Self-Defeating Prophecies - <AUTHOR> https://unintendedconsequenc.es/the-self-defeating-prophecy/ <comment><USER2> > _The end of oil as a resource has been predicted many times over the past > century, including 1909, 1937, 1945, 1966, 1972, 1980, and 2007. Each time, > the end was paired with attempts to move industrial use to other fuel types. > But with the exception of a few price shocks, the adjusted price of oil only > slightly trends upward over the last 70 years. This, in spite of demand that > definitely trends upward over the same period. Where is the end? Did the > belief that oil use was going to end lead to new methods of exploration and > production?_

Well, that and wars to get cheaper control of more oil resources (the cost of which wars is not factored in to the cost of oil, as they're fought with public money). Plus more effective extraction while piling externalities to the environment, e.g. by fracking (the costs of which externalities is also not factored in).

In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource.

<comment><USER3> > In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource.

Exactly. And it's not the only finite resource we depend on. And the "steady growth", expected by effectively all of the economists and politicians, speeds up the exhaustion of the resources (the amount of the resources thus used is an "exponential function").

Worth considering this example:

"Bacteria in bottles -- Professor Albert A Bartlett"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk)

Apparently, we've already past the point of using one half of all easily used oil reserves. But, aren't we lucky, we've found whole "3 new bottles":

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

It's worth watching the whole talk: "Dr Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy"

As he introduces it: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

<comment> 08-15 Actual bacteria in actual bottles grow exponentially only for a brief period. The grow slows down to cubic, quadratic, linear as the limiting factors become space, area on the bottom of the bottle, height of the culture. Frankly, I see no value in a talk about a toy model that doesn't apply to the real world at all.

<comment><USER3> > Actual bacteria in actual bottles grow exponentially only for a brief period

Exactly. Because the resources are limited. Then look at graph of the total amount of energy that humanity uses:

[https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1347](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1347)

Is that sustainable? The gedanken experiment is exactly to demonstrate unsustainbility of "permanent growth" on which our politicians and economists depend on, nothing more.

The question was: when will the single "bacteria" stop thinking "there's so much more space to grow"? At 11:59? At 11:58 when there's 3/4ths of the bottle still empty? Etc.

<comment> 08-15 > Exactly.

So, the bottle wasn't half full at 11:59. What was the guy's point again?

> Is that sustainable?

I don't know. I can't predict the future any more than you can. But I can tell you one thing: this is not exponential growth. Exponential curves don't have bumps. I would guess this is the superposition of multiple logistic functions.

There is one thing, though, that is sustainable for at least 4 billion years: 15 billion people who consume as much energy as Americans do today. (compare [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/](http://www- formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/)) It doesn't look as if we'll ever reach 10 billion.

> "permanent growth" on which our politicians and economists depend on

Politicians don't, they just argue with it. Because if people demand more free stuff and lower taxes, the only way to get reelected is to argue that a much better future is just around the corner and borrow the money. That never happens, of course, but thanks to inflation, anything expressed in money looks as if did indeed grow exponentially, and everybody got their free lunch, and taxes didn't get raised, but everybody is poorer for it somehow anyway.

But Economists... I don't know why anyone ever listens to them. Nobody else can be so consistently wrong and still have such a devoted audience. When Physicists are in an argument, they run an experiment and settle it. Economists don't, they split into different schools who are all somehow right. (There's a reason why there is no Nobel Prize for Economics.)

> when will the single "bacteria" stop thinking... At 11:58 when there's > 3/4ths of the bottle still empty?

Bacteria don't think, they grow as long as they have nutrients. The exponential growth phase ends minutes into the experiment, as soon as the bacteria form a clump through which nutrients can't diffuse during one generation anymore. _Minutes_ from the _beginning_ of the experiment, not from the end! That's why the beginning, and only the beginning, of a logistic curve looks exponential.

