I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2015/01/19/speed-reading-redo/ <comment><USER2> I took a speed reading course one summer when I was in college. My mother thought that it would give me an edge. First they test you and my reading speed was already on the high end of normal.

In the course I did theoretically more than double my reading speed. But my comprehension was based on the test they gave me. Plus I noticed that I tired quickly doing speed reading. I was a kid who loved to read and had no problem doing it for hours on end without tiring.

After the course I quickly discovered as I suspected that my real world comprehension suffered greatly by speed reading.

So what value did I receive from the course? After college there have been times I needed to quickly get the gist of a document and was under extreme time pressure. I found speed reading worked fine though in my business career I doubt that I used it more than once a year.

Bottom line my personal ROI would have been much higher if my Mother have hired a tutor to help me over the summer learn to paint or play blues harmonica instead.

<comment><USER3> I think the skill many of us need to cultivate is the opposite one -- slowing down and carefully reading a challenging text. It took me a while to get out of "the final is tomorrow so I've got to blow through the rest of this book today" mode.

<comment><USER4> Beyond slowing down, a real challenge for many of us in this age of distraction is to keep one's attention focused on a single text for extended periods of time.

I know I struggle with this myself despite being a life-long reader from the pre-Internet days who used to have no trouble staying focused through a full book.

<comment><USER5> To support your point: I read the first sentence of your comment, then scrolled further down to start reading other comments! hahah ;)

<comment><USER6> I think this is just your brain autocompleting the rest of the sentence. You probably aren't even reading this second sentence, because you already know how I'm going to justify the claim of "brain autocompletion."

Though new paragraphs, or otherwise unexpected characteristics like long groupings of numbers such as 747-838-919-884, stick out and pique our interest.

I think a lot of good writing lies in playing with your internal "branch predictor" as it were.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm what I've come to call a 'slow thinker'. My perception speed is normal, but the gray matter ticks over at a very slow rate of knots and my comprehension of what I'm seeing/hearing/feeling unpacks over the course of several seconds. I've noticed I often have an initial reaction to things, then a 'slow reaction' that is sometimes quite different and factors in more things I know.

It's like it takes some time to 'dial in' on what my response to a particular stimuli is going to be, but often the situation demands a response faster than I can provide one that I feel is properly considered. This leads to interesting social stuff sometimes, and sometimes a kind of short-duration l'esprit de l'escalier social anxiety.

As I've got older, I've learned that in a lot of cases the initial reaction is fine, and I can suppress the desire to issue a follow-up correction once the brain has caught up. Younger me was less able to do that and would often blurt out a second response to nobody's particular benefit, or hold off on a response to the point the moment is lost.

So perhaps for this reason, speed reading has never really clicked for me to the point that I've always been 'suspicious' of it. It's as the author says, comprehension is often the bottleneck. Even with fiction, I find I'm relating the current occurrences I'm reading with whatever world the author has built up, and considering ramifications.

My SO reads very quickly, and I often wonder how much of it is being deeply considered as she makes her way through something. It makes me hesitant to recommend any text I've enjoyed for the richness of it, as I fear a superficial read somehow does it less justice than just not reading it at all.

<comment><USER8> I'm a bit like this, I think. My raw reading speed is decent. But when I'm reading, I'm constantly stopping to flip back and check something, or to stop and think through the implications of what I've just read, or, when the internet is to hand, to look up some related information. As a result, my net reading speed is diabolical.

But to me, this isn't about thinking slowly, it's about thinking thoroughly. I think I pick things up from texts that faster readers skate right over.

Of course, I haven't actually measured any of this, so it's probably just comforting nonsense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Reading speed strikes me similarly to typing speed when it comes to programming. It's fun to read/type fast, but it's not really the bottleneck.

<comment><USER10> I've worked with some programmers who were so slow at typing I would find myself reluctant to help them with their "hands on" work, like directing them to try something in the REPL for example, or even just asking them to run a shell command. It was a struggle for me not to excuse myself as soon as possible once they started typing. They seemingly couldn't get a single word out without a typo, and would frequently hunt down other places in the code so they could copy paste that 6 character variable name, etc.

Being able to type 30~40 WPM is good enough though, no need to be super speedy.

<comment><USER11> > _couldn 't get a single word out without a typo, and would frequently hunt > down other places in the code so they could copy paste that 6 character > variable name_

The latter seems a good strategy for coping with the former, does it not?

<comment><USER12> it's more like a pathological workaround.

it's similar to people who spend years doing "hunt and peck" typing. if you practice enough, you can get up to a decent speed, but you would have been much better off taking a couple weeks to become a mediocre touch typist.

<comment><USER13> I was a mediocre touch typist, and then spent many years doing hands on, IT support. I usually had to type on other people's keyboards while I was offset to one side, or even on the other side of the desk. I'm now a terrible touch typist, but a pretty good upside down, one handed typist!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> On "subvocalization" ...

> _It's simply not possible to comprehend what you're reading and avoid using > that inner voice. So reading faster means being able to use this inner voice > faster, not eliminating it. To further that, expert speed readers who were > studied also subvocalized, they just did it faster._

I've seen this argued elsewhere, and am not convinced they've found readers who do not subvocalize to study. Most readers subvocalize. Even if you don't, if you ask about it, then you do (like asking someone to not think about their breathing).

If you do not normally subvocalize, you become painfully aware of it when you drop into it, feels like slamming on the brakes, and very difficult to let go of again.

I suspect the studies referenced[1] have simply not studied those who don't subvocalize, akin to studies missing the phenomenon of aphantasia until 2015. Or, they've established experimental conditions where the reader cannot help but think about it, causing it to occur.

1\. [https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4229](https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4229)

<comment><USER15> It's impossible to get into the flow state of reading (when you are not aware you are reading) without subvocalizing. I've tried forever. It's impossible and anyone who claims to is lying or is just constantly skimming ("speed reading").

<comment><USER16> I do not subvocalize when reading.

Trying to do it feels really weird to me.

<comment><USER15> You probably do even if you do not realize it.

Can you spot incorrect use of "a" vs. "an" in text? You're subvocalizing.

Are you unable to read while talking? You're subvocalizing.

The idea of not-subvocalizing is to see text as images. You should be able to recognize chunks of words like you recognize different types of emojis or types of dogs. It is completely different from the way everyone learned to read.

I can not-subvocalize after much practice but only temporarily.

I don't recommend it. It's useless on the same level as learning Dvorak.

<comment><USER16> Your presumption that I'm wrong about my own experience is, well, presumptive.

Your tests for subvocalizing are not all correct (spotting "a" vs. "an" does not require subvocalizing).

I do experience text as visual stimulus without sound, and I do process it in clumps. As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I once experienced reading multiple lines simultaneously, perceiving not just sentences but paragraphs all at once.

It was quite a rush.

It's not something I can control, or something I can do on command, but I think it is decent evidence that I don't subvocalize.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Testing the notion that subvocalization slows you down should be reasonably easy. Just test people deaf since birth. Do they read faster? Visit some deaf communities.

It's not immediately obvious, but many deaf people don't know how to read at all. Sign language (hand gestures) is a completely different language, different from English, Russian, Italian etc. To complicate stuff, there's not a single global sign language.

<comment><USER18> I have read that some deaf people (with no inner monologue) can read a lot faster than average (e.g. 800wpm). Confounding that hypothesis, I have also read that some blind people can _listen_ to synthesised speech at similar very high speeds (at which point it no longer sounds like speech at all, but they've learned to decode it by building up gradually).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I practice what could be called "speed listening" \-- listening to audiobooks and podcasts (and watching videos) at 2x to 3x speed.

