Teenagers say goodbye to Facebook and hello to messenger apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/10/teenagers-messenger-apps-facebook-exodus <comment><USER2> Of course teens are leaving Facebook. I'm pushing 30 and use Facebook to share pictures of my kid with my parents and my wife's parents and my wife's grandmother (all of whom are active on Facebook). If I were a teenager, I wouldn't use it with all that parental oversight.

If there wasn't all this youth worship in Silicon Valley, nobody would see this as a problem for Facebook. We have a lot more disposable income than teenagers do.

<comment><USER3> "We have a lot more disposable income than teenagers do."

That's arguable. Most people I know with teenagers would say their kids have more influence on family spending than they do.

For me personally, years of barely scraping by have left me with anxiety and guilt anytime I spend money on frivolous things. My kids on the other hand seem to have no issue spending their allowance on movies, toys, and shitty little trinkets. I'm not sure how to instill a sense of frugality without letting them go hungry for a while.

<comment><USER4> My parents never gave us an allowance. If we wanted to go to the movies with a friend, or if there was a book I wanted, they'd pay for it (within reasonable limits)- but no allowance.

The only cash I got was from grandparents for birthday/christmas, or doing yard work. But my main hobby was reading, so I just went to the library and never did any yard work as I didn't need the money.

As a teenager it slightly irritated me, when I saw some of my friends whose parents gave them 20 euros a week or w/e- but now as an adult I live as frugally as one can live as an engineer in the bay area (I still eat out way too much, silly social pressure) and am glad my parents did it that way.

<comment><USER5> As you indicate, you were the minority. Teens are perhaps one of the most valuable consumer markets.

<comment><USER4> Yup, I realize that. OP was sharing his interrogations about how he could best instill a sense of frugality in his kids, so I thought I'd give him an additional data point :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Watching this with my emerging teenagers. Their biggest complaint is that FB is complicated. They are super comfortable using stand alone apps for single use tasks. FB won't let them double tap a screen to love. It moves things around so they're out of chronological order. It all drives them nuts. Plus it's true that Uncles and Grandparent's comment and that freaks them out.

<comment><USER7> _FB won 't let them double tap a screen to love. _

Does that mean something? Is there a new app you double tape on things to "love" them instead of "like" them?

<comment><USER6> Instagram heart

<comment><USER7> What's the full progression of vapid casual enthusiasm?

Like -> Love -> (Have Sex With) -> (Worship as The One True God) -> (Idealize as The Genius Successor of Steve Jobs) -> (Give Read/Write Access to My Bank Accounts) -> (Grant my Power of Attorney To) -> (Dissolve Myself and Transfer My Full Agency as a Human To)

<comment><USER8> Where does "digg" fall in that?? ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> May I ask why is there so much fuss about youngsters? Yes, they will be the consumers of tomorrow but how about the consumers of today? I'm in my early 40s I earn a lot and I spend a lot. Plus I have my interests pretty fixed. Why aren't the companies drooling to get my attention instead?

<comment><USER10> > Plus I have my interests pretty fixed. Why aren't the companies drooling to > get my attention instead?

Couldn't " _Plus I have my interests pretty fixed._ " be the answer to that question?

<comment><USER11> That can be read multiple ways, in that even the worlds dumbest advertising / spyware network should be able to easily figure out I'm into hard sci fi and have been into hard sci fi for a long time and probably be into hard sci fi for quite awhile, such as the financially precious immediate future where I will almost certainly drop some $$$ on sci fi books. I'm an easy sell, I know what I like, it should NOT be hard for advertisers to figure it out, I want to spend money on it, and I've got plenty of money. But nobody cares. You don't get PR by making money, only by getting eyeballs and accounts.

On the other hand, watching my own kids, its star wars today, gone tomorrow. Minecraft today, gone tomorrow. Lego today, gone tomorrow. Even if you could track my son and accurately predict his current interests, knowing that he WAS really into star wars a year ago is pretty much financially useless given that he seems to be into lego branded cartoons right now, although next year both will be forgotten in favor of something else.

<comment><USER12> I think your example of your kids' interests is exactly why that demographic is seen as so valuable for advertising.

One poster has a middle-aged interest in hard sci-fi; for $x advertising allocation per individual it's going to be difficult to shift his interests. The same $x applied to teenagers year after year 'flips' them from one revenue-generating interest to another. And sets them up, the advertisers hope, for a non-niche middle-aged interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the OP's closing sentence:

> _But there is little doubt that millions of teens will use these apps more > and more, and older demographics will eventually join them. There 's a good > chance that will continue to be at the expense of Facebook._

Wow, that's quite the compelling evidence...the Guardian has "little doubt"!

Another great data point:

> _The roll-out is still in its infancy, but after one music streaming service > in the Middle East added the WhatsApp sharing button, its was surprised to > find its users sharing 50% more songs via WhatsApp than Facebook._

The "one music streaming service in the Middle East" that apparently is so popular it doesn't need to be named! Of course, the above statement could also be true if the startup's users previously shared one song on Facebook and have shared 2 on Whatsapp, but who's counting?

<comment><USER14> You sound like you disagree with their conclusions? Or do you just not like the Guardian?

Either way, it would be more interesting to discuss your own opinions

<comment><USER13> I can't disagree with their conclusions because such specious evidence is used to back them up, cherry-picking non-sequiturs from various agencies and analysts to support a hypothesis that has been run into the ground since FB's IPO. Mostly, I'm just annoyed that an article with this theme has popped up again, even though it was discussed on HN just a couple days ago, and provides no real insight except: Yep, kids are trying things out. That's not a bad thing to ponder, but to ponder it in several different threads within the same weekend? Kind of annoying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There is something that I don't see mentioned too often in articles: Teenagers don't just leave Facebook entirely, they just use it differently. So they'll check Facebook from time to time and possibly have an account, but do more and more interactions with messenger apps with their friends. So I see high school students using Facebook one way, because parents and grandparents are on it, and then using apps for the _primary_ communication with friends. In that sense they aren't leaving as much as they are changing how they use it.

>When people set up events and get-togethers on Facebook, West and her boyfriend tend to reply on WhatsApp instead because...

This article actually mentions it. That's exactly what I've seen happen. Facebook is _still_ used, but it is used differently.

<comment><USER16> Occasional use is also unprofitable use for FB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Funny, I finally took the plunge too just the other day and I'm not a teen. Deleted everything, my whole account, every post, every photo, every tag, every poke, after I downloaded a copy of my stuff of course. But it was not easy task, oh no! They deliberately make it difficult to delete things! The only way is manually one by one, but its worth it. Finally FB free.

My reasons? Well it got really annoying how it turned into a Womans Magazine! Maybe I'm getting to that age when my friends are getting married and having kids, but I'm really not interested in posts of babies, Miley Cyrus BS, Royal Wedding nonsense etc... The list goes on and I only subscribed to reputable news sources like the Times, Guardian.

</comment><comment><USER18> This sounds just like when I was a teenager, and everyone used AIM and ICQ.

<comment><USER19> I think the takeaway from ICQ, AIM, MSN Messenger, Friendster, MySpace, etc is that as soon as you start losing users, then it's over and there's no winning users back. No matter how ubiquitous the service becomes in one's daily life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Instagram / Tumblr / Bitstrips / Vine are indicative of a post-literate society.

Users are avoiding processing words or concepts without imagery. The length of the facebook post / tweet is decreasing, the content - or level of content are suffering.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure i'd include Tumblr in that list: there's quite a bit of text on Tumblr. I would include Twitter, though, which has functioned as the axe-man in the death of literate discussion on the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> WhatsApp, iMessage, BBM, WeChat. They're all basically the same thing: Private messaging services. Simple. I think ultimately that's all people want to do as far as communication is concerned.

Not that any one service will win, but in order for any of them to do well, I think they need to do the following:

\- Private messaging

\- Group messages

\- Images

\- Free, or very very cheap (I don't think anybody has really tested the idea of charging a fee yet)

\- Cross-platform - leaving out BBM and iMessage

\- Some way of getting your address book from an _existing_ address book

\-- Web/desktop messaging. This isn't as important for the younger generation but for many others it is.

The only reason BBM and iMessage are or were popular was because they came pretty early and came with devices, but leaving friends out of conversations because they use a different platform from you is damaging, which is why WhatsApp became so popular, and why Facebook Messenger is so popular too.

<comment><USER22> FYI: WhatsApp charged initially to cover their server costs.

<comment><USER23> They still charge $0.99/yr after the first year (which is free).

<comment><USER21> Really? I haven't been charged yet!

<comment><USER24> Some accounts got charged after a free year, some got charged after a "trial" of many years, others get "gifted" a lifetime free service.

I'm in the last group, but I know that people that had to pay for WhatsApp.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Okay I'm probably one of the few devs on HN that actually likes Facebook. It helps me communicate with my friends, parents, etc.

The only social network I like more than FB is Path.

Also, I do enjoy Facebooks "Messenger" app. I use it often.

<comment><USER26> The Messenger app is the only thing keeping me on Facebook. It's so great to be able to communicate with people in a layer more formal than text but less formal than email.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I always loved instant messaging and hated those social networks that you have to 'build yourself' there, like facebook nowadays or the old myspace.

I wanna hook up with ppl 'right now' and sustain only what really matters for me; I don't wanna 'look this is my weekend', 'love u grandma', 'dude likes that company', 'that rockband is awesome!'. Fuck.

In this sense I think twitter is genius. Feels like instant messaging and still people get to know you in a 'lighter' way than facebook, without that ego avalanche.

