U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record again - <AUTHOR> https://www.noaa.gov/news/us-has-its-wettest-12-months-on-record-again <comment><USER2> I wonder if water export can become an industry in the same manner as petroleum or natural gas? With solar power getting so inexpensive I wonder if we could fill a very slow solar power tanker and ship it to the middle east at costs lower than desalinization? Thoughts anyone?

It might not be so crazy. At one-time shipping ice around the world was a thing.

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

<comment><USER3> Except the US really, really, really needs it. Just in different parts of the US.

<comment><USER4> Keep your mitts off our water. You don't need water-intensive agriculture in the desert.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know what 'on record' means for NOAA?

EDIT: I found this from NOAA -> Earth's long-term warming trend continued in 2018 as persistent warmth across large swaths of land and ocean resulted in the globe's fourth hottest year in NOAA's 139-year climate record.

So the implication is that this is that maybe this is the wettest 12 months since 1879?

</comment><comment><USER6> What if rather than doom we get global tropical paradise

<comment><USER7> What if new tropical paradises means the current tropical paradises become uninhabitable, creating more forced migrations that make the syrian refugee crisis look like a quiet day on the canadian border, and the lands that become your "tropical paradise" actually are the grain belts of the world, which can no longer grow all the food a continuously expanding global population demands?

Look at all the flooding in the midwest this year -- despite dams on every major river, we've still had record-breaking field inundation and crop failure. Is that the new normal paradise you're describing?

<comment><USER8> Wheat prices don't seem to be particular affected;

[https://www.macrotrends.net/2534/wheat-prices-historical- cha...](https://www.macrotrends.net/2534/wheat-prices-historical-chart-data)

<comment><USER9> We also have financialization of markets, which allows manipulation. The USDA has also made some controversial assessments with readjustments of the corn production forecast. Currently, 31 million corn acres are deemed unplanted this year. One can read the trends to see the writing on the wall...

[https://www.agweb.com/article/crunch-time-31-million-corn- ac...](https://www.agweb.com/article/crunch-time-31-million-corn-acres- uplanted-naa-anna-lisa-laca/)

Gold & Silver have also been kept artificially low & there is incoming indictments of market rigging. I add this as an example of how financialization distorts the pricing information flow.

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/merrill-lynch-fined-by- doj...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/merrill-lynch-fined-by-doj-cftc-for- spoofing-in-precious-metals-futures-2019-06-25)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if this will help to refill some of the depleted aquifers.

<comment><USER11> Yes, its about the only thing floods are good for.

<comment><USER12> No, floods just wash by, eroding top soil and often decreasing future aquifer replenishment because there is less to hold on to the water to give it time to soak down into the aquifer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Global climate change => higher air temperatures => more water in the air => more water available to fall out of the air.

<comment><USER14> The most powerful supercomputers in the world are focused on weather analysis and they can only project a few days out. Yet, some people think they've got it figured out.

<comment><USER15> The most powerful supercomputers in the world are not even close in processing power of a 4 year old. Isn't it possible that some people can see patterns that the supercomputers can't?

<comment><USER16> Sure, but those supercomputers aren't autonomous, they're programmed and designed by thousands of human adult experts.

<comment><USER15> And these people can make mistakes or be biased. If we can't predict what the weather in our hometowns will be how can we predict how will the climate change?

<comment><USER17> You can't predict where a bubble will form when boiling water, but you can predict that the pot will get to over 100C.

<comment><USER15> But doesn't that depend on how large is the pot and how much energy you're putting into boiling it? Not to mention that you also need to know the environment in the which you're trying to boil the water. If you're trying to boil the water in the middle of arctic winter, can you predict that the pot will get to over 100C if you're using just a small camping stove? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know where to get data for macro weather trends like these? I am curious what regions will have the most ideal weather in the next few years.

<comment><USER19> A U.S. focused take from 2017: [https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/02/global- warming-will-b...](https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/02/global-warming-will- bring-milder.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Dr. Heinrich Svensmark has physical experimental evidence that cosmic rays seed clouds.

[https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that- svensm...](https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensmark-s- solar-cosmic-ray-theory-of-climate-is-correct/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3MqdBX0_k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3MqdBX0_k)

The Earth's magnetosphere & Sun's Heliosphere are measurably weakened due to the Grand Solar Minimum. The Earth is also going through a magnetic pole reversal. These magnetic fields shield Earth from cosmic rays. If they are weaker, Earth will be bombarded by cosmic rays.

[https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/04/23/a-perfect- storm-o...](https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/04/23/a-perfect-storm-of- cosmic-rays/)

The other planets in the solar system are have observed effects of cosmic ray bombardment.

[https://www.space.com/39590-jupiter-great-red-spot-color- sti...](https://www.space.com/39590-jupiter-great-red-spot-color-still-a- mystery.html)

A model backed by physical experimental evidence & reliable observations is the basis of the scientific process.</comment>


Step 1 – Setup VPC: Deploying a Rails Application to Elastic Beanstalk - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cmgresearch.com/2017/05/01/deploying-a-rails-app-to-elastic-beanstalk.html <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this blog post because all the examples I found on the web seemed to be pretty much rehashes of the Amazon docs and didn't really go into configuring the environment in a secure way that you could use in production.</comment>


Can Twitter Be Made in China? - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2011/06/can-twitter-be-made-in-china.html

<comment><USER2> For a foreign company attempting to break into that market:

Not with censors, minders, and the party looking over their shoulder. Also, would you care to give half your company over to the authorities.

For a home-grown company attempting to break out of that market:

The same as above applies, but in reverse. You need to get rid of that albatross around your neck.</comment>


Apple, Facebook to Pay for Female Employees to Freeze Their Eggs - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2014/10/14/apple-facebook-egg-freezing/?utm_cid=mash-com-G+-main-link

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, encouraging, and disturbing all at once... How about a more integrated work-life system? Like on-site daycare and private schools? Even clinics. I'm sure they could partner up and make room for it.

<comment><USER3> How is that any less disturbing? Certain things should be handled by the state because everyone involved needs to share the burden. Privatizing it is not the answer.

<comment><AUTHOR> On site daycare and clinics disturbing? Why is it disturbing for parents to be in closer proximity to their children (e.g. Marissa Meyer, Shonda Rhimes, et al). I'm not an advocate of privatizing everything. I do believe that there can be effective symbiosis between the private and public sectors - <USER2> mutual accountability.

For example, companies could be incentivized to provide such services on site. I'm a mom. If I were a tech employee (or any other kind of employee), I would prefer to drop my child(ren) off at an on-site facility, where I could spend lunch and breaks with them, and where there is an additional bonus of them getting to know other children of people I spend 1/3 of my day / life with. It's not as if people would be obligated to use the services, but I bet it would be valued above freezing eggs and serve many more people - male and female alike. Work Place 2.0

<comment><USER3> I agree it is convenient but it still feels weird to me all the same. Most large tech companies are already mini nation states and that's just scary. These benefits should be available to everyone across the board and not just to those who happen to work at money printing factories like Google and Facebook. Providing care for children is a social good and should be treated as such and not a carrot that can be dangled in front of qualified candidates.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that it should not just be for privileged few.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Ship a Beluga Whale via UPS - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/how-to-ship-a-beluga-whale-via-ups/ <comment><USER2> The infrastructure for moving big, heavy things is quite well developed. Most people never deal with it, but it's all in place. It only costs about $1100 to move a shipping container from Shentzen to Long Beach by ship. Heavy air transport is much more expensive, but quite available.

For moving really heavy things, check out Mammoet, the world leader in heavy transport. You call them when you need to move a zinc refinery to the Arctic.

<comment><USER3> People regularly import American trucks into Europe. It costs ~$2000 to ship an F150 from New York to Hamburg - more if you want it in a container. Apparently it's cheaper than buying them locally...

<comment><USER4> I've heard of people buying motorcycles breaking them down into separate pieces shipping them to their country. Once the arrive they reassemble them to avoid paying heavy import taxes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "I just say yes, then figure it out later"

I like that.

<comment><USER6> Another way to read this is, "Never, ever have a free price point."

> When the Georgia Aquarium broke ground in 2005, _UPS made a generous > donation: at no cost,_ they offered their logistics and shipping services > for whatever the facility needed.

Fair enough. I like it. So how did the aquarium reply:

>"we'd like to transport ... four whale sharks in Taipei and two beluga whales in Mexico to Atlanta".

