Huawei: 5G Is About Capacity, Not Speed: One-on-one with CTO Paul Scanlan - <AUTHOR> https://semiengineering.com/where-5g-makes-sense-and-where-it-doesnt/ <comment><USER2> This statement seems braindead and markety:

I have a 5G phone, and I've had it since the end of last year. I suddenly realized that something was different about it. The operator didn't tell me they had just enabled 5G. I just noticed, especially when I was sending messages, that it was lightning fast.

If no one else has 5G phone, what's that, no contention? Despite the fact that 5G is about tackling contention, this was going to be true anyway. No way that in China everyone has gotten a 5G phone already, and won't be the case for some time either. Remember people need to be able to afford them too.

Based on the title though, the thing about China and 5G is that China has masses of dense cities that aren't so prevalent elsewhere. So tackling contention is going to be a major driver.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anybody have a good primer for what 5G tech is, in a nutshell?

<comment><AUTHOR> This may be useful [https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/communications...](https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/communications- io/communications-systems/wireless/5g/)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Good (read: cheap) CDN for static site hosting? - <AUTHOR>

Hey all. I've got a Jekyll + Backbone app with a Golang backend that I've been working on. What are some options for deploying the compiled jekyll app? CloudFront, CloudFlare, etc. are a bit spendy (especially considering I'd like to include SSL). Custom domain would be a big +1.<p>Any suggestions, or am I dreamin'? <comment><USER2> Do you require dedicated IPs and a customer cert? If not CloudFront has free HTTPS SNI support and a free tier of 50GB & 2,000,000 HTTP(S) requests per month. So that would be your own domain name, your own ssl cert, and 2M requests per month for $0.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why do you say CloudFlare is spendy? If you are just hosting static assets (images, javascript, css, html, etc) than you can do this with their free plan.

If SSL a must have, their base level $20/mo plan offers this.</comment>


Timeline of the actions taken by Taiwan to contain successfully COVID19 - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/eric_khun/status/1238302647620255745 <comment><USER2> Here a link[1] to the original article where the screenshots come from

[1] [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762689](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762689)</comment>


Kneto: Is the customer wasting your time? - <AUTHOR> http://kneto.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Know who to call and when to call. Try it free.</comment>


Guy buys a Ferrari, rents it via Adwords, grows to a multi-million company - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/noah-lehmann-haupt-gotham-interview/ <comment><USER2> I think the key part of the story is the market research the guy does to confirm his idea is solid:

 _At the time, back in 2004, they were kind of the place to figure out what Google searches were happening and what people were looking for. I did a very simple bit of market research. I did a Word Tracker search for "Ferrari rental New York City." Very straightforward keyword search.

I first did the actual search, and nothing came up. I said, "Okay, well, all right, am I the only one searching for it?" So then, with a combination of the Yahoo keyword tool at the time and Word Tracker, came up with an estimate that somewhere between 50 and 100 people per month were searching for the phrase "Ferrari rental New York." That's just New York City. It had nothing to do with any other part of the country._

Essentially, he did that before moving forward on other steps. Is market research one of the "Top 10 Traits of Successful Founders"?</comment>


How to make a career change into the IT industry in 2020 - <AUTHOR> I am an early 30s man. I am located in New England. I have a BA in Economics from about a decade ago but no experience in the field. I have worked predominantly low level jobs for various reasons since college. I am interested in getting into IT. Despite my work history I am an intelligent and capable problem solver. What are some of the most time and cost effective methods to get into IT? I am most interested in infrastructure and system administration like jobs. Like IT for a financial institution, college, hospital, factory etc. I am less interested in "web development" but am not excluding that from my options since that still appears to be a high demand sector of the industry. What is a reasonable price for a boot camp in the fall of 2020. A highly rated state college near me is offering a 6 month part time online program for "full stack" development for around $11,500. This seems a little high. What does HN think?
As I mentioned I am more interested in back end, like networks, servers, databases, etc, than designing web pages but I do understand that many web-pages have a back end too and are not just graphic design so maybe a bootcamp is a good option to get into IT.
Another option is self / directed study for certificates like A+, Network+ etc. What are the best certificates and what is the best approach to get them?
Last, I am flexible. What is the most in demand area of IT right now and for the near future? I am trying to determine what I should focus on studying to get the best bang for my time and buck. <comment><USER2> Start off with something like Network +, CCNA, AMZN Cert, build yourself a Linux box or use a Linux machine as your primary workstation, learn Java or Python on the side (if you want to have some coding in the tool box), etc.

There are a lot of resources on the Internet like Udemy, etc to help you along the way. Training yourself is the most cost effective way, there is no need to spend 1000's of $$$.

You might want to consider looking at some Reddit boards.

Once you have a few certs under your belt, find a good contracting firm to get your foot in the door for some experience.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hello fellow New Englander,

Regarding $11,500 - for six months of training, that seems to be a reasonable rate given the region and competitors costing anywhere from 0-25k$. If the school offers any sort of guaranteed job/interview after completing the program/has good graduation/hired rates i think that makes the 11.5k a bit more digestable.

Before you commit to purchasing a spot in class there i think you should be aware that there are free programs through schools like Platform By Per Scholas/freecodecamp in NYC/online.

Whatever educational institution you end up going with, here are some questions I think you should ask before jumping in:

-get a copy of the curriculum. Start asking IT people you know what they think about the curriculum in regards to your goal of becoming a FILL IN THE BLANK. Even if you don't care what these people have to say, you will get more comfortable with this kind of technical jargon stuff talking to people/awkward IT people who know more about this stuff than you. How does the curriculm stack up to free resources like Freecodecamp and others like that?

-how many people drop out of the program? what happens if you need to drop out (health reasons, money reasons, unexpected blah blah)/or you arent keeping up with the curriculum? Is there a way to prepare for the curriculum with pre-school starting work? Do they take your money and tell you to piss off if you have to drop out? Or do they offer money back/work with you if you have to drop out?

-Can they provide recent graduation/hired/how much money are people making rates out of the program with time since graduation info? You can compare this to other schools.

-What is your timeline? If you do a 6 month bootcamp for 11.5k, would you be happy if you had to continue to learn on your own/interview after the bootcamp ended for another 6 months? Would you only be happy with your purchase if you were hired within a month of the bootcamp? What really is your timeline? I think this timeline and salary expectations really determined whether my peers and I were happy after our bootcamp experiences.

If you are an average learner like I was, I found the bootcamp experience overall positive, but its no magic bullet, as some people, like i did, really needed 2 years to learn stuff it didn't matter that i worked my ass off for 6 months studying night and day longterm. Bootcamp for me 3 months -> studied/interviewed 2 months -> took a job for 8 months in the right direction -> did another school for 3 months -> got a job in the right direction for 1.5 years -> ultimately got a job i am happy with.</comment>


What Your Body Is Worth - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/blood-kidneys-hair-life--this-is-what-your-body-is-worth

<comment><USER2> "Imagine you're sitting in a football stadium with 10,000 people. One of you will be randomly selected and killed. How much would you pay to make sure you aren't chosen? Remember, the chance that you'll be chosen is only 1 in 10,000."

What a completely useless thought experiment. Unless you're actually in this situation, the decision will be heavily distorted. It's one thing to say what you do in a difficult situation, it's another thing to be in one and take the decision then and there.

<comment><USER3> Are my family members/friends also in that stadium? Can I contribute to their fund? What about children and notable figures?

If I can only contribute to myself, I'd pay all of the money in my bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My body is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I'm willing to pay quite a bit more than $2.5MM -- I'm willing to pay my entire net worth plus anything I can borrow.</comment>


How forgiving do you need to be on new employees? - <AUTHOR> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/27472

<comment><USER2> This seems to be the wrong question for their problem: they should have asked "when do we introduce the code standards for our new guy"?

This way they make it sound like they blame _him_ for not deducing their code standards out of thing air. Which is redidiculous.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you can be forgiving by

\- explaining the coding standards to them, and making sure they conform to them.

\- be forgiving by understanding (but correcting) mistakes, and accepting that they might be less productive as they adjust.</comment>


The Pyramids of Giza Are Near Pizza Hut, and Other Sites That May Disappoint You - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/travel/world-famous-destinations-depictions.html <comment><USER2> The Pyramids of Giza are near Pizza Hut. What's the problem? Just remember that, thousands of years from now, when empires have risen and fallen, the Pizza Hut will still be here.</comment>


How Facebook Saw Trump Coming When No One Else Did - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@erinpettigrew/how-facebook-saw-trump-coming-when-no-one-else-did-84cd6b4e0d8e <comment><USER2> IMO pretty much the whole world saw that coming. Except appearantly the U.S. itself?

<comment><USER3> America's ruling class was in denial. (Heck, I'm sure a lot of it still is.)

In fact, their being in denial about a very many great things is how they ended up with "God Emperor Trump" as their president-elect.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What makes one font more "readable" than the other? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> A _very_ open ended question.

It really depends on context. Monospaced fonts are more readable for tabular data. Hard to read fonts are thought to increase memorization of the subject. Using italics, bold etc. in the right context will also increase readabilty irrespective of the font. Then you have fonts that are designed for more fluid reading like Dyslexie which is thought to increase comprehension for people with dyslexia.

You really need to define what you mean with "readable" \- it it comprehension or memorization you are referring to or that reading it is fluid (think of a telepromper for a presenter)?

