Ask HN: What's the best cms for a grandma? - <AUTHOR> So I promised I'd make a website for my mother. I did that and created a very basic wordpress site for her to blog on and talk about her interests. The problem is she doesn't like wordpress and really it's way more advanced than she needs and I think that's where the problem lies. It doesn't help that I'm not super versed in PHP.
Now if I were to make a website for myself I'd probably use a static website generator or django. But I can't possibly expect that she'd be able to use these without my constant help. While she's reasonably tech savy for her age, she's still in her 60's. And I can't set her up with something like squarspace since she can just barely afford a shared server on her retirement income.
So now I'm looking for something that I can set her up with that can meet some basic requirements. Let me install it quickly and get a theme going in twig or some other theming language and provide a basic portal for her to log in and make blog posts/add pages and nothing else. I've been searching but I'm having trouble finding something that simple with documentation to back it up. So I thought I'd ask here.
What CMS would you recommend to a grandma? <comment><USER2> There's blogger that is absolutely free.

You can also try ghost - if you're willing to self-host it, it will cost you $5/mo. for the cheapest cloud VM @ digitalocean or whatever)

There's also medium but I actually find their interface difficult to read in, heh.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not WordPress? If you choose WP.org you can also limit her role as a writer so she won't mess up with configuration.

Otherwise go for WP.com which has the new interface (even simpler IMHO) and it's free if she don't want to pay for the domain (2.33€/2.86$/month right now).

UX is so simple she won't have any problem IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER4> There are a handful of desktop CMSes (at least for Mac) that will generate static sites or even publish to a remote Wordpress site. Maybe one of those will be more user friendly for her.

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://anchorcms.com/](https://anchorcms.com/)

</comment><comment> shaki-dora Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER6> WordPress</comment>


Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away from Bad Diets - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 <comment><USER2> dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10031953](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10031953)

<comment><USER3> coke contains virtually no calories.

and a large coke from mac ds about 100% of your rđa of sugar.

then people wonder why so many people have diabetes - an inability of your body to process sugar...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One thing with the beverages is that if you choose to not drink them, you will most likely be the weird one in most social situations. Especially if you cut on alcohol. I have nothing against drinks in general, but they should be an exception, not the rule. We should not drink beer or cola or any of this stuff on a daily or almost daily basis. Mainly because they introduce a truckload of useless calories that do no good to us and do not even fill our appetite.

Now, that's the logic, and it's a sound logic, go explain that to people every time you are drinking water in a pub and they go: "ehm, uh, you don't drink?". Which, by the way, if not explained properly can seem like you are a recovering alcoholic, if explained properly will make you sound like a food/diet nazy.

<comment><USER5> Anecdotally, I don't know anybody under the age of 30 that regularly drinks soft drinks anymore. They aren't terribly good and they are about the worst thing you can put into your body—a can of coke has more than 40gs of sugar.

Alcohol might be a tough one to kick. It's so intertwined with social life I don't see it going away anytime soon.

<comment><USER6> > _a can of coke has more than 40gs of sugar._

A can of Coke has 33g of sugar.

<comment><USER7> It depends on the amount of CocaCola in the can, and the formula for that particular distribution.

Eg. USA has a 12oz can with 39 grams of sugar. UK has a 330ml can with 35 grams of sugar. (They aren't required to provide more precise accounting and so that 35 or 39 are rounded figures). These are close to the same.

Of course, if one is using 'coke' generically, there are many that have more than 40 grams. A 12oz can of A&W root beer is at 46 grams, as is a 12oz Mountain Dew.

<comment><USER8> Why not then just standardize, or at least attempt to, the method by which we compare sugar-content in these discussions.

I.e. "4 grams of sugar per 100ml of coke"

<comment><USER9> From a health standpoint its like arguing the relative merits of 3 packs a day of smoking vs 3.1415 packs a day, "eh".

Also unit dosage for virtually all consumers is the unfortunately somewhat variable can.

<comment><USER7> Yeah... back in the day, us kids would try to find the soda with the highest cane sugar content. Now, I try to find the lowest net carbs in everything I eat or drink. Arguing about 33g vs 40g in a soda does seem non-productive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It should be notied the Dr. Blair is one of the most cited exercise science researchers of all time. He's not simply a shrew for Coca Cola, he has produces some of the most monumental papers in the field. If you look at his career timeline, his research matched with what Coca Cola wanted to promote (before they started working together), not the opposite.

He is also extremely passionate about helping reduce obesity in South Carolina especially. One of the nicest and most honest people I've ever met.

*disclaimer, I've worked with him on startups combining exercise science and mobile apps.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's articles like this that deplete what little faith I have remaining in "science." The science that is released to the public has been subverted and corrupted by so many orders of magnitude that I'm not even sure why they bother calling it science any more. The lack of objectivity and conflict of interest in the studies/results is astounding. When politics is funding biased studies in the name of furthering corporate profits and then releasing it as "actual science", it's more than disheartening, it's downright sickening.

It's funny how many scientific atheists sneer at the religious for their beliefs when there's so much corruption in their own ranks... and that's coming from someone who'd rather believe in science than any form of organized religion...

<comment><USER12> Agreed. However, I would argue that this is older than science itself. Before it was governments and religions who claimed to know better than science. Its about control, and hijacking science is a way to get "credibility". But I've got hope that real science will always win out eventually. It just takes time.

<comment><USER13> Failing that, we can always study the hijacking: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology) \- a field with a future!

<comment><USER12> I was required to read Merchants of Doubt for my biology class in college. Pretty good read on this topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just watched 'Fed Up' this week. It is your typical one sided documentary however it does shed a lot of light into this topic.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/)

Also, I'd recommend going here and looking at the FDA's proposal on labeling %DV for added sugars: [http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments...](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm)

</comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Their message is shamelessly misleading, but there is something to it: most people will find it requires far less willpower to put down the fork than to put on some running shorts and go out for a jog.

<comment><USER15> Drink less soft drink and need less exercise = less money for beverage and exercise industries.

Keep drinking soft drink, exercise more = more money for both industries.

