I Stand With Trolls - <AUTHOR> http://braythwayt.com/2013/04/17/i-stand-with-trolls.html

<comment><USER2> Just an anecdote, which I know is not the singular form of 'data', but still:

I respect Mozilla as a company, but have no desire to work there (despite there being a lot of technology fit) because the CTO, Brendan Eich, made a donation of $1,000 to support Prop 8—a 2008 California ballot measure which banned gay marriage. Sure, I understood that his views were not those of his employer. But that doesn't make it easier for me to want to work for/with the guy.

See, I don't think it's about the public message that companies send to their consumers. It's about the message they give to potential hires: you'll be working with these people on a daily basis. Depending on the dispensability of the employee in question, a company may choose to fire someone rather than potentially rule out a large number of future employees. It's an economic decision.

<comment><USER3> I think it's a terrible idea to judge other people's political decisions until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

If you are a professional, you should be ready to work with anyone, not just the people who agree with you.

Your view is not objectively correct. To insist otherwise is fascism.

<comment><USER4> I think it's not fascism to refuse to work with/for people whose polics are aimed at concretely restricting your civil liberties, in a way that might have affected your day-to-day life for the rest of your life.

<comment><USER5> This is strange, because everyone has a different interpretation of what civil liberties are.

There are few any large set of people actually agree on

gun control, prayer in schools/government, searches by the government/TSA/whatever

There is a lot of subjective disagreement over exactly what liberties exist, and their limits.

As the parent said, if you really think you have an objectively correct view of what civil liberties are, and other folks are just wrong, ....

<comment><USER4> I genuinely think that it's objectively correct that some minority must not be banned from being able to marry. I really don't think you can spin that into fascism.

To put it more drastically, just because someone dares to stand up to their oppressors, they are not immediately oppressing anyone themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are time when split personas just cannot be justified.

The Microsoft guy was their Creative Director for Xbox Studios, and he made a comment about his employer's product to a very large audience under the said persona.

For people like me, the OP, it's fine. We don't have high ranking positions in multinationals. Our opinions are unlikely to matter (but of course there are exceptions) when tweeted, blogged or emailed.

There's a time, place and persona for everything, Adam Orth decidedly chose the worst of the three to use.

</comment><comment><USER7> Saying unpopular things on Twitter isn't trolling. You stand with people who speak their mind in public. I'm not sure you mean to stand with the trolls. Those people usually _aren't_ speaking their minds.

<comment><USER8> Apparently Orth later stated that:

>"[That was] just the normal daily back and forth I have with Manveer," Orth wrote on Twitter later. "Apologies for offending non-cities. I was trolling him personally."

[http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-studios- creative...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-studios-creative- director-insults-non-cities-to-defend-always-on-digital-rights-management/)

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately for him, what his words meant in context is irrelevant. He gave the public a hint that Microsoft might feel like people should just put up with the always-connected nature of consoles, and that Microsoft intended to steamroll the naysayers. That's just bad PR no matter what anyone meant to say or who they meant to say it to.

<comment><USER8> I was explaining why the author chose the "with trolls" part of the title. What you say is already understood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Love this post. If we want an open and transparent world, which we are headed toward at breakneck speed, we need to ALLOW AND ACCEPT when people are stupid, say racist things when they were 15, say harmful things on Twitter, insult people and generally be the asses that people are at times. It isn't endorsement, it is a readjustment of cultural norms - these are some more Internet growing pains for everybody.

When EVERYTHING we say is attached to a megaphone, people either start to say a lot less or we need to accept a lot more. Personally I want to accept more and not be self-muzzled. I think we have to go in that direction, if no other reason than to accommodate that poor generation that grew up online and have a whole embarrassing history attached to their future lives before anyone understood that their history will no longer fade away from sight.

If one off-the-cuff personal comment can get you fired from a job, does that mean it should prevent you from getting hired too? Ever again? It is an easy decision to fire someone in the 5 seconds of Internet heat that these sorts of things can generate, but we need to consider what that is costing us all.

<comment><USER11> Totally agree. People are probably saying a lot of stuff in daily conversation that, if transcribed, could get them fired.

Thanks to social media, these conversations stop happening between two people and include me on the other side of the globe, too. I like that. I want to hear people's real opinions, get a sense of their real personality, from the internet.

Firing someone over their tweets sends a powerful message to everyone to filter what you tweet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> He got whacked because he was being dismissive of people's objection to a business decision.

He compared the business decision to engineering limitations (vacuums need AC out of plugs, mobile phones need cell towers in range), and was snide about people objecting to the business decision to have a console that only works when it is connected to the internet.

He wasn't having open an honest dialog, and he wasn't conducting that dialog politely.

I think most folks on HN know of some marginalized political philosophies such as anarchism or libertarianism. These political philosophies aren't popular, but there are polite and intellectually rigorous ways of discussing them, and there are immature and inconsiderate ways of discussing them.

You can discuss marginalized or unpopular things without being an asshole. But Orth was discussing them while being an asshole, and was doing it as a representative of Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER13> While it's true that you shouldn't HAVE to hide behind a persona in order to speak your mind, the Microsoft guy was free to do so. Why couldn't he just as easily say what he had to say under his 'randomMicrosoftEmployee' account instead of his public one? Simple. He wanted an audience. This is very reminiscent of the high ranked guy of some company who went off on a random chick-fil-a employee in the drive thru, posted it on youtube for the world to see and got fired over it during the whole 'supporting a anti-gay organization' thing. No one is saying you can't have or share your opinion but use common sense and decide HOW you'll share said opinion as well as the possible consequences.

</comment><comment><USER14> Orth was a Microsoft employee discussing rumored Microsoft decisions. I doubt he would have been fired if the discussion were about Playstation decisions.

</comment><comment><USER15> People use each other's employers to beat each other into submission. When that PyCon 2013 shitstorm went down, the Righteous Male Anger crew were very vocal about their plans to end all their business relationships with SendGrid in retaliation for Adria Richard's actions. It was a calculated move intended to get her fired for what she did. Presumably the dude who got canned for his remarks earlier in that sorry saga was the victim of similar pressure from her supporters.

Sometimes this happens because people force it to happen.

<comment><USER16> AFAIK Anonymous tried to threaten SendGrid with a DDoS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Now he's been fired, do you think that means that anyone with his opinions > is going to be fired as well?

> No.

As much as I agree with the rest of your thesis, you can't argue that a very strong message hasn't been sent to the people making decisions at Microsoft - on this issue, there is an extremely vocal group who disagree with this position. It's dishonest to suggest that this will not have an effect that the people who disagreed with this man will appreciate on the final product design. It will.

</comment><comment><USER9> The OP isn't siding with freedom-of-speech or honest dialog - he's standing with people who accidentally say the wrong thing in public.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you are fired for something you said outside of work that doesn't really affect your job, it means you weren't very valuable to the company.

This is my criteria for understanding if I actually worth something to my company/organization/team.

How much can I screw up and still be a part of this organization? That is value.

If you are one stupid meaningless tweet away from being fired, you should be looking for another job.

</comment><comment><USER19> _...but we are moving more and more to a transparent society..._

This key issue isn't whether or not things are changing (they are) or whether it's good or bad (that's debatable).

The key issue is _who gets to decide_.

If I want to tell the world a million things about myself, that's my business. But if someone else wants to tell the world things about me (especially if they know it's personal or private), then that's definitely not cool.

It's not that much different for institutions, companies, or any group in general. None of us should be surprised at the reaction of another whose digital cherry we popped on-line.

This reminds me of the old tale about the man with a gossiping problem who went to a sage for advice. The sage told him to slice open a feather-filled pillow, shake it outside his house, then come back tomorrow. The next day the man asked the sage what to do about his gossip problem. The sage said, "Go gather those feathers."

<comment><USER20> For those like me who didn't understand the feathers reference, the analogy of the sage is that gathering up those feathers is the equivalent of taking back what you said. Once it has been said, it is out there forever, the damage has been done.

<comment><USER21> I think it also means that gossip spreads really far and you never know where all those feathers end up. Even if you could take back what you say, it's hard to find where the gossip has spread to.

I'm reminded of the Friends episode where Ross sleeps with the copy girl.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "But I would like to live in a world where people might disagree with Reg Braithwaite but buy Raganwald's book."

I wouldn't judge a person based solely on their published content, especially those authors that write fiction. But there are works I'll never buy or recommend because I will not knowingly support the actions/attitudes of the author. (SciFi examples: Card, Hubbard, Rosenberg...)

My choice.

</comment><comment><USER23> Executives shouldn't be trolls. If you're an executive, and you say or do something in public that tangibly affects the market perception in a negative way, you should have known better, and you deserve to be fired.

</comment><comment><USER24> Troll (mostly white-hat, these days) here. Had a gray-hat trolling habit as a teenager and in early 20s. Now I try to direct any hypergraphic tendencies to worthier causes. Denouncing idiocy is charity work that I do. However, I've "trolled for good" quite a bit and have really suffered for it, as the world unfortunately knows.

The guys at the game company didn't deserve to be fired. They were engineers having a (somewhat obnoxious) private conversation. Adria Richards did. I can't defend her, because her job was PR and she condescended to a mean- spirited, name-and-shame attack on people she didn't know. (She didn't deserve the onslaught of horrible things said about her, clearly, but she fucked up and deserved to lose her job. I've lost jobs over less.)

