Saving the Swiss Watch Industry Again - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/saving-the-swiss-watch-industry-again <comment><USER3> I wasn't interested in mechanical watches until reading this from Marco Arment:

> Logically, I shouldn't like these. I'm a usually-rational software developer > and computer geek. Mechanical watches are ancient technology that's > outclassed in every objective metric — accuracy, reliability, simplicity, > cost — by any inexpensive quartz watch, let alone the high-precision > timekeeping and unmatchable connected-computer features on the Apple > Watch...

A big part of that joy, for me, is that this isn't like anything else in my life, and the difference is refreshing.

Most of my work and hobbies involve technologically cutting-edge digital electronics reliant on complex, inconsistent software, with a typical lifetime of a few years at most. Almost everything else I use and make is effectively disposable.

As software creeps into ever more objects in my daily life and makes them more capable yet more disposable and less reliable than ever, it's nice to have something that does less, always works, never needs a software update, requires no cables, doesn't need to be charged, and whose useful life will probably be longer than mine.

[https://marco.org/2016/02/05/watch](https://marco.org/2016/02/05/watch)

</comment><comment><USER4> Funny that, my interest in watches started /because/ of the smart watches. I picked a cheap chinese automatic watch on aliexpress last year, just to see if it'd still annoy me to wear a watch, as it used to last time I tried a few years back. Idea was, if I can wear a basic watch, i'd buy a smart one...

Lo' and behold, I loved it. My £12 chinese crapiola was actually pretty darn good and I wore it for several weeks, before I bought another 'proper' watch, and I since bough half a dozen, including 'expensive' swiss ones...

The really funny thing is -- it has increased my phone battery life! I'm not kidding, since I no longer have to wake up the phone to check the time, my phone battery lasts significantly longer!

Now _that 's_ a side effect people aren't talking about :-)

<comment><USER5> Do you have a favorite watch?

<comment><USER4> Actually the one I wear the most is the Steinhart diver one... because it's quite sturdy; and not expensive enough to be scared if it's bumped into stuff... It's really excellent value, I think.

As a full blood nerd, my read favourite is the Bulova Accutron Spaceview from 1964 -- it as ONE transistor, so I call it my smartwatch ;-)

<comment><USER6> Ah. Steinhart. Good too. Kemmner, another one. Some kind of legend. But communication with him is said to be tricky: [http://www.ebay.de/sch/erkahund/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&...](http://www.ebay.de/sch/erkahund/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think part of the problem is that just about all Swiss watch brands have taken the realisation that what they offer is a Veblen good to extremes; high price has become a selling point to the extent that the mass market can no longer buy their offerings.

That's kind of bad, as that's where the money is at.

I am a mechanical watch nut - I own a few dozen, mostly bought second hand, I do my own basic maintenance etc - I have to date bought one luxury watch new; an Omega Planet Ocean which close to a decade ago set me back USD 2,700 or so - by all means a lot of money, but doable for a working professional in a reasonably well off economy.

Today, as far as I can tell, a comparable model in the same range retails at $6,000, while cost of living overall has increased only 19% in the same period. Go figure.

</comment><comment><USER8> Smart watch , and I love tech I own a pebble and apple watch and an Android wear, it doesn't have anything to do with a watch. In fact a mechanical watch is already far far away from a quartz movement watch. IWC , Omega, junghans(German), Nomos , rolex, Patek... all this brands all this watch making houses are something that a smart watch can't compare with. The person that likes watches, will wear a smart watch to exercise. TAG made the smart watch because the CEO is amazing and he doesn't fear anything. But when people confuse smartwatch market with mechanical watch market doesn't know what is talking about and doesn't own a real watch. Btw, one of the problems I see with smart watches is that they are ugly objects, even the apple watch if you compare it to a Hublot or a simple Hamilton is just an ugly object, and watches are more than time keeper devices are objects that when you look at them in your wrist , the give you the sensation of beauty of harmony and also they tell time.

<comment><USER9> You are describing the current status. That is not where the doubt is. The article worries about the future and how trends will change. As mentioned in the article what "a real watch" means changed a couple of times and it could change in the future. I'm sure the very ornate gold pocket watch wearer of decades ago sneered at those ridiculous little simple looking things that went on the wrist.

<comment><USER10> I wear a mechanical watch because it looks nice and doesn't need firmware updates or charging. I need another device to plug in like another hole in my head. But it is nice to know what time it is without pulling out your phone and drawing a lot of attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For someone working in the watchmaking industry, there is nothing new here. Another post on this managerial crisis, it's not due to financial crisis or smartwatches entering the market.

It's pretty sad that CEOs doesn't want to speak clearly about the real problems (except one [1], in french).

>> _The [Swatch group] recently warned that first-half profit would plummet more than 50 percent._ Really?!?

They can repeat THAT again without being bashed?

Maybe they could just shut up and be happy they still have profit...

[1] [https://www.letemps.ch/economie/2016/09/28/crise- horlogere-n...](https://www.letemps.ch/economie/2016/09/28/crise-horlogere- nest-une-crise-economique)

</comment><comment><USER12> I used to be a watch fan. Not hardcore - I didn't collect or anything, but I liked good quality quartz watches.

Then I got given a Huawei smartwatch as a gift. It's _good_.

Firstly, it looks nice. Maybe not as good as a high-end Swiss watch, but it's much nicer than a Pebble (I think it's nicer than a iWatch, but YMMV). Also, changing faces is fun.

Secondly, it's amazingly useful. I can be in a meeting or talking to someone, feel my watch buzz and check to see if I need to respond to a message without pulling my phone out.

