Ask HN: Why is the US the center of the tech industry? - <AUTHOR> Is it the historic innovation, American culture in general? There are so many other countries with brilliant minds, we live over the internet. Yet foreign companies are ignored for Google, Apple, and Amazon, Microsoft, and Oracle. I dont hear anything elsewhere, China being the only exception. And they're feared, to the point where Huawei's banned.<p>Do you think another country will take its place? Will growing internet adoption lead to growing patterns of  geographic decentralization in the industry? Is it possible cryptocurrencies will cause a rise in an internet centered tech industry? <comment><USER2> The most interesting question is why do Americans dominate _software_ technology specifically? It is the most level playing field of all technologies. The skills to develop a state-of-the-art next-generation software technology are readily available and learnable globally while requiring negligible capital. On paper, you would expect this to be an area where Americans have the smallest advantage instead of one of the biggest.

Having worked with software engineering teams around the world over the years, and also done a lot of software tech M&A diligence, I've come to appreciate the massive impact that local culture has on being effective at advanced software development. This goes beyond the culture of the company itself; the level of ambition and optimistic self-belief required to be effective at developing very advanced software isn't terribly compatible with environments where Tall Poppy Syndrome/Law of Jante/etc is a real social dynamic, and that is very much the rule rather than the exception.

<comment><USER3> This. Having worked in the US and Europe, the local culture is ubiquitous. What is best for advanced software development, and engineering in general (IMO), is a low-context culture[1], which is dominant in the US -- so that many immigrants of diverse backgrounds can communicate efficiently.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low- context...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low- context_cultures)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My 2¢ in taking to people from other countries, it's the American attitude. Americans for better or worse think we can do anything, and they will try incessantly. They will start a business with far less experience and qualifications than others, pull themselves up by the bootstraps and potentially fail spectacularly - just to get right back up and do it again.

I do not get this sense taking to people from other countries at all, largely in part Canada and the UK. They aren't trying to change the world.

<comment><USER5> American attitude???

Andy Grove: Hungarian

Nikola Tesla: Serbian

Sergey Brin: Russian

Patrick and John Collison: Irish

Mathilde Collin: French

Jerry Yang: Taiwanese

<comment><USER6> America attracts innovators. They do it in America because they can't do it at home. Whether it's true or not, for immigrants, there's a sense that upward mobility is possible in America.

There was an old episode of Top Gear where Clarkson was driving around an exotic car in America. He noted that Americans were super excited about the car, giving him complements, posing for pictures, saying that one day they'll own one and generally being positive and optimistic.

In contrast, he reflected that if he did the same thing in the UK, he'd either get insulted for "showing off" or people would be generally negative/pessimistic because they could never afford one.

<comment><USER7> That's incredibly depressing to me. If he really talked to a representative cross-section of America, almost all of those optimistic people will never be wealthy enough to afford the car. At least the Brits know where they stand. We're never going to be able to effectively address wealth inequality if every person on the street believes that they're going to be a multimillionaire some day.

<comment> wh-uws You're missing the point.

Americans believe we can and that belief allows the mental and emotional energy to _try_

No one is guaranteed success. But if you never believe you even could you would be much less inclined to even try.

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry, but I would call that false hope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> First of all, the technology industry itself is not just exclusive to the US. Samsung is south Korean, Nintendo is from Japan, Siemens is from Germany, ASML is from the Netherlands. All of these are highly technological companies, with Nintendo having been at the frontiers of technology since decades. But of course, Silicon Valley is unique with its high concentration of hightech companies. This has multiple reasons:

* The US federal government provided massive amounts of funding, especially in earlier years. Oracle for example was jumpstarted by the CIA, an US federal agency.

* Economically, the US is highly developed, and has a gigantic market with over 200 million people who all speak one language. The EU didn't even have the unified market since a few years ago, and there is still inconsistency regarding the language. China does have both a more or less consistent legal regime as well as a consistent language due to their past efforts to teach their population a common language (this is non-zero effort as Chinese dialects are so different to each other, probably if it weren't for political influence you'd classify them as several languages).

* California in specific has at-will employment laws meaning a start up can be wrapped up quickly without having to pay large sums of money to employees.

* The US federal government maintains a large spying apparatus which has been increased massively after the 2001 terror attacks. They don't just use it for evil terrorists. It has been confirmed multiple times that they perform industrial espionage against companies in western countries, supposed allies of the US. The US government then gives the results of the espionage to industrial partners.

* Nowadays there are of course massive network effects.

<comment><USER9> > The US federal government maintains a large spying apparatus which has been > increased massively after the 2001 terror attacks. They don't just use it > for evil terrorists. It has been confirmed multiple times that they perform > industrial espionage against companies in western countries, supposed to be > allies of the US. The US government then gives the results of the espionage > to industrial partners.

Specifically which company has benefited from industrial espionage in a way that can even begin to answer the question posed by the OP?

<comment><USER8> Of course, this is not the sole reason why the US industry is where it is today. It's rather one of many reasons. The effect is much smaller than, say, soviet espionage on US technology was. But here you have some links on US industrial espionage on German companies:

[https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/960011/trans- atlant...](https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/960011/trans-atlantic- espionage-claimed-german-wind-company)

[https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-firms- fe...](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-firms-fear- industrial-espionage-after-snowden-leaks-a-912624.html)

<comment><USER10> Those links don't give any evidence of industrial espionage on German companies. One even claims those no proof of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Culture. America is extremely materialistic, individualistic, competititve and success-oriented. Whereas in many other countries, many people shrug at the thought of becoming a billionaire ("what do I need all this money for?"), in America, the default reaction is "THAT'S AMAZING".

This makes Americans take way more risks with entrepreneurship, as, for them, they are chasing the ultimate dream. It may be bad for them on individual level (as most of them fail, sometimes with serious consequences to their lives), but the US society as a whole benefits, because of the value created by the successful minority.

</comment><comment><USER12> Lots of human capital because A) we have a large population, B) we have the highest level of economic development in the world, and C) we've done a great job of importing talent.

We were the main beneficiaries of the Europeans driving out their Jewish population. As a group, European Jews are responsible for something like 25% of our intellectual output over the last century, but only make up 2% of our population. Lately we've been importing an intellectual class of similar caliber from the Indian subcontinent. Kinda hard to lose the race when you have a huge proportion of the world's intellectual talent.

<comment><USER13> How do you measure 25% of the world's intellectual output? I'm a fan of Judea Pearl and Woody Allen, but I think that's a pretty strong statement to make

<comment><USER14> He/she's talking Albert Einstein, et al: [https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/german-jewish- inv...](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/german-jewish- inventors-081114.html)

<comment><USER15> Also, Sergey Brin (Google co-Founder).

His father's tale of anti-semitism in Russia is now quite famous.

[https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-brin-anti-semitism- forced-...](https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-brin-anti-semitism-forced-my- family-out-of-russia/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There are several things that contributed to the rise of the dominance of American tech industry. In no particular order:

* World War II. In WWII, the only country that had the means to meaningfully fund longer-term military research projects was the US; in other countries such as Germany and the UK, these projects were defunded or reduced in scope to let the money and resources be allocated to things that would help prevent the collapse of the country. Furthermore, the US was the only large country to escape significant infrastructure destruction, which would preoccupy most of the rest of the world for another decade or so.

* The development of a strong education and research system. This is in and of itself a more complex topic, but one thing I'd call out is that the American wealthy have had a stronger tradition of philanthropy than their European counterparts, and a lot of that philanthropy was geared towards making sure that the US was well-stocked with universities, libraries, museums, and the like.

* Clustering effects. Companies tend to want to be near other companies that do similar things--it's why there's a lot a tech companies in Silicon Valley, even if they could do their job equally well from Illinois. Early computer research ended up being in the US, so the computer technology clusters have ended up being very US-centric.

* Market size. The US has historically been the largest market for tech, and arguably still is for certain segments of the market. Europe has been (and generally remains) too fragmented to be a single market, China and India historically too poor, and the USSR hampered itself with internal controls. Furthermore, the size of the US market also means that it tends to be harder for foreign entrants to break into the market than it is for US entrants to break into foreign markets.

> Do you think another country will take its place?

Eventually, yes. On what time scale, I can't say.

> Will growing internet adoption lead to growing patterns of geographic > decentralization in the industry?

No. The internet has not reversed the trend for businesses to cluster together, and I see no reason to expect that should change.

> Is it possible cryptocurrencies will cause a rise in an internet centered > tech industry?

I don't see how they could...

<comment><USER17> > The development of a strong education and research system.

Are you talking about the 5-10 top universities? On average Europeans have by far and large better educational system. It's not even comparable IMHO. On average Europeans are much better educated and that has to do with the fact that education is part of state-funded welfare in most European countries, while in the US education is expensive and only a small minority can afford it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Its pretty much culture. The US is open to ambitious people from across the world unlike a lot of countries, the US is big un deregulation unlike Europe which stifles a lot of their companies, there's one language, there's a culture of acceptable failure, willingness to try despite lacking experience, and slow-moving governments.