I hate the private-sector politician life more than anyone, as one can tell by my railing against it, but if your job is to be the public face of a company, then you choose not to have the same rights to public/private separation as most people, just as elected officials can't let their guards down. So that's why I can't stand with Adria.

That does not apply to people like Aaron Orth. CEOs are public faces; almost everyone else is a public individual. Orth being fired over that tweet is just ridiculous. This is why I hate 99+ percent of corporations. If you turn your back on someone just because he becomes unpopular, then you are of no use to anyone. Corporations with no moral fiber deserve to be dissolved, and their resources reallocated to the public interest. I am all for private enterprise, but only if it stands for something. If you fire someone because an off comment gets negative attention, then you don't have any moral constitution anymore and there's no reason to allow you ("you" being a company; I'm not advocating killing _people_ ) to continue to exist.

<comment><USER25> It makes sense to fire Orth. No one other than MS employees, a couple console game programmers, and their hired astroturfers wants an "always on" console. Therefore firing him means we're talking about Orth instead of a very unpopular decision by a monopolist.

The moral constitution and all that should be outraged at closed gardens and monopolist providers and assymetry in the market between a couple providers and a lot of consumers blah blah. Its not a "do no evil" company, and firing him is pretty small potatoes compared to their other issues. You're dealing with a criminal organization. Don't bother busting Al Capone for jaywalking, or in this case firing a crony.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _Anonymous and Wikileaks might get ahold of Google's entire email database and start publishing stuff._

Speaking of which ... is there any tool to swipe clean an Gmail inbox? Due to to the recent changes I finally got ready to switch over to my old pop3s. I plan on slowly fading out my Gmal account, so I would start by deleting all the past mails, etc. Any recommended way to do this?

<comment><USER27> I would be honestly surprised if deleting messages from your gmail account actually removed them permanently from Google's databases.

<comment><USER28> Well then if you live in the EU, complain to the Data Protection Commissioners in Ireland. [http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocID=18&UserLa...](http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocID=18&UserLang=EN) It appears that you need to have deleted your data already, and then contacted Google and asked to have it permanently deleted. There's an online form and everything....

I vaguely remember that when people complained about Facebook, they were forced to ensure that data had been deleted.

<comment><USER27> Thanks for the info! I was unaware of that. I live in the US; I wonder if there is similar jurisdiction here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Reminds me of this talk from LongNow:

[http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/jul/25/why-cities-keep- gro...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/jul/25/why-cities-keep-growing- corporations-always-die-and-life-gets-faster/)

One difference as to why cities keep going and corporations die:

"Cities tolerate crazy people," West observed, "Companies don't."

</comment><comment><USER30> I think that regardless of what employees say, if it has the potential to negatively influence the company's business in any way, there's likely to be repercussions. Even if we choose to disassociate our statements from employers, I think the general public will think something along the lines of "Some MS employee said X" = "MS said X".

<comment><USER3> I think his point is that if we encourage that mentality and don't fight it on twitter etc, soon no accounts will be associated with the employers unofficially, and thus we won't get any of the news that leaks out that way. Our loss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Alright, what did the guy from Microsoft say on twitter to get him fired?

<comment><USER32> [http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-studios- creative...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-studios-creative- director-insults-non-cities-to-defend-always-on-digital-rights-management/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> He chose to speak his mind, and I believe his opinion was mean-spirited and unnecessary. Sometimes, employers fire people for that, and that's the way the world works. I don't see it as a problem.

</comment><comment><USER34> "I'm personally willing to cut a Microsoft employee a lot of slack on his personal time."

Microsoft was willing to cut a Microsoft employee, too.

</comment><comment><USER35> None of these people were fired simply for their Twitter comments. Their employers wanted to let them go but needed an excuse.

<comment><USER24> Then those companies are run by idiots.

If you really want to fire someone, swallow your pride and write a decent severance package, but do it same-day. If things are really at that point, then waiting does no good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> as an aside, one does not "stick" one's .signature file in a NNTP feed.

Author likely wasn't there, back in the day.</comment>


Google now requires Google+ to rate and review Android apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/s/c1mzjpx9v6l2bmb/2012-12-13%2010.08.34.png

<comment><USER2> Old news.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I somehow missed it. Now I get this crap when I try to rate apps and this makes me very sad. If Google wants to spend their resources on Google+ - something I'm not interested in - that's their business, but pushing it down everybody's throat like that...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Old</comment>


Lender 2.0: Kiva's Premal Shah - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-morrison-premal-shah-043011,0,2683674.column

<comment><USER2> I thought this was a really cool idea:

Interviewer: A one-person, $25 loan can't achieve massive change, as did some American CEOs who, in one act, preserved 2 million acres in South America.

Premal: Let me talk about what you might see in the next 10 years: [A] website that takes photos of plots of land that need protection and sells the deeds to the Internet community. In $25 chunks, I can help protect the rain forest. Through Google Earth and GPS technologies, you could actually [see and] own one square foot of land in the Brazilian rain forest. Someone will do this.

Does anything like this sort of "micro real estate" model exist?

</comment><comment><USER3> Kiva is a great idea executed really well. It is great to see social entrepreneurship gaining mass attention, thanks to inspiration provided by Muhammad Yunus.

Also, hate to be nitpicking but should point out that a rupee has never been worth less than a cent. _One rupee was worth less than a cent at the time._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_rupee></comment>


StackVM - virtual machines from your browser - <AUTHOR> http://stackvm.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is where I originally found it <http://github.com/pkrumins/stackvm>

</comment><comment><USER2> While not exactly a duplicate, this site has been posted before, as its a startup run by one of our very own HNers. ( The submission was here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1534973> ).

On the other hand, I still think the idea is a good one, and both pkrumins and his partner appear to be incredibly bright and kind people. I wish them the best of luck, and hope to see this actually go somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> The idea and demo videos are cool! Had to google to find out the use cases, and target audience..

[http://www.instantfundas.com/2010/07/stackvm-makes- virtual-m...](http://www.instantfundas.com/2010/07/stackvm-makes-virtual- machine-sharable.html) This is an open source project.. Shall be keeping an eye on stackvm's progress!

</comment><comment><USER4> I have to say I _really_ like this startup, they have innovated so much, really pushing what is state of the art in the context of a browser based web app.</comment>


A genocide against the Rohingya may be looming - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/09/opinion/kristof-nobel-prize-aung-san-suu-kyi-shame.html <comment><USER2> Bias on the Rohigya issue - [https://goo.gl/1h4vav](https://goo.gl/1h4vav)

"Though the Rohingya armed groups carried out attacks on security forces and civilians on 9 October 2016 in which nine policemen were killed and on 25 August 2017 in which 30 police outposts were attacked leading to the death of 10 police officers, one soldier and one immigration officer, the [UN] Special Rapporteur Lee failed to name the Rohingya armed opposition groups."

</comment><comment><USER2> The Truth About Myanmar's Rohingya Issue - [http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/the-truth-about-myanmars- rohi...](http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/the-truth-about-myanmars-rohingya- issue/)

"On all issues, the people of Myanmar are with you. But on the Rohingya issue, the people will never be with you. What is at the heart of this huge gap between perspectives of the majority of Burmese and the international community, and how does this inform making progress on alleviating the genuine humanitarian crisis facing the Rakhine Muslims in Sittwe?"

"On the other side of the political tension in Rakhine state ... are Rakhine Buddhists who are genuinely afraid of a (false) Muslim takeover."

"For Aung San Suu Kyi to retain legitimacy where it matters most, it is understandable that she is not outspoken on an issue that could spark even more violence."

</comment><comment><USER3> The problem is that application of the term 'genocide' is subject to endless, recursive, despicable politics at the UN.

I wish there was (forcible) injection of ideas from computer science and mathematics into politics. An example, for this case: a subset of general language that could describe a political or humanitarian situation in unambiguous terms, so that there could be no 'wriggle room' for politicians to shirk their duties. (Herbert's Dune featured a 'battle' language.)

And signatories to the UN should be compelled to adhere to a set of clearly defined moral principles, to open the way for action to be taken immediately against violators.

Sure, I've been criticized many times for such 'simplistic' ideas, but why shouldn't it be _this simple??_

Here's some other genocidal activity taking place _right now_ : Turkey against the Kurds, Russia against the Caucasian peoples (Chechnya, Dagestan, etc.).

Incidentally, Stallone's most recent Rambo movie ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_(2008_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_\(2008_film\))) addressed the brutality of the Burmese regime. He wasn't afraid to speak out, 9 years ago.

<comment><USER4> > And signatories to the UN should be compelled to adhere to a set of clearly > defined moral principles, to open the way for action to be taken immediately > against violators.

You mean like a legal system?

<comment><USER3> Exactly!

International Law is great when there's some incident between nation states, but there's a dire need for _intra_ -national law, where nations _can_ poke their noses into the affairs of an aggressor government.

Case in point: Russian actions in Chechnya back in the early 2000s. When there were murmurs of disapproval, Russia basically just told everyone: "Go away, it's an internal problem." And, shamefully, everyone did just that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting: this was number 2 on the home page. Time to read the comments and it disappeared from the site. It's not in the first 300 posts of HN. It's left only in the New section (page 2 now) and Search.