</comment><comment><USER28> are teens really going to socialize on a platform their parents use? grandparents too! it would be like teens talking on the phone 30 years ago in the living room with all your family about. nope.

</comment><comment><USER29> And we are back to MSN days, the mobile version though...

<comment><USER30> I had a Windows Mobile 5 device, and it had MSN, at least I could write to my buddies who are on computer via my mobile. I miss those days.

<comment><USER31> IM-to-AIM bridge on my dumbphone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Honestly I don't see where all these articles about 'teens leaving facebook' come from. I don't recognize the problem at all, I have 0 friends who are leaving facebook. Admitted: I'm in my early 20s and so are most of my friends. But except for whatsapp, messenger apps dont seem to be really popular here. Is this something that is specific to the US?

<comment><USER33> I'm in the US, here's what most of my friends are doing:

* saying "fuck it" to Facebook and using Instagram as their primary means of communication to "everyone" * using SnapChat or WhatsApp for other communication * people are actually starting to text.

When I look at my FB feed, I see the posts of 10-15 people max. I do check people's pages just to make sure FB is not fucking me over (and sometimes it is) but most of the time, people just drop off facebook. They're not "leaving" but they're not using it.

<comment><USER34> I keep seeing everyone say that people are communicating via Instagram. Can someone explain how that is possible? It sounds extremely inconvenient, since you can only post pictures and comment on said pictures.

<comment><USER35> I'm a full-time traveler these days and my wife and I have probably met around 10 couples (actual offline meetings) via Instagram.

Facebook is more for people you know. (Filled with babies and relatives.. etc) where Instagram has been great for finding like minded folks and following along with their lives in short snippets.

As for how to communicate, Instagram has user tagging. Even in others comments. Basically the same as sms messaging.

( My wife has more followers than me and I need to catch up: [http://instagram.com/wandering_tim](http://instagram.com/wandering_tim) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The article seems to paint teenagers as Facebook's core and initial user base. But I distinctly remember it being college students. Facebook seems to be just as popular as it ever was with that crowd.

People may be getting misled by all the bullying stories and whatnot and forgot that.

</comment><comment><USER37> How do I put this: teens aren't stupid, they know fb and others farm their data for profit with little consideration for privacy.

So what they do? the same I would: leave and move to a better solution. I did that all the time back in the day, but its not so easy today, why? because now professional life demands you be part of whatever is work-trendy right now, and that includes having an up-to-date profile on every damn social network out there that isn't considered lame (cough _myspace_ )

It's bikeshedding to the max: did you build something truly innovative and significative? _sorry brah it 's not on my feed! and your klout score is really low, how can you be "in the know" if you barely tweet?_

</comment><comment><USER38> If Google is still serious about making a successful "social network" or whatever is the next evolution of that, then they should buy Whatsapp. I'd hate to see Facebook acquiring that one, too, like they did Instagram.

</comment><comment><USER39> Whatsapp is not so useful unless you have internet access, correct? I purposely avoid a data plan on my phone, so I haven't downloaded it. But I've noticed more people asking me to use it to communicate with them.

I've been saying goodbye to Facebook too. Not because I've got a preferred alternative, but because it's deliberately engineered to suck you into it. In the short term, you spend more time on it. In the long term, you set up systems to avoid visiting such a time sink. I never feel good after spending time browsing Facebook.

<comment><USER14> I don't know what country you're from, but in most of Europe and the US (or anywhere infact!) why would you not have a data plan for your phone? It's quite difficult to find a phone plan without some form of data included, even PAYG, and the price difference is often negligible.

Fair enough if using a fashionably retro 'dumb' phone and not a smart phone, in which case you can't use WhatsApp anyway. If you are using a smart phone without a data connection, then why? Surely you're missing out on all of the benefits of owning a smart phone like maps and instant access to online information, free messaging (WhatsApp anyone?).

If you just don't want a data plan, you can still use WiFi which would likely cover you for 80% of the time (home and work).

<comment><USER40> > It's quite difficult to find a phone plan without some form of data > included, even PAYG

Citation needed. Pay and go plans in the UK still charge data by the megabyte.

<comment><USER41> Yes but a lot of them come with 100 to 500MB free of data everytime you top-up

<comment><USER40> Which is great if you're topping up by £10+ every month (because the data allowance no doubt expires). If you're spending £10/month on credit, you may as well get a rolling contract and get minutes, texts and unlimited data (Giff Gaff -> £12)

I know plenty of people who aren't willing to pay that even though they use a smartphone (mostly on wifi)... and 20p/megabyte for occasional or accidental data use is just outrageous. Data prices are still a huge problem imo.

<comment><USER42> Have you checked out Three's 321 PAYG plan? If you're not using enough to justify a rolling plan, it looks like the best bet - 3p/min, 2p/text, 1p/mb. [http://www.three.co.uk/Store/Pay_As_You_Go_Price_Plans](http://www.three.co.uk/Store/Pay_As_You_Go_Price_Plans)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I've thought this for a while also - the big messaging apps like Whatsapp and Line and Kakao and WeChat are SO BIG and growing so fast already.

More reason to think they might "beat" Facebook is that a) many are already owned by Internet giants, i.e., have tons of resources to drive growth. WeChat is owned by Tencent/QQ and Line by South Korea's Naver. And b) they are Asia- centric where Facebook is weaker. Maybe these "international" players end up beating Facebook on its home turf.

</comment><comment><USER44> Simple messaging apps will always be attractive. Look at WhatsApp. Too many features can also be a put off. Look where wave went. Simplicity wins, always!!!

<comment><USER45> I downvoted, because this is very short-sighted. IRC is simple. Blogs are simple. They had their time but they didn't win. They should have, though.

<comment><USER14> IRC is not simple for the average Joe. WhatsApp is. Not quite sure how blogs come into this. Have they had their time? They seem to be more popular (and simpler) than ever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Somehow I'm still quite sceptical about this. No one actually has the statistics from Facebook's side to back this.

Stand-alone messaging apps are, according to the statistics, gaining traction but these two can go side by side with Facebook pretty easily. The only thing teenagers might be leaving according this article could be Facebook Messenger...

<comment><USER47> It makes perfect sense.

There is a finite amount of time. Facebook acquired most of the non-business social network space over the course of a particularly fast growing five or six years.

For apps like Snapchat to exist, with their huge user base and usage numbers, it must take time away from Facebook. The US market, as an example, is mostly tapped out on saturation when it comes to social media reach.

The posts that would have gone to Facebook in 2005 by college students, are no longer going to Facebook.

Who are Snapchat's users? The same users that typically adopt everything like this, the youngest consumers: teens and early 20 somethings.

It follows that Facebook has to be losing time share among young consumers to this phenomenon.

<comment><USER48> You are assuming that social network time is fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> It seems to me that the fundamental difference is the "timing" and duration of what you share online with your friends. Maybe it is more important what you want to share _now_ and not so much save everything you share in the same place to be seen for eternity. Interesting times I would say :)

</comment><comment><USER22> I think there is an opportunity for a startup to deliver a mobile messaging platform for developers to build apps on.

Parse.com would be ideal, but unfortunately is far too expensive for this use- case.

If this already exists, or someone would be interested in exploring this with me, let me know.

<comment><USER50> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Kik Cards exactly what you're looking for?

<comment><USER51> why hasn't Kik taken off like the other group messaging platforms? Its always been the better application and it was the first of its kind.

<comment><USER17> I'm really not sure about the branding of it. You'd think it was a game or flashcards or something in that region.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Normals only care about what's now and what's very soon next. Facebook archives your online life drivel, but that has mostly zero value to normals. They just want their next giggle, and they have zero loyalty to your pseudo- corpornation.

<comment><USER52> Probably those apps archive everything as well, but they just don't show it to the users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> facebook has become, dare I say "ubiquitous", it's still the best way to keep in touch with friends regardless of how often you use them, I use my fb maybe once a week, but that one session allows me to catch up with what my friends have been up to. I think messenger apps, including fb messenger, are great when you're young and your social life is limited to only your clique, but I don't see them replacing fb or even becoming a massive threat to fb

</comment><comment><USER54> _About 90% of the population of Brazil uses messaging apps_

I think you might wanna qualify that one a bit more.

<comment><USER7> 90% of Brazil does everything. 90% uses Orkut. 90% produces electronic music. 90% lives on beaches. 90% lives in the rain forest. It's a big foreign place where we can paste any number we want on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> BBY has a very good chance to become the FB of messenger if they can go through the storm.

<comment><USER56> Their time is up. Too late now. I downloaded BBM when it launched and its so far behind other services its laughable. The only way to add people was through inane PIN codes or email. Even the most basic messaging apps today have address book integration.

Such a waste of former market leadership

<comment><USER40> Afaik the idea of BBM pin codes is you can exchange contact information without giving out anything sensitive, formal, or prehistoric such as your email address, phone number, or your real name. It's a stroke of genius if you ask me, and I think it appeals to teenagers secretive nature.

Most teenagers probably don't want all their phone book imported magically in to their IM app either: 1) because they probably IM and Skype with more, and more varied, people than they text or phone, and 2) because their phone book probably includes their annoying aunties and relatives.

I also love the design of the BBM app (on Android). It's straightforward, single purpose and clean.

<comment><USER57> I don't know that you have any data on that second section, but it's still worth pointing out that a great majority of apps that import your contacts through a contact book allow you to pick and choose who you want. And there's no reason why PIN codes and contact imports can't co-exist. It's a pretty big oversight on BBM's part.