There is no way UPS would have been shipping those whales at any reasonable (even discount) price point.

At least they got this article out of it!

<comment><USER7> A charitable donation is not a "free price point", and I doubt a company like UPS didn't anticipate the possibility that the open-ended donation might be somewhat expensive.

<comment><USER8> UPS knew what they were getting into. You don't pledge transportation services to the world's largest aquarium without expecting to ship some fish.

The publicity was probably worth the cost. If I had to ship a terracotta army, I'd much rather go with a company that is known to have successfully shipped a couple of sharks and whales.

<comment><USER9> The cost was probably tabulated and tax deductible. That helps.

<comment><USER10> I don't understand this mentality. Costs are _always_ tax-deductible, it's not as if this is some added perk. Same with donations, "ooh, donations are tax- deductible!" Yeah, so is an advertising campaign, you're not doing me a favor here.

<comment><USER11> If you've already decided you're going to be charitable you can be much more generous because of the deduction.

With that said Georgia Aquarium keeps killing their beluga whales.

<comment><USER10> > If you've already decided you're going to be charitable you can be much more > generous because of the deduction.

Can you explain that a bit? If I'm going to spend $1000 on ads, I can write them off as an expense, and save $X off taxes. If I decide to spend it on charity, will I save more than $X on taxes?

<comment><USER12> Charity gets you goodwill and free distribution of your message.

Advertising just annoys people -- to the extent that they will install software designed to block it.

Note that a) UPS didn't have to pay a additional dime for this article, or hundreds of others (google "UPS shipping beluga") and b) most of us are reading it voluntarily.

Which do you think is the better deal? Between this article and an intrusive popup ad jumping in your face, which do you think makes people think more positively toward UPS?

Without the deduction for charitable contributions, that wouldn't be an option.

<comment><USER10> This is irrelevant. I'm asking why "tax deductible" is touted as a benefit of charity, when costs are already tax deductible.

<comment><USER13> Costs are subtracted from income to get net income, by contrast charitable deductions are subtracted directly from the tax owing.

<comment><USER10> Oh, really? Does that mean that, if you owe $1000 in tax, you can give it to a charity of your choice, rather than the government? That sounds like a pretty big advantage.

<comment><USER13> In canada, anyway, you have a limit as to how much you can donate and you receive tax credits in return. It's not 1:1 though, so it's not as if I can just donate my taxes to a charity rather than the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _A 747 can carry up to 120,000 pounds of volume, so their weight wasn't the issue; the issue, says Matthews, was where to put them, and how to distribute the weight._

The other very important point is to make sure that the load is securely in place, as something of that weight moving around inside the plane can have disasterous results:

[http://avherald.com/h?article=46183bb4](http://avherald.com/h?article=46183bb4)

</comment><comment><USER15> For some reason this story reminded me of this guy who repos ships:

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/14/max- hardberger-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/14/max-hardberger- sea-captain-pirates-seized)

If you google his name you can find a few neat stories about him. He wrote a pretty entertaining book about his adventures too:

[http://www.amazon.com/Freighter-Captain-Max- Hardberger/dp/09...](http://www.amazon.com/Freighter-Captain-Max- Hardberger/dp/0964043378)

<comment><USER16> Love his "no violence" stance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The cabin shown in the photo says it's a 747. It looks way too small to be a 747. Is it just me?

<comment><USER18> It's probably the upper deck, which is normally 6 seats across.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> In pieces.

<comment><USER20> (upvoted because is a logical answer to the question provided. The title don't say nothing about alive or not).

But I wonder why we want a marine animal to travel by air or in a closed container when you can easily provide it with a "migration experience" just putting a submerged cage in a jib and use water instead fuel to fully support their body weight.

Some problemas with this idea that I can see is how avoid the motorship noise (Helicopters and planes do a lot of noise also) and speed of the cruise vs speed of the animals. and the relationship between the cage and the ship

If we could solve those points the most human way to move a beluga should be by sea in a mix of a submerged sea cage next the prow (if wheater permits) and pool.

Yes, remember, we have huge ships with huge swimming pools!. People even could pay an extra price by a "extra-luxe-best-and-first-cruise-in-the-world-with- whale-shark-experience" (if you need to put the animal safely in a harbour or if a puntual danger appears you use the jib and put the whale or the shark in the pool).

You can put all fish and material that you want for the whale in the hold of the cruise (you could even save some costs of their feeding if you just fish for the whale in the meanwhile).

If properly done, this will be also a really great publicity for both the aquarium and the cruise company. No troubles with faeces, the best place to swim effortless, and the best water quality than a beluga can dream with. Put some fake whales in front of the cage and the beluga probably will try to follow them. Less stress, richer life and a healthy exercise for the whale. Both animals, whale and shark are designed to migrate huge distances and love it...

Yes, definitely we should explore the idea of creating mobile dolphinariums.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Could've been a nice article. But it said "fish" and "sharks" far too often and .. well. I doubt that this ever happened if you suck at the basics. Most offensive:

Matthews was only half-way done: he still had to transport the two beluga whales from Mexico City — a task that ended up being more logistically challenging than the first. Though he'd been warned by the aquarium that the whales were "distressed, and in subpar conditions," he wasn't prepared for what he found.

"The tank was literally in the center of a roller coaster, in the middle of an amusement park," he says. "They were put in the tanks when they were 6 feet long, and at the time of transfer, they were 15 feet long. I thought, how the hell am I getting these _sharks_ out of this park?"

<comment><USER22> Author here. That quote should read "...how the hell am I getting these [whales] out of this park?" Thanks for catching that.

I went through and read the rest of the article to double check for other mix- ups, but this was the only one I found. Whale sharks are technically classified as "fish," hence my use of the word to refer to them throughout. Thanks for reading!

<comment><USER23> I just scanned the article, it seems correct now in its use of shark/fish/whale/etc designators.

It's a confusing situation with both belugas (who are whales, and therefore mammals, and not fish despite their appearance) and whale-sharks (who are sharks, and therefore fish, but not related to whales despite their name). Add to that things like fish-tanks and so on, and you got a lot of room for confusion, so it pays to double-check everything!</comment></comment></comment>


Alan Kay's Tribute to Ted Nelson at "Intertwingled" Fest [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrlSqtpOkw&feature=youtu.be

<comment><USER2> For anyone who wants to play with the actual revived smalltalk system: [http://lively-web.org/users/bert/Smalltalk-78.html](http://lively- web.org/users/bert/Smalltalk-78.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Just when I thought I'd seen everything Kay's was involved in...

ps : at 9'47 is an interactive document with embedded live graphical interpreter. Stunning.

</comment><comment><USER4> This vision of what computing could be is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ted Nelson is one of my heroes, if only by his ability to connect so many dots in such an original way. The more his ideas spread, the better the world.</comment>


Gordon Brown: Wiring a web for global good - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown.html <comment><USER2> You gota like the guy, maybe he did save the world seeing as Financial Times is being optimistic about a recovery this year.

A global society however is not achieved by rhetorics and heart felt stories of children. China, a country with 2 billion people has only 300 million users on the internet, compare this with America or Britain which has almost 100% internet access. Not to mention the censuring of the internet by the Chinese government, and recently we heard by the German government also.

The internet is mostly English. You are able to find original articles in renown peer reviewed journals on about everything, but mostly in English. Unless we can improve our automatic translating technology, the whole world misses these advancement in knowledge, and falls behind, creating a virtual environment of haves and have nots which mirrors rather well the real world.

Yes we should have stooped Rwanda and Sudan, but Iraq had oil. In a world like ours where government is governed by corporations rather than people, what is sane to do will always fall behind what is most profitable in the short term. This government has given billions to banks, yet there are so many young people who would do with some of that money at the interest that the bank got them. These young people are the ones who create a global society by improving the translating technologies, by improving the cables through bringing competition and innovation. This government is doing nothing to help these young people, it is instead left to Prince Charles to fill this gap and although his trust may be doing a good job, the funds available are minimal.

Trade might have gone global, but a global society is in its very infancy and we need the government to support it with concrete policies and not rhetorics and heart felt stories.

