What my 4-year-old taught me about technology - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2011/10/25/5-things-my-4-year-old-taught-me-about-technology/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OmMalik+%28GigaOM%3A+Tech%29

<comment><USER3> Sure, new generations interact with media differently. But isn't this article reading way too much into a 4 year old liking to touch things and not having patience? I'm sure I also threw a tantrum every time commercials interrupted my favorite tv shows. (Still do, occasionally.)

<comment><USER4> _But isn't this article reading way too much into a 4 year old liking to touch things and not having patience?_

Very much so. Young children are still learning the basics of physical interaction with the world and how the world works. Its is incredibly short sited to give a child lots of exposure to touch-controlled devices and then delude yourself into thinking you've found some sort of insight when they assume that other things might have touch interfaces. They don't have enough knowledge about what things are to reason and infer about them like we can.

<comment><USER5> Yes - the article is making an obvious point but its a huge point. How about this: my 2.5 year old niece is more adept at handling a touch phone than my mother! Thats crazy! The perceptive power of today's kids is mind boggling (maybe it always was but today's technology affords them a chance to express it more powerfully)

<comment><USER4> _my 2.5 year old niece is more adept at handling a touch phone than my mother! Thats crazy!_

No, its not crazy, its perfectly logical. You're niece is learning how things in the world work out of necessity, touch interfaces being just one of many completely new-to-her things she is exposed to. Your mother has had many decades of a firm grip on how things in the world work and touchscreens are completely new to her extremely-entrenched mental model of the world.

The classic example of a child's mind being more flexible is the window of time wherein the human brain is more able to learn laugauge. After a certain age, the brain develops to a point where it puts up a wall that increases the difficulty to teach someone a second language, even though on the surface you may think that someone with lots of experience using language might have an easier time picking up a second.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can definitely relate to the death of linear TV. I don't often watch TV. But now I can't bare normal TV because of all the damn breaks that completely destroy the atmosphere or the show I was watching to sell me stuff I don't want.

<comment><USER7> Same here. I haven't watched live TV in years (I watch scene releases, so waiting for the on-demand video services to develop wasn't an issue).

The only time I see live TV now is at a friend's house, and sitting through advertisements is absolutely excruciating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's very interesting hearing about young kids trying to interact with "old media" like they would an iPhone or iPad. Swiping a billboard, tapping a magazine cover. To me, these aren't obvious ways to interact with the things I've gotten used to all my life.

<comment><USER9> I've been using computers since the days of tape drives. Personally, I've tried to use a touch screen on occassions only to find it's a regular computer screen.

I think there needs to be some recognised international symbol that touchscreens could show to indicate they can and should be touched - <USER2> icon (index finder extended hand symbol) with emanating circles appears to be the de facto standard. They do rather lack affordance.

I've never yet tried to pinch zoom a magazine cover or whatever though.

Reminds me of the Star Trek movie scene when Scotty picks up the mouse and talks in to it.

<comment><USER10> There's already an international symbol for touchscreens: fingerprints.

<comment><USER9> Lol, yeah, I'll look out for them next time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Touchscreens bring people closer to technology, but they also separate people from understanding technology. It's great that we have a whole generation of people with iphones, but we also have a whole generation of people who think that if it isn't in the app store, it can't be done, who crack the glass on their iphone and throw the whole thing into the garbage.

A touchscreen may give you a more organic connection to technology, but someone with a mouse is an order of magnitude faster at doing almost anything, and someone with a CLI is an order of magnitude faster still at complex tasks. Anyone who used PDAs for years before their first smartphone can tell you about the jarring sense of debilitation that comes when you go from using a stylus to using a finger.

As for voice recognition, its incompetence makes it too dangerous for me to use, and probably will for a long time. My phone calling/texting the wrong person at the wrong time is more than capable of ruining someone's life. I'm sure the same goes for many other people. It's like telling a five year old to retrieve a handgun. Behaving properly 98% of the time is not good enough by a long shot.

<comment><USER11> And programming computers is yet harder yet gives the user even more power. I think the dichotomy between power and usability is a false one. Technology should help people with their tasks. If this can be accomplished with a touch or speech UI I see nothing wrong with that.

Ultimately, it is completing the task that matters. If I think about it, most tasks that require CLI interfaces are not necessary on an smartphone to begin with. And that might be a good thing.

We, the technocratic elite, will shape that world. We will be its masters, magicians amongst men. We will derive more power out of technology than regular users. But the price will be that in order to gain this deep knowledge we have to devote an awful lot of time to learn the arcane spells and invocations that are all but useless for most real world tasks.

We choose to master technology. Others choose to master science or stock markets or carpenting. To them, technology is a tool. In very much the same way we will be ignorant of the intricacies of their world.

<comment><USER10> The lower the understanding of the average user, the less variety there is in a given product category. Desktops came in all shapes and sizes, until everybody bought one and suddenly they were all beige boxes. If you've strolled through a brick n' mortar lately, you probably noticed that most laptops look virtually identical nowadays. Tablets came in all shapes and sizes, from the ten inch slate ala Stylistic, to the convertible laptop, to the hybrid in the form of the TC1000 series, to the five inch chunkers like the OQO and the Sony UX series. Now they're all minimalistic squares of shiny, fingerprint-ridden black plastic. PDAs had a whole ecosystem of designs, so many you could find one that exactly suited your needs. Folding, sliding, with keyboard and without, slates, anything. The smartphone revolution destroyed that. Now you can pick from a shiny square of black plastic with one button or a shiny square of black plastic with four almost-buttons.

Everyone being able to use it means designers try to please everyone by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Ease of use is why you have to remove a panel and the battery just to change SD cards, assuming you even have the option of a microsd card or removable battery.

<comment><USER12> You're still assuming that variety in a product category, or technology being all-powerful, is the end goal.

But to 95% of the world, or even 99%, _this is not the case_. Technology is there to make their lives easier and help them accomplish certain tasks.

I don't complain when my car cannot transform into a speedboat on cue - because that's not what I bought it to do. Likewise, I really don't care that my pen is unable to change brush shape or stroke size while I'm using it, where an artist might find that to be the bee's knees.

Technology is a means to an end - I for one am sick of the technocratic elite denying everyone the benefits of technology in the boneheaded pursuit of some kind of technological purity.

<comment><USER10> The end goal is for the user to have something that best suits their needs. For most people that might be an iphone. Many others are restricted to paying for things they don't want in order to have the things they absolutely require, while being denied the things they need. I hate to say it, but the things I could buy seven years ago suited my needs then much better than the things I can buy now suit my current needs. Computing began by requiring the user to know exactly how the computer worked. Later it merely encouraged and rewarded the user for knowing, like the person who can save a jpeg without pasting it into a Word file. Now it doesn't encourage the user at all and is making an effort at removing any difference between the person who knows and the person who doesn't. A computer can be easy to use without stifling the user; that's one reason Windows is so successful.

"I for one am sick of the technocratic elite denying everyone the benefits of technology in the boneheaded pursuit of some kind of technological purity."

In what way? No one is trying to stop a company from selling whatever they want. We're just saying we don't like the trend computing is taking toward a world where as far as everybody is concerned, the devices they entrust their lives and fortunes to might as well work by magic.

<comment><USER11> Lets compare this to airplanes. Air travel used to be limited to those who were able and crazy enough to actually fly planes themselves. Now everyone can use planes for transportation in a very mediated and controlled environment. A pilot flying in an airliner is very much like a programmer using an iPhone: Other engineers did all the hard work and the net result is something somewhat boring and limiting (a commercial airliner will only fly to certain destinations). On the other hand it is also very safe and comparatively cheap. Now flying an aircraft on your own is amazingly fun and an exhilarating experience. But it is also very expensive, quite complicated and somewhat dangerous.

