Why Russians Are Not Smiling (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.properrussian.com/2011/05/why-russians-are-not-smiling.html <comment><USER4> As a Russian-American this comes off as complete BS. I've seen this written before and it's always in the form of "It's not us that smile too little, it's you Americans that are fake and smile too much!".

For one, Americans don't just smile to be polite. For the most part it's genuinely conveying positive emotions.

Now I know this is going to be unpopular, but I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural. It's because they are genuinely more cynical miserable people. This is completely a generalization and there are tons of exceptions on an individual level, but _on average_ life (especially in the cities) is more cut throat, it's cold, the authorities are corrupt, people are asshole to each other in public, and if anything goes wrong you can be darn well be sure that no one will help you[1]. There is no sense of community, or impulse for people to help each other out and being nice to strangers. So naturally you're worried you'll get robbed or whatever - so you keep to yourself, don't make eye-contact, and don't smile.

If you go to the country side, people are a lot more likely to smile at you.

A bit of an aside - I've found it's also a very Slavic thing. Prague had very similar miserable faces, which Budapest was full of smiles (though economically the countries were very similar)

[1] I remember a story my friend told me of how he was on the subway and a bunch of skinheads beat up an African college student. After they left, no one did anything to help the kid, and everyone just pretended like nothing happened. A good ol' "it's non of my business" attitude.

<comment><USER5> > this comes off as complete BS. I've seen this written before and it's always > in the form of "It's not us that smile too little, it's you Americans that > are fake and smile too much!"

Which is pretty much what the article quotes Russians as saying. Without agreeing with them, of course.

>I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural.

Again, you're agreeing with the article - and contradicting your subsequent explanation, which is mainly economic and judicial.

>It's because [Russians] are genuinely more cynical miserable people.

How is this is any better than some Russians' generalization that smiling Westerners are duplicitous?

<comment><USER6> No, the article is claiming that to Westerners a smile is neutral and that to a Russian no smile is neutral. The article is making the implication that a smiling Westerner and a non-smiling Russian are expressing the same emotion, it's just that the Westerner is faking something.

The poster to whom you're responding is actually saying that the no smile in Russia is because of an actual underlying difference in the emotions being felt.

<comment><USER5> >the article is claiming that to Westerners a smile is neutral [...] The article is making the implication that a smiling Westerner [...] is faking something.

I don't see where you got the second sentence as the article's implication. Especially since it's rather contradictory with the first sentence.

<comment><USER6> I'm trying to see how you find those statements to be contradictory.

Maybe you think that the same concept is being discussed in the two sentences? Really there are multiple concepts at play so calling one of them neutral relative to one another and the other one "fake" isn't a contradiction at all. They're different things.

Just because the emotion being expressed is supposed to be neutral doesn't mean that the facial expression can't be implying something more. The article author's contention is that the facial expression is fake and expressing more of an emotion than is present, given that the "real" underlying emotion is one of neutrality in the smile and no-smile cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I worked with some Russians a few years ago. Great guys. One wasn't very well adapted to American culture. He came to my cube one day. He's like "Let's go get a smoke", but his face and tone was flat, so it came across as "You've pissed me off in some way and I'm probably going to kick your ass now". I demurred. A couple more offers over the next few days and I finally relented (I don't smoke, but went to hang out). Pretty soon he was smiling and cracking jokes. A few months later he asked me, "Why do Americans always have to act happy? It's so fake."

*edit: I a word

<comment><USER8> I'm not Russian, but when somebody's smile is too artificial/fake - I call it American smile. I think it is quite a common term [in Europe] ;)

<comment><USER9> Hmm, I think you mixed it up a bit. "American smile" is just a smile done primarily with lip muscles that shows teeth prominently.

<comment><USER8> Actually, yes. There can be other types of fake smiles as well :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I served a Mormon mission in eastern Ukraine (not Russia, but very Soviet), which meant I went from one day being surrounded by Americans to walking around the streets of eastern Ukraine trying to talk with everyone I met on the street (a decidedly non-Ukrainian thing to do).

One day while we were walking the sun came out for just a minute - a fairly rare occurrence during a Ukrainian winter, and I walked around the streets beaming. When I started talking to a man, he stopped mid-sentence and said, "Are you high?"

I figured what he was saying was in regard to our talking about the Bible (he certainly wouldn't have been the first to ask that question with regard to religious belief), but he _legitimately_ thought I was high. He went on to say (I paraphrase), "You're just walking around the streets talking with people, seemingly fascinated by anything I talk about, and with a big grin (усмешка) on your face. That's not normal."

And, to be fair, it was pretty rare that I was in such a mood.

If you think about it, the smile that Americans force a lot of the time is very fake. Think about families smiling in their pictures - they look vaguely happy, but there's a noticeable difference between that and when you can see a genuine smile. If you're a Russian, why pretend? And while I still smile in pictures, I can see their point.

When I got back to the US after having been in eastern Ukraine for two years, I got the opposite reaction. "Are you depressed?" or "Are you doing OK?" While living in Ukraine had been a culture shock and forced me to see the world quite differently than growing up in small-town Utah suburbia, I was by no means depressed. I just held myself in a different way. I also spoke more with exaggerated hand motions, had different intonation, and was shocked at how I could give a $100 bill to a cashier at the grocery store without getting in trouble.

<comment><USER11> You mean people in America don't feel this way about street preachers? Even the kind that walks around with a sign and shouts REPENT! and all?

> I could give a $100 bill to a cashier at the grocery store without getting > in trouble.

You mean you literally handed her a 100 dollar bill? That's not her fault, you should exchange your money. Imagine someone trying to pay with hrivnas in 7-11.

<comment><USER12> >You mean people in America don't feel this way about street preachers? Even the kind that walks around with a sign and shouts REPENT! and all?

Yes of course we/they do. Street preachers are obnoxious as all hell, _especially_ for people with preexisting religious beliefs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hi, i'm Russian sociologist of culture.

The conclusion about different culture code and semantic is right.

But there is more some interesting things. Russians have really poor toothcare, and this is joined with non-smiling bidirectionally. There is nothing abnormal for Russian to have couple of missing teeth. I've seen a really rich people (for example owner of Rolls Royce fleet) with just a couple of yellow teeth left... man, you should never smile with this.

Also there is a lot of mimic signals except mouth area muscles tension, especially orbicularis oculi tension, that subconsciously telling that we are smiling. I've noticed that this secondary features is also less often for Russians relative to west and east Europeans. This is also true for voice tone and other subconscious traces of smile. So the low-level mental trigger for smile not firing at all.

So i can assert that this is not about smiling, its about more deep communicational norms like, literally, answering "sorely" on "how are u?", that means "i'm complaining so i'm sincere to you and trusting you", the essence of social stroking is different. Yip, assumptions that the Russians is same in everything but the culture codes is wrong, we are pretty depressed nation.

Anyway, i see that norm is changing nowadays along with life quality increasing, European culture codes expansion, and toothcare, heh.

<comment><USER14> Hi, I'm from Lithuania, where people are smiling (or not smiling) in the exact same way as described in the article. I can assure you that teeth has absolutely nothing to do with this. Same goes for your missing muscle theory, absolute nonsense. It seems like you think people are way more conscious about smiling than they really are. I could not care less about my tooth when "deciding" whether to smile or not. It's not very conscious decision after all.

<comment><USER13> I just mention tooth like interesting side factor. Surely it's not the main reason, but may be a consequence supporting the reason. And surely there is no nations that, holding their smiles just because of their tooth not glowing in the dark.

Maybe you confused with the mentioning teeth by itself, but its normal for cultural anthropology to try taking physiology, language, healthcare e.t.c as a whole if it giving any clues.

Talking about conscious we should consider that it is one of the reflexes "tamed" by human. Reflexes have its own specific muscle tension/relaxing patterns. You can see reflexes in clean form when looking on babies. Than human learning some communication norms and codes just imitating what it see around. Than he can use trained gestures, sounds e.t.c unconsciously, just little cortex fire and we performing it. We can train to suppress reflexes this way.

Imagine, we have salute gesture like scratching a nose. The muscle tension and motional pattern will be a little different from the case we really have an itchy nose.

Or you have a cough or just imitating cough sound. It's easy to separate. But if you spent time training imitate cough naturally it will look and sound naturally.

So we can differ several cases: Human smiling but suppressing it. Human smiling or well trained or self-trained to smile "sincerely". Human imitating smile of request.

And i behold that Russians: imitate smile on request very rough and this mean deficient practice of imitation. have suppressed smile relatively as often as other ones. smile noticeable rarely.

So we really have rare-firing reflex. What the reason? This is separate and interesting question.