Also, the battery life is really good. I went away and forgot my charger and got 2 1/2 days out of it.

<comment><USER13> > Also, the battery life is really good. I went away and forgot my charger and > got 2 1/2 days out of it.

I'm surprised that they can sell 2 days battery as a feature and have people swallow it.

What's written behind my watch: "10 year battery life".

<comment><USER14> To be fair, your watch can be replaced by a well crafted stick and dial combo.

<comment><USER15> And throw on a compass to align it correctly. Of course this has been done already, and you can be the proud owner of a wrist sundial for only $40! [https://www.amazon.com/Sundial-Compass-Leather- Strap-C-3117/...](https://www.amazon.com/Sundial-Compass-Leather- Strap-C-3117/dp/B00L7VAL0U)

Infinite battery life! Eat that, user5994461's watch! ;)

<comment><USER13> Coincidentally, my watch has a compass :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "Aside from TAG Heuer SA, which released a $1,500 smartwatch last year, Swiss companies have been slow to respond this shift. Only 25 percent of watch executives consider smartwatches a competitive threat, according to a survey last year by Deloitte. There's been no major effort so far to design a way out of the current crisis."

<comment><USER16> And that's because:

"Much of the pain has to do with factors the watch companies couldn't hope to control—including the strength of the Swiss franc and climbing gold prices"

Smartwatches are a niche product, they have little to do with the problems that the Swiss companies are currently facing.

<comment><USER17> The Apple Watch is out selling every luxury brand except Rolex. Definitely a generation shift here

<comment><USER18> I don't see how that's relevant. A luxury watch is typically ten times the price, serves a different purpose and should last 50 years.

<comment><USER19> In fact, regular luxury watch will last a lot longer. Omega will happily fully service/restore any of their watches, no matter how old:

[https://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/service- prices...](https://www.omegawatches.com/customer-service/service- prices/?no_cache=1)

In my mind, a nice rolex/omega/patek is something that is passed on to children, while even the top end Apple Watch is a product that one would expect to replace after few years.

<comment><USER20> That's the motto/line of Patek Philippe . "You merely look after it for the next generation"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I recently wanted to buy a smart watch. I took a long, hard look at each one of my options, and my final conclusion was that none of them is actually acceptable: they're all ugly or have poor features or too big or whatever.

But I still wanted a watch. So I took a look at some good mechanical watches. You know what? Many of them are beautiful. I _want_ to wear one. Sure, they're expensive but — they're jewelry: there's nothing wrong with that!

So I ended up getting a good-quality mechanical watch, and I couldn't be happier.

There was a time when digital watches were the height of extravagance, but they quit being fashionable because they're honestly not better. Right now, smart watches are honestly not better, and I suspect that they never will be.

I wear a watch to tell the time, and to look good; I have a phone (or, better still, a tablet) to be a handheld computer.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why saving it? Mechanical watches fall into the same category of crappy swank for poor people as golden jewelry and chains. Swag for salesmans from office ghettos.

Even design of these watches is complete postmodernist nonsense. Lots of clock hands, bells and whistles, glittery things.

<comment><USER23> I use an automatic watch because I don't want to have to charge it every 2 days (or even change the batteries), and all I need is the time and date. I also don't want to have to debug my watch every time an update or app breaks it, it's just one less thing to worry about.

<comment><USER24> This. You could buy an automatic Seiko 5 for the price of a Swatch and go decades without servicing. At least 10 years should be possible without any problems for every model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Shouldn't the Japanese industry be more worried? They don't have the same prestige to shrink back into. Only Casio is having a stab at the smartwatch category and its not exactly anything more then an also ran.

</comment><comment><USER26> My annoyance with watches is that I have tiny wrists (even when I was in my twenties and could deadlift more than 500lbs... my wrist have been pathetically small).

I have accepted my small wrists but have yet to see a form factor of almost any watch that is acceptable given that I'm a male and want it either genderless or somewhat masculine themed.

The one exception is the fitbit (which I don't have as I'm still waiting for the tech to improve on those guys).

<comment><USER27> You would be in luck with many vintage watches. They are often much smaller (30mm-ish compared to today's minimum 40-42) and there is huge variety.

I have several vintage watches (mostly 50's and 60's), and a few are just a tad small for my average-sized wrist. I particularly like two Lord Elgins I have but never wear, sadly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> My Dad had in no particular order:

Audemars Piguet (gold with Moon phase)

Breguet Jumphand Limited Edition

Diamond encrusted Patek Phillipe

Reversible face Jaeger le Couture sports watch

Various 1960s Omegas and Longines with beautiful designs/inlays

And for years I thought of luxury watches as something interesting and worthwhile, even if I personally could not countenance or afford spending £30,000 on one. But I learned something:

They're expensive to maintain. They don't actually keep perfect time. They're heavy.

In fact, they're silly things really, except for the clockwork itself, if you like that kind of thing.

This is the best watch in the world: [http://www.staples.com/Casio-A168W-1-Mens-Classic-Digital- El...](http://www.staples.com/Casio-A168W-1-Mens-Classic-Digital-Electro- Luminescence-Bracelet-Wrist-Watch-Silver/product_896197)

<comment><USER5> I have a cheap mechanical watch (a Seiko) that has a transparent back where I can see the mechanism. I can't say why, but there's something about carrying around a tiny little machine that harvests energy from my movement that I enjoy.

Everything you wrote is true - the watch needs maintenance and they don't keep great time. For me, that's part of the charm. It has quirks like if I leave it face down, it loses a bit of time. When it gets very quiet, I can hear the watch's heartbeat. When I got it, the watch was fast by about 5 minutes every day so I bought some tools to open the case and adjust the machine to slow it down.

