Why Developing Serious Relationships in Your 20s Matters - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/architecting-a-life/cff4161f551c <comment><USER3> How about we all just chill the fuck out?

Stop worrying about whether you've left it too late to be the next Zuckerberg. Stop worrying about whether you've sacrificed your future happiness on the temple of Mammon. Just live your damned life, one day at a time. If you think that everything is going fine, you're probably right; If you think that things are all fucked up, you're also probably right.

Stop letting douchebags with blogs give you life advice. They don't know you, they don't know your life, they probably don't know much of anything. For all their bravado, they're working from a sample size of one, just like everyone else.

I'm sick of all these lifestyle posts on HN that are full of absolutism and false certitude. I'm sick of this attitude that your life is a dismal failure if it isn't micro-managed down to the last millisecond. I'm sick of being given life advice by weathly, privileged Americans who think they're wise because they've made it to their thirties without massively fucking anything up.

<comment><USER4> > How about we all just chill the fuck out?

That's no option. At least for men.

Men are restless hunters and highly competitive creatures. Men thrive when taking risks, when being in a fight and when they finally won and dominate their peers. As sad it sounds this is what we need and make us happy. We can have breaks from time to time like working as dull office drones avoiding any risks and watching Youporn before bedtime but we degenerate when this state of boredom sticks for longer time. Even if Zuckerberg, its Facebook and the constant flow of successes of peers on the FB news feed drives many into depression, men need this to get out of their comfort zone and start fighting.

(Besides, I think that the original article is crap as many lifestyle advices)

<comment><USER5> Posts like yours make me want to cut off my penis and write "Eunuch" under "Sex" on my ID. But I won't, because the government won't let me first, and because I'm more of a chill kind of person, second.

<comment><USER4> > make me want to cut off my penis and write "Eunuch" under "Sex" on my ID.

Just getting your testicles removed would do the job too -- but seriously, please get some advice before doing anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've pursued many women in my life, and failed. I'm not especially tall, good looking, or rich, but I am smart, somewhat charismatic, and have a solid character.

Everything I've done in my adult life has been motivated by my desire to be attractive to women that I'm interested in; studying hard to get good grades, going to grad school, pursuing good employment, developing my personal and social skills, working out, everything. I'm getting better all the time, and I see my successes, but now in my 30s I'm not sure what the message is here.

Should I have just grabbed any woman that would have me, even if I'm not interested in them for the sole purpose of "developing a serious relationship"?

<comment><USER7> Contrary to popular belief, looks don't matter to everybody. Some women go for tall, muscular men, some go for rich guys, but I don't want either of those; I like people if they can hold an interesting conversation and not get annoyed or upset with things that don't really matter in life, and I want a woman that likes me because of those same reasons.

But it took me a long time to reach this conclusion. I used to work out in order to be more attractive, but stopped, because I didn't like it and it seemed like a chore without proper motivation (plus, having some extra fat is good health-wise and for enjoying water sports); now I sometimes work out because I want to get better in sports. I studied pick-up and seduction, but realized that most of it is just games and lies, and that I don't have in me whatever is necessary to use those to attract people. Also, whatever success I've achieved, I tried to keep it secret for as long as possible, because I didn't want people, girls especially, to like me because of the fortunate life circumstances I had encountered.

For the past two years, I've been single. And picky; I've only pursued women that I was totally attracted to. I didn't seduce anyone; that means pretending, but I was just being me. I went out a lot, met new people, tried new things, went to events I wouldn't normally go. If I saw someone I liked, I tried to meet her, but only rarely managed to even talk to her. There were many failures; rejections, or I didn't like her, but ultimately there is only one reason: we weren't compatible. Then, all of a sudden, I met someone, completely unexpectedly, and I didn't even think I would like her initially (I've lost all hope). But she totally surprised me, she's the best girl ever.

I hope this helps; I tried following other people's advice and accept their values, but I couldn't. Then, I lived life according to my values and tried to meet people compatible with _me_. Initially, I've failed, but I kept my standards, and finally, I've met someone special. Do what you want, meet people, be friendly and honest, and someday, you will meet someone who is awesome beyond your wildest dreams!

<comment><USER8> All my upvotes are go to you! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article reminds me of a book I recently read: "The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter" by Meg Jay– I highly recommend it to anyone in their 20s.

Some portions of it apply more to the 20-something working at Starbucks while waiting for his band to make it big, and the HN crowd won't relate much to that, but there's plenty of other solid advice that I definitely related to.

I'm not usually big on the self-help books, but here it's a psychologist talking about examples she's had of patients dealing with their personal/professional/love life and how they addressed those things. It's a quick read- recommended.

<comment><USER10> I think a lot of startup folks are very much like the barista waiting for the record label to discover him and his buddies' musical talents. It's a good analogy actually.

<comment><USER11> Except 4x the average income.

<comment><USER10> Mostly... but I know a lot that would do better to take the barista job :-/ </gallows-humor>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Define a serious relationship! What's the significant property? A duration over 6 months? Or you already moved together? That's a difficult thing to do.

As far as I understood, Elizabeth is somewhere near her 40ies and I'm not sure if she even developed her serious relationship in her 30ies, as she is quite ambitious herself and comments, that she met her significant other at work... that happens a lot. But what really surprised me, that this almost got her and/or the other fired. I know a large amount of couples, who work at the same place and everything is fine!

And most importantly: What if, there was not this girl. This guy?

For me there was not this girl and I am 30. Of course, I had serious beautiful relationships with all the grinding imposed by one or two ambitious humans and also the nicer sides. But in the end, I'm single now and love to work on ambitious projects where I meet ambitious people!

Be, who you are and be proud of that. Love will hit you anyway and there is no need for a "task" or the hassle of developing serious relationships in your 20ies. It can happen to you any time, no matter of age. Even in your 80ies. If you are not convinced, watch this:

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1602620/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>

</comment><comment><USER13> I found this honestly repulsive. It's one thing to shun those who would steer someone away from what feels natural, and it's another to offer life advice based on what one perceives to be the norm. Just because you got hitched early doesn't mean I want/have to.