Now the point is, I am both a programmer and a pilot myself. So I can definitely see the appeal of both. But, I happily use an iPhone and commercial air travel. Other people have put in a lot of work to made these very safe and reliable for common purposes and they really work well for crossing the atlantic while listening to a podcast.

The iPhone is not denying anyone access to laptops any more than an Airbus is denying you access to a Cessna. They are not dumbing the population down. They get the job done with as little disturbance as possible. For the crazy ones though, There are real computers and real airplanes!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


For a one person team, build a webapp or native mac app? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I am a one person team looking to make a project management application. I am thinking of charging for this application when it's finished, but also providing a free version for it to get people's interest. I have been debating with myself on whether I should make it a webapp or native app on my mac... Given my circumstances, can anyone give out some suggestions? Thanks! <comment><USER2> Well, creating a web app will give you a larger addressable market and more flexibility in adding features in the future. A downloadable app will let you tap into the billing services offered by the Apple AppStore for Mac and use the native features of the computer (including off-line functionality).

I would start by answering questions about what your application will do and then choose the right platform for delivery:

1\. Will the application need to work offline?

2\. Will it be multi-user or single-user?

3\. How often will you update features?

In general, it's always better to build a web app than a native app. Exceptions would be for products where network access is not guaranteed (mobile phones), products that need features of the device (skype) or something that is too complex to build a web based user interface (photoshop).

Hope that helps.</comment>


Microsoft Ships Antivirus for macOS as Windows Defender Becomes MS Defender - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/03/microsoft-ships-anti-virus-for-macos-as-windows-defender-becomes-microsoft-defender/ <comment><USER2> My immediate question is: what are Microsoft interests of releasing an antivirus for macOS, let alone GNU/Linux?</comment>


Ask HN: Is QuikPitch as shady as it looks? - <AUTHOR>

I've just been followed on Twitter by something called QuikPitch, which touts itself as a new, simpler way for startup entrepreneurs to pitch to VCs. It recently tweeted: "QuikPitch secures $324K from Valley investors--In the Press," followed by a link to a clearly paid-for "news" post at http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20100113/bs_prweb/prweb3400054_5 that doesn't mention anything about $324K. What's going on here? Is this a scam, or just an incredibly awkward launch by a legitimate venture? <comment><USER2> Well, their site is _remarkably_ quiet about who they are. Absolutely no names of these seasoned investors and entrepreneurs are given.

So even if they're a legitimate venture, they seem rather dubious and perhaps a bit sleazy from their web site.

They're also very short on a lot of other interesting specifics, but they're presumably a small, new company, so those specifics are perhaps more excusable.</comment>


Ask HN: Why isn't this site as successful as Craigslist? - <AUTHOR> This site is basically the same thing as Craigslist, except it has fancier design and allows sales of pets www.kijiji.com. I came across it because I'm looking to get a second dog.
So, why isn't it competitive with Craigslist? If I knew the answer to this question, then it would make me a better hacker and entrepenuer. Is it just because Craigslist was first? I think that's a facile answer.
Y-Combinator is looking to fund a Craigslist competitor, but before they do, they should ask themselves this same question, and the corollary - if not this site, then what would it take to unseat, or even compete with Craiglist? <comment><USER2> Most big web companies started out either by design or fortitude by applying crossing the chasm techniques.

1\. Define the large market.

2\. Focus entirely on one small niche within that large market that will give you enough credibility to win over the late majority in the latter. See facebook [harvard college social], myspace [music], bebo [birthday reminders], craigslist [local events in san fran] etc.

3\. Own > 90% of your niche

4\. Cross the chasm into the large market. The market adoption curve demographics of the large market should ideally match the niche you chose.

BTW it is unlikely that a "tech" audience are a good niche to pick, as they do not contain many peers for the larger market to identify with. It will be interesting to look at twitter in a few years to see if it crosses the chasm into the mainstream user.

I'd say read the book. It's a classic.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most dot-com sites are kind of scummy. E-commerce dot-com sites are especially scummy. eBay is one of the scummiest of all the sites that aren't out-and-out scams. Craigslist kicks their ass primarily by being trustworthy, IMHO.

<comment><USER4> I can't agree with this comment enough-- on every other site you feel like they just want as much of your money as possible. Craigslist feels like your favorite uncle made you a website, and it may be a bit simple, but you can feel the TLC invested in it.

Craig clearly and explicitly treats Craigslist like a nonprofit, so he's leaving a lot of value "on the table" that he isn't extracting. I'd say this value goes to Craigslist users. If you use both eBay and Craigslist a lot, and I do, you can feel the difference pretty strongly...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wouldn't suggests a frontal attack. I'd suggest initially focusing either on a type of ad Craigslist is ill-suited for, or a technology that would be very useful in classified ads but which Craigslist ignores because they never change the site. Use that to get a toe-hold, then gradually expand. Ideally the new approach would seem as different from Craigslist as Craigslist does from classified ads in newspapers.

<comment><USER6> Did you get that out of Crossing the Chasm, or think of it yourself from experience? Or is it just obvious to people with a good head for business?

<comment><USER5> I'd heard that _Crossing the Chasm_ talks about this sort of things, but I've never actually read it. I think most startup founders figure this out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Craigslist started with a lot of word of mouth marketing. It was the de facto classifieds site in the Bay Area before it opened for other cities. It started as and still is essentially a not-for-profit.

On a side note, Craigslist is hardly successful outside of the US. Even in London it's got no traction.

<comment><USER8> Craigslist is not a non-profit. They've had well over $100MM in revenue for several years running, and that is mostly split by Craig and Jim. The "non- profit" aspect of Craigslist is a myth that they play up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You should read up on the economics of our industry. This book is a good place to start:

[http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/7/information- rules-a...](http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/7/information-rules-a- strategic-guide-to-the-network-economy)

Basically, there are what are called "positive network externalities" or "network effects" for a site like craigslist: if you you want to sell something, you want to go where lots of buyers are. If you want to buy stuff, you'll get a better selection where there are lots of sellers.

<comment><USER9> I agree, network effects is the answer. All other explanations about "feeling the love" and "unsophisticated design" are post-hoc justifications.

<comment><AUTHOR> Network effects is as glib an answer as "got there first."

These things can be a factor, but are not an explanation.

<comment><USER10> I don't know why first mover advantage wouldn't be a good explanation for this case. Just because other companies squandered their first mover advantage doesn't mean they didn't have it initially. The big barrier to entry for a Craigslist competitor would seem to be brand identity since people want to buy and sell where they know other people are buying and selling. First mover advantage plays a big part in establishing that brand identity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A few other people already mentioned network effects: It's why Ebay rules over auctions. If you're looking to sell something, you want to go to the place that already has the most buyers. If you're looking to buy something, you want to go to the place with the most sellers/selection. It's cyclical - the bigger the network gets, the more people want to and even _have to_ use that network to be a serious player.

One way you could beat Craigslist: Start in one local region and build a hell of a community around it. Maybe have parties or events. Get everyone in the city talking about it, and own that city. Make it so that everyone in that city chooses the new local competitor over Craigslist.

Another: Find one thing Craigslist is doing really poorly, and do that really, really well. Focus only on that and branch out from there.

