Blame Emergency Rooms for the Out-Of-Control Cost of Health Care - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/emergency-rooms-cost-insurance.html <comment><USER2> If people really want to understand why US healthcare is more expensive, I'd suggest this detailed, if somewhat dated (2008) analysis by McKinsey which breaks down US healthcare spending by category and compares it to other countries, accounting for differences in GDP - in particular page4 [1].

Findings:

\- most of the extra spending, ~70%, is occurring in the outpatient setting (which includes the ER)

\- in-patient care is only marginally higher than expected compared to other countries (~10%)

\- the US spends _less_ than most developed countries on long-term care and home care

[1][https://healthcare.mckinsey.com/sites/default/files/752233%2...](https://healthcare.mckinsey.com/sites/default/files/752233%20Why%20Americans%20pay%20more%20for%20health%20care.pdf)

<comment><USER3> That was an interesting read, thanks for sharing. My own understanding, from personal experience working in an ER, was that they charge more there to offset the cost of the (often impoverished) people who use it for everything from the sniffles to gun shot wounds. These people, who don't have health insurance, typically don't pay their bills. Also, I saw many homeless people come in simply for a bed to sleep in and a hot meal. They take up a bed and nurses/doctor's time. ER's aren't mean't to be non-emergent PCP's or soup kitchens, yet they often end up serving that purpose. The end result as I see it is a bunch of expensive and poorly delegated resources.

<comment> village-idiot It's estimated that keeping a homeless person on the streets can cost the local government up to $1m/year in terms of police, jail, and hospital resource usages.

<comment><USER4> I'd like to see a reference for that number, $1M sounds awfully high.

<comment> village-idiot I can't find my old sources, and t seems like $1m is indeed quite off the mark.

It looks like this number is wildly variable. Places like Texas spend a low of $9-40k to jail and treat homelessness in ERs. Places like the Puget Sound spend about $1 billion[0] a year to deal with their ~5,500 homeless people. While that's far from $1m, it is pretty high at $181,000 a person year.

0\. [https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/11/16/price- of...](https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/11/16/price-of- homelessness-seattle-king-county-costs.html)

<comment><USER5> > I can't find my old sources, and t seems like $1m is indeed quite off the > mark.

I remember a source for that. From what I recall, it wasn't that _every_ homeless person cost the local government $1m a year, but that a _particular_ homeless person cost that much (due to his ER usage, police involvement, etc). The article was about how it's actually _cheaper_ for the government to just to give a certain subset of homeless people no-strings-attached free apartments than to let them continue to live on the streets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note that there are _two_ cost problems with US health care.

1\. It is way more expensive (both in dollars/capita and as percent of GDP) here than it is in most or all countries it is reasonable to compare against (e.g., those in the EU, the OECD, or G20).

2\. The costs are going up too rapidly.

There is a tendency to conflate these two issues, which I think is a mistake because issue #2 is not just a problem in the US. The rapid increase in costs is happening in those other countries, too.

Emergency room shenanigans like we have in the US can partly explain #1, but I don't think the other civilized countries have similar shenanigans, so what the hell is going on with #2?

For example, from 1970 to 2017 US went from $327/capita to $10209/capita. That's 31.2x more expensive.

Japan over the same time went from $141/capita to $4717/capita, and Germany went from $264/capita to $5728/capita. That's growth of 33.5x and 21.7x, respectively.

That's not using constant dollars. Constant dollars for each country would change the growth to 4.9x for US, 10.1x for Japan, 6.5x for Germany. (Calculated using online inflation calculators for each country to convert the 1970 values to 2017 values, and dividing into the 2017 cost/capita). None of those are sustainable.

Data and visualizations available here: [https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health- spending.htm](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm)

(Uncheck "latest data available" to enable charts showing growth).

</comment><comment><USER7> When I looked into healthcare spending in the US about 5 years ago, it was almost all (~75%) chronic treatments for people over 70 years old. Does anyone have a current reference regarding this type of data?

</comment><comment><USER8> It's crucial, in the US, to research general practitioners, relevant specialists, and hospitals in ones area that accept ones insurance plan. And if possible, to do that before selecting an insurance plan. In most states, in-network providers can't collect uncovered charges from patients. But it's good to check on that too. Many providers will bill anyway, even if they can't collect. Also, if at all possible, in situations that aren't life threatening, it's prudent to confirm network status and coverage, before accepting care.

<comment><USER9> How is it legal to bill on something they can't collect on? So you're just supposed to ignore a bill and let it go to collections.

The US healthcare system is beyond fucked.

<comment><USER8> Well, it's not exactly legal to bill for it ;) But what you do is call their billing office, and point out their error. And then the charge disappears. I'm not sure what'd happen if you let it just go for collection. It'd probably hurt credit rating, even if it wasn't legally collectable.

And yes, I agree. It's beyond fucked. The health insurance industry has bought off the government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> village-idiot It's almost as if, and stay with me here, preventative care is cheaper than reactive care.

Well, that and hospital billing is bullshit. Got charged $500 because the doctor at the ER we went to for a sudden emergency was out of network, even though the ER wasn't. How the heck I'm supposed to do something about that is beyond me.

<comment><USER10> Any self respecting citizen will have a few assistants and lawyers on retainer to handle these issues :). If you can't afford that, tough luck , you are free game for being ripped off. That't how it feels to deal with hospital billing. It's a full time job.

<comment> village-idiot My company offers a benefit where I have access to assistants who will find the cheapest medical service for me. That these jobs even _exist_ is a sign that the market has broken down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most plans are not paying the inflated rates. Federal law requires plans to cover emergency care by out-of-network providers, but the plan can limit the payment to the usual and customary rate for the services. This leaves the patient susceptible to balance billing for the inflated rates. Self-insured employer group plans, which is what most people have, are federally regulated. State law does not apply to them.

State-regulated plans often are required to cover the full costs depending on state law, so the author's point is valid there.

</comment><comment><USER12> Instead of price controls we should stop giving hospitals veto power over competitors opening up. Our regulations have been encouraging consolidation, but incumbent hospitals generally have the right to say "no, you don't need another hospital in this municipality" and block competitors.

Additionally we should let in far more trained immigrants who are perfectly good at medicine and lower the credentials required to be a GP. The typical doctor in the USA has to go through 3 more years of school than those elsewhere to little gain in outcomes.

Medicines problem is a lack of markets, legislating what places can charge won't fix the underlying issues as much as breaking the hospital and labor monopoly will in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER13> Article brought to you by Blue Cross and the American Medical Association. Pay no attention to the cartels behind the author.

"Glenn A. Melnick, PhD

Title Blue Cross of California Chair in Healthcare Finance, and Professor of Public Policy"

<comment><USER6> I think you may be confused a bit here. Did you by any chance think that "Blue Cross of California Chair in Healthcare Finance" means that he holds a position at Blue Cross?

It doesn't. In 1994 Blue Cross gave $2.5 million to the University of Southern California to endow a chair. The way an endowed chair works is that donation is logically kept separate from the rest of the university's endowment, and the earnings from that separate endowment go toward the salary of whatever professor holds the chair. Other than having part (or all, depending on how much the endowment earns) of their pay come from that instead of from the general university budget there is little or no difference between a professor holding an endowed chair and one who does not. (Sometimes a donor might specify that there will be some extras, like funding for an assistant).

The donor has no involvement after the initial donation, other than their name is on the chair (well, not always their name...someone can endow a chair and name it after someone else) and the title of whoever holds it. In particular, the donor gets no financial leverage over the holder of the chair.

I have no idea where you got the American Medical Association connection from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > "From 2002 to 2016, total billed charges by hospitals rose by a staggering > $263 billion, to $386 billion.."

The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) went into effect for the final third of that which was a major upheaval in the health insurance system. I'd love to see this broken down by 2002-2010 and 2010-2016 compared.

Glossing over that period without any distinction seems like playing fast and loose with the facts when it could be important.

<comment><USER15> Some data points here:

[https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s- spe...](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending- healthcare-changed-time/)

The salient bit is this: the health spending growth rate has slowed since 2010, to slightly above the economy's growth rate. During the 2000s, by contrast, health spending grew a bit over twice as fast as the economy as a whole.

<comment><USER14> While interesting, it's unrelated - "total billed charges" as used in the article is _not_ the same as the health spending.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> That sounds like an option. But after some reflection, nah. It's more complicated than "blame emergency rooms". Thanks for the suggestion though.

