Black boys don't need more discipline, they need mentors (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://educationpost.org/black-boys-dont-need-more-discipline-they-need-mentors/ <comment><USER2> I can't read the article seems have suffered HN effect. Speaking as a black man in Africa which is somewhat different to the US I do agree with the title. Africa is different because the first educated generation is my parents generation who are 70+. Off course they are exceptions. My parents who were teachers coming from pure village setup didn't have any mentors. No one explained mortgage to them, they learnt that in school but no uncle, grandparent, cousin or anyone in their circle had ever had a mortgage. It was a new world to them. That generation did well. They lived the village principles, spent a lot of money educating whole villages and taking care of everyone because they the ones who worked. My parents couldn't teach me about money, they don't understand that debt is okay as long as you have a plan to pay it back. In their mind it is a bad idea. I have thus grown up risk averse and it took a long long time to understand how the business world works. Its fine though because you cannot learn these things in one generation. I am generalising but most of my peers don't understand VC funding and startups. My daughter will definitely have a much better understanding of the world as I can pass onto her. These things take generations. Extremely few businesses have been run by African's from one generation to the next. The world is changing, our grandparents were subsistence farmers, our parents were born in villages and still had cows and we were born in cities and towns. A fair number of my generation don't know what to do with a cow and my child's generation are born in town to parents who are professionals as in IT developers, lawyers, accountants and so on.

<comment><USER3> FWIW, I strongly believe debt is never ok. It can be ok in the same way a hospital surgery is ok (you have no choice). Mortgages are not sustainable either. Just because the practice has been popularized in the west for centuries,it does not make it a sound practice.

It is possible to buy a house with money you saved. This also makes a lot of sense when the house will be passed on to the next generation (like it is done in africa).

Debt is spending your future cashflow for short term gains. Cash flow/liquidity is much more important than equity and net wealth(short term). I'm sure you know the old principle of "being poor is expensive" and "you need money to make money". Debt takes away your liquidity, the small things/"broken windows" you will always need to care for become neglected. Unplanned emergencies ruin your plans,etc...

At a national level, you should know how many african nations have borrowed endlessly and still gotten nowhere. Even after debts are forgiven and stable peacful times last decades.

Accepting debt is accepting a parasite. Havig a plan to pay it off is essentially saying you have a plan to kill the parasite before it kills you. Similar to how people think "it's ok, I can quit" before getting hooked on drugs.

YMMV.

<comment><USER4> >Debt is spending your future cashflow for short term gains.

No, debt is spending your future cashflow to increase your future cash flow.

>"you need money to make money"

Yes. This is where debt comes in.

>Debt takes away your liquidity

No it increases it. Debt lets you turn an illiquid asset like a building or accounts receivable in to immediate cash.

<comment><USER3> > No, debt is spending your future cashflow to increase your future cash flow.

No, with debt you gain capital now. Future cashflow is not guaranteed oe even expected in most cases (e.g.:how will a mortgage generate future cashflow? Rent your house,hope future rent value is higher?). You might get more cashflow in the future if your debt was for a good investment. But even then, until you pay off the debt, your future cashflow will have your debt payments subtracted from it, even if you have positive cashflow after that, your argument only makes sense if the that cash flow is more than your existing cashflow (possible but rare).

There is a big difference between calculated debt made for a business investment and debt (however calculated) made to aquire equity or to afford goods and services.

> Yes. This is where debt comes in.

No, this is where revenue stream comes in. For a salary man, this means getting promotions and saving up. For a business person, this means making profits and increasing profit margins. In both cases what you can "afford" is liquid cash , not loans.

> No it increases it. Debt lets you turn an illiquid asset like a building or > accounts receivable in to immediate cash

It does turn it into cash, but you're getting into debt to spend that liquidity right away. Who gets into debt for long term liquidity? If your business is modeled to grow then you should see increasing profit margins over time, this profit is what should sustainably provide liquidity. Your future decisions are not made in fear of missing bank payments. You will always need more cash, so whatever revenue you will make in the future will always go to banks since you're always getting into debt (unless you have remarkable discipline). If you get into debt because an unexpected event requires you to have more immediate liquidity than what you have, I think that's fine. But my position is that you shouldn't plan on getting into debt from the begining.

<comment><USER4> Not interested in discussing consumer debt. Poster made it clear he was talking about learning how the business world works.

No leveraging with debt is not rare. Every small business owner I know uses debt. Some quick googling tells me the average for small businesses is $200k in the US.

You don't need remarkable discipline to manage it. It's pretty simple math. Fear doesn't need to come in to it. I'm not recommending everyone go out and redline their company with a ridiculous gearing ratio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 3 things that are noticeable about black people in America.

* They weren't really allowed viable property access until the last 50 years or so. 100's of years of catch up to make up for.

* Accumulating disadvantage of fatherless and motherless households.

* The blast radius of municipal violations disproportionately afflicts black people in the USA.

Not saying I like these things, but they're core problems.

<comment><USER6> I'm unsure what you mean by "viable property access," but blacks owned some 14% of farms in the US and around 15M acres of land (not all agricultural) around the turn of the 20th century. Sadly that has shrunk to around 8M acres today.

There is no doubt that the accumulating disadvantages of single parent households (or worse) have had a terrible and disproportionate impact on blacks in the US. Unfortunately that is a much more recent phenomenon give that prior to 1960 the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers was sub-20% but now exceeds 70%. Current rates for white children are around 30% and only Asian children still enjoy a sub-20% unwed mother birthrate.

I'm not clear what "municipal violations" are in this context but certainly would appreciate further clarification especially as they pertain to the black community.

<comment><USER7> > blacks owned some 14% of farms in the US and around 15M acres of land (not > all agricultural) around the turn of the 20th century. Sadly that has shrunk > to around 8M acres today.

This was not an accident.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this- la...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-land-was-our- land/594742/)

[https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/losing- ground/](https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/losing-ground/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Although they may have a different set of circumstances, the overall > experience for Black boys in public schools is similar across the country, > so it's not just the color of my skin that allows me to relate, it's also a > shared perspective and a mutual respect.

This is both unsurprising and depressing. I am not sure if I have anything to say except that I feel incredibly sad that other human beings living today have to face such incredibly challenging circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER9> About me: I'm asian, 32 years old.

Throughout my childhood, I always thought Black people seemed so cool and funny. They exude confidence and it intimidated my to make friends with them.

Now I teach people coding before and after my work as a full time software engineer. A few of my students are black. I had a hard time working with them.

Later, as I became friends with them, I realized they are very self conscious about their intelligence. (I know I'm generalizing here, but 100% of the black students I mentored felt this way). I realized my asian background and hyper- competitiveness and high expectations made the situation worse. This realization completely changed me as a person.

This eventually let to me starting a coding bootcamp at our public library and I try to create an environment to make students feel safe and not judged. I don't have this down to a process yet, if anyone knows please let me know. How does one create a safe environment so students showing up will feel emotionally safe enough to start asking questions without fear of being judged?

Say we measure the time from when a student walks in to the time when he/she starts asking questions whenever they have a question. Are there any activities to do that can reduce the comfort time to the minimum?

<comment><USER10> I wonder why a lot of asians have this racial inferiority complex. I (being asian myself) grew up in an affluent asian dominated neighborhood of Cupertino. I had black, white and asian friends growing up and I never thought too much of racial issues. Maybe because in my schools asian americans were largely the majority. Again, I had the same experience going to school at UCLA which was largely populated mostly by asians.

However coming back to the bay area a decade later and making a lot of friends with local asians who grew up in San Francisco I am seeing huge racial inferiority complexes among asian males and females.

It's disgustingly huge. Among asian males racism manifests itself as hatred against white people for their white privilege and they talk openly about being scared of black people because they're all criminals. It's nuts. Note that this attitude mostly manifests itself among the native asian SF crowd who grew up here, not the tech migrants from outside of the city.

The other thing is racism manifests itself differently among asian females in the most pathetic display of inferiority I have ever seen in my life. The majority of single asian females in SF prefer dating white people over their own race. It's not even a superficial taste fetish either, literally a huge amount of asian females view their own race as too inferior and too weak to date. I don't know whether to blame the asian males or asian females for this level of patheticism.

I read posts from asians above and I'm astonished... I'm literally thinking what planet is this guy from? Then I realize that I'm from cupertino, I'm the guy who grew up on a different planet.

<comment><USER11> I've never understood this argument regarding dating outside of one's ethnic group. The effects of actual racism is one ethnic group benefits at the expense of one or more other groups. What you're describing is something else entirely.

Who's getting harmed when Asian women have a preference for white men when dating? Who cares? To each their own, no? Are you implying there's some maximum percentage of women that can prefer another ethnic group when dating, and anything above that is problematic?

Edit: I should've specified that I'm talking explicitly about their commentary on asian women's dating patterns, not anything else in their comment.

<comment><USER12> >they talk openly about being scared of black people because they're all criminals.

