HNBooks: Hooked by Nir Eyal with Ryan Hoover - <AUTHOR> Have you read the book? What are your thoughts about it? <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote a really short review on my blog: [https://www.tomasmartty.com/hooked- by-nir-eyal-with-ryan-hoo...](https://www.tomasmartty.com/hooked-by-nir-eyal- with-ryan-hoover/)</comment>


Raspberry PI - Available to buy today. well, actually no. - <AUTHOR>

http://www.raspberrypi.org/ was updated early this morning to tell the world that today you can get your very own slice of RaspberryPI.
"The Raspberry Pi is available at either Premier Farnell or RS Components. Search for Raspberry Pi, and then follow the normal shopping and checkout process."
This is fantastic and exciting news, until you go to RS Components and find that you can't - and have to fill out another 'Let me know' customer contact form.
Speaking with a RS Components customer service representative I am told that they are aware of today's announcement but have not been supplied with any stock as yet and do not have any eta. on it's delivery.
So I guess all there is to do now is fill out a form - and wait patiently :) <comment><AUTHOR> Update: Unfortunately the second supplier - <http://farnell.com/> \- appears to be suffering from an unintentional DOS attack from PI lovers.

RasberryPI have updated their site to state - "Note: both websites are currently experiencing heavy load, and international customers may find that Raspberry Pi is not available yet in their territory. Please be patient, and consider checking back in a few hours' time..."</comment>


America's Dazzling Tech Boom Has a Downside: Not Enough Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-dazzling-tech-boom-has-a-downside-not-enough-jobs-1476282355 <comment><AUTHOR> What isn't explicitly mentioned in the article but worth calling out here is AWS and other cloud computing environments. That is a major part of what enabled:

"Instagram had 13 employees when it was acquired for $1 billion by Facebook in 2012"

and

"WhatsApp had more than 450 million users world-wide when Facebook bought the messaging service for $19 billion in 2014, turning founder Jan Koum into a billionaire several times over. At the time of the acquisition, WhatsApp had 55 employees."

With prior tech booms, even if the computers that powered them were manufactured outside the US, they had to be installed and maintained in the US by employees of the company. Now all of that outsourced to Amazon and Google, who in turn have datacenters that employ few people.

Don't get me wrong- I love these services but a massive question still remains: Who is now responsible for job creation in the United States? It previously came naturally as a result of economic growth but that no longer holds.</comment>


Campus Party Colombia begins tomorrow -- is anyone else here attending? - <AUTHOR> http://www.campus-party.com.co/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a Canadian dev/designer in Colombia for six weeks or so, and my trip just happened to coincide with this conference so I signed up. I recently left my last company and am now focused on (1) improving my programming skills and (2) meeting possible collaborators for future projects/companies. If anyone wants to meet up in Bogota, shoot me an email.</comment>


Y Combinator Introduces Safe, Its Alternative To Convertible Notes - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/06/yc-safe/ <comment><USER2> This is really interesting. My company is currently funded with convertible debt, and we have had to modify the conversion date at least three times thus far as we progressed through various twists and turns in our business model and funding structure. The SAFE mechanism would have likely alleviated a large and (unfortunately) recurring headache.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here are the Safe documents if anyone is interested. [http://ycombinator.com/safe/](http://ycombinator.com/safe/)</comment>


Rambus, Microsoft Put DRAM into Deep Freeze to Boost Performance - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/05/06/rambus-microsoft-put-dram-deep-freeze-boost-performance/ <comment><USER2> Heh, I thought "wait a minute didn't IBM do this 20 years ago and it was a total flop?" and yes, and its one of the same people involved.

Cryogenic computing wasn't a bust because the technology didn't work. It does. It was a bust because silicon _really_ hates to transition between cryogenic temperatures and room temperature. If you transition it quickly (say you pull a card out of the liquid nitrogen and start working on it) it will crack as it warms up unevenly. As a result you needed anywhere from 20 to 48 hours to get a card from 'cryo' temp to 'room' temp, and while you could cool a bit faster it still took longer than just dumping it in LN2. So repairs and maintenance were multi-day affairs. Compare that to a modern AWS, Google, or Azure data center where a system fails, a tech can skate out to it with a new motherboard, pull the old one, put the new one in, and poof you're back on line in under 30 minutes.

As a result cryo computers either had to have failure rates that were so low that a repair that required transitioning the hardware through a cold/warm/cold cycle rarely happened, or you had to have enough extra hardware to support your base load while part of it was slowly going through the cold/warm/cold cycle.

I don't know how much IBM spent, but it was a _lot_ and they never cracked that nut.

<comment><USER3> As long as the gains out weight the overhead of having extra capacity to compensate for the longer repair cycles, it's still a win.

You can make a unit operate in cryogenic temperatures and, when it fails, power it down and manage its cooling long enough it can be removed safely. When repaired, just re-add it and cool it down until you can safely bring it online.

<comment><USER2> Agreed, and for 25 years IBM could not make that equation balance out. They tried a _lot_ of different ideas. You can see some of their patents for examples. (for a fun time go to patents.google.com and search for 'cryogenic ibm' there are _lots_ of patents)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "Something not many people are talking about is playing the temperature > card," Bronner says [...] "All the talk I hear is about stretching Moore's > Law in the datacenter, such as using GPU accelerators. Those will work, but > it's a one-time shot. You use it once and you are done."

But isn't "the temperature card" something you only get to play once as well? Once you've adopted supercooled computing, where do you go from there?

(This guy knows there's such a thing as absolute zero, and that you can't just keep getting colder, right?)

Sorry, I guess I still have antipathy towards Rambus since the 1990s. =)

<comment><USER5> Not sure about the physics, but supercooled chips might use superconductors. Those would have zero resistance, and maybe that means they'll emit hardly any heat. And since modern chips are so heat-constrained, it would allow them to change the design entirely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is Rambus still a thing? I remember their vendor lockin RAM memory from Pentium 4 era. Later there were some bad PR and lawsuits, and the PC world moved on. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus)

<comment><USER7> Wow, I didn't know about the patent trolling:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Patent_Lawsuits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Patent_Lawsuits)

I just remembered the Intel/Rambus boards that all had to be recalled because of Rambus issues (IIRC, the issue wasn't with the ram, but actually the boards themselves. Many of the boards were given to employees who took the ram and chucked the boards).

<comment><USER8> Yea, I think you are probably referring to how i820 RDRAM boards had to be limited to two slots. This kind of signal integrity issues is not limited to RDRAM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is this the same Rambus that essayed into patent trolling standards? If so, I'm surprised they didn't change their name.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, it's a blast from the past. I was surprised to see them on the HN front page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why would cooling offer such big performance improvement to DRAM ? even if it improves transistor witching speed, wire switching speed shouldn't be affected and it is a significant component of latency , right ?

<comment><USER12> I would imagine the cooling itself isnt so much speeding it up as it is making it reliable at higher clock speeds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If they were smart, they'd advertise this with : "Tech Ops HATES him! Check out this one weird trick that increases your memory speed 200%!!!"</comment>


Schizophrenia: New Electronic Application May Help - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120203092031.htm

<comment><USER2> Here's a simple idea. How about they just wear a device on say their wrists That visually displays sounds?

So whenever they hear a voice they can make sure the display matches up. If they hear a voice but the display doesn't show anything then they know it's not real.

<comment><USER3> Uh, this is actually a pretty good idea, if you could implement it. It would have to filter out background noise, and would be tough to make it work in a crowd, but it seems like a decent aid, at least for those who are lucid enough to understand that they have a disorder.

As SoftwareMaven explains below, many schizophrenics experience visual hallucinations in addition to aural hallucinations, but this doesn't seem like a huge stumbling block.

Bigger, I think, is the paranoia aspect. If you really, _truly_ believe the plants in and outside your house are vampires who are waiting to kill you (true story, unfortunately) I can't imagine you're going to put too much faith into your wristband.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Yes, based on the article, there were the application was already used to two schizophrenia and the result is promising. I hope this will work out well.

According to psychology field, there is no medicine for this kind of problem. So I hope that this new discovery will help.

<comment><USER4> There are medicines, but the effectiveness is very hit-or-miss and the side effects can be horrid. Schizophrenia also is often accompanied by feelings of paranoia, which, combined, can make it difficult for patients to stay on medication.

<comment><AUTHOR> What I meant by medicine is that it cannot help person to get well. Drinking medicine should be maintained, or else the patient will hear again the voice that is only in his mind. Not like flu or fever, a patient can get well if he drinks the prescribed medicine.

<comment><USER4> Ahh, I see. "There is no cure" is the phrase we would generally use. And, yes, unfortunately, there is no cure. We don't remotely understand what causes it, much less how to fix it. :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Yah, thanks for giving me the exact words, no cure. I think the cure only rely on the person's will power to be well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> schizophrenia? theres an app for that....