Which means the bottle wasn't 1/4 filled at 11:58, it was 1/4 filled after about 1/4 of the total time. Yes, the thought experiment is _this_ misleading, and that's exactly why Bartlett talks about it but never runs it.

<comment><USER3> No, such detailed analysis of the way the actual bacteria grow is just a distraction. His point is that the "steady growth" is not sustainable. Whereas by analyzing how the actual bacteria behaves, we can easily see, as you say, that the "steady growth" in nature is, unsurprisingly, not sustainable.

And the "thinking" bacteria is of course not what actually exists, it's a way to try to let the listener compare that inevitability (the end of the "growth" phase) with the state of the human society and the point of view of the individual.

> Politicians don't, they just argue with it. Because if people demand more > free stuff and lower taxes, the only way to get reelected is to argue that a > much better future is just around the corner and borrow the money. That > never happens, of course, but thanks to inflation, anything expressed in > money looks as if did indeed grow exponentially, and everybody got their > free lunch, and taxes didn't get raised, but everybody is poorer for it > somehow anyway.

What is currently happening in the world is not coming out of the inflation, but from the "steady growth" in the use of the natural resources. Which are finite. Once it gets really tighter with the resources, it will really get ugly and no "inflation" will be able to hide that fact. There will be less of the actually available "stuff" and the "stuff" will be more expensive. Such basic "stuff" as "food."

Think about it: "we managed to increase the agricultural output so predictions of the increased hunger in the world didn't come true" etc. But how? Simply by spending more hydrocarbon-stored energy to produce the food. Only: 1) the stored hydrocarbon energy resources are limited. 2) We'll most probably irreversibly destroy the atmosphere balance as we know it even before we use up all the stored hydrocarbons. And the other effects are also easy to imagine. "Steady growth" is simply not sustainable.

Once again:

[https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-educati...](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth104/files/Unit2/Mod8/Earth104Mod8fig4.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Scott Adams has something he calls the "The Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters"; i.e. if we can see a problem coming from far ahead, we've always been able to fix it in time to avoid it.

* [http://blog.dilbert.com/2013/04/15/fact-checking-adams-law-o...](http://blog.dilbert.com/2013/04/15/fact-checking-adams-law-of-slow-moving-disasters/)

<comment><USER5> I was going to use nuclear war as a counterexample, but I see that he is somehow using it as a point in his favor. I find that very weird. We haven't done jack to fix that problem, it just hasn't happened yet.

<comment><USER6> There's been significant things done to stop nuclear war.

There are huge nonproliferation and counter-proliferation efforts going on.

<comment><USER7> Which aren't working. Did you know that India now has a fleet of SBN's?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arihant- class_submarine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arihant-class_submarine)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The term "self-defeating prophecy" implies that the prophecy itself is the cause for it not being correct. A lot of the things mentioned in this article just seem like incorrect predictions (or predictions where the cause isn't obvious).

</comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me of my favorite Yogi Berra-ism:

"People don't go there anymore; it's too crowded."</comment>


When you click on a link, our server will send you the corresponding page. - <AUTHOR> http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/

<comment><USER2> That seems.... not true. HN doesn't actually send the page. It just gives the URL that lets me go to that page. Then another server sends it. Or at least tries. Sometimes the traffic is too much and the page goes down. In that case HN is very much not responsible for sending the page!

<comment><USER3> Perhaps they mean the case when you're navigating within the HN site itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> OK, we get it, YC launched a new site -- That doesn't mean that gimmicks on that new site need to make the front page of HN.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Burying as dupe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Except when they don't.

Because, sometimes, they won't.

I'm sorry to say so

but, sadly, it's true

that unknown

or expired link

can happen to you.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand.

<comment><USER8> You know how normal sites are mired with mumbo-jumbo, and lots of it? Eg. [http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/)

YC policy in comparison is: click a link we provide the relevant content.

