BBC Admits Its Famous 'Women Write Better Code' Story Was Fake News - <AUTHOR> https://heatst.com/culture-wars/bbc-finally-admits-its-famous-women-write-better-code-story-was-fake-news/ <comment><USER5> discussion of original article [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11074587](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11074587)

</comment><comment><USER6> This seems like a classic 'counter SJW' article - i.e: an angry counter at the supposed 'feminist oppressors'.

The BBC overhyped a bit of research - this happens _constantly_ with research. They take a study, misrepresent it's findings a little and make it sound bigger than it is. Doesn't make it right, but it's hardly 'fake news'. The story was reporting on a study that happened, and the content was - if a little quick to jump to conclusions - based on reality.

The article has been corrected to "Github coding study suggests gender bias" \- while different, clearly it's the same underlying story.

Meanwhile, this article casually claims that the original title is wrong - <USER2> just an unsubstantiated claim:

> While this is a possible conclusion, it is far from being the only, or in > this case, the most accurate one.

They claim there is a more accurate conclusion, which is...

> In fact, the study authors themselves later admitted that they had left out > a pretty crucial point from their analysis: their data also revealed that > women coders are in fact "harder on other women than they are on men."

This is a point that doesn't refute the core idea, nor is it a conclusion to replace the given one, it's just another bit of data which the article appears keen to promote as though it is particularly important. Presumably because the author thinks this is some kind of 'men vs women' war and that 'women do it too' makes anything OK.

Don't get me wrong, the original study has issues - without knowing how many pull requests 'should' have been approved (which is probably impossible to judge well), it's hard to say the meaning of increased rejections - maybe more rejections show better code because it is structure so that flaws are more obvious to a reader?

Clearly, the original reporting of it has issues too - but this article seems drummed up to create anger. Unless you are getting equally angry at the other exaggerated research articles in equal measure, it seems targeted.

Edit:

Also on this website "Feminist Mother Rejects Infant Son Because of His Gender". This article talks about the piece "Having a son went from a dilemma to being the most valuable lesson of my life" \- which talks about a mother who imagined having a daughter, found out she was having a son, and talks about the fear she had realising she was going to have to explain about feminism and women's issues, which she didn't know how to do. She then goes on to explain she got past this fear (before he was born) and resolved on how to teach him. The article from this site, however, talks about rejection and child abuse, makes her out to be a crazy woman that hates men - <USER3> unfounded.

I suggest reading both to see how much they twist that one:

[https://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminist-mother-rejects- infa...](https://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminist-mother-rejects-infant-son- because-of-his-gender/)

vs

[http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and- views/opinion/havin...](http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and- views/opinion/having-a-son-has-gone-from-being-a-dilemma-to-teaching-me-the- most-valuable-lesson-of-my-life-20161220-gtex2e.html)

It's another example, to me, of a "counter SJW" movement that only ever seems to invent enemies. The only place I have ever seen or heard these 'crazy extremist feminists' they claim are everywhere is in the odd forum thread, hardly a real issue. Instead, it's mostly crazy interpretations of normal pieces dressed up to install a fear in men that women are somehow out to get them - not unlike the Daily Mail straight-white-christian-man fear that seems to have driven brexit/trump.

<comment><USER7> I think though that if an equivalent study found opposite results and the BBC wrote "Men write better code", there would be even far greatee uproar at how deliberately misleading that is.

You invent an enemy (the linked article, "anti-SJW"), and then attempt to "brush off" what is _clearly_ a misleading and likely agenda-fueled article, which as per the MSM definition _is_ "fake news.

Also be aware that your "brush-off" and "oh it's not that bad" argument is identical to "sexists" claiming the "wage gap" doesn't exist...the very people you clearly are opposed to by the sounds if it.

<comment><USER6> I never said that the BBC was right with what they posted - clearly it has issues.

My issue is that they examine this one case in isolation in a way that is clearly meant to be misleading. I am not 'inventing an enemy' \- please go look at the other posts on that site - there is a continual drip of articles about feminism, making feminists out to be crazy and aggressive, all of them highly misleading.

This is just another example. Instead of 'oh look, another story where a journalist finds a bit of research and publishes with a massively overstated headline' it's 'those feminists are at it again, trying to trick us!'. They could have picked out a ton of these stories, or focused on the issue of research in general, but instead they pick this one because it suits their message.

You can ignore the context completely, but it's clear what this is in context. If a paper constantly put on giant pictures of convicted black people (and only black people) on the front page with gory descriptions of what they did, we would call that out, because while technically true, it's clearly misleading.

Likewise, this site constantly pumping out articles that imply that feminists are some kind of boogeyman out to get you is attempting to push an agenda, and that context matters when judging this article.

I'm not saying "it's not that bad" \- it's a real issue. I'm saying that it's not as bad as the article portrays, because it portrays it without the wider context that this happens all the time with all sorts of research.

Fake news is a term I hate because it's so easy to throw around. I don't really like it being used by any 'side', because it doesn't help. Just as with the 'fake news' itself, calls of 'fake news' just get brushed off with "mine can't possibly be, I trust this source".

The solution, as always, should be making the damn point about why it's wrong. Yes, getting people to listen is a problem, but falling back on screaming a catch-phrase doesn't seem like it'll help more.

<comment><USER8> > while technically true, it's clearly misleading

What's misleading here? Are you saying there are as many poor articles that are "anti-feminist" than "pro-feminist"?

I'd argue that a publication like the BBC would be a _lot_ more careful about offending feminists, but I admit this is speculative.

Now here's the thing - the feminist concept of "patriarchy" is _literally_ the demon-haunted world of enemies (wrt men/non-allies) that you are claiming this article invokes (wrt feminists).

"constantly pumping out articles that imply that feminists are some kind of boogeyman" \- Do you apply the same criteria of critique to various feminist blogs and publications (e.g jezebel)? Because I'd like to hear the difference.

In fact, I hear "What about the menz!1!" is offensive now - isn't that exactly "the wider context" you feel is missing here?

<comment><USER6> What is misleading is the framing of this being purely about the quality of the story and 'fake news', when in reality it's cherry picking this article to try and decry feminism.

> Now here's the thing - the feminist concept of "patriarchy" is literally the > demon-haunted world of enemies (wrt men/non-allies) that you are claiming > this article invokes (wrt feminists).

No, it's not, because we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men. That's not exactly news, we know that's the case, just as we know that minorities still suffer from a time we had racism built into our laws and culture. There are _real_ problems there.

> Do you apply the same criteria of critique to various feminist blogs and > publications (e.g jezebel)? Because I'd like to hear the difference.

Yes, and I'm sure there are a few crazies out there who truly hate men, or want crazy shit that doesn't make sense - but they are few and far between, and don't represent mainstream feminism. This site is clearly attempting to paint normal, mainstream feminism as that crazy kind to get people to reject it.

> In fact, I hear "What about the menz!1!" is offensive now - isn't that > exactly "the wider context" you feel is missing here?

It's not - the issue is that a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues" are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues. I have absolutely no problem with talking about men's issues - they are real, are a problem, and affect me personally, as I'm a man. That said, whenever feminists bring up issues, you get the counter cry of "what about men", which sounds reasonable in the way that the "all lives matter" counter does - sure, we care about gender equality, not just women.

The issue is that there are more issues that more deeply affect just women, like there are for minorities in the race issue. The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great injustices.

Yes, it's hard, because some of the people saying "I care about men's rights" have no intention of doing so to 'counter' feminism, but it's hard to tell and you get kneejerk responses on both sides. It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is associated with misogynists, not people who actually care about the issue without other agendas.

Yes, there are unreasonable people on all sides of this, as with pretty much everything. However, the reality is that discrimination and disadvantage is still more widespread for women in our culture, and working to fix that is going to require more effort. This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case, and that mainstream feminism is instead trying to disadvantage and discriminate against men - an accusation that simply doesn't reflect reality.

Just as the average white person is being barraged with the idea that the rights of minorities come at their expense, now sites like this are barraging men with the idea that the rights of women come at their expense. That is a lie designed to pit people against each other, and make us willing to reject the causes fighting for us all to get our basic rights.

<comment><USER8> > That's not exactly news, we know that's the case

No we don't. Much like the interpretation of the pay gap, there's more context. In this case:

"we know there is a real cultural hangover from a time when women were fundamentally treated as lesser than men"

Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are treated now?

Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement making sure this is so.

> a much higher percentage of the people who "want to talk about men's issues" > are using it as an excuse to try and stop talking about women's issues

Says who?

> there are more issues that more deeply affect just women

Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do _not_ just affect women.

> The people claiming they want to shift the focus to "everyone" are often > just trying to deny that we need to focus on these issues of great > injustices.

again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut alternate discourse. Tell me why _you_ control the intent of the opposition better than they do?

> It's unfortunate that the "MRA" label has been most heavily used and is > associated with misogynists

The reason people stay away from this label is that it's demonized, leaving only true misogynists who care to use it (I'd liken this to the initial uptake of alternative currencies by criminals).

What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters...

> This site is clearly trying to push the idea that isn't the case

By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism Wiki"? I'd assume the same?

Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" \- if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want?

> the idea that the rights of women come at their expense

This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' rights are always at the expense of men?