Was it flagged by too many people or removed by administrators?

<comment><USER6> Likely both. The "overheated discussion detector" may have kicked in as well. From the FAQ[0]:

> _How are stories ranked?_

> _The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was > submitted. Comments in comment threads are ranked the same way._

> _Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, > software which downweights overheated discussions, and moderator > intervention._

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

To everyone in discussion here, please ask yourself: what is your goal? It pays to revisit the guidelines, particularly on hot, divisive topics. Are you trying to understand the others you're talking with? To express your opinion? To convince the "other side"? If you're not here for useful, constructive, civil, and respectful discussion, please just refrain from commenting. As the mods repeatedly point out, HN is not the place for ideological flamewars. There are places elsewhere on the internet for that.

<comment><USER7> > HN is not the place for ideological flamewars

To be fair though, they do happen here all the time and often without any mod intervention. IMO the problem is most opinions on HN seem to just get stated as fact and if they happen to be popular opinions then there's no possibility for them every to be discussed because any contrary opinions just get brigaded into oblivion.

<comment><USER6> > _To be fair though, they do happen here all the time and often without any > mod intervention._

Yup. The mods are limited in number and readily admit that they don't see everything. If you see something particularly egregious, use the Contact link in the footer to email them and let them know.

> _IMO the problem is most opinions on HN seem to just get stated as fact_

Also very much agree, and often apparently with very little reflection on the part of the submitter that others may reasonably hold other positions (in that you can follow their logic even if you think it's flawed or disagree with it)—and that some things are often just a matter of taste.

> _and if they happen to be popular opinions then there 's no possibility for > them every to be discussed because any contrary opinions just get brigaded > into oblivion._

Compound this with the inherent bias everyone has to tend to notice where their opinion is being attacked and not see where it's being supported, everyone has a tendency to think that theirs is a minority or attacked position. It's tough.

None of this negates that goal of reducing the frequency and intensity of ideological flame wars on HN. One of the reasons I pipe up with comments like this is that I think it's the community's responsibility as a whole to encourage this, not just the mods'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Its not surprising to see this. Its one Nobel Prize Winner (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) who is pro Burmese vs an another (Malala) who is pro Rohingyas.

IMO, There's more to it that what seems. Just because someone (like the author of the article) says "genocide", doesn't mean it is the fact.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is indeed horrible. And sadly enough, it's not unique to Myanmar. Conflict between Hindus/Buddhists and Muslims is pervasive in South and Southeast Asia.

Also, with global climate change, there will be more refugees from Bangladesh etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> this was a fairly balanced assessment of the situation - [https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/09/273914.htm](https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/09/273914.htm)

</comment><comment><USER11> Dispatch Blue Helmets?

</comment><comment><USER12> The amount of pro-genocide comments here, on Reddit, etc. makes me lose my faith in humanity. Decades down the line, people will wonder how such nominally reasonable and interconnected people could develop such hateful, vile opinions.

<comment><USER13> Currently there are only 18 comments. So how you can say this early thread represents HN is pretty disgenious.

<comment><USER12> When participating in online discussions, do you not get a sense of what opinions are OK to express even before the conversation gets going? The current zeitgeist in many public forums is very "fuck Muslims at all costs", and even if those comments do eventually get downvoted, people still feel safe to post them over and over again. In some forums, they even float to the top with frightening regularity; see /r/news et al. In other words, I already knew what I would be seeing as soon as I stepped into this thread.

Even 1% of a population _speaking out in favor of genocide_ is a fucking travesty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone who understand Bengali should listen to the "Rohingya" language. The similarities are unmistakable, even if you can't understand either.

If they really have been in that area since the 8th century - an assertion made by Soros' HRW, and mindlessly repeated by the media - you'd expect the language to diverge a lot more.

They are clearly not native to Myanmar.

Also, it's conveniently forgotten that they triggered the latest spurt of violence by attacking Buddhist and Hindu citizens.

It's odd how suddenly this is the latest humanitarian crisis.

Nothing to do with oil and gas pipelines, I'm sure. Unlike Syria, Iraq, Libya and so on.

Call me cynical but I don't see the international community - code for US interests - caring about people in resource poor regions.

Wonder what would happen if NK suddenly was found to have oil fields ...

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very weak argument. Eg., the Catalan language is more closely related to French than Spanish ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo- Romance_languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Romance_languages)). But the Catalans are certainly "native" to Spain, in that they've lived within the current Spanish borders since before Spain existed. And obviously, someone not being "native" to an area doesn't justify killing or terrorizing them.

<comment><USER14> Clearly you haven't lived in close proximity to these people.

They trickle in, respect no boundaries and no laws.

Now if they integrated and contributed to the regions culture and economy, that would go a long way towards their acceptance. But that's against the tenents of their religion/culture/ideology and it's demonstrated by their violence.

I'd quote Karl Popper on tolerating the intolerant, but it would be another "weak argument."

You can't drag people who insist on living by pre-medieval norms into the 21st century.

<comment><USER15> > _You can 't drag people who insist on living by pre-medieval norms_

Please don't use HN to fight ideological, national, or racial battles. That's definitely not what this site is for: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Thanks for bringing this up on this forum. There's another conspiracy theory circulating in the region that the devil Noble winner is doing this on instructions of US because the area Rohingyans live is enriched with valuable minerals including Jade stones. The locals are being killed and pushed away from the area, Americans will land and then keep an eye on China.

China on other hand trying best not to give US or UN a chance enter here by any excuse.

In all cases, Muslims are being used as bait

<comment><USER15> > _the devil Noble winner_

That sort of name-calling is not allowed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

All: please don't use this site to fight ideological, national, or racial battles.

<comment><USER16> OK I should call her an angel then to comply with guidelines.

<comment><USER15> Sarcastic swipes don't help.

I'm sure you feel strongly about defending your group, but so does everybody else. That's why we don't allow people to lash out at others when commenting here—it's a short path from there to internet hell. So if want to keep posting to HN, please control this impulse. We ask the same of everybody: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

<comment><USER16> > defending your group, but so does everybody else

Alright no issue. Agreed.

PS: I did not defend because of their faith rather because they are my biological brothers.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


America Needs a Nationalized 5G Network - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/america-needs-more-fiber <comment><USER2> For wireless carriers, the three highest opex costs are 1. Real estate (lease costs, no one owns their cell sites) 2. backhaul, which today means fiber 3. employees

Nationalizing the 5G roll out will not help with any of these costs, the real estate costs are more and more coming from local municipalities or other local entities to place in the right of way which is probably the only realistic option with the densities needed for 5G. The Federal government does not have the power to take those rights of way. This constraint applied really to two of the big items, real estate costs for the cell sites and right of way for the fiber.

The reason countries like China or others like it can more easily deploy a nationalized network is because the central government has total dominion. We don't have that system here so a federal approach will not reduce costs, if anything it will cause them to spiral as local entities will see that as a cash register from the federal side.

And we all understand that a federal work force is not going to be a low cost option for the third component of the equation.

For these reasons I disagree with a federal approach. To my way of thinking, if local entities, cities and counties, want 5G wireless broadband, the best way is to make rights of way available to carriers in a fair and accessible way without trying to over play their hand and jack the costs up which inevitably will just price it out of reach of more and more people.

The capital outlay to deploy these networks is fairly significant and by making a reasonable accommodation for the carriers will help offset that.

The federal government is not a good answer here as much as it may seem like the quick and easy answer. All it takes is a quick review of recent performance of congress to realize how unrealistic that notion is.

<comment><USER3> The federal government certainly has the ability to use eminent domain to acquire property, particularly with a (specious) national security angle. Nike-Hercules missile sites are an example of what can happen when the Feds are motivated. The interstate highways are another.

This is a fairly obvious play at rebuilding the AT&T monopoly of yore. The Feds would just pay a carrier to run the thing, perhaps by using an existing contract vehicle (maybe first net?).

<comment><USER2> It might be theoretically possible, or legal, but it would be hugely controversial and would be in the courts for sure. I do not think the FCC could do it with a rule it would take an act of congress which seems pretty unlikely in the current political atmosphere. It is not clear that the federal gov could use eminent domain to force cities and counties to relinquish rights of way, perhaps, but it would be pretty unprecedented in peace time as you point out.

Interestingly, the former bell system was nationalized for a brief period in 1918 and run by the post office (an arrangement that some European countries have today) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T) But it did not last and was a complete disaster. I am sure a redux of that would end in tears.

In the early 1980's the Bell System had something called ISDN which purported to be something like what we call the internet today. They had a plan to roll it out (64Kbps !) nationally over a 20 year time frame. Had not AT&T been broken up in 1984 I posit that the internet we know today would have never emerged, it was free enterprise and entrepreneurship that made it happen.

<comment><USER4> > hugely controversial and would be in the courts for sure

Controversial like illegally wiretapping every single citizen in the nation for years? Controversial like the current President? The bar is so low on controversy and legality that it practically doesn't exist.