It saves a lot of time, and I only wish I'd started sooner.

<comment> martin-adams I used to do that, but now listen at 1x as it gives me time to have creative thoughts over what was said which helps me to retain the meaning behind the words.

<comment><USER19> I listen to most things above 1x speed specifically so that I don't have time to have creative thoughts about what I'm listening to, as that quickly leads to me no longer actually listening. Instead I have to specifically pause it if I want to stop and think about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was obsessed with speed reading at one point and still practice some of the techniques. I can attest to the author's recommendation to skim before reading. Especially with challenging material, I find skimming first reduces anxiety-induced procrastination. The material becomes less intimidating once you've "gotten to the last page," even if fraudulently. Then you can go back and read, perhaps selectively and non-linearly, until you understand it.

Speed reading attracted me because I easily get bored and drift off. If the pace is faster, I can stay engaged better. It's not really about speed or saving time (the irony of that while posting on HN).

</comment><comment><USER20> I can understand a lot of Japanese words written in kanjis without knowing how to pronounce them. So I am basically forced to read without any subvocalization and it's pretty tough to understand any text longer than 5 lines.

It feels like trying to understand a mathematical proof that has been written only with mathematical symbols.

<comment><USER21> Wouldn't a mathematical proof not (only) written with mathematical symbols be much harder to read?

<comment><USER22> Why would replacing (some) symbols with words make the text harder to read?

<comment><USER21> Because of ambiguity. And therefore conciseness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So I'm scrolling through this article, reading more carefully at first to model his thought processes, then picking up a few words per paragraph, formulating a hypothesis as to what he's saying in that paragraph, making a spot check to confirm my hypothesis, and moving on. I was oblivious to the irony here, as I was focused on reading. When I realized I was a counterexample to his thesis, I cracked up and had to stop.

</comment><comment><USER24> The recommendations for more effective reading largely match those in Mortimer Adler's _How to Read a Book_ , particularly chapters 2 (The Second Level of Reading: Inspectional Reading) and 7 (How to X-Ray a Book). Both address how to rapidly determine a book's _structure_. More generally, Adler suggests approaching reading with _intent_ , that is, what are your goals in reading a book, often corresponding to the type of book. Fiction is different from poetry, practical books, history, science and mathematics, philosophy, and social science (each addressed in the book).

I'm reminded of an HN perennial, "Why GNU grep is Fast" ([https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2010-Aug...](https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2010-August/019310.html), discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1626305](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1626305)), which boils down to two rules:

#1 trick: GNU grep is fast because it AVOIDS LOOKING AT EVERY INPUT BYTE.

#2 trick: GNU grep is fast because it EXECUTES VERY FEW INSTRUCTIONS FOR EACH BYTE that it _does_ look at.

 _If you want to read faster, read less, and read more intelligently._

By "read less", I mean simply _don 't waste your time on irrelevant material._ For pleasure reading, this doesn't mean skipping large parts of books, in general (there ... _are_ exceptions), but it _could_ very well mean skipping entire books, or deciding that you really _don 't_ want to read them. For nonfiction, it may very well mean sucking the marrow out of their bones without getting bogged into the detail. There are few writers who are highly synoptic and for whom all words matter (this is more common in philosophy than elsewhere, though I can think of other examples).

By "more intelligently", I mean understanding what you hope to gain (amusement/entertainment, general information, specific answers to questions, understanding or rebutting an author's arguments, etc.). Skip what doesn't address that goal, and stop once you've attained it.

There is a tremendous amount of published material. There have been about 300,000 traditionally published books _annually_ in English since the 1950s, if not before, and over the past decade or so, "non-traditional" ("vanity", self-published, print-on-demand, ebooks, etc.) raise that number well over 1 million. Given roughly 300 million to 1 billion native English speakers, this means one book per 300 to 1,000 people.

Quality literature is far less common. Many authors have commented on the folly of reading other-than-excellent books. I'd suggest _some_ sampling of the common genres, but ... don't get stuck there, if you can help it.

Shopenhaer addresses this in "On Authorship and Style":

 _Writing for money and preservation of copyright are, at bottom, the ruin of literature. It is only the man who writes absolutely for the sake of the subject that writes anything worth writing. What an inestimable advantage it would be, if, in every branch of literature, there existed only a few but excellent books! This can never come to pass so long as money is to be made by writing._

[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/11945/11945-h/11945-h.htm#li...](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/11945/11945-h/11945-h.htm#link2H_4_0004)

Diderot the broader problem of a superfluity of books and information overload:

 _As long as the centuries continue to unfold, the number of books will grow continually, and one can predict that a time will come when it will be almost as difficult to learn anything from books as from the direct study of the whole universe. It will be almost as convenient to search for some bit of truth concealed in nature as it will be to find it hidden away in an immense multitude of bound volumes._

[https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2877](https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2877)

(This was, of course, a solutions-oriented pitch for a technical IT solution Diderot was launching, the _Encyclpaedia_.)

A depressing tendency of most speed-reading programmes, and discussions, I've encountered, is that few show any wareness of these extant models and guides. Which makes one wonder if their authors actually read intelligently....

<comment><USER25> I am a huge Mortimer Adler fan, do you have any other recommendations in the same vein?

You might also like the books by [https://cs.adelaide.edu.au/~zbyszek/](https://cs.adelaide.edu.au/~zbyszek/)

<comment><USER26> Just got done reading Adler's How to Read a Book a few days ago.

Recommend: Ward Farnsworth.

Apparently some law school dean who has written some books on law, none of which I have read. I personally just picture him more as a classicist.

His grasp on English writing knocks me off my feet. It is seriously something to behold.

His book on explaining chess tactics (also available online free[0]) is an absolutely amazing display of effective communication in writing.

In another writing style, he has three books[1][2][3] and apparently an upcoming fourth[4] where he presents an idea/concept, cites meaningful examples in the wild of their use, and provides his own commentary to touch up on his chosen topics. They make for delightful reading.

[0]: chesstactics.org [1]: Farnsworth's Classical English Rhetoric [2]: Farnsworth's Classical English Metaphor [3]: The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual [4]: Farnsworth's Classical English Style

<comment><USER26> I also like to read some Mary Beard blogs/articles from time to time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Reading with intent gets me more of what I want than any of the speed reading techniques I've tried or practiced. Business non-fiction books in particular tend to do a good summary in the first chapter, and spend the rest of the book expanding on the main concepts. I'll read the first chapter and call it good if I've got it, or listen on audible at 1.8x if I want more reinforcement.

</comment><comment><USER28> Several times people have told me I'm an exceptionally fast reader. I notice if I'm in a group and we're asked to read a sheet of paper (eg some training seminar) I'll usually be done way ahead of everyone else.

I vocalise everything. It's usually a lot faster than you'd say it out loud though, probably if I tried to read out loud that fast I'd trip over words.

The secret is rather boring: I've just read a lot. I rarely have problems recognising words, so that's key. For many types of reading I also infer content a lot, and it seems like my brain completes sentences, then I'll continue on and "jump back" if one of the words was not as expected. I very easily for those tricks where people write "gondolas in Vienna", so my brain is obviously doing a lot of inference.

I'll often read the economist cover to cover, and I used to do the same with newspapers where I was young. Maybe reading every single word on such a variety of topics fixes the "surprised by words" category.

My tip is: read thoroughly and carefully and vocalise, read enough and the speed will take care of itself.

