Jon Ronson: How a Tweet Can Ruin Your Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/books/7933/exclusive-extract-from-jon-ronson-book-so-youve-been-publicly-shamed/ <comment><USER3> The world is replete with examples of why you should never use your real name with your online identity in any way (although in this case, the guy's employer found out over a photograph; which is even more troubling.)

If there's anyone worse than Adria in this story, it's both Hank's and Adria's former employers. You don't destroy a person's life over a comment or a blackmail threat. But as they say, if corporations are people, then they are clearly sociopaths.

That said, there was this excerpt: "I know you didn't call for him to be fired. But you must have felt pretty bad." "Not too bad, he's a white male. I'm a black Jewish female."

Followed by this later on, in the same interview: SendGrid, her employer, was told the attacks would stop if Adria was fired. Hours later, she was publicly let go. "I cried a lot, journaled and escaped by watching movies,"

Her lack of empathy is absolutely staggering. And, "if I had kids, I wouldn't tell jokes"? Seriously?

<comment><USER4> I don't think it's a lack of empathy. It feels like anger at a system that caters to men in a field she very much enjoys and wants to be included in. Unfortunately Hank happens to be a fairly good guy who is defended by this system and oblivious to it. He's an unintended casualty of her anger at something bigger.

I had many of the same reactions as you when I read her words. But I've been trying very hard to imagine what it's like to go to PyCon as a minority, and to have someone sitting in earshot comfortably make jokes that make me feel threatened all while watching a talk on inclusiveness. While the emotional image of a little girl wanting to get into your field is up on screen.

And then to have everyone defend that person and behave like you're the one that fired him just because you voiced your discomfort publicly.

I don't agree with Adria's public tweet, and Hank got way more than he deserved (as did Adria) over it. But I can totally see how she could have been driven to do it, and I can even see how she would feel now — after all she's gone through — that she should not have to apologise for it.

From that article it sounds like she came out of this worse than Hank, who got another job almost immediately. And you have to wonder — did Hank get another job so fast because our field is dominated by men, and they are likely to feel for him and have the same initial reactions as we do when reading this article? Unfortunately there are not many people who will feel for Adria. I'm sure she knows it.

<comment><USER3> > jokes that make me feel threatened

I really don't see how hearing two guys in a crowd of 800+ people talk about big dongles would make one feel threatened enough for a comment like, "Have you ever heard that thing, men are afraid that women will laugh at them and women are afraid that men will kill them?" She feared for her life over tasteless toilet humor in a crowded conference? Bullshit. Her Victorian sensibilities were offended over a crass joke. And now she's engaging in histrionics after the fact to justify her response.

Frankly, I'm really sick and tired of the pervasive image in America that all men are rapists and child molesters. You talk to a woman on an elevator, or you accidentally make eye contact with a child that isn't yours for a brief second, and everyone assumes you're a sexual predator because penis. Sure, I'll accept that men are more likely to be. But we're talking about 0.000011% of women versus 0.000018% of men here.

> Hank got way more than he deserved (as did Adria) over it

That we can both agree on. If anyone needs to be shamed here, it's these companies that we allow to put expediency over human lives. It's not okay to fire a father of three because someone managed to generate five minutes of buzz about them on Twitter. As consumers, this is partly our responsibility. And I for one will recommend strongly against ever using SendGrid to anyone who asks. It's too bad Hank didn't name his employer as well.

> Unfortunately there are not many people who will feel for Adria

Still, the complete and utter lack of empathy, along with playing the race card (way out of context I might add), is clearly doing her no good here. If I read her comments, I wouldn't hire her either.

And again, this is where it's good to separate your real name from your online identity. No, we shouldn't have to, but when employers behave like this, it's just proper diligence. We don't know Hank's real name here; his current employer may not even know about this incident. If Adria had done the same, maybe she'd be employed now too.

<comment><USER4> > I really don't see how hearing two guys in a crowd of 800+ people talk about > big dongles would make one feel threatened enough for a comment like

To her it's not 800+ people, it's 800+ men where you are one of the few women. That's not something I can say I've ever experienced. Personally I can't see how the joke is threatening, but I can't dismiss her feelings over this just because I find it tough — or even impossible — to imagine.

I've tried to read this article as Hank and Adria explaining their honest feelings. If Adria is being honest about her feelings, then I can see how her reaction came about. Even if I don't agree with it.

Like I said, I don't think the joke itself — or Hank himself — was the target of her anger. It was the environment, the culture, and the system which allowed Hank to make such a joke in earshot, comfortably, making her feel utterly excluded and even threatened.

You claim it's histrionics, but it might be real things she is feeling. What if she really felt this way? Shouldn't we try to understand Adria as well as we understand Hank? By dismissing her so easily we make our field more exclusive. We say, "I can't imagine that so you mustn't have experienced it. It's not a problem because I can't see it."

> Still, the complete and utter lack of empathy

Perhaps you are right in perceiving a lack of empathy. I don't think it's because she hates Hank and wishes bad things on him. I think it's because she is viewing Hank as an oblivious part of a system which puts her at a significant disadvantage.

<comment><USER5> > Personally I can't see how the joke is threatening, but I can't dismiss her > feelings over this just because I find it tough — or even impossible — to > imagine.

The same Adria who herself made penis jokes on twitter a few days earlier and who was playing Cards Against Humanity at the same PyCon conference?

What happened to her is shameful and can't be condoned in any way, shape or form, but she engaged in the same (or some would say worse) behavior that she was criticizing Hank for. Double standards much?

>Perhaps you are right in perceiving a lack of empathy.... I think it's because she is viewing Hank as an oblivious part of a system which puts her at a significant disadvantage.

That's the definition of lack of empathy, Hank clearly expressed empathy for her, she didn't even consider the possibility that her public shaming could have serious consequences.

By the way, I believe she was in her right to complain about the joke to the organizers in private, it's the public tweet with the photo that crossed the line.

<comment><USER6> Twitter isn't a professional setting like a conference session, and anyone joining in a game of CAH is deliberately opting-in to a situation where offensively funny combinations are the entire point of the game.

<comment><USER7> On the other hand they can't go around claiming to have a deep seating sensitivity to offenses -- the image she was trying to portray. That she was just shaking in fear of being murdered because of a dongle joke.

She is misrepresenting her character and manipulates the public image of herself to stir controversy, drama, and in turns she actually hurting the cause she claims to champion. If anything that is the thing I don't like about what she did the most.

<comment><USER6> > On the other hand they can't go around claiming to have a deep seating > sensitivity to offenses.

Why not? I can be scared of ax-wielding murderers _while_ still enjoying a haunted house where people in an ax-murderer costume jump out at me.

You expect offensive stuff in a CAH game. You don't expect it being mumbled behind you during a keynote.

<comment><USER8> > _You expect offensive stuff in a CAH game. You don 't expect it being > mumbled behind you during a keynote._ //

She chose to be offended. There was nothing inherently offensive about the comment as it's reported. It was apparently a private comment to a friend.

If I'm eavesdropping on some friends talking amongst themselves then I'd expect to hear all sorts of crass lewdness TBH. If I then choose to be offended perhaps the lookout is on me, that I should stop eavesdropping other's conversations.

The situation at hand — to borrow your metaphor — is like someone coming out of a haunted house, seeing someone across the street dressed as an axe- murderer (but clearly in fancy-dress), then crossing the street to harangue them because one should know axe-murderers frighten them and that some how the happenstance of your co-locality gives them the right to control over your attire.

If you don't like the content of private conversations that you can overhear, as an adult, in a public setting, then your choices are to put up with it, move out of earshot, or ask the people to censor themselves.

<comment><USER9> _" She chose to be offended. There was nothing inherently offensive about the comment as it's reported. It was apparently a private comment to a friend."_

She chose how to _act_ on the offense she took, and she chose irresponsibly. She chose how to handle the aftermath, and she chose questionably. But she didn't "choose" to be offended in the first place. That's a bridge too far. She was listening to a keynote presentation about women in technology, overheard some sex jokes being made during that presentation, and took offense to the jokes, perhaps especially in light of the context and the timing.

Now, I find her described rationale for the offense she took (fear of violence) a little extreme. But who am I to judge her feelings? I'm not a woman, and I am certainly not the survivor of what sounds like a horrifyingly abusive household. I have no basis by which to speak from those perspectives, and so I can't summarily dismiss them as invalid. That's not my call to make. That's not my place.

I don't agree with her actions, and I find her lack of apparent remorse very disturbing. But I don't presume to set some universal, male-perspective standard for what is or is not offensive to people. I can see how the jokes could have offended any hypothetical women in earshot at the time, and perhaps some men as well. I personally would not have been offended, but I am not every person. My perspective on what's offensive and what isn't is not the de facto norm.

Completely agree, however, that the more mature course of action would have been to confront the jokesters in person, or move away, or perhaps just lodge a complaint with the PyCon organizers. The public shaming was uncalled for, and it had disproportionately drastic consequences for all concerned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I remember this episode well.

Adria is more immature than the jokes that she supposedly got offended by.

Let's ennumerate:

\- She overheard a conversation that wasn't directed at her. In the middle of a conference she was hopefully not coerced at attending and should be paying attention to the speaker \- She took a picture of two people, without asking for permission \- She twitted said picture with negative comments \- She followed up(!) the tweet with a blog post \- She called one of the guy's employers (!!!)

And that interview, my god. I really have nothing good to say about it.