> It is not clear that the federal gov could use eminent domain

That sounds like an opinion but even if it were true it doesn't mean that the threat of using eminent domain couldn't be used as leverage in negotiations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> New Zealand is currently in the process of rolling out fibre connections in almost every urban area of the country (target is 87% of households) and the amazing thing is that a basic fibre connection is now the _same price_ as an ADSL/VDSL connection.

The government put together a technical specification (e.g. minimum speeds, networking standards, API for service providers) and set a series of coverage targets; then they solicited bids from the private sector to build and operate the network in each region. Funding was in the form of an interest-free loan, and the network operators are required to offer wholesale access to any retail provider. The operators are also prohibited from offering their own retail services.

So in the end, once the loans are paid back, the net cost to the taxpayer is likely going to be less than NZ$1.5bn -- that's gigabit fibre to the home for every non-rural household at a cost of less than NZ$1,000 each!

<comment><USER6> I would be very, very upset if I were forced to pay 750 USD for a fiber connection that didn't even benefit rural households.

<comment><USER7> That's how government works. Most government programs don't directly benefit every individual citizen; even though they all get funded from the big pot of 'government spending', which is filled by taxes.

If you think there is a systematic problem, where a disproportionate amount of money goes to urban centers, and a disproportionate amount of money comes from rural areas, then you have something to complain about; but you shouldn't complain about a single project just because it does not benefit 100% of the population.

<comment><USER8> Eh, if it cost $1250 per household to light up every home in the country, you can bet metro folks would be carping about how much they are paying to cover the much higher per-household costs of rural users.

<comment><USER9> The most Republican Libertarian TV station on cable is Rural Free Delivery TV named after the United States connecting farmers with free rural delivery. They now hide the history of where the name came from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So basically the wireless companies don't want to pay for all of the real estate they need for the new base stations they have to deploy and so they want to use eminent domain. The free market is great till you have to buy something I guess.

</comment><comment><USER10> I would propose doing essentially the exact opposite; commodify the entire spectrum using a high-frequency rolling regional auction system, so anyone and their dog can become a wireless carrier. This would be vastly more cost- effective for rural areas, and would offload the effort of organizing fiber leases onto random small (regional) businesses providing bandwidth.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Aren't equiptment costs still prohibitive?

<comment><USER10> Nope; check out open-source LTE tower projects. Surprisingly cheap these days! Totally within range of individuals, especially for the kind of hardware that only needs to serve rural areas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> With the impending mass cheapening expense of launching satellites via SpaceX and the like, wouldn't a large array of telecommunication satellites be a more reasonable option for nation wide coverage in a country the size and density of the United States?

<comment><USER12> Possibly, which is why SpaceX wants to do exactly that[0]. They're launching their first test satellites shortly[1].

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

[1] [https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-gets-set-launch- first-p...](https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-gets-set-launch-first- prototype-starlink-satellites-global-internet-access/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> America needs good and enforced regulations. My country had nationalized network and it was a disaster.

</comment><comment><USER14> If we're saying that the free market isn't capable of delivering the infrastructure that underpins much of our modern economy, then where does that leave the idea of capitalism?

<comment><USER15> Capitalism is great because it's been the best tool we've had to massively improve quality of life in many different areas of life. That doesn't mean it's the only tool we have and/or it should be an end in itself.

The situation where capitalism is not the best tool for the job we should abandon it for that job. That will not only mean we have a better standard of living, but will also mean the idea of capitalism gets stronger because it doesn't suffer from negative backlash when it fails because it is used in situations where it isn't the right tool because of ideology.

There is possibly an analogy here to programmers who insist a certain technology be used everywhere, even where it isn't a good fit, instead of opting for the best tool for the specific application.

<comment><USER16> "The situation where capitalism is not the best tool for the job we should abandon it for that job." Soooo healthcare, food distribution, housing, transportation, resource extraction, education...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> We tried this. It was a national broadband initiative in the late 90s. Telecom companies were given BILLIONS of dollars to build fiber across the country. They took it and did exactly zero.

If we are dumb enough to do it this way again (paying the wolves to secure the hen house), we better have good checks and balances on it.

<comment><USER18> The proposal is to build public infrastructure and lease it to private firms, not to pay private firms with public money to build and own infrastructure.

<comment><USER19> When people talk about this "nationalized" 5G network, it's very likely that it would be outsourced to a single prime contractor (probably either AT&T or Verizon). The government has actually done this before with FirstNet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A nationalized 5G network will be essential for high-bandwidth applications like V2V across level 5 autonomous vehicles. As has been done in the past for large scale projects like GPS, LEDs, photovoltaics, and nuclear (just to name a few!) which private companies wouldn't be able to eat the long-term capex against. These technologies are also licensed either for free or very cheaply to companies in order to benefit the public at large since we've already paid for the R&D with tax dollars.

In order to prepare for the future of the digital economy at large, bandwidth shouldn't be an artificial limitation of it. Once all the associated RFCs for 5G are standardized, a rollout of this scale would most definitely pay for itself and more over the network's useful lifetime.

<comment><USER21> I expect that l5 autonomous vehicles will be able to function without any internet connection.

I'd be afraid if my car required cell service to function.

<comment><USER20> While there isn't an official RFC yet since the protocol is still in the RFP stages[0], the amount of new cars on the road will require roughly about the spectrum allocation as what's needed for cellphones right now. If we tried to cram all of this into existing 5GHz range of lower frequency spectrum, it's simply not enough. 5G has both a larger spectrum allocation and throughput of data available to it.

Edit: The cost of putting in a lidar system for your car won't be too expensive (probably <$1000 when done across a manufacturer's whole fleet); but think about having to pay for another cellular line on your phone bill at current telecom prices. It would be prohibitively expensive to the end users for mass deployment.

[0] [https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/readiness- of...](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/readiness- of-v2v-technology-for-application-812014.pdf)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Raditian – a free modern theme for Hugo - <AUTHOR> https://raditian.onrender.com/ <comment><USER2> It might be a nice theme but no theme is nice enough to allow such amount of lengthy animations. I'm reading faster than they appear and they keep me from scanning your site.

Keep up the good work of creating and sharing but remove your animations from future themes.

Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for your feedback. Actually I agree with your feedback and we are updating the theme.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> and the github link [https://github.com/radity/raditian-free-hugo- theme](https://github.com/radity/raditian-free-hugo-theme)</comment>


Why you should quit your job and travel now - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/better-humans/3d7cbcc59cc3

<comment><USER2> What do you do when you get back?

I've done this (twice) but unless you travel with the intent of working remotely, you eventually have to make money, right?

That's the whole point of the super-wealthy they can afford to never work, so they get to live a permanent life of leisure.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I thought this was a pretty interesting article. I'm not sure how interested I am in traveling myself, but I do enjoy reading about it.</comment>


What is someone going to stop doing when they start using your product? - <AUTHOR> https://m.signalvnoise.com/what-is-someone-going-to-stop-doing-when-they-start-using-your-product-39f3f7a20c37#.l8xatdnra <comment><USER2> This sounds like the jobs to be done model, here is an excellent writeup on it: [http://www.docfoc.com/intercom-on-jobs-to-be-done- pdf](http://www.docfoc.com/intercom-on-jobs-to-be-done-pdf)</comment>


A CS Research Topic Generator - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/comer/essay.topic.generator.html <comment><USER2> A type-safe watermarking theorem prover related to a high-level knowledge- based database</comment>


JavaScript - "typeof" operator & null - <AUTHOR> http://www.kiro.me/blog/typeof_null.html

<comment><USER2> Another fun typeof quirk that the table leaves out:

Regular Expressions, depending on the V8 or Nitro engine version, are implemented to return either 'object' or 'function' <http://bonsaiden.github.com/JavaScript-Garden/#types.typeof>

Recent versions of V8 and Nitro return 'object' now, but presumably, there are many people still running browsers that return 'function'.

Seems like it relies on whether or not the RegExp is callable, but that the 2 engines removed 'function' as they ceased supporting callable RegExes. <http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=617>

<comment><USER3> I often use the improved typeof function: [http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/fixing- the-...](http://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/fixing-the- javascript-typeof-operator/)

Question: why is the way to determine null considered "very bad"? It works and seems like a valid way, since both empty objects and arrays are truthy, null is the only falsy "object" type.

<comment><USER4> I think it's only bad because it would break with future changes to typeof. Of course I may be completely wrong on that.

This works just as well and is more future proof though:

        function isNull(x) { return x === null }

At which point you don't really need a function at all. Perhaps the version using typeof is from a time when there was no === operator. Was that pre-ES3? I think so but am not certain.

<comment><AUTHOR> "I think it's only bad because it would break with future changes to typeof"

You're completely right.

The proposal (<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:typeof>) suggests the change of typeof null to actually return "null"; however, as Douglas Crockford points out, "existing code cannot anticipate the change". Additionally, Brendan Eich states that "neither this proposal nor the bug fixes in that proposal are backward-compatible".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The other gotcha with "typeof": "typeof NaN" is "number", amusingly enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed. That's because ECMAScript standard states that Numbers should be IEEE-754 floating point data, which includes positive and negative infinity, and also NaN. Hence why, in JS, it's part of the Number object: Number.NaN. Technically, it's stil a numeric data type, but just points to an invalid number :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I've written another post which explores NaN in detail: "NaN and typeof" - <http://kiro.me/blog/typeof_nan.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You may want to mention the language that you are talking about in future titles.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> There, updated.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I built MyTube.FM – an audio version of Twitter (to combat bots) - <AUTHOR> https://mytube.fm/ <comment><AUTHOR> Dear HN,

I built MyTube.FM with very simple CodeIgniter MVP + MySQL, as a fun after- hours project.