</comment><comment><USER3> Whether it's Wingdings or not.</comment>


This is what online harassment looks like - <AUTHOR> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/internet/2012/07/what-online-harassment-looks?utm_source=loopinsight.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+loopinsight%2FKqJb+%28The+Loop%29 <comment><USER2> Online sexism is going nowhere until people start asking >why< other have such hateful thoughts and feelings rather than just serving up the usual diatribe foo-fa-raw of nerds versus angry women.

<comment><USER3> Angry women? Right.

No one will ask why if they aren't aware of the problem. This is called shining a light on reality. It's how everything gets addressed.

<comment><USER2> No one is ever asking why.

That's not to imply that the transgressors have an excuse for their bad behaviour, just that castigation gets us nowhere, particularly in an pseudo- anonymous environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh, it's funny to see people trying to prove gamers harass Anita just because she is a woman. Or that many guys just hate women and stuff. This is not true.

People harass stupidity. If you do stupid things online, you'll be harassed. And it doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman. What you do matters.

People got sick of all this neverending sexism bullshit going on. Most people do not think it is a problem worth mentioning of even is a problem at all.

<comment><USER5> "Oh, it's funny to see people trying to prove gamers harass Anita just because she is a woman."

There is a game in which one can simulate punching her in the face, with realistic looking bruising and facial injuries, quite clearly evoking the horrific sub-culture amongst some males that hurting women is entertaining and funny. Pick someone else who did something "stupid" online and see if you can find a game simulating realistic facial injuries on them. You find it funny? I'm not laughing.

<comment><USER4> I don't see any connection between punching game and being woman. Seriously. And I saw thousands of such games before. Except most of them were about punching males.

Well, not all of them featured bruises and injuries though, but it's just a question of quality.

I think it's much easier to make a punching game with these features now than several years ago.

And here are some examples: <http://www.arcadecabin.com/play/punch_the_president.html> <http://www.urban75.com/Punch/gates.html>

<comment><USER5> Serious question. Do you genuinely not see the qualitative difference between that kind of cartoony game involving a major public figure, and the game with the images you can see on the original post? In your mind, are they essentially the same thing? Not trying to be nasty; to many, many people they are of completely different intent, but I am aware that some people just cannot sense that kind of thing.

<comment><USER4> Well, again, I don't see any connection between this game and the fact that Anita is a woman. Yes, it's clearly harassment, but it's NOT women harassment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra The only way to win a battle with anonymous legion is to be stonger than they ever can.

She raised ten times more than she wanted already, so they are anready distressed and uncomfortable. Push some harsh responses on them and they'd break.

Note that complaining about harassment is the WRONG response. Complains is exactly what trolls feed on and they absolutely won't show any respect for complainers whatever many articles there would be.

<comment><USER6> is it complaining or is it bearing witness? By outing this kind of behavior, she is spreading awareness of what it means to live with pervasive sexism + bullying. Perhaps, through this openness + honesty, some might reconsider the effects that their words + actions have. Perhaps others might call people on it, both online + in person, when they see it happening. Yes, people have respnded by helping her with her documentary, but things do not end with a gift. Giving money is relatively easy compared to doing something about ones own behavior and the behavior around them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought the meme pictures were pretty funny.

Sorry.</comment>


uTorrent Becomes Ad-Supported to Rake in Millions - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-becomes-ad-supported-to-rake-in-millions-120810/ <comment><USER2> No surprise here, really.

uTorrent went downhill steadily after it got bought by BitTorrent. The original uT was beautiful in its well-thought minimalist design and lean code. The first thing BitTorrent did was they messed with the UI. Then started bundling some BS features like streaming, ratings and so on. And an elegant, simple, yet intricate piece of software started crumbling. I used to give uT as an example of really good software design and execution, but sadly it's no more... time for a rewrite it seems :)

<comment><USER3> Transmission is my go-to client on linux and os x. Very smallish and simple UI. I wonder if their port to windows [1] is usable.

[1] <http://sourceforge.net/projects/trqtw/>

<comment><USER4> Transmission's great. Came with Ubuntu, lets me download Torrents from magnet URIs, out of the way with no hassle.

Or what mTorrent used to be (the greek m looks like a u, but isn't, and is pronounced "micro" for the SI prefix)

<comment><USER5> Are you talking about µTorrent? If so, µ is pronounced "mu" or "mew"; see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C>

<comment><USER4> Ah, my bad. Its Wikipedia page is MTorrent though (uppercase)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've never understood why anyone who is tech savvy would use a closed-source BitTorrent client, _especially_ if they plan on using it to commit copyright infringement. There are open source alternatives, like deluge (which is cross platform and has a remote client feature that's splendid) or rtorrent (a great little ncurses client for *nix).

<comment><USER7> The best client that I have used so far is by _far_ Transmission for *nix systems. I learned about it when I got my first mac, and now it makes for a lovely headless seedbox.

<comment><USER8> The web UI is also really nice and simple.

I think the reason I use Transmission over rtorrent is that it seems to allow you to "eat" stuff that you put in a blackhole, which is rather nice.

<comment><USER9> Wait what?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They've hit a sticky spot.

I'd much rather pay a couple dollars for ad-free software than use something with annoying ads in it. However, like most people I'd probably be illogically unwilling to suddenly pay for the same software I've been using for free.

In the short-term I'll probably just avoid updating, but in the long-term I'll migrate to another torrent client! This is probably the beginning of the end for uTorrent.

<comment><USER11>
      > I'd much rather pay a couple dollars for ad-free
      > software than use something with annoying ads in it.

It's a torrent client. If you're willing to pay money for a nicer experience, then you're not in the target audience.

<comment><USER12> I'm willing to pay money for a nicer experience with movies, but I can't. Presently, that experience - no ads, no DRM and instant access - is only available for free.

<comment><USER13> Completely agree + IMHO it's insane to give money to the entertainment industry, provided it will use part of them to bribe politicians, destroy freedom, establish totalitarian control over Internet and PC platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In a perfect world the ads would be a small link right after the torrent title/name. The link would read "buy original" and would send you to a webpage with links to Amazon/Steam/other store where you would get to buy the original if you liked what you read/seen/heard/played. They could make some affiliate profit out of it too.

</comment><comment><USER15> Massive alienation of users through invasive ads is the beginning of the end.

<comment><USER16> Starting with uTorrent "enhancing" their users' experiences with bundled adware:

[http://www.ghacks.net/2012/05/04/utorrent-update-comes- bundl...](http://www.ghacks.net/2012/05/04/utorrent-update-comes-bundled-with- adware/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've actually never used uTorrent myself, but I found myself quite appalled by the title and then slowly warming up to the ideas as I read the article.

As I understand, the company behind uTorrent currently makes their money from people who install a browser toolbar bundled with the uTorrent installer. This is one of the sleaziest sources of revenue. Putting some ads in the app itself is at least honest.

Even better, rather than having your average "Clean your computer now!" ads, they apparently plan to advertise using "sponsored torrents", from within a BitTorrent client. That's actually pretty clever! If they push this a bit more, they can use uTorrent as a trojan horse for a legitimate BitTorrent platform the way iTunes went from being an app to put music on your iPod to a full-blown music store.

I'll defer my judgement until I see how this turns out, but it can hardly be worse than a browser toolbar.

</comment><comment><USER18> This seems like the perfect application for oldversion.com <http://www.oldversion.com/uTorrent.html>

</comment><comment><USER19> Wow. TorrentFreak has 48! bugs found with Ghostery. I think that is the highest I've ever seen. Speaking of a service that's supported by ads (and worse than ads).

</comment><comment><USER20> Thanks for notifying me to not upgrade uTorrent.

<comment><USER21> i haven't upgraded since 2.0.4

<comment><USER22> Yeah I am still on 2.2.1 as I did not like the changes they were making to the UI (thankfully just a few clicks changes it back to the old look). Never even installed 3.x

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_client...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients)

If you feel the urge to switch. (I like Transmission -- clean, efficient, great as a daemon + web interface).

</comment><comment><USER24> Looks like it's time to give Deluge another try. uTorrent started out great then they started bundling in malware and now they're adding in advertisements - as if they need the extra cash in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER25> I can't claim that I was the first to have this thought, but I will post it to provide a possible positive counterpoint:

If these adverts are for legitimate, legal torrents, their addition to the client could greatly increase the fraction of torrent traffic that is, well, legal. This would help put an end to the "all torrent traffic is illegal" argument for throttling and blocking used by ISPs and governments.

So perhaps this is a ploy to make some advertising money, but with a subplot of ensuring torrents keep working the way they do.

</comment><comment><USER26> uT went crap after 3.1. I use an old 64 bit version of 3.0 - no ads and no plan to upgrade.

<comment><USER27> Er, I thought it went crap after 1.6.1 !!!!!!!

IIRC, and please forgive my terrible memory, something happened with ownership or the main programmer "selling out", which caused a lot of worry about privacy, etc. I believe that 1.6.1 was the last "safe" version in relation to that.

And for years I stuck with 1.6.1

Whether or not is was utterly wasting my time, I really dont know!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> With that kind of money, I wonder how long it will take someone to sue them for "profiting from promoting piracy", even though they don't.

</comment><comment><USER29> Millions? Doubt many of the users of the application care about ads, so unless they charge for impressions...

<comment><USER30> They didn't say the currency they're using. It's millions because it's all in Facebook dollars (effectively ~$5 USD total).