</comment><comment><USER6> Might be useful for certain politicians running for president...</comment>


Bloomd: C Network Daemon for Bloom Filters - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/armon/bloomd <comment><USER2> Some of the reasons for the development of this project were mentioned by one of the developers when the Redis HyperLogLog support was discussed on Hacker News: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506774#up_7508861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506774#up_7508861)

      > We sacrificed durability, accuracy, and some level of safety [...] for raw speed.

It comes up a lot as being used by various ad companies to track all their counters.</comment>


Functors, Applicatives, and Monads in Plain English - <AUTHOR> http://www.russbishop.net/monoids-monads-and-functors <comment><USER3> I've found that trying to simplify things is an impossible thing to do in the programming community (cue to "You're missing the point / You're oversimplifying / This is not what a monad is").

It's a problem that stems from being surrounded by millions of people who take disproportionate pride in the belonging to a savant elite. What I always say to people who ask me to describe programmers: "Programmers are people who like to create metaphors, but who like to correct other people's metaphors even more".

That being said, I feel like I've progressed in my understanding of those concepts by reading the post, so thanks to the author.

<comment><USER4> No. It's a problem because you, the reader, _are_ missing the point.

Being against cargo cults does not make you elitist. This characterizes _a lot_ of people, and it's not fair or accurate to blindly ascribe them with malicious motivations.

Think about a different area: people who try to "simplify" quantum computing. What do we get? Mass confusion. The fact that so many people think that quantum computers can solve all NP complete problems by trying every possibility _is a real problem_ , not a consequence of "people who take disproportionate pride..."!

And then people go on an try to build things on top of these ideas and end up creating a mess because they started off on shaky foundations. Then that mess gets enshrined in a popular library, it creates lots of problems for everyone. Then programmers either live with those problems or conclude that the whole functional programming "thing" is delusional and useless.

<comment><USER3> You're absolutely right. To be clear, I was not saying that everything can and should be simplified, some things just warrant a certain level of complexity because they're... well... complex and that's absolutely fine (your example of quantum computing is great in that regard, though I supposed it COULD be vulgarized for the masses to some extent, at least more than it currently).

I was addressing the difficulty I've seen in the programming community of trying to make things more accessible when they actually can and should be.

<comment><USER5> I think there's a kind of naive reductionism that runs throughout CS.

You can avoid complexity by ignoring it in the proverbial Dunning-Kruger kind of way - where you don't know what you don't know, but you try to turn your toy misunderstanding of some domain into code anyway.

Or you can avoid it by creating over-systematised technologies that try to barricade "impure" unpredictability behind a big wall of abstraction and insider-only jargon.

They're both defensive moves against the messiness of the real world.

There may be other approaches that trade off accessibility with useful results in other ways.

<comment><USER6> This "naive reductionism" looks to me like the difference between the way that analysts and algebraists work on problems [1]:

"If I have to wave my hands and explain it, I would explain it like this. In algebra there are sequences of operations which have proven to be important and effective in one circumstance. Algebraists try to reuse these operations in different contexts in the hopes that what proved effective in one situation will be effective again. By contrast an analyst is likely to form an idiosyncratic mental model of specific problems. Based on that mental model you have intuitions that let you carry out long chains of calculations that are, in principle, obviously going to lead to the right thing. Typically your intuition is correct to within a constant factor, and you're only interested in some sort of limiting behavior so that is fine."

How else is a person supposed to _intelligently_ explore the solution space of a problem other than through some kind of "naive reductionism"?

[1] [http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/08/analysis-vs-algebra- pre...](http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/08/analysis-vs-algebra-predicts- eating.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thousands of blog posts later, I don't think the following has changed:

* Explaining these concepts in the abstract results in bafflement as to why anyone would care about these useless abstract concepts.

* Explaining only the concrete instances of these concepts results in missing the point that they are all instances of the same concepts (and that you can write reusable code at that level, which can be a big productivity improvement).

* The only way to understand both at once is to sit down and read/write a bunch of code until you understand both levels. And once you pass that point _you_ get it, but then you hit the above two roadblocks trying to find a shortcut to explain the concepts to someone else.

It reminds me of music theory, where you can bombard someone with all sorts of concepts like scales, modes, chords, etc., but it's all nonsense until they actually _play music_ for a while--then most of it is both understandable and useful.

<comment><USER8> Except some of us understand these concepts, see how they can be used, but yet don't understand why we would ever use them.

In all these sort of articles I've never seen something that can't be done simpler with a bit of mutability sprinkled here and there. Sure having something 100% pure is great, but I don't know if I want that if it requires a 10x increase in complexity.

<comment><USER9> mutability increases complexity by 10x. Higher kinded types do not, they're unfamiliar and a bit weird at fist, but end up _simplifying things_.

Abstractions make code _easer_ to reason about (Go read about parametricity! really!).

Mutability doesn't even help you from a superficial level for some things. Sure, if you're shoehorning a state monad somewhere, a locally scoped variable might look easier. However, try to fix 'Futures' without monads? It's much much less elegant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> His 'plain english' descriptions are really just the definition in Haskell. Haskell defines one or two more methods for efficiency, but if you ignore the entries with default implementations you get:

1\. "Functors are containers you can call map on. That's it. Seriously."

        class  Functor f  where
          fmap        :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

Historically, fmap in Haskell used to be called map. They gave it a different name so that error messages would appear less abstract when working with lists.

        fmap (+2) [5] = [7]

2\. "you may want to have a function in the container and apply it to value(s) in another container of the same kind. "

        class Functor f => Applicative f where
          -- | Lift a value.
          pure :: a -> f a

          -- | Sequential application.
          (<*>) :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

So at least in Haskell, he describes the sequential application operator but leaves out the ability to lift a pure value to a container value.

        pure 5 = [5]

        [(+2)] <*> [5] = [7]

3\. "Monads are containers you can call flatMap on. Again, that's it."

        class Applicative m => Monad m where
          -- | Sequentially compose two actions, passing any value produced
          -- by the first as an argument to the second.
          (>>=)       :: forall a b. m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b

And here's how to use it like a flatmap:

        [1,2] >>= (\x -> [x + 5, x + 10])
        [6,11,7,12]

That's [1 + 5, 1 + 10, 2 + 5, 2 + 10] if you didn't catch that.

Usually these also come with some laws to help you reason about the typeclass, but looking purely at the language level it can help to remember that a Functor, Applicative, or Monad are nothing more than a type together with some functions with a certain signature.

I find it's usually more useful for a beginner to just start writing code without all the abstractions. Once they have a pile of code and start to want to clean it up a bit, it's not too hard to start stacking some monad transformers.

<comment><USER11> What's a monad transformer? I kind of know what a monad is, but what is a transformer? Functional programming sure does use some scary words. I guess OOP has it's fair share as well, with inheritance, subclasses, superclasses (which are much more super than your lowly subclass apparently), etc.

<comment><USER12> I like to think of it as a way to combine monads. Two classic examples might be the State monad and the Maybe monad.

So let's say you want to create a function that operates on some state and might return a value. These are clearly both monads that you've heard about in Haskell, but how do you use them together? The answer is to use a monad transformer.

StateT is the state monad transformer that takes any other monad and adds state to it. `StateT s m a' is a monad that adds a state of type s to a monad m. So `StateT Int Maybe a' is thing that when given an int which is its state, might return a value.

This particular combination was a little esoteric, so I'm not sure what a great example of this would be. However, you could also think of a situation where you want to have some sort of read-only state (such as flags from the command line) and the ability to write to a log.

In Haskell these are provided by the Reader and Writer monads. But again, you have two separate monads here and in order to actually make use of them, you'll need to combine them somehow. Enter a monad transformer. You can either transform a Writer monad with the ReaderT monad transform or transform a Reader monad with the WriterT transform.

      ReaderT r (Writer w) a
      OR
      WriterT w (Reader r) a

Both satisfy this use case. I think those two constructions should be equivalent and conceptually equal. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong and there is some actual reason that those are different. To my understanding, the difference is purely due to limitations of the language as opposed to the mathematical constructs.

<comment><USER10> There's also the RWS monad, that rolls in Reader, Writer, and State one big monad. It's useful for servers and other applications: Configuration is Reader, changing state is in State, and log messages go to Writer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As someone who has walked that path, being a complete beginner in functional programming, learning via simple examples, such as the article, and then finally learning (or perhaps beginning to grasp) the basics of category theory, I can say that from my observation there's no substitution to the actual mathematical perspective on the matter.