You don't think there isn't anything racist about that? You have a strange definition of racism.

<comment><USER11> I was specifically replying to their commentary on Asian women's dating preferences. I should've been more clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Though I imagine the prevalence is much higher in black youth, this is a general issue that goes beyond race.

A stable upbringing with a family that you can use as role models. If you don't have that, you're in for an uphill struggle.

If everyone around you is unemployed, or works in part time unskilled labour - if you're moving from home to home all of the time - if you have no bedroom - if your family argues, or you don't have proper food so your blood sugar is all over the place - these are tremendous things to overcome in isolation never mind all at the same time.

People talk about 'privilege' in upbringing because it's actually kind of rare to have a functional family.

This is what the class system really is. Some people can jump the gap after their formative years, but most people are going to be stuck in those patterns if they've spent 20 years in the trenches.

I grew up in a poor family; my father left when I was young. The one thing we had (aside from the absolute warrior-woman of my mother), provided by the government back in the day, was a council house. A low rent secure tenancy. So whilst everything else was a struggle, my mother was able to provide a relatively stable housing situation for us.

Without that I'm sure I would be a complete fuck-up now.

<comment><USER14> >Though I imagine the prevalence is much higher in black youth, this is a general issue that goes beyond race.

It certainly does. I'm having trouble digging up primary sources I've read on this before (there's a ton of secondary by searching "Consequences of fatherless childhoods", "consequences of single-parent households" and similar on DuckDuckGo), but studies are showing that children being brought up in single-parent or "fragile" households fare worse than their counterparts brought up in two-parent, comparatively stable households.

The issue is likely significantly compounding generation after generation. It's not really a surprise that children need a stable household with good role models at the helm though, and the absence of which being damaging.

<comment><USER15> It's better to have no role models than negative role models that stick around and make things worse, in a lot of cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Every child deserves a good mentor, but I believe that black kids (not just boys but girls too) urgently need an idol to emulate. Most kids I interact with (a very small subset) seem to idolize pop stars, who are talented but mostly are bad role models. Black community must produce likes of MLK, who prove the point through their life and not just by words. Obama, despite divided opinion among Americans, I feel is a good contemporary role model for black kids.

</comment><comment><USER17> This guy sounds great, and I hope that he is allowed to continue doing his great work. The fact that he has the position that he has, speaks volumes for the school district. I don't think my (affluent, painfully white suburban) school district has the same.

I feel that mentorship isn't just restricted to someone officially appointed to the position. It's pretty much anyone that has a weighted relationship to anyone (not just kids). That includes spouses, parents, relatives, older siblings, peers, teachers, cops, insurance adjustors, union shop stewards, DMV clerks, and, of course, bosses.

For example, corporate culture comes from the top. It almost doesn't matter what the corporate values statement says. I believe that the _behavior_ of the C-suite is the single biggest driver of corporate culture.

I've learned that I need to model the values I'd like others to exhibit. It's not a guarantee that they will, but it improves the odds.

<comment><USER18> I was also thinking "I hope this guy continues his good work, and lots of others join him."

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'll just leave this here: [https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/10/wha...](https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/10/what-we-get-wrong.pdf)

The wealth disparity between African Americans and the rest of America is growing. Mentorship is fine, but what most African Americans need is access to resources and stable community (which was destroyed through many years of Social Engineering).

<comment><USER20> In particular, Nixon started the war on drugs to take down black people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Boys generally need more mentors. I honestly believe that boys educational results would be much improved if taught under a mentor-ship hierarchy, rather than flat classroom organizations.

</comment><comment><USER22> Lest anyone be confused by what this is arguing, it seems to say that the _kind_ of discipline offered by mentors is not the same as just "punishing" bad behavior - perhaps colloquially known as "discipline". Having greater discipline to express your feelings, especially negative ones, to a positive direction is good advice. And _that_ is what the benefit of having good male role models for young men is all about.

</comment><comment><USER23> Or, you know, fathers.

Half of success in fatherhood comes from simply showing up. Absentee fathers contribute to the generational erosion of the family fabric that is almost impossible to undo.

<comment><USER24> Agreed, but as a black man who grew up fatherless be mindful why black fathers are absent. Many times it's not by choice. There were and still are intentional systems in place to make it difficult for fathers to get jobs, stay within the prison system, and have access to quality education. I urge people commenting to ask their black friends for their insights. I came from an inner city and graduated from CMU. The two worlds are stark and mind blowing. But in the end, more mentors at an early age can help break the cycle. That's how you can play your part.

<comment><USER25> I struggle to buy this line of thinking that, somehow, the epidemic of single- parent (and no parent) households among blacks (or any ethnic or economic group) is the consequence of discriminatory systems or conspiracy or racism. Such systems of discrimination surely aren't more powerful now than when the government was enforcing Jim Crow, when schools were segregated by force, when the Ku Klux Klan was not only active but had active members sitting in Congress, and when academics openly claimed that non-whites were inferior to whites and proposed eugenic 'solutions'. Those horrible blights on American (and Western) society have mostly been buried yet the numbers of black children growing up without a father has exploded. Whatever contribution systemic racism, institutional racism, conscious bias, unconscious bias, etc. (which I concede are real things) have on health of the family unit within black American culture, something else is clearly doing the lion's share of destruction.

Additionally, I'm suspicious when I hear the 'system' being blamed because it's a convenient scapegoat. Stuff like our code didn't work not because our programmers wrote bad software, but because our process is broken. Those FISA warrants that were granted because FBI agents and lawyers lied need to be fixed with 'better safeguards'. Or those banks get taxpayer bailouts and nobody goes to jail because there wasn't sufficient regulation to prevent systematic fraud and excessive risk-taking. Nobody has to be embarrassed for their own behavior or held responsible for their own actions when the nameless, faceless system gets the arrows.

If you want to talk about real privilege, it's the privilege of growing up in a healthy family unit. The greatest advantage I've ever received was a loving father and mother who were there to provide support, instruction, and discipline. All children - everywhere - deserve and desperately need good, loving, present parents. It breaks my heart that's become the exception and not the rule.

<comment><USER7> >Such systems of discrimination surely aren't more powerful now

How do you figure? Is it easier or harder to fight discrimination in, say, employment when, "We don't hire negroes," is stated upfront, compared to when black applicants are denied for "cultural fit" reasons?

>something else is clearly doing the lion's share of destruction.

Again, how do you figure?

<comment><USER25> >How do you figure? Is it easier or harder to fight discrimination in, say, employment when, "We don't hire negroes," is stated upfront, compared to when black applicants are denied for "cultural fit" reasons?

 _Everywhere_ I've worked professionally I've had black coworkers. _Everywhere_ I've hired considered and hired black applicants. I've had black supervisors. I've had black colleagues. I've had black reports. And this is true of virtually every professional environment I've interacted with, at least here in the South.

This most certainly wouldn't have been the case in 1950. And that confirms that such discriminatory systems aren't more powerful now than they were in generations past.

Really, I think claims to the contrary are absurd on their face.

<comment><USER7> I don't think you fully answered either of my questions. I appreciate that your limited personal experience is closer to what we would like to see, at least in your telling of it.

I still await your further thoughts.

<comment><USER25> It appears I can't answer your questions to your satisfaction. I live in the deep South. I provided my (not limited) experience and exposure to professional environments as evidence. And that experience, and the application of Occam's razor, tells me your claims that bias and racism is _more effective_ now that it is comparatively invisible is absurd.

<comment><USER7> You could answer this question:

>Is it easier or harder to fight discrimination in, say, employment when, "We don't hire negroes," is stated upfront, compared to when black applicants are denied for "cultural fit" reasons?

And expound upon this assertion:

>something else is clearly doing the lion's share of destruction.

<comment><USER25> >You could answer this question:

>>Is it easier or harder to fight discrimination in, say, employment when, "We don't hire negroes," is stated upfront, compared to when black applicants are denied for "cultural fit" reasons? You are begging the question. Of course it's easier to fight enemies who are out in the open, distinct, and widespread. And it's harder to fight enemies that are well-camouflaged. But it's also harder to fight enemies that are partially imagined, distorted, and sometimes nonexistent.

I take issue with your insinuation, as I tried to illustrate in my anecdote, that discrimination where black applicants are denied for "cultural fit" reasons, is widespread.

>And expound upon this assertion:

>>something else is clearly doing the lion's share of destruction.

It's pretty simple, really. If one concludes that discrimination isn't as prevalent as it was decades ago and has diminished as time has passed while also noticing that its attributed consequences are more prevalent, then it's reasonable to assume something else is to blame.

<comment><USER7> >Of course it's easier to fight enemies who are out in the open, distinct, and widespread. And it's harder to fight enemies that are well-camouflaged.

Thank you for answering the question.

>I take issue with your insinuation, as I tried to illustrate in my anecdote, that discrimination where black applicants are denied for "cultural fit" reasons, is widespread.

On what basis? I recognize your anecdote, and its anecdotal nature. I'd like you to look beyond your personal experience and justify your opinion with something verifiable.