</comment><comment><USER17> Do people using languages like Chinese, Japanese or Korean read faster? In Chinese and Japanese a single character often means a word. In Korean, a single character is 3 letters. It's very simple: words use much less space in languages like that, so you need to move your eyes much less. Would a Chinese or Korean person read the same work of literature faster than an European - assuming they know all the words?

If "visually condensed" languages like that do facilitate faster reading, converting to a different language is the way to go! What a lovely research topic for neuroscientists!

<comment><USER29> I don't know for reading speed but for speaking speed the interesting fact is that less dense languages are spoken faster and dense language slower, resulting in a similar information throughout no matter the language[1]

[1] [https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw2594](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaaw2594)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think my reading efficacy can be improved significantly by not spending time reading junk and spending more time reading good stuff.

That is, I have a prioritization problem not a throughput problem. Most people I know are like this.

<comment><USER25> Most books have value, even if it wasn't what the author intended. Read a book like you would eat a meal, smell it, take small bites of a couple chapters and see if it is something you like or would like to make on your own.

So many people start at one portion and slog their way through like a backhoe excavating a building site. Skim, summarize, catalog and synthesize. Of course all of this is directed at non-fiction works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I sped-read this article so I'm _pretty_ sure it just confirmed what I already think: speed reading works!!

</comment><comment><USER32> I have learned to read both slower and faster. The trick is that you can use both in the same session, and for many materials, this is by far the best approach.

My comprehension went up massively when I started reading out loud in the evenings, despite how childish it feels sometimes. I noticed I got a lot more out of audio than text (I tend to read too fast and not let things sink in), so I started recording my own audio for on the go.

I realized while doing this that reading out loud works great for me because it forces each word to sink in, rather than rushing ahead as was my habit.

Another thing I learned from listening to audio is, I come back to it many times, so I end up "reading" the same books sometimes dozens of times. And this is precisely what is at the core of many speed reading systems: multiple exposure.

Scott dismisses "read as fast as you flip the pages" courses. It's important to clarify this. This is actually his first tip later in the article, "Skim before you read!" The difference is, beyond just a skim and a read phase, there is an extra "photo-read" phase added on the front.

Have you ever opened a page, and a word or passage jumps out at you, _visually?_ The word "sex" for example, has just such an effect. The idea here is you must read with purpose, with intention, with questions, and if you do, then while you are scanning the book with your eyes, you are _building a map_ of the material, so when you come back to it later, you will remember where to look to find what you need.

In many cases, a book is large and we are only interested in a small fraction of the material. This is the case for most textbooks and their exams, or for a personal project only some aspects will be necessary to extract. The multi- pass approach to reading allows you to locate everything you need, learn where it is, ask questions and keep coming back to it as needed.

Reading slower to build comprehension when you need it can integrate perfectly well with this nonlinear approach: you find what you need faster, and then you give it all your concentration, making sure you understand each part before continuing.

(Of course, this will give rise to yet further questions you can explore the rest of the text with! :)

</comment><comment><USER33> A thread from 2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12023791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12023791)

</comment><comment> no-s The practice of speed reading is not the same as the ability to read quickly. I don't speed read, I read very quickly and often at the rate of page at a glance (I often tell people not to leave confidential papers exposed so I won't accidentally read something I shouldn't be privy to). When people ask me how they can learn to read more quickly, I ask them if they would consider reading more.

</comment><comment><USER34> Speed reading works for low-information content. For instance, try reading that article aloud to your kids. Nobody will ask you to slow down.

</comment><comment><USER35> My personal experience with speed reading is that the limiting bottleneck factor for me is the speed at which i can internalize complex grammatical structures.

I also sub-vocalize some words but not others. In fact, the claim that one must sub-vocalize every word is contradicted by my experience reading Chinese characters, sometimes I can understand characters without knowing how to say them.

</comment><comment><USER36> This article kinda confirms what I've felt when I read about speed reading: if you're reading anything other than fiction/romance, comprehension is the bottleneck.

So reading half a page of a math book at the time would have been completely useless (I was in university at the time).

<comment><USER37> I trained myself on how to speed read at age 16 by accident (when compared to a medical school friend who went to a bootcamp and employed roughly the same techniques). Anecdotally the depth of the material is inversely correlated with reading speed.

For fluff magazine type pieces, the extra speed is helpful however if it's a textbook or anything dense, the bottleneck is usually somewhere else.

Still worth doing though. If you run the math out spending 40 hours like my friend did for even a 2% speed gain is likely a positive return over the course of your life.

The one downside is the feeling of annoyance when hearing anyone else subvocalize as they read. The nagging feeling of "you could be going faster!" is annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> In a similar vein: the millennial fascination with speed listening: consuming podcasts and audiobooks at 1.5 to 3x speed. The point about comprehension is key: if you complete Altlas Shugged in 8 hours but don't understand the motivation of the characters, what was the point?

<comment><USER39> That's a fair question, but that doesn't mean you _shouldn 't_ listen faster. You should listen at the speed you feel comfortable at (and potentially work on increasing that speed.)

Some recordings of the same book have a several-hour difference between the different recordings. Different narrators read at different speeds, and most of them aim for clarity to _all_ listeners. I don't think there's any specific reason to listen to the slowest recording, just like I don't think there's any specific reason not to speed up a recording to where you are comfortabl.

<comment><USER38> I completely agree: I can reread an audiobook at 2x or more but if I want to comprehend something meaty theN 1x with a few re-listens to selected sections is in order. And for dessert listening (podcasts) which are more about entertainment than learning are okay to zoom through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> About three years ago a buddy of mine suggested that listening to course lectures or general podcasts/audiobooks/Youtube tutorials saved him a massive amount of time counted in hours by simply putting the playback speed of everything he listened to as high as he could muster. At least 1.5x for Youtube videos, often time he listens to podcasts and books in 2x. I argued that this is tantamount to speed reading and that he's losing half the comprehension anyway, may as well slow it. I've tried it and believe it's about as successful as speed reading.

</comment><comment><USER41> My speed reading method is just to skip every other paragraph. It's really surprising how effective this is for a lot of texts, and you can adjust how much you skip as you go, dependent on the text.

<comment><USER42> I think a better method is to read at least the first sentence of every paragraph and last sentence on short paragraphs. This way you have an idea on what the paragraph is about.

Another thing you can do is scan the paragraph you're skipping when reading the other paragraph for keywords.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Not familiar with the author, but good on him for admitting he was wrong. I find that most people are not able to admit their faults (without endless hedging), and those who can deserve some respect.

</comment><comment><USER44> Mind map the book starting with the conclusion then toc.

If a book takes more than 4 hours to mind map it's either a good book or poorly organised.

The reading speed isn't the constraint. It's placing the knowledge in your knowledge tree without tiring yourself out. Only read the key parts of the knowledge tree slowly in depth.

Use A3 paper and a click pencil. Speeds the reading right up. When the books mapped, explain the mind map to someone.

<comment><USER44> And map Technical books that build on concepts backwards. Your brain wrestles away and it clicks into place by the time you are explaining the mindmap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> speed reading?

for me, reading a book is a treat. Something I rearly manage to make time for, and when I do, I'd rather enjoy every paragraph.

You don't chew a great food as fast as you do with simple one, right?

</comment><comment><USER16> The full article claims that it's impossible to reduce saccades by reading multiple lines simultaneously.

I know that claim is false because I have experienced reading an entire book by perceiving two to four lines simultaneously.

I've only had that happen once, on incredibly easy double-spaced material, but humans are capable of it.