This point might have been made elsewhere, but I think the abstract nature of such concepts discussed in the article, makes it hard for "partial understanding" to be useful. In other words, for a beginner to read the article, and then go and start using the concepts themselves, is very unlikely. Either you learn the existing interface like the Maybe monad, or the Reader monad, and you learn how to invoke its functionality, OR you have a solid grasp of Monads as a concept and how it can be applied in any language, which usually means some understanding of category theory. To JUST know that Monads are containers that return "flattened" containers is useless. In other words, you don't need to understand Monads to use them, and if you want to understand them, then perhaps containers are a bit too bastardizing to give you a full view of how and why they're a useful pattern.

<comment><USER14> That reminded me of the introduction of the Typeclassopedia ( [https://wiki.haskell.org/Typeclassopedia](https://wiki.haskell.org/Typeclassopedia) ), which states one must understand the types and gain a good intuition of how the typeclasses relate to each other (and "good intuition comes from hard work, not from learning the right metaphor".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't know category theory, so I defer to more knowledgeable people here, but that sounds strange: "Functor it understands how to take doStuff and execute it on the value inside itself, then spit out a new Optional. You don't lose the int-ness or optional-ness." So if I map a function, that takes an int and returns a string over an array of ints, this array stops being a functor? Or is it just a Swift thing?

And, as always, I urge people spend an hour of their life and get the explanation of all this from someone who knows the math but still able to explain this in plain English: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhuHCtR3xq8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhuHCtR3xq8) To the best of my limited knowledge, it's all 100% correct.

<comment><USER16> > this array stops being a functor?

An individual array, as a runtime object, isn't, never was, and never will be a functor, as the term is used in this discussion. Rather, the functor is _the type constructor of arrays itself_ (to be pedantic: the type constructor _and_ the `map` function). In the grammar of most programming languages, type-level and value-level terms are kept separate, so not even in principle could you conflate a type constructor (a type-level entity) with a runtime object (a value-level entity).

<rant>

This is a very common problem. Most programmers are only used to reasoning about runtime objects, like "lists", "sockets" and "windows". Inasmuch as they talk about entities that don't have a runtime manifestation, like "types", "preconditions" and "invariants", these words are merely used as shorthand for things they want to say about runtime objects.

Understanding how concepts from abstract algebra and category theory are applied to programming requires a change of mindset: the subject matter is no longer "what happens to this individual object", but rather "what is the _structure_ common to a large class of objects" and "how can this structure be used as the backbone of our algorithms". This requires a new vocabulary in which abstract structures (which describe or constrain the representation of runtime objects, but don't have a runtime representation of their own) are first-class entities, so that you can say "the type constructor of immutable arrays is a functor" just as easily as you can already say "this runtime object is an array".

</rant>

<comment><USER15> > this array stops being a functor

Okay, "the type of this array stops belonging to the typeclass of functors". Better? Peace? :-)

I totally agree with your rant and I'm personally less than half way there myself, but this particular comment was within the context of the original article. I do understand the difference between the type and the value (instance). It's not even very hard for C++ programmers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice writeup. I also like [http://adit.io/posts/2013-04-17-functors,_applicatives,_and_...](http://adit.io/posts/2013-04-17-functors,_applicatives,_and_monads_in_pictures.html).

</comment><comment><USER18> Unfortunately, his simple explanation of these concepts is just not correct. He claims functors are a container you can map on and that monads are also containers.

Here's a monad (which is also an applicative functor) that isn't a container: probability. The space of probability distributions is a functor which can be mapped. In the sampling representation:

        p.map(f) = new Prob {
          def draw = f(p.draw)
        }

It also supports flatmap:

        p.flatMap(f) = new Prob {
          def draw = f(p.draw).draw
        }

Yet nothing is "contained". Each Prob object is just a random number variable generator.

<comment><USER19> Right. And function types aren't containers either. So much for "plain English".

<comment><USER18> We should just accept that math is a better language for some concepts and try to learn it. This idea that everything can and should be dumbed down for the innumerate is anti intellectual.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I appreciate the use of plain english, but it doesn't help understand why these things are good or important. Like, ok, monads avoid double- containering. That's... nice?

<comment><USER21> You could try "You Could Have Invented Monads" for an explanation of why they're valuable [https://blog.jcoglan.com/2011/03/05/translation-from- haskell...](https://blog.jcoglan.com/2011/03/05/translation-from-haskell-to- javascript-of-selected-portions-of-the-best-introduction-to-monads-ive-ever- read/) (linking to the JS version, which links to the Haskell version).

But while I liked that tutorial, I think what worked was time. I tried to write Haskell and slowly got a feel for them. After awhile, I started to read JS and Java code and think "oh, another monad".

<comment><USER22> Somehow in the last hour that link died. Here's a page with the same title, but in Haskell: [http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented- monad...](http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monads- and.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've read a ton of such blog posts recently in exploring this subject - <USER2> like the tradition is as soon as you believe you understand the monad you must immediately write a blog post explaining it and pointing out why everyone else's metaphor is too complicated.

This one is kind of nice in its succinctness, but that ends up meaning it doesn't explain why I should care or what I would do with my monad once I have grokked it.

I've yet to write my personal "how I grokked my monad and why everyone else is wrong" post, but I suspect that there's probably a sweet spot somewhere between 'monad is simply a monoid in the category of endofunctors' and a 'plain English' translation of the monad laws with no context. Preferably with an explanation of why I would want or need such a thing up front. Preferably without Haskell notation.

That said, such an intro would probably still be pretty hard going, some things are just hard, or at least difficult to understand without context. I said I've been reading lots of these recently, actually I've been reading them for a couple of years, but I've only been _understanding_ them recently because I've bumped into a problem domain for which the solution I was groping for in the dark turned out to be a monad.

Swift wise, I found the following to be very enlightening

[http://alisoftware.github.io/swift/2015/10/17/lets-talk- abou...](http://alisoftware.github.io/swift/2015/10/17/lets-talk-about- monads/)

[http://alisoftware.github.io/swift/async/error/2016/02/06/as...](http://alisoftware.github.io/swift/async/error/2016/02/06/async- errors/)

[http://khanlou.com/2015/09/what-the-heck-is-a- monad/](http://khanlou.com/2015/09/what-the-heck-is-a-monad/)

[http://www.javiersoto.me/post/106875422394](http://www.javiersoto.me/post/106875422394)

[http://chris.eidhof.nl/post/json-parsing-in- swift/](http://chris.eidhof.nl/post/json-parsing-in-swift/)

</comment><comment><USER24> When did "Swift" become "Plain English"?</comment>


David Brooks: And the geek shall inherit the earth - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/opinion/23brooks.html?hp <comment><USER2> How could an article about nerds miss the central point?

From "Revenge of the Nerds":

[http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/r/revenge-of- the-...](http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/r/revenge-of-the-nerds- script.html)

\- That was wonderful.

\- You did things to me you've never done before.

(gasps)

\- You're that nerd!

\- Yeah.

\- God, you were wonderful.

\- Thanks.

\- Are all nerds as good as you?

\- Yes.

\- How come?

\- Cos all jocks think about is sports.

\- All we ever think about is sex.

</comment><comment><USER3> More magic from the pen of bobo. His words are like spun gold in a grim world.

<comment><USER4> Why the hate? I thought it was a fairly well-written article.

<comment><USER3> Lordy, if I was grading a 10th grade English composition that ended with this:

 _For as it is written, the last shall be first and the geek shall inherit the earth._

...I just don't know how I'd react. Maybe by quitting. I guess the poll of "conservative" columnists is slim in NYC, but please, let's have someone who avoid writing op-eds that end in "For Better or For Worse"-style puns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Please bring Krugman back...

<comment><USER6> Krugman beat up Brooks and made him do his column. Brooks in turn apparently did the same thing to Safire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can pass this on to my non-geek friends and griends (short for girl friends). Writing is an art.

</comment><comment><USER8> What warmed-over yestershite is that? Boo.

</comment><comment><USER9> Ha.

Right this minute (~12PM EDT) this article is one spot below an old link to a very old XKCD strip about hanging on to your idealism.

(America's Paper of Record) < (paint-program stick figures)</comment>


What is the best privacy search engine? - <AUTHOR> Hi. Sorry about the stupid question. I come from reddit, I've always tried to use the best resource and often Reddit helped me, but with great difficulty. DuckDuckGo, SearX and others are often recommended. But I am undecided on which to use, what do you tell me? <comment><USER2> DuckDukGo is good. But sometimes I noticed that Google still give me better results :( , when searches are very specific though.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought so too, and the same thing happened to me. But I read on reddit that duckdcukgo is based on "Us Based" Related link: [https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/813un1/duck...](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/813un1/duckduckgo_is_not_safe/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For cryptographic privacy, [https://private.sh](https://private.sh)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> searx? [https://stats.searx.xyz/](https://stats.searx.xyz/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, [https://searx.be/](https://searx.be/) is the best for me. I hope hacker news can help me again.</comment></comment>


Süddeutsche Zeitung Became the Go-To Place for Leaks Like the Paradise Papers - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-a-german-newspaper-became-the-go-to-place-for-leaks-like-the-paradise-papers <comment><USER2> One of the best things about learning German has been the access to German news media. I find Suedeutsch Zeitung and a few others hold themselves to a higher quality than almost any english newspaper I've read. It's good to see english media take note!