>If one concludes that discrimination isn't as prevalent as it was decades ago and has diminished as time has passed while also noticing that its attributed consequences are more prevalent, then it's reasonable to assume something else is to blame

As this conclusion seems premature, it would be helpful to suggest what else there is to blame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Strictly speaking 103 to 17 referrals is a heck of an improvement but to still have 17 referrals is a head shaker.

</comment><comment><USER27> [https://web.archive.org/web/20190330065728/https://education...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190330065728/https://educationpost.org/black- boys-dont-need-more-discipline-they-need-mentors/)

</comment><comment><USER28> There is a lot of debate going on as to the root cause of this problem, but that time has long passed. There is an organization in New Orleans that is taking action. If you would like to take action then please consider volunteering, or donatin. www.sonofasaint.org

</comment><comment><USER29> This gets into a much larger issue of policing intersectioning with darker skinned peoples in the US.

When many of the dads are arrested in jail or prison, obviously they aren't being mentors. And they aren't permitted to be in their childrens' lives. And much of this is overpolicing and overcriminialization. Add this to sentences being worse, and it's unsurprising it happens. We as a nation are setting the situation, then surprised it happened.

And the cycle repeats.

<comment><USER30> Or underpolicing. Blacks are at much higher risk of being the victim of violent crime than whites. Even the boy in the article's brother was murdered. Lack of security means people take it into their own hands and you get violent gangs and/or a harmful honor based society.

<comment><USER31> I'm pretty sure the previous poster is mainly referring to the criminalization of low-level drug use and the heavily racially biased enforcement of it.

You're talking about the heavily racially biased under- enforcement/implementation of laws and programs to reduce violent crime.

Just highlighting that a racial bias in the criminal justice system is the common theme. Not that you weren't making the same point, it just didn't seem clear to me one way or the other.

Here are some nice stats if anyone wants some numbers to chew on: [https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact- sheet/](https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> mentors to instill discipline?

<comment><USER33> I think what you are hitting up against here is that the "discipline" you are referring to refers to structure and accountability for their choices.

The "discipline" referred to by the article more often boils down to punishment for misdeeds.

One form builds up a person into a better version of themselves. The other is intended to break the spirit of the person and make them submissive.

<comment><USER34> This is a super important point, and I've never seen it expressed more clearly. Unfortunately, many adults who are responsible for caring for children do not seem to understand that distinction, or they are too overwhelmed and spread too thin to apply that knowledge effectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As much as HN's readers need to see articles like this, I don't know if the sophistication levels on this topic are high enough to handle the discussion that's ensued.

"Or, you know, fathers," is a... disappointing take, to say the least.

<comment><USER35> What did you find disappointing about the comment? Why not reply to it?

<comment><USER7> It was meant to be exemplary of the tone of the comment section writ large, and not a direct challenge to that particular comment. I'm dismayed that the level of discourse here matches, approximately, those on certain imageboards which shall not be named. That is to say, for their expertise in technical discussions, HN commenters seem to be woefully unprepared for those related to race and society, on a basic data level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Probably applies to all children, not just those with specific genetic attributes.

<comment><USER8> True in principle, but the difference is that the children with certain genetic attributes tend to get this kind of support while others don't.

<comment><USER37> There are plenty of boys stuck in intergenerational poverty and dysfunction all across the spectrum of genetic attributes. You can't tell a neglected boy that _statistically_ he is well nurtured and has good role models.

<comment><USER8> > You can't tell a neglected boy that statistically he is well nurtured and > has good role models.

Nobody will. Literally nobody said that.

When talking about assistance programs to the needy, we consider statistical data in order to target the most needy. So eg the result is providing funding for these programs in minority heavy schools.

<comment><USER37> The lowest income counties are generally rural: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest- income_counties...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest- income_counties_in_the_United_States)

Though I don't know why it needs to be a competition. The content in the article is good for people to consider for the boys they care about in their lives. The biggest difference most people make isn't becoming convinced about policy positions but in how they engage with their loved ones and local communities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> A few things here:

> It is important for mentors and others looking to implement solutions for > Black students to come from within our own communities. Studies have shown > that students do better in class and have less disruptive behaviour when > educators look like them, and mentorship is no exception.

Well this completely goes against the narrative that more diversity in schools is good. If people are literally biologically wired to be racist (at least in some sense of the word) and now people are advocating that blacks are taught by blacks and whites are taught by whites as a solution to the diversity problem then that's a little worrying.

On a more controversial note though, I also wonder why we expect peoples who have evolved separately for thousands of years with significant genetic variations to preform equally. There was an article by the New York Times recently that discuses why Ashkenazi Jews tend to perform out preform academically: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/opinion/jewish-culture- ge...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/opinion/jewish-culture-genius- iq.html)

Unfortunately from the reading I've done on this topic, it does seem the author is probably right that there is a genetic element to all of this. Obviously it's not what people want to hear and the author was predictably slammed for writing it, but most intelligence researchers would agree that genetic plays a large role in intelligence and again, unfortunately, not all groups preform equally.

It does seem possible that part of the explanation as to why Whites and Blacks under preform East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews academically is simply genetics. And if that's the case, do we allow the best to rise to the top, or do we discriminate against Jews and Asians as the author proposes by segregating education or, as something universities do, discriminate against applicants based on race.

I'm sure I'll get down voted for but this won't get better until we start recognising and addressing certain realities.

</comment><comment><USER39> A society that doesn't shit on them in a hundred little ways each day might help too...

</comment><comment><USER40> I think Boondocks, a cartoon about black boys that was written and drawn by a black boy, most accurately illustrates (pun!) the desired solution for black mentorship. Grandpa Robert Freeman literally fills this role for his two grandkids, especially with Riley. Uncle Ruckus offers an even better example. Maybe we should look to this show for guidance on the issue.

<comment><USER41> Uncle Ruckus is not a role model (to borrow from Charles Barkley)

<comment><USER40> On that, we disagree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Funnily enough, the UK had this problem about fifteen years ago.

Everyone was wringing their hands madly and talking about things like mentorship, and how the education system was inherently racist (and, unfortunately, always making implications about how white people were all racist and this was a deliberate outcome) or certain groups apparently having no fathers.

Fifteen years later, and black kids are more than twice as likely to go to university as white kids...funnily enough, if you mention race when you talk about this now...you get called a racist (it turns out, some people just really think race is the only thing that matters).

Either way, stop talking about race. It doesn't help. It is incredibly disempowering to have someone supposedly help you by constantly bringing up the fact you are different. And, shock, if you do this and things improve those children never stop banging on about race and think everything is rigged against them (in the UK, there is no black wage gap...if you mention this, you will get excoriated). Definitely, culture does matter (this just has no relation to race though) but if you create an environment of success then this can be overcome.

The US is the archtypical example of how not to do things. Six decades into civil rights, and the same people are still banging on and on about the same stuff (I will get trashed for this but in the US, this kind of grief mongering has almost become an industry in itself...you can see why it will never end, the vested interests are too powerful).

<comment><USER43> Your points would be more believable if you supported them with reliable sources.

For example, this says that there is an ethnicity wage gap: [https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2018)

Figure Four of that link (which allows you to clicky to remove different groups) clearly shows that "White British" have a higher median hourly rate than "Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British".

The picture for university attendance is a lot more complex. Prestigious universities are not accepting black students: [https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/russell-group- univ...](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/russell-group-universities- unfairly-rejecting-ethnic-minority-students)

And black students appear to drop out of university at higher rates, partially because of the racism they face.

The UK has a serious problem with racism.

<comment><USER42> There isn't an ethnicity wage gap. If you look at data from the Low Wage Commission rather than ONS data (or indeed, any academic work on this) it is very clear (i.e. data that actually uses proper independent variables and looks at within-occupation differentials...the issue with the data reported by the BBC is that the model is underspecified and the unexplained variance is all attributed to racism...this defies logic).

Btw, it is very clear that some ethnic minorities are underpaid and excluded from certain occupations (i.e. they are underpaid within occupation, aren't promoted, and are excluded from occupations systemically)...but it is Pakastani/Bangladeshi, not blacks.

What racism? There is evidence that the UK is one of the most racially tolerant societies in Europe and comparable with any other developed country (admittedly, Europe is not a good comparison because of the prevalence of intolerance there) - [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00012...](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00012/full)

I will say that I have observed a definite change of attitude by black students however. I went to the university local to me, there are a huge number of non-white students (majority in some faculties) and I have never observed any problem ever (discussing race or nationality would make no sense to any of the students there). The Afro-Carribean society (one, btw, that has always had white members) held an event where white people were banned from attending (again, not just non-black...specifically white) on the subject of resisting white culture. This is a Russell Group uni that you need 3As for in almost every course. This is the result of hammering the idea of racism and inferiority into one group and repeatedly telling them that other people think they are less than. The idea that this is reducing intolerance is quite contrary to all the evidence.