When a month has less than 31 days, I have to adjust the date on the watch and that involves turning the crown which is a shaft with gearing on the end that spins the date dial. It's all very physical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> And now I find I'd very much like an easily hackable smartwatch built with quality materials. Yet AFAICT none exist yet.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's interesting. The results _are_ bad but a few things don't really square up for me:

\- Sure the CHF is strong, and gold prices are high,

\- Nonetheless, it certainly _feels_ like watch price inflation has outstripped general inflation to an unreasonable extent,

\- Over the past few months there seems to have been an explosion of YouTube channels dealing with watches and horology (Federico talks watches, [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH27JDu8g6tPDIjDikVGPog](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH27JDu8g6tPDIjDikVGPog), and the now sadly withdrawn Paul Thorpe Watch Dealer, to name but two), with healthy subscriber growth,

\- Continuing popularlity of watch forums, blogs, etc.

The YouTube channel comment may just be my own perception since my own interest in watches really only started in early 2014 (I'd always liked them but avoided getting into them instinctively on the grounds that as expensive hobbies go, this one seems potentially ruinous).

I do wonder if Swiss manufacturers haven't crapped in their own nest somewhat by over-inflating prices during the period of popularity over the last few years. Sure there are factors beyond their control but, for example, any stainless steel Rolex you're likely to want will set you back at least £6k. I realise the weak pound exacerbates matters, but it still feels like they're taking the mick.

And I can sort of see the perspective on smart watches being no threat: the availability of Apple or Android Smartwatches is going to have _no_ effect on my decision to buy a Rolex, Omega, Ulysse Nardin, AP, or whatever.

Part of me also somewhat objects to spending £500 on something else with a 2 year (ish) useful life (think laptop, tablet, phone, on top of this), whereas a £500 mechanical watch from Hamilton or Seiko will last a lifetime if properly serviced and taken care of.

One of the big reasons I started wearing a watch again, apart from I think they're cool (especially mechanical watches), is so I'd stop pulling out my phone to check the time, inevitably leading to me seeing a notification, and then 10 minutes of my life has disappeared screwing around with twitter/facebook/email/whatever... all because I wanted to know what time it was. From that point of view the Apple Watch, much as I think it _is_ quite cool, would be completely counterproductive. Absolutely the last thing I need in my life is yet more distractions.

But not everyone thinks like that, so maybe smartwatches are a threat to the high end manufacturers.

One thing nobody's mentioned so far: servicing. People talk about how a good mechanical watch will last a lifetime, or even outlast you, and this is true, that can happen. But the keyword here is mechanical. This means wear and tear on the mechanism, and that means that, just like your car, you have to get it serviced and lubricated to keep it running well. Often this is every 3 - <USER2> years, and for a luxury watch will cost as much as a significant piece of maintenance or repair on your car: i.e., £500+.

It might also take 3 months.

This sucks, and does perhaps cast that £500 every 2 - 3 years for an Apple Watch in a slightly different light.

In fairness to the Swiss manufacturers, some of them are making efforts in this area. Some are improving their customer service (I believe Omega are supposed to be strong here), and Breitling have recently released their own in-house B01 movement which I've heard may only need to be serviced every 10 years (at what cost I don't know). Similarly I believe the Omega co-axial movements also have longer service intervals. Nevertheless Swiss watchmaking is an old skool - somewhat elitist - industry overall and their idea of acceptable customer service does lag the curve.

</comment><comment><USER31> "The most resilient part of the industry is that you buy a Swiss watch because you want to say, 'I have a Swiss watch,'" said Paul Swinand"

I love mechanical watches. I repair watches. I love all things related to horology.

That said, if I bought a new Rolex, I really wouldn't own the watch the minute it went out of warranty.

What? Yea, Rolex, and 99% of the other Swiss Watch Companies will not sell parts to their customers. They want you to send it back to the factory, at factory prices, when it needs a service, or breaks down.

If anyone from The Swiss Watch Industry is listening, enough with the "quality assurance" bs. Your industry is in a very delicate point in history. If you don't clean up you act, the quartz crisis of the 70's will look like minor stumbling block.

I never though I would say this, but lately, that Apple Watch is looking better. I just don't want to carry around an IPhone.

So, stop abusing the anti-trust act, and be very friendly to anyone whom buys your overpriced hunks of metal. You're in no position to call any shots, or get cute. If I owned your stock; I would short it yesterday.

(Sorry if I sound bitter. In the last 7 years, the Swiss watch companies pissed off a lot of Independant Watch Repairers, by not selling parts. The average dude with the $25,000 watch has no clue that he/she really doesn't own that watch. They are essentially leasing it. Having the right to repair(let the customer decide whom is going to repair) is so essential to the future of mechanical watches.)

<comment><USER10> Really? I thought everyone that owns a mechanical watch knows that they have to send it in for a $700 servicing every ~5 years.

<comment><USER32> You don't have to send it to Switzerland or even to a local dealer. There are a lot of reputable, independent vendors that will service, for example, a Submariner, for a fraction of what Rolex would charge.</comment></comment></comment>


Is unit testing doomed?  - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20080811/tc_infoworld/108602 <comment><USER2> The story is the same as it was in the 90's. Most shops are culturally resistant to Unit Testing. Most management is too short sighted to appreciate the benefits. Unit test correctly, and you will still be in the world-beating minority.