<comment><USER7> Oh, they should have more. User assumes all risks, and the content is not guaranteed to be non-pornographic in nature, we absolve ourselves should your head explode, yadda, yadda. Okay, maybe a little out there, but a lot of the term are there for the business' protection. There are a lot of ways to be sued that still fall within legal bounds; especially when user generated content is involved.</comment></comment></comment>


EA Hires Chinese Spammers to Post About SimCity's Always Online Requirement - <AUTHOR> http://www.p4rgaming.com/?p=1473

<comment><USER2> This is a "parody site". It is not a real article.

<comment><USER3> Yes, and thank you EA for making sure that my game will always be up to date! ;-)</comment></comment>


Google Cloud Inter-region latency and throughput - <AUTHOR> https://datastudio.google.com/s/nruft7xTHHM <comment><USER2> On [https://reddit.com/r/googlecloud](https://reddit.com/r/googlecloud) someone noted that the latency between Europe and Asia doesn't look good.

The answer was

> There's not a lot of connectivity between Europe and SE Asia the "short" > way. This is not Google-specific, compare cables across Atlantic and Pacific > vs. across the Indian Ocean at > [https://www.submarinecablemap.com/](https://www.submarinecablemap.com/)</comment>


Hacking Facebook logins using cellphone number churn - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/i-kinda-hacked-a-few-facebook-accounts-using-a-vulnerability-they-wont-fix-2f5669794f79 <comment><USER2> You're right. Facebook should take this seriously. Their reputation is at stake — which we all know isn't 5 star lately.</comment>


Paradox of tolerance - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance <comment><USER3> While I think this is true in some strict sense, I see a lot of people cite this as an excuse for intolerance against various groups. If a person can convince themselves that a group or person is intolerant, then the target deserves [unlimited] intolerance. And with a moral license like that, the standard for what constitutes "tolerance" basically vanishes. "Intolerance" becomes a property of groups we (especially people with powerful platforms like journalists and academics) already dislike.

<comment><USER4> It's already the case that you can ascribe any quality to any group by fiat and so therefore any criteria for being intolerant can be abused in the way that you say. There is nothing you can do to preclude dishonesty and sophistry.

<comment><USER3> I don't know; we didn't used to have such a problem with dishonesty and sophestry. Integrity and morality generally was sort of rewarded with social currency, but that was considered old-fashioned and we did away with it. It wasn't a perfect system, but I think we may have taken a wrong turn.

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty sure _Plato_ had been complaining about this stuff. I suppose we didn't use to have those problens before civilization became a thing.

<comment><USER3> To be clear, I wasn't arguing that never before nor anywhere in the world was there ever issues with sophistry and dishonesty. Plato didn't live in America in the 1990s and 2000s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's funny that this paradox can be used to justify extremism on both sides:

left - we're intolerant of unfettered free speech because it leads to spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of tolerance

right - we're intolerant of certain cultures because the proliferation of those cultures leads to spreading ideas that destroy our specific version of tolerance

<comment><USER6> I have no idea why this is being downvoted.

Logically, that both these arguments can be made is a truism. Practically, we see versions of this on both sides every day.

It doesn't mean that the left and right are both wrong, or both absurd. It means that this issue can't be settled by principle alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> An idea not often discussed around this quote is that tolerance isn't actually virtuous, and, is perhaps itself a racist/classist/otherwise-exclusionary idea.

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior (in whose honor I had a day off of work today) never once called for 'tolerance', the boycotts and sit-ins were not a demand for tolerance - they were a demand for integration. To tolerate is to "otherise" \- you are _allowed_ to continue being as your are, but on the outside. To integrate, you do not require permission, but you do not continue as you are - both "sides" are transformed by the process.

I think that we should abandon the idea of tolerance as an inherent virtue and look for pathways for mutually acceptable integration, rather than building rigid islands of tolerance.

<comment><USER8> Is this really something different than / opposed to tolerance? Or just a stronger state, of tolerance plus integration? I would argue that tolerance is one necessary part of integration, not some exclusionary alternative.

