How Do Insurance Companies Make Money - <AUTHOR> http://techmarketingtips.com/how-insurance-companies-make-money/ <comment><USER2> Here's an illustration from Progressives 2019 financial results [0]:

Revenues:

Net Premiums - ~36b

Investment income (includes interest, dividends and accretion, but not capital gains on sales of securities) - ~1b

Gains on securities (capital gains on security sales) - ~1b

Fees - 0.5B

Service revenues - 0.2b

Total revenue: 39b

Expenses:

Losses and loss adjustment expenses (i.e. payouts to policies) - ~25.5b

Policy acquisition costs and other underwriting expenses - ~8b

Other - 0.4B

 _Total expenses - ~34b_

So that's about 5 billion in net income before taxes.

Overall, about 80% of profits in this case come from collecting more premium than paying out in claims. About 20% come in from investment income. This is because they collect your premium upfront, but don't need to pay out until you have a claim. So that money can be invested in the meantime. Notably, an insurance company can be profitable if they invest well, even if they take a loss on claims.

[0] [https://s24.q4cdn.com/447218525/files/doc_financials/2019/an...](https://s24.q4cdn.com/447218525/files/doc_financials/2019/annual/assets/pdf/Progressive-2019-Financial- Review.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> I worked in insurance for approximately 5 years, and had a foray in reinsurance for 3. To this day, I find this to be an amazingly complex and interesting industry from an cash-flow perspective.

Insurance is also a weird product from a consumer stand-point: for most people (at least in Canada) there is little to no difference between company offering. If you take P&C, there is a lot of competition for pricing, and a lot of the "end-stream" innovation is about containing costs (fraud, company- owned repair shops, avoiding litigation). Loss ratio is probably the word I heard the most from my actuarial friends.

P&C and group insurance, since everything is renewed every year, see a lot more disruption and effervescence in the market. It's harder to disrupt life insurance when you're on the hook for 10, 20 or even 70 years. I think that participating life was a game changer, and even then, its popularity is really tied to the market. There is a lot of research being done as well to better assess risk without being invasive (fluids, extensive questionnaires, etc.). But when you're on the hook for a long period of time, your mistakes along the way tend to stay for a long time. And going under is -- I think -- worse than any other industry. You pay premiums to insurance companies because you trust they'll be alive in the future!

Speaking of loss ratio, most companies are also now heavy towards automation, again to reduce costs. I know this has been over-played elsewhere in the industry, but here a lot of the key-players are massive and slow moving, and at their scale, little movement can mean a lot of change.

</comment><comment><USER4> Warren Buffett talks about the profitability of Insurance Companies a lot in his annual letters. A key part of this is the float. Insurance premiums are generally paid up front but losses are paid out after the fact. This means they end up with large amounts of other people's money (or "float") which they can invest.

If the company does a good job estimating risk and pricing policies, they will make a profit on the policy itself. If that happens, they are effectively being paid by their customers to hold their customers' money and get to keep any investment returns on it!

[https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-insurance- flo...](https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-insurance- float-2017-4?r=US&IR=T)

<comment><USER5> It is interesting that some insurance companies even run at an actuarial loss, meaning they pay more in claims than they take in in premiums with the expectation that the float will cover that loss and leave plenty for profit. Health insurance companies work the same way. Insurance companies crave the float. This is why you see so much advertising and that they are willing to spend so much on CAC. People rarely switch companies and your lifetime float is worth a lot!

<comment><USER6> If you made money on the funds invested, and lost money on every month's premiums & payouts, then why not close down that half of the business and become just a hedge fund?

I guess it's life insurance that's a special case here, in that customers sign up to pay a flat rate for (say) 20 years but the chance of payout is much higher towards the end. When you close down & sell your insurance business to your competitor, a policy that's half-way will surely count as a liability, and so it may be very expensive to wind things up: you'll have to hand over a lot of the float to get someone to take the contracts.

<comment><USER7> I'm assuming because it's difficult to open a hedge fund and obtain the same scale and amount of cash easily or quickly. Also, the fund is an entirely different model, you're paid management fees based on the profit you make your investors. If you own the insurance company, the investors (insurance payee) are not reaping the rewards of the invested cash, you take 100% of the rewards of other peoples money, interest free, think about how incredibly powerful that is.

<comment><USER6> Starting an insurance company is surely a lot more tightly regulated than starting a fund.

There are various values for "you" here: The professional who manages the fund day-to-day needs to be paid no matter what the company says it does. The owners have a choice of whether to sell the car-insurance side of their business. And people looking to start a new business from scratch have different concerns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Broadly, they make money by doing statistical analysis on risk. If they can price the risk more accurately than their competition, then they can capture more premiums for less claim risk.

Maybe it's a function of zip code, sex, age, profession, hobby, weight, etc... while another company will add a question about exercise level and put different multipliers on each of those.

They are constantly refining their statistical models to gain an pricing advantage over the competition without taking on more undo risk.

This applies to all kinds of insurance.

Combating fraud is ALSO a big thing. So they often share lists of customers they believe have defrauded their policies in the past, and are starting to use AI to find which patterns reduce the risk most, as well as getting around certain metrics they aren't allowed to ask about - like ethnicity.

<comment><USER9> Yes risk is attributed to premiums. Yet I talked to an employee at a large US insurance firm and he said they take a loss with premiums. All the premiums do is go into marketing and advertising. They make their money by investing. So basically insurance firms are hedge funds with cash flow.

<comment><USER10> I think you misinterpreted what was said. A company taking an underwriting loss like that would be shut down by regulators in a heartbeat. There are very large regulatory capital requirements in life insurance, which is why you don't see new entrants into the market.

<comment><USER11> I'd interpret "they take a loss with premiums" in the parent comment as meaning the nominal value of expected claims exceeds the nominal value of premium. And that's very commonly the case for interest-sensitive life and annuities. It's equivalent to the expected IRR from the policyholder's perspective being greater than 0, and it would be hard to justify selling an investment-oriented product with a negative expected return.

Or consider a SPIA with a return of premium guarantee. The total claim payments will always be greater than or equal to premium on a nominal basis, so investment income necessarily funds over 100% of the profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Another element to insurance I haven't seen covered here is that they have their own micro cycles somewhat independent from the macro environment, called hard/soft markets.

What happens is at some point new entrants or firms that want too grow will offer lower rates and/or loosen underwriting criteria. This forces incumbents to do the same to some extent to stay competitive (soft market).

Over time, risk and eventually losses, accumulate. This stops the loose underwriting practices as firms can no longer sustain additional losses. This allows incumbents to raise their rates (hard market).

These cycles vary by insurance product but can cause huge revenue swings year to year.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've covered insurance companies for a number of years, and here's the rundown:

\- Like any other financial services company, insurers' primary concern is risk management. In contrast, a retailer knows exactly what its profit margins are before the product is sold - its primary concern is to sell as many products as possible profitably. However, insurers and banks can sell infinite policies/loans so long as the price is low enough. They also don't know their margins for sure until the policy/loan is complete.

\- The average insurer makes more than half their profits from investment income. Most insurers are garbage at writing policies, with the P&C industry averaging around mid-single digit ROE in a year with average catastrophe losses. When I checked a few years ago, aggregate combined ratio (sum of losses & expenses divided by premiums) is in the high 90's percentage.

\- Loss costs are getting ridiculous these days (trial lawyers, social inflation), almost across the board, so you're seeing insurers start raising prices across the board. Add to that zero interest rate policy courtesy of our unaccountable central bankers, and insurers are forced to push premium hikes.

</comment><comment><USER14> Well informed legalized gambling against certain outcomes backed up by contracts with a large sum of people. The goal is to win more bets than it loses. To cover the losses for the times that it does lose the company pools the money you and others pay every month together. Whatever is left in the pool after all the contracts end is how much money the insurance company made. If they have to pay out more than is in the pool, then they lose money. Rinse and repeat.

</comment><comment><USER15> And now think about the market. What distinguishes insurance companies? How can they innovate?

Aside from structuring the policies there is little room for innovation. And the competition can easily copy them. What remains is to reduce the sum of the expected claims. This is where blackboxes and stop smoking campaigns come from. But again this is not really that successful.

IMO the most obvious strategy is vertical integration. After all, most people are not interested in insuring against hospital or car repair invoices, but to obtain good health-care or a repaired car.

So insurance companies should try to operate their own hospitals or repair shops, operating them with little profit and stash the savings.

<comment><USER16> How can they innovate? There is a lot of "insuretech" out there right now. There has been a relatively large shift into direct-to-consumer insurance as well, rather than needing to go through an agent. On the tech side, for example, there are companies like Root and Metromile on the auto-side who are doing per-mile / driving habit pricing based on logged activity in your car. You can also innovate a lot on the claims-side to make the product easier to use. Lemonade is doing this with homeowners and renters insurance, allowing you to just take photos of your claims. Innovation can also happen on the backend with things like automating claims that can help drive down cost to increase margin or offer more competitive rates. Finally, the innovation has always happened on the actuarial side to better assess risk so it can be priced in a way that reduces the risk on the insurer.

There is a fair amount of vertical integration happening already. Finding ways to reduce "retail" pricing for claims for insurance companies is a pretty big deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Unavailable?

Clickbite title? Traditionally companies make money by spending less than what they receive...

