit those reports: http://bsaefiling.fincen.treas.gov/main.html

As for individuals transmitting cryptocurrency, I haven't spent enough time with the bill and the existing part of Title 31 to be able to answer that question. I would point out, though, that other sections of the bill make existing law even more onerous than it is today.

declan commented on The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto (1988) groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/... · Posted by u/SunbroSupreme

Mc_Big_G · 9 years ago

Relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6hbis7/us_congress...

TLDR; There's currently a bill to make cryptocurrencies illegal. (and other stuff that the government can't control)

declan · 9 years ago

Not quite illegal, but not quite legal (in the current relatively unregulated sense) either. I did a writeup of the Senate bill in the HN thread on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567005

declan commented on US Senate bill on “any digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency” congress.gov/bill/115th-c... · Posted by u/fcanesin

iandanforth · 9 years ago

Reading this is painful, is there any way to turn

"inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: “, or any digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency”;

into a proper diff?

declan · 9 years ago

I tried here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14567005

declan commented on US Senate bill on “any digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency” congress.gov/bill/115th-c... · Posted by u/fcanesin

declan · 9 years ago

This is a far-reaching bill that gives the Feds much more discretionary authority over digital currencies. The reason it's so far reaching is that it tweaks definitions that are embedded in thousands of pages of existing laws and regulations. It's like changing stdio.h in C--one tweak could have a big impact throughout an entire system.

So let's wade through it.

Federal law (31 USC 5312) currently regulates "financial institutions," which are defined as including banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, securities dealers, loan issuers--and that's not even an exhaustive list! One of the categories that's currently regulated is: "an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers’ checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments."

The legislation would rewrite that definition to include:

  (K) an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers’ checks, checks, money orders, prepaid access devices, digital currency, or similar instruments, or any digital exchanger or tumbler of digital currency;

Another definition that gets changed is "monetary instruments," which expands to include prepaid access devices:

  as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation, coins and currency of a foreign country, travelers’ checks, bearer negotiable instruments, bearer investment securities, bearer securities, stock on which title is passed on delivery, prepaid access devices, and similar material...

Prepaid access devices is a term of art that would now be defined broadly as:

  an electronic device or vehicle, such as a card, plate, code, number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, personal identification number, or other instrument, that provides a portal to funds or the value of funds that have been paid in advance and can be retrievable and transferable at some point in the future.

I don't know what the good senators are intending, but that seems pretty broad, and likely broader than necessary if their goal was to target prepaid Visa cards. Is a Bitcoin wallet "paid in advance" and "retrievable and transferable at some point in the future?" I'm not saying it necessarily is--what I am saying is that it's like wildcard matching when doing an 'rm -f', always a little dangerous. Better to be specific than something like any "portal to funds."

Fincen (part of Treasury) said in 2013 that "A person's acceptance and/or transmission of convertible virtual currency cannot be characterized as providing or selling prepaid access because prepaid access is limited to real currencies." But that was based on the old definition, not the newly broadened one. (https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidan...)

Now let's walk through some of the existing laws that reference these new definitions. A good start is the long list of existing Title 31 regulations primarily aimed at banks that would now get levied on any "issuer" or "redeemer" or "exchanger" of digital currency. That includes the obligation to:

- "Verify[] the identity of any person seeking to open an account" (31 USC 5318)

- "Maintain[] records of the information used to verify a person’s identity, including name, address, and other identifying information" (31 USC 5318)

- "Report any suspicious transaction" to the Feds (31 USC 5318)

- "Establish anti-money laundering programs, including, at a minimum" developing internal policies, compliance officer, training program, and independent audits (31 USC 5318)

- File reports on transactions (31 USC 5313)

- "Maintain appropriate procedures to ensure compliance with this subchapter and regulations prescribed under this subchapter" (31 USC 5318)

- "Guard against money laundering" (31 USC 5318)

- Allow the examination of "any books, papers, records, or other data of domestic financial institutions" related to reporting requirements (31 USC 5318)

- Be summoned by Treasury to "produce such books, papers, records, or other data" and give testimony under oath up to 500 miles away (31 USC 5318)

Note that many of the above sections of existing law give a heck of a lot of authority to the Treasury Department. Treasury could cough up very specific and narrow regulations that would lessen the impact. Or Treasury could follow the statutory text (aka go big or go home).

The bill also expands the sweep of existing criminal law. Existing criminal law (31 USC 5324) prohibits any attempt to "structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions." (Structuring is defined as "evading the reporting requirements" in which banks tip off the Feds that you're, say, moving high volumes of cash.)

Because an "issuer" or "redeemer" or "exchanger" of digital currency is now a financial institution, if you or I tried to dodge reporting requirements, we'd be looking at a federal felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Note that many other sections of Title 31 grant the Treasury Department discretion in rulemaking, so the blow could be lessened. At first glance this section does not seem to be one of those.

