DNA sequencing of Viking skeletons reveals they weren't all Scandinavian - <AUTHOR> https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/worlds-largest-ever-dna-sequencing-viking-skeletons-reveals-they-werent-all-scandinavian <comment><USER5> As usual, the university's public relations summary of the paper does not match the claims the paper makes. It makes grandiose claims of debunkings and is written from the point of view of whatever societal issue is popular today (identity and population movement).

Link to preprint: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334525855_Populatio...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334525855_Population_genomics_of_the_Viking_world)

I'm not seeing any claims there that are new. It is cool to have more data on spread of culture and genes, but we've already had most of that for decades.

<comment><USER6> Project leader professor Eske Willerslev is - as far as I can ascertain - <USER2> highly competent and accomplished scientist, but with pattern of political leanings informing his scientific output and media appearances, of which there have been not a few over the years, at least in his native Denmark.

From reports of this paper I have so far read, it doesn't really - <USER3> claims - challenge what we know of the vikings, their comings and goings, and their genetic makeup. Their iron age ancestors were a mixed bunch a thousand years earlier, and those we call vikings had been out and about for centuries all over Europe. Educated common knowledge is well aware that they probably har a variety of looks much like modern Scandinavians.

<comment><USER7> Everything is politics, so saying ''politics informs his scientific output'' like it is some kind of gotcha makes absolutely no sense.

And it is necessary to continue to reiterate the same basic facts when new evidence continues to support it. For a variety of reasons all kinds of ideas that have been debunked decades ago about the past are still mainstream. And some people get really angry when current historians tell them that those views are wrong because it clashes with their current political ideas and views. Just look at the pure evil shit Mary Beard, a well-respected classicist, got when she dared say that during Roman times there were black people in England (a well-established fact by now).

Unfortunately the alt-right has also taken hold of the past, and they continue to spread all kinds of lies so they can continue to spread their idea of the past, namely that of a white past where non-white people did not exist (just look at the outrage you see when a medieval fantasy tv show casts non-white actors). So more evidence that Scandinavia was also populated by people from southern Europe and Asia is always welcome (even though it wont do a thing to convince people who hold racist views and ideals).

<comment><USER8> The fact that Britain and Scandinavia were, in ancient and early Medieval times, actually very diverse places, is interesting, because within living memory those places are /believed/ to have been > 90% "white".

This raises a number of possibilities for where those beliefs come from:

Option 1: It really is true that, around 1950, those places were > 90% "white", but in ancient times they did not used to be. This would mean that the diversity present in ancient times had subsequently been forced out, either via systematic oppression that motivated out-migration, or via active genocide.

Option 2: Census and other data from the past century were systematically falsified, consistently and at a large scale, to support the regime of white supremacy that then dominated Europe, when in fact those populations were considerably more diverse; non-"white" people were just "officially invisible". Moreover, the commonly-reported subjective memories of older people who say they remember such a time are in fact misimpressions -- because memory, as we know, is unreliable, strongly affected by whatever the social reality is.

In other words, either

\- large-scale population replacement occurred in these places within just the recent past, or

\- the past is tremendously mutable, in which case nothing you understand as history, nor indeed anything you think you remember, can actually be trusted.

Either conclusion would be very compatible with your opening point that everything is really politics.

<comment><USER9> You are conflating "diverse" with "non-white", but I think that is anachronistic. The non-Scandinavian DNA referred to is from eastern Europe and Baltics, British isles, central and southern Europe and so forth. That is pretty diverse - but all would be considered "white" by present day standards.

Interesting the study also shows no Eskimo, Inuit or Native American DNA. Not surprising, but is _would_ be really cool if there were some Native American DNA among viking-age Scandinavians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The results are interesting but the article muddles the issue by confusing terminology.

At the time, "Viking" did not denote certain people or ethnic groups, it denoted an _activity_ \- traveling (and raiding) by boat. So a person might be described as "in viking" for the summer.

Only later have the _people_ who did this activity been called "vikings". So nobody "self identified" as viking at the time.

The article muddles this by talking about "ethnic vikings" whatever that means, and "viking ancestry". Probably "Scandinavian" is meant. But the article at one hand talks about "Viking DNA" and at the same time claims vikings are not an ethnic group.

Edit: This criticism applies to the article, not the underlying paper which seem to be much more careful with terminology. It defines a "viking culture" existing outside of Scandinavia (e.g. in Scotland) with Scandinavian cultural links but where members of this culture were not necessarily of Scandinavian descent. It also examines remains of an ill-fated raiding party in Estonia which were Swedish vikings in the traditional definition. And then it examines DNA from viking-age burial sites inside Scandinavia.

</comment><comment><USER10> So... this isn't news at all, but rather can be seen as supporting what our (norwegian here) own older tales and historians wrote down around the time: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla)

It's well known we went around, even likely as far as asia (buddha statuettes were found in viking graves) and one of our kings (Harald Hårråde) was commander of the Byzantine royal Guard ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada))

So... far as I see there's no one who knows Norse history that would find this the least surprising.

Not really sure what the fuzz in the comments is about either. (Oh, and 13'th warrior was "based on" a, most likely, true event, with a, most likely, embellished narrative due to the fantastical language used back then to regale.)

<comment><USER11> The Russian Vikings (i.e. the Vikings who in the 9th century founded the original Russian state - Kievan Rus and accompanying dukedoms around - <USER4> ruled it for several centuries after that) were raiding as far as Caspian Sea and Iran and bringing the trophies - goods and slaves - for sale back as far as Scandinavia. So there were a lot of cross-continental blood/DNA mixing during those centuries (9th-12th) until Mongols came and that started another chapter.

<comment><USER12> Some years ago I watched an interesting documentary on how a bunch of viking swords that all bear the same distinctive engraving were very likely made of steel from Persia. The doc claimed that they were likely using a route along the Volga to get down to the Caspian routinely.

<comment><USER11> Related [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan)

"Ibn Fadlan was a 10th-century Arab[1][2][a] Muslim traveler, famous for his account of his travels as a member of an embassy of the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad to the king of the Volga Bulgars, known as his Risala ("account" or "journal").[b] His account is most notable for providing a detailed description of the Volga Vikings, including eyewitness accounts of life as part of a trade caravan and witnessing a ship burial.[4][5]" <USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus%27)

"Initially, the Rus' appeared in Serkland in the 9th century traveling as merchants along the Volga trade route, selling furs, honey, and slaves. The first small-scale raids took place in the late 9th and early 10th century. The Rus' undertook the first large-scale expedition in 913; having arrived on 500 ships, they pillaged in the Gorgan region, in the territory of present-day Iran, and more to the west, in Gilan and Mazandaran, taking slaves and goods. On their return, the northern raiders were attacked and defeated by the Khazars in the Volga Delta, and those who escaped were killed by the local tribes on the middle Volga.

During their next expedition in 943, the Rus' captured Bardha'a, the capital of Arran, in the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan. The Rus' stayed there for several months, killing many inhabitants of the city and amassing substantial plunder. It was only an outbreak of dysentery among the Rus' that forced them to depart with their spoils. Sviatoslav, prince of Kiev, commanded the next attack, which destroyed the Khazar state in 965. Sviatoslav's campaign established the Rus's hold on the north-south trade routes, helping to alter the demographics of the region. Raids continued through the time period with the last Scandinavian attempt to reestablish the route to the Caspian Sea taking place in 1041 by Ingvar the Far-Travelled. "

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The introduction makes it sound super controversial but the mentioned results sound like exactly what you'd expect. Obviously ancient Scandinavia would have had gene flows from Eurasia, and obviously Viking settlements in the British isles would have non-Scandinavians amongst them...

