Should function arguments be reassignable or mutable? - <AUTHOR> https://mortoray.com/2017/12/31/should-function-arguments-be-reassignable-or-mutable/ <comment><USER2> I feel the author isn't going far enough- make all variables immutable by default unless explicitly declared otherwise, and even then highly discouraged.

Where mutable variables are needed, I prefer to hide that logic inside a method that exists solely to do that dirty business on an abstract level, not specific to my business logic. That let's me test the 'dirty' mutable method in an isolated place and removes a whole class of mutability-related bugs from my business logic code.

Working on Java, this used to be nigh-impossible, but the Java 8 additions have truly made my life easier.

<comment><USER3> Historical anecdote: Algol-68 disassociated variable assignment from mutability already 50 years ago. Whenever mutability was desired, a reference to a mutable value holder was used.

Example of immutable assignment: _int n = 2_

Example of reference to mutable value: _ref int n = (heap int := 2)_

However, in order to make Algol-68 code look more similar to Algol-60, they introduced backwards-compatible shorthands, so for example the declaration _int n;_ was actually a shorthand for _ref int n = (loc int);_

This shorthand magic probably contributed to why Algol-68 syntax was perceived to be difficult.

Footnote: loc and heap were the two memory allocation operators available in Algol-68.

<comment><USER4> Rust takes a similar approach with _let some_var_ and _let mut some_var_ , respectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm having a hard time understanding why they should be treated any differently than normal variables. I suppose the way that I view parameters is as regular variables who are initialized to values provided by the caller. Is there any argument against default mutability which still makes sense when viewing parameters from this perspective?

<comment><USER6> The difference between a local variable and a function argument is that altering the argument has an effect outside the function, and that the effect is invisible in that calling the function doesn't tell you that it will change the argument's value. It is a minor sin in the case of e.g. massaging data to turn NaNs into 0s or provide default values. It is also fine in the case of performance-critical code: c string manipulation functions might move a pointer along the string's length. However it is much easier to program against a function which has a single predictable result, ideally the generation of a return value based on input. If you mess with a function's input, you had better a) document that fact and b) have a reasonable expectation that your consuming dev is going to read the documentation. C programmers have this one tiny luxury; authors of an npm package do not.

<comment><USER5> Ok sorry, I didn't make explicit an important bit -- from my perspective these variables are initialized by the callee but are otherwise local to the function. From a C perspective imagine them as function local variables which are contructed by the callee's parameters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > If we look to a language like Haskell we see that reassigning variables, in > general, is frowned upon (is it even possible?)

This is perfectly valid Haskell:

        main = do
          let a = 7
          print a
          let a = 9
          print a

but you'll get a warning for it: _tmp.hs:4:7: warning: This binding for 'a' shadows the existing binding bound at tmp.hs:2:7_

<comment><USER8> The warning says it right away, the first _a_ is shadowed, not reassigned, here.

The difference is that when _a_ is reassigned the 7 is lost, while it should be still around when shadowed. I don't know of a way to access the 7 in this example however.

<comment><USER7> If there's no way to access the 7 after it's shadowed, why couldn't an optimized garbage collector throw it away after it's shadowed, thus making it equivalent to reassignment?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Members of the E family permit `var x` instead of `x` for reassignable arguments. Having immutable names by default with a keyword to make a mutable name has worked well.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think immutability of arguments should be optional by using a const keyword, like in c:

      int add(const int a, const int b);

<comment><USER11> The downside to this syntactic approach is that the implementation details are leaked in the signature.</comment></comment>


How to Square numbers made up of repeating digit in 2 seconds - <AUTHOR> http://mathema-tricks.blogspot.com/2012/02/squaring-numbers-made-up-of-repeating_26.html

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://mathema-tricks.blogspot.com/></comment>


Announcing the Simple iPhone App - <AUTHOR> https://simple.com/blog/Simple/announcing-the-simple-iphone-app/

<comment><USER2> I have been waiting for an account with them for years - I really hope this means they are close to a public opening</comment>


A Tour of Go - Real examples of interfaces and concurrency - <AUTHOR> http://research.swtch.com/gotour

<comment><USER2> I really hate to bring up the generics point, but I did really miss them when I used Go. Sure, you can ignore their absence, but every time I saw a API that took or returned `interface {}`, I felt like the type system was being wasted. Other than that though, Go is definitely on favorite languages to watch from afar.

<comment><USER3> This is what made me move away from Go to D.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Regarding the Acme text editor - any users of it here, on HN? I'm really interested to hear some arguments from Acme or Sam userbase - what do you find useful in these editors?

I vaguely remember the reply on Acme's mailing list, that it is a text editor, not a rainbow, when someone asked about syntax highlighting feature :)

<comment><USER5> I've been using acme for a long time (previously vi was my editor of choice). One property of acme that I think isn't so obvious is the way that text becomes higher-order, in the same kind of way that S-expressions in Lisp are higher-order.

Much of the power of Lisp comes from the fact that the result of executing an S-expression is also an executable S-expression itself, so programs that write programs become trivial.

This property is true of acme too - we execute text with a middle-button click or drag, and the command that's executed can produce more text, which is itself executable text.

Thus I can extend the functionality of acme by writing tiny shell scripts that print useful commands. I can run a command that produces a list of stuff, use structural regexps to transform that stuff into an acme command, then execute that to transform something else.

The power of structural regexps combined with proper Undo/Redo is also great - rather than pipe something through sed or awk, I'll often iteratively build up an expression or set of expressions that perform some particular one-off transformation, rewinding and retrying as necessary.

I could go on!

Acme certainly isn't perfect, but it is wonderful.

<comment><USER6> "The power of structural regexps combined with proper Undo/Redo is also great - rather than pipe something through sed or awk, I'll often iteratively build up an expression or set of expressions that perform some particular one-off transformation, rewinding and retrying as necessary."

It would be interesting to see examples of this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This helps. I've been learning Go. I'm pretty much in love with it even though I haven't done much with it yet.

</comment><comment><USER8> Great stuff, I think it's more clear than the previous demos with reader and writer examples.

</comment><comment><USER9> "your entire program has been garbage collected" I need this on a t-shirt.</comment>


Profanity Doesn't Work - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ProfanityDoesntWork.aspx <comment><USER3> You're sitting in a meeting to talk about strategy next quarter. Ideas are flying. People are talking over each other. Every so often someone scrawls something on a whiteboard. Then they start talking about dates and "quick wins." Estimates get thrown out, which inspires another furious rush of discussion.

You keep trying to interject. You lost two engineers a month ago. Another one has put in his notice. You hired a bright kid a week ago, but he's going to need time to ramp up. You keep trying to say that hiring needs to be the focus of any new strategy, because nothing's getting done if you don't have the engineers to do it. You keep trying to raise this point and get the group to talk about how you can redouble your recruiting efforts, but everybody wants to talk about "establishing social media channels" and "improving our performance marketing network."

So finally, you sigh, and raising your voices a couple notches, you say:

"There is no way we're doing to do ANY OF THIS SHIT with our current staff."

The room quiets down. All heads turn to you.

Then the CEO says, "All right, let's talk about recruiting."

</comment><comment><USER4> What always amuses me is the tendency of some people to "censor" out profanity (f __* vs fuck and s __* vs shit), as if by not actually typing the word, the writer could write about profanity and yet not be "sullied" by it, or something to that effect.

Seriously, loosen up. This almost puritanical aversion to profanity is unhealthy.

<comment><USER5> Actually, there is an effect on the reader. Being indirect softens the blow for folks who are offended by it, much like a euphemism does.

<comment><USER6> People are always offended for "other" people, I would be curious to hear the thoughts of a person who is truly offended by the word fuck. Does it have some magic powers that cause it to fire off a pain circuit in mutant brains?

<comment><USER5> I find profanity offensive in general.

