Python switching to Mercurial - <AUTHOR> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-March/087931.html <comment><USER3> I'm am a fan and proponent (but not quite fanboy) of Git... but I think this is excellent news! First, with Mercurial implemented in Python, this is a great case of "eat your own dog food".

Second, I _want_ competition in the SCM space. I think the biggest tragedies with Subversion and CVS before it was that their dominant positions implied that there was "only one way" to do SCM. Hopefully, by keeping at least two competitors around, there will be more stimulus for invention and improvement.

...sure, it'll make developers live a bit harder, as now there is _yet another_ decision that needs to be made. But come now! If developers can decide between Vi and Emacs, surely they are capable of deciding between Git and Mercurial (and no...don't even try to tell me there are more than two choices for text editor ;-).

<comment><USER4> Until we get excellent interop between git and mercurial I'm not buying the argument that git vs hg is anything like vi vs emacs.

<comment><USER5> Git has excellent interop with CVS, so I imagine excellent interop between Git and other DVSs is in our near future.

\-- EDIT --

By excellent interop with CVS I obviously mean the one way CVS to Git. I'm hoping Git/Hg will go both ways.

<comment><USER3> Git's pretty good going two way with Subversion. If nothing else, perhaps Subversion could be a poor man's bridge for the time being?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I had thought that git was rolling towards a dominant position in this space, however:

> At PyCon, Brett already announced that Git was no longer being considered -- > while it has obviously many fans, it also provokes strong antipathies.

And I'm starting to see why. It has... issues. One I ran into recently:

<http://book.git-scm.com/5_submodules.html>

> It's not safe to run git submodule update if you've made and committed > changes within a submodule without checking out a branch first. They will be > silently overwritten:

"Silently overwritten" are not words you want to be associated with a version control system.

<comment><USER6> I think submodules are a bit of a failed experiment, yes. Or, perhaps, a work in progress. Their usability is just awful. That said, if you don't use them the rest of git works just fine. ;)

Does Mercurial support submodules or the equivalent? Not in core, from what I can tell, although a casual search of Google reveals the third-party "Forest Extension":

[http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/ForestExtens...](http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/ForestExtension)

There's some talk on a wiki about putting this extension's functionality into Mercurial proper, but the wiki link is broken. That doesn't bode well. I don't know Mercurial so I have no idea if Forest is actually being used by folks, if it's akin to git submodules or more akin to Braid, if it's got usability traps of its own, etc. The docs page is filled with TODOs.

<comment><AUTHOR> svn's externals work quite well, on the other hand. I know, I know, svn is _so_ 2007, but after fiddling around a bit with git, my impression is that spending time writing code is an order (if not more) of magnitude more important thank screwing around with a version control system, and svn mostly 'just works'. I think that eventually things like git and hg will surpass it, but version control isn't where your startup is going to "make or break" it (unless you're github:-).

<comment><USER7> _svn's externals work quite well_

I found them quite painful. Links to external paths don't work, committing with multiple externals when one or more of the external repos are down has some sort of problem (though it's been a while and may have been fixed), doing anything _from_ the external to the parent (like moving files) had some sort of problem as well (again, maybe fixed). It was enough of a problem that the project I was working on ended up with two repositories for the same code...and they would manually merge them periodically. Obviously sub-optimal and a big waste of time, but it was less trouble than the alternative of having every developer understand why the external repo had to be treated completely differently from the rest of the repository in many regards.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, so they're not perfect, but "hassle" beats "silently discarded" any day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> " _At PyCon, Brett already announced that Git was no longer being considered -- while it has obviously many fans, it also provokes strong antipathies._ "

This seems illogical at best. They chose not to use Git because there are a lot of people that dislike it? This decision should have been based on technical details, not on feelings. Anything else is doing a disservice to the developers and to the community. How many other VCS's were passed up because they had a lot of haters?

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure why you're being down-modded.

The Python team purporting to do DVCS research and then saying their decision was made on a gut feeling seems disingenuous at best.

Sure, I'm biased because I work for GitHub, but this decision would have felt like much less of a slap in the face had they just said: "We're switching to Mercurial because we like it and it's written in Python, case closed."

<comment><USER10> The way I read it, and the document discussing the VCS switch (PEP 374), was that the Big Three DVCSes (git, hg, bzr) were essentially all just fine. Git is the fastest and hairiest, Bazaar is the slowest and cutest, and Mercurial covers both ends fairly well without introducing any glaring flaws. All three systems have big, well-known projects actively running on them, with developers singing about how much better their respective choices are compared to the SVN or CVS systems. Any choice would have been fine; it was fairly obvious.

Python has a history of fussy programmers. Remember the web framework wars of a few years ago? Everyone complained that there were too many choices, picked favorites to champion and nitpicked at the alternatives (which were not actually bad), and nobody could sleep at night because there were _alternatives_ and nobody knew which one was _right_. Then Guido announced that Django was _right_ , and the lost souls breathed a sigh of relief and did the Django tutorial, and the folks who were already using Turbogears and Pylons productively continued to do so. Django isn't necessarily the best Python web framework for everyone, but it's rarely a bad choice.

That's pretty much what happened this year with DVCSes. The Biopython project was stalled on a CVS-to-SVN transition for over a year, for example, until some grenades were thrown and tears were shed and finally Git was picked because a few people liked it, nobody really had a problem with it and all the other options were triggering nasty blog posts. Case closed. Sometimes we just need a quick slap to shut us up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good news for Mercurial. It happens to be my favorite DVCS. Bruce Eckel seemed to come to the same conclusion (HG over BZR). It just seems to have the right feel after coming from Subversion. All in all, it is good competition. Git needs to get a smoother feel on Windows, BZR has a lot going for it - <USER2> needs to find that polish, hg needs to add first class SVN support, and SVN needs keep from stagnating or changing too much.

</comment><comment><USER12> Cool, and I like Guido's way of making decisions. But I'm just wondering why they're switching. Did they find that Subversion wasn't working for them?

<comment><USER12> Oh, I see. PEP 374: <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is a good choice. I found learning mercurial after using svn for years to be very easy. And why not choose a system written in the language that you are writing? Sort of a recursive dog food feast...

</comment><comment><USER14> Hedging their bets?

murcurialhub.com is registered by github

<comment><USER15> Github mostly provides the pretty web interface. There's no reason they couldn't do the same for the hg crowd. So, not so much hedging their bets, but looking to expand?

<comment><USER16> BitBucket does a web interface for hg already. It's not as social as GitHub, but I'm a fan (and subscriber).

<comment><USER17> I want to see github buy BitBucket and integrate the two cleanly. Being able to use git OR mercurial for any repository on *hub would be awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The battle has been joined. ;)

Seriously, though, it's probably a good fit. Mercurial is written in Python, after all.

<comment><USER19> More importantly, Mercurial is _extensible_ in Python -- you can write extension modules, hooks, etc., all of which have full access to the (albeit poorly-documented) Mercurial internals.

Writing extensions for Git is rather different, since you effectively _can't_. To extend or build on Git, you end up doing a lot of shelling out to the 'git' binary with use of 'raw' output formats and regexp-based scraping. It's pipes and shell subcommands all the way down, instead of a library-style programming API.

Which you prefer depends a lot on the diversity and preferences of the community using your repositories. Mercurial pushes you towards usability and single-language (Python) solutions, while Git easily drops into a classic UNIX-like "lots of little scripts" solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Should be interesting to see whether Mercurial will grow or maintain marketshare.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is great-- I had recently started my own Python mercurial repo for minor changes we had to make for embedding it into the Source engine. This will make it easier for us to keep in sync with base.