</comment><comment><USER14> There's a great documentary on this topic called "The Thirteenth Warrior"

</comment><comment><USER15> This article does not explain the difference between Viking burials inside Scandinavia and outside of Scandinavia.

And the headline is pure clickbait.

</comment><comment><USER16> It goes both ways: years ago in Italy, I had a housemate from Sicily. She had blond eyes and blue hair.

<comment><USER9> I think blue hair is a culturally rather then genetically transmitted trait.

<comment><USER16> Hah, sorry, reversed the order in my comment :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >> _The word Viking comes from the Scandinavian term 'vikingr' meaning 'pirate'_

There are a number of theories concerning the origin of the name. This one is by no means top of the list.

</comment><comment><USER17> I thought this was obvious because of the Kiyv Rus

<comment> etc-hosts If you're thinking of the Ukraine/Russian Origin story of Kyivan Rus, do you think Scandinavians settled in the Russia/Ukraine area? There's evidence there was trade between the various empires.

I don't think that's addressing the "DNA of the Vikings" (whoever the Vikings may have been)

<comment><USER18> The ruling elite of Kievan Rus was originally all Scandinavian, speaking Old Norse, and holding to their customs. This was still the case when they conquered Kiev. But then they gradually intermingled with the local Slavic nobility, switched to Eastern Slavic as the native language, and adopted the local names.

It's the bit about the names that's most telling, IMO. If you follow the Primary Chronicle (the earliest source on this), the first rulers of Rus were Rurik, Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, and Vladimir. The first four names are unambiguously Slavic adaptations of Scandinavian names: Hrorekr, Helgi, and Ingvar. Svyatoslav is an unambiguously Slavic name, but if you deconstruct it, its constituent parts are "holy" and "glory", which correspond to the earlier names Helgi and Hrorekr, respectively - so it's quite possible that it was deliberately constructed as a subtle translated reference. And then Vladimir is a purely Slavic name (Waldemar is a Norse / High German cognate, but it was derived from Vladimir, not the other way around).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was really hoping for new information on a statistically significant difference in the amount of Neanderthal DNA in old Viking skeletons versus modern time Scandinavians.

<comment><USER20> The Viking era was only about a thousand years ago (vs Neanderthals who died about 35,000 years ago). It's highly unlikely they weren't completely modern humans in every sense of the word.

If there were populations with significant relict Neanderthal DNA, you'd be looking at more like the Celt/Gaul populations, and talking at least a thousand years before that -- think the British isles, before the Angles/Saxons moved in. And even that is very... speculative history.

<comment><USER21> _> If there were populations with significant relict Neanderthal DNA, you'd be looking at more like the Celt/Gaul populations, and talking at least a thousand years before that -- think the British isles, before the Angles/Saxons moved in. And even that is very... speculative history._

Very speculative indeed, considering there was plenty of movement of people between the British Isles and the continent before the Anglo-Saxons arrived (who themselves had surprisingly little impact on the genetic makeup of the British people [0]). And if there was significant Neanderthal DNA in the British Isles 1500 years ago, it would still be detectable among living generations (it isn't).

[0] [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230)

<comment><USER22> There is significant amounts of Neanderthal genes in British (and all European ) genomes.

"Neanderthal-derived DNA was found in the genome of all contemporary populations". [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans#Neanderthals)

See also: [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/genetic-data-half- mi...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/genetic-data-half-million- brits-reveal-ongoing-evolution-and-neanderthal-legacy) ( Genetic data on half a million Brits reveal ongoing evolution and Neanderthal legacy )

[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655) : "We find that non-African populations outside Oceania carry between 1.8 and 2.6% Neandertal DNA"

<comment><USER21> As you said, _all contemporary populations_. So there is nothing to suggest that the British Isles was a Neanderthal genetic time capsule prior to occupation by the Anglo-Saxons, Romans, or Celts. Likely all of these incoming populations were equally as Neanderthal as the existing inhabitants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> And here I would have thought the folks known in pop culture for raping and pillaging would have kept a much purer bloodline.

</comment><comment><USER24> The brought back a lot of DNA diversity from their tours abroad. That result is to be expected.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, that would be totally expected but the paper isn't even saying that. It's specifically about someone buried as a viking in a settlement in Scotland being non-Scandinavian.

<comment><USER9> The paper examines DNA from several different sites - a viking settlement in Scotland, a viking raiding party in Estonia and several viking-age burial sites in Scandinavia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am surprised that they are surprised... it's cool to have more data tho.

</comment><comment><USER26> it's an adjective. I go Viking I am not a Viking

</comment><comment><USER27> I already lost my faith in the cultural "western" elites. I hate to sound like a hardcore conservative (I am pretty leftist) but I dont see there is coming back from the current environment. 2+2 = 5, original English people were actually black, more diversity has been proved to generate better stock performance of the company.From the flimsiest of evidence a whole new narrative is created, one that match the social issues in vogue today.

<comment><USER28> What's so hard to believe about a largely "black" (with blue eyes) population being displaced/integrated with by subsequent migrations? That scenario is supported by the myths of those islands and human migrations are the story of humanity and human cultural developments.

If you want to argue with the science or point out deficiencies you're encouraged to. That's the beauty of science.

<comment><USER29> It's not that it's hard to believe, it's just that it's not supported by the science.

Geneticists simply said that they had the genes for blue eyes while the European genes associated with fair skin were not present. What wasn't said was that they were black – that was something the media simply made up because it fit with their agenda. It seems fair to assume they were darker than modern Northern Europeans, but similarly it seems quite a stretch to assume that they were as dark as African peoples.

<comment><USER30> > but similarly it seems quite a stretch to assume that they were as dark as > African peoples.

"African peoples" have a pretty broad range of pigmentation, and "black" isn't used exclusively for African people, anyhow; e.g., indigenous Australians.

It's funny how White people use "black" with almost unlimited breadth right up until that challenges the original whiteness of territory they view as an ancestral homeland, and then immediately start demanding that the blackness be viewed maximally narrowly.

Couldn't find a better illustration of how race is a fluid social construct.

<comment><USER31> Fascinating that you singled out white people. The original poster could have any ethnic heritage, but you went with white. Why is that? It may be a good idea to interrogate your biases.

<comment><USER30> > Fascinating that you singled out white people. The original poster could > have any ethnic heritage, but you went with white.

I wasn't commenting about the original poster but about the broad community that have been making this exact argument about this exact issue since it entered the public debate, and a wide number of other issues for, well, almost the entire time that population studies that would support this kind of discussion of the past have existed.

(And, yes, you can see identical behavior referencing different identity divides besides white and non-white in the same period over the same broad class of past-population issues, but this specific issue of darker-skinned past inhabitants of the British Isles is one of the focuses of whites and the flexible nature of the label "black".)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Should have built a wall across Schleswig-Holstein.

<comment><USER33> Across which end? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig- Holstein#Duchies_in_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig- Holstein#Duchies_in_the_Danish_realm)

Edit: in the viking age, the Hamburg end. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Empire)

TIL thassalocracy is a possible description for _1984_ 's Oceania.