<comment><USER6> > Are we talking about how women were treated in the past, or how they are > treated now? > Assuming the latter, we don't know this at all. Any law or > behavior seen as sexist is now challenged, we have a well funded movement > making sure this is so.

Both, clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now - culture was formed around it.

Yes, clearly it has gotten better, but it's not a solved problem, and our understanding of what is a problem gets better over time. Saying sexism is a solved issue is like saying racism is a solved issue - just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone.

> Says who?

Me.

> Not that many - rape and abortion for example, do not just affect women.

I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss - straw-manning my argument to make me sound more extreme, then claiming I'm wrong. Of course rape and abortion affect men, but clearly they have a disproportionate affect on women. In an ideal world we could focus on equality in general and work it all out, in the real world we have limited time and resources, and focusing on the biggest disparities is the best way to get closer to the ideal scenario, which has benefits in terms of culture and expectation, inspiring future changes and understanding.

> again, prove it. This is just a convenient characterization to shut > alternate discourse. Tell me why you control the intent of the opposition > better than they do?

You literally just did it. I don't control it, but it's clear that it's happening - you can deny that intent all you want, and maybe you truly just don't see the problem, but you are doing it. By making out that feminists are crazy people pushing 'anti-men' agendas you are going to reduce the change that can happen.

> What do you call a real MRA? The movement was hobbled from the beginning by > claims that feminism was all that was needed, so that an new movement must > be suspect from the beginning - if we allow men to have their own movement > it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal > cause under the sun. Men are well represented by their feminists sisters...

I would say that a 'true' MRA (that is, someone who cares about men's rights, not someone using it to try and push down women's rights) is someone who tries to fix social issues that disproportionately affect men (which do exist), without trying to push down feminism.

I would consider myself someone who cares about men's rights as much as I'm a feminist. I don't think the two are at all at odds.

> By providing evidence for it? What's the difference between having a focus, > and having an agenda? What, for example, is your opinion of "Geek Feminism > Wiki"? I'd assume the same?

I am using 'agenda' to mean a dishonest or ill-informed focus. I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki" \- it may or may not be reasonable. A quick glance at the main page doesn't look unreasonable, but who knows. They weren't the article being highlighted here.

> Or is you opinion different because it "simply doesn't reflect reality" \- > if your conclusion is that therefore the site go away, aren't you biasing > you own sources based on the conclusion not being the one you want?

I am saying I looked at this source and found it to be biased. In my comment I linked an example of an article that is obviously and intentionally misleading. It's nothing to do with the conclusion I want. If a site claiming to be 'feminist' had a truly anti-male agenda I would be just as happy to dismiss that.

> This is sometimes the case. There is a difference between "always"and > "sometimes". Are you saying this site is pushing the hyperbole that womens' > rights are always at the expense of men?

Assuming our aim is true gender equality, then the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when men's rights are unequal. Just as the right of the ex-slave's freedom come at the cost of the rights of the slave-owner to own them.

This site is clearly trying to create a fear of social change which benefits women. The articles are hyperbolic and focus on the issue at a rate that exaggerates the issue to readers. We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.

<comment><USER8> > clearly it being normal in the past is part of what drives it now

It's not clear, it's just a theory.

I don't know what criteria you have for "solved", but mine, in the context of equality, is "the problem is no worse for men than women", on average - <USER4> definitions of 'sexism' and 'equality' also change, making this a complicated issue (see [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey- cage/wp/2016/10/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey- cage/wp/2016/10/17/can-an-algorithm-be-racist-our-analysis-is-more-cautious- than-propublicas/?utm_term=.6b533e713607) )

> Saying sexism is a solved issue

I didn't say this, I'd at least define "solved". You claimed various things, the burden of proof is on you.

> is like saying racism is a solved

not really, they are different.

> just because it's far better than it used to be and we have general > acceptance it's a bad thing doesn't mean it's gone.

It doesn't mean it isn't gone either; and thus we establish that we cannot infer the current state of society from the historical state of society ( unless you're a fan of Marx ;-> ).

> I never said they did - you are doing exactly what I discuss

No I didn't, i just gave examples illustrating _my_ point. There's little else for me to do since you didn't give any examples yourself. Again, you made a claim (issues affecting women more), why not back it up? Or clarify _which_ issues.

> disproportionate affect on women

Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape _law_ disproportionately affect women?

> You literally just did it

I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as representative of feminism?

> I don't think the two are at all at odds.

What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?

> I have never seen the "Geek Feminism Wiki"

fair enough.

> the only time that women's rights will come at the expense of men's is when > men's rights are unequal

This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be "equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You have to assume some definition of equality first.

In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little loaded...

> We are not at a point of gender equality yet

Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for some, not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).

> We are not at a point of gender equality yet

This is over simplistic. There is no linear 'equality' meter justifying specific cases of feminist indifference. Give me examples.

If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face today? On average, our families are equal.

\--

this thread is getting a bit unweildy, is there a way to break it up a bit maybe? I wonder if there is a better forum. I seem to remember a while ago someone mentioned a forum they'd made for discussions like this...

<comment><USER6> You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is equivalent to men. That's just not true, quite clearly. There are a ton of studies showing material differences and known social issues that affect women more than men (higher rates of attack/abuse, different expectations in terms of sexual activity, abortion legislation, expectations of marriage & childbirth, etc...). If you move beyond the most developed countries, it quickly falls to horrific levels with things like FGM (yes, I also think circumcision is a problem that affects men and shouldn't be done, but it's clearly not equivalent to FGM).

Even if it was equivalent, that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's.

> Ok, let's focus on rape. How does rape law disproportionately affect women?

I mean, why is it suddenly limited to law? Rape clearly disproportionately affects women (more women are raped). Again, this isn't to say there are not men's rights issues (under-reporting of rape, etc...) there too, but that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant. It also has outcomes that can't happen to men (pregnancy). It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it). In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible levels. If you truly think that women are not seriously affected by this issue, you clearly are not looking.

> I just did what? I thought I was arguing with you - do you see yourself as > representative of feminism?

The thing I said after that statement - dismissing feminism as unnecessary and making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.

> What if some feminist ideologies propagate ideas harmful to men?

If they do, they are wrong to do so. However, sites like the one this article was on propegate the idea that all feminism (or at least a large part of it) are doing that, when they aren't. The article about the woman's son is an example - they make a reasonable article sound like man-hating nonsense. This is to instil fear and make people reject feminism in a knee-jerk response.

> This isn't always the case. law regarding reproductive rights will never be > "equal" because the sexes have different relationships to the issue. You > have to assume some definition of equality first.

Equality means people should not be defined by their gender (or anything else like race, etc...), but rather by who they are. Of course reality has differences between genders. If most women are shorter and there is a necessary height requirement to do a job then you will have less women doing the job - but you shouldn't be rejected _because_ you are a woman. It's simple in concept - not in execution of the law, obviously, but that's besides the point - complexity in enforcement doesn't justify villainizing those trying to improve the situation.

> In any case, I find you slave/master analogy to be more than a little > loaded...

Of course it's loaded, the issue is loaded. There was a time when women were literally property, just like slavery. Just as racism is better, but not solved, the same is true for women's rights.

> Which definition of equality? The "wage gap" demonstrates inequality for > some, not so for others (equality of consequence vs opportunity).

Again - it's not simple in execution. Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split (not to mention the potential for the causes being indirectly the result of sexism themselves). That's just one issue however. It being complicated doesn't mean we should just give up on equality.

> If your father punched me in the face yesterday, can I punch you in the face > today? On average, our families are equal.

A nonsense example against a strawman argument. I'm not claiming equality means we should just average all wages or something dumb.

<comment><USER8> > You begin by implying that discrimination and disadvantage for women is > equivalent to men

The reason you say 'imply' is because I didn't actually say this.

You said they _aren 't_ equivalent, and I asked for qualification. The difference is the burden is on you, not me; You can't flip it around and say "Well, prove it _isn 't_".

Demonstrating anything is hard, especially something this broadly stated, which is why I never made any such claims in the first place, and if I had I'd make it a less broad.

But yes, I strongly suspect men and women are equal in many places, but not world wide, or even in all localities, which is again why I don't want to have to prove _your_ generalisation; If I feel I can demonstrate something, I'll narrow down the claim as appropriate.

> There are a ton of studies showing

If you gave a citation, I might be able to get some context from it, e.g country, culture etc. I'm not keen on assuming a universal form of feminism, nor do I assume you need to be a feminist to fight gender inequality (much like you don't need to be religious to be good - "Without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion").

Tell me social calculus you are using to determine that "abortion legislation affects women more than men". Seems to me you need to decide on a very specific definition of "affect".

> If you move beyond the most developed countries

There is little feminism. It's nice to chalk all women's' rights progress up to feminism, more "feminism by the dictionary"; but that's not the same as "feminism the ideology" \- that feminism is a very specific culture of beliefs and discourse that isn't necessary or sufficient for the improvement of women's rights. The lack of distinction is on purpose, to make it seem like there is only only set of beliefs compatible with the development of women's rights.

> that doesn't make focusing on women's issues wrong any more than the Prevent > Cancer Foundation is evil for not tackling Alzheimer's

That's true, unless "focusing on women's issue" also involves promoting ideologies.