It's not words themselves that matter. It's what people mean by them. Saying "please", vacuous as it might be, communicates consideration. Profanity communicates the opposite.

Of course, it isn't that simple; language is language and context is everything. Sometimes someone swearing at you means, "Some people would be offended by this, but I know you can take it." The inconsiderate language is a compliment. Sometimes it means, "We don't have time for social niceties; this is important." It's like pounding your fist on a table or slamming a door. But by itself, the meaning is closer to, "I don't care about you, because I just don't."

Profanity can certainly be used _well_ , but without a redeeming purpose the vibe is somewhere between stupidity and rudeness. I find that offensive. Not as in, "I'm wounded", but as in, "that's unpleasant."

Some of it's cultural, too. One family may be big on courtesy -- always saying, "please pass the butter" at dinner. Just reaching across the table at that house would give a lot of offense because it violates how they show consideration to each other. In another house, everyone may just reach for everything all the time, and it doesn't mean anything.

Profanity is a lot like that. In some crowds, _any_ uncensored profanity is highly offensive, a nine out of ten. In others, vocabulary alone can't push the needle past two, and you need to start in with creative graphic descriptions if you really mean to offend.

People have a couple of different reactions to that.

Some people, particularly the folks with a high pain threshold, just assume their culture is better. They swear a lot and the subtext is, "I don't care if you're offended because I think your culture sucks anyway." Hardly polite.

Other folks try to speak the language of the crowd they're in. If you say "X is sh*t" to a mixed group, some will hear "X is stinky socks" while others will hear "X is bestiality and I hate you." If you're pretty sure where on the spectrum your crowd falls, you can go ahead and use the expression. If it's mixed, though, you had best go ahead and use whichever of the two phrases it is you actually mean.

<comment><USER7> > Profanity communicates the opposite.

To you. By adopting this mindset, you give the word much more power than the speaker is (most likely) intending.

By all means it's your right to be offended and maintain your personal standards for such things, but don't mistake you being offended with someone else trying to offend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I disagree with the article. Swearing is highly effective but only if rarely used. The article's author hints at innuendo, euphemisms, dysphemisms and doublespeak as alternatives to swearing. I am a firm believer and follower of concise eloquence so avoiding calling a spade a spade is akin to heresy. Come out and say it, don't avoid words when they perfectly describe something.

Think of swearing as an alternative to hitting someone. Sometimes you really want to hit someone and there may be a good reason for it but violence is never appropriate. Swearing in such a contexts is how humans don't continuously tear each other apart. They should be a tool of last resort to express our most powerful emotions.

Expletives are the most powerful words in every language, but they only retain their power when used infrequently and in contexts that demand them.

<comment><USER9> _The article's author hints at innuendo, euphemisms, dysphemisms and doublespeak as alternatives to swearing._

I love wordplay and regularly engage in it with my friends. But to write an article using wordplay as the basic tool for explaining anything other than wordplay is worse than being offensive. You run the risk of alienating a lot of English-as-second-language folks for a start, as they lack a lot of the fluency required. But even further, I've learned heavily and repeatedly that there are considerable differences between what many American English and British English speakers can take from talking in metaphor. British English speakers (and the British themselves, in particular) live and breathe metaphor.

I find that most people who can't understand speaking in metaphor are either English-second-language; American English speakers; or Brit English speakers who have dropped out of education early and have very little socialisation.

It's not to say there aren't American English folks who don't understand metaphor well, it's just that it's so common for them to misunderstand it. If you hear an individual saying "But that's not literally what I said" to defend what they have actually have said between-the-lines, it's unlikely that they're a British English speaker.

<comment><USER8> Second-language English speakers should always be seen as your target audience for any professional communication. Most English speakers alive today do not speak English as their first language. Also, many who speak English as a first language are not experts in English either. Metaphor, idiom and wordplay are great, interesting and they have their uses, mainly in social contexts and for identifying yourself as a member of a group. But they do little but confuse and isolate readers or listeners who aren't part of your cultural or linguistic group. Most of what I write professionally is devoid of complex words and almost every literary technique in order to be as accessible as possible (Hacker News doesn't count, I'm being myself in this forum).

As for American English not having metaphors, do you not notice all of the sporting metaphors frequently used by almost every stereotypical American manager? Out of the the ball park, centre field, hit a home run, loaded bases, the bullpen, etc. I'm Australian so I spent a month watching American sports to grasp what some managers were on about in conference calls.

<comment><USER9> By 'speaking in metaphor' I mean that the speakers wind in and out of allegory and double-meaning, not that they are using one-shot cliche metaphors, and that what is said between-the-lines is readily acknowledged as being part of the message, just as much as what is literally stated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." - Mark Twain

There are occasions where only the word _fuck_ will do.

They're less common than what the habitually profane might guess (and I regrettably count myself among that group).

Still – there is a talent to swearing. Part of it is delivery. Part of it is timing. But the most crucial part is knowing when – and when not – to use a particular tool for a particular instance. The people who write the Onion's headlines have this air-tight.

<comment><USER11> In support of what you're saying - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_g- EOWoads>

<comment><USER12> In the vein of intelligent use of swearing with a scottish accent: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9arSotadmY>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think he's correct in his assumption that it's only really in America that people are offended by swear words on a slide. I'm in Europe and no one I know would blink twice to see that - although I'd defo leave it out in a sales pitch!

I personally thought the unnecessary swearing was quite amusing. It's nice to see someone not taking themselves too seriously (for a change). Also reminded me of Ted Dzuiba - anyone know what happened to him? His articles on theregister were highly amusing.. Almost as funny as the comments where people just bemoaning the swearing. That was hilarious.

Also reminded me of this, which was on HN a while back: [http://andrewvos.com/2011/02/21/amount-of-profanity-in- git-c...](http://andrewvos.com/2011/02/21/amount-of-profanity-in-git-commit- messages-per-programming-language/)

<comment><USER14> Ted is still trolling away and being hilarious on his site, <http://teddziuba.com>

</comment></comment><comment> dorian-graph It is a poor man who relies upon swearing to have an impact upon his readers or listeners. I view it similar to "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Swearing may get the attention of people though it seems like a quick fix that won't last. You know what else gets people's attention? Slapping them. :P What is more lasting is effective teaching skills and telling stories well and to do these well it requires practice and study. Instead of swearing try asking a good question that will get them thinking and again, good questions usually take preparation and it's not 'bad' to _prepare_ questions as some people seem to think all good questions must be thought up on the spot.

The author mentions that it's more likely that Americans (Or rather, native English speakers) find the words more 'offensive' than other countries and I've noticed this too in a few Asian countries. For example, when I was in the Philippines and we'd be talking to kids/teenagers and some would outright swear (Sometimes at you) though were ignorant of it's true meaning/effect and simply had heard it on movies/TV shows and the internet.

<comment><USER15> Don't assume that everywhere that speaks English has the same monoculture. A very strong aversion to swearing is, as far as I can tell, specifically American.

I'm Scottish and I swear more or less continuously, using words that are considered to be the 'most offensive'. This isn't 'trying hard', it's simply a cultural artefact, a side-effect of growing up working class in a particular place in the world.

This kind of reaction to swearing is really just parochial nonsense.

(On the other hand, if you do have a character trait that some people consider a flaw, you might as well go out of your way to own it, and so: <http://theswearingrubyist.com/> )

<comment> dorian-graph In case people are assuming I'm American, I'll clarify. I'm not American, at all. My father is from Glasgow and I was born in Australia (Australians are known for their liberal swearing, it's the culture, apparently)—what other culture aside from Scots and Australians swear more and are less likely to be offended by it? ;)

With flaws/weaknesses I agree that they should be 'embraced' so that they can be improved upon and if needed, removed, and not to use flaws/weaknesses as excuses which may be for poor behaviour/actions/whatever.

