Hal Finney: Bitcoin and me - <AUTHOR> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.msg1643833#msg1643833

<comment><USER2> Hal was in the same dorm as I was at Caltech, a couple doors down the hall. He's a class act all the way. I've always admired him, and I think about everyone else did, too.

Hal liked to stuff as many freshman as possible into his VW bug and head out for Tommy's at 3AM. I would wind up folded into that cubby behind the back seat.

</comment><comment><USER3> ALS is the single most terrifying disease in my view. I'm so sorry to hear that.

Tony Judt, a great historian, died of it a couple? of years ago, and he wrote a harrowing tale about it here: [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jan/14/night/?...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jan/14/night/?pagination=false)

</comment><comment><USER4> Beautiful tale, saddening turn of events. Please consider watching this video: Surviving ALS with Dr. Bob Melamede. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeeVBSERb-c>

If I only knew him, I'd make it my mission in life to get Hal some Rick Simpson oil.

<comment><USER5> Billions of dollars are wasted to fight against a analgesic and therapeutic drug that could help millions; this world haves very dumb and/or corrupted people in charge.

<comment><USER6> [http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/marij...](http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/marijuana- cancer-what-facts-smoke/)

It's not the cure-all you think it is, regardless of the douchebags in charge.

<comment><USER4> Really? Have you had extensive, first-hand experience with Rick Simpson oil? Are you prepared to tell me there's zero medicinal benefits to it?

Listen, there's just not going to be scientific proof behind a mostly illegal substance with legions of powerful people incentivized to stop it from growing in popularity. Feel free to evaluate the video testimonials though: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwBs_ihArc1lCYDym- DH4...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwBs_ihArc1lCYDym- DH4EsDMR_UMTtA6)

Bitcoin shares many similarities with hemp oil, you can always tell the armchair opinions from the guys who actually use it.

<comment><USER6> I'm saying that there aren't cancer cure-all properties, which is not "zero medicinal benefits". I think medical marijuana has objective benefits. "Big pharm"/"Big cancer" conspiracy theories and the DEA's influence are irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hal is one of the only class acts publicly associated with Bitcoin.

<comment><USER8> This comment is inflammatory.

Checking your comment history, I agree with this commenters sentiment: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5546063>

<comment><USER7> I honestly don't see why. Most of the people involved in the major Bitcoin businesses, or in promoting Bitcoin publicly, are reprobates. Have you spent any time reading bitcointalk.org? Hal is very different from them.

<comment><USER9> ignore them. The vast majority of people, on this board and otherwise, view the attainment of money as the single main goal of their life[1]. If you look at the comments they made towards you, one basically says 'why would you bash bitcoin when you already have mined bitcoins?' as if as long as you already have your stake, theres no moral ambiguities with the situation. Apparently criticism can only come from the "angst, self-hatred, jealousy" of poor people.

Personally I think you have valid criticisms. If I just want to convert dollars to btc and vice versa, why do I care what chain I am on? Bitcoin is just a brand, but the technology can be forked and new chains can be created. Granted you wont have a convenient exchange to use, but do you really think a Mexican druglord is going to transfer billions of dollars to you through mt gox for btc?

Perhaps the govt never stepped in to curtail bitcoin because they realized that speculation and greed would ruin this chain (and then possibly be in position to influence the next chain).

The tech is great but the pyramid scheme implementation is a critical flaw. Does anyone believe that the intrinsic value of having an alternative currency like btc outweighs the money being made by the prospectors?

[1] im libertarian, btw

<comment><USER7> Thanks. Good perspective.

(I also get the reference in your username, btw. I don't know if it's obscure or not, but I don't see it often.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google: Experimental Flu Trends for Mexico - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/experimental-flu-trends-for-mexico.html <comment><USER2> This is great.

I am wondering if they are including searches in Spanish.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is just begging to be subverted by 4chan.</comment>


U.S. Higher Education Enrollments, Falling Behind - <AUTHOR> http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2013/07/us-higher-education-enrollments-falling.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This sums it up:

"Thus, the most obvious story told by these data is a frustrating one for the U.S. education system: [Per capita] spending is roughly where it should be, but performance is lagging badly. "</comment>


Irish Economy grew by 26.3% in 2015 - <AUTHOR> http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/economy-grows-by-26-3-in-2015-says-cso-1.2719047 <comment><AUTHOR> The article does a pretty good job of explaining how they reached that figure. Massive financial manoeuvres involved in aircraft leasing industry. On a global level Ireland is the place for aircraft leasing.

GDP and GNP are similar for most countries but Ireland is a small open and agile economy with a huge presence of foreign multinationals. Profits of these companies are often declared in Ireland but repatriated back to their host countries. Hence the disparity between the two figures.

Ireland also entered a harsh recession from 2008 to 2014 so an element here is also simply making up for lost ground.

This comes at a time when Ireland is bracing itself for Brexit. Ireland is massive trading partner of the UK. Ireland buys a similar amount from the UK as France for example.

The strategy seems twofold - get the EU to empathise with Ireland so that the UK doesn't have to got though a hard exit and introduce a hard border. While also trying to rob all the companies looking to relocate to an EU location from London.

For me whats interesting so much value being added to the Irish economy with relatively little actually coming from construction. Something Ireland was little too dependant on.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "so that the UK doesn't have to got though a hard exit and introduce a hard border"

I don't see anyway around the hard border. If border EU countries are required to protect their border as I've been lead to believe then Ireland now has to do that unless UK excepts freedom of movement.

<comment><AUTHOR> Rumour has it the UK will likely go for EEA membership after invoking article 50. This isn't foregone conclusion but a possibility and some would say likely outcome.

UK will have to accept EU migration and contribute to EU purse but doesn't have a seat at the table making the whole referendum a fruitless pursuit that cost the UK political clout.

Conversely the Germans may see Brexit as a threat to the EU (particularly if the UK does well outside the EU) and may veto the UK joining the EEA. The UK performing poorly outside the EU would act as a disincentive to other members who may be weighing up leaving.

Another alternative to the hard border between N.Ireland and Ireland is a hard border between N.Ireland and the rest of the UK. Though some saying having to use a passport to travel within your own country defeats the purpose of the country.

<comment><USER2> I personally doubt that the UK will go for EEA membership.

The Leave campaign made it crystal clear their rationale and the most notable were not allowing EU immigration and not giving money to the EU. For the Tory government to ignore the mandate would be politically catastrophic and would result in the same problems from the right e.g UKIP that caused this whole mess to begin with.

It seems more likely that there will be a whole raft of specific agreements over the coming decades that will facilitate a more constructive EU-UK relationship.

<comment><USER3> The leave campaign made nothing clear and reneged immediately on the promises it had made. Half of them said we would remain in the single market and keep freedom of movement and others said we wouldn't have either. There were no consistent demands from leave. Even leave voters who were interviewed afterwards said they wanted to limit the movement of people from Syria and Afghanistan not the movement of people from Europe, showing not only did they not understand what they voted for their desired outcome was never possible anyway.

None of the leave campaign are in a position of power so what they wanted, whatever it was, is not an issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> And it may grow even more when some/many US subsidiaries in UK will move to Ireland after Brexit (english speaking country in EU is attracting many US companies)...

<comment><USER5> Ireland can definitely capitalise on this calamity and there is no doubting how good the IDA are at what they do. What could make it a major success story is if the Dept of Finance get their act together and finally listen to what the investment community has been telling them for years re competitiveness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As the article hinted, there's a lot to consider when reaching the headline figure. Here's the associated grain of salt: [http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/analysis-crazy- gr...](http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/analysis-crazy-growth- figures-bear-scant-relationship-to-reality-1.2719106)

</comment><comment><USER7> Seeing a growth number like 26.3% is like seeing a sprinter run the 100m in 9.43s. At first you're impressed, and then you immediately wonder what PEDs they're taking.

</comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone have an idea of how this may impacting the job market for Developers/Engineers? I've been interested in potentially moving to Ireland for some time, but have held off because it was my understanding that work was much harder to come by (vs. North American standards).

<comment><AUTHOR> I help mod a sub reddit called /r/DevelEire for Irish software developers. Might be a good place to check out if you're seriously considering it.

1\. A fair number of companies to relocate to Dublin post Brexit.

2\. Large indigenous growth coming from Irish startups. Slowly the scene has been building and maturing for years.

3\. You'll have to take a 50% wage cut if you come to Ireland. American software developers are paid approx 2x their Irish counterparts.

<comment><USER9> OTOH, even Dublin is vastly cheaper than SV, with an excellent quality of life.

