On Liberty (1859) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf <comment><USER2> One of my more used quotes. Page 35 on the document.

> He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His > reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he > is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not > so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either > opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and > unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or > adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most > inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of > adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and > accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do > justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. > He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who > defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them > in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of > the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and > dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of > truth which meets and removes that difficulty.

<comment><USER3> Foundation of the concept of 'Steel-manning'. I'd like to see this idea more wide-spread. Heck, i'd make it mandatory for positions of trust. Ability to see both sides.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely. It would be amazing to see political debates (and discourse generally) where they're able to steelman each other's position and interact in good faith. That would have a profound effect on our democracy.

Instead we get strawmen, soundbites and kayfabe. Somehow we've got to get away from this.

<comment><USER5> > Somehow we've got to get away from this.

 _pssst_ put down your phone.

Posted from my phone.

Goddammit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've noticed what may be a pattern in many HN discussions: a particular philosophy, such as stoicism, makes the rounds. (I would expect there is a common cause, such as a popular lecture, but that common cause is not always clear.)

Given that we have many thousands of readers here, I think it is better to have a diversity of philosophical explorations (rather than intense interest only on a few).

For example:

A. There are variations within utilitarianism that Mill lays out but does not resolve. For example, 'rule utilitarianism' or 'act utilitarianism' [1]

B. Another level out, there many theories of political economy that contrast with utilitarianism.

C. Political economy is a fascinating area. Many people already read Milton Friedman, so I often recommend reading Arthur Okun's "Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff" as a counterpoint [2]

D. Go another level out, and you will find many theories of ethics that are worth examining.

      1: https://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H5
      2: https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/OKUN_EQUALITY_AND_EFFICIENCY_(AS08).PDF

</comment><comment><USER7> The dedication to his deceased wife hit me in the feels.

> To the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part > the author, of all that is best in my writings- the friend and wife whose > exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose > approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have > written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as > it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage > of her revision; some of the most important por- tions having been reserved > for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to > receive. Were I but capable of interpret- ing to the world one half the > great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be > the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from > anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but > unrivalled wisdom.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just a few of the ideas that this seminal text brought to the fore:

        - The Marketplace of Ideas
        - The Harm Principle
        - Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy

One of my all-time favorite pieces of political philosophy. I wish more people (not just philosophers or political scientists) took the time to read it. Also consider checking out Hobbes' _Leviathan_ [1] and Rousseau's _On the Social Contract_ [2].

[1] [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm)

[2] [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm)

<comment><USER6> > Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy

Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context?

I do not accept that utilitarianism is "the" moral mechanism of social policy. Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses, but there is a diversity of thought around many things, such as (but not limited to):

(a) what should utility include;

(b) the functional form of utility (the sum/average? the minimum? something else?); and

(c) to what extent reductionist theories of happiness/contentment/whatever are useful tools given that humans exist interdependently, with biological, tribal, social, and intellectual connections.

There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations.

<comment><USER8> > Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses

This has nothing to do with economists; the Western legal system is (more or less) based on the weighing of different interests (definitionally: utilitarianism). There are, of course, a few exceptions -- which graze deontology, and even rarer still virtue ethics and (more historically) some divine command theory -- but overall, I'd say that yeah, we're pretty much utilitarian.

> There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations.

Agreed, ethics is a rich and valuable field.

<comment><USER6> Could you please answer my other question:

>> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy

> "Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the > context?"

<comment><USER8> Alexis de Tocqueville in his _Democracy in America_ said it quite well:

"Democratic laws generally tend to promote the welfare of the greatest possible number; for they emanate from the majority of the citizens, who are subject to error, but who cannot have an interest opposed to their own advantage."

This is, by definition, utilitarianism (greatest amount of good, least amount of bad, and all that).

[1] [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch14.htm](http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch14.htm)

<comment><USER9> That's a great quote, but I'd suggest it is mistaken in its last clause. Citizens, including the majority, can and have indeed held interests opposed to their own advantage. This has happened in the past and continues to occur. I'd suggest this is precisely because they "are subject to error" \- a fact which few powers have failed to exploit.

<comment><USER8> I totally agree, and the most obvious example is Julius Caesar (of course!). A charitable interpretation, though, would push us to look at the "average case" (us engineers often solely look at the extremes), where Tocqueville I think has a point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is, of course, an eloquent expression of a vital philosophy. We should be seriously grateful that it gained serious uptake through the 18th and 19th centuries, giving us(1) the democracy and freedom we enjoy today. Everyone should read it.

However, critical thought about how to run a just, fair society should not stop with 1859. Particularly in light of events in the 20th century, and with observations of the failure modes of actual democracies (which have (with some exceptions) only existed since the late 18th century). We should continue to read and reason about how to make our society even fairer, and even better, and how to prevent failure modes and regression to a less free state.

There is too much good material here to cite (it has been the focus of basically all political philosophy from WW2 forward) but relevant to this discussion, I can recommend Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies", and Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil".

Also of interest are historical treatments of how support of libertarianism in the mid-18th century could coincide with the most brutal zenith of race-based slavery.

I mention these because, I presume, this is being posted and upvoted in the context of the current political discourse. Understanding more _recent_ political philosophy, with more data available, is critical if one actually wants to understand and engage with movements such as (mentioned elsewhere in the comments) "cancel culture", or how to combat massive disinformation which, in the words of Sartre, "seek[s] not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."

1\. does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual orientations

<comment><USER11> Curious why posts like this get downvoted so often. Is there something I am missing? It seems like a reasonable statement, and whether you agree with it or not, it's worded in a way to encourage discussion

<comment><USER12> I think it's this bit: "does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual orientations"

If he'd said "does not apply to all countries" he'd probably not get downvoted, but the idea that people of different sexes and races don't have equal freedom is a hotly contested political question in many countries.

<comment><USER11> > giving us(1) the democracy and freedom we enjoy today

I think the point is that not everybody benefitted equally. I don't think that's very contentious, we can just look at the civil rights movement or even women's suffrage, both of which are relatively new things. It would seem that the benefits are very slowly evening out though - every couple of decades there is a noticeable improvement. It's not as fast as would be ideal, but at light speed compared to most of human history (which has been pretty brutal over all)

<comment><USER10> And yet the history of the 20th century, there are plenty of cases where a society has _regressed_ along this axis. Sometimes quite suddenly.

European fascism is the obvious example, but it's also really interesting to look at the trajectory of social freedom in places like China, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Progress is not guaranteed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Also as an epub/azw3 for your ereader at Standard Ebooks: [https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on- libert...](https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-liberty)

<comment><USER14> There's also an HTML version at [https://www.bartleby.com/130/](https://www.bartleby.com/130/)

There can't be enough ways to get this work in front of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Jonathan Haidt's org has a nicely illustrated, highly abridged version called "All Minus One" \- [https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus- one/](https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/)

</comment><comment><USER16> A relevant quote that seems to always be passed over in discussion of this work-

"Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement."

-which of course was intended as an expression of support for the British colonial project in India.

</comment><comment><USER17> The two things I learned most from On Liberty is:

1\. The greatest enemy of liberty is a repressive majority.

2\. Truth is the result of two, or more, opposing points of view.

Essentially most people seek agreement, not truth, and will actively suppress truth when agreement is challenged.

</comment><comment><USER18> > Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is > answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from > it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the > benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that > each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.

> This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; > or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by > tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each > person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the > labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members > from injury and molestation.

> These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those > who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. > The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due > consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating > any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by > opinion, though not by law.

> As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the > interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question > whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with > it, becomes open to discussion.

> But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's > conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not > affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, > and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases, there should > be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the > consequences.

> It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is > one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no > business with each other's conduct in life, and that they should not concern > themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their > own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a > great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But > disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to > their good than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the > metaphorical sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding > virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social.

I cannot imagine what the other people in this thread think he wrote to respond as if it supports their idea of society not having authority over policing harmful conduct.

<comment><USER19> > Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still > vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public > authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself > the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose > it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do > by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute > its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any > mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a > social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, > since, though not usually upheld by such ex- treme penalties, it leaves > fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of > life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the > tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against > the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of > society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and > practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the > development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality > not in harmony with its ways, and compels all characters to fashion > themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate > interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find > that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a > good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

I think this quote is equally applicable to what is happening with our new cancel culture.