In cases where that ideology is harmful to men, it's more akin to a christian organisation refusing funding for men with HIV.

> why is it suddenly limited to law

The context here is when people say "what about men". in the context of any subject, this is not done to _change_ the topic, but the change the focus of the topic. "what about men" in the context of rape, is in the context of rape law, and how it also affects men.

However, it could also be in the context of prison rape. Maybe that is a worthy topic, but I'd also argue that it is a _different_ topic (prisoners rights/care, and the disproportionate number of men in prison).

> that doesn't somehow make the women's issues unimportant.

Agreed, but I didn't say this. _you_ brought up disproportionate effect.

> It is viewed differently by society (she asked for it).

which society? Can you demonstrate this is a common opinion in modern western countries. I hear this all the time, but have met few people that don't aggressively disagree, or at least have a more nuanced opinion.

> In some places the law is burdensome on the victim to nearly impossible > levels.

Which places, in relative to burden on 'perpetrator'. There are other places where an accusation of rape can be devastating without _any_ burden of proof. Maybe we should be talking specifics?

> making out that it's sexist in reverse to be a feminist.

Can you quote me on that? I have a broad view of what constitutes "feminism" (pretty much anything), and a different view on how feminist discourse is often practiced.

> If they do, they are wrong to do so.

No one will yank their feminist credentials though, and people will still equate feminism with good; "it _can 't_ be bad, it's feminist". If no one denies harmful groups the feminist label, it can no longer be assumed that feminist groups aren't harmful.

> but you shouldn't be rejected because you are a woman

Can I be a surrogate then? Or the legal mother of my child? (I'm male, obv)

> There was a time when women were literally property

Not anymore, and not during my lifetime - so what has this got to do with anything?

"there must be some subconscious influence from the past" \- or something like that?

> Just as racism is better, but not solved

again, tell me what you mean by "solved".

> Clearly the wage gap is caused by multiple factors that are hard to split

yet the soundbite is repeated, again and again, by respected feminists without any nuance. other feminists do not call out this behavior. It took a lot of effort, by many risking reputation and ridicule, to establish that it _was_ more complicated. Maybe we see different sides of the feminist sphere?

> A nonsense example

Maybe I misinterpreted the following:

> We are not at a point of gender equality yet, so to imply that feminism is > wrong when it tries to push for more rights for women is misleading.

\--

When I have the time, I think I might break some of this down. The linear nature of HN isn't ideal for long threads...

<comment><USER6> Your post is essentially a giant attempt to redefine things until you are right.

Anything good feminism does isn't really feminism. Anything bad anyone does is. Talking about feminism is therefore bad because it's bad.

Not to mention the circular logic - feminism is bad because she's written an article about encouraging her kids to be feminists which is bad because feminism is bad.

You are picking out little bits of my post and arguing against them, but ignoring the actual points I made.

I'm not going to argue back on each little point because it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make - just noise leading off.

I made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism incorrectly - this article, and moreso the article linked are designed to make men feel persecuted by extremists feminists when that doesn't reflect the situation.

You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a problem, not simply pro-women.

That, I argue, is complete rubbish. Discrimination against women still happens. The article I linked is not anti-man at all, and your arguments that it is don't hold water, and are essentially circular reasoning and 'that's how I see it'.

Please, don't dissect my post and cherry-pick bits to strawman. Stay on topic to the core point.

<comment><USER8> > giant attempt to redefine things until you are right.

That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this with your "crazy" feminism. _I 'm_ the one that said there isn't really any such thing as a singular feminism.

> Not to mention the circular logic

No, the circular logic is in your poor interpretation.

> which is bad because feminism is bad.

This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in order to portray it as circular.

> ignoring the actual points I made

which are the important ones I ignored? You say a lot that doesn't follow strictly from the points I made, and don't expand on them. If I responded to _everything_ you write I'd be doing a lot of the work; for example, you throw out a load of ungrounded accusations, which I generally ignore.

> made a post saying the site was bad because it is portraying feminism > incorrectly

> Stay on topic to the core point.

If you want the thread to stay on topic, then stay on topic yourself. I've generally just responded.

> You argue that the article/site are reasonable, because feminism is now > largely an extremist movement now, and it is anti-men enough to be a > problem, not simply pro-women.

Some feminism. And if you can't see the distinction, then probably your feminism.

> Discrimination against women still happens

This is a low bar. What does it mean? I've stated enough times a need for specific standards for what constitutes "unequal", so what exactly do you mean by this?

> cherry-pick bits to strawman

I can only "cherry-pick to strawman" if I misrepresent your arguments (as a strawman), which did I misrepresent?

<comment><USER6> > That would be the no true scotsman I guess, but actually you invoked this > with your "crazy" feminism. I'm the one that said there isn't really any > such thing as a singular feminism.

And yet you are willing to say anyone teaching what they call feminism to their child is doing wrong because of it.

> This is a consistent argument, about which I say more. It's only circular in > the strict way you stated it, which is a purposeful misrepresentation in > order to portray it as circular.

Then why is feminism bad?

<comment><USER8> > And yet you are

No, try reading what I've written (multiple times now).

> Then why is feminism bad?

certain forms are bad, for whatever makes them bad. At this point, I'm not sure you know the difference between a generalization and an absolute statement.

<comment><USER6> Then how can you possibly defend that site, which is clearly misrepresenting a feminist with a reasonable viewpoint?

<comment><USER8> If there's a misrepresentation going on, that's one thing,

But that the viewpoint here is 'reasonable' is _your_ opinion, not fact.

<comment><USER6> And if I say 'slavery is wrong' \- that's an opinion. I'm going to go ahead and call someone reasonable when they pen an anti-slavery piece.

You disagree with me about the viewpoint being reasonable - sure. I think you are horribly wrong. The viewpoint makes sense, and I have explained why I think that. She is explaining her struggle in dealing with explaining feminism and dealing with sexism to her future son, given she was never a young boy and doesn't know it. You haven't explained how you got to that being unreasonable except implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.

<comment><USER8> slavery is not an ideology, so it's not a good analogy.

> implying (but then denying) you think feminism is inherently bad.

Then maybe your interpretation is wrong. It seems you ignore specific things I write, and just respond to you own assumptions.

<comment><USER6> Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is. Slavery isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is. Again, you are trying to counter the definitions of what I'm saying, not the actual idea I'm talking about. Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to share that opinion. My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that killing is wrong, say. I expect people to share my opinion that descrimination against women is wrong. Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant and shows you have no real argument against my point, you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'.

You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that. I have tried to work it out (the only way I can make sense of your position is if you think feminism is inherently bad) - and you claim that's not it. If you have a real reason then tell me. Why is my interpretation wrong? How does the other article's read make any sense after reading the original article?

<comment><USER8> > Slavery isn't an ideology, but anti-slavery is

No it isn't. An ideology is a specific thing.

belief in god is common among (specific) religions, but theism isn't a religion

> Descriminating against women isn't an ideology - but feminism is

Is the implication that feminism == anti-(female)-discrimination? sounds a lot like argument by dictionary definition.

If this is what feminism is, or "discrimination" was strictly, and uncontroversially defined; a lot less would be able to bear that label.

> Your point was that just because it's my opinion, I can't expect others to > share that opinion

This is correct, To make others share that opinion you need to convince them

> My point is that's bullshit - I can expect people to share my opinion that > killing is wrong, say

And if you argued that, and people are convinced, then they would share your opinion. But there would be a lot of assumptions that are _also_ your opinion that you would need to convince them of along the way - that "feminism" is the same as _some_ definition of discrimination/unfairness, say.

> Trying to nit-pick my analogy is irrelevant

It's not a "nit", you analogy is totally misapplied. It only applied correctly according to a personal, unshared definition of "feminism", so what use is it if it depends upon another assumption? You must first convince someone of the assumption, before they'll accept another premise based on it.

> you just want to continue the argument and make it sound like you are > 'scoring points' by 'proving me wrong'.

I doubt anyone but us two are still reading at this point. And I get less and less out of this.

The more it continues, the more you throw out vague claims, premises and accusations, without further clarification of previous points; the accusation that I am motivated by 'point-scoring' for example, without any illustrative examples, or explanation.

> You deny my interpretation of the article, but give no reason for that

The author assumes a demon-haunted world. At the beginning of this thread we discussed that, and it seems we disagree on the facts. That's why.

That said, it's not useful to assume my position in the way you describe, or at least be more diligent in doing so: "feminism is inherently bad" is a position directly contradicted by things I've said.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


German traffic light stays red for 28 years (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.thelocal.de/20150615/there-is-a-light-that-never-goes-out <comment><USER2> I know this light personally. I live there. It is no problem for the casual driver, as Dresden is one of those rare german towns with US "Rechtsabbieger" rules. You may turn right even with red lights. And the german law clearly states if one entries to a crossing has lights, all others have to get lights also. This is the only case in Germany where this law makes no sense.

But the best is the last sentence: They do change all the green and yellow light bulbs also in their regular maintenance schedule. The justification goes like this: Bulbs mostly wear due to hours in usage, yes. Red and Yellow are not used, so should not wear, and thus should not be replaced. But hours can not be the only cause for problems, and while we are there and there's a budget for replacement, we'll do it all together. Not really a just technical justification, just a practical one.