<comment><USER10> Yes, lower salary but lower cost of living. Dublin is expensive by Irish standards, but its not SV-expensive. If you work somewhere that doesn't require you to live in Dublin or Cork, then you can cut costs drastically (I live in the midlands in a 3 bedroom house and it costs me about 60% of a one- bed apartment in Dublin).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Check out Paul Krugman's latest input on these numbers. In his recent tweet he points out that a lot of this growth is from technology companies transferring their IP assets or patents to Ireland. Which shouldn't be added to GDP.

</comment><comment><USER12> Tax evasion by American Tech companies.

<comment><USER13> If it was that much of a problem for America they could change their rules.

<comment><USER12> If Ireland wishes to make themselves a tax haven, then the US has very little influence over that.

But for anyone to claim that Ireland would experience this sort of growth without being the go-to tax avoidance location for the likes of Google, Apple, Facebook and fill in the blank--is ridiculous on its face. Through the phenomenon of "income stripping" these tech companies essentially gift their IP to their Irish subsidiaries and then the subsidiary charges the parent company to use that IP, thereby stripping the parent company's earnings from the US--where the companies are actually located--to these tax havens.

In case you've been living under a rock you would know that Facebook has been fighting a lawsuit from the US treasury since 2010 over this exact situation.</comment></comment></comment>


Kids can't use computers (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/ <comment><USER2> The author is correct when he writes, "The truth is, kids can't use general purpose computers, and neither can most of the adults I know" but he goes much further than I think is really necessary or even realistic.

I teach at a liberal arts college and in most of my classes I devote a day or two to researching and evaluating sources. I ask them "How can to determine if a web site is credible?" and in every class I get a significant number of students say "If it is a .org, .gov, or .edu" Who is telling these kids this?

This week I had one class take an online survey and gave them a bit.ly link. I just cut and pasted it from bit.ly into notepad to make the font large enough that they could read it on the screen. In a class of ~35 I had 3-4 that were having problems. They were putting the url into google. At least one was typing in the "[http://"](http://") that I had just cut and pasted. Of course it was on his phone so he had to find the punctuation.

THen ther are the students who submit .gdoc or .pages files and when I tell them to export the files to .docx or .rtf they say they don't have word. First off, you can download MS Office for free from the university. Secondly, you can export from google docs and pages to word files.

Of course this is not the majority of students but it is easily 1 in 10.

So whenever I see something about "digital natives" I roll my eyes. Until I have a colleague freak out about having to use the online gradebook the university is now making us use instead of a paper one because that person doesn't know how to do it.

<comment><USER3> The other day I bought a backpack at a skateboard shop and a girl working there said she didn't own a laptop -- just a smartphone. I can absolutely see this becoming common in the near future as phones become even more useful. With a chromecast you can even watch netflix without a laptop, which takes away the main use I have for one aside from coding.

<comment><USER4> As soon as I can do work on my phone, all other computers will be pointless.

Imagine your phone with all of the computing power of your current desktop or laptop, with all of the same software too. If you want to work at a desktop, you could have a wireless keyboard, mouse, display, and power. This is all possible today, but the phones aren't quite there, yet.

<comment><USER5> You might like continuum from Microsoft? [https://support.microsoft.com/en- au/help/17280/windows-10-mo...](https://support.microsoft.com/en- au/help/17280/windows-10-mobile-continuum)

<comment><USER4> Yes! If my phone could run Visual Studio and PC games I wouldn't need a desktop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this article is one big categorical error.

The author is not talking about people using computers, everyone he describes as not being able to use a computer is obviously using one. He needs another word to describe what they can't do.

I would suggest the people in the article cannot "maintain" a computer. I can use a car, but I cannot maintain one. I can use a watch but I can't maintain one (unless it's quite large and easy to disassemble).

It's troubling that people can't maintain something that's a big part of their lives, but society has made do with maintenance services for plenty of other things. I think nerds and geeks (let's call them computer mechanics) scoff at groups like geek squad (for reasons I agree with), but they take their cars to car mechanics like everyone else and don't think twice. I think it's common for computer mechanics to suggest that someone who wants help should learn to help themselves, but I know I would be taken aback if my car mechanic finished a visit by handing me a maintenance manual and a catalog for in-home lifts and told me that, really, I should learn to do this myself.

<comment><USER7> > I would suggest the people in the article cannot "maintain" a computer.

That's definitely too restrictive of a description.

Laypeople don't tell their mechanic "the car won't work". They say that it won't start, or that a tire is flat or a headlight is burned out or that the check engine light is on or that it's making an unusual sound under certain circumstances. Even if they don't have any skill as a mechanic, you usually get at least a specific identification of the symptom relative to the expected behavior. And while you're not expected to perform all the maintenance, you _are_ expected to be able to read and understand the basics from the owner's manual and apply that knowledge.

But the average technically illiterate user has even shallower mental models for their computer than for their car, and is disinclined to attempt any amount of diagnosis.

<comment><USER8> > But the average technically illiterate user has even shallower mental models > for their computer than for their car, and is disinclined to attempt any > amount of diagnosis.

When have you truly encountered this? If you read through the article, the behavior the guy complains about is actually users going through the process of building a mental model of what their computer does.

E.g. the woman from the article expects PowerPoint presentations to just work despite Internet video being blocked, because she has a (correct) mental model that PowerPoint presentations should be local. This is what I would expect from someone who _was_ trying to understand their computer and has made an honest attempt at diagnosis.

I've dealt with a lot of relatively computer illiterate users, including friends and family, and I can count on my fingers the number of times I've felt someone was being willfully ignorant. 95% of the time, people are making an honest effort to learn, and bashing them for not knowing everything yet is a very unfair reaction.

<comment><USER7> > "E.g. the woman from the article expects PowerPoint presentations to just > work despite Internet video being blocked, because she has a (correct) > mental model that PowerPoint presentations should be local. This is what I > would expect from someone who was trying to understand their computer and > has made an honest attempt at diagnosis."

The PowerPoint embedded video issue in specific is a case of not understanding the difference between a link/reference and the object itself. That class of misunderstanding occurs all over the place and PowerPoint's UI probably wasn't helping the situation, but it's still an extremely basic thing to be confused about. The user certainly did _not_ have a correct understanding of what PowerPoint was up to; she was expecting PowerPoint to conform to her vague wishes, rather than deriving her expectations from any technical reality.

And taken as a whole, the anecdote shows a user that immediately gave up in the face of both simple and hard problems, was unwilling to help in the diagnosis process, and arrogantly rejected the author's attempts to educate the user. This wasn't a user that was trying to learn or understand, this was a user that had clearly decided not to learn anything more and was trying to outsource all further need for technical knowledge.

<comment><USER8> We're conflating two different things, which is the user's attitude toward the author, vs. the user's attitude towards learning the tech itself.

Given that the author showed sarcasm and hostility towards anyone perceived to be less technically literate from the very start, I wouldn't be surprised at the user's reaction, although I agree she should show some level of appreciation for what is essentially unpaid IT work.

> extremely basic thing to be confused about

No, the confusion is that PowerPoint even allows links and references, rather than directly embedding the content. You're expecting the user to be familiar with PowerPoint's feature set, and in my experience the linking/referencing feature is used rarely.

It doesn't help that the software purposefully hides the fact that it's a reference in order to make the experience more seamless.

<comment><USER7> > "Given that the author showed sarcasm and hostility towards anyone perceived > to be less technically literate from the very start,"

The author mentions that his usual tactic is sarcasm, but that during this encounter he was polite.

> "You're expecting the user to be familiar with PowerPoint's feature set, and > in my experience the linking/referencing feature is used rarely."

The user has just been told that PowerPoint was trying to stream the video. At this point, she no longer needs specific prior knowledge that PowerPoint has a linking/referencing feature. She has been presented with enough information to infer that the feature exists, if she has enough technical knowledge to recognize the general concept of a link. But instead of rethinking her situation, she patronizingly rejects the author's explanation—the first occasion in the encounter where she engaged in any discussion of the technical details.

<comment><USER8> Again, we have only the author's account for the interaction, and he sounds like he's got a big chip on his shoulder. I wouldn't be surprised if his attitude his coloring his interpretation.

Even if this particular user was being willfully ignorant, it's not been my experience with many, many other tech 'illiterate' people, who I've found by and large ask good questions and listen to explanations. I think computer- literate people really forget how much background knowledge they've absorbed over the years and how it helps them learn more.

Existing knowledge helps acquire more knowledge, and the effect compounds over time.

For example, a lot of posts here seem to be saying 'just Google it', but even knowing what terms to Google for is confusing for someone who doesn't have a knowledge base, because they don't even know what search terms to Google for, and which sources to trust.

For example, here's the first link you hit if you search 'remove viruses from computer':

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/243818/security/how-to- remove...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/243818/security/how-to-remove- malware-from-your-windows-pc.html)

Among other things, it recommends installing third-party AVX and random 'malware scanners'. Given how poor antivirus software is, following this advice will often slow down the computer and causes other problems down the line.