<comment><USER3> _China, a country with 2 billion people has only 300 million users on the internet, compare this with America or Britain which has almost 100% internet access._

You're getting confused between availability of internet access and the actual usage of the internet. It turns out here in the UK 25-30% of the population don't care about using the internet or aren't aware of its benefits.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone withexperience using an ERP for distribution/warehouse management? - <AUTHOR> My company is looking into various options for ERP systems, such as SAP BusinessOne and Netsuite. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with these or similar systems and can comment on how easy it is to put data in and get data out via their APIs and otherwise customize these tools? Do you like the ERP you use overall? <comment><USER2> I am an Oracle consultant specializing in inventory/manufacturing and give you this perspective.

Oracle offers two main products - their legacy, on premise E-Business Suite application, and their new Oracle Cloud offering. The functionality, maturity, customizability, and usability of these products is very different. With EBS, it is super customizable and there is a whole host of open API's you can use to create transactions. You can access the database directly and change data there if you want. Very simple to create custom programs on top of the ERP system and report against it to do what you want. I see companies truly make this their own and succeed with it.

Not so much yet with Oracle Cloud. The inventory / warehouse management systems are nascent and the API's are very limited. They may have some of what you want but there will be something for which an API does not exist and it will be a show stopper. You cannot access the database and building on top is difficult.

Of course, each of these is a $500k+ investment to setup and manage per year. Oracle will try their darndest to push to you to Cloud, but if you truly want customizability you want EBS. If you have further questions or need help feel free to email in profile.

</comment><comment><USER3> What size company and what's your budget? Do you have requirements of working with an accounting system such as quickbooks?</comment>


How much oxygen for a person to survive in an air-tight enclosure? (2004) - <AUTHOR> http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/how_much_oxygen_for_a_person.htm <comment><USER2> If you want to live in an air tight containers, you need to also be concerned about co2 buildup.

<comment><USER3> Came to say precisely this. Before you run out of o2 the co2 levels will likely render you unconscious, and will potentially also suppress your breathing.

I took a lungful (choked on the first breath, coughed, started really choking) of air heavy with co2 in a pub cellar once. Only because I fainted on top of the kegs above the co2 saturated air on the floor (leaky cylinder valve) am I here to tell you about it. Tastes like acidic metal and black velvet rushes in.

<comment><USER4> An other fun danger of insufficiently aerated rooms: in wine countries, until cellars aeration became more widespread a huge danger was CO buildup in cellars from fermentation, to these days people regularly die during initial fermentation, and a warning you get is "if you see somebody unconscious at the bottom of the cellar stairs you do _not_ go down to help, you call the firefighters, trying to help just ensures they have two bodies to retrieve".

<comment><USER5> What if you hold your breath to help?

<comment><USER6> That would work if you have excellent breath-holding ability. But since you're exerting yourself by carrying an ~150-lb body, there is a risk you'll pass out because you're holding your breath. So you probably should take multiple trips, repeatedly moving the person partially and then returning to get good air. You should _slowly_ exhale all the while.

DO NOT hyperventilate before holding your breath and exerting yourself! Reason is, if you hyperventilate, then take a big breath, hold it and exert yourself you are likely to pass out _instantly_ w/o warning! [This was something we learned as kids - do not do this! You _will_ pass out (and you also risk embolism/stroke).

<comment><USER5> Why slowly exhale? Why is hyperventilating first bad?

<comment><USER6> _" Why slowly exhale?"_ \- So you don't increase the pressure in your lungs.

 _" Why is hyperventilating first bad?"_ \- Should you hyperventilate and then hold your breath and any pressure is put on your lungs, YOU WILL PASS OUT! Don't do this!

Essentially hyperventilation reduces the blood's CO2 level. It becomes so low (while hyperventilating) that the body does not detect when the CO2 level subsequently rises to a dangerous level(while diving/holding your breath). The body fails to urge you to breathe fresh air and so you unwittingly pass out.

See the following two links for more info:

"The Choking Game: Self-induced hypocapnia": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game#Self- induced_hypo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game#Self- induced_hypocapnia)

Deep-water divers hyperventilate and then take a big breath immediately before they dive. Sometimes "shallow water blackout" (same as what happens to kids in the "choking game) occurs, endangering the diver:

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A related question that might be interesting is in a container of a given volume that is perfectly sealed except for one hole to the outside air, and with no fans or other systems to encourage air exchange, how big does the hole need to be to keep oxygen levels high enough and CO2 levels low enough for survival indefinitely?

My intuition at first says that it would need to be a big hole because there won't be much airflow since the pressure inside and outside will be the same. But that is looking at it wrong.

It's the individual gases that matter. If CO2 is more concentrated inside than out, then there will be a net transfer of CO2 out. Similarly for O2 coming in. It's a diffusion problem, not an airflow problem, and I've got no usable intuition for that.

A interesting variant would be to make the hole intermittent. Assuming that my house is perfectly sealed when the doors are closed, do the normal openings for my daily comings and goings provide sufficient time for enough O2 to diffuse in and CO2 to diffuse out to keep my inside air breathable?

<comment><USER8> This is a question I've asked myself before too. Here's a back-of-envelope calculation which seems to suggest that diffusion alone will never be enough to keep someone alive inside a box. I'd be really interested to hear if someone can confirm or refute this.

Let's assume CO2 transfer is entirely diffusion-limited, i.e. the worst-case of completely still air. The diffusive flux of some gas-component (per unit area per unit time) J is governed by concentration-gradient (dn/dx) multiplied by a magic diffusion coefficient D, which depends on the molecular properties of the gas. For CO2 in air D = 1.6e-5 m^2/s. Let's assume the gradient is linear so dn/dx = (n_{inside} - n_{outside}) / length. Now n_{outside) = 0.04% * 1 kg/m^3 = 4e-4 kg/m^3. We should decide what level of CO2 we can tolerate, 0.5% should be on the safe side, so n_{inside} = 5e-3 kg/m^3.

Length is a bit trickier. If (a) we assume completely stagnant air inside and outside, length should be chosen as the size of the box ~1 m say. However if (b) we assume that inside and outside are pretty well-mixed _individually_ , due by breathing, wind etc., then length should be about the depth of the hole, or thickness of the box-material, say 1 cm = 0.01 m. For case (a) CO2 leaves our box at a rate of about 7e-8 kg/s/m^2, for (b) 7e-6 kg/s/m^2.

From the original article, a human breaths .84 kg of O2/day, let's estimate a production of 1kg CO2/day (the extra carbon atom can't be all _that_ significant), or 1e-5 kg/s.

To compute the area of hole needed to maintain 0.5% CO2, we just divide 1e-5 by J, to get the area. In case (a) we need an enormous area of 135 m^2, in (b) "only" 1.35 m^2.

This seems to suggest that "air-holes" must work (if indeed they work at all) with air-flow. This doesn't necessary require an over- or under-pressure in the box - a suction can be generated by wind passing over a box with holes on both sides - this process would be far more efficient at restoring atmosphere than diffusion. But would be less reliable.

<comment><USER9> Heat is another helper here. Body heat would eventually cause a chimney effect unless the single hole is on the bottom of the box. That will create an air current, greatly increasing the speed of diffusion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Your result of "0.042 day" is also known as "an hour."

<comment><USER11> or, when multiplied by 1000, perhaps something else...

<comment><USER12> ...Life, The Universe and Everything.

<comment><USER12> What? Nobody read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Heck, it was also the first computer game I ever played.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What about the scene from pirates of the Caribbean where they walk underwater in an upside down rowboat. Is that realistic?

<comment><USER13> If you're asking about the oxygen levels, I'd say so. At a rough guess of 1m^2 of oxygen per person in the boat, for two people. That's an hour of walking according to the article. (Assuming water takes less oxygen to walk in)

I think it'd float to the top though. It'll need some kind of weight...

A one ton metal boat shaped object would do:

[http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/11/episode_92_pirates_2_row_...](http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/11/episode_92_pirates_2_row_boat.html)

<comment><USER14> Nitpick: s/1m^2/1m^3

> I think it'd float to the top though. It'll need some kind of weight...

A simple way of thinking about it is that boats float because they contain air (rather than water). The fact that they are upside down or the right way up changes little.

Since the rowboat can support two people, it should definitely float to the surface, dragging them along with it.

<comment><USER15> > Since the rowboat can support two people, it should definitely float to the > surface, dragging them along with it.

Only if the air bubble occupied the entire inner portion of the hull. If it were, say, only half the volume of the hull - I suspect it would be neutrally buoyant with the weight of two people.

<comment><USER16> People are roughly* neutrally bouyant in water. Thus they don't weigh anything when submerged. Otherwise swimming would be very hard indeed. So you would need to weigh down the boat to sink all that air and wood.

