Writer of "Of Geeks and Girls" responds to some HN comments  - <AUTHOR> http://likearadiotelescope.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/how-the-geek-stereotype-stunts-computer-science/ <comment><USER2> I can't believe the negative comments about this article. It seems to me to make a rather obvious point fairly well. People tend to migrate towards comfortable social environments, and creating a mess associated with a particular stereotype will tend to attract people who fit that stereotype, and repel people who don't.

Computer science stereotypes revolve around geek culture. That culture is very male dominated, so will repel women a lot more strongly than it repels men. So if you want to increase the number of women, you need to cut back on the amount of geek culture in CS environments.

This seems to me to be obviously correct. But it seems that saying it makes a lot of people upset. Why? Are you afraid that you won't be allowed to be a geek? Do you look around you and get upset at the thought that someone might want you to clean up? What is it?

Let me go farther. I've noticed that many geeks don't want non-geeks around because they think non-geeks are less intelligent and would water down programming. Well certainly there are a lot of dumb people out there. But I've known lots of dumb geeks and smart non-geeks. In fact I'd guess that that geeks are smarter on average than non-geeks, but geeks make up only a small fraction of the really smart people out there. And furthermore I find the average smart non-geek more interesting than the average geek.

So from my perspective broadening the base of people in CS would be a _good_ thing.

<comment><USER3> _So if you want to increase the number of women, you need to cut back on the amount of geek culture in CS environments... But it seems that saying it makes a lot of people upset. Why? Are you afraid that you won't be allowed to be a geek?_

The implicit "we _should_ cut back on the amount of geek culture in CS" is where the article gets some blowback.

The original article said that women avoid computing because they are intolerant of geeks. The "solution" is to make computing less geeky, rather than to make women more tolerant. Huh?

If white people avoided basketball because they don't like black culture, we'd tell them (rightly) to suck it up. Yet somehow, the author of this article is comparing geeks to racists.

<comment><USER4> Not quite a fair comparison:

If basketball was a paid profession, like say, carpentry, that a large number of folks thought of as a career path, _then_ effectively making players be within black culture rightly wouldn't be acceptable.

<comment><USER5> Basketball is a paid profession. Just look how much money the NBA teams have. Fewer people see it as their future but many children still grow up wanting to the be next michael jordan..

<comment><USER4> I think did say something like "an occupation that individuals can _reasonably_ think of as a career path".

A _real_ profession is a self-supervising, self-educating specialty. The model of the professional is the accountant, an individual who, hypothetically, answers to both his supervisor and the strictures of independence imposed by his professional association. Even union carpenters, electrician and plumbers partially fit this description - a qualified contractor, for example, will _should_ and sometimes actually will refuse work that involves not meeting the building code.

Many specialties in this society have lost their professionalism, have lost the independence that provides a lot of the value in their wages. This is ultimately degrades our social relations - it results in people caring about their bank accounts and not their personal achievements (the last bubbles were furthered by the degradation of accountants and real estate appraisers).

I suspect that this process is related to children who would rather be like the people they see on TV rather than being like their mothers and fathers.

Unfortunately, all this degradation seems to be a self-reinforcing process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The best way to be an interesting person is to have a broad range of interests -- that way you can find an interest in common with just about anyone you might talk to.

The best way to be an extremely boring person is to have only one interest and obsess over it non-stop. I once worked next to a guy who only ever talked about rock climbing; no matter what you tried to talk to him about he'd find a way to bring the conversation back to his rock climbing hobby. To a fellow climber he might have been at least slightly interesting, but to me he was so memorably dull that here I am, five years later, using him as an example of dullness.

If you put up a bust of Spock in your office, you're basically saying to the world "Hey world! You know that TV show which maybe you used to like a bit when you were a kid? I think that's one of the most interesting things in the world!" This is generally a pretty good indicator of a fairly narrow range of interests which will make you pretty boring to others.

Anyone who really thinks that a long-defunct TV show is interesting enough to make it a significant part of their identity really needs to start developing a few new interests.

</comment><comment><USER7> "'Socially mainstream means leaving work at 5pm and going to the pub, that's what "normal" people do,' says one commenter.

Honestly, I fail to see how this sort of argument differs from asserting that black people are lazy or Latinos are stupid."

It's different because, as far as I know, it's not actually true that black people are lazy or that Latinos are stupid (on average). Whereas that comment as quoted is technically (more-or-less) correct.

<comment><USER8> Former investment banker here. I got the feeling that my ex-coworkers were at the center of the social mainstream. But when I was at the office late on a Sunday night, I could see that they were hard workers with a focus on getting things done when it mattered.

The biggest difference between a banker and a computer geek is that the banker drinks more and has a better looking girlfriend. Both of them work hard when the success of a project depends on it.

<comment><USER7> Based on the stereotypes I've heard, I'd say that investment bankers are also outside the "social mainstream" of workers.

EDIT: Okay, I sort of see your point. My feeling is that if you consistently work long hours you definitionally put yourself outside of the "social mainstream," because I was thinking of "social mainstream" as "the set of people whose non-work lives are fairly similar to the median".

Whereas I think you're using a definition closer to "people who aren't 'weird'/'losers'". I don't think that's what the original commenter meant, but it's possible. And if that's what he meant, I think you could be right.

[/EDIT]

For the record, I don't (necessarily) agree that geeky people are more likely to do good computer work than non-geeky people. I just think that it's a valid point of discussion, and that in particular comparing the quoted comment to racism instead of addressing it is both incorrect and incredibly obnoxious.

<comment><USER8> >"Based on the stereotypes I've heard, I'd say that investment bankers are also outside the "social mainstream" of workers."

Well, they are far more likely to have season tickets for the local sports team than four-day passes to Comicon. They do have a high-percentile ambitious streak that is abnormal.

The idea that socially mainstream people can't work hard is ridiculous. However, it is probably not helpful to bring up racism, as our modern culture cannot handle discussion of racism rationally. "Racism" is substituted in people's minds as "absolute evil", so it's good style to leave it out of discussions except when absolutely necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From my highly anecdotal experience, I think the proportion of interesting to uninteresting people is equally low in any given profession. Most computer people focus on crappy sci-fi, most medical people focus on crappy drama, and most women tend to prefer crappy drama to crappy sci-fi.

I love computers, mathematics, and technology. I think I'm pretty good at it. If I stumble on an interesting problem, I prefer to stay home and work on it than to go out. But I can't stand being around most computer people. They drive me nuts with their ridiculously limited interests and a moral pedestal glorying their severely limited subculture. In most other professions people are on average equally boring, but at least they're not on a high horse.

</comment><comment><USER6> "If any other field had a cultural barrier to entry like that, no one would stand for it."

Plenty of fields have cultural barriers to entry. Frinstance, I wouldn't want to be a car mechanic, cuz all they talk about is sport. I wouldn't want to be a secretary, cuz all they talk about is American Idol. And I wouldn't want to be a Wall St trader cuz all they talk about is... I dunno, golf and hookers. Of course I'm exaggerating, but the point remains that these are three fields where I'd be turned off by the culture even if I were interested in the actual work.

<comment><USER10> I'm a little surprised by all your upvotes for this comment. I spend at least as much -- and maybe more -- time with car mechanics, natural gas technicians, secretaries, administrators, managers, electricians, and so on as I do with "computer geeks".

While I tend to find that people from most of those other sectors enjoy talking about a wide variety of subjects, "computer geeks" (those working in the field as technicians or programmers especially) are far more likely to conversationally hover around technical minutiae or other stereotypically geek interests, like sci-fi.

Case in point: I recently attended a professionally-attired holiday dinner party with a corporate client, where most of the employees are scientists or engineers, and many of them are PhD'd in one subject or another. Conversation wandered from ice climbing to traveling to diesel engines to raising kids, and so on. Anything "tech" was strictly verboten.

On the other hand, whenever I meet my geekier climbing buddies, it's usually only a matter of minutes before the conversation is about their latest gadget, toy, or other interesting thing in the field.

<comment><USER6> I should have added that I'm just as turned off by "geek" culture (which I see as being characterized by a rather obesssive interest in a few pop-cultural artifacts which are really only _slightly_ interesting) as I am by any of the others. I'm a scientist, not a programmer, and this is part of the reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I found my wife on a local dial-up Bulletin Board System and she's a fully certified geek. She does WOW raids two nights per week, she digs Fringe, sci- fi and fantasy fiction. She dual boots Ubuntu and Windows 7, and when I was stranded without connectivity and one of my clients munged their IPTables rules, she only needed to ask me the hostname, my username, my password, and if sudo was installed in order to flush the rules.

I think maybe she's the one being discriminating, but she really doesn't want to do geek work for a living. She'd be okay doing data entry (not that it's geeky but it's the geekiest job she's had). She'd much rather do more traditional jobs such as taking care of animals or dispatching emergency responders.