If you want to fight an empire, you don't march out the same sets of troops as them into the plains to fight. You go find a tiny, isolated, already unhappy part of their empire, and you raise hell there. Build support for the cause. Get more troops, supplies, allies, experience. Realistically speaking, there won't be a "craigslist killer" that comes out of nowhere with better classifieds unless it's backed by someone that already runs things. Someone like Google might be able to do it by making a push on sites that people already use a lot, similar to the way they're pushing Chrome right now. But if you're starting from scratch?

Then think small. What or where is Craigslist failing? Go there. Take over that place. Then branch out.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure that "because X was first" is that much different than "because X has users" or "because X has 90% of the market", so that isn't really that shallow of an answer. The challenge is to get people to switch services from one that they are already comfortable and successful using, and sites like craigslist, ebay, and google already have a significant headstart by being both first (long ago) and good.

It's not just enough to say "we have a better search engine than google" if you want to dethrone google, you actually have to be better (although the former may get you funding). Witness Cuil. Or Live -- who tried to pay people to use their search engine: even the lure of easy money isn't enough to get people to switch. With places like craigslist and ebay, the first mover advantage is significant. These sites bring two parties together. Those who have something to sell and those who have something to buy. The sellers want to be where the buyers are and the buyers will go where the sellers are.

It is possible to have a successful business as a small time competitor to an established, entrenched player, but if your goal is to be competitive, you've got a long uphill battle ahead of you. It may be wiser to redefine the industry or look at it from another angle, then tackle that. What does craigslist do really bad that could be better? Is the lack of a competitor that eases that pain the reason why people still use the incumbent?

I'm not sure what craigslist's weak points are. The site is extremely minimal, search works reasonably well, people automatically sort most things into the right places (because otherwise they'd be wasting their time), the majority of posters don't need to pay, fraud is managed well enough that people are not looking for something else. I can't think of any weak points -- which may be why I'm not working on craigslist competitor.

<comment><USER13> _I'm not sure what craigslist's weak points are_

Craigslist is good for some things but it has a lot of trash posts. Sometimes I get lucky and someone happens to have what I want but it's easy to get bogged down by all the junk. These days if I don't find what I'm interested in there very quickly I go to someplace with a better signal/noise ratio. I wouldn't compete directly with them unless I had a way to improve that.

<comment><USER12> The problem with attacking that weak point is that the amount of annoying trash on craigslist is apparently dwarfed by the useful non-trash, despite the possibility that other sites may a lower actual percentage of trash. Which is most likely a function of popularity: a just-as-popular competitor would have just as much trash as craigslist. But competition is not just about user experience, if you had a way to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, you'd have to do it for cheaper than craigslist does it, and considering the amount of trash, they aren't spending a whole lot of money on fixing this weak point.

I mean, you spelled it out right there: if you don't find what you want on craigslist _first_, then you go someplace else. craigslist apparently has enough value, and it's easy enough to determine if you're going to get any value out of any one visit, that you don't bother going someplace else _first_. It is not a last resort visit, the craiglist competitor sites are the last resorts.

So it's the same answer again: craigslist is where majority of the users are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here in India, where no classifieds site has emerged a clear winner, Kijiji is among the leading sites. just my 2 cents

<comment><USER15> what are the main sites in india

<comment><USER14> there is a site called olx.in which is in heavy promotion mode; adwords on most google searches, then there are several niche-based classifieds sites, for eg for property there is 99acres.com and magicbricks.com, for matrimonial- related ads (nope, no real "personals" here, ppl prefer to directly get married :) ) there is shaadi.com, naukri.com for jobs, some misc regional sites, etc.. like I mentioned, no clear leader has emerged.

<comment><USER15> they all seem like top tier commercial niches, anything like craigslist emerging? is this an opportunity even if launched in a particular city

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> First of all, that name. What were they thinking? Second of all, read the other comments. They summed it up quite nicely :)

<comment><USER17> That was my first instinct, too. I've been looking at the name for about 5 minutes and I'm still not sure how it's spelled. Plus, if one of my co-workers turned around and asked me where he could sell something online, I'd probably say, "Oh you should go to kih-jih...kih-jih-jih-jih....craigslist"

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ask yourself: why would kijiji be competitive with craigslist? What advantage do they have?

I suspect:

* Buying pets is not a killer app for craigslist-like sites

* The fancier design is a net negative

craigslist has a pretty good lock on what craigslist does -- they don't charge users for much, have the userbase, have a simple UI.

</comment><comment><USER19> For whatever reason, Kijiji was launched outside of the U.S. first and has only been active in the U.S. since 2007 (2005 elsewhere).

Kijiji is very competitive with craigslist in several countries.

Canada: [http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=CA&ts_mode=cou...](http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=CA&ts_mode=country&lang=none) [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/kijiji.ca+craigslist.ca/?me...](http://siteanalytics.compete.com/kijiji.ca+craigslist.ca/?metric=uv)

Germany: [http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=DE&ts_mode=cou...](http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=DE&ts_mode=country&lang=none) [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/kijiji.de+craigslist.de/?me...](http://siteanalytics.compete.com/kijiji.de+craigslist.de/?metric=uv)

</comment><comment><USER20> I think it might take over Craigslist, maybe they just started out later. In Germany I don't think Craigslist is that well known. When I needed to sell something recently that wasn't a good fit for ebay, I also found Kijiji and will probably keep using it.

</comment><comment><USER21> We are working on something in that area in Germany, Kijiji doesn't compete because it's ebay. That's my personal opinion. They chose the worst name ever and they don't have their priorities clear, it's not a "used goods" market with enforced standards it's just a market.

The basic problem in this area is reach, but that's not a problem or ebay so asking why kijiji fails is not going to answer your questions for a startup.Different situation different problems.

</comment><comment><USER22> Twitter could unseat Craigslist, especially for employee classifies. I.E. I Twittered Im looking for a graphic designer and boom I got 20 designers (non followers) @reply to me. Each had a portfolio and I could get a better sense for who they are via their Twitter stream.

I prefer this over posting on a job board, as it's quicker and some other things too!

</comment><comment><USER23> Network effects. Brand/mindshare.

One pattern that you could apply to break craigslist would be focus: <http://ycombinator.com/munger.html> [Search for 'travel magazine'].

You'd want to pick a suitable niche within craigslist and service that like crazy. Then move on to others.

</comment><comment><USER24> The name doesn't stand out - it's complicated and hard to remember the spelling, plus it arrived after Craigslist was already popular.

Of course, Craigslist isn't nearly as big in other countries - In the UK gumtree is the winner, and in Norway finn.no is the place to go for classifieds.

</comment><comment><USER25> 1) Name. "Kijiji"?

2) Layout. Craigslist is beautifully simple. Kijiji looks like "web 2.0".

</comment><comment><USER26> It started much later?

For some reason it has taken off in Toronto though.

</comment><comment><USER27> It's worth noting that Kijiji and Gumtree are both owned by eBay. eBay also owns a stake in Craigslist.

</comment><comment><USER28> because its just a clone. Haveing a "fancier" design and bending some rules != innovation

Did you talk to craigslist users and see what they wanted changed? Is allowing sales of pets a deal breaker?

</comment><comment><USER29> Because its fucking hard to spell.