<comment><USER31> Must be FB dollars if they can't manage to keep the lights on with 15-20 mil

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why use proprietary adware when there are FOSS alternatives available?

</comment><comment><USER33> Time to choose a new BitTorrent client.

</comment><comment><USER34> if they get rid of that conduit.com BS I'll be happy

</comment><comment><USER35> Here is one alternative: <http://www.tonido.com/app_torrent_home.html>. Manage your torrents from anywhere.</comment>


MIT on how to cheat on a Google interview [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://courses.csail.mit.edu/iap/interview/Hacking_a_Google_Interview_Handout_1.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Especially strange: "If you already know the answer, don't just blurt it out! They will suspect that you already knew the answer and didn't tell them you've seen the question before. At least pretend to be thinking though the problem before you give the answer!"

It is disturbing that a school as the MIT offers such courses. Apparently, you just exchange tuition for a good job afterwards, instead of getting the best education.</comment>


"The $300 textbook is dead," says the CEO of textbook maker Pearson - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/2/20750863/john-fallon-pearson-education-textbook-digital-aida-teachers-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast <comment><USER2> Granted it's a rental, but at least a hardbound book could be resold. The rent-seekers at Pearson cut their supply chain to almost nothing and still make a handsome profit from their captive audience.

<comment><USER3> Not sure that's better, when I was a college student living in poverty I was expected to buy $100-$300 books and at the end of the semester I would sell them back for $5-$20. Used pricing was never different than new, and the "17th edition" scam meant you often couldn't sell books back at all.

I just started stealing textbooks shamelessly, and have zero regrets about it because I would not have finished college without those small crimes.

<comment><USER4> Did that mean that other people didn't get to finish? Or did it mean that they simply had no choice to pay for the book you stole and then again for one of their own?

Is this that different from picking a victim and demanding that he or she hand over the money you lack for a textbook?

<comment><USER5> It is probably more along the lines of downloading/pirating a pdf version, or scanning and printing an entire textbook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Gotta have a new math textbook every year. Wouldn't wanna miss out on all the new math.

<comment><USER7> "If you have an old version you're good on all of the content, except the questions at the end will be different. So you'll need a new book to do the homework."

<comment><USER8> Or go to the library and photocopy the questions. I had a math instructor literally tell us to buy the old edition and photocopy the questions from the library.

<comment><USER9> The usual trick is your math teacher was commissioned to write/update one chapter of said book, incentivizing him to push new versions every semester.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seems like an interesting model and platform. I mean, the digital version is really accompanying the student throughout his/her journey. and if the publisher can not only tap into it, but be part of the ritual of studying. the student will then go back to it. the publisher can easily upsell extra services (correction, tutoring, exam prep, you name it).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, plus apps so that students can participate in different activities. I personally like the electronic version of books. It is portable and convenient. Specially in the STEM fields. Those books are massive, so carrying them around isn't an easy task. Also, you can search thing faster with an electronic version. This is good for the new students. Unfortunately, I had to buy the expensive books back when I was studying.</comment></comment>


How Harvey Mudd Transformed Its CS Program and Nearly Closed Its Gender Gap - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/10/how-harvey-mudd-transformed-its-computer-science-program-and-nearly-closed-its-gender-gap/ <comment><AUTHOR> previous discussion 4 years agof: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6531251](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6531251)</comment>


Weaponized Social Media Is Driving the Explosion of Fascism - <AUTHOR> https://truthout.org/articles/weaponized-social-media-is-driving-the-explosion-of-fascism/ <comment><USER2> The author does a good job painting propaganda in its awesome and terrible social media incarnation. The analogy between ISIS with the NZ maniac is a bit troublesome however and I'll tell you why. When I served in Afghanistan, as a mere child myself in the very early 2000's, I saw children in the street (if you can call it a street), dirty, unfed, walking over to a dirty stream washing what appeared to be glass out of the smallest one's foot - all in a town destroyed by whatever. Those children are adults now, how can I blame them for the hatred they must carry around. The western world created the hatred that is (was) ISIS, in the name of big oil. And we were warned of the consequence before stepping a figurative foot in the middle east. The Christchurch shooter, I don't know his story, but I'm sure his hatred didn't come from seeing an occupying force's unmanned aerial vehicle kill his loved ones at the tender age of 4. The NZ shooter's madness and the madness of ISIS are not the same. So My advice to the author is next time you want to preface 4 paragraphs of ISIS talk with a sentence about the a white supremacist to make yourself look less biased, remember that audiences are waking up to the theme of your article - propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why mention of Russian trolls and white supremacist groups as being fascist and no mention of: Antifa (ironically supposed to be anti-fascist, but is anything but), anti-Israel/anti-semitic users, including in the US government, and the drowning out of any conservative voice/anyone that deviates from the current left-leaning narratives?

If you can't be open and honest about the problem and less biased, it will never be solved.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm interested in what you think is open and honest about suggesting that violent opposition to fascism is in any way equivalent to fascist violence

<comment><USER3> "violent opposition to fascism"

Beating up and suppressing anyone you don't agree with, which is exactly what Antifa members have been doing in the last 2 years at many of their 'protests', is itself fascism.

<comment><AUTHOR> ^ that's a lie, sorry.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's hotexamples.com and why is it in all my code searches? - <AUTHOR> I've recently noticed that more and more Google results (when searching for code snippets) deliver hotexamples.com URLs.
It looks like it's a wrapper for GitHub, but I couldn't find much information about it.
Anyone knows what's going on ? <comment><USER2> > This service was created to help programmers find real examples of using > classes and methods as well as documentation. Our system automatically > searches, retrieves and ranks examples of source code from more than 1 > million opensource projects. A key feature of the service is an opportunity > to see examples of using a particular class or method from multiple projects > on a single page.

Sounds like it's just a search engine for code, with good SEO of their own.

<comment><USER3> The idea sounds awesome though. I guess the exit strategy is to get acquired by GitHub or something. I can't count how many times I search for usage and the examples are not remotely related to how the function is actually used in practice. It would also be great if they can also get design patterns in there.</comment></comment>


The ReadyForZero Programming Challenge - <AUTHOR> https://www.readyforzero.com/challenge

<comment><USER2> Three problems, algorithm-centric, each solvable with (some intelligent thought and) a few lines of (say) Python. Unsurprisingly, the payoff is "we're hiring; please send us your resume".

ReadyForZero appears to be a company that helps people get out of credit card debt by tracking what you owe to whom and recommending what to pay off in what order. They just got Series A funding.

</comment><comment><USER3> The most difficult part was figuring out unspecified things in the problems. Generally I had to use my intuition about "otherwise this would be either impossible or too easy" to get the right answer.

The first problem should be more explicit about the nature of the difference: a "typo" or non-shared could reasonably be an omission of a character, which would mean that the position of the unknown character does not matter. This weaker problem has more than one correct answer for the given input data. Better to call it a "corrupted byte" or somesuch.

It should be explicitly stated that the tree is balanced in the second problem. It should also state that each node contains exactly one character or that all nodes have nonempty payload (you can figure out either of those pieces of information from the other one).

The third problem should specify that it's looking for a strict partition. Contiguous is not a strong enough requirement. As written, I can have as many "contiguous subsequences" of zero elements as I want located anywhere in the string.

I particularly like the third as a teaching problem, and I might have to use it sometime. It's pretty simple, not overly reliant on programming concepts, and the "clever" solution is both faster and easier to implement than the brute-force try-everything solution.

<comment><USER4> Given that the point of this is to have fun and also tease out people worth hiring, having ambiguity in the problems is a good thing I think. Rarely is a _real_ technical problem so clearly and obviously defined. So requiring a bit of thought and intuition might prove to be a good filter :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reading the first problem, I think I am not ready for zero, it seems that the first problem is not well described.

<comment><USER6> You are looking for a sequence of 5 characters that differ by one character, but are otherwise identical (order matters). For example, an answer would be something like '89^hf' and '8z^hf'

<comment><USER5> Thanks, order matters that's what I missed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the source of the website: "<!-- Are you looking at the source code? Like we'd put the answers here. Creative tho... -->"

It was worth a shot.

</comment><comment><USER8> These are very similar to (and easier than most of) the Project Euler problems. <http://projecteuler.net/> \-- Highly recommended for everyone.

<comment><AUTHOR> If anyone wants the hard version, let me know (you can upvote this comment)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> That was a fun before-breakfast warmup; the input was always short enough that a simple, brute-force approach would usually work. The problem statements could have been made a little bit clearer though.

And what's up with the green-on-black Mac screen?!

EDIT: my solutions (using Node.js) [https://github.com/julienq/incubator/tree/master/misc/readyf...](https://github.com/julienq/incubator/tree/master/misc/readyforzero)

</comment><comment><USER10> Hello could someone help me with problem 2? I believe I am splitting the string correctly, 1 2 4 8 16 ... 512 = 1023 total chars/nodes, but when I add the integers of the last line (aka the leaves) I get the wrong result.

<https://gist.github.com/1029356>

Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER11> My solutions: <https://gist.github.com/1026309> Didn't really stop and think on the first one for too long, so it's a bit messy. Overall it's quite easy but not trivial. Knowing the length of the challege at the beginnig wold be nice though.

</comment><comment><USER12> My answers in 31 lines of code: <https://gist.github.com/1025860>

I am either misreading the third problem's description, or I have a bug I can't for the life of me see, because the answer my program puts out is not accepted.

