So, You Don't Have Any Disabled Users? - <AUTHOR> http://www.21times.org/archives/so-you-dont-have-any-disabled-users/

<comment><USER2> One thing that always surprises me is how many people take offense to the suggestion to make their software/websites more accessible, as if it's trampling on their artistic freedom. Even here on enlightened HN, the top-most comment seems to worry about some "Orwellian" future where non-accessible websites are verboten.

I prefer to look at making things accessible in two more positive ways:

1\. It's a challenge; any designer can slap together a slick looking website. It takes thought and creativity (and research) to make an interface that is inherently flexible and usable by just about anyone.

2\. Sure, you might scoff at the market possibilities today (seven percent? who cares!). But as life expectancy goes up, so do the numbers with disability, and the longer someone is alive, the more money they are likely to have. Reap those baby boomers! (cynical, yes; but this is business after all).

<comment><USER3> > It takes thought and creativity (and research)

And _money_. Lots and lots of money. Sometimes, especially with single-page sites, it can take more than 100% of the base budget to implement the progressive enhancement necessary for screen readers and the like.

Customers don't want to pay for it, and I'm not going to do it for free.

Your point in 2 needs to be backed up by some numbers. You can't appeal to someone's internal economist without some statistics.

<comment><USER4> If your HTML is valid, and you're not doing crazy stuff with your headers, chances are the screen reader is going to do just fine.

I worked for the government, and every single site we put out had to be 508 compliant (in other words, accessible). It never doubled our budget, ever, and we had some pretty complex interfaces.

As for point two, go check out how many Baby Boomers are alive today. Then, remember this:

Baby boomers control over 80% of personal financial assets and more than half of all consumer spending.

They're also going to start needing sites that deal with their aging eyes, poor vision, and joint issues.

<comment><USER3> If most of your site is rendered with JavaScript and most of your content is delivered via JSON, you're kind of screwed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "One of the newer groups under the accessibility umbrella, this group has become more vocal in the past few years. Those with dyslexia and ADD or ADHD have begun to press for a less busy Internet, one where ads don't distract them to the point of being unable to use a site, or where proper contrast is used, rather than the more artistic combinations of light text against an only slightly lighter background."

IMO, browser makers failed us 15+ years ago by not making the ability to style/theme our sites more prominent as part of the UI. (and cookie management, but that's a different rant) The idea of using your own custom style sheets was always, at best, an extreme fringe feature. Yes, markup has to be 'right' for this to work, and browser makers catered to poor markup way too much in the early days. I'm not sure we can easily get out of it, but perhaps now... with a somewhat renewed focus on semantic markup and better CSS in browsers, we could encourage browsers to treat "user-specified" styling as a first class function of what it means to be a 'browser'?

Using Safari 5 right now, there's _no option_ I can find to set a minimum font size. A 'default' font and size, yes, but that seems to be ignored or overwritten by every site I go to. It's 2012 and I still have to 'increase font size' on a number of sites I go to (and I know about keystrokes to do so - other people I know tend to just suffer with small fonts).

<comment><USER6> Firefox makes the binary choice straightforward: accept the site's styling, or use no styling: "View/Page Style/No Style". I find myself going to no style much more frequently these days, as cool UIs become fashionable but are still hard to get right, especially cross browser.

So what does someone do in between? Immerse themselves in hidden browser settings? Use greasemonkey?

<comment><USER7> Firefox has the option to let you set the font and a minimum font size, and will force all sites to stick to it. (Tools -> Options -> Content -> Advanced)

I view the entire internet in Times New Roman 20 pt. I have to turn it off for more complicated sites like amazon, where having giant font in their tiny boxes breaks functionality, but it works beautifully on simple sites like hacker news, where I spend most of my time. (And by "beautifully" I mean, it's butt-ugly, but I can sit back from the computer at a comfortably ergonomic distance and read without straining my eyes.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Having worked as a relay operator for the deaf and hard of hearing, I can not tell you how bad forms are in virtually all software.

When calling a deaf person, you may need to call a relay or translation service, meaning two phone numbers. Virtually no company, even those with a "notes" area have an established protocol for this. And many just don't have even that.

And no notes is a huge pain. You know how it's a pain in the ass to get the cable/Internet guy to come at a convenient time? They often insist on calling first to ensure their trip isn't wasted. Now imagine you're deaf, and the guy calls every time, and he doesn't use a relay/translator, and never actually communicating... He never comes.

God it has to be annoying sometimes. It was for me and I was getting paid for those calls.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps some lost startup will pivot to providing single number relay service using twilio or similar. Each phone number would be unique to a relay/deaf customer pair.

<comment><USER10> Seems the solution hear is Google Voice or some client software that receives the phone call on behalf of the user, and sets up the relay. Relay should be a "hook-in" feature of my phone, not a concern of the caller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Those with dyslexia and ADD or ADHD have begun to press for a less busy Internet, one where ads don't distract them to the point of being unable to use a site, or where proper contrast is used, rather than the more artistic combinations of light text against an only slightly lighter background."

Aah, your gray font used to write this is hard to read and I haven't been characterized for any of these.

Also, HN seems to make it hard for people with these impairments to read downvoted comments :P, though they do that to everyone. There should be an option to re-darken a downvoted comment temporarily.

<comment><USER12> I just select it with my mouse, but I'm not sure how effective that is on a touch device.

<comment><USER13> It's not. Dead posts are moreso on mobile.

HN as a whole on mobile is a somewhat miserable experience.

<comment><USER14> I like to use ihackernews.com

<comment><USER15> Whoa, this is great! Thanks for the pointer. I might even start using this on my desktop, too, it's so nice.

<comment><USER16> I used iHackerNews until <http://cheeaun.github.com/hnmobile/> came out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So.. I'm working on a website that is primarily for reading. Just looking at the statistics, there is 7.9 million people out of 300 million in the US that will have either be blind or effectively blind. That's 2.6% of the population that won't be able to access my site. That's below my threshold for dropping browser support.

I'm pretty sure my time would be better spend making it visually better than learning about accessibility.

<comment><USER4> Even if your site is just for reading, have you considered all the above groups?

* Can someone who can't use a mouse navigate your site? How about if they can't use a keyboard? * Can your default styles be over-ridden? Does it grow gracefully, or is content suddenly hidden? * Have you checked your color contrasts for the color blind? * Are ads constantly looping animations? * What fonts are you using? * Does it have a consistant navigation? * What about the content? Is there any attempt to make it as readable as possible? Or are the authors long-winded? * Is text broken up into reasonably sized paragraphs? Are sections effectively used? * Is there abuse of all-caps or italics?

Those are just off the top of my head. If you think that the blind and visually impaired are all you have to worry about, you'd be wrong.

<comment><USER17> _Can someone who can't use a mouse navigate your site? How about if they can't use a keyboard?_

I test on my ipad and iphone for usability. I plan on having mobi export so you can use a kindle if you want.

 _Can your default styles be over-ridden? Does it grow gracefully, or is content suddenly hidden?_

The base font is 14pt with additional spacing between lines. The navigation won't degrade well but the body content should be fine though it might wrap oddly.

 _Have you checked your color contrasts for the color blind?_

I do actually. I regularly use OSX's accessiblity tools to use grayscale or high contrast mode. I also have a badly-balanced lcd screen for testing if the text is still readable without proper color balance. The site is primarily black on light gray so I don't have many problems with that.

 _Are ads constantly looping animations?_

No ads, currently. I doubt I will ever add them but if I do they will be static and only on index pages.

 _What fonts are you using?_

        $sansFontFamily:        "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
        $serifFontFamily:       Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
        $monoFontFamily:        Menlo, Monaco, Consolas, "Courier New", monospace;

_Does it have a consistant navigation?_

Edit links tend to be in the same place everywhere on the site. Still working on that. Delete buttons are always bright red on the bottom left of the edit screen. I hid them a bit on purpose since I would prefer people to archive stuff instead of deleting it.

 _What about the content? Is there any attempt to make it as readable as possible? Or are the authors long-winded? Is text broken up into reasonably sized paragraphs? Are sections effectively used? Is there abuse of all-caps or italics?_

I have very little control over writing quality. It's a place for people to share their writing. I do a lot to mitigate the damage normal people like to inflict on readability but I can't force them to use paragraphs, capital lettters, or typography properly. I can only insure that all the text is in the same font and size for everyone's submissions. (I don't allow authors to increase or decrease font size. All html is prestyled with minimal room for adjustment.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The biggest disability on the internet is communications. As such a interface that transcends the needs to have any written language is one that is doing more than most.

That is why the up vote and down vote buttons are what is known as intuitive is use.

But if you design something with KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) then you can at least have a good interface to tap into.