Its probably more but this is what I've seen.

</comment><comment><USER19> The same reason it's the current largest economy.... a happy accident of history and geography.

Every other major economic power was devastated after WW2. Because the US was geographically isolated from the major theatres of war, it was in a good position to capitalise on the investment in technology at the dawn of the transistor age.

<comment><USER20> I've heard this argument many times but it never rang true to me. Here is why:

Every nation has gone true adversity and many had bounced off in a matter of years.

The US economy has been dominating (measured by % of world GDP) since long before WW2. Ref: [https://infogram.com/share-of-world-gdp-throughout- history-1...](https://infogram.com/share-of-world-gdp-throughout- history-1gjk92e6yjwqm16)

Also worth noting is that the US has faced its own headwinds including a civil war just a few decades before its ascent to global domination.

<comment><USER21> Civil war was eighty years earlier and didn't result in complete destruction due to lack of technology.

In other threads mention the British tech giveaway, German scientists, and booming infrastructure compared to Europe and Asia in ruins. The can-do attitude was a multiplier.

WWII was a hundred year boost.

<comment><USER20> > Civil war was eighty years earlier

Earlier than what, the Great Depression? The civil war resulted in > 500,000 deaths and hardly made a dent in the upward trend that was already underway.

> didn't result in complete destruction due to lack of technology.

Europe was rebuilt 60 years ago (infrastructure, industry, and all)

> WWII was a hundred year boost.

Not sure where you get this information but looking at the data I linked, WW2 provided a gentle touch before the US started to slide down and has been ever since.

<comment><USER21> It's not hard to have an upward trend from zero.

Also % of world gdp is not a great measurement. Numbers not great either. Europe lay in ruins in 1950, then rebuilt. A gradual tapering is unlikely. No down cycle for US civil war, very unlikely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A few things:

1\. America's early expansion was designed to gain control over the entirety of the Mississippi river, which has the largest lockless waterway system serving the longest "useful" land area in the world with cheap boat transportation. This cheap transportation is the primary reason for American early development success, and continues to benefit America immensely to this day.

2\. Every other developed country suffered massive losses in the world wars. America suffered no damage to her land or infrastructure, and was able to use her superior position at the end of the war to gain even more economic advantage over allies and foes alike.

3\. America binged importing top scientific talent at the end of the second world war, most notably from Germany by offering them amnesty from war crimes (which massively boosted their rocketry, medical, and electronics industries).

The rest is largely snowball effect.

<comment><USER23> Any reading on 1? I was thinking about how America gained ground in the world, from early colonial, to the industrial revolution, to the internet giants. I haven't read much about the Mississippi in relation to that era of our industry.

<comment><USER22> Encyclopedia Britannica has a decent introduction [1]. There are a number of books that cover the early development of nations, but the name of the book that dealt with waterways in depth escapes me at the moment. Possibly something by Marvin Harris or Jared Diamond?

[1] [https://www.britannica.com/place/Mississippi- River/History-a...](https://www.britannica.com/place/Mississippi- River/History-and-economy)

<comment><USER16> I think saying that American expansion was _designed_ to control the Mississippi River is a stretch. The main expansion that occasioned it was the Louisiana Purchase, which was completely unintentional: the Americans went to France to ask for New Orleans, and were willing to pay up to $10 million for it, but Napoleon opened with an offer of all of Louisiana (doubling the size) for the bargain price of $15 million.

Louisiana wasn't a primary focus of the US foreign policy, particularly in the early 1800s. Instead, the US was more concerned with staying out of the deteriorating situation in Europe (during the Napoleonic Wars), and the main expansion targets would have been Canada and Florida.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Since the big Intel cash out, it's been venture capital.

Europe & Asia is private equity territory, which is a fundamentally different attitude and approach to high-risk, high-growth business (as in they rarely do it). VC firms expect to make their money on IPOs & exits which encourages innovation and experimentation, while PE firms expect to make money from operations and interests on obliged loans which favors smart operations and good margins.

<comment><USER25> Completely agree. But, I think this begs another question -- why does venture capital thrive in the USA so well as opposed to Asia? Is it a cultural thing? or a fundraising thing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> American and moderately successful entrepreneur here.

I had to look up the Law of Jante. My reaction:

Holeee crap. That's one set of beliefs that is practically guaranteed to block ANYONE from manifesting even a fraction of their innovative potential.

(Is it even real? Can anyone from the Nordic region confirm or deny?)

Going even further:

If someone wants to shape their mindset, etc. into that of someone who is on a path to massive entrepreneurial success, and compelled to create something of lasting impact and value to the world...

You could almost take those rules, reword each to their _opposite_ , and then read those opposites to yourself as daily affirmations.

That'll start to program your beliefs into something much, much more self- empowering. Rather than massively self-limiting.

(Maybe I'm indirectly revealing part of the answer to the OP's question here.)

In the USA, we have the metaphor of the crab bucket, and it's a real social effect. I had to escape it myself in my own family (which I basically did through over a decade of sheer grit and tenacity, plus self-programming with techniques like affirmations).

[Happy ending: having got to the other side of it, I'm closer to my extended family now than ever before.]

But if I got to pick, I'd take the crab bucket over the Law of Jante every day.

<comment><USER27> It was originally meant as satire of small-town Scandinavia. But... You're definitely not encouraged make a big deal out of yourself over here. Maturity means to do your part to help the people around you. Taking up space is somewhat frowned upon and people are generally uncomfortable with accepting compliments. The mindset is collective. But there's a social class of business people and professional athletes who don't think that way. I think you basically have to be in small circles, have special abilities or be born into a family of business people to get exposed to an individualist mindset like that.

<comment><USER27> I'm from Norway and the Norwegian ideal of wealth is that you're not supposed to show it off.

The richest man in Norway is real estate mogul Olav Thon, and he basically dresses like a tramp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Government spending on infrastructure including defense. Defense has historically been the largest funder/purchaser of tech. Yes, we're in a period where consumer tech is driving innovation, but that hasn't historically been true.

</comment><comment> village-idiot Accident of history and sheer momentum. We had the cash and research institutions during the beginning of the digital age, and as a result we have the brain trust for both programming and hardware design. Remember that a huge percentage of programming languages, documentation, and surrounding culture (blogs, etc.) are not only in English, but culturally American. That's a huge advantage for America in the tech space.

</comment><comment><USER29> One thing I'm surprised I havent seen here is the respect that programming gets in America. If youre a decent engineer you can basically walk into a job making at minimum 150k a year, at any time. You are paid well, given some level of autonomy, etc. In other countries engineers are at the absolute bottom of the totem pole, there is no respect for the craft, and you are expected to be promoted out of the ASAP. This has all sorts of secondary effects like bad technology, no progress, no risk taking from engineers who can get another well paid job if they fail. I honestly feel like there must be opportunities all over Europe to show up with a much better tech product and steam roll the incumbents.

Another clear reason is how fragmented Europe is. All of the different countries have different customs, languages, and cultures. This makes it hard to scale a product. It's the opposite case in the USA, no such barriers, easier to scale across 300M people.

<comment><USER30> Yeah reading what some people say online, it sounds like in some countries programming is seen as more like grunt work or the same as IT work. Whereas America really glorifies the hacker/startup mentality, for example in stuff like The Social Network or HBO's Silicon Valley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Read Steve Blank's blog. He has several articles outlining how Silicon Valley started, why it continues, and why it isn't easily replicated elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER32> "It always seemed like when there was cool technology or things happening, it was kinda of in the United States. So, my goal as a kid was to get to America basically."

Elon Musk

</comment><comment><USER33> You narrow tech down to the software. If you add electronics and engineering, well, you will see also a bunch of European and Japanese companies.

</comment><comment><USER34> PG's essay from nearly 15 years ago is still very relevant and IMO sums up best why America is so dominant in tech (and ohh btw also in entertainment and a bunch of other areas) [http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html)

</comment><comment><USER35> The eco system thing is one, the second is: Geopolitics, which plays a big role in that, I mean with the huge US influence the Silicon Valley companies can be global trendsetters, think of the FCC standing in the global,telecom sector.US allies could not ban UBER although they hate it, but they have to play the American (open market) rules. There were many superior products by non-American companies, Creative Technology got the first portable audio player, years ahead of Apple, yet they underestimated the value of the American market and spearheaded MP3 with total disregard for copyright issues (Napster days), Russian companies produce good stuff-Kaspersky et al- but they do not have the full "Eco system".

</comment><comment><USER36> US companies give much higher pay than Europe and China.

A beyond-average elementary programmer gets $40K/yr in China with 9-9-6 life. But the same person in the United States may get $120K or even more with a 9-6-5 life.

So many Chinese programmers are moving to the US for higher pay.

<comment><USER36> * I dont hear anything elsewhere, China being the only exception. And they're feared, to the point where Huawei's banned.

Not every Chinese developer could get out of China to get higher pay because of tight competition, family, and traditions.

