How To CryptoParty - <AUTHOR> http://cryptoparty.informatick.net/parties/howto

<comment><USER2> I've participated in 5 of these now. I've noticed new bugs, and have a new appreciation for the art of a UI design because of it. Feel free to ask any questions or drop into the irc at #cryptoparty on irc.oftc.net (you can connect through Tor)

There have been 100's of them in >50 cities. It took off when the Australian Government notified the public that they intended to increase the powers of the intelligence agencies.

It's not so much teaching cryptography as it would be in a university or hacker to hacker as it is teaching people all of the pitfalls and what's hidden from the UI and what's really going on when you say, use Tor.

<comment><AUTHOR> What are some of your bugs and design improvements? I plan on attempting one of this in the next couple of weeks.

<comment><USER2> I was mostly helping people with Tor-related stuff and didn't have time to get a sense of the other usability issues out there in thinks like whole disk- encryption and PGP.

There is a very literal UI bug that is also a security problem in the Tor Browser Bundle. If you resize the Firefox window, you increase your browsers uniqueness & thus make you easier to identify. Try this by switching off a toolbar and noticing the difference at panopticlick.eff.org

Getting a piece of software like Pidgin to work through Tor was a challenge for many. The concepts of 'localhost' and sockets and a TCP-stream was challenging to get across. I don't really know the answer to this problem. These are hard issues to solve with software and the best we've got so far, I think, is education. If I had to imagine a piece of software: something like a packet filter that could go into 'incognito mode' set-up a transparent proxy and automatically flag packets that could reduce one's anonymity or reveal one's identity, then recommend steps to take in the relevant applications to get around that. It's not a completely thought through idea but maybe someone will come along and read this and it would spark the solution in their mind.

There are more bugs than people, check out trac.torproject.org and see what you can do. The #tor irc channel on irc.oftc.net & tor- firstname.lastname@example.com are good places to ask questions.

<comment><USER3> The answer to things like the Pidgin configuration issue you mentioned could be [https://tails.boum.org/](https://tails.boum.org/) \-- a live USB distribution that runs all traffic through Tor, and comes with Pidgin preinstalled and preconfigured. It has optional encrypted persistence too.

<comment><USER2> Yes, I did show some people through this too. However, it's not usable as an everyday operating system, for, say researchers such as academics, or journalists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I'm all for propagating the knowledge of cryptography, there was a kid in High School would walk around handing his public key out to people on slips of paper. That wasn't terribly effective for him.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's my issue with that, and, hey, I sort of agree, I have found pgp to be useful among hackers, but no one outside that circle has any interest in it, even my mom, the college math teacher.

But is this where the technorati has failed to fill their real social obligation? Are we the new Russian intellectuals who failed to engage the people? Are we so self-absorbed in navel-gazing on Hacker News that we fail to actually execute on the one idea that matters? If we can't restore the security of communications, how will history judge us?

<comment><USER5> I love PGP, but I would think that history would judge us for not developing something more accessible rather than for not spreading PGP. Even I, a PGP user and geek, access my email via Gmail web or my phone's app most of the time rather than via my IMAP client because most people I communicate with don't use PGP and cannot be bothered to (because they also use webmail). And the sad part? I don't blame them. I'm not at my computer all the time. I don't carry it with me anymore and neither do they. They check it from work, from their phone or wherever.

I don't have a solution for the problems that would plague a good crypto/identity system. Centralized trusted parties? That's worked just OK for websites and it entails a cost, and the paranoia that comes with it. A open solution like Persona? Maybe, but I don't know how to integrate that across browsers and devices without trust concerns.

No, I don't know. But I do know that PGP is a lot of trouble.

<comment><USER6> It's a shame facebook doesn't allow for sharing PGP keys, that would solve the problem pretty well.

<comment><USER5> It would go some of the way to solving the problem, but you've got to trust Facebook in that exchange and I'm not sure I do. The only real way to establish trust in PGP is in person (or over the phone if you really know the person).

That said, I do think Facebook could go a long way to establishing a trust infrastructure.

<comment><USER6> You would to a point. However your facebook friends could verify you by signing your public key with their private keys.

Private keys could be stored on facebook's servers but encrypted with a key that is not sent to facebook (so all client side). The signing interface could be built into the facebook UI (like a verify button).

So hopefully the FB API could expose public keys for use by other apps.

Not perfect, but the advantage is that people already have FB accounts linked to their real IDs.

<comment><USER5> This would all be good once trust is established. FB would basically become a large keyserver that people already use, with an exposed API. That's a good thought.

But I would still need to verify the trust _in person_. Otherwise, Facebook could be the MITM.

Which is, of course, the problem with the web of trust concept being exposed to the world at large. Too many people would simply establish trust for the expediency. I can see someone in my high school class signing my key and thus expecting me to do the same, without any understanding of the _point_ of the whole business. If Facebook has shown us anything, it's that interpersonal concepts (like "friend") can be easily eroded.

<comment><USER6> Yes, you would still have to trust FB to a degree , especially in the initial phase and they would still be serving the code that did all of the crypto so you have issues there.

Once the trust was established though, especially with OTR it would be more difficult for them to later start abusing it. But it's still an improvement on FB having everything on their server under their complete control, if they starting messing with keys people would notice.

There could be a problem with people just signing any old key, but really you just need to verify that the person is who they say they are. I think that works 90% of the time on FB as it is, it's unlikely you'd get away with being an imposter.

<comment><USER7> > Yes, you would still have to trust FB to a degree

Lots of people trusted Hushmail "to a degree" and we saw how that turned out...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "You can't solve social problems with software." (Marcus Ranum).

<comment><USER9> Yes you can, given three assumptions:

1\. Social relations depend on communication flows (i.e. Marx was wrong the superstructure is informational). 2\. Software allows new communication flows. 3\. Communication, like water, finds its own level.

Rearrange social relations by altering communications flows. Rearrange communication flows by creating a flow that is easier than the Status Quo. The Babylonians did this with cuneiform, the Romans did this with roads, Radio did this, TV did this, the Internet did this. Software allows you to create new communication flows.

The question is what social problems can be solved by reordering social relations and to what extend these particular social relations depend on communication flows.

<comment><USER5> I would argue that none of these developments solved the social problem we're talking about, however, i.e. keeping conversations private and creating trust. Indeed, these developments made it worse because face to face interaction is no longer necessary, and putting the means of communication out of your control (either by transmitting it over a medium you don't control or simply by making it so complicated you can't possibly control it) increasing the likelihood of the "man in the middle" either intercepting your communications or impersonating them.

So I would say that you can reflow communication all you want, but that the underlying problem here is trust and knowledge and those are social problems. People either need to appreciate what these new communication flows mean and/or establish ways to bring _their_ communications under their control (i.e. crypto).

That said, I think the idea of establishing trust through key signing parties (and "crypto" parties) is an interesting one. One of the key features of this is learning from someone you likely don't know, just as when you do a key signing party everyone requires some sort of government ID. In the end, you've got to put your trust in _someone_ , right? So, back to the social problem.

<comment><USER9> I agree, I was objecting to the general statement that "You can't solve social problems with software.". There are social problems that are solvable with software and social problems that are not. It is an open question which cryptographic problems are of which class.