</comment><comment><USER30> It is very successful actually. It's one of the top classified sites in most countries - if you are so narrow minded that you only look at one country, then that is your main problem as an entrepreneur.</comment>


Could Covid-19 Have Escaped from a Lab? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2020/09/09/alina-chan-broad-institute-coronavirus/ <comment><USER2> > He was a computational god

I stopped reading there.</comment>


Why the trial by ordeal was actually an effective test of guilt - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/ideas/why-the-trial-by-ordeal-was-actually-an-effective-test-of-guilt <comment><USER2> Inasmuch as this works, or _any_ justice system works, is as much as people believe the system metes out justice.

In the USA, in 2017, people who knows they're guilty plead not guilty because they have reason to believe that they'll be able to get away with something. Either their entire crime, or at least the heaviest punishment for it. Meanwhile, people who know they're not guilty frequently plead guilty (or more accurately, take plea bargains) to avoid a slow and expensive justice system they don't perceive as an instrument of true justice.

Even in the system described in the article, it seems one third of people claimed innocence and yet were found guilty by the priests. My cynical thought is that they didn't pay the priest, or weren't regular churchgoers, or were "outsiders" to the community, and so justice didn't work for them.

<comment><USER3> > In the USA, in 2017, people who knows they're guilty plead not guilty > because they have reason to believe that they'll be able to get away with > something.

I don't have a problem with this. Allowing a defendant to plead not guilty puts the onus on the system to make its case. The purpose of the justice system is not only to determine innocence and guilt, it's also to show that there is a fair and transparent process to get to that result. The procedure is often as important as the substance.

> people who know they're not guilty frequently plead guilty

Not sure how often this occurs, but this is definitely bad.

<comment><USER4> The vast majority of criminal cases end with people pleading guilty rather than going to trial. This US government page [1] says 90% but I've heard even higher figures from lawyers and other sources.

Now, perhaps the police are very good at their jobs and really do get the right guy 90+ of the time (everyone who pleads guilty plus everyone convicted at trial - approximately 60% of cases that go to trial [2]). Or, perhaps the court system has a bias towards finding people guilty.

One data point that argues for the latter possibility is that people defended by public defenders are significantly more likely to go to jail than people with a private lawyer. People with a public defender go to jail 88% of the time compared to ~75% for people with a private attorney [3]. To me, the implication is that the skill of your lawyer, and the time your lawyer will spend on your case, has a huge influence on your likelihood of getting convicted. That influence implies to me that the police probably aren't 96+% accurate in getting their man, and that therefore some of the people pleading guilty are doing so to avoid a false conviction.

If you look into this, you'll find prosecutors threaten defendants with harsh punishments as a tactic to get them to plead to vastly reduced sentences - e.g. "Take your chance at trial, kid, you'll do ten years for possession with intent to distribute. Or, plead guilty, do six months with two years probation." Prosecutors are incentivized to make these deals because they are evaluated, in part, by conviction rate.

1-[http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types- cases/cri...](http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types- cases/criminal-cases)

2 - [http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2012/12s...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2012/12statrpt.pdf) page 14

3 - [http://www.pbs.org/kqed/presumedguilty/3.2.1.html](http://www.pbs.org/kqed/presumedguilty/3.2.1.html)

<comment><USER5> It's not so much that the police are so good at their jobs but that they focus on easy cases, either through sting operations or possession crimes. It might be hard to prove that a gang member committed a particular robbery, but if you found him with a gun when you went to serve your arrest warrant (this happens all the time), then it's a slam dunk to charge him with the robbery and felon- in-possession. The average sentence on the FIP is like six years, probably more than the robbery

As to people with lawyers having better success: people who can afford lawyers tend not to commit crimes that are easy to prove. They'll disproportionately be charged with white collar crimes, where the difference between legal and illegal conduct often could be what the accused was thinking when he took a certain action.

<comment><USER6> Thoughts on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4)?

You've argued over the years that the justice system is in fact a justice system, not merely a legal system. In other words, you believe it's mostly fair.

I feel like I'm probably misrepresenting your position. But the overall point is that many of your comments carry a tone of "Well, there's a logical basis for why the courts work this way."

I've been trying to square your experience with anecdotal evidence, which seems to universally agree that the system is stacked against you. Those who go to court with a public defender are doomed.

In case you happen to enjoy that video, there's another on bail: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU)

One of my worst fears is being accused of some kind of crime, like cybercrime or anything else. I've seen how HN and Reddit treat the accused. I've done it myself: I know that the point of an indictment is to indict someone, yet when I read FBI testimony stating that the founder of Silk Road hired hitmen, I start to feel differently about him.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15414170](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15414170)

As cheesy as it sounds, I care about being honorable. I'd never engage in ransomware or embezzlement or anything else, let alone hurt anybody. But I know that if someone were to accuse me of those things, people would automatically think less of me, regardless of whether I did it or not. And that's why it's terrifying. Especially for those without money.

So I thought I'd ask you to please justify this system. Fundamentally, morally: is it sound?

The fact that 95% of cases end in plea deals, and that N% of that subset didn't commit any crimes -- should we feel ok with that? Yet on the flipside, it _seems_ to work, and we seem to live in a pretty decent and free society. I'm not sure how much or little we should credit the courts for that.

The reason I'm asking you in particular is because you're one of a few people on HN with enough experience to give a thoughtful answer. You've been involved with it, and you know the territory.

<comment><USER5> > You've argued over the years that the justice system is in fact a justice > system, not merely a legal system. In other words, you believe it's mostly > fair.

To the contrary, I think it's incredibly unfair. But probably for different reasons than you do. For example, thousands of people every year are sentenced to an average of over six years in prison for possessing a firearm as a felon. It's "fair" in the sense that the error rate for those convictions is almost certainly negligible, because proof only requires showing possession and a fact that's a matter of public record. But in my opinion the crime and the sentence are unfair: we shouldn't take away the rights of people who have served their time, and six years is a sentence more appropriate for murder than possession of anything.

I think the under-funding of public defenders is a travesty. But most public defenders will admit that most of their clients are guilty, and they spend most of their time ensuring their clients plead to the right charges and get a fair shake at sentencing. It's "fair" in the sense that the system mostly convicts the right people (except at the margins, which is why public defenders should get more funding) but it's "unfair" in the sense that sentences are too long and many of these crimes shouldn't be crimes.

> One of my worst fears is being accused of some kind of crime, like > cybercrime or anything else.

You should be afraid! Take, for example, 18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes almost any sort of false statement vaguely related to the federal government a felony. It's "fair" in the sense that there is almost never any doubt that the accused made the false statement in question (either in a recorded interview with an FBI agent, or in in writing in some official paperwork). But it's "unfair" in that it's often used to trap (or, more often, threaten) people who only did something marginally wrong. _E.g._ lying to a federal agent to conceal a workplace affair.

> Yet on the flipside, it seems to work, and we seem to live in a pretty > decent and free society. I'm not sure how much or little we should credit > the courts for that.

That's a really fundamental question. I think the way to look at it is to look at what happens in places without enforcement of certain kinds of conduct. _E.g._ sex crimes in rural India or Pakistan. Why do victims plead for enforcement of the laws on the books in such situations? Partly retribution. Probably not really deterrence--even with enforcement, the odds of getting caught are so low that there can't be much of a real deterrent effect. The biggest value of punishing crimes is, in my opinion, creating social norms. The overwhelming majority of people aren't "good" or "bad," but they will readily follow social norms that are visibly enforced. The primary benefit of putting people in prison for robbery thus is showing everyone that it's conduct that is so unacceptable that we put people in prison for it.

<comment><USER7> > The primary benefit of putting people in prison for robbery thus is showing > everyone that it's conduct that is so unacceptable that we put people in > prison for it.