Bonus clip: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebaXQjp4OQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebaXQjp4OQ)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Gauge of the World's Faith in Humanity - <AUTHOR> http://thefaithinhumanity.com/

<comment><USER2> Pretty neat, though it looks like the sentiment analysis could use some work. There are quite a lot of negative ones on the positive side.

EDIT: Might be useful to expand this into a generic service where people can enter their own search terms.

<comment><USER3> I see some positive ones on the negative side too:

"Batman no!! You can't lose your faith in humanity!"

"You must not lose faith in humanity. [...] - Gandhi"

I don't know how the sentiment analysis is being done (naive Bayes?), but perhaps it could be tweaked to handle this case.

<comment><USER4> Here is a stab in the dark:

These types of declaratives have two negatives side by side (e.g., "not lose", "can't lose"), making them into a positive. They're somewhat similar to rhetorical questions which have assertions embedded in them in the form of a negative question. From the Wikipedia article, "What have the Romans ever done for us?..." (What...ever...?) "...should be read as The Romans have never done anything for us"... (where a negative is surrounded by a verb).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question#Negative_as...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question#Negative_assertions)

What do people think of this? I'm not entirely familiar with naive Bayes classifier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're not happy about the results, here's a way to restore your faith in humanity: [http://www.quora.com/Cancer/Can-I-use-the-internet-to- save-m...](http://www.quora.com/Cancer/Can-I-use-the-internet-to-save-my-mom- who-suffers-from-Stage-IV-cancer/answer/Jae-Won-Joh)

</comment><comment><USER6> If they include the common misspelling of "lose" as "loose" I suspect the good side won't have a chance.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a good start for sure, but as the previous readers mentioned it could use some work. Might consider looking for a series of keywords and adding removing positivity points based on their existance?

</comment><comment><USER8> I can't help but lose a little faith in humanity when I see that faith in humanity is measured via Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was toying around with the URL in some of the source and modified a few of the sources to be facebook rather than faithinhumanity. After a few tries, I got an interesting security message.

[https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?client_id=343797409063...](https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?client_id=343797409063510&response_type=token%2Csigned_request%2Ccode&display=none&domain=facebook.com&origin=1&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D19%23cb%3Df111667c13151b2%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ffacebook.com%252Ff2b34222fd3121c%26domain%3Dthefaithinhumanity.com%26relation%3Dparent&sdk=joey)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow! Really interesting, and weird. We aren't using anything Facebook-related besides the like button and we don't even have a registered Facebook app or secret keys or anything. All the Twitter sourcing is done on the server so I'm not sure how you stumbled onto that security message

<comment><USER9> It is indeed the like button. I just saw the OAUTH token and wanted to toy with it.

<http://i.imgur.com/bF3LQul.png>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool little weekend hack. Love the UI. It's a refreshing take on sentiment analysis.

<comment><USER11> Except that, for no good reason, it's awkward to read in a window narrower than the authors'. (Edit: and middle-click is broken.) I'd lose my faith in humanity, if I were persuaded that web developers are a subset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Twitter is not the world or a meaningful representation of the world.

<comment><USER13> Buzzkill. You're making me lose faith in humanity. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some are misclassified, such as "before I lose faith", or "else I will lost faith"

</comment><comment><USER15> Imagine, people like to complain via hyperbole with twitter. #notsurprised

</comment><comment><USER16> /me watched the "positive" side retweet a bunch of "every time i regain faith in humanity, someone spends more than 5 min in front of the ATM".

</comment><comment><USER17> What was it I'm supposed to believe about humanity?</comment>


Quit My Job 5 Months Ago to Build Websites, Apps, Etc. Here is My Portfolio.. - <AUTHOR> http://ryhanson.com/portfolio/

<comment><USER2> Looks like a bunch of Wordpress themes but not sure, reading on an iPhone at the moment

<comment><AUTHOR> Some of them are. Code Chimps is just trying to build a name for ourselves so we keep the cost for our clients cheap and using themes from Themeforest helps us do so. When a client wants a custom design we are more than happy to supply one, but most of their needs have been pretty basic so far.</comment></comment>


How to build a full GraphQL server with Node.js - <AUTHOR> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/graphql-zero-to-production-a7c4f786a57b <comment><AUTHOR> Author here. There are a lot of articles online that talk about GraphQL. I know, I've read a lot of them. But none of them gave me a feeling like I could take the code to production.

So I decided to change that. This is a tutorial which outlines how to create a production-ready GraphQL server.

Bring on the feedback! Thanks!

P.s. the article comes with a working GitHub repo. It has all the code discussed in the article - because I am legit about helping you.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for your work op. I share the sentiment about reading tutorials, making them yet never feeling ready to take things to production. Maybe more tutorials should follow your approach.</comment></comment>


Gordon Moore predicts end to Moore's law in 10 years - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/19/gordon-moore-predicts-end-to-moores-law-in-10-years/ <comment><AUTHOR> Note that an alternate view of Moore's law might continue: processing power per $1000, .

Kurzweil might be a hopeless optimist, but his choice of such metrics was smart.

Massive multi-core and dedicated hardware for physics, math, video, AI, and graphics, could make effective system power increase despite constant transistor density.</comment>


The manhunt for Yasin Bhatkal - <AUTHOR> http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/thankless-india?%40Openthemag

<comment><USER2> Weird to imagine that these antiterrorism officers are having to fund their operations out of their own pocket.

<comment><USER3> My mom works with police teams in India. From what I hear from her, out of pocket expenses is the norm. Not too surprising there. What's surprising is that the officers risked their careers and lives to nab a wanted man outside of the borders and had great success. These guys should be the media's darling now. Hopefully earning them more money and respect</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Lightweight analytics tool for static pages - <AUTHOR> Hi everyone. I'm having a static file blog and using Google Analytics for tracking visitor data such as location, page views, browsers,...
The problem with GA is, you know, sometimes it takes too long to load. And I just want to ditch it.
I actually removed it from my blog for a month and now I feel like I'm blinded. I need these analytics information. But I don't wanna get back to GA again.
So, I'm posting this here and looking for a lightweight version of analytics tool.
Could you suggest me some good ones, please?
Thank you so much! <comment><USER2> [https://goaccess.io/](https://goaccess.io/) ? previously discussed here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13211913](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13211913)</comment>


Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557 <comment><USER2> I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The potential for abuse due to hunger being subjective notwithstanding, there are social programs in place to accommodate the needy. Do they not have these programs in Italy? I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for the theft. Ask me for help, and I'm there, but please don't steal from me and think that it's okay. I am, however, open to enlightenment.

<comment><USER3> > I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man.

      * Stealing something back
      * Stealing Hitler's secret plans
      * Stealing a portion of everybody's property/income, but providing vital protection, infrastructure and social services in return.
      * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her.
      * Stealing land from the commons to efficiently put it to work
      * Stealing land at market value to create a public works project that benefits the rest of society

In all seriousness, property rights are a critical component if you want to have a highly functioning economy, but as soon as you try to moralize the idea like it's a sacrosanct moral imperative (even at the expense of hungry people), you begin to sound like a foolish ideologue. The reason you sound like a foolish ideologue is because different moral ideas can very easily find themselves in opposition in common circumstances. If a situation forced you to choose between compassion and property rights (Maybe you're asked to steal a life saving medicine for someone else in dire need), which do you choose? Morally speaking, does property rights actually trump compassion, or do we let property rights trump compassion because that idea scales up to large societies better?