I don't think they care about difference in willpower, only money. They will say almost anything to get it from you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I recently watched [http://thatsugarfilm.com/](http://thatsugarfilm.com/) which looks into why sugar is so bad. Sugar consists of Glucose and Fructose. Your body knows what to do with glucose, releases insulin preventing fat from being burnt and enables your cells to use glucose. Fructose is converted into fat by your liver but cannot be used until the insulin subsides. Fructose really is "bad". Sweetners do not help either as they keep your body addicted to sugar. It also looked at the impact sugar had on brain function. Note that in the film he kept to similar calorie intake, just swapped out his good fat sources with low fat "healthy" choices. He gained 8kg primarily around the waste within 40 days.

Combine that with the meta study that showed exercise was not something to take up as part of a weight reduction regime [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and- families/...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/you- dont-need-to-do-one-iota-of-exercise-to-lose-weight-says-scientific- study-10197434.html) and you can begin to understand how important it is that Coca Cola need to push this message.

The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking, cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.

<comment><USER17> > Your body knows what to do with glucose, releases insulin preventing fat > from being burnt and enables your cells to use glucose. Fructose is > converted into fat by your liver but cannot be used until the insulin > subsides. Fructose really is "bad". Sweetners do not help either as they > keep your body addicted to sugar. It also looked at the impact sugar had on > brain function. Note that in the film he kept to similar calorie intake, > just swapped out his good fat sources with low fat "healthy" choices. He > gained 8kg primarily around the waste within 40 days.

Ok but the insulin _does_ subside and you do use the fat created from fructose provided you aren't eating a caloric surplus. There may be minor differences but calling any macro or micronutrient category "bad" is missing the forest for the trees. There is quite simply no way he gained nearly 20 lbs in a little over a month without significant increasing his calorie intake or decreasing his calorie output.

> The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced > to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking, > cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in > particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.

The reality is that sugar is completely healthy for many people, and that the idea that sugar is "poison" is completely incorrect. It's dose dependent, like any other food. If you are sitting around all day doing nothing and you eat a lot of sugar you will gain unhealthy body mass, but for many atheletes, for instance, sugars are an extremely important part of performance quality. Protein or fat when eaten in excess will also make you fat. What separates sugar from cigarettes is that there are doses at which sugar is completely fine (even good) for you, and there is no dose at which a cigarette is good for you.

<comment><USER18> Isn't the problem that once the insulin subsides you're hungry again? Sugar (and other high-GI foods) are very quickly processed and stored as fat, and the reserves in the blood are depleted soon afterwards.

The amount you eat isn't a function of how many calories are in the food, but how hungry you feel (assuming that the willpower you can put into fighting against your hunger is constant). Therefore the best foods to eat would be the ones with the largest "satiety load" per calorie, and I'm pretty sure high GI is inversely correlated with that

<comment><USER17> Yep, I think that's a totally fair analysis, but it still is one that involves poor health outcomes resulting from consuming more calories than you need, not directly because you consumed a specific macro or micronutrient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> To be fair, obesity is caused by a multitude of factors. For example, one often overlooked factor is the speed of eating. Your body only notices that you had enough with a certain delay. The faster you eat, the more you get in before feeling full. So regardless of food quality, _fast_ food poses an elevated obesity risk.

<comment><USER20> Careful with this being fair, though. It feels like the same rhetoric as acknowledging that other factors contribute to climate change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's the video that started a lot of the public awareness of the issue:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

And there's also now a great documentary on Netflix called "Fed Up" ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM)), for anyone who has a subscription. It particularly tackles this silly idea that it's okay to eat and drink shitty food all day, so long as you exercise for a little bit too.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't get the whole anti-"processed food" thing. The whole change in weight in the U.S. can be explained by increased caloric intake since the 1970's. It's not like we didn't have Coke back then.

I think the real problem is capitalism. It makes good economic sense to sell your customers too much food. Consider Starbucks. Your parents' coffee and a donut was a 250-300 calorie breakfast. Today's latte and a scone is double that and yields a much nicer profit margin.

<comment><USER23> I think the problem with processed food is that it allows combinations of nutrients which don't occur in nature, which our bodies are not well adapted to.

It's not so much processed foods - obviously you can have processed foods which are healthy too. But if people with very unhealthy diets cut out the kinds of processed foods they eat it would probably go a long way towards making them healthier.

And you're right that capitalism is the root cause - the incentives are skewed towards making foods more addictive and moreish, to help with sales, which leads to making them worse for us. Big food companies even have labs to help them optimise this: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the- extraordinary...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the- extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html)

<comment><USER24> One problem with a lot of processed foods is the removal of soluble fiber which if present slows down the digestion of carbohydrates (glucose). Another problem is many processed foods contain added free glucose and fructose.

The result of eating these foods are very high glucose levels in the blood + insulin levels which interferes with metabolic signaling. Insulin tells your body to store glucose as fat. Insulin inhibits leptin receptor signalling which means your brain loses the ability to sense how much fat your body is carrying around.

Fructose in large amounts is hepatotoxic, just like alcohol. In fact for the same metabolic reason as alcohol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am far from knowledgeable regarding diet and nutrition but I recently switched from drinking a good amount of fruit juice and an occasional soda to drinking 100% water. I wasn't really even overweight but I shed 10 lbs within a month and I feel in much better health. I don't think it's just sodas - pretty much any drink with a lot of calories and sugar seem like a waste. Now when I see those giant sized sodas in restaurants I can't believe I used to drink them.

</comment><comment><USER26> Are the studies still producing valid, peer-reviewed results?

<comment><USER11> That depends who you ask... they've probably been peer reviewed by other biased peers who are on Coca-Cola's payroll... or at least peers who favour these big food companies. So technically, yes, they're peer reviewed. Does it make them any more valid? Draw your own conclusions.

<comment><USER27> That's not how peer-review works in science journals. If Coke publishes the data on their website, they don't need any additional hoops. If it gets published in a scientific journal, the article is sent in to the editor. Then the editor makes a decision if it's even the kind of thing they'd want in their journal and either sends it back or sends it to their choice of scientists in the field. Those scientists (usually 4) offer revision suggestions and their feedback. It's then up to the editor to reject the article, print it, or require modifications before printing it.

