Like modern democracies, ancient Greek democracy had an anger problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/martha-nussbaum-jefferson-lecture <comment><USER2> Hmmm... the Greek tragedy 'The Bacchae' addresses the fate of a society which suppresses "anger" as she suggests. Suspiciously, it was not mentioned in Nussbaum's presentation. In the play, Thebes suppresses the less civil realities of earthly life until they punch back. Dionysus and the Furies unleash madness on Thebes as a result.

In this presentation, the furies are being distilled into little more than representations of anger which is quite simplistic and raises many contextual issues. In short, they are better contextually understood as representing earthly Dionysian vengeance, maybe we can say 'ugly truth' although I am uncomfortable with the tone this description has. The furies are 'chthonic' or 'of the earth.' They are associated with death and the more primordial makings of life itself.

Interpretations of Greek mythology abound and on the surface, this seems like one of the less thoughtful ones I have come across. I am noting it, however, and am curious how she defends these angles throughout her works. Please share if anyone has an explanation. I am less than anxious to buy her books.

<comment><USER3> If you google her name and add PDF to the search terms, you come up with stuff like this:

[https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/t...](https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/the- fragility-of-goodness-luck-and-ethics-in-greek-tragedy-and-philosophy.pdf)

I have no idea if that book is meant to be free or not. I also haven't read it. Like you, I was a bit curious about her writings and how she supported her views. So, I hit up Google and that's an example of one of the results. There are quite a few hits, often at .edu domains.

Alas, it will be a little bit before I have time to read it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a straw man article. We don't have an anger problem, neither had the ancient greek one. We have a problem with the distribution of wealth and this is where the anger comes from.

Start taxing the rich a bit more, stop wasting the tax payers money on wars that cannot be won and the anger will go away. Anger always has a cause. Listen and find the cause for the anger. Then fix the cause, but don't point the finger at anger.

<comment><USER5> Oh, but we _do_ have an anger problem these days. People are not angry because they carefully examined their situation and decided it's caused by deep wealth inequality. People are angry because a) things are bad, b) media feeds them outrage-inducing bullshit, and c) they don't even verify any of that, but get angry.

That is, people's anger is often completely disconnected from reality.

<comment><USER6> I think your (a) is due to wealth inequality. Even if people don't know those two words, it's not hard to see that $10 to $20 per hour jobs will get you nowhere. I think people do see the increasingly winner take all nature of business, that moving up to th next class is impossible if you aren't able to achieve select professional routes. And worst of all, it's so obvious that their children will be so far behind in terms of networking, signaling, and resources that their chances are also diminished.

<comment><USER7> We would have a wealth inequality problem if "things are bad, caused by wealth inequality" resulted in people fighting to make things better by fighting for things that would reduce wealth inequality. This is not what we're seeing.

We _do_ have an anger problem because "things are bad, possibly caused by wealth inequality" has resulted in people fighting to make things better by angrily striking at random directions, a lot of those actually _increasing_ future wealth inequality - so if we want to solve the actual causes (for example, wealth inequality) we'd have to tackle the anger problem first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unlike modern democracies, the ancient democracy was a real democracy, because they understood politics much better than us:

"It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election. (Aristotle)"

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition)

<comment><USER8> That quote is easy to misinterpret because of our modern (rightful!) bias towards democracy.

Along with tyranny, Aristotle considered democracy and oligarchy the three _bad_ forms of government. He wrote his _Politics_ with both the Athenian tyrants and Socrates' death (at the hand of the democracy) in mind.

<comment><USER9> Typical you are downvoted for accuracy because it doesn't conform to populist belief.

What most people don't know is Aristotle's teacher, Socrates, was a military leader/hero and firmly believed the best form of government would be an authoritarian council of philosophers. Similarly contrary to popular belief Niccolò Machiavelli - despite what people know about his work most famous work The Prince - firmly believed democracy was the _best_ form of government.

Obviously these truths run counterintuitive to what people _think_.

<comment><USER10> Aristotle was taught by Plato, not Socrates. Socrates died when Aristotle was still relatively young.

It was Plato who believed the ideal ruler would be a philosopher-king, but he also explicitly stated it was not a realistic option because the same philosopher-king could also be a tyrant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anger can be a driving force, a possible dangerous one but one that definitely creates _motivation_.

I think that mostly, progression/invention to make things better came out of real needs that were frustrating. Frustration creates movement, movement creates change, revenge is a means of propulsion. Only a democracy can diffuse this built up revenge that allows action, so in that essence anger is healthy in a democracy.

In the end it can be frustrating on a team when the whole of it moves in the wrong direction, people want enough power to make sure things go right, if that is challenged, frustration/anger set in. If you can manage productive things out of frustration/anger, you will win at this game.

David Simon stated that he is driven by a revenge type of motivation.

 _In a talk that Simon gave to a live audience in April, 2007 at the Creative Alliance 's storytelling series, Simon disclosed that he had started writing for revenge against John Carroll and Bill Marimow, the two most senior editors at The Baltimore Sun when Simon was a reporter at the paper. Simon said he had watched Carroll and Marimow "single-handedly destroy" the newspaper and that he spent over ten years trying to get back at them._

 _Anything I 've ever accomplished as a writer, as somebody doing TV, anything I've ever done in life, down to, like, cleaning up my room, has been accomplished because I was going to show people that they were fucked up, wrong, and that I was the fucking center of the universe and the sooner they got hip to that, the happier they would all be._

The ego has its reasons for being part of our evolution, it is a driving force that make you believe you can be better. That is probably closely related to anger, frustration, revenge and the most important part, productively using that fuel to burn your fire of propulsion to success.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Writing_process.2C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Writing_process.2C_characteristics.2C_and_motivation)

</comment><comment><USER12> I never thought I would say this: but is this thing available as video or audio? It seems to be the transcript of a lecture, and I would like to listen to it as I clean my house.

I found this thing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZbQuqAQCI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWZbQuqAQCI), but that is an interview in the wake of the lecture, not the lecture itself.

<comment> def- [https://www.neh.gov/content/2017-lecture- video](https://www.neh.gov/content/2017-lecture-video)

<comment><USER13> That lecture has a 20 minute introduction.

A long meandering of thanking and praising various funding organizations and people. A great example of what's wrong with modern academia.

<comment><USER14> They should just put up sponsor banners like sports do. I almost reflexively fast forward 10 minutes now when I watch a lecture because it seems they always feel that need to give a long intro speech.

<comment><USER3> They could adorn their jackets with sponsor logos and change hats frequently. It'd be like automobile racing!

It might actually get more attention that way. The scientist could show up and do doughnuts in the parking lot, squirt champagne on the crowd, and get a trophy. I'd watch the hell out of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One of the reasons why the American Founders implemented a Republic. James Madison writes his analysis in Federalist Paper #10.

"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters."

[http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm](http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm)

<comment><USER16> Interesting and so naive. It's almost like the whole thing was an experiment designed by politicians.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Quite interesting read. However, I would refrain from drawing general conclusions about democracy out of this. I guess, we as a species tend to have anger problem, no matter which societal form we live in.

<comment><USER18> _> I guess, we as a species tend to have anger problem, no matter which societal form we live in._

I'm not so sure about that. I think it has a lot to do with how we are raised and what we are taught when we come into this world, and it can be changed.

Recently I read some very nice fiction called the Green Sky Trilogy [0] (that has given rise to a video game which was _far_ ahead of its time [1]), which depicts a pacifist society where there is a taboo on "unjoyful" behavior and activities, like anger and violence, but not on inherently "joyful" activities like sexual relations.

It really raised something I have always found very odd about our own world.

Why does almost every cultural on Earth, even relatively secular ones, repress activities that bring pleasure and _life_ , but promote violence and death?

It's just bizarre.

Consider the infamous censorship of a TV show where they showed plenty of gore but not naked corpses, so they covered their buttocks with even more blood. [2]

Like we are supposed to be OK with that, but not nudity.

You have people beating each other up and show weapons and guns in children's cartoons, but shy away from showing anyone kissing someone.

So if we can condition ourselves to accept violence and strife – the causing of pain and death – things that are downright _contrary_ to our existence, then we can condition ourselves to reject them as well.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sky_Trilogy)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_(video_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_Root_\(video_game\))

[2] [https://www.google.com/search?q=Hannibal+censorship](https://www.google.com/search?q=Hannibal+censorship)

<comment><USER19> I don't find such predictions at all utopian, and I'm surprised this thread of argument has persisted in culture so long.