</comment><comment><USER22> I am thrilled that Python is switching to a python-based DVCS, but I'm bitter about Bazaar not being the choice :-/

<comment><USER23> Yeah, after reading his explanation, I wished I'd chimed in and said I'm a non-Canonical coder who's been really happy with Bazaar.</comment></comment>


1PB data loss fears as Australian Tax Office suffers HP storage crash - <AUTHOR> http://www.afr.com/technology/enterprise-it/mass-data-loss-fears-as-ato-suffers-hewlett-packard-enterprise-equipment-crash-20161213-gtac9r <comment><USER2> "Okay folks, time to put all those backup tapes in a station wagon and drive 'em here, it's restore time!" \-- "Sir... we don't have tapes anymore... we had a private cloud..."

<comment><USER3> tax office. i am sure lots of Aussies are broken up over this.

<comment><USER4> If the government shuts down due to the lack of funding, they will likely get broken up.

<comment><USER5> This is how Mad Max starts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1PB of data is hopefully hard to lose, there must be a way to recover a significant portion of it.

Either way, it's a disaster for HPE's reputation.

<comment><USER7> Purging 1PB of data would take an awful lot of time.

<comment><USER8> You can lose unlimited amounts of data almost instantaneously though: if it's encrypted with a key, just purge the key.

<comment><USER9> Or you could encrypt it to tape and get bitten by an HPE firmware bug:

[http://h20564.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr...](http://h20564.www2.hpe.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-c01787465&sp4ts.oid=3936307)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't Believe the China Hype - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/06/united-states-china-power-influence/612961/ <comment><USER2> What is the downside to overestimating China's power?</comment>


Scientists Release Genetically Modified Mosquitoes in High-Security Lab - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/20/693735499/scientists-release-controversial-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-in-high-securit <comment><USER2> I've often wondered why malaria eradication campaigns always seem to target mosquitoes rather than the mosquito-borne parasites that actually cause the disease.

Wouldn't it make sense to go after the root cause rather than merely its host?

<comment> daniel-cussen The mosquito is made of more parts and they're more differentiated than a virus, so there's more ways to make it fail.

EDIT/Errata: Malaria is not a virus.

<comment><USER3> Malaria is caused by a protist (a singled celled organism), not a virus. To some extent, you are right about the mosquito being a bigger target. However, the larger reason is that Plasmodium populations (the protist) are larger than mosquito populations and, consequently, can evolve around human modifications faster.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > While genetically female, the transformed insects have mouths that resemble > male mosquito mouths. That means they can't bite and so can't spread the > malaria parasite. In addition, the insects' reproductive organs are > deformed, which means they can't lay eggs.

I'm confused. If these mutated insects are unable to reproduce, how do they spread their mutation to the rest of the population?

<comment><USER2> Maybe the idea is that the wild male mosquitoes will mate with these sterile, genetically-modified females instead of with some of the wild female mosquitoes, and so the total wild mosquito population will be reduced.

<comment><USER5> The article doesn't really explain, but there's more to it than that. My guess is that the male offspring are still fertile, but carry the gene drive and so spread the infertile-female gene to all their offspring. Eventually, the entire population is rendered either male or infertile females and dies.

<comment><USER6> *it's also possible that at the end the males will start hybridizing with females from other species.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "While genetically female, the transformed insects have mouths that resemble male mosquito mouths. That means they can't bite and so can't spread the malaria parasite. In addition, the insects' reproductive organs are deformed, which means they can't lay eggs."

This is awesome. It's one of those things that makes you feel like you live in the future. Preventing the spread of Malaria, Zika, West Nile, a bunch of other things... and saving our dogs from heart worms! Not to mention avoiding all the cancer and neurological illnesses we've had to endure thanks to chemicals in repellants we had to use...

I'm sure there are consequences for killing off all the mosquitoes, and we'll have to deal with those... but I for one can't wait to deal with those problems instead of mosquitoes.

<comment><USER8> > I'm sure there are consequences for killing off all the mosquitoes, and > we'll have to deal with those... but I for one can't wait to deal with those > problems instead of mosquitoes.

I'm not sure we know the scale of these problems. Historically, messing with the ecological food web like this has often caused more harm than good, so I think it's worth it to be more careful than this.

<comment><USER9> Aren't species already going extinct every day?

<comment><USER8> Yes, but as far as I'm aware that's an undesirable outcome?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Article in 5 years: "A record drop in bird, bat, dragonfly, frog, damselfly, spider and turtle populations measured across all areas with former abundance of mosquitoes. More victims of climate change/pollution/glyphosate! Somebody do something, quickly, please!"

These kinds of experiments of course never have any side-effects...

</comment><comment><USER11> Ok here's the prompt: A eugenics tool this powerful will eventually be misused in humans.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER12> I think that's the premise of a video game already: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_The_Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_The_Division)

<comment><USER13> As long as we're discussing video games...

It has been my private head canon for a number of years that the Gerudo race in the Legend of Zelda are the result of an attempted gene drive to exterminate Hylians. The fact that their offspring are (almost) exclusively female suggests it, and attaching the modification to a (literal) fitness increase would be a reasonable way to try to help it achieve fixation sooner.

Well, looks like I'm going to have the Gerudo Desert theme stuck in my head for the rest of the night.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "While genetically female, the transformed insects have mouths that resemble male mosquito mouths. That means they can't bite and so can't spread the malaria parasite. In addition, the insects' reproductive organs are deformed, which means they can't lay eggs."

Why not focus on narrowing down the gene edit so only the biting ability is destroyed, allowing the females to reproduce?

Seems like a safer option in the long run

<comment><USER15> Female mosquitoes need blood to obtain protein for the eggs. If they can't bite, they won't be able to reproduce either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > As more and more female mosquitoes inherit two copies of the modification, > more and more become sterile.

So our plan is trusting in the reproduction of an sterile animal that is unable to reproduce but must multiply somehow (by budding?) to replace the wild population that 1) do not have any problem to lay eggs or mate, 2) are much more numerous and 3) can suck blood that is needed to bost the egg production.

It seems that this plan has some loopholes...

</comment><comment><USER17> Is this supposed to be groundbreaking? Seems very similar to methods that have already been successfully trialed in the wild in both the US and Australia: [https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-10/zika-and-dengue- sp...](https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-10/zika-and-dengue-spreading- mosquito-largely-wiped-out-in-trial/9962294)

<comment><USER18> These are not GM-ed, they are sterilized using bacteria infection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> are mosquitoes a "key species"?

this is a must watch for anyone wondering if there might be "side-effects" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDISuJdfZk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDISuJdfZk)

<comment><USER20> There are many species of mosquito, of which, only some (<1%) transmit malaria.

In theory, the other mosquito species will adapt to fill the niches that the controlled species once occupied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> We should not be messing with this, we are not smart enough to see what will happen in the future.

<comment><USER22> We release barely studied chemicals and materials into the environment all the time. This is concerning, but it's not fundamentally different from what we've been doing for decades.

<comment><USER6> Decades are an unbelievably short timescale and we're already seeing mass extinction and population losses across the board for many different species from all walks of life.

How much of it is related to stuff we've done at large scale before understanding the consequences?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I can't help but imagine the opening scene of every zombie movie ever. Let's make sure this tech is highly guarded.

<comment><USER6> Crispr is not highly guarded, nor have we learned our lesson about how dangerous it is.

<comment><USER24> The thing that worries me the most about these technologies is when we make changes with them, those changes seem fine in the lab, and then when those changes spread in an ecosystem for long enough, suddenly, problems start popping up due to those changes.

By then, it's far too late to undo those changes. The genetic pollution remains forever.

It is therefore far better to have never done any genetic modification at all, because we simply don't understand how one change interacts with everything else.

Nature has done so much better than we have ~ therefore, because we don't understand nature's decision-making process, and never have, and most probably never will, we should never interfere with tinkering with something extremely and profoundly complicated like DNA.