<comment><USER18> I tried to quote as much as possible because basically every paragraph hedges the former. This is the paragraph that immediately follows yours:

> But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, > the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting > adjustment between individual independence and social control— is a subject > on which nearly everything remains to be done.

> All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of > restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, > therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on > many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law.

It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table. We can agree that the pendulum has swung too far, without spiking it in the other direction.

<comment><USER20> _> It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table._

Actually, speech is probably the one area that actually realizes Mill's otherwise unrealistic ideal case for when society should have _no_ jurisdiction over individual action:

"when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding)"

Mere speech cannot affect the interests of anyone: words are not magic spells. So by Mill's logic, society should indeed have no jurisdiction over speech-- absolute free speech should _not_ be off the table.

<comment><USER18> That's one interpretation.

Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.

<comment><USER20> Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs or opinions of the speaker.

<comment><USER21> One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Speech is almost always purposeful, and when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process, ie, how things are done. Not that I disagree that speech should be free, but I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism.

<comment><USER20> _> One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive._

Depends on what you mean by "ulterior motive". If it's just speech, it is an expression of belief or opinion, as I said, and that is all it is. Everyone who hears it can judge it for themselves solely as an expression of belief or opinion. If it's a belief or opinion about public policy, any honest motive for expressing it will be part of the speech itself, so it won't be an "ulterior" motive in the sense of being hidden.

If it is not evident what a person's motives are for expressing a belief or opinion about public policy, any sane hearer will take that fact into account when judging the speech. If the hearer is not being given the freedom to make such judgments, then we're not talking about speech any more, we're talking about coercion or fraud.

 _> when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political process_

No, it's an action intended to influence other people--but whether it does or not depends on the merits of what is said. Speech by itself can't change the political process; that requires changing the Constitution or laws.

 _> I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism._

I think it is absurd and lacks realism to refuse to recognize the distinction between speech and action. The whole point of having the category "speech" at all is to force people to accept the reality that, if you want to live in a free country, you have to be enough of a mature adult to be able to tolerate people expressing beliefs that you think are false and opinions that you abhor. In a free country, the proper response to speech you think is wrong is more speech to refute or rebut the speech you think is wrong. Once the idea takes hold that it's okay to suppress people just because they say things you think are wrong, we no longer have a free country. Talk about "ulterior motives" is really just another way of suppressing people who say things you think are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Old ideas about government and liberty are under attack from both the left and the right these days, not to mention the substantial portion of the world living under authoritarianism. I have not read this book yet, so thanks for sharing the link

</comment><comment><USER22> Can't recommend this essay highly enough. In particular, it gives a thorough defense of the claim that the importance of protecting freedom of speech ought to guide our personal action and community norms; freedom of speech is _not_ just about restrictions on the government like the first amendment, as so often is unwisely argued.

<comment><USER21> I think that naturally leads to a distinction of positive and negative liberty - having the negative liberty against government censorship is useless is you do not have the positive liberty of expression. This applies just as well to a ton of subjects, and is also I think lacking very severely in pre-modern philosophy and does derived from them. It also personally led me to a total shift in policy when I realized how meek positive liberty is for the vast majority of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why is this trending right now?

<comment><USER24> Because many people see the prevalence of the cultural phenomenon know as "cancel culture" to be a new means of societal control in opposition to the values of Liberty Mill espouses. That's my guess at least. Can't say for sure why anyone upvotes anything.

<comment><USER25> I upvoted exactly for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

<comment><USER27> _> A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all._

Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex?

You think personal liberties are at a low point? I must live in a different world.

We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good.

Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, that is stressed in our daily lives (as well as what many people seek to display to others) is about you deciding what you want and not having to put up with someone telling you what to do. "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc. The ease of finding subcultures and not having to have your individual interests and quirks diluted by a generic community. The ease of creating/joining isolated interest groups and segregating onesself from your neighbors, community, state, country. (This is not a new thesis -- written about extensively such as in "Bowling Alone".)

It's driven by our consumerism, of course, but it leaks into our government and other aspects of societal life very strongly. Note today, even governments almost feel they cannot force people to act in ways that benefit the community, and have to ask politely people to do things like wear masks (for fear of backlash and being voted out for violating people's personal liberties -- or what they believe are their liberties).

JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non- existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable.

If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

<comment><USER25> > _You think personal liberties are at a low point?_

They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically, inclusion.

This is a perpetual conflict, though.

> _Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ... > "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc_

...as long as it's politically correct, and there's no vocal minority which is opposed to your doing that — again, out of some best intentions. Liberty inherently creates conflicts like that, because people are not going to want the same thing. Liberty is when you are allowed to do something that others might not like, and _reciprocally_ must tolerate other people doing something you don't like. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this.

> _JSM was writing in an age where tyranny_

A tyranny of majority is a thing :( Consider all the minorities who were disenfranchised not by dictators but by majority of local voters back in the day.

> _I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian > country._

I was born in the USSR. I can compare. I see the vast difference. I also see certain disconcerting similarities.

<comment><USER28> > A tyranny of majority is a thing :(

It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American discourse is sort of an open question.

The fact that the people most enthused with the idea of being suppressed by the tyrannical majority are members of the ruling party, dominant gender and most affluent racial demographics sorta makes the logical construction a bit complicated.

<comment><USER25> Do you think that racial segregation regulations, anti-gay regulations, long- gone anti-Jewish regulations and fresh anti-immigrant regulations were created against the will of the majority? Often the majority directly voted for them, like city-wide sundown laws.

It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed be on the side of the majority.

<comment><USER28> I don't disagree that it's happened as an issue of historical fact. I'm pointing out that the _argument_ is most often deployed in defense of very much _unsuppressed_ voices. And I'm implying strongly that it's being deployed in bad faith.

<comment><USER29> I'm curious how you're squaring _unsuppressed_ with the "cancel culture" thing whose very purpose appears to be the suppression of those views.

You're also ignoring survivorship bias. It's no surprise that the victims of majoritarian tyranny you hear from are not the weakest in society, because the weakest in society don't have enough power to command the spotlight. That doesn't mean tyranny of the majority doesn't exist or that they are not its victims, only that you won't hear it from them, because you don't hear anything from them, because they don't have enough power to be heard.

<comment><USER28> > the "cancel culture" thing whose very purpose appears to be the suppression > of those views

Because the "cancel culture" thing doesn't work? The whole concept is nearly a complete fabrication. It's about 20% anecdotes of college kids saying dumb things mixed with 80% paranoia fueled by the conservative media. No one actually gets cancelled, certainly not the white republican men we're talking about constantly yelling (loudly, in a rather, let's say "unsuppressed" manner) about their Free Speech rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Can old philosophical texts like this be used in legal arguments and affect the outcome of a trial or a court's judgement? Just curious.

<comment><USER31> Scarcely. IANA(C)L, but you would have to find an area of law that is not very well legislated, and then you would have to exhaust existing areas of national and international law, comparable laws from other countries, constitutional law, jurisprudence, still finding yourself wanting, and even then you would do much better to use contemporary philosophers, some of which might be descended from Mill in their philosophical outlook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Came here to point out that this was written before economics was considered a science.

This was written by a white man with a white life experience.

A lot of the ideas here are unproven and have no rational basis.

</comment><comment><USER33> *On Liberty (for white people).

<comment><USER34> [https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery- and...](https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery-and-the- american-civil-war/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> "Mill's thinking on women's rights was influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858). In 1869 Mill published his famous essay 'The Subjection of Women', in favour of equality of the sexes."

[https://www.parliament.uk/about/living- heritage/transforming...](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living- heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary- collections/1866-suffrage-petition/john-stuart-mill/)

You know what's funny?

He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.

<comment><USER36> > He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would > probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting > equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.

This "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" discussion is a mischaracterization of the position of "the progressive mob" that is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

Historically, in feminist, anti-colonial, and anti-racist circles, an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity. This is why the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy V. Ferguson was manifestly unequal: it consistently resulted in unequal outcomes.