Sex _is_ associated with pain and suffering, and that's why taboos exist. Whether it's unwanted children, unwanted contact, diseases, or unfulfillable desires, there's plenty of downside to sexual behavior. Violence is easier to understand correctly than sex: violence is always bad unless it's necessary, while the conditions which make sex good or bad are more complicated, and thus, less comprehensible to children. Every four-year-old knows you shouldn't actually drop anvils on people. Inappropriateness is an ingredient of slapstick comedy which is (partially) why characters in children's shows do bad things to each other. Note that Pepe le Pew nonetheless appears in children's shows; his attempts at romance are also obviously wrong and thus funny.

On the other hand I do notice a positive correlation between people thinking the solutions to social problems are easy and people becoming angry about politics. This makes sense because it's natural to feel aggrieved when someone fails to solve an easy problem. But in reality the solutions to social problems are not so easy.

<comment><USER18> I edited the post a little to clarify the point I was trying to go for:

If culture and upbringing can condition us to reject and feel awkward about our most basic instincts, then culture and upbringing can make us reject violence or causing grief to each other as well.

By the way, the books I mentioned weren't "utopian predictions", in fact they have a dark side to them. For example, in that world even children are encouraged to take calming narcotics when they feel upset or agitated, which stifles them in different ways. Highly recommended reading in any case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's worthwhile to remember that Athenian democracy was direct and not representative like nowadays. Individuals voted on bills rather than electing officials to vote in their place. Plato claimed this form of government led to bills passed by popularity contest and tyranny of the majority which sounds pretty modern to me.

Still, I'd prefer democracy with all its problems to the Republic he proposed.

</comment><comment><USER21> To be fair, it was passion in general they thought was base and animalistic, not just anger.

</comment><comment><USER22> Do we have an anger problem? Or are we right to be angry at our shitty, do- nothing "leaders" who fail to actually make things better or pay attention to actual problems? If the idea is that anger often doesn't actually resolve things in a helpful manner, then sure, it doesn't. But let's be careful to separate proximate cause from ultimate.

Also, the underlying assumption that anyone who is angry is always the one with the problem is troubling to me. I see it often, it's not good.

</comment><comment><USER23> Fascinating.</comment>


Show HN: Swift Talk - <AUTHOR> https://talk.objc.io <comment><USER2> I'm down with the idea but can't help but think "Why would i want to listen to talk about Swift from a bunch of guys that think Obj is such hot shit they made it their doman?" Domains are cheap. If you really want to promote swift, do so on a swift centric site not one that makes me think you think of it as some side thing that isn't nearly as important as that great Obj-c

And Yes, I'm actually someone who would appreciate and benefit from these talks. Not sure $9 a month worth though.

<comment><USER3> Don't judge a website by its domain...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! We're launching Swift Talk today :D. Happy to answer any questions. Enjoy!</comment>


Marc Andreessen: The "Clock Is Ticking" On Oracle - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/boxnet-2011-9?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sai <comment><USER2> I view Oracle's customers as old, big and dumb. Although it personally scared me to see them acquire MySQL I thought that I understood it.

I thought that they were going to use MySQL to get a new series of leads so they could target companies as they began to outgrow it. But they seemed to have failed to execute which has opened the door for a lot of companies trying to steal that market. Not just the NoSQL guys but companies like YCombinator's ReThinkDB.

Right now it seems that Oracle's strategy is to buy other old line enterprise software companies whose products their current customers are using and jack up service fees. Larry Ellison is a smart guy but imho that isn't a long time sustainable strategy.

</comment><comment><USER3> cloud computing companies like amazon use oracle in their backend. [http://www.itinfomag.com/cloud-computing/amazon-rds-will- inc...](http://www.itinfomag.com/cloud-computing/amazon-rds-will-include- oracle-database-11g/) Andreessen is in the the board of HP , which is positioning itself to become a competitor to oracle.I would take his comments with a grain of salt.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually they offer it as a service. Amazon's backend is well documented: <http://www.satine.org/archives/2007/12/13/amazon-simpledb/></comment></comment>


'I'm Happy,' Says Man Whose Case Changed Europe's Rules For Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/14/312430713/-i-m-happy-says-man-whose-case-changed-europe-s-rules-for-google

<comment><USER3> This is a good thing.

If something terrible is posted online and it is true but it hurts nobody if you take it down, it seems like common courtesy to not repeat it. You have to weigh the public interest versus peace of mind for the individual. It's not clear cut and dry.

There are things you choose not to say in real life, even if the are true. Just because something is on the internet does not preclude you from that courtesy and respect. Technical reasons (such as caches) can be used as an excuse to act respectably. You do not go around telling colleagues at work about what other colleagues have done. What would you have to gain?

Imagine if you had relations with someone and it was recorded online. The allegations might be true but who has more right for that information to be left up there for all to find? Should you be allowed to post all you like about others, disregarding the potential effects on that person? Or should you be thoughtful about what is in the public interest?

Now imagine a site that records who had relations with whom. There is no maliciousness in this one: it's more of a public record or encyclopedia. Do you have the right to opt out of it?

To go further with my example. Imagine having a sexually transmitted infectious disease. Is the answer the same?

<comment><USER4> _This is a good thing._

Censorship is never a good thing. Just because you don't like information being made public, doesn't mean that you should be able to get the government to force other people to hide that information (assuming the information itself isn't illegal).

If I steal money from your house, and I'm arrested and sent to jail, should I be allowed to have Google remove any information related to that from search results?

 _You have to weigh the public interest versus peace of mind for the individual._

Exactly, and in this case you've put the desire of any given individual over the needs of the public interest.

<comment><USER3> This really is not the same as censorship, equating it does not make an argument.

Your example uses a robbery - a crime which is very much in everyone's interest to be public. It's useful to know where the crime was committed and what kind of crime it was.

My personal life does not concern you. You gain nothing and lose nothing by losing access to it for you should never have had access to begin with. The negative consequences of it being public fall on me, not on you. You have an asymmetric imbalance of power and social obligation with this information.

If you really do not care about your information being public, post something damaging. Someone would probably publicly mirror it to avoid it being removed. If you don't want to post, why not?

Social conduct is a real thing.

Forcing someone else to hide information is an interesting part of this dilemma. That someone else should have no interest in the data either - <USER2> does not cost them to remove it.

If there is a wall owned by a landlord and someone graffitis on that wall with some hurtful truth about someone. The graffiti can be considered unnecessary and should never have occurred to begin with. The landlord would have no qualm with removing it.

<comment><USER4> _This really is not the same as censorship, equating it does not make an argument._

Explain how this is not censorship. The government in this case is forcing Google to remove (correct and public) information from their search engine because "they say so."

 _That someone else should have no interest in the data either - it does not cost them to remove it._

Of all places, it's strange to see someone on HN refer to development resources referred to as "no cost". How do you expect Google to handle these personally-filtered search results without spending money building the framework necessary to handle this?

<comment><USER3> The person who wants the information is the one causing the removal of the content - not the government. It is not about the government trying to suppress information. The government (or court system) is acting on behalf of the individual.

Like anything involving people, it is merely a cost of society that makes us better off if we accept it as the cost of doing business. There are many costs like this in society. For example; your neighbours are outrageously noisy and unwieldy and are making it difficult for you to sleep. You have tried asking them to keep the noise down. Our society has has a slow and expensive process to come to some sort of resolution. Rather unnecessary since your local government and police have better things to do. It's not really their fault, you just happen to live in their catchment area.

Rather than just accept that people can do what they want or without regard to others, a pleasant society provides solutions to social issues like this. Without it, life would be less smooth.

Google has many engineers and big datacentres, I am sure they will manage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a dangerous precedent. Google should (and probably will) appeal, and I really hope they win. Who knows, the "right to be forgotten" could turn into a "fight to be remembered" ala Trotsky.

<comment><USER6> I believe this is the final level of appeals, and the only option for changing the ruling is to make new law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like a dangerous precedent.

<comment><USER8> I disagree. I have a friend that had some crazy person badmouthing him on various usenet groups. It really bummed him out because when you googled his name, you'd see all those things first. Replace "usenet" with "blog" and you could have the same problem today.

<comment><USER9> It almost seems backwards until you stop and think about it, but the existence of these kinds of laws actually makes this problem worse for most people.

There is no way for anybody without significant means to continuously monitor the internet for negative search results and then continuously sick lawyers on publishers, search engines, blogs, websites, and forums to get this stuff removed. And even with unlimited means, there really is no way to put some facts back in the bottle once it's been unveiled.