<comment><USER7> I think tolerance _alone_ is a "failure" scenario, and should absolutely not be considered a goal. Tolerance is, quite literally, a ghetto. We allow bad things to continue in the name of tolerance every day.

I might even go further to say that integration paradoxically _requires_ some degree of intolerance - the integrated whole should be intolerant of "negative" aspects of the unintegrated, even if they are things that would be seen as protection of "positive" tradition/cultural values by those in a strictly "tolerant" camp on either side.

<comment><USER8> Maybe we just need a new word for the phenomenon which prevents tolerance from progressing towards integration?

<comment><USER9> It's called ignorance. Ignoring the bad sides of any given thing. It implies being unreasonable - ignoring good reasons to not tolerate a given behavior.

Of course then there's camel nose/slippery slope fallacy so liked by intolerant. It is best to ask for evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary > to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people > to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make > it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

\-- Mosiah 29:26

It's not a paradox, it's just how democracies work. As long as the voice of the people are tolerant, it should be okay. You only need to start worrying if the intolerant are no longer a lesser part of the people and have an ever growing share of the voice of the people.

The thing I hate most about the "paradox of tolerance" is its ability to be weaponized to further political goals. All you have to do is re-categorize what your opponent(s) are doing as "intolerance" such that you can now safely be intolerant of them. Your opponent is religious? Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance!

<comment><USER11> > Find some aspect of their religion that could be considered intolerant by > your target audience and now you can safely label your opponent a bigot and > its all good since, after all, you are only being intolerant of intolerance!

While there is a risk that this works in practice, it's not really coherent. Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the intolerant.

<comment><USER6> > Being intolerant of intolerance does not necessitate being intolerant of the > intolerant.

How does it not? At some point things come into conflict. As an example, religious views that condemn homosexuality as evil. Adherents of those views will, given the power, happily prevent gay marriage by force, or much worse. If you want to defend tolerance, you will have to stop them from doing that, also by force (political or otherwise). There is no way out of that.

<comment><USER12> "happily prevent gay marriage by force or much worse."

This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior.

Believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them. The adherents also think gluttony is an evil, yet candy bars and refined carbs remain freely available.

And so, at that level of careless prejudice, it does not justify the use of "force (political or otherwise)" to "stop them." The President might as well announce that Karl Popper supports the idea of a Muslim ban.

<comment><USER6> > This seems to neatly capture the problem. If you can paint the other side as > irrational, it excuses almost any pre-emptive bad behavior.

I'd argue that _this_ response neatly captures the flip side of the problem.

To quote my other post:

\---

Both things are true:

\- Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against itself.

\- Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims.

You must contend with both of these realities. There's no avoiding judgment and practical considerations.

\---

So yes, you are right that "believing something is wrong does not mean the adherents are out to kill people or use force against them."

But sometimes it _does_ mean that. You don't get to take the high road until you address what to do in those situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Almost every position can be framed as a demand for tolerance. I just want to drive above the speed limit. I'm not hurting anyone. You can drive in whatever speed you prefer. Everyone who tries to stop me is intolerant.

So implicit in calling someone "intolerant" without qualification is "intolerant of these things, that I think should be tolerated". This is how "I can tolerate everything except intolerance" becomes "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup"[1], that is, those people that have different ideas about what should and shouldn't be tolerated.

[1] [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate- anythin...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything- except-the-outgroup/)

<comment><USER14> I think there is definitely a bit of sleight of hand going on in order for people to describe whatever outgroup they want as intolerant. In the footnote where he describes the paradox, Popper describes the intolerant's actions as:

1\. being unwilling to engage in rational argument

2\. forbidding their followers from listening to rational argument

3\. teaching their followers to answer rational argument with violence

Usually when I see someone bring up the paradox of tolerance it is because they do not want to engage in rational argument and instead seek to justify pre-emptive violence against a person or group that is at most expressing intolerant opinions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I forget where I first heard this, but "Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact." As soon as one side has broken the treaty by being intolerant, they are no longer protected by the treaty. There is no requirement in a tolerant society to tolerate intolerance.

