The Tragedy of Baltimore - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/magazine/baltimore-tragedy-crime.html <comment><USER4> I grew up in Baltimore City, born in the 70s. Up until the drug war in the 80s, it was a multiracial working class city. I lived near "Pigtown" one of the poorer areas, but I was never afraid to go out at night.

During the summer months when it was hot and humid, I'd sleep during the day, and friends and I would sneak out and walk all over the city in the middle of the night, we were only 11-12 years old.

Yes, we hung out on the stairs of our row houses, and on the corners of the streets, and played radios loud, but by and large, violence was confined mostly to bullying. In fact, we had often walked down Pratt street past Martin Luther King Boulevard with no problem from the people living in the projects.

Things changed after the drug war started in the 80s. I started experiencing shootings. Kids got shot at my school. I'd hear gunshots all during the night. I even got caught up in a shootout at one point, which sounded like firecrackers going off if it wasn't for the sounds of bullets ricocheting off of the brick houses (thank god old Baltimore rowhouses had real brick facades)

Many of my childhood friends became drug addicts, crack houses sprung up around my home. One of the friends I knew who I thought would graduate highschool and college, who was smart and into electronics, ended up as the neighborhood drug kingpin. Older neighbors and others who could, fled the city for the suburbs. Homes were boarded out, and soon, it looked like Mad Max. Our house sprouted bars on the windows.

If it hadn't been for my 300 baud vic-modem and Vic-20/C64, I wouldn't have gotten off the streets. I mostly survived by vanishing into the online world, and staying in libraries, and avoiding the streets.

To me, the war against crack cocaine is what leveled Baltimore. Not the drug itself, if the government had treated it as a public health problem, things might have turned out better. But the drug war only served to make drugs the most lucrative, most important part of the local economy, and for the losers in that economy, the dopamine it provided became an escape from despair.

<comment><USER5> It's curious the difference in response to the current "opioid epidemic". Where is the police crackdown in this case?

<comment><USER4> There's a huge differential in the way the criminal justice system handled black people's drugs (crack), and cocaine (rich man's aspirin). A few rocks of crack got you an arrest with jail time, repeat 3 times, and a fatherless home is created with a new felon in the system. But white professionals who did coke? Slap on the wrist unless they were possessing huge amounts.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the criminal justice system is biased against the poor, and exceptionally biased against poor minorities. Since Baltimore demographics are heavily represented by minorities, it's no surprise things happening differently there vs Appalachia.

<comment><USER6> Aren't minorities the majority in Baltimore? I don't know what the difference is between Baltimore City and whatever is Baltimore in practice, but the statistics I've seen today [0] suggest that "minorities" are white people.

Honest question - how can the criminal justice system in Baltimore be biased against 'black people's drugs' as a minority when they are numerically in the majority? It is an interesting logistical challenge to discriminate against a 60% voting block in a democracy. Is criminal justice enforced by non-city actors? (I'm not an American)

[0] planning.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/2a_City%20Profile%20-%203.30.16_0.pdf

<comment><USER4> This is playing semantics, when using the term 'minority', we're talking about within the entire United States. Baltimore doesn't make federal drug laws, Washington D.C. does.

Police are tasked with enforcing these laws which are HEAVILY biased towards the kinds of drugs African Americans deal with.

Possession of 28 grams of crack cocaine yields a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offense; it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to prompt the same sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > She described how bewildering it had been to accompany a friend downtown, > near the tourist-friendly Inner Harbor, one night a few months earlier. "The > lighting was so bright. People had scooters. They had bikes. They had babies > in strollers. And I said: 'What city is this? This is not Baltimore City.' > Because if you go up to Martin Luther King Boulevard" — the demarcation > between downtown and the west side — "we're all bolted in our homes, we're > locked down." She paused for a moment to deliver her point. "All any of us > want is equal protection," she said.

This rings pretty true to me. The past few months I've taken walks around the Inner Harbor, Fells Point, and Federal Hill in the mornings, and it has never felt unsafe. When I've ventured into other parts of the city it's like I've entered a different world. Also, as an aside, you can get a feel for how safe various areas of the city are by checking out the Baltimore Homicides Map:

[https://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com/](https://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com/)

<comment><USER8> Could this be due to the inequalities or demographic differences between the different neighborhoods?

[https://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-graphic-mapping- inequalitie...](https://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-graphic-mapping-inequalities- in-baltimores-neighborhoods-20150504-htmlstory.html)

[http://graphics.wsj.com/baltimore- demographics/](http://graphics.wsj.com/baltimore-demographics/)

<comment><USER6> Inequality has to a symptom of something deeper. It is simply unreasonable to think that my neighbor being 100x as wealthy as me could inspire me to a life of crime. Inequality is just as much a symptom of health as it is sickness in the system - everyone is equal if there is no wealth and everybody is eating dirt.

If "inequality" is a euphemism for social stratification it should be called as such, or a pithy word found. Not being able to access wealth through hard work is a huge problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live in Baltimore City and have to agree that it's troubled. Another thing that makes it difficult for the city to thrive is the abysmal schools. Middle schools and high schools are not assigned by neighborhood, but instead by a match system. In theory this offers opportunities for children in low-income neighborhoods that would otherwise have a too-small tax base for their local schools. In practice, it means nearly all city schools are horrible. "One- third of Baltimore High Schools in 2016 had zero students proficient in math. [0]" and "In fourth- and eighth-grade reading, only 13 percent of city students are considered proficient or advanced. In fourth-grade math, 14 percent were proficient and in eighth-grade math 11 percent met the mark. [1]"

Even living in the nicer, lower-crime neighborhoods isn't enough for families if the school options are untenable.

[0] [https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-...](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs- ed-rr-student-test-scores-letter-20180410-story.html)

[1] [https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs...](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs- md-nations-report-card-20180409-story.html)

<comment><USER10> > Middle schools and high schools are not assigned by neighborhood.

Also live in bmore. I think this is only for select top high schools like poly and is based on middle school grades and standardized test.

Agree tho that schools r shit.

<comment><USER9> All city high schools are assigned by choice/match. I think with middle schools it varies. [https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/high-school- choice](https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/high-school-choice)

<comment><USER11> FWIW, this is the same as San Francisco: [https://www.kqed.org/news/11641238/how-the-san-francisco- sch...](https://www.kqed.org/news/11641238/how-the-san-francisco-school- lottery-works-and-how-it-doesnt-2)

<comment><USER12> San Francisco uses a lottery for every grade, beginning with pre-K. This causes intense anxiety among many parents. But San Francisco doesn't struggle with the same problems as Baltimore, certainly not to the same degree. In the case of elementary school, other than the chance of not getting the closest school, the anxiety is largely unwarranted, IMO. I'm not looking forward to junior or, especially, high school, though. Unless we end up going the Catholic school route, which is surprisingly cheap--significantly cheaper than daycare.

Anecdote: A parent from our kid's preschool once told me they had a conversation with the principal of one of our neighborhood elementary schools and upon inquiring about the relatively early start time the principal told him, or at least insinuated, that the start time was designed to dissuade cross-town parents from selecting the school, effectively gaming the lottery system to favor neighborhood families.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another problem with Baltimore is that the crime starts to leak out into the surrounding counties, so the effective crime rate is actually higher than what is reported for the city. Public transit was added that travels between Baltimore and some malls in the surrounding counties, causing areas that previously had little or no crime to experiencing an increase in break-ins and a couple of murders. You end up with counties trying to shut down the bus and train stations because the residents are tired of people from Baltimore riding out of the city, robbing stores and homes, then hopping back on the train to get away. It's obviously not everyone using the public transport, but it's enough that I don't go to the same malls I used to.

<comment><USER14> Baltimore must have wonderful public transportation if criminals are able to use it to make their getaways. In most places you'd need your own car for that sort of escape...

<comment><USER15> I can't speak to murders or other violent crime, but it was called the Loot Rail because of the prevalence of shoplifting after the line was opened into the suburbs.

<comment><USER16> Was this documented statistically, or just something people perceived, along with an increased presence of dark-skinned people?

<comment><USER15> It's documented somewhere, but I can't find it with a few minutes of searching. It's wildly racist and classist, but almost certainly true if you ignore "per capita" or other qualifiers.