<comment><USER40> Perhaps, but I haven't missed it. I still think this isolation is a feature, not a bug.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I always thought they were called messaging apps, not "messenger".

</comment><comment><USER59> teenagers in wealthy, western countries will soon be a very small target group. western europe will shrink dramatically.

just read an article on how western society is becoming more and more aggressive towards kids due to people not being accustomed to them anymore. hotels, restaurants banning kids altogether.

</comment><comment><USER60> Sorry for the shameless plug but, yesterday I've developed a simple app for the kik messenger platform called "Nearby".

It will show you a list with users sorted by distance, letting you know if the person is close to you or not. Here is a screenshot: [http://imgur.com/88AIbgv](http://imgur.com/88AIbgv)

If anyone has kik installed and wants to try it, simply open [http://nearby.pw](http://nearby.pw) on your phone and it will start in the kik messenger. It hasn't been fully optimized yet, so if you find any bugs please let me know.</comment>


Speech Animation in Paintings - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHz_JnlOau8&NR=1 <comment><USER2> Hackers and Painters indeed! This is surreal.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your take on comments in a program? - <AUTHOR> I've been reading about the subject, and found out that people have a lot of varying opinions about this. Some say "clean code should have no comment", some use comments only when absolutely necessary, some day to document every function in details, and some day to use "why" comments, not "how" comments.<p>What is your take on this? <comment><USER2> What I don't like is code where comments explain obvious things. Code should be speaking for itself.

This is an easy demand for pure administrative code ("high level" or how you want to call it) in an expressive language. Once it comes to the heart of the matter, such as a challenging algorithm which is hard to follow, I like extensive comments about the meaning of variables, etc.

Interestingly, people comment trivial stuff but don't comment the complex ones. That's a natural phenomena called Parkinson's law of triviality.

</comment><comment><USER3> I mainly comment in two situations:

When I wrote some weird code due to non-obvious reasons and want to clear up the reasoning; this makes later considerations easier.

Or when I had difficulties understanding the meaning of a snippet and want to make it easier to read and understand in the future.

I get why many people say comments are bad, but that doesn't mean you should never use them. And the "why" comments are definitely the most helpful ones in my opinion, I agree; one can easily look at the expressions and function calls and understand what's happening, but sometimes I want to know why the code adds 1 to some index, and a single short comment can clear that up. And if the reasoning was incorrect then that comment also tells you what to throw away.

</comment><comment><USER4> Speaking only from personal experience on personal projects, I have screwed myself up far more often by not writing comments, or deleting comments prematurely in order to "clean up" the codebase, than I have by writing too many comments.

I disagree that code should never have comments. There's no such thing as perfectly self-documenting code of more than trivial complexity, the intended means of documentation for code _is comments._ That's what they're there for, they're a tool, use them.

Beyond that, it's entirely a matter of style and personal preference.

</comment><comment><USER5> As a manager who frequents HN a lot, I really don't understand this 'why' and 'how' in comments and programmer reluctance to use them, all I see is just code comments, like notes.

Could one explain or provide examples these in a way I can understand?

<comment><USER3> This is how I understand it:

how: "reset values in the array with a loop"

why: "reset values so they don't affect the behaviour of foo()"

The first explains what happens in the code and how, which is not as important because it should be already obvious from the code itself. While the second one explains the reason this part of the code exists, why it's important, why it was written that way.

<comment><USER6> What the code does is not always obvious without quite detailed analysis. In those cases a comment does help.

In general, if I have to put some effort into a piece of code and I understand now only because I put that effort in then my future self won't immediately understand it in 6 months time (and right now I'm the only person to understand it immediately). In these cases, 'how' comments help.

Commenting is mostly common sense, imho.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Common sense approach: add comments where it helps to understand the code.

Commenting that i++ increments the index adds nothing. Commenting that sleep(n) is there because there must be a delay between a and b because x and y is useful.</comment>


Are HN comments broken for everyone? - <AUTHOR> They come up as blank pages for me. I realize that if they are indeed broken for everyone that no one will be able to comment here :) <comment><USER2> They just came back up for me, although they were broken for a while. My desk- mate and I are on the same version of chrome (Version 27.0.1453.93 on OSX), on the same IP address, and in incognito mode my comments were broken and his were fine. No idea what might be causing this.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like an overloaded server imho.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was an issue affecting some users that's now resolved.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, everyone, it was a bug I introduced. I wrote some code that looked at the ratio between two hash table entries, and I forgot to specify that I wanted the first hash table reference to return 0 rather than nil if it was empty.

<comment><USER6> I love that you still have such a close relationship with the code behind HN despite probably being incredibly busy with other things. If my business ever takes off and I happen to remain in an executive position, I hope to be able to set aside time to do the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've mentioned before my comments were suddenly messed up.

I could see my comments made from my Android phone when on my phone using Chrome (v 18.0.1025469) but I couldn't see them from home on OS X 10.7-ish and Win 8 both using Chrome (v 27.0.1453.94 on Win 8) . It was as if I had two separate accounts.

Recently the comments seemed to sync up but this odd comment segregation had been going on for weeks if not months.

</comment><comment><USER8> If I use my home internet, yes. If I use my lab's internet through a tunnel, no. I have checked that a forced-reload-all does not fix it, that switching back to home internet breaks comments again, and that this is true across multiple browsers. I should be able to provide network diagnostics if that would help.

<comment><USER9> Also same here. Work works but home doesn't. DNS returned the same ip, cleared cache, cleared cookies (and tried incognito),..etc..

Edit: Back now

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes. Oh wait, that's not what you mean

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes and no. Works for me, but doesn't work for some others. Probably a network or HN issue. For the ones it doesn't work for, it's not related to browsers and they receive only half the response (the header).

</comment><comment><USER12> They work for me OSX 10.8.3 on Chrome 27.0.1453.93.

I can also access them from the HN2 app for Android on my Incredible.

(ironically though, anyone who can't use them can't comment here to inform us of that fact)

</comment><comment><USER13> They were for a while, but seem fine again.

</comment><comment><USER14> Mac OS X 10.8.3, Safari 6.0.4

No issues here, though I did have issues yesterday with submissions on HN.

</comment><comment><USER15> The real problem is that it's impossible to actually have a discussion with HN comments, because of the up/down voting.

It's optimized to read once, and fire of some inane comment (like this one), because by the time you come back to a topic, everything has shifted all around so you have to re-read every comment. It's terrible.

<comment><USER16> HNHalfLife[1] has absolutely solved that problem for me. It's a great little script, and unlike those Chrome-only extensions, it works on everything that supports Greasemonkey scripts. Kudos to polyfractal.

[1]: <https://github.com/polyfractal/HNHalfLife>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Definitely had seen issues, but now that I'm commenting on this one, seems fixed.

</comment><comment><USER18> I see empty pages on my normal connection. But I can comment when I VPN.

Edit: Back to normal now

</comment><comment><USER19> Works fine. Chromium Version 27.0.1453.93 (200836)

</comment><comment><USER20> Check without cookies (incognito mode in Chrome).

</comment><comment><USER21> I saw an nginx error page an hour or two ago.

</comment><comment><USER22> Fine here. Mac OS X 10.8.3 Chrome Canary 29.x

</comment><comment><USER23> No problem here - Firefox 14.0.1 - Ubuntu.

</comment><comment><USER24> Fine with Chromium 25 on Lubuntu 12.10.

</comment><comment><USER25> No issues here, Firefox 21, Ubuntu.

</comment><comment><USER26> I cannot view comment pages.

</comment><comment><USER27> no

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, weird. I can only reply to you by going to the comments section (of HN, not this thread), clicking your name, viewing all your comments, and then hitting reply from there. But I can't see threads.

<comment><USER28> Same here. Comments pages don't load for anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm fine héroe. Ipad 4

</comment><comment><USER30> Works for me

</comment><comment><USER31> काठमाडौà¤, २४ माघ / संविधानसभा सदसà¥à¤¯à¤•à¥‹ रिकà¥à¤¤ ६ सिटका लागि आगामी चैत २८ गते हà¥à¤¨à¥‡

<comment><USER31> ????!!!!! ा सदसà¥à¤¯à¤•à¥‹ रिकà¥à¤¤ ६ सिटका ने!!!</comment></comment>


Netflix brings online streaming to Mac with Silverlight - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/26/netflix-finally-brings-watch-instantly-to-macs-via-silverlight/

<comment><USER2> Silverlight DRM helping Mac users. Oh, the irony...</comment>


Google's internal Mac Ops team releases some tools for controlling fleet of Macs - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/google-macops/

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like the announcement was made here: [https://plus.google.com/u/0/109088229817689076273/posts/M3zH...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/109088229817689076273/posts/M3zHnfEQMUw)</comment>


Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret - <AUTHOR> http://web.archive.org/web/20200405061401/https://medium.com/@agaiziunas/covid-19-had-us-all-fooled-but-now-we-might-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb <comment><USER2> I tried googling the author's username and found this:

[https://thedonald.win/p/4FWoXTT/so-why-are-we-being- whipped-...](https://thedonald.win/p/4FWoXTT/so-why-are-we-being-whipped- into/)

"It escaped the Wuhan BL4 facility and was likely a bug/bio weapon Chinese were working on in that facility using our tax & trade deficit dollars"

Seems a reliable source!