It seems a common idea so far here and in most places is that 'not swearing' is inherently a religious side-effect. I have friends who are not religious and maintain their concepts of good, clean speech, of valuing what they say.

<comment><USER9> _It seems a common idea so far here and in most places is that 'not swearing' is inherently a religious side-effect. I have friends who are not religious and maintain their concepts of good, clean speech, of valuing what they say._

Two of the most proficient users of profanity I know are a pair of linguists, mother and daughter. They are both heavily passionate about the English language and will engage on the topic for hours at length if you let them. Both think that books are sacred and have groaning bookshelves. The mother was an editor for a very long time and has articles in peer-reviewed journals on the topic, the daughter is a speech pathologist. They are very proficient in English, and know the science and arts behind it, far more than the vast majority. They are proficient in getting communication across in a variety of ways, and both of them regularly use profanity in casual speech.

It's a total and utter misconception that 'people who really care about language don't swear'. Anyone spending time with passionate linguists, speech pathologists, and English Lit enthusiasts will know that use of profanity is not uncommon amongst that demographic.

<comment> dorian-graph > It's a total and utter misconception that 'people who really care about > language don't swear'. Anyone spending time with passionate linguists, > speech pathologists, and English Lit enthusiasts will know that use of > profanity is not uncommon amongst that demographic.

That isn't quite what I was implying. There is a difference between being aware of how beautiful languages are and being able to mechanically use them well and those who value what they say and the effect of them.

An example is, I have a friend in the Philippines who when speaking while she does not have an exhaustive vocabulary (I'm not talking about English but her native tongue), as she is from the lower class and most simply use the conversational version of their dialect, obviously valued what she said and would do her to best to simply speak well, convey her ideas, have tact, etc.

Then there are those I know who do care for what they say though swear as well so we return, apparently, simply to one's opinion of profanity. Out of that comes understanding and respect. People who have been in support of this person's blog post have been told to loosen up, implied that they're puritants, mocked, etc. I've seen the same happen in other respects like at university I overheard a group of people commenting about another student because she chose to dress well and not reveal half her body and they said she was a religious nut and other derogatory things. Funny thing is, she's not religious.

Here and elsewhere people have said, basically, "I'm going to swear and I don't care if you're offended" and while I find the concept of being offended usually ridiculous it shows a lack of understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The word "shit" is not profane, just coarse. And vulgarity has it's honored place in the lexicon. In fact, I'd say that "shit work" is an excellent term to use when describing unpleasant, meaningless activity.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm not sure what industry Scott actually works in? I can look at our code- base here at work, and there are plenty of swear words through out. The classic foobar as an extension on fubar, as in fucked up beyond all recognition.

Then there was that article a few years ago (which I can't even remember the actual argument, but I think it was about censorship) that the linux kernel source code would be black listed because it had 7000+ counts of the word fuck in it.

Swearing almost goes with the territory of being a programmer.. Oh wait, we're not supposed to call our selves programmers any more. Colour me confused! Ok, so I add value to my organisation, I remove obstacles, and if I happen to swear while doing it, oh well!

<comment><USER18> > Swearing almost goes with the territory of being a programmer.

I respectfully disagree.

As a counterexample to your codebase, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single swear word in the 50k lines of one of my projects - even in the commit messages.

<comment><USER17> Sure, some of the guys on our team wouldn't commit so much as damn or hell, but they are in the minority

We have something akin to a swear jar going on at work, where instead of a coin donation, you must slap yourself in the face for swearing, it's a bad day if it's not even gone 9am and you're slapping yourself

And after Embarcadero finally released a 64-bit Delphi compiler complete with memory leaks and 8000% slower compile times, there was a lot face slapping going on =\

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As a non-American, seeing people get upset about a bit of colourful language is quite amusing.

<comment><USER9> Same here. That americans even have the term "F-bomb" as if it's something explosive is very amusing. The main article goes on at length for such a mild word as 'shit'. He's complaining about the mildest of swear words being used not in a professional publication nor a boardroom sales pitch, but on a personal blog site, and then as a slide for a talk. Talks are usually about a meeting of peers, communicating on a peer level is usually expected.

From personal experience with long history of doing phone support, swearing _helps_. My rule of thumb is swear to one 'level' less than the user. If they're saying 'fuck', you can say 'shit', if they're saying 'shit', you don't swear. I've found that if you're _not_ swearing and they are a lot, it puts them offside and they feel uncomfortable. One more unnecessary thing to manage.

But the author's sensitivities are ratchetted way too high. Do I want to 'help' my industry 'outlaw' swearing? Fuck no. I'm more interested in the _content_ of what someone says than the way in which they say it. I'd rather listen to a profanity-laden speech about a tech topic than a slick-as-snot marketroid drone on about nothing important. It's 2011 - we should be offended by _context_ , not by mere _words_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The poster is right. Next up, I'm expecting another whiny thread about why all these t-shirt wearing "fuck that shit" guys aren't paid or treated like doctors, lawyers or architects.

These are _public_ presentations. Act professional. There are almost no other professions where it would be considered de rigueur to pepper your _professional_ presentations with profanity, or, for that matter, porn.

You want to swear in your office, or in your source base (not in the public- facing API stuff), go ahead. But if you want to swear in your public persona as a professional, don't expect to be treated like that much of a professional.

</comment><comment><USER21> I agree with Jerry Seinfeld that swearing (when writing or speaking) is not so much offensive but just a lazy way to grab people's attention. A good speaker can hold attention without resorting to swearing.

That said, I actually think that the phrase "shit work" perfectly expresses the point, and I'm not sure I would have called it anything else if I were the author.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is a little prissy. I'm far more offended by a poorly-edited tl;dr blog post than the occasional f-bomb. Both can show disrespect for the reader; there's an art to it.

</comment><comment><USER23> What makes swearing any more offensive than say, not wearing a tie at some conference? Is there anything inherent in the tie and words or is there a cultural attachment to these things that raises emotions?

So then, do we always cater to the current cultural trends, or do we pave our own ways in some way? Some times we're not always looking to please, attempts to be polite can lead to concealment of details that matter. So sometimes it's worth not being polite, and politeness, too, is in the eye of the beholder.

Offensive is largely still a subjective matter, you have to decide how much you value this subjectivity.

Some people get offended and start throwing shit at the wall, and some people don't give a fuck.

<comment><USER24> I find ties offensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Know your target audience. Sometimes it's appropriate to take an tone with the audience to get a point across or make that impact. A blog has a pretty wide audience.

My opposition nature now wants to start a conference with swearing as a central theme.

</comment><comment><USER24> The amount of swearing that is tolerated is a function of geography. To the rest of the world, Americans are a bit prissy.

I'm from Norway. To me a typical American's reaction to swearing is more offensive than the swearing itself. It offends me because because there being "forbidden words" is indeed a terribly childish notion.

In fact, if you are from Norway, it takes a bit of time getting used to the childish reaction most Americans will have even to relatively mild expletives.

(And I am not even from the north of Norway where swearing is more or less a byproduct of how the respiratory system works).

It is just language. Grow up.

</comment><comment><USER26> Profanity has a purpose. It expresses strong dissatisfaction, quite eloquently in my opinion. The article was called "Don't Give Your Users Shit Work", and maybe ZH could have gotten the point across by saying "Don't Burden Your Users With Unnecessary Tedium". But seriously, "shit work" more accurately conveys the soul-crushing awfulness of it all. Listening to this author's ideas on what constitutes appropriate (who asked him anyway?) is unnecessarily handicapping one's ability to communicate.