Property rights is a critically important idea that helps to serve a society. It's not an end unto its own, nor is it an unimpeachable moral imperative.

<comment><USER4> I respectfully disagree. Property rights have a moral component independent of their economic value, similar to privacy rights.

Say someone says "let me search your car, what have you got to hide?" What argument can you use against it? The problem is that we've been manipulated to believe privacy has no real moral claim. In reality, you should be able to just say "it's private" and not feel compelled to provide further explanation.

It's not so different from being punched in the stomach. You aren't going to die, so what's the problem? You heal and everything is fine. So why won't you let me punch you in the stomach?

Theft is, similarly, a moral issue. If I make something, and someone takes it, I will feel bad. Much worse than if I had to sell it to pay taxes (even if I disagree with the tax policy).

<comment><USER5> > Say someone says "let me search your car, what have you got to hide?" What > argument can you use against it?

How about, "A 2 year old was kidnapped 10 minutes ago from the apartment complex you are leaving from. We need to be sure the child is not in your trunk."

Good luck getting society to give you a free pass in that situation.

<comment><USER5> > See steego's reply.

I have... maybe I'm missing something here. Aren't steego and I saying the same thing - he's saying it explicitly and I'm saying it by example?

Maybe what I'm missing is what _you_ were trying to say with the "search your car" analogy. Is it that privacy has a moral component to it? If so I can agree with that. I thought that "What argument can you use against it?" was meant to rhetorically imply that there is no counter-argument.

<comment><USER4> I guess I think of moral issues as "leaf nodes" in an argument tree. Things you don't really need further justification for.

You still need to weigh them against conflicting values, but if someone doesn't agree with you that issue X has a moral component at all (or if you disagree whether it's positive or negative), then you are bound to disagree forever.

When an officer asks "why? What have you got to hide?", they've turned it into a practical issue and removed the moral component that I believe exists. That's as ridiculous (to me) as asking why someone doesn't want to be punched in the stomach ("why? Did you just have abdominal surgery or something?").

<comment><USER5> That clarifies it a lot for me. I hadn't considered how that phrasing just removes the morality component from the question. It seems like a worthwhile skill to be able to detect such comments and point them out for what they are - I'm definitely going to develop that skill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In other news, sky is blue and water is wet. From the Italian criminal code:

Criminal Code, article 54 – State of necessity: "A person is not punishable for having committed an act that he was forced to do in order to save himself or others from an existing risk of severe harm, a risk not voluntarily caused by him, nor otherwise avoidable, always provided that the act is proportional to the risk".

<comment><USER7> But this is from the BBC, and in Britain we routinely prosecute (sometimes privately) people who shoplift food.

There are cases of homeless people who stole a pint of milk from a doorstep, and who left some money, being prosecuted for theft.

<comment><USER6> Oh that's why anglophone media is so thrilled.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The way the judges worded this decision makes it a lot less of a slippery slope. This was only accepted because it was an "Immediate and essential need for nourishment." I expect that if more people started stealing, they'd be put through a court process to prove that they were in this condition.

What this doesn't do is fix the problem though, it just recognizes a symptom. Why are these people forced to resort to stealing?

<comment><USER9> Italy is falling apart, financially speaking. The people of Italy are suffering as a result.

Nearly 50% of bank loans are non-performing (in default). The EBC is conducting a stealth bailout via Target2. Just look at the major Italian bank stocks. They are trading at deep, deep discounts. Maybe the market knows something the EBC and others don't want to admit?

<comment><USER10> People are homeless and go hungry in all countries. This isn't something that only happens in Italy. It's a worldwide issue.

<comment><USER9> Good point. On a related note, I personally cannot imagine a world where any theft is justified. Personal property rights are key in maintaining a functioning free market economy. This ruling by the court flies in the face of those rights.

<comment><USER10> I understand your opinion. I don't feel that taking from the person running the store is really the right option, but I believe it is better than allowing the person going hungry to starve. It's very upsetting to me that in a time of such great global wealth, we still can't find a way to feed the poor.

I'm reminded of the quote by Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As the bible says [http://www.bibleserver.com/text/ESV/Deuteronomy23%2C25](http://www.bibleserver.com/text/ESV/Deuteronomy23%2C25)

> If you go into your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as > many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your bag. 25 If you go into > your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but > you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain.

Stealing food is okay sometimes. There's even a word in German for it Mundraub.

<comment><USER12> _" For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.""_ \-- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

[http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm](http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm)

<comment><USER13> "unwilling"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminds me of the third islamic caliph, Omar ibn Khattab, who suspend punishment for thief on famine. [1] I wonder if there is another legal presedence beside it.

[1][https://books.google.co.id/books?id=ZRqe3iPwsTkC&pg=PA36&lpg...](https://books.google.co.id/books?id=ZRqe3iPwsTkC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=omar+bin+khattab+thief+hungry&source=bl&ots=UOOfbPvzfB&sig=9ppWu9Dqt6IMgJA1tH80N4WvIRc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=omar%20bin%20khattab%20thief%20hungry&f=false)

<comment><USER15> Precedence of people not cutting off other people's hands for stealing? lots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's a little hard to understand how this ruling won't cause a certain degree of chaos. Can any hungry, homeless person now steal food from any store in Italy without repercussion? Certainly as a matter of compassion, this ruling can be argued as being reasonable, but how can it work as a practical matter?

<comment><USER17> Also, surely the store from which he stole is still victimized by the theft. Is every supermarket now de facto required to set up small food pantries for the poor to protect themselves from theft?

<comment><USER18> Considering the massive amounts of food that gets thrown away even before the expiration date, I'm amazed this is even an issue. There was an entire episode of "Last Week Tonight" on this topic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY)

<comment><USER19> Slightly related, throwing food away and the expiration date is a tricky thing.

My dad works at grocery store and initially, they were allowed to bring the food home once it expires for a symbolic cost (10% of the price or something). Soon after that, the employees started to hide food so that they can take it home almost for free. So it didn't last long.

<comment><USER20> Same thing happens at restaurants. If a restaurant gives away excess food to employees at the end of the night, you're guaranteeing that employees will then cook excess food to take home a shitload.

As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things."

<comment><USER19> >>> As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things."

Nah, it's just basic human nature. Would be really naive to expect something different.

<comment><USER17> I don't think it's unfair to say "Human nature is why we can't have nice things."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you're gonna force business owners to give to the poor, why not do it through an established and equitable mechanism like taxation/redistribution, instead of subjecting select types of business owners to the whims of a mostly subjective claim? Why force the burden on a bakery but not a tailor or a chocolatier?

I can't help but be concerned about this growing trend of governments slowly pushing off the burden of general welfare onto businesses. You see it in the US with health care being the responsibility of the employer, affordable housing mandates on real estate developers, and minimum wage increases in expensive areas. All of these "solutions" to poverty have huge unintended consequences, even if they partially address the problem. The problem of poverty isn't solved by forcing businesses to be compassionate, it is solved by governments doing their fucking job and taxing everybody equitably to do so.

<comment><USER22> Actually, when you think of it, maybe it's better to legalize stealing than establishing a government agency in charge of equitable redistribution. I would imagine stealing would work more efficiently and more fairly. (You see a problem and you say: Hey, let's establish a government agency to solve that problem. Now you have two problems.)