<comment><USER16> That sounds like a rephrasing of the quote, "The constitution isn't a suicide pact."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_su...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact)

 _It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza- Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg._

<comment><USER15> You're right. I seem to have been paraphrasing a blog post[0] I read a few years ago.

[0] [https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral- precept-1...](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral- precept-1af7007d6376)

<comment><USER16> That was a very interesting read. It occurred to me as I was reading that "peace" as a moral precept is ostensibly central to Christianity, right down to not defending yourself. Obviously that doesn't describe the actual history of the religion, an probably doesn't describe any extant group. Any group that was so unwilling to defend itself was probably destroyed or absorbed centuries ago.

His descriptions really resonated with me, especially as regards the usual framing of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Israel, so the usual rhetoric goes, is much more powerful than Hamas or the PLO, so they shouldn't respond using that power. In essence they should suffer a death by a thousand cuts, because of how it makes people _feel_ to see a weaker group lose to a stronger one. Of course it's also a convenient bludgeon to rely on schoolyard logic to try and restrict people, groups, or nations from defending themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow's nose begins. But the other fellow's nose doesn't begin in my brain, or in my soul either, as the religionists would have it._

\-- Arthur Garfield Hays, "Democracy Works" (1939)

In a very Russell's Teapot way, it's fairly trivial to blow up absolute statements by recursing. This doesn't say much about the content of the idea, per se.

<comment><USER18> An interesting take on the idea expressed in your quote is Steven Smith's paper "The Hollowness of the Harm Principle"[0]; in it, he argues that the harm principle is regarded as so powerful because it seems to be _just_ intuition - when a teacher on the schoolyard tells us "your freedom to swing your arm stops where Billy's nose begins" seems just such obvious common sense. However this can't be used for a justification for the harm principle, because as it turns out defining harm is the real issue. Smith argues that the harm principle is "hollow" \- it is used as a vessel to carry the content of our ideas no matter what they are - so long as we can say they're harmful. Smith uses the example of someone who can be said to experience "harm" _simply by knowing_ that someone is watching pornography, for instance. Smith actually takes up J.S. Mill himself - on utilitarian conceptions, what these anti- pornography people experience really can be said to be meaningfully harm.

The quote dosen't get to the point that law isn't (or usually isn't) about policing thoughts, even as the "religionists" would have it, it's about preventing action, and it is of course no secret that speech really can be harmful - assault, child pornography and threats, for instance - or to take it to the extreme, when I defraud someone's bank account online, aren't I just sending messages to the web server? Surely to stop me would infringe on my right to free speech, no?

>Richard Arneson observes that "emotional reactions to what one's neighbors and fellow citizens are doing can be powerful and can be virtually unavoidable for persons who have not detached themselves from all personal concern for the quality of life in their community." Arneson suggests that "we should think of citizens who would be appalled at the thought of living in a community that tolerates Roman-style gladiatorial spectacles as harmed by the bareknowledge that such events are occurring..."

[0] [https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=102...](https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=lwps_public)

<comment><USER17> To pithily recapitulate personalism (and what an appropriate day for it, too), I'm fond of this exchange in _Carpe Jugulum_ as a rough heuristic for what constitutes harm:

 _There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example," said Oats. "And what do they think? Against it, are they?" said Granny Weatherwax.

"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."

"Nope."

"Pardon?"

"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.

"It's a lot more complicated than that . . ."

"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."

"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes . . ."