I would love a site that allowed you to go into edit mode and drag and drop and move and select the elements of the site you wanted and had that as a default style sheet for that site. You can then have voted user style sheets/templates for the site that enable somebody who is say colour-blind to select the one best for them. Though for colour blindness I'm surprised none of these smart TV's have the ability for the user to custom remap aspects of the colour palate to accommodating them. Though I'm not colour blind, but it is a common enough issue and a fine solvable example with regards towards a accommodative user interface.

</comment><comment><USER19> I could be wrong - my apologies if I am - in the section about the hearing impaired, shouldn't it be "Deaf community" with a capital D?

<comment><USER20> You're right. Also, "hearing impaired" is offensive. Correct terms are 'deaf' and 'hard-of-hearing'.

<comment><USER21> How the heck is "impaired" offensive but "hard of" not offensive.

Let's see what the national association of the deaf says. "The term focuses on what people can't do. It establishes the standard as "hearing" and anything different as "impaired," or substandard, hindered, or damaged."

By what interpretation of words does "hard of" not do the exact same thing. Did I miss an important evolution of English again?

Edit: Looked some more. NCDS is fine with "hearing impaired" but says that some people object. Then I found this page <http://www.deaflinx.com/DeafCommunity/identity.html> Its objection to "hearing impaired" is the mere fact that it ignores people's culture/identity choices wrt the Deaf community. This reasoning reminds me of the insular sub- community of the deaf that tries to push 'Deaf Culture' so strongly that they can be against fixing people's ability to hear; people that will make 'Deaf' their very _identity_. To be honest I don't care what those people find offensive.

But if you have a better reasoning than those people I am ready and willing to learn and accept it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just like we have laws against discrimination based on disability and measures like handicap parking spots, does anyone envision a future where there's some sort of federal mandate that websites cater to the disabled?

<comment><USER23> When you say "we", I assume you mean the United States. There's already progress in that direction in other countries:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility#Legally_requi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility#Legally_required_web_accessibility)

It's already a de facto requirement for anyone selling software to the government. When I was a PM at Microsoft working on Visio, I was surprised and amazed at how much time and energy went into accessibility of all the Office product. It's not easy to make a visual design program like Visio work well for the blind or visually impaired!

<comment><USER6> Please say more about that.

I'm trying to think how a blind user could effectively use a visual design program or its output. Do you output text representation of diagrams? Does a blind user put the product to some use and purpose that's different from the average sighted user?

<comment><USER24> If the visual representation can be described with data, you give them the option to view that data. Images have a longdesc attribute for this <http://webaim.org/techniques/images/longdesc>

Not all visual applications can be made accessible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What about disabled employees? Do employee handbooks and HR materials have to be accessible to the visually impaired, for example?

<comment><USER4> In general, yes. There's a few exceptions, but in general you should have an accessible version for the visually impaired (or, really, any of the groups I list in the article. Are your training videos captioned for the Deaf? Can someone with motion issues navigate your HR site using Tab or adaptive devices? Is the language overly contrived or the font and color choices bad?)

<comment><USER10> Just "deaf" here. "deaf" people who aren't part of "Deaf cultre" are just as unable to hear as "Deaf people". In fact, the average "Deaf" person may be more likely to be able to hear, since "Deaf" is cultural (can be opted-into) and "deaf" is biological.</comment></comment></comment>


Falsehoods programmers believe about economics (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2016/09/22/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-economics/ <comment><USER4> I like these lists, but the ones I like the best are the lists that also provides examples and an explanation with the falsehoods. Pointing out a falsehood without providing a reason does little to change my mind.

Falsehoods about phone numbers was recently on HN [0], and I liked how it came with examples. Then it's possible to have a meaningful discussion about each one, and if it is something we need to handle. For instance _Phone numbers are always written in ASCII_ , gives an example where that isn't true. Then we can discuss if that case is meaningful for us to support or not.

I cannot build a system that will handle all possible names, emails, addresses, timesystems, currencies, locales or whatnot there is a falsehood article about. So when writing an article like this, if you want it to have impact please explain the point of each bullet.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19214035)

<comment><USER5> No disrespect, but I think the thought process of your comment is exactly what this post is trying to address.

While falsehood lists that cover emails, phone numbers or CSV files are basically just a much better specification than the one you were following initially, this falsehood list works on a different level. You can't simply go through all the items and make sure your code covers each one. You're supposed to read it and come to a conclusion that economics is less similar to mathematics and more similar to sociology. That it's not a set of rational rules but something inherently more complex and chaotic.

It can still have a huge effect on your code - not in the form of additional corner cases you need to cover, but as questions you may ask yourself about the purpose and morality of your work. At least that's how I understand it.

<comment><USER6> My reading of the parent comment is that they understand everything you're saying, and their point is that the subject matter is thus a poor fit for the "Falsehoods Programmers Believe" moniker.

The phone number example they gave works very well for demonstrating misconceptions. Economics doesn't work as well for that, for precisely the reason you stated about it being partly sociological. In fact it's sociopolitical, which complicates matters further.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thank you. Though I don't think this is a _comprehensive_ list, it really brings home some of the frustrations when talking to others in tech about economics, particularly getting them to critically examine economic inequality.

Because of the higher pay in our field, many programmers/tech people have the _luxury_ of believing in simplistic economic models, which largely fall back on some economic version of the just-world fallacy([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just- world_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)). Their most salient datapoint (themselves) fits perfectly into their view, so why bother to complicate it?

That having been said, I'd love to hear/read more on how the conversation can be moved forward with people who stubbornly hold the beliefs mentioned here.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm an economist by training. I understand where the author is coming from but most of these points are _arguable_ (and much argued upon) but merely stating these points of contention without explaining why these things are considered true and instead might not be isn't very useful. To a certain extent this text paradoxically reduces economics to _sub_ -Econ101 levels by making a simple list of Apparent Truths That Are Implied To Be Actually False (whose complements therefore are implied to be True, but logically might not be).

There wouldn't be a whole field of well-meaning professionals looking into these matters if it were this simple.

<comment><USER9> > There wouldn't be a whole field of well-meaning professionals looking into > these matters if it were this simple.

I think this list basically an exhortation to think twice before swaggering into a forum thread citing "basic economics" like you've got everything figured out. It's a _reminder_ that things are more complicated.

<comment><USER6> For that exhortation to be compelling, these "falsehoods" should come with some justification for why they're misconceptions. If you present me with just a list like this for a field as complex as economics, one of two things will probably happen:

1\. If I think economics is a simple junk science I won't be inclined to change my mind, because there's no explanation here.

2\. If I already think economics is a complex field I'll think this list utterly sucks the nuance out of it.

<comment><USER8> Economics is mathematically mired by a lack of conserved quantities. Those are global invariants that (particularly in physics) that allow to desume facts about the final configuration of a system based only on the initial configuration (conservation of mass, of energy, of linear or angular momentum... each of which is a handy approximation to solve various problems and that surprisingly depend on the theories one is applying).

In economics even something as fundamental as _wealth_ is not conserved (that's the whole wonderment of nonzero-sum games and interactions in general). That means that predictions are very sensitive to the dynamics one presumes to apply, and the practitioner has no amazing bookkeeping sleights- of-hand to resort to to verify that which one is predicting is defensible.

<comment><USER10> Not conserving wealth is fundamentally correct in my opinion but you need to keep in mind forms of wealth - it is utility not just raw goods. It also fundamentally isn't universal. As long as there is more useful work to do we can create more wealth.

We are thousands of times wealthier than ancient goat herders and yet do we have ten thousand goats each? No. Wealth has many forms. A full course of antibiotics to treat Hansen's disease would be incredibly valueable miracle cure in medieval times and anyone capable of producing them effectively a miracle worker. A smartphone's in the 1940s is effectively alien nanotech to them.

<comment><USER8> I agree absolutely. However, utility is typically expressed as a nonlinear function of wealth, and therefore aggregate utility is even _less_ constrained (further from being even approximately conserved) than wealth itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't know if I agree with a lot of these and I don't know why these falsehoods pertain specifically to programmers and not the general populace.

"People are rational actors." should be number 1 and most of the other points are redundant. Much of this is just behavioral economics à la Kahneman and Tversky.

<comment><USER12> Correct, you could generalise it further as: people believe economics reflects reality, not that they are simplistic models used to facilitate a political idea.

The only economist I've heard of coming close to creating an all encompassing model is Steve Keen. It was through his work on debt cycles that he called the GFC before it occured.