Sure, but nobody is proposing repeal of the law against robbery.

And when you look at something like felon in possession of a weapon, the same argument doesn't apply. Felons mostly acquire weapons for self defense like anybody else. Even most felons aren't murderers. And felons have more enemies than most -- former rivals, compatriots who may think you ratted them out, or prosecutors _told them_ you ratted them out whether you did or not.

When the choice is a 5% chance of going back to prison for having a weapon or a 70% chance of getting beat down for not having one, so many people break the law that no social norm can be established.

So the only effect of laws like that is to make things too easy for prosecutors. Round up some ex-convicts at random and you can throw half of them back in prison for years without ever showing that they harmed anyone.

At best prosecutors are only doing this to "bad people" for some entirely subjective definition of bad, but we all know this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to selective prosecution of minorities and dissidents.

The question is how to get rid of laws like that when they have bipartisan support. Republicans like to be "tough on crime" and Democrats like anything that smells like gun control.

<comment><USER3> > the only effect of laws like that is to make things too easy for prosecutors

No question that judicial and prosecutor efficiency are important factors in deciding to prosecute, but they are not the only ones. Prosecutors often take on difficult cases when there is strong political support for it.

For example, after years of dragging their feet, NYC prosecutors tried to convict someone (anyone) involved in the 2008 financial crisis. They got a few people on the sides, but their effort was mostly seen as a failure. Still, it was probably better that they tried and failed rather than not tried at all.

Another example is the war on drugs in the 1990s. As far as efficiency and resources, it was a horrible program, not easy or efficient by any measure, but the country was terrified of drug use and it's related crime. The goal was based more in societal norms than efficiency.

Last example, Mayor Guiliani's tactics of removing small crimes (illegal street vendors, minor trespassing, graffiti) was based in the theory that you can improve entire neighborhoods and reduce major crimes by eliminating the smaller ones. Again, unclear if this tactic really worked, but it's clear that his aim was not purely judicial efficiency, it was economic development.

These cases were not efficient at all, but there was strong demand to

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A light-hearted post about a completely evil method of "correctly" finding fact. A whisker away from apologetics for torture.

The final paragraph is particularly bonkers:

> "In practice, it might not have mattered whether ordeals were truly God's > judgments or instead the judgments of clever legal systems that leveraged > criminal defendants' incentives to correctly find fact. For, in either case, > the result was the same: improved criminal justice, thanks to God."

It's a facile analysis indeed that posits that this setup is either "clever", might "correctly find fact", or might lead to "improved criminal justice".

<comment><USER9> Yes, it's a strange article in that on the face of it they take a philosophical, almost game-theory approach to how it works (with some pretty big assumptions of course), but at times it ventures into the medieval belief system itself.

> The only ones who know for sure whether a defendant is guilty or innocent > are the defendant himself and God above

Maybe it is carefully written so that the writer can get across an interesting anecdote, while not upsetting the 60% of people that pray daily in Virginia.

<comment><USER10> No, it's written like that because belief in God is paramount to how this system works; especially back then, defendants might've not be afraid of the criminal justice system per se, but God, hoo boy don't want to piss that guy off.

I mean the basic premise of trial by ordeal is "Hey, we dunno if you did it or not, and we can't trust your word for it, let's ask God, and let Him burn the shit out of your hand if you're lying". Pain + religious fears.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What silly logic.

Why assume that the people or the priests in medieval times 'believed' with any less doubt than we have today?

Humans haven't gotten any smarter since then.

If the ordeal 'proved' the defendant guilty, all it would take is for one person to know for a fact that a defendant was not guilty to create doubt in the system.

Iterate this a few times and the absolute belief required for this approach to work would quickly disintegrate across the whole village.

The whole system of ordeals seems like a charade to legitimize what amounted to arbitrary judgments in light of insufficient evidence.

Kind of like the system we have today, come to think of it.

</comment><comment><USER12> "A few days later, the defendant's hand was inspected: if it was burned, he was guilty; if not, he was innocent."

No. That isn't how it worked. The miracle was not that the hand was not burnt. It always burned. God's intervention was measured upon whether or not the hand was healing. If it was infected then god was not with you (and there was a good chance you would die). If the wound/burn was healing nicely then god was with you.

They did not expect miracles so dramatic as a hand not being burnt. To think that they did suggests that everyone was found guilty. They were not. The OP also suggests that ordeals were rigged. Some certainly were but people in the past weren't idiots. They knew what boiling water or red-hot iron looked like, fat better than we do today. They could spot a trick.

Trial by ordeal was not some scam or legal trick. People actually believed in the process took it very seriously. And we see remnants of it today. Many still believe that sickness and recovery from wounds involves "faith" and regularly pray for healing. Others believe that sickness is the result of God's displeasure, evidence of sin. Trial by ordeal is alive and well.

<comment><USER13> I wouldn't argue too much from modern religious thoughrt. Much of modern religion is obvious jokes and scams and become "divine truth" via the passage of time. See Scientology and Mormonism for the newest examples, and realize that Islam and Christianity were not so different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > How could an ordeal-administering priest make boiling water innocuous to an > innocent defendant's flesh? By making sure that it wasn't actually boiling.

I had no idea that this kind of things was actually staged. Should I understand that even the priests did not actually believe in God's influence in this, and that instead they used the whole thing as a psychological trick?

If so, that says a lot about religion in general.

<comment><USER15> It's not that they didn't believe, it's more likely that they believed that God has no obligation to actually participate in such a trail and went with a more controlled solution instead.

<comment><USER13> Yes , with religion there's always another epicycle or turtle to explain away the inconsistent logic.

<comment><USER16> Wait, what? Assuming he exists (because otherwise the point is moot), are you saying that this God who created the UNIVERSE should be obligated to ask, "How high?" when we ask him to jump? Hinging one's belief (or disbelief) the existence of God on whether he is compliant with our wishes is foolishness; the mistake made by the priests here was NOT that they trusted in God (a neutral act in this example), but rather that they placed expectations of civil/criminal justice on a God who had promised them no such involvement in society. He didn't even provide this to the Israelites, with whom he had a much more intimate covenant. Instead, there were the judges/prophets/kings who administered justice.

What is more interesting to me is how these ordeals seem to (poorly) parallel the cut-the-baby-in-half sort of justice King Solomon was recorded to have administered. Except in his case it was obvious soon after that he never intended to carry out the sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Cool. By this article's own logic, only 33% of innocent people tried were wrongly convicted. What a great system.

<comment> squeaky-clean I would have assumed around 99%. At least it's much better than that.

<comment><USER18> Me too, which is why I'm a bit surprised at all the negativity towards this article.

Sure, it's sort of 'defending' trial by ordeal, but it's not new that this practice was real and terrible. What's novel to me is that it wasn't just a way to automatically convict every suspect; a 2/3 acquittal rate is vastly higher than I would have guessed.

<comment> squeaky-clean Yeah, I really enjoyed this article too! Trial by ordeal has always confused me for that reason, obviously 100% of people holding burning iron will get burnt hands, wouldn't they find it fishy if 100% of the people undergoing trial end up guilty? And this gives a really sensible explanation for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think this is meant to be taken with a pinch of salt!

I'll bite though:

What if a person is technically guilty but they have convinced themselves that they are not? Be it ignorance of the law, or just arrogance? They'll get let off.

Conversely what if someone who is easily brainwashed has been convinced they are guilty and given false memories?