Those that hold that certain races or sexes are inferior conclude that these inequalities are due to the natural, inherent superiority of men/whites/westerners/etc rather than an inequality of opportunity. It doesn't take being in the so-called "progressive mob" to reject that line of reasoning.

<comment><USER35> > an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator > one would have of an inequality of opportunity.

It's good if you use it as an indicator, but it's currently used as "evidence" and as a justification to give certain advantages to certain groups under the (almost always unproven) assumption that there's inequality of opportunity. For example: quota laws, and affirmative action in general. Quota laws and affirmative action that are notably pushed by progressive mob that I talk about, so I don't see the mischaracterization.

<comment><USER36> Inequality "of outcome" is the best evidence one can have of inequality "of opportunity", and again, it was the primary evidence in the Brown v. Board of Education overturn of Plessy v. Ferguson.

The distinction didn't hold water in 1954, and I don't think it holds water in 2020. Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."

<comment><USER35> > Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence > that there is inequality "of opportunity."

How so?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What Software Developers can learn from a Sushi Chef - <AUTHOR> http://www.ramen.io/post/102346825774/what-software-developers-can-learn-from-a-sushi-chef

<comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly this essay is responsible for most of our attributable revenue at Blossom ([https://www.blossom.io](https://www.blossom.io)). #trivia</comment>


Ask HN: People who embody "Discipline ⋙ Motivation", what is your daily system? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Habits. Actually Habits >>> Discipline >>> Motivation.

Developing good habits means I can use the small amount of willpower everyone has per day on making some improvements or working on extra-hard tasks while still doing many additional things that take little effort since they are habits already.

I run continuous improvement tasks every now and then, and I have designed some key habits to live a fulfilling life, which I'm evolving slowly.

I use a simple task management system that looks like a kanban board, plus an inbox and a calendar. The key here is to control flow and keep it easy to maintain.

</comment><comment><USER3> Once the pain of being who you are is greater than the pain of changing who you are, you can use that pain as a catalyst to kick start the process.

To keep that change it's all about habits and discipline but even then, you will have days where it will be hard and you will ask yourself if the change is worth it. When that happens you will need to have a strong reason, a reason that connects to the core of who you are.

You cannot hack the process of becoming someone different.</comment>


Ask HN: Which search engine do you use? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> duck.com</comment>


E-Book Wars: The Specialist vs. the Multitasker - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08digi.html?hpw

<comment><USER2> One great reason for me to get a Kindle is that my kids are completely uninterested in it. If I try to read something on the iPad while they're awake, they jump all over me until I let them play games on it.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there secretaries or administrative assistants at Google? - <AUTHOR>

I come from a non-technical background (flight medic), but I have always wondered if Google has secretaries or administrative assistants in the traditional sense of a large corporation?<p>I have heard many Googlers remark that the company is quite email intensive, but surely they have the standard office supply needs, sending faxes of legal documents, fetching a book from the far side of campus. Thanks! <comment><USER2> I'm sure they would have, but probably not for stuff like this. If you want another one, go get it yourself. If you want to send a fax, go send it yourself. If you want a book, get off your lazy ass and get it.

The trouble with giving "important" people staff is it leads to misuse and laziness. People start arguing that they're too important to do something, or are too busy to learn how to use the fax machine. If your engineers are starting to complain about learning, there is something wrong with them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand the importance of learning to do things for oneself within an organization, but at a certain point doesn't it become wasteful to have someone making $50/hr fetching packages when it could easily be done by a lower wage earner, thereby ensuring that the "brain power" (in this context...not denigrating intelligence based upon career path) can focus on what they're getting paid for?

<comment><USER2> Do you really think that developers spend their 40 hours (or whatever allocated time they have) steeped over a monitor writing code??

People need variety, and sometimes a walk across an office is a welcome break to a particularly annoying problem - whether they admit it or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm just postulating. I am a cubicle monkey in medical publishing nowadays and use support staff for tasks that don't require a higher level of expertise, thereby freeing up my time to produce more value.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mozilla adds all recent versions of Java to its Firefox add-on blocklist - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/01/11/following-active-exploits-mozilla-adds-all-recent-versions-of-java-to-its-firefox-add-on-blocklist/

<comment><USER2> > Until then, we recommend uninstalling Java if you don't need it

This advice feels very rash to me. This vulnerability (and most Java vulnerabilities in its class) affects ONLY the Java browser plugin. Many users won't know if they need Java on their computer, and common services like GotoMeeting and others use it transparently. Telling them to uninstall it will cause support headaches for companies that have coached the user through Java installation in the past and now suddenly it's gone. The result will be that after wasted time on everybody's part, they'll end up _reinstalling_ Java and will be vulnerable all over again.

It would be much better to include proper instructions for how to disable it (or set it in click-to-play mode) in the browser than telling people to uninstall it carte blanche.

<comment><USER3> Yes this has shot us. Your approach is much better. Half of our outsourcers use Firefox with a screenshot tool which is a java applet. This just stopped working. So Monday is going to be a days work for our operations guys to sort out the mess.

I don't expect the browser to police the internet - it's not its job.

I'm actually gaining respect for IE these days - it doesn't pull shit like this and we have more control over it in a corporate environment.

<comment><USER4> I _do_ expect the browser to police the internet though tab isolation, incognito modes, and plugin policies. These plugin vendors are a persistent source of exploitable security bugs.

An analogy, if my butler allows you into my home and he notices you opening the door to criminals, then he's going to demand that you leave. If he doesn't, I'm going to fire him. (Disclosure: I don't have a butler.)

<comment><USER3> Warn yes, ban no. That is the problem. Anything which takes choice away from the user is negative if you ask me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can enable click-to-play for all plugins by toggling the about:config pref "plugins.click_to_play".

<comment><USER6> Why isn't this enabled by default? And why does it work in such a shitty way (with a popup protruding over the browser window)?

<comment><USER5> Disabling plugins, or even just Flash, would break many websites. Users would blame Mozilla for "breaking the web".

The popup is necessary because many plugin elements are too small for a usable "click to play" message and button. Some websites use Flash content without any visible UI (elements that are just 1x1 or 0x0 pixels). For example, Gmail uses Flash for attachment uploading and audio chat. GitHub uses Flash for copying repo URLs to the user's clipboard.

<comment><USER6> > Disabling plugins, or even just Flash, would break many websites. Users > would blame Mozilla for "breaking the web".

Why not make it easier than going into about:config, then? In Chrome it's available in the settings.

> The popup is necessary because many plugin elements are too small...

How about a whitelist then, so that the main Flash applets on YouTube and other prominent sites with large, easy to locate Flash applets have a non- popup click-to-enable dialog (as is used by extensions like Flashblock)? That would cover 90% of use cases.

Also, how about an option to have click-to-play settings controlled on a per- plugin basis? I wanted click-to-play enabled for Java, but now I'm getting the same crap for Flash when I already have an extension (Flashblock) for that.

And even otherwise the popup doesn't have to protrude _over_ the browser window. It could just be something in the chrome.

<comment><USER7> I don't know if Firefox has the "badge" setup that Chrome has, but in Chrome there is a plugin (puzzle) icon shown on pages that may have inaccessible flash elements. Normally if a page isn't working, my first attempt is to click the puzzle and say "Run plugins" or "Always allow on this site".

It can be annoying to remember to do it, the first few times you may curse the site for being broken before you realize what's going on.

<comment><USER8> There isn't any visual indicator that there are hidden plugins, but there is a button on the toolbar for activating a plugin (activates all the elements using the plugin on the page).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wish Mozilla (and other browsers) also blocked plugins that don't behave while updating. I want to have java installed so I can decide to run java programs, but I _don't_ want to have a browser plugin, so I disable it. Every single time java updates itself it enables the browser plugin again. Users should not have to put up with every installer under the sky silently installing browser plugins, or worse, updaters enabling them again.

<comment><USER10> Didn't Chrome just recently take steps to stop this and inform you which ones were silently installed?

<comment><USER11> Yes. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4091618>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> God damn. What a downfall for Java in the browser.

<comment><USER13> It's only until there's a fixed version, it's not permanently banished from the browser.