<comment><USER18> This is known as "The HN Effect" where sites are temporarily overloaded (and go down) because they are featured on HN's home page.

<comment><USER19> This has had a lot of names ;) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect)</comment></comment></comment>


Please don't pay to use a pay toilet - <AUTHOR> https://www.stallman.org/pay-toilets.html <comment><USER3> When I was in Paris, circa 2000, I came across some interesting pay toilets that were kind of like the Cadillacs of porto-potties. They were located on streets in nice shopping areas. You'd pay for the door to open. They had running water, but no water or fluid in the toilet bowl. Instead, the toilet was more like a concave shelf for peeing and/or pooping on.

When you were done, you'd leave through the door, which would lock behind you, and then for a minute or two, it would go through a self-cleaning cycle, making itself (putatively) spotless for the next customer.

They even had the same idea scaled up to entire motels. Near Lyon, I needed to catch 3 hours of zzz's before going to the airport. I found a motel called "Formule 1". It was a seemingly automated motel. You hardly ever saw an employee.

To park your car, you slid your credit card through a card reader at the parking lot gate, and it charged you $20 or so. You would be given a receipt with a combination number for the front door and for your room.

The bathrooms were down the hall from your room. They were somewhat similar to the fancy porto-poties. Though they also had showers in them. The shower was on a timer. When you left the bathroom, the door would lock behind you for a while, as it would go through its cleaning cycle.

France is strange!

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette)

<comment><USER3> Yes, that's exactly what I saw and used!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most Americans under a certain age have probably never heard of a pay toilet:

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

<comment><USER6> Aren't these quite common in Europe still? I'm 25 and American and have paid for toilets several times (I even remember having to pay at a McDonalds in Washington, DC back when I was really little).

<comment><USER7> Common in Mexico too. Guy standing outside with TP collects the money. Well worth it over Mexican free toilets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In my area of Germany, we have some places where public toilets are not available as desired. Instead of build new ones, which are expensive, the local responsible persons found a nice solution. They pay bars to let their toilets used. Bars and restaurants, who join this initiative get a sticker on the front door. So you don't have to sneak inside to use the restrooms.

</comment><comment><USER9> Apparently they can make a decent amount of money, roughly 50% profit:

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/train- statio...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/07/train-station- toilets-make-millions-every-year)

<comment><USER10> It's quite interesting to see from those numbers how relatively infrequently the pay toilets are actually used: London Victoria has brought in £2,300,511 over 3 years; a quick Google suggests it has a footfall of ~137 million people a year [1]; at 30p a pop, that's really not a lot of people using those toilets as a proportion of the total number of people going through that station.

And, in fact, this tallies with my own experience: I've been through Paddington and Liverpool Street hundreds of times and have only used the toilets on a handful of occasions, usually with moderate cursing at having to find the appropriate change. And they never seem particularly busy.

[1] [https://www.networkrail.co.uk/FootfallBreakdownForEachStatio...](https://www.networkrail.co.uk/FootfallBreakdownForEachStation.pdf) (not sure of the year)

<comment><USER11> The toilets in Victoria are some of the foulest smelling around.

<comment><USER12> And they're also 50p now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Having run into many public toilets and restrooms which were unusable because they were covered in feces or urine or had crazy homeless people in them harassing people (most recently, in December in Oxford, whose homeless are even worse than SF's, if you can believe it), I often wish I _could_ pay to use a pay toilet. People value more what they pay for, it keeps out people who only want to trash them, and it can pay for amenities like automated washing.

<comment><USER14> > Having run into many public toilets and restrooms which were unusable > because they were covered in feces or urine or had crazy homeless people in > them harassing people [...]

As a matter of course- because really the issue of pay toilets is just one small protuberance from the much larger social problem, which is that currently society doesn't provide remotely appropriate care for a large segment of the mentally ill. That a tourist taking a piss in Manhattan entails thorny socioethical issues is surprising yet direct result.

The same problem repeats itself all over urban life. It's why the bus stop shelter doesn't keep you dry, why park benches are uncomfortable, and why you're likely to hear an ambulance siren at least once in an ordinary day. Someday society will realize that the underlying problem isn't a necessary truth, and everything will suddenly seem so much _nicer_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> When traveling in Germany, pay toilets were one of the things I liked. I don't like going into some place of business to use their toilet without buying something. It was actually cheaper for me to use a pay toilet. Furthermore, they were easy to find, clean, and well maintained.

<comment><USER16> am german, i also don't mind using a pay toilet, because they are mostly super, super clean. Sometimes they are really expensive (it's like parking space), but mostly they take a few cents and you really get something in return.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This framing is ridiculous. The water, power, toilet paper, fixtures, etc., cost money to provide. Someone is always paying for the toilet.

<comment><USER18> Cleaning up excrement from public areas also costs money and in the meantime makes it less pleasant for everyone. You can pay for one or the other.

<comment><USER17> Then the post should advocate building publicly-funded toilets. All I see is the suggestion that we shift this cost off to someone else. Maybe the "great lengths" implies paying for some good or service in order to use a business's toilet, but that would undermine the premise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As with any ideology, I don't think this is one size fits all. The alternative to a paid bathroom isn't free bathrooms, it's no bathrooms. I think anyone who's lived a city that smells like piss, or anyone who's needed to take a piss when everything was closed, would love there to be paid bathrooms.

</comment><comment><USER20> I am very curious to know if the alternative toilets he uses are equally accessible to the poorer people he is advocating on behalf of. I know I can walk into any good hotel and be taken for a guest and probably directed to a bathroom, and I know that many others, especially homeless people, couldn't do so.

</comment><comment><USER21> In NL and BE, there are often public urinals during festivals like this:

[http://toilet-guru.com/pictures/amsterdam-street- dscf3952-tn...](http://toilet-guru.com/pictures/amsterdam-street- dscf3952-tn.jpg)

But generally, in Europe, there are about zero free public toilets and just a few public pay ones.

<comment><USER22> You can use the toilets of any publicly available official building (city hall for instance, or a university).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Pay toilets are super annoying, and very common in Europe. Still, even if you are in NYC, it's hard to find a "free" toilet. Most of the time you have to go to a restaurant, buy something, and then you'll get the key.

<comment><USER24> That's exactly the tradeoff. Pay toilets are pretty nice when your alternative is either having to patronize a business purely in order to use their bathroom, or drop trou outside somewhere.

Sure, in theory there could be wonderful tax-funded public toilets everywhere, but it's a hard sell to taxpayers: most of the time, locals aren't the ones getting caught in need of a bathroom. (I mean, how many times in your typical day do you use a public toilet? Probably not often; it's a thing you use when traveling, or as a tourist in a different city.) And thus they're understandably reluctant to divert tax money to pay for them, and they get to make the call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's probably too late for this comment to be seen and make a difference - <USER2> will sink to the bottom of the thread without a trace, but in case anyone is interested in reading more HN comments about this, it has been submitted again and is being discussed over here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13343542](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13343542)

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm in the US, and I haven't seen a pay toilet since I was a little kid in the late 80s. What I have seen a lot especially in New York City are bathrooms for customers only. There are large areas of the city where public bathrooms are very scarce, and the only available ones are inside of businesses that require you to buy something before you can use the bathroom.

</comment><comment><USER27> Mr. Stallman, I'd like to invite you to San Francisco for an adventurous quest in search of paid toilets, or any kind of restrooms in this case - paid our whatever. You can even wear flowers in your hair.

</comment><comment><USER28> Honestly, he's right.

</comment><comment><USER29> Maybe a good solution for those who can't pay is to make them pay by time. As example I don't want to wait so I pay as example one euro/dollar. Someone who can't pay, just waits 3-5 minutes or pushes a button 50 times. Sounds stupid, but this could work in my opinion. Anyone who has enough money can afford to pay, but is less likely to mess with a button or wait 5 mins. A homeless on the other hand, could at least wait instead of being denied the access at all.

<comment><USER30> What happens when another person wants to use the toilet? Two possible scenarios.

A) They have to wait 5 minutes (pointlessly) plus the duration of the next person's stay. B) They pay to bump the person behind in the queue.

Both scenarios are bad. In A, the toilet is not being used to its effective capacity. In B, paying customers can prevent non-paying customers from ever getting to use the toilet.

Toilets should be provided for free to customers by private businesses, and to the general public by cities. The alternative is alleys reeking of urine and feces. Toilets: a worthwhile public expense.

<comment><USER29> If there is just one toilet, then yes those scenarios are the worst case to the idea.

So if a toilet needs a queue, then the first in-first out method should be used to prevent someone from bumping the queue and prevent over excessive wait times for someone who can't pay.

Also if they want to pay for the toilet, they can always pay for who is in front of them.

To enforce such rules is always a problem, but so are all rules in our society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't know where pay toilets even exist, or if they're public or private. Wouldn't the alternatives be the absence of a given toilet or a tax-funded toilet? If the latter, the poor could pay disproportionately due to various tax dodging avenues available only to the rich.

</comment><comment><USER32> Instead of pay toilets, how about a thumbprint or face scan. Take pics of the bathroom before and after every use. Everyone can use the toilet for free, until they are caught abusing it. Then they can pay a fine or take a personal responsibility class to get the privilege back.

<comment><USER33> Privacy implications? I.e. Taking a dump becomes another way to disclose your location and whereabouts. Kinda funny.