"But they starts with thinking about people as things . . . " _

<comment><USER18> What a wonderfully Kantian exchange, thank you for sharing that. Even if what she says is true, though it seems that there are instance of treating people as objects which some (most?) people do not consider to be harmful, at least in this society - employing someone under a wage, for instance (covered by Frederic Lordon in his great book on Marx and Spinoza) or pornography which some commentators deem to be identical to the objectification of the people it portrays (particularly women). Ironically, though, many thins which are harmful actually depend on recognizing (thinking) of people as human, and then denying that humanity - there must be something to deny. An insult comparing someone to dirt is only ever said because they recognize firstly that the person _isn 't_ dirt - and that's why it's effective. The principle is same with objectification. In pornography, for example, it's only appealing because the viewers know on some level that the people portrayed are more than objects, and the degradation they experience is part of the show, precisely what makes it so titillating.

<comment><USER17> I was thinking more of Martin Buber. What little I recall of Kant right now is probably on point, though -- as i recall, he was on board with "humans have intrinsic worth".

"treating people as things" doesn't necessarily mean that you believe that people _are_ things -- as you note, a willful blurring of that line in the knowledge (even subliminal knowledge) that you're acting in bad faith is, perhaps, where "it" starts in the first place.

To your examples: Employing people does not necessarily constitute treating them as things; many sharp critiques of the labor market basically center around the idea that treating your employees as things is both unnecessary and harmful.

I don't necessarily agree that pornography is obligate depersonalization -- c.f. The Stranger's HUMP fest, for example, which seems pretty person-ful to me.

<comment><USER18> With regards to employment, I see there being a continual trend towards making people as fungible as money when it comes to running an efficient business, this fungibility is predicted by the fact that when it comes to money, a form of wealth in capitalist society, labour is its source, and the most "rational" decisions thrift-wise are made with regard to only labour in abstract rather than concrete form. The theory of commodity fethishism plays a role in this too - but yes, in these theories the labour is objectified but the worker is not. As much as it is not necessary to treat the worker as a human as opposed to a machine you turn on during the time you are allowed to rent it, the necessity can often become quickly apparent even to the most sympathetic employer[0].

I think the point with porn is similar to the previous one, in the sense that porn which resists commodification is often the sort in which the people portrayed are doing it for their own sake as much as they are some kind of artistry. The critique of pornography is framed around porn defined as a kind of inequality while the rest could be better termed erotica. I don't personally think the distinction holds up to much scrutiny (there's half on an entry in SEP going over this issue) but it's reasonable to say that objectification is common in industrial pornography in particular - <USER2> despite its diversity of themes tend to boil down to this rather simple idea.

[0] "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class- relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them." (Karl Marx, preface to the first German edition of Capital)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't see the paradox.

If intolerant speech turns into violence, extant rule of law gets triggered. I believe most countries have conspiracy laws to deal with groups that plan out a path from speech to violent destruction. So unless this is a "bootstrapping" thought experiment, I don't see the problem.

On the other hand if intolerant speech doesn't generate violence, then the speech should not and cannot be curtailed without being unconstitutional-- at least in the U.S.

Now, think of the common modern case which does an end run around what I've said. That is-- large sums of money paying for a) public relations to manipulate the public into voting/acting against their own interests, and b) using the resulting power to further corrupt the democratic process.

Where does _intolerance_ come into play in that scenario? AFAICT not at all.

Now suppose society believes the paradox of tolerance is a thing. They will attempt to use intolerance as a kind of "emergency tool" to combat what they perceive to be an anti-democratic PR manipulation campaign. But the PR manipulation campaign _already beat them once_ \-- otherwise the democratic process wouldn't have gotten corrupted. It's like playing a chess game against a team of 10 grandmasters who corner you, and then you agree to let them add ten queens to their side if you can add one to your side.

So a) I don't see the paradox, b) anti-democratic forces don't need intolerance to prevail, and c) introducing intolerance into the defense of democracy gives the enemies of freedom a force multiplier.

Edit: clarification

</comment><comment><USER20> Cornell law professor Robert Hockett argues that "to tolerate" and "to not tolerate" are infinitives (verb forms) that require a direct object to make any real sense.