However, the effect mentioned does play in modern life:

* People who did park illegally won't bother to contest their parking ticket. * People who get sued for doing something wrong would settle if they actually did (although a lot of people will settle due to the cost of fighting, so it isn't perfect?)

<comment><USER20> > _What if a person is technically guilty but they have convinced themselves > that they are not? Be it ignorance of the law, or just arrogance? They 'll > get let off. Conversely what if someone who is easily brainwashed has been > convinced they are guilty and given false memories?_

Then some outlier cases will not be punished.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I disagree with effectiveness of the trial by ordeal as it relies entirely in the priest integrity and ability to determine if defendant is guilty or not, which sometimes may not be feasible.

But it was an interesting article. If you liked it, you may like this one which changed my view on how justice works in US, "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty" by Jed S. Rakoff [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why- innocent-peop...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent- people-plead-guilty/)

</comment><comment><USER22>
      born into this
      into hospitals which are so expensive that it's cheaper to die
      into lawyers who charge so much it's cheaper to plead guilty
      into a country where the jails are full and the madhouses closed
      into a place where the masses elevate fools into rich heroes

[http://www.adrianaparcero.com/bukowski/ab_poems01.html](http://www.adrianaparcero.com/bukowski/ab_poems01.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> Doesn't that mean that the priest doesn't trust god if he has to rig the ordeal himself?

<comment><USER24> The priests might have convinced themselves that the 'holes' in the system were the _wordly vehicle_ through which God would show his will. Which, by the author's logic, is actually the point.

<comment><USER18> In particular, it stands out that the cauldron is removed from the fire and _then_ the priest prays over it.

That's going to improve everyone's chances of acquittal, and even if it was manipulated it doesn't take any conscious fraud. You want a good judgement, you believe your prayers are a factor in that, and perhaps if you're biased it's simply by praying longer for those you believe innocent.

I'm sure some priests did rig trials intentionally, but there's plenty of room produce a result like this out of piety.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Disadvantage: Justice through obscurity

It only works as long as no criminal knows how it works.

Kerckhoffs would have frowned upon such a system.

</comment><comment><USER26> The priest's friends and whoever paid the bribes would be found not guilty. Pretty lucrative job, being a priest and administering god's justice. The 1/3 didn't pay, or the priest didn't like them.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm sure that the priests didn't allow their complete control of an opaque judicial process to be affected by their biases. There's no way that their social, economic or political interests could possibly affect the outcome.

Doesn't this system fail when priests believe in miracles? Or when the guilty believe God will spare them? Or when the innocent don't believe in miracles? Or when a guilty nonbeliever considers the same game theory? Or when the accused isn't some homo economicus rational agent? These are hardly edge cases.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is the same trick lie detector tests use. They don't actually work, but it tricks the defendant into confessing because it believes the machine is infallible, just like God in the medieval period.

</comment><comment><USER29> In summary: Get on the Priest's good side, as he was pretty much judge, jury and executioner.

</comment><comment><USER30> so basically church hijacked justice system as a propaganda vehicle allowing to show off god-in-action - with impressive "miracles" for the "innocents" and with god-blessed-and-willed torture for the "guilty".

</comment><comment><USER31> > or has he been charged guilty by an overzealous prosecutor?

Isn't that the point of a prosecutor?

<comment><USER32> No?

In a sensible criminal system the prosecutor, just like the judge is there to ensure justice. It's an asymmetric system, the defence represent an individual but everybody else represents society's interest in justice.

In England for example the prosecutors work for the Crown and make their decision based on the "Full Code Test" which says they shouldn't prosecute unless a bunch of constraints are true, including:

They are convinced the subject is guilty They expect to secure a conviction at trial, meaning they can prove the accusation to the satisfaction of judge and where appropriate jury. The prosecution serves a legitimate public interest The subject hasn't already suffered equivalent or greater consequences for their actions than could be inflicted as punishment for the crime.

<comment><USER31> > It's an asymmetric system

I thought it was an adversarial system and the judge was the umpire.

> They are convinced the subject is guilty

Is they believed that why _wouldn 't_ they "charge guilty" the accused? Or am I misunderstanding what "been charged guilty by an overzealous prosecutor" means?

<comment><USER33> The prosecutor's job is to represent the best interests of the state, not to get the most and harshest possible convictions. It's not like a sport where whatever is bad for one side is automatically good for the other side. It is like any other legal proceeding: the two parties interests are opposed in some areas and aligned in other areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is this some kind of satire?

</comment><comment><USER35> This makes me think that the Salem witch trials were carried out on women who refused to sleep with the priest. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

<comment><USER36> The Salem witch trials were carried out by secular authorities. There were also no catholic priests in the Massachusetts bay colony at that time.

<comment><USER13> "priests" is wrong, but the core rest of the comment applies.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: First person 3D environment using CSS 3D Transforms for rendering - <AUTHOR> https://affectionate-minsky-072f4c.netlify.com <comment><USER2> Fun fact, Three.js (the go-to high-level 3D library for JavaScript) actually has a CSS3DRenderer you can slot in for any arbitrary Three.js project: [https://threejs.org/examples/#css3d_molecules](https://threejs.org/examples/#css3d_molecules)

<comment><USER3> Not for any arbitrary Three.js project. the css3drenderer is severely limited

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Related [https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css- fps/](https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/)

</comment><comment><USER5> You triggered some strange bug in Firefox. I'm getting many notifications that this site captured mouse pointer long after I've closed it.

</comment><comment> core-questions Nice vaporwave aesthetic in there. Add a fountain with some particles!

<comment><USER6> Yes, and don't forget a rotating plane with an image on it, preferably showing off high-tech processing such as alpha-blending and soft specularity. It will look like the future, but from the past.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great ideas, will see what I can do when I get back from work :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So close! Enticing checkerboard pattern and some unshaded wood texturing then a hard crash for Firefox Android 68.5.0. Evokes the early 90s which reminds me that anyone who hasn't seen the "Community" episode with the VR parody must watch it immediately: [https://youtu.be/z4FGzE4endQ](https://youtu.be/z4FGzE4endQ) (this seems to be a super-cut which will annoy the writers, bit still)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting that it crashes, this uses nothing but normal html & css for the actual rendering. I have noticed that on machines with slower graphics hardware, there are a lot of glitches (I think it has to do with low VRAM, but not entirely sure).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Pretty cool, it seems to use the DOM directly instead of a <canvas> element, amazing it can perform as well as it does with constant css and element manipulation (notoriously slow)

I like that there's collision detection too!

<comment><USER2> Element manipulation is normally slow because of layout computations, but explicit transforms remove the element from the layout flow (it doesn't affect nor get affected by the sizing and content of other elements), cutting nearly all of that cost. Also, in most browsers explicit transforms get computed on the GPU.

So for this type of case there isn't nearly as much going on between the DOM and the raw graphics code as you might think

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The video on the TV behind the door: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICcFMBzOnYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICcFMBzOnYs)

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't do anything on mobile. Using safari on iOS.

<comment><USER11> It uses wasd to move, if that helps.

<comment><USER12> Worked fine in Firefox Mobile on my BlackBerry Key2. That surprised me!

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool to hear that it works on mobile for you, I'll try to add some controls for phones without keyboards as well.

<comment><USER13> In my case the issue is not lack of keyboard but lack of mouse; I can translate around fine, but there's no way to look around.

My setup (Android smartphone with a physical keyboard) is probably very rare, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm a bit confused... is this just for the awesome factor that you can do this with CSS?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very cool although noticing lots of tearing on Chrome w/ an nVidia GPU on Windows 10.