It's no wonder that Python and Ruby have unit testing cultures. They don't have the measure of safety that static typing gives. To safely refactor in those languages, one really should be unit testing. As a result, many projects end up unit testing and come out ahead.</comment>


Germans Cringe at Hitler's Popularity in Pakistan - <AUTHOR> http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,683966,00.html <comment><USER3> Two things

(1) "Mein Kampf" is just another book for Indians. Sure it is available in bookstores, it isn't particularly popular. Most people have read it, and most think it is a turgid bit of prose.

(2) Why should Indians (or Pakistanis for that matter) have the same level of Hitler Phobia and/or Holocaust guilt Germans have? I thought the German "guilt" was all about how Hitler and co misled _their ancestors_ into The Holocaust and other dirty deeds. Indians and Pakistanis were colonized by the British at the time of WW2 and many of our ancestors fought against the Nazis and the Japanese. (Some of them fought _for_ the Nazis/Japanese trying to attain independence for India from the British).

Nutshell: People who had nothing to do with the Nazis or the Holocaust and for whom the Nazis and Hitler were "people far away" fighting and winning aginst an oppressive colonial power don't have as much of a bad reaction as people who were invaded/ruled/slaughtered by them.

Big Deal.

Genghis Khan built mountains of skulls during his invasions but would Germans blanch if they saw a Muslim with the name "Genghis" or "Timur" or think his name is inappropriate?

As something to chew on, many babies born in the Middle East / Pakistan etc are being named "Osama". An _American_ child with such a name would find social situations difficult I imagine. No such stigma in Pakistan. At some point will we see a headline "Saudis cringe at Osama's popularity in Pakistan"?

To be even more controversial it could be argued that Bush and co "killed a million Iraqis" for no real purpose. Should all Americans hate and abhor W? Stalin and Mao were responsible for more deaths than Hitler Should Chinese be surprised that some few Americans think Mao was "cool"?

fwiw I personally thing Hitler was a charismatic and thoroughly evil person. Most Indians who are aware of actual history feel the same way.

But I am also aware concentration camps were "invented" by the British during the Boer War and the large scale deaths of non combatant Boer women and children in these camps could be called genocide if it happened today. Should we hate Lord Salisbury (and Winston Churchill for that matter) too? I don't see many Britishers being ashamed of them.

<comment><USER4> In essence, you say that the Nazi cult that some Pakistanis (supposedly) entertain is no big deal, because they are not responsible for the Holocaust. As a German, who as a matter of fact doesn't feel particularly guilty about things his great-grandfathers did half a century before he was born, I'd like to know how you come to such a peculiar opinion. Evil is less evil if you can blame someone else? It's okay to revere mass murderers as long as you're not the one who let them come into power?

Your point about children's names is almost the textbook definition of a straw man, and I think you know it. Many German children are named Joseph, but that name has a long cultural and religious history, and no one in their right mind would associate that with Stalin. I guess the story with the name Osama in Muslim cultures is similar. However, if Pakistani parents name their children Adolf, a name that has no cultural associations in Pakistan whatsoever except being linked to a brutal mass murderer, then that's at least a little bit cringe worthy.

(I wonder if Godwin's Law applies to a discussion that's already about Hitler in the first place, and if a factual discussion about such a topic is even possible...)

<comment><USER3> "you say that the Nazi cult that some Pakistanis (supposedly) entertain is no big deal,"

There is no "Nazi cult" in Pakistan. Talk about exaggeration.

Yes, for _some_ people Hitler had some virtues (as they do Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Che, Lenin, George W Bush) which _they think_ are worthy of being admired.

" I guess the story with the name Osama in Muslim cultures is similar."

You are wrong.

There is a rise in babies being named Osama _after_ 9/11. I thought that was obvious from the context. Sorry if I was not clear enough. Arab and Pakistani teenagers wear T shirts with Osama's picture on them. There are large numbers of people who think Osama Bin Laden is a heroic figure. You (and I) think he is a homicidal maniac. Other people don't.

You can always find _some_ people somewhere who admire the mass murderers of history (including Osama, Mao , Stalin and the British who created concentration camps in the first place), as compared to those whose ancestors were massacred. It doesn't mean much.

Germans expecting all Pakistanis to hate and abhor Hitler as much as they do is like some Pakistanis expecting them to love Osama Bin Laden.

So yes the world doesn't always have prejudices in lockstep with your own, and sometimes admire people you abhor and vice versa. Sorry about that.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like you know a lot more about the Boer concentration camps than I do, maybe you can clear something up for me. From a quick perusal of Wikipedia it seems as if the concentration camps in the Boer war were intended to be more like prisons, i.e. restricting the movements of those persons held there. Due to incompetence, negligence, lack of facilities/medicine a large proportion of the inmates died. I would not wish to lessen this tragedy, but it does sound like a different situation to what we understand a concentration camp to be in common parlance, i.e. a camp set up with the intention of working to death/explicitly killing those sent there. I think there is a distinction between those two types of camps, and while both are highly unpleasant I don't think they're actually the same thing.

<comment><USER3> " it seems as if the concentration camps in the Boer war were intended to be more like prisons, i.e. restricting the movements of those persons held there. Due to incompetence, negligence, lack of facilities/medicine a large proportion of the inmates died."

Sounds like what the Germans would say today if Hitler had won the war and founded a strong and dominant Germany? yeah there were mistakes but they weren't _intentional_. Sure.

The point is that an argument _could_ be (and was) made that such starvation and ill treatment _was_ intentional, as a method of forcing the Boer commandos to surrender. The British were essentially stalemated and could see no way of ending the war. By the accepted norms of war of the time, starving non combatants to death was a crime. But the British won and were a World Power (much as the USA is today), so no one convened the equivalent of Nuremberg. If the Boers had won, (unlikely, but just as a thought experiment) you bet your ass some Britsh politician would have been "criminals".

