Sign up for the SICP Blitz in London happening in June - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JsHmDYfG_HdIAb5Eeya_LFu6MZVJRoU7ufJEzbJv2SQ/viewform

<comment><USER2> I'm slightly baffled by the structure:

"[We will be] completing 3 exercises from each chapter of SICP over 6 weeks, one chapter a week after the kickoff."

Firstly, my edition and the linked edition only have 5 chapters. Secondly, it's unclear if it means those 5 sections as the chapters, or the smaller subsections (1.1, 1.2, etc).

If they mean the big chapters, then this seems way, way, too fast (with not enough exercises), and if it's the subsections then it still seems like too few exercises.

I've been doing one subchapter each week, completing at least half the exercises in each section. It's been a pretty good pace, I think, and I'd probably recommend it to people with similar amounts of free time to me. I'm coming from a maths background and have no previous CompSci experience (save a tiny bit of Python).

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not quite sure why this a) is restricted to 15 people or b) requires sponsorship as from the information there it seems to be essentially a book- club type format. Perhaps I'm missing something - are there not already groups/clubs that get together and do things like this?

</comment><comment><USER4> just an fyi (and a bit of a shameless, and useless, plug) - I was leading an active SICP study group in London from Jan - Apr. <http://www.meetup.com/London-SICP-Study-Group/>.

<comment><USER5> Would you mind sharing your experience a bit more. What was the format of the meeting? what did you aim to get out it? How did you advertise the venue? Was it formal teaching or was everyone expected to read on their own and only discuss interesting points, solve exercises etc? Anything else you might want to mention.

Basically, I'm interested in organizing something similar in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and I'm interested in other organizer's experience with this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 'Blitz' name is a bit tasteless.

This is what I don't get: this appears to be a self-study group, targeted at hacker-type personalities who want to expand their minds. BUT on the other hand, you're restricting it to an elite audience by turning the signup form into a job interview.

This does not strike me as sensible.

<comment><USER7> "'Blitz' name is a bit tasteless."

The only way I can see that it is really tasteless is if it refers to the Sweet hit of the early 70s:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballroom_Blitz>

<comment><USER8> WW2

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz>

<comment><USER7> My point being that if a cheesy pop song from the 70s can safely use the name "Blitz" and be quite succesful I can't see any harm in using the same term 40 years later.

<comment><USER9> Using it about a London event shows a degree of historical ignorance that a knowledge of glam rock's excesses is tangential to at best.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a commonly used word over here in the UK, no one finds it offensive/painful to hear - it just means fast/quick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wish there was one in my area

</comment><comment><USER9> There must have been better names for the event than a "Blitz'.

<comment><USER11> Errmmmm don't think anyone is offended by the word blitz, or ever has been. It's a pretty common term over here (UK) to describe a period of intense activity of any kind. Everyone from soldiers to school teachers use it.

e.g we need to blitz the sink - we need to clean it thoroughly and/or quickly.</comment></comment>


Experimental Ebola vaccine appears safe, prompts immune response - <AUTHOR> http://www.nih.gov/news/health/nov2014/niaid-28.htm <comment><USER3> I am excited, but I would rather wait until a Phase 3 result before getting my hopes up. Phase 1 is just to verify that the vaccine doesn't kill you all by itself.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Phases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Phases)

It might also be good to remember some of the history around why this structure is in place.

The Battle to Beat Polio: [http://youtu.be/qMRgQhbSyqs?t=18m50s](http://youtu.be/qMRgQhbSyqs?t=18m50s)

<comment><USER4> In the case of vaccines, phase one trials tell you if there's an immune response to the antigen being used. This is a good first approximation of effectiveness.

The level of response could still be too low, but at least there's something happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's been a while since I've seen anything on HN about the Ebola outbreak.. so here's the current news if anyone's interested:

Number of Ebola infections in west Africa passes 16,000 [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/ebola- infection...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/ebola-infections- west-africa-16000)

CDC chart: [http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west- africa/cumu...](http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west- africa/cumulative-cases-graphs.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Cool. I hope they now try giving the virus to health workers in west Africa rather than mucking about with US trials while thousands die out there.

<comment><USER6> For those down voting, there are about 1500 new cases a week currently of which say 1000 will die. If you delay using the vaccine for a couple of years while doing normal phase 2 and 3 trials then even with linear growth that would be approx 100,000 nasty deaths. In comparison about the worst that has happened using vaccines too early was about 20 people killed in by the early polio vaccines and accidental deaths now would probably be about zero given better science. Would it be worth having 100,000 extra deaths so conventional procedures can be respected? Why not proceed in a way calculated to minimise overall deaths and suffering?

<comment><USER7> One thing you're forgetting is that it'll take a Maximum Effort to actually get mass quantities of people vaccinated. Especially if the vaccine requires refrigeration.

This, in an environment where fear, a common feature to all deadly epidemics, is a primary driving force.

Any significant fraction of vaccine administrations resulting in morbidity or mortality, or having to do it all over again with an actually effective vaccine ... well, it won't end well. I'm not sure you'd get a second try with another one.

<comment><USER8> Yes. But notice that the original poster said to give this thing to health care workers first. I think that's a fairly reasonable position to take given that the confidence in the safety of the vaccine is high, and that even if the health care workers were given the vaccine, they should be following the same decontamination/personal protection protocols anyways (for person health reasons - no vaccine is 100% perfect and for public health reasons - <USER2> minimizes cross infection).

In addition, it is possible to do accelerated Phase 2/3 in Africa. This is also a compromise position. In this scheme, they would likely dispense a few thousand vaccines in a relatively highly developed, but still high risk area to aid in their ability to track efficacy. From the NIH FAQ on Ebola vaccines ([http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/Pages/EbolaVaxResultsQA.asp...](http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/Pages/EbolaVaxResultsQA.aspx))

      Given the encouraging results of the bivalent version of the NIAID/GSK experimental Ebola vaccine at the NIH Clinical Center, are there plans for Phase 2/3 clinical trials in West Africa?

      NIAID is in active discussions with Liberian officials and other partners about next-stage vaccine testing in West Africa. The goal of these studies would be to test efficacy and safety of the NIAID/GSK vaccine compared to other Ebola vaccine candidates prior to wider vaccine distribution. Phase 2/3 clinical trials are designed to inform efficacy—whether or not the vaccine works—and provide additional critical safety data. Plans for such studies are dependent on additional safety and immunogenicity data derived from the currently ongoing clinical trials. Announcements about larger-scale testing will not be made until early 2015.

Keep in mind that is basically is impossible to do Phase 2 and 3 testing in North America given the fact that there basically isn't any Ebola there at all.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. And after testing it on volunteers in the U.K. and maybe US (it is being tested in Bethesda by the NIH, I don't know the timing), this particular vaccine is being tested on volunteer healthcare workers in Mali, see e.g. [http://www.citypress.co.za/news/africas-first-ebola- vaccine-...](http://www.citypress.co.za/news/africas-first-ebola-vaccine- trial-starts-mali/) (I think they've tested it on more people since that article, you no doubt want to go a bit slowly since many of the worst reactions are fairly quick). And I think there are some other African locations scheduled.

Vaccines and epidemics are a pretty well understood concepts after all (ignore the "public health" types who are obsessed with lifestyle etc. issues to the detriment of infectious diseases, like the current head of the CDC), there's no surprise people are attempting to Do The Right Thing with these candidate vaccines. E.g. as I note elsewhere in this discussion, this one is in the process of being produced at an intermediate scale of 10,000 doses, which is a necessary step before true mass production.

<comment><USER6> Update - they do seem to be trying to crack on:

"Ebola Vaccine May Be Ready as Early as January 2015"

"If further clinical trials result in an effective vaccine, health care workers who treat those with Ebola will likely be the first to receive it."

[http://newsone.com/3074615/ebola-vaccine-may-be-ready-as- ear...](http://newsone.com/3074615/ebola-vaccine-may-be-ready-as-early-as- january-2015/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What it's cost?

<comment><USER10> That's not nearly as interesting a question as "Is it _patented_?".

<comment><USER11> Well it's really nearly the same question isn't it?

<comment><USER10> No, not really. If it _is_ patented, the owner of the patent might charge a lot for it, or they might give out licenses cheaply out of the goodness of their hearts. If it is _not_ patented, it might be cheap if there are many manufacturers, or it might be expensive if there are few manufacturers (for whatever reason). It might also be intrinsically expensive to manufacture, in which case the result will also necessarily be expensive.

So really, the questions are nearly _completely_ unrelated.

<comment><USER12> The cost to manufacture is still quite interesting.