<comment><USER13> > #pip install python-levenshtein > from Levenshtein import distance

That doesn't seem in the spirit of the challenge.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you do it in linear time in the length of the input?

<comment><USER14> It's not hard to prove that that's impossible

<comment><USER3> It's possible if RAM isn't a constraint, using a bitset of all possible five- letter strings. The bitset would take up 4G of RAM (128G for extended ASCII, more for unicode).

In practice, that would actually be slower on this input, because of the cost of initializing the bitset. But that is not dependent on the input, so computational complexity is unaffected.

edit: Removed description. Yes, you're right, you can't even look at the whole input in constant time.

<comment><USER14> This is a misunderstanding, you must have answered to my reply after ithayer edited his comment, the initial comment said "constant time".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Oh, that first question looks tasty. I dunno what a 'ReadyForZero' is, but the challenge could be fun.

</comment><comment><USER16> Fun challenge, but not too difficult. The largest challenge was making the intuitive leaps to discover the missing information in the questions, especially for problem two. A bit of trial and error, and a few lines of Python made for quick testing of those assumptions.

</comment><comment><USER17> Solutions in Clojure <https://gist.github.com/1033605>

I "cheated" on the third one in that I read the discussion here which helped clarify the problem, non-overlapping, etc.

<comment><USER17> I figured out a better challenge 1 with combinatorics, also figured out non- anonymous gists <https://gist.github.com/1041697>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here are my solutions for #1 and #3. I cheated on #2 just like everyone else.

<https://gist.github.com/1026404>

</comment><comment><USER14> Wasn't hard. The problems could be better explained, for example in the second one they should clarify that the binary tree is balanced and that each node is one character.

<comment><AUTHOR> you're right - we should explain that it's balanced.

<comment><USER19> Any comment in regard to my question above? At present, question 2 has serious ambiguity as to how one should interpret the data. Clearly each character represents one node, but again, there is no clear procedure for converting values. Padding makes no sense in this context.

Can you clarify?

<comment><USER14> It's just as ASCII, you should sum the leaves that have ASCII digits (sum their digit value, not their ASCII code) and ignore the non-digit leaves.

<comment><USER19> I still don't follow. Digit value rather than ASCII code... you mean Base64 digit value? If so, do you just ignore the pad char? (I mean... by "non-digit leaves" you are referring to the leaves represented by '=' and only those?)

EDIT: I understand now... jeez that was a run-around! Ascii encoded decimal! Thanks for the clarifying replies all over.

<comment><USER20> I think it's literally one ASCII code (byte) per each of the 1023 nodes in the tree. Any time there's a non-digit in one of the leaf positions you ignore it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't usually do these challenges, but this one was pretty fun. It's three problems long. Took me about 30 minutes.

</comment><comment><USER22> I enjoyed solving these. Last one is cool, but hint is too obvious ;>

</comment><comment><USER23> When one has cookies disabled (and those days I believe everyone should) it throws Django error page:

> Forbidden (403)

> CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.

They should've checked that cookie exists. Or, better, not rely on cookies.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, we could have checked every single corner case, but our job is to build financial software, not programming challenges, so we did it quick and dirty :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Could that be a booger on the 1 key (numeric keypad)?

</comment><comment><USER25> Meh, it killed an hour or two that needed to suffer.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Are you ready to get out of credit card debt? > ReadyForZero is a free > online financial tool that lets you track your credit card debt ...

what is this? some kind of a sick SEO experiment? flagged for spam.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not an SEO experiment - trying to hire smrt people!</comment></comment>


Well-Meaning Bad Ideas Spoiling a Generation - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/70/variables/the-well_meaning-bad-ideas-spoiling-a-generation <comment><USER2> For a counterpoint, read this scathing review by Moira Weigel of his book The Coddling of the American Mind:

 _Like Trump, the authors romanticise a past before "identity" but get fuzzy and impatient when history itself comes up. "Most of these schools once excluded women and people of colour," they reflect. "But does that mean that women and people of colour should think of themselves as 'colonised populations' today?" You could approach this question by looking at data on racialised inequality in the US, access to universities, or gendered violence. They don't. They leave it as a rhetorical question for "common sense" to answer.

Their narrow perception of history severely limits the explanations Lukianoff and Haidt can offer for the real problems they identify. Can you understand the "paranoia" middle-class parents have about college admissions without considering how many of their children are now downwardly mobile? How are college teachers supposed to confidently court controversy when so many of them have zero security in jobs that barely pay above poverty wages?_

[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/20/the- coddling-o...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/20/the-coddling-of- the-american-mind-review)

<comment><USER3> I have never been thoughtful enough to realize that the exclusions mentioned (women, POC) throughout US history fit the definition of 'identity' or 'identity politics' so well. I'm always impressed when someone comes up with such a rock solid example that points out _specific_ hypocrisies. Normally, using hypocrisy to counter someones argument is a logical fallacy, but the omissions present, and the effects of historical politically enforced inequalities must be taken into account when discussing these issues philosophically, especially when dealing with those who suggest that this is only a contemporary issue.

This issue is only contemporary in the fact that we are still burning far too much energy knocking down these doors in the first place, or trying to keep them open, when it comes to women's rights, and the issues present in "The Color of Law". I'm impressed.

<comment><USER4> _the omissions present, and the effects of historical politically enforced inequalities must be taken into account_

I say this as a lifelong Democratic party member and voter. (Until recently.) In 2019, inequality is propagated through differences in access to effective educational environments. It's the Democratic party which opposes school vouchers and funding increased choice in education for disadvantaged neighborhoods. I know that such choice is an important issue for inner city parents. I've been approached by an inner city mother asking how she could get a coding education for her son.

As was mentioned in the Watergate scandal, always "follow the money." (Or eyeballs. Or fame. Or votes.) Who benefits from disadvantaged neighborhoods? Who benefits from encouraging large populations to refuse to assimilate into their host society?

<comment><USER5> I'm opposed to school vouchers because I feel like the most likely outcome is to move private schools from the 1% to the 10%, and as upper-middle class parents abandon public schools, the political will to improve them will decline.

I've seen cases where school choice was marginally improved, and what happened was that the parents who had the largest combination of motivation and time moved their kids, which caused what was left of the school to become ghettoized, because those were the same parents who would volunteer in the classroom, run the PTA, seek out donors for particular programs &c.

It's possible that larger changes would result in improvements even though smaller changes result in serious problems, but I don't see larger changes coming soon, and school voucher programs do not appear to be large enough to accomplish this goal.

We may be stuck in a very pessimal middle ground right now; it seems likely that significantly increasing school choice would improve things from where we are, but also seems likely that the exact opposite approach of banning private schools and assigning kids to public schools by lottery would also improve things, as that could motivate the wealthy and connected to improve schools that poor kids are equally likely to end up in.

<comment><USER6> Saying "not everyone can give their children better opportunities, so no one can give their children better opportunities" is one of the crappiest arguments against charter schools. It's pure and simple envy and a desire to hurt those more fortunate.

<comment><USER5> Not wanting to subsidize a wealthy parent's child's tuition is a desire to hurt them?

<comment><USER4> _Not wanting to subsidize a wealthy parent 's child's tuition is a desire to hurt them?_

Not wanting to subsidize a poor parent's child's education just because a wealthy parent's child might exploit it seems either spiteful, or desiring of too much perfection in a complex system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I read a fair bit of it, and then started skimming. It seems to me that they think the 'bad idea' is how people are classified. They think that young people are learning that the underdog is always good and the people in power are always bad.

Instead, I think they hit on the real problem accidentally: Binary choices aren't real. Life isn't just black and white, good and bad, wrong and right. It's all grey area with almost _nothing_ falling into the very extremes.

Being unable to recognize that people are complex is what people today are lacking, I think.

<comment><USER8> I think the article hit on that a lot

"To take 18-year-olds, and rather than try to turn that down and say "okay hold on, don't be so moralistic. Let's try to give people a chance. Let's judge people as individuals." That was the great achievement of the 20th century—to make progress there. Instead in the 21st century to say, "okay welcome to campus. Here are five or six dimensions; we're going to teach you to see men, maleness, masculinity as bad, everyone else is good. White is bad, everyone else is good. Straight is bad, everyone else is good." This is Manicheism. This is ramping up our tendency to dualistic thinking."

<comment><USER9> Sure that's the rhetoric. Most people don't take that completely seriously, however. (Lots of people make an exception when it benefits them to do so.) Those who take this rhetoric seriously most of the time, can be mostly avoided.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> At some point I really hope that data, science, facts and reason can prevail over the craziness that has taken over university campuses and society as a whole. Most reasonable people believe in the spirit of social justice etc., but the activists have turned it into a zero sum power grab that has very little to do with the stated mission. The irony is that the level of hypocrisy on that side is at the same levels as the religious person who commits all sorts of horrible acts while fervently preaching against people who are engaged those horrible acts.

<comment><USER11> I find is surprising that this stuff gets discussed on HN at all, and then I'm more surprised that comments like your own aren't the highest voted.

Every reasonable person agrees that (lower case) social justice is our goal. Let's use a scientific approach to get closer to making it a reality.

<comment> Joe-Z One of the author's points is that it's a fallacy to believe people can be explained / lead purely by rational thinking or facts. Emotions play a huge part in human life and realities like this will always need to be taken into consideration when deciding on policy.

I agree, proper research needs to be done and unbiased facts need to be found, but thinking once you have this you will get everybody on board with your new idea because it's "scientific" is unrealistic.