Btw, it is kind of funny that the UK has a solution for this problem...it works...and no-one is interested. The only thing you seem to care about is more identity wars, more conflict, more hate.

<comment><USER43> > If you look at data from the Low Wage Commission rather than ONS data

If you're rejecting the Office for National Statistics there's not much I can do. These are robust and reliable stats with detailed information about method and limitation.

Do you mean the Low Pay Commission?

Can you link to their report, because I can't find it.

The only report I could find from them is this, which disagrees with your point.

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/747546/ethnicity- pay-reporting-consultation.pdf)

> Once in work, evidence shows that people from ethnic minorities progress > less far and earn less money than their white counterparts. Baroness > McGregor-Smith led an independent review of the issues faced by businesses > in developing ethnic minority talent from recruitment through to executive > level. Race in the Workplacereported a number of areas of concern at the > time:

Here's the Equality and Human Rights Commission Report, but that supports my point that black people are paid less than white people in the UK. (Page 29 median wage) [https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/rese...](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research- report-108-the-ethnicity-pay-gap.pdf)

Or there's this research: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095001701244509...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0950017012445095)

> Research repeatedly demonstrates significant ethnic labour market > disparities in Britain. While some groups do better than the white British > majority, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and black Africans suffer higher rates of > unemployment, lower occupational status and lower earnings (Berthoud, 2000; > Heath and Cheung, 2006; Heath and McMahon, 1997; Platt, 2005). Such ethnic > penalties remain even after controlling statistically for indi-vidual > differences, for instance in respect of education.

> What racism?

> there are a huge number of non-white students

You appear to be splitting people into "white" and "non-white", and then looking at the non-white group as a whole. That's not a good idea because it causes you to come to incorrect conclusions.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does uber automatically log me in after I redownload the app? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Related: if you register for push notifications, Apple/Google have a habit of sending you the same push token as you received on that device previously. It's not guaranteed (and should be insufficient for login), but this does make it possible to track users across app reinstalls.

</comment><comment><USER3> Its possible they leave a persistent cookie on your device, even after 'deleting the app'

</comment><comment><USER4> It has USB media access and thus can edit your files. They probably choose not to delete that data during uninstall.

</comment><comment><USER5> if you sign in with your facebook / twitter account it uses the system-wide ios facebook / twitter credentials which aren't deleted when the app is removed</comment>


Show HN: Circulate, our contact reminder app - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN, meet Circulate!
Circulate integrates with your email and shows you how long it's been since you last talked with your contacts. Set priority, time intervals, follow-up reminders.
Beta invites to be sent out soon. Sign up at our website to get early access:
http://circulateapp.com
Feel free to chime in with your comments and suggestions! <comment><USER2> Cool idea - I have the same problem and once started tracking a "last contact date" in my OS X address book. Then I had an AppleScript that would go through and check that date and give me 3,6,9 month reminders.

I'd love something that would connect with Twitter and automatically identify when I say "we should meet up" with somebody and remind me to meet up. Because I nearly always forget when I say that, especially if the person is in another city.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the great validation that we're on the right track. The idea came up specifically because we had the pain ourselves. When I first ran the prototype on my own email, I was shocked at how long it had been since I'd touched base with a whole lot of people.

The Twitter idea is really interesting... Location-based reminders. Hmmm I'm going to ponder that some more. Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm the other guy in "our". Clickable link: <http://circulateapp.com></comment>


An Introduction to RubyMotionQuery - <AUTHOR> https://ir_public.s3.amazonaws.com/projects/rmq/rmq_guide.pdf

<comment><USER2> This looks amazing. You are my f&*%ing hero.

<comment><USER3> You're welcome :-).</comment></comment>


Rate my startup - SEOTrac.com - <AUTHOR>

Nutshell: SEOTrac allows users to track and monitor the effectiveness of their SEO (Search Engine Optimization) campaigns.  I'd appreciate your feedback!
Long Version: SEO is going to be a Wild West community for the foreseeable future.  Believe me, I know; I have an affiliate marketing site that tried (unsuccessfully) to compete against guys with big PPC marketing dollars, and I quickly learned SEO is the only way to go (for that site, anyway).
When I tried searching for SEOs, I was incredibly frustrated - there's no reputable source for objectively ranking SEO performance, and especially SEOs that work in particular industry verticals, so I decided to do something about it.  My site, SEOTrac.com, allows users to track, for free, the performance of their campaigns (PageRank moves over time, keyword ranking statistics, etc.).  The big question I'm trying to answer for everyone using SEO – you've spent $$ on improving your rankings; could you have done any better?  And with which SEO company?
Once I have enough SEO's in my database, and enough campaigns, I'll be able to rank the effectiveness of those SEOs, and give an objective data point to webmasters or site owners looking to add or improve SEO in their marketing mix.
Signup is free and as easy as adding a URL and clicking "Sign Up", so in addition to comments, please add your site to the database (if not an SEO Campaign as well, either done in-house or through an professional).
I'm at michaelhn AT SEOTrac (dot) com if you want to reach out to me personally (including, if you think you can help over and above your HN comments).
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I added my site (www.manu-j.com) and after adding it took a long time to load. Maybe you were trying to analyze the site in the mean time. It would have been better to load the dashboard page and then load the results via ajax so that the user know what is happening.

Also after I login I don't see any information that I can't get from webmaster console. It would be nice to see an example report before I signup</comment>


Why existing profanity detection libraries suck and how I built a better one - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@victorczhou/building-a-better-profanity-detection-library-with-scikit-learn-3638b2f2c4c2 <comment><USER2> Most of the words on the profanity list are in common use in polite company these days. If the goal is to identify hate speech and sexual speech, doesn't there need to be a semantic component. I wonder why a profanity filter is needed--what is the use case?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, author here. I run a couple web games that allow in-game chat between players. One of the biggest complaints from players is that some people like to troll and spam post racial slurs / hate speech / threats. I wanted the profanity detection so I could just filter out the most egregiously profane messages and potentially kick/ban players who continue trying to send obviously profane messages.

<comment><USER3> Seems like a reasonable use of it as long as the sensitivity is set so you have a reasonably low false positive rate (or have a human in the loop).

<comment><AUTHOR> that's the idea!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do none of the winners of the Kaggle competition he linked release their code?

</comment><comment><USER4> Only as anecdata, I remember a Forum/Discussion Board (technical) that a few years ago had issues (its word filter) with the word Matsushita (Panasonic was fine ;)).

<comment><USER5> This is called the Scunthorpe Problem. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have never meant to say the word "ducking" in my entire life...

</comment><comment><USER7> a propos the subjectivity of profanity, the word Slut in Danish means finished, it might often be found at the end of long bodies of text.

<comment><USER8> Same in Swedish and probably also Norwegian, which both have a pretty substantial online gameing presence

<comment><AUTHOR> yup valid points, that's definitely a weakness here

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is no sociologically valid use case for a profanity detection library. This is a misuse of technology. Get over your shit.

<comment><USER10> Not even making services age-appropriate?

<comment><USER9> Firstly, it won't work because designing a profanity filter can only ever be an eternal game of cat and mouse - there are always going to be new words or ways of r3wr1t1ng the same words. This doesn't take into account the problem of multiple languages.

Secondly, age-appropriate is a far more complex challenge than simply filtering out "bad" words. Anything can be reworded. Families differ in which words they consider acceptable at each age. If you really want to make an online service safe for young children, you probably shouldn't be matching them with unapproved strangers to talk to in any form.

<comment><USER11> Are you familiar with the maxim that people behave better if they believe they are being observed?

Would you agree that people would be less likely to "go off on one" if a draft message displayed a "this message could be construed as offensive" warning before they sent it?

<comment><USER12> But what defines "offensive"? If you used a "profane" word, I'd likely not even notice. But if you said something negative about me or my family, yes, that'd likely be offensive. Even that isn't fool proof, a friend saying something negative about me might not be offensive (especially if a truthful statement), but a stranger it would likely always be. There's so much nuance here that I feel it's a losing battle.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Interview with Sam Odio, Founder of Divvyshot (YC W09) - <AUTHOR> http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2901-NY-Business-Strategies-Examiner~y2009m7d5-Intreview-with-Sam-Odio-Founder-of-Divvyshot

<comment><USER2> This article is slightly inaccurate in its depiction of my previous company. It didn't explain how OdioWorks makes most of its revenue and it didn't give enough credit to the person who currently runs the company. Maybe I'll write a blog article about it someday.

</comment><comment><USER3> I found this interesting and useful (it actually explained Divvyshot better than the site itself).

What I found most interesting was his first company which made big money just fixing PCs. I hear lots of similar stories to this (a simple idea making a nice amount of money). Is this something that just comes from the scale of a US audience (in Australia simple ideas just don't seem to make anywhere near that amount) or is there another key?