It should be mentioned that: 1\. US companies in China (like Google, Microsoft, etc.) do not give higher pay than Chinese companies (like BAT, Toutiao, Pinduoduo). 2\. Apartment price in China is very high. You can't easily find an apartment inside Beijing's 5th-ring-road having a <$10,000/m2 price.

Developers that cannot go aboard can only work hard in Chinese companies to pay the apartment loan.

<comment><USER37> Comparing pay directly like that is not very fair.

Many other things need to be taken into account including cost of living and services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Freedom and democracy are vital to open and honest discussion, which in turn drives innovation. Sense of safety and security on all fronts let people concentrate on ideas and execution, rather than things.

</comment><comment><USER39> The US has been an established and time-tested platform for churning out businesses. All the reasons others have mentioned including culture, deregulation, etc may play a part but to me, it is the post-war head-start and momentum of continued success that has kept other countries from reigning supreme. Countries are constantly losing top talent to the U.S. because we have the money/opportunities to attract them and these countries lose out on any potential successes. Who knows, this could all change if it hasn't already.

</comment><comment><USER17> My take on this: I believe the 2nd WW is the major historical event that led the most bright scientists of that era to the USA. From that point on, most major technological advancements were made in the USA. Whoever has the most advanced technology wins the war. At the beginning the other equally technologically advanced site was believed to be the USSR. Nowadays is China. Europe relies on the USA for _protection_ and the price to pay is to stay technologically irrelevant, which means irrelevant in every sense.

</comment><comment><USER40> These companies were built on the shoulders of giants in silicon valley which had a ton of cold war era science foundation grants helping to prime the emerging industry.

</comment><comment><USER41> From an outside perspective, americans are more willing to try (and to dump) new things, period. It takes an arduous amount of energy to convince europeans to do the same, and you re likely to be rewarded with obnoxious remarks. And you cant grow a product if nobody is using it, thats why US wins. It is also a big homogeneous market, which means niches are sizeable. In europe , niches are divided /28

</comment><comment><USER37> I think another big part of it is down to the lack of regulation.

Other countries with similar socioeconomic conditions tend to regulate things quicker plus have social programmes (healthcare, workers rights etc)

The US does neither.

I think this makes it easier to start in the first place.

The other part, as others have pointed out, is the extreme development the US achieved on the back of WWII that provided capital which has snowballed since.

</comment><comment><USER42> One word: baseball. Love of the sport is what makes Americans different from other nations. One man facing the opposing team. With one swing of the bat you can win it all, overcoming limits imposed by the playing field itself. Making technological innovations is very much like that.

</comment><comment><USER43> > Is it the historic innovation, American culture in general?

LOL no. Pretty much all European industry was destroyed by world ward 2, they then had to buy from America and help improve their industry to beat the Nazi. Not trying to belittle American contribution to ww2 which was obviously massive just pointing out that America "lost" one harbour but pretty much every European country lost pretty much every industry they had.

After ww2 America had an industry with loads of spending money, they innovated while every one else was rebuilding. The rest of the world has been playing catchup ever since with varying degrees of success.

Since Europeans, Americans and China are all as brainy as each other its really hard to catch up unless you can make a sacrifice Americans cant for example sacrifice your peasents as cheap labour. It looks like China will beat America with this attitude, when it does will other countries adopt Chinas "winning" attitude? or be left behind?

</comment><comment><USER44> Large population also the fact that it is because it is. Lots of skilled people in tech move to the US to work so more companies start there which means more people move.

</comment><comment><USER45> Govt investment: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo)

</comment><comment><USER46> Because of the dominance of the US millitary coincided with the development of the microchip.

</comment><comment><USER47> We made the tech industry

<comment><AUTHOR> We made the first tech industry

<comment><USER48> That's basically what "made the [X] industry" tends to mean.

<comment><AUTHOR> But someone could read that and think "the one and only". By stating the first shows there's more potential.

<comment><USER47> By that logic your question should have been " Why is the US the center of this/a tech industry" :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The reasons are manifold.

Some are nicely summarized (factors leading up to the current Political/Military/Economic domination) in a two-part Stratfor article;

1) The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire - [https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united- st...](https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united-states- part-1-inevitable-empire)

2) The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 2: American Identity and the Threats of tomorrow. - [https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics- united-st...](https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united- states-part-2-american-identity-and-threats-tomorrow)

The way i look at it is (in no particular order);

Luck - WW2 decimated almost all developed countries. The US "home" was untouched (no war on their soil) thus leaving them as the sole industrial/military powerhouse with resources intact. This is actually a huge factor and the current state follows directly from here. They also appropriated a lot of Scientists/Technologies from the losers which gave them the needed headstart in many tech areas.

People psyche - The country was founded by immigrants who basically had to do whatever to "survive". Since they had no history in the new land, they were not bogged down by crystallized cultural norms and beliefs. Thus the focus on "Capitalism"(euphemism for Greed and "do whatever it takes to win") and "Hustle" (not always driven by Ethics/Morals contrary to what their leaders may claim). This setup their current culture where their desire is to be THE global hegemon by any means necessary. If you think about it, this is a great motivator for just about anything.

Geography - Covered well in the above articles. This allowed them to develop independently of detrimental external influences.

Control of World Economy - By forcing everybody to use $ as the world's currency. The ramifications of this is all-encompassing.

Military/Education/Industrial Complex - This is a crucial nexus which is directly responsible for much of their dominance in the technology domain. The Military funds "Blue Sky" projects in close association with Academia and the Industry. Because of this close-knit setup, the path from Ideation to Realized Implementation is very fast and seamless. No other country does this as well. Because of the "Power Law", progress in Technology is accelerated leading to being the natural front-runner.

Finally, it should be clear that "Military Dominance" is used to enforce "Economic Dominance" and vice-versa.

<comment><USER50> Not to mention the sheer size and abundance of natural resources in America.

<comment><USER49> Covered under "Geography" above. The Stratfor articles elaborate nicely on this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Such broad questions don't usually lead to high-quality discussions. It's better to submit articles presenting a point of view on the topic.</comment>


J.C. Bose: 60 GHz in the 1890s - <AUTHOR> https://www.cv.nrao.edu/~demerson/bose/bose.html <comment><USER2> JC Bose is a hero of mine. He was a polymath - Contributions in physics (linked article) are well know. But he is also the person who proved what is universally taken as granted: Plants are alive.

The was also a great detractor of the idea of intellectual property -- he made all of his discoveries deliberately available to the public domain.

His handling of racial discrimination at the colonial British was also pretty bad-ass!

His wiki page is a good start.

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

<comment><USER3> > But he is also the person who proved what is universally taken as granted: > Plants are alive.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. Farmers have known that plants are alive for a very long time. Nowhere on the Wikipedia page is anything close to this being suggested.

The work he did that is described on the Wikipedia page says that he found that plants have an electrical nervous system, but I don't think that's what makes modern people think that plants are alive, so I wouldn't exactly call this something that's taken for granted.

If there is some brief controversy in the 19th century where they decided that plants couldn't be alive due to a lack of an electrical nervous system (The discovery that animals had electrical nervous systems happened in the 19th century), I have not heard of it, but perhaps this is what you are referring to? It sounds interesting if that's the case. Can you expand?

<comment><USER4> Whether he actually proved it for the first time, I'm not sure. But proof and assumed common knowledge are very different things. A simple example in a different domain, the full proof for 1+1=2 is several hundred pages and was not proved till the early 1900s, while that would have been simple common knowledge for millennia beforehand.

<comment><USER5> There's not even a hard definition of what constitutes life. He may have proven something, but it's probably more nuanced than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Although it appears that Bose's demonstration of remote wireless signalling > has priority over Marconi, he was the first to use a semiconductor junction > to detect radio waves, and he invented various now commonplace microwave > components, outside of India he is rarely given the deserved recognition. > Further work at millimeter wavelengths was almost nonexistent for nearly 50 > years. J.C. Bose was at least this much ahead of his time.

</comment><comment><USER7> What I find odd is surprising silence around how Marconi ended up with a _very_ similar Mercury based coherer that J.C. Bose had designed.

<comment><USER8> Is it that surprising, really? People with money have been stealing shit since forever.

<comment><USER9> Where did you see the claim that he invented the mercury coherer?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone have a good reference on the physics behind the "single point iron receiver"? It seems similar to a crystal detector, but the description here suggests that both the needle and the "crystal" are the same material (iron). My guess would be that the non-linear effect is due to iron oxides on the surface.

</comment><comment><USER11> Just to add, J.C. Bose also authored first science fiction in bengali language.

</comment><comment><USER12> Informative. Thanks for sharing the article.

</comment><comment><USER13> He's probably pretty uncomfortable in his grave knowing that his name is used to sell overpriced Bluetooth speakers.

<comment><USER14> _overpriced Bluetooth speakers_

What other BT speakers are _quantitatively_ better and cheaper?

<comment><USER15> The ones without Bluetooth at all. Most of the audio problems in Bluetooth speakers isn't that they're low end garbage, but because Bluetooth mangles audio.