EDIT: Also from the user's post history:

"I'm not an academic so fuck all that citation waste of time"

<comment><USER3> I'm surprised you didn't just call the author a racist or some other slander. If you wish to debunk his theory, by all means do so. Use research and make your points. Attacking his character and accusing him of a conspiracy theory is not very convincing to those of us who use critical thinking.

<comment><USER4> The top OP has zero sources and then says "fuck all those citation [sic]."

OP above you is merely revealing this non-reliability.

Top OP might be correct but zero sources makes me immediately question every single argument. Dude can't be bothered to name ONE SOURCE! One! A paper. A Person. An organization....anything. Nope! Nada. Zilch.

<comment><USER5> It seems that your problem is with the content of the article, not the lack of sources. Would you be objecting to the article if it said the drug was ineffective? Doubtful.

<comment><USER6> Yes, we would be doubting everything the article said when it was an argument cast by a lunatic spouting numerous other conspiracy theories like Covid-19 is a bioengineered virus that escaped a bioresearch lab.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm with "Be aware that the author has low trust factor and may have put the piece together from other sources without having a clue what he was writing about." until I see credentials.

[http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/04/05/wuhan-f...](http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/04/05/wuhan- flu-21/#comment-1304127)

"All that hilariously misguided and counterproductive criticism the media piled on chloroquine (purely for political reasons) as a viable treatment will now go down as the biggest Fake News blunder to rule them all. The media actively engaged their activism to fight 'bad orange man' at the cost of thousands of lives. Shame on them."

The media critique part reads more like a political rant than scientific discourse.

<comment><USER8> If his methodology is not on point, his hypothesis should be waaaay off point, and very easy to debunk.

If that is the case, why are you attacking his lack of credentials and politics instead of his hypothesis?

edit: here is an actual paper saying the same thing the medium post is

[https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965](https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965)

<comment><USER9> Why not get your information from someone who cites their sources correctly instead of a crank who doesn't and mixes conspiracy theories in for good measure?

<comment><USER8> linked an academic paper... 33 citations... every actual MD I've shared it with has responded with something along the lines of " _very interesting_ " or " _compelling_ " or " _explains what some of the nurses are seeing_ "

if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it?

strong pedants aren't necessarily strong thinkers

<comment><USER9> > if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it?

Absolutely not. Reread my comment. There are experts who describe the theory of relativity and link to papers supporting it. It is far better to link to articles from those experts than to articles from cranks who happen to get relativity correct but intersperse their articles with conspiracy theories.

A Flat Earther might write an article about geometry where the geometry is valid and then mix in unsubstantiated claims about the shape of the Earth. Would you say that is a good article about geometry? No. You would link to an article about geometry that sticks to just the facts.

<comment><USER8> " _Why not get YOUR information from..._ "

I got _my_ information from the academic article ([https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965](https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965)). Then I saw this submission on HN that I felt was an OK summary of it. Then I saw your ilk flag it.

An interesting hypothesis is an interesting hypothesis--even when it does not come from our pill-pushing, astroturfing, tell-us-more-about-harry-and-meghan- while-the-bombs-are-falling mainstream media.

<comment><USER9> Nobody here is advocating upvoting articles about Harry and Meghan. Your error in reasoning is almost as bad as saying we shouldn't upvote Medium articles at all because a lot of articles on Medium are about frivolous hobbies.

You _are_ advocating upvoting articles from blithering conspiracy theorists just because part of the article has something that is based in science. You should have just submitted the actual science article instead.

<comment><USER8> How about responding to the words I wrote instead of the ones you imagined? I did not advocate " _upvoting articles from blithering conspiracy theorists_."

I have advocated two things:

1\. Not flagging/censoring/de-platforming people for their screwy opinions. Most people aren't stupid, and can assess statements well enough without your assistance. If you downvoted him because you disagree, great! That's what votes are for. However, flagging this is an abuse. His synopsis was mostly consistent with the research, and there was nothing uncivil in his "blithering."

2\. If an idea is incorrect, attack the idea, not the person. Going after the guy's politics and his (lack of) credentials is just a lazy, thinly-veiled, _ad hominem_ when the idea is of an objective nature.

And if you are going to ding him on credentials (not that you should), what exactly are yours?

<comment><USER9> Where did I ding him on credentials or politics, and where did I say that the post should be flagged?

I just said that it's a low quality article. There are many high quality articles on hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin treatment ([https://lmgtfy.com/?q=hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin](https://lmgtfy.com/?q=hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin)), some of which discuss additional treatments that are also undergoing testing based on the blood disease hypothesis, so there is no reason to upvote this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A family member is a nurse treating these patients at the hospital. She was relating how the blood of covid patients has a very different color. It is very dark. Is that related to this?

EDIT: She also noted that many of the patients were breathing fine, but their pulse ox would just drop and drop.

EDIT2: really? downvotes for asking a questions and seeking info?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not a doctor, but if true, that sounds completely consistent with this hypothesis (deoxygenated blood is darker, and being able to breathe won't help if your hemoglobin can't carry oxygen)

I would be fascinated to hear their take on this article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I read this the other day (before it got blocked on Medium) and to my layman eyes it sounded plausible.

But I'm not a medical researcher and this is not medical research- it's more of a guess.

I'm looking forward to some expert comments here on whether this theory has any basis in reality.

<comment><USER8> This modern tendency to purge instead of rebut is very disturbing.

If the man is talking nonsense, it should be easy to refute him. It would also serve as a great " _teaching moment_ " to help everyone sharpen their BS detectors.

<comment><USER6> It's not easy to refute when there are 10000x as many uneducated people as there are actual scientists who could be trusted to refute it.

This is how online communities work. Small number of moderators fighting off an endless stream of BS.

We can't encourage discussion on life or death matters when they are shared without even citing a single source! There is no debate, just emotional pandering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I took care of a gentleman the other day in the icu and this seems plausible but am also cautious as he was the first young man I took care of who had(?) to be intubated due to a drop in SAO2 from little activity ....his recovery was very slow but he also didn't appear to be in distress the way I thought he would. The doctors are proactively incubating to prevent an emergent or urgent intubation. I questioned as I would normally being an icu nurse. This information presented is interesting although there is no author or scientific data. 🧐

</comment><comment><USER13> this aligns with the story as well. I cannot fathom why, when lives are on the line and the medical community does not have a sure-fire solution, that anyone would be so crass to shut down civil questions and speech. If you disagree, disagree, but don't downvote reasonable responses.

[https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/nyc-doctor-says-coronavirus- ve...](https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/nyc-doctor-says-coronavirus-ventilator- settings-are-too-high/)

[https://www.the- hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/220301/c...](https://www.the- hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/220301/coronavirus-updates/protocol- driven-covid-19-respiratory-therapy-doing)

</comment><comment><USER14> Based on this paper. There seems to be merit to the argument.

Essentially these researchers claim that they modeled the corona virus surface proteins and found that they will bind to hemoglobin and cause it to release the iron atom - making it non-functional. This leads to the other symptoms of COVID-19. Given the severity of the outbreak it is certainly a hypothesis that others should test to validate or discredit. But based on scientific analysis, not just twitter snarking.

[https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surf...](https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173)

</comment><comment><USER15> I am not a doctor... I am just a regular person who doesn't understand why articles and posts similar to this including videos on YouTube, Facebook and other places are being removed.

I found this to be an interesting article and true or false Doesn't it fall under the Freedom of Speech... I sent this link to several people I know that are in the medical industry one of which is a brilliant doctor on the front lines saving lives at NCH hospital in Naples Florida... but before she sees it it is no longer available...

I track this to this thread and see everyone debating everything from politics to science... yet why was this removed I. The first place? I'm sorry but when my mother raised me she was adamant about the point that we could say anything we wanted to anyone that we wanted and as long as it didn't hurt anybody we were free to do so… Now I'm finding it very disturbing situation where information that I felt was important and needed to be looked at by people that I needed to trust to tell me if it was correct or not etc. etc. now it's gone and I come to this group debating… And thank goodness I found out about this.

<comment><USER6> This was removed because it was half-conspiracy and half-maybe-useful. In any case you can't encourage people to "share and debate" half-biased articles.

Share the actual studies! Debate those. Don't encourage the very armchair scientists the author derides in his article.... The author of the article is one too!

You don't go to your friend and open a debate about how you should treat your cancer, you go to your doctor and start the conversation there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> You can read it at [https://archive.is/ONUmi#selection-273.62-273.143](https://archive.is/ONUmi#selection-273.62-273.143)

</comment><comment><USER17> This is totally incorrect. First, the MOA of hydroxychloroquinoline (HCQ) in malaria is completely incorrect. It works through lysosomal function regarding the presentation of antigens to the immune system. Secondly, Covid-19 is not a DNA virus but an RNA virus, DNA is not involved nor is an interaction with hemoglobin involved in the anti-malaria activity of HCQ. There is nothing in the scientific/medical lit as of today about any interaction with hemoglobin and covid-19, nor any reason to think HCQ would interfere in such process. (WKJ, Professor of Pharmacology)

<comment><USER18> I believe this paper qualifies as scientific/medical lit:

COVID-19: Attacks the 1-Beta Chain of Hemoglobin and Captures the Porphyrin to Inhibit Human Heme Metabolism SOURCE: [https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surf...](https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Let's hope this is accurate! If we have a straightforward way to cope with dropping O2 values in blood, this is great.