</comment><comment><USER27> Society works on a handshake; there is no ultimate moral arbiter. So when the vast majority agree that certain words are no longer offensive, then it's OK to use them without concern. However, as long as that isn't the case (and it certainly is not the case in general in most societies at this time) you have to consider more than just your own personal views on profanity. If you are offending a portion of your audience, then it's fair to say that you're being disrespectful to hat portion of the audience. Most people I know use profanity (sparingly) with their peers (age-wise), very rarely with their parents, and almost never with their grandparents or young children. I think that reflects a knowledge of their audience and a respect for varying levels of tolerance to profanity. I find it troubling when I encounter people that lack that level of respect for others, and shameful when I'm guilty of it myself. Broadcasting something on a very public medium like the internet means you can't possibly predict your audience and therefore can't really determine whether profanity will be offensive or not. So why not refrain.

<comment><USER9> Broadcasting something on a very public medium like the internet means you can't possibly predict your audience and therefore can't really determine whether religion will be offensive or not. So why not refrain.

Broadcasting something on a very public medium like the internet means you can't possibly predict your audience and therefore can't really determine whether politics will be offensive or not. So why not refrain.

Broadcasting something on a very public medium like the internet means you can't possibly predict your audience and therefore can't really determine whether NASCAR will be offensive or not. So why not refrain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Though I don't get behind him 100 percent, the man does have a bit of a point --especially for younger founders in a startup's initial phases. If you want the job and the respect that comes with it, act the part. Obviously the rub here lies in the speaker's ability to deliver the desired effect. But sometimes dropping an f-bomb, especially in a presentation, makes it seem like you're just trying too hard.

</comment><comment><USER29> In my experience, attitudes to swearing are a remarkably effective heuristic. If someone takes offence at my use of language, they're almost certainly going to take offence at the thoughts and feelings I use that language to communicate.

People fuck and shit and piss. Those words represent the most essential parts of our nature, the most basic acts of a living animal. Use them wisely, use them to enrich communication, but don't deny them, don't try and remove them from the language. Profanity does work, precisely because it offends you, precisely because it's a shock to the system. The world is too vital and visceral for us to constrain the words we use to describe it.

The world might be full of witty, creative people who hate swearing, but I certainly haven't met any. In my experience, people who dislike swearing are prissy, small-minded bigots. They're the sort of people that call modern art ugly, the sort of people who seek to constrain the private lives of adults "for the sake of the children". Frankly, they can fuck off - I've no time for any of them.

</comment><comment><USER30> Profanity is like yelling, where one is (in)appropriate so is the other.

Hence I never read articles that start with profanity - people who start shouting before they can explain themselves are rarely worth listening.

</comment><comment><USER31> I did 5 years in the Navy, so I have to try really hard NOT to swear occasionally. I generally don't have a problem around children or my great grandma, but when I'm giving a talk it's pretty hard not to.

I don't put swear words in my slides, though.

<comment><USER9> I used to work in a hospital with children forming half our patient load. One of my fellow technicians was annoyed because she was saying 'sugar' instead of 'shit' at home now, and it didn't have the same cathartic feel to it.

We used to play around with finding good 'child-safe' profanity. My favourite was 'sweet chilli chicken', which has a nice cadence to it. "Sweet chilli chicken, what do you think you're doing!?". It's a little long, but it worked for a short while...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is totally a matter of culture.

My father worked for a (US) national company that actually required etiquette training for their representatives from the northeast, because they were so much more prone to swearing in casual conversation, that it would cause others to be drawn aback and brought out of the conversation. Not to mention when you get to international differences. My australian exchange student in high school would drop 'fuck' as though it was his middle name.

But regardless, I thought one of the biggest points of hacker news was the ability to grok out meaning of news and opinions, and not debate the effectiveness of its communication.

<comment><USER33> _But regardless, I thought one of the biggest points of hacker news was the ability to grok out meaning of news and opinions, and not debate the effectiveness of its communication._

I think it's quite the opposite. The community has grown around an appreciation for effectively communicating and discussing ideas. This is why comments with little information and inflammatory comments are typically down voted.

In terms of business and startups, there are numerous articles posted here that discuss nothing _but_ communication. How do you communicate with users? How do you work well in teams? How can you get your message across clearly and effectively to prospective customers?

Communication is just as vital as technical skill.

<comment><USER32> Of course, and I agree, however that is focusing on this particular part of the conversation strikes me as extremely superfluous. "shit work" is a colloquialism. A crass one? perhaps. But to say that it is harming the community - when it is communication within the community, just seems like FUD to me. And then to go on and claim the rest of his articles are offensive as well, simply for using one of a select few words that /this/ author finds offensive just seems like muckraking.

If anyone can show me a single instance where a casual public curse has hurt anyone in our community, I will gladly eat my hat.

<comment><USER21> A small company I worked for once upon a time almost lost a major client due to a curse. Thankfully the CEO was able to beg for mercy. (People loosing their jobs counts as "hurt" to me, BTW.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Words become less powerful over time, it was't that long ago "hell" and "damn" were considered to be highly offensive, inevitably the swear words of our time will become the the emphasis words of the future.

I've always held the opinion that being offended by swearing is a sign of weakness. If a single syllable can make you angry or uncomfortable(when used in a context not specifically designed to insult you) then the problem is yours alone. Given that a negative feeling towards swearing is a purely conditioned response your energies would be better spent on learning to not be offended than attempt to censor everyone else.

I also find offence at swearing to be somewhat culturally specific. It seems to be much more of a concern in America than it is in other english speaking countries as it appears to be a much more conservative society generally.

Concern over swearing is a rather old fashioned ideal. In these modern times where we are no longer obligated to follow the crazy arbitrary rules of conduct required religion and tradition and are only required to conduct ourselves within the rule of law there is no need to bother with outdated social conventions. Every person has to make their own decisions about their personal conduct so it should not be assumed that everyone shares your own "calibration" of acceptable speech so only the intent of the speaker should be of concern not the particular words used.

So get over it, in 30 years "fuck" and "shit" will be the "hell" and "damn" of their time so why worry about it? Language changes over time, it always has and will so look forward not back.

<comment><USER9> On the culturally-specific front - 'bloody' in Australia is no longer a 'swear' term, it's just a way to make something 'more Australiany'.

We had a tourism campaign in the UK recently that went very poorly - <USER2> slogan was 'where the bloody hell are ya', which in Australia is a friendly catchphrase for "having a fun time, why aren't you here". Apparently the Brits don't generally have the same casual attitude to the word 'bloody'...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> WTF? Really? Are we going to comment on "is swearing right or wrong", now? It's a personal choice and that's Holman's way of doing things. That's part of his persona.

I, personally, would never read holman if it wasn't for swearing. People swear, they build professions over it. If you don't like it, don't do it. Get over it.

PS: More examples of people who sear when working - <http://ittybiz.com> , Garry Vaynerchuck, me.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm reminded of <http://lesswrong.com/lw/13s/the_nature_of_offense/>

"Specifically, to give offense is to imply that a person or group has or should have low status. Taking offense then becomes easy to explain: it's to defend someone's status from such an implication, out of a sense of either fairness or self-interest."

</comment><comment><USER37> There are very few rules for effective comunication. There are often guidelines that are useful for the inexperienced or timid. A good speaker who knows his/her business can get away with nearly anything they can get away with...

</comment><comment><USER38> The linked article "The Nine Parts of Speech and the F-word" is silly. Replacing "John went to the bakery" with "That f __* went to the bakery" does not a pronoun make, any more than "That person went to the bakery" makes "person" a pronoun. The reflexive pronoun examples are similarly weak. The third line under "Adverbs" has at least one error that makes it nonsensical. I stopped reading at that point, but I'm sure there is plenty more garbage in that article.

</comment><comment><USER39> The author's previous post is titled "It's the transparency, stupid." How is that any better?

At least 'shit' here is an adjective, instead of a direct insult.