The bill also means that no financial institution (remember this now includes any "issuer" or "redeemer" or "exchanger" of digital currency) would be allowed to "issue" any "monetary instrument" (which includes any code "retrievable and transferable at some point in the future") unless "the individual furnishes the financial institution with such forms of identification as the Secretary of the Treasury may require." (31 USC 5326)

I'm getting a bit tired but did want to raise the question of whether or not the 31 USC 5332 rules against moving cash across the U.S. border now extend to digital currencies.

One section of the bill requires CBP to devise a "strategy to interdict and detect prepaid access devices, digital currencies, or other similar instruments, at border crossings and other ports of entry for the United States." (Emphasis added)

Existing law punishes anyone who: "Attempts to transport or transfer such currency or monetary instruments from a place within the United States to a place outside of the United States" -- and remember, "monetary instrument" is newly expanded. At least this seems at first glance to target only physical border-crossing and not electronic, and to require intent to evade reporting requirements. Would you have to declare a cold storage wallet if one happened to live on your electronic device? (CBP's forensic searches and scans just got a bit more worrisome...)

Anyway, that's my quick take. I may be wrong on some items--as I'd like to be! That means this bill would not be as broad and potentially worrisome as it seems to be at first glance.

declan commented on Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority arstechnica.com/tech-poli... · Posted by u/curt15

amccollum · 9 years ago

From your post:

It makes more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn't subject to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being described in the article seems to do.

From the article:

But from what we know about Lee's bill so far, it appears the proposal wouldn't impose any type of net neutrality rules to replace the current ones.

Wherein lies the so-called "lasting solution"?

declan · 9 years ago

Any lasting solution would be negotiated by Congress.

declan commented on Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority arstechnica.com/tech-poli... · Posted by u/curt15

declan · 9 years ago

Current headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority"

More accurate headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” preserves 2015-era FCC Internet regulation status quo"

Another headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” temporarily prevents FCC from enacting 3-2 partisan Internet regulations, unless a future Congress changes things"

Yet another headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” shifts authority for Internet regulation from unelected bureaucrats, who may not even have the power to regulate here, to elected officials in Congress, who do"

Keep in mind that "Net neutrality" has become a partisan issue. The current 2015 rules were passed by a 3-2 party line vote when the Democrats controlled the FCC. (They're currently being litigated, with U.S. Supreme Court review likely.)

Now that the Republicans control the FCC, the 2015 rules are probably going to be repealed by a 3-2 party line vote. Even if Congress does nothing.

Whatever you think of the reasoning behind "Net neutrality" regulations, it makes little sense for hundreds of pages of regulations to be enacted when the Ds win and repealed when the Rs win. It means regulations applying to a multi-billion dollar industry bounce back and forth every 4 or 8 years. It makes more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn't subject to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being described in the article seems to do.

declan commented on Ask HN: Would you be interested in a “cyberpunk” inspired news site? · Posted by u/zabana

declan · 9 years ago

<zabana>: The threshold question is: do you want to make money on a "cyberpunk-inspired" news site operated as a business, or is your "cyberpunk-inspired" hobby site expected to lose money--as hobbies typically do?

I've started both and worked as a journalist for both. Hobby sites are more fun. News sites are more work.

If you can make a decent income from this site, then you might be encouraged to write for it when you might otherwise be uninterested or unwilling (and you also might be able to hire freelancers or a staff). On the other hand, as anyone following the digital media business knows, making a decent income from an online news site is a non-trivial task.

declan commented on Tech Jobs, Cheaper Housing: The New Silicon Cities wsj.com/articles/tech-job... · Posted by u/muzz

drudru · 9 years ago

The wealth that has been created here since the last market crash has been enormous. Given the limited amount of land, the cost for RE has been driven incredibly high. As a result, the cost of everything is also way up.

I'm sure the congestion on 101, the BART, and the bridges is worse than it has ever been.

In the past cycles, people left the city because of costs and moved to the peninsula. Now even the peninsula is full of people hoping to get their kids into schools that are under-funded and have waiting lists.

I cannot predict when that river of wealth will run dry, but I think the companies that benefit from this can no longer afford to fund housing, health, etc. for every single employee they have.

Where are they going to go? They are going to go somewhere else.

It makes sense given that one of the implications of building and amazing global communication network is... that you don't have to be in a certain place in order to participate on it :-)

Also, don't get me started on the construction here in the Bay Area vs. some of the amazing craftsmanship like the one seen in the article.

I think we are going to see a lot more articles like this.

Oh, one other thing. One of the the reasons all these companies started here was because it was relatively cheap! For example, Apple picked Cupertino because everything further north was 'expensive'. Imagine that!

declan · 9 years ago

"Also, don't get me started on the construction here in the Bay Area vs. some of the amazing craftsmanship like the one seen in the article."

Drive around Menlo Park south of Santa Cruz Ave and west of El Camino and you'll see many beautiful houses with craftsmanship at least as high quality. This is new construction but with a traditional design, interspersed with 1950s ranchers that haven't yet been torn down. Of course you may be paying $1,000+ a square foot to build these new custom homes, so your 3,000 sq. ft home is closer to $5M including land.

So only an order of magnitude more than these "New Silicon Cities..."