<comment><USER14> Not necessarily. I'm sure there will be discussion at our next consulting meeting with at least one of our business clients on whether or not they should bother re-enabling Java after this; given that DHS also published a somewhat rare recommendation to completely disable Java, I could see a number of other corporations having the same conversation.

And sometimes that's all it takes to cripple adoption of a platform.

I wouldn't be sorry to see it go.

<comment><USER13> About a year and a half ago, I started disabling Java on new or newly reimaged computers for my users. I got quite a few complaints. It had many more uses than I expected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Apple disabled the Java plugin via the XProtect plist, which now means that I am totally unable to log in to online banking in Denmark on any Mac. It's a bit of a disaster.

</comment><comment><USER16> Bad news for us norwegians. The national online authentication system, BankID, commonly used in online banks and government services, uses a Java applet.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is the same in other places like India too.

<comment><USER17> you guys will suffer the same fate as korea, who are forever stuck in IE6 due to ActiveX being used everywhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is light at the end of the tunnel - or at least I hope. A few major private sector banks have moved away, I hope the public sector banks follow suite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Now if we could only do this for PDF and Flash.

<comment><USER19> and javascript ...

<comment><USER20> Lets all just go read books.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to find software jobs that provide private offices in urban areas? - <AUTHOR> When specifically seeking non-remote software and technology jobs in an urban area, how can you effectively search for employers that are able to provide dedicated private offices for engineers and technology workers?
I have previously worked in a private office, in standard high-walled cubicles, in fully open-plan spaces, and in remote positions from my home.
For my next job, I know that for my own productivity and cognitive health, a private office is required. No more compromises with noise-cancelling headphones, remote or work from home arrangements, or anything else. Office or bust, required for basic cognitive health.
One problem is simply finding companies (beyond Stack Overflow) that possibly offer private offices. Many companies literally only have open-plan seating and cannot, even for the greatest candidate, give an office (let alone possibly viewing offices as mere tools that all candidates deserve for the sake of health and productivity).
How can I filter these companies out of my search efficiently by finding companies that do recognize the fundamental importance of private working space?
Secondly, how can I present my desire for an office during my interviews, application, or negotiation? My deep conviction is that open-plan offices are not cost effective even in urban areas after accounting for productivity and morale loss, and that a private office is an essential tool, no different than a keyboard or ergonomic monitor set up. Open plan offices actually prevent teamwork and collaboration, and because I really do care about team-oriented workflows and non-superficial collaboration, giving team members important privacy at their discretion is vital.
What is a good way to communicate this deeply held personal value such that it is clear that a desire for a private office is directly motivated by a collaborative, team-oriented approach that values productivity and cognitive health? <comment><USER2> Open plan was invented by bean counters and sold to impressionable engineers through a combination of rah-rah misdirection and pop psychology. They save money, period. No claim of improved collaboration or productivity has ever been demonstrated. In fact, lots of studies say the opposite. The fact is that senior management wants to save money and they will do that no matter what the downside impact is on productivity or morale. You can measure the reduction in square feet of rent easily, you can't measure lost productivity or morale at all. Combine the money savings with the usual 'visionary' leaders claiming the benefits of open plan, and you will lose that battle every time. As long as engineers will put up with crappy working conditions, crappy conditions will persist.

<comment><USER3> It is almost universally the case that the people and making decisions about open office plans themselves have offices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Companies that don't have the "everyone with an office" culture are not going to accept. Even if they did you sure as hell wouldn't want to be the single snowflake there with the private office.

Companies that do have that culture are so so rare that I don't think you could find a job that matches all your other requirements (location, pay, culture, role).

And I also think most of those companies that have offices tend to be "stuck in the past". Meaning, they still haven't adopted the open office fad yet or are soon going to do it when the next bean counter comes in.

This is quit different from companies that have offices because they are "ahead and over the open office fad".

</comment><comment><USER5> Considering that you're asking for something that is politically and logistically impossible at many, if not most, companies, you just need to ask immediately if this is something that can be done, and part ways if the answer is no.

</comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps you could work remote, but rent an office in a co-working space with co-tenants who give you something close to your desired experience? A lot more difficult for machine learning than for a web developer, though...

Everyone in my group has an office, so it's not impossible, even outside academia. I'd still find the inquiry a little weird, especially with the "cognitive health" framing. It would be better to say "I want to work to the best of my abilities, and I've found that I'm most productive with a private office".

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you able to name which company you work for, or which cities they offer offices in?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1\. apply for the job 2\. mention your requirements to the recruiter 3\. if ok, pass the interview 4\. if you pass, get the job, otherwise, back in 1.

What you think is probably not important: at the end of the day, what matters is what your employer thinks. If they think you need or deserve a private office, they will give you - otherwise, you might need to change your expectations.

Note: as noted, universities often offers private office. I had such a job. Nice but my salary was a fourth of what I have today. So if you do not want to make compromise on your office space, you might to do some on your compensation.

</comment><comment><USER8> many universities offer private offices for technical staff, both for working on in-house administrative software or working in research groups. be warned that you might have to accept a lot less compensation than at a big tech company.

<comment><USER9> That's true, but they are sadly moving to open plan too in many instances which is appalling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tell the recruiter. I'm looking for an environment where I'll have my private space. Unfortunately you can't filter that anywhere on the internet. You have to get in touch with the recruiter 1st. Keep in mind, majority of the recruiters will ignore your requirement (because it is very odd... indeed), they'll skip it and put you straight into the classic hiring process and tell you "yeah sure we'll see what we can do I'm sure it's doable". So you'll have to talk to a member of the hiring team, which is probably 2-3 steps down the road. If you get a phone screen most likely you'll end up talking to a random engineer. Until you get to the actual hiring manager who is the only person who can come up with a legit answer to your question.

Anyway, long story short you have to start the hiring process with a company in order to find out if they offer private offices to their employees.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've worked for 5 very large companies and one startup. I'd say if you have a critical role in the company and aren't "just a dev/tester etc" you wouldn't have a problem getting private space when you need it. I've often found programme managers or senior architects can get a room for large periods of time or project teams of 3/4 people can get a space for a number of days/weeks/months for critical projects. I'd be surprised if this works differently anywhere else but the default always seems to be cubes

</comment><comment><USER12> Work remote and rent an office from a law firm.

</comment><comment><USER13> I can't answer the first few questions terribly well, because I'm honestly not sure how to go about searching for jobs that directly offer the (rare) private office, these days, however, I have some thoughts on the later questions.

As far as the "correct" way to ask for a private office, I think you've done it relatively well right here. If I'm reading between the lines here, correctly, it's implied that the private office, for you, is non-negotiable i.e. no amount of salary[0] will override the private office desire. The way I'd handle it is the way you've presented it. This is probably something to handle during negotiations -- after you've been given an offer -- rather than in an interview[1]. Simply lay it out as you would salary and other elements (e.g. software/hardware that you require to do your job effectively). I'd include most of the explanation that you gave here, though wouldn't frame it as "cognitive health" as that has undertones of mental illness, but rather indicate that it's a matter of productivity. At the end of the day, you are something they are paying a _lot_ of money for so framing the argument in a manner that helps them to understand that, in doing so, they will be optimizing the investment they're making in you, is key.

I'd recommend looking at a company that has a reasonable number of private offices -- they're unlikely to build something for you and if they _do_ build something for you, you're likely to encounter inter-personal issues with the remainder of technical staff that does not have (but very likely wants) a private office. You're also likely to run into a lighter version of the kinds of problems you get when you're the "only remote person" \-- out of sight out of mind. Staff may see the open-office as a license to walk up to someones desk where your private office will serve as an unconscious barrier in that case. At least in the places I've worked, it's not unusual to have 10% of desk space be offices and for some of the senior engineering staff (usually folks who have been with the company for a while) have private offices.

I also don't find what you're looking for to be terribly burdensome (again, provided they don't have to build something for you). In past jobs, I've seen more onerous requests be offered if the candidate is excellent and we were in a tight spot or other circumstances warranted.

[0] OK, everything has a price - for a few million, most of us will work with our hands tied behind our backs, but I digress...