I would argue that provable-identity is probably solvable in software, but that identity and utility are deeply connected notions. For instance Alice wants to talk to Bob to satisfy some want or need. His identity is only important to the extent that it is a necessary part of the utility of the communication.

Generally two nodes in a network can prove that they have access to a particular set of keys, but the system tends to fall down on proving that they are useful to each other. A MITM attack is merely one party pretending to be as useful to the communicator as the intended recipient. If you disagree consider that your packets don't go directly to your bank, but are "rebroadcast" by routers and switches along the route.

<comment><USER5> I'm not following this argument. If someone is able to compromise Bob's key and impersonate them, then the identity system has broken down. The "utility" and "identity" are effectivly the same in your arguement. If I have something I want to communicate to Bob what matters is his _identity_ not really anything else. Thus I either need to trust the party that verifies his identity or I need to verify the identity personally and I need to trust Bob to maintain control of his keys.

<comment><USER9> >If I have something I want to communicate to Bob what matters is his identity not really anything else.

But how do you know that Bob exists and you want to talk to him? At some point you met someone named Bob and at some point you decided you wanted to communicate with him, but Bob as an identity really only exists in your head. He could be named Jim, he could be someone that is pretending to be Bob, Bob might be one of two twins both named Bob. Maybe Bob is working for your enemies.

One way to simplify the thorny issue of identity is to look at what someone wants out of the communication. The part of the identity Bob that matters to a communication is the expected utility of the communication. The identity is merely an end to that utility. For instance when you call tech support, you are trying to solve a problem and it doesn't really matter if the person tells you their name is Jim rather than James.

The only hard and fast identity is cryptographic identity, it can be compromised if someone shares their secret key, but at least you know that you are communicating with someone that has access to that secret key. That is, I can send to a message to all parties with access to the secret key, SK0. The next question is how do I know that parties which have access to SK0 will increase my utility via communication. That can only be built from past actions either directly or indirectly performed by that party.

Utility of identity depends on reputation of identity. Reputation of identity depends on past actions of identity (think stackoverflow/hackernews/silkroad).

All of which can be cryptographically proved if the identity consists merely of access to SK0. Note, this is how identity and trust works outside of computers.

<comment><USER5> OK, I see where you are going. Using crypto and web-of-trust as an identity system is really using it as a reputation system. I would point out, however, that the cryptographic identity is not a "hard and fast identity", at least not in a way that's useful. As you point out, I've met Bob, I trust Bob and Bob's an old friend. I know Bob's cryptographic identity, but I also know that identity could be compromised at any time. However, if I know Bob I'm much more likely to realize that.

The reputation system tied to that identity could also be compromised, the difference is I'm much less likely to find out until it's too late and the potential harm to me is very high (lets say the government is operating a Silk Road honeypot). That brings us back around to the problem of identity. If I know and trust Bob then his utility is higher.

Which is the point of the "web of trust", it (sort of) builds that utility system in. I personally know Bob and know he's pretty sharp. He knows Jim and has signed Jim's key, but I don't know Jim and I'm taking Bob's word for his identity. Jim knows someone as well and has signed their key, but now we're getting pretty far removed from Bob. Their utility (in this case their utility at confirming identities) is getting smaller for me. I'm less inclined to trust them.

But Bob, Bob's an old friend.

So I see where you're going, but I still think "identity" is the critical factor.

<comment><USER9> >So I see where you're going, but I still think "identity" is the critical factor.

Agreed. So how do we live in such a world and make decisions?

Do you trust Bobs ability to protect his key? Can you buy insurance against this given Bobs reputation? Are the premiums worth the cost?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It would be nice to have one website with a HOWTO for creating a business card QR code with a vCard embedded with your public key in it, and instructions on how to use it with every native e-mail client.</comment>


Partnership between Unity and Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.blog.google/topics/google-cloud/powering-up-connected-game-development-through-our-alliance-with-unity/ <comment><USER2> So Unity is moving their own infrastructure to Google Cloud, Google and Unity are collab'ing on a large open source initiative coming out this Summer, and Google is integrating Google cloud features directly into Unity.

I wonder if this will create a trap for new game developers to ONLY use google services for networking, by virtue of various plugins, frameworks, and tutorials, which abstract everything until you start to scale and your stuck with the bill and no viable means of switching to another vendor.

<comment><USER3> Not really. Most of the services will be released open source, and they are not tied to the GCP, so you could use your own infra if that's something you would like. I think the first such service to be released will be matchmaking.

Multiplay is also cloud agnostic, although it uses Google by default.

Source: I work at Unity.

<comment><USER4> Hey funkaster!

I have a prototype MP game I am working on right now using HLAPI. I host a few other web games on GC already.

How easy is it to set up a dedicated server right now that I can run my game on? Documented anywhere?

Edit: to clarify, I don't need matchmaking at this stage, would be happy to hard code an IP:Port and have a button connect to it directly.

<comment><USER3> Hey! A lot of the connected games folks are in Berlin right now, for the conference. I'll ping them because they might have a better answer for you (I work at Analytics). If you want, shoot me an email: rolando at unity3d.com and I'll try to contact you with the right team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like a missed opportunity for Microsoft's Azure... afaik a lot of Unity games are in C# which seems like a stronger fit than Google. Maybe Google sees this as a synergistic move with games on the Play Store?

<comment><USER6> I'm kind of surprised Microsoft has never made a serious push to buy Unity. I know that I would be happy to be able to use Core and more modern C# than Unity's rather old version of Mono.

<comment><USER5> Well they still might. Nothing I've read so far about the Unity/Google alliance makes me think that it's impossible, just unlikely. The Microsoft M&A team will obviously be busy with GitHub but I would be surprised if no one there thought of it already. It does however seem to me like Microsoft know that Window's dominance is on the wane and they are pushing to be a software developer's 'tool' vendor. Considering how important Unity is to game development, from grass roots up to big triple A games, it does seem like an aquision target.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For those unaware, I'm sure this is in competition with AWS's partnership with CryEngine.

[https://aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/](https://aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/)

<comment><USER8> So now it's time for Microsoft to partner with Unreal I guess?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> for reference, here's the announcement on the Unity side: [https://unity3d.com/connectedgames](https://unity3d.com/connectedgames)

</comment><comment><USER9> It's interesting they mentioned "...navigating 3D space in VR..." Because this leads me to think that Waymo's driving simations are written in Unity. As oppose to say Uber whose simulation appears to be written in Unreal from their demo in GDC.

<comment><USER10> That seems to be a pretty weak link? Literally every VR game involves some amount of navigating 3D spaces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is this tangential to what Improbable is building with Spatial OS, or potentially a competitor?

</comment><comment><USER12> Unity editor comes with Google Analytics and you can't even disable it in the free version.

They're also collecting information from games built with Unity.

I feel Google just wants more data and Unity is already okay with that.</comment>


Try not to use threads - (Not sure I agree) - <AUTHOR> http://www.codingwithoutcomments.com/2008/09/21/when-is-multi-threading-not-a-good-idea/

<comment><USER2> Does seem a bit paranoid! No doubt threading adds a (potentially significant) level of complexity that shouldn't be added unless required, but with the world moving further and further into the realms of cloud computing and multi- cores, it seems to me it's a complexity we're going to need to embrace.</comment>


Creating photorealistic images with neural networks and a Gameboy Camera - <AUTHOR> http://www.pinchofintelligence.com/photorealistic-neural-network-gameboy/ <comment><USER2> The site appears to be overworked for the moment, so I can't read it.