</comment><comment><USER4> $1.5MM is impressive. i'd be curious as to how much time was spent marketing. they say "build it and they will come" but if you do an internet archive search on facebook, they had to compete with friendster who was already an established player (and myspace was too). not to mention, there were probably 2 or 3 identical ideas starting up at other colleges, particularly cornell. one fascinating thing is that facebook had tons of media coverage early on, it appears they were being disseminated by the media within days or weeks of the service launching.

i would be interested in knowing how sam got odioworks started. you hear stories about reddit, and they had a few guys making it look like an already established service (which fueled further growth). until you cross that chasm, what was done to achieve growth? these are the questions i ask every start up founder.

</comment><comment><USER5> if there were stock up for sale in OdioWorks LLC i would definitely grab as much as i could

</comment><comment><USER6> Hi Sam, glad to correct the article re: OdioWorks if you'd like. Let me know.

-Christa</comment>


Email from a Married, Female Ashley Madison User - <AUTHOR> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/24/email-ashley-madison-user/ <comment><USER2> Most journalists choose to present a simplistic view of the world. Greenwald seems unafraid of saying "the truth is complicated," and then proceeding to tell a readable, worthwhile story. Every time one of these comes up, I make a note to read The Intercept more.

<comment><USER3> Given that it's now clear that seldom any real woman used the site, it's more likely than Greenwald was taken for a ride by Ashley Madison marketing dept.

Not what I want from a journalist...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder what would opinions be like if she was a guy...

</comment><comment><USER5> "My institution has a morality clause in all contracts."

I don't understand this. What is this? Is such a thing legally enforceable? Do people have the chutzpah to put this in serious contracts, or is this some kind of whacky church or the like? I know that in the UK just putting something in a contract doesn't actually make it legally enforceable, but does something like this fly in whichever state in the US this woman is in?

<comment><USER6> The kind of institution that has people

"Write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children."

Is it enforceable, IANAL but I think it really depends on where you are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The only thing that needs to be judged is how the security breach happened in the first place, not the lives of its users.

<comment><USER8> Just another site has been hacked, so what?

I find the personal and social implications much more interesting.

Millions of people lie the most important humans in their life, their partners.

I'm organizing a polyamory meet-up every month and the new people there often have the same kind of questions. They are in a monogamous relationship and want to "meet" other people (often, but not only, for sex) and want to know how they could get their partners to approve of this.

All they want a magical solution, but everything I can say is "talk to each other".

But most people treat their relationships as an entity that exists in its own realm.

They have their lifes and their relationships.

They don't talk to each other about what they really want, but plan marriage, kids and whatnot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I still don't understand why most users didn't just create a dummy address to sign up.

I mean, you're about to join a website whose sole purpose is to help you cheat on your spouse, can you take literally 1 minute of your time to create `email@example.com` and make it your "cheating address"?

<comment><USER10> Most of them did (including the anonymous woman in the article), but they had to pay for the service somehow and ended up using credit cards tracable to their identity. It's pretty easy to make a fake email address, much harder to pay for something anonymously.

<comment><USER9> Fair enough. I commented as I did because so far, all the stories/reports I've seen mentioned only email addresses as a way to identify users. The only searchable DB I saw where using email address.

I knew CC information were leaked as well but I didn't know there were searchable DB for these as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think that, by claiming "it is mostly wrong to judge, except for this particular case, in which you can judge as much as you can", he's doing exactly that which he criticizes.

If he's going to out those that "hypocritically crusade for legally enforced morality", fair enough. But then I'm going to have a field day criticizing those that "hypocritically crusade against legally enforced morality" while actually expecting to live under the umbrella of such a system.

He adds: "It's worth remembering that the reality is often far more complex than the smug moralizers suggest", which is true. But I also find worth remembering that the reality is often far more complex than the smug anti- moralizers suggest too.

<comment><USER12> Greenwald didn't do that though, as far as I can see. He even said that in the case of the woman, while it may appear she is a terrible hypocrite, circumstances of people's lives are complex. Contrast this with Dan Savage writing about Josh Duggar. Savage personifies the gleeful vengeful hate that Greenwald writes about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> schadenfreude

I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for this woman. Or any one caught up in this mess.

"My institution has a morality clause in all contracts."

Choose to sign the contract, choose to sign up for the site, choose to (maybe) have an affair?

Aside from my lack of sympathy, I don't think this woman has done something unforgivable, or that makes her "unhireable". People make mistakes all the time, shit happens. I have to say that if your in a place where this "matters" then you need to address those issues, and move on. Its a big world, your an adult and free to make your own decisions both good and bad.

<comment><USER13> Lets see your high horse when your spouse is enduring a drawn out death and you have nothing to comfort you.

<comment><USER6> Her plight isn't about her spouse now is it?

Its about the fact that she has a morality clause in her contract, and that she's going to get fired for upholding an arcane and backwards system that she can no longer support herself.

Its not like they don't beat you over the head with support groups for both patient and loved ones when you get ill. She had options for "seeking comfort" that didn't involve her violating her own beliefs.

Should I feel sympathy that she broke her contract? Should I feel sympathy that she told others to live to a standard that she could not live to herself? Should I feel sympathy that she held on to an ideal rather than the real? Just because I don't have sympathy doesn't mean I give a shit about what she has done. As I have said people make mistakes all the time, and what she did wouldn't impact me hiring or working for, or working with her, or being her friend. Its simply irrelevant.

<comment><USER14> it's not just violating her beliefs

it's violating her beliefs when they became inconvenient, after spending her life shitting on others who didn't believe the same as she used to

<comment><USER6> Right, hence schadenfreude and someone down voted me to hell for it to...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Track Trump: The First 100 Days - <AUTHOR> http://www.track-trump.com/ <comment><USER3> Readers might be interested to know that Sam is one of the people behind this project ([http://www.track-trump.com/about](http://www.track- trump.com/about)). The submitted title made that explicit ("Sam Altman Presents Track Trump") but we've reverted that in accordance with the guidelines ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).

</comment><comment><USER4> You may hate the messenger, but some of these are worth getting behind:

\- Propose a constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on all members of Congress.

\- A five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

If he were to get these passed and get nothing else done as president, he would go down as one of the most important presidents in recent history.

<comment><USER5> Term limits remove good politicians as much as they remove bad ones. Plus, as many have pointed out before, you need experienced leadership. If everyone, by definition, has less than eight years of experience in their role it'd be even more chaotic than it already is.

The problem is not that politicians _can_ get elected for decades, the problem is that incumbents have an unfair advantage. Fix that problem and term limits become a non-factor.

Plus, to look at how ineffective rules like that are, Putin is president of Russia again despite their being term limits intended to prevent that.

<comment><USER6> Much of the experience comes from teams of people who can move on to work for others. I'd be interested to see examples of important progress made by people who had been in power for decades which could not have been reasonably achieved by people with less time in office.

<comment><USER5> A first term senator is often viewed as highly inexperienced, and they get six years to get their shit together.

If congress was limited to eight years like the president they'd barely be getting the hang of it when you turf them out.

What about term limits for CEOs? Mayors? Football players?

It's absurd. Remove barriers to competition and keep the best by having a robust, democratic process to weed out those who are bad.

A badly thought out term limit implementation would see people flip from the house to the senate and back again, perhaps working in tandem to fend off any competition. What point does that useless exercise serve?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good design and execution. I'll revisit this as the Trump presidency plays out.

Question: Can bias come into play when evaluating statements, and how will that be handled?

For example, taking the first item - building the wall and Mexico is fully reimbursing us - What if a US citizen chips in $10 to help? Is the promise broken? What about $100, $1,000, $1,000,000?

Another anecdote that's kind of relevant: I followed along with Politifact's 'Obameter' for awhile, and realized that making definitive and objective statements can be difficult. I think the most troublesome aspect was the claim that a promise was broken (creating negative connotations that come with a "Broken Promise" label) when the reality was that obstructionism prevented the promise from being fulfilled.

<comment><USER8> > Question: Can bias come into play when evaluating statements, and how will > that be handled?

Bias will definitely come into things because the informal language we use is often not precise enough to allow exact yes/no answers and doing so is reductive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> TPP withdrawal isn't on here yet even though it has already been announced.

As bad as Trump is, we should celebrate the good policies and fight the bad ones. I'm optimistic about the TPP withdrawal, the policy removing two pieces of old regulation (a policy that's been implemented successfully in Canada[0]), FDA reform, cutting down on corruption, and cutting back lobbying. I'm pessimistic about the climate related policy, immigration policy, and especially scared about foreign policy.

[0]: [http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down- on-...](http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-red-tape- could-it-work-in-the-u-s)

<comment><USER10> >cutting down on corruption, and cutting back lobbying

Oh yea, like how Trump drained the swamp and staffed his administration with all these outsiders with fresh new ideas...oh wait, it's literally the RNC. And his Sec of State choice is the CEO of ExxonMobil and one of the campaign promises is literally to invest more in shale oil / natural gas / etc.

Give me a break. There is nothing worth celebrating in this kleptocracy and this wishy-washy "Oh let's focus on the good stuff!" only distracts from the facts.