<comment><USER7> Although in this era of modern biotechnology, especially for a 3rd World targeted vaccine, it would be appalling to develop one that was expensive to manufacture. I.e. nothing like the standard old flu vaccine, which is grown in the membranes of chicken eggs, yielding about 3 doses from each egg. Compare to e.g. the Protein Sciences method, which uses genetically modified insect cells in a bioreactor, which as I recall produces about 100,000 doses in a week or so (although it normally takes another 5-7 weeks to finish the vaccine once a batch of raw antigen is done).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Url changed from [http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ebola- vaccine-...](http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ebola-vaccine- passes-first-human-trial), which quotes from it without referencing it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Convenient timing!

</comment><comment><USER15> Well why are we not starting to mass produce it then? Yeah yeah normally we would wait years and do a lot of tests but people are dying _now_ and we have already given experimental medication, so that ethical level has been crushed.

<comment><USER16> So should we pay millions of dollars to any company that claims they have a vaccine to Ebola, just because they say they do? It's not free - so we can't just mass produce whatever miracle drug someone claims to have and keep our fingers crossed that it works.

<comment><USER17> We can't? [http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/canadas- questionable-t...](http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/canadas-questionable- tamiflu-stockpile/) [http://www.webmd.boots.com/cold-and- flu/news/20140103/govern...](http://www.webmd.boots.com/cold-and- flu/news/20140103/government-criticised-for-stockpiling-tamiflu)

<comment><USER18> So your argument is that two wrongs make a right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "A chimpanzee cold virus was modified to carry Ebola genetic material conferring protection against the Zaire strain of Ebola."

What could possibly go wrong!

<comment><USER20> I don't have access to the complete article, so I have to guess. The virus have many parts. They probably copy one of the proteins of the surface of the Ebola virus in the flu virus, not the main infectious code. So it "looks" like an Ebola virus, but acts like a flu virus and only give you a mild flu.

<comment><USER7> The containing Wikipedia article the chimpanzee virus was attenuated, and that it doesn't replicate in humans, evidently either from that, or the modification ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_vaccine#cAd3-EBO_Z](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_vaccine#cAd3-EBO_Z)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Looks like I was right: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8411674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8411674) \-- not even two months, and we're almost there.

Pharma research tends to speed up when diseases stop being "the poor's own problem".

<comment><USER22> This clinical trial was run in August, before anyone had contracted Ebola outside of Africa (and before the comment you linked to).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What actually is the reason Elon Musk has such a diverse career? - <AUTHOR> How to actually build one too <comment><USER2> As a physicist working as a software engineer at a hardware company, I can give a bit of an explanation for this:

1\. Doesn't matter if you're in the business of widgets or SaaS or whatever. Business is business.

2\. There are really only two engineering disciplines you need a strong intuitive understanding of: systems and physics.

It is completely possible to be very skillful at all three of these. However, even for Elon Musk, it would still likely take months of training to keep up working in a new engineering discipline including all of the idiosyncrasies and tools. There are plenty of people who are highly knowledgeable in 5+ subjects, but virtually none who are capable of working as a diverse, skilled experts in more than 3.

If you want to be an expert in multiple fields, find underlying 'core' disciplines and become an expert on those.

<comment><USER3> What are some of the underlying core disciplines?

To start one is problem solving, you need to be really good at solving problems. Another I can think of is finding the right problems to solve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I knew how to become a billionaire while starting a lot of innovative companies and having a lot of success, I'd do it instead of hanging around to tell you. That's not being selfish, that's how I imagine it would be (since I don't actually know that secret and doubt there is one). Besides, only so many people can be successful in a society before a certain status is not considered successful anymore.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't ask about how to be a billionaire or on how to start innovative companies, I am asking to to actually use different careers altogether to make it more useful. Elon Musk has in-depth knowledge in physics, economics, computers, coding and obviously business, a few were a degree course too

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The actual reason is because he has investors willing to place their faith in him, as he had made them money in repeat successful exits. He had sold Zip2 and PayPal before starting Tesla and SpaceX. While I don't doubt that he has a first rate mind, all that is required for his "diverse" companies is to know how to hire the right people and understand what they are saying.

</comment><comment><USER6> Once you understand how the things around us work, jumping in a new field becomes easy. Everything is connected.

Most people can't do it. Recipes are required. Do that to obtain X result. And most people apply known principles and methods in order to obtain what they want. But if you understand how it all fits together, you create your own recipes. This is what we call innovation.

Some people manage to do it through brute force. Some people are simply born different. And it all boils down to what you want from life. There is no easy answer. Some people are simply driven and also have the mental capacity to understand.

</comment><comment><USER7> He wants to. Freedom of choice...

</comment><comment><USER8> He is an engineer, and that includes many things.

</comment><comment><USER9> Effective use of really expensive PR people.</comment>


'Immunity Passports' Could Create a New Category of Privilege - <AUTHOR> https://onezero.medium.com/immunity-passports-could-create-a-new-category-of-privilege-2f70ce1b905 <comment><USER2> Certainly there's merit in the idea. That doesn't mean, however, that this degenerates quickly into yet another way to distinguish the haves from the have nots...</comment>


Show HN: Ultimate Collection of 180 Free Background Gradients - <AUTHOR> https://webgradients.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hello everyone!

Our team proudly presents WebGradients. It's an ultimate gradients collection. The project contains both Sketch/PSD for designers and CSS3 for developers (hosted on Github).

Interesting facts about WebGradients:

1) It's the only all-in-one gradients solution for all types of design works (web-design, graphic design, web-development)

2) The project took 83.2 hours of design work, 47.4 hours of coding

3) The UI was recreated by itmeo team from scratch for 3 times

4) It's blowing ProductHunt at the moment

Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

</comment><comment><USER2> Free? I don't get it. Can you make 2 HEX color combo not free?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there. I think I don't understand you. WebGradients is totally free and always will be free.

<comment><USER3> What @romanovcode means is : Of _course_ it's free. Someone would have to be certifiably insane to pay you for a pair of numbers. We know it, and you know it. So emphasizing that part as some sort of statement of distinction makes you look hilarious.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh I get it. I'll be honest. 'Free' stands there to attract more people.

By the way. We have raised a few hundreds of $ in donations. Thus there are lots of 'insane' people ;)

<comment><USER3> Also, drop that exceedingly long loading screen if you can. Nobody likes to wait that long.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. Going to discuss it with teammate.

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Love it!</comment>


Linux Mint 19.1: A sneaky popular distro skips upheaval, offers small upgrades - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/?p=1446759 <comment><USER2> Another 'sneaky' thing that LM did is to provide an automated, simple, customizable backup system that 'just works'.

Most distros have nothing like it, and their forums are constantly asking 'oops, how do I fix...' questions. Much of the time, people just give up and reinstall, losing all of their customizations, if not data.

One more reason why the 'year of the Linux desktop' hasn't appeared.

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, I didn't get timeshift to work to do a remote backup (via ssh). As I wanted automated backups especially for the home dirs I use backintime which also offers the features of rsync. I use timeshift for regular manual system backups (eg. before major upgrades or fiddling with drivers).

<comment><USER2> LM's developers regularly communicate with users, and the remote-backup option seems like something they would want to think about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ubuntu 18.10 > Linux Mint 19.1

<comment><USER5> Care to elaborate? I currently am evaluating Mint and Lubuntu and would like to hear what you have to say.</comment></comment>


The feds are killing off Clearview, the new highway sign font - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/4/10919686/clearview-highway-font-fhwa-highway-gothic <comment><USER3> _It turns out that all that research suggesting the new font might be more legible was more due to the fact that older, worn signs were being replaced with nice, fresh, clean signs which were, naturally, more legible._

That's not super correct, I don't think. They researched this and documented it quite well[1], it also seems to be independently researched in this book I couldn't imagine anyone ever read[2] about traffic fonts. Also, that source[2] cites like 3 studies of independent people researching this topic over like a 6 year period.

It also seems that this report 'proving' errors in the testing methodology is not released yet. So, like what the fuck? These dudes(they were all men) spend some time researching various methodologies for developing roadway font, which is probably extremely dull, and then they incorporate their results into a font sepcifically for roadways and the government says it is not effective?

That's cool, the font is like 175 - 800 bucks per jurisdiction, just say you don't want to pay. I mean, this is a massive taxpayer expense probably on par with the rusting helicopters and power plant that can't function we built in Iraq(saw that shit on Vice). Also, publicly call these guys morons and don't release the results. Classy.

[1][http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/_articles/TRB_Pape...](http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/_articles/TRB_Paper.pdf) [2][https://books.google.com/books?id=iFCZ53i5XXgC&pg=PA126&hl=e...](https://books.google.com/books?id=iFCZ53i5XXgC&pg=PA126&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false)

<comment><USER4> I agree, the FHWA's claims are highly suspect.