<comment><USER14> What do you mean "on request"? Because if someone asked me to fake a smile I would not even try to look sincere either. Deficient practice in imitation can be considered when a person actually wants to look like he's smiling sincerely, but for us it is the opposite. And we don't "suppress" smile - <USER2> do not feel any need to smile for random strangers. Unless you want to look offensive. Especially fake smile. Fake smile is mostly used by people who want something from you and are willing to be very annoying about it - usually want something bad to sell or somehow screw you over. I have no idea why are you coming up with those ridiculous theories about reflexes when there are very good reasons not to smile and not to fake smile to random people, and to smile to friends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can somewhat agree as an Eastern-European. When I started to work for US/UK companies, I had to learn a lot about adaptation and interpreting the different signal set.

The funny thing is that many (big) companies say that they're pro-diversity, they like and must have people from different cultures while in reality it's 99% about other cultures adapting to them. For somebody from Europe that's not that hard, but people from Asia usually find it much more difficult. And they're sometimes perceived as not smart/ignorant while they're just used to different kind of communication. We (technology workers from in Hungary or EEU) are usually perceived (in the eyes of US/UK citizens) as direct, honest, straightforward but sometimes very unpolite persons, while in reality we are just used to different gestures.

</comment><comment><USER16> Living in far Northern Canada I can relate to this.

Up here, if someone wants to smile and say "Have a nice day", they will do so while making eye contact and you can tell they genuinely mean it. They are usually prompting you for further friendly chit-chat and happiness. Even when there are other customers waiting in line - those customers will be made to wait while two people have a friendly chat.

When they don't want to say "Have a nice day", they won't. Likely they won't say anything at all or kind of grunt/mumble and just move along (even in retail) - but at least you know they're being genuine either way.

Last time I went back to "the real world" I was shocked time and time again when someone would say "Have a nice day" \- I'd start to return the sentiment and be utterly disgusted the person wasn't even looking at me, and wasn't even paying attention to me. It all felt so fake, and I was quickly tired of it.

Lots of business up here have a little sign in their shop "Yukon hospitality - it grows on you".

I genuinely wonder if the climate has something to do with this. Extreme cold and very dark days tend to bring people together, and tends to make people more genuine and humble, in my experience.

<comment><USER17> > I genuinely wonder if the climate has something to do with this. Extreme > cold and very dark days tend to bring people together, and tends to make > people more genuine and humble, in my experience.

I don't think it's the climate, at least it's not the sole reason. After all, Russia is a huge country and Russians live all over it - from Siberia to the Russian Black Sea coast with its subtropical climate.

I suspect it has to do with the average hardship of life and, at least with Russia, major social and economic upheavals that happen often enough for every generation of Russians to be affected.

> Extreme cold and very dark days tend to bring people together

Also, this is probably the last thing that comes to mind about Russians in general. For the most part, they are notoriously individualistic.

<comment><USER18> > Also, this is probably the last thing that comes to mind about Russians in > general. For the most part, they are notoriously individualistic.

You understand "individualistic" in some specific (probably american) way. Russians may look individualistic if you don't know them well, but actually in Russia close friends and family means much more then in US.

<comment><USER17> > You understand "individualistic" in some specific (probably american) way.

No, I meant individualistic in a "mostly devoid of the sense of social responsibility" way. In fact, it's a common meme in Russia to lament the lack of a sense of unity pervasive in the culture (the closeness of family/friends notwithstanding) .

<comment><USER18> In this definition yes, modern Russian people are individualists. But in sense > Extreme cold and very dark days tend to bring people together That is in the sense of small close group they are more collectivists than many of western countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There's really no need to be stingy with your smile.

If you smile more often at work, even if there's nothing specific to be happy about, it really does lighten up the mood and make people cheerier. People will want to work with you more.

Also, I hope I don't sound like a sociopath here, but smiles are a form of brain hacking. If they are genuine, or at least seem genuine, they disarm people and make them more receptive to you. Also, I've heard that it's a way of hacking your own brain, to make yourself happier than you would otherwise be, just by smiling.

One of the easiest things you can do to give better presentations is to learn to genuinely smile while giving them. Not all the time, but a smile peppered here or there. This works wonders on investors.

<comment><USER20> To be perfectly honest, and I'm not trying to be personally aggressive here, that kind of behavior makes me want to punch people in the face.

A smile is an involuntary response. Unless you are a really, really good actor with full control over ever muscle in your body, people will spot a fake smile ("if there's nothing specific to be happy about") from a mile away. It's not even a conscious thing, human body language is a way more complex symphony than just curling your lips a bit.

And in cultures in which artificial smiling is not a common thing that is seen as patronizing at best, and insulting at worst.

So unless you are in a country like the US, where people are used to such behavior, I would go easy on the "brain hacking".

<comment><USER19> I'm with you. I'm not a proponent of fake smiling.

Another way to think about it: try and be more like the Dalai Lama. Notice how he's often smiling? Notice how when he greets strangers, he takes a genuine interest in their well being?

You may want to punch Tony Robbins in the face, but I doubt you want to punch the Dalai Lama in the face.

That's the goal I think. Not to brain hack by fake smiling, but to brain hack by practicing real empathy and finding inner happiness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's interesting how an article like this provokes multiple reactions that come down to "the American way is the right way".

Also, unlike the article suggests, I think Russians are closer to (fellow!) Europeans than Americans in this respect. The way the Russians described in this article perceive Americans is not that different from the way most Europeans do.

<comment><USER21> I'm not really picking that up from the comments. Most of the discussion I see is debating the root causes and/or the validity of sweeping generalizations of different societies.

<comment><USER20> I read several comments in support of smiling as a universal form of politeness, which in itself is a sweeping generalisation that doesn't acknowledge cultural differences.

BTW, I'm not pissing on Americans, in my experience Americans are generally considerably more polite, friendly and open than most other Westerners. But the way that is expressed is not a universal language, which tends to lead to misunderstandings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> That said, the Russian humor page for Wikipedia is can be a real treat: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes#The_Golden_Fish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_jokes#The_Golden_Fish) may be one of my favorites on there.

A Russian friend of mine explained that it's sort of inappropriate to go around smiling, esp for males. There's also kind of a cultural thing going on where Russians perceive themselves as being able to screw up almost any situation. It seems there's a lot of black/gallows humor oriented around this bleak outlook.

<comment><USER14> > A Russian friend of mine explained that it's sort of inappropriate to go > around smiling, esp for males.

This is very true. If a male is smiling, it means he is showing his submission and in turn is subconsciously treated by other males as a lower level male. The exact system of hierarchy signs exists in chimps. For me it seems like russians together with some other cultures managed to save this body language component as meaningful way of interaction, in contrast with western way of smiling meaning level zero relationship. Because if you truly can not tell fake smile from real one, the meaning of a smile is lost. That's why I also am not going to ever accept "always smiling" thing, even if I would go to live in western country. A smile should be a sign of affection, not a sign of neutral stance. We have neutral face impression for that. And if you interpret neutral face impression as "something wrong", what are you using "worried" face impression? It just seems wrong to always smile, even considering "brain hacking" thing.

<comment><USER23> Why are you assuming that we can not tell the difference between smiles? There's a huge gradation of social behavior w.r.t smiles and other social cues that we use in the west. For us, raised in the culture, it is trivially easy to tell the difference between, say, the smile of a shopkeeper in greeting, the smile of an enemy, the smile of a shopkeeper after asking after your parent (they slightly know you), the smile of the mail man you speak with once a week or so, the smile of the semi-acquaintance that lives one flight up, the smile of a friend you see each day, and the smile of a best friend when reuniting after a long absence. so on. They are all different, and constitute a "meaningful way of interaction". It's just different than your way.

<comment><USER14> So it's just the same things expressed differently, just like different body language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My parents, who live in Trinidad, have this problem every time they visit me in America. After a couple of days of everyone fake-smiling at them the whole time they get pissed off. To them, everyone's smiles come off as insincere and even slightly condescending. (They hate it even more when people tell them to "have a nice day".)

<comment><USER25> Of course. Many Finnish people are like that too. If I can't think of _a single reason myself why_ that unknown person might be smiling at me then I must conclude s/he's just pretending to be friendly and probably trying something, too. Thus, smiling must have a context: friends smile to each other and that's all right because they're already friends, and friends like each other.

<comment><USER26> I'm Finnish too and feel the same way. If someone smiles and acts too friendly when I don't know them well, I feel like they may be trying to manipulate me in some way. After living abroad for a while I am starting to see that it's just the default way to act, but being unsure when someone is genuinely enjoying my company vs. just trying to act polite still makes me feel uneasy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Spot on (yeah, I'm "russki")

Russians do like to laugh, though. We don't have as much stand-up comedians as Americans do (and skits by the one we do have are very low-brow), but a related genre of satire is quite popular among performers and listeners alike. Not sure if Jvanetsky's performances are available in English, but for those studying Russian I'd highly recommend listening to those.