The reactions afterwards from supporters of both sides aren't an example of maturity either. But that's what you get when you invoke an angry mob to do a job that could be handled in a civil manner.

<comment><USER11> > She overheard a conversation that wasn't directed at her. In the middle of a > conference she was hopefully not coerced at attending and should be paying > attention to the speaker

I don't think you're supposed to ignore what's going on around you just because it wasn't directed at you and you're at a conference. The other reasons are valid, but this one doesn't strike me as such.

<comment><USER12> On the flip side, you're not supposed to get involved in everything that's going on around you just because it's going on. It's pretty easy to mistakenly thunder in on a half-heard conversation without any context.

<comment><USER11> Definitely, there's a balance there. That does mean that the GP post of "wasn't supposed to do it" isn't always right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> ""Maybe it was [Hank] who started all of this," Adria told me in the cafe at San Francisco Airport. "No one would have known he got fired until he complained. Maybe he's to blame for complaining that he got fired. Maybe he secretly seeded the hate groups. Right?"

This paragraph really gave me chills... A lot of insight about her thought process, and a bit terrifying in my opinion.

<comment><USER14> It goes on:

> "Danger," she said. "Clearly my body was telling me, 'You are unsafe.'"

> "Have you ever heard that thing, men are afraid that women will laugh at > them and women are afraid that men will kill them?" she said.

Remind me when someone was last killed at a tech conference like she says? Very rarely, if ever.

Did she feel bad about him being fired? Nope.

> "He's a white male. I'm a black Jewish female. He was saying things that > could be inferred as offensive to me

Read that last sentence again. In poker terms, that's a "tell". She doesn't say "I was offended".

I've known people like this in real life. They are to be avoided. The "tells" above are:

* claiming people do nefarious things to get ahead (he seeded the hate groups)

* claiming they're always the victim

* lack of empathy for people who get hurt

* claimed desperate fear in every day situations

She's saying she's in fear of her life. That the guy making the joke is evil and powerful. That she's small and helpless. And thus she thinks that anything she does to protect herself is by definition OK.

Very, very, scary.

And yes, before the downvoters come in, the torrent of abuse she got was wrong. Very wrong. Those people should be punished. But make no mistake here, Adria Richards is not Hanks victim.

<comment><USER15> > Remind me when someone was last killed at a tech conference like she says? > Very rarely, if ever.

I don't know of any killings, but there have been a number of (high profile) sexual assaults at tech conferences - <USER2> [http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents)

My friends say it's a regular (and sometimes terrifying) occurrence at some conferences. And I believe them.

<comment><USER14> Then she should be afraid of sexual assaults, not killings.

And reading that page, I see most of the items are of this severity:

> An offensive tweet was made against the PyLadies group

Really? That's inappropriate, but it's not sexual assault.

In fact, there are 14 instances of the word "assault". Which by my count is no more than 10% of the items.

Over-exaggerating the problem is fear-mongering.

      This looks a lot like flailing around, trying to find reasons for being upset.

"I'm afraid of being killed"

It doesn't happen.

"Crap, I'm afraid of sexually assaulted, it happens a lot, here's proof!"

That actually disproves your assertion.

<crickets>

<comment><USER13> Honestly this list could use some trimming, you can't really have a "list of sexist incident" contain a change in the way blocking works on Twitter ([http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Twitter_Blockgate](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Twitter_Blockgate))! At least, you can't if you want people to take the list seriously...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _"Somebody getting fired is pretty bad," I said. "I know you didn't call for > him to be fired. But you must have felt pretty bad."

> "Not too bad," she said. She thought more and shook her head decisively. > "He's a white male. I'm a black Jewish female. He was saying things that > could be inferred as offensive to me, sitting in front of him. I do have > empathy for him but it only goes so far. If he had Down's Syndrome and he > accidently pushed someone off a subway that would be different... I've seen > things where people are like, 'Adria didn't know what she was doing by > tweeting it.' Yes, I did."_

A past of abuses does not justify Adria's reactions and lack of empathy. Moreover, the article describes her blaming Hank for the threats, despite the fact that he didn't engage in any vengeful behaviour.

<comment><USER17> What makes me laugh is where she says she's not to blame for what happened to Hank yet she then blames HIM for what happened to her.

If she didn't send the tweet, he wouldn't have got fired. If he didn't get fired, he wouldn't have posted on HN about being fired. If he didn't post on HN then none of this would've happened.

Basically it all stems from her original tweet..

I'm not condoning any of the behaviour but it could've quite easily been handled more maturely. If, instead of turning round, taking a photo and tweeting she'd approached him like an adult (maybe with the conference organisers if she was scared) and said "That's not cool" to him so he could actually apologised to her and none of this would've happened.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree with your first 3 sentences, can't agree with the last. Finding the courage to stand up and directly address someone who is making you feel uncomfortable - especially if you're a minority in a certain environment - takes a lot of courage and absolute certainty that you're not going to get a mouthful of abuse back.

(I think talking directly to the conf organisers/staff would have been the preferred route, personally.)

<comment><USER18> Handling it personally makes a lot of sense. I have children, I don't teach them to immediately run to authority the minute they are offended. You should be able to confront/request somebody behave appropriately without them "giving back a mouthful of abuse". And therein lies the key, if they give you back a mouthful of abuse, then take it higher up. There are absolutely situations where going directly to conf organizers and staff is appropriate, but this doesn't _seem_ like one to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also have children, and I'm not sure how it's relevant.

Of course you SHOULD be able to tell someone you're offended without the risk of backlash, but it's always a risk. Clearly Adria decided to handle that risk in a different way than you or I would have.

<comment><USER18> It's relevant because talking directly to people and not tattle-telling is part of growing up, and it's unfortunate this wasn't done.

It doesn't mean she isn't grown up though as this is just one _non- representative_ tiny slice of two people's entire lives. Honestly, I didn't get a chance to update my message, but another question (seen here and elsewhere) is probably more important: "Why isn't the story about her life being threatened over this?" That's the more ridiculous part of this story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Say what you like, but Hank didn't do anything wrong here. In fact, he only expressed everything that had happened to him, and it just so happened that many people decided to stand up for him in what seems to be a situation of very, very poor judgement.

On the other hand, great and naturally flowing writing by the author, really enjoyed swimming through the story!

<comment><USER20> > Say what you like, but Hank didn't do anything wrong here.

I think he did: there seems to be no discussion that he violated the conference's code of conduct. If we want to reduce the sexism in tech, I think reporting these instances is perfectly fine, and even commendable.

However.

She could have asked them politely to stop. If she didn't feel safe doing that, she could have talked in private to the conference's organizers. An e-mail would do. But she took it to Twitter instead, so everyone can point at them. I think she was in the wrong in doing that, and they both ended up suffering from it.

If there were a lesson to get from here, I'd say it would be "have you considered talking?". Or perhaps "do you really want to bring the Internet into our discussion?".

<comment><USER21> Do you really think that conferences' code of conduct should regulate what two friends are saying to each other privately?

<comment><USER20> Whether they _should_? I don't know. Maybe. Sexism in tech is a weird and hard problem, and if regulating private conversations helps solving it, then I'm cautiously willing to give it a try.

Whether they _do_? Yes. From the CoC[1]:

> Be careful in the words that you choose. Remember that sexist, racist, and > other exclusionary jokes can be offensive to those around you. Excessive > swearing and offensive jokes are not appropriate for PyCon.

> If a participant engages in behavior that violates this code of conduct, the > conference organizers may take any action they deem appropriate, including > warning the offender or expulsion from the conference with no refund.

Presumably everyone was there under their own free will, so if they agreed to the CoC and then failed to respect it, well, that's not good.

[1] [https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of- conduct/](https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/)

<comment><USER22> Define offensive. if I think cat photos are offensive would I be in my rights to kick someone out of a conference? I'm not sure what the "offense" was. If someone says "damn," that might be offensive to my dad, but to my coworkers that might be completely fine.

In this case, there was nothing anti-women or racist that any reasonable person would infer. So where's the line? Perhaps we could create some new Orwellian language for conferences and have everyone in a tape delay so the offensive-content censors would have time to bleep it out. Reminds me of the swearing fines in that movie Demolition Man.

<comment><USER23> > In this case, there was nothing anti-women or racist that any reasonable > person would infer.

No, that's wrong. There are plenty of legal cases where sexual jokes were found to be creating a hostile work environment.

This conference had rules about conduct because of the problem of men making sexual comments to women.

The comment "Hank" made was not appropriate. Just because the reaction and consequences were clearly awful it doesn't mean he was fine to make those kind of comments.

> So where's the line?

Don't make "jokes" about dongles in a voice that can be overheard by anyone but the intended audience, and make sure you know those people well.

<comment><USER24> Conferences are likely to involve many people from social groups outside your own, with different views on what is acceptable and what is not. That's life...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I remember when this story happened and after reading it all again, I still think that what makes it so terrible is the fact both sides were fired. One of them because he was behaving immaturely at a conference and another because her employer was getting ddosed.

Is it just me or are those both terrible overreactions from the companies' sides? The whole sexism discussion is perfectly valid and very important, we _need to_ talk about what is wrong, but those layoffs were nothing but selfish pragmatic decisions. Hank's company didn't want the bad PR and Adria's didn't want the security trouble...

<comment><USER26> At the risk of sounding insensitive, in what freezing hell is a remark about forking a guy's repo or something sexist?