<comment><AUTHOR> > it's another to offer life advice based on what one perceives to be the > norm.

But isn't that the case when anyone gives life advice? Everyone has their own own perceptions of norms.

<comment><USER13> Not if the life advice is any good. It's like your maternal figure always told you, "If your friends were jumping off a bridge, would YOU?" (paraphrased)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Over the past few days, several articles about how crucial your 20s are have been posted to HN. I find them quite depressing. I can only hope that the blog cycle is like the news cycle, and that these posts will stop once it stops being the topic of the week.

<comment><USER15> I know. I thought I wasn't supposed to have introspective life crises until middle age. At 27, this wave of 20s themed self improvement/"watch out" articles are making me feel like a failure the same way Calvin Klein ads make me feel like I'll never be attractive.

The most depressing part about the article is that it starts out with the assumptions that you have opportunities for relationships available to you that you're willingly passing on and that you're getting laid on "a regular basis".

Yeah, write me an article on how to satisfy your assumptions first, and then I'll follow whatever advice you've got about what comes afterward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article is the most depressing thing I've read in a long time. It's like it hit on all of my inadequacies and faults, and told me that because of them, I am fucked.

<comment><USER17> You and me both man. I feel terrible now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is pretty personal stuff to say using an account that's tied to my real name, but hey, we're all friends here now, so why not.

I'm in the target demographic for this post (I turn 29 on Tuesday), and I'm seriously considering making a conscious decision to be permanently single.

I understand that people find a lot of happiness in relationships, but I just don't think I'm capable of making room in my life for another person, and I don't think I'd make a particularly good boyfriend. I'd have to become a dramatically better person - something I don't know if I have it in me to do.

Does this make me somehow broken? Are there others who feel this way too?

<comment><USER19> I actually relate rather strongly to your post...I've eventually come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to stay single. I feel that sometimes people put too much emphasis on sex and relationships as a mandatory part of a successful life.

Girlfriends take up a LOT of time. If you find someone who's a perfect match, then go for it. But scooping out valuable time in your life for a relationship that's merely ho-hum probably isn't worth it. For people who are very smart, like a good portion of the tech crowd, the relative stupidity of the general population eliminates a good portion of women, too, which certainly exacerbates the situation.

Mathematically speaking, I know the chances of me finding a long term significant other are very small. My last girlfriend was an electrical engineer, and she moved to the midwest from the east coast. It was great while it lasted, but she was literally the only attractive smart and technical person I've ever met in this area who was interested in people like me. Whenever I see my friends with their girlfriends, it always makes me feel a bit lonely. I know that logically speaking, it's not something I can or should have, since I don't think I'd make a very good significant other (for some difficult personal reasons). But it's still something that bothers me at night.

<comment><USER8> (disclaimer: not a shill) go on okc, i didz have success! (took a few months... be patient). also, if you really want it, be willing to look outside your area. mine was several states away but totally worth it!

<comment><USER19> Ah, that's where I found my EE girlfriend, actually. I don't think I'd have had even that without OKC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Jobs are replaceable. People you truly love are not.

Thanks for sharing. A wonderful article which summarizes the whole purpose of why we live. Work should be the means to the living experience rather than the ONLY living experience.

<comment><USER21> > Jobs are replaceable. People you truly love are not.

It is strange we suggest this only to people who are not pursuing arts. May be it does exist some shallowness to 'jobs' but I fail to see it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I chose not to move out to the Valley so I could stay in a great relationship, and it has proved to be an extremely good decision. My life would not be nearly as enriched as it is if all I did was work, and had I moved there I too probably would have fallen into the trap of putting career above everything else. My bank account isn't quite as fat as it could be had I moved there, but then again I pay half the rent--less, actually--and spend less on pretty much everything else as well, not to mention I have no state income tax, and I still get a pretty high salary.

That said, I understand everybody is different. Although I will say that I too thought I was somebody who didn't need a relationship. I changed my mind when I fell into a great one and saw first hand what it had to offer.

There's also a quality to young love that I don't think you could ever find once you hit middle age. At the risk of sounding really shallow, young people are much more beautiful on average. But it's not just that. The experience of growing old with someone is considerably different from meeting someone when you've both already aged a good amount. These are experiences that you will never be able to have if you put them off for too long. The same cannot be said of work.

<comment><USER10> I think you make a good point. It's the innocence and naivety of young love as well that's something irreplaceable as you age and life takes its toll. It's something beautiful to hold on to whether you win or lose at it, and it's a life experience worthwhile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So many college graduates escape to Silicon Valley precisely to avoid these standard expectations for romance.

The article is wrong about what holds back relationships for 20s engineers. It isn't careerism as she claims. It's that the engineer is a militant libertarian, an autistic savant or a polymath of software development.

No normal woman wants to date a passionately unempathetic man. If you can't sympathize with poor people, or things that don't interest you (like humanities majors), how are you supposed to convince a normal woman you care about her feelings and her passions in spite of your voracious narcissism and ego?

OkCupid and polyamory are our sexual revolution, not "affairs." IVFs and surrogates are our reproductive revolutions. Technology exists to make the frightening Unempathetic Man capable of reproducing himself (and feeling sexually satisfied).

I feel extraordinarily lucky that I got to date a normal white girl my age at my school from 20-22 in college. I'm glad we still love each other as adults. I look down Mass Ave and wonder in terror how different my life would be if the women I met thought having two simultaneous boyfriends was okay.

</comment><comment><USER6> I find this article a little condescending and trite, most of the things you "need to learn" are skills you develop from interacting with people in general, not just in personal romantic relationships.

</comment><comment><USER24> If you view it as a deadline item to tick off a list, is it really a relationship?

<comment><USER25> I don't follow.

<comment><USER26> Is your relationship authentic if you're forcing to put yourself in one before you hit 30?

<comment><USER10> I don't think that is what the OP's saying at all. I think the point is that shutting yourself in to work on code 24/7 startup after startup for year after year (which is very easy to do in Silicon Valley - you look up and five years went by) is going to limit you at a time when the most important skills you need for your long term happiness are being learned.