For someone who _really_ doesn't know what they're doing, and knows that they don't know, another barrier to trying to learn is simple risk aversion. I'm hesitant to work on my own car because I _know_ that I'm ignorant, to the point that I don't have a clear idea of what the failure modes are and the cost to me to fix them if I screw up.

Similarly, if a computer user really has no clue what they're doing and _they know that they 're ignorant_, they might perceive the process of experimenting and learning as potentially very costly -- maybe they can lose all their files, or bork their computer for a week, etc.

There's also a second-order effect here -- some people are just not that quick at picking up new things, _and they know that they 're bad at it_. I bet most software engineers are in the top 5% of the population in being able to teach themselves new things and learning them quickly. Unwillingness to learn a new task or fact can be rational if you have strong reasons to suspect that the cost of learning more is high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Am I the only one who is as tired of the 'kids can't use computers' meme as the 'digital natives' meme?

The vast majority of people have never been able to 'use' a computer like the author describes because the vast majority of people don't understand computing. And that's ok - I would consider it a triumph that we've been able to create such effective illusions in the form of UI that people who have no interest in computing can share in the incredible power that it enables.

But at the same time, it is a mistake to assume that mastery of the illusion equals mastery of the thing is abstracts. This is why the digital native meme is so misguided - kids don't know any more about computers than their parents did, they just know the walled gardens that sprang up around them.

<comment><USER10> Aren't we just masters of different illusions? Our illusions are lower-level, consisting of "file systems" and "kernels", "processes" and "TCP/IP", and "drawing calls". (And indeed, being able to upgrade a hard-drive and reinstall an OS hardly denotes mastery of _anything_ , and never did. It denotes being able to follow directions.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > To people like her, technicians are a necessary annoyance. She'd be quite > happy to ignore them all, joke about them behind their backs and snigger at > them to their faces, but she knows that when she can't display her > PowerPoint on the IWB she'll need a technician, and so she maintains a > facade of politeness around them, while inwardly dismissing them as too > geeky to interact with.

> I've heard this sentence so many times now from students and staff, that I > have a stock reaction. Normally I pull out my mobile phone and pretend to > tap in a few numbers. Holding the handset to my ear I say: 'Yes, give me the > office of the President of the United States.... NO, I WILL NOT HOLD. This > is an emergency.... Hello, Mister President, I'm afraid I have some bad > news. I've just been informed that The Internet is not working.'

Yes, it's a mystery how anyone could form the preconception that computer geeks don't socialize well.

<comment><USER12> It's a funny joke if you pick the right audience. The woman in this story wasn't the right audience, so he had the sense to contain himself. Doesn't seem that bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How can we expect our kids to be able to use computers when their schools are censoring the word "proxy" from their web searches?

And really? No YouTube? Give me a break. The difference between a prison and a grade school? Prisoners have rights.

<comment><USER14> For me at least, my school's aggressive network filtering was a great learning experience. They used deep-packet-inspection combined with SSL MITM, so I designed my own obfsproxy-like tunneling protocol. In retrospect, I could probably have just used obfsproxy, but as I said, it was a great learning experience.

<comment><USER15> We had filtered internet at home. I learned a lot about networking and VPN's because of that fact.

<comment><USER16> I'm doing the same currently but like any subject I encourage questions about the how & why. If we have a discussion about content that is filtered that has more to do with technical aspects I will, right now, always allow access. If it's about the actual content then it becomes a broader discussion that involves both parents.

My goal is that by keeping communication open early their moral compass will be developed enough to evaluate situations when the parental units have absolutely zero control over access. Pretty much like any other aspect of parenting except requiring more technical acuity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In the 80's, the local arcade owner in a podunk rural town could put up a random arcade machine from Japan, and the local kids would figure out how to play it. (Then lose interest, because it was some stupid movie tie-in thing.)

In the 80's, kids would run out of games on their dad's personal computer, then start typing in source code for additional games from paper magazines, and accidentally teach themselves how to program.

I know this. I was one of those kids. Necessity is the mother of invention. Boredom is a fantastic motivator.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqKdEhx- dD4&t=135s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqKdEhx-dD4&t=135s)

<comment><USER18> This sounds like confirmation bias. I'm sure that this happened, but I doubt it resulted in any more kids being interested in and competent with computers.

After all, I have similar anecdotes, and I grew up in the 2000s. I know several friends who that would also apply to.

Generationally, I think the number of people able to accomplish intermediate computer maintenance as described in the article is probably about the same across the board.

This article has one good point in my eyes: if you want people to learn, make them do it themselves. When my younger brother asks me, "how do I do [thing I know about], I tell him to Google it, first. Then I'll help him work the kinks out after he's at least tried to do something himself.

<comment><USER17> _After all, I have similar anecdotes, and I grew up in the 2000s._

Another anecdote from 2014 watching a kid walk up to a Battlezone 1980 emulator: Waggles the joysticks around for 2 seconds. This causes the tank to waggle. Kid gives up.

<comment><USER18> What's the purpose of this comment? Providing another anecdote doesn't invalidate my argument. Nor does it counter what you quoted there.

<comment><USER17> My thesis is that kids in days past would go to further lengths than kids nowadays to figure things out, mostly out of boredom. Middle class kids in the past also had access to "the sum of all human knowledge" through their public library and inter-library loans, but the barriers were higher than for kids growing up with the Internet. Nowadays, it seems like every kind of game imaginable is being implemented (albeit badly) by someone out there.

 _Providing another anecdote doesn 't invalidate my argument. Nor does it counter what you quoted there._

Nope. Just sharing. Ok, fine, you win, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It has always been this way. Even back in the heyday of personal computers, people stayed on simple happy paths to make sure didn't get lost. If they got lost, and a restart didn't help, they were at the mercy of the closest technical person.

That person would be exasperated at the simpleton who wouldn't put in the effort to learn the tool they were using.

The truth: Those people can't, or won't, learn, and now, they don't have to.

Being that technical person, I eventually got to the point of saying to myself, "These people will never learn, and they obviously don't appreciate the joy that comes with computer proficiency. They don't deserve to have a computer."

I dreamed of the day that they wouldn't have computers. I actually started to design a operating system (no code, just UI, concepts) that I code-named MoronOS out of sheer bitterness. No file system, no window manager, no cut-n- paste, little or no configuration, like that. I never needed implement it because Apple did it for me. It's iOS. And now Android.

These are _perfect_ for people. Rarely do people as me technical questions about their phones. Kudos to the people who design those OS's. The fact you can't even do 5% of what you can do on a general purpose computer is fine, cause they never used that other 95% anyway.

Now computers are for the people who will put in the time to learn them, to harness that power, and dare I say it, rule the future. Everyone else can enjoy their phones (really, what I think of as the real "personal computers").

More better for those of us with keyboards.

<comment><USER20> Not everyone has to learn about computers to a high level of proficiency - there are many other things in the world for people to do with their time - and everyone learning the ins and outs of their machines probably wouldn't make the world a better place. Why are you so disdainful of these people?

<comment><USER21> High level of proficiency? No. But maybe enough to apply critical thinking skills to them, I work in IT and the number of people in IT POSITIONS that can't just dive in and ATTEMPT to diagnose an application they are unfamiliar with boggles my mind.

It extends far beyond the desk workers who can't be assed to make a 30 second google search before calling the helpdesk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't know. I read it before and I agree. Heck, I've defended that point of view on the net in the past.

But I have spent most of the last 2 days surfing the net looking for information on which models of lightbulbs and washer pump I should buy for my car. Eventually I managed to track down and figure out the manufacturer serial number patterns and I was able to order the things (hoping the washer pump manufacturer I randomly chose delivers quality products) but I haven't yet found how to safely disconnect the battery of my - specific - car so I can perform the maintenance operation (which I am told is fairly easy).

So that is going to take me 2 days (at best) to fix my washer pump and change a lightbulb (how many HNers does it take ?). Any mechanic `geek` could fix it in 30 minutes. But I decided I am not going to shell out $120 to have that done. Yeah me and the hacker ethos.

My point is: I never had any proper mechanical courses in high school so I can see why today's kids can't find files or drivers or proxy settings (which reminds me of the f* proxy at work that is still getting on my nerves sometimes) or how to sort columns in excel even with the internet at their fingertips.

<comment><USER12> I see the parallel, but I don't think it's all that parallel. I'm in a similar situation right now with a motorcycle battery. My bike stopped working last Friday - 8 days and counting now. It took 2 days before I had time to go out and have a look at it. Then I had to come inside and look up a video to find the non-obvious location of the battery. I used a multimeter to check the charge on the battery, but I don't have a real tester to tell me the health of the battery. The multimeter seemed to be telling me it's fine. It took it to a local auto parts store to be sure, but the kid at the counter was even less sure than I was. So I took it into work the next day and walked to a motorcycle dealership to have it tested there. Yes, the battery is dead, no they don't have one...