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't think we we should blame the ER, we should blame the system that allows hospitals to exploit them.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a critical statement from the article, _" Data from California illustrate how hospitals have exploited this situation. From 2002 to 2016, total billed charges by hospitals rose by a staggering $263 billion, to $386 billion, even though the number of patients admitted did not increase."_.

That feels like statistical butchery. Two immediate things come to mind. Obesity has skyrocketed in the US between those time periods and thus more people are going to be facing more severe and more expensive health issues. How much of the cost is due to increased severity of issues? And second, does that account for inflation? Inflation alone, which increased 33% between 2002 and 2016, would explain the cost differences if that was not adjusted. Though also why in the world would the number of people admitted not increase even though the population grew substantially in that time period? I tried to answer these questions myself, but the link provided in the article just leads to dozens of links to other PDFs, which also inspires some skepticism. It would be nice if they specified exactly where they information came from.

There's also a third possible issue. In the US all public emergency rooms are required to treat and care for individuals regardless of whether or not they can pay. I have no idea how the billing for this works behind the scenes, but it's likely hospitals are recouped for most/all of these costs from the government. However, that would indeed create a huge incentive to charge as much as they could while also providing as expensive of care as possible. Not dissimilar to how government guaranteed student loans have created an incentive for universities to charge as much as they possibly can. In any case if the number of people utilizing this 'benefit' increased, we'd also expect to see a change in costs.

Articles like this just make me think of that old quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

<comment><USER6> > Obesity has skyrocketed in the US between those time periods and thus more > people are going to be facing more severe and more expensive health issues.

 _US_ obesity skyrocketed in that time. It went from 30.5% to 39.6% for adults (15.4% to 18.5%) for youth.

But _California_ obesity rates did not. I don't have 2002 numbers, but in 2003 it was 23.2% for adults, which only grew to 25% by 2016. Youth obesity rates in California were in the 16.4-16.6% percent range that whole period.

(California did have skyrocketing rates...but that was from 1990 to 2003, when they went from 9.9% to 23.2%. Then they pretty much leveled off).

<comment><USER18> Really interesting! I had no idea this was the case.

Any source you could recommend for these figures?

<comment><USER6> National and state data from here: [https://stateofobesity.org/](https://stateofobesity.org/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why you should always encrypt your smartphone (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/why-you-should-always-encrypt-your-smartphone/1/

<comment><USER2> This article is from 2011 and outdated.

> Last week, California's Supreme Court reached a controversial 5-2 decision > in People v. Diaz (PDF),

I stopped reading there; since then, the U.S Supreme Court has made a different determination in Riley v. California. ([http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court- cellphone...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones- search-privacy.html)).

It may still be a great idea to encrypt your smart phone, but for an analysis of U.S. law at the present time, go somewhere else than this article.

</comment><comment><USER3> This story does not take into account the recent supreme court ruling in Riley v. California that the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply to the information carried in cell phones. Even if your cell phone is on your person and unlocked when you are arrested, police need a search warrant to look at the data it contains.

[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf)

I'd recommend that anyone with an interest in civil rights read Supreme Court decisions - they tend to be written in a much more understandable style than you'd expect.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't be surprised if the good news has somehow missed the ears of many a police department.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This story is from 2011, and the title should be changed to reflect that; it's missing VAST changes that have happened since then.

<comment><USER6> Yea, I missed the byline and did a double take when I saw the line about Motorala's upcoming upcoming Android devices, the "Droid Pro" and "Droid Bionic."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is from 2011. This year, in Riley[1], the Supreme Court ruled that phones can't be searched without a warrant.

That said, you still should encrypt your phone. It's easy and has little to no downside.

[1] [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v- californi...](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v-california/)

<comment><USER8> > _That said, you still should encrypt your phone._ //

Is there a generic guide for Android phones, please?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/2844831?hl=en](https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/2844831?hl=en)

This help guide works best on stock Android phones but should also work on all generic Android phones such as Samsung,HTC,etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Personal Computer Ads from the 1980s - <AUTHOR> https://flashbak.com/personal-computer-ads-1980s-389623/ <comment><USER2> My parents spent nearly 60% of their salary buying their 9 year old son an Apple II compatible machine, I'm sure with high hopes.

Buyer's remorse probably set in very quickly when they realized their two sons used it primarily for playing bootleg copies of Olympics, Karateka, Rescueraider, and spy vs spy.

I don't know what the hell they were thinking, but I'm still forever grateful for their failed attempt.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you were ever into ZX Spectrum there is a massive archive of magazines here [http://live.worldofspectrum.org/infoseek/magazines](http://live.worldofspectrum.org/infoseek/magazines)

<comment><USER4> I'm sure I'm not the only person who started programming via the ZX Spectrum, especially given how popular they were in the UK:

* [https://blog.steve.fi/how_i_started_programming.html](https://blog.steve.fi/how_i_started_programming.html)

I love looking at World Of Spectrum, even now, and playing Chuckie Egg, Manic Miner, or Chaos on emulators.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> the cocaine ads from the 70s in the link at the bottom is surreal. the more things change huh...

<comment> King-Aaron I found those fascinating too. It would have been good to have more mention of which publications those adverts appeared in.</comment></comment>


The Perfect Crime, or how to get away with murder in Idaho - <AUTHOR> http://ssrn.com/abstract=691642 <comment><USER2> IANAL, but given there is no statute of limitations on prosecuting most major felonies like murder. it seems that the legislators would just change the law after a felony was committed allowing for the prosecution of the crime. At least from my limited knowledge they have done that in the past to fix issues, so I am not sure how this would be any different.

I do think it is interesting how the legislating bodies allow this type of stuff to occur (and not fix it timely), but it seems more a procedural technicality then a way to get away with anything. In addition, I am sure a prosecutor would allege the crime originated outside the jurisdiction giving the place where the "thought" or "plan" occurred jurisdiction to prosecute. And in the end it would be heard by a jury in that jurisdiction and regardless of the truth they would get their conviction.

This is a great story to tell (as the book written from it likely does) but no one would likely get away with a major crime if they were caught just because it occurred in this area. Petty crimes, I bet would go unnoticed and never be brought to a hearing because of the quagmire, but not a major felony.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> From the abstract: "This article argues that there is a 50-square-mile swath of Idaho in which one can commit felonies with impunity. This is because of the intersection of a poorly drafted statute with a clear but neglected constitutional provision: the Sixth Amendment's Vicinage Clause."

Mods: The title "The Perfect Crime" seemed insufficiently descriptive, so I took the liberty of augmenting the title.</comment>


Six women computer scientists respond to why women don't pursue computer science - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/yes-women-can-and-do-want-to-code-uw-professors-and-alumnae-say/ <comment><USER2> I read through the responses. It appears all disagree with Stuart Reges. The first few responses disagree, a couple toward the end go farther and discuss the harm that occurs when someone expresses this opinion. One essay does insinuate that perhaps he should lose his leadership position for expressing this opinion.

I read all these responses with interest. The only strong opinion I hold is that we should accurately represent the thesis that we are discussing, even if it means we need to use more words to describe it. Mr. Regis didn't argue that women don't pursue computer science. He didn't say that it surprises him when some of the top computer scientists are women, he didn't say it surprises him when a woman has great interest in computer science. He made a ratio argument - that he believes that about 20% of the top computer science students and scholars will be women.

The sad thing is, I believe there's plenty to discuss, argue, even rightly object to in that thesis. But we must not claim that he said women can't be, or won't be computer scientists. He said the opposite - that some of the top computer scientists will and should be women. If someone believes that 20% of the elite computer scientists will be women, does that mean a woman in a class should worry that this professor doubts her competence or commitment?

This isn't a purely rhetorical question. If you deeply believe the main reason that women are less represented in computer science is because women ace powerful social deterrents, and that in the absence of these deterrents the percentage of women in CS would rise dramatically (far above 20%), then it could follow that a professor who openly states that 20%/80% represents the natural equilibrium must only be a professor who fails to see the issues that women face - and that this disqualifies him from a leadership position in a top computer science department.

<comment><USER3> It is frustrating how often misrepresentation occurs in this particular topic. So many words are wasted misrepresenting the record and then setting it straight again.