Selective breeding is superior to humans tinkering with the genome directly.

<comment><USER22> > The thing that worries me the most about these technologies is when we make > changes with them, those changes seem fine in the lab, and then when those > changes spread in an ecosystem for long enough, suddenly, problems start > popping up due to those changes.

I agree with your concern, but I don't see this technology as fundamentally different from humans have been doing for hundreds of years. We've already released so many chemicals and materials into the environment that have had many harmful and irreversible effects on the environment. Releasing a genetically modified mosquito does raise concerns, but it's not too different from putting some new chemical into the environment, which we do all the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As much as I dislike mosquitoes and know they're a health hazard, this is a horrible idea. A whole bunch of insectivores rely on mosquitoes as a primary food source. A single bat can eat it's own body weight in mosquitoes in one night. They really do play an important part in most ecosystems. There are some fairly serious negative consequences to this that really seem to be being downplayed or ignored in the name of public safety.

<comment><USER26> They're only targeting a single species of mosquito. Other species will quickly move in to fill the same niche so the impact should be minimal. Sure it's risky, but the reward is significant.

<comment><USER6> Can you show me some evidence that the gene drive affecting that species won't affect other species?

From what I've read, hybridization does occur between mosquito species.

<comment><USER27> The math does not work out. Hybridization happens rarely. To affect another species, hybridization would need to happen on a large enough scale that the hybrid population increases, despite the fact that the hybrid species becomes sterile after a few generations. The hybrid species would also need to out compete the other species, again, before the hybrid species dies out because of the genetic modifications.

<comment><USER6> I don't know what math you're referring to, but the possibility of adaptive introgression strikes me to be non-negligible, especially given that it has specifically been observed in mosuitoes under selective pressure from pesticides...

Hybridization rates are not static. What's more, hybrid mosquitoes would in no way be limited to mating with other hybrid mosquitoes.

Consider that this gene drive diminishes the female mosquito's ability to feed on blood. I'd expect it be possible that this would cause modified female mosquitoes to be maladapted in other ways. If modified female mosquitoes were to experience significant additional stress, the adult sex ratio in modified mosquitoes could shift dramatically toward an overbalance of modified males.

If this were to happen, don't you see how it could increase pressure on males to outbreed? E.g. if a large proportion of their natural mates were either dead or malnourished? Similarly, can you see how the same kind of situation might emerge for the hybrids, increasing the likelihood of backcrossing?

A gene drive that specifically disrupts the females' ability to survive seems like it would increase the likelihood of introgression, potentially by a lot.

This whole situation just strikes me as highly unpredictable, risky and poorly understood.

<comment><USER28> > I don't know what math you're referring to...

Thank you for the rational comment. I found some of your other posts in this discussion to be emotional enough to make me not take them seriously (although I agree with the need for being cautious with GM). A post like the one above carries a lot more weight than "makes me sick" type comments. It's an emotive subject for sure, but straying too much from a rational tone can be counterproductive.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ranges in C++: Counted Iterables and Efficiency - <AUTHOR> http://ericniebler.com/2014/10/06/counted-ranges-and-efficiency/

<comment><USER2> Let's hope that makes it to the standard.

Begin & end arguments are distasteful boilerplate (safe for these few times when you need a subrange or pointer pair)

<comment><USER3> Yep, and other languages handle that better by only forcing you to use the iterators for subranges when you need them, which at least at my job is the minority of the time.</comment></comment>


Launch of Makers, Cory Doctorow's novel on Hardware Hackers. - <AUTHOR> http://craphound.com/makers/

<comment><USER2> Well, there goes a day of work.

Seriously though, I've become a huge Doctorow fan. When I first got my Kindle, I didn't have an internet connection at my house for a week or so and decided to grab Down and Out In The Magic Kingdom to give it a shot. I immediately fell in love and over the next week, I read everything available on his site. I'll be reading this over the next day or so, and I'll almost definitely be picking up a dead tree copy for the bookshelf soon after. I can't recommend his work enough, and I'm certain this will be on the same level.

<comment><USER3> I only read "Little Brother" by Cory. For some reason, I didn't really like it as much I hoped I would; after reading many overwhelmingly raving positive reviews and the subject of the book (well, "hackers") I somehow was expecting more.

Do you think his other books are better or maybe I am in the minority who thinks "Little Brother" wasn't that good?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well yes to all counts.Cory has better books, like my favorite Eastern Standard Tribe.But by the looks of it, Makers looks like it will beat EST.

Also the people who dont like "Little Brother" is a minority but a big one. I liked it very much personal but the points given by some of my online friends for not liking it also appealed to me. As I am a die heart fan I over looked the improbability of having a big network like the Xnet mentioned based on the XBoxs. I also gave cory the benefit of doubt over the issue of government following such hard measures which will forgo the right of privacy of citizens.

But having said all that, I liked the plot a lot and whats a Science fiction without some umm... fiction in it.

I have already read some of makers, and to tell the truth I am not that much hooked as much I would like. But that may be because there were so distractions then.This novel is also about hackers.But not network hackers but the other kind.Which do not always get that tag now, although the term was invented for them and by them only (the railroad hackers at MIT invented the term "hack" for a cool modification which was too clever). Those are the hardware hackers. It is about a team of hardware hacker which are making Hardware Art for collectors. Only got that much from whatever I have read.

May be the second seating will be more hooking.

<comment><USER2> I'm about 25% through Makers now and I'm downright hooked. I was planning on reading a few pages then going to bed, but now it's looking like I'm going to finish it today.

As for Little Brother, it's likely my favorite book of his. With years of government regulations on free speech (specifically the DMCA) causing me direct harm, I felt a connection to Marcus I've rarely felt from any other book. I first read it in a single sitting and I've since read it three or four times. That said, I'm unsure if I would've been so hooked if the story didn't strike such a chord with me personally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Haven't read it yet,but I just downloaded the TXT version (which I always do). I am a not-so-long time fan of cory(2 years). I have read all of his novels (someone comes to town someone leaves town). Was attracted to his writings through his podcasts. I love the open touch he adds to his writings by launching them with a creative commons licenses on the same day as the launch of the paper version. He is a revolutionary, and proves that being open is profitable.</comment>


Airbnb Adopts Rules in Effort to Fight Discrimination by Its Hosts - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/technology/airbnb-anti-discrimination-rules.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> I don't know if this is really a tractable problem.

At the end of the day, either airbnb lets hosts decide who stays or doesn't. If they don't let hosts decide, they'll likely lose a ton of hosts, since having someone stay in your home is a very personal thing and a huge risk. If they do, then they're going to have significant discrimination problems as long as people are discriminatory, i.e., basically forever.

<comment><USER3> That was my thought here as well. It's one thing to have very public businesses with anti-discrimination rules, but something like Air BnB where people have to decide in most cases who they are going to let into their homes is a much more complicated problem.

We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US.

What if a host wanted to turn away somebody who was an avid white supremacist? This isn't the same thing as giving somebody a key to a hotel room.

EDIT: Worth pointing to another comment that cites the law: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577)

> Those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or > bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: "All persons shall be entitled ..., and > accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without > discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than > five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as > his residence"

<comment><USER4> Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in housing.

The law seems perfectly clear to me.

As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

[https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing- act-2](https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2)

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

<comment><USER5> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b):

 _(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:..._

(It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. Section 804 is what you quoted.)

 _(2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence._

So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone, none of this actually applies to me.

<comment><USER6> > The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB

It pretty clearly applies to _lots_ of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because _using AirBnB_ seems to make it applicable, as discussed below.

> _Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall > apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:..._

(Note that lots of AirBnB rentals of single-family homes are _not_ by the _owner_ , and thus not within this exception even before considering the limitations on the exception.)