<comment><USER26> I know that's what the OP meant and I agree with what she's saying. I was just translating what <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5273223> was saying to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5273250>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I started a serious relationship three years ago, and it just ended few weeks ago when my ex cheated on me with one of my friend while I was in an exchange country.

Looking backward, there was a few signs of eventual disaster, but the conclusion was very unexpected (for me, my friends, her friends, and even her family).

However, despite the double betrayal, I think I have learned a lot from the whole experience (including the three years before the break-up). Not simply about relationships, but also about myself. So I kind of agree: if you can have a serious relationship, see it as an occasion to grow up. And if it doesn't work (and it seems that it probably won't, sadly :(), see it as another occasion to grow up. Don't be afraid of an eventual disappointement.

Disclosure: was my first relation. Definitely not an expert.

<comment><USER10> You never become an expert no matter how many times you level up. The experiences are still worth it though :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Responding to: "deathbed wishes rarely include, 'If only I had put another twenty hours a week in at the office! That slightly cleaner product release would have made all the difference.'"

Not that it matters all that much, but I honestly believe deathbed wishes often include "I wish I had more of an impact on the world". You can get that through relationships (by procreating), or you can get that through building stuff. Or a combination of both.

Trying to trivialize the hard work people do to release products is like trivializing the time people spend at the gym or the salon, attempting to stay attractive in order to establish better relationships.

It's a small part of something larger. Trying to change the world by building stuff is not something to be ashamed of.

</comment><comment><USER29> I can only speak from my own experience but I found myself largely nodding my head (I've recently joined the early thirties crowd).

I worked in SV right out of college - Facebook was basically a blip on the radar and the coolest mobile phones still had physical buttons. I worked my ass off the first few years mostly because I had landed a great paying job (meaning I no longer was making 12/hr) and had no idea what kind of performance was not good enough. It was really fun and exciting for a while. I was fortunate to meet and marry someone that was right for me during my "later years" in SV. Being a proud geek I have been in a few relationships before but was not and am still not a relationship guru. The only thing I do know is that a (real, long-term) relationship will most likely push both of you to the max on everything... fun, happiness, stress, frustration, disappointment, etc, etc. While it has always had its ups and downs I feel very fortunate - <USER2> tech stuff is fun, I still enjoy it but the relationship, family, kids etc makes life really dynamic (sometimes in ways you may not like but its part of the deal).

I know I may sound like an old man but I think Id tell any aspiring techie coming out of school to try to make it a priority to figure out if they want to be married (and if so obviously to whom) and if they want to have kids. (As a note there is nothing wrong with not wanting these things) From my own experience I've felt that in your 20s (within the tech world) there are mostly only socioeconomic influences that deter you from going that route whether its the cost of living in the city or a professional dream that seemingly needs your full-time dedication. While it is not a ticking time bomb there definitely are certainly some fuzzy limits on the time you have to do these things that seem to come faster than you might think. (I dont want to get into a discussion about menopause or marriage later in life but I think its healthy to recognize the marriage/kids stuff does slowly get progressively harder later in life for most people).

Anyhow for me around 30 life started to look a little bit different to me. I like my work but its just a piece of my life. I used to spend 90% of my time working in tech or going home and playing with tech. I still do so to some degree but I have to admit that Im glad its no longer my only primary thing Im involved with.

</comment><comment><USER4> Saw this thread when it had just 2 points and hoped it won't get upvoted since it's just -- sorry to say -- a useless post full of misinformation without delivering any message. I highly doubt the author has enough experience with building relationships, getting laid, get the right one and so on:

Now, since it's on the front page my view. You have two options:

Either you spend your time in your early 20s chasing women and spending all your time on building relationships and getting laid or:

Start at least 5 startups until you are 25 and hope that one of them gets kind of profitable or even better and you do an exit. Starting later is getting harder and harder, you are spoiled by high salaries and laid back office work and suddenly you have a child and it's getting to risky to start anything. The experience you make as an employee hardly help you as an entrepreneur but you need to fail often as an entrepreneur -- every failed startup brings you tons of experience and closer to a successful company.

Back to the girls: if you got successful with your startups you don't have to think about relationships and girls -- you'll send so much self-confidence and they're will be tons of opportunities. And even if you still do startups which didn't succeed you have much more to tell then any office drone. You'll have much more opportunities than those who desperately looking for the SO without having a life or anything to tell. That doesn't mean that you should omit any social life or getting laid while building a startup, it just means don't focus on this, focus on being an entrepreneur.

</comment><comment><USER30> I did a startup then got out for precisely the same reasons the author states.

You won't always be young, but a startup at any age is always possible. Since money will never be able to buy time (though I'd love to see a time machine or a reversal of aging), I chose the former. I don't regret doing a startup, but I'm happy where I'm at today. Getting my head out of the rat race has been one of the best decision I've ever made.

</comment><comment><USER31> Do most people really live like that in their twenties? Getting laid all the time, unstable relationships and so on? I kind of thought that there was a lot of media hype in that story.

Anyway, I think the main thing is that having kids in your thirties is a lot more stressful, in the sense that you usually want to have a stable relationship before having kids together, and time is running out. There is that biological clock ticking, at least for women - while men have more options, it means having to find a significantly younger woman to have children with.

And once you have children, you realize that it would have been nice to be younger. It means being in better shape to play with your kids, being able to be there for them longer, and a higher chance to experience grandchildren.

</comment><comment><USER10> The broad point here is a very important one.

I came to Silicon Valley in my late 20s. I'd already had a lot of relationship ups and downs. I got married not long after getting here. I'm now, um, older...

It's great for folks who are fresh out of college that a bunch of middle-aged VCs who missed the boat on Zuckerberg because after the dot.com boom they were "playing it safe" backing their MBA buddies in startups which went nowhere, are now desperately trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted and find the next Zuckerberg by investing in very young entrepreneurs. It's great. There is some brilliant innovative consumer apps that have come from this - diamonds in a pile of rhinestones admittedly, but they're real.