They should release their supposed evidence, or come clean about their real reasoning. I'm also guessing the price is the main issue. But that seems pretty ridiculous; it's a relative pittance compared to the overall cost of signage. That or someone in charge really prefers the older typeface.

<comment><USER5> I dont - I can see some credence to the claims for dark on light signs - <USER2> course I'm enough of a road geek to have a preference over which flavor of Highway Gothic I prefer (Series E, Modified).

I suspect while there may be some improvement with clearview, its not enough of one to justify the cost differential.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The original source has slightly more information: [https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/fonts-and-highway- sa...](https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/fonts-and-highway-safety)

"After more than a decade of analysis, we learned that retro-reflective sign sheeting materials that direct a vehicle's headlamp beams back to the observer were the primary determining factor in improved nighttime visibility and legibility."

<comment><USER7> I love when decades of research give the completely logical result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems they found it was actually less legible than the old ones - especially in the inverted color scheme some signs use.

The previous tests were brand new Clearview signs beating old-and-faded classic signs -- which seems like an unbelievably embarrassing mistake.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps I'm more forgiving, but it seems easy for someone just thinking "It seems more clear to me, but how do I know for sure? Oh! I'll put them up on a road and see if the accident rates change!".

Only when someone points out to me that the signs they are replacing are probably not new would it become "obvious". (In fact, while I read my first article on this, my internal thought was 'so why isn't this better if it tested so well?', then they mentioned the old signs, and my thought was 'oh, right, that makes sense'.

So embarrassing mistake? No doubt. Unbelievably embarrassing mistake? No way, not with the sadly believable mistakes I've made in the past.

<comment><USER10> Disagree. Very embarrassing mistake. Also very embarrassing that this wasn't caught by whoever signed off on replacing signs (but not surprising, I doubt those studies are read in detail often and people probably only browse the intro and conclusions).

Basically a "you failed science 101" level of embarrassment mistake in my estimation. Testing two brand new signs with the different fonts should be a fairly obvious first idea. The hard/interesting part is taking into account learning effects for the previous font. There's a pretty interesting research question in how you'd age signs in there as well (as you want to know if the gains are positive over the entire lifetime of the sign) and some interesting ethics questions about field testing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> david-given The UK (and some other countries) mostly use a font called Transport:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_(typeface)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_\(typeface\))

I've always found it supremely clear and much less fussy than the US highway font, although I bet that's because I grew up with it. (There's something about the spacing of the letters on US signs that looks really odd to me, which I can't quite put my finger on.)

I'm sure they'd let the US use it if you asked nicely...

</comment><comment><USER11> Recently there was a 'Ask HN: Ideas for Passive Income'. To add to the list - design a font.

To me the idea that the highways agencies and other departments choose to use paid for fonts is a bit silly. It is like choosing to pay for air and then insisting that anyone you talk to also pays for air (prosecuting them if they do not). This seems culturally wrong for the U.S. government where things like NASA images or NOAA weather data is free to use.

</comment><comment><USER12> Good. Highway Gothic is way more legible anyways. Plus it has that classic US feeling to it.

Clearview, on top of being harder to spell out, had lost all the personality Highway Gothic had, imo.

</comment><comment><USER13> Discussed recently: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10985709](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10985709)

</comment><comment><USER10> Pretty sorry execution of the usability tests I'd say. Isn't quality of the sign one of the most obvious factors to consider? I wonder if they only tested in perfect weather conditions, too.

I guess I get a decent example for confounding variables for our intro material out of this so there's that.

</comment><comment><USER14> With clever cars, road sign legibility won't be an issue for much longer :)

</comment><comment><USER15> > _It turns out that all that research suggesting the new font might be more > legible was more due to the fact that older, worn signs were being replaced > with nice, fresh, clean signs which were, naturally, more legible._

It turns out that all those blog posts suggesting the rewrite might be more performant was more due to the fact that older, spaghetti code was being replaced with nice, fresh, clean code which was, naturally, better structured.

<comment><USER16> So, refactoring is a good idea?

<comment><USER15> I guess, but not really my point. All the projects that go through massive rewrites to port into another language always seem to attribute the gains they inevitably find to the new language and not to the fact that they completely restructured the code in full view of what a completed version already looked like. Very much a pilot sytem result [1].

I know there are plenty of rewritten projects that truly benefited from a language better fitted to the domain, but rewriting itself will usually produce better code. The argument against refactoring would be that the better code isn't often worth it when you're not changing languages.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man- Month#The_p...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man- Month#The_pilot_system)

 _Edit_ : I submitted accidentally.

<comment><USER17> I could swear there was a post just in the last month on HN that with a title of something like "Massive gains from rewriting our C++ project in... C++"</comment></comment></comment></comment>


ATLAS and CMS experiments shed light on Higgs properties - <AUTHOR> http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2015/09/atlas-and-cms-experiments-shed-light-higgs-properties

<comment> semi-extrinsic TL;DR: The results obtained in Run 1 (which ended in 2013) from CMS and ATLAS have now been combined in a new joint analysis of the branching ratios of the most common Higgs boson decay products. The results show no deviations, even at the speculative level, from the predictions of the Standard Model. But uncertainties are being reduced significantly, so if there is a deviation from the SM, Run 2 data might find it.

For me, the biggest takeaway from this is how mind-bogglingly large amounts of data the LHC produces. The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group is big enough that they're organized into 11 subgroups, and these guys are still crunching away at data produced more than two years ago. Run 2 will finish in 2017, so they will still be crunching that data in 2020, and the LHC will be running until at least 2030.

</comment><comment><USER2> That's really cool and all, but...

[https://xkcd.com/1489/](https://xkcd.com/1489/)

<comment> semi-extrinsic You do know that this comic is mocking how the fundamental forces are taught at the high-school level, not our understanding of them, right?

<comment><USER2> >> You do know that this comic is mocking how the fundamental forces are taught at the high-school level, not our understanding of them, right?

No, I didn't know that. Thanks. The Wikipedia page on the strong force is not very encouraging either though.

<comment> semi-extrinsic No, there is quite a lot of required material to even begin understanding quantum chromodynamics. I'm not sure you can understand it in anything but a silly way unless you're willing to do at least some complicated math. That's par for the course for a quantum field theory in a non-Abelian gauge. The problem is also compounded by the distinction between the residual strong force and the actual strong force.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Envision.js: Interactive HTML5 Visualizations (TimeSeries, Finance & more) - <AUTHOR> http://www.humblesoftware.com/envision/

<comment><AUTHOR> Envision.js is a new library for fast, dynamic and interactive HTML5 visualizations. It ships with templates for a TimeSeries, a Finance chart similar to Google or Yahoo, and an API for building custom visualizations. Modern browsers, IE 6+ with FlashCanvas, Android and iOS webkit are all supported. MIT Licensed.</comment>


Steven Pinker on the Tribal Roots of Defying Social Distancing - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/steven-pinker-on-the-tribal-roots-of-defying-social-distancing <comment><USER2> This is the WHO's current advice:

> Non-medical, fabric masks are being used by many people in public areas, but > there has been limited evidence on their effectiveness and WHO does not > recommend their widespread use among the public for control of COVID-19. > However, for areas of widespread transmission, with limited capacity for > implementing control measures and especially in settings where physical > distancing of at least 1 metre is not possible – such as on public > transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments – WHO > advises governments to encourage the general public to use non-medical > fabric masks.

This is confusing advice.

Why don't they say "WHO has no recommendation about their widespread use" instead of "does not recommend." Are they really advising against masks?

This is especially confusing combined with the rest of the paragraph. What is considered an area of widespread transmission?

[https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-on- covid-19-and...](https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-and- masks)

Unfortunately, you then have Fox News run an article like this: "WHO guidance: Healthy people should wear masks only when 'taking care of' coronavirus patients"

[https://www.foxnews.com/world/who-guidance-healthy-people- we...](https://www.foxnews.com/world/who-guidance-healthy-people-wear-masks- around-coronavirus-patients)

Then you have the CDC recommending masks, while the POTUS refuses to do so.

"CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others."

[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting- si...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth- face-cover.html)

So yeah, there's tribalism, but there's also conflicting advice from authorities.

In my family, we wear masks when we're out among other people. I don't see how it does any harm, the argument for how it can slow the spread of my germs to others intuitively makes sense, is consistent with surgeons wearing masks to prevent infecting patients, and there's anecdotal and initial research that it helps.

What is the WHO's problem?

<comment><USER3> >> Why don't they say "WHO has no recommendation about their widespread use" instead of "does not recommend." Are they really advising against masks?