<comment><USER12> your wife sounds rad.

<comment><USER11> Thanks, she is!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really don't get it - for signing up for a computer science degree, you first have to pass through a geek room? Or a picture of Spock will be staring down on you from the wall while you make the check mark for CS? Or what is the problem? I don't think many universities are decorated like that, so I don't see the barrier.

One thing to complain about: maths and CS buildings are typically the most ugly ones of a university (the ones I have seen anyway). Just like in later jobs, where IT is often put into the basement... It's as if architects figure that geeks don't care about their environment anyway, so they can just be caged into concrete monstrosities. However, men like that just as little as women.

<comment><USER14> You missed the point of the study. The things they put in the geek room are things that college students associated with CS students.

Therefore, thinking about the "stereotypical geek" is virtually guaranteed when being put in the geek room. The study doesn't say "are geeks really like this or not" it is more about what an outsiders perception of geeks is.

<comment><USER13> But then I am not sure what useful conclusion to draw from that research. Is it even useful research? Without the study I could also have told you that few women like Star Wars figurines. That is why they are associated with geeks...

Should there now be an ad campaign displaying normal looking geeks?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Apparently one of the comments that the author took umbrage to: "Socially mainstream means leaving work at 5pm and going to the pub, that's what 'normal' people do."

When do "real" developers drink their beer?!

<comment><USER16> When I worked in software Engineering (big E, giant processes) the developers left at 4:30pm every day except Fridays, when they left at 12:30. (Thanks to flex-time and a 7:30 start.)

That environment was remarkably un-geeky. A median engineer was about 45, university qualified, with a house, husband or wife and kids. They had very little interest in programming but a quiet pride in Engineering.

If you want to write software in that kind of environment you don't even need to mix with the comp sci geeks at university - you can get a masters in maths, physics or any engineering field instead.

<comment><USER4> Oddly enough or not,

It seems that this environment has had a mix of women whereas the "three-guys- and-a-dog-startup" generally hasn't.

Make of it what you will.

<comment><USER16> But this isn't limited to software start ups, and I have a pretty big sample set to look at.

The angel firm I'm advising is involved in or funding about 20 ventures, of which only two are software related. Only one of those has a woman involved in any capacity.

Overall there are an insignificant number of people of either sex who are willing to take on the very real risk of bankruptcy however - to me the male/female split seems much less remarkable than the 99.9%-0.1% split with the general population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > _the study singles out Star Trek memorabilia, comic books and energy drinks > as examples_

Really? Women are repelled by energy drinks? I've known plenty of women that are/where addicted to energy drinks... Or is it just that drinks like Bawls isn't as 'mainstream' as something like Red Bull or Mountain Dew's AMP drinks. If that's the case, then it's _women_ that are being too discriminating. "He's drinking something that isn't a _name brand_! I totally wouldn't fit in here!"

<comment><USER18> As a male, computer science major, and avid coffee drinker, I too am repelled by energy drinks. That aside, in my experience I see two mostly-exclusive classes of "geek": people who are much more fascinated with producing technology and people who are much more interested in consuming it. Departments should be targeting producers irrespective of gender issues because they make better computer scientists. Increased diversity is a bonus.

<comment><USER19> Bingo! The evaporation of the dot-com boom got a lot of status/wealth seeking drones out of CS departments, but left a lot of the geek-culture asshats that come in thinking that their meager IT helpdesk skills have something to do with CS.

It's the worst with video games: there's the standard "I like playing games, so obviously I'm a CS genius" type that my college friends called ' _gamer scum_ '. At least with the way the big-budget games industry is going a lot of these people are now headed into Art Production where they fit in.

<comment><USER6> It seems to me that the fact that your friends referred to fellow students that weren't as clever as them as " _scum_ " would seem to confirm another of the unattractive stereotypes about geek culture.

<comment><USER20> It seems to me that he was railing more against the attitude

> "I like playing games, so obviously I'm a CS genius"

rather than their intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > If any other field had a cultural barrier to entry like that, no one would > stand for it.

I would consider the non-STEM academic fields to be prime examples of ones with massive cultural barriers to entry. However, this does not fit into the standard oppression script, so it tends to be systematically ignored.

<comment><USER22> I'm curious: What are their cultural barriers? I'm a Communications major, so I'm non-STEM, and I'd like to know what you think the social barriers are. Sports? Fashion?

<comment><USER21> I'm talking about the extreme left-wing bias in the academy - if you want to be a professor at an accredited university in the U.S., it's very difficult to do so if you have anything resembling a conservative slant to your beliefs. To be fair I also should have included professional schools such as law, medicine, business, etc with STEM. It's also not impossible for a right-wing person of exceptional ability to do well outside those fields - Robert George is a famous example. On the whole, though, professors in the U.S. tend to be on the far left of the political spectrum.

<comment><USER22> Hold on, now. Are we talking "far left" for _American_ standards, or far left for the _real_ world? Because I've come to realize that in America, supporting things like health care reform and gay marriage get me tagged as left-wing, when in reality I suppose I'm closer to the right than I am to the left.

The right wing in America is batshit insane. I'm perfectly delighted to have them stay away from education. But regarding an actual conservative viewpoint, I find my professors tend to be pretty evenly mixed. I've got two or three this semester who're all for the free market and capitalism, and I've got two or three who'd prefer more government control over things. I don't think people from either side think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, or that women shouldn't be permitted to abort, but again, I don't see that as left- wing. That's just common sense.

Perhaps there's _some_ left wing bias, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it extreme. Furthermore, you can be a right-wing _student_ in any of those fields and face no enormous barrier whatsoever, and that's what this is a discussion of. So I'd still argue that the computer science division has a more extreme cultural gap. (Further: Have you tried being a right-wing _computer science_ major? I was talking to a guy at UMaryland and told him I was taking an advertising class and he accused me of "raping and pillaging" America. That's _way_ lefter than you'd find in any other field, except maybe English, and English majors are mild-mannered.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _> The entrance fee to a computer science career is membership in geek culture, and that's way too restrictive. If any other field had a cultural barrier to entry like that, no one would stand for it._

I find this almost bigoted and hateful. Like the author wants geeks to change their behaviour, to enforce some sort of thought police. For us all to become bland, souless replicas of average joe. So we've no place to fit in anymore.

No thanks.

I wonder if they'll ever do the same study of why there are so few male hairdressers or nurses. Or perhaps so few female plumbers. Same conclusions I imagine. And will the suggest forcing hairdressers to stop reading magazines and talking makeup too?

<comment><USER22> Dude, have you _talked_ to hairdressers? I have. When I was younger I'd be surprised at how much they were comfortable talking about. We'd talk about cinema and literature and politics and they'd have an opinion about everything. It struck me how these people, who I'd once thought were emptyheaded, were actually smart, well-balanced people who just happened to love their occupation. Then it made me realize that perhaps I was the emptyheaded one for believing in the idea of the "average joe".

Now I am a little bit older — not much older, mind you — and I've learned how stupid it is to believe that anybody could be at all considered average. In various positions I've talked to a slew of people I'd once have dismissed for their commonality. I don't think I've ever met somebody who I'd call stupid. A lot of them you'd think are stupid until you talk to them and realize they've just got a few stupid beliefs ingrained in them and beyond that are as bright as anybody. The more people you meet, the more you realize how stupid it is to sequester yourself away in an ivory tower or a dank basement, to assume that you're somehow an elite being who other people simply cannot understand.

Hell, that's why I became a writer. I learned that to understand others, I had to learn how others understood me.

<comment><USER14> It doesn't matter if hairdressers are smart well-balanced people for the point of the original study to apply to them.

If most people think hairdressers are ditzes, then that will turn people off from becoming a hairdresser.

Just like if most programmers are fairly normal, well-balanced people doesn't matter. What matters is what a teenager trying to decide what to do with their lives thinks a programmer/hairdresser/any other job "looks like"

<comment><USER24> If it's your true vocation, the thing you're so passionate about that you _must_ do it, nothing so trivial as what strangers might think is going to dissuade you. Anything else merely keeps a roof over your head while wasting your time, so it doesn't really matter what you settle for.

<comment><USER25> While I agree, I can't for the life of me figure out where you stand in this whole debate. What you said seems to suggest that you don't think geeks need to change, because those who truly want to work in CS will anyway... but you seemed to write that as some sort of rebuttal to someone who was asserting that very thing.

<comment><USER24> I was arguing against

> What matters is what a teenager trying to decide what to do with their lives > thinks a programmer/hairdresser/any other job "looks like"

because I think if that matters, they're making the wrong decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is more than one potential conclusion to draw from this.