Note that I am a natural speed reader and aphantasiac - those may be contributing factors (I've noticed the most talented visualizers I know are all slow readers, and discussion leads me too believe it's partly because they can't help stopping to visualize, while I cannot stop to visualize).

<comment><USER46> But what's your recall on the text/information? I bet this is easier with simple, repetitive books that have lots of unnecessary filler words.

<comment><USER16> This was about two decades ago, and it was a piece of fiction I didn't care much about, so I can't tell you what my recall was like. I do still remember a character name and very rough snippets of the setting and plot, so it didn't all evaporate.

It did not have filler words, but it did have simpler vocabulary than most of what I read (it was fiction aimed at school children).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> > This was masked because the books I was reading had enough redundancy to > make following along possible with impaired comprehension.

Clever trick speed reading book writers!

</comment><comment><USER48> Usually, in reaching "genius levels" of knowledge and understanding, textual input is not the bottleneck.

So, don't bother with Speed Reading.

</comment><comment><USER49> When I don't subvocalize my brain basically turns off and I stop understanding what I'm reading.

</comment><comment><USER50> Hyperlexia is real and quite nice. Sadly nothing you can do to develop it.

</comment><comment><USER51> I could do 20,000 wpm after reading something the first time in 200wpm.

</comment><comment><USER52> I tried the Spritz link up to 700 wpm, after closing the page my eyes felt weird for a while. This may be due to the black background and the fact that I was focusing a lot on the text, but in any case I would not recommend it...

</comment><comment><USER53> I've been reading (and writing) considerable amounts, pretty much every day all my life since I was 12-ish (and ~15), 37 as I speak. I'm cognitively no genius by any metric but certainly 'well capable' relatively to most people (strong points being speed of thought, clarity/precision to a fault, powerful synthesis). I however have a bad factual memory in general, I need to 'do' or 'understand' things to really memorize (e.g. I suck at poems, lyrics, can't even remember mine, but I love systems, physics, logic).

Without explanations or hazardous 'hypotheses' (hum) as to why, here are my observations and personal 'tricks'. Spoiler: no magic, just directed effort, solving for X.

\- There is an inverse relationship between speed and depth of information input. The faster you take it in, _even if you feel like you understand all of it_ (and may, factually), the shallower your actual _intake_ will be in the long run. Generally. Emotions act as a catalyzer for memory, but cloud thinking temporarily.

\- The more massive a piece of content (book, article..), the _slower_ I want to go if I aim at a constant result (comprehension, food for thought, memory, etc). I may speed up when cruising if the content lends itself to that (repetitive, very structured, etc). Essentially, whenever recent memory won't cut it to think and remember, because there's too much content, or it's too complex, I need my long-term memory sparked into activation.

\- I read fast in general, but it has nothing to do with 'techniques' related to the act of reading itself: it's entirely a mental 'mode' or 'state', that I only ever get otherwise in sports, this moment when you just _trigger_ the beast and _commit_ entirely to victory. When you just won't fail, when it's 'all-in'. That level of focus, of concentration, is best exercised with training, of any kind. So indeed you need to _think_ , not just read, and actually want to even _write_ and _use_ the substance if you are to maximize its results on you.

\- It's very important for me to begin slow, whatever the average pace later on. I need to get acquainted with the author, their go-to vocabulary and grammar subsets, the point they're making. Sometimes it never clicks and the whole piece is tedious for me. Sometimes it's so clear I feel like I could have written it myself, at least the structure of it. It's a thing, hard to explain. I guess why all we have our own favorites and dreaded authors.

I like people who speak relatively fast because I don't get easily distracted or bored when they talk to me, so speeding up audiobooks is a personal treat; but there's a limit if I want to retain anything more than fuzzy snapshots of partial points. I may understand 100% on the spot (I actually do nothing else but listen and focus), but it's evading memory, evaporating in the long run. Ultimately it means that book won't change me beyond a few impressions, it just won't make its mark, it never had a chance to imbue my consciousness — only my superficial cognition. However sharp, it can't substitute for the real thing.

An exercise I do if I really want to use or remember (be 'changed') by some piece of content — article, book, chapter, quote, podcast, piece of code... — is to do the "good student duty" of writing a short essay: summarize what you read, raise a few interesting points about it, elaborate a bit beyond (make that new material become food for your thought, _use_ it like it's a new word you just learned, or a new math technique).

It only takes ~30 minutes or so, easily 10 minutes if the material is easy, an hour if it blew your mind, I don't know... well worth it, because it has a lasting power for years. But do it well, because that exercise you 'submit' to no one but yourself will become part of the memory of that content, you will _see_ your own words sometimes before/above the actual author's.

Hopefully this helps someone trying it my way. The hard way. The no-genius no- magic no-trick way. The way that lets one play in the present with stuff learned 10, 20 years before.

TL;DR: the faster you read, the shallower it gets beyond some sweet spot, probably biological but trainable; speed is good when it forces you to focus, but not beyond that — it must not become a distraction from actual understanding. If that is your goal. Using at least in thought what you read is my preferred way to really internalize something, make it _mine_ , thus remember it for _long enough_ usually. At least I probably won't be able to forget that it exists, and then I can search it for finer points.

</comment><comment><USER54> I have some problems with this article because of personal experience which differs. They talk about the constraints of 'working memory' which makes it unlikely, or even impossible to scan more than a few sentences at once _and_ comprehend them. It just so happens that i sometimes _scan_ a whole page at once, just by looking at it, and have understood it. But almost only on paper, and without formulas or diagrams in it. But not every time, or 'at will'. It just happens.

Not in the sense that i memorized it, and could repeat it word for word, but the _gist_ of it, the point, message, whatever.

It even varies, because sometimes, when i need to recheck some datum mentioned like a point in time, or an amount of something, or a cross reference, i recall exactly where on the page that was, and where that page was. This happens less on screens of any sort, but more so with real paper. Makes no difference if fiction, or non-fiction.

I guess it happens from anywhere from 0,3 to 0,5% of everything i read, it would be up to 5% if i'd only read on real paper. So much for the 'haptics' of 'cyber'...

Anyways, i could read before Kindergarden, because my older Sister tought me, just for fun. I remember the first word i could read was the neon signage of some supermarket called 'Hit', because i asked what it meant. That's how it began.

At the same time this introduced me to the concepts of different languages, different spellings for the same words, and different words for the same things in different languages. Because i'm german, and hit is english.

Early school was often boring torture for me because of that. I could read books and newspapers, and my classmates stuttered along excrutiatingly slow. This lasted maybe to the 6th grade, then they finally caught up(mostly).

Also around that time i finally realized that i had this ability, and it was something special. Interestingly again not in my native language, but in english.

Teacher said go to page xyz and read this, say ready when you are done. I did, and maybe 2 secands later said: 'Ready!' (Was something about the double decker buses in London)

I never read that before (at least not conscious) because everything in that book was boring to me, and of course got reprimanded, which i considered as unfair.

It's like having a photocopy before the 'inner eye' which slowly fades, but not exactly like a photocopy, because then i could read from it and repeat it letter for letter, and word for word, which i can't.

So i'm wondering what do they mean when they talk about 'speed reading', does this include the necessity of memorizing everything, being able to do it anytime, or just the 'lossy' compression of meaning like i (sometimes) do?

In case of the latter, then from my point of view that is like blind people (from birth on) talking about color.

some edits: spelling, structure

</comment><comment><USER55> I read extremely slowly compared to most, but seem to come up with more insights as well as debunkings.