A similar thing happened w/ the Google Memo when so many prominent media outlets (as well as commenters all over the Internet, including here at HN) attacked it for saying things it never said before the accusation was changed to "well, it was based on bad science". By the time it got to that point, the conversation sort of dissipated, and I didn't get to hear much debate about the science.

I don't have an opinion in either case, but it does seem like one side is consistently doing the misrepresenting. And it leaves me (a more-or-less neutral observer), suspicious: after all, why would you resort to misrepresentation if you're confident in your position?

<comment><USER4> Why is this (and children) being down-voted? These seem like perfectly rationale comments on the topic.

<comment><USER5> Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvoting. As they say, it does no good and makes boring reading. And once the unfairly downvoted comment has been corrected by other users, your comment lingers on inaccurately.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18087888](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18087888)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Begging pardon, but is this not the wrong group of people to ask this question? Shouldn't we be asking women who didn't pursue computer science, not women who did?

<comment><USER7> I dated a woman for 9 years who has a Masters degree and who certainly can code. She just finds coding to be tedious and could never imagine doing that as a job. My wife has a PhD, an MBA, and is working on another higher degree. She can also code, but she also finds coding to be tedious and tells me she feels sorry for me in my coding job, because she can't imagine how I could feel otherwise.

One of my female Computer Science professors used to _brag_ about how she didn't code.

<comment> Paul-ish > One of my female Computer Science professors used to brag about how she > didn't code.

It's not uncommon for academics to stop coding at some point in their career. They basically become managers.

<comment><USER7> It wasn't that. She was one of those Comp Sci == specialized discrete math people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Quick summary of respondents reasons for low % of women in C.S. (In order given):

1\. Lack of coding in K-12 means fewer women are exposed to coding and thus don't become interested in it during the career selection phase of life.

2\. Individuals bias' subtly steer women away from C.S.

3\. Once inside a C.S. career, women are systemically marginalized.

4\. Once inside a C.S. career, women face overt (and often sexual) discrimination as well as subtle displays of disregard due to their gender(i.e. microagressions).

5\. Discriminatory comments from peers before entering C.S.

6\. The palpable fact of being a minority and, thus, feeling isolated, irrespective of discrimination.

I would suggest that finding ways of depoliticizing the discussion would help everyone out in the long run, especially since nearly all political issues appear to have become zero-sum games. I think putting the experiences of women who are in C.S. within a broader context would help give more clarity to the issue. I would think of including the following:

1) The experience of women in non-STEM careers with low percentages of women, particularly the trades (for example, women in Canada make up only 4.5% of people in the trades[0]).

2) The experiences of women who did not go into STEM and why they did not choose it.

3) The experience of men who did go into STEM careers and why.

4) The experience of men in careers with large percentages of women (e.g. teaching, nursing, etc).

I would suspect we wound find a mix of bias, discrimination within industry, and personal preferences corresponding to gender. The interesting question is what is the mix?

[0] [https://globalnews.ca/news/3823621/women-skilled-trades- manu...](https://globalnews.ca/news/3823621/women-skilled-trades- manufacturing/)

<comment><USER9> My two cents about the summary:

1) Lack of IT courses in K-12 affects both genders, why make this a female issue?

2) Completely subjective.

3) Pretty much the opposite. There are tons of events for women only, as well as grants and positions that are available for women only or where they're more likely to get hired than men (so quota is filled).

4) Most of women (as in 99%) in CS don't suffer this. Even this being of importance, I believe this happens in all industries.

5) Similar to point 3.

6) Well, empower yourself? What do we tell to male nurses then?

Edit: formatting

<comment><USER10> I would personally avoid any career that has lots of events for my specific gender/race. Like a big flag to say you will be an outsider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My alma mater Harvey Mudd College has rough gender parity in Computer Science so it's clearly achievable for colleges that make a focused effort.

[https://www.hmc.edu/about-hmc/2018/05/15/harvey-mudd- graduat...](https://www.hmc.edu/about-hmc/2018/05/15/harvey-mudd-graduates- highest-ever-percentage-of-women-physics-and-computer-science-majors/)

<comment><USER2> Is it achievable at scale for all colleges once they all start to make that effort, though? And if so, it it achievable the way Harvey Mudd did it?

Harvey Mudd is a very elite college with considerable resources, and it has a relatively small class, especially compared to large public universities.

[https://www.hmc.edu/institutional-research/institutional- sta...](https://www.hmc.edu/institutional-research/institutional- statistics/institutional-statistics-graduates-and-alumni/majors-by-class- year/)

It looks like there were 27 CS majors out of Harvey Mudd in 2017. We can probably add in another 20 from the joint CS-Math degree. So, about 50.

Here are the numbers for Berkeley:

[https://eecs.berkeley.edu/about/by-the- numbers](https://eecs.berkeley.edu/about/by-the-numbers)

Berkeley graduates almost a thousand students in EE or CS every year. The accounting is tough here because the degrees at Harvey Mudd and Berkeley are different, so I may be over or under counting, but I hope you can see my point - Harvey Mudd succeeds in a way that might not apply once you try to reach scale.

Consider that 27% of the high school students who take the AP Computer science test are women. This next part is a big assumption, but let's say that this reflects the percentage of students in the current pipeline, and that a "5" on this test clearly represents a high talent student. It's not the only way to identify such as student, but it is a strong indicator.

Harvey Mudd could probably fill it's entire class, all 50 spots, with women who got a 5 on the AP CS test. Harvey Mudd could probably go up to 100% women without meaningfully compromising admissions standards. Remember, this debate is about ratios. The author of the controversial piece is not under fire for saying that talented women don't go into CS, he's under fire for saying that 20% is a natural equilibrium.

Yes, Harvey Mudd could fill its small but very elite CS class entirely from the 20% of the top cohort. But could Berkeley, and Michigan, and UW, and Georgia Tech, and...

I'm not saying that these schools can't achieve parity, nor am I arguing that they shouldn't. But the process for getting to parity across lots and lots of large schools is very different from what Harvey Mudd can do. There would still be lots of men with "5"'s looking for a spot, but not as many women - simply because there aren't as many women taking the test.

At some point, the elite programs will be unbalanced if they simply reflect the pipeline. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try for more equity, but we should recognize that Harvey Mudd's approach won't necessarily scale, it may reflect the recruiting advantages of an elite, well funded school with lots of resources and very few undergraduates.

<comment><USER11> You're essentially asking if Mudd succeeding in expanding the total worldwide applicant pool, or just managed to take a slightly larger share of a fixed size pool. It's a fair question, but there are so many confounding factors that we won't know for sure until multiple large colleges make similar efforts.

Mudd is a relatively new college and actually doesn't have the same level of resources as some other selective colleges, at least not when measured on an endowment dollars per student basis. I'm not convinced that this is a resource issue. It seems like focus and commitment by the administration and faculty are more important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The title looks paradoxical... It seems that they would be precisely the less qualified people to talk about this subject. Maybe the women who didn't become computer scientist should know better why.

<comment><USER13> If you read the article you would have probably gleaned that these women had to overcome certain challenges to get into CS.

Maybe those hurdles are what other women face, hmmmm

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Instead of interviewing women who decided on computer science it would be better to interview women who were thinking of or who switched from CS. I am willing to venture that sexism, gender bias, and unfair policies aren't reasons women would cite.

In fact in my personal experience talking with women while I was in college who started off in CS or others that took intro CS courses typically the responses were:

      "Didn't click for me"
      "Didn't like all the math requirements"
      "Found it boring and teadious"
      "Isolated, rather work with people"

Those reasons are much simpler and frankly make more sense then a grand sexist and biased plot by men to oppose and opress women from getting into CS.

</comment><comment><USER15> The Seattle Times did a nice job here of presenting viewpoints from women Computer Scientists at different points in their careers.

<comment><USER2> I agree. I am disappointed with the headline, though.

The headline reads: "A UW professor argued that women don't want to code. What do women computer scientists have to say?"

The sub headline reads: "Six women computer scientists from the University of Washington respond to an essay about why women don't pursue computer science as often as men."

In some ways, I think that misrepresenting these headlines can be harmful. A young woman considering CS who reads the headline might conclude that a professor at UW things that women, across the board, are uninterested in the CS major. If she reads the sub-headline, she might conclude that he believes that fewer of the top students will be women, but that certainly some of them will be.

I can't say that the second is welcoming, but it's a very, very different statement from the first.