[1] In the most ideal circumstances, you'll be a great fit and will be far ahead of the next best candidate that they didn't make an offer to. This invokes loss aversion on the part of the hiring manager making it more likely they'll be willing to entertain your request if it otherwise isn't a normal thing for them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the considerate advice. I definitely see what you mean with "cognitive health" carrying the wrong connotation.

In my experience interviewing, companies right now seem less willing than ever to negotiate. In my field (machine learning), despite all the pop articles you see, my observation is huge downward pressure on wages and a big focus on hiring young, junior level staff even for positions that claim to require many years of experience with highly specialized technology.

In one case, I interviewed for two months with a firm (phone interviews, code tests, and two different difficult all-day on-site technical evaluations). I did very well and it seemed clear that my particular experience and specialization was right in the exact area they were seeking, definitely something requiring a lot of prior work experience in a certain type of production machine learning service.

After all of that, they asked my salary requirements (we did not even get to the point of negotiating an office or anything else), and when I mentioned I was seeking something around 20% higher than my current salary, something definitely in the competitive market range for this position, they balked as if they could not believe how high a salary it was.

A few days later I got an automated rejection email stating they were seeking a less-experienced candidate.

In a few other cases when I was in early interviews for jobs I was much less invested in, I decided to test the waters on private offices, and frequently I heard,

\- "I'm the hiring manager and _I_ don't even have an office."

\- "Our CEO doesn't believe in offices"

\- "We are looking for someone who can work in a collaborative environment" (apparently for some people office == not collaborative?)

and many more. Imagine if I had to do two months of grueling tech hazing software interviews at all these places just to find out they operate without the logical possibility of an office? I don't think I could.

But at the same time, if I bring it up too early, it could be seen as if I'm being demanding instead of curious, or it could look like I want to hide in an office rather than using an office to create sincere collaboration that acknowledges the importance of privacy during certain work.

This is what makes it tricky.

<comment><USER13> Glad I could be of assistance -- let me see if I can assist further:

I have to say I'm a _little_ surprised you're running into issues on the negotiation front -- but that may be where you live and other circumstances. Where I'm at (the Detroit area), there are fewer of the well-known huge tech companies, and I'm unaware of any, in particular, that do things like catered lunches, but there are plenty of great jobs and the market is _very_ hot. On that, though, the best talent wants to work at the top places but the places that are traditionally "unsexy" are the ones that are going to be more willing to negotiate. I'm not sure, however, how many of these places are looking for ML candidates -- you're probably going to find that limits you a bit and that might be part of the problem[0].

As far as salary negotiations, that's the _hardest_ thing to get right. It's _very_ difficult to pull off, for me, but the golden rule is to not be the one to give the first figure. This will _not_ make your hiring manager happy. I've always been able to successfully deflect the conversation before the final interview with some choice words[1]. If they insist and are turned off by a candidate seeking the best possible outcome in a salary negotiation, I'd take that as a big red flag and be done with it. If you're working with a recruiter,... stop returning his/her calls. It takes creative finesse to handle this well and I strongly suggest doing a few HN searches for good advice (there was a post I laboured to find which helped me out a lot and got me what I wanted in this area). The thing of it is, it _feels_ like you're negatively impacting your chances of getting the job when you play a bit of hardball on these things, but if handled correctly and professionally, it demonstrates characteristics that a hiring manager _expects_ out of someone in a senior position. It also indicates that you carry ambition along with your technical skills.

Here's the single best piece of advice I have gotten about job hunting -- and bear in mind, I'm from Detroit, so we do a _lot_ of car analogies: "What color do you want? The cheapest color" and "Don't sit in the car". Both of these things are not common-sense advice -- we test drive the cars we want to buy because we _think_ we're going to learn something about the car by doing so and we pick a color because we _think_ that's going to be particularly important to me. The reason that car color is the first thing you're asked about is because it puts you a little closer toward the illusion that you own the car, already. The test drive creates a _very_ powerful connection between you and this potential purchase. The salesman _knows_ if he puts you in the seat and you drive away, the probability of you buying that car goes up substantially. It's _not_ enough to just be aware of these things, it's important to guard _against_ things that will unreasonably bias you toward becoming attached to the car. This advice applies to _all_ negotiation. If you avoid things that will trigger loss aversion, you will have an unemotional focus on the target attributes and can evaluate the decision you're making based on those things[2].

You're coming in with a requirement that might very well be a non-starter because of some "corporate philosophy" (somehow, open floor plans have a religious fervor about them). I have different requirements than yours, but when I encounter a company that has a "policy" against things that I feel make me more effective, I graciously turn the job down, early. I do so before they have the opportunity to even offer to see if there's a way they can work around this policy for me[3]. Aside from the footnote, the biggest red flag I find is inflexible policy -- it's the kind of thing that causes a company to lack nimbleness. Companies that I _want_ to work for treat policy as guidance and are willing to break policy[4] when the circumstances fit.

I can see the collaborative thing coming up _a lot_ because of the fallacy that open office environments foster collaboration. I'd find a way to work collaboration in directly with your initial argument -- something along the lines of "As a Senior Developer, I understand that part of my responsibilities will be to share my skills with my coworkers with the goal of making more senior developers. I'll make sure my door is open except for the rare occasion that a deadline necessitates me to be "nose down in code".[5]" There's a small mind hack you can play if you're good at that sort of thing, but be careful, because if you're not it can backfire pretty badly. Follow-up with "At this point in my career, I've learned that communication _has_ to be deliberate and that's the way I approach things. I'm confident that my approach to communication will make any concerns around collaboration a non-issue." Deliver that as casually as you can -- as if it's a simple, obvious, fact and you end up putting the hiring manager in a tough spot for a rebuttal[6].

I completely understand not relishing wanting to put up with months of job hunting/"tech hazing". Job hunting isn't terribly fun. Might not hurt to ask questions in forums where employees of the companies you're looking at frequent asking about offices if you want to improve the hit ratio. Another option that could help to eliminate places earlier in the process is to request a quick tour after the first on-site interview[7]

Unfortunately, though, when you have a lot of requirements, or when your requirements are not the norm, it's normal for this sort of thing to take a while and require a lot of work on your part to sort out. The tech hazing will wear you down and increase loss aversion, making it harder to walk away from a good offer that doesn't meet your requirements. And maybe you shouldn't walk away -- that's your call. At the same time, if this is _really_ important to you, this is the market to be picky in. The market is hot. If you can keep yourself from being discouraged, you'll probably end up where you want with enough persistence.

As an aside - I got a kick out of the excuses you received "I'm the hiring manager and _I_ don't even have an office." There are so many things I can think of to say to that which would get my resume binned: "Oh ... (shuffles feet) ... well, can I talk to your boss then?" or a sarcastic quip along the lines of "Work this out for me and you'll have one more argument to make for why you deserve one!"

[0] And I'm not suggesting you avoid ML jobs -- if that's where you fit best, stick with it.

[1] ala "I'm seeking Senior level position and with my experience, I expect to be paid above average for the market however, salary isn't my greatest concern and other things like benefits and such greatly affect any number I'd throw out right now. If after all of the interviewing is done you find that I'm going to be a good fit, I'm confident we can come to an agreement that works out for both of us."

[2] And it's entertaining, too.

[3] Generally, I don't want to work at a place where they had to make a _major_ exception for something that I would have considered a _reasonable_ accommodation, particularly if that accommodation is one that 90% of the people who currently work there would similarly want. If they are interested enough in hiring me that _after_ I have turned down the job, they pop up _with_ a way to provide that accommodation, I would consider it -- and this actual situation happened to me about 15 years ago, but I ended up not taking the position.

[4] And I'm not referring to ethics-based or legal-based policies.

[5] Here's the thing -- if offices are unusual where you're looking, the fact that you _have_ a door serves as a psychological barrier -- you'll rarely _need_ to close it. But it also doesn't matter -- that's something you work out with your boss after you've got a place to plant your hind-quarters. And you work through that concern by checking in with your boss every two weeks with a "Hey, just wanted to make sure I'm meeting your expectations as far as collaboration is concerned"... no mention of the door. Leave an opportunity for them to speak up if there are concerns, but you'll probably find that your boss has better things to be concerned with. Incidentally, I know that Microsoft at one point was big on offices. I'm not sure if that's still the case, though.