The biggest challenge was getting audio recording to work on as many devices as possible, but I am sure not all have been worked out :|

The main idea is that I would like to have some sort of Twitter that would be more genuine than what Twitter is right now. I also think that making people force to use their voice not only brings more emotions into discussion but also helps combat trolls as it takes much more time and energy to record your voice, rather than type a message.

This is very new project and I currently only cultivate handful of profiles myself in hopes of bringing traffic; for example POTUS profile: [https://potus.mytube.fm/](https://potus.mytube.fm/)

I did the project myself and would welcome all ideas how to take it off the ground (I am programmer not a marketing whiz unfortunately), so please feel free to reach out! Perhaps thanks to HN, I could find a founding partner?</comment>


Why We're Sharing 3M Russian Troll Tweets - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/ <comment><USER2> I would be really interested in seeing someone do some sort of analysis on how these tweets subsequently made it on to reddit and manipulated the discussion there.

My recollection is that the CEO Reddit claimed that they had identified a mere handful of so-called Russian Troll accounts but that was never really credible to me... and that's on top of reality that there are always misguided amateurs who enthusiastically amplify these sorts of propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there any public details on the twitter social network: who was following these accounts and retweeting their messages?</comment>


Installing Zsh and Customising Terminal - <AUTHOR> https://assortment.io/posts/installing-zsh-customising-terminal <comment><USER2> Another option instead of Oh My Zsh (some people would say it's better), is Prezto.

<comment><USER2> Well, actually Oh My Zsh probably has more features than Prezto since it's older, but some people say, and I've experiencied it myself, that it can be pretty slow, while Prezto remains fast and responsive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Might have to give Prezto a go then, heard good things from others too!</comment></comment></comment>


JSON DB vs ODBMS - <AUTHOR> http://10gen.tumblr.com/post/437029788/json-db-vs-odbms

<comment><USER2> Lordy, all the greybeards must be going crazy right now. People are writing everyday how great these new wheel things are -- I'm glad I'm younger than 30 or else I'd probably be going mad at all this talk of graph databases, document databases, object databases, etc etc as if they are some great new innovation.

<comment><USER3> I have to say I'm not quite clear on difference between a graph db and object db.

<comment><USER4> I was under the impression that an object DB is a subset of a graph/network db. [IANA DB Nerd]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> ODBMs? Transactions! Sometimes you need them. Admittedly, not as often as once thought. RDBMs too, but with ODBMs, you have no impedance mismatch.</comment>


A Lizard Lost at Sea Makes Its Return - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-lizard-lost-at-sea-makes-its-return <comment><USER2> > Last month, citing incomplete documentation, Australian customs officials > incinerated six holotypes on loan from Paris—all daisies, a few from the > late eighteenth century.

The only thing worse than losing your precious holotype specimen in a sinking ship is when they are purposefully destroyed thanks to beurcratic incompetence.

Edit: found the backstory about the incenerated daises [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/australia/rare- plan...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/australia/rare-plants- destroyed.html)

<comment><USER3> In Australia's defense, if an imported item is "priceless and irreplaceable", maybe one can't put _that_ on the form, but it's certainly possible not to estimate the value at "$2".

<comment><USER2> Yes, it was incompetence by the Paris university as well as potentially the customs rules and whoever was the intended recipient in Australia. Any one of those could have handled this better.

Customs waited 76 days before destroying it and contacted them twice requesting more information, so they aren't totally at fault.

Either the customs policy of incineration wasn't made obvious to people shipping/receiving the products or the Aussie researcher neglected to tell the Paris branch.

The most obvious error here is that the Paris school didn't identify the real value of the item in the paperwork (maybe to avoid import taxes?). This has many implications when you send a valuable item through the mail. Including insurance coverage.

<comment><USER4> The article does say, though:

> _"The problem is that we were warned of nothing," Mr. Guiraud said. The > museum sent specimens from the Lagenophora family, which includes daisies, > and was notified that a quarantine document was missing. "We filled it out > and sent it," Mr. Guiraud said, adding that the paperwork was in order. Two > weeks later, the museum learned the specimens had been destroyed._

So it's not completely obvious where the fault was. Having _some_ experience with French administration though, they're probably faulty in at least some part.

Also, it's not really just "a Paris school" but the oldest Natural History museum in the world with one of the largest collections (I've actually worked and collected specimens for them, too). So they do have some experience in sharing and handling their collections, which is why I don't think they can be entirely at fault there.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


So, What Does "HREF" Stand For, Anyway? - <AUTHOR> http://tomayko.com/writings/wtf-is-an-href-anyway <comment><USER2> "10 years" working with HTML? No wonder he didn't know. My first web browser was Mosaic, running via Trumpet Winsock on Windows 3.11 on a 14.4k modem. (This was in '94, I think). Back then, we all knew what hypertext was, because the term was in common use, and the default background for web pages was a lovely #C0C0C0.

It's totally a generation gap thing. Just a few years difference and so much is taken for granted. My joints feel sore just thinking about it. I'm going to listen to some ABBA, now...

<comment><USER3> Completely agree. But I'm sure we have our equivalents -- I was writing a blog post about SQL the other day and realized I couldn't remember if it stood for _Standard_ Query Language or _Structured_ Query Language (it's the latter, but doesn't it feel like the former makes more sense?).

<comment><USER4> There isn't much standard about (implemented) SQL: <http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/> \- so... ;-)

<comment><USER3> Well it sure as hell isn't _structured_... I mean, crap is just tacked onto the end of statements any old how :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Man. The web was barely used in 1991, which seems very not-that-long-ago.

I was born in 1988, so it's strange to me to imagine life without the web. I eventually want to be in an environment where I'm surrounded by the grandmasters of those older eras, to learn the lessons they learned; lessons that can only be taught after _decades_ (plural) of engineering experience.

<comment><USER6> In those days, you'd use FTP a lot. And Archie, a search engine for FTP sites. IRC and usenet also existed as popular ways of online communication before the web, and email of course ;-). Somewhat later Gopher servers came into being, and you could use Veronica to search gopherspace.

<comment><USER7> Not to mention MUDs.

<comment><USER8> Which, perhaps surprisingly, are still alive and well to this day:

<http://www.mudconnect.com/>

Incidentally I was an advertising major until I found MUDs in 93 and practically failed out of the program. I switched to CS so I could learn to make my own, and here we are 17 years later...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone else already know 'hypertext reference'? Like that's what they read when they made first made web pages in the 90s, and they've never heard any different, or realized this was a mystery?

<comment><USER10> Yup, I was slightly surprised that it's not more widely known.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I took one look at that huge text and smiled. Readability without the extra click to run the bookmarklet. Thank you.

<comment><USER12> I really like his design sense.

<comment><USER13> This has inspired me to use larger fonts when I rebuild/redesign my personal site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> People working on the web for 10 years don't know what HREF stands for? I take back all the good things I've said about 'em youngsters ;D

<comment><USER15> You have to understand, we've lived and worked on the web our entire adult lives. We don't necessarily know what href stands for any more than we know what 'goodbye' is a contraction of. But we know what it means.

<comment><USER16> Upvoted because I'd never even thought about the word _goodbye_ ("Of course, it means 'may this _bye_ be _good_ '!"). Fortunately wiktionary had the answer: <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goodbye>

Pretty interesting. (And obviously, _bye_ is just a shortened form of _goodbye_.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Link to original WWW source is interesting:

[http://www.w3.org/History/1991-WWW- NeXT/Implementation/Hyper...](http://www.w3.org/History/1991-WWW- NeXT/Implementation/HyperText.m)

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm not sure what makes me sadder: the fact that people don't just automatically know this, or the fact that I'm so old that I do.

It's probably the latter. Everyday it seems something that I've just always known enters the realm of obscure and arcane. Soon I'll be having a hard time keeping up with the new. Oh well.

<comment><USER2> I know exactly how you feel. My reaction was, "Isn't that obvious?" I remember when the term hypertext was all the rage, and when it was by no means certain that the Internet was the fabled "information superhighway" where all the data in the world would be cross-linked. I was born in '73, so I imagine I am right on the cusp of those who would have had personal knowledge of this, and those who would be too young to have cared at the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting. The glossary at <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html- spec_2.html#GLOSS19> defines hyperlink as

"a relationship between two anchors, called the head and the tail. The link goes from the tail to the head. The head and tail are also known as destination and source, respectively."

So what we have is "Anchor Head REFerence" when we should simply have "Link DESTination". Think about it when you next design a world changing markup language.

</comment><comment><USER20> It always meant "retaining backwards compatibility at the cost of deprecated names" to me.

</comment><comment><USER21> We should have told him HREF was a Macintosh type, creator or resource identifier code.... Those were 4 characters in length and there very well could be one by that name, and quite possibly much older than HTML. I searched for a list of the codes, but found a database that needs a password. "Shareware" like that should be called keyware. I remember when shareware was a voluntary contribution for something that worked... not this locked keyware demoware stuff.... /endrant

<comment><USER21> Looking around more, it looks like HREF really is/was a Macintosh resource type... but it is still a URL. Basically it's a text track in a Quicktime movie that contains a URL.