Higher numbers of people in a location lead to more crimes occurring in that location, so "crime went up when the rail arrived" is almost a statistical certainty. It doesn't address the fact that crime may increase by 10% while the transit population goes up by 50%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I used to like Baltimore. I'd take out-of-town company there. I'd take dates to the comedy clubs, pubs, eateries. Years later I worked in Baltimore, also at T. Rowe Price. 4 blocks up from the Inner Harbor, my friend was mugged at an ATM two times in two weeks. I had friends who starting keeping guns in their cars. We'd walk to the Harbor during the day. It felt safe then. Evenings, not so much. The squeegee boyz started harassing you if you stopped at a traffic light. "Give us money to wash your windows" they demanded. You'd nod "no" and they'd start anyway. Soon you figured to pay them Not to wash your windows. If they did wash them, they worse than bad. My friends and I stopped going to any of the bars or restaurants downtown, venturing out only in groups. Same with going to Orioles games, only in groups. My one friend is selling the townhouse he's owned for 25 yrs. He lived elsewhere, kept it rented, but had to renovate every 2 years when deadbeat tenants were finally evicted. He figures he lost $95k in lost rent, legal fees, and renovation. Thats doing the work himself. He figures he should have abandoned it 15yrs ago. I only go to Baltimore now when absolutely necessary, like a visit to Hopkins or such. I feel bad for the residents. And I feel bad for the police. Regarding the extra protection the Inner Harbor and maybe the casino gets, the taxes they pay are a huge part of what supports the city. One more thing - <USER2> trying to start a political fight. Baltimore has only had 4 Republican mayors in the last 100 years. Maybe something isn't working ideologically. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Baltimore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Baltimore)

<comment><USER18> > Baltimore has only had 4 Republican mayors in the last 100 years. Maybe > something isn't working ideologically.

I'll be downvoted to hell for saying this, but what you point out is an inconvenient truth. Nearly fifty years of blight and desolation, at what point does the other party get a shot? In places like this the Democrats are just a crooked patronage network.. both the source of and solution to their resident's problems...

Look at Maryland in general, they elected possibly the most moderate and centrist republican in the nation, and is generally respected across the spectrum. I wonder what would happen if one of these types had a term in the mayor's office.

I grew up near Baltimore and go through frequently. It's such a shame that what should be such a historic and interesting is so blighted. There are so many beautiful 19th-20th architectural gems that could provide it with so much character and liveliness, not to mention and proud community

<comment><USER19> In many ways this resembles 3rd-world democracy. People vote for "their" party on the basis of some historical or ethnic division, not on the basis of policies or results. Voting against it would be seen almost as some kind of treason.

And nowhere does this work well. What politician who doesn't fear being thrown out of office by unhappy voters will work hard every day to help them? If the party is guaranteed the vote, then instead they work every day at their own personal advancement, either literally in cash, or in their position in the party hierarchy. (Or at least, the only ones who survive in the system are those who do this -- same result.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I watched a documentary about Drug dealers and smugglers operating in Baltimore. They interviewed one dealer who said, ever since Freddie Grays incident and the riots, the city has been busy passing laws that make Crime overall and selling drugs much easier. One of his favorite new laws said that Police couldn't do undercover sting operations anymore. He said the drug business is booming.

<comment><USER21> Hmm. So would legalization stamp out most of the problems?

If possessing/using drugs weren't a crime, then people would have less to say "I'm already breaking the law, fuck it"

You'd knock out most organized crime cause you cut their money from them.

If the city was willing to sell at cost (seriously, morphine and oxy isn't expensive to make at all), it would also destroy that economy, and potentially free some back in the hands of the people.

And at the bottom, it also looks to me is poverty and suffering, and people using drugs to buy a short while not thinking about it.

<comment><USER22> > If the city was willing to sell at cost (seriously, morphine and oxy isn't > expensive to make at all), it would also destroy that economy, and > potentially free some back in the hands of the people.

There is a proposal for heroin buyers clubs in British Columbia that has a lot of support: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/heroin- buyer...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/heroin-buyers-club- safe-supply-1.5027479)

Legalization not only cuts down crime (from both drug dealers and drug addicts), it prevents overdose deaths and reduces occurrences of medical emergencies and hospitalizations. The city can also collect taxes on the drugs.

<comment><USER23> This was already tried in Switzerland, with promising results: [https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi...](https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2018.6b15)

Most notably, drug dealers lost financial incentive to hook new users up on the drug, so no new users anymore.

<comment><USER24> Edit: deleted

<comment><USER25> I didn't downvote you and I hope that my comment comes across as more similar to a vuln disclosure than a threat.

Your employer is listed in your HN profile. Assuming that you actually work for that company, you should be careful making such comments, even if your intent is completely benign.

When I was a reporter (I'm not anymore) I trawled HN comments for stories. It is not inconceivable that some Gizmodo-esque rag might write "[Redacted] Employee Making Racist Comments on Tech Forum" or whatever.

<comment><USER24> Ah, I wasn't trying to be racist in my post. But I see now how that could be read in a bad way.

<comment><USER25> I figured, since I'm familiar with some of the stats too. Just be careful out here on the internet :)

<comment><USER24> I didn't realize police prosecute unfairly and was just looking at the stats...a friend shared an article on the targeting/prosecution breakdown and it wasn't favorable for young Blacks in the U.S.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This article makes it out like the riots kick-started a new wave of violence. But homicides there had been tracking among the highest in the nation (nee the world) for a decade or more. The article won't give you a deep understanding of the problems Baltimore has been facing, but it's a good recap if you were already in the know.

By the way, that whole tangent about whether it should have been called 'unrest' or 'riots' is a false premise. Some of the people were lashing out against the police and symbols of injustice. And then there was the public housing old folks home that burnt to the ground. Or the old lady attacked by an intruder trying to steal a TV. Or the pharmacies that got raided by gangs to score cheap pills, and the subsequent mini-war after the plunge in black market prices. Or the firefighters who were pummeled by bricks and concrete while trying to put out the blazes. Some people were lashing out against a corrupt system, and some just wanted to burn the city down. When my friends were getting attacked in their homes and their cars destroyed on the street, my sympathy for those particular participants evaporated.

But even considering all that, I strongly feel our society has completely abandoned a vulnerable population, and fed the flames of conflict that arise when people can barely survive.

</comment><comment><USER27> >Baltimore City and St. Louis are the only cities in the country not part of a surrounding county and not counties in and of themselves

>This fragmentation results in some stunning inefficiencies that have had a profoundly negative impact on the quality of life for residents in the St. Louis region. For example, not only do St. Louis County and City compete against each other for economic development, so do the 90 different municipalities. This results in massive corporate subsidies as municipalities try to outdo each other in order to attract businesses.

[http://www.cphabaltimore.org/2019/03/a-merger-between- baltim...](http://www.cphabaltimore.org/2019/03/a-merger-between-baltimore- city-and-county/)

<comment><USER28> That's not exactly true. In Virginia, cities are not "in" a county. Towns might be, I am not sure.

<comment><USER29> While this is true, cities in Virginia have governing authority almost identical to counties. Schools, roads, police, &c.

<comment><USER30> Is this different from Baltimore City though?

<comment><USER31> Yes, and no. In general in the most overview sense, Baltimore City has governing authority of a county, it is effectively a county jurisdiction.

However, Baltimore City actually has LESS autonomy over a variety of things than any other of the several cities I have previously lived in (even those which were in counties) -- the state government in Annapolis controls so many things that I'm used to being controlled much more at municipal level in other cities I've lived in. From liquor licenses, to schools, to the police department, many decisions are made at the state government legislative level. (The Baltimore City council has pretty much NO authority over the police at all -- it's all the state government in Annapolis).

I don't think this is necessarily related to Baltimore City being an independent county-level jurisdiction (although it might be). I think there are a variety of historical factors, stretching back to colonial times (when the Maryland colonial elites were in Annapolis, and never intended Baltimore to be a big city or power center at all, and viewed Baltimore's growth as a threat to their power), to Civil War times (the majority of Maryland, and Baltimore, (white of course) elites sympathized with the confederacy, but the union federal government basically took control of the MD state government -- cause if Maryland went confederacy, DC would be surrounded -- and made sure that confederate-sympathizing Baltimore had limited autonomy), to more recent times (white flight, racism and white supremacy, white people don't believe majority-Black Baltimore can be trusted to run itself).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "They also gave rise to Martin O'Malley, a city councilman who was elected mayor on an anti-crime platform in 1999. O'Malley set about implementing what was then known as the New York model: zero tolerance for open-air drug markets, data-centric "CompStat" meetings to track crime and hold police commanders accountable and more resources for law enforcement paired with tougher discipline for officers who abused their power. By the time O'Malley, a Democrat, was elected governor of Maryland in 2006, crime rates, including murders, had fallen across the board"

Geez, for how maligned it is, broken window policing seems to work - <USER3> so. In this case, put it in and murder rates go down, take it out and murder rates go up.

<comment><USER33> How did crime rates move in cities not using broken window theory policing?

<comment><USER16> It moved downward at a similar rate. It had nothing to do with policing, broken-window or otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Welcome to the follies of Democratic Party run cities. Where they control about every end of the process for decades, where the party is completely beholden to the Public Employee Unions, especially police but don't leave out educators and fire. When the same unions have rules in the contracts to insure good members can choose where not to work. where the politicians are only concerned about ribbon cutting, reelection, and money to their personal accounts and friends/relatives through PACs and government jobs.

Where looking out for political power of your party and self come before those who vote for you.

</comment><comment><USER35> >>In hindsight, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the riot was probably avoidable — if Batts had had more officers at his disposal, if his officers had been better trained, if there hadn't been the seeming overreaction to Monday's swirling rumors.