Let us read Wikipedia though.

"Hobhouse published a report in June 1901 which contradicted Brodrick's claim, and Lloyd George then openly accused the government of "a policy of extermination" directed against the Boer population.

In June 1901, Liberal opposition party leader Campbell-Bannerman took up the assault and answered the rhetorical "When is a war not a war?" with "When it is carried on by methods of barbarism in South Africa," referring to those same camps and the policies that created them."

All that said, do read up on the Khaki Elections and the Boer War. Don't just read Wikipedia. Read your history in some depth and _then_ talk.

" i.e. a camp set up with the intention of working to death/explicitly killing those sent there."

This is _exactly_ what some people, especially the Boers and their allies the Germans _thought_ the British were doing (see above). The _British_ Leader of the Opposition even claimed as much!

Political maneovres aside, What matters is that people died in the tens of thousands. ( A report after the war concluded that 27,927 Boers (of whom 24,074 [50% of the Boer child population] were children under 16) had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the concentration camps. In all, about one in four (25%) of the Boer inmates, mostly children, died.

It is thought that about 12% of black African inmates died (about 14,154) but the precise number of deaths of black Africans in concentration camps is unknown as little attempt was made to keep any records of the 107,000 black Africans who were interned. It is, however, worth noting that Emily Hobhouse and the Fawcett Commission only ever concerned themselves with the camps that held white Boer refugees. No one paid much attention to what was going on in the camps that held native refugees". - Wikipedia)

Is it a lesser number than Jews in the Holocaust? Sure. Was starving non combatants to death (and denying that such things were happening) a "war crime"? You tell me. Victors are never war criminals are they?

<comment><USER5> > Read your history in some depth and then talk.

Thank you for the advice. I will make sure in future that I never try to engage in a discussion about something of which I am not fully informed.

<comment><USER6> > Thank you for the advice. I will make sure in future that I never try to > engage in a discussion about something of which I am not fully informed.

As long as you keep asking like you did, you shouldn't be afraid to contribute. Just pushing opinions would be another thing, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As far as india is concerned...

(1) like plinkplonk said "Mein Kampf" is just another book to read, except its author killed 6 million jews.

(2) The conclusion that the article draws regarding 1.2 billion indians based on an art exhibit and a restaurant owner is akin to saying everyone in the United States is old after seeing two elderly people from the country.

<comment><USER8> As far as India and Pakistan is concerned... (from what I recall from what my parents told me)

(1) Hitler's Germany fought the British, who the common Indians/Pakistanis generally hated.

(2) Germany made token efforts to "assist Indian independence". Undoubtedly meant to destabilize the British, but any assistance was undoubtedly appreciated.

I don't want to talk about the elephant in the room (anti semetism), but for what it is worth, I have never heard a desi ever say "Hitler was great because he killed the Jews".

<comment><USER3> "I don't want to talk about the elephant in the room (anti semetism),"

There is no anti semitism in India. There are hardly any Jews here.I believe there is one synagogue in Kerala. Most of the few jews who lived in India emigrated to Israel long ago. Very hard to hate people who you never encounter! The religious faultline in India is Hindu/Muslim.

Interestingly enough the image of Jews is that of ferocious and competent warriors, not meek/servile/moneylenders/fill-in-your-favorite-anti-Jewish- stereotype, largely due to the fact that Indians know of Jews mostly through the lens of Israel and its wars. Even people who are Pro Palestine/Arab anti/Israel think Israeli armed forces and the Mossad are very dangerous.

<comment><USER6> > Very hard to hate people who you never encounter!

That's actually one of the easier things. Areas with less foreigners tend to have more xenophobia (e.g. in Germany).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This popularity is also in India. Although I'm not German, I live in Germany, and when in India I often answered the ubiquitous question "where are you from?" with "Germany".

Then most times came the "Hitler was good" response.

My theory is that what endears Hitler to Indians (and perhaps Pakistanis) is nationalism. Nationalism is rife in India. And Hitler's political party was ardently nationalistic.

<comment><USER10> Indian subcontinent is after all the birthplace of the original "Aryan race".

<comment><USER11> well neither AIT nor any other alternative theory has as yet been accepted as totally correct. But AIT is more often thought of as being more accurate..so Indian subcontinent may not be the birth place of aryans.

<comment><USER10> I meant the concept, not the people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The photo in the context of the article's title is a little misleading. It makes it seem like these children are lighting candles in honor of Hitler.

<comment><USER10> every intelligent person knows that swastika is a good luck sign in central asian cultures, especially in today's Germany

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What's odd about this isn't Hitler's popularity in Pakistan, it's Hitler's unpopularity elsewhere in the world, particularly Germany. Most countries lionize their conquerers, even their genocidal conquerers. Had Hitler won even a limited, partial victory, it's not unlikely Germany would see him as a hero today (or at least as a "complicated figure"). Consider the attitudes of their respective homelands towards such figures as Genghis Khan, Ataturk, and Andrew Jackson. If you help your own "people" at someone else's expense, you become a hero to one side and a villain to the other, and Hitler definitely was a net gain for your average "Aryan" up until they started losing the war. It's standard us vs. them, ingroup/outgroup thinking.

To total outsiders, separated by vast differences of space and time, they don't care about the victims either and assign shortsighted judgments. How many Westerners within the last 30 years probably thought Genghis Khan was a total badass? How many people basically ignore the parts of the Bible that describe God leading the Hebrews in a variety of genocidal wars?