When I was 22 and my best friend were 21 we were being laughed out of every funding source we could find by suggesting that (this is in 1993/4 mind you) we set up an "Internet Service Provider" because we were European Physicists when the world wide web was created by and for European Physicists and we thought it was going to be big. "What is this Internet thing? ...It's an American fad, going nowhere... you're just two young techies with no business experience... etc." I am genuinely glad the environment is better today than it was then.

However (yeah there's a but)... it's breeding a generation of young technical talent burnt out on mediocre over-angel-funded startups with little real world life or experience. It's not that either end of the spectrum is right - it's that we've gone too far past a happy medium.

I used to run an internship program and I'd advise the young undergrads that they should get out and do the things they want to do after college, take risks, travel while you can and while you're young. So long as you have a good narrative, have learned a lot from your experiences, and take the opportunity to grow up and gain perspective on the world, people will forgive almost anything before you're thirtieth birthday so long as you're prepared to knuckle down and focus by then.

I don't think that's true today. We've created an environment where to be a first time entrepreneur over thirty is seen as questionable. By 40 even with experience if you haven't already had a home run it's VERY difficult to get financial backing right now. This is irrational of course. The idea that real world experience dulls your blade which would otherwise have been fresh, right out of college, is silly.

I am happy that I didn't spend my 20s just getting burned out. After we couldn't get our startup off the ground, we finished our degrees, did some real world work, got some life experience, and I don't think either of us was worse for it as a person.

I meet a lot of people looking around in their thirties and realizing, like this article says, that they've never really learned the broad range of interpersonal skills and relationship skills outside of the startup bubble.

Do what you love to do for work. Absolutely. But don't lay on your death bed wishing you'd worked less and loved more. Really. Don't do that.

<comment><USER32> I've found I travel and do more interesting things running a company than when I had a normal job or when I was a student. And the freedom of running an internet company means I could do it anywhere I want and still get paid (though to be honest, I don't utilize that much yet).

<comment><USER33> Cold, Mexican tile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Hmm---a bunch of 20s-40s men, well-versed in an area traditionally associated with lack of sex appeal, pursuing fame and fortune by taking on risk.

This is _not_ that hard to parse.

</comment><comment><USER35> Reading the article and reading the comments almost gave me a panic attack. Just broke up for real today (the breakup dragged on for few months.)... 3.5 years of relationship ended for reasons that I can never never understand.. Why is relationship so hard?

<comment><USER36> I'm guessing you're male, and that's why. Also, good luck and keep going.

<comment><USER37> I don't think so, [her] first name is "cathy".

<comment><USER35> Thanks for pointing that out! Hahaha. Xijuan is actually my first name but it is my Chinese name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Zuck spent 50 minutes with his girlfriend a week when he was starting Facebook.

<comment><USER39> Seriously try that on a girl and let me know how it works out for you. Perhaps if you have as much coverage as Facebook in the media it might work but most likely she would dump you and with good reason. Heck I know I would. What's the point of a relationship with only that much time together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think this isn't really a 20s issue. You should always seek balance.

</comment><comment><USER36> Gender is so unbelievably, incredibly evil. Ban it until it's consensual.

</comment><comment><USER8> > It's not a question of whether each of these things will happen; it's a > question of when.

Don't like how she comes off as "super relationship expert full of wisdom" here. I don't care how many relationships she's had, or how old she is, not all relationships are created equal, and these things she calls "inevitabilities", while certainly common, are _not_ inevitable. Being in a relationship with that mindset could just turn it into a self-fulling prophesy.

As just one easy example, you don't have to have children, so her comment about kids doesn't apply to any couple that decides not to have kids.

<comment><USER10> I think that's failing to see the wood for the trees. She's pointing out a basket of serious problems people in long term relationships face... problems that when you're 20 seem distant or even irrelevant but by the time you hit 40 you nod your head and if you haven't had the exact same problem it's a good analogy for one you did have, because long term relationships - ones that last decades not months - are very hard and take a lot of learning.

It's not super relationship expert full of wisdom. It's the stuff the old people in your family used to tell you round the fireplace when we all had multi-generational homes and wisdom was passed down from generation to generation. Something we've lost today. The difference is you can't get mad at your gran for telling you stuff you don't want to hear.

<comment><USER8> I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. If you look at what I said, I wasn't really taking issue with the overall theme of her message, I was taking issue with how she chose to express it and some of the specific assertions she made. Gran and this woman would be making the same mistake: assuming that their life experience is somehow representative of the life experience of someone else. Sure, it's nice to listen to others and learn from the lessons they learned, but don't go telling others that they will have the same experiences you had, as though they are inevitabilities. I'd get mad at gran if she had said that too.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon Recommending Offers? Cool. Facebook? No Thanks - <AUTHOR> http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/amazon-recommending-offers-cool-facebook-no-thanks-142041

<comment><USER2> It's context. You go to Amazon to buy things, mostly. You go to Facebook to socialize, mostly.</comment>


GDPR has a few problems - <AUTHOR> https://wtfuh.com/2018-04-09/gdpr-has-a-few-problems/ <comment><USER2> Let's talk about group photos. Your class is on a school trip and you, a teacher, take a photo. Later, you distribute it among students. After that, one student says "I revoke my consent". What do you do?</comment>


Software to capture votes in upcoming German national election is insecure - <AUTHOR> https://ccc.de/en/updates/2017/pc-wahl <comment><USER2> Here's the report: [https://ccc.de/system/uploads/230/original/PC- Wahl_Bericht_C...](https://ccc.de/system/uploads/230/original/PC- Wahl_Bericht_CCC.pdf)

It's truly disastrous. Some of the findings:

\- The automated software updates have no signature and are downloaded insecurely over HTTP

\- The webserver the updates are downloaded from is hosted using a shared hosting package at 1&1, on a host with >5000 other customers (implying an easy takeover using local privilege escalation)

\- The reason they know this? They found multiple PHP scripts vulnerable to arbitrary read and write vulnerabilities, so they got full RCE on the server.