<comment><USER32> If privacy is an issue, maybe some kind of token or card disconnected to your identity to get in.

But I think the face pictures could be used in some kind of public shaming for people to treat the bathroom nicely.

<comment><USER34> > maybe some kind of token or card disconnected to your identity to get in.

Perhaps a circular metal disk would work well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you don't care about privacy, then world is your toilet

.. or when you don't have the change for a paid toilet and you really really have to do it

</comment><comment><USER36> Don't get him started on free vs open source toilets. =P

I had no idea this was even a thing. Doesn't seem justifiable to me, it just seems cruel.

<comment><USER37> It's a thing even in places where it isn't explicit, such as in New York City. Many businesses reject people that just come to use a bathroom which will make desperate patrons pay for an item in order to gain access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Here I sit broken hearted....

</comment><comment><USER39> Yikes. Who pays for the free toilets, then?

I love pay toilets. Most of them are kept clean, and I don't consider finding a clean, available toilet to be a right.

I've paid for others to use toilets, and I'll keep doing so.

"Don't let people pay for things because poor people might not be able to afford it" is offensive to "poor" people.

Oh well. If it makes him feel like he's championing a cause...

<comment><USER40> >I don't consider finding a clean, available toilet to be a right.

Posit a reason why it is socially unacceptable for people to just crap in the street, then.

<comment><USER39> to clarify, I don't think people should be shitting in the street, but i instinctually bristle against a "right" that requires someone else to do something in service of the person who has that right.

(This is the difference between a negative and positive right)

If someone has a right to clean, available toilets at all times, then someone must pay to provide those services. I'm happy to _donate_ to the cause, but I don't think the force of law should compel me to part with my money to buy someone a toilet.

Especially because PAY toilets solve this problem so elegantly.

For example, imagine a pay toilet that, when you pay, you have the option to buy access to the same toilet to someone who is unable to pay themselves. I'd do it. This is basically the same idea as the "leave a little, take a little" coin jar many shop vendors have.

If you need 20 cents for some reason, take it. I usually just dump my extra change into that jar. I would do the same in a pay toilet, and often have.</comment></comment></comment>


Electronic Reservation System – 1952 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kThWihLOuR8#t=737

<comment><AUTHOR> The whole video is neat but check out the "Electronic" Reservation System starting at 12:20. How long we have come with databases!</comment>


Someone was asking for pics of pizza vending machine a couple of weeks ago. Here's two. - <AUTHOR> http://www.therawfeed.com/2009/03/italian-company-invents-3-minute-pizza.html <comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/23819997@N03/3297250362/></comment>


Ask HN: How do you organize/store your personal information and documents? - <AUTHOR> Doing some research from an Executive Assistant's perspective on how other people keep their information organized.<p>Link or comment > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ZPS5XXX <comment><USER2> I think this is one of those easily over-thought of things.

I keep a digital file system the same as my parents used to keep their filing cabinet. Alphabetized folders. Each person in the family (me, wife & kids) has their own folder with all their stuff in it. I have every important document scanned and saved as PDFs. The physical originals live in a real file folder of the same name and organized structure inside the filing cabinet in the closet.

Product receipts for warranties and docs, insurance declarations, taxes, credit card agreements and scanned card copies, etc all organized as you'd typically see in a real filing cabinet with their digital PDF counterparts inside a digital folder.

This is all stored using iCloud Drive (we're an Apple family) that's accessible from all my devices. It's actually been a life saver several times while on travel. Wife lost her passport once coming back from Mexico, being able to pull up a PDF scan kept us from being trapped outside the country.

Some things we really don't need a SAAS product for. Just create folders and take care to keep them up to date and organized as you would an old school filing cabinet.

<comment><USER3> Do you find value in keeping the hard copy?

I've been scanning all documents for 6 years now, and over that time, I have 4 buckets:

A. scan and file

B. scan and throw

C. scan and shred

D. just throw

Scanner OCRs the docs and drops them into Dropbox (unlimited business plan).

I found that A is a very very tiny minority (1-5%) of all documents.

<comment><USER2> So, 2 things:

1\. I like OCR, but I don't like relying on it for search in a vast pool of important documents. Filing in labeled folders means I'm not relying on some obscure algorithm or the accuracy of an OCR tech to make my digital files practical/accessible. This proved the correct way to think when I moved files from Dropbox, to GDrive and then ultimately iCloud. One service would find what I wanted, the next would not or find some file based on an unexpected match. All that meant I had to spend a significant time digging around. With folders, I have manual organization as a base and can still use search and OCR as a convenience.

2\. I find value in the physical files only as a basic backup to a digital outage. Computer fails, phone is left somewhere, internet goes out, etc. it's not all happened at once yet, but there has been several occasions where just going into the closet and grabbing the hard file was easiest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I keep things in markdown files. Private files go in folder that's git ignored.

[https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/knowledge](https://github.com/nikitavoloboev/knowledge)

<comment><USER5> Do you keep personal items there too? Like copy of birth certificate or passport? Or are those in your gitignore areas?

<comment><USER4> Those are in 1password.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't personally use it, but many of my coworkers and friends use Evernote for keeping their information organized.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use a markdown blog with Github Pages. This way I have my notes online and can access them every time I need them.

</comment><comment><USER8> I use github markdown or vimwiki sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER9> Using Typora pretty much.</comment>


Show HN: My first iOS app - a super effective alarm clock - <AUTHOR> http://spinmealarm.com

<comment><USER2> I can see with my own habits that the snooze button is too soft on me, so this could help with some extra discipline :)

But in practice, can I just spin the phone around in the air whilst still lying in bed or is it detecting for a wider circumference of movement than that?

<comment><AUTHOR> No you can't, you need to keep 2 thumbs on the screen in the same position while you spin around. And you also need to keep the device flat. It's foolproof :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ah you got my 99¢. Nice idea but needs some built in alarms! If you don't have anything in your iTunes library there's no sound, it doesn't even beep.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'm adding more alarm tones soon. You'll hear a default alarm even if there's no music selected when the app isn't running.

<comment><USER3> Volume's turned up & it's definitely not on silent mode but the default alarm isn't going off, it's just vibrating. iPhone 4 with the newest version of iOS (I think).

Edit: it goes off if the app is closed, if it's open it doesn't.</comment></comment></comment>


Efail: Outdated Crypto Standards Are to Blame - <AUTHOR> https://blog.hboeck.de/archives/893-efail-Outdated-Crypto-Standards-are-to-blame.html <comment><USER2> > OCB has some nice properties, but it's patented.

I think that's understating matters a bit. OCB is great, wonderful, better than GCM, and you should always use it — but it's patented. Fortunately, open- source software is allowed to use it, which is great.

If you're trying to write proprietary software, then you're allowed to use it for free unless you're writing military-use software.

If Rogaway had just opened it to everyone for any use, I'm pretty sure noöne would be using GCM.</comment>


C is Manly, Python is for "n00bs" - <AUTHOR> https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/c-is-manly-python-is-for-n00bs-how-false-stereotypes-turn-into-technical-truths <comment><USER2> The article takes the stance that all stereotypes are groundless, but a more realistic position is that they are often generalizations with some valid foundation. I'll just illustrate with my experiences of Python software. I have used many, many data manipulation, simulation, visualization, etc. tools over the years, most of them coming out of either academia or government labs. I long ago developed the habit, when faced with using a tool written in Python, to look for an alternative written in C/C++, because it has been my experience that the C/C++ alternative will usually be more stable and better thought out. I have not worked deeply with Python or Python programmers, so I can't offer an informed opinion of whether the main problem lies in the people or the tools. It has been my tentative hypothesis that this trend is the result of C/C++ placing a higher bar to use, requiring developers to both be more capable and spend more time planning.

</comment><comment><USER3> First I was reminded of Uncle Bob's talk on programming language hubris:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX3iRjKj7C0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX3iRjKj7C0)

but as I went deeper thought about the effects of programming language tribalism, I was reminded of

[http://web.mit.edu/humor/Computers/real.programmers](http://web.mit.edu/humor/Computers/real.programmers)

it's reference to

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Men_Don't_Eat_Quiche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Men_Don't_Eat_Quiche)

and how this played out as a sound bite in US popular culture at the same time as the decline in women computer science enrollment began to decline. Being in the high school graduating cohort where the decline began, the decline of women in computing a subject I'm interested in. It's one of those subtle cultural/generational differences between me and my boy.

</comment><comment><USER4> The title should have (2015) in it.

This is a weird one, I feel like I am stumbling into a bit elephant trap, the authors seem to know what they are talking about but have missed some fundamental points.

Firstly there is a statement asserting that it only takes a few months to learn a language if you are a competent developer, which I agree is true to a point, but the assertion continues with the view that therefore we shouldn't hire given what languages a person knows.

Now, in a big company where there is a lot of runway for a project and a good training budget - and where you are building capability, spotting talent and hoping to build your own cheap well integrated team rather than a bunch of half crazed guns for hire, then yup, agree, but a bit of nuance is needed. A lot of places cannot function with people learning things for two or three months (or weeks, or days even). There's work to be done and it needs doing.