There are several more episodes in this story (which hasn't ended yet), but the point is that this would have been a 30 minute job if I had a SHOP and TOOLS and LIGHTS and the ability to work on it uninterrupted for a little while. The fact that it's taken 8 days is almost entirely down to the fact that I live in an apartment building and my tools are in storage right now.

But the beauty of computers is that everything you need is contained on the device, and you can work from anywhere. If only more people would take advantage of it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So he shames people that are clueless with a computer but at the end admits he's the same with his car.

The truth is nobody can master everything so there's no reason to feel superior to someone that is clueless in your domain.

<comment><USER24> You bring up a good point. What is the social expectation of competence in these areas? In the USA it is assumed a man can change a tire, do basic handyman stuff, etc. But is there a social equivelent in tech? At what point are techs just keyboard moneys to the masses like mechanics are now?

Its odd, as the two share much. The average modern mechanic now knows hex, rom flashing, checksums, and some basic networking, in addition to metalurgy, gas/vapor flow, and customer service. The complexity has increased dramatically, but social respect has not.

<comment><USER25> I expect people to be able to connect devices, since the ports are labeled and shape matched. (And often color coded, too.)

I expect people to be able to perform slightly-nontrivial Google searches ('site:' and similar tags; Boolean operators).

I expect people to have the equivalent of "electrons flow in copper" (electricity) or "explosions push the pistons" (ICEs) level of understanding of what's in a computer and what it does, what the internet is and how traffic flows across it.

Now, the reasons some of these don't happen is poor teaching materials, but I think we need to get to that point -- where everyone knows at least those things -- before we can sanely discuss technology as a society. Democracy will break down -- is breaking down -- because most of the electorate refuses to know even the basics of one of the major social forces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> >some faceless, keyboard tapping, socially inept, sexually inexperienced network monkey

>she maintains a facade of politeness around them, while inwardly dismissing them as too geeky to interact with

>Normally I pull out my mobile phone and pretend to tap in a few numbers. Holding the handset to my ear I say: 'Yes, give me the office of the President of the United States.... NO, I WILL NOT HOLD.

I think her initial reaction was spot-on based on this... Am I supposed to route for this protagonist?

<comment><USER27> He's got his routing handled. You may wish to 'root' for him, however.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Big discussion at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6186730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6186730).

</comment><comment><USER29> So that's a long read... some good points buried in there, I guess it's good to provoke conversation in this area. Worth a read at least, much to agree with, much to disagree with.

>> Mobile has killed technical competence.

Yeah, maybe, probably? So many sweeping generalizations throughout.

It's hard to pick out everything that feels wrong, but I don't know about this...

>>Not really knowing how to use a computer is deemed acceptable if you're twenty-five or over.

I've not thought this to be true for a couple of decades now. Anyone* over 40 has been using computers for most of their life at this point.

* Yes, not literally anyone, maybe "Anyone reading this" is more accurate.

<comment><USER30> "Anyone reading this" isn't in the population of people who don't know how to use a computer.

Contrary to the beliefs of many people over the age of 40, being born around the time that the personal computer or the Internet or mobile phones were invented and took off does not make one any better with computers. The general population under 30 is just as clueless as, if not even more clueless than, the generations before them when it comes to computers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think we have to recognize that the use of the computer has changed over time. It's no longer the "computing" device that the users of yore recognize.

Before the late seventies, the use of computers were restricted to those who absolutely needed them and could afford them.

In the late seventies and early eighties the computers started entering the homes of ordinary people and where primarily used by the 'nerdy' kids. These were the kids that actually used the computers to program things and even program their own games (or copy/import other freely available game source code) and played them.

Come the nineties and we see the proliferation of high end games and the 'non- nerdy' users focused on using the computer as a game console. This was also the advent of the web browser and now the whole new world of the internet became accessible to the normal folks.

The audience today considers the computer as nothing but a commodity device just like a phone or an MP3 player. Now babies and toddlers are as comfortable with them as their grandparents are still confused with them.

You can't blame the kids of today for not knowing what the computer was originally used for. We read email, browse the web, play games and occasionally use it for the odd assignments which require a Word processor of some sort.

<comment><USER32> I don't think anyone is blaming the kids, they're blaming those PR/marketing people who go on talking about "digital natives".

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The real issue is that people do not have the patience to try and figure stuff out. They've got google and youtube, but would rather ask someone for the answer.

<comment><USER34> 100% yes - and I am guilty of this myself. I've always found CSS miserable, so I'd just Stack Overflow things to "just make it work" ASAP.

Yesterday I took the time to read the specs for the flexbox feature. Spent an extra hour or two to build a cogent mental model of how to lay out various components, and voila - it's fun now; it's a brain-teaser and a game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is a good anecdotal piece. Here's a structured study of what computer skills people actually have:

[https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill- levels/](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/)

HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13111768](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13111768)

</comment><comment><USER36> Speaking as a kid who does know how to use computers, this phenomenon infuriates me.

There is a special place in hell for people who claim to be "1337 h4x0rs", but have less skills than the average script kiddie. Especially if they spew BS to make themselves look good to their peers.

</comment><comment><USER37> 60% of Computer Science students also do not know how to use a computer. (At least in elite institutes in India).

The problem is they learn theory of computation and operating systems and all, but cannot reinstll their OS. And building a wifi driver from source in Linux is just wizardry.

<comment><USER38> Are they really learning it then? Memorizing facts without the practical understanding to back that up is pointless, especially nowadays with reference (Google) being instant and cheap.

I have not been impressed with the overall grad population in my CS department, which just happens to be dominated by Indian students. I tutor students who passed presumably difficult and comprehensive exams that can't get through the bridge courses, equivalent to the undergrad intro sequence. Yesterday I worked with a student who was incredibly flustered by the prospect of splitting a string in Java, even after I wrote out the functions to look at, how they worked, input and output examples, etc.

There's also an annual cheating scandal whereby ~90% of new grad students are caught cheating on the first assignment, and we explain that strike 2 involves losing their scholarships.

I can almost have sympathy. Skating through college without any practical understanding and then suddenly being expected to think is probably frustrating. I suspect there is some large structural defect in the educational system causing this situation.

My institution probably doesn't attract students from the most elite universities, but you'd expect a higher quality floor for a group passing rigorous testing and, y'know, getting a diploma.

<comment><USER37> I think the problem is with that people in India and other developing countries get into Computer Science not because they have interest in the machine but only because they want some sort of job. They are very fast learners but do not care to learn how to use computers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think the capacity for computer proficiency is simply something you're either born with or not. Some people can be introduced to an unfamiliar system like a computer and actually make an attempt to make sense of it, figuring it out as they go, learning what does what such as actually reading the words on the buttons to make educated guesses on how to accomplish what they're trying to do and gaining an intuitive feeling for the filesystem/window management system, while other people (a lot of people) don't have that faculty and never will. These people will ask you how to print something when there's a giant print button on the screen, be taught how to share a picture on their phone with the messaging app but then not be able to connect the dots on their own to figure out how to send a picture in an email and have to be told to just select email instead of messaging, and so on. I've had extensive experience with these kinds of people and my only conclusion is that they are unteachable and you have to be born with "computer genes" for lack of a better term.

<comment><USER40> > while other people (a lot of people) don't have that faculty and never will. > These people will ask you how to print something when there's a giant print > button on the screen, be taught how to share a picture on their phone with > the messaging app but then not be able to connect the dots on their own to > figure out how to send a picture in an email and have to be told to just > select email instead of messaging, and so on. @jimmaswell

We call those folk: LAZY.

They're too lazy to think for themselves, and want everyone else to do the lifting for them. This isn't new. This isn't some _computer only_ or _tech only_ thing. It's just plain lazy. Lazy has been around for thousands of years. It's just more noticeable now that everything is meme'd and shared online.

TL;DR - They're lazy.

<comment><USER8> Laziness is the motivator to get a computer to do something, rather than by hand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Knowing how to work around weird quirks caused by bad UI design != Knowing how to use a computer.

The wifi-switch on the side of laptop is a classic one (or even worse: fn+F7). While i personally do appreciate having a physical switch for it, how is an average user supposed to know that my laptop has a magic switch that can turn on or off the internet when the only error message they get is "Connection error". This is the type of error that can have so many fault sources that it should have a checklist that the average user can easily go through themselves. Now if such a list exists and the user doesn't have the attention span to read it - then they don't know how to use a computer.

Simply using linux doesn't teach you how to _use a computer_. Unless you are interested in knowing why certain things work and can troubleshoot yourself, using linux will simply teach you how to use linux.