</comment><comment><USER20> Not sure of the OP's credentials but this has been discussed often in /r/COVID19 and has some truth to it

</comment><comment><USER13> [https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/nyc-doctor-says-coronavirus- ve...](https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/nyc-doctor-says-coronavirus-ventilator- settings-are-too-high/)</comment>


Rajeev Motwani, Google founders' professor and early investor, dies - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2009/06/05/rajeev-motwani-google-founders-professor-and-early-investor-dies/ <comment><USER2> This is insane. I took his class on Automata and Complexity Theory (cs154.stanford.edu) two years ago, and I have friends who came out of the final exam for the class only a few hours ago.

I remember really enjoying this class, despite not having much of a knack for deeply theoretical CS. I was introduced to the concepts behind automata, turing machines, deterministic and nondeterministic computing, decidability theory, NP-completeness, and so on. I enjoyed this class _entirely_ because of the way he taught it -- he took great care in the precision, concision, and clarity of his lectures.

What a deeply talented, smart, and clearly influential individual. My condolences go out to his family and friends.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm on a plane that's about to close its doors so can't write more, but what a great guy. In school, I used his Randomized Algorithms books which was great.

I met him randomly, but he helped us meet the ultimate acquirers of our startup and gave us a bunch of great ideas about algorithms, software, and who to meet. Invaluable for two kids who had just moved to the valley.

Wish I could have worked with him more--was actually hoping to on the next startup.

</comment><comment><USER4> Death awaits us at every corner of life.

Tomorrow is Saturday. So, go out, hug a friend, enjoy a good meal, dance with a partner, love someone you love because you never know when death lurks in the shadows.

</comment><comment><USER5> A cousin of mine met him just by chance while visiting Stanford to check out the grad school last year. Prof. Motwani was more than happy to sit down with him for almost an hour and give him career advice. Being so open and helpful to strangers while being so successful is a rare trait and a sure indicator of greatness.

May his family find the strength to get through this tragedy.

</comment><comment><USER6> Randomized Algorithms is one of those books that frustrated, challenged, and ultimately enlightened me. I have at least one friend who I know worked closely with him and always had kind words to say. A sad loss.

</comment><comment><USER7> how old was he? How come you don't see the guy's age listed in any of the stories covering this?

<comment><USER8> In India, generally B Tech degree is completed when the student is aged 21. Since he did it in 1983, he should be 47. Just a guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am humbled by his achievements and academic work. Sad to see such an influential figure leave us. A tragic loss for us all.

</comment><comment><USER10> Rest in peace.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sergey Brin's tributes: <http://too.blogspot.com/2009/06/remembering- rajeev.html>

</comment><comment><USER12> That's really sad. R.I.P.

</comment><comment><USER13> Very sad news. What exactly happened? I read that it was a "swimming pool accident" on Wikipedia, but none of the sources verified this.</comment>


Any networking/sysadmin websites you follow - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I would like to learn more about unix & windows networking along with general sysadmin knowledge,
the websites that I currently follow are: www.networkworld.com www.windowsnetworking.com
any others you would suggest ? <comment><USER2> I follow and sometimes contribute to a couple of forums: <http://www.unix.com> and <http://serverfault.com/>.

<comment><USER3> I'm on Server Fault everyday. Even if you don't ask or answer questions, it is interesting to read all of the content.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks how could I forget serverfault :)

I also like: <http://www.cyberciti.biz/> for *nix related stuff</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: OnionSite is a project to let Internet users access Tor Onion Services - <AUTHOR> https://onionsite.weboproxy.com/ <comment><USER2> What's the use case here?

<comment><USER3> It certainly is accessing Tor without needing to install the Tor browser</comment></comment>


Helping Cairo, the rendering library - <AUTHOR> https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/helping-cairo.html <comment><USER2> > But some tests, I have no idea what changed that made them break.

Michael Feathers in "Working Effectively with Legacy Code" defines a unit test as a test with two qualities:

1\. It runs fast (1ms is slow for a unit test) 2\. Has excellent locality, so when a test fails it's obvious what code broke it

From my experience fixing sparc64 package builds for Debian the second quality is hard to get right. Many times I would encounter a test failure that was the result of a complicated chain of function calls and it wasn't obvious what was broken.

When I was fixing the gtk build I discovered their codebase is sprinkled with ASSERTs which turned out to be SUPER useful, particularly because they communicated exactly where a precondition wasn't holding up. Previously I was never that interested in asserts but that experience makes me want to look into them again.

<comment><USER3> On the flipside the reason excellent locality usually doesn't happen is that the narrower the scope of your tests are (think on the spectrum of integration tests to unit tests), the likelier that they are highly coupled with implementation details that might change, making tests brittle and refactoring harder. Or you go the full java style strategy-pattern-dependency-injection- abstractsingletonproxyfactorybean route to get both locality and ease of changing behavior, but then you're now building these complex class hierarchies and doing anything takes a lot more effort and boilerplate. Now changing behavior is easy but changing architecture is hard. It's a tough tradeoff, really. I'm not saying we don't need one or the other, but it's more of a case by case judgement call that folks would like to admit IMHO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unfortunate reality is that Cairo project doesn't want to be helped.

I've been checking Cairo from time to time for a very long time. There was a period of active development because it was used by FireFox and, I think, had at least one dev working on it paid by Intel.

But there's no indication that the project wants your help. See [https://www.cairographics.org/](https://www.cairographics.org/) and try to find the part that tells you how to submit a patch. To submit a bug you need to use a mailing list or antiquated bugzilla instance.

Cairo is ostensibly a Gnome-affiliated project as it's used in Gtk. Federico is a big deal in Gnome project.

It's telling that he had to setup up essentially a personal fork of Cairo on gitlab to do any work.

At this point in time, moving the code officially to GitHub (or GitLab) from anongit.freedesktop.org should be a no brainer if your goal is to have contributors.

<comment><USER5> A lot of open source projects don't want to be helped, given how hard it is to contribute. I've submitted a few patches to various projects, closing open issues, that still linger as PR's years later.

<comment><USER6> Or are not able to receive the help in some way. This is mostly a people issue and not everyone is able to manage people effectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cairo is a library that has a great balance between the simplicity of it's abstractions and the power it gives you.

Christoph Reiter has been doing some great work to revive and update the python bindings.

[https://github.com/pygobject/pycairo/](https://github.com/pygobject/pycairo/)

I'd also like to point out Cairo generally has a friendly mailinglist, and is quite a fun library to make graphics with.

</comment><comment><USER8> The proposed c++ 2d graphics standard is based on Cairo.

[http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2018/p0267r7....](http://open- std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2018/p0267r7.pdf)

"The reference implementation of this paper provides a software implementation of the math and rendering support classes. This is based on the Cairo library; indeed, so far the reference implementation has been based on Cairo. However, it is now possible to provide an implementation more appropriate to the target platform."

<comment><USER9> I think the committee will (and should) throw this proposal out of the window. Most of the notable C++ projects are already using Skia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The problem with Cairo is that it's painfully slow. Last time I tried, I don't remember what it was exactly but it just couldn't cope with realtime performance.

<comment><USER11> > The problem with Cairo is that it's painfully slow.

It really isn't though... it's just painfully easy to fall onto slow paths, and not obvious how _not_ to. Time and again I've seen people stack benchmarks of cairo where they're only benchmarking the image surface; of course that's slow, it's CPU rendering! If your realtime graphics app is ever creating a new surface and it's _not_ using cairo_surface_create_similar() or cairo_{xlib,xcb}_surface_create(), you've probably fucked up.

Nearly 100% of the time, when someone's fallen into a slow path using cairo, it's because they've managed to get cairo to copy something back from the graphics server, do some operations on the CPU, and then reupload back to the server. And surprise, that's _very slow_. After that, the majority of remaining slow cases are due to creating too many clipping regions (which is common in lots of complex rendering applications, but usually caught by the application developers themselves since Cairo's actually remarkably good at debugging these kinds of rendering issues with tools like the script surface and cairo-perf-trace).

Meanwhile, Firefox has managed to pretty much stamp out all of the rest of the actual painfully slow Cairo paths...

Part of this perceived slowness in Cairo is because the example code is pretty bleak and abysmal (just look at [https://www.cairographics.org/documentation/](https://www.cairographics.org/documentation/) if you don't believe me), part of it is because everyone who used to maintain cairo (before they ran off and are now doing VR at Valve, or Wayland, or Tizen, or whatever) were Xorg developers and Xorg things were "so trivially obvious" to them that _isn 't_ trivially obvious to... basically everyone else, and part of it is because of "stack-overflow-itis" \- "I'm just going to copy this example code because this guy got it working and I don't care to understand the mechanics of how/why it works/why it's slow in my code."

tl;dr: cairo's not slow, stop creating/rendering against image surfaces, use the perf tools to keep clear of bad application behaviors.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I was actually surprised at how fast cairo can be. I had some ideas as to optimize things like prerender map markers into some tiles and then render those tiles, but it seems for my use case (rendering less than 10k small images on single surface) I didn't even need to optimise it, with 2k images I had over 40fps which felt more snappy than google maps, which was enough. Of course if someone needs something better, hw accelerated opengl is the way to go. Current processors are fast, but they have their limits.