The conclusion drawn here seems to be that geeks somehow exclude non-geeks from certain fields.

Another conclusion would be that non-geeks self-select themselves out of certain fields.

Another conclusion would be that being a geek is still looked down upon in our society, and there is an unconscious effort to maintain status by not becoming a geek. There is a certain air of superiority (and ignorance) conveyed in saying that geeks don't shower.

Another conclusion would be that the traits exhibited by people who are interested in geeky things are related to the traits exhibited by people who want to go into geeky fields.

Geeks tend to be at very least obsessive about things. It follows that they might be better about doing things which require obsessive traits, like writing code. (Or maybe geeks are just better at everything...).

Also, I love the pub.

<comment><USER22> Can we try a thought experiment? Take the statements you just made and look for generalizations.

"Nongeeks self-select themselves out of certain fields." "There is a certain air of superiority (and ignorance) conveyed in saying that geeks don't shower." "[T]he traits exhibited by people who are interested in geeky things are related to the traits exhibited by people who want to go into geeky fields." "It follows that they might be better about doing things which require obsessive traits, like writing code. (Or maybe geeks are just better at everything...)."

From reading these comments and knowing nothing about you, the attitude that I get from these comments is twofold: You think that being a geek is a good thing (or that geeks are inherently superior), and that there is somewhat of a persecution of geeks going on. The message I read here (which might not at _all_ be what you wanted to say, mind you!) is: "Nongeeks don't want to be geeks because geeks are smarter."

Now, regardless of whether or not that's the case, or even whether or not you believe that, that's the message that's coming out. It's somewhat off-putting and exclusive. In your writing, you yourself are excluding so-called non- geeks; the fact that you're willing to distinguish geeks as a distinct and special category says something in and of itself. That all agrees with the author's conclusion.

I agree with the author's conclusion myself, not because I'm in the field or have done research about it but because it makes sense when you reason it out. The community that's formed around this field has certain peculiarities. The emphasis on comic books and graphic novels and Star Trek and energy drinks that's mentioned, for instance. These are each odd things that lack a distinguishing trait. It's not like the art in comic books is better than art in other media forms, or that the story is better. It's not like Star Trek was a geekier show than others; certainly it's not highbrow entertainment. And as far as drugs of choice go, energy drinks are such a specific sort of caffeinated beverage, designed to force a drug into the body rather than following a so-called natural food flow.

If we were going to go from the assumption that the comp sci field had an even distribution of interests, we'd be hard pressed to explain those certain prominences. Why is there no vodka alongside the Red Bull, no cigarettes or cigars? Why aren't other art forms represented as much as comic books? What's the group fascination with Star Trek? When they're all presented together, they're no longer idiosyncrasies. They have certain traits in common that speak about the people who imbibe them. They're all things obtainable from younger ages, they all have a certain visceral immediacy to them, they're all to some degree static and unchanging. People who drink energy drinks tend to stick with a single favorite; they'll spend years with one drink, unchanging. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that there's a certain comfort in the repetition, in knowing what you're going to get every time.

Furthermore, people with these specific interests tend to have other characteristics. Am I right in thinking you value what people think more than you do what they look like? Or even that you think people who judge others based on looks are acting in a shallow fashion? Studies suggest you like either classic or alternative rock or electronica. Perhaps I could place a bet on your liking Monty Python, or enjoying Firefly? (This isn't you, anonjon, this is the collective "you" of the geeks in the survey. I'm sure not _all_ of this applies to you.)

Along with that, so-called "geeks" favor muted colors and t-shirts. They have particular commonalities in fashion. And they certainly have similar personality traits, which include introversion, arrogance, and short tempers. Not every person has all these traits, but they're frequent _enough_ that we can't just say they're common traits in all human beings. They're certainly specific to this social clique.

The backlash against nerds is almost entirely one formed from individual opinions forming. Perhaps it's unfair that people have decided comp sci majors in black t-shirts who like Star Trek are less likely to be fun or friendly than a random person from another sampling of society, but that's how it's working, and that's the cause for a lot of "geek" bias. It also makes sense. When you spend your time reading anime rather than following sports, certain casual conversations become very difficult for both parties. I've got former friends who're very stereotypical geeks, and I've forced them into social gatherings, and when I listen to the conversations they get into it's cringe- worthy. Either they don't realize how awkward they are, or they do it deliberately in order to justify their social alienation.

So that's what the study is saying. It says, girls who have been shown these standard set-ups see enough cues to make them think perhaps they'd be better off somewhere else. That's entirely logical, isn't it? And the solution would be for our culture to expand and embrace more things, to reflect "normal" society in its diversity and lack of a hive mind. Until then, it will continue to be treated like what it's perceived to be: A bright, socially retarded group that's content with being largely outsiders.

<comment><USER27> _The message I read here (which might not at all be what you wanted to say, mind you!) is: "Nongeeks don't want to be geeks because geeks are smarter."_

I think the truth is closer to: "Nongeeks don't want to be geeks because geeks are perceived as lower status."

 _And the solution would be for our culture to expand and embrace more things, to reflect "normal" society in its diversity and lack of a hive mind._

Of course, then we wouldn't be geeks, would we? The message I read here (which might not at _all_ be what you wanted to say, mind you!) is: "Geeks should stop liking what they like, and start liking what everyone else likes instead." ;)

<comment><USER22> More like, "People should like what's good and keep an open mind to things, even if it's outside their social sphere." That appeals to geeks and nongeeks alike. But point taken.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Simplify – Rewrite a mathematical expression in it's simplest terms - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/IanS5/simplify <comment><AUTHOR> *its

I'm a terrible writer :P</comment>


Facebook and the Cost of Monopoly - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2017/facebook-and-the-cost-of-monopoly/ <comment><USER2> Peter Thiel:

"Apple's iOS at the forefront, the rise of mobile computing has dramatically reduced Microsoft's decades-long operating system dominance. Before that, IBM's hardware monopoly of the '60s and '70s was overtaken by Microsoft's software monopoly. AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service for most of the 20th century, but now anyone can get a cheap cell phone plan from any number of providers."

Um, he managed to pick the THREE OF THE MOST FAMOUS EXAMPLES OF GOVERNMENT ANTITRUST ACTIONS, while trying to argue monopolies do not harm innovation.

Doesn't the fact all three of the previously dominant monopolies faced anti- trust decisions against them, before major new competing technologies sprang up, make it clear how important anti-trust actions are for encouraging innovation?

<comment><USER3> Thiel is challenging you to consider that the government's antitrust actions were _unnecessary_ and _counterproductive_ : _Unnecessary_ because eventually upstarts find a way to leverage new technology to open new markets where monopolists' advantages no longer apply. _Counterproductive_ because monopolists have scale that allows programs and research that cannot develop in companies engaged in perfect competition.

You may disagree, but to refute his argument effectively you'll have to do better than merely reassert conventional wisdom about monopolies.

<comment><USER4> > Thiel is challenging you to consider that the government's antitrust actions > were unnecessary and counterproductive: Unnecessary because eventually > upstarts find a way to leverage new technology to open new markets where the > monopolists advantages no longer apply.

But none of the examples he gives demonstrates that, because they are not examples where the monoplist was displaced independently of antitrust actions.

> Counterproductive because monopolists have scale that allows programs and > research that cannot develop in companies engaged in perfect competition.

Antitrust action does not occur against benevolent monopolies in the US system, it only occurs when a monopolist illegally leveraged their monopoly, either to prevent being displaced or to monoplize another market. So, even if benevolent monopolies are eventually displaced and good for the research they can produce, the US antitrust system isn't directed at them.

<comment><USER5> _> But none of the examples he gives demonstrates that, because they are not examples where the moboplist was displaced independently of antitrust actions._

IBM and Microsoft weren't dethroned until roughly a decade later, so it's a real stretch to claim any kind of causal relationship. Especially because they maintained — to this day — their monopolies in mainframes and PC operating systems. It's just that technological change made their monopolies less relevant.

There was certainly a causal relationship WRT AT&T, but the conclusion to that tale does not go "and then, American telecommunications companies became well- known for their low prices and excellent customer service."

 _> Antitrust action does not occur against benevolent monopolies in the US system, it only occurs when a monopolist illegally leveraged their monopoly_

That's rather begging the question. The DoJ's cases against IBM and Microsoft, in particular, may have been financial bonanzas for the legal industry, but the central legal claims were Kafkaesque: the supposed "unfair competition" was that IBM bundled support services with its computers and Microsoft bundled software with its operating system. Essentially, the DoJ's claim was that their products offered too good a value to consumers, and ought to have been made worse so their competitors' products would have a better chance.

IBM and Microsoft may well have engaged in genuine anti-competitive practices (ironically, MS' sabotage of OS/2 would be a good example), but those weren't. And maybe the DoJ could have brought cases against them that actually served to the benefit of consumers, but again, those didn't.