Then there are statements about Perl, Python and Javascript being fairly similar - which they are in a narrow technical look how the compiler works way. But I don't know about you (obviously) but although I loath Python (irrationally) I would feel relaxed and happy picking up 30k loc to debug and maintain if it were written in Python, I would be somewhat nervous if it was Javascript and I would be having a breakdown if it was Perl.

But as the authors note, horses for courses - Python is not a great fit (ok it's pretty good) for processing lots of strings and so on, Perl is good for that. Javascript - guess what - I think Javascript is a boon for creating web front ends. Perl, not a great choice.

In a similar vein I use R sometimes for interactive data mining. It is very handy in term of setting up analysis pipelines and creating insight. I like it for that. But I have folks working for me who write substantial projects in R and I constantly worry about maintenance and sustainability in the field. It isn't great for creating a structured and well understood code base.

With respect to the gender politics and the "exclusion" angle, this was a very real problem 25 and more years ago - one that I (somewhat shamefacedly) must confess that I innocently profited from. I got the chance to learn Smalltalk, Objective C, C, plsql and C++ using expensive compilers on expensive computers. This gave me a substantial leg up, people in India or Africa had no chance (effectively) of doing this. Now almost everyone can get the opportunity (I'm not saying with ease or that the opportunity is just there, but it is possible) to learn Java or Python or C++, MySql, Javascript and many more valuable useful tools. The question in my mind is why is it that some people end up learning ones that then aren't too useful to them? I learned php some years ago for a particular project, it was useful, I will never use it again.. but why is it that someone learns php and then doesn't learn Python? Or Ruby? Or Julia?

If you want a job in a company that uses Python why wouldn't you learn it? Why wouldn't you write a few projects and put them on Github?</comment>


Why two spaces after a period isn't wrong – lies typographers tell about history - <AUTHOR> http://www.heracliteanriver.com/?p=324 <comment><USER2> Why is it that rarely does anyone distinguish _output format_ from _source format_ in these discussions?

Two spaces are used to semantically separate sentences in source format. They can be collapsed or modified for typeset output (like HTML rendering), but nobody should be telling an author to use single space in _source format_ if the author wants to add the additional semantic separation between sentences.

Particularly at fault are sanitizers like tidy (not just stand-alone, but sometimes used as a component in document editors) which will collapse multiple spaces by default. They're not doing any other html rendering, and they're not minifying the html either, so why do they insist on removing a common form of semantic content information in the source document? Collapse >2 spaces to 2 in some cases, perhaps, but not 2 to 1, particularly not after punctuation.

The two spaces vs one space argument for how text should be typeset is a _completely different issue_ and unrelated to the question of how many spaces human typists should use between sentences. Using two spaces between sentences happens to make it _easier_ for typesetting software to automatically apply whatever magical 1+epsilon or 1-epsilon inter-sentence spacing it deems best, assuming the typesetting software can deduce that the author is using the two- space sentence convention (otherwise it has to fall back on heuristics, which are not perfect).

Any author is free to choose how many spaces to use between sentences, but collapsing 2 spaces when editing others' documents is _wrong_ , and so is preventing an author from using two spaces. Doing so _removes information content_ from the document, which can only be restored perfectly by humans (or other things with human-level natural language processing ability).

<comment><USER3> _Two spaces are used to semantically separate sentences in source format._

That's the function of the period, which does the job perfectly well already, as you demonstrate yourself.

 _Any author is free to choose how many spaces to use between sentences, but collapsing 2 spaces when editing others ' documents is_ wrong, _and so is preventing an author from using two spaces. Doing so removes information content from the document, which can only be restored perfectly by humans (or other things with human-level natural language processing ability)._

I could just as easily argue that it's _wrong_ to include redundant semantic information. If I were to begin using double commas,, should everyone else alter their reading habits to accommodate my affectation? Fuck that.

<comment><USER4> >That's the function of the period,

This breaks in the case of "Mr. Jones went to the store. He enjoys buying things." The spacing after 'Mr.' should be less than after 'store.'. If two spaces are prohibited, you have the following options, neither of them particularly satisfactory:

-The user must input some form of special Unicode space character after 'Mr.'

-The display software must include a list of all words that, when followed by a period, should not include extra space (e.g., "Mr, Mrs, Messrs, etc, e.g, i.e" and so forth).

<comment><USER3> Says you. I was fine with it being the same when I learned to type (on a typewriter) and having text-presentation software do some micro kerning on certain abbreviations doesn't bother me in the least; automating such drudgery is one of the main reasons to use computers in the first place.

A third option is to dispense with the punctuation marks on abbreviations and simply refer to 'Mr Jones.' This took a little getting used to, but since real grammatical consistency would involve abbreviating 'Mister' as 'M'r,' (a practice which you can see in some older books and which persisted with obscure words like f'c's'le) dropping the period seems simpler. It's good enough for the _Economist_ , whose style guide I prefer.

<comment><AUTHOR> What's "f'c's'le"?

<comment><USER5> I would guess (but don't know) that it's forecastle.

<comment><USER6> Sure is. :)

I'm a read-aloud-in-my-head kind of reader, and I remember really struggling with that one in _Moby Dick_.

(It's "fo'c'sle," by the way, sometimes even encountered as "fo'c's'le." In the latter case, I wonder why simply writing "forecastle" wasn't the easier choice back in the day).

<comment><USER7> It's closer to the actual pronunciation of "folk•sel"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hate double spacing. And you can dismiss that as a personal preference, but there's a problem with it, objectively speaking. Normally, whitespace is collapsed in HTML and it's a moot point. But not in _WordPress_.

Now, let me pick on patio11. He uses double spacing in his articles. Not a big deal, right? But the extra spaces causes unintended indentations in paragraphs. I know it shouldn't bother me, but it drives me bonkers. For example, I see it in the second paragraph here: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a- pro...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/)

<comment><USER9> Yep. For an explanation of why double-spacing is objectively wrong, read this:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.single.html)

<comment><USER10> Isn't this the exact Slate.com article that the posted article deems inaccurate?

<comment><USER11> I believe the idea is that if we ignore the fact that this article refutes slate, we can pretend slate refutes this article.

<comment><USER9> >>if we ignore the fact that this article refutes slate

You seem to be having difficulty distinguishing opinions from facts.

<comment><USER12> I'm confused. Either you know information that makes the very specific examples and evidence in the article, and how they purportedly refute the slate article's claims about the source of double spacing (and thus casting doubt based on claims made based on that), which I would like to see, or I'm entirely unable to parse your meaning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I thought the book Practical Typography made the best case by just showing an example. Two spaces creates rivers in the text that make it look bad. The author's proposed solution to custom-typeset to avoid this is not sustainable (because it's sensitive to reformatting) or practical.

Judge for yourself: [http://practicaltypography.com/one-space-between- sentences.h...](http://practicaltypography.com/one-space-between- sentences.html)

<comment><USER14> I can't see rivers in the example. Here's a screenshot.

([http://imgur.com/7zGhP9X](http://imgur.com/7zGhP9X))

<comment><USER15> There's a river starting on line two "sentences." through the period in "habit." and down through the space to the right of "set" 'anymore." and "practice."

<comment><USER16> Considering that the placement of the words in the two examples is exactly the same, the "river" is present in both.

<comment><USER17> Nope. Visually it's not there in the first instance.

<comment><USER16> It absolutely is. If you want to argue it's not as large, that's fine, but it is definitely present.

[http://imgur.com/DzrFAZU](http://imgur.com/DzrFAZU)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If typesetting aesthetics are actually important to the document you're creating, you should be using software like LaTeX that figures out all the spacing for you. If you're typing up a word document for functional usage, it doesn't matter how many spaces you put in there

(Yes, I am giving you permission to go all e.e. cummings in your emails)

<comment><USER15> I think LaTeX is overprescribed. It's great for academic papers, but a lot of the output from canned styles I see is lacking. Don't expect to get perfect typography if you don't understand the desired proportions between type size and spacing (see for example Bringhurst). LaTex is difficult to use if you are new to it or trying to do something custom.

Personally, I'd much rather use commercial software like InDesign/QuarkXPress and never touch LaTeX again. With that software, you can manually and visually tweak things like word spacing for particular paragraphs to solve problems like rivers. Of course InDesign will not automatically make documents look nice either, but it's easier to do if you know what you're trying to achieve. This is the kind of software used for modern magazine layout.

edit: smalltalk below also posted a similar reply as I was typing this, but is hellbanned

<comment><USER19> You are correct in stating that LaTeX is no silver bullet. The clear disadvantage of LaTeX is the tweak-recompile cycle, whereas graphical tools have instant feedback which is more suitable for design. But for _automated_ typography (≠ design), it is still unsurpassed after all those years.

The default LaTeX styles are still way prettier and easier to read than the random muck (12pt Times, small margins) that would be more widespread otherwise. For scientific papers this is truly awesome, especially when the author does not care about typography. But you are right, LaTeX is _not_ the correct tool for _every_ job.

<comment><USER20> Now, if we can just get LaTex with instant feedback, we can approach the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER21> On Linux, inotify, pdflatex, and evince combine in the expected way. I edit with vim and :w and it does the work in the background. Strictly, I use a Makefile and make, but that's not a real difference.

<comment><USER22> I keep meaning to dig into this sort of write-based build trigger, and I'm going to grab this excuse. As I understand it, inotify is a syscall, right? Do you have custom C code to hook it and trigger your make? What are the standard options for command-line access to inotify? Rudimentary googling suggests incron or watcher (not watch). Any other advice?