<comment><USER13> There is cairo-gl. AFAIR it's still considered experimental, but good enough. I did not try it yet.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How Do You Keep BetaList Beta Testers Happy and Engaged? - <AUTHOR>

I woke up yesterday to find the congratulatory BOOM SHAKALAKA! email from BetaList Founder Marc Köhlbrugge saying that http://betalist.com/startups/startups-411 was now featured on their site!
Startups 411 is a very niche app with a very specific audience, so I'm not sure how many total sign-ups I can expect, but so far I'm very happy with the results. After the first day I have a little over 100 new subscribers to the beta list and I had a well known angel investor follow the app's Twitter page!
To top it off, I noticed that Startups 411 is now in the "Trending Startups" section on the BetaList.com home page!  So that all feels totally amazing!
With that said, my feelings won't make my app more awesome, so has anybody here used BetaList? If so, how many beta users did you get? How engaged did you find your beta testers to be once you sent them your beta?  What are some best practices for keeping beta testers involved and happy?
Thanks for any advice! <comment><USER2> I'm from México and I'm going to travel to the valley in three or six months because I'm launching an app.

Your app would make my life easier because I want to meet angel investors, incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces and VC firms.

I'm all ready in your beta list!.

I'm also looking for early traction, so I would be follow how the conversation about betalist.com goes.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's awsome! Thanks for joining the list.

<comment><USER2> For me, work well for beta testers engagement to create a facebook group where I gave theme an apk of the app, let them use it and tell me their feedback, also I call them to participate in our tests. They were very happy and participative without receiving any gift, just to get involve in the product development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Offer something valuable every week or fortnightly. May be unique content as a blogpost. It can certainly help!

Also, I believe you can improve your form for signup. Its way too basic. Try to improve UX if possible!

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you elaborate on the form being way too basic?</comment></comment>


Why are we still using cash? - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.com/podcast/still-using-cash/ <comment><USER2> I rarely carry cash when I leave the house - EFTPOS has made life very very convenient. True, there are shops that will require some minimums, but I usually dob them in if I don't like them (though I doubt anything is ever done)

</comment><comment><USER3> "Sorry, our systems are down right now." That's why.

<comment><USER4> I carry cash just for that reason. But haven't needed it for several years.

Systems being down that badly is rare and usually announced in advance. For local stores where I visit daily I can just come tomorrow and pay it off.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Apps that are Made in Israel? - <AUTHOR>

I am writing an article about popular iPhone/Android apps that are gaining worldwide attention for a popular Israeli startup/vc blog.
I'm looking for names of apps that were made in Israel (or by Israelis).  I have found top 10 lists, but am finding it hard to search for apps by the location of the company that has made them.
Hopefully the Israelis here will be able to help. :)
Feel free to shoot me an email. <comment><AUTHOR> Bump! I'm sure there are some israelis out there. I may have to try this again Sunday morning and not Friday afternoon. :\</comment>


New web2py RESTful APIs writes SQL for you - <AUTHOR> http://www.vimeo.com/21133657

<comment><USER2> Massimo you're internet wise omni-present and python-wise omni-potent ! Thanks for web2py !</comment>


EA relaunches Tetris on iOS with a $30/year subscription (really) - <AUTHOR> http://www.joystiq.com/2011/12/02/ea-relaunches-tetris-on-ios-with-a-30-year-subscription-really/ <comment><USER2> Anyone who hasn't seen "From russia with love," the BBC documentary about tetris, I encourage you to seek it out. It covers the birth of tetris in the soviet union's academy of sciences, and then the fascinating story of its inexorable spread throughout the burgeoning worldwide videogame industry.

There were many fights over the licensing in different territories, culminating with various westerners having to go cap in hand to the kremlin to beg for the rights. It was one of the first soviet-made products to be licensed for sale outside the Iron Curtain, and was a significant turning point in the Perestroika movement.

It includes interviews with all the key people including the original tetris developer, the atari and nintendo execs who fought for the rights, and even the kremlin technocrat who held their fate in his hands. It deals with software intellectual property issues, young upstart tech entrepreneurs, contractual trickery and all sorts of HN type things. It'd make a great movie.

<comment><USER3> I second this recommendation. It's fascinating story, and very interesting to see the inspiration behind the game. It's also pretty amusing how all the computer scientists in the academy got totally hooked on it. In soviet russia game plays you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> In light of this distressing news, allow me to cheer you up with a video of Harry "SuPa" Hong, the Tetris world record holder, maxing out the point score of the NES port of that game to 999,999, starting from the highest selectable difficulty level of 19. It is effectively a "perfect" Tetris game. He eventually stops at level 29 because at that point the blocks fall to the bottom faster than the fastest human reaction times.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99R-fKRr73I>

It is startling what an engaging experience watching that video is. If you have ever played tetris even for a minute, your knuckles will be white and your brain will be swimming in adrenaline. It's like watching someone juggling knives.

<comment><USER4> The video is very good but I have to disagree with your last paragraph. The videos with people hard-dropping every piece and winning the invisible tetris during the credits are more impressive imo <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwC544Z37qo>

<comment><USER2> You're right, that one is more impressive, but as I understand it that version of tetris has more forgiving physics than the NES version, and he's using a more ergonomic controller, so I think there's a pleasing purity about maxing out the famicom edition.

Also to be honest that second guy comes across as terrifyingly superhuman. The NES one actually looks like something I might actually be able to eventually do with practice, and is therefore more engaging to watch.

<comment><USER5> The physics are more forgiving to make up for the fact that gravity (and as a side effect, vision) can become much less forgiving. At that point, the game's much closer to DDR or Rock Band, except with a much less readable note chart (the well + next 3 pieces). You have to think about where each one belongs and have your move ready before the piece drops; instead of just one piece you have a small amount of time to work with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It doesn't sound like you need to pay $30 to keep playing (in fact the base game is now cheaper than before), you're just paying to access continuously released extra features. Just another example of the industry's move toward more and more DLC.

</comment><comment><USER7> An example of creative juices flowing in the wrong department of a gaming company.

</comment><comment><USER8> What are the rules for this type of subscription based gameplay? If you add a feature and I use for it one month, does the feature disappear unless I pay again next month? Are all of these types of features service based, so that I'm getting more out of it each month?

</comment><comment><USER9> looks like $1 iOS games with free newly released content is no more. Now we have to pay for each new set of 10 levels that I can finish in 1 sit. How does Tetris' gameplay style warrant new content to justify a 30$ game purchase anyway?

</comment><comment><USER10> There is a song that uses the concept of Tetris, and the folk tune used in the game, in order to tell the "complete history in the soviet union". Besides being "meta", it's also clever and kinda catchy.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8>

<comment><USER2> This is a fantastic piece of work, and I should point out that the film is potentially even better than the song, which is itself brilliant. I imagine the people who put it together have gone on to extremely successful careers if they didn't have them already, winning for it as they did multiple international awards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> you must be shitting me... only words i can say</comment>


Bringing Documentation to Life on Expressjs.com - <AUTHOR> http://blog.runkit.com/2017/07/18/bringing-documentation-to-life-on-expressjs.com.html <comment><USER2> Interacting with documentation is such a cool way to actually learn. I know many people–myself included–that learn from trial and error; reading simply doesn't cut it.

I'm excited to see this go further than just express. It's not only going to be a great way to learn, but a great way to teach, too.</comment>


Why Criticism Is Good for Creativity - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2019/07/why-criticism-is-good-for-creativity <comment><USER2> I might be naive, but isn't this how _all_ ideas are discussed, iterated on and developed in teams?

Even in a top-down structure (when you are handed an idea down to work on), I've returned feedback to "higher-ups" and we've had meetings set up to develop ideas further (and vice versa, of course).

I understand that not everyone is similarly unafraid of authority, so perhaps articles like these are needed to help promote a naturally reasonable environment?</comment>


Avatar: The Holocaust We Will Not See - <AUTHOR> http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/01/11/the-holocaust-we-will-not-see/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email <comment><USER5> This article, and many of the comments here, hint at a deeper and more interesting phenomenon: the need to have things be either all good or all bad. That is, either (A) western civilization is good, and the things it has done were good, and the things it values are good values, etc., or (B) it's bad, and the things it has done were bad, and the things it values are bad values, etc.

Once this dichotomy is accepted, _any_ evidence of goodness is proof of A, and _any_ evidence of badness is proof of B. If A is accepted, then nothing can be bad, and if B is accepted, then nothing can be good. You get one guy saying "Medicine good!" and another saying "Slavery bad!" and they shout at each other forever.

In fact, A and B are both all-or-nothing cognitive distortions.

It's quite possible for the Native Americans to have been savages, and the Europeans to have been savages (with better weapons), and for one group of awful people to have murdered another group of awful people.

Losing doesn't make someone good, and neither does winning.

Having nice things today doesn't mean that genocide 400 years ago was a good idea.

Being good doesn't mean we came from good people or entirely good traditions. Neither does being bad.

Having some good traits doesn't mean we have nothing left to learn, or that we can't get better. In fact, good people can even learn things from bad people, or good cultures can learn things from bad cultures. Even if modern western culture is, on the net, much better for humans than aboriginal American culture, we can still probably learn a lot from it.

There's a lot of richness between these blacks and whites. Perfection is not required for goodness.

<comment><USER6> _> It's quite possible for the Native Americans to have been savages, and the Europeans to have been savages (with better weapons), and for one group of awful people to have murdered another group of awful people._

I don't understand what do you mean with that. I don't think there's an absolute good or bad. But according to the fact that Europeans are the ones who came to America and slaughtered the Natives, they are the bad ones. The Natives did not something bad by defending themselves. In that situation and if you value human life over material benefit you have to admit "Europeans bad!".

<comment><USER7> At least one South American civilization was committing human sacrifices, calling them "good people" before the Spaniards showed up is simplistic. At the same time suggesting the Spaniards were a "good people" simply because they replaced one set of barbaric behaviors with another is also simplistic.