To make this interesting enough for you guys to read, here it is described in terms of being used as a Quicktime-based exploit!

<http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/backdooring-quicktime-movies/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So after 10 or so years of html experience, the guy can't google for "href wikipedia"?

</comment><comment><USER23> At least HREF makes sense. "Anchor"...?

<comment><USER9> It attaches you to part of a page. Like an anchor moors your boar to part the pier.

<comment><USER24> I'm never going sailing with you, if that's what you use an anchor for! An anchor holds you (sort of, if you're lucky) to the seabed.

<comment><USER25> In coastal waters.

Otherwise when you want to slow your boat relative to the wind you use a <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_anchor> , the most common use of which is in heavy weather.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's always meant "hyperreference" to me.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't like this new trend of people making blog posts and comments about questions that can be answered in 30 seconds with a Google search.

<comment><USER28> How is that those questions get answered through Google searches? Because people took the time to write posts that answer a specific question just like this one.

<comment><USER29> There's absolutely no way for your claim to be true unless the information is only found on blog posts. Decently crafted Google queries easily return the primary source (which is not a blog post).

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aw3.org+href+...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aw3.org+href+%22hypertext+reference%22)

During the discovery process, just replace "hypertext reference" with whatever you suspect HREF to stand for. The grandparent post is absolutely correct in criticizing these types of blog posts.

<comment><USER30> Except none of that stuff was indexed by google at time of writing. The links that were added to Wikipedia after the article was published made your search possible:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyperlink#what_does_href_s...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyperlink#what_does_href_stand_for.3F)

Trust me. The whole reason the article exists was because there was no clear answer through search/wikipedia/w3c/etc.

<comment><USER29> You're right. I did not realize your blog post was from 2008 (I falsely assumed it was a recent post). I based my assertions off of the fact that Google has a cache of the page in question dating back to July 1st 2010: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a6pIrYo...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a6pIrYoNrG4J:www.w3.org/Provider/ServerWriter.html+%22www.w3.org/Provider/ServerWriter.html%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). Unfortunately, it is too late to edit my original comment to remove my inaccuracies. Thanks for digging this information up. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> An entire blogpost that can be summarized by google 'define:href'

<comment><USER27> and our collective response could be summarized as RTFM. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think learning what HTTP, HTML and HREF stood for were one of the first things I learned back in the mid/late 90's when getting into web programming. Since H stood for hypertext in both HTTP and HTML I think a reasonable person would guess it also stood for that in HREF.

</comment><comment><USER27> Next you kids will be asking where the word "car" came from (vehicular not Lisp), and whether Paul McCartney was ever part of a band.</comment>


Lithuanian Startup Community welcomes VKontakte founder looking for freer hub - <AUTHOR> http://arcticstartup.com/2014/04/25/lithuania-pavel-druov <comment><USER2> Smart way to use current events for some PR for his next start-up!</comment>


What Happened to John Carmack After the Book Masters of Doom? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.habrador.com/2017/07/what-happened-to-john-carmack-after.html <comment><USER2> It's a trilogy. The second part is called "Masters of Reality".</comment>


New Zealand school tossed its playground rules - <AUTHOR> http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/21/when-one-new-zealand-school-tossed-its-playground-rules-and-let-students-risk-injury-the-results-surprised/ <comment><USER2> Am I the only one that looking at what the kids are doing in the pictures consider it totally normal?

In Spain we used to do way more dangerous things than those.

And it was risky, one of our friends died in the river jumping over a slippery stone and hitting his neck with a stone while falling backwards. I have to say he was pretty nuts and was in constant danger everywhere.

Another friend is in wheelchair after jumping badly from a big 20 meters high rock to the Mediterranean sea. We all jumped the rock. It was funny, but you need to know what you are doing.

But those are two cases over hundreds of people I knew well over my life.

We learned to do bunny hops and do jumps and go downhill. Skiing over rocks outside official circuit.

You leaned early on how to manage risks and how to say no when your friends want you into doing stupid things(or you are not skilled enough for the task). I really appreciate those memories(and continue doing risky things like BASE jumping).

I have to say that my friends doing risky things now that we are adults never had significant problems. They became experts managing risk and some of them even teach it.

So in my opinion total freedom has its drawbacks and is not a pie in the Sky, but it is worth it.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, times have changed.

I went to school in the UK, Germany, Hong Kong, Chicago - mostly boarding school in the UK.

When I was a kid (5-13), our principal form of entertainment was "go outside, do whatever". This usually entailed building fortresses out of junk, which usually involved deep excavations, traps that could actually kill (sash weights suspended in a tree, with tripwires, anyone?), and construction high up fir trees with "found" supplies. We used to go boating (on this neat lake full of totally lethal floating islands of rotted vegetation), unattended, and nobody thought anything of us taking a pile of unexploded mortars from the school fireworks show and sticking them in a bonfire. 7 year olds. Smart enough to know to run like hell and lie behind a dip in the land.

People got hurt all the time, with everything from broken bones to cuts and grazes to the occasional airgun pellet in an unfortunate place. The school matron was a very busy woman.

Once a year, the school had an organised "paddock war", in which everyone would arm themselves with whatever they could lay their hands on (cricket bats, improvised clubs, slingshots, etc.), and go beat each other senseless. Not sure this is quite the same picture, but it was a very effective way to get the pent-up aggression of 250 7-13 year old boys out in a single sitting, and not something that would happen today.

The headmaster, an old submarine captain, used to take a group of the older (10+) boys out on a ramble into the woods, always to a new spot, and would then just either leave us there, with our task being to get all of us back unscathed, or play hunter-killer games. Retrospectively I have a feeling he was actually sneaking off to have a drink in the woods, but it was a great experience.

Every single person with whom I played at that school is an entrepreneur. Every single one takes risks, wins, loses, and while their weltanschauungs vary hugely, from liberal to authoritarian to conservative to socialist, there's a common thread of willingness to try anything - that anything can be done - so long as one is willing to attempt it.

The same school is now co-ed (no bad thing, but has been used as the "reason" for change) and has done away with the outdoor play, having replaced it with a sterile, monitored, playground.

And we wonder why people are increasingly sheltered and closeted, with increasingly small worlds, with increasingly small sets of symbols with which to associate, and increasingly small ranges of thought.

We took away childhood and replaced it with a life of infantilism.

<comment><USER4> "Every single person with whom I played at that school is an entrepreneur. "

That one is more about you and your selection of friends. Your whole generation is not composed of entrepreneurs although they all played freely.

<comment><USER3> To a degree, true, although what wasn't clear from the above, admittedly, was that I'm a child of the 80's. I was fortunate to go to a school during those precious formative years in the late 80's/early 90's which refused to comply with the growing culture of pandering to parents' irrational media-driven fears. I didn't select my classmates!

Most of my generation did not play freely. I would go home from school holidays and attempt to muster neighbours/random local kids/friends into going for an explore/insane expedition into the local wasteland/abandoned buildings/woods/caves/whatever. Very few takers, and my mother got no end of "your child is a ne'er-do-well trying to lead my Johnny astray".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Before people say that this school will get sued, it is useful to know that this school is in New Zealand.

Because of the way our healthcare system works, we cannot sue for personal injury here [1].

>Because of the wide range of help available from ACC after an injury, you can't sue for personal injury in New Zealand, except for exemplary damages. This applies to overseas tourists too.

[1] [http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of- acc/introduction-...](http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of- acc/introduction-to-acc/)

<comment><USER6> ACC is possibly the best thing about NZ, and most surprising. For example, you can go hiking (tramping as they call it here), fall down, break a leg... and ACC will fly out a helicopter to get you, bring you to the hospital, patch you up and send you on your way. All at no cost to you. As OP said, this counts for anyone on NZ soil, regardless of nationality. Keeps lawyers at bay. It's great.

I know of friends in the US who don't go mountain biking etc. because they're between jobs and can't afford the potential hospital bills. That is simply sad.

<comment><USER7> 'All at no cost to you.' Really? the 400$ a year I pay for my motorbike rego that goes straight to ACC is no cost to me?

(I do think it's a pretty good system however)

<comment><USER8> Compare that to the thousands of dollars an average medical plan in the US costs - and we still have to pay out of pocket for many medical expenses too!

I'd much rather pay $400 a year.

<comment><USER7> The 400$ only covers the use of a bike. There's also 0.95% of you salary taxed for workplace injuries and 1.26% for non-work injuries. Then there's car registration which is about 200$/yr and a tax added to petrol which comes included in the $/Litre cost (they put the figure at 330$/yr). 2600$ is a rough estimate of my ACC levies paid each year. I think there's also some portion of cigarettes and booze that goes to ACC as well.

One of the negatives is that when you're in need of an operation but it's not immediately life threatening you're prioritised and end up on a wait list which could be several years long.

A bit off topic, but there are definitely good and bad aspects to both systems.