My question (which may or may not be answered in the post): what made you embark on this project?

I don't mean "because I can" stuff - it's an awesome hack. What I mean is: what made the Gameboy Camera culturally relevant for you to hack on? What ideas started this? Did you own a Gameboy Camera in your youth? Did you have a fantasy of something like this then?

<comment><USER3> It's a shame you got downvotes for a polite, friendly, question. (I upvoted you but it doesn't seem to have made much difference).

In the cache the author says:

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy- ab...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy- ab&site=&source=hp&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinchofintelligence.com%2Fphotorealistic- neural-network- gameboy%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinchofintelligence.com%2Fphotorealistic- neural-network- gameboy%2F&gs_l=hp.3..0i67k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0.12876.15058.0.169220.127.116.11.0.0.0.122.585.4j2.6.0....2...1c.1j2.64.psy- ab..2.5.465.0..35i39k1j0i10k1j0i20k1.3BRlTB7u770&pbx=1)

> Back in 1998, the Gameboy camera got the world record as "smallest digital > camera" in the Guinness book of records. An accessory you could buy was the > small printer you could use to print your images. When I was 10 years old we > had one of these cameras at home and used it a lot. Although we did not have > the printer, taking pictures, editing them, and playing minigames was a lot > of fun. Unfortunately, I could not find my old camera (no colored young > Roland pictures, unfortunately), but I did buy a new one so I could test my > application.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >As you can see the random noise on top of the image creates the "gradients" you see in the gameboy camera images that give the illusion of more than 4 colors.

The general approach being described is called "dithering". It usually involves more than adding random noise to the image. One common algorithm is called Floyd-Steinberg ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd%E2%80%93Steinberg_dither...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd%E2%80%93Steinberg_dithering)), and it involves tracking cumulative error between neighboring pixels and adjusting color when enough error accumulates.

</comment><comment><USER5> > A big problem trying to create color images from my own face was getting > them off the gameboy camera. ... What was left was the great method of > taking images of the screen.

There is another option! You can get a backup device called the "Mega Memory Card" and an EMS64M Game Boy flash cart. Back up the GB Camera's SRAM with the Mega Memory Card and restore to the EMS64M. Then you can use the flash cart's transfer the save to PC and dump with software.

I regularly use this method together with a little utility I wrote[1] to get GB Cam images onto my website. The Game Boy Camera is a cool little gadget!

1: [https://github.com/excelangue/gbcdump](https://github.com/excelangue/gbcdump)

</comment><comment><USER6> "Thanks to this post [http://distill.pub/2016/deconv- checkerboard/](http://distill.pub/2016/deconv-checkerboard/) I found out about the alternative deconvolution layer and implemented that one."

Yeah, I saw the same thing with WGAN. ConvTranspose2d is not that great for upscaling because it creates artifacts. That said, the post actually recommends doing a 'subpixel' convolution for upscaling (something like, do a convolution out to channels for each pixel, then use PixelShuffle to map it back into a 3-channel image), not doing a bilinear/nearest-neighbor + Conv2d(3,3).

(A GAN would probably also deliver better colorizing results in general.)

</comment><comment><USER7> If this keeps up, that trope of CSI's "enhance, zoom, enhance" will become reality.

<comment><USER8> Except instead of enhance you have "Make up something based on your training set".

<comment><USER9> Our brains kind of do that a lot anyway

<comment><USER10> I wonder which is better, actually. On the one hand, a lot of people will swear that what their internal pattern matcher produces is reality (although people with training tend to know that you can't put that much stock in it). So maybe the output of a computer will feel a little less real to laymen.

But I kind of doubt it. I have a feeling that, for example, it's going to be difficult to explain to a jury that the image that the computer spat out from eight pixels on a security feed is not reliable – that any resemblance they see to the defendant is simply not relevant. If an artist took those eight pixels and drew a picture, they'd be laughed out of the room. If a computer does it, people primed by shows like CSI might think that it's actually valid.

Maybe you can appeal to people's common sense, and show them the original input. A crafty defense might show alternative "enhancements" based on non- face training sets to drive the point home. But in the end, we're probably going to need to ban this kind of technology as evidence to avoid confusing jurors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Site looks like it got flattened, database error. Here's an archive: [http://archive.is/R6m1h](http://archive.is/R6m1h)

</comment><comment><USER12> > _Error establishing a database connection_

Another reason why static website generators are great.

Anyone got a mirror?

<comment><USER13> The reddit.. er, HN hug of death

<comment><USER14> Is it not called the Slashdot Effect anymore?

<comment><USER15> > Slashdot

Whats that? I thought they went out of business after the dot com crash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How fast does it take to run? could it be done in real time for compression? Also, wonder how low of resolution you could go?

<comment><USER17> Yes, it can be used for image compression:

[https://research.googleblog.com/2016/09/image-compression- wi...](https://research.googleblog.com/2016/09/image-compression-with-neural- networks.html)

Here's the paper:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05148](https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05148)

(No connection to the authors, just found it super cool when I read it a few months back.)

<comment><USER18> I wish they would have compared a JPEG with quality reduced to match the filesize of their NN compressed image. It'd be useful to compare what artifacts are introduced and seeing just how much better it does for the same size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So, smoothing and applying a brownish/pink skin color.

<comment> semi-extrinsic What would be really interesting to see in these kinds of articles is how well you could do with just a batch Photoshop operation hand-tuned on a handful of photos, and then a comparison of how much better the NN does.

<comment><USER20> Isn't that exactly what he did?

I'm assuming he didn't actually take those photos with a gameboy because he has the full color versions of the shots as well.

<comment> semi-extrinsic No, he generated "fake" Gameboy Camera images from the full color shots, by applying a crude form of dithering to graytone. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

What I'm saying is I would like to see comparison with a fourth image produced from the first (black and white) image by a batch Photoshop operation. I would guess a suitably tuned application of "brown tint, then selective Gaussian blur, then unsharp mask" would get you pretty close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It would be interesting to see what the real people looked like, maybe even use this data against what's generated to gauge the version that's generated.

</comment><comment><USER22> For anyone else trying to pull gb camera images as well as other gameboy saves off their carts.. I used this arduino shield!! [https://www.insidegadgets.com/projects/gameboy-cart- shield/](https://www.insidegadgets.com/projects/gameboy-cart-shield/)

It works really well :D

</comment><comment><USER23> Seems similar to "super-resolution" algorithms. Some of those also use neural networks.

</comment><comment><USER24> shout out for andrew eldritch from sisters of mercy

<comment><USER25> I see you got downvoted, but I'm glad someone could remind me who the goth guy in the sunglasses was.</comment></comment>


A Simple Investment Strategy That Worked in 2019: Buy Almost Anything - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/business/2019-markets.html <comment><USER2> Sure didn't help that 2018 ended with everything being down 15-20%, this year was more of a rebound than a continuous healthy market.

<comment><USER3> Thank you! This is such an obvious point and yet it's hardly ever mentioned.