<comment><USER28> I think they are plenty of stand up comedians in Russia, but with any humor it's all Russian/Soviet specific.

KVN is similar to SNL.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVN](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVN)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Relevant: The grumpy Russian traveler [http://imgur.com/a/4ix4I](http://imgur.com/a/4ix4I)

<comment><USER30> There is some backstory to these pictures. At least there was on Reddit when it was first posted, can't prove that it's true or not.

Anyway, his wife died and he is visiting all the places she/they went and making pictures to close himself of her.

<comment><USER31> [http://lenta.ru/articles/2013/02/28/grumpy/](http://lenta.ru/articles/2013/02/28/grumpy/) interview with the guy, if you can read Russian (he's from Belarus, by the way). Doesn't seem there is any real back story to it actually.

<comment><USER32> He's only 32 years old. He looks like he's pushing 40.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> We (Latvians) are actually really similar to Russians in this matter. We generally don't smile and if there's someone walking down the street with a big smile on his face - the first thing that comes to mind is: "He must be a tourist."

<comment><USER34> Labdien. You are not kidding. I lived in Riga for two years and can attest to this. Latvians had a funny sense of humor though. I once heard a joke about teaching an Estonian the proper way to address a woman in Latvian, something like "Skaistas kājas"? Sorry if I got that wrong, it's been awhile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'd generalize this to (continental) Europeans, and it becomes more true the further East you go. Being in Poland, I notice the same thing.

However, I did notice that New Yorkers are also closer to the "Russian" camp. Not totally (especially when it comes to retail), but closer...

<comment><USER36> Some years ago, whilst on holiday in the U.S.A., a smiling American summarized my experience for me:

In San Francisco they ask you 'how's it going, man!', in Chicago they shout 'WHAT?' and in New York they don't even talk to you.

So it is a sliding scale of friendliness, from West to East.

<comment><USER37> Nah. I think it is because New York is our biggest city with 8 million people. There are just too many people to sort through so nobody talks. You can't make a generalization about the entire east coast based on NYC. In smaller places if you are walking down the street and you pass a stranger most of the time you smile at them and say hello.

<comment><USER38> This could also partially explain Russian unwillingness to smile. Most of Russians were born and raised in relatively big cities, not in suburbia where "friendliness to neighbor" cultural protocol makes sense. There are just too many neighbors to be friendly with in Russia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I would say it is the terrible weather, too cold in winter, too hot in summer. It probably means something like "serious people are the rulers, because if you do stupid crazy things you are dead" over thousands of years that forge a culture.

Russia is so big, and yet so ugly. I took the transsiberian train and it was so boring. In 40kms of Chile you see more than in 3000 of transsiberian. In Winter there is no light, and no color(snow everywhere).

When you travel to places where the sun shines all year long you find that everybody smiles so much. You go to Bali, Brazil, Cuba, Costa Rica, kenia, Nigeria, all people smile all the time.

Boston, New York,Seattle, Germany, they are in the middle-upper scale of seriousness. Miami, California, less serious.

<comment><USER40> Did you read the article?

<comment><USER39> Yes.

The article talks about the fact, I create an hypothesis about the reason.

When you travel the world you see there is a correspondence between seriousness and weather. You go to Brasil and the South is way more serious than the North. In Europe-North America it is the opposite, as they are in a different hemisphere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> _When you see people smiling at you in the USA or Germany, it doesn 't mean anything other than an overall neutral attitude toward you. A smile is a "level zero" in communication_

I don't know about Germany, but in the US if someone is smiling at you, their overall attitude is friendly, not neutral. And yes, that includes store keepers and waiters of which there are plenty that keep a neutral expression just like much of Europe.

There are certainly people in the US who fake smiles. They are not nearly as common as you might think. Heck, research over the last 40 years has shown that faking smiles can genuinely cause happiness.

</comment><comment><USER42> Having spent 15 years in the US (I am Russian), now I am somewhat shocked when I don't get a smile from a cashier in a store in, say, Billings, MT.

Navajos, who don't make eye contact or smile either also take some getting used to now.

It's cultural, but Russia is a harsh place, so it goes deeper.

The part about people in the street not being helpful to each other is also true.

Just watch those dash cam videos where people witness a horrible crash, drive around and keep moving. You can die in the street and nobody might care. It's cultural and it's not a good thing.

The mob mentality is also a lot stronger. Westerners are a lot more tolerant to people being different or choosing their own way. It is in fact encouraged to be different and individual. Russians on the other hand, have whole layers of culture dedicated to making sure everybody is not sticking out of the crowd and not being an individual.

</comment><comment><USER43> As a Russian-American, I completely agree. Smiling has different semantics in West and in Russia. On the other hand, I don't mind the 'fake' customer service. I don't want people to be sincerely unhappy to do something for me. I appreciate the effort of a waiter putting on a smile at the end of an 8 hour shift, 10 minute before the restaurant closes.

</comment><comment><USER44> Russians do not teach their children to smile at people to be polite or for any other reason, so smile only comes as a genuine emotion. But Americans do, and not just smile, but also show teeth. I'm not sure why though, probably has something to do with dental advertisements.

<comment><USER45> Which is unnatural when you think about it, showing teeth is interpreted by most animals as a sign of aggression.

I remember reading that if you smile at strange kids (or dogs), don't show your teeth, they'll get scared or agitated. Similarly, if you are e.g. greeting a small child, squat so that you are eye level with them - kids (and dogs) hate when somebody huge is hanging over them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Combine this with the Finnish attitude towards smalltalk, and I think you'd get the ideal sort of country for me.

<comment> at-fates-hands So more like how people on the East Coast then?

<comment><USER46> Oh my no, people on the east coast put far to much effort into smalltalk and smiling. The South is _infamously_ bad in that regard, more than any other group of people that I know of, but nearly anywhere on the east coast puts too much value in small talk or smiling for the sake of smiling for my tastes. Even NYC.

The east coast is where I grew up, and where I got sick of people always pretending to be happy and interested in other people. I prefer to keep it sincere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is one thing I feel that black people struggle to adjust to in the American workplace. Smiling to be neutral isn't nearly as common in Black Culture in America. Along the lines of this article, it can actually make people think you're kind of weird if you're in a typically black setting to just smile for no reason.

This causes problems at work, as a neutral visage on a black person at a typical workplace can easily be mistaken for annoyance (or be perceived as threatening) [http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/black-male- faces-3571/](http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/black-male-faces-3571/)

So you can either be yourself and risk coworkers avoiding you because they think you're "angry" (especially if you're more quiet than other people) or wear a smile that feels forced all the time to make your coworkers feel comfortable, because they won't take the time to assess their own biases and cut you the appropriate slack.

pretty unfortunate

</comment><comment><USER48> Pretty accurate article. The main point is that smile is a base in USA, and neutral is base here in Russia. But personal conversations (especially with people you know) are full of smiling. And I don't think that's such a big deal, actually.

P.S. I regularly see two people constantly smiling in the crowd. One is slightly crazy and another one has mimic muscles trauma.

</comment><comment><USER49> I have seen someone get fired at a restaurant I worked at because they were always too overwhelmed to smile consistently. Perhaps Americans are forced to smile at times but why would someone foreign take offense to that?

By the way he got directly fired because he wasnt smiling when he was walking around. Dont you just love being employed in a Work at Will state.

<comment><USER50> I was fired from a restaurant job (many years ago, in Alaska) becuase I "did not smile enough". At the time, it seemed ironic because I was actually quite efficient and smiling had not seemed to be a requirement for actually getting things done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I can relate to the behaviour described in the article.

A smile is a signal, as is a frown. If you center your origin in the middle of the scale, you can use a smile to signal positive things and a frown to signal negative things. If you smile a lot you will move the origin: you're "always" smiling so what do you do when you're really happy? Or if you're always frowning what do you do when you're pissed off for real?

If the default signal is neutral, it's easy to give a little smile or a little frown and have that convey a lot of meaning, conscious or subconscious. And you still have reserves for the truly earth-shattering moments.

I'm not very qualified to comment on Americans but they do talk a lot. For what I've observed they seem to smile and then express with words such things that maybe someone from another culture could express with a slight change in his facial expression.