Yes, they are, because there are potential risks associated with _wearing_ a mask, not only potential benefits:

 _The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:_

 _• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;(48, 49)

_ • potential self-contamination that can occur if non-medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;*

 _• potential headache and /or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;_

 _• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;(50)_

 _• difficulty with communicating clearly;_

 _• potential discomfort;(41, 51)_

 _• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;_

 _• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;_

 _• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;_

 _• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;_

 _• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments._

[https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use- of...](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in- the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of- the-novel-coronavirus-\(2019-ncov\)-outbreak)

Btw, this is not a new discussion. There has long been uncertainty about the benefits of wearing a surgical mask in the community, to protect oneself or others from diseases. e.g. see this article from The Conversation dated October 17, 2019 and titled _Can surgical masks protect you from getting the flu?_ :

[https://theconversation.com/can-surgical-masks-protect- you-f...](https://theconversation.com/can-surgical-masks-protect-you-from- getting-the-flu-125023)

<comment><USER4> > potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a > face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands

This one seems very real to me. I've always been a bit of a germophobe, so I'm careful not to touch my face after shaking hands or using a greasy door knob etc... Now that masks are required in my area (questionably enforced, but an actual mandate from the mayor), if I'm in the grocery store and my mask slips a little, I _have_ to touch the mask to adjust/fix it. Of course my hands have been on the shopping cart and such.

When my gym opens up, they're going to require masks too. I'm not sure how that's going to work when doing cardio. Am I going to be huffing out my sweat through the fabric on my face?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know, on the one hand, I'm sure he thought a lot about this theory.

But on the other hand, if you just took Fox News off the air, more people would wear masks and obey social distancing. And it isn't obvious if Fox News would be replaced with something else that would also be suddenly #1 and just as radically anti-facts, that hasn't happened with media basically ever. If it went away, nobody would be "tribal" about masks anymore, it would become a matter of a public health campaign, just like every other health crisis that is sensitive to mass media, like first time smoking and drinking.

<comment><USER6> I think it's a knee jerk to the notion that the government can "require" any such thing from the citizens. Private companies can require this on their premises, but I can just spend my money elsewhere then. Governments are different in that regard. Governments have also blown their feet off by only selectively applying their enforcement of the ban on congregations.

I do wear a mask when I go to the grocery store - I'm not an idiot. About 90% of people in the store also wear face coverings, even though they are not required. Our area is not in any way a hotspot, but I know I have a comorbidity (high blood pressure which I manage with ACE inhibitors), so I'm being extra cautious.

But I will take my money elsewhere if an establishment thinks it can "require" me to wear a mask, because unlike with the government, I don't have to be subject to their bullshit. So I haven't been to Costco or Home Depot in a while now, and haven't renewed my membership at Costco.

<comment><USER4> > I do wear a mask when I go to the grocery store - I'm not an idiot

I'm very skeptical that my wearing a common mask protects me from anyone else. I do suspect that it reduces the possibility of me infecting someone else (hypothetically, assuming I'm asymptomatic).

<comment><USER7> I see this sentiment often, and I'm curious of there's a source for this.

Either a mask filters effectively, or it doesn't[1]. Intuitively I don't understand why a mask would only filter air in one direction.

[1] [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=.%2C+ACS+Nano+10.1021%2...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=.%2C+ACS+Nano+10.1021%2Facsnano.0c03252+%282020%29.#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DJUl3ZML0mKkJ)

<comment><USER8> [https://mobile.twitter.com/richdavisphd/status/1276629360212...](https://mobile.twitter.com/richdavisphd/status/1276629360212979712?fbclid=IwAR1qeWWRjskk6RvEApxb7LVEWynedr2maVzlgOC0MK9MuTOEzMeX_yQuGAc)

<comment><USER7> That's not surprising considering the link I posted. My question is whether the mask protects the wearer, and if not, why would the filtration only work in one direction?

<comment><USER4> Thinking about it some more, I suspect the disconnect between us is that you think the primary way of getting sick is breathing the airborne virus. Whereas I think the primary way of getting sick is touching your eyes (or picking your nose). So you want the filtering to be good, but I just don't want infected snot droplets to be blown everywhere.

Now, I'm sure someone will throw an obnoxious "citation needed" reply...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Serious question: do we have any data on (non n95) mask wearing being an effective protective method from COVID-19? I've heard people use the prevalence of mask wearing in countries like South Korea and their better Covid results as a type of data point, but that data could be correlation rather than causation. Any other insights? Im truly sick of the masks but would feel better if I knew there was some science behind them.

<comment><USER10> It seems to be well researched and documented by now that masks are quite effecting in reducing transmissions

[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422.full](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422.full)

<comment><USER11> The paper doesn't actually say that. It says nobody really knows basic things you'd need to determine that, for example:

 _Given how little is known about the production and airborne behavior of infectious respiratory droplets, it is difficult to define a safe distance for social distancing_

There are plenty of scientists saying masks have no effect when worn by people who aren't actually both visibly sick and working in healthcare:

[https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news- perspective/2020/04/commenta...](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news- perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data)

In fact manufacturers of ear loop/cloth masks specifically say they can't stop COVID:

[https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/EYZu2Q2X0AA...](https://off- guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/EYZu2Q2X0AA9A9x-800x800.jpg)

The WHO said:

[https://www.foxnews.com/world/who-guidance-healthy-people- we...](https://www.foxnews.com/world/who-guidance-healthy-people-wear-masks- around-coronavirus-patients)

 _" If you do not have any respiratory symptoms such as fever, cough or runny nose, you do not need to wear a mask," Dr. April Baller, a public health specialist for the WHO, says in a video on the world health body's website posted in March. "Masks should only be used by health care workers, caretakers or by people who are sick with symptoms of fever and cough."_

There's plenty of contradictory research out there. Maybe a mask helps if you're literally coughing up phlegm all over the place, but COVID has a dry cough and obviously symptomatic people don't seem to be the only way it spreads.</comment></comment></comment>


How Google Works. Eric Schmidt - <AUTHOR> http://www.howgoogleworks.net

<comment><USER2> When buying, the checkout page is housed in this tiny iframe:

Also - the UX is terrible, and I have no idea how I should proceed in buying this. This is Google failing to take payment for something that should be seamless enough.

Screenshot: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/f.cl.ly/items/44261X2i2H2w1O1I1F0V/...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/f.cl.ly/items/44261X2i2H2w1O1I1F0V/a.png)</comment>


SHUFFLE GURU - <AUTHOR> http://shuffle.guru <comment><AUTHOR> [http://shuffle.guru](http://shuffle.guru) \- The best way to discover new artists based on your personal preferences. It shows an artist bio, album cover, song lyrics, personal play count for songs, personal favorites, genres, and similar artists. Connected with Spotify, Last.fm and Genius.com.

Check on GitHub: [https://github.com/shoegazer/shuffle- guru](https://github.com/shoegazer/shuffle-guru)

</comment><comment><USER2> Great!</comment>


Lenovo Goes Open Source with RK3399 and AM5708 SBCs - <AUTHOR> http://linuxgizmos.com/lenovo-goes-open-source-with-rk3399-and-am5708-sbcs/ <comment><AUTHOR> "Both SoCs also lack the SATA and camera interfaces of other AM57x processors ..."</comment>


Can Crops' Wild Relatives Save Troubled Agriculture? - <AUTHOR> https://daily.jstor.org/can-crops-wild-relatives-save-troubled-agriculture/ <comment><USER2> > Troubled Agriculture?

Is there some global famine going on that I somehow missed?

<comment><USER3> Yes, there is troubled agriculture about, with many issues about to implode.

Over-used pesticides (Glyphosate, etc) or insecticides (e.g. neonicotin-based) which became systemic, heavily used (x times volumes of usage vs 20 yrs ago) and which in light of new research have either shown that produce side efects in environment or end-'consumer', i.e. humans or had side effect of 'developing' super-x (super-weeds, etc) which are no longer affected by initial substances, forcing agriculture producers to use even stronger substances (e.g. Dicamba).

Many of such systemic substances have started to be forbidden in civilized countries (see EU trends of banning some of them).

On top of which there is the black-swan called climate-change which with its sydtemic complexity has potential to produce systemic crop failures.

In not too long distant future farmers will have to assume an agriculture hard-reset (in terms of inputs) which will assume high double-digit Y-o-Y decrease in outputs/production.

My 2 cents.

<comment><USER2> Not to mention peak oil, which is going to make mechanized agriculture financially impossible.

Plus acid raid, which is going to cause continued crop loss every year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great, more crossing-breeding with untested species we aren't used to ingesting. I wonder what weird and wonderful food allergies we'll be able to enjoy now?