\- FTP access credentials for the website were contained in a public ZIP file (named test.zip)

\- Vote results are transmitted using either insecure FTP whose credentials weren't rotated for years or an equally insecure XML protocol. No signatures in sight.

\- Said insecure XML protocol is a _government standard_

They also took a look at one of the local government's infrastructure:

\- test/test were valid VPN credentials

\- FTP credentials were publicly downloadable with R/W access to vote results

\- Vote result encryption was reversible thanks to a hardcoded symmetric key

The report goes on to detail even more trivial security issues, including home-grown "encryption" algorithms worse than what you'd find in a beginner CTF challenge.

None of the steps taken in response addressed the fundamental, obvious security policy issues. Even their band-aid fixes were broken. For example, they started signing their binaries, but forgot to check the signature.

Given the lack of any security awareness whatsoever, even if they properly sign their binaries, their build server is probably easy to compromise.

RCE demo: [https://vimeo.com/232581770](https://vimeo.com/232581770)

Have a look at the site in question: [https://www.wahlinfo.de/](https://www.wahlinfo.de/)

The local government they worked with responded by enforcing verification and transmission of the results using an independent channel.

<comment><USER3> Forget the problems electronic voting has if it's implemented well, this sort of stuff is the real reason to be worried about systems like this. Because there's a tendency for governments and councils to outsource the work to whatever contractors are the cheapest or to hire developers who don't know a thing about security.

A secure evoting system is hard enough to implement, and even a well done version is worse than a paper ballot. But it's the kind of system described here that'd be the likely result of electronic voting being implemented in countries like the US. A hacked together, insecure piece of junk that's wide open to being compromised by bad actors at every level.

<comment><USER4> > there's a tendency for governments and councils to outsource the work to > whatever contractors are the cheapest

Not just a tendency. When choosing a contractor, government offices in Germany are _required_ to choose the lowest bidder who fulfils (or rather, claims to fulfil) the requirements stated in the call for bids.

<comment><USER5> To be fair, that is more a rationale for having rally good people speccing your system and producing detailed requirements.

<comment><USER6> The level of detail your talking about to prevent the kind of mistakes they made is so specific that you might as well just develop the thing in house since you clearly already have the experience.

Maybe what we need is a rules that any critical government infrastructure should be independently pen tested before it's bought. This should hopefully put off the inexperienced from taking on such projects and offer a way out for governments should the contract go sour.

<comment><USER7> I agree, this is often an issue. In my company a lot of people only make specs, and the "development" for a lot of components is outsourced. But these specs are basically developed already, so in the end, we're only making the expensive developers write a spec that's so detailed that it's more work to write the detailed spec, than if you programmed it directly from a non- detailed spec.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Of note in general regarding elections in Germany is that there's constitutional right to be able to follow the process of elections including the vote count. That's also the reason behind electronic voting machines being banned because, while counting votes by hand is cumbersome, it's a process that everyone can follow and understand. You can actually watch the counting process if you want to.

And as the article states, at least one state apparently don't trust this software enough that they mandate verification that the correct results have been transmitted and obtained via an independent channel.

The only benefit all this has is that a preliminary result of an election can be obtained a few hours earlier. Whether that's worth having an election that can be manipulated without anyone noticing is anyone's guess, but I believe the BVerfG may have a say in that, as it did for voting machines.

<comment><USER9> Out of curiosity, to what extent are German political parties involved in the voting process? In the US, it's usually state governments that run it and they can be susceptible to whichever political party controls the government then. Sounds like Germany may handle this issue better?

<comment><USER10> Citizens are asked to manage the voting process and counting.

I've helped in this role for a long time, but considered my duty done as it sometimes was a lot of work deep into the nights especially if several elections and referendums where conducted at the same time.

Everyone can attend the voting process and counting process.

Schools etc. for places to vote, voting booths, paper etc. is supplied by the administration as is the selection of citizens who manage the voting and counting process. The Federal Returning Officer is responsible for organizing elections (for federal elections, similar posts exists for state elections and I assume local ones).

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

<comment><USER4> > Everyone can attend the voting process and counting process.

As a sidenote, this is not just a theoretical right. People are exercising it.

I volunteered as an election assistant in one of the previous elections in Germany. We were a team of five assigned to a constituency of about 1000 voters, and when we counted the votes, three citizens were present to observe the counting. As I submitted the results (via phone) to the next-higher level, I also noted the numbers down for myself and checked, later in the evening, that the numbers on the website of the returning officer matched those that I recorded. (They did.)

<comment><USER10> "As a sidenote, this is not just a theoretical right. People are exercising it."

Same experience here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just to clarify, voting machines are not used at all in Germany. The votes are made on paper ballots and counted entirely by hand.

The software this is about is for collecting the vote counts and transferring it to a central location, as far as I understand it. It's still a serious issue, but a quite different one to compromised voting machines.

<comment><USER12> "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Joseph Stalin)"

s/people/machines/ and you get the gist. Centralized tabulation machines are a ripe target for abuse.

<comment><USER13> you have paper as the source of truth. Sample paper counts look them up in the aggregated computer count, if they don't match _exactly_ invalidate the count and get the raw ballots.

Really it is serious, but not so serious as when you have _no_ paper as your source of truth, USA.

<comment><USER14> The US situation varies by state. Most states do have paper ballots.

[https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat...](https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Norway recently decided [0] it would manually count the votes in the upcoming election (11th of Sep) after it was revealed that the machines responsible for automatic counting were connected to the Internet and full of potential security exploits [1].

Some details on the software (ReadSoft FORMS) and the process (EVA Scanning): [https://valg.no/om-valg/om-valg2/maskinell-opptelling-av- val...](https://valg.no/om-valg/om-valg2/maskinell-opptelling-av-valg-i- norge/)

Sources (Norwegian only):

[0]: [https://www.nrk.no/norge/krever-manuell-stemmetelling-i- alle...](https://www.nrk.no/norge/krever-manuell-stemmetelling-i-alle- kommuner-1.13668374)

[1]: [https://www.nrk.no/norge/teller-opp-stemmer-i-valget-pa- data...](https://www.nrk.no/norge/teller-opp-stemmer-i-valget-pa-datamaskiner- tilkoblet-internett-1.13660659)

</comment><comment><USER16> I have yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of voting that involves networked computers.