*depending on depth and body composition, but give or take a bit, neutral.

<comment><USER15> Agreed, but boats when not filled with air are typically negatively buoyant. I'd wager that there's an air bubble small enough to make the whole system negatively buoyant, but large enough to sustain the people breathing it for some period of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm reminded of _A Pail of Air_ by Fritz Leiber.

</comment><comment><USER18> Twenty thousand leagues under the sea had an interesting part about the same problem.

</comment><comment><USER19> Whoa whoa. This means Sunshine wasn't scientifically accurate?!

</comment><comment><USER20> Would be nice if this calculation were in iPython notebook or Cruncher ([https://www.cruncher.io/](https://www.cruncher.io/)).</comment>


Analyzing a New MacOS DNS Hijacker: OS X/MaMi - <AUTHOR> https://objective-see.com/blog/blog_0x26.html <comment><USER2> It's unsigned so the only way to run this is by bypassing the blocks on unsigned code and then dismissing the warning you get. But you can be sure this is going to be presented as the next MacOS virus that will infect your machine automatically when you click on a link in an email.

</comment><comment><USER3> I will disagree on the "how do I disinfect myself" part - the only way to recover from this is to nuke the machine and consider all data it held compromised.

If this malware found its way onto your machine there's a good chance other, much nastier malware could've done so as well, not to mention this malware having functions for running arbitrary AppleScript & shell commands and so can fully compromise your machine.

<comment><USER4> > Q: How do I disinfect myself?

> A: Often malware can install other malware, or allow an remote attacker to > do what ever they want. Thus if you were/are infected it's suggested you > fully re-install macOS. However, you can probably get away with simply > resetting the DNS servers and deleting the malicious certifcate.

So you pretty much agree with most of what he said (in a very succinct fashion), except his advice is based on research and yours seems to be based solely on dogma?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> 9to5mac article on this: [https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/15/macos-dns-hijacking- malware/](https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/15/macos-dns-hijacking-malware/)</comment>


Google AMP is Winning - <AUTHOR> https://www.alexkras.com/google-amp-is-winning/ <comment><USER2> This is a nice step in the discussion, I guess, but it really gets sidetracked from the fundamental issue with AMP. The fundamental issue is not 'nobody needs this' or 'this is a non-problem' or 'AMP isn't good'. The issue is that AMP is a monopolist, technologically inferior solution to an important problem, and monopoly power is being used to force the entire web ecosystem into an inferior solution.

We could have a better solution to this problem with reduced (I am not naive enough to think Google would be fully altruistic here) lock-in and better engineering, and Google is definitely capable of delivering that solution. Even with internal (past Googler) perspective here I honestly can't come up with an explanation [1] for why AMP is so _bad_ from an engineering and feature set perspective. It's built with a good understanding of the problems users face, and they've adapted somewhat well to the needs of publishers, but the design is a trainwreck from the perspective of a frontend webdev, browser engineer, or someone delivering content that isn't just news articles.

It's quite right and reasonable to start with _something_ and move forward to a more ideal, standardized solution, but it seems very difficult to evolve AMP's design towards anything that really meets the needs of the web platform in the long term. It's basically a walled garden through and through - just a garden that happens to have some really nice flowers, maintained by world- class gardeners.

[1] There is an extremely cynical explanation here that applies to many low- quality Google product launches - shipping something ASAP to qualify for a promotion. But the AMP team has demonstrated real commitment so even if that was what originally set things in motion, it doesn't explain what's going on here.

<comment><USER3> >but it seems very difficult to evolve AMP's design towards anything that really meets the needs of the web platform in the long term.

I'm not sure how I feel about AMP as a "standard", but I don't object to it as a technology. Really it's just building on WebComponents and proving some more extreme optimization techniques. At least the tech is open and can be reused by others.

Requiring conformity to a Google-controlled standard to be AMP-validated does seem inherently less "open" to me though somehow. Though I also understand that few other parties seemed to care about performance at all prior to this, so at least the strategy is working.

The biggest request I'd have of Google regarding AMP is to have a clearer separation from AMP Cache. The technologies are separate but people have a hard time differentiating them - even on Hacker News. Most of the complaints people surface here aren't even about AMP at all.

I'd also suggest that any AMP Cache provider should be eligible for the carousel in Google SERPs. Or alternatively it should just be discontinued soon, as I have to imagine it's served its primary purpose by this point. Keeping it around longer just encourages comments that Google is being unfair in search (I understand AMP pages are technically not a factor in organic search, but the carousel still provides a search boost).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google will promote an AMP page over another page that has jumped through similar hoops to remain fast (but is not technically an AMP page). Google isn't in the business of promoting fast pages, they promote AMP. This is the problem with AMP.</comment>


Kewlr – recursive equality algorithm - <AUTHOR> NPM: https://www.npmjs.com/package/kewlr<p>GitHub: https://github.com/zubuzon/kewlr <comment><AUTHOR> Kewlr is a module which you can use to determine if two values are equal to each others. It offers two modes - loose and strict, and it aim to be the fastest deepEqual algorithm, and support everything that is possible to support.

It should be safe to use this module in production, and it works both for node and the browser.

[https://github.com/zubuzon/kewlr](https://github.com/zubuzon/kewlr)</comment>


Worried your emails might be spied on? Here's what you can do - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/worried-your-emails-might-be-spied-on-heres-what-you-can-do-66574 <comment><USER2> "because it enables peer-review, _guaranteeing_ there are no backdoors."</comment>


Can You Trust Census Data? - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/can-you-trust-census-data/

<comment><USER2> Well, this still makes sense to me. Couldn't this just be due to the reduction of the sample set as people go up in age(I.E. they die)? More people are going to make it to 20 years old than 40 and so on. This will also be amplified by population growth so it should be increasingly skewed towards younger people having more stable data.

Also, the older generation is more likely to have the family structure where the man works and the wife stays at home. I would think there would be financial incentives for a wife to over report her age for senior benefits and her husband to under report so as not to be forced into retirement.

<comment><USER3> > Also, the older generation is more likely to have the family structure where > the man works and the wife stays at home. I would think there would be > financial incentives for a wife to over report her age for senior benefits > and her husband to under report so as not to be forced into retirement.

Census forms are not used to determine a individual benefits from govt programs or by companies to "retire" people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I live in a college town. Some census tracts get sub 40% response rates. At least 5k students in one college town not counted or counted in the wrong district. There are plenty of reasons to doubt census data.

</comment><comment><USER5> Keep in mind when looking at the chart that the Y-axis starts at 80%, not 0%. There is still definitely a discrepancy, but I initially wasn't placing it in the proper context.</comment>


Swearing - <AUTHOR> http://zachholman.com/posts/swearing/ <comment><USER4> What I'd like to see is an ounce of professionalism in most technical presentations. I'm not easily offended by swearing, but I am offended by content. For example, a couple years back at jQueryConf in Boston I just walked out of a talk. In the first 10 min. the presenter had said "fuck" about 17 times and managed to make an MS joke. That's not Microsoft mind you, that's multiple sclerosis. In most contexts I wouldn't have cared, but I paid $300 to attend that conference and it was pretty evident that this guy wasn't going to provide any actual content in his talk.

Most tech talks I've seen in the past 5 years have been terrible. I see the presenters tweeting that they still need to do their slides while flying to the conference. Obviously they haven't rehearsed that all and it shows in their presentation. They read from the slides. The code examples don't work. They throw up pictures of lolcats and other memes to get a cheap laugh. And occasionally they'll swear to seem edgy. Most of this is mistaken as connecting with the audience. It's sorta like when you watch a horror movie that just throws in a loud noise all of a sudden to startle you. The result is that you appear scared but you can still walk away and think it was a bad movie.

The best talks I've seen have been practiced to the point that they seem natural. The presenter knows his content thoroughly. The slides are informative and all support the content of the talk. The talk isn't a thinly veiled vendor pitch for the presenter's consultancy or company. The talk isn't also just a summary of introductory information. There's real substance. Whether swearing is used or not seems to have little impact on that, but in my experience the best presenters manage to deliver a compelling talk by throwing out cheap rhetoric.

<comment><USER5> "That's not Microsoft mind you, that's multiple sclerosis."

This sentence is you making an MS joke.