</comment><comment><USER16> very cool.

you should write a quake clone like this

</comment><comment><USER17> quite heavy

</comment><comment><USER18> Yay, view keeps drifting up & left when mouse is grabbed. Looks like Mozilla can't ever seem to get this ancient bug fixed :(</comment>


Signs Point to Facebook Payment Platform Launch - <AUTHOR> http://www.allfacebook.com/2008/07/signs-point-to-payment-platform-launch/ <comment><USER2> _Signs Point to Facebook Payment Platform Launch_

Existence of an SSL version of a website means they're launching a payment platform? That's not the first thing I'd assume. I'd assume they just don't want accounts being compromised when people log into facebook at an Internet cafe' or whatever.

I guess that's why I'm not an A-list blogger, though. Too much thinking, not enough jumping to conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just saw Paypal for the iPhone in the App Store, interesting concept if you ask me...

<comment><USER4> PayPal started thinking they would be the facilitators of mobile electronic cash beamed from one PalmPilot to another over IR. Ten years, three business models, and an acquisition later, it looks like they possibly have a viable mobile platform.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> TechCrunch had this up for a bit 2 hours ago, but the story is now pulled...</comment>


Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/24/entire-pesticide-class-should-be-banned-for-effect-on-childrens-health <comment><USER3> And what about safety to farmers?

I've used phosmet, an organophosphate insecticide, and I don't like to use it. You can know it's around in the warehouse, still in the original sealed packages, just by smelling it. A feeling of dry mouth and eyes usually follows.

And it's not because it's a dangerous substance - most pesticides with very few exceptions are dangerous - but because it is very hard to handle.

Phosmet is usually sold as a fine powder, and as it is the case of most soluble powders, it disperses in air easily. I always ask for liquid insecticides, but these are not always available.

Masks are not particularly useful: cotton masks are of little to no use, filters are compromised by facial hair[1] and air supply masks are crazy expensive.

If farmers respect the required safety intervals, harm to consumers is considerably minimized. The main hazard comes to people that come in contact with larger concentrations of pesticides: manufacturers, sellers and farmers.

Now I just open the package carefully underwater, if the sprayer is full enough and the package is to be completely emptied. This minimizes dispersion considerably.

[1] [http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/463742O/facial-hair- and-r...](http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/463742O/facial-hair-and- respirators.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rmpp_6t...](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rmpp_6thed_ch5_organophosphates.pdf)

EPA has this little chapter on organophosphates. Seems like this class of pesticides is well known to be toxic to humans.

<comment><USER5> I think there will be a time in the future when we'll look back and think how crazy people were in 2018 pumping all kinds of known toxins into the environment. It will probably be the same incredulity we have when we look at people using radium toothpaste in 1920 or the mad hatters working with mercury the whole day and going crazy.

<comment><USER6> Or in 2050, wondering why in 2018, mercury amalgam (Hg is an established neurotoxin) was still in significant use (except in Norway, Sweden and Denmark) as a dental filler.

<comment><USER7> Other people appear to be down-voting you, so I'll comment instead: The standard defense is that the mercury is locked in place inside the amalgam, and does not migrate. I've never looked at the evidence either way.

<comment><USER5> I remember in Germany there were lots of studies that showed mercury leaking out. Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use anymore. I got my amalgam fillings taken out in the 90s and replaced with plastic and ceramic.

<comment><USER8> > Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use anymore.

The anti-dentites won.

<comment><USER5> I think the dentists are still in use :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> People spend a lot of time talking about what happens to humans when exposed to organophosphates. Humans aren't even meant to be the target of these chemicals. What about the long term consequences to the environment that is actually the intended target? How much are we losing by applying these chemicals year after year after year.

<comment><USER10> [https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Organophosphates are like the primary insecticide used worldwide. How do you replace it? I don't see anywhere where they propose an alternative.

<comment><USER4> I mean, its sorta why GMOs exist. To reduce the need of pesticides that are sprayed on farms. I've always considered GMOs to be the lesser evil when compared to standard pesticide usage.

Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still needed to protect certain plants.

<comment><USER12> I do not agree with the current bout of GMO scaremongering, but I think your first sentence is off the mark. I heard from the friends on the biotech side (and sorry, do not have a citation) that many current GMO cultures are engineered specifically for _high_ pesticide tolerance so farms can pump in pesticides to kill all other flora and fauna without killing specific crops.

So, GMO good (or allows for significant benefits), current products kind-of pretty bad. My 2c.

<comment><USER13> Yes this is common now. For example Monsanto has Roundup Ready GMO crops & Roundup:

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

The crops are designed to withstand Roundup, while weeds are not, so farmers can use Roundup to control weeds with crops that would normally be killed by the herbicide.

<comment><USER14> Roundup (glyphosate) ready is baby stuff compared to the newer stuff that is resistant to 2,4d/Dicamba. Mostly because the weeds have outsmarted the glyphosate.

Drift from 2,4d will wipe out plants (like your garden, or my vineyard, or like, endangered native plants) many kilometres away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the journalism results from this:

[https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002671)

If so, it appears to be neither original research nor a systematic review. I think it's worth being sceptical (especially given the wording of the Guardian article).

If you live in a developed country where people aren't repeatedly killing themselves through acute exposure the relevant section of the link above appears to be:

"The US EPA concluded in 2016 that the existing epidemiologic literature provided "sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required to cause acetylcholinesterase inhibition" [11]. Such chronic, low-level exposures are often overlooked or dismissed as benign because neither the pregnant woman nor the fetus shows clinically visible signs or symptoms. Furthermore, the developmental deficits do not manifest until months or years later. Indeed, the scientific consensus is that AChE inhibition is uninformative with regard to neurodevelopmental effects in children and that the toxic effects from chronic, low-level exposure occur at concentrations too low to inhibit cholinesterase [1,9]. The evidence thus indicates that OP pesticides can interfere with brain development at levels previously thought to be safe or inconsequential."

The following paragraphs rely on this conclusion or speculate. I think it's worth reviewing those references, which I have not yet done. They are:

[https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ- OPP-2015-0653-...](https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ- OPP-2015-0653-0454) [https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx266](https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx266) [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2013.09.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2013.09.003)

<comment><USER16> PLOS One is also extremely lax when it comes to peer review. They've gotten into trouble for publishing spurious articles using unscientific methodology before because of their lack of quality control.

They might as well be ArXiv. Except I don't think ArXiv charges $1500 an article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > However, 200,000 people still die each year from pesticide poisonings, > according to UN estimates, about 99% of them in the developing world. A > further 110,000 suicides using pesticides take place each year.

So roughly 35% of deaths from pesticides are suicides.

On the other hand in 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.

I wonder if you could get from that some kind of safety estimate, of how easy it is to die from a thing accidentally in realtion of how easy it is to die intentionally.... Probably not.

</comment><comment><USER18> The autism link appears very dubious and casts doubt on everything else - <USER2> doesn't map to organophosphate usage in the timeline and frankly it shows heavy signs of being genetic. Not to mention if the effects are that strong organic fanatics should show significant differences in performance - but that doesn't seem to be the case. While I doubt that even the still used organophosphates are healthy to be exposed to this has smells of poor science.

<comment><USER19> As someone with a son diagnosed officially by a professional, myself & older brother believe we are both on the spectrum but not as much as my son. He is verbal, but has quirks commonly called stimming. He hums a lot and will flap his arms when being visually or audibly stimulated.