[6] And a rebuttal isn't a bad thing -- at least they want you there badly enough to try to persuade you to change your mind.

[7] "Wow - your office is far more impressive than the pictures online led me to believe -- would you be willing to give me a brief tour?" I've never had this fail at places that have fewer than 200 employees -- people like to show off where they work. If it's a high-security operation, though, don't expect to see much. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for such detailed follow-ups. I appreciate it and will read your comments again to really think about some of the points you raise.

Regarding my tough time with current negotiations, there was a recent article that really summed up my experiences: < [http://fuzzyblog.io/blog/jobhound/2018/04/24/ten-things-i- le...](http://fuzzyblog.io/blog/jobhound/2018/04/24/ten-things-i-learned-from- a-job-hunt-for-a-senior-engineering-role.html) >.

I live in a large US city, and seeking senior machine learning roles has been dreadful, for all the reasons mentioned in the article, combined with what looks like big downward pressure on salary.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Finally, a 'Reasonably-Secure' Operating System: Qubes R3 - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/finally-a-reasonably-secure-operating-system-qubes-r3 <comment><AUTHOR> Exciting stuff:

0) Coverage in mainstream press (Vice),

1) Windows 7 & Debian & Whonix support

2) "Rutkowska wants to work with a few companies and pick two or three specific models that can be 'Qubes Certified' laptops. She wrote that Qubes has been in talks with two vendors over the last month, but declined to reveal their names as negotiations are ongoing."</comment>


Facebook announces new Messaging Feature - <AUTHOR> http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=452288242130 <comment><USER2> So according to their blog:

"All of your messages with someone will be together in one place, whether they are sent over chat, email or SMS. You can see everything you've discussed with each friend as a single conversation.

I'm intensely jealous of the next generation who will have something like Facebook for their whole lives. They will have the conversational history with the people in their lives all the way back to the beginning: From "hey nice to meet you" to "do you want to get coffee sometime" to "our kids have soccer practice at 6 pm tonight." That's a really cool idea."

I bet advertisers (Facebook's true customers, let's not forget), overzealous law enforcement officials, not-so-honest-or-nice politicians, and identity thieves, are also intensely jealous of future generations with access to entire records of conversations.

<comment><USER3> Well, possibly easier access anyway, since Facebook owns Facebook conversations. But if you've never changed your email address, it's not much different right?

<comment><USER4> The analogy of "Grandma's letters" really breaks down when you consider that Facebook owns the conversation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They're not offering email; they're trying to replace email with their own platform.

<comment><USER6> Please define "email" :)

To me, an email is basically an email address.

<comment><USER7> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt>

<comment> mike-cardwell I'm going to be totally anal now. RFC 5321 obsoleted 2821 in 2008. Also, SMTP isn't the same as e-mail. Just like IMAP isn't the same as e-mail.

<comment><USER8> IMAP are POP3 optional. /var/spool/mail/$USER or ~/mobx were enough some time ago, although right now not everyone is running their own mail (smtp) server.

<comment> mike-cardwell So is SMTP... How about LMTP?

IMO "email" is a combination of the various transport technologies and the message format.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, you can now request an invite here <http://www.facebook.com/about/messages/>

</comment><comment><USER9> Why this won't have the same problems that Google Wave faced:

\+ It incorporates existing modes of communication. You HAD to have a Wave account to talk to someone else on Wave, and the biggest issue for me when I got my account was that I didn't have anyone to use Wave with. Facebook doesn't particularly care in this case, it wants to aggregate ALL your communication. You'll stay in touch with your less techy friends who still email you or text you.

\+ Large user base with existing friends list. Google Wave started you out from scratch.

\+ Really smart product video. Most people didn't want to watch the Google Wave video or got confused by it, whereas Facebook's video is super clear about what it is. It focuses less on the cool tech (unlike Google Wave) and focuses completely on why you will want to use it.

<comment><USER8> If someone texts me will the message be available under my Facebook account? From what I see, no, so it's still not enough.

<comment><USER9> I think it will be.

"Today I'm excited to announce the next evolution of Messages. You decide how you want to talk to your friends: via SMS, chat, email or Messages. They will receive your message through whatever medium or device is convenient for them, and you can both have a conversation in real time. You shouldn't have to remember who prefers IM over email or worry about which technology to use. Simply choose their name and type a message."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The only feature I care about and what I've been hurting for for years is some means of segregating the Groups bacn. Some of most personally significant correspondences I've ever had are in my Messages Inbox. In the early days, it had a sentiment-noise ratio second only to a shoebox I keep in the back of my closet. Now it's 95% garbage from Groups/Events I value just barely enough to not unsubscribe from. I recognize the value of those messages given their own context, and I also recognize that the signal's dropped off since I'm no longer a 19-year-old drama whore.

But the simple ability to sort personal messages from mass bacn is still the #1 feature I've wanted from Facebook, through all these years of feed redesigns and app platforms.

</comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only one who sees this as Google Wave Redux? I mean, they even hired the guy who created Google Wave.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, but they had also hired the guy who created gmail ;)

<comment><USER13> Yeah, but Paul Buchheit did not work on this. He confirmed it somewhere on HN IIRC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Did anyone else notice the Chuckle Brothers in the photo? (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuckle_Brothers>)

They're down as the picture for Chris Piro.

Apologies for those uninterested in 80s and 90s UK kids entertainment, but it just seems so random.

<comment><USER15> That is absolutely superb. And probably grounds for a lawsuit. Wouldn't think paul and barry would be too litigious. That bloke who always hired them every week is probably well up for it though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Whether or not it works, this seems like the right approach for FB. I definitely have had the experience of not knowing how to contact people (friends, parents, younger siblings.) People often talk about building something that solves a common problem and this does that. I think it will catch on.

</comment><comment><USER17> The problem with this? (and all other attempts to change "messaging")

Is that it requires users to do something different than they expect or do currently. The goal of having a "unified inbox" won't work unless you natively integrate with all the places where somebody currently sends messages. This requires the user to change their behavior for what? To have a "unified inbox?" I don't think that's compelling enough for user to change their messaging behavior.

Google has the same issue with Google Voice.

<comment><USER18> For many people that won't be a problem - I think of those who already use Facebook inbox regulary, many of them already more often than e-mail. I've found out myself doing it more often recently. Why? It's easier and more convenient - when I write a message to John Doe I know exactly to who I am writing, with e-mail you have to remember which e-mail was whose, or which of the e-mails of Joe Doe that you have is that correct, latest one; and the same with phone numbers and SMSes. Yes, in a big scale of things, moving your communication with others to Facebook isn't the best idea ever, but in a day to day hurry you often forget about the great, big things and just stick to what's seems easier and faster _now_. That's why I think this has all the chances to actually be successful, for better or worse.

<comment><USER17> Agreed. And I see the larger vision.

Yes, it'll be easier. But I, for one, won't use Facebook Messages for SMS. Why would I text Facebook to text my buddy for me? When I can just select him from my address book?

All of a sudden the idea of unified communications and messaging is out the window.

<comment><USER19> What if you could use a facebook app on your mobile phone to text your buddy for free ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As jwz would say:

 _Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can._

</comment><comment><USER20> " _this product isn't email, but it lets people who do use email to connect with the rest of us_ "

Even Facebook seem to have caught the email is dead meme.

" _keep this lookup table in my head_ "

Is this a pain point for anyone? Our contacts are stored in such a way that this is obvious, I can't send a SMS to grandma as she doesn't have a mobile.

<comment><USER21> > Is this a pain point for anyone?

Yes, I have several friends whose SMS, Facebook, and email contacts I have but who each prefer a different service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The only flaw of all this is that vanity ids won't automagically become email addresses for everybody.

If I tell my friends to find me at facebook/kilimanjaro I want them to message me at email@example.com too.

They should associate and create 500M email accounts right away and become the greatest email provider on earth.

</comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone here have already used it? I wonder about two things: file attachments, are they there? and 2nd thing: multi-persons conversation: can you add a new person to an already existing conversation? how does it work with chat or phone-messaging?

<comment><USER23> File attachments are present. They have updated Haystack, the photos infrastructure, to handle general file attachments.