<comment><USER28> If Coke funds 1000 studies in to the effect of exercise, and they all demonstrate "not exercising enough" is a contributing factor to obesity then the media will be full of stories about how no exercise makes you fat, and Coke will have successfully made it look like their products aren't to blame. The 1000 studies could all valid science but there's still a problem because it's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise, when the reality is that both are important.

<comment><USER6> > _it 's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise, > when the reality is that both are important._

I very much doubt that a series of studies, if valid, and even if funded by Coke, is "skewing" the amount of evidence.

It's common knowledge that fitness is dependent on diet and exercise. I don't see much wrong with a corporate entity producing _legitimate_ science that happens to support their product (if that's the case here), especially in a maternalistic society like the US, that wants to "ban" things like soft drinks for "the good" of the populace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This post reminds me of the mouse experiment showing mice preferred the reward of refined sugar over cocaine, even when the mice were already addicted to cocaine. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/)

Perhaps their should very basic study on general health/weight of people who regularly consume refined sugars and those who abstain from refined sugar (with neither group engaging in structured exercise. Or have these scientists answer a more basic question about obesity...all things being equal, if you took a person (whether they exercise or not) would that person be more likely to be obese if they consumed a 200 calorie soda every day or replaced the soda with 200 calories of almonds. I think people would be greatly surprised to find out a calorie is not simply a calorie as is often suggested and that sugar has a lot more impact on obesity than fats.

<comment><USER30> > I think people would be greatly surprised to find out a calorie is not > simply a calorie as is often suggested and that sugar has a lot more impact > on obesity than fats.

I would be throughly shocked considering everything I have read is to the contrary. The much more likely issue is the soda drinker would feel compelled to eat/drink something sugary after a short period where as the person eating almonds would be satisfied. Interestingly you touch on this with your rat experiment and then somehow come to the conclusion "calorie is not a calorie".

In the end a calorie is a calorie in terms of the potential to expand your waistline, but a calorie is not a calorie in terms of putting the fork down and feeling satisfied. Maybe I misunderstood and that was your point.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a- calorie.htm...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html)

[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> There was an article here that 50% of food science is not valid research. Further companies in the food industry pay researchers to do research which by chance often returns positive studies in favor for those who paid for it.

"No connection with Fructose and obesity" Sponsored by the Canadian sugarinstitute who is owned by: Coca Cola and Pepsi co and corn producers.

</comment><comment><USER32> It is little bit weird that we are hearing this from scientists but apart from that there is nothing wrong with what it says I think.

Just because some people can not resist and drink responsibly, why should the company take the blame?

Having too much of almost everything is bad for you, am i missing something here?

<comment><USER33> Companies that produce junk foods tell us the dietary information we need to ensure we consume responsibly is printed on the packet or bottle.

They don't explain how their products and accompanying advertising are designed to subvert our logical minds by appealing to our biological desires.

Their techniques have been honed over time and have become rather powerful. Over-consuming may not be a problem for you but not everyone is so resilient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is there much high quality, original research left to be done around "sugary diets cause obesity?"

It's not my field, but I suspect that the only original research left to be done examines other potential causes. There's lots of good work on the Microbiome, for example.

Can someone from the field tell me, if they had a big fund to counter-balance the bias caused by Coca-Cola, what original research it would fund?

<comment><USER35> Sugary diets do not cause obesity any more than starchy diets do. A lot of obese people only consume diet drinks yet they still gain weight from the chips, the bread, the beer, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Free soda refills in restaurants may make sense economically but it makes no sense from a diet point of view

Same thing with most crap people eat every day.

I'm not against processed foods per se, the increase in food safety and storage time makes sense.

Now, people make meal-sized (calory-wise) snacks by stuffing a bag of Doritos in between meals, eating a whole pack of Oreos, or just eating unbalanced (usually both micro and macronutrient unbalanced) meals etc

</comment><comment><USER37> Here is an alternative view to these corporate 'studies': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) Or simply watch pictures taken in the 1920-60's, it's pretty shocking how most north americans were much much leaner.

<comment><USER38> Having visited Europe recently another thing I noticed is that the car wasn't nearly as ubiquitous there. I don't think people there specifically ate less, they are just less sedentary.

I've also noted folks who spend significant time on both in big cities with public transport, and also significant time in car-centric cities, their weight fluctuates appropriately (about 15% less weight when decent public transport is available).

<comment><USER39> Definitely true, in large part I believe this is heritage (older cities not necessarily built for massive numbers of cars) but also towns and cities just being smaller or "tighter" in general if that makes sense.

I live on the south coast of the UK and I take the bus to work and then walk home in the evening, takes about an hour. It's pretty pleasant and a good way to both process the day and move around a little. I feel far better when I walk home than when I used to take the bus.

It's actually one thing I'm slightly bugged by as I'm getting ready to move to the bay area for a year. I don't want to buy or lease a car. I haven't actually wanted or needed a car since getting my licence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is reminiscent of the tactics tobacco companies used to keep selling cigarettes after research and experience started to suggest their products caused cancer.

</comment><comment><USER41> The blame for obesity lies squarely on the enlarged shoulders of the obese.

It certainly isn't Coca-Cola's fault.

The level of blame-shifting in our society is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER42> These are not scientists at all.These are coke lobbyists who sell their souls for coke's money. Shame on them.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is a duplicate.

</comment><comment><USER44> One 20oz (vending machine size) bottle of Coke per day is 52 lbs of sugar (well, actually high fructose corn syrup) per year. Next time you go shopping, count 10 5-lb bags of sugar. Each and every year.

The NYC Dept of Health estimates that 30% of adult New Yorkers have one sugar- added beverage per day. 20 years ago there were 10oz bottle in vending machines, then 12oz cans, now also 20oz bottles, thus, those consuming a bottle a day today now consume 52 lbs of sugar per year compared with 26 lbs 20 or so years ago.

Many of the poor (and others) have no idea how many sugar calories they are consuming each year when they drink Coke and other sugar-added beverages.

Besides tobacco use, obesity and lack of exercise is one of the major contributors to our increased health care costs.