The existence of this kind of law makes it much more likely that most people will automatically believe anything negative that they read on the internet about you because then otherwise they'd assume that you'd be able to get lawyers to remove it.

Right now, today, there's a hint of doubt about the veracity of anything on the internet, and that's actually a good thing for people who have been unfairly attacked.

But if this law becomes widespread and sets a very strong precedent, then people will automatically tend to believe anything that they read about online.

This is a net loss not only for freedom, but for most people who have negative search results.

<comment><USER10> > But if this law becomes widespread and sets a very strong precedent, then > people will automatically tend to believe anything that they read about > online.

How is this true?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Gonzalez had his home repossessed 16 years ago. If you Google his name, you can still see newspaper stories about his debts. 'It hurts my reputation,' he says in Spanish. 'My debts are long paid, but those links were the first thing you'd see.'"

Congratulations, Mr. Gonzalez; now when people Google your name, your reputation won't only be defined by your foreclosure and past financial troubles--which is now discussed in 10,000+ articles (good luck with those takedown requests!)--but also for being the jerk who killed the internet for Europe.

You have to appreciate the irony...

<comment><USER12> Killed the internet in Europe? Come on. Free speech in the US and in Europe are two different things. But neither is better, it's a matter of culture. This decision is not backwards and it's not killing free speech as I know it in France (and most of the EU). Now, on the technicalities of the decision, there's probably to be said.

<comment><USER13> It is absolutely backwards.

It may be more cost effective for Google to stop serving search results in Spain.

Before you call me ridiculous, how much do you think Google makes off of those 47 million Spaniards each year, and how much do you think it will cost Google if those 47 million Spaniards or a large portion of them start demanding the company remove information about them?

If the cost to comply is greater than the profit, what would you do?

<comment><USER11> I believe the European Court of Justice's ruling applies to all of the EU countries, not just to Spain. I think it's unimaginable that Google would stop serving the entire EU market on principle.

But you raise a neat question: assuming it was just Spain (or the next similarly sized country to reach this decision), what would happen if Google threatened to entirely pull out of the country--i.e., stop serving search results or supporting any Google services there? Are they powerful enough to influence national policy? It seems unlikely, but it's a neat hypothetical.

<comment><USER13> Google pulled out of China on principle.

China is a hell of a lot bigger than the EU.

<comment><USER12> Pulling out of China is a good PR move (although that's not the main reason). Pulling out of Spain, not so much. The shitstorm that would ensue would be very detrimental.

And tbh, you won't see many lawsuits where people try to enforce their "right to be forgotten". We may have stronger libel laws here but we don't have the lawsuit culture of the US. There's no way it'll be cost-effective for Google to pull out from Spain or the EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Spanish fellow had a problem with a government agency that would not remove his records. So instead of dealing with that government abuse he sues a private company that reports using government data. Then the government says the private company has to stop displaying the information. So the government creates the problem and then hides it. Worse, the main beneficiaries of this law will not be ordinary people, it'll be criminals, politicians and powerful people who now have a way to hide their wrongdoings.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how this would impact an organization like archive.org

<comment><USER16> There are probably hundreds of reasons why archive.org would be illegal in Europe. It's wonderful that they are based in a country that respects freedom of speech.

<comment><USER17> That's funny most of HN seems pretty disappointed that it's AT&T's free speech right to hand over your (technically AT&T's) phone records to the gov't (or anyone else they feel like).

<comment><USER18> AT&T does not have a free speech right to expose information that was not publicly available. Where as, if AT&T was providing information that you had agreed to make available, or was providing information that was already publicly available then they would have, arguably, the right to provide that information again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would say this ruling is Orwellian but even Big Brother had the common sense to actually change the primary sources.

<comment><USER20> Indeed. And Europe wonders why they have trouble innovating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Everybody talking here about "recorded sex" etc, should know better about what "marabunta" is and how it's used in certain places and sexual groups.

I'm totally with anybody which wants to remove any (own) sex-related recording. With or without tropical drugs. People is terrible.

</comment><comment><USER22> So - how long does it take to crawl the entire web yourself with a modern PC and broadband connection? Is it feasible to have your own uncensored search engine (even if it isn't frequently updated)?

<comment><USER10> Do you seriously believe that Google is somehow unbiased?

<comment><USER23> but it's not about Google only. It is about bing, yahoo and ddg too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Europeans won't see the real search results and if that is how they want it fine, they have no jurisdiction anywhere else.

</comment><comment><USER10> Seems like a great precedent. Google spiders the web and creates profiles about people, and they should be held responsible for the consequences.

<comment><USER24> I can't reply to the other comment, but the court case in general is not about "creating profiles" of people. It only deals with things found and presented from web-spidering. I dare say that duckduckgo would have the same results.

Are you opposed to spidering the web and presenting the data based on keyword search? Why should Google be held responsible for indexing publicly available webpages?

<comment><USER10> I am opposed to the idea that because something is a machine process, the people who operate that machine should not be held responsible for any harm it does.

<comment><USER24> Who gets to decide what is harmful? Do you simply defer to the courts?

Do you think Google holds a larger, equal, or smaller responsibility than the content provider who is actually hosting this "harmful" information?

In this case, I don't see anyone at fault and don't think a crime has been committed. The data presented was true and of public record.

I would see a case if Google was somehow treating this man as a special case and only indexing negative things about him, or if google treated his publicly available data differently than any other person's

<comment><USER10> The responsibility could be measured in how much exposure each site gave to the information.

Who gets to decide what is harmful is indeed generally decided by courts.

I agree that it shouldn't be a special case. Google does discriminate based on how much other information about a person is posted online - someone with a lot of professional info online will look better than someone who doesn't used the internet much and so only these public records appear against their name in search. That is a dangerous form of discrimination.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Look into Facebook and Google's Bizarre Policies on Office Romance - <AUTHOR> http://observer.com/2018/02/facebook-google-office-romance-policy/ <comment><USER2> Those don't really seem as "bizarre" as they are legal padding for these companies. I guess everything has to be written out, no matter how obvious/widely accepted things are. At a certain point though, lots of rules becomes a bit overbearing for employees. Kinda like Facebook and Google turning into helicopter parents.</comment>


Ask HN: What Is The Best Day To Launch? Does It Even Matter? - <AUTHOR>

When it comes to launch your startup  or product/site etc do you consider the day you launch it?
Afterall, if you're looking to get covered by TechCrunch, GigaOm and get the most views out of it then... Would you avoid launching on a weekend when they hardly post or Would you launch on the weekend considering they hardly post (meaning they'd more likely cover you) but probably a lower % will see it?
Having said all that, does it even matter? <comment><USER2> Doesn't matter. It's not like the fate of your entire startup rests on picking the right launch date. Also, I think we all understand that there is no such thing as a overnight success, that generally you'll have to work hard for years before things pay off.</comment>


What is controller in MVC - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
What is the real function of a controller in a MVC architecture ?
Thank you for your advices. <comment><USER2> The controller generally accepts requests and fires an action. i.e. You may request index.php/admin/users/view/id/123

Your controller in the above example is Users firing the view Action it got from the request (usually another object).

</comment><comment><USER2> Sorry for the double comment ... you can see the controller in action at <http://code.google.com/p/sharpy/> ... which is my less than a week old PHP framework.</comment>


3D printed hands are giving Syrian children a second chance - <AUTHOR> https://waya.media/a-helping-hand-for-syrian-children/ <comment><USER2> And with a sub $200 printer.

I've seen professional prostheses made on $150k industrial printers, and they're much nicer of course and probably more durable, but this may be one of the cheapest medical devices making the biggest difference for these kids.

Printer is open source: [https://github.com/Creality3DPrinting/Ender-3](https://github.com/Creality3DPrinting/Ender-3)

<comment><USER3> I recently picked up an Ender 3 pro from my local Micro Center for $209. Im absolutely blown away by how far these printers have some in 5 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Outside of the atrocities related to the Syrian confict, the highlight of this story is really the affect that making expensive industrial grade technology like 3D printing accessible to a wider audience can have on how things are made.

I've seen similar stories from other 3D printing companies like Formlabs on healthcare related innovation that's been enabled by more accessible digital fabrication technology:

[https://formlabs.com/blog/father-helps-son-with-cerebral- pal...](https://formlabs.com/blog/father-helps-son-with-cerebral-palsy-walk- with-custom-3d-printed-orthosis/) and [https://formlabs.com/blog/shirley- technique-facial-prosthesi...](https://formlabs.com/blog/shirley-technique- facial-prosthesis/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone have an interview with a person who has used a 3D Printed Prosthetic for a month or more?