</comment><comment><USER38> There's a pretty strong tension between creating a great product and creating a product that encourages learning.

Great products we love make it so that we need to learn as little as possible to be successful (intuitive = didn't need to learn). Windows just works, macOS just works, and Linux gets closer every day.

The author recommends switching to Linux, but I think he underestimates the Linux dev community. They're taking their sweet time, but they will eventually get to 'just works', and students raised on Ubuntu will be just as alienated from the command line as Windows users are.

I would never have learned so much or gotten any sort of limited understanding of computers if Windows 98 just worked. That is scary because we've been in 'just works' territory across the board for years.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but asking people to fix their own problems is probably a good first step.

<comment><USER42> Personally I think the raspberryPi is a great place for kids to start. In particular look at what the Kano guys are doing. [https://kano.me/](https://kano.me/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Digital natives can use MS Office, play pokemon go and other games, use social media snapchats and bully each other online. They don't care about privacy online because they have nothing to hide (unless they are being bullied), they don't know how internet works but have strong opinions about it. They can not replace RAM, sometimes they have the luxury to through away the whole PC because they can't figure out that it's just graphics card that's dead and since parents can buy new anyway. Digital natives don't know how programs are made, they don't control the checksums of their software and if they see a recognizable logo they would think that it's totaly legit thing even though the utility isn't signed and they downloaded it from some dodgy forums.

</comment><comment><USER44> This piece tells me more about the author than it does any of his unfortunate users & students.

He lacks any understanding of his users' needs and sneers at them rather than try to improve their understanding. No wonder he's surrounded by people who struggle with IT.

</comment><comment><USER45> She showed a clear lack of respect for him after helping him many times. He shouldn't taken that, gaven her laptop back and said: "Go to the it help" for the uni. There was no reason to pull out a 3g hotspot to rip a youtube video.

</comment><comment><USER15> Dear Author,

Your explanation of the Ubuntu Touch solution saddened me. I know the OS has improved a lot since this article was written, but I still don't think there is a 4G LTE option.

I therefore recommend BlackBerry 10 as a mobile OS for serious "users." Root is locked down, but the brilliant community has devised ways to install GCC and other software development tools, so you really can write, compile, and execute applications on your mobile. I use Helium Code Editor, Term48 terminal emulator, and you can google how to compile and install GCC on BB10. It also comes with a Python 3.2 interpreter.

</comment><comment><USER46> I find this argument by Alan Kay to be the most eloquent one yet on this subject: [https://youtu.be/ubaX1Smg6pY?t=5099](https://youtu.be/ubaX1Smg6pY?t=5099)

The whole talk it good

</comment><comment><USER47> I pride myself as being one of the few teens who know how to use computer.

</comment><comment><USER48> And there I was compiling Gentoo at 13 because I liked the colours.

</comment><comment><USER49> [https://www.howacarworks.com/](https://www.howacarworks.com/)

</comment><comment><USER50> I can't imagine being a kid today. But if genetic me were reborn today, I suppose he would adapt as all humans do.

</comment><comment><USER51> TL;DR (239 words, 1 minute reading)

I told a colleague, whom isn't tech savvy, that contrary to her belief, most kids aren't digital natives. They all can't use computers. Examples of people who can't use computers are mostly the obvious (plug in the ethernet cable; turn on the display; turn on the wireless switch in an OS of your choice); one is a bit harder (reinstall Windows). Parents did it all wrong, fixing everything for their children without teaching them how to do it themselves. The UK asked the industry what should be taught and Microsoft told them Microsoft Office, so now that's what they know. People aren't used to a command line anymore.

Why should we care? Tomorrow's people are going to be creating laws regarding computers, enforcing laws regarding computers, educating the youth about computers, reporting in the media about computers and lobbying politicians about computers. All while not being able to use a computer.

How to fix it? Stop fixing things for your kids. Schools should teach not to install malware instead of locking down machines. Teach how to stay safe on- line. Adopt a responsible disclosure model instead of punishing kids in school for hacking things. At least play around with Linux and powershell and stuff.

I've owned a car for most of my adult life yet I wouldn't know how to fix one. It's a recurring problem with computers. Yet I want to build a generation of hackers. Who's with me?

\--- End of TLDR. ---

That took the author 4165 words in story mode (and me about 30 minutes to read, including this summary). This, author, is why you were probably asked for a TLDR in the past and why you write "gtfo you stupid fuck" as a TLDR on top: it takes forever like this. And be honest, author, did I miss anything? Other than clipped sentences, should anything more be included to get that message across?

Now as for my own commentary, I more or less agreed up to the "Why" part. I mean, yeah, digital self defense is important but not for everyone. If a subset of the population in every country knows it, we're good right? You even admit to not knowing how to fix your own car, yet without explaining how this is different you expect us to understand that it is different somehow?

I'd like to see people be a little bit more tech savvy, but not as much as you seem to think is necessary before not calling someone computer illiterate anymore.

<comment><USER52> Thank you for the public service tl;dr version. Should be compulsory on any article this long.

I experience this 'digital natives' lie first hand from my younger family members, it's really disheartening but unlike the author I don't think it's all that important. Compared to social media induced passivity being tech illiterate is inconsequential.</comment></comment>


Wall Street is Buying Homes - Will Main Street Follow? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.suitey.com/wall-street-buys-will-main-street-follow

<comment><USER2> One thing you're not considering is that buying a home ties you down to a particular area. With the jobs market the way it is, jobs for life a mythical thing for most people, and major structural shifts in employment, buying a house is not really an option for most people. Also, I'm not sure there's that much credit availability for consumers wanting a mortgage and it'd certainly involve a major upfront deposit.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a valid point and I'll follow up with a future post about the economics of buying, but to realize a return on a home you need a time horizon of 5 years. With the shift to more urban life, I don't think that 5 years is an unrealistic amount of time to live in one place. In major metropolitan areas, there are often plenty of alternative jobs available and people tend to be tied down due to family obligations.

<comment><USER2> That's all well and good until you lose your job during a dip in the housing market and no-one is buying - for example, due to a major recession.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> To get to a $3k/month payment on a 500k apartment unit, the author assumes that people have $100,000 in cash to drop on a down payment. People renting often don't have that much cash on hand and are already trying to pay their school loans.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that is an assumption I make in the article. A 20% downpayment is going to be the minimum that you would need for any bank to approve you for a mortgage. Many readers either have that cash in their bank account or the ability to get help from (extremely) generous parents.

<comment><USER4> Eh? There's FHA (2.5% down), I did that myself. Was easy. Messes with your overall purchasing power because your monthly is so high, though.

> _Many readers either have that cash in their bank account or the ability to > get help from (extremely) generous parents._

LOL

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You have completely ignored the effect falling interest rates have had on buying power and thus nominal home prices.

Absent something extraordinary, watch out when rates rise. Affordability will be crushed quickly, and absent rising incomes, prices will have to fall.

One could argue we'll see a Japan-style era of low rates, but in your article you're urging folks to "Buy now before it's too late!". If rates spike suddenly, this will be a very, very bad time to be long such a levered investment.

</comment><comment><USER6> The math in this post is funky and one-sided.

Is $3k/mo a good price to pay for a place to live? To answer that question you would need to know the alternatives:

* how much does it cost to rent the same apartment? * if you have $100,000 on hand, what is the ROI of other investments you could make?

Whether buying your home is a good idea is much more involved than a short blog post and always comes down to individual circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have an issue with this article. How many people have $100k available in their bank account? I've never been over $50k of remotely liquid assets.

That said, I received helped from my parents for the down payment and couldn't be happier of the move to mortgage over rental.

<comment><USER8> If you have the income to support a $3k/mo housing cost you should be saving enough to afford a $100k downpayment in a few years. Also, as another poster pointed out, it probably qualifies for an FHA loan with much lower down payment.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Would love feedback from the HN community on this post!

<comment><USER6> It looks like realtor spam with funky math. I'm not sure why it is on here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As with most blog headlines ending in a question mark, the answer is NO.

</comment><comment><USER9> Text obscured by annoying overlays.</comment>


Ask HN: Where to start with getting in to retrocomputing as a hobby? - <AUTHOR> I have been interested in getting in to retrocomputing as a hobby recently. What's a good place to start? I have some interest in electronics and hardware, but I am more interested in software overall. Are there any good blogs/forums/other resources to read on how to dive in? <comment><USER2> I can't answer your question, but I think I can provide some advice on what you need to do in order to ask a question which is more likely to move you forward.

What interests you in retrocomputing? You pointed out 'software', but that's a wide topic.

Is it microcomputers of the 1970s? Unix workstations of the 1990s? (IRIX 4dwm 4evar!) Mainframe operating systems? Games? FLOW-MATIC and other 1950s-era software? Specialized systems like the Apollo Guidance Computer?