It may seem intuitive, but it's actually entirely arbitrary to pick 12/31/2018 through 12/31/2019 as the time period for a returns analysis.

<comment><USER4> >> "...it's actually entirely arbitrary..."

This is one good objection to the article.

Another objection is that they have spun "central bank inflates financial asset bubble which is correlated across all asset classes" as a good thing.

And it seems to have never crossed the credulous author's mind that asset classes with correlated gains also have correlated losses.

Even by the NYT's extremely-naive standards of thinking critically about financial markets, this is a weak effort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've seen a few people online giving up jobs, retiring early because they make enough money trading or investing now. Deja vu all over again.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I remember.

What's the strategy that will work in 2020 Sell everything perhaps....

Or are we setting the stage for the Roaring Twenties? Or did we just exit that decade?

Maybe the (20)20's will be seen as the Great(er) Depression. Perhaps we're a decade out of phase with the last century.

<comment><USER5> I remember in 98 a lot of investment managers said we're in a bubble and went conservative. They missed out of a lot of upside and many got fired. Nobody knows whats going to happen this year, probably depends mostly on the election.

<comment><USER7> Over time, there have been a lot more up days than bad days, but the bad days are really bad.

I remember somewhere that tabulated how much you'd have if you only sat in on the top 100 UP days _and_ top 100 DOWN days, you'd have massive losses. But overall, things go up.

So sitting out the market in hopes of missing a down day only works if you know what the down days are, otherwise you're missing out on the gradual average UP days.

<comment><USER8> Usually known as "time in the market beats timing the market."

<comment><USER7> I like that. It bothers me when people say "I have $5k, and I'll invest $1k of it every month for 5 months to average my ins".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a misleading story. Yes, the stock market rose significantly in 2019. But it had also dipped severely at the end of 2018. When you account for that dip, stock performance has been average.

Example: On Dec 21 2018 SPY (S&P 500 ETF) was trading for $240.70. Today it is trading for $323.07, which is a huge 34% jump. But on Sep 21 2018 it was trading for $291.99. Compared to that high, the increase is a mediocre 10.6%

<comment><USER10> 10.6 is mediocre? I would take those returns every single year.

<comment><USER9> Then invest in the stock market. Even accounting for the dotcom crash and the 2008 crash the stock market has gone up around 10% every year when you average it out.

<comment><USER10> It has averaged close to 5% from January 2000 to now...

<comment><USER11> The 2000's were a bad decade for investing. You had the dot com crash, followed by 9/11, and then the financial crisis. I "saved" a ton during that time, but the returns were mediocre. The 80's, 90's and most of the 2010's were much, much better for market performance, closer to the average of 10%.

See [https://www.macrotrends.net/2526/sp-500-historical-annual- re...](https://www.macrotrends.net/2526/sp-500-historical-annual-returns)

<comment><USER10> That's true. unfortunately you can't cherry pick with foresight what decades you want to skip when investing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> All the while corporate earnings didn't go up. Go figure.

At this point, with so much stimulus, I'm wondering if the next crisis will be a deflationary one, like everyone is expecting (i.e. a stock market crash, people fired, credit frozen) or the inflationary type (long drag of stagflation).

<comment><USER13> Whatever it is, because of the titantic trillion dollar deficit and already low interest rates, we will have no way of dealing with it from a macroeconomic sense.

<comment><USER14> There's a lot of policy changes that could be done to press the Accelerator pedal on the economy. Let in 10 million new immigrants. Eminent domain a hyper loop from New York to LA. Rollback building restrictions in the bay area.

<comment><USER7> Don't forget giving money to poor people.

Just think of the wage growth and increased recreation if anyone could say "screw it" to bad employers and still have a roof over their head.

Give people a year off for parental leave, then young people get a 1yr placement in increasingly senior positions.

<comment><USER15> Don't we already heavily subsidize poverty via welfare programs? I don't see how throwing even more money at a problem would have a different outcome.

<comment> semi-extrinsic If "we" == "USA", then no you don't "heavily subsidise poverty". As for empirical evidence that "throwing more money" at it gives an improved outcome, you can look at basically any country in Western or Northern Europe.

<comment><USER15> I did some quick research by googling poverty rate in {country} USA: 12.3% Spain: 12.1% France: 14.1% Norway: 0.2% Germany: 15.7%

Besides Norway, they all seem relatively consistent. I initially thought this might be due to their oil reserves but it seems oil rich US states are still in the 11-12% range

<comment> semi-extrinsic Poverty rates are almost by definition useless metrics to compare by here, because they are computed from the gross income distribution.

Poverty aid programmes are almost all focused on reducing the cost of living for poor people, which has literally zero effect on poverty rates.

Subsidized housing/childcare/healthcare, food stamps, progressive taxation, you name it, they all leave gross income unaffected yet give a large increase in quality of life and discretionary income.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Except... There were significant performance disparities and risk profiles for each of these asset classes that nominally "went up"

<comment><USER17> where could I read/learn more about these ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> To consider the flip side of a coin. This is the continued devaluation of monetary instruments.

You can look at as the s&p500 rose by 29%. Or you can look at it as "The USD" buys 23% fewer shares than last year. (ideally this would be adjusted for profit growth and inflation too)

IMO this is totally expected given negative interest rates and QE.</comment>


Yep, human workers are listening to recordings from Google Assistant, too - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/11/20690020/google-assistant-home-human-contractors-listening-recordings-vrt-nws <comment><USER2> This article seems to be a little bit of scare mongering, these are voice services they need to record snippets of your conversation to make things work just like some person near you in a hotel or airport could over-hear your conversations.

I believe the TOS does mention transcription but not by thrid-parties are contractors to Google not working for Google?

<\-- snip --> Does the third-party service provider get an audio recording of what I said?

       Google transcribes what you say and sends the text, but not
       the audio, to the third-party service provider.

<\-- snip --></comment>


Intermediate Pythonista: The Function - <AUTHOR> http://intermediatepythonista.com/the-function

<comment><USER2> Interesting! I rather liked the part on closures, neat little hack, I feel the hacky nature makes them produce rather unreadable code (or at least real funky). Lua's closures are really nicely implemented, makes me actually prefer them to classes since in Lua it seems to be the other way around: classes are readable alright but you end up writing a lot of boilerplate code or having to use a library to do OOP.

</comment><comment><USER3> _These functions that take other functions as argument are commonly referred to as higher order functions and these form the basis for functional programming._

Wikipedia, for one, disagrees about what functional programming is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming)

<comment><USER4> Cheers for pointing out that.. Should have been 'are an important part of functional programming'</comment></comment>


Architectural patterns of resilient distributed systems - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Randommood/Strangeloop2015 <comment><AUTHOR> slides: [https://speakerdeck.com/randommood/architectural-patterns- of...](https://speakerdeck.com/randommood/architectural-patterns-of-resilient- distributed-systems)

Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohvPnJYUW1E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohvPnJYUW1E)

</comment><comment><USER2> Good stuff. I wish the slides went more into technical details of how each company solves these problems, but perhaps this is in the video? I haven't had the chance to watch it yet.