Or... If they didn't murder Freddy Gray.

<comment><USER36> that's kinda like saying WWI could have been prevented if archduke ferdinand had taken a different route downtown. it might not have happened that day, but the powder keg was already primed and there are a lot of ways to spark it.

<comment><USER37> Sure, if you're looking at the specific event. But you could consider Freddie Gray part of a trend. Maybe the keg wouldn't have caught fire if we hadn't kept putting gunpowder in it?

<comment><USER36> I do consider Freddie Gray part of a trend, a trend that's been going on for a long time in this city. All I'm saying is a keg that's been stuffed full of powder for decades didn't go off _just_ because they killed one guy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> One helpful survival tactic in Baltimore is, if you are an outsider, make sure to nod and say Hello to the porch sitters, the older folks sitting outside on their steps chatting and keeping an eye on things. It gives one a friendly feeling. And, I've been steered away from trouble several times by friendly advice from the porch sitters.

</comment><comment><USER39> I haven't been to Baltimore, but this book, Ghettoside, tells a story about how the police in Watts and South Central LA, with their hands tied, tried to balance policing, justice and community engagement. So much similarity to what is happening in B'more. Good read. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11434259/Ghettosid...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11434259/Ghettoside- exclusive-extract-from-the-devastating-true-story-of-LA-crime-race-and- intimidation.html)

</comment><comment><USER40> I lived near Baltimore until 2012. Back then they were on an upward path. Pretty sad to hear that things have gone down again. It also shows how fragile improvements are. they can get lost quickly.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is a remarkably balanced and powerful piece of journalism. Kudos to the reporter and The NY Times here.

</comment><comment><USER42> Something cultural happened in the 1980s, I think across N.America. From my perspective, Atari and then, Nintendo killed playgrounds. Culture split into urbran, grunge, and pop.

It was weird generation to be in. The Baby Boomers were all settling into their careers (mid-career to retirement). Their children all hitting their teens about the same time 80s/90s. The population was growing older, and quickly. As the two main groups, Boomers, and Gen X, were both transitioning to more mature roles; mid-level managers and teens.

The sense of utopia that younger people could feel in the 50s and 60s was gone. People, as a whole, started to worry about retirement. As people get older they get more conservative.

As the Boomers left school, the money was cut. The new buildings in the 1950s had worn out. Their children now entering school now had their music programs cut, and saw the cracks in the walls.

Everything was just grungy.

<comment><USER43> What happened in the 1980s was the culmination of Baltimore's deindustrialization. Baltimore had the misfortune of having every single one of its major job-producing industries decimated by globalization and consolidation. Manufacturing, steel, automobiles, shipbuilding were all killed by globalization, containerization basically wiped out port jobs, and consolidation of the insurance and banking industries wiped out Baltimore's medium skill white-collar jobs (Baltimore used to be a regional insurance/banking center). What was left of banking and insurance after consolidation got wiped out by technology. I know a guy who got laid off consecutively by three different banks before he finally gave up on the banking industry in Baltimore.

And therein lies the solution to Baltimore's problems. If you were to somehow provide 30-50,000 low-skill living-wage jobs and maybe an additional 10-15,000 medium-skill white-collar jobs, you could start to "fix" Baltimore. Because the net effect of all those people having money to spend plus the halo effect adding another 10-15,000 jobs (providing new services for all those working people) would be so massive it would change the city. The problem is really just that simple -- total lack of economic opportunity for a large fraction of Baltimore's population who are lacking in skills or education.

Baltimore has "good bones" but intractable economic problems. And the root problem is, how would you provide those jobs? If I had _that_ answer, I'd run for emperor of Baltimore.

<comment><USER42> The only solution I can think of is a long term educational plan. Good edu spending and strategy is the only stimulus that really pays off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The tragedy of Baltimore is that it has been run by a single party since forever. O'Malley is an exemplar of the kind of leadership the city has had:

[http://time.com/3841050/the-wires-david-simon-martin- omalley...](http://time.com/3841050/the-wires-david-simon-martin-omalley- baltimore-police/)

</comment><comment><USER45> Spaces (like wework) has 3 floors here. This area near Ravens Football stadium is definitely getting better. But it is one of the areas that the city cares about over other areas unfortunately.

[https://bit.ly/2XRl0fu](https://bit.ly/2XRl0fu) (google maps)

</comment><comment><USER31> Baltimore is totally routinely unsafe for a great many people who spend time there.

I think it's important to remember that it's actually LEAST safe for the people who have LEAST power. Mostly poor Black people, or people in poor Black neighborhoods. As the article hints at, with people who live in poor Black neighborhoods saying they are amazed that the tourist/professional inner harbor is a "normal" place to walk around, while they're scared to go outside where they live. MOST violence is between people who know each other, often drug trade related. Those with the least social power have the LEAST ability to protect themselves from routine violence.

Which isn't to say it's not also unsafe even for the powerful. It's like the opposite of "trickle down" though. Trickle up. I think sometimes the powerful can forget that however unsafe they feel, most poor people in poor neighborhoods in Baltimore (and most poor neighborhoods are Black neighborhoods) are EVEN LESS SAFE. The powerful can make it an "us and them" thing, they think they need to defend themselves against the poor and Black, who are criminals.

In fact, Baltimore has, for years, been run for the comfort and benefit of people and groups that are already the most powerful. Like probably most cities in the U.S., but Baltimore has it bad. It sometimes seems like the comfort and safety of professional mostly white people is the only thing the city government cares about. (It is a mystery to me why some kind of accountability to the majority population doesn't seem to be necessary for electoral victory by politicians).

That's what got us into this, it's not gonna get us out. You can't abandon most of the city to a post-apocalyptic wasteland and not even think about them, and not have it effect the powerful too. (Of course even if it didn't, it would be morally repellent. But it doesn't work that way, chickens come home to roost). This is why rich people in the third world generally live behind walls with armed guards and don't go out in 'ordinary' neighborhoods -- Baltimore is a warning of how the whole U.S. will be if we keep going in third world directions of distribution of wealth and power between the rich who have it all and the poor who have nothing. Can't we figure out to treat everyone as humans instead?

I don't think technocratic solutions are going to do it, it's not about who has the best "anti-violence program", it's about integrating the disenfranchised into the economy (jobs) and political power structures, so their neighborhoods aren't like places where society has collapsed Mad Max style. There's no way you can live in (OR next to) such a neighborhood and be safe, and there's no way you can recover such a neighborhood with just the application of an occupying police army, the problem is it's ALREADY a war zone, it doesn't need more fighters (who in Baltimore are INCREDIBLY corrupt and untrustworthy too. Seriously Mad Max over here).

</comment><comment><USER46> There is a painful but telling postscript to the excellent article about the tragedy of crime in Baltimore and the ineffectiveness if not obliviousness of the city's mayor to stop it. Last night, March 11, during the three hours between 6 and 9 p.m. in Baltimore, four people were shot. This evening, March 12, within 24 hours of these shootings, Baltimore's Mayor, Catherine Pugh, is hosting a birthday party for herself and asking attendees for $6,000 for her re-election. What more is there to say!

</comment><comment><USER47> 1\. Many of the Freddie Gray protestors were not locals, they were bused in.

2\. Police took a hands-off approach after Freddie Gray, causing a predictable increase in crime.

<comment><USER48> You're full of shit. I was a Freddie Gray protestor and I lived in the city. There wasn't a single bus from anywhere.</comment></comment>


Clever British plug design. - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6DvjKkGT6s

<comment><USER2> I usually despise concept work, but this is fantastic. They appear to have worried about all of the real issues: manufacturing, assembly, the fuse.

The sad reality is that I don't think it is enough _better_ than an existing plug to warrant the effort.

<comment><USER3> I can see Apple jumping on something like this - this solves more of a real problem than the magnetic connector does. (Albeit for a smaller market.)

<comment><USER4> There's a good chance that if Apple considers it a big enough problem they'll redesign it from scratch. But some less-original laptop company may want to try it just for having an edge. Especially for smaller ~10" laptops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not convinced you can make the mechanics work when you add the electrical connections in. They only appear to have solid models which don't work, with animations of them working.

Neat idea though. 13 amp plugs are a real pain. The only thing which is "good" is that they're the same size as power supplies, so multiple PSUs on a multigang extension lead don't block other sockets.

<comment><USER6> Why wouldn't they work ? How would they need to differ from a regular plug or socket ?

<comment><USER7> The rotating part needs two sliding contacts both safely enclosed and able to carry up to 13 amps.

Ever played with a Scalectrix set where the sliding parts on the controllers spark and give off ozone? PC Speakers where the volume adjustment crackles because the sliding connection isn't very good? Variable resistors that don't vary smoothly? Switches that have stopped switching properly?

Moving contacts aren't as reliable as one solid piece of metal.

I like the idea; I hope they can make it workable, but I'm not sure it's such a big improvement on the existing travel plugs they demonstrated - with the folding pins.