Hmn, how the heck did I miss all these related google results the last few times I tried to research this. I start looking at things like libnotify and can't help but notice while such technologies seem to be focused on other kinds of events, they seem like they might work for this kind of file-watching thing.

<comment><USER21> [inotify-tools]([https://github.com/rvoicilas/inotify- tools/wiki](https://github.com/rvoicilas/inotify-tools/wiki)) is the stuff you want. There's a nice utility called inotifywait in there which will block until there's a change in a file or directory (it does recursive as well).

You can get results from as simple as this bash one-liner:

         while(true); do inotifywait --exclude '.*.swp' -e close_write dir; make; done

I wrote that off the top of my head so it may not work straight off, but you get the idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> To my considerable surprise, a convenient sample of older books on my bookshelf tend to confirm the author's contention (year of publication order, all London, see file names for specifics).

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography- sampl...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography-sample- neville-wardlock-london-1886.png)

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography- sampl...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography-sample- rossetti-oup-london-1913.png)

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography- sampl...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography-sample-ae- mcmillan-london-1920.png)

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography- sampl...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8403291/typography-sample-brod- knopf-london-1928.png)

Oxford University Press was using single space like spacing around 1950, but I have a travel book about Greece published in 1947 (George Allen Unwin) that still uses a very large space after a full stop.

<comment><USER24> You can "hide" the space added for justification better between sentences, since most readers would notice and be distracted by too much variable space between letters and words. That looks to be what's happening in some of these.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> INANCIENTLATINTHEREWERENOSPACES.THEREREALLYWERENOPUNCTUATION EITHERBUTI'MBEINGNICE.THEREWASALSONOSPACESATALLBETWEENWORDS. BUTPEOPLECANMAKEUPCRAZYPSEUDOHISTORIESTOMAKEUPWHATEVERTHEYFE ELTHEYMUSTBELIEVE.

And frankly, be glad we don't use the traditional caps-only run-everything- together style of yore.

<comment><USER26> ACTUALLYITWASDURINGTHEREIGNOFCHARLEMAGNETHATSPACINGCAPITALIZATIONANDPUNCTUATIONWEREADDED ASCONVENTIONSTOMANUSCRIPTWRITINGTHANKALCUINTHATSUCHTHINGSCHANGED

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> In every discipline, there are those who care _too much_ about such pointless trivialities. I just hope that the author leaves the correct pause at the end of every spoken sentence, too. But I pray that I am not caught up in that conversation!

<comment><USER28> The author is railing against people who care too much. They are not advocating double space. They are telling the self-important twits who write Salon articles telling everyone how ignorant and stupid two spaces is to Shut the Fuck Up. And telling the rest of us to ignore self-important twits that care too much.

<comment><USER29> Well, "self-important twits" like myself who care about issues like usability and readability (which the author definitely does not, as evident by the black on gray blogdesign) have the comfortable option to just "shut the fuck up" and don't read people unwilling to deliver on the basics. He who disrespects his readers will get no respect from me.

<comment><USER30> Do you find it hard to read? The contrast is more than comfortable to my eyes.

<comment><USER29> Hm. Now it's dark outside and just a small light on, and I have to agree, the contrast is readable. And [http://leaverou.github.io/contrast- ratio/#%23222-on-%23d9d9d...](http://leaverou.github.io/contrast- ratio/#%23222-on-%23d9d9d9) agrees. It's a bit greyer though than I prefer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I didn't even know this was a thing, but caring passionately how many spaces people put after their sentences is borderline OCD. I'm going to start using double spaces so I know who the crazy people are.

<comment><USER32> The world needs all types of people. Would you really want someone who doesn't care about particulars to be designing a space shuttle?

<comment><USER33> Not someone who becomes enraged when a coworker violates one of their totally arbitrary particulars. I wouldn't want anyone designing a spaceship to have to function in such an unhealthy work environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I eventually noticed that this article practices what it preaches, after reading a few sections. The sentence-spacing is wider than the word-spacing.

I found it easy to read fluently all the way down (this is moderately unusual for me) - with good typographic choices in line length and colour contrast helping.

At the least, I find the author to have some credibility on this subject.

<comment><USER35> You honestly find 12pt black text on a dark grey background with a measure of 90+ characters to be easy to read?

<comment><USER34> Fair point; I have set a minimum point size set which also reduces the characters per line.

Regarding black on dark grey: yes, far preferable to black on white.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> An alien craft slips into orbit around the earth. They intend to invade earth, but they first want to know whether there's a point to conquering us.

One of the aliens picks up a Internet exchange on his superpowerful galactic cyber-terminal. He turns to his companion and says, "I don't know how to tell you this, but they're posting thousands of words discussing whether to use one or two spaces after a period."

The ammonia drains from the other alien's face and he says, "Let's get out of here!"

[http://www.daviddarling.info/images/ammonia_cartoon.jpg](http://www.daviddarling.info/images/ammonia_cartoon.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER37> > The "standard" of one space is maybe 60 years old at the most, with some > publishers retaining wider spaces as a house style well into the 1950s and > even a few in the 1960s.

This article starts off sounding like it is making an argument against prescriptivists, then claims that older standards are more authoritative?

Why not choose _scriptio continua_ as an even more authoritative style? Or, take a look at the quality of writing in something like _Readers Digest_ from the 1950s, and judge whether the conversational tone is worth emulating.

Regardless, most opinions are probably influenced either by such books as _The Mac is not a Typewriter_ or alternately by a high school typing class that was based on a curriculum for professional secretaries. There were still high schools into the 1990s that taught students about carbon paper.

Even if there is a lot of unmerited arrogance about using a single space after a period, there's a lot of officiousness around a claim that two spaces after a period is "correct". If it is a generational thing between people who went to high school in the 70s and 80s vs 90s and 2000s, then it is also a difference between people who were learning business correspondence compared to people who were learning desktop publishing and web design.

<comment><USER38> > Readers Digest from the 1950s ... conversational tone

Any examples available of this online? You've got me curious.

<comment><USER39> Check out:

[http://www.conversationagent.com/2008/01/readers- digest.html](http://www.conversationagent.com/2008/01/readers-digest.html)

They would basically re-write/condense articles and stories to an 8th grade reading level, but had a unique way of doing it so that it wasn't patronizing or content free.

It was a really interesting company, they basically had capability similar to what you find in modern advertising/CRM systems to target supplemental publications and other items to magazine subscribers -- in the 1960's!

Nowadays it's a bunch of drivel... stories about angels, inspirational stuff, and military themed stories aimed at old people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The convention of a 1/3 em space between words, 2/3 after most punctuation, and a full em space after a sentence seems great to me. And I do appreciate a serious piece of pedantry.

</comment><comment><USER41> It doesn't really help the author's case that they only examples of extra space after a period they have is with justified text. ALL computer software will add extra space after periods in justified text. In flush-left text, 2 spaces after a sentence just looks bad, period.

I also like how the author manually went in and    after every period just to make a statement.

For the record, these contrarian articles bother me because I'm a creative director and I have to put up with my underlings showing me HN articles saying that design dogmas like "serif text is easier to read in body copy" and "2 spaces after a period is bad" are WRONG and that I'm not listening to the "facts". The problem? They try to prove me wrong and the results look like shit. The author here tried to prove me wrong, but the result is his typography looks like shit. I hope they're happy!

<comment><USER42> For centuries typographers clearly thought just the opposite, so you may want to consider the likelihood that your preferences are simply the result of relatively inflexible automatic typesetting replacing more expensive but more flexible manual typesetters during the mid 20th c., not some objective standard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Double sentence spaces are still entrenched in the legal community, and I think they have a major advantage there: they make it easier to read text with inline citation sentences.

</comment><comment><USER44> I guess my question is this: Are word processing/page layout programs failing to translate a space after a period to the modern 'em quad' equivalent?

I was under the impression that one single spaced between thins because 'smart' features in text software and with variable width fonts knew how to make spacing variable automatically.

I always understood the "don't use two spaces" exhortation as a standard aimed at getting people to let their software take care of things instead of treating Word or In Design like a typewriter.

</comment><comment><USER45> `sententious' is a great word. I need to start using it.

Other than that it sounds like a tale from Jonathan Swift. Big or little endian anyone?

</comment><comment><USER46> The whole discussion is pointless because as soon as you start thinking in spaces, linebreaks and tabs to generate whitespace between objects you're doing it wrong! Change the font, size, weight, line height, etc. and your layout is gone.

Just use LaTeX. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER35> This article is very bitter and inflammatory. In my experience, people only use two spaces after a period because thats what they were taught and are too stubborn to change.

The main typographic case against two spaces after a period is that it breaks up the flow of text and creates rivers inside the text block. Counter space is the most important aspect of a typeface, and by adding two spaces after a period you are breaking the rhythm of the text.

<comment><USER47> > people only use two spaces after a period because thats what they were > taught and are too stubborn to change.

Are you sure it's stubbornness that you're describing? I was taught to use 2 spaces when I was 5 or 6, and in the meantime I have been typing things for the majority of my life. When I pound out two spaces at the end of a sentence it's not out of pride or because I'm consciously thinking about it.