<comment><USER23> Am I missing some sarcasm here?

Legalising stealing is basically abolishing property rights.

<comment><USER24> And just out of curiosity, how far exactly do you think property rights should go? Is your right to own something more important than another persons right to life? Property rights are a social construct granted to you by society at large, they don't have to be and are not absolute.

<comment><USER23> Oh I absolutely agree. Indeed, I often make a point of arguing against libertarians who try to take property rights as a moral prior, and I'm highly amused that so many people are now making the same argument against me...

But if we're going to limit property rights, we should do so systematically by redistribution, not by allowing ad hoc violations. Predictability is the most important economic benefit of the rule of law.

<comment><USER24> OK, just curious what your view was, I don't disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A reasonable stance of compassion. It's a reprieve from the more common misanthropic Randian attitudes towards the poor. Be nice to the poor, there are so many things beyond our control that could make any of us poor tomorrow.

<comment><USER26> The only "Randian attitude" towards the poor is that no one should be forced to help them. This case is mandating that shops help poor people regardless of whether or not they want. It's a clear violation of property rights.

Helping hungry people is a fine thing to do, as long as it's optional.

<comment><USER27> The state isn't mandating anything. Store owners can physically prevent people from stealing their wares if they wanted to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine.

The first judge clearly messed up. A suspended sentence would have been ideal in this case.

<comment><USER29> 6 months in jail means free food for 6 months!

<comment><USER30> And the most expensive way possible to feed someone too.

<comment><USER31> I don't know if the Italian correction system is corrupt in the same way the American system is corrupt, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.

When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

Deuteronomy 23, 24-25

</comment><comment><USER33>
      Ci hanno insegnato la meraviglia
      verso la gente che ruba il pane
      ora sappiamo che è un delitto
      il non rubare quando si ha fame

Fabrizio De André (very influential singer-songwriter of the '60s-'70s)

      They taught us the wonder
      for the people who steal bread.
      Now we know that it's a crime,
      not stealing when one is hungry.

(English translation from [http://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?id=3225](http://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?id=3225) )

</comment><comment><USER19> It definitely makes a nice headline, it might work in this specific case. Damn it might even work in an utopian world where everyone is absolutely honest and has high moral standards.

But applied widely in real world, it's just won't work. There are too many people who would exploit such a system and cause chaos.

</comment><comment><USER34> Seems reasonable. Not like he was nicking razor blades and booze just some necessities. Shame it had to go so far but hopefully it will prevent similar court action or arrests in future.

<comment><USER19> So, if you are proved to be poor or hungry (whatever that means), does it give you a green light to steal? Maybe, let's say, steal 10 times a day from 10 different shops, and resell the goods for half the price and use the money for something else?

I mean that's a lovely headline and all, but in startups lingo, it doesn't scale.

<comment><USER35> Carrying capacity has no place in the calculation of the value of need.

<comment><USER34> Not sure what you are trying to say.

<comment><USER35> I'm OK with that

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> One merely has to wonder whether a starving homeless man can be prosecuted for "stealing" from another starving homeless man? Do we need to judge who was more starving?

</comment><comment><USER36> "How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread!" \-- Anatole France

</comment><comment><USER37> Reminds me of how trying to escape from prison is not illegal in certain countries.

<comment><USER38> Can you say in which countries?

<comment><USER39> From memory I think Germany is one of those countries.

It's not what some people imagine, though: when you break out of jail you will still be wanted for your original crime, and when caught have to continue your sentence. And while the act of breaking out isn't punishable by itself, theft, property damage, assault etc committed in order to break out is still punishable.

The human desire to be free is acknowledged and not punished, but that doesn't interfere with the punishment of crimes.

<comment><USER40> Is the act of avoiding the authorities while being a wanted fugitive not illegal in Germany?

<comment><USER39> Why would it be, it's not like fugitives will report to the police because of some law.

But the better you avoid authorities the worse the prison you get sent to. High security prisons are typically much less pleasant than low security prisons.

<comment><USER40> Well, in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with it is quite illegal to avoid authorities while being a wanted fugitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have been homeless and hungry while working a manual labor job. I applied for SNAP and should have been able to get benefits within three days. But I was told I'm not homeless. I couldn't prove I was homeless. Shelters have certain hours as do the food kitchens and I worked during those hours. I asked many people for help and food, but they said no. So when I felt especially desperate I stole a granola that cost about $2. The safety nets, so that people don't have to go hungry failed me.

</comment><comment><USER42> But if the food is locked away, it's presumably still a crime to damage property and/or bypass a lock to obtain the food. So this interpretation of the law creates an incentive for grocers to keep food out of reach.

And thirst being even more basic than hunger, is it excusable to steal beer when desperately dehydrated or just bottled water?

If food is deemed an inalienable right, then a tax to feed the hungry seems like a better way to avoid legal inconsistency.

<comment><USER40> Your beer versus water question works for food as well. Will there be difference of opinion by the law if the starving man steals bread versus steak?

The tax, or charity for that matter, to feed the poor is something that works quite well in many areas of the world, even in the evil capitalistic systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Until 1975 German law had a _Mundraub_ [1] (theft for the mouth) clause (§ 248a Abs. 2 StGB a.F.). It was concerned with the theft of small amounts of food for immediate consumption, like eating an apple from your neighbor's garden.

[1] [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundraub](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundraub)

</comment><comment><USER44> It took them four years to reach a conviction on a most trivial of cases, that was then appealed even later?

<comment><USER45> It is almost as though attempting to prosecute a homeless man who stole cheese and a couple sausages is not a wise use of the state's resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> France has long had a similar leniency for stealing bread.

<comment><USER45> A sort of Jean Valjean rule, if you will.

e: That's probably exactly what you meant. Whoops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> In theory, neither the store or those in need would want to deal with the hassle of theft being the way to deal with the ruling. My guess is stories would just start giving food to the hungry as needed, and then past the costs onto the customers.

Why would this not work?

</comment><comment><USER48> The Judeo-Christian Bible calls this "gleaning". From what I understand, it was considered an essential part of the social safety net and farmers who erected fences to keep truly needful gleaners out were considered sinful.

<comment><USER49> Gleaning was more about allowing the poor to have inefficient access to the raw materials that with hard work could be made into food. Taking prepared food from a merchant would have still been a crime.

For example "People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry, but if he is caught, he will pay esevenfold; he will give all the goods of his house."

<comment><USER45> I'm not sure that the ancient Israelites had many places you could go get "prepared food," but the Bible also says you should leave behind grapes for the poor which clearly do not need preparation.

e: Previously I claimed that olives don't need preparation which is false. Sorry.

<comment><USER50> > olives for the poor which clearly do not need preparation

Olives cannot be eaten raw.

<comment><USER45> OK, sorry. Nevertheless, grapes do not require arduous preparation to eat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> What is going to stop a crowd of justifiably hungry people looting a grocery store causing the grocer to become homeless themselves and thus making the problem worse? The government has no right to sanction someone's property as "ok" to be stolen because of need. I'm generally not in favor of imminent domain for a public works project either, but that's another matter). This ruling is an act of aggression by the government against the non-hungry that steals not only their property, but their liberty. Most of us do not want anyone going hungry, but this is not the solution.