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't necessarily disagree with the author's logic, but it would seem that the real world does: [http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/10/the-persuasive-power- of-swe...](http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/10/the-persuasive-power-of- swearing.php)

...at least that is assuming that "shit" has the same effect as "damn".

</comment><comment> buff-a Personally, I don't use "fuck" on my company website, but I use it merrily on facebook and my personal blog. Looks like Zach used "shit" (OMG) on his personal blog, and Scott gets his knickers in a twist.

Can't help but notice that Scott works for Microsoft and Zach works for GitHub.

I don't think its a coincidence.

<comment><USER41> It's a coincidence. Not everything in my life has to do with my employer. FWIW, note that I work from home on open source and many of our projects are on GitHub. Zach and I are cool. No one's in a twist, we just differ on how to reach an audience.

<comment> buff-a Its not that you differ on how to reach your audience. Its that you felt you had to call someone out on their personal blog post for using the word "shit". And while not everything in your life has to do with your employer, certainly your personal attitudes determine what kind of company you work for. Zach works for a start-up, shaking up the world of software development. You work for Microsoft, the living example of status-quo, monopolizing, our-way-or-the- highway. So, thanks for spending your time telling us we shouldn't use the word "shit", and that we should use "the Microsoft stack".

Update: it just dawned on me that perhaps you thought i was suggesting that you were "attacking" Zach in some Microsoft vs GitHub proxy. No that's not what I meant at all. I'm saying its funny that the roles in this comedy, "grumpy old man" vs "uncouth upstart", neatly match the roles of your employers.

<comment><USER41> Thanks for the update. Point taken, and touché. That is funny/ironic. Would be equally as much were I to work at Apple, Amazon or Google, I suppose.

I spoke to Zach beforehand and wasn't intending to call him out (which I thought I made clear in the post, but it sounds like I did poorly) but rather than use his post as an example of changing mores in this space and a opporunity to provoke discussion.

Aside: I won't try to defend Microsoft as it's 80,000 people and many, many groups, some less evil than others. That said, our group is the slightly less evil, open source, free as in beer part of Microsoft. We'll be speaking at <http://krtconf.com> next week on an open source realtime library we're having lots of fun with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Though it can be effective, vulgarity on the web seems most often a product of laziness.

Which is not always a problem. Much content we read here is for information; many comments and blogs are little more than small talk.

We refer back to classic posts like P. Graham's because they were crafted with deliberation.

</comment><comment><USER43> Profanity is popular in the tech community because it conveys that we don't give a fuck about offending people as we challenge existing norms. People are going to object to that; if they're not offended, we're not doing a good enough job.

<comment><USER33> My dislike of swearing in the tech community has little to do with challenging norms or offending people. Although it's certainly crass, if you want to have such a personality you are welcome to.

The problem with it is that it dilutes meaning and hinders communication. Let's take the article being discussed. What exactly is _shit work_? Is it unnecessary work? Is it unpleasant work? Perhaps it's work for which you are poorly compensated? Who knows! Sure, you can read the article to find out.

It turns out in this case it meant _unnecessary work_. The author decided it might have more impact to call it shit work, however. Why? Not because he doesn't care about offending people. Rather the opposite. He knows the word carries extra baggage with it. He knows it invokes ideas of "dirty" "bad" "offensive" among others. So he uses it for impact. He's not alone in doing this.

Which brings me to the second problem with it. Not only is it not a very clear way of communicating, but when everybody does it, you end up with entire communities continually making hyperbolic statements. Everyone wants to stand out and be heard, so everybody is now yelling. A product is not just poorly implemented, or rough around the edges, it's either _the best_ or it's _complete shit_. This is not effective communication as far as I am concerned.

<comment><USER24> The points you raise on precision in communication are valid, but they are somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether it is acceptable to use colorful language or not. It smells a bit too much of the old accusation that the use of expletives indicates a small vocabulary or that the speaker has poor command of language.

I would also like to add that I think proper swearing is a bit of an art. There has to be rythm and contrast to it. A well placed expletive in an articulate context is a thing of beauty. Not everyone can pull that off.

Of course, for those incapable of elegance, there's always sheer volume. Which is a demanding discipline in its own right. For the past 20 years or so there has been a recording making the rounds in Norway of a bus driver taped while trying to fix a washing machine. In Norway it is, in all seriousness, considered somewhat of a national treasure. (Swearing is such a part of Northern Norwegian culture that calling a police officer a horse penis is legally acceptable north of the polar circle, but not to the south of it).

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAeLhoWXcHI>

(The recording circulated on tapes in the pre-internet era so the sound quality is pretty bad. But most people of the internet generation will know what you are talking about if you mention "saltdal.wav").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I work at a young startup. Swear words are so common that they are only noticed when used maliciously.

I only seem to care when older people swear, which is odd. I never liked when my dad swore, but with my peers it feels natural.

</comment><comment><USER45> I hope the guys who write the original article don't follow this guy's advice. I love people who don't give a shit what other people think, and don't have to watch what they say or do 24/7 in fear. That's freedom.

</comment><comment><USER46> There are individuals who care more about fundamentally good ideas than about leveraging them for profit. We aren't sufficiently offended by profanity to consider it a net negative value in presentations.

</comment><comment><USER47> At the very least, this post has given me the title of my forthcoming autobiography: Words that Are Evocative of Sex and Feces.

</comment><comment><USER7> I found this amusing given this article's title. And yes, perhaps I'm being sophomoric here.

From the author's bio: "...I am a failed stand-up comic..." Perhaps these 2 things are related?

</comment><comment><USER48> "Don't Give Your Readers Shit Words"

</comment><comment><USER49> The frequency of swearing increases as you descend the ranks of society down to the lowest levels, down to the floor where you have drunken hobos sleeping in their own filth on the side of the road. Where profanity is the most common.

I support your right to use profanity, and I support my right to judge you poorly for it.

PROFANITY IS KIND OF LIKE USING ALL CAPS TO GET PEOPLE TO READ THIS POST. ALL CAPS IS A GREAT WAY TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS RIGHT!

</comment><comment><USER50> Oh, shit.

</comment><comment><USER51> Fuck that.

<comment><USER52> Could you elaborate?

<comment><USER53> Sometimes shit sucks.

Or, to be more verbose, sometimes somebody creates, publishes, and endorses a crafted good or work which is incredibly inferior not just to current state of the art, but also prior art and future ideals, but without any indication that the creator has encountered any reason to believe that their invention will not stand the tests of time, merchantability, reliability, insight into the human condition, etc.

In those cases, it's incredibly useful to identify and call out these things as bad. If we can't use the full width and breadth of language, then it gets harder to do so; invariably, all attempts at censorship start with the negative parts of language in an attempt to whitewash thought and opinion. (As recent examples, consider Facebook's omission of a "Dislike" button, or American Idol's refusal to allow voters to indicate unfavorable opinions of all contestants. The historical ideal is Newspeak.) When we can't say that something is bad, then we lose some of our freedom, not to mention some of the expressiveness required to attack everyday problems.

So, yeah, fuck that. Sometimes shit sucks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Oh my fucking God on a dildo. Really?

If we banned swearing at work it _would_ be a lot quieter, I guess.

</comment><comment> buff-a _However, you take no chances of offending by not swearing, but you guarantee to offend someone if you do._

Good. Fuck them. Believe me, we aren't going to get along. Best to know now. Also, I believe in evolution, think the earth is more than 4000 years old and I support gay marriage. That offends a ton of people and expressing that opinion has the same effect on those "relationships" as saying "fuck".

You might think you're being polite. You're not. As Bill Hicks would say, you're sucking on Satan's cock, ice ice baby.

And as a matter of economic reality, I've found that the better educated, and economically advantaged a person is, the more likely they are to use words that others have judged to be offensive. "Manners" are what the servants have.