<comment><USER3> UK "journalism" is simply stunningly bad now. When I think back 20 years ago the gap now is huge. I don't agree with the politics of The Telegraph but leaving that aside its slide is so sad. They now run stories about characters in TV programs as though they are actually real. All UK papers are now so bad I'd advise not reading any, including the FT which is simply terrible. They cannot die soon enough, the damage presently done by pandering to big bank advertisers is huge.

I think if you re-incarnated and showed the editor of the Telegraph from 1950 the web-site, just the difference between the background colour of "sponsored" stories versus actual stories, he'd blow his brains out. Never mind the actual content.

Do German papers do this, mix paid and actual content and attempt to show the paid as similar to real? Although this is nowhere near as bad as The Telegraph following the instructions of disgruntled banker advertisers:

[https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter- oborne/why-i-...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i- have-resigned-from-telegraph)

<comment><USER4> No mention of The Guardian? I have a pretty high opinion of their newsroom, and donate regularly. They've been doing solid investigative work lately, even on American topics.

<comment><USER5> Big problem with the Guardian is not making clear enough visual differentiation between their blogs — where anyone can write any old shit — and their actual reporting and editorial

<comment><USER6> How do you know the difference? Is it in the banner or the url?

<comment><USER7> I think the only real way nowadays is whether /commentisfree/ appears in the URL _and_ it isn't clearly marked as an Editorial.

I have a hypothesis that if the breadcrumb says "home › opinion" with no third level then you're in CIF, but I have no real evidence that that is actually reliable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Really glad Sueddeutsche Zeitung is getting international attention. They traditionally were vastly important for the intellectual life in Munich (e.g. many families had a subscription for the printed version and get it delivered to their doors in the morning). They do do excellent jorunalism, including on the local area around Munich. So, even though I have lived abroad, I am still a paying subscriber.

Quality journalism is useful and great, as are the investigative projects they have been engaged in. Moral? Do support quality journalism in your area if you can.

<comment><USER9> > Do support quality journalism in your area if you can.

And to be fair, the "clickbaiters" from Buzzfeed and friends also do some high quality investigative pieces, financed by the mentioned clickbait. Makes me wonder if this will be the future of journalism...

<comment><USER10> Where do you think they will cut costs when their clickbait income disappoints sometime in the future? Also, I think that given enough financial interest, media businesses like that can be pressured into not publishing/investigating something. They won't take on big financial interests, because in the end, readers are their product, not their reporting.

So I sure hope that will not be the future of journalism.

<comment><USER9> > They won't take on big financial interests, because in the end, readers are > their product, not their reporting.

That's the problem we have with nearly all media businesses these days. The exception are the various public media institutions (eg NPR, BBC, ARD/ZDF) because they do not depend on advertising, but they are subjected to pressure by politicians in leadership positions...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So what is the answer to the question how a German Newspaper became the go-to place for leaks like the Paradise Papers? The article doesn't explain anything. It just states what happened as a list of totally unrelated things.

<comment><USER12> I once read an interesting article about a journalist who had reported on a lot of corruption in FIFA.

He asked a question at a press conference to the effect of "there are a lot of rumours you are corrupt, do you have any comment?" \- but his motivation to ask that question wasn't that he expected a good answer. Rather, he was advertising his interest in the story to anyone who had info they'd like to leak. And just like that, he starts getting tips and leaked documents.

Süddeutsche Zeitung is in a similar position. By handling previous leaks well they've advertised several things: (a) They have the knowledge to recognise the importance of such documents, (b) they consider such content within the remit of their paper, (c) they won't bury the story out of fear of the rich and powerful (or on the advice of a risk-averse legal team) and (d) they can do an adequate job of OpSec and source protection.

For a leaker, the choice between Süddeutsche Zeitung and Teen Vogue is obvious.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure how one evaluates that they do good OpSec? Even firstlook failed and accidentally got Reality Winner arrested. So how does one know? Personally the question of OpSec gets more intense when A) I learn they let in a reporter from the New Yorker in to do, well, basically it's a Cribbs episode. And 2) when I learn that the group managing critical leaks is on the same floor as everyone else. Could you please protect your sources at least as well as Apple protects the Animoji release?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> All great, but one thing to question is who influences the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists".

ICIJ was launched as a project of the Center for Public Integrity, which is funded by i.a. The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation and a host of globalist foundations.

[https://www.publicintegrity.org/about/our- work/supporters](https://www.publicintegrity.org/about/our-work/supporters)

<comment><USER15> Bingo, weaponized journalism from some very familiar names. Similar to Fusion GPS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Have the raw dumps from either of the Paradise/Panama Papers been released?

<comment><USER17> No, and they won't. Reasons certainly include monopolization of the information but also protection of the leakers and others. Protecting the sources is one of the key things good journalism has to do.

<comment><USER18> some digital proof would be more convincing, like "at time X we got archive with merklehash H of all documents ([https://opentimestamps.org/](https://opentimestamps.org/)), and this information Y is from this source file hash F proved by this tree T".

<comment><USER17> For proving what? - I haven't seen anybody that their reports are inaccurate. The only possible critisicm might be that they maybe don't tell everything to protect individuals. (Which I don't believe they do) But even there it won't help if they publish everything as we can't have a prove it's everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think this is more a decision for a country rather than a newspaper. A raid on a newspaper like in England with the Guardian is pretty much unthinkable here.

German newspapers are just as biased as those in other countries. Süddeutsche is no exception.

<comment><USER20> Do you know newspapers in other countries? Having lived extensively in the UK and in Germany I can not agree. Imagine BILD being a moderate high quality newspaper.

Think I'm exagerating? Imagine BILD frontpage with constitutional judges pictured and headline "Volksfeinde":

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXwe6AXUAQsiCp.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwXwe6AXUAQsiCp.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If they weren't so far lost they would stop to applaud the German peoples' disdain for state surveillance. It makes Germany a safer base of operations than the US or UK.

<comment><USER22> Well, at least they don't try to bad porn over there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a Sueddeutsche Zeitung subscriber, yeah I am happy with them.

</comment><comment><USER24> I do believe Germany has the best protection laws for keeping sources secret. Not sure it says in the article. I haven't read it yet.

</comment><comment><USER25> Maybe that German paper is just an outlet of German secret service.

</comment><comment><USER26> Did anyone else notice the claim that "The computers had never been connected to the Internet," followed in the next paragraph by "On another screen, Obermayer opened iHub, the encrypted Facebook-like forum that the ICIJ created to make collaboration easier across borders"? Something doesn't add up here...

<comment><USER27> They have different computers. Some are not connected to internet, some others are.</comment></comment>


Git 2.0 is here - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/06/happened-git-2-0-full-goodies/ <comment><USER2> Full of goodies? Meh. Yes, some default behaviour changed in what I think are mostly good ways.

There are some new features, some of them useful for a lot of people, some of them not so much.

It's good, but full of goodies? Nah. That's overselling it.

<comment><USER3> I have to admit I didn't even the notice the title till I read your comment :) I think may brain has stopped processing headlines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Am I the only one disappointed that they didn't go for a completely redesigned, consistent UI when making a shift to 2.0? I guess most just went with "everyone else is using git as is, so I have to learn the weirdness". But projects like EG are still being created - so it seems there's a need for improvements. Maybe in v3.0 they'll redo it...

<comment><USER5> Am I the only person who has never really been bothered by Git's UI? I can't remember ever being worried by its quirks and found it pretty easy to pick up...

<comment><USER6> I learned Hg before Git. Hg took about a day to master, but I still feel I haven't mastered git after using it for years. The following article will give you an idea of the differences between hg and git in terms of ui.

[http://stevelosh.com/blog/2010/01/the-real-difference- betwee...](http://stevelosh.com/blog/2010/01/the-real-difference-between- mercurial-and-git/#the-big-difference)

<comment><USER7> _`git checkout -b`_ is one of the few things that I actually think git's default CLI got wrong. The _primary_ thing that is doing is creating a branch, checking it out is kind of tangential in a way; I think that it should be _`git branch -c`_

I feel strongly that _`git checkout file`_ is correct though. What that operation is doing is taking something out of the DAG and putting it into the working tree. It's the same deal, the only difference is instead of pulling a tree object (associated with a commit) from the DAG into the working tree, you are instead pulling a glob. It makes intuitive sense to me that these two operations would be accessed through the same command. Furthermore, using the name 'revert' would make much less sense in the rather frequent case that you want to pull a blob from a commit that is not the current HEAD. Is it really "reverting" if I am pulling a file from a future commit in another branch into my working tree? I don't think naming commands after less powerful concepts is a good design decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope I won't get downvoted for this - but it looks like Git is going the C++ way - tons of very intricate details and features very few people use, that make the learning curve ever steeper.