<comment><USER3> The talk was very funny, and I enjoyed it, but I did feel that it was a bit too much of a whirlwind tour to get as specific or concrete as I would prefer about the details of problems or their solutions. That would require like 3–4 hours though, far longer than the 40 minutes allotted. Or else would require cutting 3/4 of the topics covered to focus on a few.

Overall, I think it should be seen as a quick review. If you want the details you'll have to dig into the many references.</comment></comment>


Dark vs. Light Theme Battery Stats on SAMOLED  - <AUTHOR> http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1882467 <comment><USER2> This was measured using the battery status indicator in Android, with periods of ten-twenty minutes and the results were extrapolated. This is not at all an accurate way to measure power consumption. You need to use multimeter and measure real current going to the screen. Or for "real world" battery life results, you'd need to let the battery recharge and then drain all the way, not let it run for 20 minutes, then use a very inaccurate battery status indicator and finally extrapolate.

xda-developer forums seem to be full of tips and tricks that make your Android device battery last longer or the device work faster, but a lot of that stuff is just crap. This article was better than average, but the results are still very convincing.

</comment><comment><USER3> What has always puzzled me is that I thought Google made stock Android pretty dark-themed because they wanted to help manufacturers that used AMOLED screens, specifically Samsung, who makes like 95% of AMOLED's - and yet Samsung has chosen to use a very light-themed Touchwiz skin. It makes no sense. You'd think they would be the first to want to take advantage of a darker theme with their Super AMOLED flagship devices with large screens.

<comment><USER4> Maybe, having the real data on power usage from the components instead of a script reading a non linear, corrected and unreliable indicator, they know it doesn't matter as much as XDA thinks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> there seems to be a lot of confusion over the efficiency of amoled vs lcd. In lcd, the power consumed directly depends upon the brightness, basically LED's provide the back-light light source and the colors you see on the screen are the representative of the kind of filters the light from the LCD had to cross to reach the surface. All lcd's are in this way passive displays. In an AMOLED display, there are three sets of actual LED's per pixel visible on screen. Each of the led making up a pixel can be individually be turned on or off, resulting in a display color, resulting in the infinite contrast and brighter colors. The current technology restricts the brightness of each of those tiny led's resulting in a lower brightness, and also the individual tiny led's brightness varies over the life of the panel. this is the biggest shortcoming for an AMOLED.

When you see a picture of light on an AMOLED screen, it is actually true that a physical light is being prepared in front of your eyes on the screen by adding the three colors in proportion. this is not an easy task and so explains why lcd's as of now display truer colors. This truly is a modern technical achievement.

<comment> alok-g >> this is not an easy task and so explains why lcd's as of now display truer colors

OLEDs have better color gamut and contrast than LCDs (without local dimming), making the colors better than LCDs.

<comment><USER4> OLEDs have _larger_ color gamut, but larger is not always better.

 _"The Color Gamut is not only much larger than the Standard Color Gamut, which leads to distorted and exaggerated colors, but the Color Gamut is quite lopsided, with Green being a lot more saturated than Red or Blue, which adds a Green color caste to many images. Samsung has not bothered to correct or calibrate their display colors to bring them into closer agreement with the Standard sRGB / Rec.709 Color Gamut, so many images appear over saturated and gaudy."_ – <http://www.displaymate.com/Smartphone_ShootOut_2.htm>

<comment><USER5> what i meant to explain was, this.. the LED's fade over time. hence their color changes over time. and making two LED's display the same color and making them time equally is a very challenging job, some thing which current day technology is unable to do. yes, led's have a bigger color gamut, but the accuracy is definitely to b improved. gamut is the range, while accuracy is the exact color required i.e precision

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Spoilers: a very impressive +3 hours of screen time by using dark themes instead of bright ones on SAMOLED.

Minor tangent: I'm not sure how he defends his contention that SAMOLED > LCD by noting that he didn't test anything but SAMOLED in the comments. I realize he wasn't testing anything else and I'm perfectly willing to believe that SAMOLED is more efficient but he still claimed X and when asked for evidence punted.

<comment><USER7> >I simply timed how long it took the battery to drain 5% with the screen always on at various brightness levels and while viewing an all white or all black 720p image fullscreen in QuickPic.

This is absolutely best case scenario, ignoring all other battery factors.

<comment><USER8> Best case scenarios for time, but honestly thats not what is important in these stats. Rather its the % difference between the two. The total life of a cell phone will always be different between devices/users, the % difference solely from the bright/dark difference should stay generally the same. Assuming most of the time is spent going through the UI(which is doubtful tho).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> did he run it multiple times? was the battery recharged between each test? how did he make sure the 5% were actually always the _same_ 5% and comparable?

<comment><USER10> They weren't. Look at the battery ranges in his spreadsheet.

</comment></comment><comment> alok-g Amongst OLED and LCD displays with everything else (size, resolution, etc.) OLEDs intrinsically consume a lot more power than LCDs. Using dark themes help for OLEDs for reasons already stated here, and from what I have seen working on the display industry for several years, the power numbers quoted by OLED display manufactures often presume a dark theme when comparing power to LCDs.

</comment><comment><USER11> This reminds me of Blackle : the black front end to Google Custom Search which claims to save energy when using CRT monitors.

<http://blackle.com/>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackle>

<comment><USER12> I remember these findings being refuted, and I thought it was because it took the same amount of power for an LCD screen to show a black pixel instead of a white pixel.

I will say, given these findings from OP, I hope these types of displays become more common.

<comment><USER13> It takes more energy for an LCD to show a black pixel. It is not much compared to the backlight, though. On one of my laptops solid black uses 0.5 watts more than solid white.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Switching to a dark theme and lowering the brightness also works quite good for desktops on UPS.

<comment><USER15> Lowering the brightness? Sure. Switching to a dark theme? Not so much.

If you are using a LCD the color of your pixels doesn't matter. Ok, it might matter a little bit but not much and it's not as easy as saying that white uses more power than black. It might even be the other way around.

In an LCD the color is determined by a liquid cristal filter that can be turned on or off and dimmed. The filter itself needs hardly any power, however. Not compared to the actual light that shines through that filter.

The light comes from LEDs or CFLs (I guess in principle you can use any light source but those two have useful form factors and need less power than, say, incandescent lightbulbs) behind that filter. And that light is always on. Some TVs have local dimming to make the blacks blacker in certain regions of the image, but computer monitors don't.

So by using a dark theme, all you influence is the filter, not the actual lights. As you might know, covering up a lightbulb so you don't see it's light anymore doesn't magically make the lightbulb consume no more power.

AMOLED displays work differently. There the pixels themselves light up or don't. They are like a matrix of thousands of minuscule lightbulbs you can individually turn on or off.

<comment><USER16> Don't forget CRTs! ;) Using a dark theme reduces their power usage.

<http://i.stack.imgur.com/c6yrk.jpg> (From here, [http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4373/does-a- webp...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4373/does-a-webpage-with- a-black-background-save-energy))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I just find dark themes less objectionable. I'll always choose one if it's available.