<comment><USER16> Regardless of the facts of the matter on fidelity of Bluetooth audio, surely this question:

> What other BT speakers are quantitatively better and cheaper?

([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17538351](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17538351)) to which you are replying, which explicitly asks a question only about _Bluetooth_ speakers, in no way has this answer:

> The ones without Bluetooth at all.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Developments in tech in Toronto over the past seven years - <AUTHOR> https://blog.brainstation.io/how-toronto-became-a-global-tech-leader-in-7-years/ <comment><USER2> The wages in Toronto are laughable. In the praries it's possible to make maybe 10 to 20k less than Toronto salaries but the houses are half the price.

<comment><USER3> These conversations, which appear every time a post appears on HN that talks about what a great place Toronto is (along with many other places in Canada), make me sad.

There is so much more to life than money.

<comment><USER4> Sure but Toronto is expensive and they pay isn't very good considering. If it were people lamenting only being paid $300k instead of $400k then we could be like "it's just money!" but I heard when I was there a few months back CAD$120k is pretty typical for a senior dev, which is roughly $90k USD, and the housing and whatnot isn't all that much cheaper than in big US cities.

<comment><USER5> I would go as far to say that $120K is exceptionally _high_ for a senior dev and in fact $100K is an upper boundary.

<comment><USER6> As I mentioned elsewhere, it depends on what you consider a "senior" dev. A couple years of experience _does not_ make you a senior.

The upper boundary for an intermediate in Toronto is certainly $90-95k.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I see these posts a lot lately. I've worked in Chicago, Madison, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Des Moines, Hopewell New Jersey and Toronto.

A few points: A "senior" dev in Toronto would be someone with 8-10 years of experience. They can easily make 120+. I've hired many of them. Very few organizations in the GTA consider someone with 2-4 years a "senior", and those people will be lucky to make 90k. That make the COL in the GTA difficult.

If you truly are an amazing developer and you can't get a high salary in the GTA, get in touch.

Also, it would be interesting to see the ages of people who post. When I was in my 20's I'm sure I would have stayed in the Bay area if salaries were as good as they are now. But there really wasn't a _huge_ disparity in wages in the late 90's/Early 2000's between SV and elsewhere. I likely would have left the Bay area in my 30's though. And moving to Canada is one of the best decisions I feel I have ever made, especially considering the last 2 years.

EDIT: As a side note, I think outside of SV, ALL tech salaries (and all other industries)are too low and have been stagnant for the most part for a decade.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a Canadian tech guy who travels to Silicon Valley and Seattle fairly frequently the impression that most US techies have is that Toronto is an awesome place to live, but it is not (yet) a magnet for top talent.

There are many amazing startups at any given moment in Toronto... but many of the folks involved have their sights set on FANG.

<comment><USER8> I am not familiar with Toronto personally but it would have one huge benefit over silicon valley...you don't have to live in silicon valley.

Edit: I'd prefer Siberia over sv, there is a reason talented people are getting the hell out of there and many major companies are building huge offices elsewhere.

<comment><USER9> What is the reason?

<comment><USER8> Cost of living/lack of decent housing, low quality transportation and quite frankly the snobbery of SV to name a few.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is this truly significant, or is it spin to sell a city? Not to be harsh, but I've read the accounts of Canadian expats on the comparatively low wages back home. Not SF low, but low even compared to other cities in the U.S.

<comment><USER11> In Canada, salaries for tech seem to normally max out around 100k for developers (with exceptions for working for big US/multinational companies like Amazon, MSFT, etc.). Even 80k is pretty common for senior developers... In Canadian dollars. So around 80k USD is max a Canadian developer can expect to make other than a few unusual cases thrown in there which might go as high as 130k CAD so around 100k USD is a stellar Canadian development salary. If you compare this to how H1B workers are paid in the US, it's around those sorts of rates. I don't see it improving any time soon because the revenue that this work generates is not 10x multiples like you see in the US. Canada does not have the VC culture to support a tech culture that produces 100s of millions to billions in returns. If US companies come looking for remote workers they are looking to pay Canadian rates and save money that way.

<comment><USER12> 100k? maybe 5-6 years ago, it is not the case anymore at all. I dont what the max is but 140-150 is no that unusual(for senior people obviously)

<comment><USER13> That may be because that is about US$100k at the current exchange rates. A cynic would say that the comp has only gone up because the exchange rate has, since tech tends to be denominated in USD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been living and working in Toronto since 2003, and can attest that it truly is a fantastic city to live in.

Most of the senior developers I know in Toronto work as independent contractors for large enterprises because they can get paid significantly more than the base salaries mentioned here. Contractor rates rival Silicon Valley salaries.

The downside of independent contracting is that you forgo sick pay, holiday pay, and employee-sponsored perks like extended health care. However, Ontario has an excellent public health system that covers all residents so the need for additional health benefits is questionable.

<comment><USER15> Hi, I'm a contractor in Québec City work as a Business analyst. Can you tell me what is the hourly rate in Toronto ? And how do you find your clients ? It's my first year of working as a contractor. Thanks.

<comment><USER6> Depends on your experience/expertise. I typically see vast ranges with more junior people charging $50/hr, intermediates at $80/hr, and seniors (people with decades of business experience) between $100-180/hr.

I sub out work now and then, I'll add an email address to my profile. I'd like to know your skill sets.

<comment><USER15> Oh thanks for your reply. Here in Québec city consulting companies charge 70-75 for gov contracting, and in insurances companies you can get 80-100 per hour. Yes add your e-mail adress, we can take the discussion further :)

<comment><USER6> Done.

<comment><USER16> Hi, sorry for the late reply, that's my other account, I can't see your e-mail on your profile. Thanks.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, check now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm from Toronto. Congrats to Toronto for its accomplishments.

It should be realized that their is a great standard of living available outside of major tech centers all across the country(s). The opportunity is different, but the jobs do exist. I'd argue that their is far more opportunity outside of tech centers than within. A tech center addresses the issue of distribution. More specifically, of concentration. Having a small cluster of a 100 or so tech businesses conveniently located pales in comparison to the 10's of thousands scatter across the corporate landscape.

Its myopic to measure 'success' with such a short term metric. My measure of success is different at a wholesale level from my 20's to my 40's. Toronto is fantastic for those less than 30. Tons to see and do, easy access to everything. Flash forward 20 years with a family and kids and it's not so attractive anymore. What were once benefits are now become detriments.

That being said, today is my last day at work in my less than 150K population town. I start a new job in 2 weeks, +$$, +benefits etc. Same scenario, smaller location. My compensation is is within striking distance of the wages in Toronto's tech center. But without the heavy cost of accommodations (all else being marginally cheaper) but more importantly, I'm 5 minutes from a entire world of green space and the crushing humanity that is found in all major centers, Toronto included.

Enjoy your success T.O. :D

<comment><USER18> As a Canadian-U.S. dual citizen who has spent my whole life in Canada, and most of it in Toronto, I honestly can't justify settling down in Ontario. The taxes are high and complicated, the services are subpar (and I don't use most of them), and Canada largely lacks the civil rights stability enjoyed in the U.S. under the Constitution (as currently amended and interpreted), particularly regarding freedom of speech and the bounds of unlawful search.

<comment><USER19> lolwat

<comment><USER20> Please don't do this here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Toronto's tech talent is keen... but relatively green. Since few companies have had to deal with scaling networks, users and data to the same magnitude as is common with Valley companies, it's almost impossible to find senior engineers worthy of the title. Plenty of options for junior and intermediate, though.

<comment><USER22> Yeah. I'm struggling to find really solid engineers in the city. I need really experienced people and I can't find anyone. Even the most sr consultants and contractors have a lot of gaps and don't understand the real edge cases that appear in systems.

I was lucky enough to learn from a team as we went through a google acquisition and watch and learn as the technology was scaled in both the context of a startup, and later inside Google. I was the whitebelt in the back of the room but that experience of working in that team was the most valuable experience I could have ever hoped for and I still regularly mail the people that I absorbed from to let them know how grateful I am to have taken me along on that journey. It's not a common experience but that completely humbled me and fixed my dunning-kruger arrogant ass.

<comment><USER23> Jumping into a project with a truly world-class team is a very humbling experience, and certainly something to seek out in one's career!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why live in Toronto for a 90k CAD salary when I can live close to Waterloo and get an 80k CAD salary? Perhaps I'm very lucky, but it goes a lot farther.

<comment><USER25> You can live in Waterloo and work in Toronto. Commute by greyhound daily. I know people who do that for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> No, Toronto isn't a "Global tech leader"

A lot of startups, but a significant amount seem very "gimmicky". (Probably less than SV, but it seems there are less companies that "started up" then grew to a significant size). That or you can work for the Megacorps, usually in the suburbs in their lifeless campuses.

Not to mention the salaries.

Also Canada tech companies in general seems to use less open source than USA or Europe.