<comment><USER5> Is there any evidence that this has created food allergies?

<comment><USER4> Gluten sensitivity comes to mind: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573730/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573730/)

The study finds that gluten consumption hasn't increased over the past few decades and that a culprit is more likely "wheat genetics"

Anecdotally, I don't know if you know many genuinely GF people, but the ones I know have all said that they can eat bread while in European countries, but have bad reactions back home.

<comment><USER6> There are two types of industrialized wheat. Dwarf and semi-dwarf. Compared to ancient wheats like eikorn we're probably now realizing how bad these are impacting health. Diabetes, celiac, etc. There are, at least, studies focusing on it now [0].

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5397290/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5397290/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Possibly, but seed sellers put farmers into a corner and essentially force them to use their proprietary seeds. So as with everything else wrong in the world, good ol' capitalism wins again.</comment>


Was Megaupload Targeted Because Of Its Upcoming Megabox Digital Jukebox Service? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/was-megaupload-targeted-because-of-its-upcoming-megabox-digital-jukebox-service/

<comment><USER3> Egads! This a Tech Crunch article based on a Reddit post based on Google+ post. That Google+ post was also on HN last night so I'll just copy/paste my reply to that.

"This is stupid and wrong. The investigation into MegaUpload took two years. This post wants me to believe the US government convinced the New Zealand government to perform a 70+ person raid in two weeks? The government can't give authorization to someone to tie their shoe in under two weeks!

More importantly, this is an opinion piece with zero facts or evidence posted by a freaking high school student. Why in the hell is this nonsense being posted to HN?"

I know why this garbage is posted to Reddit and Tech Crunch, but HN is better than that.

<comment><USER4> Stupid, wrong, and garbage are the correct words for this. People are taking leave of their senses over this bust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this is reaching quite a bit. The service is not revolutionary or going to "disrupt the music industry" because this is exactly what Grooveshark offer now to independent artists[0]. Grooveshark are of questionable legality and use this model, yet they have not been shut down and they would be an "easy target" if the "corporations" can take down Mega upload.

The only value Megaupload has over Grooveshark (and Spotify I believe offer this too but I'm not entirely sure [1]) is the traffic, but I don't think being popular with this on the way is reason enough to shut them down.

[0] <http://www.grooveshark.com/compensation> [1] <http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/>

<comment><USER6> >Grooveshark are of questionable legality and use this model, yet they have not been shut down

Except they're being sued by every single major label - and some internal emails from them are pretty damning. Same case as it is with Megaupload.

<comment><USER7> And I think that this is the point where a logical person who is somewhat "internet savvy" can deduce for himself why Megaupload and Grooveshark - <USER2> both profiting from IP which they do not own - cannot be, at least morally, judged the same way. The way I see it, Grooveshark is a service that is basically trying to force or at least demonstrate to the music industry what it is exactly that people want in an online music service. I am certain that in a bizzaro worlds where music executives have actual working brains they would see it and would offer "legality" to grooveshark without pricing them out of existence. In a world without piracy grooveshark would thrive.

Megaupload on the other hand is a company whose sole purpose it to assist pirates. Without piracy there is no reason for the existence of such a service (and before anyone yells "dropbox!", I don't think I need to explain why these two services are very different).

<comment><USER6> >Megaupload on the other hand is a company whose sole purpose it to assist pirates. Without piracy there is no reason for the existence of such a service...

While you might be able to make that conclusion about Megaupload (based on some of their internal emails), making that conclusion about file locker services as a whole is _complete hogwash_. You don't think there's a legitimate reason for a person to be able to upload a large file somewhere for download by someone else? _Really_?

I can conclude nothing else from your stance but the fact you are either a troll or a paid shill. 5 seconds on google would provide numerous accounts of people who were using Megaupload for distributing their own content who were burned by this crap.

<comment><USER7> >I can conclude nothing else from your stance but the fact you are either a troll or a paid shill.

Typical response from the "everything is a conspiracy" crowd that dominates these discussions so much.

Sure, people also used the service for legitimate purposes. If you think for one second that those people comprised more than 5% of the userbase (and that's being generous) or that Megaupload and similar services were setup to profit from those legitimate users and not from the pirates then you are simply being delusional. And there is no need for internal emails to reach that conclusion some experience and common sense will suffice.

<comment><USER6> -snip, can't read, need coffee-

Is it a valid service to provide server space and linking of files for sharing with other people? Yes it is. That's what would be called a significant non- infringing use (and it's the reason that Rapidshare isn't shut down).

The fact that some people use it to break the law (much with guns, or computers, or any other tool) doesn't really change anything.

>If you think for one second that those people comprised more than 5% of the userbase

Prove it. The onus of proof is on you. Presumption of innocence and all that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Note: please read this all the way through before down/up voting. I'm not defending any actors here, I'm just trying to present an "all sides considered" view of the situation.

I think there's a fair amount of "projecting" going on here. More and more, I see the intellectual property discussion being couched in the language of "looters, moochers, and parasites" (aptly borrowing from Ayn Rand).

It's undeniable that the RIAA/MPAA are leveraging government to protect their business model (Randian looter behavior), but how you perceive this action has a lot to do with which side of the fence you're on. If you're on the outside looking to get in, the RIAA/MPAA are looters. If you're on the inside looking to control who gets in, those on the outside are moochers.

Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way. The RIAA/MPAA are easy villains, and play the part of the looter very well. They don't even appear to _try_ and compete in the market. They just run to the government for cover. That doesn't, in and of itself, validate the "Megabox disruption" theory.

The RIAA/MPAA don't view their actions any differently than a business owner who calls the police when someone steals a product from the shelf in their store. Yes, I'm completely aware of the difference. It has been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of places. Digital goods can't be stolen, blah blah blah. I get it. I agree to some extent, but I'm asking you to set aside those views for a moment and consider this chess board from both players' perspectives.

The fundamental debate is really about fair use and free speech.

Fair use - To what extent are we allowed to use copyrighted material without compensation of the rights-holder?

Free speech - What is the obligation of a website operator to police the users of said website?

There's an old saying about fundamental rights that goes something like this: The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In matters of intellectual property, things are _not_ as plain as the nose on your face (ta- dum-tss!).

<comment><USER9> "Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way."

What? The Objectivist viewpoint is exactly opposite to what you say. Intellectual property is property (Hank Rearden's steel formula was his and his alone, John Galt's engine is his and his ideas are his property) and strong intellectual property rights enforcement are natural rights of their holders, just like ownership of tangible property (and the enforcement thereof) is. The rights holders are the artists/producers etc, who entered into a voluntary business transaction with their labels, distributors etc. who in turn united in the RIAA/MPAA to collective defend their rights. All voluntarily, and every actor in these transactions is looking out for their own interests, and are morally well within their rights to do so.

Having strong intellectual property protection laws isn't rent seeking. It's only rent seeking when it preys on the creation of others who haven't voluntarily entered into a business relationship with the actors at hand. Objectivist dogma says that protecting man's rights (including property rights) is one of the few legitimate government functions.

I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.

<comment><USER8> I should have said "aren't" instead of "won't be". I can't make an argument that this is rent seeking, because I don't believe that it is. I believe, like you, that the MPAA/RIAA are acting in their own interest. Understanding their viewpoint is necessary to hold a productive conversation with them.

>I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.

I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory. It's the framing of this particular theory that has overtones of Atlas Shrugged, in my view. The claim is that the MPAA/RIAA leveraged the government to shut down a potential competitor. This isn't rent seeking by the strict definition, but I never claimed that it was. Rent seeking is only one form of "looter" behavior.

I'd much rather focus on the two fundamental questions. It is not enough to say "we need strong intellectual property laws". That is a very broad statement. We're currently seeing an erosion of fair use, and I think that is a bad thing. We're also seeing an erosion of the protections afforded to the press (whereby "press" includes website operators). I also see this as a bad thing.

I don't want to see website operators acting as enforcers of copyright. That is the government's job. The DMCA already provides the ability for copyright holders to issue take-down notices. Further legislation is pushing the balance too far in favor of rights-holders. I do believe in copyright, and I don't believe "fair use" should include the ability to do what you like with others' work, but website operators ought not be treated as conscripts in the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

EDIT: As I was posting this, someone literally quoted a passage from Atlas Shrugged:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505458>

<comment><USER9> "I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory."

OK, fair enough, but I still think the analogy is a misrepresentation of what really drives people who have strong feelings against intellectual property rights enforcement. There are several camps who can't be lumped together, and whose 'theories' are largely in internal conflict: there are the copyright abolitionists, there is the GPL/FSF crowd, there is the entitled crowd who doesn't really care about reason and just repeatedly says that it's 'unfair' that their 'fair use rights' (of which they have a completely warped view, and which have never existed in the form they imagine in the first place) are being curtailed.