EDIT: to clarify, by "the author" I meant the author of the book, not the Nautilus-article

<comment><USER11> Totally agree. The goal part isn't scientific. Our emotions lead us to decide the kind of world we want to live in. I think there is more agreement there than conventional and social media are leading us to believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's not surprising when you see a book title that includes the word "coddling" what the subject matter is going to end up being. But this psychologist has a very carefully crafted approach to get you to think you agree with most of what he says.

If you check out the answers, the subject of the interview always follows a very specific pattern: given a question "what about <this "liberal" idea>?" He starts by saying, "oh, it's a great insight, and based on something entirely true", then he moves onto "but of course it gets oversimplified and misapplied", and then he starts throwing out blatantly false strawmen like "then you get to 'men are bad' and 'whites are bad'" as if that's just another fact that proves that the original idea being discussed is actually a terrible one. Of course, the fact is not true, but if it were true it _would_ be a bad thing, but by that point in the answer you are primed to go along with his until-that-point entirely reasonable rhetoric.

It's impressive, really, but it's ultimately the same toxic BS that the ideas he's talking about are trying to fight against. This is just twisted logic to provide a false path to help you conclude that the privileged are actually the oppressed. It's disturbing, but alas it's nothing unique. This sort of argument has been getting more and more refined very quickly. There's some interesting psychology going on here, but it's not what this person wants you to believe.

<comment><USER13> >and then he starts throwing out blatantly false strawmen like "then you get to 'men are bad' and 'whites are bad'"

These are sincerely held beliefs increasing in popularity around the world. Take, for example, the evergreen state college controversy in the USA where black people decided white people shouldnt come to college one day. Governmental and corporate boards are increasingly forcefully including women to achieve "equal" representation, regardless of measured abilities.

<comment><USER14> >Take, for example, the evergreen state college controversy in the USA where black people decided white people shouldnt come to college one day.

That's not exactly what happened[0], and it wasn't because "black people" believed "whites are bad."

And... attempting to extrapolate from a single data point into some global anti-white belief is absurd to say the least. If anything, the global rise in populism, anti-feminist and anti immigrant sentiment points to the opposite trend.

>Governmental and corporate boards are increasingly forcefully including women to achieve "equal" representation, regardless of measured abilities.

Attempting to correct systemic gender bias is not an expression of a belief that "men are bad". One can argue about the effectiveness or fairness of such programs but you're being purposely disingenuous as to their nature and rationale.

[0][https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/22/evergreen- sta...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/22/evergreen-state- cancels-day-absence-set-series-protests-and-controversies)

<comment><USER13> > >Take, for example,

> And... attempting to extrapolate from a single data point

Im not extrapolating from a single data point. I said "for example", and then gave an example. Here are some more: [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full- recordin...](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording-of- wilfrid-laurier-reprimanding-lindsay-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson- video) [https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the- Grievance/244753](https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-the-Grievance/244753)

> If anything, the global rise in populism, anti-feminist and anti immigrant > sentiment points to the opposite trend.

I am not aware of any such sentiments. Have any data points?

> >Governmental and corporate boards are increasingly forcefully including > women to achieve "equal" representation, regardless of measured abilities.

> Attempting to correct systemic gender bias is not an expression of a belief > that "men are bad".

This is begging the question. I do not accept your premise that systemic gender bias exists, and even if I did im sure we would disagree about the extent that it does.

Gender differences exist individually and statistically across populations. There is no reason gender outcomes should be equal in all, or even most, cases. Your argument is that there exists a _global_ system disciriminating against race and gender?

<comment><USER14> It's not _my_ premise. I can accept the latter can be reasonably argued, but that systemic gender bias doesn't even exist?

>>If anything, the global rise in populism, anti-feminist and anti immigrant sentiment points to the opposite trend.

>I am not aware of any such sentiments. Have any data points?

You want me to provide "data points" on populism, the alt-right, MRAs and neo- reactionists, the xenophobia resulting from Syrian refugees into Europe and Mexican immigrants into the US, the narrative of the rural white male feeling isolated and alienated by a multicultural society which apparently led to Trump's election, and that campaign's unprecedented support by white nationalists?

No, I'm not wasting my time litigating that. If you've been completely unaware of the existence of these social and political trends, you can do your own research. At this point that's like asking someone to first prove the that the earth is round before they'll even discuss transportation safety.

I can tell this is not going to lead anywhere constructive, so I'm bowing out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For the author's summary of the book's thesis, Ctrl-F "six intersecting or interacting threads."

If you're trying to explain what's different about this generation, and you do _not_ spend much time thinking about the rising costs of housing, higher education, and healthcare and the erosion of job security and benefits that many folks had in previous generations, you missed something. Weigel makes a lot of good broader points but I feel like that's an _especially_ painful omission given the empirical and social-science gloss Haidt and his co-author are putting on their book. This is like explaining the past few generations in the US without mentioning the Great Depression, the New Deal, World War II...

Stories about how the younger generation is worse go back forever, and seem to be easy sells for various reasons--the world's always changing in ways that can be confusing and hard to keep up with, so a relatively tidy explanation that says the older generation's right and the kids are full of silly ideas can be comforting to some.

</comment><comment><USER16> I really like his ideas, if not his writing (or speaking?) style.

I especially liked the bit about how society today is more rational (better?) because of guaranteed dissent that was part of the scientific revolution, and we're taking that away with safe spaces and the like.

<comment><USER17> I don't see how safe spaces are at odds with that. Just because people want to have _some_ space where they can relax doesn't mean that disagreement is impossible.

There are just less private spaces now, and we have more of an understanding that some people find it extremely hard to find those spaces, so actively ensuring they exist is important for them.

The idea that we have to let people show "dissent" about someone's identity and life by harassing people _literally all the time_ seems obviously wrong to me.

<comment><USER18> No one is arguing that people should be harassed "literally all the time" (or ever).

Some of the more egregious deployments of "safe spaces" in universities happened in response to controversial campus speakers who were deemed to have views that were threatening to some students. According to some campus radical leftists, the very _presence_ of such speakers was "violence" and a literal "threat" to marginalized students.

Of course, the students could simply refuse to attend the talks of speakers they didn't like, but that wouldn't make as dramatic a statement as creating an explicit "safe space" where they could congregate.

<comment><USER19> >According to some campus radical leftists, the very presence of such speakers was "violence" and a literal "threat" to marginalized students.

And why shouldn't they have a point? If it could be shown, or at least it is plausible, that violence against marginalized students could occur due to a speaker inciting such action or even bringing out groups for it, doesn't that give some case for refusing the admission of such people to campus?

In general I have not seen any reason to consider speech as much different from action, except on the principle that the harm caused is entirely caused by the victim (e.g a hearer) themselves, which seems implausible according to our intuition in a variety of circumstances. In fact, the bifurcation of speech and action seems to trace its way back to a Cartesian mind-body dualism, which is generally rejected by neuroscientists and philosophers today.

<comment><USER20> Why stop there? What if it could be shown to be plausible that blocking speakers on campus increases tensions and escalates violence because of the suppression of people's views? It doesn't stretch credulity that right wingers are more mad about restricting the expression of their beliefs than they are about the subject itself. For evidence, watch a sample of Fox News -- they're often indignant and "righteously upset" over "being told what to think or say".

<comment><USER19> That is obviously also a possibility; I'm not arguing that they should be silenced by default, only that it is possible and should not be beyond the reach of a society's purview to do so. For the moment, it seems more plausible that violence erupts due to persuasion and incitement, which is why (for instance) there are already laws against incitement but not against illegalising speech lest it cause high tensions. I assume this question can also be answered empirically.

<comment><USER20> In the tension between freedom of speech and preventing harmful speech, I wonder if we're approach a Nash equilibrium, or if it's more of an accelerating oscillator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> temp-dude-87844 These movements come in waves, and it's a mistake to suggest that the recent developments are troubling or unnatural. All ideas are ultimately interpreted according to the norms of the time the interpretation is voiced, so perhaps in a few decades of this, it won't seem so aberrant and counterproductive to a class of privileged intellectuals anymore.

But the unintended consequences will shape out future. Escalations typically hollow out the middle, where people with little investment in the topic might find themselves having to choose sides, and angering the other.

Different people have different priorities. Many are more concerned about their immediate families and their careers, and they will try to conform to localized expectations to avoid conflict. Corporations and bureaucracies readily adopted outward signs of support for this movement, and people are doing the same. Their true beliefs are made known privately, or at the ballot box.

People of conviction, on the other hand, will have no such qualms. Savvy nationalists and ethnic supremacists will find it easy to pivot their platform towards a broader vision of societal norms, and some will branch out into economic policy as we've already seen in Europe. They may find a receptive audience among younger members of groups that have been told that their group is problematic, and who may want no part in a movement that has left no place for them.

<comment><USER21> > These movements come in waves, and it's a mistake to suggest that the recent > developments are troubling or unnatural. ...