The previous NY Mayor, Bloomberg, tried to have a state tax on sugar-added beverages passed which is what is recommended by public health officials such as the CDC but that was turned down. Then he lobbied the Federal Government to not allow food stamps to be used for sugar-added beverages but that was turned down. Then the health dept. tried to ensure that in venues where they had control that sugar-added beverages would have a 16oz size limit, but they lost in court.

Ironically, the land for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is located in Atlanta, Georgia was donated by none other than The Coca Cola Company.

<comment><USER45> About one month ago, I dropped Mountain Dew (and all pop/soda) cold-turkey. The only time I DO have pop, is when I have a mixed drink, and that's 7up/Sprite, about 3 cans per week. I used to drink 2 20oz Mountain Dews per day, for 20 years. Yes, I'm obese. I hope I start to see the effects soon of the drastically reduced sugar/fructose intake. After 1 month, I haven't noticed anything yet. (My wife's a health nut, and makes me eat pretty well also)

<comment><USER46> While it can certainly make a big difference dropping soda alone probably won't have the kind of results you're hoping for. I think when I quit drinking soda with every meal I lost something like two inches off my waistline -- significant but not really the difference between obese and normal weight either.

<comment><USER45> Just losing 2 inches would be a huge confidence booster for me. I'm 6'3", 285 pounds, and between a 40-42 inch waist. If I could get below 40's again, I'd feel so much better.

<comment> saiya-jin There is this japanese approach called kaizen, meaning one step at a time. You already made the first and hardest one - decide for a change.

removing sodas (and other corn syrup stuff) is amazing step, what about a bit more movement? try walk, start with shorter, make them longer over time. find something to enjoy on these changes, that helps motivation a lot.

be persistent, don't make petty excuses why to skip it, and give it all a bit of time. learn to enjoy sweat - it means you're doing something good for yourself ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> "Dr. Blair, a professor at the University of South Carolina whose research over the past 25 years has formed much of the basis of federal guidelines on physical activity, and Gregory A. Hand, dean of the West Virginia University School of Public Health."

Is this a new thing in the big university scam? Trade a substantive (yet probably middling in actuality) "brand", propped up by big-time sports as a legitimate academic institution (although primarily being a degree stamper and alcoholic post-highschool baby sitter), take money, produce study?

I've heard of specious sponsored research before, but not in "major" institutions like these.

</comment><comment><USER48> other possible reasons for obesity:

\- increased car ownership

\- lower cost of food, allowing binging (people could not afford meat all week)

\- shifting nature of work. most jobs now are done in a sitting position of some sort, hard manual labor is getting rare.

now add medicine that allows you to sustain the obese lifestyle, from statins to insulin, and you can let your body go without much consequence (for a while).

and hell, forget the soft drinks. go to any cheap place in the US and everything is sugar-glaced. Try ordering something healthy from Panda Express, etc. And even traditional stuff like Ribs - put on that sweet BBQ sauce.

combine ALL the above and you might have an explanation of rising obesity. pretty sure it is not a simple equation, it never is.

<comment><USER16> Well fructose was a rarely part of the human diet and is converted to fat by your liver. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. When your body get's a hit of glucose it releases insulin that tells your body not to burn fat but use up the glucose. So that fructose gets stored away. Ironically healthy fruit smoothies are exceptionally bad :D

Yes a country's transport policy has an impact. Netherlands has an obesity rate of 1.6% in boys vs 16% in the UK. So getting your kids cycling/walking to school is of massive benefit to the long-term health of your nation.

You still need to deal with the wrong type of calories being delivered into your population.

<comment><USER49> _smoothies_

They are way better than any soft drink. Even if you pick the fruit with the most fructose/glucose percentage you still get the benefit of slower digestion due to fibers which slow digestion. Slight exaggeration, but in comparison, drinks are almost an injection of sugar into the blood-stream.

I would consider them healthy if they are ingested in appropriate quantities, without any added sugars, and along with some additional food that is rich with protein and fibers, like wheat and grains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> reddit

</comment><comment><USER51> I know it's not a representative sample or anything, but in supersize vs. superskinny if there's somebody drinking a lot of sugary drinks, it's always the superskinny one, never the supersize one. The supersizers always eat a lot of salt, protein and fat.

</comment><comment><USER52> Similarly, see "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway. A small number of scientists (whose scientific field is sometimes barely or even not-at-all related) routinely get hired by front companies for various business interests to deny the hazards of smoking, climate change and so on.

Some of the ones who fought the "smoking isn't bad" action went on, after that was finally buried, to work for the "climate change isn't happening" front.

Tends to work in the exact same way as this is. Create a reasonable sounding front outfit ("Global Energy Balance Network" in this case), and throw money at the small handful of scientists you can find who will oppose the consensus. Use your money and media contacts to get their views far more publicity than they deserve, creating the illusion of a large body of dissenting scientists. Take advantage of current media belief that "balance" means you have to provide airtime to some crazy kook to oppose any view, and hold off the inevitable for as long as possible.

<comment><USER52> And as follow-up to my unpopular comment above, here's someone else coming out and declaring it basically nonsense with distorted science. No surprise there.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-lose- weigh...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-lose-weight-with- exercise-alone1/)</comment></comment>


Online crime costs start-ups £800 a year each - <AUTHOR> http://launchlab.co.uk/article/Start-up-News/Online-crime-costs-firms-%C2%A3800-a-year/760

<comment><USER2> The word 'start-ups' is here just as linkbait, the article mentions 'small businesses' only. Every business online is subject to spam, phishing and every other trick under the sun, start-ups are no exception.</comment>


Something is seriously wrong with our understanding of the cosmos - sahin-boydas https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209547-something-is-seriously-wrong-with-our-understanding-of-the-cosmos/ <comment><AUTHOR> What is it like to have so much money and market share that you can do whatever you want , including take away the ONE single thing that made your platform?

We went to YouTube because the networks have little to nothing of interest, they cannot keep up with technology and we don't care what they have to say... YouTube is born, it takes off and now you want to get rid of the people who bring traffic to you in hopes they will watch .. CNN?