Either way, we disagree on enough other points to continue discussing ;) For example, 'website operators' aren't one group who all deserve indemnification under all circumstances. Megaupload, for example, is a clear case (for the reasonable, non-dogmatic observer) of 'intellectual property infringement facilitation for monetary gain'. Arguably Youtube used to be in its early days. Websites aren't 'press' by definition, and while it's not prima facie reasonable to expect them to be the first conservators of intellectual property laws, they can't just say 'oh it's our users, it's not our responsibility'.

Re: the edit, using that quote in that context makes me angry because it's such a fundamental misrepresentation of what Objectivism and Rand's philosophy stands for and was founded in. Having governments enforce property rights is not the same as what happened in the socialist tyranny that destroyed Rand's family and from which she escaped. Crikes, Rand herself made her fortune from writing screenplays and books, without copyright she would never have been in a position to produce abstract works like her work after The Fountainhead!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> No, MegaUpload was shut down after years of investigation, not because big music companies got wind of their recent plans and bribed the FBI or something.

I'm a bit concerned as to how things went down, but honestly, MegaUpload had it coming. I'm sure there's lots of people who used it legitimately, but I've personally never seen one person or link to a MegaUpload file online that wasn't meant for piracy.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps, but taking it down _now_ is certainly no coincidence.

<comment><USER12> What evidence makes you say that? "Timing" is not going to convince me; that self-referentially uses the fact that prompted the question as its own answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting theory, which fits nicely with this:

 _"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."_ ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The well-connected didn't want the competition, found a suitable offense, and pulled strings to have the competition shut down on before the pretext was eliminated.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think you only have to look at the indictment to see why they were shut down. Whilst it's an interesting point, and perhaps if the mega empire had attempted to legitimize their business a lot quicker then the indictment would never have been put together, I simply think this falls into the realms of conspiracy theory.

I have posted the full Indictment as a news story, with highlights, for those that are interested in the actual reason for their shut down: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808>

</comment><comment><USER15> The (Hacker News) headline is a bit sensational, over simplified, and speculative. The article simply says MegaUpload was going to release a new site targeting music distribution. If they are guilty of the charges against them, it's very possible that their new venture wouldn't be "legit" at all.

Edit: The HN headline, not the Techcrunch headline.

<comment><USER16> > If they are guilty of the charges against them

And what is that?

> If they are guilty of the charges against them, it's very possible that > their new venture wouldn't be "legit" at all.

Sounds... speculative.

<comment><USER17> > > If they are guilty of the charges against them

> And what is that?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The insinuation is that someone from the media giants signaled FBI that it is time to take these people down.

Not saying it is impossible but how would that work? Would they go through a Congressman by paying them? Is there a number you call and can set a bounty for a particular investigation like "investigate this and if you prosecute successfully you get $100k bonus"

<comment><USER19> I have no idea about anything having to do with the Megaupload case, but private business influences the actions of government agencies all the time. It isn't as simple as a number you can call, or paying a bribe (which I think is rare in the US). It has more to do with relationships and influence, and yes, influence with a Congressman does play an important part in that mix. It isn't that easy to spot when legitimate influence (which all large lobby and business interests have) steps over the line and becomes corruption.

<comment><USER18> That is why I was wondering what would have been the signaling channel in this case. Obviously for FBI to put all this effort into it, they'd have to have some payoff (maybe publicity about how well they did the job was the payoff?). So at some point someone had to suggest this course of action and hint on the expected reward.

One way I can think is through Congress. There are revolving doors around many govt regulatory agencies and industries they regulate but I think a revolving door between FBI and Hollywood is a little harder to imagine.

EDIT: Just thought about it. Can someone donate to FBI? I found:

* FBIAA ( <http://www.fbiaa.org/donations/> ) * <http://www.fbicaindiana.com/donate>

Wonder what kind of tricks FBI would do if someone drops $10M in there?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Please change the title. It changes a question (no, it's not a _theory_ ) into a fact.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've found the following to be of unparalleled utility in evaluating truth claims in journalism:

If the headline ends with a question mark, the answer is "No."

No caveats, no special cases, just "No." If the question asked had half a chance of being true, it would have been stated, not asked.

<comment><USER21> Also known as Betteridge's Law of Headlines: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

Although sometimes the answer can be "yes", because they phrase the ridiculous insinuation the other way. For example, "Do cellphones kill you?" follows Betteridge's law, but the (actual) CNN headline "Are cell phones safe to use?" asks the same question inverted.

<comment><USER20> I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is really getting to the point of ridiculousness (if that's even a word).

Here's the plain fact: if a copyright holder notifies me that their material is being shared on my servers and I do nothing about it, I can get sued by them. If I do this on such a grand scale that there is obviously a blatant amount of copyrighted material and I still do nothing about it, the Feds will probably have to be the ones to shut me down until things get worked out.

This is what Megaupload was doing. This is not a grander problem that will hit Google or Youtube, they tend to remove copyrighted content pretty quickly.

All of this seems very similar to the Gizmondo/Stefan Eriksson deal where things just spiraled out of control into very questionable territory.

</comment><comment><USER23> Bullshit. To go legit with currently signed artists they'd have to do deals with the big 4 labels and none of them were likely to license their catalog to mega.

They were much more likely to go the grooveshark route an try to hide behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

</comment><comment><USER24> Sensational, yes, but it is possible that being more than just a pr0n collector made Hollywood pay more attention to them as there is some strategic advantage to shut them down. They may have assisted with the investigation to speed things along for whatever reason. I would bet they were more than enough reasons to arrest mr Dotcom but the complexity and the cost might have made it a tough target vs other 'low hanging fruit' law breakers (FBI has limited resources too).

</comment><comment><USER25> This is getting quite ridiculous. What's up with all this speculation?

The reason Megaupload was targeted has already been established and well documented.

Do people honestly believe the FBI and NZ police are at the recording industries beck and call?

</comment><comment><USER26> At the risk of being blatantly trollish, let me state for the benefit of the commenters apparently still caught up in it that Ayn Rand's works are to Philosophy what Twilight is to literature.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder if they had a private Github repository or something containing their source for Megabox that wasn't seized. How cool would that be if they open- sourced it?

</comment><comment><USER28> The "Creative America" video linked in the article (<http://vimeo.com/32592166>) is straight propaganda. Creepy.

</comment><comment><USER29> ;)

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJx...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq)

</comment><comment><USER30> mmmm looks more of an another "conspiracy theory" to me than something real.

For example this service was announced one month ago, so the whole operation has only been planned for one month by the FBI? Seems highly suspicious, it takes months to years to do something in several countries at the same time...

More proof is needed that just a small coincidence.

</comment><comment><USER31> While my inner revolutionist is bouncing with excitement. Is there actually any evidence. My worry is that it's all speculation.</comment>


How Reddit plans to make money through advertising - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/29/how-reddit-plans-to-make-money-through-advertising.html <comment><USER2> It seems to me like they are deliberately sacrificing the old userbase for a younger, "more naive" audience. I moderate a medium-sized subreddit, and I am seriously considering just closing the thing down, because I'm not going to be willing to adapt my bots to a work with a crippled API (its bad enough as it is). And let's be real here, the API will be crippled in the near future. Do you really think you'll be allowed to have an ad-free and tracking-free experience in a third-party app when they are done with this redesign project?

* They went closed-source.

* They removed the cloudsearch syntax from the search API. That may not seem very signifficant since very few _people_ used it for their day to day redditing. But this was the _only_ way of acquiring submissions older than the most recent 1000 for any given subreddit. Now there is no way to obtain old data, short of searching for random keywords and checking the date. I guess they don't want _you_ to benefit from the aggregated data.

* They abandoned iterative development to do a redesign-by-giant-committee. They are just pushing hostile shit and adjust if the complaints get too loud. That's a clear warning sign of things to come.

* They rolled out the redesign on wide scale while it was not even close to alpha state. Half of the endpoints just straight up didn't work, and the remaining half was broken, like flairs, rules, css, and basically everything else.

* The new system refuses to serve hosted image content to non-trackable clients (ie, you need img.png?sid=valid_sid to get image data). It also includes some rather hostile tracking technology, I forget the details but it was described in /r/privacy somewhere.

At this point, it seems like the best thing to do is to set my subreddits to private so at least I am not contributing to their $100M revenue... but yeah, unfortunately it sucks for the community (and possibly other mods interested to keep the place running), hard decision to pull the trigger :/

<comment><USER3> I am looking forward to the death of reddit because I think it can be done way better. One big thing I'd like to see changed is the very blunt upvote/downvote hammer that results in tyranny of the majority every time. Instead, I'd like comments to be sorted based on my "network of influencers", or users who I've rated positively...