We do the same in software also all the time. There are two principles: 1\. Make minimal changes to cause only minimal effect. 2\. Harmonize your changes to avoid unnecessary asymmetries. They went with 2. You can fight the system, or you can live with it. In this case there is no reason to rock the boat.

[Update:] The lawful alternative would have been to close this crossing for the Ziegelstraße into the Güntzstraße. People would have protested over this sillyness. And Dresden has enough budget surplus to do such things. In fact Dresden was very lucky in its real-estate deals, where they sold all of their old residential apartment complexes to a US company Fortress for billions: [http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/milliardendeal-dresden- verk...](http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/milliardendeal-dresden-verkauft- wohnungsbestand-und-wird-schuldenfrei-a-405194.html) Normally such deals turn out bad and unprofitable, but in this case not. Both parties are happy.

<comment><USER3> An aquantance of mine wrote a peice of software that looks at satelite pictures of Prague at night and tells the city which street lights are out, so they don't have to use a "regular replacement schedual" but only replace the bulbs that need it. Could the same thing not be done using red-light cameras and stop lights?

<comment><USER4> It might or might not. This is a costing exercise where you need the understand the objective and cost factors.

If you have a strong requirement to avoid failure, proactive replacement let's you optimize the unit cost of replacement because you can fully utilize the crews and have no wastage.

If you dispatch reactively, you either have people sitting around waiting for light bulbs to burn out or lightbulb replacement pulls crews off of other work, impacting schedules.

<comment><USER5> ...or you could hire contractors when you need to do bulb replacement? Then you have full utilization while you're replacing bulbs, no one is idling on your payroll while you're not, and no one gets pulled from their existing work to do replacement.

<comment><USER6> ... and the external contractor who you're pushing all that risk on will charge you appropriately.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but they only receive the full amount of the risk you lose if you are their only client. They're still cheaper than either solution I responded to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like there's an analogy to software in this story. Someone put in a hack that, while ugly, works. I'm sure many city planners over the years have looked at it and thought it should be fixed. But when the current solution is working, taking the time to do the necessary testing to ensure that a new, cleaner solution works would be painful. So, 30 years later, the hack is still in place.

I know I've come across the software equivalent of this many times in my life as a developer. "Hmm...that's a really odd way of doing that, I should refactor this. But I need to write a bunch of tests for this since the original developer didn't write any. And am I really thinking through all the possible use cases properly? Even if I am, this is now a 3-day estimate, which means it will probably take 5 days, and all to "fix" something that's technically working. That's a lot of risk/time commitment for very little payout. Maybe I should just leave it be and move on to a project that's better setup to succeed."

Yep...makes total sense that this light still exists. Still doesn't explain why they replace the green and amber bulbs though...

<comment><USER8> It is more like "convention over configuration". In fact, it isn't a hack. It is the simple applyance of putting elements in a system, because of a contract.

Another good analogy in software would be UX and style guides. You'd like the user to have a consistent experience.

The replacement is like running a cron job to do some stuff and forget to check if it makes sense. It can be done better, but on the other hand, it's less complicated this way (and never change a running system).

This one red light has been removed btw. The street is a dead end towards the intersection now. But you can find another one near Wasaplatz.

<comment><USER9> One more evidence that "convention over configuration" principle should be avoided :)

<comment><USER10> I think it's evidence to the contrary. We only know how much one street light cost; we don't know (from this article) how effective the overall system that manages the whole country is. I can bet that because of these rules it's much more effective then a system where every single streetlight has to be considered and configured by a bureaucrat who makes an individual decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The traffic light: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,13.7575856,3a,75y,71...](https://email@example.com,13.7575856,3a,75y,71.03h,88.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scW7PqWjukB- tqiTFHHMidA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

<comment><USER12> That light is totally redundant. The white-on-blue right arrow as well as the solid line in the middle of the street already mandate that only right turning is allowed there.

<comment><USER13> Except you cannot have static signs from one direction, where the other directions have traffic signals.

Someone else suggested a great programmer would have changed the rules, but that would have just made the rules more complicated.

This solution is neat, because it keeps the basic rules simple while solving the problem. And to most people, they will never notice it is a problem.

<comment><USER14> Until an attacker comes and "parks" in front of the red light blocking all the traffic. There is no legal obligation to keep moving.

<comment><USER15> The charge is usually "public nuisance" or the local jurisdictional equivalent.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the concept of public nuisance as a crime. It's pretty simple, "things that cause significant enough trouble for other people". Its the common sense escape hatch option for law enforcement being unable to see any other crime.

<comment><USER16> I would guess that it would be "Behinderung des Straßenverkehrs" (obstruction of traffic).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a light in Ft. Walton Beach Florida. I took a picture of it years ago because I thought it was funny. It's on 35mm film in a box somewhere.... (the linked image is not mine).

[http://www.funnysigns.net/files/never-turns- green.jpg](http://www.funnysigns.net/files/never-turns-green.jpg)

<comment><USER18> You'd think they'd just put up a sign that says "right turn only" or similar.

<comment><USER19> That's quite unusual for an intersection that _visually_ can be traversed also straight ahead to be right-turn only from one direction. There are such signs (209-20), or arrows on the lane, but I'd imagine people to heed a stop light more than such signage (purely from experience, many drivers ignore such signs, and even those that don't often don't adhere to the rules by not using turn signals).

Edit: Now that I've looked at the traffic light on Google StreetView, that right-turn only sign _is_ also there. But of course, traffic lights take precedence when they exist. The intersection is also marked in a way to really discourage going straight (or left), but I'd still guess with only signs there'd be a few people who actually tried doing that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article is from 2015 and noone seems to have mentioned yet that the light got removed in 2016: [http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/ewiges-rot-an- dresdn...](http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/ewiges-rot-an-dresdner- ampel-hat-ein-ende-genommen-14435741.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> When I was about 15 years old, a friend tried to convince me a traffic light in front of his house was always green. I never believed him. Fast forward 15 years later. I moved to an apartment, cycling past my friends house to go to work. After a few weeks, I started to notice a traffic light which is always green! It was the same light my friend told me about. I remembered.

It is here: [https://goo.gl/maps/2cgcx1b92LL2](https://goo.gl/maps/2cgcx1b92LL2). Streetview direct link: [https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B000'00.9%22N+5%C2%B...](https://email@example.com,5.8806822,3a,75y,46.34h,87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slkaTropfTSDF9LePnooSlg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DlkaTropfTSDF9LePnooSlg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D234.67867%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d52.000242!4d5.880775?hl=en)

<comment><USER22> Seems to be for pedestrian crossing. Isn't there a push button on the pole?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I guess it's like the "no smoking" lights in airplanes. Even though they're _always_ on (it's not like there's times during the flight when you can smoke and other times when you can't), they serve as an important reminder, and therefore have a purpose.

<comment><USER24> Of course, the lights used to go on and off when smoking on planes was permitted.

I'm not 100% certain, but I'm willing to bet it's still permitted in some countries.

<comment><USER25> In practice Air India seems to allow it, especially on the older jets and longer flights. Unusally long lines immediately form at toilets and don't seem to subside throughout a several hour flight. The smell of cigarette smoke is attended to regularly with a good old spray of air freshener.

<comment><USER26> What???? I doubt this is true. Smoking has never been allowed in numerous Air India flights I have taken.

<comment><USER27> Agreed. I've taken various internal flights in India, Vietnam and the Philippines and none of them have allowed smoking, officially or "unofficially".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> kyle-rb This sounds like it could be straight out of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

<comment><USER28> Or Catch-22

<comment><USER29> Or Yes, Minister

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I get why that road is signalled. It intersects right in the middle of another signalled intersection.

But in my neck of the woods we'd probably show a green right arrow when intersecting traffic from the left is stopped at a red light.

<comment><USER31> In some places (definitely in Norway) a green arrow doesn' just imply you can turn right if safe; it tells you other traffic is halted and you've got the intersection all to yourself.

Edit: ninja'd by runholm

<comment><USER32> That's the situation in Germany as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Is it in the red light district?

(When I was a child, I actually thought that the meaning of that phrase was related to traffic lights. I was so naïve.)

<comment><USER34> You probably thought that Roxanne was a traffic engineer.

<comment><USER35> Sting was the pointy haired boss meddling and micromanaging in her project.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I came across a light like this once and noted it. After some thought though I realized that it actually makes perfect sense. The goal of the light is to never let people go straight and people can only turn on a green arrow. It is the only logical output for this goal as far as I can tell. If it were just a red arrow and a green arrow, without a full red people may think they can go straight, because there is no light preventing them explicitly. It's pretty funny.

<comment><USER37> Couldn't you combine a STOP sign with one of those 'turn only right' signs, like this one? [http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/r...](http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/right- turn-only-road-sign-uk-e16jea.jpg)

<comment><USER38> The street also has that (well, a triangle "yield, no stop necessary" sign).

The thing is, in Europe, you have priorities in traffic - first the lights, when those are off/unavailable - the signs, and finally "the one on the right goes first".

The rationale behind this intersection is that you need all the vehicles obeying the same set of rules. So you can't have one car approaching the intersection obeying the signs (because no lights on that road), and another car obeying the traffic lights.