Proof someone has successfully added a 3D Printed Prosthetic to their life.

[edit] And not internal, external Prosthetic's

[edit 2] Here's one. 10.1097/MD.0000000000009426

3 months in a success but "Some fingers, knuckles, and cables were replaced twice due to the daily wear and tear."

That only in 3 months. Interested in other stories.

<comment><USER6> > Does anyone have an interview with a person who has used a 3D Printed > Prosthetic for a month or more?

1) One of the Iraq embedded journalists had his hand blown off removing a sticky bomb thrown into their vehicle.

He tried an advanced prosthetic (not printed) but changed to a hook for strength and reliability.

2) It's important to request a shredded limb be removed since once the nerves and blood supply are reattached, Western doctors often won't amputate it in favor of a prosthetic. So you end with a limb that may not work, or be in chronic pain.

3) An Indian doctor has success with aluminum prosthetics. Cheap, strong, waterproof. There's a documentary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Finally a company that is actually making the world a better place.

</comment><comment><USER8> Now let's end the blockade/harsh sanctions on Syria so that the country can recover.

<comment><USER9> The atrocities are ongoing and the Syrian regime has slaughtered hundreds of thousands and displaced millions with the help of Russia and the support of Iran. The insanity needs to be stopped, _then_ you can talk about recovery.

Idlib, which is basically a huge refugee camp for millions that were forced out our fled the rest of the country, was bombed to hell over the last three days; there are at least 700,000 refugees that are now yet again displaced. In just three days.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle- east-51317720](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51317720)

<comment><USER8> Idlib is the last refuge of ISIS and their ilk. Yes they're defending their country from the worst Islamic dictatorship, which tpnewrly took over. I don't blame them. The US also flattened Mosul and killed over 1500 people there in airstrikes, fighting ISIS.

Nobody has a good record in the war. But this insistence that Assad has to go, is entirely politically motivated. He's a hideous dictator yes, but Sisi of Egypt is much worse. Yet he's treated with respect.

Now Syria is trying to rebuild their country and reunify, we should help them and not start any more fires there.

<comment><USER9> Mosul and Idlib aren't really comparable, tbh.

Of all the horrible things Daesh has done, collectively staining the name of anyone rebelling against the Assad regime (except perhaps for the Kurdish fighters who've kept their own identity) and allowing (literally) millions of refugees and freedom fighters to be labeled ISIL members or sympathizers that are acceptable collateral has to be the worst.

<comment><USER8> Why aren't they comparable? It's funny for me to see news coverage of all the atrocities Russia commits there, but none of the US in Idlib.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In Brazil there is Mão3D (3D hand), an university project which helps kids with 3D printed prostheses: [https://mao3d.wordpress.com/](https://mao3d.wordpress.com/)

They are currently seeking funding with a crowdfunding platform kickante: [https://www.kickante.com.br/campanhas/uma-mao- literalmente-m...](https://www.kickante.com.br/campanhas/uma-mao-literalmente- mao3d)

</comment><comment><USER11> Amazing how was take so many things for granted, kudos to the founder of Smart Hand.

</comment><comment><USER12> The motherfuckers that start these wars should be forced to look at images like these 24/7.

<comment><USER13> They don't really care...it's show-biz for them. Now considering that most of them are elected you have to blame yourself as well.

<comment><USER14> If it were "only" entertainment. It's worse than that -- it's "business!" One of the more insightful things I've learned in my lifetime can be paraphrased like so: "There is just as much money to be made in tearing down a civilization as in building one up. But the former is much easier, faster, and more reliable." Find those (people/companies/governments/religions) who increase wealth and/or power as a result of this, and you will find the culprits.

<comment><USER15> > There is just as much money to be made in tearing down a civilization as in > building one up.

Do you think Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates agree with this statement?

<comment><USER16> Why wouldn't they?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What happens when you try to publish a failure to replicate in 2015/2016 - <AUTHOR> http://xeniaschmalz.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-happens-when-you-try-to-publish.html <comment><USER2> The paper was a meta-analysis of nine unpublished studies. While the issue of non-publication of negative results is extremely important, this should not be the test case for it.

I agree with other comments that the lack of nul-results in journals is a massive showstopper for epistemology and confidence in scientific work. In my experience during my PhD, academics were unwilling to submit nuls, they wanted to find the actual answer and publish that instead - which leads to delays of years, leaving well known and obvious errors in existing papers unchallenged in public, and potentially leading to that scientist _never even submitting the nul result._

<comment><USER3> > The paper was a meta-analysis of nine unpublished studies. While the issue > of non-publication of negative results is extremely important, this should > not be the test case for it.

I think they probably made a mistake in calling it a meta-analysis, because indeed a meta-analysis relies on the idea that the studies themselves have already been peer reviewed and as such don't need to be questioned individually. Here, however, we're dealing with eight attempts at replication by the author that have not previously been published, and as such those studies _should_ be discussed in detail so we can assess the merits of the individual replication attempts. Any meta-analysis of those experiments is then really just the cherry on top.

<comment><USER4> > the studies themselves have already been peer reviewed and as such don't > need to be questioned individually

Just to add a bit to your comment: Peer review is a community's way of saying a paper stands up to their best understanding of methods at the time. The author could have accidentally left something out, misrepresented their approach or fabricated things. Peer review would not catch that, but replication or failure to replicate would. They are two different things.

For example, I remember one experiment could never be replicated by anyone except the author and his students. So, it got a bit heated. Ultimately, they found it was an experimental setup, not reported in the paper because they didn't think it was important, that allowed the experiment to work. So, it passed peer review, failed replication, but ultimately, because of failed replications and the academic process, further information came to light and knowledge was created.

The academic process can be slow and frustrating. But, when applied properly, it is our best approach to expanding knowledge. That isn't to say it can't be improved, especially regarding failure to replicate and null-hypothesis papers. Academics know this and are working on methods around this, methods called out in these discussions.

Some of the most innovative people i've found, seeking ways to improve this process have been NSF and NIH officials. So, it's promising, but slow.

<comment><USER5> I think you're putting a little too much weight on peer review here. The way it is presented to non-academics often makes it sound more like a trial or inquest, where a large group of people carefully weigh the evidence.

In practice, peer review means that 1-3 people each spent 1-3 hours thinking about the paper and didn't find anything horribly wrong with it. It is more like a code review--it's good if it catches something, but not terribly surprising if some bugs slip through.

You're definitely right about the the importance of continuing to discuss and replicate work after it has been published.

<comment><USER6> The level of rigor in peer review is quite variable across disciplines and even specialties. This is a cultural thing.

The code review parallel is pretty good (and also captures that, code review is very variable also)

<comment><USER5> Sure. Peer reviews in pure math are often exceedingly careful, or so I am told (not in the field).

Still, I think it's a little much to say that it's "a community's way of saying a paper stands up." At best, it's the opinion of handful of people from that community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At this point, I think Google Scholar should step in and just put a replications section beside every scientific publication. People should be able to quickly and easily know how many times a study has been attempted to replicate and, of those attempted, how many times it has actually successfully replicated.

It's unfortunate that replications aren't taken more seriously these days, but it also doesn't help that, when there are actual replications, you have to scour the internet for them rather than having them readily available to you.

<comment><USER8> I think that's a pretty great idea actually. If anyone here has the reach to get this on their table please do reach out. It would be even greater if they'd use some replication metric in their ranking algorithm for the papers.

The danger however is that this would just lead to only me-too studies being accepted and failed replications still being rejected.

I'd also love if they'd add (possibly Google hosted) repositories where the data/scripts etc. that belong to the paper can be uploaded and archived for all eternity.

<comment><USER9> I saw something like this a while ago... Codalab ([http://codalab.org/](http://codalab.org/)). It's run by Percy Liang ([https://cs.stanford.edu/~pliang/](https://cs.stanford.edu/~pliang/)). It lets you create executable worksheets to go with your papers; and people can validate both the code and data used in your experiments.

<comment><USER10> [http://gitxiv.com](http://gitxiv.com) is far superior than Codalab. Source: I go to Stanford.