You're probably right, but it's not Haidt that's describing any ideologies or worldviews as "troubling" or "unnatural", other than perhaps wrt. Trumpism at the close of this interview. If anything, he repeatedly stresses just how _natural_ it might feel, for example, to demand ideological "safe spaces" in order to preserve one's quasi-religious worldview and sense of identity from what's perceived as a very personal attack from outsiders and enemies. What arguably _is_ "troubling" and indeed outright toxic, is the _consequences_ of these developments on the workings of our institutions (such as academia and policy-making) as well as on social cohesion more generally. But these consequences are far from unavoidable, and Haidt's book is mostly about trying to avert them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> As a non-American who has spent some years in the U.S., it fascinates me that you could subject your youth to so many horrors -- student debt, school shootings, not to mention the present administration -- and yet there is this profound thirst for psychological explanations other than 'plenty of young folks are scared of homelessness and hunger'.

The shearing force between the reality of American life and the receding American dream has become just this enormous.

Big hugs all around. I have a lot of compassion for even the wrong among you.

<3

<comment><USER23> We've all got problems; overall life's super good if you don't believe the hype.

Hugs back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I thought this was a pretty well-written article.

One hopefully useful nitpick:

> this social institution that began developing in Europe in the 17th century, > a community of people who would read scientific treatises and letters and > then critique each other—that's what science is. It's institutionalized > critique. It's guaranteed dissent. That makes people smarter.

It's certainly true that science started doing this in the 17th century, but if you look at how Aquinas in the 13th century did his much of his writing it was laid out similarly: what is the question? What are all the objections, stated as strongly as possible? How does the author respond?

From what I've heard/read, writing was of that format, because Aquinas and other university professors at the time would have a lecture revolve around a question or hypothesis, and he would have students announce what are the best objections to the hypothesis, and they would lecture for the remaining time refuting the best objections raised (and sometimes adding their own).

One might disagree with many of the conclusions that Scholastics came to, or whether the questions merited such an approach, but the process has been in place for a while.

</comment><comment><USER25> I remember this ted talk: [https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind)

It is interesting to know that he's decided that "the Republican Party is no longer the social conservative party", and so Haidt believes that his previous research on the distinction between conservatives and progressives doesn't apply to existing Republicans.

> _You've written that Republicans understand moral psychology better than > Democrats. Do you think that's still true in the age of Donald Trump?_

"...what we were able to show is that conservatives can pretend to be progressives and they can accurately fill it out as though they were one. But progressives can't pretend to be a conservative and fill it out accurately because they don't really get the group loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity or purity. They don't really get those so they kind of dismiss those and they assume that conservatives just like to kill puppies and things like that.

That was the case for a number of decades. Trump has shifted a lot of things around. The Republican Party is no longer the social conservative party. I believe, in other research I've published with Karen Stenner, a political scientist in Australia, Trump is appealing to more authoritarian tendencies. It's very hard to see how Donald Trump is a conservative. So the psychology that I just described a moment ago no longer quite applies. The Republican Party, I don't know what's happening to it, but it is bringing in elements that are overtly racist. It is bringing in desires for rapid change, which is not a conservative virtue, generally.

So I think we're in a time of chaos in which both parties are in flux. What might come out is we might get ever further away from having a center-left Democratic Party and a center-right Republican Party, which is what we had for a number of decades. We might have two much more polarized or ideologically disparate parties and it could make for some very interesting politics and even less cooperation than we have now."

<comment><USER26> You may think you have had a center left democratic party and center right democratic party in the past, but that's not how other western nations perceive you - many would say that the democratic party is center right, and the republican party is far right. Even before Trump.

<comment><USER27> Center is defined by where the wings are, and that in turn depends on how much you're looking at. Among developed countries, US is definitely on the right. But in US politics, Democrats are on the left.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> god - most stuff i listen to from this site has _some_ quality about it - something i can learn, but this is just garbage. 15 minutes, one quarter of the way thru -- done.

i didn't know it was just some right-wing psychobabble.

</comment><comment><USER29> The writing is very long-winded, lots of words with little content.

</comment><comment><USER30> " in every bathroom at NYU, there are signs telling students how to report me anonymously if I say something that they find offensive"

How can people not be up in arms over this?

<comment><USER31> Most European countries ignored Hitler breaking every rules of the treaty of Versailles years before shit hit the fan.

I'm of course not saying this is equivalent to the nazi ideology. Sometimes you don't see things coming or you ignore them until it's too late.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> What's up with all these psychologists lately trying to play philosopher, turning back to the ancients and commenting on normative concepts (particularly related to morality and politics)?

I'm not against psychologists contributing to discussions on these topics but sometimes the amount of hubris they seem to have in their approach is a bit baffling—they all seem utterly convinced their opinion on the topic is correct and impenetrable—I feel like I rarely see philosophers or political scientists associated with these moralizing titles, it's always "Psychologist discovers everything wrong with the world" or "Psychologist claims our morals are a wreck" etc. etc. Of course, I'm sure my experience is skewed, but it's a weird phenomenon (perhaps its just the coattails of Jordan Peterson's meteoric rise and notoriety).

Edit: to clarify, I'm more so against this notion that the American mind is "coddled". I don't think it's constructive. I think it's an invective meant to produce division and build allegiances, not to intelligently adjust the path we're going down. To say the deployment of particular concepts is the result of "coddling" is of a different nature than calling for increased criticism and scrutiny in our society.

<comment><USER31> > trying to play philosopher,

It doesn't have much to do with philosophy though, it's mostly a psycho/socio/historical analysis. If the people studying these fields can't comment on modern events I'm not sure who you think should do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I graduated college around the time safe spaces and the like were starting to become "a thing". I'm glad I went to a state school in BFE. We (and some of our professors) at least were able to openly mock a lot of the less than ideal "cultural developments" that have happened at universities and colleges that the author has to take seriously in his workplace.

</comment><comment><USER34> > Let's try to give people a chance. Let's judge people as individuals." That > was the great achievement of the 20th century—to make progress there. > Instead in the 21st century to say, "okay welcome to campus. Here are five > or six dimensions; we're going to teach you to see men, maleness, > masculinity as bad, everyone else is good. White is bad, everyone else is > good. Straight is bad, everyone else is good."

Incredible.

</comment><comment><USER35> > In fact, just today, The New York Times announced that it's going to commit > to publishing an equal number of letters from men and women, even though 75 > percent of the letter writers are men. Men like to put themselves out in > public and show off. But The New York Times has committed to this equal > outcomes social justice, which says we're gonna treat people unequally in > order to attain equal outcomes.

> That I think is unfair.

Um, no, it's not unfair. The very idea is that you have a group that is used to getting its ideas out there, and there is another group that won't open its mouth because to do so would be a nail sticking out. From a strictly statistical standpoint, the NYTimes is trying to sample more effectively.

> Most Americans think it's unfair.

Source?

And, this is not an acceptable standard of good conduct.

<comment><USER36> In your defense, if it could be shown that the most thoughtful female writers strongly tended to be those most likely to show that off by sending a letter to the Times, you'd be right. I couldn't say, but I suspect that instead, extroverts of either sex are most likely to write in.

Re unfair, making doubly sure that women's views were presented about issues where their perspective is distinct seems fair to me. So your viewpoint could still go through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Hahaha. No one is going to expose themselves to criticism. This article is just going to either be a bucket of virtue signaling, or ignored.

I think it's interesting, though.

<comment><USER38> this could be a comment generated by a HN troll bot</comment></comment>


P – Dead Simple Interactive Python Version Management - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/qw3rtman/p/ <comment><USER2> What use cases would this be useful for? Presumably most developers are using tox or virtualenvwrapper to control their python version

<comment><USER3> Came here to ask the same question. Under archlinux python 3 is the default, which breaks scripts who don't specify that their are python 2 only and start with #!/usr/bin/python and not #!/usr/bin/python2. But even there as user I don't see the need for this tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Commented above as a reply to @calpaterson; I'll paste the same comment below.

> I wrote about this in the FAQ > ([https://github.com/qw3rtman/p#faqs](https://github.com/qw3rtman/p#faqs)), > but I'll reiterate the main use case below.

> p is for the average Python developer who just needs to work with a > different version of Python. Suppose one wants to start using the latest > development release of Python; they just run `p latest` and p will take care > of the rest.

> `p` is a wrapper that handles and manages everything for you, simplifying > the process for those who aren't familiar with tox or virtualenvwrapper. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does this interact with pip?

<comment><AUTHOR> At this point, p makes no attempt to manage pip versions. I have added this feature to the TODO and it will be implemented sometime in the future.

Thanks for the suggestion! :)</comment></comment>


Buffett bashes Bitcoin as nonproductive, thriving on mystique - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-berkshire-buffett-cnbc/buffett-bashes-bitcoin-as-nonproductive-thriving-on-mystique-idUSKBN1I813F?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29 <comment><USER2> Buffet's investing strategy is, and has always been, look for the intrinsic value in a company, buy them, and then hold on forever. As part of that intrinsic value is the management teams that are running the companies. A strong team is as valuable as any other asset. When Buffet does buy a company, he'll generally leave management in place and not interfere in the day to day running of the company. Bitcoin has no management and it has no intrinsic value. It's worth is whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. That is 180 degrees out of phase with the Buffet strategy.

<comment><USER3> Bitcoin has tons of intrinsic value unique to crypto currencies that traditional currencies lack. Most importantly it can't be created/destroyed at will by a central government. Huge sums can be transferred globally at the speed of light with very low fees. Can't do that with gold or cash. With normal currency a wire transfer costs money and moving a lot of money from a bank account usually takes days. Also you can store a lot of it yourself, relatively securely compared to storing hundreds of thousands of dollars yourself. Oh and it's also backed up by a global ledger that is country or government agnostic. The electricity it takes to maintain it is nothing compared to the rest of the banking system. These properties are the very nature of crypto, that's why it's intrinsic.