<comment><USER19> Ecobee, WealthSimple, Shopify,

<comment><USER26> I'd say Shopify is an exception (and it started in Ottawa)

I hadn't heard about the other two

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm from Toronto but did 3 year stint in SF and then a 4 year stint in NYC. I moved back to Toronto last year to purchase and settle into my home base. Love it here.

These comments are hilarious and so typical of Toronto - there is a reason it's called the "screwface capital" of the world and I think it really rings true.

</comment><comment><USER27> Those Mirvish+Gehry tower plans look hideous. How did such a monstrosity get approved? What an absolute embarrassment for Toronto, lol.</comment>


Two Indian engineers at Garmin in Kansas shot, one killed - <AUTHOR> http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134508139.html <comment><USER2> Pretty sickening news, but I'm glad the writer used the term 'terrorist', something the MSM tend to shy away from when the perp is white.

edit:

Definiton of terrorism from

Google:

      the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

Wikipedia:

      Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim

FBI:

      The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Just in case there's some confusion about this very obvious terrorist act.

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry. I do not care about dictionaries. Words gain and lose meaning by connotation, not by dictionaries. Good working definitions increase our ability to solve problems. Poor working definitions decrease them. In this case the proposed definition is a poor one.

If this is terrorism, there are dozens of terrorists acts every day. Hate crime? Sure. Drunken armed fool on his way to jail and a couple of guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely. Terrorism. Screw that. The word doesn't describe what happened. The western world is not in a war to stop armed stupid drunken men. Perhaps that's a great idea, but even then it wouldn't be terrorism.

My working definition of terrorism, which has served me well over the years, is "the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in order to effect political change"

<comment><USER4> _> the use of stealth to deliberately target civilians in order to effect political change_

Literally the only differences between your definition and the ones provided above are:

1\. They specifically mention _illegal_ violence so that e.g. police forces aren't considered terrorist organizations. Fair distinction, IMO.

2\. The part about stealth. (Because flying planes into buildings or blowing up cars is... stealthy?)

3\. The part about civilians (the parent's definition is more accurate -- terrorist attacks usually but not always involve civilians). IMO yours is a worse definition. It means IED attacks in Iraq weren't terrorism. So confusingly, on the front lines of the global war on terrorism, few if any Americans died at the hands of terrorists.

 _> Hate crime? Sure._

Sure. Why the hell not? What makes a hate crime _not_ terrorism? Terrorists attacks can be not hate crimes (e.g. if they target indiscriminately), but usually terrorist attacks are also hate crimes.

 _> Drunken armed fool on his way to jail and a couple of guys just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely._

How does this fit the "political change" aspect that's included in your parent's definitions? Wanting to not go to jail is only political in the most superficial of ways.

 _> The western world is not in a war to stop armed stupid drunken men_

So who and what are we at war with, exactly? I've been trying to figure that out for close to two decades now. And the prevailing answer has changed at least three times while the name of the war hasn't. So maybe _you 're_ the one with a terrible working definition of "terror".

<comment><USER3> I think the "war on terror" is an idiotic phrase, so please don't ask me to defend it. The best I have is that some countries have decided to act against people who use terrorism.

The reason why is that _terrorism is a form of politics_. You can either spend a lot of money and try to persuade a population to agree with your position or you can convince them to live in fear of your power and to do your will out of that fear. This, also, is why terrorism is such an existential threat. It's not because of the body count. It's because a very small number of terrorists can effectively hold hostage millions of voters. That breaks democratic forms of governance in bad ways.

For what it's worth, I view the "war on terror" in much the same way as I view the "war on landmines", or the "war on poverty". "War" is so overloaded as to be meaningless.

I think with terrorism you can at least offer a working definition and drive analysis further. With "war", it's such a mess that I think as a word it's useless now.

<comment><USER5> > The reason why is that terrorism is a form of politics.

If you think the uptick in anti-immigrant, and more largely anti-minority, discrimination and violence has nothing to do with our politics I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Srinivas Kuchibhotla, died of his injuries in a Kansas City hospital. He is said to have left behind a wife who is five months pregnant. ... His bereaved wife and his family are trying to raise money to send his body back to India for his funeral. "

I'm terribly ashamed of the state of our shining city upon on a hill.

<comment><USER7> It is indeed a terrible loss. But what I don't understand is:

> His bereaved wife and his family are trying to raise money to send his body > back to India for his funeral

Is it a common thing to raise money as in community support etc or despite being engineers and all people just do not save money for their emergency needs.

Edit: Sorry about this question. Now I think it is rather tactless question, asked on this unfortunate occasion.

<comment><USER8> Even assuming his wife was also working, it's a good bet she has plenty of bills to pay, and dipping into savings for funeral expenses when you just lost half your household income is not something I would ever suggest anyone do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> High time citizens from rest of the world actively boycott travelling & working in the USA. It is just not worth getting shot by a random idiot while walking on the street.

<comment><USER10> This kind of news about racists and bigots running around the country coupled together with the fact that one person at the border can mess up your entire life for not giving away your passwords makes me want to stay away from the U.S for now.

Don't get me wrong, visiting the US has always been a dream for me and almost everyone I know, since it was this place where someone could go to make something of themselves, you know a place where they accepted and rewarded you for the hard work you did. May be we grew up and now realize that dream was just really good marketing. Who knows, I am just sad I have to read stuff like this too frequently these days.

<comment><USER11> I can understand your unease with visiting the US, and I certainly don't wish to dismiss your valid concerns, but I think tragic and hateful events like this can also serve to highlight the good in people.

It should be noted that one of the injured was some random white dude who tried to pursue the gunman.

Again, I understand why you feel the way you do and I'm not dismissing those concerns, but there are a lot of wonderful people in the US as well.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. And to add to our comment his name is

Ian Grillot the hero in this story. There is a go-fund me page that was set up for him by his sisters.

[https://www.gofundme.com/a645d-ians-road-to- recovery](https://www.gofundme.com/a645d-ians-road-to-recovery)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Better source:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india- idUSKBN1630LZ](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india-idUSKBN1630LZ)

<comment><USER13> I don't know why you are downvoted. Most sources in this world are better than Juan Cole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Freak incidents are heart-breaking, particularly when we don't really know what one could have done to prevent them. As an outsider to a typical U.S lifestyle, one thing that puzzles me is why do people need a gun even when they are in a social place like a bar. This is not a first of its kind shooting happening in U.S. As far as I can remember, all the freak incidents in U.S some way or other involve shooting, out of the mind gunmen etc.

I'm thankful that at least in my country I will not get killed by a random person with whom I'm having conversation with.

P.S: I'm from India.

<comment><USER15> It is perfectly well-known how to avoid such things: Stronger gun control to raise the difficulty of achieving death of others; state-enforced education levels with low to zero cost. Sadly these things run counter to the convictions of a loud enough part of the US population that they cannot usefully be implemented.

<comment><USER16> Problem is not enough people carry guns. This guy knew he wouldn't be met with any resistance and that's why he was able to do what he did.

<comment><USER17> Often, people like this don't have the right to bear arms. It's not described whether the victim was a permanent resident but considering when he graduated from college, I think it's reasonable to say that he wasn't.

Being an Indian national, he would have had to have waited 8 years or more to become a permanent resident. In that time, he would have had his visa renewed repeatedly. His visa is likely to have been an H1-B.

I suppose, then, the questions are: Are you in favour of foreigners in America bearing arms? Or are you in favour of a faster permanent residency process?

Both of those things are the only real way that the victim could have legally carried a firearm.

<comment><USER16> I am in favor of legal immigrants carrying arms provided they can pass all the other legal requirements for ownership and carry.

Even still, it need not be just the intended target victim that is armed. You need a critical mass of enough bystanders having the capability to defend others. That is the only way to provide a chance at an effective defense as well as a strong psychological deterrent.

<comment><USER15> Talk to soldiers, talk to police officers, talk to marines, talk to any professional who's ever experienced actual battle. Ask them:

Would you feel confident to use your gun when you're relaxed in a social setting and someone suddenly starts shooting?

(I won't spoil the answer for you, plenty have been asked, you can google it.)

<comment><USER16> It's a reasonable question, but I know I certainly wouldn't feel confident unarmed in that scenario.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> 20 minutes drive from me.

People might perceive Kansas as a backwards agrarian holdfast, but Olathe where this happened is a pretty thriving tech and aerospace corridor. Everyone here is pretty upset about it. Hopefully justice will be served.

<comment><USER19> It will be. The shooter is going to get the death penalty I'm quite certain of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think the words of the third man, who was shot pursuing the shooter (He had thought the man had emptied his gun), are powerful:

"It's not about where he [victim] was from or his ethnicity. We're all humans, so I just did what was right to do."

<comment><USER21> Here's a video of the interview: [http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134581204....](http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134581204.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Tragic story. A GoFundMe page has been set up for Kuchibhotla's wife and family, if you're interested in helping out.