<comment><USER8> Looks pretty cool indeed, bookmarked. However I believe it is focused on Computer Science. Nothing wrong with that but I think they key is convincing scientists that are not exposed to ideas like version control, open source (and I'd argue data sharing due to the rise of data mining) by default (or are less computer savvy in general).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The narrative would be more persuasive if it incorporated a story of how the paper evolved meaningfully in response to peer criticism. The question lingering in my mind after reading this is whether and how the paper was substantially revised (in light of reviewer feedback) between rejections. I'm sure it was (it has to have been, right?), but we don't get that feeling from the blog post. The author(s?) should have received a large amount of very good feedback between rejections from well-meaning peers in their scientific community. I don't recall reading about incorporating any of that feedback into subsequent revisions of the paper. The term "meta-analysis" probably should have been dropped after the first (pointed) rejection, for example, and the paper should probably have been broken down into two or three smaller papers rather than submitted as a 'meta-analysis' of unpublished work.

This is not to say that peer feedback wasn't taken seriously. I don't know that at all. But if the goal is to persuade a skeptical audience that academic publishing is broken, the author should articulate how they followed best practices in response to rejection letters from peer-reviewed journals. The alternative is to sound arrogant and self-defeating, which I'm sure was not the intent!

</comment><comment><USER12> Forgive me for not being an academic, so maybe this question is moot.

Why isn't there a place that links to a given paper so that discussion about the paper can be centralized? It could also contain links to papers that link to that paper, among them would/could be the failure to replicate information, adding to the discussion. And I don't really mean a topical "this is what's new" site, I mean a historical "This is the paper, and this is what people have said about it." sort of site.

This seems like a fairly elementary idea. The only seeming difficult bits I see are:

a) Getting (legal?) access to these papers.

b) Dealing with a large number of papers (millions?).

c) Authenticating users to keep the discussion level high.

d) Moderating the discussion in a way that doesn't piss off academia (impossible?).

e) Keeping the number of these sites (competition, if you will) low so that the discussion is not fractured between them.

It would seem like one of the "Information wants to be free" sites that host the papers that everyone shares with each other would be a great place to start something like this.

<comment><USER13> In general the way academics have a "discussion about the paper" is by writing another paper in response and citing the original.

So what you're looking for is the citation graph, and you can find it e.g. on Google scholar. Search for the paper you are interested in, and then click the link which lists all the papers which cite that one.

You'll probably need to be on a university campus or ask your anonymous internet friends for help to get around paywalls.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Yes, we write comment papers. But the process is very very slow, so many don't bother.

I submitted a comment paper to a journal in March last year. The paper I was commenting on was from November 2014. My comment got accepted, after two rounds of peer review, in May this year. It will appear in the journal in July some time.

<comment><USER14> And that's fast by academic publishing standards. A flamewar that would take a day in an internet forum can smoulder for decades in academia, while the principals gather supporters and snipe at each other in conference sessions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's a psychology journal[1] dedicated to only publishing null-hypothesis results.

[1] [http://www.jasnh.com/about.html](http://www.jasnh.com/about.html)

<comment><USER16> A journal dedicated to negative results is IMO not the solution here. Academics must publish in reputable, prestigious journals in order to advance their career (a publication in a non-prestigious journal basically counts for nothing). A journal dedicated to negative results is never going to be a prestigious, impactful, or widely-disseminated venue.

<comment><USER17> But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If more people were publishing their null results in such a journal, one of those journals would emerge as the most prestigious null-result journals. It seems like an acceptable solution, especially if the alternative is going to be not publishing at all and increasing the positive result bias.

<comment><USER16> Being the most prestigious null-result journal doesn't rise to being a prestigious journal, though.

Regardless, this is the reality today. I don't think trying to boost a null- result journal to the level of Nature or Science is a better way forwards than pressuring Nature or Science (and similar caliber journals) to publish more null result works.

<comment><USER17> As far as career advancement goes, I don't work in academia, but I would be more confident walking into an interview with a list of difficult and impactful experiments finding no effects than having even one highly cited paper in a prestigious journal that was later debunked by a couple of grad students in a null-result journal. The latter prospect should also frighten journal publishers into taking null results more seriously (especially if they published the earlier work), but only if the threat is real.

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi Most assessment processes in academia are purely administrative processes where they count the number of cookies that you have earned. They don't take the actual quality of the work into account.

In my country, it goes as far as having "objective" point scales like: publication in ISI JCR-indexed journals, 1 point for Q4, 2 points for Q3, 3 points for Q2, 5 points for Q1. Publication in non-indexed journal, 0.1 points.

No one ever looks into whether the paper is good or crap, or whether the author has managed to submit almost the same paper to five journals. In fact, I know cases of honest people that _tried_ to look into that kind of thing, but they didn't let them because it was against the published "objective" scale.

I don't think the system is equally rotten in every country/institution, my country is probably among the most extreme places in this respect, but anyway this kind of assessment is the most common AFAICT, as the impact factor cult is often denounced by international scientific societies.

<comment><USER16> This does not reflect hiring practices at reputable US research universities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So broken. I'm not involved in academia, so the most I can contribute are upvotes here and there, and giving respect to those who push against the current.

<comment><USER19> There needs to be a journal called "Failures" that focuses exclusively on failed experiments and unreproducible results. I'm far more interested in learning why something may have gone wrong.

Maybe it's just me but I feel it would surprise many people with its popularity.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure this would work as a journal.

Who would read this? I skim Nature, Science, and some journals in my particular subfield every week/month because I am sure I will find something relevant to my research or generally interesting. With the exception of some hilarious or spectacular ones, I don't think _Failures_ would be so engaging, so the only way I would find an article in _Failures_ is if I specifically set out to search for it.

I might do that (though searching by technique is hard), but even if I found something, read it, and decided it was helpful, what would I do with it? For better or worse, citations are the currency of academia and academic publishing. Where would I cite a paper that specifically _warned me away_ from a possible project? "Dear Nature, I was going to study XZY via ABC, but [1] indicates that's a dead end."

So, with no regular readers and no citations, _Failures_ becomes more like a database than a journal. There currently aren't any good incentives to submit things to databases, so Failures becomes a....failure.

<comment><USER20> "There has been some promising research with alternative technique X, but that has shown to be unreliable. [1] Because of this and [other factors], we have decided on technique Y."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 1\. There are many places this could have been published without an importance review, eg PLoS ONE.

2\. I think anyone interested in the replication problem needs to read this piece [1] by Peter Walter. As he put it: "It is much harder to replicate than to declare failure.".

[1] [http://www.ascb.org/on-reproducibility-and- clocks/](http://www.ascb.org/on-reproducibility-and-clocks/)

<comment><USER5> Alternately, it would have worked really well as a "Registered Report."

 _Cortex_ now offers a format where the paper is submitted in two stages. One first submits the introduction/background, methods, and proposed analysis, __before __collecting data. If the reviews are favorable, the paper is accepted, regardless of how the results turn out. There is a second round of reviews for the final manuscript to assess the quality of the data and ensure that the pre-determined analysis plan was followed. More here:[http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/PROMIS%20pub_idt_CORTEX%...](http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/PROMIS%20pub_idt_CORTEX%20Guidelines_RR_29_04_2013.pdf)

I've had a hard time selling collaborators on it ("TWO ROUNDS OF REVIEW?! Isn't one slow and painful enough?!"), but I really like this idea. It rewards interesting hypotheses and good experimental design, but avoids the ask-a- stupid-question-get-a-stupid-answer issue with null results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seems to me this issue is getting to the point where it could become an existential threat to the credibility of science in general. Note how climate- change deniers have recently used these sorts of arguments to challenge the consensus - is it really so far-fetched to argue that perhaps climate scientists are as biased as researchers in areas such as medicine and linguistics?

The pay-wall, blind peer review process seems broken beyond repair. There needs to be a better, robust method to publish every relevant study that is not utter crank, and get some sort of crowd-sourced consensus from researchers with credible reputations.

<comment><USER23> Every few days I read that science is broken or losing credibility. And yet somehow the torrent of new technology, medicine and understanding of the world just keeps coming, and often makes my life better. So maybe not completely broken.

CRISPR, Higgs' boson, gravity waves, deep networks, self-driving cars. Not broken.

<comment><USER24> It's not about technology. Bullshit science affects policies. Also you don't see what did _not_ get discovered/invented because of people having wasted time trying to build on bad theories.

Also, nobody's saying it's _completely_ broken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This seems to be the original work in question: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8098564_Reading_Acq...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8098564_Reading_Acquisition_Developmental_Dyslexia_and_Skilled_Reading_Across_Languages_A_Psycholinguistic_Grain_Size_Theory)

</comment><comment><USER26> There should be a failure to replicate journal. The standards committee would should be all about rigor so that just getting published there would be a demonstration of technique and ability if not headlines.