<comment><USER4> If you ever studied economics, you'd know that scarcity is not intrinsically valluable. It might be a useful feature, but intrinsic value means having a minimum value. Gold can't be created, but it had real usefulness in manufacturing. Besides, you could make a new buttcoin tomorrow, but you can't make a new kind of Atom.

Stop proving that Bitcoin enthusiasts don't understand economics.

<comment><USER3> Scarcity is absolutely an intrinsic value. Gold has value because it is relatively scarce given the difficulty to mine. In addition to being really shiny which was valued by our ancestors. There are lots of useful rare elements used in manufacturing. In terms of a currency though gold has nothing on bitcoin. Gold is hard to move, hard to validate as authentic, heavy, easy to steal, etc..

<comment><USER5> My excrement is several orders of magnitude more scarce than Bitcoins and gold bars alike, but it has no value because nobody wants it.

Scarcity _relative to demand_ pushes up market prices (i.e. _extrinsic_ value) but that's something entirely different...

<comment><USER6> Maybe you can work on drumming up demand for your excrement. Fecal transplants are a thing now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He has always said he doesnt understand technology and has resisted investing in it. While the value is fluctuating heavily due to speculation, over time it will stabilize.

Bitcoin will resist inflation and is somewhat out of control of governments or any central authority. People in countries where the govt has screwed up the currency can use it to get money out of the country or as a stable store even if dollars or other physical currency is in scarce supply. My family fled china carrying their wealth as gold and bank checks. Today, people can transfer their wealth as bitcoin across international borders.

The fundamental properties of money are:

<<Fungibility: its individual units must be capable of mutual substitution (i.e., interchangeability). Durability: able to withstand repeated use. Portability: easily carried and transported. Cognizability: its value must be easily identified. Stability of value: its value should not fluctuate.>>

It is not unreasonable to argue that fiat currencies around the world are not stable because of inflationary monetary policies. Buffet always holds billions in cash which is constantly depreciating in value.

<comment><USER8> > Bitcoin will resist inflation and is somewhat out of control of governments > or any central authority

Can you back this up? From what I can tell, governments can ban mining, shut down exchanges and co-erce developers. If the handful of devs that have commit access to Bitcoin were working for the CIA, would we know? What kind of damage could they do? Eg. Could they introduce consensus bugs without anyone noticing?

> Today, people can transfer their wealth as bitcoin across international > borders.

Again, citation needed. How many Chinese people are doing this? The exchanges are banned, right? So how could your family buy Bitcoin in China? OTC? What's the spread on the OTC market in China versus US market? Is it actually worth it?

<comment><USER9> > From what I can tell, governments can ban mining, shut down exchanges and > co-erce developers.

Cutting off exchanges from financial institutions will likely be the primary way the government attacks cryptocurrencies. Just look at what happened to online gambling 10 years ago. Online poker and sports gambling were booming. What the US did was prevent banking companies from doing business from gambling companies or intermediaries (e.g. Neteller). Basically overnight, online gambling became a shell of what it was previously. Sure there are still ways around it, but it's enough of a hassle that only the most die-hard players are going to find it worth it.

It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to apply the same strategies to crypto. If financial institutions are prevented from doing business with Bitcoin, et al., it's basically game over, as long as its utility is dependent on buying with fiat currency.

<comment><USER10> > Just look at what happened to online gambling 10 years ago.

And not a moment too soon. Gambling games are designed to be addictive, to bypass the judgment and decision-making centres in people's brains, and take their money. Providing places to go and gamble is one thing; people who walk in there ought to know they will probably lose every bean they walk in there with, so there's informed consent. Putting gambling games that accept real money on the web is effectively like putting coin-operated pokie machine in every living room (and these days every pocket) with a net connection. It's profoundly exploitative and totally deserved to be starved of financial oxygen IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures presents a counterargument to Buffett: [https://avc.com/2018/05/is-buying-crypto-assets- investing/](https://avc.com/2018/05/is-buying-crypto-assets-investing/)

<comment><USER12> USV has invested in CryptoKitties ([https://www.usv.com/blog/cryptokitties-1](https://www.usv.com/blog/cryptokitties-1)).

This doesn't invalidate his position, but it's worth remembering he is not an objective observer in the situation; his company is positioned to directly gain from a crypto-mania.

<comment><USER13> Agreed but I think the opposite is much too prevalent. People with absolutely no experience using crypto currencies write articles bashing them without ever using them first hand. Im not advocating for them but I think to actually assess their use/value they must be tried.

<comment><USER14> That's a silly argument. You don't need to drink Coke to assess it's value. If you don't see value in Bitcoin on its face, buying a pizza with it won't change much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd argue, cryptocurrencies are the worst thing to happen to such a great concept, decentralized agreements.

Consensus algorithms have shifted focus away from decentralization and towards pushing cryptocurrency agendas. Shame!

<comment><USER12> Yeah, and they haven't been terribly great for the gaming market either, as they're consuming production of graphics card components.

<comment><USER16> I find this to be such a curious argument: "The graphics card industry would be so much better off if these cryptocurrency people would stop giving AMD and Nvidia so much money!"

<comment><USER17> From an AMD PR: "The cryptocurrency market is unstable and demand could change quickly. For example, China and South Korea have recently instituted restrictions on cryptocurrency trading. If we are unable to manage the risks related to a decrease in the demand for cryptocurrency mining, our GPU business could be materially adversely affected."[1]

The mining market is too unstable to bet trillions of dollars expanding fab capacity, which is why they haven't been able to increase production to match demand. So while they are currently sitting atop thrones of cash, they cannot accurately forecast demand. If either a) ethereum tanks or b) someone cracks ASIC mining for ETH & curriencies mined w/ GPUs, then all of a sudden they will see a huge drop in demand. Additionally, there would likely be a massive surge of fairly new used cards hitting the market, further dropping demand. That's a scary thought for a manufacturer, they could potentially end up sitting on large stocks of unsold inventory.

[1]:[https://usethebitcoin.com/amd-worried-business- cryptocurrenc...](https://usethebitcoin.com/amd-worried-business- cryptocurrency-miners-dont-buy-gpus/)

<comment><USER16> That is a very well formulated rebuttal to my argument- I agree there is some truth in this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Buffett/Munger have always argued that Gold and other commodities are equally worthless investments based on fear and ponzi like attributes[1]. No surprise then they feel even worse about Bitcoin.

The interesting thing here is that the common response here is: "Hey that's a great theory, but in real life, I just paid off my mortgage with my proceeds from bitcoin."

While perhaps true, such rebuttals ignore the arguments being made by folks like Buffett around predictability, likelihood of a return, confidence in underlying asset value, volatility etc... So the argument isn't about whether or not you can make money on these things, it whether it's a prudent instrument to invest your money into.

[1] [http://www.minyanville.com/trading-and- investing/commodities...](http://www.minyanville.com/trading-and- investing/commodities/articles/Warren-Buffett-brka-gold-investing- investing/10/3/2012/id/44617)

<comment><USER19> > The interesting thing here is that the common response here is: "Hey that's > a great theory, but in real life, I just paid off my mortgage with my > proceeds from bitcoin."

Mortgages have been payed off with lottery wins. That doesn't make lottery tickets a good investment.

<comment><USER18> Yea that's basically the point, it's a terrible argument to say that it worked.

<comment><USER6> Maybe it depends how many mortgages it pays off?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> 'Billionaire investor Warren Buffett on Monday said buyers of bitcoin, which he has characterized as "rat poison squared," thrive on the hope they'll find other people who will pay more for it.'

isn't this in a nutshell stock market form 'normal person' perspective? Or antiques market, or any other from thousands 'buy cheap - sell for more' types of market?

<comment><USER21> To some degree, but the valuation of shares is (in theory) based on fundamentals - price to earnings ratio for instance - as well as speculation of how well it will be doing in the future. Companies can also choose to pay dividends if they have made a lot of cash, and choose to issue some of it to shareholders.

Valuation of Bitcoin to a large degree is purely based on market psychology, and it doesn't pay dividends.

<comment><USER6> It is actually used to replace banks and remitters and central banks. You know, it performs some utility like companies do.

<comment><USER10> > it performs some utility like companies do.

Pipes perform utilities, not companies. What companies do is manage the social and financial infrastructure around making, or delivering, or laying, or servicing pipes. See the difference? What Buffet is saying is that when people speculate on BitCoin, they're buying over-priced pipes, in the hopes that some other sucker will pay even more for the same pipes. The companies that will make money out of crypto-$ long term are the ones sell services (like the hoteliers and general store owners in the gold rush), not the ones spending money (or god forbid going into dept) to buy crypto-tokens. Those service companies can pivot to selling similar services to another sector if (when) the crypto bubble bursts. They are the ones the likes of Buffet consider an investment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Curious that both Buffett and Bill Gates [0] are publicly criticizing Bitcoin right now.

People make big dumb investments every day, and you don't see Buffett and Gates talking to the media about it.

What's their objective? And why together? And why now?

[0] [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/bill-gates-i-would-short- bit...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/bill-gates-i-would-short-bitcoin-if-i- could.html)

<comment><USER16> Good question... Though likely the answer is pretty mundane: It's probably something they keep being asked about in interviews, and they feel some obligation to dampen the hype on cryptcurrency- Also, there's a "survivorship bias" issue, in that both guys got very successful using business strategies involving an unrelated domain, so of course they would say "If you want to build wealth, maybe instead focus on these other asset classes that worked really well for me."