Youtube, your plan is not going to work, we don't want cable... Been there, done that.. it is dead.

<comment><USER2> You seem confused about which thread you're posting in. This one is about space science.</comment></comment>


Pulsed engines provide high efficiency, output power, low fluctuations - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/pulsed-engines-provide-high-efficiency-output-power-low-fluctuations/ <comment><USER2> Just wait until they realize what you can do with pulsed DC electronic motors.

RIP John Adams and John Bedini.</comment>


Node.js new feature: Joyent owns it - <AUTHOR> https://img.skitch.com/20110505-t9yhnmpu1isrnqf36fckd3aqya.png Source: http://www.slideshare.net/KyleDrake/fast-concurrent-ruby-web-applications-with-em-and-emsynchrony<p>via: http://twitter.com/#!/drnic/status/65990672678797313 <comment><USER2> This is apparently from the Joent trademark policy and only applies to the "node.js" trademark. [http://www.joyent.com/about/policies/node-js-project- tradema...](http://www.joyent.com/about/policies/node-js-project-trademark- policy/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Source: [http://www.slideshare.net/KyleDrake/fast-concurrent-ruby- web...](http://www.slideshare.net/KyleDrake/fast-concurrent-ruby-web- applications-with-em-and-emsynchrony)

via: <http://twitter.com/#!/drnic/status/65990672678797313>

</comment><comment><USER2> What is the source? The license appears sane: <https://github.com/joyent/node/blob/master/LICENSE></comment>


Ask HN: Does startups hire above 35 years old employees?  - <AUTHOR> Every time I take a peek at a startup profile page on their website you can only see 20 something in the frame. I know that many startups are created by people at this age, but as the company grow (25-50 employees) I wonder why I can't still see some older people there. I'm not talking at all about people who are 50 plus with some grey hair that are missing entirely from the pictures. <comment><USER2> Friendly grammar lesson[1]:

"Does" vs. "do" can be a difficult distinction[2]. Your choice depends on whether the sentence subject is singular ("he _does_ like cake") or plural ("bob and alice _do_ like cake").

A good trick to make the distinction easier (and to properly identify the subject, which I still find difficult in some cases) is to rearrange the sentence as a simple affirmation:

* Startups _does_ hire above 35.

* Startups _do_ hire above 35.

The only exception to this rule is that you always use _do_ when the subject is "I," "me," or "you": "I do," "you do," "do you?", "do I?", "do startups hire me?," etc (even though "I," "me," and "you" are singular).

1\. The vibe I've gotten from HN and /r/programming (and from my own experience communicating in another language) is that, in general, ESL individuals find it helpful for others to point out when they make grammatical mistakes. Hopefully JamesAdir feels the same, and actually is ESL (or I'm sure I'll come out looking like a jackass), so I apologize in advance if the above is not true in this case. 2\. [http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/verbs/what- does-or-what-do/](http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/verbs/what-does-or-what- do/)

<comment><USER3> I'm English and that was still a fascinating read.

It was also the friendly "grammer-nazi" post I think I've ever seen.

<comment><USER4> friendliest.

sorry ..

<comment><USER3> Don't apologise, the predictive type on the Nexus 4 is fun :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They do, I was 35 when I got hired by my current startup.

But they are less likely to hire 35+ for many good reasons.

A 35+ is more likely to be have a higher salary demand due to more expertise and experience. An early bootstrapping Startup usually offer low salaries (although sugared with share options) and can only hire people very early on their salary ladder, or the ones who are not so good...

A more successful Startup often able to offer better salaries and do hire 35+, however only few startups are successful.

That is a good filtering.

A not good filtering is that a 35+ due to experience will probably know that 80 hour weeks, crunch modes etc are counter effective and are less afraid of saying no. And therefore 35+ are less attractive to entrepreneurs who are looking for people to put in their entire life into the company as they do even though they only own a tiny part of it, if that.

On top of this a 35+ often have families, hobbies, a life etc and rarely can/will do more than 40 hours per week and will not apply to startups job ads that quickly smells of continuous crunch mode.

</comment><comment><USER6> Startups are looking for people with as much free time and energy as possible. And the older one gets the more probable it is that they have a family, and cannot sustain a heavy schedule. So younger people are hired on average more often. Individuals that fit the "startup schedule" should not worry about their age.

<comment><USER7> I wasn't 35 and I didn't have kids when I joined my current startup, but I am and I do now. I'd have to say a startup that is looking for my skillset would be very foolish to pass on me for a 25-year-old who worked 80 hours at half the price. That sort of focus on cost and hours rather than value delivered and mistakes avoided will drive a startup straight into the ground.

<comment><USER8> Exactly. That's the problem I've noticed: Do you really want to hire someone who takes 80 hours to accomplish something that takes 8 hours for someone else? I think we've all seen this happening. I was brought in to a parallel team one day because they were about to miss a deadline. Turns out 25 year old guy was trying to build a graph database from scratch. He didn't know that he was building a graph database, and wasn't really aware they existed. He just knew what he needed, and went about building it. He spent a huge amount of time building his own awful, non-performant implementation. I told the team lead to get Bob to help. Bob has kids who are in their mid 30's. Bob sat down, logged into the VM, and a few hours later had an instance of Neo4J running and hooked into the app.

But hey, he thinks foosball tables don't belong in offices, so why hire him at a startup?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fun fact: In the U.S., you can age discriminate (ie: not hire people under/over a certain age) all you want, as long as the person isn't over 40.

So you can certainly legally not hire people over 35 years old, as long as they're not yet 40.

Once they're 40, you can not discriminate against them because they're too old (eg: Fred can't do that job, he's 50 years old) or too young (eg: We can't hire Joe for the CEO job, he's only 42.)

Of course there are many reasons to hire/not hire someone, but if you're using age as a criteria, you are on very shaky ground legally.

<comment><USER10> In practice, though, since hiring decisions are so subjective, couldn't one justify it with "we felt that they wouldn't be a good fit" and be off the hook?

<comment><USER9> If the person isn't "a good fit" then yes, as long as the record (your emails) supports that decision. Email saying things like "he's so much older than the other applicants" or "he's got school-aged kids, so his head won't be in the game" will be found in discovery and will lose your case.