<comment><USER39> In that case a flashing yellow right arrow would make more sense than a solid red light.

<comment><USER40> Don't quote me on this, but I think drivers are allowed to drive on a flashing yellow light without coming to a full stop, while this red light requires drivers to come to a stop.

<comment><USER19> Flashing yellow means yield, indeed. However, if the traffic lights are off the signs take precedence which in this case also just say yield. The red light with the green arrow is a hack in that it allows the intersection to work as intended, but the Stop part of it probably is not strictly necessary here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Ok, why not just put up signs saying "do not enter" and "right turn only"? And, then, just have a signal for the assumed protected right-turn (Germans do drive on the right, correct?)

This "solution" seems very confusing. In every US/Canadian jurisdiction I've visited has nothing like this German solution. Just indicate with lights, signage and road furniture that the particular route is not allowed. To technically keep the route open, but prohibit by lights seems prone to confusion, especially for individuals not from the area. Also, how do mapping apps deal with this intersection (curious)? Do mapping apps properly route through such an intersection?

(edit: clarity)

<comment><USER42> The set up described in the article is actually equivalent to "come to full stop, then right turn only".

You cannot replace the light with a sign because by law traffic lights have higher precedence that traffic signs. This is for failover reasons (when traffic light is broken, no electricity etc.) So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic light is operational.

Having traffic lights show the same light is not that unheard of as the article makes it sound. I visited a part of Europe where right turns on intersections always showed blinking yellow light. This is equivalent to "turn right, but yield first"

I understand it can be confusing if you are coming from the US system though. The European system is highly standardized for use in all kinds of driving situations (like places with unreliable electricity), the drawback is that it can get a bit technical at times.

<comment><USER43> > So a sign on an intersection can be rendered void/meaningless if the traffic > light is operational.

But that's a moot point if the light isn't there in the first place.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you slice it, this light is stupid. What is needed is simply a pair of signs: STOP and RIGHT TURN ONLY.

<comment><USER44> This light is an at intersection, the other three roads leading to the intersection have traffic lights too.

If there is a power cut, then the other three roads will have no lights, drivers there will treat the intersection with one set of rules. Whereas the driver on this road with a sign will treat the intersection with another, potentially causing an accident.

<comment><USER43> There is no more possibility of an accident with a stop sign than with an always-red light because the rules for both are exactly the same: stop, and proceed only when there is no conflicting traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This traffic light in Harrison, NY has been green for decades: [https://email@example.com,-73.7217408,3a,75y,1...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-73.7217408,3a,75y,107.41h,91.22t,-4.1r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svoT- mRiS1H3x4nXfyo05NA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I have been driving through there since the late 70's and I'm pretty sure that the intersection configuration was in place earlier than that. So it's likely that this light has been green for over fifty years.

<comment><USER46> I've been through there before and it makes sense. They want the whole exchange signalized for consistency but that one lane's configuration means it's protected.

I imagine you can make it red at the control box for an emergency or construction; I wonder if that's ever happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> How did it stay red during bulb replacement? Article is totally misleading!

<comment><USER48> Also the article implies it's just on a very long 28 year cycle, but then it says it never turns green. Which one is it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> When you have a steady, well working system and only one special case that causes that system to waste resources, you don't put special if cases and switches to optimize for this special case. Especially if it's one in a million.

<comment><USER49> I object for having to pay for the green and yellow light bulbs. They should be empty on purpose.

<comment><USER50> Then the crew changing the lights would need a second checklist. The chance that they apply that wrong one to a regular intersection is not negligible.

<comment><USER49> If they're empty to begin with, new ones shouldn't be put in. How hard is that?

<comment><USER50> It's harder than it looks. I see two possible interpretations of your proposal:

a) Not change the worker's checklist. That would mean they should deviate from the list, creating a dangerous precedent.

b) Adding another rule to the worker's checklist. Great, now they need to check this for every single light they are working on, which means more work (is that really cheaper than the bulbs even if it's only a few seconds per light?) and more possibilities of doing mistakes.

Not to mention that the traffic light probably refuses to turn on when not all lights are installed. That means the software needs to be changed. Yet another possibility to introduce fatal mistakes at other intersections.

I prefer paying for a bulb every now and then to putting human lives at risk. Note that changing something for this intersection means changing things for _all_ intersections, including high-traffic complex ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Does it really cost ~500€ per month to run a single traffic light?

<comment><USER52> Assuming 100W light bulb and 0.3€/kWh cost, it's ~22€ for the electricity. So I guess we're left with the maintenance. These guys have pretty decent hourly rate even if light bulbs need to be changed every few months ;) But in all seriousness it seems somewhat understandable. During all these years you may need to change the pole, some elements, maybe repaint the pole, maintain cars and equipment of these guys who change the bulbs and so on. Plus it seems likely that it was calculated as city traffic light infrastructure expenses divided by the number of traffic lights. Then you have some upgrades of electronics, leds, counters or cameras in other parts of the city.

I'm not trying to say that governments spend money efficiently, just that the figure may be not as ridiculous as it seems.

<comment><USER53> Who still uses bulbs for traffic lights these days? Here it's all LED. Cheaper and much clearer. (The old bulb lights were sometimes really hard to see when the sun is low behind you.)

<comment><USER19> Lost of places. Here it's a mixture of lightbulb and LED lights. Also LEDs may be cheaper over time due to electricity costs, but the initial upgrade is surely more expensive than a new bulb. Then there is the problem with snow not melting and you don't know what maintenance contracts are there for bulb replacement and how long those last.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I had a German colleague come to visit me in the US one time. When we went out to lunch, and I made a "right on red after stop", he just about put his foot through the floorboard trying to push his invisible brake pedal. German driver training is very thorough. :)

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm not quite understanding the reasoning behind this. It seems a stop sign plus a "right turn only" sign would imply the same rule.

<comment><USER56> Because the regulations state they can't have an intersection controlled by both signs and lights. The rest of the intersection is controlled by lights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'd just like to understand how on earth it costs 458€ per month to maintain this single light?

Does anyone have some insight into that data point?

Edit: I know the 150k over 28 years number is a bit rounded, but even using that it's 446/month or 14.60/day to run the light?!?

<comment><USER58> Googling, I've seen the rough figures from $1,000 to $10,000 (USD) a year to maintain a traffic signal -- all over the place for sure, but the €5300/yr cost doesn't appear to be that out of line. However I can't Google a really good breakdown of costs.

My assumption is that the bigger percentage of that is maintenance. There are three lights in the Google street view. Assuming these are old incandescent bulbs and Germany's high kWh price, electricity costs would be roughly be about €1500 _at most_ a year (assuming €0.35 per kWh, 150 watt bulbs, and 3 lights "always on"). Maybe add another €500 _at most_ for the controller although it probably should cost less than that. (LED lights would drop this part of the bill a lot, too.)

However, there is probably some maintenance costs for both the controller and the light: changing all bulbs yearly (if incandescent), cleaning the bulb lenses, controller maintenance (wiring checks, etc.), etc. I imagine that the bulk of the costs would fall here: labor costs plus some equipment costs (trucks, tools, etc.).

A) [http://pugetsoundblogs.com/roadwarrior/2012/09/25/comparing-...](http://pugetsoundblogs.com/roadwarrior/2012/09/25/comparing- costs-of-roundabouts-and-traffic-signals/) B) [http://bmtsonline.com/sites/default/files/Reports%20and%20Do...](http://bmtsonline.com/sites/default/files/Reports%20and%20Documents/FINAL%20Traffic%20Signal%20Maintenance%20Consolidation%20Study.pdf)

<comment><USER57> Even if 2000/year is the base electricity cost, that still means it's costing 9.20/day in materials and labor for a single light. That still seems very excessive to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Let's assume a North-South/East-West intersection. Eastbound traffic (on the Western road) sees this light.

If the Eastbound traffic can only go right, I presume the Westbound traffic can only go left. (Otherwise the Eastbound traffic would be permitted to go straight and/or left.) If that is true, then the Southbound traffic can only go straight; no turns. (It follows that there is no Northbound traffic.)

In essence, three roads converge to one. If that's so, why is this an intersection? Why not merge the roads or build a wall making incorrect crossings or turns obvious?

</comment><comment><USER39> Do they use steady red lights for all "right turn onlys" which on the other end have opposing traffic (do not enter)? Or is this an exception to the right turn only + do not enter at the other end? Harrison and 10th[1] in SF for example.

[1][https://email@example.com,-122.4115453,3a,75y,...](https://email@example.com,-122.4115453,3a,75y,57.41h,78.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFTZrWFsTzwS5ZGBBz5HIPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

<comment><USER60> Germany does not usually have "right turn only"s, at all. That's the simple answer – this traffic light is the only "right turn only" on a normal intersection in Germany. (which is why it has its own wikipedia entry, and website).

<comment><USER61> It does. "Right turns only" is a white bent arrow on a blue ground. But it does not affect precedence like a red light with a green arrow does (or a stop sign would for that matter). You often see it on T-junctions with one-way roads.

<comment><USER60> Yes, and no. That's a right turn only at an uncontrolled intersection. Germany has none at controlled intersections (those with traffic lights).