<comment><USER11> What do you hope to achieve with such a reply, other than signalling that you hate Trump (which is a rather common sentiment here, so go you)?

At no point did they argue that this makes Trump good or even acceptable, and in fact they specifically mentioned things about Trump that scare them. I found the comment to be thoughtful and nice in light of this rather gloomy situation. Sometimes it's important to celebrate good things without yelling at each other.

I'm sorry for coming across as singling you out on this, but please don't consider the next paragraph aimed at you specifically.

The single thing that has bothered me most during this entire election is how _both_ Trump voters _and_ Hillary voters spent so much time basically yelling at each other in tribal fashion. My Facebook feed was dominated by mostly pro- Hillary people who decried anyone even remotely agreeing with Trump as racist, misogynist, rural uneducated shits, and a a pro-Trump person or two who kept posting about emails and pizza-related tinfoil hat theories (and that coming from someone who generally speaking is considered a bit of a conspiracy theorist). I know for a fact that a large portion of these posts served absolutely _no_ good purpose I could imagine other than 'virtue signalling'.

I mean, don't get me wrong, if I had to pick a side I'd be in the Hillary camp. I have opinions too.

And sometimes I've expressed them in ways and places where it mostly just benefited me as a person somehow. I'm not perfect. But it frustrates me to no end to see people just yelling at each other. It seems less of an issue in my real-world interactions, but then my real world consists of people who mostly agree with me.

Without targeting you specifically, I really hope everyone here, myself included, can avoid being part of the screaming mobs. One of my favorite things about this place is that it still often challenges my thinking (I'm less of a functional programming zealot, and one of my new year's resolutions is to give emacs a real shot, for example), and I really hope we can at the very least bring some of this quality even to political discussions, because we do have a lot more influence than we think.

<comment><USER10> My hope was to show that any chance of "fighting corruption" is a sham and clearly a smoke-and-mirrors act used to distract from the high-level looting that is taking place. You'll notice that the OP edited their post to reflect this so obviously it had some impact beyond virtue signaling.

Personally, I found the comment to be incredibly unthoughtful, as they just posted the "nice" things that they teach you in politics 101 to put on your platform so that people will look at those and think "hey it's not so bad." I work in politics, I've lived in DC for twenty years, I've seen this exact scenario play out in the Bush years ("He has some good ideas! We can support those at least, right?") and we all know how that turned out for this country. Undue optimism and shallow political thinking doesn't exactly make for a "challenging" post.

Between being part of a "screaming mob" and standing by saying nothing as horror unfolds before us, I'll add my voice to the choir.

<comment><USER12> Who knows if you'll be right or everyone else will be right. We'll have to wait 4 years and see if Trump comes through with his promises.

Right now, you're acting like you're the only that is right and everyone is too stupid. You're acting very smug, the same smug that lost Hillary the election.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Free idea - why is there no public official who runs on a digital strategy? Like a localized reddit for policies and issues on local, state, and federal levels. If you add in some ML and AI, you could come up with truly direct democracy, that is 100% open and transparent.

Yes, this would be technically hard in that making it secure would take effort. But, in my mind, less effort than it would take to dismantle the electoral college, which has resulted in the opposite of direct democracy.

Sam - if you did this, I'd vote for you.

<comment><USER14> > why is there no public official who runs on a digital strategy?

Most people lack basic computer literacy

> truly direct democracy, that is 100% open and transparent

reddit, facebook, etc are all gamed by third parties

> less effort than it would take to dismantle the electoral college, which has > resulted in the opposite of direct democracy

the founding fathers didn't want a direct democracy. Madison says "Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

<comment><USER13> > Most people lack basic computer literacy

Which way is this trending?

> reddit, facebook, etc are all gamed by third parties

This is what I meant by technically hard.

<comment><USER14> > Which way is this trending?

I think we are trending backwards. More people are participating due to smartphones and easy to use apps but there is still a huge skill gap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Holding government to account is a good thing, thanks Sam.

I have to wonder though if we'd see the same level of scrutiny if HRC had won.

<comment><USER10> Considering the amount of conspiracy nuts who make it their life goal to pin everything on the Clintons and the amount of mainstream attention they got + the rabid anti-Hillary sentiment on the right, my answer is "absolutely".

<comment><USER16> You really think there would have been millions of people out protesting? Somehow I doubt it.

<comment><USER17> I think we wouldn't have seen millions protesting because Trump supporters were overwhelmingly not from cities. Where it is much easier to get hundreds of thousands together.

<comment><USER10> And yet, there were hundreds of protests in small cities across the country for the Woman's March. Here's one from Alabama: [http://wkrg.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-mobile-draws- hundred...](http://wkrg.com/2017/01/21/womens-march-mobile-draws-hundreds-of- men-and-women/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One wonders if we want to _encourage_ him to tick off these boxes.

<comment><USER19> One wonders why we _wouldn 't_ want to hold a politician to their promises.

<comment><USER20> One example is the ACA/Obamacare. Trump has sent very conflicting messages about repealing it but keeping some of the more popular parts.

I think many people are concerned by Trump precisely because he has been so slippery on many issues and has the unique ability of being able to stand for and against something at the same time.

<comment><USER12> >...he has been so slippery on many issues and... stand for and against something at the same time.

Because ObamaCare is not 100 percent all bad or 100 percent all good.

Trump, like everyone, is allow to like the good part of ObamaCare and hate the bad part of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There is also trumptracker.io (Github repository [1]), which was posed here two months ago but flagged [2]. It includes sources for each entry.

[1]: [https://github.com/TrumpTracker/trumptracker.github.io](https://github.com/TrumpTracker/trumptracker.github.io)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927317](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927317)

</comment><comment><USER22> > End common core

Absolutely necessary. This is one of the most important one on the list.

If Trump does even half of these items, America will be on track to greatness again. It will be awesome.

I suspect he may achieve 90% of these.

<comment><USER23> What exactly do you find wrong with Common Core standards? All I've seen against it are poorly-graded homework examples turned meme without proper context.

<comment><USER22> I think it's extremely dangerous when the federal government dictates almost all aspects of how people should lead their lives especially when it comes to education where there's always a threat of indoctrination on large scale. Communities should be able to set their own standards. People aren't as dumb as that; such that federal government shepherding is required at every turn.

<comment><USER24> Common Core was neither developed nor mandated by the federal government, it is adopted as a mandate by numerous states independently, and developed as an initiative sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The federal government dictates very little of the substance of what is taught in schools.

<comment><USER22> True and thank the Almighty for that, but the general direction is towards that. The main issue of contention here is centralization. Once that is done, it becomes easier for the federal govt to take it over. I don't want anything that remotely resembles that.

<comment><USER24> > the general direction is towards that.

What general direction? What are the specific examples of this general direction?

<comment><USER22> _U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as a motivator for education reform. To be eligible, states had to adopt "internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place."[15] Though states could adopt other college- and career-ready standards and still be eligible, they were awarded extra points in their Race to the Top applications if they adopted the Common Core standards by August 2, 2010._

 _Until the Every Student Succeeds Act was passed in December 2015, the US Department of Education had encouraged states to adopt the Common Core Standards by tying the grant of waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act to adoption of the Standards._

<comment><USER23> Yes, the States were offered extra funding for adopting the Common Core. They were not forced to take it, but who doesn't want a few million dollars, right?

<comment><USER22> Doesn't the federal government have enough on its plate? It seems like this insatiable beast that won't stop until it has taken over every last bit of personal liberty and freedom including what and how to think. That is the fear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sources for each bullet point would be nice

<comment><USER26> Here is a lot of them [https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102...](https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf)

<comment><USER25> ty

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing > regulations be dropped.

> Under Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum (pg. 1, pg. 2) > asking federal agency heads to postpone or freeze any new or pending > regulations, with some exceptions noted in Sec. 3 of the memo.

From the memo:

""" Notify the OMB Director promptly of any regulations that, in your view, should be excluded from the directives ... because those regulations affect critical health, safety, financial, or national security matters ... The OMB Director will review any such notifications and determine whether such conclusion is appropriate under the circumstances. """

I agree that non-elected policymakers have too much power to enact regulations with criminal penalties under force of law, but I feel that this measure will just lead to more policies being labeled "health" or "national security" etc., and not amount to any real reduction in regulation.

<comment><USER12> Trump hates PC language. Trump is not about to let corrupt politicians redefine mundane things as "National Security".

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I love this, maybe instead of track-trump.com should be _track-potus.com_ \- it would much less polarising/partisan... Now it looks as if it is run by the DMC...

<comment><USER29> Why? Isn't his name Trump?

<comment><USER30> This could, and should, be used for every president. It has clearly been created to prove Trump in particular won't (or will, who knows) hold his promises, but the execution is actually pretty great and is definitively applicable to any other president. Or political figure for what it's worth

<comment><USER31> Yes. I'd love to see this for England. Not just for the party who gets in, but for the opposition too. They said all this in their manifesto; here's how they voted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is this plan any good? Another way to say... If Obama came up with this plan, would it be well received?