</comment><comment><USER51> Russians also don't have a Halloween. On the question "Why don't you have such a holiday?" we (Russian/Ukrainian/Other-Similar-Folks) answer - we don't celebrate a walking dead holiday, because we make sure our dead are really dead and stay dead _insert a smile here if we met before_

<comment><USER52> Best comment. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I see a lot of comments about Russians being inherently miserable creatures, the climate not being conducive to smiling and even bad dental work as reasons. Let me give an example from another culture where smiling is risky: India. When I first moved there, I quickly realized that people smile only at those they know. Strange women don't smile at you for fear of inviting harassment. Soon as a guy, you don't smile at anyone so as to not invade their space.

When I first came to America, I realized that a lot of Americans had this unique and amazing ability to blast you with a radiant smile and cheerily ask after you. It is a meaningless social convention that can get annoying at times. It is always intriguing to me when I travel abroad, how my cheery attitude slowly dissipates and then how the readjustment happens when I come back to America.

tl;dr: people are different.

</comment><comment><USER54> you could write the same article for french people , it wouldnt make a difference, We french wont fake smile like americans do,even in shops or cafés , where waiters dont expect you to tip them anyway. It's just the french way, and customers are used to it , as long as you are not "too" rude...

<comment><USER55> I've been to France dozens of time and once lived there for a year. I find the French easy to engage with and generally courteous and friendly, unlike the usual stereotype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Reminds me of the wikitravel article on Azerbaijan:

 _Don 't smile at an Azerbaijani in the street, because if you do they most likely will not respond in kind and they will regard you as odd. Smiling in Azerbaijan in public is not done and will be considered inappropriate. Smiling is traditionally reserved for family and friends; smiling at a stranger without addressing them, will be considered offensive, as they will either think that you are making fun of them and there is something wrong with their clothes or hair. Furthermore, an automatic "Western smile" (ie grinning) is widely regarded as insincere, as in "You don't really mean it"._ [1]

[1] [http://wikitravel.org/en/Azerbaijan#Other_things_to_watch_fo...](http://wikitravel.org/en/Azerbaijan#Other_things_to_watch_for)

</comment><comment><USER57> This is easy question. According to Tibetan tradition the hell (in general, not these particular torturing hells) is a cold, dark place inhabited by selfish, aggressive, angry, greedy beings.)

The crucial notion is that it is not a place created by some goods to punish beings, but a condition, superimposed on the inhabitants by themselves according to the law of karma. Hell, therefore, is not created, it is emerged (as the whole reality).

In last 30 years or so Russia had undergo a radical transformation from almost naive and ignorant communist country with uneducated working class population into the most corrupted, degraded country in the world, leaving some African extremes aside.

In Soviet times, for example, criminals were untouchable marginals, a society inside a society, while nowadays, due to lack of any real economy and equality before law, there is no more such distinction. Being successful cheater or looter, uncaught thief is considered a virtue, and cheating and looting is the only way to become a success in consumerist life.

Imagine millions of angry, puffy, sick drunk, pot-bellied Ostap Benders, hating everyone and hated by everyone, trying to find any naive victim in a society consisted of nothing but their own type.)

It could be easily seen abroad. When Russians meet on the street they avert their gazes and put on that very characteristic face expression of a mix of contempt, disgust and boredom. Each one of them cannot relax in a presence of strangers, and without their usual dose of alcohol. That is why they are going into extremes in drunken parties, especially in other countries.

These notions, of course, are stereotypes, but they caught correctly some aspects of reality. Of course, there are younger generations, generation anime, who aren't like that, but there are several lost generations in a row, all these children of 90-th who now became to realize that life was spoiled and that the world changing in a way in which they have no place to go.

It is difficult to smile with such mentality.)

<comment><USER18> I don't think it's significantly related with modern Russia/Soviets or any recent events. You can found description of same behaviour made by Turgenev (here for example, in russian, [http://european-book- review.blogspot.com/2006/04/blog-post_1...](http://european-book- review.blogspot.com/2006/04/blog-post_19.html)) in XIX century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Actually, Russians smile quite a lot. They are not smiling to strangers - <USER3> article explains why. But this does not mean they are not smiling at all. Once you become acquainted to the person, the smile becoming the natural part of communication.

</comment><comment><USER34> When I first moved to eastern Europe I couldn't make friends at all. After a few months I started to get really discouraged and somewhat depressed and stopped trying to engage people. As soon as that happened, my social life did a 180.

<comment><USER58> So as soon as you looked solemn/depressed on a regular basis, people started flocking to you? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Smiling there is more personal... and smiles are more valuable. And just like with anything valuable or good if there's too much of it it looses its value (a bit like money and inflation or recent startup valuations :-))

</comment><comment><USER9> It's very interesting how throughout the discussion the opposite behavior (smiling as neutral line) is becoming localized to US/UK. Plus, Dale Carnegie seems to have left a cultural mark on Americans comparable to that Confucius left on Chinese ))

The funny thing - it's in the same way English (and by extension American) people got rid of 2nd person singular pronoun ("thou"), and I find some of underlying debate pretty much the same. "It's more convenient and you run no risk of alienating someone with only the polite form left" on one side and "yes, but with potentially impolite form gone you have no means to actually express politeness" on the other.

The question is - does universality of polite behavior (smiling, using plural) actually devalue it over time?

The answer, at least for me, is something similar to dieting + cheat day dynamic - feel free to form a habit out of the healthier thing (method act yourself by smiling) but maintain your baseline by exploring the opposite (admit you're feeling bad today, look miserable when you feel miserable), if it's around 10-to-1 healthy-to-opposite ratio.

American way gets the first part down, and directionally I think we Russians should learn from that (in other words, we sure should smile for no reason MORE), but the other extreme has its dangers as well. Stoic philosophy of life, anyone?

</comment><comment><USER60> I found it funny that a German, often associated in the U.S. as a serious humorless country, was curious about why Russians never smile.

I can attest though, having spent a little bit of time in the Russian interior as a student that, at least to this American, Russians in public come across as rude, cold distant and all that, but once a Russian gets to know you (usually over some vodka and pickles) are almost unfailingly warm, kind and generous people who have ready smiles in the intimacy of close friends.

</comment><comment><USER42> Russians also like to dress in black or grey. I once was looking at a picture of a group of Russian mountaineers on the summit of a Mexican volcano and realized, that there was not a single red or yellow article of clothing, all black. I don't have any non-black puffy jackets either and I am a... Russian :)

</comment><comment><USER61> I live in Romania and it's pretty much the same, however I don't agree with the author. I noticed that many people abroad are genuinely more happy, and speak with excitement about their day. The original explanation provides some mental comfort, but I just don't buy it.

</comment><comment><USER62> I wonder if anyone has used slavic populations to try to reproduce Paul Ekman's research, where Ekman tried to establish the universality of the use of smiles worldwide.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman)

</comment><comment><USER63> My only take away is that a German asked a Russian about joy and that sounds like the start to a great joke. I mean they are the most stereotypically serious countries in Europe.

</comment><comment><USER64> I have been in Russia when the Kursk submarine sank. This event was on the news for days and whenever an official spoke about it on TV I had the impression that they were admitting guilt. This was not the case I've been told. The difference in body language is considerable.

<comment><USER65> You WERE in Russia when the Kursk submarine sank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Being a Russian and having lived in a Western country long enough I started noticing that I use this fake smile all the time when I bump by someone. Not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing, but at least it is a code of conduct here.

</comment><comment><USER67> Now try to compare the number of genuine smiles with whole face (including facial muscles near eyes) between russian and american people, i think that it wont differ much.

</comment><comment><USER65> Loving the passive aggressive half-arsed argumentative tone of this discussion. I can't see many people here smiling at strangers. Or friends... Or anyone.

Your German friend wants to see some miserable Russians? - go to the most expensive places in Western Europe - and those are the rich Russians. The others are just miserable by habit and because being non-miserable was bad style during the Soviet years. And yes, that probably applies to most of the Slavic nations (boo, generalisation, boo)...

</comment><comment><USER68> I'm not sure if it's an American thing, but I smile because I want people to like me, or at least not kill me.

</comment><comment><USER69> Is this for real? Seems like total BS. Esp. in making sweeping statements across an entire cultures.

</comment><comment><USER70> I've never seen too many people smile waiting for Bart either, and I've looked for smiles.

</comment><comment><USER71> I like when immigrants or wannabes shit all over theirs own people saying that, "it's not culture, it's just everyone is miserable and suffering, because of Stalin, Putin and gulag". I can tell you, fellow foreigners, this behavior is also part of culture for centuries already too.

</comment><comment><USER72> Russians have a culture of eye contact, and foreigners just do mot get it.

</comment><comment><USER73> Are Russians klingons?

<comment><USER74> For some people who have not left their home country, other cultures might seem weird like that. They may themselves seem to be from some alien race as well, from someone others' viewpoint.