<comment><USER61> I could swear I've seen "right turn only" signs at controlled intersections when coming off the Autobahn. I think it was for a right turn onto a B road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wonder if this article (from 2015) has now become obsolete? I notice that the OSM of that location[0] appears to indicate that Ziegelstraße now dead- ends just before the relevant intersection, and the Bing satellite maps, though difficult to interpret with all the tree cover, appear to match that.

[0] [http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.05376/13.75783](http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.05376/13.75783)

<comment><USER63> Yes, the road is now a dead end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Why does the signal include an amber and green light?

<comment><USER65> Probably because including two unused bulbs is cheaper than custom-making a single-bulb traffic light.

(Also, people who are used to seeing a set of three bulbs might not recognize a single red light as being a traffic light at all.)

<comment><USER60> Actually, it's not that easy.

German traffic lights are a modular design, and ones with only two or one bulb are common. (You can stick as many modules together as you wish, or remove them)

<comment><USER61> That doesn't sound entirely true.

I've only seen one-bulb versions for flashing yellow lights (which are sometimes used on crossings to indicate "pedestrians are crossing" at difficult crossings, typically when more than two roads meet and the pedestrians could easily be overlooked).

I've only seen two-light versions for pedestrians (i.e. red and green).

I think I've seen other one and two bulb versions on non-public roads (e.g. industrial sites) but that's about it. I've never seen a version with four bulbs.

And you make them sound more modular than they are: while the part containing the bulb seems to be generally modular the case containing these modules is generally fixed for a certain size. So adding or removing modules after they are deployed is not as straightforward (except maybe for temporary traffic lights).

I've actually seen the auditory clue box (whatever it's called -- the ticking thing at crossings to help blind pedestrians cross safely) replace one of the bulbs (on three-bulb lights where there is a redundant second red bulb) instead of being added below the traffic light.

<comment><USER60> Actually, I've got a few intersections right near me with such examples.

There's a traffic light for the lane straight forward.

Directly next to it is one for those turning right.

The forward light has Red, Yellow and Green, the turn lane's light has only Yellow and Green (both with the arrow overlay).

At another one, there's lights for busses added below or at the side of the existing light, adding one, or two modules (below or at the side).

<comment><USER61> Where in Germany are you?

I forgot about turn lanes (they often omit the red light when the red phase would be shared with the regular traffic light) but I've never seen bus lights. Might be a regional thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> "It's not a bug, it's a feature"

</comment><comment><USER67> Surely, a stop sign: [https://www.stickergenius.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/sto...](https://www.stickergenius.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/stop_sign_sheet.jpg)

Plus a "turn right only": [http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/r...](http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/95a9489a7d8b4c418cb6cfd3b6753295/right- turn-only-road-sign-uk-e16jea.jpg)

Would achieve the same effect? People would have to stop at the intersection, and then they can only turn right. Same as red light+green right arrow.

edit: sorry, yes, I now understand - it has to be a traffic light because all other sides have traffic lights.

<comment><USER61> Presumably you could modify the way the road intersects to make it an inlet (which automatically has lower precedence regardless of lights) but that'd probably just be as confusing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a denial-of-service attack possible.

Red light with green arrow means you may turn right if you feel like it or wait for green. Just park your car in front of the traffic light... it'll be fine.

<comment><USER68> Parking is not allowed on direction lanes (this one is a turn-right lane). You may halt your car there, but you may not leave it (thus park it). So while you _can_ do this, you will also block yourself from doing much else.

Of course, a DDoS attack would be possible by having a couple of friends and switching the driver every once in a while.

A witty state lawyer may also try to sue you based on StVO §30 (1), though winning that trial won't be very likely, because you can simply stop the engine (allowed at traffic lights).

<comment><USER61> They could still get you for plain old obstruction. The thing about laws that makes them different from code is that intent matters. Even if you follow the letter of the law you can still get into trouble if you blatantly obviously try to violate its spirit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Would that light actually stop anyone? In France and Italy, traffic lights are just recommendations. We once got honked at for waiting at a red light when there was no cross traffic.

<comment><USER70> Crossing a red light is a pretty strong traffic violation in Germany. If the light was red for longer then 1 second apparently 200€, a 1 month driving suspension, and 2 out of 8 points to lose your license.

[https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/rote- ampel/](https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/rote-ampel/)

<comment><USER71> So for running a 28 years long red light would be decapitation and two consecutive perpetual prisons.

<comment><USER61> Luckily Germany abides by the international convention on human rights and doesn't have the death penalty so it'd probably be three life sentences. And because of § 54 section 1 StGB they'd be flattened into a single life sentence, which in practice translates to "at least 15 years".

The German equivalent of "life with no chance of parole" would be "Sicherheitsverwahrung" (preventive detention, consecutive to the life sentence) which is an extremely dodgy instrument that is probably in violation of the constitution and the international human rights charter if you look too closely but still used when punishing people who probably should instead be treated for difficult mental health problems.

But I admit that makes for a less funny joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> > _While this may seem nonsensical and a waste of money to your average > motorist, the Dresden authorities can explain in exact detail why the light > never changes colour. And their explanation might show another habitat that > dies hard - a love of convoluted, self-defeating regulation._

That seems unnecessarily critical. Clear and consistent communication is pretty important when you're talking about traffic, and the cost is surely a drop in the bucket compared to the city's overall budget.

</comment><comment><USER73> Rt turn on red is voluntary. Not one to have road rage much but I enjoy waiting for the green if a jerk is behind me.

Also being paid by the hour to drive red lights are your friend

<comment><USER74> This is so german of you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I am German (and drive a car) and as per my understanding this traffic light could simply be removed with the only change necessary being a stop sign instead of the Yield sign.

The explanation given by the city (or its translation) don't make any sense to me.

EDIT: After re-reading the explanation I guess the idea is that since the crossing street shows a green light, the "opposing" street must have a red one.

</comment><comment><USER76> Funnily enough, there is precedent, that a red light can be ignored if it doesn't change for 5 minutes. And I really doubt that there isn't a way to regulate the crossing without a permanent red light.

[http://www.stvo.de/info/faq/165-ampel-bleibt- rot](http://www.stvo.de/info/faq/165-ampel-bleibt-rot) (German)

<comment><USER32> That allows you to assume that the traffic light is defective, in which case the traffic signs would apply and require you to turn right—but that is exactly what is allowed by the green arrow even at a red light.

<comment><USER76> ah you are right, probably there is a blue right-turn only sign (I just thought about the Grünpfeil depicted in the illustration image).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Perhaps they could put a physical barrier in front of that, so that it's no longer possible to go forward, and then it's no longer part of the intersection?

<comment><USER31> -Then again, would that be cheaper or less confusing than simply keeping the light?

<comment><USER78> I think it's certainly less confusing to put a physical barrier. I could see myself waiting for the light to turn green :) . And it shouldn't cost more than 10.000 euros (a couple of years of maintenance of the traffic light).

I don't understand which of the lights is the offending one:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/G%C3%BCntzstra%C3%9Fe,+Dre...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/G%C3%BCntzstra%C3%9Fe,+Dresden,+email@example.com,13.7579662,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4709cf5020d50865:0xb54dabd4097d0087!8m2!3d51.0497513!4d13.7571707)

<comment><USER31> First of all, the offending light, if you can call it that, is the one where Ziegelstraße opens into Güntzstraße, here: (0).

Also, the only way that unit maintenance cost makes sense is if it is calculated by taking whatever amount they spend on anything traffic-light related in a year and divides it by the number of traffic lights; that infrastructure remains in place even if this light is removed.

So - you don't really save anything except the annual maintenance trip, whose cost is probably measured in the low hundreds (educated guess: two blokes with high-visibility vests, driving a VW Caddy packed to the gunwales with traffic light bulbs to the site, spending ten minutes swapping out the light bulb before proceeding to the next light.)

Also, you'd need to change the law for it to happen.

That being said, I suspect I'd keep you company waiting at that light; when in doubt, I tend to not move into traffic just to see what happens... :)

(0) [https://email@example.com,13.7575856,3a,75y,11...](https://email@example.com,13.7575856,3a,75y,111.79h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scW7PqWjukB- tqiTFHHMidA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I'm curious, do self-driving cars handle a case like this without intervention from the driver?

<comment><USER19> If they want to drive in Germany, they should surely know the local driving rules (including the green arrow sign), otherwise there'd be little point in a self-driving car. And since there is no way of _not_ going right at this point there should be no problem.

But I don't think there is much self-driving in city traffic yet. Especially rules about who has to yield where are not always governed by signs visible directly to every driver (e.g. Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich).

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> "And their explanation might show another habitat that dies hard"

Another... habitat?

</comment><comment><USER81> should put red plastic or colored paper there. or just paint it red.

</comment><comment><USER82> Looks like some traffic lights from my town.

</comment><comment><USER83> It's not red when they're replacing the bulbs for maintenance or when there is a power outage. So this story is false. Also this is a pretty random story to be topping HN. Sure there is an edge case where this could happen, so what.

</comment><comment><USER84> 32 points and not a single comment. OK, I will bite.

> But anyone who waits to cross into Gerokstraße could be waiting a long time > - almost three decades if they are patient enough.