<comment><USER16> Seems like a dangerous bias for a teacher to have. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy as he makes sure his female students don't rise to the top of the class.

<comment><USER2> Does he, though? That's a stretch. If someone believes that 20% of the elite computer scientists will be women, why does it follow that he would not have confidence in the women who take his class?

For instance, suppose about 20% of his class is women. He's not saying that this 20% of his class shouldn't be there, or won't rise to the top. He _is_ saying that it may not be productive to even out this ratio. Plenty to disagree with and object to in that thesis. But that is very different from not believing in the women who take his class, and it is _utterly_ different from sabotaging the women in his class (making sure they don't rise to the top).

I want to be very clear in this comment and elsewhere that I believe that there is plenty to object to in the claim that 20% represents some kind of natural plateau. My position is that we need to accurately represent the point of view that we are debating.

<comment><USER17> If you want to accurately represent the point of view being debated you need to consider the motivations and insinuations surrounding the 20% number, rather than performing semantic onanism with the ratio itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> At my last gig I was paid ~30% less than the person I worked with on the project. They joined a bit earlier and negotiated a better deal, that's all.

All this talk about being promoted and receiving pay raises is funny to me. Never in my work history I was just 'promoted'. One climbs up by looking for new and better job. Same goes to pay.

Where is this magical land where men climb up by being men? I'd love to experience that!

Also, coding is not some magical job. For most people I know the line between work/free time barely exist. People that are good 1) code all day at work and then 2) go home and code some more at home. 1 and 2 may be unrelated but only on the surface. By coding at home they improve their skills and do better at work. But there's a price to pay. Other hobbies/interests have to be sacrificed. So is social life.

All articles of this kind make it sound like coding is some sort of magical job that's easy and well paid and has no downsides. My life experience is that finding a _good_ programming job is incredibly hard and only very few people I know are happy with theirs. More often than not it's just daily grind.

</comment><comment><USER19> _For example, from 2007 to 2017, the number of males taking the AP computer science test went up by a factor of 7,_

Are AP CS exams relevant now? I took both in the early 90s, then got to college only to find out that _nobody_ accepted AP credit in CS. Every school said "we use C, and the AP exam uses Pascal".

Curious if anyone younger has a different experience.

<comment><USER20> A lot of colleges are using Java which is what is on the AP exam or at least the AP exam I am taking. I don't know many colleges that are actually teaching CS with C anymore sadly. Tbh, the AP exam does not prepare one for programming at all, any self respecting university should not accept credit for passing it.

<comment><USER19> _Tbh, the AP exam does not prepare one for programming at all_

That's why it's called the AP _Computer Science_ exam rather than the AP Programming exam.

 _any self respecting university should not accept credit for passing it._

I don't think you appreciate what a CS degree means.

<comment><USER20> > I don't think you appreciate what a CS degree means.

Yeah, I will admit am not too keyed up on what a CS degree entails. I thought it was like CS 101, CS advanced or something like that, some other choice of CS electives like visual programming, and then the usual course load that is required for most other degrees like English, etc. I know for certain though, just by looking through some of the videos on MIT's opencourseware and Harvard's videos and problem sets for their beginning CS course, that the even if you could get a perfect score on your AP computer science exam you could easily be unprepared for advanced programming classes at university. I don't think an exam and a high school cs class is anywhere near enough to be worth college level cs credit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> does anyone have a link that doesnt hit me with "we noticed you're blocking ads"

<comment><USER22> [https://archive.fo/7Phr0](https://archive.fo/7Phr0)

 _Edit:_ Putting "archive.is" in front of a URL works often for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> the six are professors, phd candidates and a recent graduate that hasn't started working. it would be much more interesting to hear from women (ideally chosen at random) that graduated with cs degrees 5-10 years ago and talk about their own personal career paths

and do the same with men, and compare

not sure that we have to tools to understand these sorts of questions quantitatively, but i'd like to see at the least some qualitative data instead of opinions (whether reges or this group)

</comment><comment> temp-dude-87844 It's bizarre for a few passionate women, subject to survivor bias of having survived an allegedly women-hostile education-to-CS pipeline, to paint Reges as a part of the problem. One would naturally expect them to vehemently disagree on account of their own experience -- not unlike Reges uses his own experience in his journey to develop a nuanced understanding of the debate and to foster a more inclusive environment for women and other historically underrepresented groups -- but then why dismiss his viewpoint as selfish and anecdotal, while theirs is exactly the same?

It's ironic that Reges' carefully crafted letter drew as much ire as Damore's sophomoric, easy-to-nitpick essay, when his entire letter is a trap laid bare. Given his keen awareness of the possibility of his employment's termination and his mention of displeasure of what he sees as chilling effect in tech and academia against voicing criticism of current sociopolitical headwinds, he's armored a reasonable discussion with indications that he knows some people will call for his head. And unremarkably, it happened in the one response that addresses his points the least!

</comment><comment><USER24> So, all these women present anecdotal evidence.

If you are interested in an opposite opinion from another woman coder: [https://email@example.com/the-empress-has-no- cloth...](https://email@example.com/the-empress-has-no-clothes-the- dark-underbelly-of-women-who-code-and-google-women-techmakers-723be27a45df)

Reality looks very different.

Women have a 2:1 chance over men to get a job in STEM: [https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/11/04/women- favored-2-...](https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/11/04/women- favored-2-to-1-in-stem-hiring/)

more detailed research on this: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4611984/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4611984/)

Then there's the Scandinavian gender paradox, which states that women are LESS likely to choose a career in STEM the more equal society becomes. This is because there's no more economic necessity, and other reasons. See [http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem- girl...](http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem- girls-3848156-Feb2018/)

I'm not surprised by the responses of these women. They represent the acceptable opinion of Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER13> In one breath you dismiss these women and their "ancecdotes" while in the next breath you claim that what another woman says is "reality".

Hey, I guess as long as it supports your hypothesis, right?

<comment><USER5> Please don't be uncivil in comments here, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's a wider issue with feminists and arguments, not specific to computing. Look at the interview of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman. Newman constantly misrepresented and lied about what he was saying _in the interview itself, right in front of him_ , to an absurd level ("are you saying we should model our society after the lobsters"). The whole thing is on YouTube, it's worth watching if you can get through it without stopping in disgust.

<comment><USER2> Sadly, misrepresenting is a common political tactic.

Remember, "you didn't build that?" President Obama made the argument that businesses do rely on substantial government services that are critical to a healthy commerce sector. He said "If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

It was a clumsy way to put it, but it was clear to me what Obama was saying. Yet many on the right attacked him for stating that people who have a business didn't build their business.

Again, it's sad, because you know what? I think the center-right has a decent point to make here. Perhaps the government should leave some of these services to the private sector. Perhaps they are providing them inefficiently. There's all kinds of ways to disagree, discuss, debate, and rightly object to President Obama's thesis.

But we didn't get that debate. Instead, we got treated to a ton of misrepresentation, 30 second attack ads, and non-discussion posturing around something that someone didn't even say in the first place. And the public was actually denied an important debate and discussion that might have led to a greater understanding of the relationship between government regulation and private business.

Yeah, the right does this all the time. I will agree with you, though, that the left does this cynically and perhaps deliberately, especially on this topic.

Another time, John Kerry said "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq""

His scripted statement was supposed to be: "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

It was a pretty dumb statement, and I gotta say, even the scripted one was no prize winning quip. But of course the republicans of course had a field day with this one, claiming that Kerry was arguing that only unintelligent and uneducated people serve in the armed forces in Iraq.

And it was hard to watch a guy who received multiple educational deferrments righteously scold a vet with shrapnel embedded in his ass for saying that people use education to avoid military service.

Trust me, the right does this plenty. Plenty. So does the left. Plenty.

<comment><USER3> I agree with everything you posted, but I don't think the parent was making a right vs left argument; in particular, Peterson isn't particularly right-wing (from what I can tell, we would have unambiguously classified him as 'liberal' 5 years ago).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can anyone make a summary. I tried to skim quickly but I couldn't see any real reason. Thank you

<comment><USER27> I can't tell if this is meant to be parody.

The first essay is a bit high-level, but the second lays out some pretty specific, straightforward ways that women get the short end of the stick in the CS field:

> It is more common for men to get credit for collaborative work than women, > something I experienced when a student wrote in a publication draft that an > idea of mine originated with a collaborator — even though progeny of the > idea had never been discussed.