</comment><comment><USER27> Any journal that refuses to publish a failure to replicate research they originally published without proper reasoning should be closed down. That journal should have such a reputational black mark next to it that nobody would want to publish there and anyone who already had should be at the door with pitchforks and torchers for tarnishing the researchers' reputations.

If it's was important enough to publish research saying "here's something" then it's important enough to publish properly done research showing "actually, probably it's nothing." By definition. Or it's not science, it's f __king marketing and the journal should be treated with the same scientific reverence we reserve for pepsi-cola advertisements from the 1990s.

<comment><USER28> I somewhat disagree. They still should have the right/plight to vet the failure to replicate on quality. Without that, everyone and his dog would have publications in Nature and Science tomorrow.

<comment><USER29> I believe objections on the grounds of low quality would count as "proper reasoning."

</comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Some of those reviews are good materials for [http://shitmyreviewerssay.tumblr.com/](http://shitmyreviewerssay.tumblr.com/)

</comment><comment><USER30> PLoS one specifically says they will publish "Studies reporting negative results".

<comment><USER31> Or save yourself the APC and put it on arXiv. Even Eisen (who was one of the founders) suggests this.

<comment><USER30> Its not peer reviewed so wont be found by researchers searching in pubmed or whatever. Thats the main point of publishing...so reviews will find the negative data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Put it on arXiv or f1000 for fucks sake. Who actually believes psychology papers anyways? The vast majority are fishing expeditions as best i can tell.

When the field starts enforcing minimal standards (as expected for, say, clinical trials, or even genetics studies nowadays) maybe someone will give a shit. Until then people like this guy who actually seek the truth will be ostracized.

<comment><USER32> arXiv is not a peer reviewed journal.

<comment><USER33> That is correct, and the author did make their research available online (on researchgate and OSF). The arXiv simply isn't the right preprint server for this, as its range of subjects doesn't cover the author's: "Open access to 1,160,864 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics".

For all the hate that peer review gets on HN, it plays a significant role in science and it's important to have a quality screening for papers. Preprint servers and peer-reviewed conferences and journals work best in tandem. The way it works here is that when we submit something to a conference, we also submit a technical report to arXiv, which we update to incorporate the reviewers' feedback. The "complete" and preferred version is usually the one on arXiv (no length restriction, so you can actually explain and prove stuff). Conferences are much more than just publication venues, though: lots of collaborations start there, and interesting discussions can be had.

<comment><USER31> The entire replication chain is a statistics exercise. But whatever -- your point is sound, preprints should complement peer review. It's only Elsevuer and a few others that try to prevent this. I guess we can hope that fat old professors die off & younger academics decline to edit for journals that impede progress. It works great in physics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> There should be a Nulled Science Magazine!

<comment><USER35> There are dedicated journals for negative results actually.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Negative_Results_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Negative_Results_in_Biomedicine)

* [http://www.pnrjournal.com/](http://www.pnrjournal.com/)

* [http://www.jinr.org/](http://www.jinr.org/)

* [http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/journal_of_negative_results.p...](http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/journal_of_negative_results.php)</comment></comment>


10 Tips for Launching Your Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.voodooventures.com/2008/12/11/10-tips-to-launch-a-startup/ <comment><USER2> What about a tip to wait a year so you can raise money when the economy rebounds?

<comment><USER3> From what I've been reading recently, the startups the recession will hurt most will be those that have weak plans to monetize. That is encouraging because it will force startups to consider their path to profitability more carefully and hopefully result in companies that are more successful long- term. Which will ultimately benefit everyone else as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> jack - I think the recession is a great time to start. Get started now. The most successful web 2.0 era folks started after the nuclear winter of the dot.com

\- Chris</comment>


Ask HN: Do modern nations have contingency/recovery plans? - <AUTHOR> I'm always at awe at the complexity of our civic structure. But it all seems very fragile. For example, very few people know how their sewers work and how to keep proper maintenance. Who's guarding this knowledge? Who's making sure that we don't somehow forget how to do it? Or that we don't stop replacing aging professionals? This is one of countless examples. Society always seems one bottleneck away from collapse. The same holds true for key human rights and privileges. We're always one generation away from blowing it up. Such lack of clarity and foresight might explain why it's so difficult to replicate civic models in 3rd world countries.
Do modern nations have contingency plans? Is there a special archive of practical knowledge and step-by-step procedures for building and running the power grid, water pipes, sewage system, general logistics, basic farming practices and seed samples? We have a pretty sweet thing going on, it would be silly not to back it up. Worst case scenario, we would leave the survivors with guidelines and instructions that could accelerate the recovery of modern society – decades instead of centuries.
On a side note, it's all too common to disregard blue collar workers. We should be more respectful of those positions, otherwise young people might actively avoid the very jobs that make up the modern world. Unfortunately, media portrays them as the butt of the joke – everyone is familiar with the simple-minded, blue collar redneck trope.
I apologize for the grammar, English is not my first language. <comment><USER2> For an archive of human knowledge, there's the _Third World Development Online Library_ , compiled by Alex Weir, which is a 13GB archive of 900+ books on Agriculture, Livestock, Food safety, Construction, Mathematics, Technology, Metalworking, Finance, and many more. I don't think it's updated anymore but I linked a copy below, as well as a wikpedia link about the archive.

I'm hoping one day someone will gather all this information together and record it on giant stone blocks placed around the world, as insurance for future generations.

[http://www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/CD3WD/INDEX.HTM](http://www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/CD3WD/INDEX.HTM)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD3WD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD3WD)

<comment><AUTHOR> I really appreciate you took time to comment on my post! I'm going to dive into your links as soon as I get back home. Stone is an excellent idea. It is the most resilient storage system we know of: everything digital doesn't last longer than a few years.</comment></comment>


Sorry, Collectors, Nobody Wants Your Beanie Babies Anymore - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/sorry-collectors-nobody-wants-your-beanie-babies-anymore-1519234039 <comment><USER2> > and concluded the small stuffed animals, a craze from the 1990s, will one > day soar in value, like the bitcoins he bought in early January.

Bitcoin. Beanie Babies. The Beanie Babies aren't worth anything by themselves, but I think I may see a solution here.

A Beanie Babies coin. Beanie Babies owners get a chance at the earliest and cheapest rounds of the ICO. Rare Beanie Babies bring the owner better discounts.

Demand for the coin will push demand for Beanie Babies, making them rise in value along with the coin value.

Beanie Babies could potentially be traded physically like real currency.

Is this enough for a whitepaper?

ETA: Fixed spelling issues in the whitepaper.

<comment><USER3> Beanie Babies are decentralized, and not double-spendable, whilst being pretty anonymous and not requiring a cohort of miners wasting electricity to mine them. They are in finite supply, and are not stealable by hackers. And like fiat, they apparently lose value (which is a good thing for a currency) Pretty good currency IMO.

<comment><USER4> Aren't burglars just _ownership hackers_?

<comment><USER5> They're _domicile disruptors_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > since the 1990s children—millennials—aren't collecting like generations > before them.

I would say (being a 1989 baby), that it isn't due to a lack of wanting, it's due to the systematic mass production of anything and everything. There is nothing worth collecting anymore, because there are 10 billion other copies of that thing... I mean, there are now more than 1,000 Pokémon when there were only 150/151 when I was a child. My holo-Charizard isn't worth anything these days.

<comment><USER7> >there are now more than 1,000 Pokémon

Only 807 so far: [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon...](https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_National_Pok%C3%A9dex_number)

<comment><USER6> Oops, I think my cousin mentioned the >1k and I just took him at his word. The official Pokémon site says that 80x number as well (they gave 806).

[https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokedex/](https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokedex/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was searching for a copy of an out-of-print book that I wanted to read but all were $150+, which was more than I wanted to pay. Somehow I stumbled on an eBay link that had the book for ~$40, but the item was removed yet not sold. I clicked on the seller and it turns out they relisted it in the $150 range, in line with the rest of the "market". The book was sitting there for over a year. It was sitting there for over a year at the cheaper price, too. If it wasn't selling at the low price, why would it sell higher? Even with "arbitrageurs" surely looking for those opportunities.

Maybe not the most relevant, but I'm willing to bet most collector markets are pretty irrational.

<comment><USER9> Maybe that was an arbitrage: someone who didn't have the book but was betting they could obtain it for less than the cost.

<comment><USER10> That would just be a bet. It's not an arbitrage if you don't know it will work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd ask how come nobody ran a money laundering scheme with those collectibles, but then, anyone who succeeds in a money laundering scheme isn't exactly aching to tell the story.