[http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/levies/current-years-levy- rat...](http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/levies/current-years-levy- rates/index.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A great book on this topic is How to Live Dangerously by Warwick Cairns. He tells the story of a school in Norway that conducted a similar playground experiment. In that study, they had two playgrounds -- a "safe one" with rubberized mats and chaperones keeping a watchful eye and a "dangerous" one with tall structures, concrete, piles of wood, metal poles and no adult supervision at all. Within a couple days, several kids in the dangerous playground had broken limbs or had minor scrapes, but they continued the experiment. Within a couple weeks, the injuries had subsided and the kids in the dangerous playground were exhibiting all sorts of positive behavior. Compared to the "safe" playground, these children were happier, healthier, and more socially developed and getting along better with each other.

I did all sorts of crazy stuff growing up. I'm thankful I had parents who gave me a large radius to roam and didn't freak out (too much) when they had to drive me to the emergency room on occasion. The radius for which kids are allowed to play outside has been shrinking dramatically over the past few years. Humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment. We're more worried about child abductions than childhood obesity. Statistically speaking, only one of those is a real issue today.

<comment><USER10> I read this article [1] just a few days ago about how kids are over protected now. It also includes the Swanson Primary School story too. An excerpt "...I've mostly met children who take it for granted that they are always being watched..." struck me, it definitely was not like that while I was growing up.

Besides, is there a time line for the Swanson Primary School story? The article I linked to mentions this as an experiment conducted in 2011. If this is true, I would love to know how it has progressed since.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey- pare...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-parents- leave-those-kids-alone/358631/)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for sharing that link. This paragraph in particular jumped out at me in regards to all the efforts that have been made to rubber surface everything:

We might accept a few more phobias in our children in exchange for fewer injuries. But the final irony is that our close attention to safety has not in fact made a tremendous difference in the number of accidents children have. According to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which monitors hospital visits, the frequency of emergency-room visits related to playground equipment, including home equipment, in 1980 was 156,000, or one visit per 1,452 Americans. In 2012, it was 271,475, or one per 1,156 Americans.

<comment><USER11> That is 20% drop in injuries.

EDIT: it's actually a 25% increase as ebrenes correctly pointed out. Server me right for trying to do math early in the morning...

<comment><USER12> No, it's not. That's one injury per population amount, so the lower the second number the less people you "need" to get one injury.

Assuming a fixed population size of 1 million, given the 1980 prevalence of injuries you'd expect about ~689 injuries. With the 2012 prevalence of injuries you'd expect about ~865 injuries. So it's actually an increase, not a drop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I usually live an Asia and often tell local people that the great play equipment available to children there would be disallowed in parts of the west (eg. my native Australia) due to health and safety concerns, generally as a result of mandatory insurance and greedy insurance companies.

No longer are swings and see-saws available! Instead, you get _a padded piece of artificial plas-floor with a carefully rounded_ (so when your kid falls on it, they won't bleed - just pass out) _, mid-height_ (so you can't claim you didn't see it, but it's not high enough to fall off) _not-thing_ (so you can claim it was custom designed for safety) _in funkified ultra-hue_ (so it's easy to see and you can't claim it was a dangerous obstruction when your kid falls over it and knocks their teeth out).

As a result, we are failing to teach our children to cope with the real world.

<comment><USER14> I'm from Australia as well. I lived in Canada for a while and we use to joke that when there was snow there'd be signs saying you can't play in the snow.

<comment><USER15> Canadian parent here. You are absolutely right and it's ridiculous. Kids are extremely sheltered these days and it's ruining them. I find the problem is that there always needs to be someone to blame. Well, sometimes kids just do things that get them hurt. It's part of growing up.

If you don't know what it feels like to fly down a ice covered hill on a piece of plastic, hit a jump, and run smack into another kid, you did not have a proper Canadian childhood.

<comment><USER16> American here, I've been run over by guys on skis more than once at the local sledding hill growing up. My favorite sled was literally a rolled up piece of stiff plastic...fastest thing on the hill and I routinely had other kids wanting a ride.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is my favorite quote from the article: "I've been the principal who's stood there and said 'Oy, kid! Get off your bike! You've got to walk your bike!' Then I'd go away and think 'Why the hell did I say that?'"

<comment><AUTHOR> As a teacher in an after-school program myself, I find myself thinking this or something similar nearly every day.

What upsets me is that more often than not, the answer to "Why the hell did I say that?" is not the children's safety, it's that it's what I'm expected to say or that I want to look responsible around other teachers or parents.

The fact is, a principal is in a far better position than a teacher to change a school's culture, and indeed, a cultural shift is what is necessary for kids to have greater freedom on playgrounds. As a teacher, I have to weigh not only what I value (kids' freedom and developing understanding of social/physical interactions) but also what the school (administration and other teachers) and parents value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This reminds me of this article in The Atlantic: [http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey- pare...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-parents- leave-those-kids-alone/358631/) We might finally have some reversion from this awful "safety" obsessed parenting trend.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great article. A key quote that the editors highlight: "Reasonable risks are essential for children's healthy development." As a teacher, I want kids to ask questions, explore, and inquire in the classroom. Why shouldn't this extend to physical and social exploration on the playground? It strikes me that in most Western culture, we reward risktaking behaviors in academic and business environments, so why should we devalue it in in childhood recreational environments?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> When I was in elementary school, much of the playground was built out of old car, truck, and tractor tires. There were conventional swings and slides, but there was also a tractor-tire tower to defend, a couple of car-tire geodesic- sphere-like structures, and other such wonders but the jewel was TireTown, a fortress built out of tires with tire bridges connecting to two smaller structures. TireTown was easily two meters high, and an agile kid could easily climb onto the roof and slide down one of the provided poles.

All of this was done with materials to hand, not safety-certified foam and plastic, although many of the tires were glued fast together for greater structural support. Nobody batted an eyelash. Nobody complained. This was the 1980s, which I still think of as being not that long ago, but compared to today we had it much better off. Just to be certain, and doubtful that something as wonderful as TireTown would be permitted by today's standards, I checked the satellite images of my old elementary school.

All the tire structures -- completely gone. And the playground area seems a lot smaller than I remembered it...

<comment><USER20> This sounds exactly like my elementary school playground in Alberta (so much so I had to wonder if we went to the same school, but then I imagine there were photostated plans for getting a playground up quick with old tires and chains that made the rounds in those days). Everything in Canada has gotten way too safe. In Germany however, they've still got a lot of downright expressionist playgrounds. This ladder I witnessed the other day for instance.

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkBRTfXIIAAXWH3.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkBRTfXIIAAXWH3.jpg)

<comment><USER21> Not Belgravia, by any chance? We had the same thing at my elementary school in Edmonton!

<comment><USER20> It was in Leduc actually. I'd like to think that enterprising Albertan tire recycling firm figured out how to make a side business in playgrounds and that these were everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Man... I'm only 23, and I grew up in New Zealand. This is really cool, but I think the parents are the main factor that needs to be dealt with regarding this general idea.

When I was 8, my dad and I built a wood + iron motorised go-kart, and then I drove it all around ours (and the next-door neighbours) property. I crashed hard, broke my arm... and it was _awesome_. I'm still into high-octane risk- taking fun (I'm currently working getting my solo jump license yay), but I do it as safely as possible.

I think learning risk-management is a key thing that kids are missing. I was lucky to have parents that pushed me out of my comfort zone into doing cool stuff (I trained in Taekwondo for 12 years, including 6 months in Busan, South Korea, and got my 16 year old ass kicked for the entire 6 months) -- my brothers also have grown up well adjusted to dealing with risk and excitement and danger. But others I know in my generation and below are afraid of risk, afraid of danger, and I think that's a shame...

<comment><USER23> > I think learning risk-management is a key thing that kids are missing.

I agree completely. Call it 'common sense', 'street smarts,' whatever. It's having the nous to think through what you're about to do and judge whether you're at risk of ending up in trouble, and it starts with learning the hard way that the branch you're about to stand on to climb up the tree is woefully rotted and is about to give way under you. You can't teach this stuff in classrooms, either. It's really something that has to be learned through running across a slippery piece of ground and falling over.

I still remember back when I was 6, I was playing soccer in the school grounds with other kids at lunchtime and went to slide tackle some kid. Turns out he jumped, and I didn't realise until it was too late that there were big wooden plank hurdles right behind him. I slid into them and split my eyebrow open pretty decently (I still have a patch of no eyebrow from the scar, 2 decades later).

When the school first aid room called my mum to have her come and get me, she told them that she was busy at work and I'd have to wait a bit. She knew I was alive and not going to get any worse and so knew it wasn't an emergency. Kids get hurt, it's what happens.

The other cool thing was that we had quite a bit of bushland on the school grounds and the children were allowed to play in it. We ended up forming fiefdoms and building forts and having little mock wars. It is fascinating to look back at because on top of the flagrant OH&S issues it'd raise (kids stabbing and beating each other with sticks), there was a huge political aspect to it all. Every year, you'd work out which teacher had a classroom clock that was slightly ahead of the rest, and therefore would get out to lunch slightly sooner. Those kids would be super valuable as they'd be able to run to the forts and protect their own / sabotage others freely, before the reinforcements arrived. There was serious negotiation and political power play going on amongst kids and it would've no doubt made a bunch of child development PhDs happy had they known about it.