Now, most people work with, what, 20% of git, tops? Why should we care about bloat if we don't use it? To me, there are two main issues: a. There are 3 ways if not more of doing every single logical operation; and b. The clutter makes it harder to find how to do stuff that is not trivial when you need it.

I really wish Git would be cleaned up and made more intuitive, rather than have more features and abstract more implicit behaviors.

<comment><USER9> I don't think that the addition of more features "makes the learning curve even steeper". It just extends the curve a bit farther. If using these new features where key to using Git, then yes, it would make it steeper.

For the 80% of people who want to just want to pull, commit, merge, push--that functionality is still there, and has even been improved in the last release.

<comment><USER8> until you run "git help pull" and go WHAAA?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty excited to see this until I opened the page and saw that the changes were relatively low-level and things I'm unlikely to ever need or even run into.

</comment><comment><USER11> It would be cool is source tree supported ECDSA keys (looking at you atlassian) :)

</comment><comment><USER12> When do we get a git commit --undo alias? :)

<comment><USER13> git reset HEAD^

Add --hard, --mixed, --soft for different effects. This command itself can be undone by going through git reflog and finding the appropriate commit.

<comment><USER7> To add to this, git-reset enables much more than simply 'undoing' the last commit, so it could not be adequately replaced with `git commit --undo`.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Regarding the UI issues, I think that libgit2 takes a good approach by separating the UI from the core in a clear way. This way, you have a library that contains all the capabilities that are needed, but a UI can take advantage of that in anyway it wants.

For example, a UI could have a "create new branch" feature, which internally does a "create new reference pointing to commit xxx; checkout a working copy of branch y".</comment>


MIT study that found low pay for Uber drivers to be revisited - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-wage-study/mit-study-that-found-low-pay-for-uber-drivers-to-be-revisited-idUSKCN1GF0RL <comment><USER2> The problem is that the initial, flawed findings fit the biased narrative that the many in the media (both traditional and social) prefer to perpetuate. As a result, the surveys and stories that support their biases get top billing as headlines for days or weeks. People are often so eager to hear claims that support their beliefs that they don't investigate the credibility of the claims.

When the truth comes out, the same media outlets will likely do nothing and at most will publish a small redaction (same goes for individuals who spread this on social media). I have no expectation that the true nature of this study will be widely reported or nearly as promoted as the initial false results.

The world needs more rational skeptics. We have to hold each other accountable by ask probing questions about the nature of "facts" that are presented us. Seek truth.

<comment><USER3> Someone made a public claim using public data and methodologies. Someone else refuted it. That original someone is going to check again and get back to us.

I agree that the world needs rational skeptics -- and yes, perhaps more -- but looks like the peer review process is working properly here. Don't see a need to blame media bias?

<comment><USER4> You're confounding two entirely different things: media bias and the scientific process. The whole problem is that the media filters data that fit their agenda, even if its half-baked and incomplete. Then, when more info appears, if it contradicts the media's bias then they won't report it. They turn a blind eye to the facts and keep parttong their talking points.

<comment><USER3> I don't believe I'm confounding the two; I'm not saying that media bias isn't a problem. I'm pointing out that there's no reason to assume it is the reason for (possible) misinformation in this particular case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's a pretty good explanation of exactly how the study calculated the number it did, it's pretty embarassing:

[https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/an-analysis-of- ceeprs...](https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/an-analysis-of-ceeprs-paper- on-the-economics-of-ride-hailing-1c8bfbf1081d)

I'd previously read a paper by an economist using Uber pay data to analyze gender wage gaps. The numbers they had for both men and women were way higher than this study and it's usually best to trust administrative data over self reports.

[https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf)

<comment><USER6> Am I the only one that think's it's weird that Uber's Chief Economist is posting on their official Medium account with an article that sources data from a _blogger_ to refute the MIT study? Like this guy has way more information at his fingertips, so I think it's a little suspicious that they aren't using their own internal data to make a public statement.

<comment><USER7> To be fair to him, the worst move he could make is put an official figure out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Much less scientific but interesting nonetheless: Mr Money Moustache ran some numbers on driving Uber and they are Not Pretty either.

It's not even hard to find the relevant data on amortization and such: relevant government agencies will tell you what they think is reasonable. In Canada, that'll be this page. [https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue- agency/services/tax/busines...](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue- agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/payroll/benefits- allowances/automobile/automobile-motor-vehicle-allowances/automobile- allowance-rates.html)

> The automobile allowance rates for 2018 are:

> 55¢ per kilometre for the first 5,000 kilometres driven

> 49¢ per kilometre driven after that

The logic goes -- you can be pretty sure to spend at least this much on your car, the taxman won't allow you to deduct more... So using these numbers, you can check the average Uber trip distance length, the time it takes you to drive it and the number of trips a month to figure out how much you are making. UberX in Toronto pays you 81 cents per km and 18 cents a minute. The Toronto minimal wage is currently 14 CAD an hour. If you do quite well and spend 30 minutes driving at a 30km/h average speed then you made 4.8 dollars on the per km part (.81-.49) x 30/2 and 5.4 dollars on the time part .18 x 30. The minimum fare won't save you because they don't deduct the 49¢ per kilometre car cost obviously.

Note [https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money- mustache...](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache- uber-driver/) used the rough equivalent of 40 canadian cents/km for the same cost above we used 49c for -- it's not too outlandish, everything in the US vehicle wise is cheaper and there's some guessing involved anyways.

<comment><USER9> Mr. Money Moustache's cost estimates are wildly unrealistic. I ran a TCO on my own vehicle and it came out to about 35-40 cents per _mile_ , much less kilometer. The MIT study uses 30 cents per mile, and this sounds right if you are being frugal and driving carefully, but apparently even this is being revisited. The idea that the government would not let you over-deduct is, in my opinion, a big mistake -- lawmakers know that people who work out of their cars are generally low-paid and therefore do not contribute much to the tax base in the first place, so it is a higher priority to avoid screwing over the poor than to nickel-and-dime them. Furthermore tax laws in America are influenced by some pro-car, anti-tax elements, who will of course act to make taxes lower for drivers.

<comment><USER10> If one assumes a fair and rational basis for the standard deductions, it's that people are driving their personal cars for business purposes. Those cars weren't purchased specifically to drive for business and they may not be optimized for economy. And, as you say, many people who put a lot of miles on their personal cars for business are probably average to the lower end of the income scale.

The 30 cents a mile in this study seems reasonable for a modest Prius or Camry assuming that driving empty to pick up passengers isn't a big portion of the total driving. It's probably close to the low-end though for acceptable vehicles.

<comment><USER11> Your numbers are way too low as far as I am concerned.

For comparison, you can have a look at France tax deductions. They account for the type of vehicle. [https://www.service- public.fr/particuliers/actualites/A12350](https://www.service- public.fr/particuliers/actualites/A12350)

The absolute minimum price is 0.286 euro * km. That is if you drive more than 20 000 km a year and have the most economic car of all.

<comment><USER9> Fuel is way more expensive in France, though, and it wouldn't surprise me if maintenance were as well, considering that CPI is significantly higher. Also see my explanation of why lawmakers would overestimate deductions. Also the minimum deduction in that table is 0.245 euro/km which is for 5000-20000 km although it assumes you drive 5000 km/year at a higher price, which most people will do for personal use anyway.

<comment><USER11> The minimum deduction is the "d x 0,286". Don't get confused by the French. It's for the "smallest" type of car, I think you actually need a motorbike to reach that rate.

The most economic Prius from this year would fall in the rate d x 0,332.

Yes, there are high taxes on gas but it's not significant when discussing the total costs including maintenance, insurance and depreciation. Keep in mind the exchange rate as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One might consider that the average drivers wage is highly depressed by a large number of people who are inexperienced or not very serious or not very smart at making money driving. I have a cousin who drives as his primary employment. If you have been driving for awhile, have an aptitude of understanding how to maximize your benefit in complex systems, and have a flexibility on when you work, one can do quite well. Knowing when and where surge is likely to happen. Knowing how to up your odds of getting a nice long trip on a freeway at your max Lux level when the traffic is clear. Having the skills and interest in buying used cars so you can get a good deal on the cheapest car that passes for UberXL or UberSelect. When and where to set your two daily destination options. Keeping up with all the bonus plans and other rules of all the ride sharing platforms in your area. Chatting up other skilled drivers to try to learn more tricks on upping your income.