Then there's an anecdotal inverse correlation between the likelihood that a person uses the word "fuck" and the likelihood that they support dropping cluster-bombs on civilian areas. That is people go all weak at the knees if I say "fuck", but those same people are all for shredding small children: just so long as they are "non-christians". (Yeah, I'm sure _you_ don't do that Mr No-Potty-Words HN reader - its just a general observation).

Whatever.

<comment><USER55> If you're writing people off as "too far outside your value system to be worth bothering with" because they happen to find swearing offensive, you're missing out on knowing a lot of really awesome people for a pretty stupid reason. Then again, your policy does save them hassle, so maybe it's for the best. Penalties offset...repeat first down.

<comment><USER9> You have the cart before the horse. He's not preventing the relationship by using profanity, it's those other people that are preventing the relationship by refusing it due to profanity. It's very rare to have a user of profanity refuse to talk to someone else simply because they're not swearing.</comment></comment></comment>


Pandora's Plan To Annoy Users Into Becoming Paid Subscribers - <AUTHOR> http://anthonypompliano.com/2013/05/24/pandora-is-intentionally-annoying-users-with-non-relevant-ads/

<comment><USER2> > In the past I've had divorce lawyers and daycares solicit me. How that is > related to Beastie Boys and Bruce Springsteen is escaping me.

People that listen to that kind of music are probably male and married with kids, reminiscing of the time when they were single and childfree while commuting to their cubicle.</comment>


Show HN: Hotcold Typing! – Learning Touch Typing Smartly - <AUTHOR> http://hotcoldtyping.com/ <comment><USER2> Amazing, I'll definitely use it to improve my writing speed. A note: is it possible to change keyboard? Because i'm from Italy and our keyboard is slightly different.

<comment><AUTHOR> Certainly will try to bring this feature in upcoming versions.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi Everyone,

This is my first Show HN. Looking forward to your feedbacks and thoughts.</comment>


Ask HN: Windows terminal (cmd.exe) signal handling for subprocess c++ - <AUTHOR> Suppose we have small program, written in C++, which looks like below.
This program itself intentionally does NOT perform signal handling via WinAPI call `SetConsoleCtrlHandler` - it's important part of question.

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <stdlib.h>

    int main() {
      while(true) {
        int status = system("EXTERNAL COMMAND");
        printf("RESULT STATUS = %d\n", status);
      }
    }

 When `Ctrl+C` key combination have been pressed in terminal, program above have quite different behavior depend on which `"EXTERNAL COMMAND"` had been invoked
1) If external command is `pause`, program will stand in infinite loop, invoking `pause` command step by step, and will print `"RESULT STATUS = 0" many times`, while not terminated forced via process kill.
2) If external command in `choice`, program will terminate immediately after `Ctrl+C` pressure. It will not print anything and does not return from `system` call.
3) If external command is `set /P VAR=`, program has much interesting behavior. When `Ctrl+C` pressed, program prints `"RESULT STATUS = 1" and continue working until first async call is performed.
First and second case can be explained in following manner. Terminal windows is proxt between user input and target program, so when user presses `Ctrl+C`, terminal window perform dispatch signal itself to target process.
So some subprocesses can take manually terminal handler via `hConsole = GetStdHandle(STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE)` and perform own signal handling. Another subprocess does not do this, so signal passed into parent process and terminate it.
But third case causes big question. If child process intercepts `SIGINT`, why parent process perform terminating after first async call. If not, why it does not terminate immediately and why and how it prints `"RESULT STATUS = 1" and continue working.<p>Thanks <comment><USER2> I guess it depends on whether or not the child process has used `SetConsoleCtrlHandler` and/or `SetConsoleMode`, which lets you determine if ^C should be processed as key input.

(don't forget, there is also Ctrl+Break - which also acts slightly differently, depending on unknown conditions)</comment>


Microsoft update for Office 365 makes Bing default search engine in Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/DeployOffice/microsoft-search-bing <comment><USER2> Dupe.

Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22121150](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22121150)

</comment><comment> m-p-3 That's some malware-like behavior..</comment>


In light of recent events in Paris have your views on mass surveillance changed? - <AUTHOR> As we see this latest tragedy in Paris unfold, and seeing law enforcement trying to capture the mastermind - do you think differently about surveillance -- more importantly, should we think differently about mass surveillance (even if it <i>could</i> have prevented this event or helped catch the perpetrators rapidly). <comment><USER2> Surveillance is a useful law enforcement tool.

Traditionally police would have to go to a judge and get a warrant to monitor someone. This was often rubber stamped but it at least gave a paper trail and the police had to have their ducks in a row (e.g. it would be easier to detect if a cop or spook was spying on their ex-wife/ex-husband, since no warrant, no paper trail).

What I don't understand is: Why is getting a warrant now seen as something that is optional/avoidable? Several Western countries (UK, US, and several other european ones) have passed laws designed so that warrants can be avoided in certain cases (and none of those cases are "immediate threat to life").

Mass surveillance is taking that to a whole different level: Now nobody needs a warrant for anyone. They're only limited by internal rules. And we already know that spooks often utilise this to spy on their friends/family/love interests.

So, no, my opinion hasn't changed. Police surveillance with a warrant from a judge is still ok. Targeted surveillance via spooks with a warrant is also ok. Untargeted surveillance and or no warrant remains unacceptable even after the Paris attacks.

</comment><comment><USER3> No. By all accounts the French government was already hip deep in intrusive surveillance. They apparently had ramped up surveillance twice in the last 12 months. It didn't help.

So, there's some ulterior motive for wanting dragnet surveillance, and it's common to a lot of governments, including US and UK. What is that motive?

<comment><USER4> Call me crazy, but I always saw it as a way not to monitor terrorism, although that's what they use it for now, but for in the future to ensure they can thwart revolutions within the country. Take away civilian weapons, give yourself the ability to monitor, give yourself the ability to break the law when the 'county'(read governed) is threatened. Check off all of these points and in a few years when robotics capabilities start ramping up, it'll be nearly impossible for a revolution to occur.

<comment><USER3> How do we keep "impossible for a revolution to occur" from turning in to "impossible to dislodge an incumbent from a market"? Or even further devolving into "protecting all corporate entities from market threats"? I see that devolution as almost inevitable, given how we've seen the US DoD used to protect corporate interests as well as societal interests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The topic is very large. Why should we think differently when there's no real evidence that mass surveillance, or lack thereof, is relevant?

Are you also going to ask if our views on car rental, access to firearms and explosives, foreign military involvement in the Middle East, discrimination on basis of nationality, religion, and ethnicity, etc. have also changed? Since those seem rather more relevant to what little we know about what happened, yes?

</comment><comment><USER6> No. France has very far reaching mass surveillance laws and still they weren't capable of prevent the last two terrorist attacks. Mass surveillance does nothing to prevent this. Only change in politics does.

</comment><comment><USER7> Absolutely not.

France actually is the perfect example of mass surveillance not working at all. Since the Charlie Hebdo terror attack they've introduced particularly intrusive Internet surveillance measures. I suppose those didn't work too well, did they?

If all that money and energy that's wasted on pushing and implementing surveillance agendas was actually spent on hiring more police, investment in security forces equipment, training and just good old-fashioned police work terrorist would have a much harder time.

Surveillance agendas only serve the politicians and suppliers of surveillance equipment. They're not only proven to be ineffective time and time again they're downright counterproductive because they're designed to evoke a feeling of the safety in the population but don't actually improve safety. Just take airport security theatre for example. It's a flamboyant show that's supposed to give you the impression that authorities care about your safety while in many respects it's less secure than the pre-2001 system.

European police forces have been watching those groups for quite some time now but it's only in the light of recent events they've been cracking down on them. That's exactly what's necessary to deal with this threat, not more surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER8> I still don't see it being effective in any way. Reddit has the best example of the maths that I can find.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3csl2y/wikileaks_rele...](https://np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3csl2y/wikileaks_releases_over_a_million_emails_from/csyjuw6)

Surveillance of a Specific suspect after an anonymous tip off may be effective though.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've thought about them again, but no.