[https://hackernoon.com/debunking-economics-and-why- bitcoin-w...](https://hackernoon.com/debunking-economics-and-why-bitcoin-will- fail-with-steve-keen-51f51eb9a477)

<comment><USER10> Economics do reflect reality but not in advance necessarily - granted in that case it is a reflection after reality comes knocking and it is clear that maybe mercantilism was a bad idea after all of their colonies revolted over a lack of representation and misrule bad enough they started doing /better/ economically after severing ties with their large home country. In hindsight that suggests majorly underutilizing the potential of the colony and colonists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Pareto efficiency exists.

> Information symmetry exists.

> People are rational actors.

Programmers? Aren't they the falsehoods an ideal theoretical economic model believes about the economy?

<comment><USER14> Perhaps you could call them, "common misconceptions about economics," but even then it seems a bit subjective. Now that the falsehoods meme has moved past business logic details, I'm waiting for "falsehoods programmers believe about the Republican/Democrat party platform." ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> (2016)

the posting from back then, for ref: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12556983](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12556983)

</comment><comment><USER16> Hugged to death. Outline version: [https://outline.com/Fpy4Js](https://outline.com/Fpy4Js)

<comment><USER17> This site is really cool, but it desperately needs a bookmarklet. An extension that adds an "outline" link to hacker news submissions would save me many hours per day. :)

<comment><USER18> According to: [https://www.designernews.co/comments/257987](https://www.designernews.co/comments/257987)

javascript:(function()%7Bwindow.location.href %3D 'https%3A%2F%2Foutline.com%2F' %2B window.location.href%7D)()

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Back in the days of Adam Smith it was known as "political economy", believing the two were inextricable. I should really get round to reading his actual text some time rather than the ideologically filtered popsci versions.

<comment><USER10> I think that is taken for granted that the assumptions were based upon a state's existence for one. Lack of a state means economic pressures promote the eventual rise of one from either strongmen (influence on goods and their production gained through monopoly on force) or "oligarchs"/ priests (influence on force through goods including intangibles on force).

Being "too useful to destroy" can give an oligarchic or priesthood role. It need not be tangible and is in fact better if it is not because killing them will destroy it instead of stealing it. While thugs could kill a drug cook keeping him alive killing him and taking his drugs would get something of value. Killing an ascetic would get nothing of value - which might be an origin of vows of poverty sticking around.

A "shaman" or who people follow because he can treat illnesses better than nothing and/or has enough of an understanding to avoid diseases has real power even if his etiology is wrong or incomplete.

A belief that boiling water drives out evil spirits (bacteria) or that malaria is caused by evil swamp spirits is somewhat accurate but very imprecise as metaphors with some physical truth. The last especially sounds absurd but lacking microscopy and thus germ theory but makes sense thinking about it. Absent microbiology what else describes invisible forces that can make someone sicken and die and hails from the swamp? While clearly inferior practicallyvl to a more in depth scientific framework which allows for things like a very expensive malaria vaccine derived from dissected mosquitoes literal "spirits" as a framework is outdated but gets some fundamentals of survival right - <USER2> water or you'll be sorry and avoid swamps and mosquitoes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> In terms of rational actor theory, it just means you have preferences and you try to achieve optimal results using all the data available to you. It doesn't matter if your preferences seem irrational or are not apparent to others as long as they are consistent.

<comment><USER10> Yeah reminds me of one discussion I had about bakeries wanting the right to discriminate based on religion or orientation back in the news. In pure money it is obviously stupid. However if they value the influence or not it is technically "rational".

Paperclip maximizers technically qualify - their goal isn't for them to be useful or even self-preservation but to get the paperclip number as high as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Obnoxious. The other "Falsehoods Programmers Believe" taught me things I didn't know and pointed out mistakes I'd made in the past. This is just a load of patronising progressive preaching which teaches me nothing.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, over half of them are just plain wrong too lol

<comment><USER23> Which ones?

<comment><USER22> 3 & 4 are blatantly false. Economics isn't concerned with morality or demographics (beyond the study of their statistical facts). Concerning these, the question should arise: What do these statements even mean?

The Efficient Market Hypothesis has consistently held true, especially in the long term and with respect to indexes and mutual funds. Some of the implications and conclusions drawn from the hypothesis are audacious, but the hypothesis itself is sound. [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2013/238253/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2013/238253/) [http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/view/1...](http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/view/17911)

Price is absolutely a indication of cost and/or value, at the time of exchange.

Rational Choice Theory is empirically sound [https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- soc-07...](https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- soc-071811-145441) [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001)

Although Classical Economics is empirically shakey is some respects, Neoclassical are not

<comment><USER24> > 3 & 4 are blatantly false. Economics isn't concerned with morality or > demographics (beyond the study of their statistical facts).

I don't think that's correct. Economic theories make statements about the distribution of resources, which is an _intensely_ moral question. They also tend to be tightly wrapped up with political ideology, which makes them even more moral.

<comment><USER10> Those are implications really - as are political ideologies based upon what people do with it. Similarly demographics are a reflection of current society - it doesn't tell you /why/ it is the case.

Pointing out that the true father may have implications for a family and society but that doesn't make genetics a moral question.

<comment><USER24> > Those are implications really - as are political ideologies based upon what > people do with it.

When programmers talk about economics, they're pretty much always talking about the implications and political ideologies that surround them, not the abstract nuances of some theory for its own sake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Falsehoods programmers believe about UX: 1. Blue text on black background is very readable.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've noticed many programmers have difficulty with nuance and shades of gray on policy or social issues, which are complicated, fuzzy, and irreducible to simple rules. I think this might be a reason why the field has such a strong libertarian presence.

<comment><USER27> Given the replication crisis is it not more accurate to say that social "scientists" have difficulty understanding data and logic? It's no wonder that programmers who are grounded in both of those can see through the holes in their subjective and feeling driven arguments so often.

<comment><USER26> I'm a former physical scientist, and I am very critical of statistical practices in the sciences.

Also, biology and biomedicine is just as bad, so don't act like like the super-smart physical scientists are somehow superior. Rigor in social sciences is difficult because there are no solid axioms as there are in physics or math to guide hypotheses.

Folks with your type of opinions act like there are such axioms, but that is just simply wrong. This kind of thinking is exactly what I was talking about in my above comment.

<comment><USER27> > _Folks with your type of opinions act like there are such axioms_

No, I agree with you that there are no such axioms which is why the value of social "science" is near zero.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Has this person made a ton of money investing or otherwise deploying their economic theories? If not, then it's likely the falsehoods are on their end.

 _" Economics is morally neutral."_

Of course they are. Unless the author is implying that they are some sort of moral arbiter or religious I'm not sure how they would judge this anyway.

 _" Economics is racially- and gender-neutral."_

Citation needed.

 _" The efficient markets hypothesis is true."_

By all means try to outsmart the market, then come back to us and report your results.

<comment><USER6> _> Has this person made a ton of money investing or otherwise deploying their economic theories? If not, then it's likely the falsehoods are on their end._

This is a terrible heuristic for deciding if someone understands economics. Economics is far more nuanced than that, and it's very possible to be able to show something non-constructively.

<comment><USER27> If you truly understand a system you should be able to navigate it successfully. I certainly wouldn't take advice from someone who can't quantifiably show that they know what they're talking about.

That this person can't compile a convincing list with evidence just further shows that they aren't worth listening to.

<comment><USER10> That assumes no other preconditions apply that would prevent them from taking advantage. Knowing heavier than air flight is possible doesn't allow one to build a 747 on a desert island.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Well, the efficient markets hypothesis _is_ true, just as much as Newton's law of universal gravity is true.

It's perfectly fine to point out its shortcomings, but dismissing it entirely is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

The market is generally efficient with pockets of inefficiency due to the cost of information.

From the Wikipedia article on the Grossman-Stiglitz paradox[0], "because information is costly, prices cannot perfectly reflect the information which is available, since if it did, those who spent resources to obtain it would receive no compensation, leading to the conclusion that an _informationally efficient_ market is impossible." (Emphasis mine)

"The rational efficient markets formulation recognizes that investors will not rationally incur the expenses of gathering information unless they expect to be rewarded by higher gross returns compared with the free alternative of accepting the market price. Furthermore, modern theorists recognize that when intrinsic value is difficult to determine, as is the case of common stock, and when trading costs exist, even further room exists for price to diverge from value"

__________

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grossman- Stiglitz_Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grossman-Stiglitz_Paradox)

<comment><USER16> > Well, the efficient markets hypothesis is true, just as much as Newton's law > of universal gravity is true.

That's a terrible analogy. Gravity works exactly the same way except in some _extremely_ exotic conditions that none of us will ever experience. The "pockets of inefficiency" in watered-down EMH are so pervasive that we should really be talking about "pockets of efficiency" instead. The physics analogy to EMH would be something like magnetism - a phenomenon that is undoubtedly real and useful, but not really all that common.