<comment><USER75> I love how HN etiquette rules make people more creative when trying to insult each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> so faaat!...</comment>


We Still Need Howard Zinn - <AUTHOR> https://lithub.com/we-really-still-need-howard-zinn/ <comment><USER2> This critique of Zinn has been cited multiple times on AskHistorians:

[https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/howard-zinns- history...](https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/howard-zinns-history- lessons)

<comment><USER3> Assuming the criticism is true, would an edited version put US history in a much brighter light?

<comment><USER2> Probably not, just a different one. The AskHistorians threads about this are typically accompanied by more credible left/populist histories; Jill Lepore, as an example.

<comment><USER3> Exactly, so to focus on dismissing the book/author seem very opportunistic since the core of the argument is still based on facts, and people should acknowledge the bad parts of their history.

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, I don't understand this response.

<comment><USER3> That people should discuss the issue even if one account of the issue is only 90% correct. People seem to be deflecting.

<comment><USER2> The story is _about Zinn_. If anything, the deflection goes the other way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't really understand the hate for Zinn by some folks. He tells the truth, a truth not often told. Curious how so many self styled "contrarians" and "free thinkers" dislike his work without reading it. Anyway, it's a good read.

<comment><USER5> Because it's not the truth, and is in fact propaganda. There was a purpose to it back when it was published, because it was a response to books that were also propaganda. But there is no place for it today, where better scholarship exists and the Internet provides ready access to a plethora of view points.

<comment><USER6> >>> "But there is no place for it today, where better scholarship exists and the Internet provides ready access to a plethora of view points"

Thats now how history works at all man. Pretty much all writing on history goes into the metaphorical dust bin maybe 20-40 years after it is created but the "dust bin" isn't a dead place that no one should ever explore, its the world of historiography, and understanding how people understood their point in time at different points in time. No one should read a history book like its the bible handed down from on high, they should read it knowing the authors biases, the contemporary views on the authors work from other experts in the field, and an understanding of their own knowledge level and context. The reality is that a huge amount of K-12 American history education is propaganda and for someone with a K-12 American history background this book is a very compelling read that provides a useful counter narrative to what they have been taught, the main function of which is not to blindly trust the words in the book, but to understand the practice of history not as a recitation of facts but an analysis of past events with a specific point of view, and how different points of view from authors with different motivations can give different views of the past. IMO, this really brought the field of history to life for me.

<comment><USER7> It seems like the spirit of your comment is in accord with GP. GGP put forth that Zinn is "the truth."

GP may have phrased it a bit dismissively but I read that comment as making the same argument you do: no given history book contains the final truth.

As for GP's comment that Zinn has no place today -- you offer a more nuanced take. But we're in a moment replete with valorizing paeans to Zinn (like TFA) and calls for using People's History more widely as a _textbook_. Maybe, given that we are 40 years on from it's writing, that's not the best move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg- histor...](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/wineburg- historiography-zinn-122012.html)

> Wineburg, one of the world's top researchers in the field of history > education, raises larger issues about how history should be taught. He says > that Zinn's desire to cast a light on what he saw as historic injustice was > a crusade built on secondary sources of questionable provenance, omission of > exculpatory evidence, leading questions and shaky connections between > evidence and conclusions.

A similar warning needs to be leveled at the 1619 Project, which likewise focuses more on rhetoric than careful scholarship: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project)

In particular, the lead essay originally stated that protecting slavery was "one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution."

After extensive criticism from scholars, the Times edited that sentence to read that protecting slavery was "one primary reason some of the colonists fought the American Revolution."

Of course the "one primary ... some of..." construction dilutes they assertion beyond recognition. The Times defended this as just the addition of "two words" but it undermines the central thesis of the lead essay. Think of the evidence required to support the first assertion, compared to the second assertion. To support the first assertion, you needed evidence that protecting slavery was a primary reason for the colonists as a whole. To support the revised assertion, you need only find _some_ colonists, among millions, with that motivation.

The 1619 articles on the economic importance of slavery, moreover, are not written by an economist and do not represent the consensus views of economists. Here, the Zinnesque aspect really comes out. It is an often overlooked and very important fact that slavery made some politically powerful people very rich, and those people had a major hand in fashioning America. But most people can't trace any wealth back to that time. Politically, it would be better to convince people that they continue to benefit from slavery having existed. So the essays are forced to make the far more tenuous claim that America traces its exceptional wealth to slavery. But of course it defies basic economics to suggest you can make a society—as opposed to specific oligarchs—richer through non-free, non-market labor. That's where it helps to have an author write the essays who isn't an economist! [https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a- false-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-story- about-capitalism-too-11588956387)

<comment><USER8> Damn, a millionaire professor at Stanford has issues with Howard Zinn. Funny coincidence!

<comment><USER9> Argument ad hominem.

<comment><USER10> Actually a genetic fallacy. An ad hominem would be 'an ugly millionaire professor.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Eric Hobsbawm's account of the "long 19th century," as told in his _The Age of Revolution_ , _The Age of Capital_ , and _The Age of Extremes_ , is something that readers who are interested in Zinn may also be interested in. Hobsbawm appears to have a significantly better reputation among professional historians than Zinn does.

Hobsbawm still frequently appears on university reading lists for history majors. I remember the trilogy as engaging and easy to read for an outsider to the field. He is less polemical than Zinn, even if his political sympathies are similar.

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

Favorable mentions of Hobsbawm from AskHistorians:

[https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5bcvbe/i_am_...](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5bcvbe/i_am_reading_eric_hobsbawms_the_age_of_revolution/)

[https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/efznsq/is_er...](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/efznsq/is_eric_hobsbawns_long_19th_century_trilogy_still/)

<comment><USER12> Can cosign. Hobsbawn was widely regarded as the greatest British historian (as opposed to historian of Britain) by his death.

No shade to Howard Zinn, but he, like pretty much every other historian, didn't nearly have that level of respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I doubt that many people as truly well intentioned as Zinn have done as much damage to the world as he has.

I think you could tie a lot of the "the ends justify the means" attitude of current leftists to Zinn.

<comment><USER14> Can you cite examples of Zinn causing the world damage?

<comment><USER15> That would be too easy. Better to make vague accusations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice to see an article about a history professor at the top of HN. :)

As a former history major, I can confirm that Zinn's work, while well intentioned, isn't much respected in academia. He brought a useful new perspective but didn't back up his arguments with strong evidence.

Poor evidence, however, doesn't discredit Zinn's central thesis about American history.

For more rigorous approach American history I would recommend Eric Foner:

[http://www.ericfoner.com/books/index.html](http://www.ericfoner.com/books/index.html)

Although his focus is more global, Eric Hobsbawm is one of the most influential historians of the twentieth century. His "The Age of..." are worth a read"

[https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/eric- hobsbawm-t...](https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/eric-hobsbawm-the- communist-who-explained-history)

The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848 The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991

</comment><comment><USER17> Who are his contemporaries?

<comment><USER18> Noam Chomsky and the other elements of the Cantabrigian intelligentsia of his generation mostly.

<comment><USER17> Oh, I see, "contemporaries" is the opposite of what I meant to ask.

Who are current writers like him?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is presumably posted today because Trump announced an executive order to establish an anti-anti-racist "1776 Commission" for "patriotic education" to instruct children "to love America with all of their heart and all of their souls": [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-calls- pat...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-calls-patriotic- eduction-says-anti-racism-teachings-are-child-n1240372) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/trump-history- educa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/trump-history- education/2020/09/17/f40535ec-ee2c-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> > Zinn's approach to history essentially inverted the traditional approach > that placed the rich and powerful ... To tell history from the perspective > of the oppressed and marginalized

The mirror image of Ayn Rand. I wonder if there is anyone at the intersection of their fandoms.

<comment><USER21> Rand wrote fiction, not even anything purporting to be history.

<comment><USER20> She is best known for fiction but was also a prolific essayist. The essays expound on her theories of history, economics, and philosophy. See [https://aynrand.org/novels/](https://aynrand.org/novels/), bottom of the page for the non-fiction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Well, if you want a far-left and deeply pessimistic interpretation of history, he's you guy.

<comment><USER23> This seems like a kneejerk response to a strawman version of Zinn. He's a pretty middle-of-the-road academic politically speaking and doesn't get anywhere near what I would call far-left.

As for "pessimistic", well, I'd just say that the facts don't care about your feelings. Powerful institutions are (generally speaking) violent and uncaring towards those without power; ignoring that fact does us all a disservice.