Genocidal conquest is how things were done, and it takes a very contemporary set of moral beliefs to even see that thing as wrong, as long as it wasn't committed against you. It's not even a lesson that's necessarily sunk in yet (review 2003-2008-era anti-Iraq-War rhetoric and compare mentions of US troop casualties to mentions of Iraqi civilian casualties). Powerful people in Europe bought into the concept of human rights and started building the contemporary moral view of genocide after Hitler did to Europe what Europe had been doing to the rest of the world, but if Hitler hadn't been defeated so thoroughly I suspect our very moral standards wouldn't be up to the task of vilifying him to the same extent. In a way, Hitler in WWII explicitly represented and practiced the philosophy that genocidal conquest is the way things are done, and the western allies--seeing the extreme to which Hitler had taken that idea--were forced to adopt (and develop) the contrary position. All in all, I think there's a fairly nearby possible world where Hitler achieved at least a partial victory and no one is nearly as shocked at him as we are in this world.

<comment><USER14> You got that wrong. It is not about winning wars. Hitler also did not care about the wars. They were tools for him. Tools in the struggle of the 'germanic race' over all other races. If the Germans do not win the war, they were not worthy in his view as 'race' to survive. Hitler was motivated by racism and race struggle.

We should have learned from these mistakes. These are not how things should be done. We should not repeat the mistakes of the past.

<comment><USER13> What part did I get wrong? I'm not making any moral statements, just synthesizing some facts. It largely wasn't until after Hitler lost that the Western world really cared about condemning genocide.

I live in a country that was built through conquest by defeating its original inhabitants in war and either enslaving them, relocating them, or exterminating them so the conquerers could inhabit their land. I suspect a lot of us are, and we don't all live in the same country. That's how a frightening amount of history unfolded--and if you're alive today, there's a pretty decent chance your ancestors won one of those wars. Hitler's conquest of Europe differed only in his methods.

Again, I'm not making any moral judgments. It seems to me that centuries of history were made by some groups violently enslaving, relocating, or exterminating other groups, and no one really cared that much. Hitler, like most conquerers, thought it was perfectly fine to enslave, relocate, or exterminate other groups of people as long as it served the interests of his own. His philosophy wasn't unique in that respect, in historical terms it was probably the norm.

You and I are enlightened enough that we don't want to "repeat" those "mistakes", but only because Hitler was famously unpopular and lost the war. If Hitler cut a deal with the western Allies and satisfied himself with a large chunk of eastern Europe, I don't know how many of us would share the enlightened anti-Nazi attitude we do share.

<comment><USER14> This part: Hitler would never have been satisfied with a partial victory, so the whole assumption is wrong. The victory also would not look like the Germans won over France in the second world war or the allied forces won over Germany.

Hitler wasted no time. When he came into power he soon killed his opposition, put them into labor camps or, later, send them to the front of the war. As soon as he got into power he started to go after the jews. As soon as he conquered Poland, they started the killing and when the front of war moved on, behind that they installed the concentration camp to get rid of disabled people, prostitutes, communists, priests, homosexuals, jews, ... Either they were killed immediately or, the stronger, were put to work - they were killed through working under extreme situations. They were enslaved.

Hitler and Nazi Germany installed a system to get these people and to bring them to the concentration camps.

Hitler also was not more unpopular after Germany lost the war. It took two generations to get rid of that. Children or grand children who questioned the doings and motives of their fathers and grand fathers. It took a lot of discussions, research, documentation to understand what happened and why. This understanding did not happen over night and not because Hitler won the war. But because people found out that there were millions of dead people, there were jews that were missing, where were they? The children asked their parents and they were not satisfied with the answers. What did the German army do in Russia? Research was needed to go to the truth and it was ugly.

Again: Hitler did not want to win some war and some partial victory.

He was talking about the 'Endsieg': the final victory.

You are making an assumption that is not in line with Hitler's goals. He would not have been satisfied with anything less then the Endsieg. Hitler was no rational politician - he was a racist and mass murderer.

There is also nothing positive to say about Stalin and all the other criminals from the past. That there were more like Hitler does not make him 'relatively bad'. He was bad. Period.

'What if Hitler did this or that?' is plain wrong if you don't understand his motives, his deep hate of other 'unworthy' races, etc. A compromise - <USER2> would be either tactics (like history shows his compromises were) or not Hitler.

<comment><USER13> "Again: Hitler did not want to win some war and some partial victory. He was talking about the 'Endsieg': the final victory."

Yes--German domination over the entirety of Europe. He bit off more than he could chew, though. If he hadn't allied with Japan and made a few strategic decisions better than he had, Germany would still have most of Europe today. That's not my point, though. My point is that, had Hitler been a successful conquerer, he wouldn't be nearly as hated as he is. Maybe that success would have involved slightly less ambition (but the same amount of genocide). As far as the brutality and genocide go, the main difference is that Hitler was so damned _good_ at it. If you want to kill off 10 million people, it's far more cost-effective to enslave them and work them to death, isn't it?

On the other hand, consider the white domination of North America. The Indians were set against one another in various wars. If a tribe or band was defeated they were either exterminated or forcibly relocated to reservations. Treaties were repeatedly signed and broken--if we relocated a group of Indians to a piece of land that ended up being valuable, we relocated them again. We weren't organized enough to set up concentration camps, but we had enough room we could give them parcels of worthless land for reservations. If we didn't enslave them directly, we bought slaves from Indian slavers, which only led them to more warfare, so the winners could sell the losers as slaves. Incidentally, this is also how white people ruined West Africa.