Maybe that's a testament to the work of the IRS.

<comment><USER12> You know about Lego-backed money laundering? [http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/lego- heists/index.ht...](http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/lego- heists/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting that people are making inferences about Beanie Babies from Bitcoin rather than the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER14> Ty Warner got the last laugh on this craze. His Boeing Business Jet (an ultra- luxe 737) is usually parked at the Santa Barbara airport.

</comment><comment><USER15> The current resale prices of some 8 bit micros from the 1980s sometimes match or exceed the original sale price. Not a good investment if you bought new but I imagine that many HN readers might be kicking themselves about things they threw in the trash.

<comment><USER16> Which ones, if you remember? Same price as in the 80s is still discounted, inflation-adjusted.

<comment><USER15> This Amazon listing wants £295 for a ZX81 [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Original- Sinclair-ZX81-Spectrum-Pro...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Original-Sinclair- ZX81-Spectrum-Programming/dp/B00D8ZNBMI)

Or this TRS80 for £500 [https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Radio-Shack- TRS-80-MODEL-100-PORT...](https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Radio-Shack- TRS-80-MODEL-100-PORTABLE-Vintage- Computer/323074805250?hash=item4b38c24e02:g:rWkAAOSwGyFZ4kCr)

Of course they might not sell for the listed price, there are other listing with lower bids. I don't know a good way to get an accurate figure for what things typically sell for on ebay etc.

<comment><USER16> Ah yeah, those are quite pricey, especially the ZX81, which is pretty barebones even for a Sinclair. I think I have a couple of ZX81 kits sitting around somewhere that I picked up in the late 90s. They cost about $30 a pop at the time.

<comment><USER17> My father picked up a Timex Sinclair 1000 at a grocery store for $30 it had the 16k expansion but was not built correctly so he bought a Commodore 64 later to replace it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Todays equivalent would be those Funko PopVinyl figures. I'm amazed at how many people thìnk they are worth something when theres hundreds of rudimentary looking figures for every cult favorite movie, videogame, and cartoon.

<comment><USER19> The hype around rapidly increasing values on Pop Vinyls has largely gone, the market seems to have chilled and the reason it hasn't crashed likely to be because of the value attached to the licenses. The most interesting part of the whole thing I found was the effect valuing sites had on the market (i.e. poppriceguide). They significantly lowered the effort in determining value for existing collectors and attracted a lot of people whole wouldn't normally collect to get into it purely for the profit to be gained. I am not suggesting others wouldn't have been attracted to the market without them but having the data readily available rather than having to trawl eBay completed sales lowered the barrier of entry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Or is there some way to read this article without a subscription to WSJ? Does every geek already have a subscription?

<comment><USER21> [https://outline.com/BKDd54](https://outline.com/BKDd54)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> All things come back. So in another 10-15 years they'll be valuable again. But not those God awful evil look dolls they make now.

<comment><USER23> The problem is explained at the end though. They were made to be collected. Mass produced collectable rarely really explode in value because they are kept preciously by their owner. If there was 10K "rare" beanie, chances are there are still the same 10K available. The buyer market however is much smaller.

That happens with plenty of stuff even in the antique range. Japanese, Chinese export silverware/tableware from beginning of the last century trade for poundland level pricing. Dragon-ware or similar stuff brought back by US soldier looks fancy and is similarly worth hardly anything. Even the rarest, best quality lithophane are very reasonable in price i.e. in the tens of dollar range. A good, purchased to be used, brand of tableware from similar period can cost 10 times more, rarest pieces going for hundreds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Beanie babies aren't worth anything because the people who grew up with them aren't in their 40s and 50s yet.

</comment><comment><USER25> My immediate reaction is "didn't beanie babies 'tulip' years ago?" For that matter don't most 'collectibles' introduced to be collectible do pretty much the same?

At least Magic: the Gathering cards could be used to play a game.

<comment><USER26> > At least Magic: the Gathering cards could be used to play a game

The fact that MtG cards and tournaments are more popular than ever, while beanie babies are an utter flop, tells you all you need to know about designing collectibles for the sole purpose of being collectibles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've got a crate full of my mother-in-law's Hummel figurines and plates that says nope.

</comment><comment><USER28> No mention of tulips?</comment>


Have to much time on your hands ? - Digital Lego - <AUTHOR> http://ldd.lego.com/ <comment><USER2> There are some experiences you just can't digitize accurately. Building with Legos is one of them, dammit!

</comment><comment><USER3> LeoCAD has been doing this for a number of years, if you want an alternative option: <http://leocad.org/>

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm betting it does the "plasticy click" noise featured in every other Lego- branded game whenever you put a block down, pick one up, move the mouse...</comment>


Ask HN: informed opinions of Petraeus Gmail ('tptacek, 'paul, 'cperciva, etc) - <AUTHOR>

As an active duty geek, I would really love a breakdown of the security issues surrounding an active duty person using GMail. Is CAC really any better than 2-factor authentication (eg, I have been told CAC will actually freely hand over all sorts of details about the card-holder to any server that asks)? In a hostile network environment, are there really any extra steps I should be taking besides using a machine <i>I</i> trust, and verifying the certificate chain? <comment><USER2> I don't know much about the low-level details of CAC. (We've somewhat assiduously avoided working for the government --- not for political reasons).

I would venture a guess that Google 2-factor is comparably as resilient as DoD smart card auth, except for the fact that it relies on the security of your mobile device, and nobody in the world knows how far China can take an iOS exploit at the moment.

The SMS/GSM network is probably totally insecure against foreign adversaries (it's sound enough right now for routine financial transactions but I wouldn't want my bank account directly hooked up to it).

If you're going to use GMail, you should use Chrome. Chrome pins GMail's TLS certificates; Google will not let Chrome pretend that Comodo or GoDaddy or some Middle Eastern CA nobody's heard of has signed their own certificates.

I trust Chrome's TLS connecting directly to Google's TLS server more than I trust any third party VPN service. In fact, I don't trust VPN services at all. VPN software scares the shit out of me.

Make sure your desktop isn't owned up. If you're on a hostile network --- like, you really know the network is hostile --- one strategy is to install VMWare and use it to host an image that can run Chrome, and then have that VM be the only thing on your computer that talks to the network _at all_. Even if you start with a trustworthy connection to Google, you assume an attacker can trick Chrome (or Firefox or Safari or whatever you use to get to things besides GMail) into talking to some other random website, at which point the entire clientside of your browser is vulnerable to every zero-day vulnerability anybody knows about. Aurora, for instance, was just Javascript events.

Disable Java.

Thanks for your service.</comment>


A not for profit "Uber" alternative? - <AUTHOR> so i was chatting to an Uber driver the other evening and like many, he was saying he barely scrapes by, as it becomes this global behomoth...anyway, so i thought what if they all just do their own Uber? I know Uber has first mover advantage and a pretty defensible model, but then again, so did Sky TV until Democracy Player came along. <comment><USER2> Low wages for drivers starts with consumers wanting cheap trips. so you'll need to find a way to become cheaper than uber. The most reasonable way to do that(and the way that would win, i think) is through ride-sharing.

But people don't really like to share rides, as far as i can tell. So maybe if you find a way to make people like shared rides , and use that outside of the confines of uber, maybe you'll have something to build on. Oh, and you need to aim towards something like uberXL size, and filling it.

The other path is becoming a professional driver, driving a mini-bus/jitney - much cheaper cost per passenger - which will see greater demand by apps like moovex,@ridewithvia , @ridechariot. but here, on top of marketing, one big limit is the costs of vehicles involved.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like and support the sentiments you have after chatting with an Uber driver. There is a way to strip away all the fees that Uber cuts out from drivers' compensation and yet make money.

I am technical and have been thinking about doing something in this space. If you are interested, we should connect.

-Ben email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, Ben. I think at the moment i'm getting back on my feet and a project of that magnitude would push me over the edge. I don't think it's as easy as just building an app. and suddenly all Uber drivers will use it. It's a nice idea, naive perhaps, but it does make me sad that the drivers I do speak to seem to be really struggling.</comment></comment>


Sorry but I furiously (hack: Reddit; just: in my mind) - <AUTHOR>

Look. Downvoting should be renamed first things first. It should be
    named "spam?" or something suitable like that.
    And "upboats|upvotes|uppies|plusones|..." should be renamed VOTEs!

    Just votes. First let Us skip the renaming of downboats. But introduce
    a behavior upon each instance of VOTing, like this:
        Some dumfuck posts on reddit, and gets a lot of "meh..." for his
        posting:
            Some one (idiotA) has a chuckle out of that posting and he/she
            upboats the posting.