<comment><USER4> Not really. That's me pointing out how frequently Microsoft jokes make their way into tech presentations. It's another way I've found presenters avoid sharing actual content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Swearing doesn't bug me, it's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. But the idea that it's being used to carefully craft a 'persona' in order to 'build a brand' is annoying and frankly immature. I have very little patience with the idea that our personalities can and should be carefully crafted for public consumption, to 'build a following.' There's a world of difference between, for instance, _why's comic persona constructed from wit and creativity, and a 'branded' persona constructed out of simplistic marketing principles.

It definitely reinforces the idea that, in this case, the swearing is a device used to draw attention to the speaker rather than the speaker's point. And that was the thrust of the original criticism.

I usually don't even notice or care if someone curses in a presentation, but my douche-radar starts going off if I get the sense that it's being done for self-aggrandizement. I don't get the feeling that Zach is a douche-y kind of guy. But one of his 'personas' might be leaning that direction.

Is this where the technology community is going? Do we really need 'personas' in addition to technical accomplishments and good communication skills? Are technologists going to start looking more and more like wide receivers?

<comment><USER7> I don't really want to work with anyone who has "crafted" a "persona." I want to work with interesting people - and sometimes those people are characters. That's who they are - no work involved.

Some of them swear, a lot. If it's natural, I don't really see an issue - <USER3> if it's situationally appropriate. A technical talk to a group of developers may not be marred by an f-bomb. A presentation to a customer almost always will be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "I wouldn't have nearly as many of them if I played it safe. I enjoy keeping an edge, and they respect that. "

This is my problem with the "Swearing is a good tool" argument. Too often, and I'm not saying it's necessarily the case with Zach, people equate cussing with being edgy or controversial. But cussing is a shortcut; it takes the easy way to "edginess" because it takes advantage of how we've been raised to not swear in mixed company.

So, to some people, this otherwise bland statement qualifies as edgy: "Javascript is fucking awesome and fuck you if you don't think so."

I think a good rule of thumb is, if your point is uninteresting without the use of a cuss word, then don't use it. Or come up with a better point.

If your phrasing is reliant on the cuss word, as in, "[insert company name] can go fuck themselves", then keep it. But only if your evidence and support is just as strong as that statement.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. The adage of offending people with style when you can offend them with substance springs to mind. Swearing isn't edgy. Content is edgy.

<comment><USER10> Eschewing style in favor of substance is just as foolish as its inverse. Style and substance combine to make a better end product. That's true in software, it's true in hardware, it's true in writing, and it's true in presentations.

That's my problem with people hating on the use of cuss words. They are a stylistic flourish, and they can be used well, or poorly, but they do not deserve disproportionate attention. Someone who uses cuss words all the time in a presentation is just the presentation version of the guy who wears a bright green suit to every social event. They are failing to use style effectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Zach's writings, presentations, and videos are excellent. His passion and especially his creativity give him a distinctive voice among all the noise.

That's why I cringe with every f-word. Zach may think that helps give him his edge, but IMHO, it just distracts. He already has his edge.

Zach, you've reached the big time now, so I challenge you to abandon the crutches. We'll all be better off. Try it; you'll see.

<comment> buff-a _That's why I cringe with every f-word_

You have a physical reaction when you hear a sound? Have you considered therapy? Or meditation? You have an unnecessary, irrational response that is affecting _your_ appreciation of the world.

If this were a drooping eyelid, or an eye deficiency such as short- sightedness, you would take steps to correct it. If this were super- sensitivity to sunlight would you wear sunglasses, or demand that the sun not rise? You perceive _your_ reaction to be _Zach's_ fault, you blame Zach and state that _Zach_ should change his behavior.

This is absurd.

<comment><USER12> Edw519 merely stated his opinion that the use of swear words adds nothing to Zach's speeches, and you, instead of writing a post explaining why there's nothing wrong with the occasional use of swear words in presentations, decide to write a sarcastic comment advising edw519 to consider theapy. Why? Do you really think this type of comment adds something valuable to the discussion?

<comment> buff-a If edw519 had said "swear words adds nothing" and left it that then he'd have made my fucking point for me. It was the part where he said that it made him cringe that I was responding to. Clue: that's the bit I quoted. Did me quoting that part not help you?

 _Why? Do you really think this type of comment adds something valuable to the discussion?_

Valuable??? LOL. We're having 150+ comments on _swearing_. I'm sorry. What exactly are you expecting to get out of this whole thing? That we'll all go wash our mouths out with soap?

<comment><USER13> You really do not know what a figure of speech is and take "makes me cringe" all literal just for the hell of it hm?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To paraphrase XKCD: When did we forget our dreams that we would rather worry about fitting into some hypothetical mold somewhere than do whatever feels right? Fuck. That. Shit.

<http://xkcd.com/137/>

To be honest, I don't understand the whole debate that's been raging for the past week. So Zach used a naughty word. So fucking what? Are we as a community really that petty?

<comment><USER15> hi, swizec, I "cumming" love your comment. What a "dick" argument you're having here. So awesome. Please don't ride on high horse and interpret my message wrongly. Like "very" or "awesome", I'm just "raping" to stress my point. So "cumming" cool, uh? We're so "cumming" alike in our expressions. I raping love you, bro.

<comment><USER16> Whoosh. That's the sound of the point flying over your head.

The article, and the OP, aren't saying throw in all the swear words you can find into what you say. Yours were just deragatory and purposefully put there as some out of context hyperbole.

Nice try but you didn't provide a very good argument.

The point here is that people have opinions on this. Which is great. OPINIONS are great people. The simple fact that you're discussing this is because you have an opinion on it.

When someone goes out of their way to provide emotion in a speech that should reflect that the person cares a lot about what they're talking about. He uses swearing because he has an opinion and strong opinions that he feels necessitate using strong words.

That's the same emotion and strong opinions that people like you have towards this particular topic of swearing in a talk.

It isn't any different. He chooses to communicate how he does because it shows emotion. Why does everything tech related have to be so dry? Many people love their Apple products (just an example) because they relate to it in a way. They have strong opinions and strong emotions about them.

This is no different.

<comment><USER15> The point I'm trying to make is that not many people interpret F bombs the way you do. Some people get excited. Some people don't care. Some people have some images flash through their head. Some people get offended. Some people get uncomfortable.The world is big. There are many different people with different cultural, religious values and social norms. Something you think is no big deal can be an offense or distraction for others. Show some respect for diversity.

<comment><USER17> You can't go through life worrying about what might offend people. Because the scope of what people are offended by is _enormous_. Some people are offended by sex before marriage. Or atheists. Or religious people. Or gay people. Or vegetarians.

Sure, if you're holidaying in Saudi Arabia, you shouldn't walk around badmouthing Mohammed. But for the most part you can be certain that a small percentage of your actions will offend a small percentage of the people you meet. Such is life.

Fun fact: here in the UK, the word "git" is mildly offensive (I mentioned GitHub amongst family and got a bit of an incredulous look). The _company the guy works at_ is an offensive word.

<comment><USER18> Fun tangent: Linus knows about the word `git` - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)#Name>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't really care about profanity in speeches; I think the stronger argument was made by Rob Conery:

 _I'm not opposed to swearing in presentations, or anywhere for that matter. I don't cringe when I read F-bombs nor do I care if you have the word "Fuck" embroidered on your Calvins. Swearing says more about your abilities as a speaker then it does your content... that's the problem._

<http://wekeroad.com/2011/11/08/some-people-not-have-way>

Profanity can be a great way to drive your point home. It can also be a crutch, one that lets you avoid having to actually come up with something interesting to say.

<comment><AUTHOR> Swearing, as shown by many presenters, can also have a positive effect on your talks. Zach mentions most of the reasons why in his article. Attacking a person instead of the content of his talk for using a _word_ is ridiculous. Would someone say that Zach's talk was bad and that was using the word "fuck" to help himself?

I agree with you in the statement: _Profanity can be a great way to drive your point home_. If that is true then Conery's argument, in the derogatory form he uses, makes no sense.

PS: Referring to "fuck/fucking" by using "the F-bomb" makes the person look just... bad.

<comment> dorian-graph Can we judge someone by their choice of words? Or rather, by what they allow out of their mouth?

When people become completely adjusted to swearing and it no longer helps 'drive a point home' (For some people), what will these people rely on then?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I strongly disagree with the notion that swearing is a very strong tool for communication. In the conversations I'm a part of the in the real world I hear profanity used as a completely meaningless filler word.