Do you want to learn how the software works (eg, through disassembly)? Or write/improve emulators? Or run old software on the original hardware?

Are you interested in archival? For example, finding and preserving old software for future study, or indexing archives to help others understand what is available.

Or some sort of historical study, like the evolution of a certain idea, or the first use of X, or the fantastic writings by Maher in 'The Digital Antiquarian'?

Each of these will take you in a different direction, and answering them should make it easier to find the sort of people and information you are interested in.

<comment><USER3> I second all of this.

The barrier to entry is pretty low right now.

You may not know your interest too.

That is common.

Pick something you want to experience or do. Get hardware and or software and just do it.

I found my interests change over time too. I like doing things on old hardware, and I like doing things retro style on new or custom built hardware the most right now.

It was gaming earlier. That may return too. Depends on other life happenings.

Pick a thing you would like to do and set about doing it. You may not finish, or you may. Will not matter too much.

What you are likely to find is where your real interest is.

Fun times right now too. This is a great time to enjoy retro. Real hardware is still pretty easy to get and people are making new stuff.

I do not think that will always be true, but it us right now.

Have fun.</comment></comment>


IOS Hello World - 18 Easy Steps - <AUTHOR> http://mobileorchard.com/ios-development-tutorial-series-hello-world/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MobileOrchard+%28Mobile+Orchard%29

<comment><USER2> I like the tutorial since it's great timing for me, but I really hate that you click on an image to view it larger and it takes you to a page instead where you can then click on the image to view it larger.</comment>


Kitchen Rhythm: A Year in a Parisian Pâtisserie - <AUTHOR> http://blog.longreads.com/2015/02/26/kitchen-rhythm-year-in-parisian-patisserie/

<comment><USER2> What devotion. Shame on us if we ever design a robot that can compete with this labour of love! I cook some, bake some, and occasionally venture into patisserie, and have incredible respect for the _years_ of blood, sweat and tears that goes into developing this skill.

The intermingling of Japanese onamonapia was a wonderful touch. The part about the queen of all apologies, _moshiwake gozaimasen_ had me searching for a pronunciation guide as it seems like a phrase worth keeping in one's back pocket, despite probably not being around anyone who would understand its significance when it would be most called for.

<comment><USER3> Of course it's been already happening for quite some time, and to be honest quality can be good (but of course can't really compete against the best ingredients cooked by qualified artisan).

Not sure if you speak French and if it's accessible from overseas but watch Chapter 2 of this show : [http://www.6play.fr/m6/capital/11463938-patisserie- et-chocol...](http://www.6play.fr/m6/capital/11463938-patisserie-et-chocolat- les-millions-d-une-passion-tres-gourmande)

At 44:00, 16 000 éclairs in two hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had heard that there were many Japanese folks working in Patisseries in France, but I was surprised to read that in that one it was mostly run by a full Japanese staff! What's the Chef doing ?

<comment><USER5> There's even a French Patisserie in Silicon Valley with entirely French- trained Japanese culinary staff with all ingredients shipped in from France.

Go figure. :P

(despite the high prices, their products _are_ quite good)

<comment><USER4> Here in Japan where I live there are a couple of very decent Patisseries with Japanese staff trained in France (at least the Chef) and they are quite good. The only problem is that they lack butter in Japan and therefore they reduce the butter amount for stuff like Pain au chocolat or Croissant and it does not taste the same as the real french thing anymore. Japan should really import butter, but JA (Japan Agriculture) is probably organizing the boycott of all imports so that they can sell a ridiculous piece of butter for like 5 dollars while the same would cost 10 times less in France.

<comment><USER5> Oh so that's why things like butter and cheese cost ridiculous amounts of money there! (used to live and work in Japan)

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it's (mafia-style) organized rarity :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _" Like living in Paris, there is satisfaction in the very idea of pâtisserie: so romantic!"_

Where I live, I have a local Pâtisserie. My own observations: each piece of food is the result of precision; hard work; tradition; and the best locally sourced ingredients. The owners are French, so I go there to touch-up my language skills, order a montainard, café, half a dozen croissant for later and sit down.

The produce in the shop window, mirrors the seasons.

The article nails the daily grind of production. If you look at the photographs, [0] you will see each item is identical, neatly presented and fresh. The selection is seasonal because most of the ingredients are home grown. I marvel at how locals ask for, 'Low-fat' versions of what-ever they order. The shop is out-of-step with the mind-set and rhythm of the locals, with the exception of the festive season. At certain times of of year, you have to order or get in early as things sell before ten. Opening hours are nine to four. Saturdays are busy, as is Sunday. Monday is the day off.

The best description in the writing [1] is the transplanted Japanese, busy copying the local French cuisine readying themselves to go home and open their own Pâtisserie. I see this at home, mostly with Vietnamese who also absorbed their cuisine through French occupation.

Go to a Pâtisserie, slow down, savour the produce then order in French. You'll never think of eating a soggy croissant again.

[0] [https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/7215762249855945...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157622498559456/)

 _" To make chocolate mousse, enough for 150 people, say, first whip the cream — liters and liters of it."_

[1] Minor quibble. When I read something from an Oxford graduate and I come across _' liters'_ it jars. Litre in both the Uk and Fr is 'litre'. Re-edited for the American market?

<comment><USER4> > The owners are French, so I go there to touch-up my language skills, order a > montainard

Just a small correction since you are into French, it's spelled Montagnard.

<comment><USER6> thx @ekianjo. Montagnard not montainard. Must ask the owners why this particular name was chose? Hint 1848: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagnard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagnard))

<comment><USER7> I never heard of a pastry called "montagnard". What does it look like?

I think a reference to a political group of a bygone age would be way too obscure (not sure why you mention 1848, the Revolution was long over by then). The primary sense of the noun "montagnard" is "somebody living in the mountains".

<comment><USER6> It's not a pastry, but a Baguette with a roast meat, salad, cheese slice with a mustard sauce. When I have another one I'll ask for more details why it's named so.

The 'montagnard' reference is accurate and describes a political group during the '48 revolution. 23 June 1848, look it up.

cf: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_%281849%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_%281849%29)

<comment><USER7> Oh, right. Well, it's even more obscure than the revolutionary movement that gave it its name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Beautifully written and amazingly hard work that I never fully realised went into running a patisserie.

</comment><comment><USER9> Pâtisserie is beautiful and also very difficult. Disciplined and talented young people willing to start working at 4am are hard to find, even in France. That's why many pastry shops choose to buy frozen chocolate eclairs and mille- feuilles and sell it like they made it themselves.

<comment><USER10> I agree, where if you name your shop "boulangerie" you must make it in your shop, if you name it "pâtisserie" you can use frozen cakes and more and more pâtisseries use them.

[http://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay- magazine/france-2/envoye-s...](http://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay- magazine/france-2/envoye-special/video-patisserie-l-arriere-gout-des- gateaux_829387.html)</comment></comment>


Harvard Students in Cheating Scandal Say Collaboration Was Accepted - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/education/students-of-harvard-cheating-scandal-say-group-work-was-accepted.html

<comment><USER2> Most people here are saying that the students were clearly in the wrong. "Lack intellectual curiosity and character". "spoiled children". I don't agree at all. Aside from the formal rules, smart people pick up on which rules can be broken safely. In fact, knowing which rules in life you should break and which rules you should follow is probably a critical factor for success in life.

Jaywalking is illegal in most (all?) US cities, but in many it's completely acceptable behavior. Jaywalking in Seattle (edit: was Manhattan), on the other hand is not done and you better not do it within eyesight of a police officer. Jaywalking in the Netherlands is completely fine (even right in front of the police), but in Germany it's not. The laws are the same, but the culture is different.

There are thousands of examples of socially acceptable behavior that doesn't correspond with the law. Drinking in public. Sometimes fine, sometimes not. Forging a signature. Occasionally fine, usually not.

Startups break laws all the time too. You have to get a product out first, and only when you start making money you get lawyers involved to make sure everything is going by the books. But if you aren't making real money yet the government really doesn't care whether you follow every law to the letter. And as a founder you have to decide which laws can be broken safely and which laws must be obeyed. Get it wrong and you may lose your company: either through legal trouble or because it doesn't get off the ground. The founders talk freely about the laws they broke. They brag about it! It's considered clever. Relentlessly resourceful. It's a fine line.

So if the culture in Harvard was such that cooperating for take-home exams was sometimes acceptable and sometimes not, then I consider that a legitimate excuse. It's easy to test too. Just look at the exams of that course of the previous years and check if people worked together on those too. Compare with other courses. If the results show that students consistently break the "individual work only" clause for some courses and not for other courses then the students probably didn't think they were doing anything wrong. They were just acting in the socially accepted manner.