            Another user (idiotB) sees the chuckling (the upboat) and _his_
            "meh" grows into the frustration of "this is insolentio!,
            i must be acting it right now out!" and downboats the
            poisoned posting.

        Now! An alchemy of site-behavior starts bubbling!
        First, when the VOTING period is OVER, ALL the VOTERS get their
        "LOCAL karmic action Judgement day"

        The Karma gets calculated, the posting is "frozen" now, and:
            Karma application RULEs:
                ?
                    All the upboaters get "+1" on their comment/content karma.
                     Nothing more, even if they _voted_ after the fact of:
                        their !!Karmic_weight = upboats/downboats <> goodness_threshold!
                    ALL the downvoters GET AWAY with their downboat instance
                        if:
                            their !!downboats <> current: goodness_threshold!
                            (say 4, or the mean of all the upboater's
                                (default: goodness_threshold config...whatever...
                            )
                        otherwise:
                            They get punished somehow:

                                1) Their comment/content karma gets
                                    reduced: -1, so that it hinders
                                    their further VOTING

                                2) They ARE BANNED from voting on the OP's
                                    thread/posting

                                3) ??? You can go on with the HELL creation

                                ...
                                    This is my Word, and I expressed it to
                                    the fullest in the best way
                                    I am capable of.
                                    Goodbye for now!

                                    Have fun for this is the true
                                        purpose of the Internet!
 <comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the text. Here is [my posting]([http://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/35jxw4/the_votin...](http://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/35jxw4/the_voting_system_must_be_updated_here_lol_3/)) on reddit.com, and I am prepared for the consequences of my karmic_resolution_actions <3</comment>


Volkswagen fixes seat belt flaw with zip ties that snap apart when braking - <AUTHOR> https://metropolitan.fi/entry/volkswagen-fixes-seat-belt-flaw-with-zip-ties-that-snap-apart-when-breaking <comment><USER2> How is this even possible?

 _It ties together the two rear seat belt buckles to prevent them being squeezed together and leading the bottom one to be unbuckled by itself while driving._

It should be obvious to anyone who dabbles in physics that the seat belt buckles should be fixed to the vehicle in a way that makes this impossible to happen.

The pictures in the reference linked to Tekniikan Maailma[1] show the obvious absurdity of the design.

1\. [https://tekniikanmaailma.fi/tm-testasi-uudelleen- volkswagen-...](https://tekniikanmaailma.fi/tm-testasi-uudelleen-volkswagen- konsernin-turvavyokorjaus-on-kelvoton-korjaus-hajoaa-ensimmaisessa- jarrutuksessa/)

<comment><USER3> Sadly this doesn't strike me as unusual.

I am trying to remember the car I was in, an 80s American car for sure, but the two back seat buckles were similar to this but had a rivet driven through the nylon strap to keep them ganged together.

<comment><USER4> One would hope design would have improved over the last 30 - 40 years....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's pretty silly. The overhead of a recall on a cheap fix versus a proper fix is such that risking _another_ recall is simply stupid. Besides the obvious image damage.

Models affected: recent model years Volkswagen polo, Seat Ibiza and Arona.

<comment><USER6> They don't have time to do it the right way the first time, but they have time to do it twice.

<comment><USER7> Because any recall done the second time will be done by the dealerships, which will simply bill VW for the time spent on this. The first one was done at factory, which slows down production and results in delays.

<comment><USER8> What makes you think that it'll happen that way?

<comment><USER7> Because as I said in another post, I'm literally about to pick up a brand new Polo this Friday - my car was manufactured, was awaiting loading in South Africa, and then had to be returned to factory specifically because of the seatbelt recall - which delayed delivery by about 4 weeks. If VW now issues a second recall, it will be done by my local dealership - how else could it work?

<comment><USER8> But that's the same as the first recall? Already sold vehicles go back to the dealership, those "in transit" get fixed by the factory?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's bad, but if software was physical, I suppose this is what it would look like all the time.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ha, so I'm actually taking delivery of a brand new Polo this Friday, which was delayed 4 weeks in production because they had to rectify the seatbelt issue. I'll be very curious to see how it was fixed on my particular car.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is very disturbing. From what I've read, VW isn't the kind of company that leaves room for improvisation. So this was probably some sort of process around this decision. How did they end up doing THAT?

<comment><USER11> _> VW isn't the kind of company that leaves room for improvisation_

I would have thought so, but the last few years have sewn the seeds of doubt in my mind. I would have always been a Volkswagen driver but I'd think twice now before splurging on anything from the last few years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> wow, the reasons not to get a VW just keeps on piling up huh?

<comment><USER13> After seeing my friend struggle with her Golf, with it spending more time disassembled for various unrelated issues than actually on the road, I am staying very far away from VW cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I find the tone odd at the end, like they were trying to elicit some sympathy for VW for still dealing with emissions scandal fallout.

Is this a sign of how things are at VW these days? We are probably going to need a "new for us" car in the not too distant future and I have been suggesting to my spouse that we get another VW since out mechanics who we love only only on VW and Audi Cars.

<comment><USER15> VW and AUDI do make good cars.

<comment><USER2> It depends on your definition of good.

If by _good_ you mean: _needs a new turbo at 223,000 kilometers, and removing and replacing the alternator is a 6 hour job_ , then yes I agree, my 2004 VW T5 Transporter is a great car!

The alternator in the T4 was accessible from underneath the car. I suppose they intend for you to sell the car to someone else before those things need doing. Oh wait, that's me.

I'm suspicious of any claims that "auto manufacture _x_ makes good cars _, because the auto manufactures mostly don 't make very much of the car at all.

Toyota have a reputation of assembling a reliable set of components. VW not so much.

The trouble with all of this is we can't know what is a good _new car* to buy today, because we don't have statistics on maintenance and repair costs for new cars.

I reckon your best bet is to look at those guides that detail maintenance and repair costs of used vehicles, then find one you like in your price range.

<comment><USER16> So needing some repairs after over 200,000 kilometers is considered unreliable these days?

<comment><USER2> I'll admit I'm having a bit of a whine. But yes, a turbo diesel engine shouldn't need a new turbo before 500,000k.

It's not uncommon to hear "oh, the turbos a bit tired", but it shouldn't be pumping the entire oil content of the engine out in to the engine bay every three months at 220,000k.

I say I'm having whinge because, of course, I understand how mean time to failure rates work.

My larger point was more about checking the reliability stats though.

<comment><USER17> there was a time when the diesel fuel pumps of a certain brand were the predetermined braking point of many diesel cars. but the turbo itself...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cable ties inducted to Botched-repair Hall of Fame, take their place alongside duct tape and baling wire!

<comment><USER2> Only half sarcastically: I wasn't aware there was a genuine legitimate use for cable ties.

I suppose they could be used to tie cables to things, and I suspect electricians and their ilk probably actually do use them for that. But the general public? I'm willing to bet the general public is _not_ using cable ties for tying cables to things.

<comment><USER19> Use on humans is discouraged because of nerve damage. Apart from that, I don't care...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There was an defect, they tried to fix it, fix was approved by a regulatory body, it didn't work, so they recalled the cars.

Hanlon's razor: what is the story here that puts it on the front page?

<comment><USER21> The continued decline of standards at a major manufacturer of automobiles, that's pretty interesting to me.

Poor design happens, but when given opportunity to resolve this they attempted to resolve it with _zip ties_. That's embarrassingly cowboy, especially in the wake of the emissions scandal. It's kind of impressive that the regulatory body permitted it too.

<comment><USER20> > _The continued decline of standards at a major manufacturer of automobiles_

Do you have any data to support this? I would argue that standards are increasing, and that cars are safer and better today than at any other point in history.

<comment><USER21> I'd say that the emissions scandal alone represents a pretty substantial decline in standards

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was confused by the title at first, but they actually mean braking, not breaking.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Braking". God damn...

<comment><USER24> Non-native speaker here. Could you please elaborate?

<comment><USER25> _braking_ : the act of stopping motion, generally by means of friction against a moving surface

 _breaking_ : the act of rendering something unusable by means of destruction (see ' _sabotage_ ' when done wilfully)

The pronunciation of 'braking' and 'breaking' is /ˈbɹeɪkɪŋ/, they are homophones ('same-sounds').

See also: [https://writingexplained.org/break-vs-brake- difference](https://writingexplained.org/break-vs-brake-difference)</comment></comment></comment>