Rather unprofessional, yeah, maybe -- which is why it wasn't spoken aloud on stage, but whispered between two colleagues. But sexist? Can someone draw me a diagram about how that conveys _any_ form of discrimination, prejudice, violence, dislike or oppression of women?

This sounds like completely selfish bullshit to me. _It 's a bloody overheard remark_. And better yet, it was handled in a very childish way: there are _laws_ against discrimination. If someone feels they were subjected to any kind of -ism, there are courts of law that decide that, you just have to go to the police. But sure, why not settle it the cutthroat way, involving employers and family on the way.

<comment><USER27> Let me tell you what sexism means nowadays: saying or doing anything that makes a woman that is concerned with gender equality feel uncomfortable at all, even if it has nothing to do with sexism, discrimination, or even your own gender. It's maddening.

<comment><USER28> It can feel maddening, I know.

What's important to realise is that we live in a society that is inherently sexist (that much is clear simply from the statistics), without really having many 'sexists' in it as you would normally define them. Nobody walks around saying (or even thinking, I suspect) that they hate women. The only sensible conclusion is that the bias is a product of our inherent subconscious prejudices, and unfortunately that's really hard to combat because it means we have to inspect every part of our behaviour to try to make sure we're not doing something that puts minorities at any more of a disadvantage.

I'm not defending the really extreme feminists who can definitely go way overboard, but I can understand where they're coming from -- how else do you fight this institutionalised bias that puts you at a significant disadvantage for your entire life? I don't think anyone has a great answer right now, and that has to be so frustrating. As a white male who's never faced much discrimination, it took me a very long time to empathise with that, but I think it's important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> One important point here is that Adria's role was that of developer evangelist - a role that requires good community engagement. It's then not such a stretch to imagine that her ability to do this job well might be compromised in the aftermath of such an event.

It's thus not _totally_ unreasonable for her to be let go for this, even if it's not her fault.

Having said that, I find both sides really depressing. The brogrammer/franerdity approach does alienate women, which is why it should as much as possible be suppressed (although it's a culture which itself is frequently hated on, so it'd be really easily to just end up with high school again). Meanwhile public shaming is also not desirable, especially when the act can easily be argued to be the product of a culture, not of an individual.

Both were at fault, but the guy involved shouldn't have lost his job over it, and Adria probably shouldn't have lost her job over it.

One thing that people don't mention is that the employers of both might have wanted to get rid of them for other reasons.

<comment><USER30> "The brogrammer/franerdity approach does alienate women, which is why it should as much as possible be suppressed"

No, fuck that. Fuck suppressing people. Who are you to say what should and should not be suppressed? What is wrong with innuendos, one of the oldest if not the oldest kind of joke about one of the most fundamental aspects of humanity? Someone is offended by a joke (and with that I mean any joke)? They should gtfo, seriously, hacker culture is not a no-fun zone. No need to suppress innocuous jokes to accomodate for femnazi princesses, prude people and generally the easily offended. There are plenty of women who fit into this culture and have no problem with being easy-going because they know that this behaviour has nothing to do with discrimination or low opinion of women, it's simply nerdy silliness.

<comment><USER29> The reason why jock/macho type cultures should be suppressed in software engineering is because they end up being fairly exclusive cultures which engender and reward levels of masculinity.

Many companies (possibly correctly) hire and fire based on perceived culture fit, and if your is less accepting of anyone who doesn't fit your slightly macho mold, then women will find it harder to get a job.

This means that such working environments should be thought of as unacceptable, yes.

Obviously there are different levels, but yes, a culture where it's acceptable to make crude sex jokes on the job would deter many of the women I know.

It's just a joke doesn't cut it - especially when you extend that to 'any joke'.

 _I am not saying that this specific case is such an example_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> After reading this I don't like Adria Richards very much. She seems very self involved with a persecution context. However, she is still very much a victim of sexist online culture. Bad people can be victims too.

A man makes a mildly sexist unfunny joke and the result is a woman is unemployed for six months and fears for her safety. That is 'not cool', and ironically only reinforces her and other women's belief that there is a patriarchy out to get them.

<comment><USER32> Was the joke even sexist at all or was it just sexual in nature? Inappropriate sure, but that's a pretty big difference in my book.

<comment><USER31> I can buy that the joke was just inappropriate, and no doubt that she massively overreacted.

However, she was the one who ended up with the death threats. It's hard to reassure women that they're safe at tech events if the result of them making a social faux-pas are threats to their safety.

Have any white men on this site ever been on the receiving end of a campaign of intimidation and fear? I sure haven't. We then complain that women have an irrational fear of violence and intimidation? Sounds like a lack of empathy on our part.

<comment><USER33> "a social faux-pas"

..

"Have any white men on this site ever been on the receiving end of a campaign of intimidation and fear?"

Did you hear what happened to this "Hank" guy when he made a joke once, a "social faux-pas"? I heard there was an article about him on HN recently.

<comment><USER31> Andrea was sent pictures of her head superimposed on porn actors. She was sent rape and death threats. Was Hank sent death threats?

To be clear, my definition of 'a campaign of intimidation and fear' are threats to your personal safety and your life.

<comment><USER34> I think what happens in life is this.

You get fucked over constantly. This eventually builds up. When you lose your livelihood through no fault of your own but have no power to react.

Then you see it happen to someone else, over of all fucking things a dongle joke.

You unleash that fury onto someone that is deserving of ridicule, but not the extent to which some people take it.

My philosophy has become avoid everyone always and forever, it never works out in your favor. I'm great at establishing a rapport and being friendly with people, you just have to always keep it superficial except with your close friends and family.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> One interesting aspect that seems to be completely left out of that discussion is the issue of labour protection laws.

Firing someone in Europe for some minor issue like that would probably be a major legal issue here.

<comment><USER36> With enough money in the fired party's bank account, it would be. I think the only difference between Europe and the US in this regard is the amount of money required to get justice.

<comment><USER37> > With enough money in the fired party's bank account, it would be.

Most of the US is at-will, employees can be fired for no reason or any reason as long as there's no breach of relevant federal statutes (Equal Pay Act, Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disability Act, …) — the latter being why employees are generally fired with absolutely no reason provided just to avoid any possibility of status breach.

That means for most firings there is no legal recourse, because there is no legal labour protection.

Most of Europe is very different on that point, you can't fire somebody just because you feel like it, and there are a number of labour-focused courts which tend to have a very bad view of companies trying to break or skirt labour laws.

It's not a question of money, it's a question of laws, or the lack thereof.

<comment><USER36> I'm sure proceedings have been successfully made in such states, at great financial expense, to prove that even though no reason was given "federal statutes" were breached. Your argument that that has never happened and can never happen is much harder to make convincingly.

<comment><USER37> > Your argument that that has never happened and can never happen is much > harder to make convincingly.

No, my argument is that the vast majority of firings in the US are not covered by any labour protection laws or agreements. It's not a question of money when there's no law or contract to build your case on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I remember when this incident happened. I can't remember what my reaction was at the time (probably a combination of "let's not alienate women in tech further" and "sexual jokes are OK in the right context, and a conf is propably not it") but reading this excerpt - particularly reading about Adria's continued anger(?) at Hank - really shocked me.

<comment><USER38> She lost her job and faced the usual (sadly) torrent of internet abuse. I really dare you to be cool then … I mean, the gall of some people. That's so fucking weird.

In my view no one should have been fired here and that's that.

We are facing a huge problem. Abuse and harassment run rampant and I bet that's one of the reasons why some women are very, very sensitive to some things. That's the problem to solve here.

<comment><AUTHOR> When I was ~17, I was cast out of an online community that I had been working in/with for around 3-4 years. Overnight I lost my hobby, my so-called friends, and my entire personal life was examined in detail and revealed to the public for mocking/the enjoyment of the perpetrators.

Anyway, the scope of the backlash was not the same as it would be these days (because of the availability of Internet access for one) but my entire life was turned upside down for several years. I had to go into virtual hiding for a while. I'm 29 and I still feel shame thinking about it, even though I'm not entirely sure what it was I did "wrong".

So, I think that I have a tiny smidgen of an idea of what it's like (maybe?) and I still don't get Adria's anger.

I totally agree with you otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> So she overhears a _private_ conversation between friends [none of the talk was directed to or being about anybody in particular], tweets a "summary" without context, adds a photo of the people involved, all in order to publicly shame them, while they did nothing wrong.

No sympathy for her.

<comment><USER40> Also, her own words are showing signs of insecurity in her side which leads to near destruction of two peoples lives. (her own included).

Also, both companies' responses to these events are overreactions.

<comment><USER41> I don't think Adria's company really over-reacted; she achieved the opposite of what her job of 'developer evangelist' was all about.

<comment><USER40> Well, yes you are right about that. I did not know/missed her position at the company. If you are an evangelist you are a frontend of your company, an institution's face where ever publicly speaking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > "I distance myself from female developers a little bit now," he replied. > "I'm not as friendly. There's humour, but it's very mundane. You just don't > know. I can't afford another Donglegate."

I'm guessing he's not the only one. If she wanted to make tech more welcoming for women, it looks like her plan backfired.

</comment><comment><USER43> One of the saddest stories in tech in the past few years.

Everyone lost. Nothing was gained.

As a white male I was implicitly guilty, but wasn't sure how to stop being so.

The sock / penis joke (broadcast to 9000+ people) was hard to get past, given the 1/9000th sized unintentional audience of the repo / dongle joke. Neither was especially funny, and it's hard to remember a time in my distant past that I may have found either particularly droll. Maybe the low bar for contemporary comedy is what I find most disappointing.