IMO, mass surveillance can be effective, but only when it is utterly comprehensive. I.e., law enforcement monitors your conversations (audio and text), your location, your activities (shopping, watching videos online, etc.) and anything else they care to find out.

However, this basically means giving up any and all pretences to our rights of privacy and freedom of thought, information and expression. In the end, a government that implements that kind of surveillance would be way more dangerous than terrorists could ever be. And all that without making us feel safer - for who feels "safe" in a police state?

</comment><comment><USER3> Even more emphatically no: ISIS plotters apparently did all their comms in the clear: [https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to- unencrypt...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypted- communications-between-terror-suspects/)

Ha ha ha! I wonder what twisted definitions and logic people like Michael Hayden on the "Today" show yesterday morning use when denouncing Snowden and advocating for backdoors.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't know. But I _think_ since 9/11 there has been many more deaths caused by terrorists in the EU than in the US. Someone might prove me right or wrong on that -- it's just my hunch.

And obviously, the US the most juicy target for islamists. I'm sure if they could they would much rather blow stuff up in New York than Paris. Ergo, whatever the US is doing to combat terrorism works.

</comment><comment><USER11> The biggest flaw in mass surveillance is that it can only catch what has been done before. Anyone that is not willing to get caught, will find a new way of communication that bypasses current procedures. Mass surveillance is a reaction to an action, not the proactive way to prevent an action.

</comment><comment><USER12> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10577182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10577182)

</comment><comment><USER13> No.</comment>


El Capitan's Dawn Wall Climbers Reach Top at Yosemite - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/sports/el-capitans-dawn-wall-climbers-reach-top.html <comment><USER3> There is alot of permanent and semi-permanant installtion set up on the route. There is alot of outside help. There is alot of "aid" being used to actually climb this route and to resupply it. To me this this is free climbing like gym climbing is "free climbing". The level of "technnical difficulty" is high, but that deosn't seem to be the whole story.

The feat is immensively impressive, but use of the word "free climning" here is starting to become almost meaninglesss when there is that much permant aid/infrastructure and siege tactic being applied to the problem.

If these 2 guys were alone and hauled up their own gear/disposed of waste, and actually climbed the route sequentially...rather than using aid to rest between pitches...something seems to suggest they would have faced a significantly greater obstacle.

So the media hype around a "free climb" here is overblown. On the other hand, its kind of ??? we as the public need to hang our hats on the "category/name" here to appreciate what these guys are doing.

That label seems needed market the climb and their sponsors... or apparently the public would be inclined to take it so seriously (??).

Kinda warped view...but it is what it is.

<comment><USER4> You're being downvoted because you're misunderstanding what "free climbing" means. It is a technical climbing term meaning that the weight of the climber is supported by the climber himself at all times during ascent; safety gear such as ropes are used only to protect against falls. "Solo free climbing" (or "free solo climbing") is climbing without any gear, including safety gear. It is basically suicide on a climb above 25 feet in height.

This climb is historic because it is the first time any person (let alone two) has managed to climb the entire height via free climbing methods, that is, without using ropes to bear some/all of their weight during the ascent.

Eventually, someone will try to free climb El Capitan similar to the manner you described: pitch by pitch, without returning to a base camp, resting along the way. However, such a climb is a long ways off; it took nearly a decade to plan this climb. Planning a climb with shifting camps will likely take another several years just to plot out plausible routes and resting points.

<comment><USER5> I think you've hit it - this First Free Ascent set a benchmark. Others - <USER2> '001sky - can improve upon their time.

For example, a much easier, more popular route - The Nose - wast first free climbed by Lynn Hill in 1993 in four days, in 1994 she re-did it in 23 hours, in 2005 Tommy Caldwell and his then wife did it in four days and two days later Caldwell did it by himself in 12 hours. The time required has been falling since with Alex Honnold and Hans Florine, making the current record ascent in 2:23.46 on June 17, 2012.

These guys bagged the First Free ascent of a much harder route. Surely others will attempt to free the Dawn Wall and may do it in less time. It remains to be seen if it's humanly possible to do something this difficult in under a day.

<comment><USER6> Small note: Alex and Hans did not set the speed record by freeing the Nose. They definitely aided sections.

Only 4 people have successfully free'd the Nose. The 4th happened only last November. So far it happens about once a decade. ([http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/jorg-verhoeven-free- cli...](http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/jorg-verhoeven-free-climbs-the- nose))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a former wall climber (Squamish, UBC Varsity Outdoors Club) I've been laughing all day at the coverage of this. The reporters cannot get their story strait. This isn't a first assent. This isn't even a free climb by some standards. And the ropes are definitely not "only for safety". Ropes are everywhere on a big wall, from hauling gear to hanging belays. They catch falls, but often also hold people to the wall (belays/rests/sleeping ect). Dawn Wall was first ascended in 1970. This is a first "free" assent as in it is the first non-aid assent.

The various forms of assent range from "getting to the top by whatever means" through "betas" to a true "on-sight" and even the ridiculous "free solo". There are plenty of records still to be set on this route. An on-sight is pretty much inconceivable on a big wall (no prior knowledge, just show up and climb) but clean assents (no falls on any pitch) will happen one day.

The history of the Yosemite decimal system speaks to the increased ability of modern climbing. A 5.10 free route was once considered the hardest thing humanly possible. Now we have 5.14 as 5.10, with modern rubber, is easy. I've seen noobs do 5.10a top-rope (no fall risk) on their first day. Not everyone can, but most noobs can battle their way up a 5.8 once they get the hang of things. A 5.10 near the ground is a totally different beast than the same pitch up on a wall, but concepts such as "exposure" danger and distance are not part of the yosemite decimal system, only technical difficulty.

If you really want to scare yourself, look at aid climbing standards. Aid climbing is where you use devices to actually pull yourself up the rock. This is how Dawn Wall has been tackled since the 70s. Aid pitches are graded from A0 to A6 based not so much on difficulty but fall danger. A0 is basically a 5.xx route with some pulling on gear. A3 means many not-solid pieces in a row, resulting in 10-20 meter fall potential. A5 means only the belay will hold a fall, so you could go 70+meters before the rope catches. Basically, A4 and above means fall = hospital. The legendary A6, which I doubt exists, means even the belay stations won't hold = certain death.

Oh, and "big wall" means climbing that could/should involve sleeping on the wall. But elite climbers regularly flash up well-traveled yosemite walls in hours, They are still big walls.

<comment><USER8> Why leave such a condescending comment? What they did was remarkable.

I'm also a climber but this attitude drives me nuts with the climbing community. It's not a dick measuring contest. Why even mention aid climbing and that it's more scary and that climbing 5.10 is for "noobs"? That has nothing to do with what these guys did. These guys didn't do it for their ego or because it's "scary". They did it because it's extremely difficult and they've been working on it for 7 years. They did it because they were so invested mentally and physically that it was a challenge they needed to complete.

But yes, I do agree that the media has/had no idea how to cover this - it's been pretty awful.

<comment><USER7> Condescending to the media coverage. If the climbers do an interview and announce, as CNN did, that they have completed the "First assent of El Capitan" then I will have a very condescending comment for them too.

Ego is part of climbing, much more so when you have cameras following you. There is something innately gratifying in climbing to a place normal people cannot go. These guys aren't Buddhist monks humbly surmounting a climb as an exercise in meditation. It certainly isn't all ego, but to say that ego isn't part of the equation is disingenuous.