<comment><USER6> > the conclusion to that tale does not go "and then, American > telecommunications companies became well-known for their low prices and > excellent customer service."

You're kidding, right? Long distance calls during weekday hours used to cost like $6/minute, accounting for inflation. This improved rapidly after the breakup, not solely because of better technology, but because before that long distance was where AT&T was making most of its money and it had little reason to reduce costs or compete on pricing; i.e. it couldn't act competitively basically by definition.

<comment><USER5> The 80's and 90's saw the introduction of digital signals, computerized switching and fiber-optic cable networks (all Bell Labs inventions), which significantly reduced the cost of landline calls in general, and in particular eliminated the additional complexity associated with providing long-distance service versus local.

This was also the period in which landline started very rapidly losing market share to cell phones (also a Bell Labs invention[1]). Remember when they used to charge you a dollar per text message? Remember when they used to charge you an arm and a leg if you went over your allotted number of minutes? Remember how they still do if you go over your ration of gigabytes?

Telecom has exactly the same razor/blade business model it did 10, 20 or 40 years ago. All that's changed is which services are the loss-leaders and which are the bleeding-edge, desirable features that they charge you a king's ransom for. Normal technological churn.

—

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

<comment><USER6> Your thesis seemed to be that phone service was worse and more expensive due to AT&T being broken up, no? I feel that proposition is absurd and at odds with all available facts. You seem to be saying that competitive pressure has no effect on prices.

I don't think that many people dropped their landlines for cell phones in the 80's, or even the 90's. I find it difficult to believe that fewer or no competitors would lead to the same or lower cell phone bills.

<comment><USER5> _> Your thesis seemed to be that phone service was worse and more expensive due to AT&T being broken up, no?_

I have no idea. What I can say is, relative to other countries and taking account of new technologies largely invented by pre-breakup AT&T, there's no clear improvement.

 _> You seem to be saying that competitive pressure has no effect on prices._

What competitive pressure? A national monopoly was broken up into local monopolies with hardly any more competition. In fact, our local-level cartels make things harder for new competitors than Ma Bell ever could; they have agreements (mostly enforced as part of the AT&T breakup) to share their easements and physical plant with each other as if they were all still part of the same company, but newcomers like Google Fiber have no access, and can be effectively held to ransom on a street-to-street and even building-to-building basis.

 _> I don't think that many people dropped their landlines for cell phones in the 80's, or even the 90's._

Not many people bought color TVs in the 1960s. Did their availability make black and white TVs cheaper? Hollywood movies better, or at least more spectacular? Not many people traveled by air back then, but did jet airliners make cars better and cheaper? I think the answers are obvious.

 _> I find it difficult to believe that fewer or no competitors would lead to the same or lower cell phone bills._

Maybe, maybe not. China Mobile is a monopoly but way less expensive than US providers. Europe is an oligopoly like the US but generally less expensive.

<comment><USER7> _Not many people bought color TVs in the 1960s. Did their availability make black and white TVs cheaper? Hollywood movies better, or at least more spectacular? Not many people traveled by air back then, but did jet airliners make cars better and cheaper? I think the answers are obvious_

I don't think these are as obvious as you might think. Cell phone service is more akin to TV stations or other television service than the hardware used to view it. Black and white hasn't always stayed cheaper: You could buy a "normal" color television cheaper than a small black & white portable, for example. It merely changed.

Hollywood doesn't always do even that bit: I find BBC's "The Hogfather" (based on a Terry Pratchett novel) to be pretty spectacular. I went through a phase of Asian horror films, spectacularly surreal. Bollywood often has some crazy stories. Making cars better is a matter of opinion. Do you have proof that airlines made cars cheaper? Because most of what I find says they've basically stayed the same price for 30 or so years. My understanding was that things like the assembly line and advances in production technology have been the main drivers for vehicle affordability in addition to things like a growing used car market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A meta-question for those who follow Stratechery or the Exponent Podcast and are perhaps more deeply engrained in some of these companies being discussed...

Do you find the analysis to typically be pretty thorough and accurate?

I love the podcast and I think I've listened to every single one at this point, and they always talk through their reasoning at length in a logical, (mostly) structured manner, which I love. However in the back of my mind there's this little voice that says "they used to be management consultants and still do consulting, so of course they are good at making their arguments sound convincing--but how sound are they really from a strategic standpoint?"

Some of it we'll never know because it is in the realm of "what-ifs" but just curious for others' thoughts on the signal-to-noise ratio of their content.

<comment><USER9> Stratechery is generally very high quality but there's a lot of storytelling and a lot of ideology in there. I'd even call it magical thinking; something to make business analysis exciting for a wider audience than just executives. "The arrival of artificial intelligence" is an example, because AI hasn't arrived and it won't.

<comment><USER10> >because AI hasn't arrived and it won't.

Ah, the AI effect in effect. AI is already here if you go by the original definitions set in the 50/60s. You just keep moving the goalposts as it gets better because "it cant' solve problem X yet" or "it's not quite as smart as a human" or "it hasn't exterminated all of mankind". This is a problem with humans when they don't want to share dominance with something else.

Intelligence is simply information processing. AGI is inevitable. ASI is worrisome.

<comment><USER11> They mentioned that exact point on a recent podcast episode :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It is important to Facebook to crush Snap, not only to maintain their dominance of the social graph, but also to send a message to future social networks: you can either be like Instagram and Whatsapp and let us buy you or be like Snapchat and be crushed. Snap's IPO payday of $3 billion is probably less than Facebook would have paid for them.

<comment><USER13> $3 billion is what Zuckerberg offered to acquire Snapchat. Given all the cultural cachet and freedom I think they came out ahead. [http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook- acquisition...](http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook- acquisition-2/#YPbz0JAbiiq9)

<comment><USER14> Also look at how Zuck bought Oculus and turned it from VR fan favorite to this horrible Facebook division that inches away from PC VR everyday and into social and mobile spaces. Worse, it embraced the toxic politics of exclusives and couldn't keep its promises on ballpark pricing, delivery dates, openness, etc.

The Snapchat guys didn't want to be Palmer Luckey'd. They got the cash and kept their reputation. That's quite the win.

<comment><USER15> > Also look at how Zuck bought Oculus and turned it from VR fan favorite to > this horrible Facebook division that inches away from PC VR everyday and > into social and mobile spaces.

Because that's where the users are. PC VR is going to be a very small niche in the larger AR/VR space.

<comment><USER16> Maybe eventually, but early VR on mobile devices is crap. Even PC VR is pretty rough. They need one or two more generations before they can cram a quality experience into a phone.

<comment><USER17> I am just an anecdote but even as a founder of a tech startup who is highly plugged in, I ~barely~ use a PC when not in the office for non-work purposes and most of my immediate network is at best on par and worse completely off the PC bandwagon for almost all personal use.

<comment><USER18> As someone who deals with normal people and their computer/internet needs, your experience does not reflect population at large. Many regular people hate you for pushing things and change they didn't ask for and do not want on them.

Further more, this experience of population at large is not reflecting the actual experience of most of the population of the world that has little to no exposure to computers or internet.

But when designing for your kind in a vacuum you will encounter some success among your peers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't know. The whole post reads to me like it can be summed up as "I like Snapchat, I don't like Facebook" and some padding to disguise that. Saying Snapchat innovated and Facebook stole also reminds me of Apple suing Samsung for using rounded corners on phones i.e. ridiculous in my opinion. As if "hey, let's use the camera some more" was some grand vision that only Snapchat had.

<comment><USER20> I think it's more that he has a distaste for Facebook's "90's-Microsoft-esque" strategy of watching like a hawk for any potential competitors in the space, and going to them with a "either let us acquire you, or we will crush you" offer, and how successful that strategy has been so far. Most people have a vague sense, if only for aesthetic and "fairness" reasons, that we don't want the world to work like that. Unfortunately, the world doesn't care about our wants.

<comment><USER21> Don't be fooled by the showboating, behind every attempt at executing these aggressive strategies is a crumbling organization rife with disharmony and malcontent. They would not be focusing on what other companies were doing nearly this much if they did not feel threatened by it.

<comment><USER18> Yes, when your success relies on a monopoly or dominant position, your future is at stake if you don't use your dominant position to remove any competition that may chip at your domination.

This is exactly why monopoly are hurting everybody but the people profiting from it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a neat article, but I'm distracted by a thought only tangentially related: What does it mean that Facebook has a monopoly through the network effect?

So - Diamonds. Classic monopoly. Physical good, limited natural supply captured completely by a single business entity. (Notably, AFAIK, the same is true for Areva and nuclear fuel).