I worked with a guy who was in charge of the IT for Colombia's elections years ago. He had many interesting (i.e., _harrowing_ ) stories of the attempts by "bad guys" to gain physical access to the central servers. Plus what are probably the usual stories of hacking attempts. I remember thinking, Why not just use paper ballots? No one is going to take office until months after the election.

The chief advantage of computers, speed of counting and providing results, is not needed in that situation, so the liabilities from its inherent vulnerability to altering votes outweigh the benefits.

<comment><USER17> >I have yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of voting that involves networked computers.

You do bigger and more important decisions than voting everyday from your phone and computer.

If voting were as easy as sending an email, you would be able to vote on every topic, instead of voting on someone every 4 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As scary as it is, this is one of the official websites of that software:

[https://www.wahlinfo.de/pcwahl/index.html](https://www.wahlinfo.de/pcwahl/index.html) (German only)

There is also [https://vote-it.de/?page_id=156](https://vote- it.de/?page_id=156) which is a bit more modern, but also shows this is a <10 person shop. Not at all what I expected.

<comment><USER19> > but also shows this is a <10 person shop

It's a niche market, I'm not surprised. I'd actually prefer if the software was paid for by the government and developed by a single (or a pair of) competent developers and open-sourced. It's probably possible to pull it of with that man-count, you certainly won't need more than a handful.

<comment><USER20> In the UK one of our problems is that a couple of companies really own it on 'expertise at winning government contracts'.

A small company isn't going to be able to compete there, Capita or someone will get it. They know how to go over budget by £Billions and still not deliver a working product ... I'm guessing it's similar across Europe because of procurement regulations for governments??

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Australia has not moved to electronic voting, I can't see it moving to electronic voting (especially in light of the recent online Census debacle), and I'm very glad for this.

</comment><comment><USER22> Paper based elections are the only way to ensure and verify elections are taking place honestly and fairly.

<comment><USER23> Why? Can you provide more detail?

<comment><USER22> It can be inspected and visible. You cannot verify a computer is running the exact same code you want it to be.

<comment><USER24> In a properly designed end-to-end verifiable voting system, you don't need to verify the code. Black boxes work just fine, you need to be able to verify that the output had indeed matched your input.

I'm not advocating use of computers, though. Believe paper ballots with some math attached are the way to go. That way there are both anti-fraud properties baked in the system (one can verify that their vote wasn't messed with), and the classic hard copies so any person who can do some basic arithmetic can count and re-count votes just fine.

Unfortunately, I think all the systems I've read about either were found to have some issues (usually, it's about vote secrecy) or just too new (essentially, not so well reviewed).

<comment><USER22> In order to verify the output matched the input, you will need paper and to verify it by hand. Which, is just a waste of time adding computers...

<comment><USER24> Not really. To verify, you need to perform the computations using the tools you can trust. It can be pen-and-paper-and-brain, or it can be a personal computer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think cybersecurity in general is hugely lacking. I have had personal devices compromised by an individualized targeted attack and found that there are no tools to easily and reliably diagnose which of your devices are compromised (at least for someone who is not a cybersecurity expert). It seems to me that if someone wants to compromise your devices, they can; offensive tools far outperform current defensive tools. There also does not seem to be any strong legal recourse.

</comment><comment><USER26> From a PR perspective, it would make sense that some White Hat Hackers (possibly crowd funded) put in the effort to actually capture such an election and turn the result into an obvious joke (e.g. by voting a fictional character or an obvious third-tier lunatic outsider).

This could be used as very illustrative material to teach the general public about these risks, better than some hypothetical scenarios and "boring" articles that the average voter is not going to read anyway.

<comment><USER27> To be fair, that's not really "white hat". Also being resistant to rigging is only one of the threat models of an election. The votes remaining anonymous is another one. I doubt that you can hack that in a "white hat" way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is also a YT-stream in German with one of the three authors (#heiseshow).

[https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/t0hSiyM4jiM](https://www.youtube- nocookie.com/embed/t0hSiyM4jiM)</comment>


With a new acquisition, Apple looks to improve workflow for developers - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/with-a-new-acquisition-apple-looks-to-improve-quality-of-life-for-developers/ <comment><USER2> They ought to fix the issues with Xcode first.</comment>


Don't Get Offended - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/gux/dont_get_offended/ <comment><USER2> An essential part of "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" is recognizing that humans are hard-wired for emotion, and that we all have a responsibility to understand the emotional impact our words and actions will have on other people.

"Don't get offended" may be an important message for you to assert to yourself to avoid losing your cool; but if you find yourself telling someone else not to get offended after saying or doing something offensive to that person, there's a good chance you are using this argument in a self-serving manner rather than the spirit of enlightened rationalism.

In other words, don't use "don't get offended" as an excuse to be a douchebag.

<comment> __--__ Being a douchebag varies by culture and context. What you're really saying is, let your current society tell you what is acceptable to say and what isn't. How does that work in a society where PC is in overdrive and almost anything you say can and will be taken in an offensive light? Being an east coast boy, I see this taken to the extreme in California. It reduces most conversations to talking about the weather or beating up on a socially acceptable strawman, like copyright law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This article very early makes the statement that "while getting offended by something sometimes feels good and can help you assert moral superiority, in most cases it doesn't help you figure out what the world looks like." Implicit in this statement is that "figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people.

However, assuming one _has_ an understanding of the status quo, and a desire to change it, "getting offended" can be a useful, and rational, response. (I include the quotes because there is an amount of subjectivity in what various people label as "getting offended".) In particular, such responses can serve to educate other people about behaviors which perpetuate the aspects of the status quo which the expresser desires to change.

So, while this article presents itself as a highly rational and neutral argument, embedded within it is actually a deeply conservative point of view.

<comment><USER4> _"figur[ing] out what the world looks like" -- and then accepting that status quo -- is, or ought to be, the goal of all people_

I don't see where the article says that you have to accept what the world looks like once you figure it out. Figuring out that the world is f--ked up and deciding to try and change it based on that knowledge is, it seems to me, perfectly consistent with what the article is saying.