> (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. [...])

And you shouldn't have, because the part that you snipped is _all_ limitations on the part of the you quoted, including the most important one: "Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single- family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; [...]"

The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.

<comment><USER7> _> The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception._

I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are "commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a personal bedroom.

The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

As far as I can tell, very few people including states' general attorneys or Federal courts interpret Airbnb's situation as a broker service that is therefore subject to those limitations.

<comment><USER6> > The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition

No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, and applies to _any_ use of any rental (or sale) services of a broker, agent, or person in the business of renting (or selling) real estate in support of a discriminatory rental, after December 31, 1969.

Its only legal (since 1970) under the federal fair housing act to discriminate, _even_ as a homeowner renting their own home, if the rental is arranged without the use of some commercial rental-arrangement service.

(And even them it may be illegal under _state_ fair housing laws.)

> The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper > classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

That's certainly the argument a discriminating owner using AirBnB (or possible AirBnB themselves) would try to make, but AirBnB's financial and substantive involvement in the transaction is very different than that of a hands-off listing service like a newspaper classified section, so I don't think that argument would fly. If AirBnB actually _acted_ like a newspaper classified service, that argument might be valid, but that's not what AirBnB does (if we were talking, instead, about Craigslist, that would be a good argument.)

<comment><USER7> _> No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, [...]_

To be clear, my response was not disagreeing with this part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yeah, well after having a multi-day house party thrown in my Houston home by a local guy that had the gall to write "God Bless you" several times before the rental, and Airbnb doing nothing about the damages (huge scratches on brand new $5K bedroom suite, a frigging water-logged kitchen ceiling, cabinet doors torn off hinges, etc.) we will no longer rent to any local, of any race. Anyone that rents my house is going to prove they are an out-of-town traveler. At the end of the day, the owner should have the final word on their house.

<comment><USER9> That's not really relevant here. The article is specifically about racial discrimination.

<comment><USER10> What's relevant is that AirBnB is against the Freedom of Owners to select who stays at their place. In the end Owners should have the final word, no matter what, certainly not AirBnB.

<comment><USER11> I agree even if AirBnB is the booking driver.

1) AirBnB has a history of poor support for hosts that have troublesome renters.

2) AirBnB does a terrible job screening renters.

3) This could be easily used against a host improperly. I had a group of sorority girls that wanted to book my house. They told me they had almost 40 women so I declined. I don't have a problem with women but this could be used against me in a legal battle. You have to discriminate as a host. If 10 young guys wanted to book my house too my radar would be off that they MIGHT be there for a party. It has nothing to do with being a bigot against age or gender but minimizing risk which AirBnB does not help with.

If they enforce instant book I could be stuck with 40 women at my house in a city I'm legally approved for advertising and sleeping 14 (it's based on 200 sq ft per person). AirBnB doesn't have all the local rules.

4) Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a house - if you're a potential renter in a group they dislike, do you really want to shell over money to them and stay at their home? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted host is going to provide a good experience or good customer support when required?

These booking sites are taking more money and providing less. They want to drop your ADR like Uber wanted to drop fares for wider appeal. And they avoid all liability. It's getting more and more unfriendly for hosts.

<comment><USER9> Let's say someone is bigoted and they own a company - if you're a potential employee in a group they dislike, do you really want to spend your days in their workplace? Also, what are the chances that the bigoted employer is going to provide a good experience or career progression when required?

...so we're cool with dropping employment discrimination laws too?

<comment><USER11> You're comparing employment with staying at someone's HOME.

<comment><USER9> If you choose to make your home a place of business, you must comply with business rules.

They're providing a service in return for money, they have to declare the earnings from such for tax purposes... there is no line here. A psychiatrist who operates out of a home office has no legal right to discriminate based on race, either.

<comment><USER12> This is a case for dropping employment laws, not enforcing them on a wider class of people.

<comment><USER9> You're saying that evidence AirBnB hosts discriminate racially is a case for dropping employment laws?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As an host, I'll never discriminate on the basis of religion, sex orientation, color of skin, national origin or gender identity.

When it comes to disability, I might refuse someone whose disability would cause risk in using the apartment and might have an accident because the apartment is not safe for someone who's disabled (the building is 300 years old, there's no elevator, the stair in the duplex apartment doesn't have handrails)... It's a risk if the person then has an accident...

Similarly in term of age, I would not rent to couples with young children because it's too risky.

So, it's discrimination but it's mostly because this is not an hotel, it's an apartment in which I live part of the year and it's not adapted for disabled people or couples with young children because I'm not in those categories.

That said, as someone whose wife is asian, I fully understand the problem. It's annoying and painful when people discriminate based on race.

In our case, we show both my face and wife face on our Airbnb profile photo because we prefer to have a host refuse on the basis of wife's nationality than to give money or stay at the house of a racist host. I've had a bad experience before that with a host who was nice to me when I met him and then wasn't as nice 5 minutes later once my wife arrived... The fact that he earned money from our stay galls me...

<comment><USER14> If I understand correctly, you're happy to be the one discriminating against disabled people, old people and people with children.

But you're not happy if you're on the receiving end of any discrimination.

Don't you see the contradiction there ?

Anti-discrimination policies are about ensuring people have equal access to services and facilities (whether it's contentious toilets or hotels or whatever).

You seem to indicate in your jurisdiction that renting an apartment without safety rails is OK, but in many others it's not OK and you'd be in violation of safety laws (and also discrimination laws). It doesn't matter that you live there sometime - you're renting it as a facility and should be expected to comply with safety and whatever other laws apply. And if you do it via AirBnB, you also need to comply with their rules regardless of legal requirements. And AirBnB get to change the rules when they want and you either agree or stop using them.

<comment> saiya-jin why the attack?

the fact that he didn't put in enough safety in complicated apartment is the reason for you to attack him? Well maybe it technically challenging, would make the place ugly or is near impossible given the layout of the place or materials used to build it. You cannot just drill anywhere you want in buildings that are few hundred years old for example.

there is a distinction between sharing an apt and going to hotel. Latter is vastly more regulated, former is a bit wild west and exactly the reason why people are using it (because with this comes usually lower price if more people will be accommodated, more homely feel with more equipment ala full kitchen etc.).

Let's not try to make private apartments hotels, because then we end up with... just more fugly hotels.

<comment><USER14> My comments are far from an attack; an attack would have been more than summarizing his comments in 2 lines and then pointing out there was a discrepancy.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting anyone should 'just drill anywhere' from ?

As an old person or a disabled person, looking on AirBnB, I can see what the apartment has and how it is laid out (provided good pictures and description are provided).

Being old or disabled does not stop me being mentally competent to decide for myself whether I'm capable of climbing stairs or negotiating the apartment. It is actually a very offensive and discriminatory thing to suggest either of these personal attributes make me mentally incompetent and this is the core of what makes such discrimination offensive - and illegal - in many jurisdictions around the world.

If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure to comply. If you're worried about damage being caused in trying to fit them yourself, you hire a professional to do it instead and then it's their job to ensure the building is still sound after the installation. You're operating what is essentially a business, so costs like that are reasonable business expenses to offset against your profits and the result is you get an improved, safer, house for you and guests and essentially get the guests to pay for it, making you ahead.

I don't understand why you're so upset.

<comment><USER15> > If there is a legal requirement to have safety rails on stairs (or any other > regulation), saying the building is X years old is not an excuse for failure > to comply.

Of course it is. Otherwise every time a new building code gets published, the entire city suddenly has to remodel. This might be acceptable for stuff like stair handrails, but is totally ridiculous for stuff like electrical connections. You really gonna make everybody change their electrical service and rip all the wire out of their home?