Microsoft. Monopoly. Software goods. Their monopoly was achieved (AFAIK) through business deals and a quality-enough+ product. Has nothing to do with available supply.

Facebook. Network-powered monopoly. Achieved through a good product, maintained by good-enough+ and the network effect (and their adaptability). The number one hurdle for any FB "killer" (as opposed to unbundlers - arguably, Instagram, as an example) is competing with FB's network effect. There's zero supply that FB has controlled to maintain it's monopoly.

I'm not sure where this thought wants to go, but I'm trying to think up other categories or interesting things that fall into these categories.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER18> > So - Diamonds. Classic monopoly. Physical good, limited natural supply > captured completely by a single business entity.

You should reconsider using diamonds as examples and analogy: [https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are- bulls...](https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit)

It seems to me the reason you don't understand facebook monopoly because you seem to believe it was achieved through a good product which is not at all how it happened, (if the product is any good it's for facebook). They got there through a lot of tricks from the black book of shunned upon dark tricks to control supply (new registered users). They kickstarted by seizing the universities students in ways that got them a lot of flak at the time then grew further by breaking their initial promises and more black book tricks and dark patterns. Once they reached critical mass and user lock-in, the people themselves would recruit new users and further improve network effect.

There's also the shadow side that happened behind the scenes and can be pinpointed to around the time of Peter Thiel involvement.

So "Facebook has a monopoly through network effect" means that due to the sheer number of people registered it has an effective monopoly. If you peruse the HN comments (or elsewhere) about facebook you will often see people that complains about facebook being a pile of crap that they can't leave because other people they want to stay to stay in touch are all there and some are only there. This is monopoly through network effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Remember when "innovation" was novel computer architecture or a totally new product category and not "a social network for pictures... that disappear!"?

Pepperidge farm remembers.

<comment><USER24> Pepperidge Farm? What's that?

<comment><USER25> If that's a genuine question, it's a meme based on a family guy segment.

<comment><USER26> If that's a genuine answer, the Family Guy segment is based on a long-running advertising campaign by the Pepperidge Farms brand of baked goods. I guess I'm old.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A lot of people underestimate that Snapchat has already captured a whole generation and formed their network graph on their platform. Another thing to remember is that this new 'format' that Facebook is ripping off is very much a cultural adjustment. I do not expect Facebook's most active users right now (30-60 years old) to be pulling out their phones out every 5 minutes, opening the Facebook app and taking pictures of themselves and what is around them. Snapchat has captured the audience that does do this, and it only happens on their app.

<comment><USER28> > A lot of people underestimate that Snapchat has already captured a whole > generation

So did Hi5 back in the day, and it still went the way of the dodo. If you cater to attention-deficient people, they will leave in droves as soon as the next fad comes along.

<comment><USER18> So did facebook and it will follow the same path sooner or later, hopefully sooner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> no analysis feels complete unless it factors both benefits and costs. this post seems lopsided on the cost-side.

the author persuasively portrays the negative effects of a facebook monopoly, but does not objectively delve into the benefits.

consider the subsequent disruptions spawned by AT&T research, for example. even though AT&T itself did not commercialize most of these products (e.g., the semi-conductor), can anyone credibly argue AT&T did not foster innovation?

similarly, google's search monopoly produced cheaper smartphones, free worldwide communication, and self-driving cars.

facebook's monopoly lets it advance research on AI, drones, VR, internet access, and human-to-human communication.

it's far too early to judge if facebook harms or helps innovation.

perhaps there is enough data to assess google, however. one of google's victims is yelp. if yelp is worth $20B instead of $3B, but we don't have all the benefits of google's massive cash flow, is society better off? if we repeat the process for every google competitor, we can start to engage in an unbiased evaluation of google as a monopolist.

to clarify, i'm neither advocating for nor disparaging monopolies. the author is very sharp and one of the best tech analysts today. i'm simply hoping for fair and balanced analyses so we can reach informed conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think he's making a good point here about the effect of a Facebook monopoly on the rest of the ecosystem. Facebook stifling other social networks is the least of our worries. The effect on the advertising ecosystem is enormous! and Affects nearly every other internet company in the world that needs to acquire users! In this regard, so far Facebook as enabled countless businesses to exist with it's high value advertisement platform, but this could change as their monopolistic powers increase.

<comment><USER18> I remember reading a piece on how facebook influence on online advertising had a very significant potential for causing a collapse of the online advertising business model by both driving prices down and pulling advertisers away from other websites, but also by exposing the fact that online advertising is mostly hype and fraud eventually causing the online advertising bubble to burst.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you look at Linkedin, Twitter and Google+ you don't find the same features that are available with Facebook.

What I think has kept the social network so attached to our psyches is the same psychological principle as to why the Japanese love romanticizing high school in anime over and over again. Facebook was created as a utility to connect together alumni within a university. It plays on our tribalism and need for cliques.

Just like this post mentions it also is moving towards more visual feedback. The sensationalist adds, the lude pictures and facebook videos aren't enough. There must be more sensory feedback even if it requires a VR headset to get it.

Take the example of the IRC chat. There are no avatars and the names are user created. Just like with radio in contrast to television you get less stimulation. It doesn't engorge the senses.

I don't know the current state of things with Facebook as of right now, but I think at some point there is going to be a movement that begins to build and build and it will come from a deep revilement for the sensationalized news, the abundance of ads, the platform that promotes arguing, the too-slick ease of doing virtually everything in a virtual format. At the core of it is the fact that long ago people sought to break away from illusory things. Think Buddhism and Gnosticism. Now, instead, we are willingly and eagerly enshrouding ourselves in something that looks glossier and more fabulous than real life and it seems like we've forgotten to remember the signs along the road in case we want to turn back.

</comment><comment><USER32> Your company fails when you stop innovating and start copying, and enters a death spiral when smart employees (and investors) leave, because they know that no amount of fancy demos and vaporware will make up for the declining quality of the core product. Eventually the neglected core becomes weaker and weaker to the point where it fails spectacularly. We are saw this with MySpace, are seeing it with Wikipedia, Google Search, and if Facebook continues on the same path, it won't be long before they suffer the same fate.

<comment><USER33> How is Wikipedia getting weaker?

<comment><USER32> Number of editors is in decline. Presentation hasn't changed in 15 years. Policies are moribund. No innovation. No leadership. It's just a matter of time.

<comment><USER34> > Presentation hasn't changed in 15 years

Craiglist presentation hasn't changed either.

I don't think this point is relevant if the UI is good enough or have been this way for so long that people are used to it. Changing it would be weird.

> No innovation.

You want to innovate an online encyclopedia? How exactly do you do that? And without sacrificing integrity?

> It's just a matter of time.

What is this time to event thing that you speak of?

<comment><USER32> >Craiglist presentation hasn't changed either. I don't think this point is relevant if the UI is good enough or have been this way for so long that people are used to it. Changing it would be weird.

There are many problems with Wikipedia's presentation of information [1], but the point is that, even if Wikipedia's UI was the best there was, new media inevitably come along that change the way customers want to access their information. For example, you may think it's 'weird' to change Wikipedia's text-heavy UI, but kids brought up on Snapchat, WhatsApp and Instagram might want a more visual interface for their encyclopedia.

>You want to innovate an online encyclopedia? How exactly do you do that? And without sacrificing integrity?

Beyond UI, Wikipedia has many problems in its data structure, policies, and integrity, by which I mean the veracity of its information, and its endemic bias. Rather than discuss them here, please read my blog post: _Wikipedia 's 13 deadly Sins_. [1]

>What is this time to event thing that you speak of?

The rapid collapse of an incumbent site due to its monopoly position and consequent lack of innovation i.e. the point of the original post.

Your response appears to confirm that the lack of imagination that goes hand- in-hand with monopoly products is not just confined to their creators. Their customers want the monopoly, until they don't. Wikipedia, Craigslist, Google and Facebook are not unassailable. Everything dies.

[1] [http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedias-13-deadly- sins/](http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedias-13-deadly-sins/)

<comment><USER35> Tell me who is Wikipedia's competitor?

<comment><USER36> Who was MySpace's competitor in 2005?

<comment><USER37> The answer is, of course, Facebook, which was launched in February 2004. But no one _knew_ that until a couple years later, when it opened its doors to the general populace.

The true competitor to Wikipedia will probably look nothing like Wikipedia. It will likely appear "suddenly" to those not in the know. And Wikipedia probably won't _die_ die... After all, Myspace still exists. It will just be a place no one goes to anymore, or maybe as a last resort when other options are fruitless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> >The result of monopoly pricing is that consumer surplus is reduced and producer surplus is increased; the reason we care as a society, though [..] is deadweight loss.

>Facebook may have a monopoly in social networking, and while that may be a problem for Snap or any other would be networks, Facebook would surely argue that the lack of deadweight loss means that society as a whole shouldn't be too bothered.