 _such responses can serve to educate other people about behaviors which perpetuate the aspects of the status quo which the expresser desires to change_

The article talks about this, under the heading of using "getting offended" to manipulate people. It's different because you are choosing to _act_ offended to accomplish a goal, rather than involuntarily responding to something by being offended, even if it hinders you from accomplishing a goal.

<comment><USER3> It is somewhat difficult to divine the precise intent of the author of the article, or of the submitter of the article to HN; but I think it's important to acknowledge that _some_ people are going to use this article to criticize and dismiss anyone who "gets offended" as someone who hasn't reached a certain ideal of detachment. Your very statement that you think it's okay to "act offended", as opposed to "getting offended", gets to my point of the subjective nature of the issue.

<comment><USER5> As I let the words roll of my tongue, "acting offended" sounds just awful doesn't it? Only a Machiavelli would admit to acting offended to achieve their aims! "Getting offended" needs to be seen to be from the heart - as if you really had been torn kicking and screaming from the womb of rational detachment. Effecting this obviously requires extremely good acting.

<comment><USER6> Being offended is a good tool. It is much better tool when used logically and by choice. Don't think of it as acting in a performer sense, think of it as acting in a sense of taking actions.

There doesn't need to be any disingenuity there, it can be an honest response even though it is a logical choice to display that response.

<comment><USER4> _Don't think of it as acting in a performer sense, think of it as acting in a sense of taking actions._

Exactly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A case for purposefully trying to offend someone, or just playing devil's advocate for something that might cause offense: getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal" could probably have been used as a litmus test many years ago--nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", or treat it as nothing more than the satire and social commentary it is, rather than having an emotional reaction to it or attempting at least a somewhat serious analysis of whether or not his solution would be feasible in different dimensions and whether or not it would likely help the problem.

I like to ask if people operate by (or will operate by having seen the link) Crocker's Rules[0], which tells me whether or not they take responsibility for their own mind. (Looks like it's mentioned in the comments on LW too.)

This reminds me of esr's recent commentary about a controversial piece of advice.[1] Can you see past preconceptions, and either engage reality as reality, or even hypotheticals as hypotheticals, and not respond on a purely emotional level? Emotions are fine; I like my emotions, I just try not to be ruled by them as much as I can, especially the less productive ones. ("Speak the truth even if your voice shakes.")

[0] <http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html>

[1] <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4270>

<comment><USER8> > getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby > measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to > seriously.

So you're saying you disagree with (IMO) the central assumption in the article?

> _People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of > an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into > slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue._

Most people have such a Blue vs. Green issue. I'd wager that if you wanted to commit social suicide you could easily manage to offend over 95% of your friends by simply choosing your trolling topics carefully (without name- calling). But that hardly means you should dismiss your friends.

> nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling",

I suggest _Gulliver's Travels_ , if you haven't read it. It's still very current.

As for esr, he's saying much more than that. He's claiming that, after you have read Derbyshire's article, you're supposed to answer "no" to those 5 questions. There are a lot of implicit assumptions in there.

I answered "yes" to the 5th question, i.e. I concluded the author is probably racist, but that doesn't imply my answer is result of my emotions clouding my judgement. It could simply be that my definition of "racist" is different from esr's. Interestingly, someone mentioned in the comments that Derbyshire admitted elsewhere being a "racist and homophobe, but a tolerant one".

<comment><USER7> Can you clarify what you think the central assumption in the article is? After typing the rest of this I think I may have misunderstood you. I think the central assumption is stated in the first sentence: "One oft-underestimated threat to epistemic rationality is getting offended." I don't think it's much of a leap to generalize that to "noticing others getting offended is an indicator that their epistemic rationality isn't up to snuff." But it is inconsistent with a common theme around LW that learning about biases etc. should only be about improving yourself, not about noticing errors in other people. (I say why not both, while just being careful and not over-confident with the latter?)

I should clarify that I don't think someone's "I'm offended" level _completely_ measures their rationality, it's just a useful indicator. (They may have a Blue v. Green issue that just hasn't come up yet, or they may fail hard in the many other ways humans can be irrational, or my "this person is offended" detectors might be screwy.) I agree with the assumption that many, and probably most, seemingly rational people can become quite seemingly irrational when prompted with the right subjects. Or as Tesla put it, "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." Blue v. Green dynamics, and generally group identification, are pretty embedded in our neurological makeup, and to me only seem connected to "being offended" in the way that such a mind state makes it easier to fall into those (and other usually undesirable) modes of thought.

I think all bridges can be burnt given enough time, but not all of them through trying to offend alone. With close friends who share your mental structure of finding it hard to be offended, let alone difficult to express it without a trace of irony, it takes other methods to destroy that friendship. The act of incessant trolling by itself could work depending on the person, regardless of if that person finds anything said offensive or not, simply because if I spend all my time trolling them, then _I'm_ not worth _their_ time.

I read _Gulliver's Travels_ around the same time as "A Modest Proposal", I agree it's still relevant and insightful. I also think you're right about esr's post having a problem by not defining "racist", and leaving the reader to do it themselves. (There are many definitions out there.) But I do think people who define "racist" as including something similar to "citing statistics that don't paint a pretty picture of all the various races, where such a pretty picture would show that such a simple observable never correlates with anything negative, and giving reasonable advice assuming those statistics are accurate" are in error, regardless of the accuracy of the statistics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Without going into the detail of the article I think in general this is just great advice for life.

One of the best decisions I ever made was to try to take people at face value, and not second guess them or discern imagined motivations (which is usually where we get our sense of offense from in the first place). Not naively, but as a conscious and knowing choice.

Recognizing that good people sometimes say and do bad things. That none of us were born with an instruction manual to life - we're all just trying to figure it out in our own way, and figure out how to extract a bit of happiness out of it. It leads you to a compassionate view of people.