Another thing I think should be changed is that mods shouldn't be all powerful and they shouldn't be able to just shut down.

<comment><USER4> > Instead, I'd like comments to be sorted based on my "network of > influencers", or users who I've rated positively...

This would in essence create your personal echo chamber.

<comment><USER5> Echo chamber usually means it merely reflects back what you emit -- that's a possibility, but personally I like inciteful or thought-provoking comments more than I like comments that agree with me, and seeing more of them is also possible: this is one of the reasons I hate that pg (and thus HN) promotes downvoting for disagreement, and basically censors (with near invisibility) dissenting voices.

My favourite system has been Slashdot because you could promote your view of (moderated, and meta-moderated) content voted to be insightful, say, whilst reducing viewing pure joke posts, and such. You could also boost/nerf particular voices.

Reddit is too much "cutesy animal" content, I wish I could filter all of that, it just doesn't amuse me.

<comment><USER6> Exactly, and this highlights what I've never understood about echo chamber arguments. You might genuinely like things that you learn from, things that change you. You might like a subject matter that encompasses a huge variety of types of content- for instance if you follow astronomy, and see an article about a new discovery, it seems like more is going on than a pre-existing belief being echoed back at you.

I'm not saying there's no such thing as echo chambers, but there's so much else going in when you engage with sources you select that doesn't have anything to do with whether a pre-existing belief is being echoed back to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> By turning their site into this: [https://i.imgur.com/TtVAiMN.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TtVAiMN.jpg)

That's what a new visitor to reddit.com would see, as of about a month ago.

<comment><USER8> Their new design is comically bad at this point. I just loaded up Reddit full- screen on my desktop with a 2560x1440 resolution. I saw 3 posts above the fold in the default non-signed in format. Those 3 posts occupied the center 650px of the screen. There was a column to the right that took up a little over 300px and contained two ads among other site navigation stuff. The other 1600px of horizontal screen real estate was completely empty. I get the idea of mobile first design, but the new design is actively hostile to anyone using a screen larger than a tablet.

<comment><USER9> The few subreddits I follow have also become hostile towards users wrt participation. People are banned frequently and questionable accounts vote in easily recognizable patterns.

I'm not saying there's a concerted effort (by Reddit or 3rd parties) to sway public opinion -- but it certainly feels that way.

And yes, the site has become horrible for usability.

I really wish someone with more free time than me would combine a bunch of current buzzwords (distributed, blockchain, whatever) and cook up something that was easy to use but still free from the tyranny of special interest and / or profit.

That's not to say that they shouldn't get rich in the process, just that they should be building something incorruptible.

I'll donate $1000 to a crypto address if others are willing to match.

<comment><USER10> Remember to keep mods (volunteers who curate a subreddit) separate from admistrators (employees with legal and $ constraints). They usually have no contact with each other.

So if you got banned from one sub for some reason, it was the mods. The beauty of reddit is, you're free to take your friends and, in 5 minutes, make another sub which you guys mod. Perhaps you'll outgrow whatever sub you're ditching.

<comment><USER11> > _So if you got banned from one sub for some reason, it was the mods. The > beauty of reddit is, you 're free to take your friends and, in 5 minutes, > make another sub which you guys mod. Perhaps you'll outgrow whatever sub > you're ditching._

The problem is that you lose most of the community. Starting a new sub is easy, growing one is hard.

<comment><USER12> This is why you make it possible to fork a community, retain the content and as much or as little of the moderation decisions as you agree with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I do hope people start leaving Reddit.

I love Reddit, don't get me wrong - you can find a community of people who are passionate about pretty much _any_ topic.

In the old world, each of these communities had their own disjointed forums - with Reddit they are all becoming centralised. If Reddit ever decides to be really evil they are very difficult to migrate away.

<comment><USER14> This redesign really makes me think of digg v4. The usability of the site is completely different, the inline ads. The biggest difference is they have 10 years of momentum.

But if someone takes the old open source code base and starts "readit.com" i'll move.

<comment><USER15> I was part of the digg to reddit user migration. The big difference this time around is there is no reddit to migrate too.

I was affected by that recent wave of subreddit bans and started looking at alternatives.

There's plenty but none are very good.

The biggest move I've seen is people going to Discord servers. The two problems with that are: -Searching and history aren't really a thing on them -Discord does not really have a good way to make money other than nitro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For a site that had 3rd largest visitor count on the web, they only managed to make $100M.

It is very hard for me to understand how Google and Facebook manage to make that much money. Because even if Reddit made 10x at 1 billion, it is still so far off from the other two.

<comment><USER14> Google is there when you're in the buying mindset. "I need car insurance, let's google car insurance" that's worth $40 a click. And there's return on investment from that too.

Facebook is fantastic for advertisers what it mastered is targeting. It knows EVERYTHING about you. However it is at a disadvantage from google in that, you're not in a buying mindset when you're on the site. So as an advertiser the clicks are worth less.

Reddit could enter facebooks space. Your comments and forum activity could be data mined to build an advertising profile. However, they haven't really mastered that yet.

<comment><USER17> Reddit has many many shopping/spending-oriented or -friendly subreddits, many of which hit frontpage frequently.

The #1 post on [https://www.reddit.com/](https://www.reddit.com/) right now is an post about a Marvel movie.

#2 is World Cup, surely monetizable.

#4 is a video game

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Former Reddit admin and automoderator creator Diemos has launched an alternative site, as-yet invite-only, Tildes ([https://tildes.net](https://tildes.net)). I've been exploring that over the past few weeks, and am positively impressed. It's young yet and small, but shows promise, a sane and healthy community (sharply contrasting both Voat and Imzy in this regard), and some innovative and positive technical features, as well as an expressly member-driven, donor-supported, model.

There's plenty of opportunity to go wrong, but the launch looks good so far.

Reddit are certainly providing a golden window of opportunity.

[https://blog.tildes.net/announcing- tildes](https://blog.tildes.net/announcing-tildes)

<comment><USER19> Tildes is still kind of finding its feet as a community, and there's a certain degree of navel-gazing as everyone tries to figure out exactly what kind of content and behavior is/isn't desirable.

That said, the stated goals and driving philosophy seem sound, and the design of the site functionality seems to be on track to fix some of the core problems with reddit and similar sites.

The concepts of nested groups with "bubble-up", content tagging, and multi- dimensional vote/tags on comments (when comment tags are eventually re- enabled) are all really appealing.

<comment><USER18> Morbius's Law of New Media Platforms:

The first topic of discussion shall be of the platform itself, what it is, what it isn't, and how its design shapes those roles.

Add in healthy quantities of tugging from all sides trying to shape their own pet platform of choice.

[https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/H4mXSK6nC35gLUucGdkrqw](https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/H4mXSK6nC35gLUucGdkrqw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Two thoughts as someone who is also building online community software:

\- I think there should be ways for community creators to monetize directly through Reddit. For example, allow community creators to add a donation/subscription button for really small amounts (e.g. 1$/month).

\- There is a growing opportunity in online chat communities. I guess that's why they also started experimenting with chat. There is a large but non- obvious difference between a forum and a chatroom, and as you might know from Slack vs. email, it's a significantly different vibe.

<comment><USER21> Discord is basically the latter, aka Reddit for chat rooms/IRC equivalents. Slack is pretty close to that idea too. So if Reddit got into that market, there'd be real tough competition, even before taking the decentralised/federated stuff into account.

<comment><USER20> No, it's not. Discord is made for gaming.

If you would build a software for communities (for discussion in general), then you would add different features that don't make sense for Slack or Discord.

It's a huge market with a lot of distinct use cases, and therefore can support a lot of similar players that focus on different use cases.

<comment><USER22> You seem knowledgable about the space. Mind sharing examples of such features, or where you feel Discord is lacking?

<comment><USER20> Sure. My company is focussing on communities that revolve around discussion and learning (mostly targeting teens and young adults). Some features we are working on are specific tools like a whiteboard that helps you quickly draw something to better explain. Or a library of common definitions (e.g., formulas for math, definitions for CS) that take the friction out of helping others. Furthermore, with our target group gamification and providing incentives to a meaningful discussion is important, so we're working on avatars and points that you can collect and use.

More general communities could use features such as:

\- Monetization directly in the software vs. sending users to a signup and payment form (better UX, higher conversion rate)

\- Discoverability (e.g., a search function similar to Reddit)

\- Better onboarding for communities: For some communities, it makes sense not to be public, but to require a short application (for whatever reason) - currently community creators much build a separate website and send users there, etc. This would be much better if it existed natively.