<comment><USER8> I think this is the big point people are missing from reading this article: the author is shameless in his bias... the aboriginals were saints! They lived the perfect, tranquil life before the barbaric Europeans came and killed them all!

This sort of moral absolutism is hogwash, and has no place in intelligent debate.

This is an interesting topic worthy of discussion, but I really do not think this article serves as a good basis for it. Until we can come up with a fair resource that doesn't look at the natives like saints, and Europeans like evil incarnate, I don't think any productive discussion can happen.

<comment><USER9> So apart from that one culture doing human sacrifices, what did the others do in your opinion to deserve extermination?

I really can't follow the logic here. Why do you even feel the need to justify the murdering of the natives? And how can you think it can be justified? Even if the old ones were murderers (which is probably not true in general, even if you make it so), what about the babies?

<comment><USER8> > _"Why do you even feel the need to justify the murdering of the natives?"_

Wait, what? Thanks for going all "think of the children" on me man, where if I'm not with you I'm for murdering the natives. You are (apparently) representative of the moral absolutism problem I am talking about.

I'm not defending the extermination of native American natives.

The problem with this article is that it cast native American society as a utopian paradise, and the white European invaders as evil, ruthless, and completely without moral compunction. This sort of historical revisionist "blackwashing" doesn't help anyone - because it has not fairly represented either side. The natives were not utopian societies, nor were they savages deserving of murder. The Europeans were not ruthless monsters, nor were they benevolent conquerors. To represent this situation as black and white is both ignorant and unproductive.

By "blackwashing" I mean skewing the facts and injecting calls to emotion where it doesn't belong, to try and make something seem worse - <USER2> whitewashing is the opposite (skewing the facts and injecting emotion to make it seems _better_ )

[edit] Also, to address specifically why the moral absolutism is a problem: by casting the Europeans as ruthlessly evil, you have removed any deep introspection into _why_ the murder of the natives occurred. You've transformed a complex human situation into a fairy tale - where the bad guys need no explanation. You've also effectively discounted the possibility that bad things can happen for relatively benign (or at least, not overtly evil) goals.

Not to mention dehumanization is inherently dangerous - even if the person you're dehumanizing is the "bad guy".

<comment><USER9> Why does it even matter who was "evil" and who wasn't? The fact remains that one party killed off the other. It seems clear that among the killers there were some "evil savages", but of course not every European was evil. It doesn't even make sense to think in such generalizations. However, if some actions were ordered by "the state", then it seems to me to make sense to hold "the state" responsible for it. Whatever kind of entity the state is - <USER3> course not everybody in the state endorses it's actions, but they still benefit or suffer from it. I suppose you can not hold a soldier in a war responsible for killing, because he was ordered to do so and presumably had no other choice. But that doesn't validate wars - and if said soldier later lives on the farm of the person he killed, it seems fair to ask some questions.

I don't think in modern times if you murder somebody, the court will be very interested in whether the victim was a good or a bad person.

Also I have to admit I still don't understand what you are going on about - <USER4> the European invaders where not evil, ruthless and completely without moral compunction, how were they capable of doing the killing? (The ones who did, let's assume not everybody participated). Who did the killing?

<comment><USER8> > _"if the European invaders where not evil, ruthless and completely without > moral compunction, how were they capable of doing the killing?"_

That's precisely why it matters who was "evil" and who wasn't. This kind of "pure evil" doesn't really exist, and by assuming it does you are glossing over the _real_ causes of the native genocide. It's far too easy to ask "why did the Europeans murder the natives?" and answer with "because they were evil, ruthless, and completely with morality"

It's a feel-good answer, because moral absolutism makes us all feel better. But it's far from the truth - and masks analysis that can _actually_ help us prevent things like this in the future.

For example (and apologies for the Godwin): we know that not every Nazi soldier was for exterminating the Jews. Heck, we know that many German soldiers _guarding the extermination camps_ were not supportive of the cause, yet they went along with it. Why?

The simplistic explanation that makes us feel better is that these men were evil, without morals, and participated willingly in mass slaughter. But this ignores much more useful insights on mob mentality, the power of coercion, propaganda, misinformation, and a slew of other things that actually help us understand what happened, and prevent these things from happening again.

We're talking about an event that occurred hundreds of years ago - playing the blame game is pretty pointless at this point. It really doesn't matter what is whose fault; the importance of understanding the European conquest of the Americas is to determine the factors that caused a bunch of perfectly reasonable people to exterminate entire civilizations, so that we may better understand our present selves and hopefully prevent such things from repeating.

Which leads back to your original question:

> _"Why does it even matter who was "evil" and who wasn't?"_

It matters because by playing the blame game, and telling this story as a fairy tale of black and white, good vs. evil, you are bypassing the need to analyze what is, in reality a complex situation of many causes and effects. You are robbing a heinous and dark event of its proper gravity and complexity, and grossly simplifying something that carries relevance today.

<comment><USER9> "This kind of "pure evil" doesn't really exist"

I'll argue that it exists - not everybody who torments a baby has an excuse for it. Of course it is useful to try to figure out what made them do it, there might be a kind of excuse in terms of an explanation of what made them do it (bad childhood whatever). Or why - um, presumably they wanted the land? I think what happened in America is that some people had the better weapons and they wanted the other people's property.

"by playing the blame game"

How is it playing the blame game? A bunch of people killed another bunch of people. There is nothing to play about it. What to do about is another question - I am not even sure what you are worried about. Nobody in this thread has called for any kind of reparations or anything, I think?

Isn't pointing out the history of European settlers exactly what you want: pointing out that Europeans can be bad, too, so we always have to keep asking what makes the "bad" come out? I don't think by forgetting history, we are helping the kind of understanding you seem to seek.

Ultimately, though, I think the bunch with the better weapons will always get and take what they want...

<comment><USER10> > I'll argue that it exists - not everybody who torments a baby has an excuse > for it.

[citation needed] -- It's practically a tautology that people take actions for _reasons_ , even if they don't consciously know what those reasons are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was expecting the "The Holocaust We Will Not See" to be the one that will obviously take place after the film ends. The native people have driven the imperialists off their planet. But, the imperialists have space weapons and the natives do not. Plus, the imperialists only want inert matter that exists underground. And, they are so evil they have no respect for life in any form.

I assume a kinetic bombardment is imminent: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment>

<comment><USER12> [Warning: spoiler-heavy]

I have to say the exact same thing occurred to me at the end of the movie. "And so the aliens returned to their dying world." ...yeah, to get more ammo.

Of course, the counter-argument might be that the Na'vi managed to defeat a heavily-armed base using a skeleton force, before most of the tribes had even turned up, so by the time they got back Pandora could be too well-prepared to resist for them to be successful. Kinetic bombardment is all very well, but you need to get down to the surface to pick the stuff up -- unless you completely destroy every living thing on the planet, in which case you develop a very serious logistical problem (they were growing their own food on the surface).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recommend getting over it. You are almost certainly the descendants murderers and conquerors.

[http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&...](http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&IBLOCK_ID=35)

That's just how humans roll.

Western Europe had lots of problems, but countries that operate in the European tradition are better places to live. (At least, when you look at the immigration patterns between third-world and first-world countries, it's clear that first world countries export idealism, which is then processed into jaded realism and returned. Meanwhile, poor countries send their top .1% to join the Western world's top 10%; a good deal for both sides).

<comment><USER14> "That's just how humans roll."

Thats not how I look at it. We have made progress from a society of primitive tribes to a more reasonable society rapidly in the last couple of centuries.

Universal women's suffrage (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#United_States>) did not even exist in the United States until the beginning of the 20th century.

There is an endless number of social issues that Humans have made advancements, including Civil Rights, Gay Rights etc.,

Our understanding of the world has increased [changed] and so has our ability to make decisions based on such new knowledge.

<comment><USER15> Your bias is defining all those things you listed as progress. For some those items are signs of a degenerate society that has lost its way.

Your thinking is more like this:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Social_ev...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Social_evolutionism)

Than this:

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I made it about halfway this through before bailing. Yet another "western civilization is so bad" articles. Ho hum.

The problem here is, as mattmaroon put it, if you buy into this logic we'd all still be chasing down antelopes on the savannah. At some point some civilizations, for whatever reason, start developing things like private property, the wheel, common law, reading, the printing press, etc.

It's become fashionable to say something like "well, that doesn't make them any better than other civilizations" but I think that's soft-headed horseshit. Anybody who lives in a civilization with private property, contract law, medicine, literature and art is living in a better place, and in a better way, that somebody who doesn't have it. Some cultures are demonstrably better than others, like it or not.

The interesting question, especially with alien stories, is "How do two wildly diverse cultures interact in a way that is respectful of both?"

I've thought about this for some time, and using all the earthly examples I can come up with, the fact is they don't. If we ever meet another primitive species and interact with them? It's going to be very traumatic on the part of the other species. Likewise, if Cebulons from the Osari System arrive next week with technology five thousand years ahead of ours? You can say goodbye to a lot of what people think of when they talk about human culture.

And I guess I'm okay with that. If the Cebulons show up, I'm going to be first in line learning to speak Cebulonese, watching all the Cebulonese TV shows, and taking my kids to Cebulonese high schools. We will learn, adapt, and overcome, and the human species will continue. To me that's a lot more rational that sitting around moaning about how things might have/would have been had things not changed. I just hope the Cebulons come to trade and exploit our resources in a manner respectful of private property, so we can go to their system and do the same one day :)

I really did not like Avatar. Gorgeous, magnificent movie. Terrible hackneyed, one-dimensional plot. Ugh. I think a quote from Cameron's other movie is most apt: I vote we nuke it from orbit. It's the only way we can really be sure.