[https://www.gofundme.com/srinus-familyrecovery- support](https://www.gofundme.com/srinus-familyrecovery-support)

</comment><comment><USER23> Timothy McVeigh was a white terrorist. This is a hate crime committed by a racist alcoholic. "Terrorism" is the wrong word here. I also take issue with this statement:

 _> "Remember, the shooter had been told by Trump-Bannon that Muslims hate America and should be excluded from the US."_

This lays bare the author's intention to blame Trump for every crime that is ever committed against middle-eastern people in the US. This is obviously an absurd and extreme notion.

So this article is an extremely biased, politicized version of a legitimate news event. I thought HN had an "original source" policy. The link should probably be changed to the actual news article upon which this drivel is based, which is here [1].

[1] [http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134508139....](http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134508139.html)

<comment><USER24> Lets not try to minimize his racism by allocating ANY of the blame on his possible alcoholism. He's a racist murder, who just happens to be a drunkard.

<comment><USER23> I guess I wouldn't ever excuse or minimize any crime based upon alcoholism, so I didn't take into account that others might. I just meant that he was a drunk racist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Its quite sad to see innocent folks getting killed in the crossfire/emotions that were invoked for politics. I used to live in Kansas, am an Indian and have young kids. This has disturbed me so much emotionally I'm not even sure what to look for next and the way things are going, this is just the beginning.

<comment><USER26> Why not come back to India? I know the lifestyle cannot be compared to the US but hey at least you can be part of directly building the Nation. It's better to live in peace (with freedom) than live in fear (and in a golden cage).

<comment><USER25> India is not all that great either...I was in India for 6 months last year, and I have seen kids getting kidnapped for ransom by friends. My wife's cousin was killed for ransom last year. Dont know which is better/worse.

<comment><USER26> True and I'm not disputing you. In India it also depends on the kind of social circle you have. I have heard of such stories myself. However, it largely depends on who you make friends with or have relations with.

But these are all incidents that have a backdrop of some sort and these stories are quite common in any country you go to. I'm not talking about such incidents. What I'm talking about is random shootings: Rarely is it the case (at least I haven't heard of any in India) that some random stranger comes up to you and starts unloading bullets just because you are of some different ethnicity/background. Be it school shootings or pub fights, most incidents that come out of USA are racial targeting where the perpetrator does not have any idea about his targets (victims).

Even the caste-based violence in India stems out of some real backdrop: Inter- caste marriages, dowry harassment etc. All these are avoidable if you have the right social circle. What you can't avoid is crazies going around with guns shooting random people based on how their look.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is terrifying. I am speechless now. One thing comes to my mind is to avoid those encounters as possible, maybe those states as whole. Just sad.

<comment><USER28> That's absurd. This took place in *Olathe, Kansas- which is adjacent to the Kansas City metro area that straddles the KS MO border. This is as much an anomoly here as it would be when it happens anywhere else: [https://www.fbi.gov/file- repository/activeshooter_incidents_...](https://www.fbi.gov/file- repository/activeshooter_incidents_2001-2016.pdf/view)

<comment><USER29> Are you sure about that? Kansas City has a problem with this sort of stuff:

[http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134041159....](http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article134041159.html)

[http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kansas- city...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kansas-city-bomb- plot-20150911-story.html)

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

<comment><USER28> You could say this about any city that has enough people in it:

[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&rlz=1C5...](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS723US723&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Austin+terror+Threat&safe=off&tbm=nws)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=Paris+Terror+Threat&rlz=1C5C...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Paris+Terror+Threat&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS723US723&oq=Paris+Terror+Threat&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l4j69i61.2128j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Paris+Terror+Threat&safe=off&tbm=nws)

[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&rlz=1C5...](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS723US723&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bangalore+terror+threat&safe=off&tbm=nws)

I think that this stuff is really, truly tragic and that one of the takeaways is that terrorism is really effective. Please don't be terrorized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I am an Indian student awaiting a J-1 Visa. Should I drop my plans of visiting USA? I do not feel safe travelling there myself anymore.

<comment><USER31> You'll be fine. The murder rate in the US is comparable to India's. Pretty much by definition, anything that makes the (inter)national news is a rare event.

There's some bad shit going down in this country, but it's not to the point where people need to fear for their lives. (And I think/hope it will remain that way.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As a counterpoint, elsewhere in Kansas:

[http://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/516016940/a-thriving-rural- tow...](http://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/516016940/a-thriving-rural-towns- winning-formula-faces-new-threats-under-trump-administrat)

Olathe, and I guess Johnson County in general, is a weird place. It's like the Texas of the Kansas City Metro area: wealthy, egotistical, and clueless. Based on some of the jaw-dropping shit I've heard locals say, this is probably not the first time these engineers experienced an incident of public racism.

<comment><USER29> A counterpoint to your counterpoint: [http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Federal-officials-to- announ...](http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Federal-officials-to-announce- arrests-in-major-investigation-397095961.html)

Although you're correct about Johnson County.

<comment><USER32> Thanks, I had a little feeling that I was forgetting _something_ about Garden City. Frankly I don't see how anyone could live there, although I suppose it's a good potential source for Mars colonists. They won't miss trees or geographical features...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 3 People were shot, it should be noted.

</comment><comment><USER34> You'll get more objective info from the YouTube video than the editorializing article.

</comment><comment> happy-go-lucky Guns don't help make the world a better place. I'm non-partisan.

<comment><USER35> You're risking downvotes by expressing an expectation of downvotes, which is explicitly against the guidelines.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Edit to add: Thanks for updating your comment!

<comment> happy-go-lucky > Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim > that you expect to get downvoted.

+1. I had to remove _I know I 'm risking downvotes, but_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Aww man, this is sad

</comment><comment><USER37> Url changed from [http://www.juancole.com/2017/02/terrorist-american- engineers...](http://www.juancole.com/2017/02/terrorist-american- engineers.html), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's quite unkind to _tell_ someone who's feeling fear because a murder happened that they are being "absurd".

<comment><USER37> You two went seriously off the rails in this thread. No more descents into flamewar madness, please. That's not why we're all here, and it's bloody tedious.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723202](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723202) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER15> I agree the deeper part of the thread was useless. That's why i stopped participating. However:

All i did was try to give him the benefit of the doubt until it was clear he was trolling. If things like this bother you, i recommend actually taking steps that discourage people from arguing in bad faith.

It is extremely hard to determine when someone is just ignorant, or when they're taking the piss; but when it's clear the latter should not be acceptable.

<comment><USER37> You've done this kind of thing repeatedly; it's not just about the other fellow.

HN depends on us keeping our comments _more_ civil and substantive as a topic gets contentious or another person's comments get annoying. I say _more_ because we all have a bias not to perceive how we're slipping in such situations (it always feels like someone else started it while "I merely", etc.), so there needs to be a conscious counteraction.

<comment><USER15> I'm sorry for further discussing here, and would prefer to do this in private if you care, but i feel quite frustrated with you seemingly accusing me of having done something i cannot perceive even when trying to look for it, and thus having no clue what should've been done differently here in your opinion.

Do you honestly think i was uncivil? Made unsubstantive (non-factual?) comments? If so, where?

Because quite frankly on reviewing the conversation i cannot see it. I can see only comments from me that are perfectly polite and factual, except for the last edit in the last post i made, where i stopped being polite.

<comment><USER37> Yes, the problems are incivility and an unwillingness to let an unproductive argument drop.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724307](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724307) was uncivil, as you mention. So was [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13723815). I don't mean to pick on you personally, but your username sticks in my mind as someone who's done this kind of thing a fair bit. You're a good commenter otherwise, so I/we'd appreciate it if you'd work on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is terrible. At best, it was a drunken asshole murdering someone. It sounds like it might have been a racially motivated hate crime, though. (I'm not sure if I'd call it terrorism unless the goal were to terrorize other people, but quite possibly.)

<comment><USER6> > not sure if I'd call it terrorism unless the goal were to terrorize other > people

One of the things we've been working on in our office is learning empathy. So we take the characters in an incident narrative, reverse/flip all persons/locations and then see how it changes our perception of the incident. So in this example, if we reverse everything, it becomes: "An Indian man shouting "Get Out Of My Country" in a bar shoots and kills two promising young American engineers working in India.". The effect that has would naturally be to make Americans afraid of going to or being in India, hence: terror alert, terrorism. So I can empathize and understand why the author of the article described the murderer as a terrorist.

<comment><USER39> You can empathise, but is this right? I think it would be silly to describe it as terrorism if it had happened in India. The fact that US's mainstream media would have done exactly that, wouldn't have made it less silly. So maybe (I mean it in a good way, even if it sounds a bit direct) you should use empathy to stop labelling things like this as terrorism, instead of doing the exact opposite.

<comment><USER40> If an Indian man shouted that immigrants should leave their country as they murder immigrants in India that's a pretty rhetoric to imply that they want to intimidate other immigrants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Total silence about this in the msm. I wonder why?