</comment><comment><USER18> This also applies to plasma TVs afaik</comment>


Ask HN: Did you ever stop improving your programming? - <AUTHOR>

I've been a programmer for many years, in multiple languanges. Up until a year or so, I was very proud when I finished, what I thought at the time, a big and hard project. But then, few months after, when I looked at the code I started thinking: this line shouldn't be there, these 10 lines could have been greatly improved, why didn't I use <insert famous class here> instead of writing 1000 lines of garbage, and so on. But lately I feel like there's no more great self-improvement, I look at my recent code and say "well, that's perfect".
Did you ever feel like this? <comment><USER2> Check where you stand on the Programmer Competency Matrix: [http://www.indiangeek.net/wp- content/uploads/Programmer%20co...](http://www.indiangeek.net/wp- content/uploads/Programmer%20competency%20matrix.htm)

<comment><USER3> Perhaps covered under Requirements Level(3) "Able to suggest better alternatives and flows to given requirements based on experience"...

But it seems this list misses one of the most important lessons to learn in programming: initially try to solve the problem without programming. That is, design away the problem instead of solving it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps you're plateauing with your current domain or tools. Try other problems/languages and look back a few months later.</comment>


$10,000 Raised for PyLadies at PyCon 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://pycon.blogspot.com/2013/03/10000-raised-for-pyladies-at-pycon-2013.html <comment><USER3> In the light of what happened at PyCon with Adria Richards and the whole internet explosion of nastiness and short sightedness from all sides I actually don't quite know what to think about "Women in Tech"

I saw so much hate that I was ashamed to be a male and in tech, yet I also saw so much narrow minded reporting and deliberate distortion of events from many so called feminists and feminist activists (not all female btw) that a part of me would be quite happy if I never saw a female in tech again.

We all lost in that affair - male, female, tech, non tech.

A part of me doesn't even want to think about it again for some time until the dust has completely settled. I would rather not even see articles like this.

A bigger part also realizes that there are real issues with sexism and would love to see more women in tech and understands that the only way that is going to happen is by honest and open discussion.

<comment><USER4> It's hard to understand how you could think that Adria Richards is representative of all "women in tech".

It's also hard to understand why you take Adria's incident as such a severe personal affront to yourself that you not only seem to want PyLadies to bite the dust, but "a part of [you] would be quite happy if [you] never saw a female in tech again." Even a sane and moderate person can see in this post a suggestion that you would like to see women actively driven out of tech - <USER2> because you are offended about Adria Richards.

With respect, please consider that your reaction to this may be strongly irrational and that the things you are saying as a result (and the Adria- unrelated places you are choosing to start a fight) may be making matters even worse.

<comment><USER3> I am trying not to get personal here, but you are guilty of just the sort of discussion that I find both embarrassing and narrow minded.

By narrow minded I mean you are deliberately cherry picking individual points out of context and trying to imply something negative or even the opposite of the original post.

For example you say:

> _" a part of you would be quite happy if you never saw a female in tech > again. Even a sane and moderate person can see in this post a suggestion > that you would like to see women actively driven out of tech - all because > you are offended about Adria Richards."_

Yet you very conveniently skip over the part where I say _"a bigger part of me would love to see more women in tech"_.

You are also putting words in my mouth. Nowhere do I express an opinion about Adria Richards herself.

You say other things as well but I am not going to defend myself any further or hijack this thread more than I already have.

<comment><USER4> You chose this.

You chose to drag the Adria incident (unnamed) into an unrelated thread, perpetuating the toxic discussion (the one about Adria's incident) that you claim not to want to hear about. But you weren't responding to someone else here. You went there first. And you set the tone.

You chose to open with 'I actually don't quite know what to think about "Women in Tech."'

You chose to say that a part of you doesn't want to see women in tech at all. You didn't, for some reason, choose to reflect on whether this was rational or needed to be said publicly.

You chose to say that you don't want to see articles "like this." Though this article isn't about anything offensive at all.

You chose all of this. Neither your words, nor their inflammatory meaning, were made up by anyone else. Then you chose not to rethink or climb down from any of your inflammatory remarks. And you chose to respond to correction by escalating and getting personal.

That attitude is the real problem that created the Adria mess. You are the same kind of person you are complaining about. And it has nothing necessarily to do with "women in tech."

Please stop the oversensitive, resentful whining about others and take responsibility for your own choices.

<comment><USER5> I find this dramatic rhetoric off-putting. OP seemed honest and nuanced. There might be a valid point to be made that his feelings are toxic to society, in some subtle way, but I'll just echo the other people here in saying that he comes off as constructive while you appear to be saying things that sound clever to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> PyCon had 500 women out of 2500 attendance. Gave away over $100,000 in financial aid. Gave away 2500 Raspberry Pi's. Thought kids to code. Raised $10,000 for the PyLadies. Gave permission to publish amazing online videos etc.

And then you have these 3 idiots (and more online idiots) that steal the spotlight and everybody focuses on them. Sigh. Let's focus on the positive stuff!

<comment><USER7> Apparently sharing a joke with a friend now qualifies you as an "idiot".

<comment><USER8> And not even an offensive joke either. They literally made a juvenile penis reference. Who here hasn't made one? Even made one today?

<comment><USER9> Me. Because I am not 5 years old.

So when I am at an event representing my company I act on my best behaviour. It's called basic professional conduct.

<comment><USER10> Please explain why jokes about penises are juvenile as compared to say...a joke about a paper airplane?

How about just talking about penises? You know, just a normal conversation out loud, in a train full of people...about our penises. Is that really juvenile...or something else?

(Or, you know, just downvote me because you don't like people questioning things that you accept to be true.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So, if I was at a shop with a large recruiting budget trying hard to land new talent, and I was also specifically interested in fostering an environment the encouraged and promoted women in our industry.. I'd seriously consider writing a check for 10k and doubling the contribution today.

Any takers?

<comment><USER12> Let's pretend I'm at that shop with a large recruiting budget, and a $10k check is only an e-mail to accounting away.

I also just watched a massive blow-up and bad press around Adria Richards, PyCon, and this issue in general. I'm naturally wary of my company being connected with or supporting these virulently negative forms of misogyny and feminism of which the entire donglegate episode seemed to spring.

What would $10k would be funding, and the good press that would come of that? Reading <http://www.pyladies.com/>, they appear to put on study groups and other events, but their "Code of Conduct" is higher billed than an explanation of what PyLadies actually does with funding.

<comment><USER13> > the _equally_ [sic] negative and virulent feminism

You mean the negative and virulent feminists who were threatening to rape and decapitate someone they didn't like?

Oh, right, no such thing happened.

Please, _please_ do not equate attempts to bring people's attention to inappropriate sexual language during conferences - whether you agree with them or not - to the massive outpouring of hatred, abuse, personal attacks and misogyny that accompanied this incident.

<comment><USER14> The story went a bit further than "attempts to bring people's attention". As it is pretty clear by now, Richards is a crusader, repeatedly blowing things out of proportion and raising big controversy out of most mundane things, and in this case it cost somebody his job. So while indeed she did nothing nothing comparable to death threats and other such filth, something more that "attempt to bring attention" did happen.

<comment><USER13> That's not clear at all. I highly recommend reading this essay for a more careful look at what Richards has actually done by way of promoting gender equality rather than what her detractors (both civil and hateful) are saying about her:

[http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath- th...](http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-the-surface- that-amanda-blum-article-on-adria-richards-is-not-what-it-seems/)

What is clear is that a huge number of people who thought it was totally unacceptable for Richards to identify inappropriate behaviour at a conference in the manner she did (or, according to some people, at all) have been silent or supportive about the massive and sustained outpouring of hatred, rage, vulgar insults and detailed threats of rape, bodily harm and murder that Richards has faced since then.