<comment><USER17> If Europeans had already developed the idea of private property, then why did we find it necessary to take the land of these ingenious populations?

<comment><USER18> He's ignoring the point that 'rule of law' didn't exist in the Americas. Maybe private property and rule of law existed in Europe and made for a better society there, but the conquistadors that came to the Americas acted like the rule of law was "whatever I want to do, I get to do." Ideas like private property don't excuse things like slavery and murder.

You can't say, "I claim this piece of land for my own. Oh, look! There are people living on it already. I guess I get to enslave, rape, torture them." This has more to do with brutal people being the first people to encounter the natives in the Americas, and deciding that since there was no European justice system or society to condemn/jail then that they could do whatever they felt like.

<comment><USER19> "I claim this piece of land for my own. Oh, look! There are people living on it already. I guess I get to enslave, rape, torture them."

Actually, you can say EXACTLY that. The very idea of private property is founded on that principle. When whoever it was originally decided some plot of land belonged to him, that's precisely what he said. All I would add to that statement is the clause, "Or they can get the hell out."

<comment><USER18> So you're claiming that if someone decides to enter my house, I can legally torture, rape and/or kill them?

<comment><USER20> I think he's saying that if someone came into your house and said it was theirs, and had the ability to enforce that, it wouldn't be your house anymore. No, you can't _ethically_ say "I claim this piece of land for my own. Oh, look! There are people living on it already. I guess I get to enslave, rape, torture them." But if ethics are not of any concern to you, then you can certainly say it and do it, and the land will then be yours.

<comment><USER19> Thanks outotrai. Couldn't have said it better myself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This article is largely based on the claims of Bartolome de Las Casas, an activist from the time of Conquistadors. Some scholars believe thathe wildly exaggerated the crimes in order to convince the Spanish and other governments to intervene.

<comment><USER22> Has anyone travelled to both Spain and Latin America? Spaniards are white. Latins have on average a mixed colour. So it's clear that extermination did not take place... there.

<comment> b-man There was miscegenation for sure, not only with native people but between Europeans, Africans and everyone else that came here.

But that does not imply that there was not an extermination. [1]

[1] A single and not isolated example. -> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupi_people#European_colonizati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupi_people#European_colonization)

<comment><USER22> _There was miscegenation for sure, not only with native people but between Europeans, Africans and everyone else that came here._

The racial traits are different from african to american natives. It's clear the difference between Brazil or Cuba (where most slaves were brought) and Mexico. And remember I'm writting of _average_ ,

About the word "extermination" it seems you're using it to describe killing of many individuals. I would keep it to refer to something like killing 99.99 indigenous population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Question to HN readers who are sympathetic with this article: If you could wave a magic wand and "undo" all that was done, would you do so? So imagine all those who perished in the 1500's would be revived from the dead and restored to their ancestral lands, all those living in the Americas now would be sent back to England, Ireland, China, etc, with a one way ticket and $10K in cash to start a new life. Would you wave your wand and cast this spell?

<comment><USER24> I'm sympathetic to the plight of the native American, though this article is poor, but no, I would not. It's an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress.

It's no worse than the Romans, or Gauls, or Saxons, etc. By that logic you'd have to keep waving your wand until we were all back on the Savannah tossing spears at antelopes.

<comment><USER25> >It's no worse than the Romans, or Gauls, or Saxons, etc.

Or the Nazis?

If they had won WW2 I'm sure some people in Germany today would be calling the Holocaust "an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress" and would tell us all about the backwardness of Jewish culture, I'm sure while also being "sympathetic to the plight" of those victims too.

That doesn't mean that one group of people have the right to wipe out another culture to benefit their own, no matter what the consequences are.

I'm really shocked by some of the comments here.

<comment><USER23> What's your answer to my question?

<comment><USER25> It's not a sensible question so I can't answer it. I just dont think that what happened to the Native Americans was right, it was genocide, and anything positive that came out of it doesnt excuse it.

<comment><USER23> Let's try a similar, more realistic question. It's 2050. The U.S. has run out of oil, it only has enough to run farm equipment and food shipment trucks for another year. There is hope of converting everything to nuclear/electric power, but that will take a decade. In the meantime, the entire population, including your friends and family, face hunger or starvation. Nigeria and Venezuela have oil, but refuse to sell it at any price. The U.S. government is contemplating war to seize the oil. Do you support the war?

<comment><USER25> Why dont they want to sell it?

And how does that scenario compare to the invasion of the United States in the 1500s?

It wasnt invaded to save the population of Europe.

<comment><USER23> Americans have no goods that are as valuable to them as oil.

<comment><USER25> Ok, well let's compare that with a real life situation. Right now there are thousands of people dying from easily preventable diseases every day in Africa, which could be cured for a few cents each.

American pharmaceutical companies have this medicine, and they are operating in one of the most profitable industries that have ever existed.

Africans have no goods that are as valuable to them as medicine. Should African countries invade America to get this medicine?

<comment><USER23> No, because the invasion would fail. A good leader does not lead his troops on suicidal missions.

But the oil example actually did happen in real life. You're the ruler of Japan in 1941. The U.S. has just cut off your oil supply. You have months left before your population faces severe hunger and deprivation. Do you invade Indonesia to take their oil? I think if I was ruler I would. How about you?

<comment><USER25> I dont know, but I think we should apply the same moral standards to ourselves that we appply to others.

These questions echo the age-old maxim of Thucydides that "The strong do as they can, while the weak suffer what they must" but that doesnt mean that the actions on either side are just.

There are fundamental questions to be answered here about the legitimacy of the nation-state, and what right one group has to natural resources over another simply because of their location on Earth, when the results of this unfairness are the strengthing of one group and the weakening of another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It humors me when people speak so confidently about events that happened 400 years ago, and yet if you asked them to explain in detail the events of their own life a year ago would have trouble remembering.

I went to an exhibit once with real photographs from a native indian population taken in the late 1800's. The photos showed a population that looked, quite frankly, very savage and violent. These people didn't look like Pocahontus or the friendly blue creatures of Avatar.

I'm not going to state an opinion either way about the early colonization of America because frankly I have no clue about it and don't really care.

However, I do have an opinion that raw life is a brutal thing. Always has and probably always will be. It was particularly brutal back then, for both the Native Americans and the Europeans. I'd hate to have to live in either time period. The depictions we see in movies are far, far removed from reality.

</comment><comment><USER27> He only has one book as the reference for all the "history," which makes me doubt most of it. Certainly, the claim that everybody (except Aztecs and Incas) was "peacable" (sic) is nonsense. The Apache tribes often raided each other (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_indians>), and the legendary Apache fighting skills were certainly not a result of living peacefully for centuries before the Europeans arrived.

</comment><comment><USER24> "But in this case the metaphor is conscious and precise: this is the story of European engagement with the native peoples of the Americas."

One planetary race driving another into extinction is a universal, cookie- cutter sci-fi plot device. See Independence Day or Ender's Game. I suppose this was the only one where the victims had some sort of aboriginal-sounding accent, but I wouldn't take it as social commentary.

<comment><USER28> They also had badass arrows. But on a world where the flying things are all glowing and lizardy, where did they get the feathers for the arrows?

<comment><USER29> Could have been from some of the plant life. There certainly seemed to be an abundance of native flora and fauna that took sufficiently different forms from the standard leafy greens that it isn't implausible that the "feathers" were really plant-based.

Then again, it's a made up world in a sci-fi movie; there is a long list of things that wouldn't be "implausible."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The idea of glamorizing indigenous peoples has always fascinated me.

Do those historically connected with a particular place throughout its history never experience cruelty? How does one explain the slaughter in Rwanda and similar places if tribes living in one place are said to be imbued with an innate purity that should exempt them from having the same impulses toward evil and genocide that characterize the rest of the world?

As I ponder these things, and consider the lurid facts depicted in this article, my intuition tells me that this might be as much a case of selective reporting as anything else - reporting that seeks to shape a narrative consistent with a particular worldview held by the author of the piece.

I know there have been atrocities in the United States and in the Americas generally. But there is undoubtedly something very good as well to be said for the United States in particular, where (whatever its shortcomings and inconsistencies) freedom has been upheld for the benefit of all sorts of people and with which most of the world pales in comparison in terms of opportunities, or at least that is how umpteen generations of immigrations scrambling to get here have seen it.

</comment><comment><USER31> Fascinatingly, but unsurprisingly, this is yet another piece that uses Avatar as a springboard into an essay about real-world human events _starting from the claim that Avatar is clearly allegory for one specific such event_. Being from the second wave of such articles, it even takes note of the other interpretations and alleges them to be incorrect.

What makes Avatar such a great movie is that A) so many people are so sure it's "about" a particular historical or current situation that they care about and B) they're _all different_. I've seen Vietnam, I've seen Iraq, I've seen Afghanistan, I've seen South America or the Americas as a whole, I've seen Africa, I've seen climate change, man, I've seen a _lot_ of different interpretations.

James Cameron FTW!

</comment><comment><USER32> That's reddit bait if I've ever seen it.</comment>


PyCon 2011: How Dropbox Did It and How Python Helped - <AUTHOR> http://ontwik.com/python/pycon-2011-how-dropbox-did-it-and-how-python-helped/

<comment><USER2> Already discussed. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319667></comment>