Did anyone notice the awesome pun ? If you wait that long, you will become a patient :-)

<comment> sid-kap I don't see the pun. Can you explain it?

<comment><USER85> patient - able to wait long enough

patient - you wait so long that you'll fall ill/die, thus becoming a hospital patient

<comment><USER86> thats nonsense, and not a pun

<comment><USER87> Maybe it's that famous german sense of humor...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Telltale Autopsy - <AUTHOR> https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=44111 <comment><USER2> I followed Telltales quite a bit before they went out of business, I even know a few people that worked/applied to work there.

For me there were always red flags, they tried too hard to chase the dragon after the unexpected success of TWD, all of the sudden they were churning out 2-3 titles a year (17 individual episodes were released in 2017 alone) with an aging engine. They were constantly missing out release dates for episodes and unable to update their games for new experiences.

Also do not forget that licences for these properties are very expensive to procure making it even more difficult to break even.

They also added an Exec from Zynga as their CEO in 2017, which for me represent the very worst gaming has to offer in terms of low effort, exploitable gaming.

This was the final nail in the coffin, unsustainable business practices with high level execs who only care about the bottom line always breeds failure.

Its a shame, a lot of people knew the end was coming but management kept quiet until they literally had to close up shop and gave people a few hours to leave the building. All the workers there deserve better.

<comment><USER3> >>they tried too hard to chase the dragon

What does this phrase mean? A google search game me results about heroin use which I don't think that that's what you meant.

<comment><USER4> It's analogous to the heroin reference. Basically as a company they were chasing that high from TWD's success in an unsustainable, detrimental manner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "This Dumb Industry" is such a good name for this series of blog posts [0]. I always tell people game development is both the hardest and least (extrinsically) rewarding programming career you could pick: volatile, driven by personalities, low paying, with hard engineering problems.

[0]: [https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?s=this+dumb+ind...](https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?s=this+dumb+industry)

<comment><USER6> Working on video games is a lot like being in a band after High School.

You shouldn't do it with an expectation of any great rewards. You should really only do it if you are so passionate about the field that you don't have a choice.

Because of the high number of passionate people in the field the risk/reward ratio will always be skewed against you and most people will not be properly compensated for their work.

<comment><USER7> From personal experience I'd say services like Patreon/Kickstarter has made it easier to scratch a living as a Creative than ever before. There's 7.4 billion people on the planet. Make a fraction of 0.000001% enamored with your Creative product (be it yourself as an entertainer, your book series, your erotic app game, whatever), and you can hold your own.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like the "1000 true fans" concept - [https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true- fans/](https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/) \- i.e., you "just" need a 1000 people who are willing to pay a net 100$ / year for what you create.

<comment><USER6> From a marketers perspective... that's not as easy as it looks.

To get 1,000 True Fans to commit we probably need to expose the product to 50,000 "True Fans". Hoping for a 2% conversion rate.

To reach 50,000 True Fans we will probably have to create awareness with a larger group of potential True Fans that have a strong connection to your Fandom, maybe 500,000.

To reach 1/2 a million people you are going to have to get well beyond a few posts to your niche subeditors or making the front page on Hacker News.

If you come up with some great advertisements and eventually starting landing your $100 per year True Fans, it might end up costing you $20 each to find them. Not a huge problem... assuming you can do it. It's tough because in addition to coding your own app you now had to learn how to be a pretty decent user of AdSense or Facebook Ads. That is very possible, but it does eat into the time you have to work on your core business.

And now you need another 200 fans to pay for the ads you have been buying.

<comment><USER9> If you double your conversion rate, you halve the needed audience size. If you target a niche with a competent product, you will not need massive reach to the general audience. Gaming is a rich medium with many underserved communities that would love to pay for what they like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (Sort of a tangent, but it is called out in the article...) Why DO companies insist on starting out in the bay area? Is it really that hard to find talent in second-string tech hubs?

<comment><USER11> The answer I keep hearing is that it keeps the founders near the VC money, which doesn't make sense here as I don't believe Telltale was pursuing that.

I've always wondered how much cash Double Fine burns through to stay in SF.

<comment><USER12> Telltale was VC funded. [https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/53723-08](https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/53723-08)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > trends like online shooters, Battle Royale games, loot boxes, or any of the > other fads that have pulled teams off course with the false promise of easy > money

Citation? Because I always thought that game studios switched to these because they _were_ "easy money", not because they were fads. Critics and journalists disliking a thing is different than it not being a successful strategy.

<comment><USER14> In the Battle Royals space the place is littered with the corpses of devs and publishers who kept on the fad. PUBG got there first, and then FortNite leapfrogged them, and to be blunt all of other attempts are names with little or no recognition. Remember The Culling II? Yeah, neither do I. And I don't remember the dozens of other games that have tried to copy the formula and never even got the trivial recognition of something like Radical Heights, which killed its publisher Boss Key.

Fade in games go something like this: a workable formula makes someone a lot of money. They rise and at a certain thresholds major publishers take note and iterate, crushing the original. Then other publishers inject said mechanics into their flagship games until people are so sick of them that they can't stand it. There is a reason why all of the big upcoming shooters like CoD IV have battle royale modes.

To a lesser extent fads can burn out without studios ever really getting into it because it's too small (relatively speaking of course). Surgeon Simulator set of _years_ of "simulator" games ranging from I Am Bread to Black Screen Simulator. Eventually we got Shower With Your Dad Simulator which subverted the genre a bit, and set of another explosion of imitation. These indie fads tend to follow that pattern of initial massive explosion followed by secondary ignition when some slight twist on the formula introduces some air to the. mixture, and this repeats with smaller explosions until the last dregs of fuel are exhausted.

Zombie modes are another example, as are hero shooters like OverWatch (the "big thing" before BR). Remember LawBreakers? Exactly.

[https://www.gamecrate.com/shadow-overwatch-how-games-are- try...](https://www.gamecrate.com/shadow-overwatch-how-games-are-trying-and- failing-compete/16712) What we're seeing now with BR as it played out last cycle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Although a lot of the commentary and criticism from people is the bad culture but I really think this was a secondary problem, after all bad culture from the top (autocratic behaviour plus harsh deadlines?) might not kill you. (Apple, Tesla, etc.)

But it would seem the most important aspect is really the declining sales every year that could likely be due to business decisions from the top or simply a cash management issue where the cash at hand was not getting replenished at hand fast enough which again could be a business decision gone wrong based on overly positive sales expectations.

<comment><USER16> Could a side issue be that the game format just wasn't sustainable? The sales steadily declined after Walking Dead because it's just more of the same?

FWIW, I thought the first Walking Dead was super interesting. It reminded me of those old Choose Your Adventure books. I had a blast playing it because it _felt_ like there was weight behind the decisions. After beating it, I started a fresh game so I could go through a totally different path / play style and... the illusion shattered. The choices didn't have any notable effect on the game.

And that was that. I just wasn't interested after the first game.

<comment><USER17> Yeah I feel the same. The Sam&Max titles by telltale are wild. There's weird shit going on in these games, especially later on.

However, after the walking dead, the walking dead, wolf among us, minecraft story mode... they kinda feels the same. And as you say, the games are not a divergent graph like witcher 3 or the avenged is. It's more of a fork/join graph, with very low distance from fork to join.

From there, I had no interest in their other games, tbh. I bought Minecraft Story mode entirely because I like Petra, but that's about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would summarize it more simply as a failure of business to manage their money. Ed Catmull calls it "Feeding the Beast." They tried to turn interactive narrative into a factory that cranked out new titles.

It's a shame. I haven't connected with stories in video games for a while. I still long for the emotional depth of Mass Effect and TWAU. Telltale was one of the good ones.

</comment><comment><USER19> > Frankly, if I was an investor I'd refuse to give my money to any ninny who > wanted to set up shop in any of the overcrowded, overpriced tech hubs.

I've wondered about this, VC's aren't stupid, what's the disconnect?

If I were starting a company in CA I'd go to Davis. (FWIW)

<comment><USER20> Yes VCs aren't stupid (well mostly) - they know you won't be able to hire as many similarly talented/experienced people in Atlanta. Want to hire some ex- faang empoyee? Fogetaboutit.

And what's in Davis? For all intents and purposes it's just more expensive Atlanta

<comment><USER19> > you won't be able to hire as many similarly talented/experienced people

But we're talking about _starting_ a company. Typically you'll already have a technical co-founder or someone, no? If you grow you can grow to SF. Has no VC ever asked, "Would you be willing to relocate to <CHEAPER CITY> for two years?"

> And what's in Davis?

UC Davis.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Davi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Davis)

> In 2006, Davis was ranked as the second most educated city (in terms of the > percentage of residents with graduate degrees) in the US by CNN Money > Magazine...

~[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis,_California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis,_California)

Have you been there? It's nice. :-) It's close to the Bay Area and has lower costs and UC Davis. (And you don't have to put up with the _constant cold winds!_ It's toasty there all year 'round!)

<comment><USER20> What's the point of starting in nowhere to relocate to sfba as soon as you need to hire anyone?

Is UCD so much better than Georgia Tech? Some might disagree.

Not surprised it has most ppl with degrees - it's probably mostly school staff and some intel employees.