<comment><USER8> Currently a split plug is in use in the UK (eg with ADSL router-modems) where the pins separate from the plug body. These require a sliding connection of the form needed here. They use a strong spring to ensure firm contact. I don't think this is a great barrier to production of the plug.

<comment><USER5> That mechanism is designed for contact to be made once. Not every time you plug it in. Also, there's no rotation, so the spring can be made stronger for a better contact.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


TikTok and Twitter are starting to talk about a possible combination - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/tiktok-twitter-possilbe-combination-talks-wsj-report-2020-8 <comment><USER2> Vine 2.0?</comment>


Amusing ourselves to death - <AUTHOR> http://onthepathofknowledge.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/amusing-ourselves-to-death/ <comment><USER2> What made Brave New World far more interesting to me than 1984 is that the bad guys in 1984 are really clearly bad guys who hide behind an impossibly thin veneer of public mindedness in order to live exactly as grandly as they want whereas in Brave New World the man at the top truly believes that he is a force for good in the world. His life is not a selfish one, not in the same way, he just believes that most people are happier living in his pleasure dome. He doesn't hate or fear the protagonist but instead he wants to help him by spiriting him away from the happy drugged masses to let him live out his life with the other people who don't want to live that way. It's an entirely different kind of conflict and much much more compelling.

<comment><USER3> I agree, 1984 always seemed a bit 'Lord of the Rings' to me, with the dark lords scheming in their towers.

Huxley presented a future in which the ruling class knows what the lower classes need to be happy, and set that up nicely. Everyone wins!

<comment><USER4> Actually they create a lower class by adding alcohol into their incubation chambers. The rich/smart make them stupid. They make them cheap laborers like a dictator keeping the value of a currency low with respect to other countries.

<comment><USER5> That always bugged me about the novel.

On the one hand, they say that they can't have automation: they tried, and the lower castes got too bored. On the other hand, they need the lower castes as menial labours.

Do away with the alcohol, and add robots, and you'll have a much nicer society.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I felt like you could consider the novel without the class system and it would be more interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So here's a question that has been on my mind for a while. I regularly read articles on some aspect of our society that is distressing. Articles such as this one, as well as articles on 'consuming devices killing creativity', 'bite-sized articles keeping us from reading bigger material like books', 'our school system turning us into automatons', and so on.

While I find myself agreeing with some of these articles based on my observation of myself and others, I can't help but wonder to what degree they actually apply to 'the larger population'.

All these people mindlessly consuming memes on their devices could be creating something new instead. That's wasted potential. But would they in any other time period, faced with the societal dangers of those times, be any more creative?

All these people reading bite-sized articles could be reading meatier material instead. Again, wasted potential. But there was a time were much of these people couldn't even read, or didn't have access to much information, so any reading and awareness of the world at large by chunks of the population is a win anyways.

And before we had schools, didn't most people follow some other kind of pre- determined path that shaped them to function appropriately in their respective societies, losing potential in the process?

Basically, when discussing these supposed problems, are they really problems, or do these things just fall short of what we can imagine, some potential that we project on the entire population (which is not a bad reason for discussing them, of course)? Isn't it the case that in any time period there are only smaller subsections of people who create, research, and/or people who are autodidacts that eschew a traditional education for something different?

Would those of us who are amusing ourselves to death not simply do something else 'mindless' in previous generations?

<comment><USER7> If you think only about creating content, I think you have a very good argument. Historically, not everybody was fit/interested in creating.

However, the underlying theme in these books seems to be one of freedom and our destiny. I don't think they focus much on creation but more on assessing reality and being able to change it.

In the past, at least in my 3rd world country, people were much more interesting in politics, health, education, etc. Nowadays, most people are happy to be distracted so I fully agree with the author here. Over and over, political scandals abound, corruption is everywhere and made plain clear to anyone who wants to see it.. yet, I don't see anyone complaining as they did in the past. It seems we've reached a plateau and we're comfortable enough. Distracted enough perhaps.

Perhaps the potential to create has kept the same, not very high, lots of wasted potential. But the potential to be angry/worried about things that matter seems to be going down the toilet lately. Just see how nobody besides IT people and the media cares about the NSA scandal.

<comment><USER6> > In the past, at least in my 3rd world country, people were much more > interesting in politics, health, education, etc.

I've been thinking about this too, but I can't help but wonder if the higher interest in "politics, health, education, etc." wasn't just mindless distraction in disguise. I grew up in a developing nation where it appeared that people were more engaged with these sorts of things, but it every discussion could be appended with '...but hey, that's the way it is'.

There are periods in time where a society is more engaged as a whole, and there are subsections of society that are, among other things politically engaged. Of course. But I truly wonder how different all that 'reading the papers and discussing politics' actually is from 'looking at funny political memes and reading short blog entries on what's wrong with the world'.

> Just see how nobody besides IT people and the media cares about the NSA > scandal.

That is a good point. But have we historically really done much better in this regard (other than some 'flare-ups' like the sixties)?

<comment><USER8> It's my opinion (not completely fundamented) that people engage more on aspects that they can change in some way. If they have no hope of changing anything in politics, for example, it feels no better than watching sports, so people flock to the later.

There were quite a lot of examples (all over the world) lately of people protesting about politics that couldn't even decide what they wanted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now we have indications of the worst of both the Huxleyan and Orwellian dystopias: an Internet designed to exacerbate the proclivity toward hyperbolic discounting of the future, and runaway surveillance on a planetary scale.

<comment><USER10> yeah, I agree that we have signals of both. It's like the two guard rails of our runaway towards World State

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you are interested in a rather in-depth examination of this line of thinking, I highly recommend Adam Curtis's 2002 documentary "The Century of the Self"

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

<comment><USER12> Here is the entire series on YouTube: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAD989035A4E8883D](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAD989035A4E8883D)

Edit: It's there alright, but it's blocked by the BBC. Sorry guys. It's on the interwebs but you'll have to do a quick look. I highly recommend it.

<comment><USER13> Full copies of all four episodes are downloadable from archive.org at [https://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis- TheCenturyOfTheSelf](https://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis- TheCenturyOfTheSelf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I never finished 1984 but both seem to ignore the ultimate driving force behind both authoritarianism _and_ consumerism that continues to rule the world, money and capitalism. In 1984, or at least this comic, power and violence seems to happen for their own sake, "power corrupting power", and similarly for Huxley's hedonism. The comic claims "Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity..." uh no, no one just gives us TV and distractions, they _sell it to us._

Maybe that's a shallow analysis, and if so, tell me: where is the aspect of capital in either work?

<comment><USER15> > ultimate driving force behind both authoritarianism and consumerism that > continues to rule the world, money and capitalism

I would say the problem is any social structure that allows money to buy power, i.e. that allows the translation of economic power into political power (and vice versa). Either we should prevent that, or consider placing a cap on maximum per-capita economic power (preferably as a factor of the average, not unlike the Swiss proposal for CEO salaries).

A person should be able to buy as many yachts, castles or private jets as he wants, but using his money to lobby, campaign or otherwise influence political process -- perhaps that should be severely limited?

Civilization and technology today allows individual human beings to wield far higher concentrations of power than our psychology evolved to deal with. A good social system should cap it below the threshold where people go crazy (i.e. where our brains malfunction).

<comment><USER16> As a Swiss and living within the Swiss political system I firmly believe that laws alone can never be enough to keep people from getting too much power. Instead, implementing and defending a democracy that actually deserves its name, as in a system where the majority of people keep the last say in the law making process, instead of just letting them delegate that right every few year, is what keeps the system stable and everyone in check. Besides the direct effect on the law, this has two positive effects that most people don't quite seem to grasp when arguing about direct vs. indirect democracy:

\- People tend to be more content with the laws they need to follow. Even if they lost on a vote its easier to accept in a system where its an actual majority behind it instead of just some removed cabal that you can only elect based on some pamphlet information every few years.

\- Politicians in such a system tend to think ahead in terms of what can and cannot be popular with the people. They do so not only for the election years (which don't have that great of an importance here, not only because of direct democracy but also because of the way our federal government is formed by all major parties) but whenever delicate issues are coming up. One example I'd attribute to this effect is our liberal online piracy laws and our seemingly better protected privacy. When we had our own small scale Snowden affair in the 80ies it blew up into a huge scandal leading to the resignation of a federal council member ('Fichenaffäre', [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_files_scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_files_scandal)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1931. Is anyone aware of the technologies or behaviours at the time that inspired the novel?

I've always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that culture was very different then and have been always been curious as to how he came to his prediction.

<comment><USER18> The selective breeding of humans as "alphas", "betas", etc. may have been inspired by the eugenics movement[1], which had prominent supporters in the U.K. at the time (e.g., Winston Churchill).[2] Except that in the novel, instead of just getting rid of "inferior" people, they actively bred them into a servant caste. (After Hitler gave eugenics a bad name, it became much less respectable.)