<comment><USER3> _Jaywalking in Manhattan, on the other hand is not done and you better not do it within eyesight of a police officer._

Seriously? I have stayed in Manhattan for couple years and done my share of jaywalking occasionally in clear sight of NYPD. May be I am just lucky but this just doesn't resonate with me.

<comment><USER4> Everyone jaywalked when I was in Manhattan. It's a very pedestrian city.

<comment><USER5> I don't walk, I jaywalk!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For being at an elite "best-of-the-best" school, these students sure sound like a bunch of spoiled children. The reasons for cheating seem to vary from "it was a hard course so I had to cheat" to "everyone does it" to "it's an open book test, so we should be allowed to cheat".

<comment><USER7> Have you not been paying attention to the entitlement and attitudes of the global financial elite in 2009-2010? This was precisely their response to the mismanagement of the banks: everybody was doing it, it was accepted, now bail us out and leave.

<comment><USER8> Not to remove blame where blame is due, but in both cases there are incentive and regulatory problems. If you give people problems whereby they feel that they cannot do well without cheating (i.e. when everyone else is cheating), then cheating becomes institutionalized. Thus, to be cheating in a class where 99% of the students are cheating is to be somewhat less culpable than to be among the students cheating when only 1% of the students are cheating.

That is to say, to have a situation when cheating becomes the norm implies a much larger institutional and cultural collapse in which the larger framework (and not simply the cheating individuals) demands investigation.

What are the larger trends here?

Well, the first might simply be the idea that greed is okay. In this case, we can witness the following transformation in American values fairly clearly.

Phase 1 (religious): Greed is bad, we do things for the sake of a heavenly kingdom only. We are only temporary stewards of the wealth we have.

Phase 2 (agnostic): Greed may be a necessary part of evolution and competition for limited resources, but we need to limit it and make it a long term sort of greed.

Phase 3 (hedonist): My identity is defined by how much money I have, and I don't care how I get it.

In other words, there is long-term value erosion. This is not to say that one's values necessarily have to be religious-Christian in derivation, but in the American context this was overwhelmingly the case and this erosion has basically given way to live in the moment materialism.

The practical consequences is that many people involved in business, and this is most clear in the financial sector which has no ostensible tie to any product whatsoever and attracts people who care only about money, not only seek money, but seek to destroy any barriers that keep them from getting as much money as possible. In the US this has meant saturation of elite universities (pulling an increasing proportion of the best and brightest into the financial sector), buying out of the major political parties, shutting out the minor political parties, and removing regulatory functions (i.e. the SEC). Additionally, there is the desire to weaken the electorate by importing cheap labor from other countries that will be liable to manipulation via mass media, decreasing the likelihood that any independent party will achieve critical mass.

Because this is a long-term institutional problem there is no obvious solution, except to continue with the values that have not entirely been eroded (i.e. honesty) and to encourage others who do their function (i.e. continue working in the public sector and enforcing existing regulation). Creating new services and teams of people that are doing a good job simply for the sake of doing a good job is never a bad idea either -- although it is always easy to get sucked into the mentality of "greed is good."

<comment><USER9> "Thus, to be cheating in a class where 99% of the students are cheating is to be somewhat less culpable than to be among the students cheating when only 1% of the students are cheating."

No.

<comment><USER10> I'm pretty sure I agree with you but comments like these could be more verbose. It's not helpful to simply disagree without explanation. One word responses are just dogmatic.

<comment><USER8> Thanks. I personally believe in right and wrong, but also in degrees of right and wrong. Doing the right thing in a situation where everyone else is doing the wrong thing is more difficult. Doing the right thing when everyone is doing the right thing is easy. Thus, you don't really know your values or the depth of your values until you are placed in a situation where it is difficult to carry them out.

Here, for "culpability" I mean simply that I believe that the power to actualize the values of each individual differs, and that those who are able to actualize their values even in very difficult situations is worth more and to be praised more than those who are unable to and go with the flow.

This is to say that simply saying you have certain values means nothing. You have to act on those values and, because acting on those values can be difficult, I have sympathy for those who fail to -- even as I praise those who do.

<comment><USER11> Your analysis is not wrong. The UCI/The Tour DeFrance, Lance Armstrong were just as bad. You highlight lots of good issues (including - other people making money off it regardless of who wins, the act of _not_ doping was arguably dangerous, given the exertion levels of the pack, etc). The conclusion of this section is fine I'd also agree with (It _is_ true). But ultimately you fail to provide a framework for analysis. You conclude _This is to say that simply saying you have certain values means nothing_

If you were a CEO of UCI and the Board _asked_ you: 'How would you "fix" the pervasive problem' would your really come back debating "doping" and "problem"? Or would your come back with something more like: Here is my Answer X,Y,Z. While itsn't perfect, we've identified things that are clearly wrong that we _can_ fix. First, we need to draw lines between doping and legitimate theraphy. Second, we need to have the science to _fairly test_ between the Two. Third, while maintaining privacy and fairness, the athletes and the teams will need to co-operate with the [XYZ] league to make sure it doesn't damage the credibility of the competition and abuse our position of trust amongs the fans....etc.

I'd actually be interested to hear your views on that. Your analysis pointed out the analogy to the Armstrong case (was not something I thought of before hand, but it fits perfectly). But when I see a huge, intelligent analysis thrown up then ends the way yours does, it seems like a waste of all the energy that you put into writing it. (Unless you are a lawyer -- with a point to defend =D)

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with contemporary doping scandals to offer programmatic advice on what can be done about them, except to say that in my view here too we are probably at the cusp of major shift in a massive historical trend. This trend I suspect will end with 'doping' being considered the norm not only among athletes but among the general population, and the chemicals used will be seen as an generally accepted life enhancement rather than an aberration -- much like vitamin supplements already are. What to do about it today, when doping is illegal, at least within the context of professional sports competitions? I don't know, especially since in this context it seems that the trend is a scientific one, perhaps mixed with a degradation in values (here I'm simply not informed enough to comment).

You want to "fix" the problem? It probably depends on the gravity of the specific offense and the pervasiveness of the offense. Pushing a few people harshly and publicly can send a statement that certain things are not acceptable, and curb abuses by others who are watching them. This is not a particularly bad tactic, but again it is context specific.

My own approach is always to fit the solution to the problem in such a way that the optimal outcome (i.e. reduction of abuses in the short and long-term) is achieved.

<comment><USER11> _Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with...

You want to "fix" the problem?...

My own approach is always..._

This is pretty _common_ failure avoidance technique.

But it lacks ambition.

Imagine a father or a mother with a newborn infant, "Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with...changing nappies" so I just won't bother. The kid cries "You want to "fix" the problem?..." The kid cries. "My own approach is always to fit the solution to the problem in such a way that the optimal outcome (i.e. reduction of abuses in the short and long-term) is achieved." The kid cries.

Is that being a responsible Adult? The kid might ask. I dunno. Not my kid. Anyway, who gives a shit about the kid? The kid is kind of fucking annoying.

Maybe that's just the world we live in.

But the difference between an _Adult_ and a Child, is that the Adult doesn't have the luxury of being the Child.

Somebody has to clean up the Shit.

Maybe the kid has a point?

 _Good writing should be convincing, certainly, but it should be convincing because you got the right answers, not because you did a good job of arguing._

<http://paulgraham.com/essay.html>

In other words, the point of thinking is to solve, not to display thought.

Same as for the Harvard students.

<comment><USER8> Fine, but I think you generally have be familiar with the problem domain to devise the optimal solution. I am in a good position to change the diapers or punish my own child. Not quite so for someone else's, particularly if they are not in my own geographic vicinity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The thing about intellectual honesty is that when you don't feel like you know much relative to your peers and context (e.g., you're a freshman at Harvard), you don't think you have much to lose. You don't realize what you have to lose until it becomes clear about all the hidden potential that you've taken for granted and that you're risking -- how important intellectual honesty is to any type of sustainable effort.

So there is a chicken and egg problem with intellectual honesty. You don't appreciate it until you've acquired experience. And you don't acquire sustainable experience until you start to appreciate it.

The flip side though is that most young people just need to be told and slightly inspired about how important it is. Then they need to develop that over several years. In college can work. Learning to be confident with your own intellectual pursuits based on honesty though -- that's what college is supposed to teach. But yeah, a lot of time in all the competitiveness, it gets lost.

</comment><comment><USER13> "For being at an elite "best-of-the-best" school, these students sure sound like a bunch of spoiled children", "They're not the people who ever build cool things anyway though, so who cares." - These and similar sentiments seem a bit common on HN and, to me, seem rather myopic and, frankly, immature. The latter statement is pretty clearly false and I don't plan on listing examples to demonstrate that.