Another thing to consider: people who file discrimination lawsuits usually do not prevail on the discrimination claim, they prevail on the retaliation claim. It is often quite easy to show retaliation, especially if it is an employee and not an applicant.

<comment><USER10> Ah, interesting, thanks. So these laws aren't as unenforceable as I thought, that's good.

<comment><USER11> Why is that good?

<comment><USER9> Because discrimination against criteria that have nothing to do with job performance is bad.

<comment><USER10> More generally, I think those criteria are proxies for actual performance. For example, you can infer information about someone's performance from their age, absent of any other information, but when you _do_ have the extra information and still rely on proxies, it's bias.

<comment><USER9> >you can infer information about someone's performance from their age

I would argue that you can not infer much about someone's job performance based solely on their age.

<comment><USER10> Sure, not much, but some.

<comment><USER9> I completely disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It is partially due to assortative matching. Startups don't advertise to (or maybe even want) older candidates, while many older candidates don't actually want to work at startups. Laying blame just on the companies doesn't quite make sense to me.

Of the several hundred applicants we've gotten at Standard Treasury, the median age is likely a little less than the founding team (we're all 27-28). That age is likely even higher than most other startups that go through YC as we build enterprise software for banks -- it's not the sexiest topic in the world. Well, it is to me but you get my point.

We've hired some people that skew older compared to most other startups we know but that only seems to our benefit, frankly.

</comment><comment><USER10> Well, where I currently work (Silent Circle), we have many people over 35, with many being in their 50s. I find that the older coworkers tend to really know what they're talking about, so I always consult them when designing something.

I guess it depends on the person, but, in my limited experience, hackers get better with age.

<comment><USER8> I agree with you. I'm 32, and my biggest complaint at my current team is the lack of more experienced people to learn from. I think the "team full of 20 somethings" brings a dangerous lack of diverse thinking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> When you get a little older your risk profile often changes. You have kids who you hopefully think are far more amazing than work and providing a secure lifestyle for them becomes more important than a potential lottery ticket of super-riches. You probably find it a bit harder to "drink the kool aid" that your tech project - while really really cool - is in fact "changing the world" and deserving of "passion." If you take a big risk in your mid 20s and blow up you have a long lifetime to recover. Past your mid-30s you become more aware that you have less time to recover financially from big setbacks.

As an almost 40 geezer I think it's amazing the startup ecosystem exists for the younger crowd and wish it was more fleshed out when I was at that point in life. But I just have different priorities for myself now.

</comment><comment><USER14> Should be said. Older people often don't have as much experience with some of the newer technologies. For example I am 36 and even though I feel that I am up on Node.js and CoffeeScript and ToffeeScript and some NoSQL and Three.is and some other stuff that I think is still relatively new, I have little to no mobile dev experience. Part of that might be related to the fact that mobile dev was sort of niche for a significant part of my programming career. I have a lot of experience with many different technologies but not the same ones as younger developers so I don't quite share their programming worldview.

I have also spoken to a number of developers older than me who are far behind. Like they didn't understand the point of Ruby or Node and thought Php was just fine. Or they thought that all of the organizations code should go in two giant repos like the old svn way.

So the reality is that sometimes older people aren't up to date or don't share your culture.

Having said all of that I personally believe that in most respects younger developers are just as far behind as the older developers and often lacking quite a bit if perspective. Whereas older developers need to update their perspective.

Obviously it depends on the person so generalizations like those are usually going to be counterproductive because the best developers are in their own category

<comment><USER15> Should be said, black people are lazy, and Asians are good at math!

I want you to repeat that statement any time you feel like you have a valid stereotype that must be said. Because it should help to remind you that a stereotype is not a truth.

Don't help promote ageism. Some people make development a job, others make it a lifestyle. Age has nothing to do with that. I have devs anywhere from 25-30, and I'm often disappointed by their lack of exposure or passion for the new tech out there. But they will all go home at the end of the day and read comics, or watch TV. I'm 39, and I come home and play with a new technology or build a new product. Your age doesn't define you, your passion does.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for pointing this out. You said it better than I could: "Some people make development a job, others make it a lifestyle. Age has nothing to do with that. I have devs anywhere from 25-30, and I'm often disappointed by their lack of exposure or passion for the new tech out there. But they will all go home at the end of the day and read comics, or watch TV. "

Well said. A colleague of mine who had no GF, no family, no responsibilities at 27 continued to disappoint me on a regular basis with his lack of drive to learn. He had zero growth since joining our team, and has just signed on with a startup who made the mistake of not doing a technical interview. Whoever the team lead is who gets stuck with him is screwed. On a side note, I learned how important rigorous technical interviews are. When he told me he got the job and said it involved business intelligence/data warehousing, I mentioned to him that he had never worked with these things, and asked him if he indicated this in the interview. His response: "Well, I know SQL, and I looked at star schemas on wikipedia and it doesn't look that complicated." I then asked him (this was him giving me a 2 weeks notice) if he had contacted the team lead to find out what the tech stack was so he could start reading up on using any tools he wasn't familiar with. This hadn't even occurred to him.

Lack of passion spans the age groups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Simply put, people in their 30s, 40s and beyond are more likely to have kids and a mortgage, and be averse to the risk that a startup carries. 20-somethings are more likely to be in a position to work for a company that might not be meeting payroll obligations reliably -- and to reap the benefits that (can) come with that risk

</comment><comment><USER17> In my last company/startup, when I was more actively involved in the hiring, the best candidate we saw of the 100+ interviewed was 40 yo. He declined the offer because we couldn't pay him enough even though he was _obviously_ worth the money.

At my current startup, around the time I joined we were explicitly only looking for senior developers who were generally at the top of their game. As a result we _mostly_ hired people who were at least 28, and often significantly over 30 because that seems to be about the time you hit that point. Needless to say, we hired a lot of people with kids. I personally had my first kid one month after hire, and I was very open about that timing in my interviews.

So yeah, it depends on the startup, but it seems to me that any startup that isn't willing to hire "older" developers is discriminating their way out of many of the top candidates.