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't think it's off-base to say that this is an attack on the current state of society - the oft-repeated wail that capitalism and the opportunities it has brought (including technology) has made us all a despicable group of hedonistic thrill seekers. This is universally construed as a bad thing.

I have problems with this.

In order to decide that something is bad, we need to have an idea of what is good. Where does that come from here? The past? Your imagination? Do you 'miss' the olden days of constant strife, peril, religion that moulded those who survived into wise old men and women, their minds enriched by the fullness of life, but their bodies cold, wet, and illness-ridden from the lack of modern technology? Perhaps you miss the 'community' vibe of the 1950's. Or your own childhood. Or perhaps you dream of your own utopia. Am I close?

I hope the point made in the above paragraph is self evident, but in case it's not, ask yourself how many of your alternative realities you've actually experienced, and how many are just ideas you've accrued with the blanks liberally filled in by educated guesses and imaginations. Try and find one that isn't. Got one? Good.

Now let's plan. How would you - or anyone - transform the whole of society from what we have today to your new utopia? Plan it out. Perhaps government has to do something. Perhaps government has to go. You're almost certainly going to face dissent - perhaps some people need to face some hard realities for a short time, you know, in the transition period. Think like this for a while. I don't think it will be long before 1984 starts to take shape.

Let's categorise society. Let's construct a hypothetical index in our minds that tracks intelligence/education/income in a single number (the actual equation isn't relevant). Assume it's normally distributed[0]. Let's also assume that the kind of person who sympathises with the article in this link is in the top 25% (far right quarter), so put yourself up there. Let's consider the bottom 55% - the kind of people whose chief pleasures in our Brave New World may be TV, alcohol, taking selfies, incorrect spelling in text messages, Facebook, Instagram, Candy Crush, etc. - they're not massively intellectual.

Where exactly do these people (who I posit construct the majority of our _actual_ society) fit in to your new utopia, assuming you managed the transition without creating 1984? Are they suddenly reading books, in a newfound passion for learning? Maybe they accept their place in their world, respectfully keeping quiet in reverence to their overlords, the intelligensia. Can you fit them in anywhere whilst maintaining the utopia?

This thought experiment should be difficult by this point. I say it's impossible.

If you are not in the bottom 55% of our hypothetical index, there is a great wealth of things out there to please you. Almost all activities are in reach of the average person now. You have books, the ability to travel, the internet, base jumping, mountaineering, arctic exploration, even space travel is expected to be affordable within most of our lifespans. You probably know this already, I guess you're probably happy enough with your own life and world. The discomfort you feel is with the rest of us 'out there', right?

Society is reflective of its components. People will seek to maximise happiness and pleasure under given constraints. This has always been and will always be so. It is the essence of humanity. The simple truth is that the industrial and technical revolutions of late have loosened those constraints by many orders of magnitude, and now instead of dog-fighting, back-room card games, duels, 24-hour boozing, or whatever it was the bottom 55% used to do 'back in the day', they have other things. Like you, they are who they are: a conflagration of nature/nurture forces that amount to a personality.

The difference is that instead of making use of all things available in the world to please you, you've chosen to spend your time sat on your high horse looking down on them, wishing they were different, so that the view from up there was a little nicer.

      [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

<comment><USER20> How's this?

There's a difference between what we want and what we enjoy. You see this most clearly in drug addicts - no, in compulsive gamblers: they desperately want their fix, but aren't any happier when they're doing it. But the same effect is in play for all of us, in more subtle form. You can find it in people who are trying to write: they enjoy writing, but they don't want to do it, have to force themselves to start.

There's a pattern in this. People enjoy improving themselves, enjoy learning even - but most people don't want it. Strikingly, if you have people make the choice for their future selves, they prefer the self-improvement option; if you offer someone a choice between, say, a ticket to a museum exhibition, or a couple of free drinks (at equal price), in three months' time, most will choose the exhibition. But if you give them the choice for tonight, they'll take the drinks - and when choosing in their own lives, that's what they tend to prefer. Even if they're going to enjoy them less.

So the best way to make people happy isn't just to give them what they ask for. A paternalistic intervention where you, say, banned certain kinds of entertainment, and funded others, might well result in people living lives they were happier with than the lives they would have chosen for themselves.

<comment><USER21> > A paternalistic intervention [...] might well result in people living lives > they were happier with than the lives they would have chosen for themselves

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the pater making the decisions is wiser and more able to make correct decisions for others than others themselves. In a utopia, the decision maker might be the smartest, wisest person alive, with a nigh god-like ability to discern what's best for everyone. In reality, the decision maker is just a regular Joe. Worse, in democracies like the US and UK -- where potential leaders seem to primarily be chosen solely on the basis of social class (when did you last see a genuinely lower class politico?) -- there is absolutely no reason to believe that the leader has cognitive abilities that are above those of the population.

In a utopia, a paternalist system would work because the decisions made by the pater would be better than those made by the populace. In reality, it results in USSR supermarkets stuffed with canned tomatoes because the ever-wise pater wasn't even able to predict people's most basic wants.

<comment><USER22> >in democracies like the US and UK -- where potential leaders seem to primarily be chosen solely on the basis of social class

Maybe that is true in the UK, but that is clearly not the case in the US, unless you are going to try to argue that Obama is a WASP.

<comment><USER20> "WASP" is not a social class. Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer.

<comment><USER22> Obama's father went to Harvard but his grandfather was a cook. Hardly a pedigree.

<comment><USER23> Obama is president, not his father. He grew up as a lawyer's son, not in a working-class household.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Better quality direct from the comic author:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20110411085435/http://www.recombi...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110411085435/http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing- Ourselves-to-Death.html)

Removed from his website on request of Neil Postman estate:

[http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing- ours...](http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ourselves-to- death/)

<comment><USER25> as with any original content that is older than the average HN user memory threshold, which somewhere between 9 months and 3 years, there is also an old thread for it:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=627476](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=627476) 1687 days ago | 17 comment

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1554733](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1554733) 1259 days ago | 81 comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4607098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4607098) 461 days ago | 79 comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433283](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433283) 289 days ago | 17 comments

[EDIT] well, there at least 5 now, including this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why is that whenever I read something like, "Most of us will read this and continue living our life exactly the same way as before …wake up", my immediate response is, "Fuck off, you patronising wanker"?

I think it's probably the author's assumption that they're on to something new - a thought that doesn't recur over and over again:

[http://www.tor.com/images/stories/blogs/13_10/BadForYou- tech...](http://www.tor.com/images/stories/blogs/13_10/BadForYou-techno-panic- timeline.jpg)

<comment><USER27> James May, of all people, has repeatedly held the position that things are getting better and not worse.

I generally agree with this. It's important to be vigilant but a little optimism goes a long way as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> If you like your depressing stories in musical form, try listening to 'Amused to Death' by Roger Waters, inspired by the book. Great album.

If you want to amuse yourself while listening, make sure you have your speakers set up so the stereo effect on the barking dog at the start sounds like it's coming from outside. Also make sure your system can cope with the sound of the bomb dropping.

<comment><USER29> Apparently titled as a reference to the book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> In that it relates to information glut causing lost focus/awareness, this reminds me of the curse of the hyperlink in Wikipedia. I can start off reading about the early history of the Chevy 350 and end up reading about the Heaven's Gate cult an hour and a half later, wondering what the hell I sat down to do in the first place.

I've come to learn that recording goals/making lists is key to being productive when there's so much other stuff vying for my attention and trying to throw me off course. I used to think I could just keep everything in my head, but that's just not worked.

</comment><comment><USER31> We seem to have got both

<comment><USER32> I would take it a step further and say we have Orwell because we've fallen into Huxley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> What's sad is that the original author of the comic was forced to take it down due to request from Estate of Neil Postman's. You'd think their estate would want his ideas spread.

</comment><comment><USER34> Seeing this Brave New World thing pop up again. OMG sheeple wake up! People have become passive, drowned in irrelevance!

I find this line of discourse dehumanizing. "People" apparently includes everyone but the reader. Some would claim this is the conceit of such critique, a claim that only the reader sees the world for what it really is, the reader (and writer) are better than everyone else. But this kind of critique has gone on too long for me to feel this way – instead I think these critiques erase the reader, erase the idea of constructive engagement, they don't say "you, reader, are the smart one!" instead they say "you are stupid and purposeless, not even worthy of critique, instead I shall turn my eye to only the unnamed masses!"

People need to stop talking about "people". Neil Postman should stop talking about "people". Have the guts to say who you are talking about. Or if more likely you are only talking about archetypes, step up and acknowledge the universal inapplicability of archetypes to real people, each of whom is better than your out-of-focus description. When you multiple out individuals into a group you don't get a teaming mass – maybe YOU can only appreciate those individuals as a teaming mass, but don't project the limits of your perception onto those individuals. Life is bigger than any one goddamned sci-fi story.