<comment><USER8> I agree. Ego is definitely a part of climbing otherwise climbers wouldn't have a reason to push themselves. But Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson climbed that mostly for themselves. I'm sure they enjoy the media coverage. Who wouldn't? I'm sure their sponsors love it even more. But that type of ego is much different than calling 5.10 climbers noobs and that aid climbing is more dangerous than trad climbing/sport climbing/top roping (I'm not arguing that it isn't, but there's no point putting down other forms of climbing). That's what I was getting at.

I suppose I'm just annoyed by the amount of judgment that exists in climbing. We all have our own motivations and aspirations when it comes to climbing. Some climbers just feel like they need to prove something to someone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So 19 days straight up on the wall?

How do they get supplies and food etc? I guess other people let it down to them?

Do they just go to the bathroom into the wind or is this controlled?

I feel like many questions about climbing a wall for 19 days are not answered!

<comment><USER10> This article (which is linked from that page) answers many of your questions:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/sports/on-el-capitans- dawn...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/sports/on-el-capitans-dawn-wall- climbers-downtime-is-surprisingly-routine.html)

Short answer is they returned to their base camp every day, and then went back to their previous progress via ropes.

<comment><USER11> Huh, something is strange with the page you linked; I can't scroll down in any way, in three different browsers.

<comment><USER12> If your savvy about browser's dev tools, uncheck "overflow: hidden" on the body tag. Presumably you block 3rd party / advertising JS? I've noticed more and more sites that break (and maybe intentionally?) with 3rd party JS disabled.

<comment><USER13> Another way to get around this sort of thing in Firefox is to disable styles on the page. From the menus it's View -> Page Style -> None. On Windows the keyboard accelerator is ALT-V-Y-N.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article does a good job at pointing out how hard this is. There are harder individual segments (two in the world go up to 5.15c) but this has multiple 5.14 segments, and nothing below 5.12. 5.10 used to be consider impossible, but better equipment and planning have allowed increased difficulty in climbs.

<comment><USER15> The rating scale has also shifted. A difficult route may have been graded a 5.10 when it was established, simply because that was the limit of the scale. But if it were regraded today it might have a more precise grade like 5.12b.

<comment><USER16> It should also be noted that a lot of routes in Yosemite were never re-graded and are just simply "5.9+". Hard routes with a too-low grade are known as, "sandbagged".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How do climbers like these reconcile drilling bolts into the rockface with the 'leave no trace' ethic?

<comment><USER18> Well, some of the bolts were already there, and I'm not sure if Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson actually drilled any of their own bolts, but I wouldn't be surprised if they put in a few.

Bolts have always been a source of controversy in climbing – in fact, bolts were the main controversy in the first ascent of the Dawn Wall (/ Wall of Early Morning Light) back in 1970, so much that the first ascensionist's rival Royal Robbins actually climbed the route and chopped the bolts off as he went. There have been similar controversies all over the world, another notable example being on Cerro Torre in Patagonia.

Unless a climbing area is a designated "sport climbing area", bolts are generally not placed unless there is no other way to protect a stretch of climbing. Climbers try to place devices that don't damage the rock (nuts, cams, tricams, hexes, etc.) first, but sometimes none of those devices will work as they all rely on jamming against something, and blank faces do not have the cracks and holes into which jamming gear can be inserted. When this happens, bolts are placed because there isn't any other way to protect the climbers in the event of the fall.

So, I don't really have a good answer to your question except to say that the use of bolts has always and still is a huge source of controversy in the climbing community. These days, with sport "crags" being the exception, climbers try to rely on other "clean" methods of protection before turning to bolts, which is in stark contrast to past eras where bolts and pitons were the predominant way to protect pitches.

<comment><USER19> Important to note that Robbins changed his mind and stopped chopping bolts 2 pitches into the 2nd ascent as (according to Lauria) "the quality of the aid climbing was much higher than he had ever expected of Harding or Caldwell and, of course, it was also taking us an awful long time to chop all those goddam bolts." [1]

The seminal article on "clean climbing" was authored by Yvon Chouinard and Tom Frost and appeared in the 1972 Chouinard catalog [2]

[1] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Robbins#Wall_of_Early_M...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Robbins#Wall_of_Early_Morning_Light)

[2] [http://climbaz.com/chouinard72/ch_page2.html](http://climbaz.com/chouinard72/ch_page2.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yesterday I read about the Warren Harding climb up The Nose in 58 and Dawn Wall in 70 which were also interesting.

</comment><comment><USER21> question for climbers: what's more difficult to master, the physical or mental aspect of doing a climb like this?

i imagine the intersection of people who have both sides of that coin covered (in any sport) is vanishingly small.

<comment><USER22> Physical, by far.

The number of people who lead climb multipitch walls is much bigger than the number who can climb a single 5.14 pitch, even on a toprope in a gym.

Keep in mind that these climbers spend years relying on their gear and taking no shortage of falls. They trust themselves and their partners. I don't want to minimize the mental challenge here (I struggle with it when I lead climb in a gym, let alone "trad" outside with my own gear), but for climbers at this level with this much experience, the fear of falling is sufficiently small that they're thinking about the climb rather than the consequences of a misstep.

Climbing 5.14 pitches is a whole other story. Perfect technique isn't enough; you also need a perfect physique -- lean and muscular in all the right places -- and not muscular in the wrong places, because muscle is heavy. Conventional climbing wisdom is that persistent hard work can take a fit person a long way -- to about 5.12 or so -- but after that it comes down to genetics. I'm reasonably athletic, have been climbing on and off for over a decade, and multiple times per week for the last 18 months. I'll be ecstatic if I can ever do a single 5.13 pitch.

<comment><USER23> Can you explain what these terms (5.12 vs 5.14) mean? Having trouble finding definitions on google.

<comment><USER24> Grade. 5 means roped climbing, the decimal means how hard of a climb it is within the category of roped climbing.

5.6 can be climbed by any healthy adult, 5.7 by most. I reached 5.11 in a year of climbing; I expect to reach 5.12 within 5 years, and 5.13 sometime within my lifespan if I am dedicated and train relentlessly. 5.14 is only within reach of the greats who live their lives to climb, and 5.15 has been climbed by 2-3 people on this Earth.

<comment><USER25> The current grades are more a snapshot of history than the physical limits of humanity, IMO. Like the 4 minute mile, once one person did it, you saw several people after that able to do it. In the golden years of Yose, 5.12 was this crazy thing that only the elite did. Now it's something normal people can achieve. Part of that is technology -- I wouldn't want to ever lead 5.12 without a set of cams -- but part of it is that it's just easier to get to somewhere if you already know it's physically possible.

<comment><USER24> Yes, but the world's fastest mile is still _3:43.13_ , which is not much progress over the last 60 years.

More people will climb 5.14 & 5.15 in the future, but the progress of peak potential is slowing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Amazing feat done just because it is there. Kudos to the climbers and their support team.</comment>


Why doesn't my cable company understand Unicode? - <AUTHOR> https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2018/08/virgin-media-dont-understand-unicode/ <comment><USER2> I hate apps which uplift text and decide to replace quote marks to literature pairs not code pairs.

A lot of mismarked iso-latin1 gets utf-8 treatment,I think many of the fails happen when people shift editor in implicit binary detected files or acquire file encoding from wrong web site download.

BTW, have pity for people from non 7bit ASCII culture.. the failure to get eight but it'd clean email, login, password...</comment>


Researchers use CRISPR to repair genetic defect that causes blindness - <AUTHOR> http://www.dispatchtribunal.com/researchers-use-crispr-to-repair-genetic-defect-that-causes-blindness/12510/ <comment><USER2> This is really cool, but scientists have been using other vectors to cure inherited retinal diseases for several years.[0] Eric Pierce at the Ocular Genomics Institute gave a talk on his lab's work that I was able to attend. They have been doing really cool work without CRISPR, although it wouldn't surprise me if they were looking into using it now.

0\. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19953081](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19953081)</comment>