In theory it would be nice to be able to go into every building and expect certain features to be present. In practice it would be impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _> Airbnb said it would also accelerate the use of instant bookings, which lets renters book places immediately without host approval._

Maybe I'm naive but it seems like that policy would be perceived by hosts as extremely hostile. Homeowners have both a financial and emotional vested interest in their homes so letting strangers book it without a cursory check isn't going to work. Having no checks would work for real estate holders who aren't emotionally attached to their homes but not homeowners who live in the same house they rent.

Even if it's irrational and discriminatory, homeowners want to maintain some semblance of control over who stays at their home. It's the homeowner who has to pay for damages/misbehavior -- whether directly or by home insurance deductibles and higher premiums. (As I understand it, AirBnb's coverage guarantee only kicks in _after_ the homeowner exhausts his personal insurance.)

Does anyone know the bulk of AirBnb's business revenue? Is it homeowners renting out a spare bedroom? Or is it people renting out non-owner occupied beach houses and lofts?

EDIT ADD: Every time an AirBnb thread about racism comes up, many commenters are confused or ignorant about _what the law actually says_. To copypaste a previous comment:

Those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: _" All persons shall be entitled ..., and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"_

In other words, if a homeowner has a spare bedroom across the hall from her 13-year-old son's room, and doesn't want to rent to transgender, black, or 65-year-old guests, it is _legal_ for her to discriminate on those attributes.

On the other hand, if the AirBnb host is renting out a non-owner-occupied beach house, the discrimination laws would apply.

[1][https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a):

<comment><USER16> What if there was a reputation threshold for a traveller to make an instant booking? Of course it's still not immune to racism or sexism, but it seems that it would provide a decent buffer against it.

<comment><USER17> Nope. I would not ever rent a room with instant booking unless Airbnb signs a blank check for any damages by the guest (which it of course won't)

<comment><USER18> Do you think the $1M insurance policy isn't enough?

<comment><USER17> Please take a look [https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Airbnb-1-million-host- guarantee...](https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Airbnb-1-million-host-guarantee-a- marketing-gimmick)

The Airbnb Host Guarantee is a total fraud. I looked into the abyss of worst case predatory corporate behavior when I filed my claim.

I am a big Airbnb fan, both as a host in my New York aparment and as a guest. But when I had my first bad experience with a guest that damaged property (floor, walls) and stole a whole set of expensive cosmetics from a friend that were stored in my bathroom, Airbnb behaved terribly. They basically dragged out the process over a month, demanding more and more "evidence" (a police report, exact list of missing items, photos of damage, quotes from handyman and Amazon list price links were insufficient). They continuously set 48 h "deadlines" for responses nearly every time I got a message, and said if I miss them the case gets closed.

After jumping through all the hoops, they told me they decided to close the case anyway.

This was a shocking experience - I read the terms and of course, there are certain things I didn't provide (mostly the purchasing receipts for the stolen goods, since I don't keep those). But the pictures with damages and police report got simply ignored by them.

This was "only" about $3,000, so it's not worth to hire a lawyer and spend more time on this.

The Airbnb Host Guarantee is definitely a fraud, and Airbnb should be absolutely ashamed for their deceptive advertising.

Here are some more details in case you are interested:

* I had trouble with the guest already when they stayed in my apartment, and complained with Airbnb. Airbnb reviewed the case and had the guest actually pay for additional people they brought over to live there. The Airbnb team responsible for handling problems with the guest while staying there was great.

* After the guests left, we assessed the room and saw all the damage, and realized they had stolen lots of valuable items from the bathroom. I immediately informed Airbnb. They passed the case on to another guy called "Reiko", and that's where nightmare started.

Some official correspondence from Airbnb's Reiko:

"If a host requests compensation through the Host Guarantee program, Airbnb will review the damages to determine if the guest is responsible and if the host qualifies for reimbursement under our terms:www.airbnb.com/terms

If the host qualifies for compensation, Airbnb will take measures to recoup those funds from the guest."

> So, Reiko told me basically that if the guest doesn't pay, I don't get paid. > Of course the guest doesn't pay, he was a crook who stole my stuff.

After 1 months of back and forth, police involvement, handyman reviews and spending hours on this stupid case following Reiko's instruction, he send me this:

"Thank you for getting in touch with us. We understand that this may have been a difficult and frustrating process.Unfortunately, we did not receive a response from you within 48 hours of our last email, sent on August 7th, as was specifically requested. Therefore, your claim was closed."

>> The Airbnb host Guarantee states explicitly that a host has 60 days time to SUBMIT the request. I submitted within 24 hours on July 30th, and then Reiko dragged the process out over a month back and forth.

I freaked out given this out-of-control statement and asked Reiko what this is all about. I received this cookie cutter response:

"Thank you so much for following up, I definitely understand how frustrating all of this must be for you.

Whenever a situation like this arises, we advocate for an amicable solution. As a neutral third-party not present during the reservation, we must make a fair decision based on documentation and communication from both host and guest.

Following a full review of all documentation and communication in this case, we reached what we believe to be a fair compromise for both parties. As you may already know, our policies state that we have the final say in any dispute to which we are called upon to mediate. As such, the decision reached in this case is final and cannot be overturned."

WOW.

Basically, there is no Host Guarantee. Airbnb simply tries to convince the fraudulent guest to pay. If they don't pay, you (I) are screwed. Airbnb is not going to pay a dime.

This is in clear violation of their own stated terms. It says:

"We're committed to creating a safe and trusted community around the world. Though property damage is rare, we understand you may need protection. The Host Guarantee will reimburse eligible hosts for damages up to $1,000,000."

>> What it doesn't mention is that it's the guest's responsibility to pay this $1,000,000.

It also states:

Useful documentation and information that will help process your payment request as quickly as possible include:

        photographs of the damage being claimed
        a police report for any damage that is over $300 USD
        receipts or some alternative evidence of the accurate fair market value or report cost
        proof of ownership
        any other documentation that you feel will be helpful to processing your request

>> We delivered all of this, but it didn't help. We didn't see a single dime.

The bottom line:

Either Reiko is a liar and processed our case in the wrong way, or the Host Guarantee is a fraud. I am pretty sure I would win this in court; but Reiko and Airbnb unfortunately know that it's not worth my time and money given the small (but still significant) amount of $3,000.

My guess is Airbnb simply assesses your earnings and comes up with a certain limit below that they will just screw you over and say "goodbye, no host guarantee for you" in clear violation with their own terms, since they know you can't go to court.

I at least wanted to let my friend on Quora know.

Very sad and disillusioned with the "sharing economy". This is not a friendly startup, but worst case predatory corporate behavior. If you have gone through the same thing, maybe we can file a class action lawsuit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've always considered it a legitimate request when people want to live with others of the same gender for a shared room in their home.

For example, you especially see this on sites like Craigslist when people are seeking roommates. This policy seems to overturn the ability of hosts to do this. If I were a female in an all female home renting out one room, it would make me uncomfortable. Perhaps other do not see this as an issue in short-term renting, but I do.

<comment><USER19> Update: My assumption is incorrect. Airbnb has added a policy specifically to permit this use case -- see "Gender" section.

[https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnb-s- nondiscrim...](https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnb-s- nondiscrimination-policy--our-commitment-to-inclusion-and-respect)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Many other commenters imply that since people would flee the platform if they couldn't discriminate, that AirBnB shouldn't have to deal with the problem. It's the opposite. AirBnB is required to deal with the problem. Their challenge is to make it look like they are dealing with the problem (e.g. hire Eric Holder) while not actually dealing with it in any substantive way.