In my opinion, in today's popular culture profanity doesn't hold much weight at all as an effective tool for communication. While profanity is often used by people who are communicating something passionate and emotional, it is used just as often in a completely flippant and emotionally detached manner.

For people who are offended by profanity it may evoke a negative emotional response but I find for people who are comfortable with profanity, it carries very little weight or meaning except for the fact that the speaker couldn't be bothered to come up with a more meaningful word to use.

I will acknowledge that because most of society is so lazy in their use of language, there is a strong relationship between a person who is communicating passionately and the frequency of profanity usage. This is why movie writers so often lace passages of emotionally intense dialog with profanity because it reflects what we hear in the real world. I however find that relationship to be one directional. The use of a profanity doesn't imply any kind of emotion in of itself because of how prevalent flippant usage of profanity is.

I'm aware that is a personal perspective and I may not be in the majority with these views.

<comment><USER21> Swearing isn't a strong tool for communication, and the TFA is not arguing in favour of that proposition. You're arguing against somewhat of a straw man there.

Zach's point is different. It's about making a connection, establishing commonality and empathy at a human level. Carefully chosen profanity can be a branding tool; it can establish commonality with a certain group of people, and depending on when it's used, empathy too. Just about all of us swear when we accidentally hurt ourselves, for example; if we were acting that out and didn't swear (no matter how mildly), we'd seem more fake somehow, like we were pretending to be invincible or something.

And Zach has his "brand", it comes fairly easily to him, more easily than other approaches. If it turns off people who don't have that in common, that's OK.

And that connection is what in turn makes richer communication possible than dry exposition.

<comment><USER20> My reaction was to the very first line of the piece.

"Swearing is a strong tool. It can be a particularly strong tool during presentations."

I get that Zach believes he is building a connection and empathy by using profanity. My argument is the same there as well. I personally believe that profanity doesn't work well as a tool for creating personal connections and empathy either.

There is a group of people that thinks: "Oh man! he used the f-word in his public talk. He's so passionate and edgy. I feel connected to his disregard for old-fashioned professionalism."

I would suspect the group of people that think along those lines is rather small. I would also suspect that even for those people that feel a connection, the net result of the use of that profanity in their overall take-away from the talk is a tiny positive.

<comment><USER21> I think it's more subtle - and more simple - than that. When someone uses an inoffensive professional tone, they sound fake.

Like the way a salesperson or a teacher is fake, when you meet them in those roles, rather than in a social setting of equals.

This barrier of "professionalism" is exactly what the careful use of profanity is trying to puncture. It's not the only way to puncture it; and not everyone is comfortable with puncturing it, or having it punctured. But it may be worth it for the people who prefer the closer connection.

Professionalism, almost by definition, implies distance. Your emphasis on it actually convinces me that profanity is even more useful in presentations than I thought it was; I very seldom use profanity except in the company of people I know very well, but having had this exchange with you (combined with TFA) I may use it when I next give a talk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are all sorts of ways to be passionate and authentic without swearing, just like there are all sorts of ways to be funny without relying on the pavlovian response of a shared Monty Python reference. There's still time to get in on the hipster-cred level of not-swearing before everyone else is not- doing it!

</comment><comment><USER23> I know our age is a bit poor in rhetoric, so go listen to a speech by: Churchill, FDR, JFK, MLK etc. It's really sad to hear some people need to resort to _swearing_ in order to emotionally connect with their audience... If your speech/presentation would be utterly boring unless punctuated with strong words, then it was probably badly structured to begin with.

<comment><USER24> Agree with your point, although I wouldn't say our age is that poor in rhetoric. Obama had some really great speeches in his campaign and Jobs' product presentations were top notch too.

<comment><USER25> Churchill & FDR rallying their countrymen in a time of global crisis; JFK leading Americans through one of the most tense periods of the nuclear age; MLK bringing discipline, wisdom and guidance to a country deep in the throes of social upheaval; Obama addressing a country embroiled in two wars and entering a deep economic crisis to offer hope; Steve Jobs announcing the iPad.

One of these things is not like the other.

<comment><USER26> There's absolutely a divide between Winston Churchill and Steve Jobs. And if you're talking at a technical conference about how awesome Github is, you're definitely on one side of that divide, and it isn't Winston Churchill.

That's not a bad thing. Steve Jobs still changed history by taking the stage and talking millions of people into buying touchscreen phones, but it's best not to get an overinflated self-image about what we do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Usually not a good idea to swear, especially when presenting to a wide audience. Not everyone is cool with profanity and you risk being silently judged and dismissed by those individuals as a result. Moreover, you never know where your presentation will be circulated. Not everyone understands or is fluent with extremely casual American speaking styles and idioms. Swearing just does not translate well.

<comment><USER28> Zach dealt with this, specifically, in his blog post:

 _I don't view it this way. I'm less concerned about my overall reach than I am with connecting with my audience. Put another way: I'm content with losing a handful of people if that means I connect much stronger with everyone else._

<comment><USER4> Sure, but how do you know if you've connected much stronger with everyone else? I've never left a talk thinking "I really wish that guy swore more." And I personally swear all time. But I abstain from it during presentations because at best it's a cheap technique to get something of a rise from the audience, IME.

<comment><USER29> Not in presentations, but in support it can definitely help to swear. I found that if you swear to one 'notch' less than your clients, it helps put them at ease - they're no longer worrying that you might be looking down your nose at the way they're speaking. It means the clients are more likely to pass useful content along because they're not dividing their attention watching their p's and q's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Holman is making a mistake by conflating use of profanity and strength of emotional connection.

He is implying that given his stated goal of a passionate reader base, profanity is a necessary evil. I dispute the necessary part.

<comment><USER31> Ultimately it comes down to the relativity of profanity as evil or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Together, it's a crafted persona. That persona includes edge, informality, and passion for what I do. Sometimes I'll swear to invoke that persona."

I understand there's a certain showmanship that goes with technical presentations, but this quote kinda sounds like something a reality show star would say.

</comment><comment> buff-a "If an alien was looking down on us and inspecting our language, they would see that the worst thing we do on this planet is we torture, we kill, we abuse, we harm people… we're cruel. And those are the things for which we should be ashamed.

"Amongst the best things we do is we breed children and we raise them, we make love to each other, we adore each other, we're affectionate and fond of each other. Those are the good things we do.

"And they would say 'How odd, that the language for the awful things is used casually all the time.' 'Oh the traffic was agony. It was hell, it was cruel. Oh, it was torture waiting in line!' They'd say 'You use words like torture! That's the worst word!'

"And yet if we use the f-word, which is the word for generating our species, for showing physical affection one to another, then we're taken off air and accused of being wicked and irresponsible and a bad influence to children. Now, we're part of this culture so we often don't question it, but if you think of someone from outside it, it is very strange.

\-- Stephen Fry

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSQmk6gGTcE>

</comment><comment><USER33> _I have had it with these mother----ing snakes on this mother----ing plane!_

Samuel L Jackson swore so much he crossed the line from emotion to a parody of himself doing it. Also, he got to read "Go the ---- to Sleep".

You're debasing the most expensive currency in your wallet. Every word is costly, that's why Strunk and White tell you to get rid of them.

I swear once per quarter or so at work. I reserve it for the worst decisions, organizational maneuvers, designs, and code. And when I do, people notice.

If you use these words regularly you've got to find some way to really swear again, when it's called for. You could raise your voice or start mixing in some inappropriate animals.

<comment><USER34> As someone who swears a lot - it's pretty easy to find a way to swear again, when you really want to make your point known. Becoming deathly serious and quiet, and then deliberately not swearing works well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Anyone else bothered by the idea of a "well-crafted persona"?

I'm fine with being prepared for your talk, and knowing your topic. But spending 2-3 weeks on a slide deck and crafting a "persona" for your public presence sounds a lot like something an entertainer does.

To me, this seems like something you do when you're more interested in your self-image than you are about your topic. And that bugs me a little, because if you just come to your audience well-prepared, knowledgable, and _genuine_ , I don't think you'd have to rely on an edgy "persona" at all.

But if people like it and learn from your talks, I guess it's all good. Just doesn't sit right with me.

<comment><USER34> I think it was uncommonly honest for him to discuss it in those terms. Possibly not wise, but I hate to condemn a person for not concealing their motives.