</comment><comment><USER18> It's complicated. Older people are likely to be in a higher position, and I think are less likely to look for a job through the company's careers page, because they're likely to have a more extensive network of contacts and possible employers. As such, older people tend to join startups later than its first non-founding employees, because they're likelier to be distinguished experts in their field, who need to be sought out and need more pay.

On the other hand, I've known plenty of startups who're happy to hire older people for junior roles. They just get fewer old applicants.

I don't know if there's also a significant bias against older employees. I can believe there is. Either way, I'm certain that it's not the _biggest_ reason startups tend to hire young people.

</comment><comment><USER19> Technically it should be the best woman/man for the job and often it depends on two things -

1) What profile is the startup trying to fill in? Adult supervision (read COO) at a fast growing venture backed company run by barely out of teens? You might want to poach someone like Ms. Sandberg.

2) Which sector and industry is the startup plying in? Is it enterprise software? Hiring for a VP engineering or an Engineering Manager? Hadoop or Solr specialist? Need years of experience/ deep knowledge. 20 somethings might not be the best fit. Enterprise startups like Altiscale, BitGlass, BrightFunnel, were in the news this week (funding rounds, launch) .. look at their about us pages, plenty of experience and grey hair.

Horses for courses work fairly well, inside and outside the startup world.

</comment><comment><USER20> In my experience, as some of the others have said, yes, they do. The developer at my last company was in his 40s and still had that mentality. What you will find, though, is that there's a tradeoff there, because not everyone does; as you get older, you're less inclined to work 80 hours a week for a project (unless it's your own.)

At the new company, we hire for cultural fit, and this means we tend towards (but aren't exclusive) people around our own age (27, on average). But we have a fairly wide distribution around that.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yes, of course "they" do.

It depends.(tm)

</comment><comment><USER4> In general, I don't think it's the startups that discriminate against older people, as much as it's the other way around.

Most older people would tend to have a better skill set and the startups would love to get that, but they wouldn't want to pay for it. Furthermore, older people might be more risk averse (Will this company stick around for more than 3 months?).

All very broad generalisations, understood.

</comment><comment><USER22> [un]conscious self-selection bias? you're going to be spending 100 hrs/week with your co-workers at a startup, so people will hire those they can relate to as part of cultural fit.

that said, there are roles that require more experience/industry relationships/gravitas as a company matures (e.g., Sandberg as COO) and that often correlates with age.

</comment><comment><USER23> It seems like it depends on the field. I joined my current startup at 36, and there's a lot of people older than me - also, some younger. Some with kids, some without. But that's in the storage industry, not web apps, so there might be some institutional bias or lack thereof.

</comment><comment><USER24> So, I assume the founders in the images are young also. If the company is small, then maybe it's a case of the founders mostly pulling people from their own social groups. Obviously this group would be young if the founders are young.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Do startups hire people who are 35+ years old? Sorry for the grammar.

And I've asked myself this because of this picture of MixPanel employees: [https://mixpanel.com/jobs/](https://mixpanel.com/jobs/)

</comment><comment><USER25> If the startup is started by people in their early 20s, perhaps older people are less likely to work there because it feels weird to have a boss who is 10 years younger than you.

</comment><comment><USER26> YES ABSOLUTELY

TBH Attitude is far more important than age (and skills)

<comment><USER27> I know loads of hairdressers that have a good attitude.

<comment><USER26> lol - just saw this

I think you're mis-reading the intent of my comment

Of course skills matter (I'm unlikely to hire a hair-dresser who has never done anything other than cut hair for a development role - but I have hired "career changers" like this for other roles - like support / sales).

HOWEVER if I'm judging two candidates with suitable (define as you will) skill sets then the one with the better attitude will always get the role

TBH this is even more important when it comes to internal promotions than for initial hiring (but now we're going slightly off topic)

<comment><USER28> Attitude criteria are often proxies for culture fitting; you are basically making a call on whether they are extroverted/emphatic or not, vs. checking skills or anything.

For internal promotions, it's called "being visible" and "managing up", where again, appearance is more important than capability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Does startups [sic] hire above 35 years old employees [sic]?

That depends in part on whether the 35-year-old is functionally literate.

</comment><comment><USER30> Mine does :)

[http://www.sociablelabs.com/careers/](http://www.sociablelabs.com/careers/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER32> At least in California, they cannot ask you your age during interviews.

</comment><comment><USER33> a startup with age limit is a dead startup!</comment>


EmailJS – Send emails directly from JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://www.emailjs.com/

<comment><USER2> What value does this provide on top postageapp's api? I have to imagine most companies would (read:should) standardize on one provider.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not the author of EmailJS but it doesn't require any backend where as PostageApp does.

<comment><USER2> Backend on top of the existing API? I must be missing something but I still don't understand how this is easier than just hitting the PostageApp or [insert competitor here] API directly.</comment></comment></comment>


The Haunted House – Privacy on Google Street View - <AUTHOR> https://harpers.org/archive/2020/09/the-haunted-house-google-street-view/ <comment><USER2> The strangest part to me is that the one block is stuck 10 years behind the rest of the neighborhood, in terms of recency of the photo, even though the house in question doesn't exist at the later time—it wouldn't appear, and wouldn't need blurring.

It's as though Google Maps is inadvertently preserving the house's horrific legacy by refusing to forget, and refusing to let it disappear.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this really how Harper's distributes its content digitally?

<comment><USER4> I don't even see anything on the page. I'm guessing this is their anti-adblock tactic? If so I'm fine not viewing their content.

<comment><USER5> You're not missing much. The story is about a house that got blurred out of Street View because a horrible crime was going on there at the time the image was acquired.</comment></comment></comment>


European Court of Justice invalidates US-EU privacy agreement [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-07/cp200091en.pdf <comment><USER2> I think this statement is saying that the US surveillance laws grant the US authorities unlimited access to the personal data of non-US citizens being processed in the US, and those surveillance programs do not respect the privacy rights of EU citizens. Which seems fairly obvious...