If you don't care enough to read that far and then assume that this means there's no "real reason", I think that's the definition of willful ignorance.

<comment><USER25> That happens to men all the time too.

Is there anything worth reading in these essays that is genuinely unique to women? Because so far it sounds like damore round two. The only form of unarguable, gender specific discrimination I see in computing is against men.

<comment><USER16> Well known fact that men are all but extinct in tech because of militant feminists.

<comment><USER28> Kind of a circular point here because the whole argument on the other side is that equal representation is not a good yardstick. What if it takes an incredible amount of unfairness and discrimination to get the ratio to 60 40? You'd still be making the same point that it's fine there are more men.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Alzheimer's Disease Damage Completely Erased in Human Cells - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/alzheimers-disease-brain-plaque-brain-damage-879049 <comment><USER2> Dr Dale Bredesen already reverses Alzheimer in 9 out of 10 patients so it may not be a surprise that I am not impressed with experiments on human cells outside the body.</comment>


Islamic terrorism as a phenomenon - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism <comment><USER2> This got probably posted after the event in Nice. But keep in mind there is still no evidence this was an Islamic attack.

<comment><USER3> > The driver has been identified locally as a 31-year-old man of Franco- > Tunisian origin ([http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world- > europe-36799172](http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-36799172))

There's not much evidence yet, but also not much doubt.

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry but what does Franco-Tunisian has to do with being pro IS?

He might be, but you are confusing assumptions for facts.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how to describe this in rigorous Bayesian terms, but things usually happen in patterns. When we make inferences, we cannot ignore the context.

Based on the recent history of violence in France, is it more likely that a mass killing committed by a Franco-Tunisian (who are mostly Muslims) on a clearly suicide mission is related or is not related to islamic terrorism? Better yet (since money does have a tendency to clear the mind), what would you bet $100 on?

I'm not saying that we don't need facts. We still have to confirm everything, and strange unlikely things do happen. But at the same time, we cannot act as if we are completely ignorant until we get substantial evidence.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Berkeley becomes first US city to ban natural gas in new homes - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-becomes-first-U-S-city-to-ban-natural-14102242.php <comment><USER2> I present you the latest NIMBY measure under an environmental pretense! Brought to you by Berkeley of course.

If they care so much about the environmental impact of natural gas, how about grandfathering the measure to their own houses VS the tiny fraction of new housing that gets built every year in Berkeley?

How about _not_ making the new generation living in the Bay Area pay the burden of a housing-related policy for once?

<comment><USER3> Check out Berkeley and Oakland property transfer tax rate. $16.10 per $1000 of property value! Most other cities are $1.10. That adds up to an extra $10k on every property sale. $[http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf](http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This makes no sense to me. Explain where I have this wrong...

47% of electricity in California is generated from natural gas.

[https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_sys...](https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html)

So about 50% of the electricity in these houses is coming from a gas that gets burned to turn a turbine to make electricity (and waste heat) that gets sent down a power line (where some is invariably lost) to go into a house where the electricity is then turned back into heat (presumably for hot water and heating the home)?

How is this more efficient than just burning NG for heat directly?

I could understand banning coal burners from homes (if we had any left), as I believe China is trying to do, but this seems like it will require more energy not less (yes I realize its a tiny scale).

<comment><USER5> It makes sense as a long term move because now you have a single point of change to switch to renewables. Suppose there is an unprecedented improvement in solar efficiency or power storage tech in 5-10 years or a nuclear power plant gets built. Then you cut natural gas usage to zero at once, which would have been impossible if all the houses still depended on it.

You can use the same argument for electric vehicles.

<comment><USER4> Sort of?

We don't use electric vehicles for heat, so they are sort of fuel agnostic when it comes to where the electricity is coming from; we burn fossil fuels to make heat or electricity.

The future proofing argument makes some sense for California. Coming from the Northeast heat is a lot more important, I'll do a new HE Gas Boiler for 12k in a single family this year, converting from oil...save me probably 2k a year. If that were electric heat I'd be paying 400% more every year which would be insane.

[https://www.mass.gov/info-details/household-heating- costs#co...](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/household-heating- costs#comparison-of-heating-fuel-cost-effectiveness-)

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I used to live in Alaska, and when my wife and I bought our first home there, the furnace was broke and we couldn't afford to replace it right away. The electric baseboard heaters cost us $900 to run just for that January!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hate cooking with electricity, can't make a decent stir fry with it, changing the temperature takes a long time. How much of an impact does this make to a person's carbon footprint?

<comment><USER8> Use an induction cooktop. Much faster heat times than traditional electric

<comment><USER9> Sadly, renters don't get much input on any of the appliances. While suggesting a different type of electric stove is great for people with that control, most just suffer with the cheapest appliance the landlord could get away with providing.

<comment><USER10> You can always put a portable induction top on top of your unused electric top.

<comment><USER11> Heat diffuser too?

<comment><USER10> A what? Do you mean one of these things? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_diffuser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_diffuser)

If so, then I don't think you'd ever need one? None of the use-cases for them seem like they would apply to a good induction stove.

<comment><USER11> No I meant for an electric stove

<comment><USER10> But the goal is to make your cooktop _more_ responsive, not _less_ responsive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> These new houses will probably be at least as expensive as the average house there just due to the nature of single family houses in the Bay Area.

Cooking during the whole year and heating during the winter will cost more. Those winter months will be hundreds of dollars more (possibly hundreds of dollars more per month).

The people living in these places can probably afford it just due to them being able to buy the house itself.

Makes better insulation, solar panels, and houses designed to soak in heat if desired more attractive.

</comment><comment><USER13> Non adware/spyware article

[https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/07/17/natural-gas-pipes- no...](https://www.berkeleyside.com/2019/07/17/natural-gas-pipes-now-banned- in-new-berkeley-buildings-with-some-exceptions)

</comment><comment><USER14> Are there occasions where having natural gas available in a house would be essential?

Aside from an apartment that had a gas stove and gas-powered water heater, the houses I've lived in always had all-electric, and the overall experiential difference between the two circumstances was unremarkable (in my opinion).

Hot water worked fine with either a gas or electric water heater, and the stove was really the only "daily-use" item that had an obvious difference, but the functionality was fine either way (stuff still got hot on top the burners or in the oven). If I specifically wanted an actual gas flame for cooking, I just used a $20 tabletop camping grill with a small propane tank. This "adjustment" was a very minimal effort way to deal with not having gas pipes.

Overall, if not having natural gas saves infrastructure costs (and tax dollars) from being spent maintaining natural gas pipes, and also removes any need to worry about carbon monoxide and having detectors installed, then this seems like not a big deal to adjust to.

<comment><USER10> You can heat and cook food during a prolonged power outage, but that's kind of it as far as "essential" goes.

<comment><USER15> You can't heat your house during a power out, even with gas, because the furnace won't light without power to run the blower (to prevent overheating and therefore fires). But you _can_ heat at least one room in a power outage with a gas fireplace (been there, done that - for hours, though not for days).

<comment><USER10> There are lots of heating systems (steam boilers, for instance) that don't require blowers. And your gas-heated hot water will also let you continue to take hot showers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't get it, how do you warm the water? I know you can have an electric heater that keeps a certain amount of water hot all the time. But isn't that vastly more wasteful than just quickly warming the water you are using by burning it using gas?

</comment><comment><USER17> What about the wok?</comment>


Ask N.YC: Who does Twitter's PR? - <AUTHOR>

I see Twitter mentioned in a mainstream news story every few days. Very few of these stories make any sense. None of these stories are news.<p>How are these guys doing it? <comment><USER2> 6 million users, & high profile investors equals pretty much all the free PR you can ask for. However, they may employ PR people to push even harder.</comment>


This Is My Racism - <AUTHOR> http://www.jonathanlipps.com/blog/2015/07/this-is-my-racism/

<comment><USER2> >My point is simply that living in a segregated society from early on, and the early whispered conversations about Black people as a "they", set in motion a force very much like compound interest.

Ta-Nehisi Coates' landmark Atlantic article, The Case for Reparations [1], helps explain how this segregated society came to be:

> The American real-estate industry believed segregation to be a moral > principle. As late as 1950, the National Association of Real Estate Boards' > code of ethics warned that "a Realtor should never be instrumental in > introducing into a neighborhood … any race or nationality, or any > individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values." > A 1943 brochure specified that such potential undesirables might include > madams, bootleggers, gangsters—and "a colored man of means who was giving > his children a college education and thought they were entitled to live > among whites."