It does not seem like such a bad idea for society to have some entrepreneurial like jobs that are easy to get but don't pay very well until one becomes good at it.

<comment><USER13> Driving for Uber is not entrepreneurial. One common feature of entrepreneurship is making money while sleeping. Even ignoring that, entrepreneurship requires a freedom to develop the business and take economic advantage of extraordinary market opportunities should they arise. An Uber driver cannot take advantage of a demand spike by raising prices or reducing less profitable service at will. An Uber driver is limited by Uber's dispatch algorithm at a compensation solely at Uber's discretion.

While a driver can potentially increase the hourly rate at which they work, they can do so only by choosing not to work at certain times. Unlike an entrepreneur, an Uber driver cannot increase their compensation rate by working to develop customers; expand business lines, and importantly by hiring staff. To put it another way, an entrepreneur would have the potential of increasing their profits with the availability of self-driving cars while self driving cars are potential competition for Uber drivers and likely to produce wage suppression.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the large number of people described as depressing wages in the first sentence of your comment is the large number of people driving for Uber.

<comment><USER14> I won't even comment on if an uber driver is an entrepreneur, but this is wrong:

> One common feature of entrepreneurship is making money while sleeping.

Do you not consider mom and pop shops entrepreneurs? Local business that close at 5pm-6pm. I'm also not sure small business would usually qualify for this:

> entrepreneurship requires a freedom to develop the business and take > economic advantage of extraordinary market opportunities should they arise

<comment><USER13> Walmart is an example of successful entrepreneurship starting with a mom and pop shop. Sam Walton made money because he had the freedom to hire other people and scale the business beyond his waking hours. An Uber driver can't.

Don't get me wrong, every mom and pop shop isn't run by _successful_ entrepreneurs. But when the local team is doing well, they have the freedom to dedicate shelf space to big foam fingers in the appropriate color and up the price to whatever the traffic will bear. An Uber driver can't set prices when the Super Bowl comes to town.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's easy to complain about the paper, but credit where credit is due: Stephen Zoepf listened to the criticism, considered it, and will be re-running some numbers. All within a few days of the paper being publicized.

That's more than you can say for A LOT of analyses that are published.

This is exactly how public discourse should work, so good job to everybody (so far).

<comment><USER16> The damage is already done though. Lawmakers and laymen will bring up this $3/h number constantly while making decisions that hurt Uber.

<comment><USER17> Uber's already a scam to begin with. It's not a bad thing to force them to compensate properly within the law.

1\. It is employment, not a contract. They punish you if you don't do X hours a week.

2\. They don't pay minimum wage, or other employment things like workers comp, unemployment tax, or others.

3\. They actively seek to undermine all laws that protect the taxis and the citizens who ride.

4\. They actively encourage lack of awareness with regarding commercial driving and the law. If one does not have commercial insurance, you are driving uninsured. If in a traffic incident, your license will be suspended.

It's just another company trying to socialize the risk and privatize the profit. And they're socializing the risk on the poor and needy by giving them hope and screwing them in ways they don't understand.

<comment><USER18> Exactly.

At best, a company like Uber could provide a logistics service to taxi drivers and transport companies. Ride-sharing, optimized route planning, easy dispatching etc are all nice features and make the service cheaper by reducing overhead costs.

However this is not what made Uber such a success. It was the unreasonably low prices it offered. How did it manage to do so? By externalizing a number of costs onto workers and society.

And by the way, the article has a very deceptive title. Just because the author agreed to re-run the numbers with Ubers "hopeful" and "optimistic" assumtions doesn't mean the initial numbers where wrong or that the new numbers will be substantially better. They're still employing people for less than minimum wage.

<comment><USER14> > Ride-sharing, optimized route planning, easy dispatching etc are all nice > features and make the service cheaper by reducing overhead costs.

> However this is not what made Uber such a success. It was the unreasonably > low prices it offered.

Isn't it? I don't use Uber because it's cheaper I use it because I can have them come straight to my front door hailed from an app leveraging gps with continuous updates to their progress then have my destination programed into the driver's gps ultimately paying automatically with no hassle of cash or fighting over credit cards.

The Uber experience was many light years beyond the existing taxi options (even in cities with good taxi system -- which is not many). _That_ is why they are popular, not because they are cheap.

I also think there's something extremely novel about letting users participate in the system as drivers. There was nothing like that before either.

<comment><USER19> >Isn't it? I don't use Uber because it's cheaper I use it because I can have them come straight to my front door hailed from an app leveraging gps with continuous updates to their progress then have my destination programed into the driver's gps ultimately paying automatically with no hassle of cash or fighting over credit cards.

This is why I use uber the twice a month I need to get home from a bar or am otherwise unable to drive. And yeah, for twice-a-month rides, I'd be happy to pay full taxi rates; more, really.

The thing is, because uber is so cheap, I've gotten rid of my car and I just use uber all the time. If uber raised their prices, I'd buy a car. Sure, I'd still use them twice a month, sure, but I use them twice a day right now.

The upshot here is that about 1/30th of my uber rides are because the uber system provides a better experience than existing taxis in my area. 29/30ths of my uber rides are because they are so cheap and convenient that I pay only a small premium over owning a car to have someone else drive me all the time.

If uber raises their prices? I'll just go buy myself a Honda. Uber will keep 1/30th or so of my existing business; 29/30ths of the business they get from me will evaporate after they cross that line where I go buy that Honda.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was surprised the study was from MIT as there were pretty serious flaws. The bigger question is how it passed peer review when they ran the analysis and checked the methods.

The response from the lead author was pretty reasonable and I will camp on his response. I was expecting something defensive rather than "yeah, maybe, let me double check my work."

<comment><USER21> The answer is that it has not passed any peer review, it is a "working paper" only available to "associates" of MIT-CEEPR: [http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working- papers/681](http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working-papers/681)

If you read the back-cover of any of these CEEPR working papers, it includes a disclaimer stating that they have not passed any peer review:

 _CEEPR releases Working Papers written by researchers from MIT and other academic institutions in order to enable timely consideration and reaction to energy and environmental policy research, but does not conduct a selection process or peer review prior to posting_

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Uber has the data. They know all the trip prices, models of cars (costs can be calculated), and time that drivers are online. This could be figured out, but would you trust what they said?

<comment><USER23> There's also no upside for Uber to release the numbers if they're not really that high - it'd be discouraging to their future contractor pool.

<comment><USER10> Costs are going to be a bit squishy but you're right that Uber has a pretty good handle on mileage, time, money paid out, etc. One suspects that if the average driver is making $25+/hr. after reasonable expense assumptions, we'd have heard about it loud and long.

My suspicion with some back of the envelope calculations is that it probably ends up somewhere in the minimum wage range most of the time. Especially at the higher end of that range, it sort of makes sense. Assuming at least a reasonable percentage of drivers have some rational handle on what they make and their real costs, that's about where you'd logically expect pay to need to end up.

To be clear, I'm sure some drivers don't really understand their costs or know that they're effectively borrowing from their future self who will have to pay maintenance bills--and feel they don't have an option. But it's a bit hard believing it's near universal behavior.

<comment><USER11> >>> My suspicion with some back of the envelope calculations is that it probably ends up somewhere in the minimum wage range most of the time. Especially at the higher end of that range, it sort of makes sense. Assuming at least a reasonable percentage of drivers have some rational handle on what they make and their real costs, that's about where you'd logically expect pay to need to end up.

Your assumptions are incorrect. The world is filled with people who can't estimate costs, it's actually pretty difficult.

I've worked in online gambling before. I think it has a lot of similarities with Uber. It's entirely possible to have the vast majority of your customers lose money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A truly fair study would also research the real income of 'normal' taxi drivers in the same places. Because normal taxis are generally also part of some kind of organization that takes a cut from their earnings. From the drivers point of view there might less difference then implied.

</comment><comment><USER25> Does anyone have a link to the actual study? The closest I can find is a "research brief" PDF that looks like a university press release; I'm not sure it's even been published at all? And why does Reuters think it's acceptable to not include any links in this sort of reporting?

<comment><USER21> The actual study link is [http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working- papers/681](http://ceepr.mit.edu/publications/working-papers/681) but the full text is "for sponsors only":

> _As a benefit to our Associates, the latest Working Papers are embargoed for > a period of up to six months before becoming accessible to the public._

The list of associates can be found here: [http://ceepr.mit.edu/support/associates](http://ceepr.mit.edu/support/associates)

<comment><USER26> If you google for the paper, then a direct link to the full paper comes up, which works for me: [http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf](http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/papers/2018-005.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> An Analysis of CEEPR's Paper on "The Economics of Ride-Hailing"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513089](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16513089)

</comment><comment><USER28> Paper updated: Looks like Uber pays 41%-54% of their drivers less than min wage

[https://twitter.com/yfreemark/status/970761011895652355](https://twitter.com/yfreemark/status/970761011895652355)

</comment><comment><USER29> Hopefully these firms haven't yet their shares listed on stock exchanges, otherwise all the ignorant sheeps would have all shorted, only to see their money gone into expert investors pocket a few days later.