I don't remember hearing if you can add some one to an existing conversation. But I clearly remember that they said that it was possible to remove some one from a conversation. Therefore, I assume, that they would have also thought of adding a person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think the issue with a unified inbox and the ability to push messages to different channels based on the recipient's choice is that a lot of time, the context of the message depends on the channel i choose to send it with.

The world of asynchronous and synchronous communication is going to clash in a very messy, destructive, apocalyptic Neo-versus-Agent Smith way.

For example:

1\. SMS

When I send a message via SMS, it could be either to pass on information or initiate (continue) a conversation. Sometimes the content of the message isn't clear enough to highlight the context and when this happens between a boyfriend and girlfriend, the gates of hell can be opened, and the fury of a thousand suns going supernova is unleashed, usually on the hapless boyfriend (not a true story, I swear).

Or whether you should end the thread with 'ttys' or 'ttyl' or 'brb' as with IM protocol, and trust me, sometimes not continuing a SMS thread or not ending it nicely can lead to you having to spend money to say sorry.

Although I think SMS usage has been happening long enough that people generally tend to interpret context relatively well NOW, SMS communication sometimes do suffer from the problem of parties not knowing whether a conversation is supposed to be happening asynchronously or (relatively) synchronously.

If you have ever sent an SMS (usually to an attractive member of the opposite sex after a first meeting, or maybe a very prospective business contact) and waited for a few hours for a reply, frantically wondering if you had said something wrong, or that person wasn't interested in maintaining what looked like a blossoming relationship, then you understand how different perceptions of what mode a conversation is supposed to be in can sunder the social fabric.

2\. Email

We tend to allow the intervals between subsequent emails in a conversation to be longer than SMS. After all, there is the general understanding that accessing and replying to one's email is harder than receiving and sending messages via SMS because of the ubiquity of the mobile phone versus Internet access on the move and the ease of entering a long form email versus sending a SMS. Also, it is easier for most to type long message when emailing than when sending a SMS due to the nature of the clients and where we actually do it (i.e. on the desktop). I usually switch to a more focused mode when reading emails because they generally are about work and are usually longer.

Subject headers in email are a great way to delineate threads. An email with a new subject is the start of a new thread.

3\. Instant messaging

Instant messaging is clearly generally expected to be synchronous. When instant messaging, there are socially acceptable standards to start and end a conversation. The signaling has been learned.

Is it going to be impossible to learn the new social rules of engagement? I don't believe it will be so. However, I do believe that the lack of clear signaling of the context of a conversation (i.e. synchronous versus asynchronous, start of a new topic ...) could be disastrous.

Note: Maybe only some of us have to relearn. It could very well be the younger generation already know how to contextualize the messages without use of the various channels, subject headers ... If so, I'm curious how they do it.

</comment><comment><USER25> Didn't seem to state whether the email will have POP3/IMAP access, if not this just seems to be an attempt to push more of our lives onto Facebook without a great amount of gain.

</comment><comment><USER26> I just sent to my gmail a test email from facebook. 5 minutes on it hasn't arrived.</comment>


Twitter is experimenting with Redis - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/twitter/haplocheirus

<comment><USER2> Twitter seems to experiment with a lot of stuff. A few years ago, there was buzz in the Groovy community because Twitter was experimenting with it. I thought that was cool until I talked to a friend in the Python community, who said Twitter was experimenting with it. A few months later, they announced they were using Scala.

It seems (admittedly, from that one example), that Twitter puts significant investment into exploring things before making a decision. Which seems like a great way to do things.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would not be overly surprised to find in a month that Twitter is developing something similar to Redis. They do seem to roll their own technology quite a bit. Is it NIH or do they really have that many unique problems (e.g. scale) to solve?

On point, there's Retwis by antirez, which models Twitter to some extent using Redis as a backend.

<http://retwis.antirez.com/>

<comment><USER4> Twitter is not in any way unique or hard. If they spent more time thinking and less experimenting, they would have figured that they need a small in memory databse, and would have solved their technical problems easily and cheaply more than two years ago.

<comment><USER5> Seconded. These twitter stories make me bite the table every time.

It boggles the mind that they are _still_ failwhaling constantly, after all this time.

Why won't someone finally fire the tech team, all of them, and hire someone with a clue?

The twitter application is about as trivial as it gets for a messaging application. _Much_ more complex systems, both distributed and centralized, handle _much_ higher loads every day, without dropping out all the time.

Redis is a fine piece of software, mind you. But one would think they'd be a bit beyond the stage of "experimenting" after four years of operation....</comment></comment></comment>


The Roots Of White Anxiety - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss <comment><USER2> I wonder if part of the bias towards admitting people from a higher economic class is simply that that's the group that provides most of the big endowments.

<comment><USER3> That hypothesis is stated in both the article and the source material. However, even if financial considerations are a part of it, they can't explain the full extent of the discrimination though - that 4H & Future Farmers of America count against an applicant while all other extracurriculars help.

<comment><USER4> You're misstating the findings.

This wasn't a double-blind study where for applications where all else was equal, 4H hurts applicants.

This was a statement about the populations. The population that is in 4H is less likely to get in (or likely to even apply) to top schools than the population that is in, say, debate. That's not really controversial, although it's worth theorizing about ways to improve the situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> barry-cotter It's not new and it discusees race. The time is 19:07 CET. How long 'til it's deaded?

<comment><USER5> It was new to me, and It was interesting to read. But I'm very interested in interpretations since I actually found it hard to understand the tone and pov of the author.</comment></comment>


1,000 Years of European History -- An Animated Map - <AUTHOR> http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/11/1000_years_of_e.html

<comment><USER2> Looking at this really makes you understand how Germany came to be a Federal Republic, show this to anybody that can't understand just who the laws and customs in various German states are so different and they will get it right away.

Highlights are the Golden Horde (0:40) and Napoleon's march to Moscow (4:00)

</comment><comment><USER3> A ticker with the year would be a great addition.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is amazing, I wish it were interactive, learning history was (and still is) difficult for me as a visual learner.</comment>


Justin.TV Reaches 1 Million Users - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/justintv-reaches-1-million-users/

<comment><USER2> What bothers me about both justin.tv and scribd (as an occasional angel investor, though not in anything related to those sites) is the mass of copyrighted content. I am not sure what PG feels about sites whose business model depends on illegally posted copyrighted content - I am asking in the context of his idea number 1 (RIAA problem) ...

<comment><USER3> My personal inclination is to say "cross that bridge when you come to it." Something as innocuous as StreamFile will certainly be used to unauthorizedly distribute copyrighted content, but that is the responsibility of the uploader, not the service provider.

One of the few reasonable aspects of the DMCA is the approach to "Safe Harbor" provisions. So long as the service provider makes reasonable efforts to take down content when provided a conforming takedown notice, it is in the clear. The individual uploader is held responsible for any infringing activity. The one weakness of the system is the ease with which some parties send out takedown notices for content which they do not actually have authority to take down.

<comment><USER2> But knowingly looking the other way makes me uncomfortable - "knowingly looking the other way" is what is really involved here. Legal issues aside, there is an ethical question involved (regardless of your opinion of RIAA). Civil disobedience is one thing, but profit motive and civil disobedience don't mix.

That's one reason I have stayed away from companies with business models like this.

<comment><USER3> I think the difference here is that civil disobedience involves breaking the law in order to uphold some moral standard. Under the current copyright law's safe harbor provisions, no law is being broken by a service provider who is willfully, evenly blind and non-encouraging to the infringements by individual users so long as the provider complies with takedown notices. Knowingly waiting for and responding to the notices is what is required by the law. I choose not to see it as "looking the other way" any more than google or youtube is looking the other way.

The current copyright regime is unsustainable in this digital age. RIAA/MPAA tactics are unconscionable. There must be a better system. I think there are both ethical and business advantages to being part of the solution rather than just shying away from the problem. I think that avoiding developing a promising technology like justin.tv just because users can potentially use it to infringe copyright is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Congrats! Anyone care to speculate what the cause of that spike is?

<comment><USER5> illegal content

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1 million in about 16 months! Congratulations!