The federal government concurred. It was the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, not a private trade association, that pioneered the practice of redlining, selectively granting loans and insisting that any property it insured be covered by a restrictive covenant—a clause in the deed forbidding the sale of the property to anyone other than whites. Millions of dollars flowed from tax coffers into segregated white neighborhoods.

"For perhaps the first time, the federal government embraced the discriminatory attitudes of the marketplace," the historian Kenneth T. Jackson wrote in his 1985 book, Crabgrass Frontier, a history of suburbanization. "Previously, prejudices were personalized and individualized; FHA exhorted segregation and enshrined it as public policy. Whole areas of cities were declared ineligible for loan guarantees." Redlining was not officially outlawed until 1968, by the Fair Housing Act. By then the damage was done—and reports of redlining by banks have continued.

The federal government is premised on equal fealty from all its citizens, who in return are to receive equal treatment. But as late as the mid-20th century, this bargain was not granted to black people, who repeatedly paid a higher price for citizenship and received less in return. Plunder had been the essential feature of slavery, of the society described by Calhoun. But practically a full century after the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the plunder—quiet, systemic, submerged—continued even amidst the aims and achievements of New Deal liberals.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the- case...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for- reparations/361631/)

<comment><USER3> > Millions of dollars flowed from tax coffers into segregated white > neighborhoods.

Wait, wouldn't it be the other way around? Inflating property values would increase tax revenue. Even if they were subsidizing white home ownership they may have come out ahead.

It's one of the driving forces of gentrification: if investing X gets the city X + Y in tax revenues then it's an economically sound decision.

<comment><USER2> I think the point is that there was a de facto subsidy of segregated white neighborhoods in the first instance.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps a de facto or indirect subsidy, but the cost of moving into those neighborhoods went up while the cost of housing for those being excluded went down. It's also arguable that cities made money with these practices (it would take some work to figure out.)

So the subsidy argument falls apart. If it doesn't cost the city money overall and white people end up paying more both for housing and in taxes then the problem with redlining lies elsewhere. (I am not trying to defend redlining, by the way.)

<comment><USER2> Even if the cost of moving into the neighborhood went up, the white homeowners surely also benefited from higher home equity values which they can borrow against; realized gains from selling the homes -- for them and for their heirs; better public school systems; better public facilities.

So, no I don't think the subsidy argument falls apart.

<comment><USER3> Only if the market goes up enough vs the other neighborhoods and what would have happened. Which maybe you can argue it does. I'm not racist enough to believe that the presence of people with black skin is that detrimental to property values. It seems clear that redlining is about class more than race.

You still have the problem that subsidies are generally thought to cost money. If redlining makes the city money it goes from "this is evil and doesn't work economically" to "this is evil but it makes money."

<comment><USER3> Lost another 10 karma overnight for trying to join this discussion without going "hoo, haaa, obviously the whole world is racist and sexist and that disgusts me..." before voicing contrary opinions.

<comment><USER3> Yeah downvote that one, too.

I'm starting to interpret the "don't complain about downvotes" guideline as "don't shed light on how this community misuses downvotes to quietly marginalize contrary views while maintaining the illusion of civil discourse."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Amazing article, I'm a white male who grew up in rural north central Texas as well and can understand where the author is coming from.

</comment><comment><USER5> "We've seen videos of innocent black citizens gunned down by the police that is supposed to protect them"

Really? Where are these videos. I think I only saw one video making the rounds where this was the case. The rest was speculation and mob mentality. "Hands up Don't shoot", for instance, never happened.

"We've seen a community devastated by a terrorist attack that can only be described as pure, premeditated evil"

This sort of "evil" happens almost every day in the inner city. Chicago, for instance, had 7+ shootings in only one weekend. Why are we focusing on the one rare nutcase and someone making it into proof that an entire community of people are racist (ironic that this is exactly what we are trying to stop: judging an entire group of people on one person's actions).

How about the college event in Ohio that stated that only "African Americans" can attend and the guy (who was not African American" filming was pushed around and bullied??

How about the trans-gendered guest on the Dr. Drew HLN show that not only put his hand around the another guest's throat he was supposed to be debating, but threatened him with violence??

"It was only recently, when White-on-Black police brutality and terrorism began to surface in the news,"

How can you possibly call this "terrorism"?? In nearly all cases I've seen so far, the police offers asked the person in question to stop or comply..and they resisted, which resulted in a use of justified force.

"that I was turned on to a stream of different voices. Reading the #drivingwhileblack tweets"

Which is bullshit. I'm not black and have gotten stopped multiple times in my life for things I considered bullshit. If you give the cop an attitude, you will suffer the consequences. If you comply and are cool about everything the officer asks, he will let you go or write you a ticket.

You need to think about it from his/her perspective: If you overpower the officer, they could lose their life.

"I think we need to readily acknowledge that we are racist,"

Speak for yourself. I give everyone an equal chance, regardless of race. It's their actions later that determine whether I like them or not. I'm sick and tired of the thought police somehow trying to convince me that I'm racist.

If the majority of people in this country were really racist, we wouldn't have people of color in pretty much every position of power and occupation..including the presidency.

<comment><USER3> Have you considered an anonymous account?

You should know that what you've said is considered totally racist these days and you'll have to write an article like the one you just criticized if you ever want to clear your name.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure if this response is serious or not, but it's this kind of thinking that makes me lament the loss of reasonable discourse in this country.

<comment><USER7> "Reasonable discourse" doesn't start with denying that racism exists in the United States, as the grandparent post does. "We have a black president so we can't be racist" is a pretty damn tired trope.

I think people should be able to speak freely, but I won't lament systemic racism's demise.

<comment><USER8> >"Reasonable discourse" doesn't start with denying that racism exists in the United States.

Would you mind quoting the part of his post where he says that racism doesn't exist?

<comment><USER7> Let me rephrase: the original post denies that racism exists and/or plays a significant role _in some very serious recent events_ , such as police interaction with members of minority communities and resultant citizen deaths, police interaction during routine traffic stops, and racially motivated mass shootings. Also, they off-handedly dismiss the experiential evidence of others while tooting their own horn about their experiences during police encounters.

<comment><USER9> Everything seems large when viewed under a microscope.

<comment><USER7> I'm guessing this is a criticism? Well, it's a faulty one: much like scientists deepened the field of biology by looking both under a microscope and at the macro-scale (population studies, etc.), we can improve society for all people involved by both looking at micro-interactions (individual traffic stops) and macro-interactions (social forces and policies).

<comment><USER9> In another comment someone listed three micro-interactions [0] as evidence of a media narrative. So I'll provide three micro-interactions.

Dillon Taylor, Gilbert Collar, Christopher Roupe.

My criticism is about placing small, isolated incidents under a microscope. A seemingly large amount of evidence gets national media coverage - so it appears to be a bigger problem than it is. Ebola fear-mongering is a good example of that. There are local pandemics of much more immediate danger that receive far less coverage for far less time than ebola did.

It's confirmation bias at best and media propaganda at worst. The media is a business, people seem to forget that. They have no issues towing lines if it brings in more revenue. That also means they'll tug political ideologies that align closely with their viewers.

I also have no issue admitting that a problem likely does exist. But it's much smaller than the media would have you believe: they just put it under a microscope. So to you, it seems much larger. That's the problem with microscopes.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9971212](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9971212)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The State of Collaboration - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chaoscollective.org/post/33156508933/the-state-of-collaboration <comment><AUTHOR> short and sweet, but someone needed to say it! :)</comment>


Bitcoin exchange CEO found dead in Singapore - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/03/05/bitcoin-exchange-cep-dead-singapore-suspected-suicide/6088787/

<comment><USER2> First Meta is not a Bitcoin exchange.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sad to hear. RIP.</comment>


Believing Your Own Bullshit - <AUTHOR> http://nickoneill.com/believing-your-own-bullshit-2011-08/

<comment><USER2> I dono if ycombinator is good or bad at teaching people about branding... but personally, I don't really think a name has that much to do with it. I mean, you want something unique that doesn't sound like it's a weak knock-off of something else, and you want something that shows up in google, but I think a brand is something you build up over time.