Lots of these new companies have as part of their secret sauce the hiding of racial discrimination and avoiding regulations and fees that their old style competitors can't. once/if the govt cracks down a lot of these valuations must be reimagined

<comment><USER21> Wow, you're right :

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/technology/airbnb-hires- ex...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/technology/airbnb-hires-ex-attorney- general-eric-holder-to-advise-on-anti-bias-policy.html)

It's like these corporations hiring diversity officers who won't fix anything in their discriminatory hiring process. Pure PR.

<comment> saiya-jin actually this doesn't mean anything - hiring a black person for anti- discriminatory position seems exactly like PR. Hey look, we hired him, we cannot possibly be discriminative, right?

and nobody was talking about airbnb's hiring process here, WTF?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> well people should have figured out by now : Airbnb's aren't hotels. And people should be free to deny others staying at their place, for whatever reason. Airbnb can't have it both ways, they know it and this effort will be pure PR.

<comment><USER22> I dunno; I feel Airbnb is really losing control of their product.

Most recently, I've noticed a lot of listings of great places for awesome prices... but only if you're willing to rent for 12 months continuously, provide your own furniture and pay a security deposit -- which is just a fucking apartment lease. It makes it hard to find "legit" rentals with so much of this kind of spam filling up the listings.

Worse yet, when I went to report such listings (since I'm pretty sure that's not what Airbnb is designed for), I couldn't figure out how to do it in the app. I get that companies want to operate with minimal overhead, but until their listing systems are run by AI that can outsmart unscrupulous humans, it makes their product shittier.

<comment> saiya-jin this doesn't make sense - you were looking for short term rental and the search was filled with 12-month rentals? ie the airbnb search is broken or the owners was falsely advertising short term availability when only yearly was available?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm confused by the responses in here so far. How does discriminating based on race, gender, age, etc guarantee that your property will not be damaged? If you want the access and business that using AirBnb's platform provides then you need to adhere to their rules. Pretty simple. If that's a problem use craigslist or some other service so you can use whatever prejudices you have to screen guests.

<comment><USER10> AirBnB places are not hotels. In the end as an Owner you should be free to select whoever you accept, just like you are free to decorate your place the way you wish. It's down to personal preference because it's the Owner's place in the end.

<comment><USER6> > AirBnB places are not hotels.

Often, they are _exactly_ illegal hotels.

> In the end as an Owner you should be free to select whoever you accept

You generally aren't legally in the US, with very narrow exceptions, especially if you have a commercial service involved with you in arranging the rental. AirBnB doesn't make the laws, but they are bound by them, and are visible enough that simply ignoring them may no longer be tenable.

<comment><USER24> "Often" is a stretch. I've never seen anything I would classify as a hotel in the US. I have seen them in other countries, e.g. SE Asia, and those were completely legal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Coming up next: AirBnB adopts rules in effort to fight discrimination OF its hosts.

Some guests may avoid to stay with hosts of certain life styles, gender, race or religion. This discrimination must be stopped.

<comment><USER6> > The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper > classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

Unlike discrimination by hosts against renters, discrimination by renters against hosts doesn't seem to be a violation of the fair housing laws of either the United States or any State, so, at least in the US, is less likely to be a legal compliance issue to which their may be liability attached.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So the article has this bit:

'The biases of hosts can be cloaked — for example, one Airbnb listing in Washington states "we cannot accept guests arriving in D.C. by bus or motor coach," without mentioning race, class or ethnicity — and may be difficult to eradicate.'

If you google it, there is only one AirBnb account with it (few listings for the rooms), with 882 total reviews. [https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/56977?sug=50](https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/56977?sug=50)

This is what they put in their description:

"Regrettably,we cannot accept guests arriving in DC by bus or motor coach. If you are travelling in the northeast corridor, especially from New York or Philadelphia, we suggest you take the Amtrak train service."

I really wonder if they have a valid reason (late arrival due to bus delays for instance), but I suppose if it's looks discriminatory that's as bad as being so.

<comment><USER27> > we cannot accept guests arriving in D.C. by bus or motor coach

How would the host even know that? Are they going to ask for a picture of your plane ticket?

<comment><USER26> Right, and many of their reviews mention how close the bus and metro lines are, so it's not like they are a transit dead zone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> One thing I didn't see is AB&B promoting its business model to affected classes of people. Get more affected classes of people on your platform (i.e. as hosts) and have them lead the way.

</comment><comment><USER29> Very tricky. Who you allow to stay in your home is a very personal and grave decision and people want as much information about the potential guests as possible. If they were to take this a step further and remove guest pictures altogether, I suspect that you'd see a mass flight to a competing platform.

For people who are renting out their primary home (and especially if they'll be there at the same time as the guest), I don't think it's _ever_ right to challenge their decision to accept or deny a guest.

But someone running a number of units as full-time rentals should be held to anti-discrimination laws.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've historically had trouble getting people to respond to my lodging requests on AirBNB. I learned quickly to let my (white) wife do the bookings for our family. When I'm traveling on my own, it's just easier (and frequently cheaper) to just check into a traditional hotel.

It's an intractable problem, and I don't see a good way forward for AirBNB.

</comment><comment><USER31> I have happily rented to people of many races, religions, and nationalities, mixed race and same-sex couples, and so forth. However, I do not want anybody telling me who I must have in my home. My nephew did four tours in Iraq and does not care to have Iraqis in his home, I have fire-code-acceptable windows in my apartment but a physically-handicapped person could not reach them. I rent to Orthodox Jews under a privacy plan but I don't want to be told I must make sweeping accommodations due to a guest's religious observances. I won't rent to teens at all so what if they happen to be Muslim? I don't rent to anyone who can't pass a background check so what if they happen to be Hispanic? My husband and I are in our 70s and carefully vet everyone we invite into our home, and no one is going to ever tell me I can't.

</comment><comment><USER32> How as a society do we decide appropriate discrimination vs. inappropriate discrimination? We discriminate constantly, every single of us - making choice of this person over that person. Is that wrong? when does it become wrong? is it not something that can be hashed out?

<comment><USER33> We have had this debate in the US. We determined that that you can discriminate against people for most random reasons, but if you run a public accommodation there are several specific reasons you can't use to discriminate.

<comment><USER32> Those being race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation I suppose? Still seems rather arbitrary, if I'm being honest. Acting for example; how is casting based on race legal? Or maybe it's not... idk. Interesting topic though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Going to be honest, they can try but since these are private homes they wont get far.

<comment><USER32> Why doesn't that logic apply to, say, private coffee shops?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Airbnb's report can be found here: [http://blog.airbnb.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/REPORT_Air...](http://blog.airbnb.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/REPORT_Airbnbs-Work-to-Fight-Discrimination-and-Build- Inclusion.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER36>
      In May, Gregory Selden, who is African-American, filed a class-action discrimination suit against the company, saying that he had been denied a place to stay because of his race.

Well that's just ridiculous.

AirBnB is a facilitator. They don't make decisions like that. Can they encourage anti-discrimination? Sure. Is it their responsibility? No.

</comment><comment><USER37> Doesn't discrimination end up hurting the hosts in the end? Having less demand drives the rental costs down.

<comment><USER38> It didn't hurt businesses in the American south enough to compel them to stop discriminating. I don't get it either, why would I turn down someone's money because they're black, but lots of people did and whatever economic pain they felt from it was apparently outweighed by the joy of being racist assholes.

<comment><USER5> Please learn some history. Businesses in the American south were legally required to discriminate.

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

One of the major motivations in keeping Jim Crow laws was to prevent economic competition (a "race to the bottom") between whites and non-whites. See also FDR's pro-union/pro-white policies.