Telling me I'm "too stubborn" to write a single space is like saying I'm too stubborn to change my handwriting or use a Dvorak layout; these things would require conscious effort and attention to things that I am not currently thinking about, or to change what I am writing and this would slow me down. Or, considering how young I was taught, you might as well say I'm "too stubborn" to stop other current habits developed at around the same time, like bathing regularly or brushing my teeth.

Frankly if I have to please folks like you I'd rather just pipe everything I write into sed s/\ \ /\ /g. That way I don't have to drop my productivity by consciously thinking about spacing between sentences. OTOH, not one person has ever mentioned this habit to me, so it must not really be a problem.

<comment><USER48> I learned how to type when I was 10 with double spaces after periods. I realized it looked bad/was unnecessary and now I single space. Wasn't very hard to make the conscious effort to change it. /just saying

<comment><USER47> Sounds like that works for you. I don't think it would work for me. Unlike some in this thread though, I am not going to say that my preferences work for everybody.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Apparently the author is so serious about this that the HTML is full of this things like "lazy standard?  Wow.  Just wow."

<comment><USER50> That seems like the wrong way to do it.

The post sentence spacing was never really treated as two consecutive spaces - conceptually, it's a single area of whitespace that is larger than the inter- word spacing.

If you especially cared about typesetting it correctly, you'd use a single   (or perhaps an  ).

<comment><AUTHOR> And you'd get your computer to insert the m-spaces for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I want Jasper Fforde to write a book about this... gangs of 14th century typographers rove the Italian cities, always ready to whip out finely-honed copies of LaTex to impale hated rivals and defend family honour. Meanwhile, hermit monks of the order of St. Lancaster toil away at hand-illuminated Postscript documents...

</comment><comment><USER52> What I want to know is why style guides recommend no space around a slash. To my eye, "either / or" is much more readable than "either/or".

<comment><USER53> Style guides are arbitrary prescriptions. Why not 2 spaces around a slash? Why not put a space before _and_ after a period? Why not put spaces around parenthesis instead of just before?

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> My main objection to double space fonts is that if we wanted more space we could easily do it with the kerning tables. To physically have to type two spaces is stupid.

<comment><USER55> Agreed! This brings back bad memories of "computer teachers" letting you type over stuff from a printed page in Word, forcing you to double-space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> A larger space (em-quad) is not the same as two spaces.

<comment><USER57> We're talking about visuals here, so how isn't it?

<comment><USER58> An em space is the width of the letter _m_. IIRC, a normal space in most proportional fonts is closer to the letter _n_.

It has always been my understanding that historically, typographers tended to prefer em spaces between sentences (vs. after intra-sentence punctuation like 'Mr.' or a comma). And so, once typewriters with their fixed-width fonts came out¹, people used a double-space at the end of a sentence to approximate an em space.

The frustrating thing, typographically-speaking, is that the HTML approach doesn't map to the manually-typeset process, either, since it doesn't have any semantic knowledge about "end of sentence" vs. "random intra-sentence punctuation" and thus treats them all the same.

(Note that this is also where we get _em dashes_ and _en dashes_ from. And just like em spaces and en spaces, an em dash is transliterated to '\--' in fixed-width fonts.)

¹ For all I know, the double-space trick was used with fixed-width letterpress before the advent of typewriters. The problem seems to have more to do with fixed-width than with typewriters.

<comment><USER59> The thing is that the period on a typewriter will usually be aligned towards the previous letter, so a "period space" sequence on a typewriter will have nearly the same amount of space as would be seen in a "period space space" sequence on a software word processor when not using a fixed-width font. In essence, this furthers the idea that the double space is an emulation of the output of a typewriter, rather than supporting the idea that it's influenced by typesetting (where in the past the space between words might have been 1/3 or 2/3 the width of the space after a period, if no other space was added throughout the sentence for alignment).

For the most part, the article justifies simply blaming publishers for becoming lazy, though it seems to me that they choice of spacing around sentences is largely determined by the market for which something is being published, and most publishers would have invested at some point in a decent lexer that can handle enough of the burden of finding the ends of sentences to allow the process to be largely hands-off (and allow the appearance of the output to change fairly easily if they want to print a special or mass-market edition later).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> It'd be interesting to get data on this. Thoughts on how that would work? Something like "Take a paragraph, A|B test it on CrowdFlower/Turk with both types of spacing, with the outcome being [?]" Speed? Being able to answer some question at the bottom about some detail in the text? Not sure.

I guess the likely outcome would be that there's no difference. And we'd be stuck in the same place. We'd be better off if everyone used one convention (if multiple people edit a doc, more consistency), but there's not much of a good way to decide on what the convention should be. I suppose that's why these things get so religious in the first place...

</comment><comment><USER61> Double spaces are a pet peeve of mine. I remove all of them in any document I must edit and I'm quite thorough.

</comment><comment><USER62> If you see two spaces, you can almost bet that the author is an American and over 40 years old :)

<comment><USER63> I'm 34 and I do it. I wouldn't have it any other way. Why even have periods if you aren't going to separate sentences with proper distance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Unix fmt double-spaces after periods, except periods after single letters. Of course, that's only useful to you if you compose text in a text editor, and pipe it through fmt (or par, if you are that picky), before publishing it.

Thanks to HTML, however, you wouldn't know this text, for example, had lines about 72 characters,¹ was carefully hand-justified after fmt(1) to leave no dangling words alone on a line before or after punctuation,² and had double spaces after all periods inside paragraphs, except T and S in T. S. Eliot.

¹ Except the first paragraph, better broken at "letters", "editor", and "it", and this footnote, also broken after "editor".

² Though I would rather do that than visit violence upon decent sentences, like this one, broke at "sentences". Obviously it's preferable to expand and contract margins a bit to suit the text. Nobody does this any more though, because auto-sizing to columns destroys manual formatting.³

³ Incidentally, these footnotes had to be separate paragraphs, to keep them from merging with the previous one, and with the body paragraphs. What a piece of work is HTML… it delights not me.

Here is this comment before the autoformatter got to it. [https://gist.github.com/catenate/6567903](https://gist.github.com/catenate/6567903)

</comment><comment><USER65> It seems there are three different use cases. 1) Typing and storing words as plain-text. Two spaces seem unnecessary. 2) Writing a file for pretty printing. LaTeX is an excellect choice, and will probably make a pretty PDF. 3) Display as an HTML webpage. Currently there aren't any good solutions for this, and generally we're trying to make something that either just defaults to 1, or else creates a poor emulation of 2.

</comment><comment><USER66> It may not _be_ wrong, but it still _looks_ wrong, or antiquated at the very least. Reading a book that still uses extra space after a full stop feels like reading something from the time when it was fashionable to put a space before an exclamation mark or a question mark.

The period alone is enough to indicate a full stop; an extra space is redundant. Like needless words, one should seek to omit needless punctuation wherever possible.

<comment><USER42> yesandletsgetridofthosepeskypacesbetweenwordstoo!

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Nice article and nice use of primary sources.

 _The convention was: put wider spaces than word spaces after punctuation, and put an extra-wide space after a period._

I will try this for two weeks: three spaces after the period; two after the comma, semi-colon and friends. Already, I note a difference. Already do I seek alternate syntax to regulate spacing.

<comment><USER68> Sorry if my brain is just tired and not parsing correctly, but I'm confused about this:

> _Already do I seek alternate syntax to regulate spacing._

Do you mean you want an easier way to create such 1,2,3 spaces, or that it makes you want 1-space-only more than before?

<comment><USER67> It means, when I add two spaces after a comma, I have increased its visual strength and thus I may choose alternate syntax where I don't want a strong break. eg, "already, I have" -> "already have I". The latter form does feel more old fashioned. Perhaps writers of yesteryear experienced the same effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Oh boy, I just wasted 10 mins on reading sides in a debate about typesetting sentences.

The original author's purpose is to set the record straight about history and counter false claims about history to back up one's points in a debate. Period. Full stop. Space. The guy even says that repeatedly in his comments. Get it right :)

</comment><comment><USER70> Sigh. Cached version: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.her...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.heracliteanriver.com/?p=324)

Poor Wordpress.

</comment><comment><USER71> I vote whatever is faster to read. Wikipedia claims one study said one space barely, other studies showed no difference. So one space it is, I guess. Don't really care about the history whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER72> Arguing with a Slate article is probably the wrong place to start for this discussion. The Wikipedia entry on sentence spacing is probably a tiny bit better.

As much as I'd love to see a properly executed experiment where reading speed, enjoyment and comprehension was evaluated between groups of people reading the same material using single or double spacing after a period, I'm guessing it ultimately it comes down to preference.

</comment><comment><USER73> If you read the original constitution, there is definitely a longer space after periods (not too many of them not at the end of a line) than between words. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Constitut...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Constitution_of_the_United_States%2C_page_1.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER48> My main issue with double spacing after periods is that people rarely do it consistently. This author, who is in favour of the double space, uses a triple space after a question mark at one point. I always see this happen when I read anything from "double spacers."

</comment><comment><USER74> Wow, that's some passion there!

I find it ironic that this is the first article I've seen in a long time for which I've had to bring up Safari's reader in order to read comfortably. Black text on a dark-grey background? really?

<comment><USER35> I know I find it frustratingly obvious that the author has no real grasp of typography just by looking at the text in this article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75>   has been my friend for years. Its the only way to make the browser give you two spaces between sentences.