Your brand is a reputation; just like changing your name to something that sounds better isn't going to improve your reputation, having a cool name isn't going to make your brand strong.

<comment><USER3> A neutral name is fine if you can own it (and I don't mean in the trademark sense here). eg. Amazon... or Zappos. Neither of these names are cool on their own, they simply mean what they mean because the company behind them worked hard to establish the brand as a symbol of quality (of customer service, mostly).

OTOH, there are names that aren't really neutral and those can hurt you no matter how good your product/service is. Nick's examples of Fukime and MunchOnMe (1) are perfectly representative of this, IMO. Those two names give me a bad impression of the company to begin with, so they are starting off in a deep hole instead of at sea level when trying to get me to use them.

(1. FWIW, I made the same connection back when Fukime was doing their launch post here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2848436> )

<comment><USER2> huh. MunchOnMe seems like a reasonable name for a groupon clone (which looks like what it is?) I guess I'm missing how that is bad or offensive.

I mean, Fukime sounds like a handle on a cosplay form. Not really what I'd go for, but being Japanese is a thing and that's okay. The real problem is that a google search confirms it - the first hit I got (safesearch off) is the deviantart page of... some cosplayer. oh man. On the first page, I found references to the cloud platform, but not their home page. This is a serious, serious problem, if you ask me, /much/ more serious than a vague resemblance to a curse word in the name.

On the other hand, I'm told I'm horrible at picking names so maybe I'm exhibiting bad taste here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this article was pretty good. Sometimes I sit back and wonder-- why the heck am I struggling so hard for stuff? Why not just give in and go with the flow, kick back and let others take the rein. I just can't though, it's something in me, and probably in you, too.

The world needs more entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER5> I was wondering, are you ever afraid of taking the reins? The OP says how they failed a few times before they had success. Is that something that keeps you in that mode of kicking back and letting others take the rein, or is the want to succeed greater than your fear of failure? Or do you simply enjoy the challenge and struggle that comes with entrepreneurship?

I don't mean to prod, I'm just curious as I'm thinking of starting my own personal project but fear it's too big to complete.</comment></comment>


Nobody Needs a Tablet. So Why Are We Gobbling Them Up? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/03/ipad-usage

<comment><USER2> All of the top things you can vote on that you use your tablet for are things that my girlfriend uses my Cr-48 (Chrome OS laptop) for.

I don't think that tablets are special, per se, they're just one of a number of ultra-portables (with Cr-48, netbooks, and smartphones being the other ones) that are gaining in use because of how quick/easy they are to pick up and put down.

Not on the uses list, but ultra-portables are also far more comfortable/easier to take into environments like the bathtub. The bubble bath + kindle + zip-loc bag wins the day in this use case, as there's the same functionality as on 'dry land' and no worry involved.

</comment><comment><USER3> Convenience?

Last night I was reading in bed on my iPad. I got an email saying that our main e-commerce site was down. I switched to iSSH, fixed the database, typed of a reply saying it was fixed, and went back to reading.

Yeah, I could have gotten out of bed, put my shorts on (TMI), gone downstairs, and fired up my laptop. The point is, I was reading (comfortable on a tablet, not so much on a laptop), and I had no need to go grab another device.

Had it been my phone, I wouldn't even have attempted it, but on the tablet, no problem. So, yeah, it definitely scratches an itch.

<comment><USER4> I have done the same on an iPhone (staying in the country on a GPRS connection with a hangover) - but it's much much better on an iPad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've convinced myself I need a tablet because nothing really fills the "pdf viewer" slot in a good way. I can print pdfs of several state law-specific reference books for free (at cost of ink and paper ~2500 pages) or pay ~$400 for paper copies in 3-ring binders - or I can buy a wifi Xoom on Sunday. No- brainer.

I have a hard time focusing on pdfs on a desktop or laptop when distractions like reddit are so easily accessed - but if I can keep myself focused on the content at hand I can have a portable copy of important references with me at all times for a small price.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, during my evenings I've been attempting to learn Rais. So I have the Ruby on Rails 3 Tutorial PDF on my iPad resting on the arm on my couch, and laptop in my lap. These types of PDFs/eBooks really shine on the iPad over the Kindle. From what I read the code section appearance on the kindle makes it hard to follow. The color diagrams, code and touchable hyperlinks make the tablet pc the book of the future.

The tablet for me is really about reading and reference. I got a bunch of 99 cent html5/JS/php/css reference books in case I need them there. But the real bread and butter for me is FlipBoard and InstaPaper. These apps make the tablet worth it. InstaPaper now has social interaction and a curated longform article section so I don't even have to use my computer to find interesting topics anymore.

Yesterday there was a HN post about Inkling, a textbook distribution app for academic textbooks (McGraw-Hill, Pearson) that allows you to have embedded multimedia objects and section highlighting/note sharing to professors and classmates. Tablets are the reading experience of the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> i think there are a lot of new areas for something like a tablet -- take for instance, a lot of designers these days are using iPads/tablets as portfolio devices in interviews or with clients. Instead of clunky paper portfolios or simply throwing someone your website and asking them to check it out later or after the interview, you can bring in your tablet, show off some nice high res images, zoom in and out. It adds interactivity to the interviewing experience, especially if you can bring up a website design you might have done and show exactly how it works.

<comment><USER8> All of which you can do with your laptop. The tablet just makes the experience a whole lot nicer.

So, just like the article explains, you don't _need_ the tablet, but it's worth the $500+ anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think a major factor is that most people _despise_ their "real" computers, even though they like what they can do with them.

Which is why they don't care about the locked down nature of the App Store - in fact it's an advantage.

</comment><comment><USER9> Nobody needs a tablet? Sure... let me just pack my desktop computer up and put it in my carry-on bag the next time I travel.

 _"As you might expect, the top three things consumers have been doing with iPads are surfing the web, writing and checking e-mail and playing games"_

That sounds like the same thing people are doing with desktop computers and laptops.

<comment><USER10> Did you even read the article? He explains really clearly that he understands the advantage Tablets represent. He even makes a nice little Microwave-to-Oven analogy.

<comment><USER9> _"He even makes a nice little Microwave-to-Oven analogy." (TomOfTTB)_

The microwave-to-oven analogy doesn't make much sense. Do you think most people are sitting beside their desktop/laptop while they use their iPad/tablet? I love my iPad, but I will surely use my desktop when I can choose between the two.

<comment><USER8> Just like you'll surely use your oven instead of the microwave if you're not time-constrained because it's a richer taste experience.

<comment><USER9> _"you'll surely use your oven instead of the microwave if you're not time- constrained"_

So, if I'm time-constrained, you're thinking I'm going to type that email on my iPad? Again, this is a bad analogy. I think people really do need tablets. They just don't need them when their desktop/laptop is in reach.

<comment><USER10> He's making an abstraction not saying a Microwave represents a 1-to-1 relationship with an iPad

<comment><USER9> Thanks for clearing that up. I was starting to think my iPad was going to cook me dinner quickly. That is surely an item on the iPad 3 feature list.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you calculate the value of Bitcoin? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> You don't. Bitcoin exchange markets do it every minute of the day the world round: Tokyo, Shanghai, London, Bulgaria, Calgary and local Satoshi circles.

How does one estimate the future value? By taking a position in it, it is you that creates the future...