A relative of mine is a natural born speed reader. She can read several 500+ page dense works a day. This is suggested to be impossible. I've personally tested her on her recall after having her quickly digest a work she's never seen before. She has perfect recall and can tell me what page a given passage appeared on, and recall from memory what comes next.

It's a savant ability. Probably less than 1 in a million, or perhaps billion.

She can't do anything with the ability. It's useless to her practically. She works minimum wage jobs, is married to an unemployed guy, and is always poor. She doesn't have any marketable talents. She continues to read huge amounts of material when she can find it. She long ago read all of the books in her small town library's fiction section. Discussing a topic she can cite references to it as if she is a search engine, but like the search engine, she doesn't have any insights into what any of it means.

I've suggested to her she try to market the ability, do a tour and show off. But she hates attention and craves nothing more than a quite reclusive life free from other people. Being publicly acknowledged as a freak would be the worst possible outcome for her, as far as she is concerned.

<comment><USER54> I can somehow relate to that feeling of hers. One thing other people tend to do if they recognize this ability _IS_ using you as a 'search engine', which over time is a burden, because it is distracting you from whatever you are doing at the moment, and when you complain, you are accused of being unhelpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I've never understood speed reading. I've never believed in the claims because there's just no way someone is comprehending by doubling their speed.

</comment><comment><USER57> "I Was wrong About Snake Oil"

</comment><comment><USER58> Wrong guy is wrong.

It is possible to speed-read TFA with no loss of comprehension, because it is information-light. Most things available to read are, and when you are obliged to look at them, often a glance at each paragraph tells you all you need to know.

Things that are really worth reading are information-dense. Then, the time to think about what is presented dominates, and the time to take in words is negligible. Sub-vocalizing can aid comprehension by slowing you down, and by providing additional information via the rhythm of the presentation.

The last book I read by Robert Sapolsky took me 30-60 minutes for each of the last 30 pages, because they were tying together all the material in the rest of the book, and really gave full value for those minutes.

So, speed read what you must read, but choose material that delivers for careful study, and read it as slowly as it deserves.

<comment><USER46> You don't talk about speed reading, you talk about skimming.

The claim of speed readers is usually: Read 900 words per minute or more with no loss of comprehension.

<comment><USER58> Skimming is just the extremum of speed-reading. I promise I read your comment at 900 wpm with no loss of comprehension.</comment></comment></comment>


The Mark Cuban Stimulus Plan - Open Source Funding - <AUTHOR> http://blogmaverick.com/2009/02/09/the-mark-cuban-stimulus-plan-open-source-funding/

<comment><USER2> 3\. It MUST BE CASH FLOW BREAK EVEN within 60 days

4\. It must be profitable within 90 days.

5\. Funding will be on a monthly basis. If you dont make your numbers, the funding stops

If these are true, unless you're completely poverty-stricken, why whould you need Mark Cuban? Perhaps we're talking large scale investments, but the whole emphasis on "sweat equity" suggests not.

<comment><USER3> I've stopped taking Mark Cuban seriously long ago. The guy got lucky once, and mistakes it for business genius, it is that simple.

Sure, if you have a couple of billion lying around it is easy to tell other people how to solve their problems. But unlike say Warren Buffet I've yet to see him do something that commanded my respect.

I'd challenge Mark Cuban to follow his own plan, pretend he's broke for 60 days and then show that by his own measure he can make it work.

If he succeeds with that he'll definitely have me take him serious again, but I doubt he could and until that happens this is just another "I'm rich therefore I blog" addition to the S/N ratio.

<comment><USER4> That's not true.

Before Broadcast.com, he started a computer company (MicroSolutions) and ran a very successful hedge fund. After Broadcast.com, he bought the Mavs, started HD Net, formed a charity (Fallen Patriot Fund), actively invests as an angel and cofounded numerous movie production & distribution companies.

Broadcast.com was certainly lucky, but Cuban was already a millionaire long before becoming a billionaire.

<comment><USER5> And on top of that, when he talks, it makes sense! I mean, it feels like what he is saying is true even though I don't personally have an evidence to support it. The numbers _could be_ anecdotal, who knows. In 6 Billion people, there are probably going to be one or two or 10 people who make every "wrong" decision and still become billionaires.

He may be one of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Who knows if this concept will work, but it's an intriguing idea. And I like it that in the middle of a supposed depression, the two top links on HN right now are offers of funding for new companies.

<comment><USER7> Would you recommend this as a funding option for any of the YC funded companies?

<comment><USER4> Cuban didn't return my emails when we launched :(.

<comment><USER8> He returned my email when I had suggestions for the Mavs a few years back :-)

<comment><USER4> The three-sided shot clock?

When I was in college, he returned an email of mine. I asked him if he was any happier now that he could have anything in the world. He told me that he was just as happy when he lived off of happy hour food and lived in a dumpy apartment with his best buds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The United States government should follow his lead. Giving more grants and low interest loans to startups.

The startups, the entrepreneurs, the risk takers, the pragmatists, the efficient and rational are what we need right now to pull us out of this mess. Instead the govt is giving all the money to the rich, inefficient, wealthy elite, who lied to get us into this mess in the first place.

Give some money to those with vision. How much could we here on this list do with $700 Billion? The banks aren't doing anything with it... We just wasted it...

<comment><USER9> The US Government isn't good at things like this. We don't need it expanding into new areas. Let the market handle it.

<comment><USER10> _"The US Government isn't good at things like this."_

Why not? Can we make it better?

<comment><USER9> The Government should do things when it's not going to happen otherwise. Like the military. Or arguably providing free health care to everyone.

But when the Government isn't needed, then it shouldn't be used. Think how inefficient Microsoft is. Then realize Microsoft isn't actually very bad as big companies go. Well, the Government is an order of magnitude worse than the most inefficient huge companies.

The Government is bigger, has more layers of management, rules, and paperwork, doesn't have to worry as much about making a profit, and there's less accountability and responsibility for decisions. If a normal company messes up, it pays for the mistake; if the Government messes up, the tax payer pays. Those are bad traits that should be avoided when we can.

<comment><USER5> _Well, the Government is an order of magnitude worse than the most inefficient huge companies._

The Social Security System is one of the tightest ships in the world. You can't even get index funds with lower management fees in the private sector, because profit wants to be made and should be made.

<comment><USER9> You're holding up social security as the pinnacle of efficiency, without a citation?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt>

The link says social security is short 7 trillion dollars of 2008 money to pay for its obligations over the next 75 years. 7 trillion dollars is a lot of money... Whatever the reason this happened, doesn't it indicate the less Government the better, to lower the risk of them losing trillions of dollars?

<comment><USER5> I'm sorry, it was a bad idea to bring up Social Security. My only point was that the management of the legal requirements for the organization are very very small relative to the amount of funds that are flowing in and out.

I do agree that there are fundamental flaws in the Social Security System and I have said many times, though not here, that I will gladly pay into social security and never receive any benefits. I don't see any other solution and I am volunteering to take the hardship.

If enough people join me, we can fix social security. Like a balloon that slowly deflates through controlled exhaustion...

<comment><USER11> No, social security was a good example and a good idea.

Does anyone remember the parody of Gore on SNL saying "Lockbox"? Does anyone remember why?

See, GM is in trouble (and claiming its workers cost $75/hr) because it had huge pension obligations, but instead of saving some of its revenue for when the chickens came home to roost, it'll will just bank on the company's revenue growing without bound (like homeowners banked on their property values).

The only problem is when this doesn't happen.