<comment><USER10> >Fully fund the construction of a wall on our border with Mexico, with the "full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall". [Pure manchild wish fulfillment]

>Cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.

>Lift the roadblocks on energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone Pipeline and allow them to move forward.

>Lift the restrictions on $50 trillion dollars' worth of American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal. [I'm sure Secretary of State Tillerson's Exxon holdings won't benefit from this at all...no sir, this is just to help the public!]

>A hiring freeze on all federal employees (except for the military, public safety, and public health) [Because who needs jobs right? It's not like the Federal gov't is one of the nation's biggest employer and source of good jobs]

>Cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by President Obama. ['unconstitutional' lol]

>Reduce the business tax rate from 35% to 15%.

>An act to allow school choice. [i.e. defund public schools]

No, this is a garbage plan which will strip the public of the property and rights they deserve and basically funnel more money into Trump's and Co's coffers.

<comment><USER33> "which will strip the public of the property and rights they deserve "

I don't see how any Americans 'property or rights' are being abrogated there.

> In Canada, we manage our borders effectively. We're not some fascist state. > I don't think it's 'totalitarian' for US gov to responsibly implement the > very fair immigration laws on the books.

> Pipelines are all over America. They're not evil. Granted, those that do > actual damage should not be allowed - but the process is politicized in both > directions.

> "State Tillerson's Exxon holdings won't benefit" \- Tillerson has absolved > his stockholdings in Exxon. He's as free to buy and sell Oil stocks as you > and I are.

> A 'hiring freeze' on government staff is not entirely irresponsible wherein > there is bloat. The highest media wage in the US is - guess where? > Washington DC. The bloat in DC is epic. At least the sentiment to want to do > something about that is reasonable.

> "Reduce the business tax rate from 35% to 15%." \- it's not going to be done > across the board. He's going to create a VAT system which every other > country has. (Meaning US does not pay taxes on products they export - <USER2> > as other countries) The US without VAT is at a huge competitive > disadvantage. This is actually one of the most ridiculously obvious things > the US should have done a long time ago. This is not contentious really.

> Allowing parents to choose schools is not 'defunding' public schools, it's > allowing people to take public money allocated to their students and put it > into the school of their choice. No money is coming out of the system. I > understand that it's contentious, but it's irresponsible to position this as > 'defunding' public schools.

Most of the items on this list are reasonable. People are getting in a huff about it because it's 'Trump' and they can't stand that.

If he can do just 'the better 1/2' of that list, America will be in much better shape.

Eventually a Democrat will come along and put together some more socially oriented legislation.

<comment><USER34> Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools? I don't want to have to support religion and I don't think the federal government should mandate that I have to pay tax to do that.

<comment><USER35> I'm a lifelong atheist and it doesn't bother me. The public education I received was rather subpar in my opinion and I probably would have fared better in an environment like a catholic school. If a voucher program was implemented I might even consider sending my future children to one. The primary points of contention between the atheist and the religious person are how the universe was created and what happens after you die. Both have very little effect on actual day to day living.

<comment><USER33> "The primary points of contention between the atheist and the religious person are how the universe was created and what happens after you die."

No, totally not.

Do you know who conceived of the 'Big Bang'?

It was Father David LeMaitre - a Catholic Priest - and Physicist.

The Catholic Church is 100% behind the 'big bang' and 'evolution'. There's little dissonance between the church and science.

The 'difference' between atheists and religious types - should be better described as the difference between 'materialists' and 'spiritualists'.

'Materialists' (atheists are usually de-facto this) - believe that the material world is all there is, and that's that.

'Spiritualists' believe that life is an expression of something greater.

'Science' is actually rooted in Metaphysics, which is the trunk of the tree below 'Physics' (see Descartes). The problem with most scientists/rationalist/atheists today is that they have forgotten their metaphysical underpinnings ...

"Both have very little effect on actual day to day living."

I see what you're saying - but maybe not.

If you believe in something greater than you, you might be more inclined to think much more long term, make sacrifices for the greater good, for the community, for future generations.

If one believes that 'this is all there is', then one might be inclined to simply pursue highly selfish and hedonists endeavours, because after all 'sympathy' and 'empathy' are just 'emotions' \- and in a purely material world there is no 'right and wrong' etc.

It'd be nice if all schools at least taught metaphysics in high school, i.e. the underpinning of how we think about the universe. As it stands, most public schools teach a very materialist viewpoint by default.

And yes, there are tons of atheists in 'Catholic Schools' because they tend to be very good. You should wonder why all those crazy religious catholics basically invented common education as we understand it, and established most of the best universities (100% of the Ivy League, Cambridge, Oxford etc. etc. :) :) (mostly not Catholic, but religious nonetheless)

Anyhow - it'd be nice for people to have a little more choice in education, without having to entirely deconstruct public education, which is important.

P.S. I'm not Catholic :)

<comment><USER35> This is my point. We all want food in our bellies, a roof over our heads and a safe place for our kids to play. The metaphysical world plays no role in that. Thus, it isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Carl Sagan was able to explain how I feel better than I ever could when he commented on this image:

[http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/56c03accdd08950d408...](http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/56c03accdd08950d408b4590-1041-781/540616main_pia00452-43_full.jpg)

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'd like to see a site track Trump's Truthiness as well. But I fear we'd need long long ints to avoid overflow...

</comment><comment><USER37> I just don't like the feel of this.

<comment><USER22> If you don't mind me asking... What? The tracking of Trump or the things being tracked?

<comment><USER37> I don't mind.

It feels like it is a GOTCHA type of thing

It seems like it is not virtuous in wanting to help the 500+ men and women succeed in our capital.

Tracking a persons actions or promises is used to terminate employees. Tracking (personal / individual level ) is not used - especially sharing ones results with others - to improve a process or reduce a cost etc...

If this is just about the assumption that trump will fail or needs to be removed from office, then the energy should be spent on that sole task

This just seems not good.

<comment><USER22> >It feels like it is a GOTCHA type of thing

l felt the same way too but I have a feeling Trump will deliver despite what the detractors may want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > [announce] Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Didn't trump do this already?

</comment><comment><USER39> Would be much better if each point was linked to a relevant video or videos.

</comment><comment><USER40> Does this offer anything that trumptracker.github.io doesn't?

</comment><comment><USER25> The doodle Trump should be updated w/ gold colored drapes.

</comment><comment><USER41> The facebook share button doesnt work on the site.

</comment><comment><USER42> TPP is now officially person non-grata.

</comment><comment><USER43> Is flagging this post a bad idea? I mean, these months the world is following trump presidency with a lot of uncertainty and fear and that's why politics was almost forbidden from HN. This post contradicts the previous HN position and will ignite a lot of hate.

<comment><USER44> Politics wasn't "almost forbidden". We did an experiment for a few days just to see what would happen. (One thing that happened, btw, is that many people didn't hear the 'experiment' part and jumped straight to 'politics are banned from HN forever', which was never the case.)

The policy then reverted, as planned, to the way it's always been: most politics are off topic, but not all ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)). If there's an intellectually interesting aspect to the story, it's more likely to be ok, while garden-variety politics definitely aren't.

<comment><USER43> I love politics but it will be very easy to fill HN front page with a lot of political stories now. Just ask people who "survived" this kind of populists presidents around the world.

For example, last December Argentina would be allowed to export lemons to US [1] Today, this was put on hold [2] which is in line with Trump promises but not with a 10 year long bilateral negotiations between Argentina and US.

[1] [http://en.mercopress.com/2016/12/23/argentine-lemons-re- entr...](http://en.mercopress.com/2016/12/23/argentine-lemons-re-entry-spark- protests-from-california-citrus-growers)

[2] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-23/trump- whi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-23/trump-white-house- orders-60-day-delay-on-argentine-lemon-exports)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is very cool. I am not American but I hope Mr. Trump delivers on these. It'll show the rest of countries another world is possible.

<comment><USER5> This "other world" you're talking about exists: backwater countries run by kleptocrats and military generals.

<comment><USER45> I am talking about the list of promises. I am not judging Trump himself, and I actually don't like him. But I like what he's promised and I think it could work.

<comment><USER5> What has he promised and how could it work?

<comment><USER12> >What has he promised...

Repeal ObamaCare.

>...and how could it work?

I no longer have to pay $1,000 monthly premium for a health care package I can't even use.

<comment><USER5> You mean the Affordable Care Act, the one that, once repealed, will put dozens of Americans I know into serious mortal peril?

Sounds great. Glad you're saving a bit of money.

Also what the hell are you paying $1,000 a month for? If that isn't an argument for Medicare for everyone I don't know what is.

<comment><USER12> >You mean the Affordable Care Act, the one that, once repealed, will put dozens of Americans I know into serious mortal peril?

But if not repeal, will leave me homeless, since I won't be able to pay the mortgage bill anymore.