<comment><USER39> Linking to Wikipedia without expounding which details you are referring to is a bit of sleight of hand. Specifically, what part of "separate but equal" [1] "legally required" that "separate" facilities for blacks have poorer conditions than the facilities for whites? I speculate that it's embedded cultural beliefs of hatred and superiority/inferiority (or, at a minimum, apathy) that caused those poorer conditions and discrimination to happen much more so than anything that was "legally required" or based on economic concerns.

Also, the issue at hand for Airbnb is specifically about hosts discriminating against potential guests. How do hosts that discriminate against guests encourage a "race to the bottom"? There might be parallels between discrimination a la _Jim Crow_ and discrimination a la _Airbnb hosts_ , but they aren't in the form of economic concerns. Your snark about learning history seems misplaced.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson#Significanc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson#Significance)

<comment><USER5> If you scroll up, you'll see Frondo asserting that "It [discrimination] didn't hurt businesses in the American south enough to compel them to stop discriminating."

Frondo is attempting to argue that market forces don't punish people (much) for discrimination. I'm simply pointing out that market forces weren't even allowed. People discriminated because the law said things like this:

"No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls."

"Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor..."

"No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter."

" Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race..."

[http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa...](http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm)

<comment><USER39> Only one (the first) of the four quotes you've chosen restrict market forces in the way you are envisioning, i.e. white workers don't want black competition. I'd be interested in what the next sentence was, and wouldn't be surprised if it was "no white barber shall serve as a barber to colored women". (Aside: it seems like lots of these snippets are floating around the internet with little by way of attribution.)

The remaining three are "separate but equal". We return to the question: what about these laws _required_ that the "separate" facilities be of lesser quality? Nothing about "separate but equal" immediately screams "discrimination", but as we know from history, it can end in discriminatory practice. The _de facto_ ramifications of the laws were that black populations suffered (economically/educationally/etc.) at the hands of white populations: the market forces were not strong enough to encourage a lifting of the laws, or genuinely equal facilities, as Frondo suggests. Similarly, market forces may not be strong enough to encourage Airbnb hosts to serve all potential customers equally.

Your causation is backwards: people created the laws (under guise of equality) because they wanted to discriminate (and, if you want to boil everything down to some ahistorical economic gesture, it resulted in market forces tilting in their favor). To say that the laws _stemmed_ from the economic implications is a stretch, especially post _Plessy_.

<comment><USER5> The first of the four quotes describes a market restriction on employment. The other three describe market restrictions demanding discrimination for customers.

 _Similarly, market forces may not be strong enough to encourage Airbnb hosts to serve all potential customers equally._

That may be true, but citing legally required discrimination as evidence in favor of that proposition is silly. No one claims market forces can fix bad politics.

<comment><USER39> If we can't agree that the last three refer to "separation" ( _de facto_ discrimination) and not _de jure_ discrimination, I think we will only continue to argue past one another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> With increasing risks that come with the platform growth, this is a move against host safety. We need more discrimination (I mean potential guests should be made to supply more information to give hosts better ways to discriminate), not less.

Robbery, rapes and kills are waiting in the corner.

</comment><comment><USER41> I have had a reservation cancelled in the last moment (in the Bay Area) without a valid reason. Also about half of the hosts do not even reply to the initial queries. It is not hard to speculate that me being a 20-something brown guy has something to do with it.

</comment><comment><USER42> It's time to stop and think about where the cyber-Libertarian line of argument is taking us.

On the one side, AirBnB's rampant violation of lodging and zoning regulations should be disregarded because it's the will of the people, and because hotels are just abusing their government-granted monopoly on mini soaps and pay-per- view porn.

Now people are arguing that, because AirBnB is only serving as a matchmaking service for millions of individual homeowners, not only is it hard to prevent discrimination, but they shouldn't even try.

Assuming the free market works as it usually does, we are heading for a future where we replace millions of hotel beds that are guaranteed to serve everyone equally with millions of AirBnB beds hosted by proprietors free to discriminate against anybody and everybody. How is that progress?

</comment><comment><USER43> Where are the consequences for discriminating hosts? This feels like lip service.

<comment><USER44> lets read the new 'community commitment' agreement on Nov. 1st.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I've read through many of the comments here. People are discussing laws, morality, and how race bias affects our behaviors. All interesting topics. The thing that is most obvious to me is that disrupting technologies and services like $x.sharing challenge existing laws, which are based on past experiences and don't plan for future growth.

It's also obvious we're ill-equipped to deal with it in a timeframe that is reasonable. It's a race condition that the law will always lose, because by the time it catches up the new disrupter will be in full effect.

I think that AirBnB is doing a good thing by trying to address a real problem, even if it's not 100% effective. And if they determine it is not, I hope they continue to try and make it better.

</comment><comment><USER46> People giving their homes to Airbnb aren't hotels. They should be entitled to do whatever they want with it.

And what's this no picture thing? Pictures are really important and gut feelings are a great thing.

</comment><comment><USER47> Airbnb is too hyped up. It needs to learn some lessons from its Indian counterpart Oyo rooms.

</comment><comment><USER48> On the flip side, do you really want to stay with a host who would otherwise be discriminatory towards you. I certainly wouldn't. It might be more interesting if you provided your discriminating characteristics and then you could publicly see a host's bias.

<comment><USER49> I'm black and I agree with you. I don't want bigots strong armed into accepting my money. Though I do understand how someone would feel slighted by race based discrimination and want to take action against it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Freedom of association is not evil.

</comment><comment><USER51> I've recently used airbnb services for the first time, I stayed in Pasadena, the apartment was nice and everything but the ceiling fan was installed below safety height of 7', when I was taking off my shirt before going to sleep the spinning fan blade hit my arm pretty badly and broke down falling a feet away from my toddler son, host charged me 160$ (for a fan blade) for the damage and I had to pay it even thought I think host should be responsible for the injuries that your unsafe conditions cause. Airbnb was on host's side stating that I am responsible for damage, but think about it, what if host's apartment has some electric or other problems - will I be also responsible for damages that unsafe installation caused to their apartment? I will not use airbnb services anymore because of that one awful experience I had. The overnight stay that was suppose to save me money - turned into a much more expensive and quite painful experience than what a hotel could have offered me.

<comment><USER52> i remember reading an article about someone who used an unsafe tire swing at an airbnb and died, but who needs regulations? this is about sharing and disrupting!</comment></comment>


How NLP helps Mattermark find business opps – A conversation with Samiur Rahman - <AUTHOR> http://techemergence.com/how-natural-language-processing-helps-mattermark-find-business-opps-a-conversation-with-samiur-rahman/ <comment><USER2> Grass-fed rib eye comment re: Instacart search was painfully real.</comment>


50,000 users install malware from the Android Market - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/03/01/android-malware-apps/

<comment><AUTHOR> "Remember, the Android Market is open, which can be great and unfortunate in different circumstances. Always read user reviews before you download; and if you have any doubts, play it safe."

This is how Apple's approach is good for developers. Their customers don't have to play it safe.</comment>


New Jersey looks to nurture tech startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.northjersey.com/news/127717853_Head_start_for_ventures.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Curious if there are any Jersey folks amongst us and whether or not they might eschew potential NYC opportunities in favor of being closer to home if something like this comes to fruition.

</comment><comment><USER2> I feel like the uncoolness and suburban nature of much of NJ will work against the success of this.

<comment><USER3> At the same time there are many upsides too. Northern NJ has easy access to NYC without the high cost of living, overhead, and additional city taxes. As the tech scene in NYC continues to grow, I can see some of it spilling over to the other side of the bridge (or tunnel). In fact, if NYC does ever produce a massive tech company ( a la FB, Google, Paypal, etc size) I can see norther NJ being the logical location for a campus headquarters.

<comment><USER2> I mean there are a lot of rational reasons for a startup to be in northern NJ, but the other rising startup areas mentioned in the article (with the exception of Bryn Mawr, I don't know whats up with that) are all places that are cool for young people to move to and have a certain societal status. Telling your friends that you are going to move to Bergen County just isn't the same as saying you are going to Boulder.