<comment><USER23> Yeah that and I think an effort to stop the public getting burnt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _Berkshire vice chairman and longtime Buffett confidant Charlie Munger was even more blunt.

"I like cryptocurrencies a lot less than you do," Munger said to Buffett. "To me, it's just dementia. It's like somebody else is trading turds and you decide you can't be left out."_

[http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/07/investing/warren-buffett- bit...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/07/investing/warren-buffett- bitcoin/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> He's thinking of it in investing terms, underlying asset value, cash flows, etc. Because the media asks him "Should we buy bitcoin?" every damn day of the year.

I'd be more interested to hear what he thinks makes for a good currency, inflation vs. deflation, freedom of transfer, protection against forfeiture, etc.

Does he also think that the US Dollar is rat poison because it's not a productive asset? He holds like $80b cash.

"But bitcoin has high fees" well yeah, there are 1,000 newer cryptos with lower fees. (and plenty of scams)

"But local stores don't use it" well yeah, nobody used credit cards in the 40s either. (and now cash is dead)

"But it's not user friendly" well yeah, neither was the internet until ~2000. (i've seen nearly zero progress in crypto here, btw)

<comment><USER26> >cash is dead

lol

<comment><USER27> Somewhat of a class-based statement, definitely not dead among the working/lower class.

If anything it was the 'tap-to-pay' feature of debit/credit cards that is finally putting some death-knell pressure on cash. It's so much faster than paying with a pin card or cash...

<comment><USER28> > If anything it was the 'tap-to-pay' feature of debit/credit cards that is > finally putting some death-knell pressure on cash. It's so much faster than > paying with a pin card or cash...

Is it just me or aren't debit/credit cards much faster than paying with cash, too? Making change and then dealing with all of the coins is way higher effort than swipe, maybe pin or sign, and move on. And the sign step is going away, at least in the US, soon.

<comment><USER29> A large portion of US workforce works for cash.

<comment><USER28> I don't see what that's got to do with speed of payment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > _Buffett said investors would instead be much better off investing in U.S. > stocks, which in turn are also a far better investment than 10- or 30-year > U.S. government bonds... He said he would much rather have Berkshire's pile > of cash and equivalents be $30 billion, rather than the $108.6 billion it > was at the end of March, but good deals have not emerged._

$100B is a colossal amount of money to have sitting around in the form of cash equivalents. I wonder why he hasn't just put it into the S&P 500, given that he belives the stock market is currently a good investment. Given the index's liquidity, I would think he'll still be able to sell it off quickly, if he needs the cash for an acquisition.

<comment><USER31> S&P tracking ETFs are the most liquid equity instruments, but $100b is large even for them. The largest ETF by assets is SPY, with $250b. 'Liquid' for you or me or even Stevie Cohen isn't even close to the same thing as 'liquid' for Warren Buffett.

[http://etfdb.com/compare/market-cap/](http://etfdb.com/compare/market-cap/)

<comment><USER30> SPY has a daily trading volume of $25B. I would have thought that this would allow someone to liquidate ~$1B every day, without distorting the market. This would have allowed Buffett to raise the cash needed for any acquisitions, in a relatively short period of time. Is there any hard data on how big a trade would have to be, to cause significant price distortion?

Speaking of which, it's also common for acquisitions to be carried out using stock, instead of cash. Given that acquirees are open to getting paid in stock, I would have thought they would be open to getting paid in SPY.

[https://seekingalpha.com/article/4164368-spy-cost- liquidity](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4164368-spy-cost-liquidity)

[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/macashstockequit...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/macashstockequity.asp)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Kind of started me thinking it was going to be a "Variety" headline... Something like "Berkshire's Buffett Blasts Bitcoin Buffoonery"

</comment><comment><USER33> >rat poison squared

Very poor choice of words, heh.

<comment><USER34> I don't get his metaphor. Rat poison is not necessarily a negative thing as it helps people keep vermin under control.

<comment><USER33> I don't get how he didn't see making such a comment as an own goal, given how the average person sees the financial system these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I can't agree or disagree on any investment recommendations as I have no expertise in the area, but I have that is pretty much what my gut reaction to Bitcoin/crypto has always been

<comment><USER36> As I've learned a bit about blockchain, I feel cryptocurrency is distracting from the broader implications of the technology. It's going to be hard enough for non-technical users to see the underlying value of immutable, distributed data and applications, so that conflation is unfortunate.

<comment><USER37> The technology has existed for many years already, and it has already made 'broader implications', see git. The only thing new about it is that people now call it 'blockchain' instead of a merkle tree. The reason banks and governments don't use better technology to track land titles or whatever other applications is that they're always slow to adopt technology, not because 'blockchain' is a new concept

<comment><USER38> But this isn't really the case. Both git and blockchain track a history of actions, true, the difference is that in git anyone can rewrite history at any time and there is then no way to agree amongst untrusted parties whose history is the true one. With blockchain, there is. That's the innovation, that's what makes blockchain novel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The experimentation of ideas around what money is is certainly not "nonproductive" and to dismiss it like that is silly. He might not like it for any reason at all and that's fine, but to call it nonproductive is ridiculous.

<comment><USER40> All right, then - how is it productive?

<comment><USER41> It depends on your definition of productive but in my opinion it's creating wealth, companies, & jobs.

People are going into work every day to work on crypto-related products. Bitcoin & other cryptocurrencies are putting food on the table for those people.

<comment><USER42> That's a rather low bar.

Scamming people can also put food on your table. Stealing can put food on your table. Neither is particularly productive.

<comment><USER31> But then we get to hire policemen and prison wardens!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Buffett should follow his own advice, and stick to commenting on things that he understands.

<comment><USER44> He seems to understand intrinsic value pretty well.

<comment><USER16> If there's one thing I've learned in my 45 years, it's that actually no one has figured yet what the term "intrinsic value" really means. The more you dig into that term it just ends up meaning "what someone else is willing to pay for it" blended together with some fuzzy subjective notions of morality.

<comment><USER44> No. What _someone else_ will pay for something is _ex_ trinsic value.

<comment><USER16> Exactly, now just add some subjective moralizing to it and now you'll reach parity with most people's notion of "intrinsic value".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is like two old investors in buggy whips talking scaring people off of internal combustion engines. They have no idea what they're looking at but they'll make pronouncements anyway.

Bitcoin etc are currencies native to the network environment just as cash is native to the meatspace. Both have their advantages and shortcomings.

Wisdom is found in using things if they serve you and leaving them alone if they don't. Cash serves its purpose in the meatspace, cryptos serve their purpose on the network. Use them as they're useful.

I don't find it wise for anyone, Buffett or otherwise, to expound on things they don't know anything about. It's even less wise to take advice from those who speak from ignorance.

<comment><USER46> > It's even less wise to take advice from those who speak from ignorance.

Being in Bitcoin since 2011, I've found most Bitcoin advocates tend to be of the ignorant sort with regard to both the technology and the economics. They tend to gather their information from what they're told to think on places like Reddit, and are quicker to communicate via memes than have an actual real conversation.

<comment><USER45> We've been in it about the same length of time. I agree with your assessment.

A lot of trade in the stock markets is based on similar dynamics: lack of clue on the investor's part, just go with what someone told you.</comment></comment></comment>


List of secure websites - <AUTHOR> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/net/http/transport_security_state_static.json <comment><USER2> Note that adding your site to the HSTS whitelist in Chrome (from which Firefox, Safari, and Edge will follow) is very easy:

[https://hstspreload.appspot.com/](https://hstspreload.appspot.com/)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for that. I was quite clueless on how this list was put together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Better title: "The Chromium Built-In HSTS Whitelist".

Search for "noisebridge", which is right around where all the small sites start.

<comment><USER5> IMO the HSTS list should have a description field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So all applications to the HSTS preloaded list are hardcoded in that json.

How big will that file get in a few years? Looks like the first addition of user submitted websites was done over a year ago.

I wonder how ubiquitous HTTP/2 (TLS mandatory) will affect this.

<comment><USER7> TLS is not strictly mandatory in HTTP/2 (see h2c) but even if it was this list solves another problem - when user types e.g. Google.com in their browser the initial connection is made via HTTP. Preload list says "if this domain is typed in address bar go straight to HTTPS, if that's not possible stop the connection".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I couldn't find a single mainstream media website in this list. Only the Washington Post and RT are accessible through HTTPS, but no HSTS headers are provided.

edit: removed acronym

<comment><USER9> I don't know what MSM is.

But if they are a group doing media and content websites, HSTS and full SSL are still hard to accomplish due to the advertising industry dragging it's collective feet and knuckles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It it me, or does a hard-coded json file that is manually maintained and compiled-in seem like a terrible idea?

Couldn't Chrome just phone home to a secure server to retrieve HSTS data every once and awhile (just like updates).

<comment><USER7> Then the attacker could just block the update servers.</comment></comment>


Deutsche Bank faces action over $20bn money-laundering scheme - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme <comment><USER2> $20 billion laundered, $1billion in actual profits regardless of what the books say, $500k fine.

What reason do they have to stop?

<comment><USER3> They don't, they fire the employees that got caught, then rebrand the group that does the laundering as a new "wealth management" group, and start the cycle again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Guaranteed that there are no consequences greater than a slap on the wrist.</comment>