Indeed, the GP comment actually equated what Richards did with what has since been done to her (the word "equally" has since been edited out), and an earlier posted reply by the same user (reply since deleted) suggested that since no one has _actually_ raped or murdered anyone, there is no harm other than the firing.

I really don't know what to say to someone who doesn't see the harm in a full- spectrum blizzard of abuse, hatred and threats - not only to the direct target but also to any other woman who is unsure how to respond when she sees or experiences something inappropriate.

More perspectives:

Courtney Stanton, A Woman Walks Into A Tech Conference [http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks- into-a...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a-tech- conference)

Sarah Milstein, I Have a Few Things to Say About Adria <http://www.dogsandshoes.com/2013/03/adria.html>

Matt LeMay, On PyCon <http://mattlemay.tumblr.com/post/46004653389/on-pycon>

<comment><USER12> This is a rhetorical device, intended to use an emotional argument ("hatred, rage, vulgar insults and detailed threads of rape, bodily harm, and murder!!!") to justify _totally unrelated behavior_ of public naming and shaming for a mild offense.

This is exactly the sort of virulent emotionally-driven argumentative behavior that I _don't_ want to have become a standard fixture in the technology community. Issues like this should never rise to this level of heated unprofessionalism and immaturity such that we become a target or amusement for the trolls of the internet at large.

The whole thing was and is a ridiculous mess, and it all was avoidable by behaving like responsible adults. No amount of bad behavior from teeming hoards of anonymous teenage internet commentators justifies the behaviors that preceded the public circus.

<comment><USER13> It's not a freaking _rhetorical device_ to point out that every single time a woman speaks up about inappropriate behaviour, she ends up paying a terrible price in harassment, abuse, threats, and hatred.

It is theoretically possible to have a civil discussion about whether Richards went about reporting the inappropriate behaviour in the right way (and it is 100% clear that the PyCon organizers agreed the behaviour was inappropriate).

However, if you continue to evaluate what Richards did in denial of the abundant reality of insults, abuse, threats, hatred, contempt, ridicule, disdain, disregard that women in tech _routinely face_ \- and further, if you continue to ignore the fact that women are _routinely punished with huge storms of abuse for speaking up about it_ \- then you will remain oblivious to the fact that there is nothing "rhetorical" or "emotional" about pointing these facts out. You will, in effect, continue to be a part of the problem.

<comment><USER15> I am a woman, and I work in software development, so I'm assuming I fit in your group called "women in tech". I have no idea what insults, abuse, threats, contempt, ridicule, disdain, and disregard I apparently have been routinely facing.

If "women in tech" did suffer so severely on a daily basis, it would not be relevant to Richards. Her job description seems to be "Developer Evangelist". I'm not sure what that specifically means, but I do know it isn't technical, and thus she isn't a "woman in tech".

Even if you do consider her a "woman in tech", the abuse Richards suffered while wrong is not something routinely faced by "women in tech". I understand that genitalia aren't generally supposed to be discussed at professional conferences, but am finding it very hard to see why this is an issue of harassment towards "women in tech" when no women were in the conversation at all. Since Richards felt it was, she was entitled to follow up with the conference leaders, and ask that they handle the situation appropriately, which she did. At this point in time, she could have enjoyed the rest of PyCon and gone home without suffering any abuse at all, happy that she spoke up about the conversation that she took offense to.

Instead she publicly posted the photos of the men who dared discuss genitalia amongst themselves in her presence in order to shame them. This is when she opened her self to (and received) abuse. She had already had the situation handled by the conference organizers, and thus had already spoken up about it without any abuse at all.

It is unfortunate that Richards received the huge storms of abuse that she did. But she chose to handle the situation in a way that invited that abuse, when there were clear ways to "speak up" that would not have resulted in such abuse.

This has everything to do with reacting to situations in a professional manner, and nothing to do with "women in tech" being able to speak up about legitimate sexual harassment.

<comment><USER16> > "It is unfortunate that Richards received the huge storms of abuse that she > did. But she chose to handle the situation in a way that invited that abuse, > when there were clear ways to "speak up" that would not have resulted in > such abuse."

This reasoning bothers me.

Let's stipulate that Adria's post to Twitter was a mistake. You seem to say that the abuse is her fault, because if she hadn't made that mistake, she wouldn't have received any abuse.

But shouldn't punishments be proportional to crimes? We all seem to agree that it's barbaric to cut off a shoplifter's hand, or to hand out the death penalty for petty crimes (as was once common in England, for instance).

People say this sort of thing all the time — "If you didn't want Y, you shouldn't have done X." I feel like it shuts down the conversation. Yes, X was wrong, but Y was also wrong, and it's ridiculous that something as wrong as Y resulted from X. That's a discussion worth having.

The point is that nobody deserves death threats. It need not feel like a defense of Adria Richards to say that.

<comment><USER15> Nobody deserves death threats. But that issue has nothing to do with PyCon, women in tech, or software development.

It is simply current reality that whenever anyone posts things online, other people are able to respond by anonymously sending death threats. The fact that there are people who choose to do so sucks, and is a problem, but this is a well-known fact. You, right now, could click reply on my comment and send me a death threat. I would have no recourse.

Richards knew that people who didn't like what she posted publicly may respond in that manner, and she decided to take that risk when she posted a photo of other developers to twitter. If she did not want to deal with anonymous death threats, she could (and did) handle the situation in a less public manner. She chose to make the situation public.

The developers she posted a picture of had no way of consenting to that publicity.

<comment><USER16> > "But that issue has nothing to do with PyCon, women in tech, or software > development."

I disagree. The shitheads in our community who would stoop to death threats _do not threaten everyone equally_. The way I know that is that a woman who complained about a joke got a _bunch_ of abuse, yet the company who _fired_ the joke-teller — by all accounts, an overreaction — got _nearly none_.

Also, it's not just death threats; it's harassment, too. Jesse Noller, who ran PyCon, commits the sin of "having a Code of Conduct and enforcing it," and ends up getting hate mail and harassing phone calls (<https://twitter.com/jessenoller/status/314417532842950656>).

Internet geeks have weird and sadistic ways of dispensing "justice." That's unfortunate, but even worse is _what_ they decide to point their magnifying glass at.

<comment><USER12> > _The shitheads in our community who would stoop to death threats do not > threaten everyone equally._

What do you have that demonstrates that they're even in our community?

> _Internet geeks have weird and sadistic ways of dispensing "justice." That's > unfortunate, but even worse is what they decide to point their magnifying > glass at._

Not "Internet geeks". Anonymous mobs of dubious maturity and intelligence have weird and sadistic ways of dispensing "justice", on and off the internet.

This is not unique to technology, it's not unique to women, it's not unique to issues of sexism, and it's not unique to Twitter.

As I've noted numerous times in this thread, _Olivia Wilde_ , an actress, received similarly hateful and disgusting Twitter messages for daring to insult _Justin Beiber_ , a pop musician whose primary fanbase seems to be pre- teens and teens.