It's hard to quantify, but I am sure that the exposure to this sort of playground environment had undoubtably a huge role in my upbringing and subsequent approach to risk and risk management in life. As such, I've been fascinated by the OP's study for a bit now and I am really glad it's being done. A lot of people talk about the problems with bubble-wrapping children these days and it's going to be good to see if it is an actual phenomenon instead of just rose-coloured reminiscence.

<comment><USER22> Mock wars: Yes! We did the same, to the point where we had diplomats and assasins, and it spread across through class-time as well. It even started my entrepreneruial spirit: I packaged up and sold "ammo" (rubber bands set up for maximum power and a small "gun" to shoot them from, tagged with a colour for your team) haha. Of course, that was very much a no-no (you'll get hit in the eye and go blind!) but it was amazingly fun and I'm pretty sure helped us understand tactics far better by applying them in the real world ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can't see how the the same thing won't happen though - one kid suffers some form of awful permanent damage (or death) and then the rules and safer equipment come back.

It seems like the wager the west has generally accepted is that we aren't willing to accept the the gains from 'risky' play compared with the small chance of tragedy.

<comment><USER25> The problem in the west is law suits. If New Zeland judges throw out any attempts from parents suing the schools, the fun times can continue.

All these rules didn't exist when I was a kid in the '80s... [http://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/165499/21_things_80s_kids...](http://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/165499/21_things_80s_kids_did)

<comment><USER26> The problem in the US isn't lawsuits, it's lack of decent health care. The lawsuits are a forseeable outcome of parents who could be financially devastated if their child has a bad injury.

<comment><USER25> Ok, what was different in the '80s?

<comment><USER27> I think the cost of medical care was probably cheaper, the liabilities less. I was a kid then so I don't actually know.

<comment><USER28> As well as considering just health care costs also consider health care versus income. E.g. if a parent had to pay for a broken arm in the '80s US did they risk bankruptcy more or less then now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > "Of course a child is not allowed to kill another child," Mr. McLachlan > said. "One of the rules I said facetiously is kids aren't allowed to hurt > other people. But in fact they are. … If you hurt somebody in a game where > you are playing hard, or a boxing match or a stone-throwing competition, for > me it's absolutely fine — as long as the other person was willing to get > hurt."

This is a very interesting article but is the administrator being serious when he talked about boxing matches? My American English parses that to mean throwing punches actual physical contact between fists and the body. Surely that is a bad idea?

<comment><USER30> We had boxing matches in High School.

<comment><USER31> Any permanent injuries? This stuff is quite dangerous unless performed with disciplined caution.

I would not want to observe kids _boxing_ (ouside a boxing sports club). Hit the throat. Bad day.

<comment><USER32> Got anything to back up your statement?

Everything fight I've seen between two _willing_ participants (not bullying) is that it isn't really very dangerous. I'm 36 and I still love to spar. I do it with boxing headgear, a mouthpiece and gloves now, but when I was young my friends and I always used to fight for fun with no gear. Sometimes it was fists only. Sometimes grappling, kicks, punches. Sometimes it was with hockey sticks. The worst that ever happened was a few bloody knuckles, busted lips or black eyes. When friends or brothers are fighting you know that you should stop if you punch someone in the throat or drop them in any other manner.

<comment><USER31> Dropping is rather dangerous, and if you hit a throat hard enough its pretty much an instant death.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Interestingly enough I've been on a bit of a kick today researching Sudbury schools that are entirely kid run, and from what I can tell every initiative that gives students more freedom seems to be beneficial.

The problem is giving students freedom is often thought of as synonymous to allowing more violent behavior to take place. When rules are put in place to protect victims that is understandable, but most rules instead decide that students should not be allowed to voluntarily choose to do things adults think are unsafe. Honestly, I hope we can break that belief.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think the school thing is symptomatic of an irrational attitude to risk in general. We're all going to die one day and life should be about having the best experience along the way.

</comment><comment><USER35> I moved around a lot as a child, but one of the schools I went to for a couple of years when in primary school was a Steiner school.

The school had a large pond, with geese (that would chase and bite you if you got too near), and a school cow that would wander around keeping the grass trimmed.

Next to the school was an huge piece of land we used to call the quarry. It was an developed piece of land that had hills with trees and bushes growing all over. I'm sure there were snakes around, there were definitely plenty of large ant hills, and other small critters. Usually once a week our class would tramp over there, and play tag.

People would get scratched up running through a bush or fall over and skin a knee. But that was part and parcel of the experience. I think I recall someone breaking an arm or getting a knock to the head when they tripped over something - that was treated appropriately by the teacher.

I remember going on a week (or two?) school camping trip up to Queensland; at one spot we found a natural spring pool for swimming and a small waterfall (maybe 5-10 meters high? scarily high for me anyway) - everyone took turns jumping off the waterfall into the pool.

Nowdays I look at what schoolkids get to do, and it's none of that stuff. Climb a tree? no way, you might fall and hurt yourself. So what, it's part of living and learning.

</comment><comment><USER36> In London, Parkour Generations runs kids parkour classes ([http://parkourgenerations.com/class?classtype=youth](http://parkourgenerations.com/class?classtype=youth)). While they do have dedicated gyms most of the classes are still run outside, in keeping with the general philosophy of parkour. A lot of what is taught in these classes is not specific physical techniques but instead how to be aware of your own limits, how to push your limits safely and how to deal with fear. The effect on the confidence and maturity of the kids is incredible.

The general feeling of a lot of traceurs is that not only do padded floors and crash mats not keep you safe, but that training only in 'safe' environments makes you dangerously complacent. Soft landings disguise lots of dangerous habits and it only takes an awkward angle or a turned ankle to turn that into a broken bone. Anecdotally, my only parkour injury occurred in NYC where (thanks to the wonderfully friendly NY police) I spent a few months only training indoors in a padded gym.

<comment><USER37> I've been trying to get into parkour for the last couple of years. Just to understand the moves.

But it's different from just letting kids run amok. A parkour class actively teaches you the progressions, how to safely bail etc. Not sure I want to remove all the rules. But I definitely agree that kids should be exposed to dangerous situations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's sad that in some cultures/places/families this is considered as something "unconventional or even quirky. The modern "children should live in a bubble" overprotective approach is not only making the kids useless for some things in the future, but also causes some mental issues or even disorders of varying severity (but of course, on the other hand, diagnosing every kid with ADHD and every teenager with depression is equally unfathomable for me). There was a TED talk (can't find it, possibly [1]) with some guy describing how he's doing 'dangerous' summer camps for kids. It included fire, sharp tools, etc. That's when I realized the summer camps I went to and I still visit as a supervisor/counsellor/leader would probably be banned and I executed in some places... [1] - [http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids)

</comment><comment><USER39> This reminds me of something related. I don't force my children to wear helmets when they ride their bikes. When we are out, people yell at me "Where's their helmet dad?". These are the same type of people who force the removal of swing sets at the parks in my area.

<comment><USER40> I would, because I've seen what happens when kids fall off their bikes and hit their heads on the pavement. :(

<comment><USER23> Agreed. IMO helmets are one of those treatments against a low-likelihood, high-consequence risk. The treatment also comes at very little inconvenience, so it's a no-brianer (pun not intended) to choose to do so.

Banning kids from riding bikes around cars? I can understand why that's considered a bit too overprotective, but helmets to me seem like a common- sense method of resolving a significant risk with insignificant inconvenience.

<comment><USER41> You can learn to fall / jump off a bike properly as well. Watch some videos of dirt jumpers, despite doing backflips, a lot of them go without helmets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is great and can/should be applied to other schools within New Zealand. Extreme restrictions do effect the kids and I believe that having the freedom to learn some valuable life lessons (while they are already absorbing so much) is a massive positive that outweighs the risk of injury.

My younger brother came home from primary school (elementary school) last year with a playground "Rule Sheet" \-- You should have seen the response to ridiculous rules such as "Children can climb trees as long as they have one foot on the ground at all times." \-- Even though the trees mentioned are less than 3-4 metres high.

It is a hard thing to manage just due to so many parents and their different styles of parenting but I do think a medium can be reached.

</comment><comment><USER43> The probability of one kid being killed or seriously injured in this one school in, say a year is nearly zero so it won't happen and everyone will think it's wonderful. But if all schools do it all the time, you'll start to see some fatalities and brain damages where rules would have prevented them and people will start saying "let's forbid high forts with concrete to fall on" etc.

Anecdotal story. As a kid playing in the street I ended up under a moving car. The only reason I'm alive is somebody alerted the driver in time. We don't notice rare accident deaths, but we do notice pervasive safety measures (don't play on the road even in a culdesac anyone?)

</comment><comment><USER44> Amazing how people behave better when they have to think of each other instead of some rule that makes little sense.

Reminds me of the town in the Netherlands that took out all its street signs and traffic lights.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachten#Traffic_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachten#Traffic_experiment)

</comment><comment><USER45> Self regulation is so much more powerful than externally applied regulation. The law of natural consequences is a very effective teacher.

I have to wonder, as regulations and laws and state surveillance increase, does our ability to control ourselves atrophy?

</comment><comment><USER46> I give my son his freedom to play but I also make sure that he is away from serious injuries..

</comment><comment><USER47> I broke my arm in kinder garden.... what of it?</comment>