<comment><USER24> Zinn's own words (which are quoted in the article) confirm the parent's point:

 _From that moment on, I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self- correcting character of American democracy. I was a radical, believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country . . . something rotten at the root. The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society—cooperative, peaceful, egalitarian._

<comment><USER18> Saying that America has deeply rooted problems is not pessimism, it's realism. Not believing in people's ability to make it better is pessimism.

<comment><USER24> And in that quote, Zinn explicitly mentions he doesn't believe in "people's ability to make it better":

 _I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy_

<comment><USER18> You're misreading him. He's talking about the ability of an ideology and a system to correct itself, not that of the people it rules to choose a different society for themselves.

<comment><USER24> He is saying a revolution is required because the people can't change things. I'm not sure, short of outright nihilism, how one could be more pessimistic that that.

<comment><USER18> He's casting doubt that the problems can be solved through voting alone.

<comment><USER24> Yes. That's pessimistic.

<comment><USER18> About voting, sure. Not about the country at large.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think we have had quite enough of Zinn.

"Objectivity is impossible," Zinn once remarked, "and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.

[https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493](https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493)

<comment><USER26> This is true of all history, regardless of political viewpoint. There is no such thing as objective explanation of history.

<comment><USER25> Is it undesirable to aim for objectivity? Zinn seemed to believe it was his job to shape American society not record its history.

Reshaping American society may be a fine goal. And, Zinn certainly has been successful at that, but it does not sound like history to me.

<comment><USER15> > Is it undesirable to aim for objectivity?

It's definitely undesirable to admit the concept is meaningless, then to strive for it. That's just producing propaganda. You know the standards you're going to strive for are arbitrary and just made up of a combination of things you haven't questioned the importance of and things you've decided the importance of, but not only do you cleave to them anyway, but you criticize those who deviate from them as dangerous propagandists.

He thought his job was to create a more rational, more just society, and the narrative he used to connect the events described in his sources was a servant to that. That's the same thing that people who claim objectivity claim to be doing, while they write history as the conflicts between the wealthy and royal.

Claiming "objectivity" is just claiming that someone would be insane or seditious for daring to question the claimant's premises. Claims that objectivity is real inevitably ends in journalists and writers having to be licensed and approved by the government.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What Is the Most Current Ruling on Software Patents? - <AUTHOR> I have a questions regarding software patents that I haven't had much luck getting answered by searching the Internet, but I'm hoping there might be a few people well versed in software patent law here that can provide some advice.
I've done quite a bit of research on the most recent rulings, and it looks like the current gold standard test for patent-ability of a software claim is:
1) Is the invention a statutory category of invention (machine, process, system, etc)? 2a) Is the idea abstract (math equation, law of nature, etc)?
2b) If so, does the claim, in whole, add value that is significantly more than the abstract idea, or series of ideas, in the claim?
I realize there is a lot of confusion regarding this test, but the examples provided by the USPTO seem to clear things up for me - basically you can't patent a mental process. However, this does not address the subject of a software patent that claims a mental process or system that would otherwise be impossible/impractical without computers. An example would be the dynamic pricing models applied to airline flights or Amazon goods. I would think that, because these types of things weren't possible before a computer, even though technically dynamic pricing can be considered a mental process, they would still be able to make the claim that they are innovative, and at one time, non-obvious. Would this type of claim fall under the question 2b above? Does anyone have any suggestions on resources where I can do more research on this particular argument? Thanks! <comment><USER2> Your difficulty comes because it's now a matter of case law. Ongoing and undecided case law. So make sure "case law" is in your search. (Note European law, etc, is VERY different.)

Status one year ago: [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/14/supreme-courts- latest-p...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/14/supreme-courts-latest- patent-case-and-software-patentability/id=50321/)

An update: "When the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation, all the important questions that we thought might be answered remained completely and totally unanswered. There were only 10 judges who sat on the en banc tribunal and no more than 5 judges signed on to any one opinion." [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/09/a-software-patent- setba...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/09/a-software-patent-setback- alice-v-cls-bank/id=53460/)

A more comprehensive list of cases. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_patent_case_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_patent_case_law)

Wish I had better news for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, what you shared is basically the conclusion I've come to...it's still ongoing and undecided. The Alice decision clarified some things, but my question still remains unclear. Thanks for taking the time to comment though!</comment></comment>


Android Q Beta - <AUTHOR> https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/03/introducing-android-q-beta.html <comment><USER2> They finally restricted access to clipboard (see [https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/data- identifie...](https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/data- identifiers#clipboard-data)).

I always thought it was insane that any app could just listen to everything that went to the clipboard, even while in the background and without any permission. I'm sure many people copy passwords, credit card numbers, bitcoin private keys, etc.

<comment><USER3> I'm still of the opinion that apps with focus should not be able to read the clipboard by default. iOS allows this too, but this means that apps can (and do!) read stuff like passwords, links, and other stuff you've been interacting with passively.

<comment><USER4> I have been highly concerned about this after I opened a certain iOS app, and was _immediately_ greeted with a system alert saying _" Pasting from Mac..."_ even though there was NO reason whatsoever for it to access the clipboard (it was basically the first-run splash screen.)

Thanks to Apple's Continuity feature [0], you can seamlessly copy/paste across iPhones, iPads and Macs, and indeed it can be handy.

But if my network (or something else) hadn't been laggy at that time, I would have never caught that app trying to obviously snoop my clipboard's contents. I'm sure many more apps do this and they must be exfiltrating it.

And yes, I often copy/paste sensitive data to avoid retyping it, so this is practically CROSS-PROCESS, CROSS-DEVICE SPYWARE in an innocuous way that very few people would even think of, or should ever have to worry about.

The solution is simple: Don't let any process read the clipboard unless the user explicitly chooses to paste.

Apps that need automatic clipboard access to offer added convenience (like autofilling certain forms) should require explicit permission, just like we have for camera/microphone/etc., and preferably only while the app is in focus.

After all, such "intent-based security" is the reasoning behind the existing macOS "PowerBox" [1] which lets apps access only the files that the user manually chooses in an open/save dialog. Extend it to the clipboard too.

[0] [https://support.apple.com/kb/ph25168](https://support.apple.com/kb/ph25168)

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Se...](https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Security/Conceptual/AppSandboxDesignGuide/AppSandboxInDepth/AppSandboxInDepth.html)

<comment><USER5> > The solution is simple: Don't let any process read the clipboard unless the > user explicitly pastes.

but how does an OS know that a particular key combination is meant to mean "paste"?

Couldn't the app just pretend that the user wanted to paste because their cursor is in the password field?

Or, you end up with the OS owning all of an app's interaction. Leaving very little room for app innovation or improvement. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place.

<comment><USER4> > _how does an OS know that a particular key combination is meant to mean > "paste"?_

macOS and iOS can do that easily; every app has a standard menu provided by the system, as well as a mechanism for modifying default shortcuts.

The clipboard should be treated like a potentially sensitive file. There's no excuse not to include it in the explicit permissions we already require for other files, photos, camera, microphone, contacts, location, and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That screenshot of the modal prompt re: device location is virtually identical to the iOS dialog.

Not trying to start a flame war here just interesting to see the striking resemblance.

Example: [https://mackuba.eu/images/posts/ios11-location/ios11-always....](https://mackuba.eu/images/posts/ios11-location/ios11-always.png) (taken from [https://mackuba.eu/2017/07/13/changes-to-location- tracking-i...](https://mackuba.eu/2017/07/13/changes-to-location-tracking-in- ios-11/))

<comment><USER7> It makes me beyond annoyed that google seems to insist on radically changing the design of their apps every 6 months, for no discernible reason, with no unifying theme or thread or underlying rationale.

<comment><USER8> > every 6 months

How so? This is Material 2 compliant. The last "style" they had was Material 1, which was 5 years ago.

<comment><USER9> "material" itself doesn't support many things on android ie there are no android versions of things. it's crazy considering the same company is supposedly using the spec for their device designs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Android was designed with security and privacy at the center.

Right. That's why ostensibly local apps can make unfettered connections to the internet without my having any knowledge or way of stopping it, right?

<comment><USER11> This is relative to desktop where traditional apps don't even run in a sandbox and app permissions weren't a thing.

A Linux app can not only create Internet connections, it can read and write all your personal files. (But we thought that was pretty secure since it didn't run as root.)

<comment><USER12> Linux apps aren't infested with malware and tracking trojans though, if the threat doesn't exist then there's no reason to protect from it. With android collecting this sort of data is it's very reason for existence.

<comment><USER11> We don't usually see widespread infections, but Linux malware does exist.

Also, many apps do send telemetry by default, though there are usually instructions to disable it.