And -- there's no exclusion between topic and persona. But you can have many topics, but you rarely get multiple public personas. For many people, and I'd bet Zach is one of them, their reputation is their biggest asset. Being careful about it seems entirely sensible to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm rather bemused by this whole thing, I'd be intrigued to know the demographics of the people who take such, issue with use of swear words.

Perhaps it's an American thing, but in Britain I'm not aware of anyone I know who'd react in hysterics at the thought of a strong word appearing in something as public as a slide deck!

Swearing _at_ someone can be extremely rude, but using such words passively to add emphasis seems perfectly normal to me.

The following video sums it up nicely IMO [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

<comment><USER9> As a Brit (although I live in America), I don't understand your comment at all. British society, as a whole, is absolutely infatuated with your persona (I am guessing as an extension of class). I would never, ever, _ever_ swear in a presentation in the UK. I might do it in the US. Remember: it's not the _word_ that's the problem it's that it makes it sound like you don't understand the social conventions of the position you're in.

If you're delivering a professional presentation to people you know, swear away. If you're doing it at a conference with people you don't, you appear clueless. It's the vocabulary version of turning up to a business of suits in t-shirt and shorts (or vice versa). If you're particularly powerful, you can get away with it, like Zuck does. If you're not, you can't.

Honestly, I'm surprised holman stuck strongly to this. It's childish, and, more importantly, it's fake. Swearing in the slides is fake. As the original blog post that pointed this out mentioned: "fucking" almost always has no semantic payload at all. None. It's an exclamation mark. If you want to build up some sort of chummy relationship by using swear words, put it in your spoken text. Putting it in the slides? Tacky. Clueless.

<comment> buff-a I'm British too. Went to Queens' college too, like Mr Fry. Don't have a problem with it and can't think of any of my friends or peers that would.

Yes, there's a whole ream of uptight wankers who make it their business to be proper. There are even TV comedies about such awful people. [1] Don't think you speak for all of us.

 _it makes it sound like you don't understand the social conventions of the position you're in_

LOL. Yes, we're all for knowing our place in the world here at HN!

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_Appearances>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Zack's talk at Ruby Midwest last weekend was, in my opinion, one of the best talks of the whole conference. Saying "meetings suck" just doesn't cut it, because usually "meetings fucking suck...hard" Maybe I'm a simpleton, but Zack's talk hit home for me, and I really appreciated the effort and passion he put into it.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've always felt that the way you write should be the same way you'd talk to the person if you were face to face. I'll be blunt and drop f bombs when I'm talking with people informally so if we're having a round-table discussion regarding a blog I wont be afraid to call it "fucking brilliant" or "a piece of shit" because if we were face to face over a beer, that's how I'd put it.

A friend of mine took a "Business Communication" class recently and started getting on my ass about my communication at the office saying it wasn't professional enough, I don't feel that I should be toning down my language or using "less emotion" because its how I communicate; I'm not a god damn robot! Looking at my emails over the last few months I find I'm getting more positive and personal responses from my "informal" emails than I am from the formal ones.

People like talking to people, don't change that.

<comment><USER39> Also swearing is often a sign that you _care_ , and people (at least smart people) like talking to people who care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> We had a discussion about the original blog post over on IRC.

I'm not going to tone down my talks (unless it's inappropriate for the audience) but I normally won't include it in a slide. There's a difference for me verbally and putting it down "on paper".

I want people to pass around my slide decks. A slide deck full of vulgarity is probably not going to get passed around. However I probably cussed like a sailor during the same presentation.

<comment><USER41> Can you link to the original blog post? I (and some other people, I'd wager) are out of the loop on this one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Zach Holman (the author of this post) uploaded his slides for a talk he gave at a Ruby conference a couple of weeks ago. Some people, including Scott Hanselman, complained about talks including profanities (especifically the word "fucking" in a slide).

The blog post by Hanselman is here: <http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ProfanityDoesntWork.aspx>

Zach Holman slides are here: <http://zachholman.com/talk/a-documentation-talk>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I agree that swearing is an incredibly strong tool in human communication. However, I _do not_ agree that it belongs anywhere near technical discussions in the field of software engineering.

The best technical content is _dispassionate_. Appeals to emotion obscure the underlying rational argument (assuming there is one).

That doesn't mean that talks shouldn't be exciting or interesting -- but those emotions shouldn't serve as the primary argument for whatever position is being presented. Yet, this is exactly what happens when you leverage a huge emotional trigger like swearing.

<comment><USER43> Bingo.

On the spectrum of human experience, does verbiage suitable for "someone's gonna die" scenarios belong down around "I hate #defines" (and oh yes I do)? If the most extreme verbiage gains acceptable use around the latter, what then can be used for the former to indicate the vast gulf between those scenarios?

If you're using obscenities to "communicate passion" for, say, how cool C++11's lambda syntax is, you're going to have a hard time expressing suitable emotions when, say, a nurse informs you your spouse's heart is being stopped on the operating table and they'll get back to you in a couple hours - <USER3> then don't for more than 5 without good reason.

Maybe that's the thing: those advocating swearing in technical presentations haven't learned what _real_ intense emotion is. As such, they can't comprehend why some people consider application of such verbiage inappropriate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I don't really understand why the whole issue is being blown so much out of proportions. A good developer has used "objectionable" words in his presentation to drive his point home. But really, who are we to decide if those words were indeed "objectionable"? He is the one who knows his audience best, and I think that is where we should leave it. If you found slides distasteful, just don't read them. It is that simple. You don't like the developer's style of communication? Dont follow his blog. Again really simple. But don't go around telling people how they should or should not write their presentations, let them be a judge of that.

</comment><comment><USER45> Swearing is used for cheap pops. And it seems like many times swearing is used in place of quality content. A real shame. How come this author didn't throw up a potty mouth in his post?

</comment><comment><USER46> You have to resort to the "I don't know a better adjective or adverb" so I will throw a moronic word into the fray! Emotion comes from believing in the product you are talking about. Relying on an asinine word that has no real purpose in the sentence is stupid. Think about it! You say what the #$%^. Really it means "What the sexual intercourse was that! Or that's some good defecation!

In my opinion the way that you talk and your method of speech tells me a lot about the person. If someone wants to sell me on an idea and they begin swearing that person will never sell ma anything. The individual will not work for me! And the company that the idiot is representing will not get my business!

By calling a person a writer, you have now put a label on that person that they are a professional, that they know what they are doing, what they are talking about. A writer targets a specific audience. By the language a writer uses, he will gain the adoration of some, and will drive others away. I guess it all depends on who you want following you. I personally would rather not listen to swearing. In fact, I will walk out of a talk or presentation if the person swears to "enhance" his vocabulary by swearing.

Kinda like steroids--make you look good, makes you feel strong--but it isn't real. And the majority of people would rather not here a pro on steroids.

</comment><comment><USER47> I grew up in a Navy town, so I had an extensive education in all manner of swear words. I doubt there are many that I have not heard. You young edgy guys have nothing on the British Royal Navy ... not even close. I've heard people swear up a storm when they weren't even angry, they do it that naturally.

This means that I don't cringe when I hear swear words, but they don't impress me either. My parents taught me that swear words are for people who have a poor vocabulary. And that advice has stood me in good stead. And doubly so now that I pastor and have to preach and teach twice a week. I am now quite versed in connecting to my audience. I have even been known to inspire an emotion or two. I don't have a fancy AV setup, so I do it all without the aid of slides or videos. If you have good content and you know what you're talking about, your presentation will be memorable. If you care about your presentation, your audience will care and connect with you as you convey that passion.

Of course, I'm just a mid-forties fuddy-duddy who isn't edgy and doesn't have a crafted persona, so what do I know ... other than I suspect that I've made more presentations than many of today's speakers, and likely to more people and likely evoked more emotions and connected more and all with zero swear words.

</comment><comment><USER48> I curse more than a sailor, really. It's not that (I almost cursed in this sentence) hard to not curse in a presentation. It's not that hard to not make your slides one step short of a porno. It is difficult to write and deliver a presentation.

I don't know if I'm a good speaker or not, I'm really not a good judge of myself. But I do know, if I'm a crappy speaker, it wasn't because people were distracted by things that had nothing to do with my technical content.

<comment><USER49> You are a good speaker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The way I look at it is that if he's not swearing _AT_ you, then you shouldn't be offended. He doesn't go up there and say "dear audience, fuck you".

<comment><USER43> No, he's just asking you to stand with him as he offends others.

<comment><USER51> You can choose what things you find offensive.