A lot of suburban places "make sense," like for instance Nashua, NH is well within commuting distance of Boston/Cambridge and offers lower taxes, rental property, etc. but I doubt the Boston-area startups will move there.

I do agree that it will be the home for corporate campuses (I live in Westchester Co., NY, which has a lot in the way of large companies but not many startups, and is very similar to northern NJ), but that makes a lot of sense. A large company needs WAY more space, has an established revenue stream (so taxes matter way more) and the employees will be way more likely to have a family and therefore be more interested in living in the suburbs.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do some names appear in green? - <AUTHOR>

I have seen some peoples names appear in green on the homepage and in comments. Any particular reason for it ? <comment><USER2> Green names are for new users, I believe.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I believe they are for new users - possibly under a week old

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I didn't even realize it to ask the question, but now I know why I'm green!

Green is an appropriate color, too!</comment>


Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to Lose Access to Elsevier Journals - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-in-germany-peru-and-taiwan-to-lose-access-to-elsevier-journals-1.21223 <comment><USER2> How about "Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to Rightfully Dump Elsevier Journals" ?

Or maybe "Librarians in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to Rightfully Dump Elsevier Journals" ?

</comment><comment><USER3> Title is inaccurate. The scientists in question can simply go to sci-hub and input the DOI to access the Elsevier articles.

We need more heroes like Alexandra Elbakyan.

<comment><USER4> This isn't a solution because, while yes, it does allow them to access some/all of the specific journals and articles the academics would need to use, but the schools/country aren't going to advocate for this since they want the contract with Elsevier in general even if they don't like the terms.

<comment><AUTHOR> It isn't a solution in theory, but it's a great solution in practice.

You're right that the schools won't advocate so-called piracy, but they don't seem to care too much about dropping the subscriptions either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think science is at an interesting point. We've just had our Napster moment with Sci-hub. We'll soon have our Youtube moments with Authorea ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa1ObxI_dqU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa1ObxI_dqU)) and the rise of preprints in new disciplines, In short, I see self-publishing and dissemination increasing in the coming years.

Maybe we'll have our Justin Bieber of research quite soon!

<comment><USER6> Authorea looks cool, but you should probably disclose in the comment that you are associated with it. You might even get more attention to it that way, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In subjects like physics journals are already an anachronism as everything is published and referred via arXiv anyway.

</comment><comment><USER8> Previous related discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13187315](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13187315)

</comment><comment><USER9> Why not change "publish or perish" to "edit, review or publish or perish?" Gather a union of universities, or a guild or whatnot, and publish through guild venues.

</comment><comment><USER10> How long til Elsevier sues scihub? What scihub does isn't possibly legal, is it?

<comment><USER11> About negative 19 months (Elsevier filed a lawsuit against Sci-Hub on June 3, 2015).

[http://www.stephenmclaughlin.net/2016/03/18/elsevier-v- sci-h...](http://www.stephenmclaughlin.net/2016/03/18/elsevier-v-sci-hub-on- the-docket/)</comment></comment>


"Facebook Questions is exactly like Quora." - <AUTHOR> http://simplyryan.com/2010/07/28/facebook-questions-is-exactly-like-quora/

<comment><USER2> The value of Quora, from my limited time using it, doesn't seem to be in the system so much as it is in the user base. I've seen answers authored by more founders/programmers/entrepreneurs from successful companies than I care to count.

Facebook is going to suffer from a very fundamental flaw: its users are there to do two things: spy on their friends and play casual games. No one is logging into Facebook with the Google-esque "I'm trying to find something or help someone else find something" mentality.

Quora's users are highly motivated and know why they are at Quora.com - to ask and answer questions.

Interestingly, this is probably the same reason why Google will never succeed at social networking. Google has solidified itself in the minds of the public as the company who provides us with information when we want it, not the company who satisfies our voyeuristic desires.

All this being said, as much as I rag on Reddit, I think they have Quora and Facebook beat as far as question/answers go. If someone could harvest that data and provide an interface that isn't as butt-fugly as Reddit they'd get some decent traffic.

<comment><USER3> I'm absolutely stunned by the quality of the Quora user base. Someone asks "How did Netscape do X" and Marc Andreessen says "Well what we did was..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Title question + answers + right hand nav != exactly like.

The profile of the answers will produce the difference. I get the impression that FB-answers will be more like a comment on a facebook story while Quora is more authoritative like a wikipedia page.

FB comments are fast, easy, and shallow. Wikipedia is relatively contemplative and certainly greater depth.

Wikipedia is also much more persistence. The past doesn't seem to exist on Facebook, but for question search, it might in this case.

<comment><USER5> Problem with "authoritative answers" is it depends entirely on the user base (and in the case of Wikipedia, very active moderation). If Quora becomes massive it'll end up with plenty of trivial questions and unhelpful answers.

In that respect, the existence of Facebook questions might actually help keep out the chaff from Quora. It's not so good for the investors though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Social network websites are similar. Github has followers and will probably add related projects or individuals that work on similar projects.

The difference for me is facebook is a mess, it's too big, the design has gotten very sloppy and aesthetically it's corporate looking, designed by committee vomit. I don't get how people spend prolonged periods of time there. At least it's one less distraction for me.

</comment><comment><USER7> FB questions is about as much like Quora as Quora is like StackOverflow.

Fair game in this competitive landscape.

</comment><comment><USER8> Very few facebook groups which touch the mainstream (and even some fairly specific ones have a much lower quality of discussion than what I've seen from Quora. Problem is that as Quora grows it will come up against the same issue, being a niche website doesn't seem like the Quora vision.

</comment><comment><USER9> I feel like if your entire product can be put out of business/duplicated overnight, there's little value in what you're doing.

I'm sure Quora will be fine; they've been around a little and have a community.

<comment><USER10> >I feel like if your entire product can be put out of business/duplicated overnight, there's little value in what you're doing.

>I'm sure Quora will be fine; they've been around a little and have a community.

Arent these statements a bit at odds? Anyways, I think the "little value" argument doesnt hold very well in the age of social sites, where the network effect is hugely important. Lots of people could create a half-assed twitter/facebook clone quickly, but that hardly means theres little value in those 2 companies. I mean look at LinkedIn - The product is pretty bad, but it has such strong network effects its not going anywhere soon (unless someone builds an app on top of facebook, IMO.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The lack of anonymity is a huge differentiator.

<comment><USER12> Anon User has been steadily decreasing in prominence on Quora.

I signed up in March 2010, and Quora has been my favorite site since then, mainly due to the initial population of users, those users setting a high standard, and then new users carrying though.

There are a lot of Quora users I actually trust more than my facebook friends, and several I also like more.

The slickest realtime UI I've seen to date makes the whole thing even more pleasant.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, facebook questions has an ESP Game-like solution to answer questions, similar to hunch where you cycle through questions (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESP_game>).

</comment><comment><USER13> "Reddit is exactly like Digg."</comment>


Bitcoin is Inflationary (and, apparently, inflammatory) - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/hrk17/bitcoin_is_inflationary_and_apparently/

<comment><USER2> No, the initial process of mining the bitcoins is inflationary. After they are mined, it is deflationary.

If you misunderstood that, then you didn't understand the arguments in the first place.

<comment><USER3> I understand how this is true according to the historic definitions, so I agree with you, but frankly, I'm not sure what bitcoin is. There's never been anything quite like it before, where quantity in circulation over time follows something like an inverse parabolic curve, and is immune to many traditional forms of currency manipulation.

I think I'll just sit back and watch. I may even through a few hundred at it just to see what happens.</comment></comment>