</comment><comment><USER35> I find that every generation thinks this of the next. For example here's what the early 1800's thought of students using paper: [http://i.imgur.com/Od2BB51.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/Od2BB51.jpg) These kinds of declaration have been going on for centuries. There will always be some people who waste their time and others that produce. You can't produce, even low brow media, without some active members of the population who have to first create it ;)

<comment><USER36> Its not just about creating, its also what these people are creating and whats the incentive to create? Do these creators ever think about the repercussions of their creations on the society? If your creation is not motivating people to create themselves or even making them learn something interesting, I am not sure if its the ideal creation.

<comment><USER35> It's a catch-22. You can't have content without creators, and if the content gets so bad that no one creates anymore, then you have no new content, which means you get more creators. It's an oscillation.

<comment><USER36> I was actually addressing this line of yours :

>There will always be some people who waste their time and others that produce.

The people who are producing are creating content which encourages people to waste time. Producers will say 'we are just making what people want' but the problem is that most people don't know what they want. Its not like they watch 5-6 hours of TV and go to sleep feeling good about themselves. Producers will keep creating that since it equals shit loads of money but concomitantly it also ends up making majority of population less creative, less informed and more distracted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Something I found surprisingly infuriating lately is that on the YouTube app for iOS, you can be watching a video full-screen and, _before the video is even finished_ , a thing slides up from the bottom about what it wants you to watch next. Fuck off! I'm still trying to watch the one video I elected to see and it's already trying to herd me down the attention deficit rathole.

<comment><USER38> YouTube app... for iOS... there's your problem right there.

<comment><USER37> I have no idea what you're talking about. My specific complaint aside, the dedicated app is far more responsive and reliable to use than the mobile site, as is often the case when there's a choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lately I have kept repeating to myself: You can either spend your time consuming or you can spend your time creating.

I have always felt guilty deep inside when watching something and not learning anything from it, I try to find that one thing, that small part of philosophy in a television series and use it as a motivation to watch (like the line: "We are the universe trying to figure itself out" and the stuff about humanity growing up in Babylon 5). But the feeling of uselessness kept creeping up.

Recently I have just told myself flat out: Just make something, I felt increasingly restless while watching TV. And it feels good, I make lego contraptions with my son, I make leds blink with Python on my RPi(s). It feels good. I don't know why but ever since I was I kid I have felt this, very deeply and only in the last year have I actually expressed it in words.

I have read 1984 and Brave new world in the last 3 years and they hit some sensitive spots for, must reads if you ask me.

<comment><USER39> "I make lego contraptions with my son, I make leds blink with Python on my RPi(s)." \- just a different type of consumption. Unless you are building something conceptually new.

<comment><USER4> But it still qualifies as learning something new. Over time I'm building the basis for building something conceptually new.

Perhaps this feeling is difficult to put in words, it feels very significant to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Waaaay back in highschool I read both 1984 and Brave New World (same weekend, even...come Monday I was extremely depressed), and came to a similar conclusion--because really, who wants to fight love?

Given the modern drive for micro-optimizing every bit of one's life (looking at you, /4 Hour.*/) there is a much better dystopic story out there by Harlan Ellison:

[http://compositionawebb.pbworks.com/f/%5C%27Repent,+Harlequi...](http://compositionawebb.pbworks.com/f/%5C%27Repent,+Harlequin!%5C%27+Said+the+Ticktockman+by+Harlan+Ellison.pdf)

And perhaps even more appropriately, given the themes of impersonally evil bureaucracy and supposed terrorism, the movie Brazil:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%281985_film%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%281985_film%29)

</comment><comment><USER41> Doesn't practically every high schooler (in the U.S. at least) read both books, be assigned an essay to ask which one has happened, and then come to the conclusion that we're far more like Brave New World? As a foreword to a book, this isn't exactly original stuff.

But there's also a counterpoint, which is that all the distraction, or the pleasure, or gossip, or whatever it is -- that's the stuff that it means to be human. We don't just mindlessly watch TV -- we talk about it with friends, joke about it, have fun with it. When a man comes home after a hard day of work, and wants to unwind by watching Celebrity Apprentice with his wife, I think sometimes people are a little to quick to judge. Everybody needs their 'guilty pleasures'. That doesn't mean that's all we are.

<comment><USER42> I'm afraid most are only exposed to 1984 and then reassure themselves we dodged that bullet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Another take on Huxley's dystopia (if you can call it that) is this: [http://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/friendship-is- optimal](http://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/friendship-is-optimal)

Much deeper and scarier than you'd expect given the setting.

</comment><comment><USER44> I've seen this cartoon before, and honestly I think people are trying to pick either or (1984 or Brave New World), and are missing the more nuanced side of it.

My simplified summary though, is this: Brave New World for the masses, and 1984 for anyone who wakes up and tries to change it.

Also, that people talk about both authors works but neglect to discuss their British secret and not-so-secret society connections seems to create a sort of superficial aura of debate around the two. Frankly, the books only scratch the surface, but TPTB have done an excellent job at making any even potential association with the title "conspiracy theorist" a thing to be feared. (and plenty of the theorists themselves have helped in that cause)

</comment><comment><USER45> Anyone actually read that book? Would you recommend it?

<comment><USER46> Alan Kay recommended it. He kept bringing it up. I finally read it last week. It's awesome. I think you can apply what people did with the TV to how people use social media: a series of interruptions.

Someone posted the pdf of the 20th anniv. edition. Google: Amusing Ourselves to Death pdf

<comment><USER47> It could be depressing as well, since the described effects correspond to the erosion of many important public institutions (like democratic governance).

Seems like this decade is a good time for an update on this issue, now that entertainment technologies are ubiquitous and totally attention grabbing, and cognitive psychology gives it good scientific grounding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> An even older (1960s, I think) clip featuring Marshall McLuhan, still rather relevant on the topic

[http://www.openculture.com/2010/04/marshall_mcluhan_the_worl...](http://www.openculture.com/2010/04/marshall_mcluhan_the_world_is_a_global_village_.html)

The keywords here were "Individual man is out, tribal man is in".

</comment><comment><USER49> Please respect the comic author and text author and stop reposting this. See: [http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing- Ourse...](http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to- Death.html)

</comment><comment><USER50> Orwell is right. Humans can learn to "survive" in a free information age, but can't live freely in a observed environment.

</comment><comment><USER51> I never understood why Brave New World is a dystopia. To me, it always seemed to be saying "yes, everyone's happy all the time, but our current values are marginalized!", which is just the appeal to tradition fallacy.

Can someone please explain to me what's bad about everyone being happy all the time? "They aren't happy in ways that currently make _us_ happy!" isn't a strong argument...

<comment><USER52> The people in BNW aren't happy per se. Anyone with a desire to do anything outside of the accepted norm is outcast. They have no freedom. They only really have the illusion of happiness. Whether that's enough is the fundamental question the book asks.

<comment><USER51> Hmm, it's been a while and I don't remember that. Who was cast out?

<comment><USER8> The protagonist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Two different means to the same end. Whats the old saying about Rome, "bread and circuses"?

</comment><comment><USER54> Man I couldn't even make it past all the comics without getting depressed and frustrated.

</comment><comment><USER55> First world problems.

<comment><USER40> Gilded cages are still cages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> What is the solution of this quandary?

<comment><USER57> And what's the problem with it?

I surely think a lot of popular culture is stupid/a waste of time, but as long as I (and others) have the freedom to freely chose more "fruitful" things to do with our time - then what's the big deal?

<comment><USER58> You have less freedom than you think. Timesinks are addictive. We've all clicked on a link-bait headline, even though we knew it would waste our time, because the text was so enticing. And most can remember playing a boring video game longer than they wanted because they were distracted by some manipulative aspect of the game (need another level / badge / chicken on my farm). It's gotten so bad, people regularly refer to MMORPGS as "skinner-boxes."

With effort, and focus, we all can give up today's addictive timesinks. But when we're assaulted by the timesinks on an hourly basis, it's not as easy as you think.

<comment><USER57> Sure, but what's the alternative?

Should the government ban stupid stuff in order to force people into "more satisfying pleasures" though a "moral ecology" that discourages addictive/pointless things?

<comment><USER58> No.

<comment><USER57> Exactly.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Covid-19 online contact tracing? - <AUTHOR> With the abundance of data from social networks, I would thing it would be feasible to implement a sort of a crowd-sourced contact-tracing website. Something along the lines of...<p>1). User indicates they have the coronavirus 2). Site fetches potential locations they may have visited, and people they may have interacted with based on their social media data. 3). User indicates interaction with said locations and users. 4). Risk profile for other users is updated. <comment><USER2> Facebook should come up with this!</comment>


Gay World of Warcraft guild forced to change name because of user complaints - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/10/gay-world-of-warcraft-guild-forced-to-change-name-because-of-user-reports/ <comment><USER2> The guild name is in all caps. That was a deliberate choice in an attempt to be edgy, or to attract attention. If the guild creator didn't realize most of the attention he would attract would be negative, now he does.