<comment><USER44> > As a white male I was implicitly guilty, but wasn't sure how to stop being > so.

Is this a joke?

<comment><USER43> No, I didn't intend it to be. The sentiment expressed by Adria came up at the time, and was a big part of this interview (not sure how much faith we can put in the quotes attributed, but for the moment I'll assume they are accurate).

Specifically the bit several other people have been drawn to and quoted in other threads here.

When asked how she felt about the impact on the guys involved:

      "Not too bad, he's a white male. I'm a black Jewish female."

I find this kind of attitude / rationalisation uncomfortable because it turns out that I am, through no fault of my own, part of the demographic identified as inherently worthy of less empathy.

I suspect it's meant to be more nuanced than this, however I conclude that either her thinking is fuddled, or she can't properly express the sentiment - neither is ideal if the goal is to have a sensible conversation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Another interesting article about online shaming:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid- tw...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined- justine-saccos-life.html)

The things is that we often forget that there are actual human beings behind the tweets - sometimes with poor judgment skills, but often more misguided than malevolent.

<comment><USER46> Same guy, same story, same book he's promoting.

<comment><USER47> that doesnt mean it is not an interesting read on a similar situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think the feeling of entitlement to be never offended isn't a right (mainly because anything can offend some people). Adria is seriously comparing the situation caused by people making silly jokes to feeling as if she's going to be murdered? Er?

I feel very bad for Hank in this and also don't think that she should be hounded by 4chan et al. I will also avoid using SendGrid - her company in my life. Who is Hank's previous employer? I intend to boycott that completely spineless company too (name and shame!).

Also I really fucking dislike the pop psychology about her Dad in the article. No. I believe your past is not your future and you are responsible for your choices.

Finally, it's ironic that Adria implies she thinks hank deserves what he got. If Adria were being judged by her own standards about public discourse...

</comment><comment><USER49> Wow, sounds like the good old days of Thought Police. See someone who don't respect the ideology en vogue, report them, and bam, they will be taken care of. Nice job Adria. Setting the good example for the kids.

</comment><comment><USER50> I feel some real cognitive dissonance when I read about how this situation unfolded.

Allegedly Adria felt threatened, fearful for her life. Her reaction to this fear was to turn around, take a photo, post it on the internet and presumably stay where she was. Hank expressed confusion over how the organisers found out about it - if she'd left her seat that confusion wouldn't exist.

So we have a woman fearing for her life, sitting in a seat mere centimetres away from the threat, tapping out an accusatory tweet on her smartphone.

It might just be me, but in that circumstance with an obvious breach of conference protocol my first reaction would be to leave the immediate vicinity of the threat and find a conference organiser to raise the issue with.

Posting it online does nothing to defend against the immediate perceived threat - it just doesn't add up.

I'm not saying that Adria shouldn't have felt threatened, but her behaviour does not fit the profile of someone in that mental state. Beyond that, public naming and shaming is not the way to deal with this kind of a problem. Talk to an organiser, get the breach of conference policy dealt with in private and if you feel it's warranted, post about the experience and how it negatively affected you in a constructive way that doesn't cause a witch hunt.

All that this stunt has achieved is further marginalisation of female developers; the risk of having an offhand joke resulting in being publicly drawn and quartered just isn't worth socialising around them. If this case were handled properly - by talking to the conference organisers and dealing with the breach of policy - this wouldn't have become such a huge issue.

I don't understand why it had to be dealt with in public like this.

</comment><comment><USER51> I really have nothing nice to say about Adria Richards. Following my mother's advice, that is my only comment.

</comment><comment><USER52> What astounds me is that all this fuss was made over a silly dongle joke.

If the guy had been overheard quietly telling his friend a joke like, say, The Aristocrats, then I could understand someone getting seriously offended. You don't tell a joke like that where there is even a small chance unintended people will here it.

But a lame joke based on "dongle" sounding like a dirty word? That's a joke that could be told on a children't show on TV and not even draw complaints from parents in the Bible Belt.

This kind of humor is acceptable for a general family audience on prime time television. For instance, in The Simpsons episode "Bart, the Mother", Bart raises a pair of lizards that are an illegal invasive species, and Skinner is explaining why they must be killed.

Skinnner: It's already wiped out the Dodo, the Cuckoo, and the Ne-Ne, and it has nasty plans for the Booby, the Titmouse, the Woodcock, and the Titpecker.

Similarly, in the episode "You Kent Always Say What You Want", where Kent Brockman says a very nasty swear word on live TV, and apparently has gotten away with it.

Grampa Simpson: I can't believe Kent Brockman got away with it. Back in my day TV stars couldn't say boobie, tushie, burp, fanny burp, water closet, underpants, dingle dangle, Boston marriage, LBJ, Titicaca, hot dog or front lumps!

Heck, I could easily see a "big dongle" joke being told on NPR on a Saturday morning by Garrison Keillor during the annual "Prairie Home Companion" joke show (which is hilarious, BTW).

If your reaction to overhearing such a joke is anything more than rolling your eyes at the childish humor, your offensiveness sensor needs recalibration. I've heard that getting a pet can bring calmness and help you recalibrate. A bird could be a good low maintenance pet for this. I recommend a Titpecker.

<comment><USER53> > If the guy had been overheard quietly telling his friend a joke like, say, > The Aristocrats, then I could understand someone getting seriously offended.

Why on earth would someone get offended over an animated kids film about cats?

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> It is utterly mind-boggling that someone can feel threatened by a comment about big dongles or forking someone's repo. I'm sorry, but at this point, you need to seek professional help, and you are trivializing the threats that many women feel every single day by creating threats and persecution where there is none.

</comment><comment><USER55> > Another word for software is "repository"

Tech reporting in a sentence.

<comment><USER56> I wasn't bothered by this inaccuracy. It's close enough to the truth so that the joke makes sense. (Well, as much as the joke can be considered to make sense.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> A lot of time is spent talking about Hank and Adria, but most of the damage in these sorts of cases are caused by bystanders: all of us. It feels pretty safe to be part of the crowd pillorying someone else, but I'm sure we've all said or done something thoughtless in the past that we would be embarrassed about if it were broadcast publicly. And while there is a valid discussion to be had about the environment for women in tech, I don't believe this incident has moved that discussion forward. It has put a lot of people on the defensive and made them dig into extreme positions. If there is a moral here, perhaps it is that we should try to be a little less self righteous and see things in a more nuanced way.

</comment><comment><USER23> I love Jon Ronson's work. He manages to make people appear human. Here, though, Adria comes across really poorly. She blames "Hank" for the (totally unacceptable) abuse she receives, even when she's told that he was not in anyway responsible for it.

If you get the chance to see his documentaries or listen to his radio shows you should - they're good.

</comment><comment><USER58> A good writeup with some more background information here:

        https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

I found it interesting that apparently, Adria has done similar things in the past.

<comment><USER59> That blog post was as sensible a commentary as I've ever read on these kinds of issues, thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I didn't think my opinion of Adria Richards could actually decrease further, but somehow it just did (assuming the article accurately represented her statements).

I want to be charitable to her but these statements are just bad.

<comment><USER61> Read her twitter. It doesn't get much better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> There's a real reason why society stopped doing public shaming as punishment. It brings out the worst in everyone.

</comment><comment><USER46> Let's be clear here, Jon Ronson spent a fair bit of time lying to Adria Richards to put together his book, his portrayal of the timeline is inaccurate and even if this wasn't the case it'd be a phenomenal amount of false equivalence:

[http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/the-falsest-of-false- equi...](http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/the-falsest-of-false- equivalencies.html)

TL;DR; Yeah he got fired, but he didn't get fired because of an internet backlash.

<comment><USER47> can you provide any supporting facts that Jon Ronson lied? I mean you say he lied about hsi reasons for interviewing her, i.e. said it was about sexism. However he has not lied about what she said or what actually happened. You do not deny that he has quoted her faithfully.

To me it seems that she was expecting that her minority status would protect her, she goes to lengths to point out she is black, female and jewish. who cares? And then the article has a huge backstory on why her life was so tough. you know what so were many peoples, the only reason to make an issue of how hard you had it as a kid is to try and engineer some sympathy. either what she did was right or it was wrong but her upbringing has nothing to do with that.

<comment><USER63> In my opinion, her upbringing and life have everything to do with this. If it were not for how she was brought up and how she was treated during her life, she may or may not have done what she did. The only reason is not to try to engineer some sympathy, but there are other possible reasons as well.

If her backstory was a backstory full of mental illness, would you respond differently to what had happened?

Now, I'm not trying to say that racism or stereotypes are good, because they aren't. However, people's past are what shape people and can help others understand people's viewpoints.

Even because of her backstory, however, I find that pretty much everybody (except the reporter, who didn't participate too much) overreacted. In general, though, I find that many of Adria's thought processes were flawed, but that's not relevant to this reply (at least, I don't think so).

<comment><USER47> but if her background applies then surely so does his, did he struggle in his upbringing? is there anything in his early life that made him into the person he is today? sure there are but we dont get that side because the sympathy that the writer is trying to evoke is with one side. If they made both sides appear human then they cant have an evil doer and a clear cut good guy.

And i agree our past shapes us, shaped both people in this debate, but we only hear her side because that is who the writer wants you to sympathise with. Hank is just a namelss white male with no life before this incident.