<comment><USER7> especially after kiko

<comment><USER8> Hey, Kiko was awesome!

Google Calendar _still_ doesn't have a fully featured quick add, and you _still_ can't preview events with mouseover.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> beat us to it you bastards :)</comment>


Happy Independence Day! - <AUTHOR>

Happy Independence Day! <comment><USER2> You too Dawie.

</comment><comment><USER3> except for people outside US.

<comment><AUTHOR> OK, I changed it to Happy Independence day.</comment></comment>


Yeah Ok, So Facebook Punk'd Us - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/10/yeah-ok-so-facebook-punkd-us/ <comment><USER2> Gotta love tech company culture. :)

On an unrelated note, why request a comment from a company at all if you're only going to wait 24 minutes for a response?

<comment><USER3> Oh its a basic journalistic trick. Each journalist wants to give the impression that they see both sides of each story. But if they have a hot story they really do not want to wait to hear the other side. So they request a comment, wait an unreasonably short time, and then print the story saying "we requested a comment from the other side but they did not provide a comment by the deadline for this story".

<comment><USER4> It used to be that there was a set deadline to respond because of a broadcast time or a printing run. A responsible journalist would call for a comment and if they weren't available they'd let them know when the story had to be done.

So here we are when the "journalists" are controlling the printing runs and in this case they thought 24 minutes was a fair time for a response. I think this speaks more about the level of journalism practiced at TechCrunch than anything else, and this Facebook prank actually goes a long way to show that.

What kinda baffles me is that all those old deadlines were set by management, the reporters always wanted more time to craft the story and get it right. There were epic battles between reporters and editors over time versus distribution. Now that there's instant publishing the reporters have the same itchy trigger fingers. Just like the before everyone's afraid of being "scooped".

<comment><USER5> That's a really good point. I'd argue though that web journalists running their own site are also wearing the management hat and are more concerned with the bottom line than the journalist of old who had that bottom line abstracted form them through bureaucracy.

This is just as much a problem with the average consumer's attention span as the content producer's race to print. If this is their policy on stories and yet we still read them and comment on them, well then I guess we value the quick fix even though we complain about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the comments:

Matt Harwood: _I call hoax. There is zero way Facebook would even consider this, nor use that god awful over-sized icon._

Jason Kincaid: _It's not a hoax, I'm seeing it when I browse photo albums. Might now be rolled out for everyone yet._

<comment><USER7> We once pulled a stunt like this on a remote co-worker whose IP we figured out. Eventually we did get to be on speaking terms again ;)

Maybe at TC they'll learn the value of cloaking and a pc that is not on the 'known corporate network' to fact check their scoops ? If not I expect there will be a few more pranks like this.

They must be howling with laughter in the Twitter offices right now, and plotting their own version, the subtle part here is the timing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The part I love is that they made the feature work and actually faxed the photo over. Lots of effort for a prank. Thats what makes the best pranks stand out :)

<comment><USER6> That is slightly suspicious. Maybe somebody at facebook actually thought that this was a good idea at some point and had developed it as a feature.

<comment><USER9> More likely is that the fax was manual after clicking the link did this:

      send_email(email@example.com', subject='FAX Prank', body='Photo ID: %s\nUser ID: %s' % (photo.id, user.id))

But, you know... in PHP, not Python :-)

<comment><USER10> with efax you can send a fax with an email, so really sending an email to a person and having a fax sent is the same amount of work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've heard of companies doing this to their competitors. It's a great trick... Announce new lower prices that only your competitors can see, and then laugh when they send out an email to all their customers informing them of the new pricing structure. Or else announce a stupid new feature, and watch them waste time trying to implement it on their site too.

<comment><USER9> That's funny. Is there a particular story to share? Do you have a link or source?

<comment><USER12> Certainly. Microsoft announced that OS/2 was the future and watched as Lotus and Wordperfect spent millions porting their apps to the new oS.

Then they cobbled Windows 3.x together and ported their own apps to that instead of OS/2. (The wikiedia article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#Breakup> makes no mention of the effect of Windows 3.0 on Lotus and Wordperfect.)

<comment><USER13> This was not actual Microsoft strategy; until the Windows team destroyed OS/2 Microsoft had every intention of making OS/2 the future. Windows was really just a project that refused to be killed until it won.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Amazing.

This is officially my favorite TechCrunch post.

The best part is that the feature actually worked. If a prank is worth doing... it's worth doing well :)

</comment><comment><USER15> And Facebook makes $1.50 off TechCrunch. They should do this more often.

</comment><comment><USER16> Good to know 24 minutes is all you need to verify.

<comment><USER17> Aren't you supposed to be on a plane?

<comment><USER16> I'm multi-talented.

<comment><USER7> If being in two places at once is merely being 'multi-talented' then I think I'm going to have a little lie down now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If I didn't already want to work at facebook, I would now.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is it me or does it seem that Facebook is working hard to generate a lot of news/publicity these past few days? What are they looking to accomplish?

</comment><comment><USER20> Just for a second imagine if this somehow went wrong and this 'feature' was suddenly available to everyone. FB realises the mistake quickly and pulls it, but there is a vocal outcry from all their users who just got into the whole 'Fax your profile pic' meme. Also, TC is first to pick this up in a blog post.

Yeah OK, this is probably highly unlikely, but it would sure have been funny.

</comment><comment><USER21> Absolutely awesome! Hubris bites back!

</comment><comment><USER22> Can somebody explain to me why this article was written/posted/upmodded/commented upon/any of the above?

Serious question.

ED: So...you can't answer the question, but you can click the down arrow? I always find that strange. I'm really puzzled as to why HN is lately polluted by the 3rd-gen friendster copycat facebook, and this latest post just seems to add that many more layers of derivation, all leading to...? I don't know. What's the point?

Serious question, as I said, if that matters.

<comment><USER23> This site likes humor that is actually funny. This is actually funny. It's also a prank against Techcrunch, which this community loves to hate. Of course the irony is that it is still pageviews to Techcrunch.

<comment><USER24> Why do we love to hate Techcrunch? I missed the memo, apparently...fill me in.

<comment><USER25> There are some positive aspects to Techcrunch: they generally do a good job of keeping tabs on a vast field, and Crunchbase is an impressive and useful effort.

But, their particular brand of "pretendo journalism" rubs a lot of people the wrong way when they publish news without doing basic fact checking, and they tend to publish a little too much gossip and rumor.

Take Business Week and mate it with the Enquirer, add some "web-2.0"ness, and you've got TechCrunch. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not love their Enquirer bits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yes, even facebook (along with most of the rest of the tech industry) thinks techcrunch is such a joke that they don't mind pulling pranks on them.

Notice that there are bigger/better tech blogs/publications out there but facebook choose only to prank them - that's how low they think of techcrunch. And they should.

<comment><USER10> i would think it's exactly the opposite -- being individually signaled out and pranked by facebook is more a sign of TechCrunch's importance...

<comment><USER27> or a light-hearted way to ask them to stop posting information without first fact-checking.

<comment><USER7> That's how I read it. With a bit of a bite to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Great! Will TechCrunch halt its bid to rename HN "Facebook News" now?

<comment><USER7> I thought the bid was to rename HN "TechCrunch News". There can't be the most inane article on TC or it gets posted here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So... you're saying I won't be able to fax from facebook? Crap.

</comment><comment><USER29> Damn this just made my night. Thank you Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER30> Man, this is brilliant. A long time coming.

</comment><comment><USER31> Well, if a company with as much personal information as Facebook is going to pay people to 1) Delve into specific individuals' profiles, 2) Read enough information to make sure it's the right person, and then 3) Mess about with their settings, at least they did it with a sense of humour.

Not so funny sequel - seeing "Zuckerberg told everyone in PR that you were easy" appearing on each of his ex-girlfriends' profile pages.

<comment><USER32> It sounds like they did it by IP (or 'Facebook Network' membership), not account.

 _But everyone in the TechCrunch network saw it_

I'm not sure if that means TechCrunch's offices' subnet, or the Facebook network. But either way, no big invasion of privacy.

<comment><USER33> Probably easier just to do it for everyone in the Facebook TechCrunch network, though it's possible that they used IPs.</comment></comment></comment>