Why do your friends get priority over me? Why do I have to lose my house so your friends can have health care? What about me? What about all those other people, left behind by Obama's presidency?

Well, we at least know what they did. They voted for Trump.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Cool page. Do I remember correctly that there was a similar tracker for Obama?

<comment><USER47> Politifact has done this for years now.

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/promises/obameter/](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/promises/obameter/)</comment></comment>


Before Cuomo fund-raiser, state appeared to fast-track tax credit - <AUTHOR> http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/04/8566199/cuomo-fund-raiser-state-appeared-fast-track-tax-credit <comment><AUTHOR> Reminder that the Cuomo campaign asked Sony for $50k.

There is a $5k campaign contribution limit to prevent corporate interests from ruling the political sphere.

They were aware of this limitation, so they used their corp email to ask employees to contribute to the goal, because Cuomo supports actions that benefit the company itself.

It is arguable whether this is legal or not, but it certainly is against the ideal behind the limitation.

[https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/135225](https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/135225)

[https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/49813](https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/49813)

<comment><USER2> I'm no particular fan of Cuomo or Sony, but it's unfair to imply this is illegal or even uncommon behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I can't say this surprises me, but as a founder based in NYC who's seen how unpleasant the city is to small business I'm disgusted by this.

I want NYC to grow into a hub for entrepreneurs and founders, one that's better than bloated valuation valley, but this sort of behavior will never let it...

<comment><USER4> At least he cares about NYC... Those of us in the rest of the state have very little positive to say about him... Whether it's stripping schools districts of funding and any sort of local decision making, or the NY SAFE Act (I'm very pro gun-control... the SAFE act was a _terrible_ bill, passed in a very shady way), he has been a singularly bad governor, in my opinion.

I miss Patterson...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would love to see eventually a solid research analysis of this data dump that maps out the social interactions of these Sony Exces ie: politicians, each other, other members of the movie industry..etc. Plus how much money Sony is spending in the political arena and the ROI for Sony Inc.

<comment><USER6> On the one hand, it would be nice. Enrons e-mail data dumps have been used to this effect for the past decade, especially to show proof of technologies.

On the other hand the Sony data dump, like previous data dumps on Wikileaks, was illegally obtained. Researchers analyzing and publishing it would be putting themselves at legal risk by doing so.

<comment><USER7> Illegaly obtnaied data is kind of a silly thing. If it's out there and it's real does it really matter how it was obtained? Does it affect the data validity? Why wouldn't people be able to analyse it? Nobody could go to jail because of it, after all. To make it illegal to analyse it and disclose the findings is really silly.

<comment><USER8> [Fruit of the poisonous tree]

<comment><USER7> Like I said, nobody would go to jail because of the data, even when everybody knows it is the real deal. But to prosecute people who analyse the data and publish the findings is going too far, IMO. Nobody is( or should be) prosecuting journalists for publishing the same kind of data, the same goes for everybody else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article tries to massage some kind of connection between tax breaks and a re-election campaign. From the information provided, I don't see it. In particular, if you or I clocked up $26m in tax breaks for a tax year, that would suggest that you or I were investing (say) $50m into the state every year.

In that case, as the state, I would be very happy to dedicate an employee or two to making everything run as smoothly as possible, and yes, getting expected behaviour out of the tax system is part of that.

While I have sympathy for people who run tiny companies that have different experiences, it should be clear to the pragmatic that the people who have more money to spend should receive more attention.

For example, the person who wants to build a 150 floor skyscraper in New York will be talking to a different part of the zoning commission than the person who wants to convert a garage into a coffee shop, and that's a good thing.

Where is this anything other than sound commercial practice for New York? Is there any evidence that this wasn't the case for other companies in similar positions? I'd be suspicious if (say) the state used this as a bargaining tool, but it could easily be standard practice.

With the updated article link, sure, the whole thing looks fishy, but I still don't think this example is necessarily a case of it.

<comment><USER10> _it should be clear to the pragmatic that the people who have more money to spend should receive more attention._

This is a matter of culture and not a natural law. You could just as easily say that people with more money have more time to wait.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> While this is interesting to some extent, surely this emphasises more that there is something wrong with the state's tax processing? If all the paperwork was in as necessary, why were they having to pull strings at all to get them processed?

Why is the state's system so inefficient?

How much money could the state be saving by improving the process?

How much are businesses being negatively impacted by the slow speed these credits are being processed?

<comment><USER12> I think there is also a question about whether such extravagant credits only easily capturable by large entities like Sony should exist - but I agree, the 'outrage' seems to be misdirected at some apparent malfeasance. No. The outcome was within the law; Sony was legally due the money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> why should I care about this?

</comment><comment><USER14> This is blogspam, can we link instead to: [http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/04/8566199...](http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/04/8566199/cuomo- fund-raiser-state-appeared-fast-track-tax-credit)

<comment><USER15> Thanks, we updated the link from [http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2015/04/ny-state- fas...](http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2015/04/ny-state-fast- tracks-26-million-tax.html).</comment></comment>


Sharing equity with business partner - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN. I am relatively new to the site and have been reading for the past 4 months or so. As Im in the process of forming my startup, I came across a question I felt was worthy. I brought a business partner on board and we have been working together on my idea. My idea was already created before him and he had signed an NDA. He has been there now for about 2 months helping bounce back ideas. He brings strong connections and a great wealth of knowledge. He's also a good friend, however we have no agreement on compensation. I know there will be a day when we receive funding and he will probably ask for equity or something but I was curious if this is something I should try and settle now or later? <comment><USER2> Settle now. State your intentions and expectations and make sure both of you are on the same page. That "good friend" can head south real quick when the cash registers start ringing and disagreements arise at that point.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. Do you have any insight on how much I should be giving him? Obviously I plan to retain 51% and leave the rest for funding. I obviously cant offer him much, is there a standard?

<comment><USER2> Paul Graham has a good essay on the subject: <http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html>

I highly recommend reading his other essays as well.

I think Joel Spolsky also wrote on the subject.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks I will check that out.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


"In exchange for my honest and unbiased review" - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:amazon.com+%22in+exchange+for+my+honest+and+unbiased+review%22 <comment><USER2> I like that reviewers are required to put this on Amazon now, it lets me know which products not to buy.

<comment><USER3> I wish we could filter these out of the review and rating results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this a thing now, linking to search results for a term? I saw this with image results for exploding hoverboards. I don't like it.

<comment><USER5> It seems to have triggered the Google captcha for me...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of my (language) pet peeves is when someone opens with 'Honestly, ...'

When it's appropriate I suggest to them that everything they say without that prefix might therefore be assumed to be otherwise. I suggest 'Candidly' or 'Frankly' if they mean they're about to be blunt. Or just avoid any kind of qualification entirely. Usually I'm ignored, of course.

But this is a particularly unpleasant arrangement of words -- an inherent and obvious contradiction, whereby independence of bias is claimed in spite of, and in conjunction with, proof of bias.

I wonder at the kinds of readers (of reviews or otherwise) who find comfort in such a disclaimer.

<comment><USER7> It's a common idiom indicating straightforwardness. It does not imply a dishonesty in other sentences.

<comment><USER6> There's lots of words that mean straightforward (to be frank / blunt / candid / brutal / clear / straightforward / abrupt / etc) but honesty is something else entirely.

The comparable phrase 'To tell the truth, ...' is even less ambiguous (yes, it's idiomatic, but that shouldn't let you ignore semantics).

As for amazon reviews I rarely expect people to be especially honest -- if they self-assess as being extra honest despite swag, that's less compelling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What is this meant to show? I just get a Google homepage.

EDIT: From a desktop browser it's a search results page for the given query.

<comment><USER7> A search for: site:amazon.com "in exchange for my honest and unbiased review"

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> well thats awkward.

<comment><USER10> "I received this product for free or at a discount in exchange for my honest and unbiased review."

Free OR at a discount.... I like the, "I don't care about anything I write" disclaimer :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> tangentially related:

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001250201](http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001250201)

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001388321](http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?docId=1001388321)

go to the actual product pages and read the full reviews, the excerpts on the above pages are weak sauce.</comment>


Ask HN: Why isn't any todo-app working? - <AUTHOR>

Title explains it all. I've used many many todo-apps but neither one of them has improved my productivity.<p>Why is that and (I'm assuming) why does everyone have the same problem? <comment><USER2> Eh? I've been using 2Do for about 7 months now and it's made me immeasurably more productive and less stressed (now that I don't have to keep todo items in my head).

Many people have their own app/site/script/method that works well for them. It's just a matter of finding the right one to match your workflow.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great! You're one of the few I think. I've heard many people talking about "todo apps don't help" and "I'm getting more unproductive". I wonder why.</comment></comment>


"I think print magazines as we know them will cease to exist." - <AUTHOR> http://www.observer.com/2009/media/ruthie-wonderland-ruth-reichl-reflects-conde-nast <comment><USER2> That's been predicted long ago by Nicholas Negroponte in 'being digital'.

Amazingly prescient book.</comment>