<comment><USER63> True, however, in defense of the writer perhaps the writer was trying to balance out the story, because throughout most of the story above her backstory was pretty much "it's her fault". To balance it out a bit, in the middle the writer inserted a "hey, maybe she did really have a reason for her reaction" before returning to "nope, not really-ish".

At least, that's how I felt when I read the article.

But you do make a valid point, his background isn't really brought forth, although slightly it is but not much at all. However, I feel that saying something along the lines of "Hank grew up in Sometown, Somestate, Someplace, and had a loving mother and father, etc etc etc..." would feel out of place in such an article... I'm only guessing Hank's backstory and do not claim to actually know it.

tl;dr & in conclusion: Perhaps it's the writer trying to balance things out? :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> What angers me most about that conference incident is the indiscriminate public shaming of _two_ people, one of whom was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Imagine being all over the internet because your company sent you to a conference with the wrong guy.

<comment><USER65> I thought about that, too. The article helps to explain the behavior of everyone involved. I can see myself in everyones actions and later regretting to have done them.

Nevertheless if got into something like that, I would have sued her.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> > He noticed ruefully that a few days earlier the woman – her name was Adria > Richards – had herself tweeted a stupid penis joke. She'd suggested to a > friend that he put socks down his pants to bewilder TSA agents at the > airport.

Lot of hypocrisy here! Neither person deserved to lose their job, the whole situation seems to have gotten completely out of hand. Funny how even the smallest hint of acknowledgement or response can keep the snowball rolling.

<comment><USER66> This guy is doing a great job promoting his book. I guess the discussion here won't be real different than this recent one:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9085680](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9085680)

It will certainly be interesting to watch the mechanics of internet mobs evolve as people get a better idea of the potential consequences of them.

<comment><USER36> People who have been through the wringer on these subjects fight pretty hard in "nymwars". I personally try very hard to keep my real name off the internet.

I don't think there's an easy solution to the downsides of viral publishing.

About Jon Ronson's writing, I pretty much detested "Them" because of how he ridicules the conspiracy theorists at the start of the book. He goes on to spy on the Bilderburg group and the Bohemian Grove and comes away with a "so what" conclusion. At the start of the book his attitude was ridicule, that no such meetings take place.

Maybe I'm just mentally unflexible, but maybe if he stayed around for a bit longer for meat and bones discussion instead of engaging in idle chit chat he'd have a different opinion.

Also similar to "so what" attitude in Four Lions the film, he badly underestimates the Finsbury Park mosque crowd.

<comment><USER67> Ronson did an interview with Alex Jones where they both talked about what they saw when they infiltrated Bohemian Grove. It was fascinating to see a complete conspiracy denialist debate with a complete conspiracy true-believer. It was a serious Rashomon moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> _sigh_ This situation is filled to the brim with stupid and (aparently) harmless actions that lead to stupid reactions.

\- Hank makes a crude joke. This is a stupid, immature action. But harmless. And, imo, he has all the right to make the jokes he wants.

\- Adria feels offended. I thinks it's stupid, but she has all the right to feel that way.

\- Adria takes picture and publicly shames A in the internet. This is a stupid and dickish action. But, imo, she has all the right to do so.

\- Adria calls Hank's job about the joke. Stupid and dickish action, but she's free to do so.

\- Hank is fired because of joke. Stupid and dickish action.

\- etc...

There is one principle I follow that could've prevented all this:

STOP TAKING SERIOUSLY WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY!

I mean it. Simply ignore it. Unless someone acts upon you, nothing happens. In the long run words mean nothing.

This would make Hank's employer ignore the phonecall, the internet ignore the public shaming, and Adria ignore the stupid joke. And ignore the harassment.

For people in IT, used to work with logic and reason, we should show more maturity and stop believing and caring about these "he-said/she-said" internet dramas.

</comment><comment><USER69> The worst and most ironic part of this story is how 4chans vigilante 'justice' likely ended up reaffirming Adrias fears surrounding men in the field.

For better or worse, 4chan is a supernode in Internet culture, and there's certainly some association between it and many other tech and hacker communities. Just look at how many conference presentations these days contain memes that originate on 4chan.

The end of the article talks about how Hank no longer trusts himself to talk to women in the workplace, but what about Adria? Regardless of whether her fears were founded, she must now feel totally _vindicated_ and more fearful than ever before.

</comment><comment><USER70> Taking sides in this is the wrong thing to do.

The guys should perhaps have been more aware that they could cause offence. She should have perhaps been more aware that photographing and publicly shaming those individuals would have public repercussions she could not anticipate.

However it's the people taking sides that caused the problem here. It's the employers, the haters, the people sending death threats and photoshopping pictures and DDoS'ing sites and all of that.

There's no need. Somebody breached a conference code of conduct. Somebody else was offended by that. It should have been an issue between the person who made the joke, the person who complained and the conference organiser.

The fact it spilled out into the public domain could be handled if people were not going to take sides and just realised that this was absolutely 100% none of their business, and to reflect that keeping within codes of conduct is a good thing for everybody.

But the Real World isn't like that. The juvenile idiots on 4chan are more than happy to take a side based on prejudice, cognitive bias and the protection of pseudonymity and behave in an absolutely disgusting way.

If you're about to do something publicly, be prepared to explain yourself to everybody you know, including your mother.

If you're about to do something in a semi-public space, same thing applies, and semi-public means using a pseudonym.

Everybody involved in this story got it wrong, but the very worst people around this were the people who decided to take it a level of hatred it did not deserve.

</comment><comment><USER71> Related: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid- tw...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined- justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0)

Also related: [http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/03/phaneuf-lupul-hire- law-...](http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/03/phaneuf-lupul-hire-law-firm- over-tweet-aired-on-tsn)

Basically, someone tweeted a joke about one well-known NHL player banging the wife of his team mate. It appeared on the Twitter ticker on the bottom of a TSN broadcast, whose filters didn't catch it. Of course, someone else took a pic of it, posted it online and from there, even more people saw it. Now both the NHL players are suing TSN AND they want to go after the original tweeter. Who definitely had no clue his/her tweet would end up on national TV.

In both cases, a media outlet shared the original tweet to their massive audiences. Where these tweets would have faded into obscurity, instead they were exposed to the sensibilities of a much larger audience.

</comment><comment><USER72> I'm pretty conflicted about this whole thing, and was back then, too.

I try to be supportive of anybody, and generally go out of my way to be inclusive. I also make really stupid, juvenile jokes, although I am audience- aware.

In this case, his audience was the guy he was sitting next to, and there was nothing overtly threatening in the joke. In fact, if anything, it'd indicate he was gay and not at all interested in the woman in front of him who overheard him.

Ultimately, and this will likely get _me_ in trouble, but I think she handled this in the absolute wrongest way possible.

(Reading the old [https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/](https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/) response post largely sums up _why_ I think it was wrong, but I wasn't aware of the other times she didn't bother trying to resolve things in a way that might actually produce _positive_ results.)

The threats made toward her are obviously reprehensible; I don't understand that reaction either.

<comment><USER73> Thank you for posting this article, I was trying to track it down for the thread. This encounter was so widely reported that it's almost difficult to discuss it honestly and openly and without taking sides. I feel like that, in and of itself, is the tragedy for the community.

<comment><USER72> I definitely have a side.

I think she handled it wrong, in the same way she's apparently handled similar situations wrong. Lashing out is almost never the best response, a simple "wtf" would almost certainly have ended there on the spot, and a _constructive_ public discussion could have ensued.

Meh. It's awful. He shouldn't have been fired and vilified. She shouldn't have received rape and death threats (wth?!). Two lives in (at least temporary) upheaval when simple communication could have sufficed.

<comment><USER73> I completely agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> This feels like a thread in which expressing ANY opinion (except, perhaps, this one) is a potential liability. That realization saddens me.

<comment><USER75> Your lack of support of the correct side in this argument is unsettling /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> People must be responsible for their actions. Without that society breaks down. Today the Internet is an amplifier of consequences, good or bad. A professional working in the industry isn't a professional if they are not in tune with this effect to guide their decision making.

It used to be:

"Don't write anything you would not want the world to see."

For many years this has expanded to:

"Don't write, say or do anything you would not want the world to see."

The side of the argument is inconsequential. Both parties chose to ignore the potential consequences of the Internet as an amplifier. We are not talking about grandma and grandpa here. We are talking about two Internet pro's.

Were the consequences fair?

Who knows? That is the nature of a positive feedback amplifier: It might not stop until something is destroyed. Ignoring it's existence could have one suffer disproportionate consequences. Don't ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER77> I really have trouble with this story. Nearly every aspect was overblown. However maybe I'm a curmudgeon but I don't have a social media profile for the very reason I don't want my business out there. I don't want to be Internet famous or even real life famous. Secondly how were they able to find someones Twitter profile without knowing her name? Search for #donglejokesarebadmmkay ? None of this makes much sense to me. The firings on both sides are crazy to me. I don't know that I have even heard anyone in my company even talk about Twitter much less check up on some scuttlebutt about a conference. It's the makings of reality tv drama. Asinine.

</comment><comment><USER78> I'd never heard of Adria Richards before, or I'd forgotten it as an absurd non-newsworthy event. On reading about the incident, I thought "What a humorless, vindictive [Beelzebub]" I was kinda glad that she got fired.