</comment><comment><USER52> Thnking what it feels like to be hungry for 3 days and no money to buy food.

</comment><comment><USER52> I can't imagine what is feels like to be hungry for few days and no money to buy food. May be in that state some human minds ignore morals, pride, social and legal concequnces of stealing food.

<comment><USER27> A few days is nothing. Fasting for a few days actually feels great. Weeks and months of being constantly hungry, though, probably feels awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Surely the real reason for this is that the judiciary doesn't want to give anyone a reason to write a new version of 'Les Miserables'

</comment><comment><USER54> Can a group of hungry people combine, like a union, and steal the contents of a food warehouse or grocery distribution center?

</comment><comment><USER55> In a perfect world this may work (arguably it wouldn't be needed).

How does it address professional thieves who steal to order, now they can just argue that they were hungry. Frozen meat is often stolen as it has a high value to weight ratio.

Many small business owners are far from rich, can they steal from their suppliers to make up for the losses?

</comment><comment><USER56> from the article

>>Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote.

What about the loss sustained by the owner? Or perhaps if the "not-so-rich clerk" at the supermarket was in charge of the goods and had to pay for the losses? Whose going to give that "not-so-rich clerk" the lost money?

Tomorrow if a thousand "hungry" people stole "small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food" then what?

I mean, such "populist" rulings are ultimately antithetical to democracy based society.

<comment><USER13> > I mean, such "populist" rulings are ultimately antithetical to democracy > based society.

I find that an utterly ludicrous claim given that the court was applying the law, and that parliament is free to change the law if they believe it is being misinterpreted.

Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would.

> Tomorrow if a thousand "hungry" people stole "small quantities of food to > satisfy a vital need for food" then what?

Then society would need to decide whether to deal with that by tightening up this law, or find other ways of treating the poor with some degree of dignity.

Consider such laws a recognition that life has greater value than property, and an incentive to ensure society keeps that in mind when deciding how to structure itself.

<comment><USER56> >>"life has greater value than property"...

This I agree. In fact, I am of the strong opinion that there should be very hard limits set on the ownership of certain types of properties (e.g. land, water, food). No one should be allowed to own any of such properties beyond a certain limit. [1] But once a person who owns whatever is allowed by the laws, then the law should protect the ownership of that person of that property and in case any person ( _needy or not-so-needy_ ) steals such a property of other person, the law _must not_ then take a populist u-turn to tell us grandiose sounding principles like "life has greater value than property". If the judge wants to show he/she is so "humane", he/she should pay for the loss of the owner and allow the "needy" poor to keep the food.

Some other better ways the judge could have taken: The judge could have ordered the officials overseeing the welfare matters and could have ordered them to compensate for the losses sustained by the owner. In fact, the judge had a very good opportunity to bring to the notice of that poor hungry person some of the welfare schemes that are set in place by the society.

But saying that a theft, which has caused damage to other law abiding citizen, is not a crime is not only ludicrous but is also dangerous.

>>Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would.

I am not against the society helping the needy people to survive but there are other "not-so-antithetical-to-democracy" ways of helping the needy people than just ignoring the thefts carried out by the needy people.

What was wrong on the part of the owner? Why he/she was punished? These are some very important issues here. We must not fall prey to sentiments like "thefts of food by poor hungry _is_ okay and anyway the shop owner is always that _dirty-rich_ person who needs to be punished".

[1] Note about private property: please note that I am not saying/suggesting that we should embrace the communist style anti-people tyrannical systems which prohibit "most"* people from owing any private property. Of course, the communists allow only the "more equal people" [2] (e.g. party chairman and his cronies in polit-bureau and few of their cronies in turn) to own _almost all_ of the property. The "party-people" are allowed to have as much fun as they want and at whatever troubles such fun-acts of the party-people cause to other "less equal" people, the communists just ignore.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Meanwhile the supermarket probably wasted many kilos of food the night before and locked the bin they threw it into. That is the crime that should be punished.

</comment><comment><USER58> May be the true reason of ruling is too many people, such as refuges, preferring live in jail. All they have to do is commit a petty crime occasionally.

<comment><USER59> This is why it's so important for your prison system to have a strong culture of sexual abuse. It allows the society to pretend they have a liberal justice system, while in reality all crimes are punished by rape.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity)

</comment><comment><USER61> Who decides if a person is truly starving and homeless, or just acting it to get free food?

<comment><USER62> The same people that normally decide if a person has committed a crime in Italy Judge/Jury/Whatever?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Isn't this the country that "Ladri di Biciclette" came from?

</comment><comment><USER64> Reminds me of La miserables.

<comment><USER65> Les Misérables

Edit: With appreciation to lorenzhs

<comment><USER66> Well if you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right - it's "Les Misérables"

<comment><USER67> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law)

<comment><USER66> Thanks, I didn't know the name for this phenomenon.

As a side note, grammatically "le miserable" is more wrong than "la miserable", as the latter is the right gender but lacking pluralization, while the former gets both wrong :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Is it possible to prove that one was hungry at the time of theft?

<comment><USER69> The assumption that people are lying unless proven otherwise is... well it just opens the door to a whole world of problems. It's also distasteful and ugly.

<comment><USER70> That's sort of how many affirmative defenses are treated in many legal systems. It's up to you to prove you have an excuse, so to say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I'm glad that stealing beer is still a crime :)

</comment><comment><USER70> That makes sense morally but are there actually starving people in first world nations? There are food banks, shelters, and churches that provide food, at least in America.

</comment><comment><USER72> I see the good intention but I don't see it working out well for businesses. Maybe it will work in Italy? I know it would be a $h!t show here in Seattle.

</comment><comment><USER73> By this logic, money theft is 'not a crime' if poor.

<comment><USER45> You do not have a basic biological need for money, actually.

<comment><USER66> I don't think anyone is saying poor people should be allowed to rob banks or mug people. The article is about stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger.

<comment><USER74> This site has a threaded discussion system, context matters. The post you are referring to was responding to someone who specifically made the point that this was analogous to allowing poor people to steal money, which is clearly not the case.

In this context, it's clear you are both in agreement.

<comment><USER66> Exactly, I was simply trying to elaborate on emodendroket's point to point out the flaw in nosotrue's logic. Sorry if I didn't make this clear enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Should probably say starving. I am always hungry.

<comment><USER76> It's a loose translation. A better one from the body of the article is "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment".

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Jean Valjean?

</comment><comment><USER78> To massively simplify a complex debate, there are 2 main schools of thought with respect to how to decrease future crime once a criminal has been apprehended [1]. The first is to make the punishment disincentivize future transgressions, and the second is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they won't make the decision to break the law again. Recently, society has been coming to terms with the fact that strict sentencing laws don't work in many situations (and often have unforeseen consequences, like the Revolving Door effect in American prisons [2]). In this situation, as much as we wish we could have directed the poor man to the nearest homeless shelter serving hot soup, it doesn't seem likely that taking away the threat of a 6 month prison stay would make him less likely to do that. The various hardships that are overindexed in the homeless population, from drug addiction to mental illness [3] (to perhaps a language barrier in this case) not only make them less likely to be able to find food consistently, but also make them less likely to respond to criminal disincentives.