It's not that close that you can actually drive to the bay in a reasonable amount of time on a workday

<comment><USER19> > What's the point of starting in nowhere to relocate to sfba as soon as you > need to hire anyone?

Save millions of dollars?

> Is UCD so much better than Georgia Tech? Some might disagree.

But then you'd be in Georgia...

> Not surprised it has most ppl with degrees - it's probably mostly school > staff and some intel employees.

That's my point: it's a University town crawling with smart people.

> It's not that close that you can actually drive to the bay in a reasonable > amount of time on a workday

So what? It's not Outer Mongolia. You can visit the city easily. I'm not suggesting a daily commute.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> How did telltale have 90 developers to lay off in 2017? Wasn't their bread and butter a pretty simple quicktime event engine and their differentiator storytelling?

</comment><comment><USER22> The video games industry is where we consistently hear some of the worst stories of workers being mistreated and lied to under dysfunctional management in toxic cultures. Constant crunch time for games that don't even succeed in the market.

What would anti-union libertarians say about the labor conditions there? Workers should just avoid the game industry until more tolerable and better- paying workplaces arise? How is organizing workers not a valid solution to the problems there? Do they think that unions will somehow make the situation _worse_?

<comment><USER23> Collective bargaining relies on negotiating blanket policies for all the workers. In some industries, that is fine. If all your brick layers get paid the same and given the same breaks, and all your brick-laying supervisors get their standard supervisor pay, that might be for the better.

It doesn't work that way for knowledge workers and creative types. Some people are rare talents, some people are just okay. Some people fill wear 5 different hats and cover responsibilities outside their title. One artist may be the visionary behind your greatest success, another just follows orders, but both are on the same team and at the same level of the hierarchy.

If you force a system where everyone makes the same salary based on how long they've worked there, the best people will leave. But if people negotiate for themselves, it isn't collective bargaining anymore, and you don't have a union.

Want to prevent burnout? The union negotiates for rigid 9 to 5 hours. Many creative people will hate it. Or you let people come in when the want, but they have to fill out a timesheet, can't work overtime without the approval of both a manager and a union rep, and have to adhere to rigid guidelines.

Unions can't work without bureaucracy, but creative people and creative organizations don't work well with bureaucracy.

<comment><USER24> >> It doesn't work that way for knowledge workers and creative types.

SAG WGA DGA

Last I checked all the best people in those fields were members.

<comment><USER25> The reason that Unions work for Hollywood is that the final product is dependent on a small number of specific people (mainly actors, but also writers and directors). If those people refuse to work, there is no product. Because actors are unified and honor the other less powerful unions they imbue them with power. Teamsters can strike and gain concessions from studios because actors won't cross the picket line.

Knowledge workers are largely cogs. No game project can be held hostage by one or a several critical employees. A majority of game jobs have already left California, with drop in replacements in Shanghai or Montreal or Austin.

<comment><USER22> Sounds like this article illustrates the vital importance in writers to adventure games. Telltale Games' post Walking Dead Season 1 efforts specifically failed because the writing was not as strong and just attempted to replicate the success of the first.

<comment><USER25> They are vitally important, but they aren't perceived by the public as vitally important, so their negotiating power is limited.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Deployment Age (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://reactionwheel.net/2015/10/the-deployment-age.html <comment><USER2> Discussed a bit at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10399132](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10399132)</comment>


Show HN: A django-inspired JavaScript templating system - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/deoxxa/node-ginger

<comment><USER2> Isn't "new Function" as evil as "eval" is evil? I guess when you call something a Compiler, it's allowed to do evilish stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's definitely evil, when it's used at runtime. In general (non-testing) usage, it would be written out to a file after compilation and there'd be no eval() action at runtime.

<comment><USER3> Why is eval evil? Because it's insecure? Inefficient?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's mainly just slow - the whole set of code has to be parsed, processed, validated, run, etc every time it's used.

It's not insecure in this usage (even if it were used on the client), as all the actual code is generated by uglify-js via an AST and it takes care of properly escaping everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For all I know Django's templating system is probably the worst templating system in the entire python web ecosystem.

<comment><AUTHOR> The only thing I'm really taking from the django system is the syntax and some of the concepts. As far as I know, it's implemented completely differently. Very simple django/jinja2 templates will compile with Ginger, but the functionality is designed to be closer to Twig than anything.</comment></comment>


Putin runs Windows XP on his computer that is vulnerable to hacking - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/vladimir-putin-uses-windows-xp-on-computer-report-2019-12 <comment><USER2> Not a problem if it is not connected to outside network</comment>


PgFormatter: A PostgreSQL SQL syntax beautifier - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/darold/pgFormatter <comment><USER2> Pasting "SELECT 1,2," then clicking [FORMAT MY CODE] on their online demo[1] seems to break something. It renders the site header, but nothing else.

[1] [http://sqlformat.darold.net/](http://sqlformat.darold.net/)

Also, a similar tool was recently discussed: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18087514](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18087514)

<comment><USER3> injection lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do we need to use caps for SQL keywords? My understanding is that it served a purpose back in the days of monochrome screens, but modern IDEs colour the keywords so caps are now redundant. Though I don't use caps even without colouring, I find them just a nuisance.

<comment><USER5> No, not at all. SQL is case agnostic unless you're talking about field collations or, in many systems, object names. It's also largely whitespace agnostic. Many RDBMSs will handle this just fine:

      select*from"MyTable"where"column"=3

<comment><USER4> Ah, the whitespace agnostic didn't even occur to me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A 100% Perl project in 2018 is a rare sight.

(Implementing a SQL formatter in pure SQL is not impossible, but would be quite a tour de force. Just a thought.)

<comment><USER7> The most productive language of Gilles, well-known in the Postgres community by the way, is perl, and he can do completely crazy things with it. See for example pgbadger ([https://github.com/darold/pgbadger](https://github.com/darold/pgbadger)), one of his other projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sometimes this ([https://zeroturnaround.github.io/sql- formatter/](https://zeroturnaround.github.io/sql-formatter/)) does a better job for me. Doesn't support Postgres explicitly but works most of the time.

</comment><comment><USER9> Am I the only one irked by the concept of beautiful SQL? SQL is beautiful by itself. Pick a style (indents,caps,whatever) that fits the project at hand. I have found it useful to write the more mundane parts of a project like a regular paragraph with minimal whitespace, and do more whitespace in areas that are more complex or more likely need attention later. Depending too much on a standard style (ironically) lends itself to some pretty ugly code, eg. tangling too many joins and subqueries that would be far better handled by separate statements.

</comment><comment><USER10> The stark difference between a formatter and a formatter officially blessed by the parent project, is that the former is far more vulnerable to having its output viewed with a jaundiced eye and the formatter being cast away.

I remember trying the one from TFA and NOPE-ing out immediately. Similarly, "sqlfmt" that was on HN recently. If there was an official Postgres formatter, I would probably persevere despite whatever oddities it would inevitably have.

<comment><USER2> The sqlfmt one pulls in the cockroachdb parser, and that team has a fairly big incentive to be compatible with PG syntax. Nobody is perfect, but it seems set up to stay current/correct.

<comment><USER10> I meant the style choices. But it did also choke on Identity Columns IIRC ([https://blog.2ndquadrant.com/postgresql-10-identity- columns/](https://blog.2ndquadrant.com/postgresql-10-identity-columns/)).

Not knocking either project - just pondering adoption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'll have to see if I can adapt this to my somewhat idiosyncratic syntax:

      SELECT field, other_field
        FROM table
       WHERE some_thing IN (
             SELECT id
               FROM other_table
             )
         AND other_field IS NOT NULL

(mostly it's right-aligning keywords, but there are a few other weird tweaks)

<comment><USER12> I do similar, keeps both keywords and fields vertically aligned.

<comment><USER13> I do too, but it breaks down on me for some specific:

* ORDER BY

* INNER JOIN

etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like Notepad++'s Poor Man's SQL Formatter plug-in. Works well for anything I do.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've never heard of a code formatter called a "syntax beautifier" before. The phrase "syntax beautifier" sounds more like a compiler plug-in that actually changes the language syntax to something more beautiful.

<comment><USER16> It's a relatively common name. I would say it might even be more common than the alternative of "code formatter". I do agree that the syntax of the language isn't changing, but it does seem like the phrase that has stuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I really hope there will be a sql formatter like prettier for javascript, I have tried Intellij's sql formater and mysql workbench's sql formatter, neither has some warts.

<comment><USER18> [https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/sql-fmt-online-sql- format...](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/sql-fmt-online-sql-formatter/) was on here last week. It's a sql formatter based on the same paper prettier is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Looks like they might need a formatter to beautify their README too.

<comment><USER16> I might be missing something, but it seems like a fairly high quality README file. What do you feel is wrong with it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Do you really need to serve ads on your demo site?

Maybe you do, but that doesn't seem very OSS.</comment>


Satellite Snafu Masked True Sea Level Rise for Decades - <AUTHOR> Oops, fumbled submission attempt on my iPhone, and left off URL. I did it over and resubmitted with a good URL, but can't seem to delete this submission. <comment><USER2> Resubmitted in: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14804100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14804100)

</comment><comment><USER2> You forgot the URL. Try submitting again.</comment>