<comment><USER10> Yeah it isn't wrong but I would compare it to frictionless plain physics - <USER3> can point in the right direction but it is missing other things and some applications which stray from it and its assumptions can wind up vastly different if you try to take it as gospel but at the same time there are fundamental "can't do thats" predicted. You can't get rich through printing money because that devalues holdings in exchange for more fine grained divisions - fine to have some with economic growth creating corresponding goods.</comment></comment></comment>


Food Carts: pure DIY entrepreneurialism  - <AUTHOR> http://www.dornbracht.com/en/index.htm?nav=1219

<comment><USER2> Well, this is an art exhibit, and it's really more about cultural deconstruction and examination than entrepreneurship.

This reminds me how much I love getting lunch out of a cart or kitchen truck. Some of the best (and/or most satisfying) food I've had in NYC has been on wheels.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wish there was an American city where I could get fed off of a little boat.

<comment><AUTHOR> "See good in bad, good philosophy!"</comment></comment>


Kured – A Kubernetes Reboot Daemon - <AUTHOR> https://www.weave.works/blog/announcing-kured-a-kubernetes-reboot-daemon <comment><USER2> I recently learned about a CoreOS-specific operator for that purpose: [https://github.com/coreos/container-linux-update- operator](https://github.com/coreos/container-linux-update-operator). In standard CoreOS installations, once system updates are installed, the node is automatically rebooted using a semaphore. Instead, this uses the Kubernetes API to drain the pods from the node for a clean shutdown.

Kured has a feature to stop reboots if there are triggered Prometheus alerts; that's a nice touch.

</comment><comment><USER3> Performing unattended upgrades seems like a great idea, until a bug introduced in an upgrade causes a performance or operability regression, introduces an even worse security bug, or is otherwise problematic. At worst, you could automate yourself into an outage.

IMO good reliability practices counsel against this approach, certainly not without testing these upgrades in a staging environment first.

<comment><USER4> In Telekube we have hybrid auto updates with fallback to manual in case if things go wrong, so we can recover:

[https://gravitational.com/docs/cluster/#performing- upgrade](https://gravitational.com/docs/cluster/#performing-upgrade)

<comment><USER3> How does this play out in an actual failure scenario? How can a administrator detect failures? Does it apply to the entire OS, including kernel upgrades, or just your own software?

<comment><USER4> Imagine etcd or docker fails during the upgrade on one of the master nodes.

Our monitoring system - satellite will report failure to the upgrade process that will stop.

Administrator will use our diagnostic utility to diagnose the problem, fix it and proceed with upgrade from the last failed step, but in the manual mode.

> Does it apply to the entire OS, including kernel upgrades, or just your own > software?

Right now it only applies to our software

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why not just spin up fresh nodes and age out the old ones?

See: pets vs cattle

<comment><USER6> One reason I could see is if upgrading in place is substantially faster or cheaper than migrating data to new ones.

For instance, if the nodes are storage nodes in a redundant storage system, taking each one offline briefly for a reboot, and letting the others handle the slightly higher load, is a lot quicker than spinning up a new node and replicating all of the data over there so you can de-provision the old one.

Also, even if they don't have a lot of data, the time and resulting expense of spinning up and provisioning a new node while the old one is still online could add up to higher costs than just performing a reboot during a point of lower load.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is pretty neat. We accomplished something similar but simpler. We use unattended reboots with randomised selection of time throughout 24 hours. Drain node with a script. Not perfect but simple to do and setup.

</comment><comment><USER8> Even though unattended upgrade is a good idea, it may cause further bugs.</comment>


Happy Birthday, Gnutella: Pioneering P2P Protocol Turns Ten - <AUTHOR> http://newteevee.com/2010/03/20/happy-birthday-gnutella-pioneering-p2p-protocol-turns-ten

<comment><USER2> Justin Frankel is my hero. I learned so much programming from his releases. I remember having a fully printed and annotated copy of the Waste source code.

He is one of those extremely rare programmers of the "too smart to need unit tests" type and he can come up with paradigm shifting code by hacking on something in a weekend.

All his utilities were fully dependency free, straight up C code that compiled something epic into a 50kb executable. Back in the day I had a job which paid a substantial bonus for every kilobyte that I managed to shave off the executable binary size ( 14.4 baud modem days ) and his code as well as all the code from the 4k and 64k demo scene that was available was my only reference material.

I lost track of what he is up to these days, but I hope he found much happiness after the apparently tough AOL time.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of this comment too: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012496>

_I thought I was pretty good until I worked with the guy who made Winamp. It took me a couple weeks to make some enhancements to their add-ons site. It took him a couple weeks to write his own version of Pro Tools._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Those were the days. I remember how there used to be so many arguments and petty battles about which protocol or extension to use, and all the incompatible clients and how one client maker would add an extension that would break other clients. There were so many vested interests, including the music industry giants who also had their internal clients being developed.

And the bittorrent came and overtook all of them pretty quickly.

The file-sharing scene looked calm from the outside, but on the inside the wars and the intrigues were vicious.</comment>


The Home Information Terminal (1970) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/hoter2.pdf

<comment><USER2> > Advertising in the sense of something that can force itself on the attention > of a reader will disappear because it will be too easy to read via a program > that screens out undesirable material [10]

> [10] This hasn't really happened yet.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Paper written by John Mccarthy that shows the projected future in the 70's of users remotely logging into large computers to use the Internet and applications.

From the abstract:

"This article was published in _Man and Computer. Proc. int. Conf., Bordeaux 1970, pp. 48-57 (Karger, Basel 1972)_. It is interesting to compare its 1970 proposals with the current situation, 30 years later. I have decorated it with footnotes commenting on the 1970 situation and making comparisons. Some of the improvements advocated in the paper are still yet to come. I claim quite a few prophet points for it."

Notable mentions in this paper:

\+ Worries about ways that the Internet as we know it might not have happened. (eg. Getting stuck in the compuserve trap.)

\+ Paid for publishing model that we still don't have because micropayments are broken.

\+ Self publishing for authors in the vein that Amazon now allows

\+ The possibility of the system allowing for Orwellian editing because of centralization.

\+ 3D printing/computer controlled manufacturing as a service.

\+ In-depth discussion of the realities of resource usage and costs of computer hardware at the time of writing. (Eye opening if nothing else as to how indebted we are to Moore's law.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Does this paper establish prior art for a whole bunch of software patents?</comment>


Ask HN: What do you want from a coffee startup? - <AUTHOR> Coffee is a saturated market, but there's lots of room for innovation in the field. I've been involved in a coffee startup for about a year now and since joining the team I've come to realize there's a lot of potential, but not much in the way of innovative ideas. Coffee is one of the largest industries in the world right now and with that comes lots of problems, one of the biggest being it is a major contributor to human trafficking across the globe. Human rights violation aside, though: What does HN want from coffee? <comment><USER2> Every time someone raves to me that their mega-awesome-omg-you-have-to-try- this Third Wave coffee is the best coffee I'll ever try, I have to squint at them real hard and say "Your coffee tastes and smells exactly like less expensive coffee and you're too caught up in the pretention to realize it." Well, I don't say it out loud because then I'd lose friends, but I definitely think it at them.

If you want to expand the coffee market, popularize a US or EU coffee that is actually different instead of just magic wand "better". Open a bag of any ultra-fresh top brand lovingly picked and roasted by elves and unicorns American coffee and then open a bag of Sang Tao from Vietnam and stick your nose in both of them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I used to feel the same way until I was recruited into the coffee business ;) Our coffee is most definitely not American but it's also not Vietnamize for the reason mentioned in the main post: trafficking. We have personal relationships with all the plantations we use to help ensure a direct trade product line. But in all honesty your first statement is exactly the kind of customer we want to target and further educate. If you were an average Joe content with Starbucks what do you think would make you switch to something new?

<comment><USER2> Sure, let's talk about average Joe content with Starbucks. Maybe the problem isn't that Joe just doesn't know any better. Maybe the problem is that Joe actually likes Starbucks coffee. I mean, people rag on Starbucks all day long, and I'm sure Starbucks cries all the way to the bank. If I were you trying to attract Joe, I'd think very specifically about the qualities of Starbucks coffee and being that but better. And if you can't fathom the idea of debasing yourself, I guess try to get out and find people who actually really like it and talk to them about it.

But let's talk about me for a moment. The idea that I (or Joe for that matter) just need to be educated to be brought over to the shining holy light is a bit perverse. I've been there and done that already. I've traveled the coffee world, from the US to Colombia to Morocco to Italy to Jamaica to Vietnam, and had coffee from dozens of people who "No really, this time we mean it" care about fondling every bean from dirt to drink and who think it makes an iota of difference outside of their dreams. Excepting the arabic coffee method, which I'm not talking about here, it just doesn't mean much. It makes fine coffee, sure, maybe, but it doesn't make _memorable_ coffee. Only one coffee bean I've ever had was actually memorable. It sticks with me everywhere I go after hundreds of different coffees. When I go to a new country or city I go way out of my way to find it. Only one. And it's not because someone is best buddies with the farmer.