But that doesn't mean you have to like everyone. Nor agree with the disagreeable. Far from it. And I certainly don't bat 1.000 when it comes to practicing it. But it's a sound approach that I think has made me happier.

As a side-effect I also find I am more effective, particularly as there are many people who try to put you off kilter by deliberately causing offense as a tactic in negotiation or just everyday interaction. Where it's an inadvertent style of theirs it means I find it easier to defuse things, and when it's (unpleasantly) deliberate it removes that tactic from their playbook and resets things.

</comment><comment><USER10> We have a mantra in the engineering dept at my current gig. We should all have "strong opinions; loosely held".

</comment><comment><USER11> I've found this type of advice is easily misunderstood. Most people don't know how to not get offended. So either they try suppress their feelings (and feel depressed) or they defend themselves by lashing out at you. It takes an incredible amount of maturity and experience to learn how to let go. If you find it difficult living with people who can't let go, you're caught in the same trap they are.

<comment><USER12> The author follows up with an article titled "How to Not Get Offended".

<http://lesswrong.com/lw/gwx/how_to_not_get_offended/>

Not sure whether this addition will be any help to people who are seriously determined not to "let go", though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you support a minority or unpopular viewpoint you should never, ever get offended. It's counter-productive and convinces nobody.

Getting offended only works to win an argument if a large enough group of people already agrees with you.

</comment><comment><USER14> This reminds me of the brilliant quote by Stephen Fry:

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

</comment><comment><USER15> This article seems likely to offend anyone that is easily offended.

</comment><comment><USER16> Quite relevant after the Adria Richards debacle. That said, if you consider the amount of abuse she got from her post, "don't get offended" as a matter of principle asks for more moral fortitude than most people possess.

</comment><comment><USER17> Being a non-American person in the United States (and a 'person of colour', as I believe the term is), I have sometimes had to deal with people ridiculing my culture in a mostly unintended way. At first, I used to be just angry at them, and most of my day would be ruined. Alternately, I would react in an angry or indignant manner (and my day would still be ruined.)

Occasionally, even now, my "useful habits are shut down", like the article says, for an entire day when someone makes an insensitive or rude comment.

But by logically evaluating the words of the offender, I have often seen that they are the result of ignorance, or plain thoughtlessness rather than an innate lack of respect. Hence, now, when sometimes people say things that I perceive as being culturally insensitive or even mildly racist, I have learned to either let go, or calmly but firmly point out the bias involved in their wording, which has led to a better understanding and rapport between me and the people I interact with here.

<comment><USER18> I think this is a good strategy. Balpreet Kaur's response to such an incident could be an example to us all: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/s...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/sikh- protests-jk-rowling-misplaced) [http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users- attempt-to-shame-sik...](http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users-attempt-to- shame-sikh-woman-get-righteously-schooled)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> _"After all, what's offensive to one person may not be so to another, and they may end up offending you by mistake."_

Including that sentence doesn't make the _fact_ that it is undisputably a two- ways street go away.

If it's an honest mistake, sure, don't get offended. But if the person does it on purpose, then we're talking about something else altogether and there's no reason to simply "don't get offended". In the later case I'm not offended by what I'm hearing (the person who's going to make me feel inferior ain't born yet) but I'm offended by the fact that the person is trying to be offending on purpose.

There's a very easy way to be sure, you simply gently ask something like: _"Are you trying to be offending?"_

<comment><USER20> You can only control yourself. As such, you will _never_ be able to control whether somebody else gets offended by something you say. You certainly can (and ought) to try not to offend, but, ultimately, you have _no_ control over it.

On the other hand, you always have control over whether you will be offended by what somebody else say, even if they are trolling to an extreme, trying to get a rise out of you. You can decide to let it roll off your shoulders or you can rise to the bait. And the other person may not even be intentionally baiting you.

<comment><USER21> So, my remote is broken, and occasionally turns off the TV when I try to change the channel, but usually the channel changes. Also, the volume goes up or down by a kind of random amount, but usually in the direction I poke.

I have _no_ control over my TV?

<comment><USER22> 1\. You as a human have the ability to control your _reaction_ to anything.

2\. Any person you deal with is also a human and has the same ability to control their reaction to anything.

Therefore, someone's reaction is 100% their choice, just as it is yours. We all have this ability, few of us exercise it. However, it is not my own fault that someone else doesn't exercise this control.

> _"Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which > they form concerning things. [...] When therefore we are hindered, or > disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to > ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay > the fault of his own bad condition upon others."

\- Epictetus_

<comment><USER3> > 1\. You as a human have the ability to control your reaction to anything.

Do you actually have any support for that statement, other than as an article of faith? I am honestly not aware of any scientific evidence for it.

<comment><USER23> There are a few paradigms I can think of off the top of my head that support it:

-The idea of 'temporary insanity' or 'diminished capacity' in our legal system. When invoked, it normally asserts that a situation was so overwhelming that the subject couldn't react as they normally would. The 'heat of passion' and all that. This implies that generally, we can control our reactions to most things, and uncontrollable reactions are the exception.

-The field of cognitive behavioral therapy, which does has scientific evidence of effectiveness [0], see cites. Perhaps 'control your reaction to _anything_ ' is less-than-supported in the case of CBT, but combined with point 1 that should be more than enough to get you started.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Ev...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Evaluation_of_effectiveness)

<comment><USER3> I don't think the law can be submitted as scientific evidence. (One generally hopes the law is informed by scientific evidence, but even that isn't a given.)

Fundamentally, my point was that there's no scientific basis I can imagine for the idea of free-will, in humans or anywhere else. There's simply no physical law that enables it. (It is, of course, an immensely useful fiction, but that's not my point, which was rather that the entire question of "how to behave rationally" seems to rest on an irrational basis.)

<comment><USER21> That depends greatly on what you mean by free-will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ah yes, I struggle with this every day. Day in and day out I am surrounded by people who have formed their ideals and opinions by constantly being fed those opinions via media. People who are quick to release their tongue on an issue, but far from directly doing anything to influence that issue.

It's a funny situation. You get people who are so vehemently for their cause, but when challenged are the first to act like victims.</comment>