My brother & I have read up on it quite a bit, and think that it's a combo of genetics triggered by environmental sources. There is a similar gene that is related to ADD, Bi-polar & Schizophrenia. Which we all have the first 2 of the 3.

My father, & his father were both mechanics, with my father's brother who showed the most signs of being possible autistic as well.

It does appear to skip around. I've a younger son also who was born way early in my life at 19. He doesn't show much signs of it. My younger brother doesn't either nor younger half sister.

It's a strong correleation for me personally that it's definitely genetic but seems to vary on some triggering factor in gestation or the tech environment of today's constant barrage of stimulation. The rise in diagnosis correlates to mass farming also on large scales. But also correlation doesn't mean causation.

I'd agree it's genetic, but with multifaceted triggers which is like cancer that _could_ cause or trigger either.

I've also considered it's just our evolutionary path to a more tech geared world. I would be curious to see the rates of autism in 3rd world or outside untainted tribes.

Some reading, \- [https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2018/suspect- mole...](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2018/suspect-molecules- overlap-in-autism-schizophrenia-bipolar-disorder.shtml)

\- [https://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/](https://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/)

<comment><USER18> The funny thing is that it may have also been an advantage of sorts in hunter gatherer days - as in actually able to survive alone in the wilderness without plenty of prepared tools which is actually a very hard task long term. Bands of people cooperating boost it ensure survival. Given what I know of sensory capabilities in addition to things like lost autistic children in the woods being extra hard to find - while not being prepared to survive.

Given that it is on a spectrum and a slow learning process of coping occurs underdiagnosis is likely - especially among women and girls.

I suspect the case in Silicon valley is a higher degree of traits converging and the social masking being less imbued in addition to concentration. Although if pollution was a provoking factor it would.

Tech is a pretty good setting although people with autism and they may thrive there I think it is way too fast for evolutionary impacts short of massive selective pressure - like the Black Death or pretreatment endemic malaria.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It would help if they could explain why there aren't more autism clusters[1] in California's central valley if they want to make a stronger case. In the central valley you have 10x the exposure to organophosphate pesticides given the agricultural activity. So an a per-capita basis I would expect that to show up in the clusters.

[1] [https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/Maps/autism_cluster.h...](https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/Maps/autism_cluster.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Anyone know of a QUALY-based analysis of the costs and benefits of using these fertilizers?

The headline is quite hard to argue with ("think of the children!") but it would be interesting to know how much it would cost to use alternatives, and how much harm is being done by the current level of use.

<comment><USER22> You reference the logical fallacy of "think of the children", but in this case it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are literally poisoning the children.

For comparative example, lead abatement is not a fallacious "think of the children" argument- actual children are routinely poisoned by lead.

<comment><USER21> In the case of lead poisoning, it's widely believed to have been the cause of a significant and measurable increase in homicide rates in the second half of last century. There's a lot of data supporting that hypothesis, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis) has:

> between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was > responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime".

In the case of organophosphates, I am open to the idea that that there could be a big win by changing regulations. But without knowing the magnitude of the harm and cost, we really have no basis for prioritization. For example perhaps the time and money we'd spend changing these laws in the US would be better spent on removing lead to prevent even more poisoning of children. Or perhaps we should stop what we're doing and redirect all of our resources to removing organophosphates. Depending on even the order of magnitude of the effect, I hope you'd accept that different magnitudes of responses would be warranted.

> in this case it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are > literally poisoning the children.

This is precisely the "think of the children" fallacy. The fallacy doesn't refer to claiming children will be harmed when in reality they won't; that would be a factual error, not a logical fallacy. (And to be clear, I'm not making the claim that children won't be harmed by this family of chemicals). The fallacy refers to making an emotional argument based imagery of harm to children, instead of making a logical argument.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Would diatomaceous earth be a cost effective replacement?

<comment><USER24> There are different grades of quality in diatomaceous earth, some are safer, other not so. Is a "fosil stone", so is not unlimited. Diatom skeletons are tiny silica boxes, and breathing silica dust regularly leads to silicose. Would also change the soil structure and increase the damage in the machines needed for harvest.

In the other hand spiders and bats are the perfect insecticide without any bad side effect for plants. Its numbers would increase filling the gap, at least partially.

<comment><USER24> silicose -> silicosis

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Since this is a nerve disrupting chemical, could this lead to higher rates of alzheimer's and dementia? Any studies that looks at the correlation?

<comment><USER26> The strongest association with AD and PD is obesity. Now, in itself obesity is often the results of lifestyle habits. So, is one of those habits the culprit? Or is does more body fat leads to more bio-accumulated toxins?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Let's "kill 2 birds with one stone" and also fight the obesity crisis by having children pick weeds. Call it a "Synergy class between botany science and physical education".

Edit: The suggestion that children learn a basic trade, while getting exercise, and providing economic benefit, seems very unpopular. Please suggest a better solution for these problems - maybe you think adults would benefit more from this?

<comment><USER28> I upvoted... Because I hope this was a joke with tounge planted firmly in cheek.

<comment><USER29> Perhaps the children could feed off the insects they pick from the plants. /s

<comment><USER30> Maybe we could train the insects to raise the children for us too!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: We ripped off Crush Notifier, now we need advice. - <AUTHOR>

I liked the idea of Crush Notifier, but as a grown man out of elementary school, I wanted a little bit more.  So my brother and I stole Dan's idea and came up with the "Friends-with-Benefits" Facebook app (http://friends-with-benefits.me).
Currently the game play is similar to Crush Notifier's: 1. Each user picks the friends they want as "Friends with Benefits" 2. If their friends pick them back, we will send them both a notification email so that they can take their relationship to the next level; otherwise, the picks are kept secret.
We give our users 2 free "Picks", and if they want more Picks, they can purchase them using Facebook Credits equivalent to US$1.00/Pick.  But we are trying to come up with another way of approaching this:
Instead of charging for each Pick they use, we will let them pick an unlimited number of friends.  When a match occurs, they can choose to pay US$5.00 if they want us to reveal the match. Our goal is to attract more users to use our app with the free Picks while also optimizing our revenues.
Please let us know what you guys think, any positive and/or negative comments are much appreciated. <comment><USER2> Quick note: The logo makes me think of the health industry, not finding a FWB.

I think your second model would encourage more engagement and help you get through the problem of "Why should I pay $1 per pick if this app hasn't reached critical mass?"

If people can pick a bunch of their friends, and everyone can do it free, you'll reach critical mass easier.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that makes sense too. I guess it's hard to grow when I limit my users too much.

About the logo, I kind of agree with you. We're not designers, we just thought the plus sign kind of conveys friends + something extra. It took us a few minutes to do and it looks alright so we just let it go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you go with your first model, you are creating more a lottery.

The second model ties payment to the more valuable reward of an actual match. It might not happen that often but if you go with this model, you are betting that your app will work and provide value to your users. This is an actual service and the route I believe you should take.

<comment><USER3> Also, people might dig it if you could filter out family members from the list of people to pick from.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the second method does seem to make more sense. But I don't think filtering out a few family members matter much when you have hundreds of friends.

What do you feel about $5 for a match though?

<comment><USER3> From a guy's perspective, alerting them to a match means "We've got a near guarantee of repeated sex with someone you find attractive". Most guys would pay more than 5 bucks for that but $5 is a fair starting number.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can't agree more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you think FB will let you run with this? How do you handle underage users? I think you'll have a lot of hurdles to overcome.

<comment><AUTHOR> We did see many 'friends with benefits' groups on facebook, so we didn't think facebook would care too much about it.</comment></comment>