Now we can get back to Joe. Maybe what Joe likes about Starbucks coffee is that their preparations, for all of the hemming and hawing about how they ruin their beans or spoil the experience by self-professed coffee devotees, are actually memorable. If you want to target Joe, maybe start with a coffee that Joe and I don't have to already love. It's not my child, it's my drink.

<comment><USER3> > Only one coffee bean I've ever had was actually memorable. It sticks with me > everywhere I go after hundreds of different coffees. When I go to a new > country or city I go way out of my way to find it. Only one.

Oh come on, don't be a tease.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I thought it was clear that it was Sang Tao, which I'd mentioned in my first post. Good luck finding it outside of a Vietnamese import shop. They have a numbered line that goes from 1-8 that gets progressively more expensive. But don't think that you have to get the 8. It's more expensive but not necessarily better. Personally I think you can do some really magical things with the 1. Opening the bag punches you in the back of the nose like you've just cut into a steaming hot chocolate lava cake. That's not an exaggeration.

<comment><USER4> Its on Amazon, like everything else. Will give it a shot.

<comment><USER2> In the US that's certainly true. I'm always amazed at how poor Amazon is in other countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Three distinct phases:

1\. I don't know what I like. Help me out? Make it easy to taste a lot of different coffees, grinds, preparation methods... and take notes on what I like.

2\. I know what I like. Make it cheap and easy for me to get the 2-3 things I like consistently over a long time period.

3\. I know what I like, but I'd like to try something new. Make recommendations for me and make it easy to try the recommendations.

Some people will go through all three phases, some are in phase 2 forever, some will cycle.

</comment><comment><USER6> Honestly and my addiction aside, I don't have coffee problems for pretty much the same reasons I don't have gasoline problems or electricity problems or water problems. There's a well developed industrial infrastructure that provides access to reasonable quality products and standardized machines to process it.

If there's one problem that I have, it's the problem that comes from coffee being a commodity: price. That's not always a good problem for a startup to try to solve.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER7> This isn't a fully formed idea by any means, but here's my experience with coffee:

Grinding at the time of use is the single best thing one can do to improve their coffee, and probably matters more than the brewing process, the equipment, the beans used, etc. Most people (in my experience) tend to buy pre-ground beans.

First thought is can you include a grinder in your subscription? A grinder is pretty expensive, so probably not, which means either some creative marketing to get people to buy one up-front, or maybe repositioning yourself as "you've bought a grinder/cafetiere/aeropress - now what?" sort of educational brand, and market in shops where equipment is sold?

Alternatively, the gifting market might be a good way to sell a grinder with a small subscription, people more willing to pay $80 up front for the grinder if they are paying for 6 months in advance.

<comment><USER8> To follow up on the grinder idea: is there a way to individually seal pre- ground coffee in a way that means it doesn't lose the aromatics or whatever it is it loses in the first 15 minutes? Maybe look into what coffee pods use to seal coffee? It might be Nitrogen sealed?

<comment><USER7> Individually sealed portions are much more expensive per-cup, and therefore nowhere near as accessible. Also sealed coffee is still not the same as freshly ground - it's a big step up from non-sealed, but not the same at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been drinking "bulletproof coffee" lately as part of a diet. Basically coffee with butter, coconut oil, and flavia. Supposedly gives me good fats and no sugar to serve as a mini-meal and help me keep a fast. The one thing about it is that it's tedious to prepare in the morning. Maybe that's a hint that there could a business selling "health" coffee drinks, coffee with supplements, etc. That's one thing I really haven't seen offered commercially.

<comment><USER10> Have you a recipe for that? It sounds disgustingly fascinating!

<comment><USER9> It's a branded thing from a guy who wrote a book called the Bulletproof Executive. He uses MCG oil instead of coconut oil. I heard about it from Ace of Spades's blog. Ace is on a diet called "intermittent fasting" and he writes about the coffee here: [http://ace.mu.nu/archives/364949.php](http://ace.mu.nu/archives/364949.php)

I can't testify as to its magical properties, but it _does_ help me get through several hours without breakfast and tastes great.

For me it's one large k-cup of coffee with:

1 tbsp unsalted butter

~1 tbsp coconut oil

1 packet Flavia sweetener

pinch of cinnamon

Get an immersion blender (a little hand-held device that looks like an O-shaped coil at the end of a wire) and use it to mix it all up frothy...

<comment><USER10> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I buy coffee beans in bulk, fair trade organic.

I keep it in the freezer, but even just a few weeks after opening, the flavor of the beans aren't like the zest of the original unsealing of the vacuum sealed bag.

I would like something like 1 oz sealed bags of beans that I can buy in bulk. Maybe even larger sizes. That way, every time I grind, I am getting that freshly-opened flavor.

Bonus: with smaller bags, you can sell sampler packs, flights, or varieties to people who are looking to sample your blends.

<comment><USER12> And with a bio-degradable packaging.

<comment><USER11> Or at least recyclable

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You seem to be contradicting yourself, on the one hand you say there's lots of room for innovation, then on the other you say have no innovative ideas!

Coffee really is a saturated market though and it's hard to see how you'd be able to break into it, for what it's worth I think maybe a 'beginners guide' to coffee could be a good starting point, there's so many different options, mocha, latte, espresso etc something explaining them would be good!

<comment><AUTHOR> We do have concepts in play, but we're in the middle of pivoting the brand and I personally was just wondering what HN might be interested in seeing! :) A simplified coffee guide is a good idea and we will definitely keep that in mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Idea: Combine a dollar shave club subscription service with learning.

User gets a starterpack deal, which includes some beans and a nice mug and a french press or something. Then, you'd have a series of videos/tutorials teaching the user how to use the tools and how to make great coffee. There'd be a monthly subscription to refill the users coffee supply and provide new tools to make even better coffee. This goes on until the user has learned to make great coffee, at which point you can continue to supply them coffee beans.

Market it as easy for the user, and worthwhile because they get a new skill out of it.

The important point is proving the learning and the goods, that way you can retain users. Think Blue Apron, but they taught you how to cook and also sold you ingredients.

<comment><USER14> Already exists: [http://www.thekitchn.com/10-coffee-subscriptions-to-try- so-y...](http://www.thekitchn.com/10-coffee-subscriptions-to-try-so-you-can- have-your-coffee-beans-delivered-to-your-door-220420)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would like coffee beans, cream and other flavoring/supplies to be delivered to my door, then automatically stored and later specialized coffee prepared and served by a robotic barista every morning or on command. The robot barista can charge itself and then store itself in the closet when not needed.

If possible it could also clean the toilet, but that is not 100% a requirement.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd like "coffees from around the world". I don't mean the geographical location of the beans, but the way it's made. I've tried to order café con leche in the US many times and have only once ever gotten what I wanted: the milk or cream wasn't foamy, it was smooth (but still scalded).

Also, ceramic coffee cups with vibrant designs painted on them. Priced between $18-$22

</comment><comment> yoz-y I wonder what is the actual addressable market size. For example I know my needs are very well covered by Nespresso as my main requirements are fast brewing, easy manipulation, no washing necessary.

Maybe there would be a way to convert people like me (and I suppose we are in majority) to something fancier? I currently pay around 0.40€ per dose but I would be prepared to pay a bit more.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not long ago (historically speaking) one could get a cuppa joe for one thin dime. Not great, but usually drinkable. So with inflation the equivalent would be a quarter. A basic affordable cup of coffee could have a significant market.

<comment><USER18> Pre-made? If you're making your own coffee, using relatively cheap coffee, I'd calculate to about 11 cents per cup.

~$5 for a cheap rolly bag, those usually last me about 2 weeks at ~3 cups per day. Even if my estimates are terribly wrong, we're talking a couple cents difference.

If your problem is with coffee you buy at a shop, then I think the issue is that you're paying for the wages of the person making the coffee too, and those have certainly gone up more than the rate of inflation since coffee was a dime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Come to Australia. Cafe scene is very unique compared to other counties. Starbucks flopped for this reason. People want to hang out in hip cafes selling good coffee.

<comment><AUTHOR> What makes it unique really? I can't really go a block in my current US city without running across some hipster independent coffee shop so I'm legitimately wondering what makes the scene in Australia unique in your opinion? It's something we would consider if the profit margin was worth it.

<comment><USER20> It's hard to point at one exact thing.