The forced name change is appropriate/deserved. I doubt this article would exist if not for the Hearthstone debacle.

Or I haven't progressed with the rest of the internet and my cynicism belongs in the past.

<comment><USER3> Are there other guilds in all caps?</comment></comment>


Forking Redis: SSL/TLS and Transactions - <AUTHOR> http://www.dr-josiah.com/2018/04/yes-im-forking-redis-ssltls-transactions.html <comment><USER2> I want to give just a few info about this:

1\. SSL is going to be merged in the next days, I'm in this moment here in SF in the same room with the patch author, she made a wonderful work and the patch is "opt in", simple, and good, so this is going to happen.

2\. Forking is a right that open source gives you. Have fun coding Josiah!

3\. I really will push for any fork not being called Redis. I care a lot about the details, the stability, the quality and the ideas in my project, and I really want that when people say "Redis", it's Redis, and not a Redis fork.

4\. I'll be a bit disappointed if the license of the fork is so that it will be possible to merge my(1) BSD code but I will not be able to merge back potential change. It's legal, it's possible to do for this approach, but it IMHO ethically speaking sucks.

(1) my as mine and a number of other contribs.

<comment><USER3> As far as 3 goes, the Perl5 community tends to deal with that with software licensing. I doubt it's possible to do that with Redis at this point, but the Artistic 2.0 license (Perl5 comes under both GPL and Artistic 2.0, with the choice between them) lets you make forks of the project and call it something else without having to release those changes. I'd definitely agree about 4, at least except where he talks about the cluster stuff, it sounds like there's more murky waters there than I know about.

[https://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-2.0](https://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-2.0)

<comment><USER4> Murky waters with cluster? No. Just being concerned about corporate liability / risk. I might have spent too long working under business folks, as some companies won't consider using open-source software unless there is a vendor they can call at 3AM and complain at. I'm saying that if someone needs distributed transactions in cluster, and they want to run my software, I would take that call and help them fix it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just a few days ago, AWS announced[1] that they will be contributing TLS to Redis, and judging by one of his comments[2], antirez doesn't seem to be completely against merging it.

According to a comment on Reddit[3], Josiah wasn't aware of this effort by AWS.

[1]: [https://aws.amazon.com/cn/blogs/opensource/open-sourcing- enc...](https://aws.amazon.com/cn/blogs/opensource/open-sourcing-encryption- in-transit-redis/)

[2]: [https://github.com/antirez/redis/pull/4855#issuecomment-3831...](https://github.com/antirez/redis/pull/4855#issuecomment-383171007)

[3]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/redis/comments/8f373k/a_new_redis_f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/redis/comments/8f373k/a_new_redis_fork_with_ssl_transactions/dy19br1/)

<comment><USER6> Nice! At first blush, the TLS PR looks pretty good. It's not just shimmed in there like it could be (for example if I'd have written it haha). I've always appreciated Redis for having generally excellent code quality over the years. Looks like a great contribution to the project!

<comment><USER4> It is better than the code I actually wrote, I've already switched to it as a base, and have been merging my changes in to my local branch today. :)

I look forward to everyone having SSL :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> But... why? SSL will eventually make it into the official Redis release.

Anyway, I don't think anyone would use a fork of Redis just because of SSL. I would take the perf hit and go with socket tunneling just so that I don't have to deal with the maintenance burden of depending on a fork.

<comment><USER8> > But... why? SSL will eventually make it into the official Redis release.

"Eventually" it's 2018. It's too late.

I'm especially cynical and jaded about the insanity of running any plaintext protocols in 2018, why wasn't SSL/TLS implemented by now? It should have been at the top of the priority list.

People who think unencrypted traffic is okay should have their competency challenged. Sure, in very limited specific deployment models you can maybe get away with it without compromising security, but actually even in the most restrictive networks it is still an open door for exploitation.

It's the same kind of stupidity as Docker running as root by default... this stuff is amateur hour and these apps are mission critical enterprise tools. That's a bad recipe. In the 90s it was forgiveable, today it is not.

Kudos to the guy. Maybe it'll light a fire under the official project. Or maybe the fork will pick up steam. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

<comment><USER9> This is reductive. I don't know what the faction of major Redis deployments (by transaction volume or data size or however you want to measure) that are housed in AWS is, but I'm guessing it's north of 50%. In an AWS Redis environment, running Redis over TLS is not in the top 10 systems security concerns relative to database security. The access you need to attack Redis for lack of TLS is almost certainly gameover by itself with or without TLS.

I'm not saying Redis TLS is a bad thing (honestly: I'd prioritize "not having Redis in a design" over "making sure Redis runs over TLS"), but I think in a lot of very mainstream designs, it's mostly a cosmetic security control.

<comment><USER10> > I'd prioritize "not having Redis in a design"

Why?

<comment><USER9> Not in general, just over optimizing the transport security of Redis.

<comment><USER4> In one example test I ran, the SSL/TLS unwrapping daemon used 5x the CPU of Redis itself. And generally, the unwrapping daemons always used more CPU (for the reasons explained in the article). With integrated SSL, you're looking at substantially reduced CPU overhead, just from reduced interrupt handling and memcpy operations.

For the examples I was running, it's like going from 2 hours of total CPU time to 50 minutes, versus 40 minutes for no SSL/TLS. Or going from 1 hour to run the test to 45 minutes, versus 35 minutes with no SSL/TLS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I forked Redis years ago providing threads and SQL support, though I can't remember if transactions were supported now. This was done mostly for fun and as an experiment, learned a lot about locking and database internals in the process:

Main concept: [http://thredis.org/](http://thredis.org/)

Implementation details: [https://github.com/grisha/thredis/blob/master/README- THREDIS](https://github.com/grisha/thredis/blob/master/README-THREDIS)

<comment><USER12> I read your code a couple years ago after finding your repo through a search for Redis and SQLite - what a fun project! Learned a good deal from your changes, so thanks for open-sourcing your experiment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> i love redis and have been using in production for over five years. But i'm interested to read the story of this fork because the practicioner-focused redis book this guy wrote is one of the best software-related texts i've read in the past 7 - 8 years. ("Statistical Rethinking" by Richard McElreath, and "The Art of SQL" by Stephane Faroult are two others that had the same impact)

<comment><USER4> Thank you very much, that is the best review I've ever received on my book.

As for the story; the clues are there in public if you dig a bit, but aren't all that interesting to anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Did I miss something here around the rationale for forking vs. attempting to contribute this to the official project?

Edit: found some more details over on reddit[0]:

 _I didn 't see the existing TLS PR, and I'm not finding it now. Do you have a link?

As for why fork and not PR, Salvatore already closed the Transactions PR and said he didn't want Redis to go in that direction. And when searching about SSL/TLS in Redis itself, I found this: [https://redis.io/topics/encryption](https://redis.io/topics/encryption) , read the implementation of spiped (it uses fixed 1k block sizes), then realized that SSL/TLS is the right answer in this situation.

Could transactions be a module? I was about halfway through the cluster transaction bits as a module when I hit a collection of "oh wait, I can't even call this entire class of things unless I create new module wrappers for both directions" problems. Then I just added a new .c file, new .h, did the right includes, a make clean && make, and my life was 10x better.

Also, this just includes redis-benchmark, redis with SSL/TLS, etc., is still a couple weeks out. I need to get redis-cli > and redis-sentinel speaking SSL/TLS._

[0] - [https://www.reddit.com/r/redis/comments/8f373k/a_new_redis_f...](https://www.reddit.com/r/redis/comments/8f373k/a_new_redis_fork_with_ssl_transactions/)

<comment><USER4> Other changes that I had been working on weren't going to be merged upstream (already rejected), and though I wasn't going to make any attempts to prevent SSL/TLS from being merge-able (I was actually starting from 4.0.9 for ease of current users, and had moved between 4.0.9 and unstable a couple different times), my code was derived from MIT code, and I can't really re-license someone else's code.

This fork announcement was a, "Hey, you can probably use this stuff, but it might not be usable for everyone now. In the future, it might be a materially better solution for some of your problems (transactions). I'd appreciate some sort of vote of confidence if you all think it's cool, or even an 'eff off' if I've somehow pissed in your coffee."

With the SSL work in PR #4855, some of the announcement has no real use now, and I've redirected my own efforts in its wake.

<comment><USER14> I appreciate the followup and reply!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very cool! Any reason why this wouldn't make its way into the official releases of redis?

<comment><USER16> Presumably they'll have to sort out what kind of performance hit it has and how to address that longterm, but I think you're correct.

It's probably more complicated than that given that the Redis security page begins with:

> Redis is designed to be accessed by trusted clients inside trusted > environments.

[https://redis.io/topics/security](https://redis.io/topics/security)

I think the current recommended approach for this use case is to wrap it with stunnel.

<comment><USER4> Please re-read. It's spiped. Fixed 1k blocks, but otherwise reasonable.