It is a more enlightened philosophy of justice to acknowledge that saying 'you should have known better' won't make people know better. As the concept of morality progresses from a simple Hammurabian ear-for-an-ear justice game to a nuanced empirically-founded optimization problem, it will be interesting to see whether or not people continue to take pleasure in exerting it. That the latter problem tends to be incredibly engrossing to the technically literate means many of us will respond to this quite positively.

Postscript: If morality were a solved problem, would there be as many Effective Altruists?

[1] [http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx](http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx) [2] [http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/reports/00...](http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivism) [3] [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publicat...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publication/230755953_Homelessness_in_schizophrenia/links/540dafa10cf2df04e7564937.pdf) | relevant quote : estimation of mood disorders at "12% to 30% in various homeless samples".

<comment><USER79> Interesting to meet an effective altruist here. I was somewhat involved in EA for a while and even interned at an EA org, but after reading up a bunch of different philosophies the one which I found most consistent with reality was -- perhaps surprisingly -- Objectivism.

The inferential gap between EA and Objectivism is obviously huge, so it's not worth giving a full argument here. For the intellectually curious, though, I'll simply say that the two schools of thought fromthemorning cites both assume that the purpose of morality is to maximise the greater good (rather than, say, teaching individuals principles to maximise their own long-term personal happiness).

On the off chance that someone on the fringes of the EA movement reads this, someone who shares the concerns I once had - the ultimate issue with EA is that it's hyper-empiricist: EAs love evidence but are highly distrustful of theoretical arguments. This is an understandable position, but ultimately a mistake, because you end up unable to synthesise the vast amounts of data you gather. All truths are simplifications - what you need are rules to form correct simplifications.

Objectivism isn't taken seriously in mainstream intellectual circles but it should be, because it shows how to avoid the pitfalls of both empiricism and rationalism. (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for details).

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Similarly, under Italian law, beating the shit out of a bum isn't a crime if they're trying to steal your panino.

</comment><comment><USER81> Do you need to be hungry and poor, or just hungry? If latter - you can just help yourself in the supermarket whenever you wish?

<comment><USER66> To quote the article, the court ruled the way it did because he took those things "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment". Having a craving in the supermarket is not the same thing.

<comment><USER81> One doesn't need to be poor to experience "immediate and essential need for nourishment". I.e. you couldn't have time to eat breakfast, and you forgot to take your wallet with you.

<comment><USER66> Nope, that's called being hungry, not starving. Skipping breakfast does not make an _essential need_ for nourishment. If you're a healthy person you'd probably be fine without food for at least a couple of days, so you don't have an excuse to go around stealing stuff ;)

<comment><USER81> Maybe you're right :)

Anyway, my point is: theft is always theft. One may get lighter punishment because of the motives, but still should be punished. It's really hard to die of starvation in modern society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Sooo, what if he was stealing from a soup kitchen? Or if the prosecutor could prove that there was food available through charity? Or that the man had money, but didn't want to spend it on food? Seems like an awfully broad precedent (assuming Italian courts work the same way as US courts).

</comment><comment><USER83> Europeans (DHH for example) constantly brag about what great social safety nets the European countries provide for their people, and that US style charities are a waste. Implying charity money should be given to the government as tax money and let the state do their work instead.

Italy has just admitted that it can't take care of its citizens' basic needs. I'm not saying it's time to eat crow, but I am saying it's time to realize that both systems have flaws and there's no reason to get righteous about one approach over another.

<comment><USER84> What the what? Your generalizations are way out of line. You can argue about or criticize the ruling but don't use it out of context to push your own agenda.

<comment><USER83> I don't have an agenda, that's my point. I'm saying it's time for certain people to stop pushing theirs.

OK, I have an anti-agenda agenda.

<comment><USER84> > Europeans (DHH for example) constantly brag about what great social safety > nets the European countries provide for their people

> Italy has just admitted that it can't take care of its citizens' basic > needs.

Maybe you don't, but you are implying that this somehow is a failure of social safety nets.

As someone else in this thread mentioned, the italian justice system is based on civil law, not on precedent (common law) so this ruling doesn't have the repercussions many seem to think. I'm not a lawyer however, so don't quote me on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> I'm interested, what test do they perform to check if a person in question was hungry?/s Still, it's a bad precedence imho, so according to such logic, a homeless person could also invade my home and sleep in my bed, because he can't afford his own.

<comment><USER86> >according to such logic, a homeless person could also invade my home and sleep in my bed, because he can't afford his own.

Not quite, a homeless person could invade an empty home and sleep in that bed. This is done all the time, and is somewhat covered by squatter's rights. It's currently assumed that greater than 15% of the world's population are squatters. [1]

 _Squatting is the action of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land–or a building, usually residential–that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have lawful permission to use._

 _Author Robert Neuwirth suggested in 2004 that there were one billion squatters globally. He forecasts there will be two billion by 2030 and three billion by 2050._

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

<comment><USER85> What you've described is more akin to gathering discarded food in the back of supermarkets and restaurants, not taking it (stealing) from the rightful owner.

<comment><USER86> The original article is about about someone stealing food from a supermarket. Yes, the supermarket is the rightful owner, but they aren't going to actually consume the food.

<comment><USER87> You're not going to consume your bed, either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I have wondered whether this applies to the ethics of piracy too.

For example, on release of a blockbuster movie - the distributor will do blanket advertising saturating every channel trying to manufacture a demand - tv, internet, sides of buses, roadside-hoardings, in taxis, talk shows, newspaper native ads etc. You just can't escape even in your own home eating your breakfast cereal when the box is smeared with adverts.

If a demand has been manufactured by a catastrophic pollution of our environment, I can't blame anyone for satisfying it without paying the maker. They didn't really have a choice.

<comment><USER25> That's absurd. Being subject to incessant advertising doesn't make you _need_ a movie or beyond responsibility for your own actions.

No one is saying this guy isn't responsible for stealing food, the court is saying he ought not to be punished for it given his particular circumstances.

EDIT: I'll concede this may not apply to toddlers.</comment></comment>


Forbidden Data: Wyoming just criminalized citizen science - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/05/wyoming_law_against_data_collection_protecting_ranchers_by_ignoring_the.html

<comment><USER2> It is a trespassing enhancement statute. You could still navigate public waterways or take photos from the land borders.</comment>


Ask HN: Why doesn't google.com implement DNSSEC? - <AUTHOR> https://dnssec-debugger.verisignlabs.com/google.com <comment><AUTHOR> Does anyone know why Google hasn't implemented DNSSEC on google.com ?

<comment><USER2> Because DNSSEC is silly and doesn't solve any real problems, but does introduce a major operational burden where screwups have immense costs.</comment></comment>


Top 5 Reasons it Sucks to be an Engineering Student | Wired Science from Wired.com - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/top-5-reasons-i.html <comment><USER2> Well as long as we're throwing around rash generalizations, Engineers don't get involved on campus, except occasionally with engineering groups. That is why they don't realize that there are other majors out there that work their asses off. I know a couple of theater majors who, while my engineering roommates and I are tailgating, are spending the entire morning working on a show or are actually in class on a saturday morning.

In response to point 2, it seems like a lot of engineering grades are basically arbitrary. Usually the average ends up being between 55-70, so the professor just has to set some sort of curve, which they can put wherever - they are, however, generally less forgiving when doing so.