[http://www.goodfood.com.au/drinks/coffee/deconstructed- coffe...](http://www.goodfood.com.au/drinks/coffee/deconstructed-coffee-its- for-snobs-not-hipsters-says-melbourne-cafe-behind-beaker-brew-20160602-gp9wal)

That's kinda where Melbourne is at. It's almost post-hipster.

More seriously, there are a lot of places that do make really nice coffee. Beakers optional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I like my coffee fair (produced) and well roasted, which is really rare actually.

Its hard to give a more accurate answer without knowing what you do

<comment><AUTHOR> I mean, that's a good answer regardless. Right now, we are in the midst of a pivot on what we actually do, but what we have been doing is subscription based coffee that is fair trade and probably one of the best roasts you've ever tasted: All our coffee's have cupping scores hovering around a 90. For comparison, Starbucks' best cupping scores are in the mid 80s, and most of their house blends they serve on demand are somewhere in the high 70s. Folgers is in the mid 50s. We're currently looking to get more into the tech side of things...without giving away any company information, we're looking into some innovative hardware (I know, "hardware is hard") that hasn't been done yet on the consumer side of things.

<comment><USER21> Hardware is probably even harder in coffee. There are many etablishes brands doing very well done machines/grinders/whatever. Still interesting niche with a huge market. So whatever you go for, good luck! And kudos on the good roasting, i really hoped you dont bring up Starbucks as perfect example (as i've seen people do) and you didnt :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Cheap, fair, well-tasting, customizable, unique.

</comment><comment><USER23> People seem to start drinking coffee with sugar and cream, and slowly wane to black (if at all). I did a Google search, and I couldn't find any progress on genetic modification of coffee to produce sweeter beans. Most of the research seems to be related to caffeine content, pesticide interaction, and quality. I am not a geneticist or a plant biologist, so if there's an obvious reason why sweetening might not be possible, I can't see it. I would imagine that an inherently sweet coffee bean might be able to infiltrate the entire coffee market. I wonder how much Starbucks spends on sugar and syrup? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts, since you have been in this market for a year now.

Edit: Does Sweet Coffee Exist? [http://coffee.stackexchange.com/questions/2424/does-sweet- co...](http://coffee.stackexchange.com/questions/2424/does-sweet-coffee-exist)

According to this link, most people prefer sugar and cream. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/coffee-drinking- statistics/](http://www.statisticbrain.com/coffee-drinking-statistics/)</comment>


Women Who Contributed to Science but Were Buried in Footnotes - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/womens-history-in-science-hidden-footnotes/582472/ <comment><USER2> It's a pity that this interesting research into changing customs in science and publishing is so driven by a predetermined narrative.

They found women accounted for 59% of acknowledged programmers -- so 41% were men and got the same treatment. The obvious conclusion would be that _programming_ wasn't acknowledged the way it is now, but instead they push the narrative that they weren't acknowledged _because they were women_. Giving overlooked women in science some due attention is perfectly fine, but unwarranted conclusions about the causes for various situations aren't, in my opinion.

And the same with their explanation for how it changed. They state that it's in part because the work started being done by graduate students and postdocs, but then still conclude "Programmers, essentially, only became rewarded with authorship when they started becoming male." (and this "when" here is clearly intended to be read as a causal when). Of course there is a more plausible explanation, namely that men started becoming more interested in programming when it started presenting better opportunities for high-paying and high status jobs. Fully what is expected based on evolutionary psychology.

<comment><USER3> > She and her colleagues found that in the 1970s, women accounted for 59 > percent of acknowledged programmers, but just 7 percent of actual authors. > That decade was a pivotal time for the field of population genetics, when > the foundations of much modern research were laid. "Based on authorship at > the time, it seems that this research was conducted by a relatively small > number of independent individual scientists, nearly all of whom were men," > the team writes. But that wasn't the case.

Nice way of glossing over that section.

At some point you just have to reject the argument that it was "best intentions" or "that's just evolutionary psychology". It was only 45 years ago that the "Equal Credit Opportunity Act" was passed. There are still tons of weird attitudes about women and their contributions to society. One that I see often is that "Women select lower paying jobs", but I rarely see the obvious counter argument "why in the hell doesn't our economy reward women for raising the next generation of workers?", as they do 80% of the house work. Women are often ignored in history books, Texas even made an attempt to have Hillary Clinton completely removed.

This discussion is just one such example. There are mounds of evidence of the sexism in our society. There might be scientific reasons that it exists, but there is no scientific or ethical defense of it's continued existence. Whether in the workplace or at home, women have been supplying half of economic output for the entirety of our history, and it's time to stop pretending that it isn't the case, or that historically those in power were powerless against some natural economic state.

<comment><USER2> I'm not glossing over it, it's a different point. They are implying a causal link between the 7% and the 59% when they haven't demonstrated that. They show that individual authors got a lot of help that wasn't awarded with authorship. You can point out that nowadays this work would be worthy of authorship, and that women were somewhat overrepresented in the acknowledgements without authorship. That doesn't demonstrate the big claims of sexism they're stating/implying. If they showed men getting authorship for only the programming help, and women not getting authorship in comparable situations, that would be a different matter.

I didn't say sexism didn't (or doesn't) exist, there's plenty of other evidence that it did/does. I'm just saying it doesn't follow.

And if I say something can be explained by evolutionary psychology that doesn't mean that therefore it's fine, or that it couldn't be changed given the right system of incentives.

<comment><USER3> You made the suggestion that as programming work became a higher paying field that men suddenly looked for jobs there, due to "evolutionary psychology", without a lick of proof that it wasn't the other way around.

Perhaps programming work is really well paid now because Nintendo of America decided to advertise to boys, and then those boys grew up to become men who were interested in programming, and because men pay other men more than they offer women. Or perhaps because, as the SV folks like to say "They aren't a good culture fit" when interviewing female candidates.

> We used wage data and productivity data from the whole of New Zealand to > look at the reasons for the gender wage gap. We found that sexism (where > employers prefer to hire men rather than women, are more likely to reject > equally qualified women, or offer women less) is likely to be the most > important driver of the gender wage gap. This is opposed to women working in > low-paying industries or firms, being less productive, or being less > successful at bargaining. [1]

Of course it follows. It is undeniable that many centuries of sexism are going to take a lot of work to undo, and it isn't exactly easy when most religions followed the world over, by huge swaths of humanity, also belittle their contributions to society, and actually devalue them to be below men. These beliefs and stories have a major impact on what we do.

So I'm going to stick with sexism because it is most likely the correct answer.

[1] - [http://theconversation.com/women-paid-less-for-same- contribu...](http://theconversation.com/women-paid-less-for-same-contribution- to-work-and-sexism-is-to-blame-study-83052)

<comment><USER4> With the suggestion that "evolutionary psychology" isn't involved in men seeking higher income jobs, why is there an extreme correlation between income for men and having children, but not for women? Why is it that society reward rich men with larger social network, while women has on average larger social network than men that is not associated with income? perhaps, as people say, "Poor men aren't as attractive"...

> So I'm going to stick with sexism because it is most likely the correct > answer.

Personally I am sticking to the incentive model. A woman who prioritize other aspect in their work and personal life over income does not have fewer children, has the same social network size as other women, and get similar respect in society at old age. For men the opposite is true, where a man who make the same choices would end up (statistically) at the bottom of society, alone, childless, with no respect in old age. As a result low income men also has a lower life expectancy. Pretty strong incentives if you ask me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's really interesting how back in the 50s-70s, programming was considered boring, clerical women's work and the architecture side of things was considered men's work. The attitude at the time was that the men did the real work by writing flowcharts and the women were doing menial labour by turning those flowcharts into computer instructions. A lot of these women in the footnotes seem to be a footnote because of this consideration.

The Computer Girls is another interesting article about this attitude and how programming became masculised:

[http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/nensmeng/files/ensmenger- gende...](http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/nensmeng/files/ensmenger-gender.pdf)

<comment><USER6> Because in those days big part of "coding" was actually transcribing program logic into codes and then punching holes in cards for those codes. It was tedious and boring process. What we today call code monkeys is super-creative position compared to that.

<comment><USER7> This is a revisionist and false narrative, and I believe it may be inspired by the "just world fallacy": you may be inclined to believe the world couldn't actually be unfair to women, so you search for another reason why their contributions would actually have been less important.

Your narrative is historically incorrect. Women invented many of the things that made software engineering _less_ tedious, such as debuggers (Betty Holberton, 1945), subroutines (Kay McNulty, circa 1947), assemblers (Kathleen Booth, 1947), linkers (Grace Hopper, 1952), and compilers (Grace Hopper, 1954). Programmers have always strived to make their job easier. If you don't see these inventions as creative effort, I don't know how to help you.