But #4855 is going to be merged, and my tests show that #4855 is actually faster than my changes, so ... :)

I like not having to be responsible for writing SSL/TLS code, even if I just spent 9 weeks doing it. :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not expecting this to see much traction given there's already an open PR to add SSL to Redis (from an AWS employee):

[https://github.com/antirez/redis/pull/4855](https://github.com/antirez/redis/pull/4855)

<comment><USER4> I'm about 99% sure that this will get about < 10 downloads. Heck, I've already switched to PR #4855 code, and am applying my other changes forward on top of it today. I've also got a followup post where I talk about the next steps I'm taking.

Good code is good code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> From the article:

> And as a basic need, relying on third party tools for SSL/TLS termination or > a transparent VPN solution is a great first step from running without > encryption, but it can leave speed on the table. And part of the reason why > we use Redis is for speed, right?

> With 3rd party SSL/TLS termination, that can only get worse. How much worse?

I'm curious to see what the results could be with HAProxy as a SSL termination frontend. (via a Unix socket or a TCP connection)

<comment><USER4> As I was going through setting up HAProxy, I ran into a roadblock that stopped me from testing. I will look into it for the next round.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Meh. A short-lived fork addressing issues being addressed in mainstream redis in a way that is probably more consistent with the codebase.

I think it's an interesting piece of work, no doubt. But I'd never adopt something like this in Real Life. Given the gorgeous state of the codebase, I trust the current stewardship of the project to make the right calls. This sounds more personal than technical.

<comment><USER4> This specific fork, yes (has to be renamed). Another fork, perhaps not. Per other threads, I've got more work going in for transactions and other features, some of which Salvatore wasn't even interested in hearing about, let alone merging.

Feel free to keep using Salvatore's Redis, it'll be around as long as he is, I'm sure.

And feel free to take a look (or not) at my fork in a few weeks. Maybe I'll disappoint you again. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I watched about 10 seconds of the video. I stopped after that because the guy was still talking about himself, not the software.

<comment><USER6> You mean Dr. Josiah Carlson, PhD?

<comment><USER21> You ask that as if it means something

<comment><USER22> Poe's Law I think...and for the avoidance of doubt I think he was being funny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sounds like it adds native SSL termination for redis-server and benchmarks show its much faster than external ssl termination.

</comment><comment><USER24> Anyone knows a redis cli client that supports rediss/TLS? Tunneling the server is one thing, but I do miss the convenience of redis-cli and tunneling the client is a bit of a nuisance.

</comment><comment><USER25> why not just submit patches to redis, it feels like something a lot of people would benefit from.

<comment><USER4> Because up until I posted, this was the official party line as far as I had been made aware: [https://redis.io/topics/encryption](https://redis.io/topics/encryption)

And this was the start to several other changes I am in the process of adding, which Salvatore had historically not been interested in. The patches I'd been working on for SSL/TLS were small enough to be easily cherry-picked, at any point in the future, if Salvatore had wanted them.

It was easier to release some SSL/TLS bits to start, than to do everything else I need to do before adding SSL/TLS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why does Redis need SSL/TLS? It's meant to be used as a backend service across trusted networks. And if you need to use it over untrusted networks, you're best off using an actual server like NGINX or HAProxy to mediate it. Not to mention the killer feature of Redis is not neccessarily throughput, but it's best-in-class latency, which could be severely affected by SSL termination (and if you are doing SSL termination on the same machine as your Redis instance, you're doing it wrong.). This seems like added bloat to a really great lightweight tool.

<comment><USER27> Most Redis DBaaS services "expose a Redis instance to the Internet", because they're not running in the same cloud as you are (even if it's the same underlying datacenter.)

As well, if my understanding is correct, the OP's goal is to create globally- distributed Redis clusters, where lower-level solutions like VPN network peering have relatively bad performance compared to plain userland TLS.

<comment><USER26> >Most Redis DBaaS services "expose a Redis instance to the Internet", because they're not running in the same cloud as you are (even if it's the same underlying datacenter.)

Sure, but they are almost certainly not just directly exposing Redis on port 6379. How would they handle auth, rate limiting, etc.?

<comment><USER28> You do auth with the AUTH command -- you wouldn't want to do AUTH without SSL/TLS.

You don't need anything more sophisticated than that for the use-case where you're just making Redis on one cloud available to trusted clients on another.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Leave Your Job - <AUTHOR> http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2016/01/21/how-to-leave-your-job-preparation-resignation-and-transition/ <comment><USER2> This is the "common sense" advice. It doesn't apply in a lot of situations and depends on yours. If you're quitting a startup working 60 hours a week and have money in the bank and lots of interest elsewhere, you probably won't have time to properly interview for a good next job. Take the time off,get to know what it is that you really want and what your goals are, and then go for them. There are not many times in your life in which you will have opportunities to take breaks.</comment>


Why I care about Accessibility - <AUTHOR> http://bradfrost.com/blog/post/why-i-care-about-accessibility/

<comment><USER2> That kind of "it works better for everyone" stuff is a nice bonus, sure. If you use proper labels for your radio buttons, they get a bigger click target; if you make your app keyboardable, it's better for power users; if you follow WCAG color contrast guidelines, it'll be more readable in any lighting condition; if you write good alt tags, your content will be more searchable; if you use clean semantic markup, it's more maintainable and evolvable over time.

But that only goes so far. There's no reason at all to make sure that your accordion widget properly sets its aria-expanded attribute except for people using assistive technology like a screen reader. There's no reason to put role=checkbox on your flashy custom selection widget except for AT users. There's no reason to use aria-describedby to tie an error message to a form field except for AT users. And so on.

At the end of the day, for better or worse, it really does come down to caring about all your users.</comment>


AWS survey results from 979 respondents including correct pronunciation of AMI - <AUTHOR> https://read.acloud.guru/last-year-in-aws-841a960ca60d <comment><USER2> Hey, my survey results made Hacker News!</comment>


Show HN: For Twitter lovers - AirTweet - <AUTHOR> http://airtweet.com

<comment><USER2> Funny , one of our user made a similar app on Webshell.io mixing Twitter API and tts (Text To Speach) API,

<http://webshell.io/editor/thyb/ttsTweet>

(you need to Github connect before to access his repo, then click on run, then Twitter connect of course for your own feed)

If you don't want signup or connect: You can also try directly the script in the console tour at the bottom of <http://webshell.io> homepage by copy pasting

fs.thyb.ttsTweet();

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice I will check this out to see what tts API he used.

<comment><USER2> <http://tts-api.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, so same service. Meanwhile I tried above link on my iPad and it showed me a blank page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I did pretty much that. However my version features a COW that reads tweets; a platypus that displays user's info; a snail that shows images and a turtle that plots the tweet on a map.

[http://cowpilot.herokuapp.com/cowspeak?search_term=coffee+tw...](http://cowpilot.herokuapp.com/cowspeak?search_term=coffee+twitpic)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice -:) And in real life I have same initials as your HN handle(MS).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I didn't hear a thing.

From Android phone

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you click play button?.. I have tested it on iPhone and it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think replacing the URL with "link" was the right move, but I'd kill it (and the pronounciation of "http") entirely...because, what's the point?

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought that would give user a sense of completeness. But thanks for your feedback and I (will remove it if we get more vote for this.</comment></comment>


IF_MS_BUYS_GITHUB_IMMA_OUT - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/upend/IF_MS_BUYS_GITHUB_IMMA_OUT <comment><USER2> If Microsoft buys GitHub and enables private repos for free I'll consider seriously using GitHub for once. I prefer BitBucket overall though plus they offer private repos. But I like having pet projects I don't need the whole world seeing and judging. Or may be I want to work on something before I make it public. But I'm not shelling out money for GitHub if I can get the same and more on BitBucket.</comment>


Why Climate Activists Will Go Nuclear–Or Go Extinct - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2020/06/25/why-climate-activists-will-go-nuclear-or-go-extinct/ <comment><USER2> [https://www.today.bargains/post/621273508711940096/deploy- ru...](https://www.today.bargains/post/621273508711940096/deploy-ruby-on- rails-application-on-aws-ec2-for) deploy rails app</comment>


In Venture Capital, Birds of a Feather Lose Money Together - <AUTHOR> http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7316

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems there are a few different versions of the mentioned "The Cost of Friendship" paper. The article links to a paywalled version from 2012, but two updated drafts (April 2013 and April 2014) exist, and are freely available:

Draft April 2013:

[https://businessdev.drupal.ku.edu/sites/businessdev.drupal.k...](https://businessdev.drupal.ku.edu/sites/businessdev.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/Gompers%20et%20al.%20The_Cost_of_Friendship_GMX.pdf)

Draft April 2014:

[http://people.hbs.edu/yxuan/gompersmukharlyamovxuancostoffri...](http://people.hbs.edu/yxuan/gompersmukharlyamovxuancostoffriendship.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER2> A VC may win by maximising profit but a VC employee has to protect his reputation."We made a mistake but so did everyone else" is an unfortunately successful defence.

"Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally." Keynes</comment>