Traditionally, the main issue with monopoly has been about suppressing competition and innovation, not about prices. Price analysis was at most an afterthought. Here's e.g. Woodrow Wilson [1] campaigning against monopoly in 1913 (he later created the FTC and signed the Clayton Act):

"Our purpose is the restoration of freedom. We purpose to prevent private monopoly by law, to see to it that the methods by which monopolies have been built up are legally made impossible. We design that the limitations on private enterprise shall be removed, so that the next generation of youngsters, as they come along, will not have to become proteges of benevolent trusts, but will be free to go about making their own lives what they will"

"Monopoly means the atrophy of enterprise. If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of the government. I do not expect to see monopoly restrain itself. If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it"

[1] [https://archive.org/details/newfreedomcallfo00wils](https://archive.org/details/newfreedomcallfo00wils)

<comment><USER18> >Facebook may have a monopoly in social networking

Last time I checked social networking was still overwhelming done in actual AFK social interaction across the world. In the online digital realm the king of social networking was still email by a significant margin. A good clue being that facebook ask for your email while email doesn't ask for your facebook.

So please don't fall for this language manipulation trick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm not so sure if the neoclassical general equilbrium theory applies so aptly to social constructs. Interesting approach, and I guess it gets the author's point across..

<comment><USER40> I'm kinda suspicious of how it's used here, too. What exactly is the "price" that consumers pay when they use Facebook? Their time? Their generation of content?

What exactly is the product that's offered? Connections to their friends? News articles?

It seems that Facebook simultaneously acts as a supplier (of connections to people / news) and a consumer (of connections to people / news).

So, it's not really clear what the 'price' and 'quantity' axes really represent in reality.

<comment><USER41> The article is exactly about this.

<comment><USER40> The article talks a lot about how the price changes, but doesn't explicitly say what the price represents.

<comment><USER41> It's quite literal about price for advertisers, and not so literal on revenue sharing for publishers. It explains what it is talking about both times, and also explains that talking about price for readers is nonsense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> If prices do rise, that's still indirectly bad for Facebook. While in the short term they are going to make more due to the price increase, other ad networks will follow the trend and increase their own pricing/ restrict supply. This would make other content on the web more profitable, and produce better content removing some of that traffic from facebook. If high price ads are better (less clickbait e.g.) then this would be a benefit for consumers.

</comment><comment><USER43> surprised there's not more focus about network effects (a nod and link to "aggregation theory", which is more about distribution), and the fact that any social network's value, is tied to that in a big way, and therefore (at least in theory) most social products or features's value is also tied to the size of the network. so FB's argument could be that the value/benefit of its copying features/products (both to itself and users) should take into account the scale of its network. having tried to open a formatted Pages doc with MS word, I can see MS making a similar argument. Don't even get me started on excel vs. numbers (though excel and google spreadsheets is not TOO bad actually...)

One thing I've found super interesting/impressive about Snap is that it didn't try to outcompete FB in terms of sheer network size for its usage stickiness, and instead turned smaller, tighter and more private networks into a differentiator, while at the same time providing advertisers/brands with a competitively massive audience - not an easy thing to identify, much less execute on. TBD if that differentiator is enough to keep them alive vs. FB's more traditional network-effect-driven advantage, which will be hard to beat on its own terms. I think Snap's success will depend a lot on its ability to avoid being tempted to play that game (see: Twitter!).

Relatedly, I think there could be a lot more thought given to how we should think about monopolies in the context of markets where networks effects are crucial to the business value (aka. Facebook and Google most obviously, arguably Amazon, Apple), because one logical conclusion is that in a market where network effects are a major factor, the biggest network should be best positioned to provide the most value and therefore (assuming it doesn't actively eff things up on other fronts) should continue to grow until it dominates the market...which seems to pretty much be what happened, and it makes pretty good sense for the most part. in these cases, it actually seems BAD to break these networks apart, since their scale is arguably one of its primary values to the customer - this doesn't mean of course that they can't abuse their monopoly powers (I think they probably do to some degree and will continue to), but interesting to think that the traditional "break up monopolies" impulse doesn't make as much sense. this leads me to think it will just be more consumer-protection-related regulation (under the banner of consumer privacy, or maybe even public health, given all the "social media addiction" thought pieces out there these days ha).

random other thought: this all also reminds me that Mark Zuckerberg has not made a peep about wanting FB to be thought of as a "utility" in a long time (or maybe he has and I just missed it...but couldn't find any recent mentions), probably in part because they are now a lot more at risk than ever before of being regulated like one (see this talk from 2013: [https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/18/facebook-doesnt-want-to- be...](https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/18/facebook-doesnt-want-to-be-cool/)). Also kind of funny to hear him talk about "we don't want FB to be cool" too, because now it seems like FB very much wants to be cool again now that Snap has become cool and has threatening user counts.)

</comment><comment><USER44> What does Facebook have monopoly on? Last time I checked, Google still dominated online ad spend.

<comment><USER45> Eyeballs.

Facebook is like the new TV. There's a ton of interaction with it and most of that content is locked away from Google's reach.

They are fundamentally more powerful than Google and are underpricing their ads.

<comment><USER44> Youtube & Netflix is the new TV. I don't think lot of people sit on their couch and watch Facebook videos all night.

I don't think Facebook can ever reach Google's level. Google is expensive for a reason because it's highly valuable since people are searching to buy.

Facebook is cheap because you are really casting a wide net and hoping to catch a fish. This is less efficient than Google's Adword.

<comment><USER45> Maybe not, but they spend an hour a day wandering through the feed.

Google is more transactional. Facebook are display ads that are displacing TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I kept reading the title as "Facebook and the CAST of Monopoly" \- needless to say, the article made no sense since I was looking for Uncle Moneybags.</comment>


Why The Smartest Developers Will Rush To webOS Tablets - <AUTHOR> http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/why-the-smartest-developers-will-rush-to-webos-tablets/

<comment><USER2> By this logic, Windows developers would have stopped developing for Windows in ~2004 and moved to doing only OS X apps (or even linux apps in 1996).</comment>


Ask HN: Why Did StumbleUpon Fail? - <AUTHOR> The service showed you a random new site relevant to your interests each time you clicked "Stumble". I used the service religiously back when it was up. It was my primary source to find cool stuff, which is a void that has only been partially filled by Reddit. Why did the company die? <comment><USER2> Got passed back and forth to the founders in a series of acquisitions that failed to monetize traffic. An old story - (relatively) easy to gather a huge crowd, practically impossible to monetize it without destroying the product.

</comment><comment><USER3> SU is now mix.com, I thought?

<comment><AUTHOR> My understanding is that the original company died and mix is the spiritual successor.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What can't you buy online? - <AUTHOR>

What have you actually tried to buy, but could not find for sale?<p>Bonus: For the merchants here, what have you been unable to sell online, for whatever reason? <comment><USER2> You mean not finding online something that one can buy in a brick-and-mortar store? Never. The only time I can't find something online is if I am mistaken about its existence, or it is a discontinued line, or is a rarity.

Of course, there are many, many things that are uneconomical for me to buy online because of the shipping methods offered.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was intentionally vague; I had mostly your first point in mind but was also curious to hear of things that are uneconomical to buy/sell online. I asked the question more out of idle curiosity than anything else, maybe something here sparks conversation or inspires someone :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> AFAIK, real estate falls into that category. (To be fair, I was researching, not actually attempting to buy online)

Certain categories of food would also fall into that category, especially if you're not in a major city (e.g. fresh seafood, delivery for some types of cuisines).

If you're looking to find some blatantly obvious material good which would be easy to sell online, in the hopes of making a quick profitable business, I'd reckon statistics are against you.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I'm not looking into getting into ecommerce as I have neither the time (I start my masters program in two weeks) nor the money (I start my masters program in two weeks). Just thought it might make interesting conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think I've read about some uber-hip fashion designers who have no Web sites and the only way to buy their wares is to line up at 5AM at their store (which has no sign, natch) located in a run-down side street in Brooklyn. Or maybe that was a William Gibson novel...

</comment><comment><USER5> Printouts of PDFs I supply.

</comment><comment><USER6> a startup</comment>


What people in tech had to say about JavaScript when it debuted in 1995 (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/dailyjs/heres-what-people-in-tech-had-to-say-about-javascript-when-it-debuted-in-1995-a4b81dc05b71 <comment><USER2> I was hoping for personal comments from people about the language, rather than generic quotes from companies that are more about trying to market themselves and less about the actual language.