<comment><USER42> NY Times: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/world/asia/kansas- attack-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/world/asia/kansas-attack- possible-hate-crime-srinivas- kuchibhotla.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story- heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

Reuters: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india- idUSKBN1630LZ](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-india-idUSKBN1630LZ)

CNN: [http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/us/kansas-olathe-bar- shooting/...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/us/kansas-olathe-bar- shooting/index.html)

Washington Post: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2017/02/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2017/02/24/get-out-of-my-country-kansan-reportedly-yelled-before- shooting-2-men-from-india-killing-one/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_mm- kansas-151am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)

Ah yes, all that "silence".

</comment></comment><comment> happy-go-lucky He might be racially charged, but my intuition is telling me he would not have committed the crime if he were not under the influence.

<comment><USER43> would that bring back the dead...

<comment> happy-go-lucky No, for sure. What I'm trying to say is racist thoughts coupled with intoxication must have clouded his mind and led him to such an extreme.

<comment><USER44> Is a drunk terrorist any less deplorable than a sober one?

<comment> happy-go-lucky No. A situation involving terrorists carrying firearms and getting drunk is more dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Can we deep-six this blatantly biased article and get a real news report instead?

<comment><USER2> I think sometimes it helps to biased when the MSM narrative is going to deliberately shy away from calling things out as they actually are.

But still the facts here speak for themselves. The guy shot 2 Indians specifically because he thought they were 'Middle-Eastern' (i.e. Muslim). It's terrorism and it's good the writer called it terrorism, since the BBC article seems to not use this term.

<comment><USER46> I think the BBC use is very fair, so long as it is applied consistently. The guidelines for 'terrorist':

Terrorist

The word 'terrorist' is not banned, but its use can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber, attacker, gunman, kidnapper, insurgent and militant. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.

When we do use the term we should strive to do so with consistency in the stories we report across all our services, and in a way that does not undermine our reputation for objectivity and accuracy. It is also very important that we strive for consistency across the international and UK facing sites. If a BBC World story uses very measured language but a UK version does not, a user will rightly question the different approaches.

The words 'terror' and 'terrorist' may be used in a non-specific context, or in direct quotes - but it is not for us to label a particular group or specific act as terrorist.

Beware of paraphrasing and selective quotation, eg: "The Israeli prime minister said that while 'terrorist' attacks continued he would not back down." Putting the single word 'terrorist' in quotes may give the impression that the BBC is sceptical about the prime minister's assessment of the nature of the attacks.

Domestically, we tread a similar line on Northern Ireland. The IRA is so well known, worldwide, that a label is not necessary. Groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA can often be best labelled as dissident. A second reference to organisations such as the UFF and UVF could be along the lines of: The loyalist paramilitary organisation warned...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Hmm...

""Get out of my Country!" White Terrorist Shoots Asian-American Engineers in Wake of Trump Visa Ban"

Oh so the guy shot two Asian-Americans because of Trump's Visa Ban. Too bad that's not at all what the article says. At most the article says

"The White House sets a tone in a country. Trump's assertion that "Islam hates us" and his project of a Muslim ban sent a signal permitting hate crimes to the millions of unbalanced people in the US into whose hands the National Rifle Association has insisted on putting firearms. "

So let me get this strait. For this thought experiment I'm going to present the ideas as how I feel the author may see them.

        A -> B -> C

        A: Some guy, who was democratically elected by laws and regulations set up, established, and agreeded upon by all citizens of the US. He ran on a platform of ideas that he wanted and by extension, due to his ability to have a majority election, are mirrored by a majority of the states in the union.

        B: This guy does what he said he would do, or at least the closest political equivilent.

        C: People take this to mean we can just kill people whenever we want!

That logic doesn't make sense. I don't see the connection from A -> B -> C. Maybe there are more factors but for a title like this I expect a "I have proof that A -> B and from this data and from this other data I can prove that B -> C".

Also, I very much take umbridge with the statement that the NRA advocates, or results in, "unbalanced people" owning guns. I'd like to see some proof of why that claim is made. The NRA is perfectly fine with a specific set of gun control measures like FIDs, the right to refuse sale, and citizen run background checks. I don't think just stomping your feet and saying "the NRA is the problem" is going to make this (or any situation) better.

I also find it very funny that the only victim not mentioned in the title is the one who isn't "Asian-American". I know many far right-wing people who I'll send this to so they can have a chuckle at this sort of white washing. Big Brother would be proud at this authors ability to create a narative in such few words. He's given "For Sale, Baby Shoes; Never worn" a run for it's money with this one.

A better title would be "Three shot, one killed in Racist Attack" or something. I'm not a writer but leaving out a victum because it doesn't sound good in your title is just extremely sad in my opinion.

<comment><USER48> A: Some guy, who was democratically elected....

B: This guy ran on a xenophobic platform, declaring to ban an entire religion (unconstitutional). Travel ban, by the admission of his own people, was a way of "making it legal".

C: Emboldens extremists and racists in his fan base to commit murders.

A -> B -> C

There, fixed it for you.</comment></comment>


Why I just joined the NRA - <AUTHOR> http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2013/01/13/why-i-just-joined-the-nra-n1487478

<comment><USER2> The way to break gun violence is to teach people that the way to solve differences is not to make sure you're a bigger bad ass than anyone who might come in conflict with you.

Americans don't have a love of guns, they have a love of confrontation.

That was the most difficult cultural thing I had to learn when I moved to Japan.

<comment><USER3> Japan is a really serious outlier when it comes to not having a "love" of confrontation! I mean, their word for "you're wrong" doesn't even have that semantic content.

I suspect America is a lot closer to the middle than it.

<comment><USER2> I wasn't comparing to Japan, merely stating how it took an effort to change.

America may be in the middle confrontation-wise, but when you add in the ease of obtaining a handgun, you get the current problem.

<comment><USER3> Debatable, see my research on non-gun US and all method U.K. murder rates, which are really close: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935644>

I take this as evidence we're simply a violent people, however we're armed or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I applied for my Georgia Firearms (Concealed Carry) Licence today. My problem with the idea of gun control is that it assumes making something illegal will make it go away(We have seen how well that worked with Drugs, and Prohibition)

Sure its a bumper sticker slogan but there is some truth to the slogan that "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."

To me the only truly effective way to neutralize criminals or insane irrational people with guns, is to surround them with sane and rational people that peacefully also have guns.

<comment><USER5> I'm not in favor of gun regulation, but I disagree that the way to have less violence is to have more guns.

I just wish people liked guns less.

<comment><USER4> 12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well.

I dont really think people that like guns are the problem though. I would not classify myself as someone that "likes" guns. On the other hand i know people that "like" guns, and it's not that they likes the power a gun has, but they certainly understand and respect it, and therefore take extra care. They like them because they appreciate them for the same reason that people appreciate works of art, or sportscars. For the Craftsmanship, for the minior details that went into the design of the gun, for the historical value of the gun.

<comment><USER6> "12 guys killed 3000 people with nothing but box cutters. Obviously we need less boxcutters as well."

Pretty sure they used large aircraft to kill people and no one is crying tyranny over the idea that large aircraft need a bunch of regulations to ensure public safety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised this type of stuff hasn't gotten more attention here on HN. What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd amendment. I will side with the forefathers who made this counter 100 out of 100 times in relation to any recent politicians.

No one ever said that Freedom was easy or that it didn't come at a cost. It does and always will. But maintaining freedom and our core principles as laid out long ago should be a goal we never stop working towards. This seems like a huge step backwards.

<comment><USER8> > What some politicians are proposing right now is an outright snub of the 2nd > amendment

So what? Maybe the 2nd amendment is wrong, or a bad idea, or a 200 year old proclamation that is no longer relevant in modern times? People's attachment to this clause is just... fundamentalist.

And why do people insist on equating gun ownership with freedom? You're not allowed to own bombs or missiles, does that also mean I am not free?

There's lots of things we're not free to do which actually makes us freer: not to steal, or house break, or kill people. I for one am glad my freedom is curtailed in this manner. It means i can live in a (largely) peaceful and safe society, and am free to go about my business with minimum threat to my existence or assets. And further adding to my sense of security is the knowledge that I am very unlikely to ever be threatened, injured or killed by a gun as almost no one owns one here - because they are illegal.

Everybody in Europe manages just fine without owning guns, what makes american's so special? why do you need to own a gun? (yeah sure, self defence, but if no one had them in the first place that wouldn't be necessary)

<comment><USER7> What makes American's so special is the fact that we are a unique country. A country that was built on our core values, as they are laid out in our constitution of the united states that has guided us and has never steered us wrong.

We are the same country that came to the worlds aid (and europe, especially) during WW1 and WW2.

Our beliefs aren't perfect. They just happen to be less wrong then others, IMHO... and in the opinion of a large majority of our country.

If you can't understand why the right to keep and bear arms is an essential aspect of being american then you are short sighted and have refused to see how history repeats itself over and over throughout mankind.

I 100% believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said the following: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Once you start picking apart our constitution, little by little, you soon open up the flood gates for rights and liberties to be taken away much more easily.