Once white people achieved their "manifest destiny" over North America, they really didn't seem to care too much about all the genocide and mass murder and racism involved. Even today, a lot of them don't.

Incidentally, the German people turned against Hitler as soon as he started losing. I don't know that they really cared much about the genocide yet, but they were mad at Hitler because it was Hitler's fault that allied bombs were landing on their houses. If Hitler won, no one would have really questioned or cared what he did to get there, or why there was suddenly so much room in what used to be Eastern Europe for them to move out into.

"Hitler was no rational politician - he was a racist and mass murderer."

You keep acting like this is any kind of unique distinction among imperialists and conquerers throughout history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In many places the vocal minority controls the media. I guess this popularity issue is not a Asian thing only. A significant large number of silent people in Germany I assume is supportive of Hitler's work --- that's what my impression is after personally talking with a limited few.

<comment><USER16> (Disclaimer: I'm German.) It is only a tiny extremist minority who is even somewhat supportive of Hitler. Even if the media was completely controlled by a vocal minority - not entirely possible in a free democracy like today's Germany - you would at least see these Nazi-leanings in election results. Not the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Don't mention the war"?

<comment><USER18> Are you referencing the episode of Faulty Towers in which Germans are visiting? John Clease repeats "don't mention the war" several times to his fellow English hospitality workers, but he himself fails in this endevour, with hilarious consequences.

<comment><USER19> Thank you so much, that was hilarious :)

(no offense intended to those of you who are German of course!)

<comment><USER6> As far as I can remember the Germans in the episode aren't made fun off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The Nazis are waging a new kind of war. The war of public opinion, in which they weasel their way into completely unexpected places...

Edit: what, is it so impossible that some neo-nazis are trying to drum up support in foreign countries?

<comment><USER20> That's just paranoia.

We do have Nazi activists in our country, although they call themselves extreme right activists, and while being a group that spreads racist and antisemitic ideas, it's mostly harmless.

Although a large percent of the population is Christian and goes to church regularly (which are also hubs for spreading racist/antisemitic propaganda), such activism has had little impact on the general population.

That's because people are tired of propaganda and of empty promises and of big changes that don't bring that significant improvement in life quality that's being promised.

Germany wouldn't have ended up with Hitler if they wouldn't have taken a big hit in WW1. With Germans dying out of starvation because of the British blockade, or because of the economic meltdown post-WW1, it's easier to believe the fallacies in Mein Kampf, to believe in Hitler's vision and shut your eyes and ears in the wake of a genocide. But that's only because Germany's economy and quality of life had nowhere to go but up, and it did just that (for a while anyway).

But in a country where things are mostly working (i.e. there aren't many people dying from hunger) it's hard for such ideas to gain popularity, even if those ideas are spread by a champion as articulate and smart as Hitler was. That's because with a higher quality of life comes a higher moral ground, and people are mostly conservatives anyway.

<comment><USER6> For all the Weimar Republic's flaws the more interesting questions almost becomes not why it failed, but why it lasted so long.

The hit taken in the treaties of Versailles is just one reason. The economic crisis around 1930 is another one. Churchill made the suggestion that Germany should have become a constitutional monarchy instead of a republic to give the monarchists something to rally behind the new state.</comment></comment></comment>


Visualizing Large-Scale and High-Dimensional Data - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.00370v2 <comment><USER2> I've just skimmed the paper, and this new algorithm looks very nice -- the authors call it "LargeVis."

According to the paper, LargeVis improves on Barnes-Hut t-SNE in two ways: first, it uses the idea that "the neighbors of my neighbors are likely my neighbors too" to construct an approximate graph of nearest neighbors in the high-dimensional space in a manner that is computationally much more efficiently than the method used by t-SNE. Second, the authors apparently have found a clever way to use SGD to map this graph to two (or three) dimensions with computational cost _linear_ in the number of nodes.

If the authors release an open-source implementation, LargeVis looks likely to supplant t-SNE as the go-to algorithm for visualizing high-dimensional data.

<comment><USER3> I wonder why they are positioning this as visualisation technique rather than dimensionality reduction which would be a much bigger deal. Is there something to suggest the technique doesn't work well for reduction in arbitrary dimensions?

<comment><USER4> Disclaimer: Havent read it but have read summaries here.

It sounds like it is very fast but not very rigorous. This lets you get a feel for the data but it doesn't give you the same guarentees other dimensionality reductions do.

<comment><USER2> That's my sense from skimming the paper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wish academics would publish pure python implementations of their "new" algorithms. Standard python with Pypy is enough for speed of development and runtime.

The biggest thing about t-SNE is that it's been used in competitive machine learning for quite a long time successfully by many different people because it's on R via CRAN and Python via sklearn. LargeVis has potential, but it could also be not so useful like the vast majority of academic work.

<comment><USER6> After a paper like this comes out, usually someone adds it to their library or makes a public implementation of it. Usually there are more than one. Maybe the authors aren't the best at implementing a clean version of it.

<comment><USER7> Any version is better than none. Even if it is just a basic/crude reference implementation that library-authors can use to add the algorithm/functionality to their library.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems like a nice and useful method, but the conclusions of the paper seem problematic, specifically that the resulting visualizations are more "effective" and higher "quality" than t-SNE (or anything else for that matter). Can that aspect of a visualization method be judged by only showing a few examples, without any tests of how people actually use or benefit from it?

</comment><comment><USER9> [https://sites.google.com/site/pkujiantang/big-data- visualiza...](https://sites.google.com/site/pkujiantang/big-data- visualization)

</comment><comment><USER10> As far as I see authors haven't decided to publish their implementation of the algorithm. That's a real pity given the fact that it's a really useful one.