But then I read on, and I found myself having a lot of empathy for her, and for Hank (although what happened to him, as bad as it was was way less intense and scary than what happened to her). I thought they both made (forgivable) mistakes. Their respective employers meted out not very compassionate punishments, those companies come off badly in the article. The public statements by one of the CEO's sounds particularly lame and insincere. More human error. The cascade of errors continues into an avalanche. "The Mob"(i.e. the public) _really_ comes off bad in this story.

I don't think human error leading to more human errors and bad outcomes itself is groundbreaking news. It's more the runaway (not so) positive feedback loop that amplifies errors of (bad) judgement and gut level emotions. We evolved in a context where we only had to contend with unintentionally pissing off maybe a few dozens or hundreds of people with our mistakes. Now millions of people can be infuriated/whipped up into a cyber lynch mob overnight, and even then it's still only a tiny fraction of humanity's collective attention.

Maybe sites like Twitter and Facebook should think about whether or not they have a responsibility to the victims of Mob crucifixion. Even (especially?) the unsympathetic ones, who arguably may have made their own bed and set fire to it. Some kind of circuit breaker when burning crosses start popping up. Cyber public defenders. "Chill out" buttons.

The story made me really feel for Adria. It didn't hide the fact that she saw things in a very harsh, b&w way. Her letter to her father may have been a blatant attempt to emotionally manipulate the writer and the audience. But it works, even if so. What kind of hurt would make it necessary to resort to that? I feel her humanity. She deserves a shot of redemption.

Great article. The other stories are terrific as well, but maybe this one is more of a Puzzlebox.

</comment><comment><USER79> So there is this internet hate machine and it's terrible. The cyber bullying crimes (ok, that's probably free speech in the US) and insults are way off, totally disproportionate.

But the way she acted, taking a photo and publicly tweeting it? That's an attack, I'm not judging, maybe it was right to take direct action. I'm just saying if you escalate things you got to be ready for the retaliation. Especially if you are not in a position of power. And let's be honest, against culture, against public opinion and the internet hate machine, most of us lose.

</comment><comment><USER80> Anyone who is interested in discussing this growing phenomenon may like to check out [http://www.reddit.com/r/outrageculture](http://www.reddit.com/r/outrageculture)

</comment><comment><USER81> This article really cemented my opinion that Adria Richards deserved to get fired and should never have a podium from which to shame someone ever again.

She's clearly a hateful person without any kind of empathy stretching beyond that of her womens' struggle in tech. There should be no place in tech for people who just can't relent. I don't know if the comments in this article are cherry picked wildly, but even so, even suggesting that this Hank guy is to blame for her getting fired, when clearly it was her own behaviour.

</comment><comment> mkr-hn This debacle was a helpful reminder that we all do things that, out of context, can look really awful, and should be mindful of this when calling people out publicly. Neither of them deserved to be fired or harassed over this.

Personally, I have trouble seeing how a lewd joke about one man forking another man's repo (and following up with dongle jokes) involves or threatens women in any way, but I wasn't there.

I almost had sympathy for her, but she blamed the guy for the harassment he faced. That's bordering on unforgivable.

<comment><USER82> But... but... you're blaming her for the harassment she's facing.

(Actually, "Hank" didn't face any harassment. We don't even know his name.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Seems like their mistake was admitting anything. They should have then just sued her for defamation.

This is really nothing more than bullying, self-righteous bullying. Just because you overheard something give you no fucking right to shame someone in public.

Maybe their jokes were immature. Maybe humanity should cease thinking about sex. Either way she's the one guilty of bullying and should be shamed for the horrible person that she is. Fucking move if you don't like what a couple guys are inappropriately joking about.

</comment><comment><USER84> It seems like the take-away is that mob justice is increasingly worrying in the Internet age.

The two people that were affected barely knew each other and seemingly had no way of absolving themelves.

</comment><comment><USER85> Original Hacker News thread, including response from Mr Hank:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391667](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391667)

</comment><comment><USER86> The actual title should be how stupidity can ruin your life. I do not want to live in the world where adults cannot make jokes, even sexual one. He clearly did not direct that to the woman who made a huge scene out of it. Actually, If the guy writes a mail and sends it to his buddy, and the woman reads the mail that is a felony. Why can she make this sort of things when the conversation obviously was not directed to her? This story is just so wrong on so many levels.

</comment><comment><USER87> Similar case is happening to the two tormentors of Curt Schilling (a former baseball player)'s daughter.

He tweeted congrats to his daughter for going to college. Predictably some of the replies were nasty.

He went after two and doxxed them. Now these two will bear the result of what went down.

[https://38pitches.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/is-it-twitters- fa...](https://38pitches.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/is-it-twitters-fault/)

I suspect this will happen more and more.

<comment><USER88> "Nasty" seems like an understatement, and it wasn't like they were hiding behind anonymity. So I have little sympathy in that case. You say terrible things on a twitter account in your name, directed at someone else, it might come back to bite you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> The summary of the article says his book is about "fake indignation." Who gets to decide what indignation is "fake" and what is "real?"

</comment><comment><USER90> I'm going to be a cynic and say that Adria took a gamble to raise her profile and it backfired big time.

This wasn't the first incident of questionable behaviour in conferences. There had been sexist comments, talks and general lude behaviour prior to this.

I think she saw the opportunity and forced the situation to fit the narrative (it wasn't even a sexist comment) but it quickly got out of hand and resulted in them both suffering severely.

</comment><comment><USER91> FWIW I sympathise with Adria - she seems like the perfect geek (takes no bullcrap, sticks to her guns, overly logical analysis of social situations to the detriment of all); describes me some of the time, and the constant state of some of the people in the teams I have managed over the years; and yet I never once thought of firing any one of them,

Shame PyCon and the respective weren't able to deal with this in a better way.

<comment><USER92> > overly logical analysis of social situations to the detriment of all

Where do you see that in any of this? It seems to me to be a classic example of what happens when you don't think things through.

<comment><USER91> Isn't that the same sort of thing? She interpreted a social situation in her own way and then seemed to think it through based on her own POV and biases to it's logical conclusion. According to the OP she doesn't feel anything but justified. Of course we might feel differently, but doesn't mean she didn't think it through in her own way.

IMHO geeks (including me) are terrible at dealing with social situations and even worse at accepting when we are wrong when the only thing pointing to our "wrongness" is what other people think.

Of course you could also be 100% spot-on and I'm being overly sympathetic to someone who doesn't deserve it. I hope I'm not.

<comment><USER92> I don't think most people follow that very flexible definition of "thinking it through". With it being so relativistic, it loses any practical use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Previous discussion on Hacker News of a similar article by the same author:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039274](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039274)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid- tw...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined- justine-saccos-life.html)

</comment><comment><USER94> Everyone can be offended by anything. If your response involve real harmful ramifications for the other person, you're the one being a dick.

</comment><comment><USER95> As someone who genuinely doesn't always know what to say out loud and what not, this story never fails to make me emotional and on a personal level – beyond any gender/political correctness/professionalism debate – I don't like people like Adria [as portrayed] very much. I'm happy people around me are a lot more reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER96> When someone asks you if you have made sexual comments about "forking someone's repo" you say "No"!

</comment><comment><USER97> I'm really trying, but I am having trouble feeling empathy towards her. Once I realized he was fired because of what she did and how proud of herself she was (this is the bad part), I just couldn't feel any empathy for her anymore.

</comment><comment><USER98> IMHO the discussion should not about these 3 people involved in this particular incident.

It should be about everybody just brain farting directly to the internet without realizing there's no delete button...

</comment><comment><USER85> Seriously, what ever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt?

Some people just don't feel fulfilled unless they can log at least 5 micro- agressions against them a day (whatever the fuck they are).

</comment><comment><USER82> Threads like this are why I will discourage my daughter from working in the tech industry.

It's an incredibly toxic blend of misogyny, racism, and entitlement, and doesn't even have the self-awareness to understand that about itself.

Congratulations to user interpol_p who is valiantly trying to educate people, but it's far too much of an uphill battle.

If any of you ever decide to do something about it, you have a leading example to follow in the sci-fi/fantasy fandom world, which has had the exact same problems as the tech industry and for the same reasons, but which in recent years has made great strides (not without some reactionary pushback). If you ever want to grow up, just check out what the fantasy geeks have done and are doing.

</comment><comment><USER99> If there is a moral to the story at all, it is this: Using the Internet as a weapon is like swinging nunchucks studded with loosely-attached, razor-sharp blades. Everyone near you gets hurt, but especially you.

There is an entire subculture on the Internet entirely devoted to disproving, with a vengeance, the phrase "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me". They are trolls, pursuing the idea that a carefully selected assemblage of words can reduce a person to a quivering wreck of human jelly.

Then there are the dirt-diggers and the doxers, who will scrutinize your life more carefully than a political party looking for a presidential candidate, and circle with a highlighter every embarrassing thing you have ever done.

There are the holy warriors, who will tolerate no heresies against their chosen cause, especially those done unwittingly, in apparent ignorance that a controversy even exists--for the holy warriors on the other side have, of course, already chosen their path to damnation.

And there are the cruel pranksters, who will summon a SWAT team to your house, looking for your cash, heroin, and slaves. They'll DDoS your employer until you are fired. They'll crack your passwords and post dick pics using your account.

But there's a delicate sort of detente with all these groups. They have, however twisted, a sense of justice. The very worst of them will leave the truly innocent untouched, as though it were all a game, the only legitimate targets are the other players, and cheaters must be punished. The trolls attack pompous, self-righteous windbags. The doxers expose those who abuse their anonymity (such as the trolls and the other doxers). The holy warriors mock those with unfounded or irrational beliefs. And the cruel pranksters follow Machiavelli's blueprint to make the Internet respected, through terrorism.