</comment><comment><USER30> Here's the thing. (1) Uber is not a full time job for a lot of people. They have a couple of hours here or there that fits within their existing schedule. I don't doubt that it's helped put food on the table for a lot of families. Unfortunately In a few years driverless cars will take this opportunity away (2) Uber drovers are rational market participants. If they were really averaging less than $4/hour then this wouldn't be attractive to driver given our current low unemployment rate.

<comment><USER31> >"Uber is not a full time job for a lot of people"

I don't know this to be true without seeing a citation. In Seattle and Maui (two places I've used a car service recently), it has seemed to me at least the _Lyft_ drivers I've encountered were all full-time drivers.

<comment><USER32> Could be because, when you use the service, you aren't sampling drivers uniformly. For example, only 10% of drivers could do it full time, but 90% of all rides could have a full time driver.

(Numbers for illustration only; they aren't likely to reflect Uber's population of drivers)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Does anybody else find the Tweet response from Dara Khosrowshahi deeply childish? The in-depth response from Jonathan Hall is, whether you consider it to be biased or not, a well-researched, calm and explained piece of peer- review, but the CEO's tweet is pathetic and kitsch: "MIT = Mathematically Incompetent Theories (at least as it pertains to ride-sharing)"?

Is that the level of communication that we expect from our leaders now? I've always held an image of the character that CEOs of large corporations strive towards as reasoned, rational and "stately", at least in their public role. This sounds like the outburst of a petulant adolescent, and is disturbingly reminiscent of a certain presidential figure.

Is this a consequence of some societal shift towards communicating at the lowest possible denominator, or do I just have an overly conservative view of what is expected from people in those positions?

<comment><USER34> You didn't cite the whole tweet. The real tweet is a bit longer, cites analysis written by Uber, and in context, does not come across as childish:

MIT = Mathematically Incompetent Theories (at least as it pertains to ride- sharing). @techreview report differs markedly from other academic studies and @TheRideshareGuy recent survey. Our analysis: [[https://t.co/S2aAqCuDR0](https://t.co/S2aAqCuDR0)]

[https://twitter.com/dkhos/status/969805860594581509](https://twitter.com/dkhos/status/969805860594581509)

<comment><USER33> I apologise, that's totally true. I did cite only the bit that jumped out at me, and my implication that it was the whole tweet does make it seem worse than it was, but I would disagree that the context redeems the statement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> '"I'm re-running the analysis this weekend using Uber's more optimistic assumptions and should have new results and a public response acknowledging the discrepancy by Monday," he wrote.'

Re-running analysis with more optimistic _assumptions_ is not how science works.

<comment><USER36> No, that's precisely how it works. All of science is based on making assumptions.

<comment><USER37> OK, let's imagine he we will re-run the study with optimistic assumptions and the result would be that Uber drivers are compensated lavishly (and if we take more moderate assumptions, they are making adequate money).

And with another set of assumptions result was that they are serverly underpaid.

So, exactly what we have learned here, other then different assumptions yield different results?

<comment><USER38> Nothing. But learning that different assumptions yield different results is useful in its own right. It tells you that this study is not capable of answering the question it set out to answer, and you will need to do a better study.

Perhaps you have come across interval arithmetic:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_arithmetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_arithmetic)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yahoo CEO's hiring crackdown raises eyebrows, questions - <AUTHOR> http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/management/yahoo-ceos-hiring-crackdown-raises-eyebrows-questions/article9656062/?service=mobile <comment><USER2> This seems like more "woe is me, where is all the talent" propaganda that continually gets proven false. After a quick review of the Yahoo! benefits section I found many red flags across several areas.</comment>


Alan Kay: The Pitfalls Of Incrementalism - <AUTHOR> http://thetechblock.com/pitfalls-incrementalism/

<comment><USER2> Can incrementalism get some love? Seems everyone is opposed to it, but the plain fact is that nearly all progress is incremental.

Real "innovations" tend to be composed of a few component ideas that are themselves incremental. Innovation is built on incrementalism. The iPhone just took existing things and combined them in a smart way that produced the innovation -- but it was ultimately the simple act of being aware of the incremental progress in many areas that made the innovation possible.

Hilariously, incremental improvements are built on innovation.

It's turtles all the way down. Hofstadter and all that jazz.</comment>


Vaccines don't cause autism - <AUTHOR> http://kottke.org/10/09/vaccines-dont-cause-autism <comment><USER2> So if you knew someone who never washed their hands after using the restroom, would you let them in your home? Out and about socially with you?

In my opinion, anti-vaccine people should be tossed out of everyone's homes, circles of friends, and businesses. This is for people who them OR their children aren't properly vaccinated. Even IF autism or any of the plethora of things were caused by vaccines, the diseases themselves which are prevented by them _are much worse_ , all causing death or maiming.

Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, usually more like 70-85% effective. This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to.

We should safeguard the people who are willing to get stuck by ostracizing those who are foolish enough to not vaccinate.

<comment><USER3> _This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to._

This is not correct. In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread. If there are two left unvaccinated, the chances of one having the disease and the other being initially uninfected and then subsequently infected by the one possible vector is astonishingly small.

In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%.

Moreover, vaccines based on attenuated vaccines (e.g., the polio vaccine) actually infect the recipient with an impotent version of the virus. _This_ virus will be transmitted to others in the community through normal contact, thus conferring immunity to many that did not receive the vaccination directly.

(this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated)

<comment><USER4> _In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%._

Irrelevant. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, public policy must target 100% vaccination.

 _(this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated)_

You may not be endorsing it, but it's important to point out that this argument is ethically dubious.

My favorite ethical test is Kant's categorical imperative, which is briefly that an act is ethical if everyone else can act the same way. For example, if you're wondering whether it's ok to slip onto the subway just as the doors are closing, delaying the train by just a second, you can ask: what if everyone boarded the train that way? Of course, the train would never depart, being constantly delayed by each as-the-doors-close boarder.

If everyone thought that vaccines are ok for others but not themselves, then no one would be vaccinated. Thus this argument is unethical. Let's go beyond "not endorsing" it-- let us all actively condemn it.

<comment><USER5> For a vaccine to be effective only one person needs to take it. That person gets immunity and thus it's effective.

Secondly, according to your interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative it's perfectly ethical for no one to get vaccinated because everyone can act in that way. You may not like the outcome, but your gedankenexperiment satisfies the categorical imperative because everyone holds the belief and thus it is ethical.

Kant's categorical imperative is merely a way for a large percentage of the population to force their ethics on others. Largely because the primary way it is used is to justify policies rather than have policies stem from it. Since not everyone can agree that everyone should be vaccinated policies to vaccinate everyone are unethical according to Kant.

<comment><USER6> Certain people can't be vaccinated (e.g. babies), they have to rely on herd immunity.

<comment><USER7> Well, if the mother was exposed to either the disease or the vaccine, and she is breastfeeding the baby, then the baby will have protection (another strong argument in favor of breastfeeding babies) until they are old enough for the vaccine.

<comment><USER8> Please provide references. Last I read in the literature there was only some immunity provided. Not every mom can breastfeed. Not every mom can breastfeed enough to constantly transfer antibodies. Not every mom who breastfeeds may have antibodies to the given illness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When the 9/11 truthers were spreading their bull and it finally managed to touch a few of my coworkers, I found my indignant attitude that anyone could believe something so obviously false was far better at convincing people of the truth than reasoned argument. Unfortunately, people are pack animals before they are rational beings. Probably the best way to respond to such claims as "vaccines cause autism" is to just say, "Wow, I didn't realize there was anybody left who still believed that." It's mean, but it's for their own good, and it works quickly. They don't get as upset as you think they would.

<comment><USER10> They probably just put you on their internal "bozo" list and will quietly killfile your views and opinions in the future, which is the price you pay for expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I think he likely made them shut up about it rather than changed their minds.

<comment><USER9> the net effect for me is the same

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am not anti-vaccine. However, my toddler had a very severe reaction to a vaccine she was given at two years of age. This led my wife and I to decide to not allow our daughter to have all of the vaccines at once. She is not completely vaccinated but will have them all before she turns five. We feel that staggering the vaccinations out as much as possible allows her immune system to respond better without severe reactions that cause very high temperatures, which could lead to brain damage and/or death.

<comment><USER13> I'm completely fine with this. We just need to internalize the externality. You not vaccinating your child harms not only your family but potentially many others around you.