These are kinda interesting in a nostalgic way, but the title promised a much better article.</comment>


Hackers Weigh In: 8 Big Things to Do with a Mini Server - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hackers-weigh-in-mini-server&print=true

<comment><USER2> Great article - I especially liked the idea of using several for a very low power "server farm." I bookmarked the page where the shiva plug dev it can be purchased - probably won't buy one, but I might!</comment>


Rootstrikers Conference to Restore the Republic Livestream - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXhFYzT9aXI

<comment><AUTHOR> (Now with better audio)</comment>


Spotify to Musicians: Let Us Be Your Label - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-09/spotify-to-musicians-let-us-be-your-label <comment><USER2> payment to musician = total spotify views for that artist / total spotify listens for all users * total payment to artists / total spotify listens for all users.

therefor even though you may exclusively listen to one artist on spotify you are in fact mostly giving money to the most listened to artist - which in turn tend to have the highest percentages going to distributers and labels.

Spoifty have shockingly bad invasions of privacy in their software and t&cs plus they give my long tail money to the lowest common denominator. i mean i could be wrong but they just seem like a terrible option.

I used to have a spotify account but these days i use the same money to buy from bandcamp or something the artist does as directly as possible and i often pay over the asking price. if the artist doesnt sell direct i will look for a second hand CD or similar and rip it.. in the mean time there is always youtube (where at least the ad revenue may be going to the artist).

I feel like all spotify would have had to have done would be to respect your privacy and have your money go to the artist you support and they would have been bullet proof - but maybe they major labels would never sign up to these terms?</comment>


Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/cock-li-e-mail-server-seized-by-german-authorities-admin-announces/ <comment><USER2> Interesting that they only took one of the disks. a) a more aggressive forensic approach would avoid the server to be shut down if at all possible (getting data in RAM or on encrypted partitions) and b) it is very restrained in comparison to other seizures.

I'd say that if they believed he were actively complicit or would do something to hinder the investigation, they would have been more aggressive, possibly went after machines in his home as well. Of course, if I'm right with this assumption, why didn't they contact him, but went directly for the server via the hoster. (I'm actually not sure how the law works with regards to seizing data vs seizing the (probably provider-owned) media it is on)

Also, I guess the "just take one of the RAIDed disks" in this way is only possible if you run a server provided by a known hosting provider, were it isn't the first seizure for both police and provider. The provider knows how the servers are set up, law enforcement trusts that the provider just wants to get everything done as quickly as possible.

<comment><USER3> "I'd say that if they believed he were actively complicit or would do something to hinder the investigation, they would have been more aggressive, possibly went after machines in his home as well."

My thoughts exactly. His reputation of cooperation might have helped him out here. Nice of them to leave enough stuff to keep the service online. Many small-time operators hit by FBI over here aren't so lucky. They'll take down a whole colo worth of clients sometimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Discussion on 8ch.net: [https://8ch.net/tech/res/473045.html](https://8ch.net/tech/res/473045.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> > I have no idea why this is happening."

I'm very sure he does. It's been explained thoroughly.

<comment><USER6> Care to share with the rest of the class?

<comment><USER5> What? You mean you didn't read the article?

> Cock.li was reportedly used last week to send a bogus bomb threat e-mail > from "email@example.com"

Of course they are going to take records (and from the files of how very unlike-the-US-can-the-germans-be) leaving the system running and intact. If you didn't read the US news about the trouble it caused, go back to skimming headlines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How, exactly, did German authorities come to decide that California has jurisdiction in Germany? Was this pursuant to MLAT?

<comment><USER8> Are you saying that one should be allowed to threaten to kill people in one country from another, and not be held accountable?

<comment><USER9> No, he definitely was not saying that.

<comment><USER10> That seemed to be the implication.

<comment><USER11> OP specifically asked if it was pursuant to an MLAT obligation. That alone makes it clear they were asking in earnest.

<comment><USER10> And yet OP also asked how California had jurisdiction in Germany, which implies that the question was more of a passive-aggressive disapproval. Even if it was MLAT, California still wouldn't have jurisdiction in Germany. OP seems to be implying "fuck off California, you have no jurisdiction in Germany".

The whole thing seems to be more about shared moral responsibility rather than MLAT, which is what s73v3r was getting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> cock.li. The proud owner of nigge.rs, horsefucker.org and goat.si.

RIP in peace

<comment><USER13> The "anonymous mail service with offensive names" could be made a standard indicator of a country's freedom of speech status.

Actually, that'd be a good research project: setup and host such a service in as many countries as possible, wait as they get shutdown (+6 points)/subpoenaed (+3)/ddosed (+1) and make a map.

<comment><USER14> Not responsive or relevant to this situation, in two very important ways: first, this isn't just any email service, a threat which cost millions of dollars was made from this service. Second, and more crucially, the service was NOT shut down.

<comment><USER15> > a threat which cost millions of dollars

It was the reaction to the threat which cost millions of dollars. We should be careful to distinguish between the costs of terrorism and the costs of our reaction to it.

<comment><USER10> You might think differently if you were responsible for those children. Do you want to take the risk that it might be a real threat? How do you tell the difference between a real threat and one that isn't real? I'm guessing the people at the school district thought the small risk wasn't worth it, and decided to close the schools. Who would want to be labelled as the person who didn't close the schools if someone ended up getting killed? Even if the threat seems implausible, it must be a very difficult decision to make. There have been many bomb threats recently, probably mostly implausible, but for every one of them the airline acts as if it might be a real threat.

<comment><AUTHOR> You might not, too. The LA district shut down. The NY district, which also received a threat, did not. Why? And why the difference in response?

<comment><USER16> Why a difference in response? A few days earlier, less than 100 miles from the LA school district, 14 people were killed by ISIS-inspired terrorists who also had a garage full of pipebombs. What administrator in their right mind wouldn't be extra cautious with specific threats?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This guy deserves to be in jail. I am DISGUSTED at a human like this roaming free after threatening to hurt millions maybe even BILLIONS of children! Shame on this man!!!

</comment><comment><USER18> Imagine if this was regular mail.

It's the equivalent of German seizing private mail from EVERYONE that uses the hypothetical Cock Postal Service because one individual used that same service in the US to make a threat.

This is ridiculous. Outright abuse of power and invasion of privacy. Yet another reason to encrypt everything.

<comment><USER10> It's more like seizing the customer records from Cock Postal Service (presumably operated by James May).

My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened.

I think it's good that this scumbag cocksucker is going to get his commuppence (I'm talking about the idiot who sent the email, not the guy who runs the cock email service). He's obviously a bit of an idiot to use an email service that says "will report any illegal activity to the relevant authorities" rather than one that is actually properly encrypted (if such a beast even exists at the moment -- they seem to all get DDoSed out of existence by China or similar pretty quickly).

<comment><USER19> >My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened.

Is this somehow supposed to be acceptable? "We weren't sure you would come down to the station and answer some questions, so we arrested you (without charge) and held you for a day."

<comment><USER10> Isn't it normal for police to seize evidence in cases like this? Your comparison doesn't seem very helpful, as there is a big difference between holding someone at a police station vs seizing evidence.

<comment><USER19> I admit there is a big difference between someone's property and someone's liberty. However I still don't feel it's justified to potentially invade thousands of other user's privacy in order to gather evidence, especially since they could have subpoenaed him and he has a history of complying with such requests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It sounds like someone doing an experiment to see if he can get the government to take down a server.

Much more efficient than DDoS attacks.

Simply find a way to make the domain seem suspicious.</comment>


Ask HN: Experiences with intermittent fasting? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I've read a lot about intermittent fasting. Currently, I'm eating 2 meals a day (breakfast/lunch), but at the end of the days I find it really hard to concentrate on code/working. I can do other things like reading books but I find it hard to do programming things. I'm thinking of just pushing through anyway, maybe the body will adapt, but I'd just like to ask, what are your experiences? <comment><USER2> Here's my $.02. IF is like stretching or yoga, where you start off unable to touch your toes but you gain flexibility quickly if you stay with it. With IF the first half-dozen fasting sessions you'll be hungry, especially around mealtimes. Your body is used to eating 3 meals a day plus snacks. But before long, you can go longer stretches without food and you'll hardly notice-- in fact, you'll feel mentally sharper.

Generally when you're new to fasting, and also when you're early in a fast, you will be hungry. The hunger usually disappears after a short period however. If you ever work your way up to a 48+ hour fast, you'll see that your body finally stops complaining at that point and days 3 to 5 tend to be hunger free.

I think by skipping only a single meal each day, you're likely getting most of the hunger without many of the benefits. With only breakfast skipped, your metabolic state may be closer to a calorie-restriction diet (which can reduce your resting metabolism) than a fasting one. Brain-fuzziness and sluggishness are usually a symptom of eating, not fasting.

A few tips:

\- Skipping only breakfast might be a good start for you, but to maximize weight loss (or theraputic fasting) goals, you'll probably want to work your way up to one long fast per week (e.g., 23 hrs or more) and one or two 16 to 18 hour fasts. As you get better at fasting, you'll look forward to it.