They can already wire-tap without a warrant. Now they want the guns. This is how it starts...

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Lets modify the above...

First they came for the assault rifles, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one.

Then they came for the bolt action rifles, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one.

Then they came for the pistols, and I didn't speak out because I didn't own one.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left with the capabilities to defend me.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..>.

Having the ability to arm yourself and defend yourself and uprise against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT should the need arise is specifically why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was... and I believe they felt very strongly about this. It's #2 on the list after all.

When we try to outsmart the people that made our great country, we usually mess it up.

Just my 2c.

<comment><USER6> "constitution of the united states that has guided us and has never steered us wrong"

Slavery?

<comment><USER3> Errr, without accepting slavery there wouldn't have been a Constitution or United States of America. And it did provide a mechanism for outlawing it, although that of course just ratified the outcome on the battlefields.

[ Clarified: it -> slavery. ]

<comment><USER6> I have no idea what your point is.

"Errr, without accepting it there wouldn't have been a Constitution or United States of America. "

Maybe this is also true about the second amendment?

"And it did provide a mechanism for outlawing it"

Maybe this is also relevant to gun control?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree that making something illegal won't make it go away and that is why I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else. I'm not talking about wacky conspiracy theories or a government military takeover but something along the lines of someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation. I don't think it's "to protect Americans" but to pad the pocketbooks of politicians, appease lobbyist or some other sort of twisted expression of this recent uprise in government corruption.

The article mentions a staggering obvious truth, "Why would we rush to ban guns, when almost all of our mass murders and most of our violent crimes occur in places with the strictest gun control?" There is also the fact that the proposed gun control laws all talk about assault rifles. That's fine, go after assault rifles but don't overlook handguns too. Last year in Chicago, more people were killed by handguns than the total number of those killed in all of the mass shootings over the last decade. How can those proposing gun control ignore that? Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US yet it has one of the highest rates of murder in the US…most of which results from the use of handguns. Yet, assault rifles and high capacity magazines are the problem….

<comment><USER6> "I think all of the so called gun ban legislation is a front or cover for something else..... someone somewhere will greatly benefit from some sort of gun control legislation.'

So you're saying that the universal outrage over all these children being murdered couldn't possibly lead to good faith attempts to reform society to prevent similar events? You're saying it's probably a front for ... something? That the powerful archery, knife and karate lobbies were just waiting for any pretext to get rid of guns so they can start raking in the bucks?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I think he is just saying it doesn't make sense to start taking away guns from everyone because of this. It is not logical.

32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car.

If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles?

I understand this is an emotional time, but how is this so difficult to understand?

Let me put it a different way.

Good regulation: Drive drunk and you can lose your right to drive or end up in prison.

Bad regulation: Drive drunk and your neighbor gets his car taken away.

<comment><USER6> "32,367 died in automobile accidents in the US in 2011, but no one is trying to take away your car."

Plenty of new regulations related to cars and highways every year to make them safer.

"If the Newtown tragedy happened differently and the killer used his car to run over 20 children. Would you want new legislation to limit your access to automobiles?'

Are you really asking that if reality was completely different would I maybe believe different things then I believed in this reality? Maybe. The Newtown tragedy is not a singular event. It's just the latest event.

"how is this so difficult to understand?"

How is the empirical fact that gun control works and limits deaths in many countries so hard for you to understand?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not completely convinced all of his facts are backed up, but I do agree with his sentiments. Gun control will never be an answer to violent crime, far too easy to obtain illegally. I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the Clinton ban.

I agree that mental illness awareness is a much better place to spend the $500 million Obama just asked for gun control.

More government always fixes things! .... right?!

<comment><USER6> "far too easy to obtain illegally."

Please go to Japan and obtain a gun illegally as proof of this claim.

" I remember my gun nut friends all had illegal assault rifles during the Clinton ban."

Bad regulation is proof that all regulation doesn't work! ... right?

<comment><USER3> Japan has forbidden the keeping and bearing of arms by normal subjects since _1588_ ; the collective guilt based controls that followed during the Shogunate were sufficiently hideous that I really can't see any utility in comparing the two nations in these areas.

<comment><USER6> Handguns were outlawed in 1958 and new rifles since 1971. Shotguns are available but heavily regulated.

"I really can't see"

The point I was making was pretty obvious but I'll repeat it here again: it is actually very possible to make it hard to obtain a gun. Japan is hardly the only exhibit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're considering joining the NRA for the same reasons as in this article, I'd strongly suggest you also join the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is also well regarded, and if you're a Californian, Calguns (or in other states, your state's gun association).

<comment><USER3> If you want effectiveness, though, I only recommend the NRA (reluctantly, details upon request) and the SAF, since the latter has been the major driver in the lawsuits that started with _Heller_. The JPFO has done some good propaganda, but the last time I checked went off in a bad tangent with L. Neil Smith (who got too extreme for me not too many books after _The Probability Broach_ ). The GAO is too partisan and into conservative and Republican causes beyond the RKBA to be of much use even in their ratings, and they have very very little influence.

<comment><USER11> SAF is probably my favorite. Firearms Policy Coalition (which seems to be Calguns + SAF) is also nice, and new.

My big problem with NRA is how spammy they are to members. NRA-ILA is one thing, but being offered overpriced auto insurance, etc. all the time was really annoying. I eventually got off all the marketing lists, but it took a few tries.

<comment><USER12> I took the compromise route: I donated to NRA-ILA as needed, but refuse to join NRA proper. In short term, NRA-ILA solves the most acute problem: lobby against stupid gun laws.

However, they don't solve the problem that (you too have pointed out) of population gradually turning against gun ownership. If anything, railing against pop-culture makes them look like hypocrites and actively hurts the longer term (10+ years out) outlook.

<comment><USER3> That's a good posture, and all my donations are indeed going to the NRA-ILA.

I did rejoin the NRA just to add to their numbers; no doubt they'll support some stupid "compromise" soon enough again and I'll not renew, but for now I think it's the best thing, maladroit as they are.

I am not, BTW, under the impression that the population is "gradually turning against gun ownership". If that were true, how could we have had a nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes from Florida in 1987 to Wisconson in 2011, totaling 42 states (with Vermont, Washington and maybe Indiana already having been there before it started)?

8 million outstanding licenses and counting, plus who knows in the 4 states with "Constitutional Carry" (no license required if you're not forbidden), Arizona having a substantial population (6.5 million, 15th in the nation).

And I don't believe the gun grabber propaganda that the same people are just buying more guns; for one extreme claim, someone did the math and came out with an _average_ $100K investment per gun owning citizen.

But, yes, the NRA's pop-culture stuff, especially gaming, was an own goal and doesn't help in the long term. But there are plenty of RKBA types like myself who are happy to poison young people's minds about the NRA ^_^, so we'll see what happens after we get past the current mess.

<comment><USER12> > especially gaming

Experiment: go to the range, find 10 men or women under the age of ~35 with AR-15s. Ask if they play first person shooters. Pretty sure over 75% will say "yes."

I am not an FPS person myself -- I like nethack and freeciv -- but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by the first amendment, the demographics just can't be ignored.

<comment><USER3> I would modify the above to:

" _but aside from the fact that even violent video games are unambiguously protected by_ current _first amendment_ jurisprudence"

You wouldn't have to go too far back for your original statement to be iffy or downright false; that said, I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future, but then again the Supremes are never entirely predictable.

<comment><USER12> 7-2 decision seems fairly solid to me. Breyer is being... Breyer (whose judicial philosophy seems to be more of "that's just like your opinion, man..."), and I would say Thomas' dissent is more focused on "in loco parentis" role of the state (in line with his other decisions involving minors) -- which I haven't really noticed amongst other prominent jurists (given Thomas is generally very solid on 1A).

The law overturned in Brown [originally -- in irony of all ironies -- Schwarzenegger] vs. Entertainment Merchants Association was created by a fellow who is currently better known for gems like these:

[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_249_bill_20120522_amended_asm_v96.html)

[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a great video on what needs to be said: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hR3t7j2tUec)</comment>


IRCCloud finally launches - <AUTHOR> https://www.irccloud.com?q=launch

<comment><USER2> Personally I run ZNC on a VPS and use Yaaic on Android. Does the job.

I'm not sure how I feel about this service, it seems to go against the ephemerality of IRC as a meeting place, people coming and going, etc. Personally I prefer it when the IRC channels I frequent aren't full of ghosts, and where someone joining a channel is reason to actually say hello, rather than using channels as glorified message boards.

It's still interesting, though I'd prefer if there was some innovation on the server/protocol side rather than just cloudifying what we have.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Not sure how long ago they launched, but seems they are out of invite only BETA, use them quite a bit, and they have been fantastic.</comment>


Upvote: Google's open source, multi-platform binary whitelisting solution - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/google/upvote <comment> mike-myers To clarify for those not familiar: Google Upvote is a management server for the enforcement agents that run on the endpoints, like Bit9 or Google's own Santa.

It's good that they released this interface, because Santa was difficult to configure manually.</comment>