Now, the government, instead of spending its money wisely and saving it for the social security insolvency that hangs over our heads, decided (under Bush II) to issue one-time "tax rebates" to stimulate the economy.

Anytime we actually have money to pay into social security, we use it for some stopgap measure like paying down our trade deficit, tax rebates, etc. If we followed a rational funding policy for Social Security, both in good times and in bad (like when you make steady payments on a mortgage) then we wouldn't be worried about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My favorite comment on that blog, by far, is the dude who wants Cuban to fly him out to texas so he can pitch him on his Star Wars Toy sales startup.

<comment><USER13> His name is Kevin Gawthrope and he's on Twitter <http://twitter.com/gawthrok>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am having somewhat of a hard time figuring out how this "stimulus plan" helps the economy, as it appears it's intended.

If a startup is able to reach profitability within three months, this startup surely wouldn't need Mark Cuban's money to move forward and create jobs at some point in the future. They would have a rather big chance at succeeding even without this extra cash.

Mark presents this initiative as doing something for the greater good and the economy, however investing in companies that need to be profitable within three months (assuming funding will stop if they don't reach profitability within that time frame) is not exactly a risky investment and looks more like an easy way into something new for Mark.

<comment><USER15> the "open source" nature of it perhaps? The fact that these business plans need to be posted in full - means that other places can duplicate them.

(also - that's probably the secret - this is probably not a tech play.... Think small local (but replicatable) businesses)

<comment><USER16> You nailed it. It's a great local stimulus and it could put a bunch of people back to work, locally. The condition to be sustainable means that he doesn't want to pay your salary for more than a few months, while you open your store.

The fact that it's open means every person in every town can open the same store and succeed as well, without directly competing.

<comment><USER15> :) But when _this_ community thinks startup / new business we instantly think google/facebook/twitter without looking at other alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's the thing. If you're a person with a "big idea" that idea means more to you than just something that popped into your head. It's your hope. It's what may be your big chance one day. So it's a big deal to you.

He's asking people to basically give up on that dream. Since it would be easy for the idea to be stolen by someone with more resources you basically have to renounce the idea when you reveal it to the world. In return for that sacrifice you might create a company that would, at best, produce a minor positive impact on the economy as a whole.

Which is the kicker as far as I'm concerned. No company created like this is going to save the economy. At best you'll generate around a hundred jobs in an environment that's shedding hundreds of thousands a month. Meaning even the most altruistic person will have to get over the fact that they won't be doing all that much good with this.

Seen like that I don't see many people taking him up on this offer.

<comment><USER4> But the execution is almost always worth more than the idea. Ideas tend to change a lot once you get started.

And of course one thing won't change the economy, but helping to create new businesses is a great thing.

<comment><USER17> But that's sort of my point. Mr Cuban's rules limit the scope of what you can do. If you have to break even within 60 days than you can't have that many resources (a 2 person operation at best I would assume). So say you come up with the idea, he funds it, and you get to work with one other person.

Now what's to stop some company who sees your idea (which is probably worth stealing since Mr. Cuban liked it) and puts 6 people on it for the first 2 months. No matter how well you execute it's hard to beat a team 3 times your size who are working on the same basic idea.

Because even if you execute better they can self correct fast enough to kill you off.

<comment><USER4> I sort of see what you're saying, but people's ideas are everywhere and are copied all the time.

Also, more people + more money != faster or better execution.

<comment><USER17> I think we're pretty much on the same page. The only distinction I would make is that I think more people + more money + a shameless willingness to copy your competitors good features might equal better execution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I submitted one of my (many) ideas. If anyone's interested, here it is: [http://blogmaverick.com/2009/02/09/the-mark-cuban- stimulus-p...](http://blogmaverick.com/2009/02/09/the-mark-cuban-stimulus- plan-open-source-funding/#comment-58149)

(feedback more than welcome)

<comment><USER19> If you can get that launched and advertised, you'll win for sure... biggest issue I'd imagine is that the wedding industry is a local one, and you'd need lot's of vendors in the queue for the brides to find things worth their while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is the most arrogant thing I've recently read (though maybe, he is laughing really hard now as many people have bit the bait). Seriously, wow.

What is someone's incentive to publicly post a biz plan+idea in a blog comment over there? Apparently, a tiny amount of money and likely no other help from Mark, wow.

</comment><comment><USER21> google, youtube, and facebook would never have made it past his litmus tests.

you've got 60 days to grow a tree. start watering.

<comment><USER22> Yea, but besides Google, Facebook and YouTube havent been profitable in 5 years, let alone 90 days. I'm pretty sure that if youtube doesnt come up with a viable business plan in the next year it might not even be worth keeping. Facebook on the other hand has serious revenue potential.

<comment><USER23> > Facebook on the other hand has serious revenue potential if it can survive > the recoil from its sudden popularity, and if it can survive the onslaught > of competitors. But those are both big if's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I like this Guy good will to always come up with win-win situations all the time with sincerity and open mind.

Just wonder why would be the reason for rule #2: He will not put his money on any business getting revenue from ads; I do not see Google going bankrupt.

<comment><USER25> For one thing it will probably drastically reduce the number of applicants. More importantly perhaps, is it will force people to come up with viable ideas for products that get sold directly to the end-user rather than just expanding the number of advertising channels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think it's just a post he's using to drive traffic and mock people for his own entertainment. I think any serious idea posted in the comments would probably get deleted.

</comment><comment> patrickg-zill Send me all your business plans! I won't sign an NDA and neither will anyone else... but at least someone will profit from this (not necessarily you however)...

</comment><comment><USER27> I'd rather be bankrupt of money and have the idea than be bankrupt of ideas and have the money.

Thank you Mark. But no.

<comment><USER23> That's funny, because I submitted a business plan with the idea that 5% of anything is better than 100% of nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have an idea.

Selling whiskey. Cheap.

To Mark Cuban. Profits in 4 minutes.</comment>


Python progression path - From apprentice to guru - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2573135/python-progression-path-from-apprentice-to-guru?resubmitted

<comment><USER2> I'm in an intro-to-python course right and we're working through Think Python. (It's free online: <http://greenteapress.com/thinkpython/> )

I've found the exercises really fun and easy to get motivated about. I can't speak about a whole progression path, but this book would be a good stepping stone in anyone's progression path.</comment>


Ask HN: Advice for a Solopreneur - <AUTHOR> I am starting a eCommerce site for selling motorcycle accessories. There will be 4 to 5 items only.
I have no connection where I can promote the site.
How to promote and run the business as a as solopreneur? <comment><USER2> Do you have money to spend on Promotion? Invest on (converting) Ads

Do you have no money to spend on Promotions? Get Creative with how you promote stuff. Reach out to Instagram/Twitter pages that post related to your niche and aren't that big that they would like to charge you for it.

Get your friends, family to actively talk about you.

Reach out to anyone who buys from you your site and get as much info as possible. When you understand who your customers are, where are they coming from and why did they buy from you you will have the right amount of insights to get a gut feeling about what, where and how to get your next set of users.

Also reach out to people and ask for help, sometimes it's all that it takes(as long as you value their time and be respectful) :)</comment>


So What is a Direct-Threaded, Register-Based, Bytecode Interpreter Anyway? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mozilla.com/dmandelin/2008/06/03/squirrelfish/ <comment><USER2> It's quite impressive to read a blog post that analyzes a competitor's announcement carefully (with no ill will), performs tests to show the validity of the analysis, provides the source for the test, and is written cleanly and concisely. I wish more posts on the internet were like this.