<comment><USER11> For what it's worth, one the algorithms they compare against, t-SNE, is open source: [https://lvdmaaten.github.io/tsne/](https://lvdmaaten.github.io/tsne/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should I recycle my Bitcoin miners or save them as collectibles? - <AUTHOR> I have a mass of boards, some with some pretty cool and totally unique circuitry. The cointerra's are the heaviest PCBs I've ever wielded. The butterfly labs boards are surprising, why? Because they delivered! And also it's good circuitry. As a general enquiry: what should be done with old hardware? <comment><USER2> Electronics shops in the EU are obliged to take electronics handed in by anybody (in consumer amounts) and take care of proper, environment friendly disposal of the e-junk. Just hand those in. In a few years nobody will care for outdated bitcoin mining hardware.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm in the US, and we have recycling programs too.

<comment><USER2> OK.

I have collected old e-junk for a while, now in the process of getting rid of them. They take up a whole lot of space, especially in intended to be preserved in a usable state. I have more often than not failed to keep them operational. I'm not a museum, and don't have the resources. You should also consider this.

Now if you don't want it to be usable, live demoable, then just take a few pictures and videos of it working. That will be enough to remind you of the olden times, and to recall some nice memories and anecdotes.

edit: Also consider: it is not worth preserving anything if it is not used in any way: economically or educationally useful. You just to have them around, it is a waste of space. If you intend to showcase to people it is worth the effort.

<comment><AUTHOR> I appreciate your response. Sometimes it's difficult to part from things, especially with the concept that they are valuable. However, the hippy dippy idea that nothing has value isn't effectual in "this day and age".

If we're going to accomplish Elon Musk level relevancy, then we can't ignore the significance of past technology. edit: I basically agree with your comment, and thanks for it.

<comment><USER2> I don't suggest to ignore the past, just say that it may not be practical/feasible to keep every bit of it around. We still remember the importance of many now defunct technologies: Roman pilum, ancient oil-lamps, the crop cycle, the Ford T-model. These were important steps on your journey to our present word, and we still remember, but have only a few items preserved in museums.

About the difficulty of parting from things: I know, that is why i mentioned to create digital reminders, to help you remember the important parts of the past.

And what is also important: if you do not keep stuff, be responsible about the disposal. I do not presume you would not be, just repeating it should anybody else read our discussion, may this help him/her in making an informed decision.

edit: In Hungary, where I live, we have some nice collections about computer history. I know of 2 noteworthy ones, one is in Szeged, in a former military base, the other is at a university in Budapest. Both are public, the first being a museum, the second being a free exhibit. If the stuff I had was anything special, I'd consider donating it to them, if they needed it. You should also check around to see if some institutions would take the responsibility of preserving it, write some short letter about the things you wish to donate, their importance in technology, you know, the stuff that is hung out in museums to educate the technologically not-so-informed, and ask them if they'd take care of them. I believe you could find some places where it would be a nice item in a public collection. I'm sure they'd also give credit to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> May it help, sure, I agree. And yes, responsible reuse, and recycling are worthy of promotion and ideals to strive for, tho being a responsible human according to ones individual interpretation isn't very satisfying. Responsible disposal is not the end all and be all</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Joe Rogan Experience #1309 – Naval Ravikant (2019) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHkcs3kG44 <comment><USER2> I have mixed opinions about Naval. On one side of the spectrum, he has such a great intellect to say very sensible things and on the other end he is one of the most arrogant people I've ever heard. I just wish he was humble and down to earth. Many people would be able to relate to him.

<comment><USER3> It's a shame. He really did seem like a great guy and probably still has a lot of meaningful stuff to say. I think with the pandemic and the surge in his popularity combined, he didn't know how to handle it and started acting immature on Twitter. (If you look at his tweets pre and post pandemic, they are very different. Pre pandemic, he seemed to stay truer to his principles of not wasting time on "status games" like social media fights). I guess the pandemic has really made (what seems like) even the best of us get a little more cuckoo

<comment><USER4> Could you please link to a few of these posts? Partly because it would be wrong to speak ill of someone without proof and also because I'm curious.

<comment><USER3> [https://mobile.twitter.com/naval/status/1262182228148146178](https://mobile.twitter.com/naval/status/1262182228148146178)

Moreover, scroll through Naval's twitter replies on May 17 and you'll see that he trolls en masse a bunch of people who want to debate him regarding Canada.

He's human, we're all human, but you can imagine someone looking at his trolling spree and feeling a little sad, as I did. I used to admire him a lot, especially the way he tried to teach the importance of keeping your cool

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This one is gold. I don't even watch JRE but I've watched this one a few times.</comment>


A top Cornell food researcher has had 13 studies retracted. That's a lot - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/19/17879102/brian-wansink-cornell-food-brand-lab-retractions-jama <comment><USER2> okay, this caught my eye:

"Thirteen of Wansink's studies have now been retracted, including the six pulled from JAMA today. Among them: studies suggesting people who grocery shop hungry buy more calories; that preordering lunch can help you choose healthier food; and that serving people out of large bowls encourage them to serve themselves larger portions."

Are we sure those studies have been disproven? I am skeptical because I am pretty sure that I buy more calories when I am hungry.

Note, I may not eat more calories, and I may shop less frequently because then I have more to go on. But actually shopping for more during that trip, I am pretty sure.

I am more curious about who tried to replicate the studies and how.

<comment><USER3> > Are we sure those studies have been disproven?

No, they were just never proven in the first place. The studies were awful and the statistical analysis was even worse.

These studies contributed nothing to answering the questions posed.</comment></comment>