These are people who have probably never felt any sort of power before, in any other aspect of their lives. Doing one of those things may be the only time they have ever felt like they ever made a difference in the world, even if it was a difference with dubious worth. Before the Internet, those types of personalities would have to be board members for homeowners' associations or local government officials or on the council for their churches or civic groups in order to feel more powerful. That limited the scope of the damage they could potentially do.

All of this misbehavior that we see on the Internet is a symptom. The cause is (in part) the systematic disenfranchisement of the poor and middle class, around the world. And we turn upon each other, as though to prove that we still matter, somehow.

The lede that was buried in the article is this: _BOTH OF THE PEOPLE CENTRAL TO THE STORY WERE FIRED FOR BEING VICTIMS_.

That makes the spineless, sleazy companies that took the easy way out the real bad guys. They were the only ones in the entire situation with any _real_ power, and they opted to stab their own employees in the back and leave them in the gutter for the rats. They opted to eject someone from a presentation over a single complaint from someone who was likely also violating the conference code of conduct.

There was no due process. There was no respect for the rights of those affected. There was only corporate expedience, and a complete lack of regard for those negatively affected by it. And they are getting away with it, because we continue to blame the victims.

</comment><comment><USER100> She asked his employer to take down his hacker news post? Did she think they would have his account's password?

<comment><USER75> She asked his employer to ask him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> And to think all she had to do was to turn round, frown and go "Guys, there's a time and a place ...".

The golden rule is that, if you disagree with someone, _speak_ to them face- to-face, privately first, then in front of others if that doesn't work.

Public tweeting is the absolute last recourse. She's as susceptible to individuation (behind her keyboard) as he was.

</comment><comment><USER102> Please excuse my ignorance, but could someone explain to me how the joke about a big dongle was threatening or sexist?

A lot of people seem to just be accepting that at face value and I'm having issues understanding why that joke in particular would make her feel unsafe or uncomfortable. It just doesn't strike me as anything that could come across as such.

<comment><USER75> Some people believe everyone should have the right to not be exposed to sexuality of any sort at any time unless they choose to be. This is a more sensitive topic for women because they are subjected to sexual harassment their entire lives. It is threatening because she is a woman, who is sensitive to the topic, and works in an industry filled with people who don't understand this issue very well. It doesn't help being in a room of 800 people when almost all of them also don't understand this issue.

When the large majority of your experiences with sexual topics in life are related to people sexually harassing you, you might become sensitive to any topics of sexuality that you aren't personally consenting to be a part of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> This gives feminism a bad image.

<comment><USER104> And "Hitler was an atheist!"

This has little to do with feminism and much to do with one person who could easily score a narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis. The inability to separate this individual with feminism is the fault of the interpreter.

Regardless, I think that you are unfortunately correct that this event reinforced preexisting, incorrect notions of feminism in the aforementioned interpreter.

<comment> saiya-jin Judging from my personal viewpoints and experiences (aka the usual YMMV), from those few feminists I know, most fall +- into this category. Much less narcisstic/sociopatic, but same breed. What I mean by this - looking very hard for any case of man/woman disparity in our society, ignoring that some professions are just better for men (and some for women, and others are +-equal). What is interesting is their lack of objectiveness - they will discuss and shame for long time situation in their current/previous work, how horrible is the situation in their western country, yet they are almost oblivious to horrible treatment of women that happens region-wide half around the globe (ie "yeah it's horrible how women can't drive in saudi arabia, BUT! that last job i had, one guy told me I women are happier when they bring up kids back home and not doing career! How horrible is that! How did he dare!" \- roughly real conversations I had :)) Or - all is bad because of men. But rather don't look at the mess in their lives.

I wish I finally meet some easy-to-communicate feminist girl, who is actually trying to change things in this world for women for better. I really wish so... but right now they are just a joke, to me & to my girlfriend.

Maybe best feminist women are those who don't run around shouting how much feminist they are, but instead they let results of their efforts speak for themselves. Did I tell you I really wish to meet such a person?

<comment><USER104> > ignoring that some professions are just better for men

I'm not ignoring your sexism.

> ...yet they are almost oblivious to horrible treatment of women that happens > region-wide half around the globe...

Is homelessness in the United States also not a problem because of impoverishment in African countries? Is the conversation of the drought in California dismissible because of the lack of clean water in India? You're expressing dire cultural insensitivity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> She failed to anticipate the huge backlash of her actions. Ironically, the goal of her actions was to make sure that _his_ actions would lead to a huge unforeseeable backlash for _him_.

</comment><comment><USER106> Hank, It Gets Better. Trust me on this. :)

</comment><comment><USER107> No one wins an argument.

</comment><comment><USER27> > "Have you ever heard that thing, men are afraid that women will laugh at > them and women are afraid that men will kill them?"

Men are afraid that a woman will change/ruin their whole lives with just their words.

Well, at least that is how "Hank" feels now.

<comment><USER108> That phrase made me realize she's really traumatized. When I read about her childhoold I confirmed it. Pretty sad for her I guess, but still she should grow up and see a doctor or something if she wants to work again... I'm surprised she got there in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> "I think that nobody deserves what she went through," he replied.

VS.

"Not too bad," she said. She thought more and shook her head decisively. "He's a white male. I'm a black Jewish female."

...

At what point will we stop tip-toeing around the fact that "social justice" is a curable and preventable mental disorder masking itself as valid criticism?

</comment><comment><USER110> Terrifying. Glib Twitter scolds are the brownshirts of our era.

</comment><comment><USER111> Clearly not the kind of women we need more in tech... well, we don't need fanatics anywhere really.

</comment><comment><USER112> I'm curious as to whether Ronson or Esquire's fact-checkers verified the horrific details of Adria's upbringing.

</comment><comment><USER113> I think the reaction against Adria was healthy. Perhaps these sanctimonious SJWs will think twice before they go all upworthy on random people.

</comment><comment><USER114> Personally, I condemn anyone who is a vocal activist in the "gender debate" in tech who does not speak up on topics such as this. If you are female and want to genuinely be treated as an _equal_ in tech, you don't freak out over minor jokes, and when "one of your own" does, I believe you are obligated to voice your disagreement with the behavior, assuming you even think it is wrong, which might be an incorrect assumption. If you _don 't_ think it's wrong, I never want to work with someone like you. And if this mentality is at all common (I have no idea), purely from a risk management perspective, I would only hire females when they are massively more qualified than any male counterparts.

I don't like feeling like this, but with what little I know of the public female sentiment on these types of issues, fear and avoidance is the wisest stance.

Hopefully situations like this are vast statistical anomalies.

<comment><USER115> Fear and avoidance of half of humanity. I've never before heard that described as "the wisest stance". :D I'll have to think about it... ;)

<comment><USER114> You'd have to be living under a rock if you think different genders have identical risk profiles in all settings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> When you see a white man standing in the room, take a moment to think about all the unjustified accusations of racism and sexism he's had to endure in his journey to get there

[https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/530109180460675074](https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/530109180460675074)</comment>


Ask HN: Google results rendering oddly? - <AUTHOR> http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8468/picture1vhy.png Not sure what the cause of this is. I deleted cache/history, and I've had several people next to me pull up a Google search and they're not seeing this. Anyone else run into this before? <comment><USER2> Nope: <http://imgur.com/gEVPe.png>

</comment><comment><USER3> Try emptying your cache with ⌥⌘E in Safari.</comment>


Some Chinese movie theaters are covering their screens in text messages - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/aug/20/chinese-cinemas-show-audiences-texts-alongside-film-wrst-idea-eva

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted this article just want to know why so called "bullet screen" video is only popular in East Asia, like Japan and China? Any theory about why this is not a big thing in the west?

</comment><comment><USER2> They can do anything and in different way</comment>


Ask HN: What will social networking look like in 2020 (bigger whatsapp, insta)? - <AUTHOR> (insta = instagram) Recent scandals of social media platforms seem to affect a lot of users. But folks at Hacker News are more aware about the consequences of lack of privacy than others, so HackerNews opinions could be extremely skewed wrt aggregate world view. Interesting to know your opinions. Thanks! <comment><USER2> What I am hoping for, based on what I would like to exist:

Something more genuine; think older fb (writing on people's walls), snapchat. Facebook/Insta in 2018 is basically a social linkedin - used to showcase yourself as a person. Most people check Insta as a filter for dates.

I think the new generation of social media should focus on smaller groups of friends (5-30), but it should be possible to publish to wider groups. Sounds like google+ circles, but I think snapchat was closer. Short, real snippets from peoples lives.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya, you are right older versions of existing social networks were actually good, until ads came along. Curious to know why do you think Google+ failed?

<comment><USER2> Well I don't think they did anything new/novel. Snapchat succeeded because the concept of _just_ sending dumb photos/videos to close friends didn't exist.

Adding friends to circles was also too much work for the user I think. On top of all that, it just wasn't very "cool" or fun

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's a good chance it'll be something novel we can't even imagine right now. Remember, as static as the social media world seems, every few years seems to bring at least one major service that comes out of nowhere. See Instagram, Snapchat, and arguably messaging apps like WhatsApp, Slack and Discord.