</comment><comment><USER3> Actually, direct threading can be done with C/C++: I just wrote a switch statement with 256 case labels and made sure the switch control variable is unsigned char. With -O3 it gave me exactly the code I wanted - no range checking anymore, since the control variable is unsigned char anyway.

<comment><USER4> Not quite. If you're dispatching based on a sequence of opcodes, that's indirect threading. Direct threading uses a sequence of pointers to the opcode implementations, and jumps directly to them. Also, one of the key benefits of threaded interpreters is that each opcode implementation ends by decoding the next instruction and jumping to its implementation. This duplication of code gives the processor more context for branch prediction, and can lead to fewer pipeline stalls. With a switch statement, the decoding and branching all happens at the top of the loop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems you can't have direct threaded interpreter for JVM or CLR where the opcodes conform to specification that can't change between versions of the interpreter.

The SquirrelFish announcement's list for future developments (<http://webkit.org/blog/189/announcing-squirrelfish/>) contains some more codewords I wish I understood:

\- constant folding

\- aggressive copy propagation

\- type inference—both exact and speculative

\- specialization based on expression context—especially void and boolean context

\- peephole optimization

\- constant pool instructions

\- superinstructions

\- instructions with implicit register operands

\- advanced dispatch techniques, like instruction duplication and context threading

<comment><USER6> This is probably a good start to get to know more about some of these subjects: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Compiler_optimizations></comment></comment>


Airbnb's ban of Nazis in Charlottesville sets an important standard - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2017/08/airbnb_s_ban_of_nazis_in_charlottesville_sets_an_important_standard_for.html <comment><USER2> This is just ridiculous and will do nothing but ratchet up tensions. Now Airbnb is going to be the arbiter of who is a nazi and who isn't? What if a person is merely "alt-right"? What about "alt-light"? Or what if some other marginalized group comes and complains about giving quarter to black supremacists or non-white supremacists? They are out there. And many showed up in Charlottesville. I can't even imagine the cost of running such a program both in terms of manpower, engineering, and PR blowback. Of course it is their business to do what they want, but I don't think it is very smart or sustainable.

<comment><USER3> If you disagree, that is one thing, but regarding cost: I am willing to bet that a very large number of folks would be 100% OK doing business with a company who refuses to do business with Nazis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If it becomes okay to exclude people because of their beliefs, we may feel that sanity has prevailed and a sense of victory. However, the loss of freedom can become perverted in time and AirBnB just set a precedent for deciding which beliefs are not allowed.

When they come for you and your soon-to-be-declared radical beliefs, remember how proud you were today.

<comment><USER5> Nazism is today considered by almost everyone a _very radical belief_ , far more radical than almost anything else being commonly discussed in politics.

Nazism is not a case of "right vs. left", "republican vs. democrat", etc. It's not a case where it's an almost 50/50 split, but because the left has more power over media/tech, then the right's views are considered fringe and are "punished".

This is a case where almost everyone agrees that these views are completely outside of standard discourse. Don't conflate this with the common (and IMO somewhat valid) view that a lot of what's been happening lately is "repression" of the right by the left.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You may not view this as a first amendment issue, but it's certainly a housing discrimination issue. Many localities have laws preventing housing discrimination based on political belief -- for example, D.C.

You can expect that if stuff like this starts happening more often, other jurisdictions will also respond.

In general, "I am free to not rent my property to a certain undesirable element" has a pretty ugly history, as most societies don't view housing as just another optional consumption good.

<comment><USER7> What about "I am free not to rent my property to those who want me killed and my kind ethnically cleansed"?

<comment><USER6> It's the bigots who are most fearful. People also wouldn't rent to african americans because they were afraid of their daughters being raped, etc.

You know, renting your property is not an existential struggle and not everyone who reads Breitbart wants to have you and yours ethnically cleansed. There are laws to protect you, and you really don't need to be helping out the police with your fears.

<comment><USER7> Nazis, as a matter of written ideology, espouse ethnic cleansing. African Americans do not. I cannot believe I am having this debate, and on HN of all places. Has the world gone insane?

<comment><USER8> But who do you trust to decide that someone is a Nazi? Should it be Slate, some government bureaucracy, you personally, AirBnB? What if someone labels you a Nazi?

Should we just throw them into water and see if they float? Or administer a "are you a Nazi" test on a polygraph?

EDIT: This is a problem of the current political climate where words have lost their meaning. A lot of people even remotely right of center have been called a Nazi or "alt-right" or "white-supremacist".

<comment><USER9> > Should we just throw them into water and see if they float? Or administer a > "are you a Nazi" test on a polygraph?

How about good old fashioned, "Is that a fucking swastika your friend is carrying over his shoulder?"

[https://twitter.com/AndyBCampbell/status/896385942495285248](https://twitter.com/AndyBCampbell/status/896385942495285248)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > those who are members of the Airbnb community accept people regardless of > their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender > identity, sexual orientation, or age.

When you are trusting someone to host you in their home, or trusting someone to stay in your home, it is important to have safety policies. For example, AirBnB's policies are related to fire safety, theft/vandalism, and fraud. This is simply one other policy to make both guests and hosts feel safe using the platform.

\- [https://www.airbnb.ca/standards](https://www.airbnb.ca/standards)

</comment><comment><USER11> 2017: the year when "I don't support Nazis" became a controversial political statement in the United States of America.

<comment><USER6> It became controversial about the time that everyone who questioned affirmative action or didn't vote for Hillary Clinton was labelled a white supremacist or a Nazi. Suddenly the whole nation is filled with Nazis.

It's like the day after the election, half the population started engaging in WW2 cosplay.

There are more Rastafarians in America then there are actual Nazis, and I'd wager very few people in this rally even know the definition of a Nazi, let alone are one.

<comment><USER7> Oh, come off it. You're creating a strawman - there's plenty of room for political debate around specific issues. And I don't think people who didn't vote for HRC are Nazis are anything like that.

You know what I think? I think you don't actually care about free speech. A Nazi (a real, card-carrying Nazi) drove a car through a group of leftist protestors and killed an innocent young woman. He took away, by force, her right to freedom of expression.

But I notice you haven't voiced any concern about that - you only care about freedom of speech to the extent that it's used to protect Nazis (and those who associate with them). But when it comes to protecting the free speech of protestors who disagree? All of a sudden, your deep concern is nowhere to be found. Give me a break.

<comment><USER8> Even if you do not think that, your fellow humans do. If you put power into their hands to decide who should hang, a lot of innocent people will.

What you are talking about is completely orthogonal to the first amendment. _Everyone_ has a right to speech and _everyone_ is protected from vehicular assault & murder by law. I hope that everyone on Hacker News condemns that act of violence.

Could you please point to the source of your claim that he was a "card- carrying Nazi"?

<comment><USER7> Photos of James Alex Fields before he drove his car through the crowd have him among the Vanguard America group, which (according to Wikipedia) is an American white nationalist group. His high school friends and teacher also say that he had a deep obsession with Nazis. So that makes him a card carrying Nazi in my eyes. There's also more evidence of his ideology if you just google his name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't know if this does a lot of good for Airbnb, aside from good publicity. Hate groups will go underground. They will still use Airbnb, but they'll hide their activities more.

<comment><USER13> And how is this a bad thing? Allowing hate groups "above ground" normalizes their behavior. They should be underground.

<comment><USER14> That strategy worked _so well_ in 1930s Europe (not _just_ Germany).

Extremist views are hard to fight when they are safely hidden away. Like any infection, it's best to expose them to the light of day. It's more effective to point and laugh than to throw projectiles and yell. (Had that strategy been employed in 1923, there would have been no _Mein Kampf_.)