<comment><USER12> Sure it exists, but it's not an infestation. Even then I'm not aware of it or telemetry enabled apps in any trusted sources like the debian repositories (if you're aware of any please let me know), they'll even disable it from organisations like Mozilla that don't care about privacy. The play store cannot reasonably be considered a trusted source.

If your going to download stuff from random places, which is how most telemetry enabled apps end up on linux systems then no sandboxing will work anyway, it will simply be disabled as part of the installation process. It's not a technological problem, you can't fix it with technology.

<comment><USER11> Yes, a Linux distro like Debian has some security advantages since they won't ship just any app. But relying on code review isn't the same as having sandboxing in the OS.

<comment><USER12> There's two successful systems I know of out in the real world, Linux distros that rely on code review and iOS that relies on code review and sand boxing. There's two failures, android that relies purely on sandboxing and windows, which was too gimped by sandboxing to take off.

> But relying on code review

It's not just code review, it's having a degree of seperation between the developer and the packager/authorizer.

<comment><USER11> Some things are more successful than others, but it's not a one-bit distinction. Arguing over whether to set the "success" bit would be silly. But it seems arbitrary to say that Android is a failure when it has more users than iOS or Linux.

Browsers are another important example of sandboxing.

<comment><USER12> > But it seems arbitrary to say that Android is a failure when it has more > users than iOS or Linux.

I'm not saying android is a failure, I'm saying it's sandboxing has not prevented malware and spyware being ubiquitous. This was a problem way back before android itself was a huge success.

> Browsers are another important example of sandboxing.

This has been pretty effective at preventing malware, but the web is a privacy nightmare and constantly getting worse.

<comment><USER11> Ok, I see what you mean. Caveats: Android doesn't rely solely on sandboxing. They also do automatic scanning and do often find stuff [1]. I also wouldn't say malware is so bad it's "ubiquitous" on Android since it's in the news quite often but I don't think the average user is likely to encounter it?

My take on it is that current-generation sandboxes have permissions designed for security (preventing takeover by hackers), not privacy. In particular, preventing an app from phoning home isn't something they try to do. You can't have privacy without security so sandboxing is a prerequisite, though.

[1] [https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/how-we- fou...](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/how-we-fought-bad- apps-and-malicious.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >Starting in Android Q, apps must have the READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE signature permission in order to access the device's non-resettable identifiers, which include both IMEI and serial number.

While I welcome this improvement, I can't help but think that app developers will respond by refusing access to the app unless the user grants the permission. Both android and ios need to be able to "silently deny" permissions.

<comment><USER14> > I can't help but think that app developers will respond by refusing access > to the app unless the user grants the permission. Both android and ios need > to be able to "silently deny" permissions.

iOS doesn't need this because Apple rejects apps that demand access unnecessarily.

> Apps must respect the user's permission settings and not attempt to > manipulate, trick, or force people to consent to unnecessary data access. > For example, apps that include the ability to post photos to a social > network must not also require microphone access before allowing the user to > upload photos. Where possible, provide alternative solutions for users who > don't grant consent. For example, if a user declines to share Location, > offer the ability to manually enter an address.

— [https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#pri...](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#privacy)

<comment><USER13> >iOS doesn't need this because Apple rejects apps that demand access unnecessarily.

In my experience, that doesn't seem to be working. I've so far encountered a food pickup app that refuses to let me order without location permission (their website works fine without location, however), and a finance app that refuses to process a transaction unless I give them access to location for "fraud prevention".

<comment><USER8> Those accesses can be more or less justified. Accessing IMEI "just because" isn't a good enough reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So, Vulkan is now compulsory, most likely given the way OEMs cared about supporting it and keeping up with Vulkan updates.

[https://vulkan.gpuinfo.org/vulkansupport.php#android_devices](https://vulkan.gpuinfo.org/vulkansupport.php#android_devices)

More sandboxing of Android APIs, permissions and introduction of roles.

They added a C++ MIDI API, but searching for plugged devices can only be done at Java layer.

Speaking of which, it is going to be the usual partial Java 8 variant, and Java 12 is going live next week.

<comment><USER16> > So, Vulkan is now compulsory

There is nothing to suggest that Vulkan is now required.

> Speaking of which, it is going to be the usual partial Java 8 variant, and > Java 12 is going live next week.

Java's version number has been hijacked to mean OpenJDK's runtime version & handful of non-core library updates that don't exist on Android anyway.

It has vanishingly little to do with the actual language or core libraries these days.

The only thing of interest at all between Java 9, 10, and 11 are var handles (compiler-only, no runtime support needed - should work fine on Android), and the Flow class. Which is unfortunately missing, yes, but not particularly significant. Might work better as an AndroidX addition anyway.

<comment><USER15> Since Twirrim already tackled Vulkan, I will only answer on the Java part.

The only thing of interest for Java developers, is being able to use any _standard Java_ library out of Maven central, instead of having two versions or minimal common code, and not excusing Google for having successfully created a fork in the Java eco-system, aka Android J++.

Rest assured when Valhalla and Panama finally land, it will only get worse.

<comment><USER16> The only thing that matters for library interop is the bytecode version, not the "Java" version. Binary version & source version have been different attributes in Java going all the way back to the J2ME days.

> Rest assured when Valhalla and Panama finally land, it will only get worse.

You're assuming that Android won't have support for those, but that assumption is unfounded. Android has so far gotten support for all the bytecode-level changes that have happened like invoke-dynamic.

Java 9, 10, and 11 have not changed the bytecode. Nothing about the compiled binary has changed to require support. And outside of Flow none of the core libraries have changed, either.

There's no forking or hijacking in play here. Oracle just hasn't done anything that needs support from a runtime since Java 8.

<comment> half-kh-hacker > Java 9, 10, and 11 have not changed the bytecode

Off the top of my head, JEP 309, implemented in Java 11, introduces a new instruction called `constantdynamic`

<comment><USER16> Ah my mistake then. Is there any way to actually use that instruction from Java though? Or is this just bytecode support for a potential future feature?

<comment><USER15> It gets used by the compiler, so unless ART gets to understand it, those nice Java 11 libraries at Maven central that might make use of it are a no go on Android.

And yes, it is also related to the ongoing Valhala efforts.

[https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/303](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/303)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice to see that the original Pixel and PixelXL will be getting Q. It's always struck me as weird that Google sells that line of phones ostensibly for people who care about their OSes more than normal, and then only offers a couple of years of new OSes on them. Maybe we're seeing them turn the corner on that.

<comment><USER18> Despite launching with Nougat, Pixel 1 devices were the testbed for Project Treble.

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/18/current-google- pixe...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/18/current-google-pixelpixel- xl-will-support-project-treble-possibly-meaning-longer-support/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was just watching a video a couple minutes ago about changes to system navigation in Android Q [0].

Oddly, I don't see any mention of it in this blog post.

Can someone explain how (1) switching buttons into gestures and (2) changing the recent apps screen from a list of all apps on 1 screen to _a full screen for each app_...how are these good ideas? What is the design philosophy for these changes?

They seem like gargantuan steps back in ease-of-use and intuitive design.

I'm looking forward to jumping to a Pine64 or Purism phone before I am compelled to use this mindless ripoff of stupid Apple interface design.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCM2SR5pDn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCM2SR5pDn4)

<comment><USER20> > changing the recent apps screen from a list of all apps on 1 screen to a > full screen for each app...how are these good ideas? What is the design > philosophy for these changes?

If you mean how the "cards" are now side-by-side instead of "stacked", I can assure you this is a HUGE improvement. I use this already on my Oneplus 6T.

The likelihood of requiring a recent app decreases enormously the further back in time you go. 95% of the time, you want the the previous app. 4% of the time, you want the next most recent app. 0.5% of the time, you want the third one... (all figures made up by me on the spot).

My point is, swiping left-to-right to expose cards in the past is FAR better than pulling down and shuffling through this crazy infinite deck of cards that flies by top-to-bottom.

<comment><USER21> To get back to your last open app you double-press the "last app" button on android P. Way better than swiping.

<comment><USER22> Android P on Pixels actually has the option to double tap on the recents icon or flick right from the home button. Flick right should be just as easy as double tap in theory, but I haven't learned how to make it work 100% of the time yet.

[https://m.androidcentral.com/how-enable-android-p-gesture- na...](https://m.androidcentral.com/how-enable-android-p-gesture-navigation- system)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think this basically kills a large chunk of the KDE Connect functionality I rely on. No more background clipboard access means no more clipboard sync, and closing off SD card access means it can no longer act as a wireless alternative to USB file transfer (which is terribly unreliable on Linux).