If you choose to be offended when someone uses profanity, that's your problem, not mine. It's not my responsibility to protect the world from potentially offensive things.

<comment><USER43> Read what I wrote. I didn't say you would find it offensive, I said he was asking you in joining his side as he offended others.

A typical audience is, by continued presence and attentiveness, inclined to support what the speaker says. The speaker is not saying "fuck you" to the audience, he's saying it to a third person/thing and at minimum implicitly suggesting the audience support the notion. He's not trying to offend you, he's trying to get you to offend someone/thing else. You don't have to protect the world from the offense, but you don't have to sit there tacitly supporting it either.

<comment><USER52> What the hell does this even mean? He's 'asking' you to support the offending of a mythical "third person"? I have no idea what you are attempting to communicate.

<comment><USER43> I'm asking you to think about obscenity and offenses thereof in a completely different way than you're used to.

This means that the use of obscenity is directed at someone or something, intending offense thereto. Yes, he's asking you to support the offending of a third person (or thing), mythical or not. He is acting as an offender (whether there is a being to experience being offended or not), and he's asking you to take the role of offender as well.

Do understand: there are times when initiating offense is appropriate. There are times when asking others to join you in initiating offense is appropriate.

Some people in the audience may not want to share in offending the subject of the offense the speaker is initiating. Thus, by using obscenity, the speaker may alienate some of the audience. Now, question is, was that necessary?

<comment><USER52> _"This means that the use of obscenity is directed at someone or something, intending offense thereto."_

Without significant substantiating evidence, I am forced to object to this premise.

You are going to need to back that up before the rest of your argument can be coherent.

<comment><USER43> "Fuck you" is offensive to the subject. Changing the subject retains the offense.

<comment><USER52> The word is _way_ more versatile than that... That's _hardly_ substantiating evidence for your claim.

But lets start simple. What about: _"I've got to go take a piss."_ (Urinate), _"He looks rather pissed"_ (angry), and _"Let's get pissed"_ (drunk).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Whenever I hear people talk of the "f-bomb" I remember this quote from my friend.

"Euphemisms of bad words are still bad words. Words are not created filthy. We give them meaning. So whenever you say "effing" or "fricking"... you're missing the fucking point." - Jay Levanne

</comment><comment><USER54> There have been many referencing to using those words.

E.g. <http://zachholman.com/posts/shit-work/>

And yesterday a rant on usage of swearing words in talks is given in many places including [1] & [2] on hacker news.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3212694>

[2] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3194287>

</comment><comment><USER55> I love swearing. The better the programmer, the more I enjoy it. No humor attempted in this serious post of support for Zach, whoever he is.

</comment><comment><USER56> IMO the swearing is much less distracting than his many failed attempts at humor. See <http://zachholman.com/screencast/play/>

Humor is great in a presentation when it's used appropriately (and when the jokes are actually funny). But in that video, it comes off as very contrived, like he's trying too hard to be funny.

</comment><comment><USER57> OK - I just want to know what blogging engine this guy is using? The html on that blog is very clean indeed.

<comment><USER51> It's generated using Jekyll (the technology behind GitHub pages).

The source is available here: <https://github.com/holman/holman.github.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Social norms fluctuate. Things that our forefathers took offence at seem inconsequential to us now, and vice versa.

Perhaps someday as a group we will get beyond taking offence over how someone unmaliciously manipulates their vocal chords and instead concentrate our outrage at more pressing problems.

</comment><comment><USER59> Swearing is a last resort. It can be very powerful, but it can also signify loss of emotional control or lack of imagination. Hearing swears from a person who never does (e.g. my mother) would be shocking and cutting. Hearing swears from a sailor falls into the former category.

<comment><USER27> Indeed, that's why it is best to hold the swearing unless you _really_ need to use it. It can be powerful rhetoric in the right context. But used too often, it loses its sting and merely lowers expectations for whatever comes out of the speaker's mouth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> While I didn't really connect with his use of swear words on some of his slides (Like "Fuck ruby is so fast I love it so much"), I think the fact that everyone is talking about him and his presentations that he has succeeded in some weird way I doubt he expected.

</comment><comment><USER61> I can appreciate a carefully-placed curse word.

But swears are like bolded words. Restrained use emphasizes a point, while overuse drowns the message.

Dropping "fuck" every few sentences isn't offensive, it's boring. It indicates your underlying message isn't powerful enough on it's own.

</comment><comment><USER62> Swearing has been demonstrated to help distract yourself from a trauma- but only when it's unusual for the individual.

So, I tend to reserve my colorful language for those times when I've drawn blood and/or tears from myself.

</comment><comment><USER63> "Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest fucking hour.'"

</comment><comment><USER64> Almost any form of rhetoric can be used well or badly. For a writer's take on the subject, have a look at Robert Graves's essay "Lars Porsena, Or the Future of Swearing".

</comment><comment><USER65> In my experience, swearing is effective if done sparingly.

I have noticed a trend; swearing has become linguistic filler for hipsters.

</comment><comment><USER66> Wow, that blog post was boring...

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm with Zach on this one...

</comment><comment><USER68> Zach: You get lots of people reacting to your talks because you're inflammatory. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck get lots of reaction because they're inflammatory too. I'm not offended in any way by profanity in a presentation. But I know for a fact that your essay "Don't give you users shit work" did not benefit a single bit from the expletive in the title. In fact, my immediate reaction was "what 19 year old wrote this?"

You may cultivate an "edgy" persona, but it's not endearing. It may be a wise idea to take Scott Hanselman's criticism and learn from it. He's one of the best tech presenters in the world.

<comment><USER16> This is exactly what he has proven in the article.

He would rather be that much more powerful in communicating his ideas to a smaller group of people and alienating people like you. By you, I mean someone who thinks "what 19 year old wrote this?" or similar.

He outlined this in the article. He gains a deeper engagement with some people at the expense of losing others.

He isn't concerned about losing you, dear reader.

<comment><USER43> Is he, really, a much more powerful communicator thanks to his use of obscenities? Would he, really, connect less with the same smaller group if he didn't? Is the price of the loss, really, lower than the value of the gain?

(ETA: Interesting, HN won't let me reply to a downvoted reply to my post.) Verbose defenders & detractors of the practice aside, methinks many who murmur support do so from social pressures, and in fact dislike the practice but won't or can't articulate their opposition.

<comment><USER28> _Is the price of the loss, really, lower than the value of the gain?_

That is a really interesting question.

I agreed completely with Zach's post, and I've agreed with all of @gks's comments in this thread. Zach's use of swearing increases my emotional connection to what he's saying. If Zach didn't swear, he would connect less with _me_.

But the plural of anecdote is not data. What proportion of people are like you, and find swearing in a talk trite and cheap? What proportion of people are comfortable with Zach's slides?

We should do science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm talking about, as discussed, his public _persona_ , but I watched his video the other day and the first phrase that came to mind to describe him was, "smug little prick". Now, that's not the sort of language I would normally use around here, but we were already on the subject of presentation, expressiveness versus politeness, etc.

</comment><comment><USER70> > Swearing is a strong tool.

Mr. Holman has a lot of growing up to do. Don't swear in a professional conversation, specially in front of an audience. It's unbecoming of yourself and an insult to the listener who took the time out of their day to listen.

<comment><USER52> Why would it be an insult to your audience?

Edit: To respond to both of you and not be repetitive, I would like to refer both of you to the comment that I have made here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3217649>

<comment><USER70> It's an insult to pepper your audience with profanity when they took the time out of their day to pay attention to what you had to share. It shows that you did not take the time to properly prepare and present your arguments. It shows that you are immature. It shows that you have a complete and total disregard for even the most basic of social forums. And it shows that Mr. Holman is so self-absorbed that when confronted with what in polite society is considered ill-mannered and poorly timed swearing in a presentation, he doubled down and bereft of supervision decided to lecture the audience even further as to why he was entitled to swear at them.

In a time of crisis, some swearing is appropriate to convey urgency to the listener. At a nerd meetup? Hardly.

<comment><USER52> (The first part of your comment I have responded to above)

I think that a lot what you are describing is heavily dependent upon the culture of the participants. Certainly in my culture _"total disregard for even the most basic of social forums."_ would be a gross exaggeration and the rest of your comment would likely be perceived as _far_ more insulting than the casual non-aggressive use of 'profanity'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> All the articles on the subject (including this one) should be one of those honey pots they were talking the other day (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3166209>)</comment>