\- More focus on conversations/discussions instead of productivity tools

Just to mention a few. Of course, for Slack and Discord, it doesn't make sense to implement these features because it would dilute the whole product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not sure this is a wise move - Reddit already has ads, which clearly haven't done enough for them. And there are legit reasons that ads are not as reliable of a revenue stream as they were in the past. Tweaking a failing business model won't produce a major shift in revenue.

They need some real change if they ever want to be something different than what they are today. And what they are today is a mildly entertaining site with both good and bad impacts on our society. But reddit is not a great place to find paying customers, and therefore not a place I need more ad capabilities.

</comment><comment><USER24> How good of a job are they doing at advertising? Advertising is tough since it has to satisfy both the ad buyers and the users. It's very easy to turn off one or the other side.

<comment><USER25> Unlike, say, Facebook, I hate the ads that Reddit presents to me. They're often poorly targeted, or flat-out obnoxious.

<comment><USER26> Reddit has shown me the same ad about online mental health counseling every day for 4 months. "Because I deserve it".

<comment><USER27> I started enjoying Reddit when I unsubscribed from all subreddits, i.e. having 0 subscriptions. What I did instead was to group all of them in various private multireddits inspired by USENET, so I have comp, emacs, langlearn, laugh, etc. Thus when I'm just checking to see if a notification I'm expecting is there, there is no links that can immediately distract me on the front page. This saves me countless hours, and combined w/ opting out of all personalisation [1], of the new profile overview and of the fuckup^H^H^H^H^H^Hredesign, and with strict JS and content blocking, and Redirector extension, it becomes bearable.

One thing Reddit should note is that people are there for the communities. If there was sth. identical but run by a foundation or NGO, I'd jump there and delete my reddit account once the important communities are migrated.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/personalization](https://www.reddit.com/personalization)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Compared to the companies started at similar times which followed the grow fast path but ultimately failed and looking at the slow but steady growth path reddit has been allowed to follow I wonder why ycombinator does not accept more companies like reddit(slow but steady growth companies) into their accelerator, I mean being a founder of one such company I think that will be awesome .

<comment><USER29> reddit grew fast and was acquired just over a year after it launched (which was in June 2005): [https://techcrunch.com/2006/10/31/breaking-news-conde- nastwi...](https://techcrunch.com/2006/10/31/breaking-news-conde-nastwired- acquires-reddit/)

I'm fairly sure YC's stake in it was bought out at that point.

<comment><USER30> YC's stake maybe, but Sam Altman followed on as a lead investor later: [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2hwr02/i_am_sam_altma...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2hwr02/i_am_sam_altman_lead_investor_in_reddits_new/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Anyone have any insight into why goog/fb haven't acquired reddit at this point? If they could get it for anything near the 1.8billion previous valuation surely they would just snap it up?

</comment><comment><USER32> The reason marketeers don't like traditional advertising in Reddit is because they are getting their advertising for free by pretending to post as normal users. A room full of students can push any product, message or image. Its rampant in resdit. Why pay more for less reach?

</comment><comment><USER33> To me Twitter is a sort of archetype of online, mass media businesses and some of the quirky side effects of "unicorn culture."

At least at early stages, market value (and hence wealth of founders, investors & early employers) is some version of: (Likelihood of reaching $N bn revenue) X (N).

The size of "N" is so open ended that a lot of traditional economic/finance logic of the kind Warren Buffet's generation used, it gets very abstract.

When Google launched adwords, no one really knew what the potential was. The adwords team themselves understood the model (overture had already proven it) and probably knew it would get > $1bn. Past that, it was an unknown. That kind of a business had never existed at this scale before. Adwords is now $100bn pa, and growing.

Facebook were in the same boat. The adwords/overture system didn't work on FB, and the size/value of the new market they were building was unknown. They knew it had potential, because of all the attention FB commanded, but how much was a guess. They waited until after IPO to find out. It turned out to be a lot, about $45bn currently, halfway to Google and gaining.

We have already forgotten this, but when Facebook IPO-ed they hadn't really launched their mature business/advertising model. Revenue potential was still unknown and the range of possibilities was still very wide. Even on the premise that FB remained as popular as it was, anywhere from <$1bn to >$100bn was very possible. A huge range of possible outcomes.

My belaboured point is that without the benefit of hindsight, the revenue potential of Google, Facebook, Twitter & Reddit is very detail dependant. Extrapolating from user/usage stats will only get you to within 100X.

Anyway, in this kind of environment, the pressure is on to hit the top of your potential range. Take risks. Add costs.

About 5 years ago, Twitter looked down this barrel. They 10X-ed their number of employees from 300-400 to 3,000-4,000 and cost base. Very little of this expansion was strictly necessary, to provide the service they were/are providing. Twitter was still Twitter @ 300 employees, more or less the same Twitter we have today.

In an alternate world, they could have probably achieved >$1bn (currently @ $2bn) in annual revnue with just 500-1,000 or so employees. That's at the very top of the revenue/employee spectrum, and a recipe for one of the most profitable (in % terms) companies in the world. But, the current capital allocation economy does not have room for this sort of thing.

Say it had been executed perfectly, $1.5bn/$0.5bn revenue/profit. They would have been worth less than they are currently, even though they'd be making far more profit. ...And Twitter didn't achieve the high end of their revenue potential. They've had mediocre results, with their advertising model. Still, just leaving open the possibility of Google/FB-like outcomes adds more to market cap than any level of profit.

To put this in some numerical terms, Twitter spends 40% of it's 2.2$bn revenue ($1bn) on "Selling General and Administrative." This is more than twice "R&D" spending, which I assume means "making Twitter features."

Reddit is in the same sort of boat (though they're userbase are more beligerant to this sort of thing), but scaled down. Investors are looking at Reddit's users & usage stats. DAUs, Times-on-sites... They are comparing it to FB, Google, Twitter. They are coming up with massive revenue results that _might_ be achieved if only a good advertising model could be plugged in.

What they are not looking it is "how much revenue would it take to profitably make reddit reddit" without necessarily targetting or leaving open the possibility of 100X more, at some point.

it seems that for these kinds of companies, you are either Google/Facebook or you are a probability of becoming one. How profitable, popular or well liked you are by users doesn't matter, only (probability of X). The implications of this are big, and worrying for the future of media.

</comment><comment><USER34> Social media + sponsored content = fake news problem. It's taking the trust and integrity of the platform and selling that in exchange for exposure to unverified content.

</comment><comment><USER35> _" It's almost a little strange why marketers and advertisers are so apprehensive" about Reddit, said Amanda Parker, an account supervisor for digital marketing agency PMG. "Marketers chase scale, and Reddit has it. I think they have an old-fashioned view of who Redditors are."_

Pretty obvious I would have thought: as long as reddit remains the platform of choice for all the worst hate groups in America, the harder it will be for them to attract advertisers.

If reddit insists on turning a blind eye to open and unchecked racism, calls for genocide, threats of physical violence, and bucketloads of other abhorrent content its co-founder describes as "valuable discussion", then that's the price they have to pay.

<comment><USER36> I thought they did away with nearly most of those "famous" toxic subreddits.

<comment><USER37> A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So whilst dead children might be off limits, /r/the_donald is still around despite the whole pizzagate shooting.

<comment><USER36> Wouldn't your statement be equatable with "Churches are still around despite some crazy attacking an abortion clinic"?

<comment><USER38> Apparently we will gladly give away our rights and freedoms to hurt "the other side".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I want to think that they're ignorant of how Reddit rose and what happened to Digg but I'm skeptical that's the case. I think some people would rather kill something good than continue to not risk capitalising on it.

</comment><comment><USER40> How's Voat doing these days?

<comment><USER41> Extremely toxic, as usual.

[https://q3k.org/u/0a15b5ec655a7153e7c37ee5062da48c57196af3f0...](https://q3k.org/u/0a15b5ec655a7153e7c37ee5062da48c57196af3f01ebe98acd2ad74a2564b68.png)

<comment><USER14> I totally respect the "Anyone is allowed to post anything, even if it's toxic". but when that's all the site is, or if I can't easily ignore it, it's not usable.

The core audience of a forum set the culture. The core culture of voat were people angry they couldn't post their racist shit on Reddit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I bet organizations such as the KKK would love to advertise on reddit, so hey, if they want to turn this into a money thing they should have plenty of monetization opportunities.

My popcorn is in the microwave..... ;-)

</comment><comment><USER42> What's wrong with $100,000,000? Why does everything have to be about money all the time anyways?

And if it does have to be about money, then they should give the content creators and moderators their share, should they not?

This is what's called a "slippery slope" ...</comment>