Going to a "best-of-best" school is rarely not in someone's best interest. I did go to Harvard undergrad and I did not attend YC, but the draw is similar: sure the prestige matters and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, bu the real value is in the people that you live and work with, both peers and mentors.

Does giving money help you get into Harvard? I'm sure it does and if that money benefits the undergraduate population more than having someone who is subjectively less deserving in that class is a detriment, then it is in all students' best interest to have the paying member accepted.

Regarding the cheating: It happens and I'm sure it happens at every campus. I don't think that's what happened to half of this class. It's a large class, it's probably required for Gov concentrators, and it seems clear that the expectations were not understood by the students or the teaching fellows. What I DID do a lot of was pool notes in preparation for an exam, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is responsible for a lot of the consistencies in test answers. Why redefine a term that you have a ("the") definition for in your notes? And honestly, I think it's healthy to have varying levels of respect for different material. If I want to be a physicist, I'm going to really make sure I understand linear algebra. For the Core class on Chinese history, I'm going to pool notes, cram, and try to scrape an A, because the A means more to me than the knowledge.

Sorry to address several topics; I've been reading HN for a while and this is my first comment, so I'm still learning the ropes.

<comment><USER6> Okay, I'm the one that said they sound like spoiled children, so I'll bite. Can you explain to me how that is myopic and immature? These are all quotes from the article:

"He said, 'I gave out 120 A's last year, and I'll give out 120 more,' "

"Having my degree revoked now would mean I lose my job."

"some said that they will sue the university if any serious punishment is meted out"

"Some students asked whether there was a fundamental contradiction between telling students to use online resources, but not to discuss the test with each other"

These aren't responses of mature adults. This is immature students whining and complaining because they got caught cheating. The test explicitly said "students may not discuss the exam with others." It doesn't matter how it was done last year, or how hard the class is, or how much money they spent on the class. If the exam says not to discuss it with other students and you do, you have cheated.

<comment><USER14> I totally agree. And it sounds like the students knew perfectly well that they were cheating... "[one of the students] said that he also discussed test questions with other students, which he acknowledged was prohibited, but he maintained that the practice was widespread and accepted." Now they are just whining that they got caught ("I'm a _Harvard_ grad, god dammit!").

I went to a small science/engineering school with a very serious honor code, and can assure you there is nothing contradictory about saying "you may use online resources, but do not discuss this test with anyone." It's sad that some Harvard students think their privilege entitles them to ignore the rules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _"Some students asked whether there was a fundamental contradiction between telling students to use online resources, but not to discuss the test with each other."_

No.

<comment><USER16> Um..yes. Study groups or websites are online resources. So is facebook. If a student posts the questions online and starts discussions with anonymous posters, or even reads relevant discussions posted online before the test, how is that different from discussing with one another. There are plenty of ways to have a test that explicitly prevents collaboration. This professor clearly did not try.

<comment><USER17> There is a fundamental difference between using online resources to find an answer to a question and collaborating with others to find the same answer. Part of the grade is based on how well _you_ can find the answers, not how well your collective group can.

If the test is open book, open Internet, that _doesn't_ mean you can ask your friends on Facebook for help, just because Facebook is on the Internet.

I think that the class was likely poorly designed, but that doesn't mean that the students are all in the clear.

<comment><USER16> I dont think students are all in the clear in the least bit. I just happen to believe that permitting online resources implies permitting collaboration, as the internet is a tool for collaboration as much as it is a tool for pure research. As far as I'm concerned, it a test is open internet, then it's de facto collaboration permitted.

<comment><USER15> In general I agree, but the professor explicitly told them not to discuss the test with each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How much "cheating" was actually done here? Was it simply that people's answers looked similar? On a take-home test with open book, open Internet, you'd expect that everyone would probably Google the same sources.

I'm also suspicious of people who claim that sharing notes is in violation of some cheating rule. I posted the source code to most of my school projects on GitHub. If people want to crib off my code that's not my problem -- I did the work, whether or not they want to is their problem.

<comment><USER19> > I did the work, whether or not they want to is their problem.

And the problem of the mediocre students who _don't_ cheat, but get graded below the cheaters; and employers, who will tend to hire less honest and less capable graduates.

<comment><USER18> Well, maybe, but I was never one to care too much about grades. More often than not copying off me was a bad idea for most of the students because the professors knew that the level of work was too high for the cheater.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The worst part is that cheating indicates a strong cynicism about the course and the value of learning the material. I thought elite schools were able to recruit people with intellectual curiosity and character. Clearly the admissions formula is broken.

<comment><USER21> 80% of kids at elite schools come through the same kind of feeder system of either good local public schools or private schools.

In that system there's a series of successively narrower hoops you have to jump through - if there's only one junior high that teaches math beyond a certain point and not everyone can go there, those kids are going to be better prepared for the high school that teaches more advanced things, so they'll make up a disproportionate amount. Since it's really hard to on the track once you're not on it, at every level of evaluation and selection you keep selecting out of smaller and smaller sections of the initial pool.

The people who come out of that system tend to be supremely competent, but in a limited way. If you take a stand in high school approaching a topic from a different angle and a teacher doesn't like it and gives you a C (the horror), when it comes time to apply for Harvard there are an essentially limitless number of competitors who didn't and who got the A. So people who naturally play it safe and cynical tend to move on, and people who don't tend to adapt or get cut.

<comment><USER22> The Atlantic had a really interesting article about the kinds of kids who goes to an elite school (although it was Princeton) [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the- orga...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-organization- kid/302164/).

Fair disclaimer, the article is over a decade old.

<comment><USER21> It's the best description I've seen. That's how I remember everyone when I started school, but everyone got a lot more cynical after the 2008 crisis. People still do the same things, though - the attitude is that even if the ladder might not be there when you get to the top, it's still the only one around.

<comment><USER22> That is what happens when you don't read pgs articles (in this case <http://paulgraham.com/ladder.html>).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I went to school in Boston and knew lots of people of Harvard and MIT, and the amount of cheating was absolutely staggering. The "Greek"/frat network contributes to this cheating culture greatly (some houses more than others, but they're all part of it.)

Personally, I think that some of these people are so used to being that #1 student that when they're surrounded by other #1'ers, they do whatever it takes to remain on top, or so their logic goes.

They're not the people who ever build cool things anyway though, so who cares.

<comment><USER24> I can't speak to frats or Harvard, but I can speak of personal experience of MIT. When I began taking courses at MIT, I worked my proverbial ass off in a very difficult class in CS (course 6 by their parlance) and got an A. After the semester was over, I found out that students generally work together on labs, which was a major portion of the class, and would have significantly lightened my load. (Talking about spending entire weekends with hands-on- keyboard, very unreasonable amount of work for one person, even an overachieving one such as myself)

This is a _cultural_ difference of MIT; people tend to work with one another, or they tend to fail. They learn it freshman year, and it's ingrained in their psyche from then on.

Interestingly, the line between cooperative work and cheating is difficult to discern and mostly set up by the professor. When the professor does not say one way or another if the work is collaborative, students will generally consider it collaborative.

As for the "[n]ever build cool things" troll, I'll let you google the number of neat inventions by famous MIT / Harvard alums; I won't waste my time.

<comment><USER23> Not what I meant. I'm actually in favor of people working collaboratively on problems, I'm talking about computer-servers full of P-Set solns, essays, old tests, occasionally the sale of these for money, etc etc etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think a case of widespread "cheating" like this is a good indication there was something wrong with the course and the professor. If the material would have been covered in class and not purposefully tricky it's likely there wouldn't have been cheating.

Also, open book open Internet take home test might as well be code for group test. I always found that to be an absurd way to give a test. If you want to not have cheating give the test in class over the material covered in the course.

</comment><comment><USER26> The Harvard Crimson reporting on this story

[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/8/30/academic- dishone...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/8/30/academic-dishonesty- ad-board/)

plainly highlighted the relevant portion of the examination rules. If the Harvard students didn't understand what those rules meant, then the Harvard admission office must be admitting some students with some severe reading comprehension problems.

</comment><comment><USER27> > One student recalled going to a teaching fellow while working on the final > exam and finding a crowd of others there, asking about a test question that > hinged on an unfamiliar term. The student said the fellow defined the term > for them.

I realise that I only have this snippet of text, but: Didn't they have a dictionary? Didn't they have search engines?

Some of the attitudes displayed in that article are surprising. And disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER28> My assessment

The course instructor set the rules but the implementation was "loose" (casual). The students went one step too far in their liberties. I think it's a collective failure on part of the professor, TFs and students.

</comment><comment><USER29> Open book, open Internet and TA's that discuss exam questions sounds like the actions taken against the students are rather capricious.

It seems that the environment of the exam as well as the difficulty of the questions sugguest that the exam was designed to test collaborative abilities, rather than knowledge recital.</comment>