We need some sort of legal construct that would hold those who do not vaccinate responsible if there is an outbreak in the area. For example, you don't vaccinate your daughter for whooping cough and my daughter(too young to vaccinate) catches it. My daughter has to suffer months of terrible pain and discomfort in addition to potential long-term consequences. I should be able to seek compensation from you.

Of course there are other social alternatives, such as lychings.

As a side note, you probably don't know shit about vaccines. What makes you think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?

<comment><USER10> How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease from any particular person?

For instance, if someone with whooping cough coughed hard, then left the room, and 10 minutes later your daughter walked through the room on the way to meeting the other person's daughter, how exactly could you tell that?

I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought to be a law against X" ...

<comment><USER13> > How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease > from any particular person?

Set the standard of evidence to whatever the current technology can provide. Right now I'm fine with unvaccinated people having responsibility for all outbreaks in their area.

> I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought > to be a law against X"

I think there ought to be a law against people who don't know the difference between civil and criminal law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just watched this documentary yesterday: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_c...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid)

An eye-opening documentary.

Vaccinating a child is not a matter of choice, but compulsory, because unless the parents of an un-vaccinated child can _guarantee_ that their kid will not spread a terrible illness such as polio/whooping cough/ whatever, they should be quarantined. If you watch the documentary, you will understand what I am saying.

Also, the hope is that vaccination will become unnecessary in the future, for example, smallpox vaccines are not being administered anymore, because it has been eradicated completely. That is not the case with many other preventable diseases (there are many areas in the world where they still occur, and so it is necessary to exercise caution).

There might be some legit concern as far as simultaneous vaccination for several diseases goes, though, but that is not sufficient reason to endanger the larger population until the (possible) causal relationship between vaccines and brain damage is firmly established.

</comment><comment><USER15> So what's the prevailing wisdom today about the Hannah Poling case?

 _...the government's Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that five shots Hannah received in July 2000, when she was 19 months old, "significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder" and resulted in a brain disorder "with features of autism spectrum disorder."_

[http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/...](http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/06/autism_0306.html)

Records were sealed at the time. Don't know if they have since been released.

EDIT: Summary of latest news, 2010-09-11:

 _US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) will pay over $1.5 million to the family of a child whose parents allege acquired autism after routine vaccinations in 2000....However, the payment does not acknowledge a vaccine- autism link._

[http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vacci...](http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/us_vaccine_payout_provokes_con.html)

The 27 August 2010 Decision Regarding Damages: [http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSM...](http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf)

EDIT 2: You can't make this stuff up:

 _Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child."_

<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html>

<comment><USER16> It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms. Her condition could have been triggered by any fever. The link to vaccines is tenuous. The vaccine court is being widely lambasted for paying them off.

<comment><USER15> _It was not classical autism, just some overlapping symptoms._

This sounds like a dodge, frankly. I am not encouraged.

EDIT: I am further discouraged by the voting here. I see an instance of potentially non-conformed data. What do you do with non-conformed data?

As best I can tell, _nothing_ can be done with this data right now, since details of the court's decision have not been released. The most you can do is reserve a measure of judgement till further information is available.

Instead, I see a strong desire to dismiss the data. This is poor epistemological form. _This_ is not encouraging.

Two questions, for now:

* What symptoms of classical autism were not present?

* More to the point, why would classical autism be the standard, rather than autism spectrum disorders?

<comment><USER16> You do sort of get to the fundamental problem of autism not being an actual disease, just a group of symptoms. The mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies suffered by Poling have a distinct, but overlapping set of symptoms. So, the reason I mentioned classical autism is that the symptoms of mitochondrial encephalopathy[1] go well beyond those, never mind the milder symptoms of ASD.

Apparently, the court's justification for giving the award is that the fever from the vaccine might have been one of the many fevers she suffered that led to the particular expression of this condition. Sadly, her parents had already given her the "autism" label, which only confuses the issue.

Here's the other side of the story: <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904>

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MELAS>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A related article about the resurgence of pertussis in California:

[http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cou...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/17/california.whooping.cough/index.html?hpt=T2)

</comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if this will persude Jenny McCarthy and co.

(holding breath)

<comment><USER19> Based on the limited set of reactions I've seen so far (for instance, [http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104](http://www.autismweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23104))?

No. This won't change a damn thing.

When you're that committed to a cause, every scientific result that comes out against your cause is easy to dismiss as either wrong, a deliberate lie, incomplete, not 100% proof, etc.

This is especially troublesome in areas where the True Believers invert the burden of proof: rather than asking for proof that vaccines cause autism, they'd only be satisfied with proof that they _don't_ , which is a much more difficult task (and don't get me wrong - I have no doubt whatsoever that even if rock solid proof was offered, they'd still reject it outright).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wish I could believe this would change anything.

<comment><USER21> No, but perhaps when non-vaccinated kids start dying of things that sounds hilarious because we've eradicated them - things with names like "dropsy", "whooping cough" and "cholera" - people will start thinking. It'll be a terrible price to pay, though, for parents who just wanted to do the best for their kids.

I wonder if truth-denial is genetic.

<comment><USER22> I suspect it has genetic components.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> put best: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo>

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't believe the fascists on HN that would be fine with shunning, punishing, or even suing the un-vaccinated.

There are risks to being vaccinated, and risks to not being vaccinated.

That (from the article) : \--- "The last result is a bit of an anomaly in that it implies that exposure to TCVs from birth to 1 month and birth to 7 months actually protects against ASD. The authors quite rightly comment on this result thusly:

"In the covariate adjusted models, we found that an increase in ethylmercury exposure in 2 of the 4 exposure time periods evaluated was associated with decreased risk of each of the 3 ASD outcomes. We are not aware of a biological mechanism that would lead to this result." \---

Should tell you that this cannot be said to be a completely conclusive study.

<comment><USER24> This is the sort of moronic ignorance that should be shamed. The anomaly noticed by the researchers is one that does not have a known biological explanation but that does not mean that exposure to a small amount of mercury in infancy does not actually protect against ASD. It just means that the study confirms previous studies that found no risk from these vaccines and suggests that there might actually be an irony-laden protection provided by these vaccines.

This study is, to date, the most complete and conclusive study available. It shows that vaccines, and particularly those that used ethylmercury as a perservative, do not cause autism or autism-spectrum disorders, just like EVERY OTHER FUCKING STUDY OUT THERE!

<comment><USER10> Do you deny that there are risks to being vaccinated?

<comment><USER25> I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.:

      Person 1: Vaccines cause autism!
      Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof!
      Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win!

The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of _not_ being vaccinated.

I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like:

* Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness.

* Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent.

* There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines.

* [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product.

* [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').

<comment><USER10> I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers.

I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc.

At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups.

Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape.

Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.

<comment><USER25> The problem is that if a certain percentage of the population doesn't take the vaccine then the risks associated with _not_ taking the vaccine greatly increase.

For example, (as an unvaccinated person) your chances of catching the flu while living in a city where 90% of the population is vaccinated is much lower than if only 40% of the population were vaccinated.

Also you have to consider the risks to others. Even with the vaccine there is still a chance of getting the disease, though one would need to come in contact with the disease to get it. So someone that chose to be unvaccinated is at a higher risk of catching the disease, and therefore transmitting it to someone that was vaccinated (though I'll admit that the actually numbers in this scenario are probably pretty low).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What language should I pursue during summer? - <AUTHOR>

Currently, I am a freshman in High School and I do frontend development and user interface design (HTML, CSS, PS)
I am looking to learn about backend programming over the summer. I currently have a working knowledge of Java (1yr), and basic knowledge of Javascript.
I'm debating over learning Ruby, Python, Javascript (Node.js), or PHP.
My goal is the ability to build web applications, such as a content management system, todo list, etc.
Can I have some suggestions on what to learn? I'll have about 3 months to gain knowledge on the language.
Thanks :) <comment><USER2> If you decide to go the PHP route: <http://www.phptherightway.com></comment>


Bowing to pressure, YouTube will reconsider its harassment policies - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/6/18654604/youtube-policy-change-harassment-maza-crowder <comment><AUTHOR> From the Youtube blog post:

"To be clear, using racial, homophobic, or sexist epithets on their own would not necessarily violate either of these policies. For example, as noted above, lewd or offensive language is often used in songs and comedic routines. It's when the primary purpose of the video is hate or harassment. And when videos violate these policies, we remove them."

I don't see how Google/Youtube can view Crowders videos as non-harassment, non-hate speech and still keep a straight face with their pride month campaign. You can't support homophobic creators and claim to be supportive to LGBTI issues at the same time.

<comment><USER2> Steven Crowder is a comedian -- granted I'm not that familiar with his podcast.

So we're going to ban all accounts or at the very least demonetize all accounts who use synonyms for various sexual orientations now? Are we that delicate and totalitarian?</comment></comment>