Something tells me that the people that were offended enough to send hate mail and treets were not angry "internet geeks".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a father and uncle who is cultivating an understanding of computers into three little girls I want to say that this is great. One of them likes embedded applications, other likes web, and the other likes video games. And I'm excited that the oldest one can code simple mods for Minecraft and get to show off in class (her fellow students play Minecraft).

</comment><comment><USER18> I respect their intentions and I am sure they are doing good work. Regardless as a matter of principle I do not donate to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sex.

<comment><USER4> To my knowledge, PyLadies has not engaged in discrimination. It isn't discrimination to make groups which encourage minorities to code or get involved in the Python community or whatever.

Men are not being hurt by the existence of PyLadies in any way.

<comment><USER19> Whether or not it hurts men has nothing to do with discrimination. If the group does not allow men to join or benefit from it's opportunities, it is discrimination.

The question is whether or not PyLadies allows men to join as full members. I honestly have no clue. I'm sure it would be easy to see it that way since it is described as a group of women.

Now the question of whether all discrimination is bad is much more fun to ask.

<comment><USER9> This is a group with a noble cause trying to increase the frankly disgraceful percentage of women in technology. And you label them as discriminatory ?

I take it you also oppose cancer groups then.

<comment><USER20> Two things: #1, PyLadies is for everyone, as far as I can tell. So it's not discriminatory.

Now, if PyLadies was 'no men only,' it would absolutely be discriminatory: they're making a decision based on some kind of attribute. (It would also not be perpetuating 'sexism' since discrimination against men is not societaly re- enforced.)

The real question is 'is this bad?' I don't think that many people have a particular problem with discrimination when it's _for_ women or other minorities, especially when it's not at the _expense_ of everyone who's not within that group. A "women's only" programming group doesn't harm men in any way, yet helps women. I feel like this is the camp you may fall into. It is certainly the one I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why am I not surprised that this post is drawing out the misogynists in tech? Ugh.

<comment><USER21> It isn't. Point out some misogyny. "Disagrees with me" doesn't imply "is a misogynist", though it's a neat rhetorical trick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> PyLadies are pretty cool, they host some amazing events! Thanks for the free food last year @pycon!

</comment><comment><USER23> I have had great female bosses, co-workers and employees who have brought great talent and ideas to the table. I have also had horrible ones. The ratio of good to bad has been the same as males. Given this why should I support organizations which encourage increased women in tech? How does it benefit my organization? I understand increasing the talent pool but this can be done by supporting organizations which encourage more of all people to enter tech fields.

</comment><comment><USER24> I notice a few comments scattered about various parts of this thread so I'll try and address as much as possible here.

There seems to be confusion regarding the idea of a program to support female python developers. Why female developers? Why not male ones too? This is what is causing the confusion that there's some sort of discrimination happening. However that's not really the case, and you have to look at the whole picture to really see it.

So, there's a problem of equality in the workplace as a general philosophy. Sexism, Ageism, Racism, you name it. Taking from a Japanese proverb "He who runs after two hares will catch neither". In this case there's more than two hares, there's quite a lot in fact. So we have to break the problem down into manageable components. In this case someone decided to take the women in tech approach to the problem and focus on it. I'd consider it like taking someone with knowledge of databases and let them work on the database specific problems.

Now then, what exactly is the issue with women in the IT field? Up until the hiring chain and through the workplace experience, there are points to where women don't get the chance they should get. One reason is that people may not see engineering as a "female appropriate job", as though women should be working as secretaries or fashion designers. Another problem is fear. There is fear that going into a job a woman might get harassed or otherwise have difficulty fitting into a primarily male dominated environment. Start-ups for example often have laid back environments where the line between professional an personal gets somewhat fuzzy. Someone slips and lets out an inappropriate comment because they're having a conversation with another coworker which resembles a talk at a party, and are unaware that they're still in a professional environment. This becomes difficult.

So you have women who are trying to get their foot in the door, but are not sure how. That's why we need groups like this. First off we need people to show support. We need people to say "hey women in IT is possible, here's some of us that are doing it". We also need men in on this too so they can be educated on what women in IT may have to deal with and know what to avoid. They're also needed to show that not all guys have this thing against women in IT and that things can work out for the better. Finally we also need it so that women can do networking with companies that are more aware of the issues that women deal with in the workplace, and actively work to figure out how to deal with it.

This is why these sort of organizations need to be in place, and why they need to target women specifically. They need to see others like them working towards the same goal so they can achieve their dreams knowing they have support.

Now with that in mind there is point to watch out for, and what I believe is a valid concern. That is that we don't want the women in IT movement to become a "women are better than men" deal, we want it to become a "women should have the same opportunities as men". Equality is our main goal here. However, because of the environment I've mentioned above, we need groups that specifically target women to help the transition towards a more equality friendly environment.

Hope this gives a better sense of what's happening.

</comment><comment><USER25> How much of that's going to that "lady", who's been offended by eavesdropped private conversation and violating conference rules?

<comment><USER26> PyLadies is a legitimate organization that has been around for a while. [1]

A simple Google search could help you resolve these inquiries in the future.

[1] <http://www.pyladies.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I would donate my big dongle.

<comment><USER26> Seriously? Come on.. Even if you've only been half paying attention the last several days, you'd realize that this issue is quite serious and personal to a lot of people. If, when you saw this post, all that came to your mind was a smart ass comment.. Please, next time, keep it to yourself.

<comment><USER25> I find your comment offensive, given that I've right of free speech, which is guaranteed by constitution.

<comment><USER28> The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing a law that abridges or censors your right to speak publicly. It does not grant you the absolute right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, free of consequence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My initial reaction was this is great, women are underrepresented in tech. Thoughts that came afterward: this is a horrible overreaction to what happened at PyCon over dongle-gate and this reinforces the boys club by making women a protected class (no pun intended).

<comment><USER30> PyLadies has existed for years, and the auction was announced and organized before PyCon even happened, and took place before the entire internet went apeshit.

These are facts you may find useful in deciding how to view this event.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What Ms. Richards has done to those 2 young men could have been much worse. She used her position in the developer/twitter community to intimidate and to cause harm to those 2 men. She knew what she was doing and the same outrage that Ms. Richards experienced, would have been the same outrage those 2 men would have received if what she did originally wasn't wrong.

She could have said that they were talking about rape or molestation and it would have been her word against theirs. They would have been hauled into jail, considered guilty and their lives would have been ruined, even though they are innocent and practicing their natural right to speak to each other.

She overheard a private conversation between 2 consenting adults and nothing was directed towards her or anybody else. She should have kept her mouth shut.

Ms. Richards or anybody with similar capability or visibility, should never be trusted in any community or group. Is the not what any group or community needs, ever.

Her actions were meant to intimidate, cause harm and censor a private conversation.

<comment><USER4> What does that have to do with PyLadies?</comment></comment>


How Narcissism Kills Startups - <AUTHOR> http://dantawfik.com/selflessness?yc-hnews <comment><USER2> "Build an organization where everyone is out for themselves and you'll build what Schopenhauer called a culture of individuals "fencing in the mirror." When we are caught up in our own agendas and circumstances, we forget to live up to our obligations and commitments to each other. This is where dysfunction foments; this is how startups die and missions never get completed."

So true</comment>