To point #1 Last semester, I had to make up an idea and design an interface from scratch. Right now, one of my roommates is working on hypothesis testing for a tetris AI system, one is working on creating his own just in time compiler, and there's a number of other projects going on at any given time. This article seriously sounds like it was written by a 19 year old sophomore that hasn't yet gotten over the bitterness/arrogance of being in a really challenging field and hasn't even tried to find something to do in college other than his homework. You can be an engineer and enjoy yourself, both academically and socially, it just takes a little bit of |oh no| _creativity_.

</comment><comment><USER3> As someone with a computer engineering degree, I think this article is totally lame. I'm just going to have to address each point:

Point #5: Some textbooks are indeed awful. This is probably the most reasonable point here. But I don't think this is specific to engineering. And it's possible to learn the material in different ways, thanks to the net.

Point #4: I don't think it is a professor's job to 'create excitement'. I'm happy with a professor when they do a great job explaining things, not when they sound like a Pontiac ("we build excitement") ad.

Point #3: This stands out as particularly awful. Engineering programs don't exist to hold students' hands while they search for work.

Point #2: This point manages to be arrogant and incorrect at the same time. In my experience, the brightest students are often the ones with the best grades. Yes, some obviously talented students will slack, but the author is totally over-generalizing.

Point #1: Every assignment feels the same. He makes this statement, and then fails to back it up. Yes, many assignments were based on math. This does not make them the same. I don't think many engineers would agree that deriving the Nyquist theorem is the same as solving an RLC circuit network. Engineering is totally about creativity - but like anything, first you need to learn the basics.

<comment><USER4> My degrees are in systems engineering, but I have to agree about point 3. University is not vocational training, if you want that there are plenty of (much cheaper!) places that offer career focused qualifications.

As for engineering being harder than other subjects... well, it certainly doesn't hurt me if people have that perception :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Of course they're math problems. I'm not sure I'd like the idea of working with Elec. Engineers or Civil engineers that don't know the math they need and just guess at everything.

</comment><comment><USER6> But the chicks are AWESOME.

<comment><USER7> What chicks? Any chicks!

PS: spent 5 years in an engineering school = a campus with ONLY engineering students.</comment></comment>


The pattern behind self-deception : Michael Shermer - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting how we develop code to be more intelligent and to identify objects, when humans have such a hard time recognizing patterns (as shown in the video).</comment>


How Hackers Hid a Money-Mining Botnet in Amazon's Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/07/how-hackers-hid-a-money-mining-botnet-in-amazons-cloud/ <comment><USER3> "Imagine a distributed denial-of-service attack where the incoming IP addresses are all from Google and Amazon. That becomes a challenge. You can't blacklist that whole IP range."

Why exactly not? Amazon and probably Google cloud's IPs are probably available publicly, and you can probably discern Googlebot's IP from the cloud ones (using user agent, or even ip ranges). You can sensibly block IP ranges from any dedicated hosts/cloud providers. Only <1% of them would be valid traffic (ie someone working in AWS going to your site directly)

<comment><USER4> I sometimes use a personal OpenVPN install I have on AWS. I know from experience that Stack Overflow and Yelp block me; presumably, they block the whole range.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> They don't mention Amazon specifically except in the title and the final sentence.

I recall, when I signed up for my free year of AWS, that it required a valid credit card. They claimed to only target providers that need essentially only an email address.

I think that detail makes the title incredibly misleading.

<comment><USER6> The cards aren't charged. You could sign up for several accounts with the same card, and I would imagine it's trivial to buy credit cards with $25 on them each or buy up old ones with less. These cards could also be stolen - <USER2> possible reason the information doesn't align in the article. Imagine using stolen cards for authenticating an account that doesn't accrue charges. It's genius.

This also illustrates the rules of efficiencies. If there exists a resource one makes available for a given purpose (signing up lots of developers for free accounts) then you can assume there exists others who will figure out how to get those resources and turn them into something else of value to them.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. There's also no such thing as limiting fraud. It will always be a choice.

<comment><USER7> I believe that AWS account creation requires unique emails & card numbers, but I'm not sure. There is definitely a telephone call with voice PIN, so I highly doubt that they used AWS accounts directly.

I think the "Amazon" spin in the title is from many other services running atop of EC2 and effectively reselling EC2 instances or access to VMs that run on EC2. They could more easily create accounts with these services and technically still run "within Amazon's cloud".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> tl;dr "Hackers" automated sign up to free trial cloud accounts, installed Litecoin miner

I see nothing ethically wrong with this. As long as companies offer a free trial, they should consider the risk that users will take advantage of it to do anything that can be done on a computer, whether that means running proxies, scrapers, or miners.

The only plausible issue here is that the "hackers" automated the process, meaning they have no intention to actually convert into paid customers. But surely the companies account for the risk of free trial users not converting to paid. That's the whole point of a free trial.

The only way to mitigate this is to require a credit card up front for the free trial, which IIRC has been shown to reduce conversions. It's likely that reducing conversions by requiring a credit card will cost companies more than they lose from automated scripts signing up to their service. (And by the way, a CAPTCHA will be futile here -- the bots are only signing up to a few dozen accounts, so the "hackers" can manually solve the CAPTCHAs or farm each out to Pakistan for fractions of a cent.)

Back in my "blackhat SEO" days, these kind of scripts were super common. Any minimally profitable process that can be automated, can and should be. Because when you scale $0.25/day across 1000s of accounts, suddenly you're making quite a bit more.

This is actually a great idea and I just might implement it myself. Come at me! ;)

</comment><comment><USER9> Well, i'm not exactly sure about them hiding anything as far as the article is concerned...

They set up a litecoin mining botnet and out fear being detected - and more generally doing the right thing - shut it down / reduced it to only a few bots.... So it's not like they actively tried to hide it via some kind of rootkit or the likes...

</comment><comment><USER10> [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/](http://www.escapistmagazine.com/) blacklists the whole AWS IP range.

I think [http://www.gutenberg.org/](http://www.gutenberg.org/) does the same.

<comment><USER11> A lot of places block all of AWS. Even stackoverflow does it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > "They're not really thinking about defending against these kinds of > attacks."

What should we do then?

I am not familiar with bitcoin so I can't say exactly how to defend it other than just say block certain tools at least.

Any site providing service to run user code is always vulnerable to code execution abuse, and this is where sandbox and strict job execution policy (job timeout, system call prohibitions, whitelist approach etc) are required. But that will degrade the service's usefulness. Obviously reading /etc/passwd should return permission denied or at least returns nothing and any file creation is restricted to local sandbox.

I'd like to ask people from codeacademy and coursera to reveal a bit more about their security policy. You can build your own rainbow table if they allow you to use the hash library, http request and sends request to remote service (with a digitalocean account you can pay $5 for 20GB SSD storage).

</comment><comment><USER13> > Sweet mustache. I see it and it says 'Listen to me, I know what I speak.'

Solid comment.

</comment><comment><USER6> Mental note: no free credits for StackMonkey.

<comment><USER8> Kind of off topic, but I hadn't seen Stackmonkey before. Awesome execution on the idea of a cloud market. This was something I was looking to get into a while back, but implementation seemed too complicated. Impressive job.

If you want my unsolicited advice, I would recommend really focusing on your cloud market offering. I think this is going to be huge in the next decade. Cloud computing is rapidly moving to a utility model, and whoever controls the platform connecting service providers to service consumers is going to make a shitload of money.

I'm actually working on a product in a similar space now; if you want to chat, shoot me an email -- email@example.com</comment></comment>