Even the parts of programming that were tedious were still important. If you saw someone tediously programming in assembly code today, you might celebrate the effort.

The flowcharts that these women were handed by their managers were not "program logic". There were many _difficult_ details to work out about how to implement a program given the limited computing power of the time. You would not describe a manager today who draws a flowchart as having "written a program".

<comment><USER6> You jump to conclusions and project your own anger/frustrations that have absolutely nothing to do with me. First of all I totally agree with you that to women it was much harder to succeed in those times, there's no need to explain that to me. Second I never even mentioned gender issues anywhere, I was talking about the difference between what was called "programming" and what was "coding" back in those days. And of course women invented a lot of great stuff, but as you said yourself it was programming. And the coding part on the other hand was boring as hell, in order to write and run a program you had to do a lot of manual labour. It's just not comparable to anything today. You mention assembler, but imagine doing asm using only pen & paper, and then you give that program to someone else to turn it into holes on punched cards. And then you had to reserve some time to run that code on mainframe (where operator would run it for you and hand you back the results) and there was a usually a long waiting list for that, so if you've made any mistakes it would take days to get a chance to re-run it again. It was very different than coding today, involved more steps and more people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be interested to see a thorough breakdown of everybody, not just women, who were "buried in footnotes".

<comment><USER5> I find this kind of comment a bit off-putting.

Women deserve a focus.

Other people also deserve a focus. They should also get it.

But for now, this article is about giving women a focus. Talking about giving other people a focus seems to be an attempt to get the focus away from women or denying that they deserve it. It seems a bit like derailing. Given HN's overwhelming male demographics because computers and software are overwhelmingly male, it's a bit harmful to be talking about other people whenever women are mentioned.

For now, just read about women. That's a big chunk of the population. Later, read about other non-women people who also were left out. But give women a chance.

<comment><USER9> It's a bit like asking why there isn't a Straight Pride Month, really. Men in science haven't really been categorically underrepresented/excluded from science the way women ever have.

<comment><USER10> Representation is irrelevant, it has 0 value, and it is a silly game anyway, because you can just pick another arbitrary category. For example: blonde people are underrepresented, and so on. Is it interesting? No. Is it relevant? Not really.

<comment><USER11> Are blonde people systemically discriminated against through laws and broad cultural values?

<comment><USER10> Women and blacks are not "systemically discriminated against through laws" in most countries. I will emphasize that US and UK are not the countries in which they are.

And as to broad cultural values: I should have brought up gingers then, because I am sure you can agree to it that they are. Plus, you really cannot claim anything about the relevant people's cultural values and if they really have been a major influence on the decision of putting people in the footnotes, and that it was due to this people's biological sex. Why do you so want it to be the case? Why cannot it be something else, like something related to the contribution itself? That would definitely make more sense and would be more likely than some random, arbitrary attribute.

<comment><USER11> >Women and blacks are not "systemically discriminated against through laws" in most countries. I will emphasize that US and UK are not the countries in which they are.

This is patently and obviously false:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Banks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Banks)

>A 2017 study by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economists found that the practice of redlining—the practice whereby banks discriminated against the inhabitants of certain neighborhoods—had a persistent adverse impact on the neighborhoods, with redlining affecting homeownership rates, home values and credit scores in 2010.

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

>Low income black communities that have been segregated by social forces through city design have higher levels of criminal activity rates.

[https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show- ra...](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-racial- disparity-in-crack-sentencing)

>According to U.S. Sentencing Commission figures, no class of drug is as racially skewed as crack in terms of numbers of offenses. According to the commission, 79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were black, versus 10 percent who were white and 10 percent who were Hispanic. The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine cases are far less skewed: 17 percent of these offenders were white, 28 percent were black, and 53 percent were Hispanic. Combined with a 115-month average imprisonment for crack offenses versus an average of 87 months for cocaine offenses, this makes for more African- Americans spending more time in the prison system.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres- overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the- proof/)

>Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched after traffic stops, even though they proved to be 26 percent less likely to be in possession of illegal drugs or weapons.

[https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873](https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873)

>The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Footnotes are the most important text, in my opinion! I remember from college, to remember and study footnotes. Because, always (100% guarantee) exam questions come from those! Little golden nuggets of information are placed in those and reading them is habit, for me - through today!</comment>


Domain Name Seizures Potentially An Elaborate Hoax - <AUTHOR> http://grandgood.com/2010/11/27/domain-name-seizures-of-popular-rap-file-sharing-sites-potentially-an-elaborate-hoax/ <comment><USER2> I've wondered for a long time what 4chan vs the government would look like. They're unbelievably creative and resourceful (see [http://www.urlesque.com/2010/11/18/hot-topic-rage-guy- shirt-...](http://www.urlesque.com/2010/11/18/hot-topic-rage-guy-shirt-4chan- racism-troll/) for a good recent example). I figured they wouldn't go straight up against it, protesting in the street and writing emotional op-eds. They tried this once, with Scientology, and it didn't seem to get them anywhere. They're best at playing mind games and finding the most ironic ways possible to win, exploiting what they're given -- in this case, controversial domain seizure.

Good news doesn't travel nearly as far or as fast as bad news on the internet; some of us will read this post, assuming it turns out to be true, but not nearly as many and we won't react nearly as strongly as we did to the "WTF THE DHS IS SEIZING DOMAINS NOW" posts.

GWB was a pretty disastrous presidency, but it didn't usually threaten to impact the internets' daily lives as much as some things now are. The internet is beginning to get mad at the government, and the trolls are heading to Washington. 4chan is the internet's immune system.

<comment><USER3> _I've wondered for a long time what 4chan vs the government would look like._

V&

<comment><USER2> I disagree, though, because it's more subtle than that. I mean yeah if they started threatening people or stuff they'd get shut down pretty fast, but they're master trolls and aren't that stupid. I actually think remarkably few of them would get partyvanned -- and that as the vanning ratio increased, it would be totally counterproductive for the authorities and only serve to inflame things further.

<comment><USER4> They aren't master trolls by any stretch of the imagination. The race guy/rage guy tactic was creative, probably the most creative thing I've seen them pull off in a while. It worked for 2 days, before hot topic figured it out.

If this was a hoax, the government would simply say, "no, that wasn't us. We're looking into it." That would be the end of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What about this statement:

""ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names," said Cori W. Bassett, a spokeswoman for ICE"

from <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html>? Seems to confirm that at least some of the seizures actually happened.

<comment><USER6> I think they seized some domains, but not necessarily the ones this article is talking about. If this is a hoax, it works particularly well, as ICE does't seem to have confirmed which domains it has seized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am very curious of 4Chan's "Anonymous" userbase.

Most community structures have identifiable leaderships of some kind yet 4Chan has no usernames and no way of communicating provenance of a given user -- either in terms of reflecting reputation or simply being able to accurately know that two posts in a thread were by the same person/the OP/etc.

Hoaxes and stunts like this _(if this is true)_ are either truly, truly remarkable or the work of a closer sub-set of folks who are in more private inter-communication away from 4Chan for the purposes of coordination but represent themselves to be part of the massive 4Chan community, perhaps for plausible deniability more than anything. It also makes wonderful fodder for the media to make even more of a FUD story out of.

Given that most of 4Chan does seem to be bored teenagers posting pornography, penis jokes and occasionally child pornography I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.

<comment><USER8> Actually, there is such a concept as usernames on 4chan. I forget what they call them, but using a special syntax in the username field that includes a password of your choosing, the resulting post will look slightly different and have a hash next to your username that will always be the same for all of your posts. Of course, it's completely optional and most users opt for anonymity.

<comment><USER9> "tripcodes". NSFW: <http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Tripcode>

> It works like this: In the name field, type a name, followed by #, followed > by a password (or phrase, whatever). Then send a message as usual. You'll > then see your name, followed by said 'gook. You should then promptly close > your browser and GTFO the internets for wanting recognition on an anonymous > message board.

They've been allowed and disallowed on /b/ at various points in time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wild West Domains is GoDaddy, so strike bullet 3 off the conspiracy theory.

</comment><comment><USER11> new SEO strategy: add the image, get millions of links, rank well...profit

</comment><comment><USER12> Even is this is a hoax, it serves well to keep vigilant when dealing with something important as freedom of speech and censorship. Luckily the online community hadn't fallen asleep yet.

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting. If it's a hoax, it's very well done. And a good reminder of how the world is going to look with the ACTA in place.