Or is there some better way to do it, a setting for an entire paragraph or page? It'd be great to have that.

<comment><USER36> You can wrap each sentence in <span class="sentence"> ... </span>, then use CSS to apply a style to the sentence class. This may seem complex for such an issue, but it does obey the rule of separating content and style.

Another advantage of this approach is that you can have a JS checkbox on the page so people who feel strongly about this can choose which style they prefer. :)

Creating a sentence class as above does for sentences what <p> ... </p> does for paragraphs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> The author keeps mentioning that "most people", but I can't find where that conclusion comes from.

And arguing that we should use two spaces to replicate a standard of longer spaces is at best a crude approximation.

</comment><comment><USER77> This is a hilarious debate to read on hn, a veritable shitpile of busy text. Not complaining, I like hn, just saying it's funny. (btw, I'm firmly in the 2 space camp).

</comment><comment><USER78> One space after periods, then give the period-space pair nice-looking kerning in your typeface. Done.

<comment><USER79> Doesn't work for abbreviations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> i really love that this is one of those topics that draws scads of comments no matter where it appears.

as if it is important, and everybody's behavior must be rigidly enforced so we'll have complete conformity.

-bowerbird

</comment><comment><USER81> Not sure if serious?

<comment><USER82> You know how we argue about stuff like bracket styles and virtually identical text editors? Other professions have their own Very Important Debates(TM).

<comment><USER83> Doesn't typography overlap quite significantly with web design ? Isn't that the profession of many of the people on this site ?

Lack of knowledge of these things is one of the reasons that much of the text people read every day is presented with a system (HTML/CSS) that has complete disregard for typography[1]. Unlike LaTeX for example where you can set your inter sentence spacing to whatever you want, because Knuth took the time to learn about typography and create a system that has the flexibility required to lay out text properly[2].

[1] smallcaps, kerning, spacing, justification, the list goes on and on

[2] for pretty much any value of 'properly' you can imagine

<comment><USER84> There is however a problem with interactive devices: any type-setting is doomed because the setter has no control on the output.

Knuth could do TeX because the aim is to produce fixed-typed text (barring proportionality). Not so on the Internet. It is not that the web standards despise typography: it is that the web is not a place in which to SET (which implies "fix") types. And that is why it is so hard to get a compelling, attractive web page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Two spaces is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER86> Sigh... Methinks the author should get a life.

Here's what should really happen: my OS should adjust tracking after periods based on preferred locale. And the same for other typography rules.

Instead, we have broken software that can't get anyone to agree on typography, and anal bloggers who are debating over how we should adapt to our broken software in an age where white space is collapsed anyway courtesy of html.</comment>


The Joys of Victimhood (1989) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/magazine/the-joys-of-victimhood.html?pagewanted=2&pagewanted=all <comment><USER3> When I hear someone (having, by their own description, a front-row seat for these events) reduce the civil-rights movement to this:

"What I saw was a number of bad laws called into question and ultimately removed by acts of courage and wise restraint on the part of the victims of those laws."

…as though the white-supremacist, apartheid state that existed in the south at the time was nothing more than a few pesky laws that had all gotten cleared up by 1968, I have to seriously question that person's powers of observation. It's such an almost perverse misunderstanding of history that it has be deliberate, right? Any time someone starts out with a premise like, "the civil rights movement, like a spiritual oil spill, left a vast residue of guilt in its wake," and then proceeds from there, you know it's going to be a long read.

Sure, there's an attempt to graft some sort of philosophical backbone to the piece through this (nonsensical) distinction he makes between "appeal[s] to conscience" and "appeal[s] to guilt," but it's confusingly handled and doesn't go anywhere. Mainly what stands out for me is the relentless lack of empathy that runs throughout this article, which is really more in the way of a rant the a serious argument, anyway.

I think there's a philosophical and moral argument to be had about victimhood, and the problematic nature of it, but you need to argue honestly. One sentence after he glibly absolves the government of responsibility for the AIDS crisis, he says, "whereas once the idea was to shake off victimhood through courage and organization, nowadays the idea seems to be to enjoy it for its emotional effects," as though ACT UP never existed. In other words, you can make an argument, but you don't get to rewrite or erase history that's inconvenient to your thesis, which he does consistently. It's disappointing this made it to the front page of HN, it's a pretty unpleasant, dishonest piece of writing.

<comment><USER4> Did you have a "front row seat" to the civil rights movement, or were you exposed to it by a university professor? I ask because from your use of words and barely restrained anger it appears that you deem that era as some sort of holy crusade against evil. It may be that (i wasn't there) but as i study it more it feels as if the the disenfranchisement of black folks was used as a political motivation to exert state control over lifestyle choices. I know that that sentence is blasphemy at my university, but the truth has a delicious way of ignoring sentiment.

<comment><USER5> Could you elaborate on that? I'm very interested in that thought and I've heard similar statements before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Such a situation could never have come about without certain fundamental > confusions having been firmly established, and these begin with language > itself. Victims have traditionally been minority groups, but in fact women, > who in the United States are a slight majority, have been deemed victims, > whereas the Jews and the Chinese in America, though clearly minorities (and > vastly less numerous than blacks or Hispanic people), are not usually > counted as victims and thus rarely get included in affirmative action or > other quota favoritism programs. A victim, then, is someone who insistently > declares himself a victim.

I was just wondering about this last year. I still haven't had anybody explain it to me in a logically-consistent way. I think it's a fair ask.

<comment><USER7> Minority status does not define victims, and instead it is about power.

There were a lot less British in India during the Raj than there were Indians. It is pretty clear who the victim was then.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure that explains why Chinese immigrants would be portrayed as victims less than hispanic immigrants, as just one example off the top of my head.

<comment><USER8> > I'm not sure that explains why Chinese immigrants would be portrayed as > victims less than hispanic immigrants

The question makes no sense - why expect all minority groups to be portrayed equally as victims in the first place?

Just because many victims are minorities doesn't mean that the latter implies the former. You might as well ask why Swedish immigrants aren't seen as victims - the obvious answer is, because being a minority isn't what makes someone be seen as a victim.

<comment><USER7> _Just because many victims are minorities doesn 't mean that the latter implies the former._

Exactly. It's clearly not correct at all.

It's almost like he knew that bit was a weak part of his argument, so surrounded it with examples which would put people into ideological mode instead of thinking for a moment about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here in the South, there is this air of hospitality. But there is an irony because everyone always rejects each others volunteer assistance out of pride for their ability to take care of themselves. I see charity directed towards me almost as an insult, or subtle attempted ownership, and there is this competitive air about needing less than others.

But I suppose in more densely populated areas, there is more victimhood at play. This is an education problem, because these people were never raised to take care of themselves. Instead, they want to be owed something. This "something" usually comes in the form of tax handouts, and when it is distributed, I'm certain it is quite mismanaged. Think of all the impulse-buy items near checkouts that are purchased with food stamps, when these people could be combining this resource to buy in bulk and get much more out of it.

My mantra is to be a provider, not a consumer. It's not about how much you make, it's about what you choose to spend it on.

It seems like these types of problems can only exist when there are too many people living in close-proximity.

<comment><USER10> "The South" is neither morally superior, nor more independent/self-reliant, etc..

Guess which states get more than twice the taxes they pay to the federal government back? Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, and other rural southern states are taken the handouts from California and New York: [https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vby1dJlsXmM/VtkJnusdGXI/AAAAAAAAJ...](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vby1dJlsXmM/VtkJnusdGXI/AAAAAAAAJqk/EQXnfNLOqT0/s1600/fed_spending_dollar.JPG)

Guess which teenagers are incapable of not getting pregnant at 14? The southern, rural christians. Guess which states' citizen are dropping from Opiod addiction like flies? Again, the south (plus similarly rural Appalachia). Guess where food stamps are most used, where people are unable to control their eating and are morbidly obese, which people smoke more, where drunk driving is socially accepted, etc etc: the US South, and some rural northern states, are worse than the large cities in almost any measure you can think of.

<comment><USER11> So someone said something about the south, that does not make it okay to go on a bigoted diatribe. Wtf.

<comment><USER9> Notice it's been 4 days and he/she has yet to reply to us. There is no debate or conversation if there is no back&forth. We are not seeking interaction or exchanges - only to be heard.

The Internet enables quantity, not quality. Belittle some strangers, sit at the keyboard with a smug look, and possibly tell someone about it (with tongue, not fingers).

Routines like this for decades on end are what cause opioid, food, alcohol addiction, "etc etc".

It's more engaging to list problems instead of performing solutions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Bear in mind this was written in the very same year that the same guy traded on his own "victimhood" after being fired from his 20yr job for writing a homophobic rant.

<comment><USER13> When these people complain about others being special snowflakes and expecting special treatment, what they really mean is that _they_ deserve special treatment.

<comment><USER14> I have always thought this to be true. I find it ironic when whites complain about programs like affirmative action when through laws such as Jim Crow, Red Lineing, etc... they have been receiving affirmative action for hundreds of years. What whites are really saying when they speak out against programs like that is: "We deserve to be the only protected class of people".

<comment><USER15> > I find it ironic when whites complain ... they have been receiving > affirmative action for hundreds of years.