<comment><USER15> Riiiiiiight, that's why underground groups on the far left like anarchists and communists were so successful in Poland, Spain, Greece and elsewhere. The far right was normalized and that's how they grew their ranks. It was the editor that published Mein Kampf as well as Hitler. It was the Italian media and the futurists that helped Mussolini gain power. This isn't about censorship, this is about how fascists can co-opt the democratic process and rise to power.

How fascism was covered by the media [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists- covere...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise- mussolini-hitler-180961407/)

The myth of political correctness [https://thinkprogress.org/the-phony-debate- about-political-c...](https://thinkprogress.org/the-phony-debate-about- political-correctness-f81da03b3bdb/)

What normalization looks like today [https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson- mun...](https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't have a problem with Airbnb doing this, they are a private business and should be able to decide how they operate and who they will and won't serve.

However I can't help but think that the reactions would be quite different if they had banned people attending a Sharia rally.

<comment><USER17> I've never heard of a "Sharia Rally". Can you point to one that happened in the United States?

<comment><USER18> AirBnB operates globally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a slippery slope I'm happy to walk on. Reasonable people can agree that no safe harbor should exist for Nazis.

<comment><USER20> Yes, the 1st amendment protects freedom of association. That is, the freedom of private entities to not do business with Nazis.

<comment><USER21> Does that same freedom exist for private entities that don't want to bake cakes for gay couples?

The problem with limiting freedoms to certain groups is that you have little to no control over who gets to decide which groups are acceptable.

Today it might be a group you don't like. One election later and it might be a group that you are a part off.

That is why you need to defend the principle, even if you don't like the specifics of what you are defending, and is why, for example, the ACLU is defending Milo: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you- represe...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represent- someone-milo-yiannopoulos)

<comment><USER20> > Does that same freedom exist for private entities that don't want to bake > cakes for gay couples?

I think sexuality should be a protected class. I do not think neo-Nazis or White supremacists should be a protected class. But in the case of the wedding cake, I think it would be fine for bakers, caterers, or photographers to refuse to work at a gay wedding, an event they consider immoral. If a customer happened to be a neo-Nazi and was booking a vacation stay, I doubt AirBnB would have cared. It was the fact that they were using the service to book accommodations for the rally that caused the company to cancel their booking.

> That is why you need to defend the principle, even if you don't like the > specifics of what you are defending, and is why, for example, the ACLU is > defending Milo

The ACLU is defending Milo from government suppression of his speech. I agree with the principle they are defending. This is not the same as a private entity deciding not to do business with him. The ACLU will not, for instance, help him sue Simon & Schuster for cancelling his book deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If something is just like outright "wrong", why not make laws? It feels more correct to handle things at that level instead of relying on tech companies.

Edit: [https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-in-USA-to-wave-a-Nazi- flag](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-in-USA-to-wave-a-Nazi-flag)

<comment><USER23> Laws like those have been created and courts have struck them down based on the Constitution.

<comment><USER24> Then maybe we shouldn't accept unaccountable entities having the power of extradjudicial punishment.

<comment><USER7> Repeat after me: private companies can regulate their platforms as they see fit, as long as they do not discriminate using the following criteria (which are enshrined in law):

Race

Color

Religion

National origin

Age

Sex

Pregnancy

Citizenship

Familial status

Disability status

Genetic information

If you want to add or remove a class, change the law. But political ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class. Private companies can decide if they want Nazis on their platforms, and this one doesn't. Take your libertarian fantasies elsewhere.

<comment><USER25> Political ideology is rather highly hereditary, and if democracy benefits from a plurality of views, can you give a good reason why it shouldn't be protected? Especially when religion is?

<comment><USER23> The reasons for why religion was explicitly protected in the First Amendment have some historical and political complexities. But I don't believe the reasoning, at the time the Constitution was written, nor today, had anything to do with hereditary probability.

But ignoring historical reasons and realities, the contemporary moral argument for why religion deserves more protection than political ideology is because political ideology can be expressed (and protected) through participating in the political process. Whereas being a member of a religion is not seen as necessarily a political activity, especially in religions that do not engage in the political process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The problem is that this type of action plays into a narrative of an organised conspiracy. Surely we are better to satirise their beliefs? I'm reminded of the Blues Brothers :)

<comment><USER23> Satire and resistance aren't mutually exclusive. But relying on satire as a response is easier done from a position of safety and distance. People who are in the thick of it probably don't feel they're in that position.

<comment><USER26> Let's be honest though, the Antifa protestors don't seem to have helped the situation greatly.

<comment><USER23> There's a spectrum between not-protesting and being part of Antifa.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Everyone:

1\. First amendment only applies to government actions.

2\. Established case law that businesses offering a public service are not allowed to discriminate based on a protected class. (Hate groups are NOT protected).

3\. Businesses are allowed to refuse service if it impacts their ability to serve all their customers (for example, you show up at the coffee house without clothes)

4\. AirBnB has entered into consent agreements with California Fair Housing and Employment Department with regards to the landlords discriminating against guests.

5\. AirBnB has a ToS that specifies the conditions imposed on guests.

AirBnB is quite correct from a business perspective to cancel the reservations.

Thought experiment if they didn't:

A landlord renting a house is Jewish or any other group that is hated by the "Unite the Right" and gets their house trashed.

... this puts AirBnB in what kind of legal situation.

I don't like speculation based on hypotheticals. Unfortunately, the car attack in Charlotte proves my point.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sets a bad precedent. What if this were an Arabic company banning jews from housing?

Fascism should be fought, but not in this way.

</comment><comment><USER28> There is a place for boycott and a place for civil rights. Much of the 1964 Civil Rights Act focused on ensuring equal access to public accommodations. Is Airbnb a public accommodation? Absolutely. Is equal access protective of ideology? I'd argue yes, it should be, on the same grounds as speech.

<comment><USER29> Sorry, Nazi isn't a protected class.

<comment><USER28> Correct. To be clear I'm talking about what Airbnb should do not strictly what the law says they must do. I'm not sure that Airbnb is violating the civil rights act, but at the least it's an instructive framework for comparison.

And while I welcome Airbnb's attention to the issue and the basic first-order attempt at doing the right thing, I also see this as an insidious way for Airbnb to shirk the responsibilities that come with public accommodation, and a lack of imagination on the ways they could contribute to a just world.

<comment><USER29> My point was that you're misunderstanding public accommodation. It only protects against discrimination on specific factors, of which political ideology is not one of them. Private businesses still have the right to deny service to those not protected by these laws, and airbnb is exercising their right as they know how.

<comment><USER28> Thank you for this sharp distinction. I had forgotten the particulars about what constitutes a protected class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why can't these tech companies just do business and stop getting involved in activism. Oh, right because they are staffed with millenials.

</comment><comment><USER30> As a customer I definitely prefer giving my money to a business that refuses to profit off the back of NAZIs</comment>


At what point does green become blue? - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/oh-my-word/903593/at-what-point-does-green-become-blue/ <comment><USER2> That's a very subjective point. 100 people would very likely give you 100 answers, based on their individual _physiologies_.

Note, this a _physical_ thing, rather than merely an _opinion_ thing. Some people have a very acute sense of color and can discuss about very fine color differences that other people are simply unable to perceive.

Similar question: when does red turn to orange?

</comment><comment><USER3> i would think when the yellow is all gone its now blue I also think the concept of idiolect is central to human A.I. interaction</comment>