That saud, I'd guessing that any successful social media app then would be:

1\. Mostly private, because the over arching fears of survelliance and spying and a lack of privacy do seem to be getting to people, as does the media's tendency to take random jokes/comments and blow them out of proportion.

I think that's why Discord has caught on so much with young people now. Because stuff like Reddit being public meant their communities ended up coming under fire for every little controversy, and they constantly had teachers/employers/media folk looking there for things that could get them in trouble/cause drama. So invite only and private is likely a big part of any future platform's setup.

2\. Probably more image/video based than text based. We're seeing a move away from text in general nowadays with stuff like YouTube and Twitch being mainstream, and the likes of Instagram/Snapchat/Pinterest just make that even clearer.

But it's hard to tell really. Could honestly be anything.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think social graph segmentation will prevail in coming years. Traditional platforms create a superset of all your social circles (friends, work acquaintances, family, peers), which--in my experience--makes it awkward to be yourself.

Furthermore, pooling social circles as such tends to fuel a social competition that distracts you with vanity metrics (e.g. likes/followers) and sucks the fun out of connecting with others.

I'm building a product called Saturday[0] to solve this problem. It's a video app that's built for groups. You can create private groups and any member can add videos they capture with the built-in camera.

[0]: [https://thesaturdayapp.com](https://thesaturdayapp.com)</comment>


The End of "Disruption:" Is that term even relevant anymore? - <AUTHOR> http://www.enterpriseefficiency.com/author.asp?section_id=1129&doc_id=264849& <comment><USER2> I think the author misses the point on what is being disrupted. It sounds like he thinks a law firm that adopts a better version of office is being a "disruptive." He says that if a business is constantly open to change, then what's the point of disruption? He confuses the role of adaptability and who the disruptor is displacing.

Think about the first word processor compared to a typewriter. A company's choice/ability to adopt the word processor didn't make them a disruptive company. However, the word processor creator entirely disrupted the typewriter company.

In the author's article, he references Office 365. Incorporating new features of 365 as they role out does not make the 365 customer more or less disruptive. What's disruptive is that 365 is attacking dropbox / google docs / other service providers.

In fact, when the author asks is the term "disruption" relevent if businesses become adaptable is kinda silly. Adaptable businesses open up opportunities for more disruption. If a business is willing to take on new ways of doing things then they are more likely to become customers of a new disruptive product or service, whereas old non adaptable businesses would limit the new product's potential client base / make it harder to find first adopters.</comment>


Ask HN: Who are the leading woman founders? - <AUTHOR> we hear lot about the male founders who created started their startup and make it big. And these guys are are well respected in the community or talked about.<p>Are there any woman counterpart for the same ? <comment><USER2> Among others Esther Dyson, Caterina Fake, Christina Brodbeck, Jayne Hillman, Jennifer Lum, Randi Zuckerberg, Rashmi Sinha, Brit Morin, Danielle Morrill, Mari Baker, Cyan Banister, Sophie Amoruso, Diane Greene

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sarah Nahm - Founder & CEO of Lever> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIgNKhhsppY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIgNKhhsppY)

</comment><comment><USER4> Danielle Morrill( [https://twitter.com/DanielleMorrill](https://twitter.com/DanielleMorrill) ). Cofounder and CEO of Mattermark ( [https://mattermark.com/](https://mattermark.com/) ). She is one of the most brilliant founders I can think of, regardless of gender.

</comment><comment><USER5> Anisa @ Giveffect is super kickass. Same thing for Iba @ Tara AI. They're definitely on the earlier side (for now), but I wouldn't be surprised if they make your list in a few years. :)</comment>


When Does Consistency Require Coordination? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bailis.org/blog/when-does-consistency-require-coordination/

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't dug through the paper yet, but this seems like a really nice result: both theoretically elegant and practically useful. Looking forward to working through the details.</comment>


Ask HN: Programming notebook recommendations? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
for programming on the go, office work and browsing the internet I currently use a Macbook Air Mid 2011.
I am happy with the form factor and battery life. All I ask for is more performance. I can't really find a solution in the current Apple line-up and therefor need some advice.
So far I quite like the Razer Blade Pro 14 (2015).  Linux compatibility would be important. Any tips? <comment><USER2> Unless you absolutely need the thinness of an Air or equivalent, I suggest looking for something a bit bigger—it will last much longer that way.

I have a ThinkPad T410 from 2010. The CPU and GPU are showing their age, but I've been able to upgrade the RAM (maxed out at 8 GB) and storage (768 GB of SSD across two drives [I removed the optical drive]) to the point that it continues to serve me adequately. The only things it struggles on are Google Hangouts (weak GPU) and VMs.

In the ThinkPad world, that means sticking with the T-series or X-series rather than the X-1 Carbon. For Macs, it means sticking with the Macbook Pro instead of the Macbook Air, Macbook Pro Retina (it's my understanding that it's difficult to upgrade), or standard Macbook.

The only downside (other than a bit more weight and thickness—not at all important to me) is that for some reason the bigger laptops tend to have worse screens. In both the Macbook and ThinkPad lines, the best high-DPI screens are found on the thinner, less upgradeable machines. The best option I've found is the ThinkPad T450s, which looks to have a decent highish-DPI option. Hopefully this situation is changing (or perhaps has already changed—I'm not familiar with the newest Macbooks).

ThinkPads run Linux exceptionally well. I've never had any compatibility issues with my T410, even when it was new. Staying with Intel graphics does help a lot.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am curious, what tasks do you find where performance is an issue, I'm guessing it's not the office work or internet, is it building your projects? Do you use it for mobile development, what's your usual environment?

I am using a late 2008 Macbook (Unibody Macbook 5.1) for the same sort of activities you use it and find it fine and that is worrying me a bit, I use it about 6 hours a day for my personal projects and entertainment. It originally came with 2GB RAM which I upgraded about 5 years ago to 4GB, then a couple of years ago I upgraded it to 8GB, which is the maximum it takes. I also replaced the 160 GB HDD hard drive with a 256 SSD, I replaced the battery once, and had to change the power adapter too. I've also upgraded the OS from Leopard > Snow Leopard > Lion > Mountain Lion > Mavericks > Yosemite. To be clear it's an original 'Macbook' which was phased out as a brand and recently (today actually) been reintroduced as the new 'Macbook'. The processor is an ancient Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz but somehow I can keep managing to working on my Node.js, Xcode 6/Swift projects alright.

I believe your Macbook Air is not upgradeable in the same way as my Macbook so this is perhaps the reason you are finding you need more performance. I'm not trying to suggest you don't need a new machine by the way, I am genuinely interested where you find performance becomes an issue because even though I am happy with my laptop some of my friends can't believe I am using this laptop as my primary (and only) machine so I do feel a bit insane sometimes. I once thought it may be that I've just gotten used to the slowness and don't notice it but I do use a high end desktop at my day job for C++/C# dev work on Visual Studio, and used the latest laptops at the Apple Store but only for browsing so it is hard for me to compare dev work.

I really hope I'm not spending twice as long as everyone else compiling or doing other processor heavy tasks and just got used to it, that would be pretty stupid. Even the new Macbook 2015 which has what is considered a weak processor by the press has better benchmark scores than the processor in mine. Perhaps I'll go from my old Macbook to the new Macbook.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm thinking about dell xps 13 developer edition or the lenovo carbon x thrid edition.

Razer Blade seems to have linux compatibility issue. plus I don't want nvidia graphics card, always causes troubles in linux.

</comment><comment><USER5> A Thinkpad T440p (14" screen) has a quad-core CPU option, I don't know if a T450p (with return of discrete trackpoint buttons) will happen soon. It's one of your standard big 14" business laptops.

The Toshiba Portege R30 has a 13.3" screen, has a quad-core CPU option, and it's lightweight, but don't ask me about its quality or ability to cool that CPU. I've heard good and bad things about its keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like my Lenovo X230. I've increased the RAM to 16GB and have 2 SSDs in it (a micro SATA and regular). Everything seems to work fine for me in Arch.</comment>


Sims creator hopes to soar with Spore - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/07/BUR012OSU4.DTL <comment><USER2> It's been fun so far, but with some really odd oversights.

For instance, as far as I can tell there's no way to change the 'mode' of travel in cell mode. Ever since "Asteroids", we've been trained that "up" is "forward", "left" is "left of forward motion," and "right" is "right of forward motion." From what I can find, the only way to move about is in X,Y mode where up is up, down is down, &c. That's regardless of your current "direction". I'd much rather have an asteroids-like motion.

Second is that cell and creature stage make a lot of sense. Moving to "tribal" stage, things get confusing with not a lot of in-game explanation (and it's a tiny manual). Hopefully that flattens out.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've spent a couple of days playing Spore, and whilst elements of it are great, there's some really dull moments. I think it's very 'Sims-y' and I've found the control mechanism massively irritating.

Having said that my race has just started to build a galactic empire. I find that whilst the game has massive breadth, it's lacking in depth and is highly repetitive, but it (especially the space stage) reminds me of Frontier, Elite II in the sheer scale of it all.

Oh Frontier, how I yearn for a remake...

</comment><comment><USER4> Spore is out!?

Alright, see you guys in a week.

<comment><USER5> My family needs to eat, so I'm going to pretend that this whole thread isn't here.

There is no Spore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's strange: Although SPORE clearly has many flaws (somtimes strange control setup, lacking depth), I feel that it is really far more enjoyable than it should be.

The sheer scale of things and the continuous development of your creature, your world and the universe is really an amazing experience, although the "game" itself is rather dull.</comment>