There is a part in the article explaining how "they" who benefited from Jim Crow are not necessarily the same people as "they" who complain about being discriminated against. Not necessarily even descendants thereof.

Instead, you often get ironic situations like Jewish people who barely escaped Nazism while the rest of their families died in concentration camps, only to get yelled at for being white and allegedly benefiting from Jim Crow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The number of parallels between now and 1989 are striking: victimhood == top social currency, etc... It really is almost like we have these 20-30 year social cycles... Perhaps this is known to the sociological literature - <USER2> that's not my area. Just the same I find it fascinating.

<comment><USER17> Doesn't cycle imply that it went down in between?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The same author on similar themes in 2015:

[http://www.weeklystandard.com/unassailable-virtue- victims/ar...](http://www.weeklystandard.com/unassailable-virtue- victims/article/941011)

</comment><comment><USER19> _The pleasures of victim-hood include imbuing one 's life with a sense of drama. The drama of daily life is greatly heightened if one feels that society is organized against one._

This sounds very, very familiar!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcP0WmGB78A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcP0WmGB78A)

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a hateful diatribe that only serves to show that today's mocking of calls for justice as "joyful victimhood" is not as new and creative as many seem to believe.

the "victim"-narrative is lazy yet insidious: because anyone mentioning a perceived wrong can be painted with the same non-argument, mocked, and ignored.

How are people like this author, bemoaning the loss of white male supremacy, never accused of playing the victim card? They are, after all, claim to somehow be personally harmed from the mere exposure to other people just mentioning poverty, discrimination, violence, etc.

</comment><comment><USER20> Epstein's powerful prose captures well the New York intellectual views of a certain culture and a certain generation. It's a fascinating perspective on what people were thinking then. I was equally fascinated by the deep view of the popular psyche shown in his September 1970 essay for Harper's Magazine, featured on its cover ( [https://harpers.org/archive/1970/09/homohetero/](https://harpers.org/archive/1970/09/homohetero/) ):

> Yet if heterosexual life has come to seem impossibly difficult, homosexual > life still seems more nearly impossible. For to be a homosexual is to be > hostage to a passion that automatically brings terrible pressures to bear on > any man who lives with it: and these pressures, which only a few rare > homosexuals are able to rise above with any success, can distort a man, can > twist him, and always leave him defined by his sexual condition. The same, I > think, cannot be said about heterosexuals. With the possible exception of > prostitutes and heterosexuals driven by abnormal appetites, the general run > of heterosexuals are not defined by their sexuality at all. Although the > power of sex is never to be underrated, in the main for most heterosexuals > sex beyond adolescence becomes a secondary matter, a pleasure most of the > time, a problem only in its absence. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a > full-time matter, a human status—and that is the tyranny of it.

> …

> I am not about to go into a liberal homily here about the need for private > acceptance of homosexuality, because, truth to tell, I have not privately > accepted it myself—nor, I suspect am I soon likely to. In my liberal (or > Liberal's) conscience, I prefer to believe that I have never done anything > to harm any single homosexual, or in any way added to his pain; and it would > be nice if I could get to my grave with this record intact. Yet I do not > mistake my tolerance as complete. Although I have had pleasant dealings with > homosexuals professionally, also unpleasant ones, I do not have any > homosexuals among my close friends. If a close friend were to reveal himself > to me as being a homosexual, I am very uncertain what my reaction would > be—except to say that it would not be simple. I clearly do not consider a > man's homosexuality, as certain ihomosexuals would argue, merely a matter of > sexual preference on his part, something vestigial to him, but instead I > think it goes deep within him, that it cannot but have affected him > strenuously, making him either a stronger man or a weaker, a better man or a > worse—whichever, at all events, an essentially different man than he would > be if he were not a For this reason, and from an absolutely personal point > of view, I consider it important o know whether a man I am dealing with is a > homosexual or nut. Not long ago the BBC did a retrospective on the art of > Sergei Diaghilev. Every aspect of Diaghilev's illustrious career was covered > from every possible angle, when the last man to be interviewed for the show, > an aged Russian homosexual who was a friend of Diaghilev's from the 1920s, > said: "Ze ting you must remember about Servei vas dat he vas a very > aggressive homosexual." I think anyone who would ignore a fact of this kind > in intellectual criticism or in life, is a fool.

> If I had the power to do so, I would wish homosexuality off the face of this > earth. I would do so because I think that it brings infinitely more pain > than pleasure to those who are forced to live with it; because I think there > is no resolution for this pain in our lifetime, only, for the overwhelming > majority of homosexuals, more pain and various degrees of exacerbating > adjustment; and because, wholly selfishly, I find myself completely > incapable of coming to turns with it.

> …

> They are different front the rest of us. Homosexuals are different, > moreover, in a way that cuts deeper than other kinds of human > differences—religious, class, racial—in a way that is, somehow, more > fundamental. Cursed without clear cause, afflicted without apparent cure, > they are an affront to our rationality, living evidence of our despair of > ever finding a sensible, an explainable, design to the world. One can > tolerate homosexuality, a small enough price to be asked to pay for someone > else's pain, but accepting it, really accepting it, is another thing > altogether. I find I can accept it least of all when I look at my children. > There is much my four sons can do in their lives that might cause me > anguish, that might outrage me, that might make me ashamed of them and of > myself as their father. But nothing they could ever do would make me sadder > than if any of them were to become homosexual. For then I should know them > condemned to a state of permanent niggerdom among men, their lives, whatever > adjustment they might make to their condition, to be lived out as part of > the pain of the earth.

<comment><USER21> It is normal to want grandchildren, and therefore it also normal to be distressed if your children are homosexual.

<comment><USER22> Sure, but replace each instance of "homosexual" in the above with "person who does not want children" or "barren person" and see if you think that's why the author is distressed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love how he thinks that Israel bulldozing Palestinian neighborhoods and killing civilians doesn't count as oppression because there's more Arabs than Israelis in the general area.

<comment><USER7> This was written in 1989. Settlements were much less of an issue then, and the demographics were dramatically different.

<comment><USER23> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights#De_facto_annexat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights#De_facto_annexation_by_Israel_and_civil_rule)

<comment><USER7> Indeed.

You'd be aware the the Palestinian state doesn't claim the Golan Heights?

I think that Israel has lost a lot of moral authority in the years since the 1980s.

But I think in 1981 annexing the Golan was a defensible choice: the Syrians had constantly used them as place to launch artillery barrages against Israeli towns like Tiberius.

The 1980s (especially the early 80s) really were different: there were Arab states around Israel who would use their own armed forces to attack, and the PLO hadn't disavowed terrorism.

Now of course times have changes, and Israel no longer can claim that those threats, and settlements have made their problems worse. But Hamas and Hezbollah have capitalized on that, so.. there is plenty of blame to go around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Look, I see that it's a relevant article today. But I don't think it's saying much, and it has a weird homophobic/racist current running through it. For example, Epstein mocks the idea that the US government exacerbated the AIDS crisis (which it clearly did.) He says slavery ended "more than a century" ago - slavery effectively continued several decades after the Thirteenth Amendment was passed.

Now, I don't like the idea of tearing down a good article just because the author is an asshole. But in this case, I think the article isn't very good, and the author also happens to be an asshole: this is the same guy that was "revolted" by the idea of "fags" (both his words, though he later switched to using "homosexuals".) The same guy that criticized people writing candidly about death, the same guy who constantly thought he was being hunted by "men with strange appetites, men whose minds were twisted". And the same guy who, upon learning an acquaintance was gay, was "angry at being victimized by his duplicity."

Oh, and the same guy who thought it was better for a gay man to commit suicide than act upon his unrealized gay desires. It'd be very interesting to read a good article on victimization from someone who isn't so horrible, though: it is an important topic, and there are many interesting things, which are frequently left unsaid, to be said about it.

<comment><USER25> It was more acceptable to be homophobic back then so you have to cut him a little slack. They wouldn't publish a new article like that today. There isn't some fundamental truth about good and bad things to write - it depends on how people judge you, which depends on the arbitrary changes in culture.

<comment><USER18> The same author in a 2015 article I linked to elsewhere in this discussion:

"In 1970, some 45 years ago, I wrote an essay in -Harper's on the subject of homosexuality. The chief points of my essay were that no one had a true understanding of the origins of human homosexuality, that there was much false tolerance on the part of some people toward homosexuals; that for many reasons homosexuality could be a tough card to have drawn in life; and that given a choice, owing to the complications of homosexual life, most people would prefer their children to be heterosexual. Quotations from that essay today occupy the center of my Wikipedia entry. In every history of gay life in America the essay has a prominent place. When I write something controversial, this essay is brought up, usually by the same professional gay liberationists, to be used against me. That I am pleased the tolerance for homosexuality has widened in America and elsewhere, that in some respects my own aesthetic sensibility favors much homosexual artistic production (Cavafy, Proust, Auden), cuts neither ice nor slack. My only hope now is that, on my gravestone, the words Noted Homophobe aren't carved."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> one page view

[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/magazine/the-joys-of- victi...](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/magazine/the-joys-of- victimhood.html?pagewanted=2&pagewanted=all)

<comment><USER27> We've changed to that from [http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/magazine/the- joys-of-victi...](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/magazine/the-joys-of- victimhood.html?pagewanted=1). Thanks!</comment></comment>