<comment><USER24> Are you saying they restricted SD card access further? Because I am able to use FolderSync to do wireless file transfer at very high speeds. I am not a developer or associated, [http://www.tacit.dk/foldersync/faq/#how-can-i- access-externa...](http://www.tacit.dk/foldersync/faq/#how-can-i-access- external-sd-card-on-android-5-0-and-newer)

<comment><USER23> Yeah, the external storage permissions are going away altogether according to [https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped- storage](https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage) \- apps will no longer be able to get access to them.

<comment><USER25> What is external storage _for_ if the apps can't access it?

<comment><USER26> Android will soon be so large that the OS won't fit in the 16GB of internal memory most phones have and will use some of the external too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Blog post isn't up yet, but you can get the factory images here: [https://developer.android.com/preview/download](https://developer.android.com/preview/download).

Sign up for the OTA should be here: [https://g.co/androidbeta](https://g.co/androidbeta) when Google decides to update everything.

<comment><USER27> It's up now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I need one feature and one feature only:

 __Control the apps internet connectivity. __

When your flashlight app needs a constant internet connection to function properly we have a problem.

The article mentioned something about connectivity, but I read 3 times and I still don't know what it means.

<comment><USER29> I use Netguard for this. Works well.

[https://www.netguard.me](https://www.netguard.me)

No root required, open source etc.

<comment><USER30> That's a good option, although unfortunately it prevents the concurrent use of VPNs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is it just me, this seems to be dripping with marketing schtick?

: rant on :

> Android is right at the center of this innovation cycle

> Android was designed with security and privacy at the center.

[ Ok. I get we're reading about Android¡ I disagree completely about this last point - it was always about advertising]

> One thing that's particularly sensitive is apps' access to location while > the app is not in use (in the background).

[No mention that, by default, apps can phone home... which is a far greater privacy concern imho]

> If your app is in the background and needs to get the user's attention > quickly -- such as for incoming calls or alarms -- you can use a high- > priority notification and provide a full-screen intent.

So now my phone is no longer a phone, but a high priority notification device? They still don't give us inbuilt firewall/ adblocker, and they seem to continue the trend of making & receiving calls more obtuse by allowing every aspect of my 'phone' bleep, vibrate or blink at me.

: rant off :

</comment><comment><USER32> What's the use case of allowing location access in the background for the user of the cellphone. I understand the use case for advertisers and other companies whose revenue model is based on spying and collecting data, but I can't imagine any application I'd be running on the background that would need location while it's in the background. Do people put map apps in the background? What other legitimate uses are there for location data?

<comment><USER33> > I can't imagine any application I'd be running on the background that would > need location while it's in the background. Do people put map apps in the > background?

Many Uber and Lyft drivers run Waze in the foreground and the Uber/Lyft driver app in the background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Installed this, seems to mostly work okay. Looks like they broke Go on Android for now though [1] - unfortunately Syncthing is written in Go. Amusingly this bug was posted (by a Googler) about 7 weeks ago.

[1] - [https://github.com/shadowsocks/v2ray-plugin- android/issues/6](https://github.com/shadowsocks/v2ray-plugin- android/issues/6)

</comment><comment><USER35> Seems privacy has increased, in a way and maybe I can finally switch from iOS. Will try buy a $150 Pixel 1 on ebay and install AQ on it

<comment><USER36> Has it? Does it afford me 'contextual' permissions, rather than an app just requesting contacts for no reason? Does it let me know _what_ data it's requesting (long/lat coordinates, state/county, country, continent?)? What about the data it's requesting about my contacts, does it tell me which contact's data was accessed, and what data that was (first/last name, DOB, email, phone number)? Does the app make a request to a server after getting that data, does it store it on a server? Are apps compliant with the GDPR, do they respond to privacy requests, such as what data they store, or whether they delete data when asked to do so?

Everything you see about privacy is an illusion, designed to do the bare minimum to make people think Google respects your privacy. But there's a reason Facebook likes Android simply due to how much information it gives developers with or without permission. You can hope the user allows that location permission (accidentally just once is all it takes).

Without actually detailing what information they want, why they want it, how they'll use it and how it'll be stored and processed and deleted (LOL) then no, privacy has not increased.

And this isn't exclusive to Android, but operating systems and 'apps' as a whole.

<comment><USER37> "privacy has not increased as much as you would prefer" and "privacy has not increased" are two distinct statements. You appear to be making the former, but asserting that it's the latter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This beta has nothing exciting and just shows that both iOS & Android copy the best ideas. e.g.: Sharing shortcuts - it looks very similar to iOS sharing sheet with AirDrop users around you.

</comment><comment><USER39> I hope with the wifi connectivity changes, we'll be able to connect wifi to IOT devices without losing the 3G/4G connection at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER40> "We could not enroll your device at this time. Please try again later." This after listing my eligible device.

</comment><comment><USER41> Will it have a way to prevent sending my location to Google without having to disable Location Services?

</comment><comment><USER42> Was really hoping to see they brought back Smart NFC Unlock. No cigar.

</comment><comment><USER43> After upgraded my Pixel XL to Android Q, found weixin crashed.

</comment><comment><USER44> Do these new versions even matter at this point? We keep getting new ones while the last one barely gets past 10% adoption. Android is mess.

<comment><USER45> The last one is the one that was a "new version" last year. Now it's past 10% adoption. So yes, you pretty much explained that it matters.

[https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards](https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards)

Actually 8.x is at 21% and 7.x at 28%. That's half the people on the last 2 versions. Older ones will soon get replaced as those phones start dying.

<comment><USER44> So, 15%? Doesn't seem to matter. The last 3 or 4 android versions really haven't changed much, except useless design updates that confuse users.

<comment><USER45> That's a mix of subjective stuff (you don't like UI changes, I do), and simply missing things like the big platform change in 8.0 which actually speeds up the adoption/updates (project treble). Please don't troll.

<comment><USER15> Project Treble relies on OEMs to actually bother to deliver updates, sofar they have cared so much that Google is finally adding some kind of update clause to Google Play Services access contract.

<comment><USER45> A part of that dragging feet was that they had to port all their (imo unnecessary) "value add" every time. This approach from Google actually works from both ends: incentive - you have a portable/stable base, and enforcement - now that you have it, stop doing stupid things.

<comment><USER15> Fact is that Project Treble does not sell more phones and still requires OEMs to spend money on development efforts.

So unless they are forced to do it, you might get a Project Treble compliant phone, yet get zero updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Q as, Q from StarTrek? While I enjoyed the character on the screen, I'd rather not be bothered by a "real q"..

<comment><USER47> No, Q as in the letter after P.

<comment> 0-_-0 whooosh!

<comment><USER47> Woosh what? He was making a not funny irrelevant comment about Q from Star Trek.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > Android Q

Quiche?

</comment><comment><USER49> Basically this is iOS 12

</comment><comment><USER50> Another example of Android learning from Apple.

</comment><comment><USER51> And with this, Android as an open system is dying yet again.

It's sad we won't even have an option to give apps full filesystem access. At least make it optional.

<comment><USER52> The filesystem issue is going to be a problem for me. I have an app that writes about 1000 images a day from user photographs which should certainly not be mixed into the general images pool! And I want to be able to browse my filesystem. It sounds like that's basically out without rooting now.

Instead, I was waiting for an understanding that phones and tablets are becoming ever more general purpose devices, which means having a lot of niche applications which should have more control over their use of resources, including memory and cpu use. Notify, warn, make a lot of noise - but let the user decide if the app is making the right choices for _their_ device, not the ideal device in the sky. It's not that hard to have minimum/low/standard/high/maximum use flags for cpu, ram, network, etc. And then make them actually mean something significant.

<comment><USER53> > The filesystem issue is going to be a problem for me. I have an app that > writes about 1000 images a day from user photographs which should certainly > not be mixed into the general images pool!

The app doesn't need to contribute the photos to the shared media store. It _can_ if it wants to allow other apps to also have access, but it can also write them to its own private directory.

> And I want to be able to browse my filesystem. It sounds like that's > basically out without rooting now.

The scoped storage changes are something that app developers must handle, but you, as a user, will still be able to browse the entire SD card. (I'm a member of developer relations on Android and wrote a proof of concept file browser that works just fine on Android Q. :)

<comment><USER52> How does it work if I want to be able to browse that private directory with a file browser?

<comment><USER53> Generally, an app can ask the user to grant it access to other directories on the device, including the actual SD card root. (The user can also decide to only give the app access to a subset.)

Specifically, the API one uses is ACTION_OPEN_DOCUMENT_TREE.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


40% of All Tweets Come From Mobile - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/01/07/40-of-all-tweets-come-from-mobile/ <comment><USER2> I do check my twitter account mostly with a mobile device. It's usually when I don't have anything useful to do, so I play around.</comment>