</comment><comment><USER3> BitcoinAverage ([http://bitcoinaverage.com](http://bitcoinaverage.com))</comment>


Tell HN: My Amazon EC2 billing problems - <AUTHOR>

I had small Amazon EC2 instance running for almost 3 years. I stopped it 3 months ago and currently have some data on Amazon S3 I had no time to delete.
Couple of days ago I received email from Amazon that they could not bill my credit card in order to collect 10 cents for the S3 data. I logged into my account to see what going on and for the first time in my life I saw this message:
"You have 7 charges past due. Please pay the amount in full to avoid suspension or termination of your AWS Account." "Select past charges and pay now"
So I clicked that and to my surprise I saw this:
"Please pay the amount in full to avoid suspension or termination of your AWS account"

  Billing Period, Bill Details,  You owe
  June 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009, Bill Details, $ 92.14
  April 1, 2009 - April 30, 2009, Bill Details, $ 90.12
  January 1, 2009 - January 31, 2009, Bill Details, $ 91.57
  November 1, 2008 - November 30, 2008, Bill Details, $ 87.24
  August 1, 2008 - August 31, 2008, Bill Details, $ 93.78
  April 1, 2008 - April 30, 2008, Bill Details, $ 88.49
  February 1, 2008 - February 29, 2008, Bill Details, $ 83.92
 Total Amount You Owe 	$627.26 Amount You Selected to Pay 	$627.26
They did not billed me for February 2008 ?!? 2008! And the total I owe them is $627.
I ofter receive messages from Amazon that they could not bill my credit card. This is because I don't use credit card but debit card for online payments. Every time I need to make a payment I go to the bank (which is nearby) and put some money into my account. I do this because: 1) Bank is nearby and this way I don't have to worry about stolen card details, etc
2) I have to think twice before buying something big online: first - when I put the money on my account, and second - when I make the real payment
I just spent an hour filtering the online billing records on my card for the past three years and it seems according to the records that Amazon is right - they did not billed me, according to my card records. I have difficult time figuring out how this could happened, since AWS billing is a monthly routine for me. Every month when I receive their warning email I go to the bank put enough money into my account and then stopped receiving warning emails from them.
HN moment: I have read somewhere on HN, or on HN linked story long time ago that you can have one month past due before they cut you off. And I am sure it was from some CEO of famous startup company, who was explaining how you can play with startup finances by delaying your payments to Amazon with a month (or this is how I understand it at the time).
I will talk to my bank on Monday to see if they can provide my with paper billing details regrading Amazon and will probably pay, but I think it is not good business practice to bill your clients 30 months later.
Have you ever been more than a month late on AWS billing. What happened? What will your advice be in this situation? <comment><USER2> You dun goof'd, OP.

Sorry, that really sucks. Then again, complicating systems invites error. Are you just trying to get your data off and leave Amazon hanging? Is the data worth the $600?

Either way, consider this a very expensive lesson in keeping proper backups.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ummm... Where do you keep your money? Under your bed?</comment>


Dilbert principle - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle

<comment><USER2> This was worth sharing because…?</comment>


Capital One's website is down - <AUTHOR> https://www.capitalone.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> And it's back... Error was: "View rendering failed; nested exception is java.lang.NullPointerException". I was surprised to see the full stack trace though.</comment>


Newsworthy: A lightning fast news aggregator with Material Design and no ads - <AUTHOR> https://newsworthy.to <comment><USER2> No ads you say? Sure, wouldn't we all love that! Unfortunately, they are still advertizing heavily. even worse: the ads are instead presented as entire articles that pretend to be legitimate news: [https://newsworthy.to/article/2020/07/01/when-two-people- lov...](https://newsworthy.to/article/2020/07/01/when-two-people-love-each- other-very-much-they-can-get-spotify-premium-duo-for)

<comment><USER3> this can be aggregated from news source. aggregator itself do not know if article is an ad or something else.. I wrote news aggregator myself and many news providers put sponsored articles in the middle od their news feed without marking them as such</comment></comment>


Medicating Ourselves Into Lives Not Worth Living - <AUTHOR> http://maxmarmer.com/2011/09/medicating-ourselves-into-lives-not-worth-living/ <comment><USER2> This is the most ridiculous thing I've read today.

<comment><USER3> This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in weeks -- and I have the Internet!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I especially like the part where he implies that all mental illnesses are like that one time when he was a teenager and had some teenage angst.

"...ignoring lot of people who told me I was too young, too inexperienced and too naive..."

Guess what? You still are.</comment>


What is .htaccess and what are its functions - <AUTHOR> http://www.codelator.com/blog/2014/aug/what-is-htaccess-and-its-functions.html

<comment><AUTHOR> A .htaccess (hypertext access) is a file on the web server that allows to create a global configuration for web server. They are generally placed inside the root folder and has various functions such as redirecting url, adding prefix to a url, prevent hotlinking, restricting access, redirecting to error pages, compressing a website to make it more faster, cache control etc.

A .htaccess file can be created on your computer or on the server. The main function of .htaccess is to give instructions to the server. The permission parameters set for a .htaccess file is 644. You can create .htaccess file by creating new file and naming it as .htaccess</comment>


YouTube Ads to Mine Cryptocurrency - <AUTHOR> https://sea.pcmag.com/news/19317/hackers-invade-youtube-ads-to-mine-cryptocurrency <comment><AUTHOR> Yet another example that not using an "ad blocker" is a bad idea.</comment>


Google statement on codecs - <AUTHOR> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04953.html <comment><USER2> "We believe that legacy hardware for hardware video encode and decode acceleration should all be thrown out and everyone should embrace our new standard which has no such support"

Yeah, that'll fly.

<comment><USER3> I don't know why this got downvoted - we all know it's true, even if we don't want it to be.

Does anyone really believe Apple are going to support a codec that they can't hand off to power-saving silicone?

edit: it was gray when I replied

<comment><USER4> why can't apple hand off vp8 to silicon?

<http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/>

<comment><USER5> Why should they, if they have to support H.264 encode/decode in hardware already? WebM hardware support would be an extra cost, and you'd better believe that they've got those parts spec'd down to the fraction of a cent. WebM offers nothing to Apple -- certainly not video quality, and they participate in the MPEGLA patent pools, so they're not paying for the licensing.

If WebM became a mandatory codec, they'd implement it, but they'd prefer not to.

<comment><USER6> Being in Patents Pools doesn't mean they dont need to pay licensing. It just means they are on both paying and receiving ends. Since there are thousands of patents on H.264, Apple are only recieiving a tiny amount compared to what they paid out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Also, Ericsson, in a different thread.

[http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938...](http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938.html)

No other companies so far, apparently.

<comment><USER3> As expected of a telecoms company - they want to use the standards that are already implemented in silicone.

Has anyone blogged the feasibility of hardware acceleration of Opus? I know they have an integer implementation already, but it seems we still don't even have Vorbis support anywhere...

<comment><USER4> silicon. please.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m.

But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.

<comment><USER9> Skype's value isn't a particular technical implementation, it's the install base, directory and related network effects.

WebRTC is likely to _increase_ Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC implementation), at the expense of traditional telecoms and conference call providers.

<comment><USER10> > WebRTC is likely to increase Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC > implementation),

How so? Are their servers for sale and somehow they can license them so web clients can conference via them. Otherwise I don't get. Or are you assuming they will buckle and would be forced to implement the WebRTC protocol.

<comment><USER9> Skype makes money from call-out (to traditional telecom services), call-in (give a traditional telephone number to a Skype address) and additional features (conference calls).

WebRTC increases the potential market for all of those things by decreasing the friction - people won't even need to install the Skype client anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So when is Google dropping H.264 in Chrome, as they indicated they would a year and a half ago? ([http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec- support-in...](http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in- chrome.html))

</comment><comment><USER12> The website is down, here's cache:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwi...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&output=search&sclient=psy- ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmail- archive%2Fweb%2Frtcweb%2Fcurrent%2Fmsg04953.html&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7b5e0dd64d88d370&biw=1366&bih=667)

</comment><comment><USER6> I could understand reasons for their support for VP8. But "superior quality" is definitely not a strength on VP8 side.

</comment><comment><USER13> I was hoping Google would adopt Mozilla's Opus codec for audio, but I can't believe they are actually going to do it. Well done, Google!

Will Opus replace Vorbis in WebM as well, though?

<comment><USER14> This pretty much confirms what I suspected earlier ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4274757> ), namely that licensing issues are the reason for Google not having committed to it, yet. And as they said they recommend it if and only if the "remaining licensing issues can be resolved."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looks like Mozilla's talking about WebM while implementing hardware- accelerated H.264. <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714408>

</comment><comment><USER16> I feel like the assertion that VP8 is royalty-free needs to be taken with some skepticism given that (to my knowledge) it has not been tested in court. If Google is willing to indemnify the whole Web from liability that might be created if VP8 is found to infringe patents, then I'd say, let's make that the standard. I don't think they've done this though (or even could).</comment>


Show HN: Resume Optimizer to increase chances of landing an interview - <AUTHOR> http://tenxresume.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've built TenxResume to simply give candidates a better chance to pass automated tracking systems. It compares your resume with the job post that you want to apply and gives you relevant suggestions to increase the likelihood of the resume passing the initial screening.

It's free to use. MVP stage, trying to make it better with user feedback. Your feedback is extremely important for me especially if you are in the job market. Let me know if TenxResume would be helpful in your search.</comment>