> In the view of the Court, the limitations on the protection of personal data > arising from the domestic law of the United States on the access and use by > US public authorities of such data transferred from the European Union to > that third country, which the Commission assessed in Decision 2016/1250, are > not circumscribed in a way that satisfies requirements that are essentially > equivalent to those required under EU law, by the principle of > proportionality, in so far as the surveillance programmes based on those > provisions are not limited to what is strictly necessary.

> On the basis of the findings made in that decision, the Court pointed out > that, in respect of certain surveillance programmes, those provisions do not > indicate any limitations on the power they confer to implement those > programmes, or the existence of guarantees for potentially targeted non-US > persons. The Court adds that, although those provisions lay down > requirements with which the US authorities must comply when implementing the > surveillance programmes in question, the provisions do not grant data > subjects actionable rights before the courts against the US authorities.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is going to be interesting, as this renders a number of high-profile service providers (Microsoft, Amazon, etc) unsuitable for anything related to personal data in the EU. I suspect there will be multiple attempts at getting a new treaty in place before there are any actual consequences, though.

<comment><USER2> That interpretation depends heavily on how much trust you place in the regional concept of data processing. AWS claims compliance with e.g. CISPE [1] which explicitly certifies specific cloud services such as to "Enable(s) data storage and processing exclusively within the EU". AFAIK this agreement applies to the transfer of data out of the EU for processing in the US.

Note that not all AWS services are covered by CISPE. It's intentionally only scoped to low-level IaaS services like EC2/EBS.

[1] [https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/cispe/](https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/cispe/)</comment></comment>


Google requires money to remove Holocaust deniers from top of search results - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/holocaust-deniers-google-search-top-spot <comment><USER2> What a ridiculous, reactionary article.

"did the holocaust happen" connotes that the Holocaust didn't happen and therefore results relevant to that appear in the search. Further, most people who believe it did happen and want more information will just search "holocaust".

You can't change human nature (at least you can't do so with search results alone). You don't stop abhorrent ideas by trying to censor them (it only emboldens these people and their response to the censorship is that _they must be right_ because then no one would try to hide "the truth" from them)

>If Stormfront is back at number one when you read this, it's because I've run out of funds. Each click through costs £1.12 and I have a £200 per day limit. @carolecadwalla on Twitter for more information.

Asking for money...

<comment><USER3> >>"did the holocaust happen" connotes that the Holocaust didn't happen and therefore results relevant to that appear in the search. Further, most people who believe it did happen and want more information will just search "holocaust".

Exactly! I was just about to post something similar myself.

That the holocaust did happen is accepted as fact by the vast majority. So, by definition, the only people writing who are going to be even considering the question will be people claiming that it didn't. Likewise, anyone using the search term _" did the holocaust happen"_ is [for whatever reason] seeking out an alternate view.

It's like someone searching for _" Is the Earth flat"_. As most sane people already know the Earth is not, it's a non-issue. The only people taking to the internet to debate the shape of the Earth, therefore, are highly likely to be Flat-Earther lunatics and hence those results are likely to come top of the Google rankings. It doesn't mean there's suddenly a huge wave of people worried about taking a boat journey over the horizon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a slippery slope which, as ever, is wrapped up in "Won't somebody think of the children?!" type outrage.

Isn't the whole point of an allegedly free society that we're supposed to be able to hold opposing and unorthodox opinions?

Stormfront, with its repellent views and its discussion forum with the collected IQ of a cashew nut is just an obvious 'low hanging fruit' target. But what's really being asked for here? Of late, seemingly intelligent people are increasingly demanding that Google and Facebook [and others] start censoring 'fake' news and 'fake' search results.

So we want to swap a world where we occasionally see controversial or unorthodox views for one where anything that might offend someone is filtered out and entire future generations grow up with a collective _weltanschauung_ decided upon by two or three huge capitalist American corporations –and no opposing views are tolerated?

That sounds a bit like something else to me... but, having got this far, I'm not going to invoke Godwin's Law at the last minute!

<comment><USER4> > So we want to swap a world were we occasionally see controversial or > unorthodox views for one were anything that might offend someone is filtered > out

That's what the sheltered "safespace" generation is being taught.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Misleading headline (so what else is new?). OP describes buying an Adsense ad that appears above the (unchanged) search results.

That said, I think Google should make the ads a bit more visually distinct from the results to make it even _less_ likely that unsophisticated users can be confused (whether accidentally or willfully).

<comment><USER6> That's not true. The top result is not an ad, since it would have ad next to it.

<comment><USER3> Yes it is [or was] an ad. Take a look at the pic in the article.

<comment><USER6> Ah when I did the search I never got that ad. But the top link that isn't an ad is also holocaust denying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't think it should be up to google to decide of what is History and what is not.

France (and probably other countries) did something similar, where the parliament made it a criminal offense to deny the existence of the holocaust. As a libertarian, I don't think either judges, politicians or google have any legitimacy to dictate History. Free speech means letting people express their idea, primarily ideas that you think are wrong, stupid or distasteful (letting only people you agree with express their ideas is the very definition of intolerance). I don't think censoring on google is the solution.

Spielberg's project of recording testimonies from hundreds of holocaust survivors is a much better way to oppose holocaust deniers.

</comment><comment><USER8> _Re: Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn 't happen._

 _The most compelling evidence for the holocaust being a lie is the fact there were survivors, period._

[https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t553062/?postcount=6#post62...](https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t553062/?postcount=6#post6261423)

No words can express the look of my face while reading this.

</comment><comment><USER6> Fun fact, if you use google.de you won't see the holocaust deniers result. So I assume google knows it's holocaust denying and that in Germany it's illegal.

<comment><USER9> I don't think that there is any doubt that Google knows the results deny the Holocaust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Since when can random bloggers write their thoughts for prominent newspapers and call it articles ?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best way to find full time overseas employees? - <AUTHOR>

I only know sites like elance and odesk, which seem to be primarily geared towards freelancers. Is there a good place to find full time overseas developers? <comment><USER2> Me. Hire me. :)</comment>


The Many AI Challenges of Hearthstone - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06562 <comment><AUTHOR> I have posted before on Ai for Might the Gathering, which i gather (ha!) is similar to Hearthstone.

Wouuld players enjoy playing against an online AI ? Is this something that could catch on ?</comment>