</comment><comment><USER14> We'll know Monday once the thanksgiving weekend is over and any details are posted to ICE.</comment>


Dollar vans, NYC's other transit system - <AUTHOR> https://queenseagle.com/all/dollar-van-transit-system <comment><USER2> A NYC redditor posted a fascinating how-to about Dollar Vans 6 months ago: [https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/ap4t6k/dont_be_intimid...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/ap4t6k/dont_be_intimidated_a_beginners_guide_to_taking/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The model of having large vehicles that pick up a bunch of people, but drop each person off exactly at their doorstep, is something that has been repeatedly proposed for self-driving vehicles in the future (by Tesla and others). I wonder if these dollar vans provide clues about what such a system could look like at an even larger scale.

<comment><USER4> Most of the reason this works is because vans usually have a mid-range capacity between a car and a bus (10-20 people). 4-seater cars are not economical to do like this, and buses are too big to fill up, and when they're full everyone wants to get off at every stop. The vans with their smaller capacity fill up fast and then only drive to let people off.

Judging by the way dollar vans and similar minibus manifestations work in other places I've been to, there are a couple of things to note here:

\- They're not purely pickup/dropoff at the house. They're dropoff at the house, but to pick up you have to walk to the street where they're all usually running. And one end of it is a major pickup location; in the case of these vans, usually a subway station.

\- Because they only drive off when full, they only make trips where one end of the route is a major pickup location, creating a hub-and-spoke network. Traveling between spokes is something that these vans do very poorly, because there aren't nearly as many people doing that.

\- At said major pickup point, they will usually cause major traffic congestion as they weave in and out of traffic and around each other. Several cities in South America (e.g. Bogota) replaced minibus-only systems with BRT or more formalized public transport because of the benefits of reducing congestion.

<comment><USER5> This is exactly how transport worked when I was a kid in India.

A nearby city is hub of everything, doctor, shops, food, fashion, ration everything. 15-20 villages are between the next similar city. A single bus starts from City A, usually empty in morning, & picks along people on the way to City B. There,it turns around, & conductors start shouting City A & Villages names, along with dramatic words like Leaving Soon, Hurry Up, Almost Full, Lets Go, Run etc. But it will run only at either its designated time, or if full, whichever is earlier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds a bit like Marshrutkas, which are cheap vans that function as the primary "public transit" system in many post-Soviet cities.

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

<comment><USER7> Gallineras (or just "bus") or chicken buses are this concept as a (beautiful) school bus in central and some central American countries. As well as "collectivos" which are the van version.

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

<comment><USER8> Chicken buses are awesome. I've been on the one from the second picture in Nicaragua. Someone even had a chicken. The best part is most of them still have US school system wording on the side. I remember seeing "School System of Milwaukee" or something similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I thought they were talking about the jitney buses run by companies like Spanish Transit from Paterson <-> NYC. They're absolutely vital means of transport when the trains are reliably behind schedule (as they currently almost always are) or when the NJTransit buses aren't running on time because of some unknown issue.

I wish they would expand their offerings, because I live and work at two major points of their routes (except that it's different routes) and if they closed the triangle, I'd be able to avoid using Uber or Lyft.

<comment><USER10> `vital means of transport` - definitely disagree here, those "buses" are also dangerous (constant harassment) and also no AC in the summer, drivers openly smoke while driving with passengers in those. I would think those vans are a horrible way of commuting and local authorities don't inspect or monitor those at all.

<comment><USER9> Never had a driver who smoked yet. On the other hand, tell me something, how do you get from Paterson or Passaic to NYC or Union City in less than an hour and at an affordable rate? NJTransit is slow whether it's train or bus, and they're at the absolute upper limit of being affordable. When I say they're vital, I absolutely mean it. For those of who have relied on the buses in and out of the City, the NJTransit option simply isn't viable on a daily basis compared to far more reliable and numerous jitneys. Uber & Lyft are simply out of the question on the basis of cost.

Oh, and add in the fact that for those of us who live in Jersey and _cannot_ drive, options are limited overall.

<comment><USER10> I use NJ transit buses (check 190, practically the same route). Was using those small buses you are talking about and it was a complete nightmare. Agree that it's not consistent but after a while You get to experience stuff that is just horrendous!

Also the fact that decayed commuting services like that are considered vital for some commuters is a sign of how bad of a state NJ infrastructure is in. Those busses are a clear sign of corruption and a symptom of a much larger problem.

<comment><USER9> I live within three blocks of the 190 & 74 in Passaic, and only need to walk a few minutes to reach either Passaic or Delawanna stations. That should tell you my neighborhood pretty well. I only take the 190 if I'm going specifically to Rutherford or Secaucus. Otherwise, the jitney takes half the time for less money, or about the same time when bound for Paterson. Difference is that they run 4x more often. You're absolutely right on one point, though. NJTransit is a disgusting system; and it needs a real overhaul - the kind that Murphy is afraid to try because he's so focused on trying to shove through his legal pot. Does he think everyone's going to get high and ignore all his failures?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> During a snow storm/PABT outage this past winter, I observed a jitney line from 8th ave down halfway to 10th. It's pretty crazy to see the mishmash of alternative transit modes people will piece together when their main route (NJT, PATH, NJ bus, etc) goes offline.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've spent a fair bit of time driving in New York City, since the early 90's. When is autonomous driving ever going to get to NYC? It sometimes seems insane to drive there. I have a hard time imagining computer drivers being able to deal with NYC human drivers. (Same goes for Boston, only more so.)

<comment><USER13> What is it about the driving that doesn't seem reasonable for a computer to deal with? I've never been.

Often what appears to be hard is because it hits things that are hard for humans. Full 360 degree constant coverage isn't a problem, fast reaction times are easy (so if it's about quickly stopping/starting that should be easily better). Complex parts come from more "human" standards, if you can only come out of a junction easily by making eye contact with an oncoming car for example.

<comment><USER14> > What is it about the driving that doesn't seem reasonable for a computer to > deal with?

Computers are still learning how to deal with freeway driving, why do you think city driving isn't a harder problem?

> Complex parts come from more "human" standards, if you can only come out of > a junction easily by making eye contact with an oncoming car for example.

If you want computers to drive alongside humans, this is still a valuable piece of information.

<comment><USER13> I didn't say it was easier, but was wondering what would make it so much more difficult that the other user had a hard time imagining it.

> If you want computers to drive alongside humans, this is still a valuable > piece of information.

Valuable is different from required though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The Caribbean islands have a lot of these types of vans on ring roads and elsewhere. So cheap and nice and fast and amazingly decorated in some cases. But forget seatbelts and be prepared to squeeze. Was really $1 in the Caribbean though when I was there briefly.

</comment><comment><USER16> >The license costs $550, according to the TLC website. After getting a license, a driver needs to get their van insured, which can cost around $15,000 a year, Clarke and several van drivers told the Eagle.

Well no wonder there's many unlicensed vans. They way the incentives are set up they may as well print "don't even bother" at the top of the license form in big bold letters.

With those kinds of costs in addition to the cost of running the van you'd be making pennies. Run unlicensed and on normal insurance (or better yet, read the statutes and figure out where the risk/reward sweet spot is) and you'd save a ton of money. If you don't have a lot of money or a legitimate business that needs protecting then it's a no brainier.

Edit: Down-voting me won't make running above the table any more financially attractive. If the insurance made financial sense the state wouldn't need to force them to get it or at the very least it would not be the owner's primary gripe. Most small businesses love to advertise their credentials and how insured they are. Every other business complains about labor cost and regulation. These guys are complaining about insurance. That should be a massive tip off that something is wrong.

<comment><USER17> The costs of running a commercial service are always higher. Between insurance, licensing, generally stricter rules on technical aspects (like periodic service checks, etc.) you start spending a lot. The liability is a lot higher for these cases.

This is exactly why Uber went the route of "we're just a tech company even the drivers are basically driving taxis". Having those drivers conform to the same rules would have made the fare just as expensive as a taxi fare.

<comment><USER18> But should the costs be higher?

So much of these costs are protectionist measures implemented by government to protect the interests of established businesses.

To borrow a turn of phrase from the gun rights camp, business licenses, if they exist at all, should be low-cost and shall-issue.

<comment><USER19> So much of them are necessary measures to protect people, though. The trouble is distinguishing the two.

For example, medallions are obviously and pretty explicitly a protectionist measure. On the other hand requirements to display fares clearly and use an approved meter are there to help customers from being ripped off.

<comment><USER20> Medallions protect against the negative of there being too many taxis, causing congestion and revenue loss for drivers, which would lead to more dangerous driving and poorly maintained vehicles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I haven't taken these in a while but there is a huge word by mouth van system that connects the five Burroughs (besides SI). Someone tried using huge coach bus equivalent and was offering $1 a ride but that got shut down pretty quickly because of apparent traffic issues these coach bus were making.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm curious what makes these succeed in NYC while Chariot failed in SF.

<comment><USER23> It's a grey market system. Don't really have to heed to regulations and investors. And they're all privately owned and decentralized.</comment></comment>