\- Depending on how much carbohydrate you have in your body you won't reach ketosis (fat burning, assuming that's your goal) until 18 to 24 hours into the fast. If you eat a typical Western/US diet, you may need a full 24 hours to break into ketosis. If you eat a high-fat/low-carb or keto diet, which I recommend, you will likely reach ketosis in half that time or less, which translates to more fat loss.

\- A pound of body fat is 3,500 calories. Assuming a 2,500 calorie per day metabolism, you can lose around .5 lb each 24 hour fast, plus some water weight (the latter of which returns quickly after the fast, so don't get too excited).

\- I've found it helpful to stay active during a fast. Go for a walk or hike. Get a workout in. It helps clear your mind particularly if you're hungry.

\- If you become ravenous and your brain gets panicky from the hunger, listen to your body and either break the fast or have a cup of broth to see if that helps you get over the hump.

Some benefits of 18+ hour fasts-

\- Autophagy / cell-repair, where your cells perform some Spring Cleaning and burn away the junk that has accumulated in the cell's attic and basement.

\- Reduction in insulin levels. This can help with Type 2 diabetes, and it allows fat burning to take place (your body won't burn body fat while carbs are available in your system).

\- Surge in growth hormones. During a long fast you can experience a 2000% increase in growth hormones. This is why the body-builders are into keto/IF -- they're focused on eliminating as much fat as possible and building muscle.

Some links:

What is Intermittent Fasting? Dr. Jason Fung Part I [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIhhrYjVhOk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIhhrYjVhOk)

How to Maximize Fat Burning, Dr. Jason Fung Part II [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwE4D8Xe8JA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwE4D8Xe8JA)

The Sweet Spot for Intermittent Fasting [https://medium.com/the-mission/the- sweet-spot-for-intermitte...](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-sweet-spot- for-intermittent-fasting-9aae12a2158c)

(The Failure of) 'The Biggest Loser' Diet – Explained [https://idmprogram.com/biggest-loser-diet- explained/](https://idmprogram.com/biggest-loser-diet-explained/)

If you have more questions, maybe might try this subreddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/intermittentfasting/](https://www.reddit.com/r/intermittentfasting/)</comment>


Manning's 'OCA Java SE 8 Programmer I Cert' book – 50% off using code mlgupta3 - <AUTHOR> http://www.manning.com/gupta3 <comment><AUTHOR> This book has been released in its early access edition. Manning's Early Access Version, or MEAP, enables you to access a book chapter-by-chapter while it's being written and you get the final eBook as soon as it's finished.

Are you a new Java programmer, or planning to switch to Java? Have you been thinking about earning your first professional certification in Java?

1) Oracle is offering 20% discount on all its Java certifications (use code Java20-valid until 31 Dec, 2015) to book your exam with Pearsonvue.com.

2) Manning Publications is offering 50% discount on 'OCA Java SE 8 Programmer I Certification' (use code mlgupta3), valid at www.manning.com/gupta3.

To prepare for this certification, you should understand Java and the exam itself. You need a structured approach to prepare for this exam.

This book includes a lot of hands-on code so that you get a hang of the exam topics. I've used a lot of images in this book. Visual representation of concepts will help you to understand the concepts better. The images also help you to retain the Java concepts, which is very important when you write the exam. I've also used a lot of analogies, to make it simpler for you to relate Java concepts to real world situations. Again, this helps in better understanding of Java concepts and recall when you write your exam.

I have created 'Twist in the Tale' exercises for all chapters in this book. These exercises use a modified version of existing code in a chapter and then they encourage you to determine implications of the modified code. As you know, small changes to code can make a big difference to its output. These exercises will help you to read all code in the exam very carefully.

During the MEAP (and later too), I'll answer questions related to this book, posted at Author's Forum, hosted at Manning's website. Please post your queries, comments and feedback. They are important to me.

Thanks.

With much respect, Mala</comment>


Successful officeless game studio tells its secrets - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamedev.net/reference/business/features/virtualOffice/ <comment><USER2> "If you want to reward the staff for working quickly, you can't make 'hours worked' a constant, because then only quality and quantity remain variable. In a traditional situation where 'hours worked' is a constant, the reward for working quickly and efficiently is just getting more work."

If only my current employer understood this.

</comment><comment><USER3> "I hope I am not the first person to tell you this, but nobody reads design documents. In fact, when working at larger studios, I made a habit of inserting the line "I will pay $5 to anyone who reads this sentence" into the center of any document over 50 pages. In 10 years of development nobody ever asked for their money."

I knew it!

</comment><comment><USER4> "There is no point in tying up your best resources with work that could be done perfectly well by more junior staff, or work that could be done faster or better by specialists[...] So what we do is keep senior generalists on staff to create the structure and core design of the game, and then we outsource the bulk asset production to specialists and managed studios that we hire on task- based contracts."

I imagine this could get time-consuming for whoever finds and hires all these temporary task-based contractors -- but as an employee it certainly sounds appealing to be able to focus on the higher level while the lower level is quickly and expertly handled elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER5> Their games don't seem to be all that good: <http://www.boomzap.com/>

<comment><USER6> Their games don't seem to be your kind of games. They've been in business for 4 years so somebody likes their games.</comment></comment>


Google reveals Chrome zero-day under active attacks - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-reveals-chrome-zero-day-under-active-attacks/ <comment><AUTHOR> "The attacks exploited CVE-2019-5786, a security flaw and the only patch included in the Chrome 72.0.3626.121 version, released last Friday, March 1, 2019."</comment>


Librarians create fake users to trick software into saving books - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2017/01/02/automated-book-culling-softwar.html <comment><AUTHOR> I think this quote sums it up pretty well: "That's the important takeaway here: these librarians didn't monkeywrench their software for personal gain. They did it because they wanted to make the system better, to teach it how to weight the circulation data to reflect the on-the-ground intelligence and historical perspective they had on their libraries, their collections and their patrons."

In other words, they felt like the data that the software was using to make a decision was incomplete.

A problem we are likely to see more and more as we rely more on algorithms.

<comment><USER2> Maybe the decision shohld have been made by the librarians themselves rather than an algorithm.

<comment><USER3> All decision-making is some form of algorithm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm sad that this problem could be so easily addressed if there was a sane digital alternative to borrowing print books. All of the (legal) alternatives I've seen have been absolute pains to deal with, and some of them are too expensive for non-institutional libraries to carry.

If low-demand books could be kept in circulation digitally, you wouldn't have all of these costs attached to storing books, and this problem would go away.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think they could solve this with a "librarian's choice" factor in the algorithm. It should be reviewed regularly, but it could allow the library to hold on to older "classics" of merit while devaluing so called "pulp fiction," even if readership would mean they should disappear.

</comment><comment><USER6> similar stuff happens in my local library I'm sure. They have a detector at the door, to count the patrons entering and leaving. I've seen the librarians walk in and out a few times every half hour to boost the numbers.

</comment><comment><USER7> and why are the books being purged ? Because there's not enough space to store all of them.

why is there not enough space ? because books take up a lot of space for the amount of information they contain.

why do they take up so much space ? because they cannot be digitized.

why can't they be digitized ? because of archaic IP law.

<comment><USER8> Even if they were digitized, not everyone has an electronic device able to consume digital content like that.

<comment><USER9> So imagine instead a library where every book ever written was stored digitally, and the library had an automated print and bind station. So to begin with, the library would be empty shelves, perhaps taking some books off the load of nearby similar libraries.

When you come in, you can look for the book you want. If it's not on the shelf, you order a print, and in half an hour it's ready. Take it, read it, return it. It goes on the shelf.

When the shelves get full, recycle the materials of the least used, or redistribute the books to where they appear more in demand.

Now, access to e-readers is no longer a problem, and any book you want can become available in hard print, and we solve the space problem by simply regarding shelf space as a cache for the most in demand books. Additionally, when books become worn, damaged, or unnecessary, we can reuse the materials.

<comment><USER10> Or loan out some dirt cheap e-readers.

<comment><USER7> exactly. they could have locked-down library-only e-readers that only show the books you checked out.

<comment><USER11> Locked down library only ereaders do exist - the Playaway Lock: [http://playaway.com/lock/](http://playaway.com/lock/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> librarians sure have read Fahrenheit 451

Luckily the movie is easily availabe [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0bVqgBSZHk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0bVqgBSZHk)

</comment><comment><USER13> Software may not be objective (depends on the design process) but the librarians are definitely not objective. At least the software itself isn't committing fraud to try and justify it's own existence.

Ultimately, we've fallen into the trap of trying to appease everyone when it's not sensible to do so.</comment>