Some infinitives don't need a direct object — like "to dance" or "to sigh."

Other infinitives do — like "to hit" and "to give." No one simply gives in the abstract. They always give something.

Likewise, Hockett argues, no one simply tolerates in the abstract. They always tolerate (or don't tolerate) something.

A consequence of Hockett's way of speaking about tolerance is that no one can ever really be said to be "tolerant" or "intolerant" generally — that is, without any qualifiers. They can be tolerant of this, they can be tolerant of that, but they can't simply be tolerant. Indeed, the only direct object they can't be tolerant of is "everything" — which would mean the same as being tolerant with no direct object, which would encompass intolerance, which would be paradoxical.

Oh, sure there might be some people who are intolerant of just about everything ... but even "just about everything" constitutes a direct object, if a broad one.

As long as it's "just about everything" and not "everything" (which would encompass intolerance itself), then there is no paradox.

\---

Catholic archbishop Fulton Sheen on the false understanding of tolerance that permeates our culture, from his 1932 book:

"There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance.

"Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness.

"This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.

"We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's."

</comment><comment><USER21> I've seen this many times, but I've never really bought it.

I will draw an analogy: "The Paradox of Democracy".

\---

"In order to maintain a democratic society, the society must prevent undemocratic members from voting.

"Unlimited democracy must lead to the disappearance of democracy. If we extend unlimited democracy even to those who are undemocratic, if we are not prepared to defend a democratic society against the onslaught of the undemocratic, then the democrats will be destroyed, and democracy with them."

\---

This is in fact, what many have believed for centuries -- that of evils of populism will overwhelm democracy egalitarianism.

I understand the view, but on the balance, I believe it to more false than true.

<comment><USER22> It's implemented; in germany we call it "Defensive Demokratie" (defensive democracy); a democracy with the institutions to defend it from itself to ensure that democracy continues. It's a product of post-WW2 germany, so it's quite understandable on the why of it's existence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The root word of tolerance is toler -- to endure.

The dictionary definition is a bit different, to accept.

The "working definition" goes even further, to affirm.

Those who do not affirm my beliefs are therefore, intolerant, and we can purge them from society.

<comment><USER24> Pure post-modernism, distilled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Nietzsche touched somewhat on the paradox of tolerance with the last men; a society in which everyone is pacifist, living comfortable. Conflict and challenges have been eliminated. Individuals are tired of life, take no risks. A life where no intolerant people exist.

Suffering is necessary for life, he argues ("That which does not kill me makes me stronger") and that likely includes the tolerance we extend to others.

How much suffering should society endure by intolerant members to ensure it grows into something better? A difficult question (there is probably no answer).

IMO some intolerant individuals, must exist in society for society to progress and grow, to drive progress for the sake of leaving the intolerant behind and to show us a mirror of our worst selves and a starting line we must grow distant to.

<comment><USER25> I guess the meta consideration for Nietzches world is that it also must be that case that everyone tolerates that world and that no one is intolerant of it, because if any individual is intolerant of that particular world and that particular life they will chose not to live it and break that world.

What I take from this is that there is just an endless dialectical loop that will play out ad infinitum where one group will vie for power over another and at some point succeed and they in turn will have the same thing happen to them.

<comment><USER22> Possibly, yes. The senseless up and down of society has, however, driven humanity to land on the moon, so I guess it's good enough to keep us going.

So as long as it keeps going ad infinitum, that's also progress; constant change.

<comment><USER25> I disagree it's progress. I think it is just constant change. I also think it's likely unavoidable, so I don't lament about it too much.

Actually when I read Why Nations Fail was the first time I realised that things don't only go in the direction of progress and that sometimes all the progress a society has made is erased and things revert. That got me to consider that it will happen to us at some point too.

Actually, though this is an interesting point to philosophise on and I find Nietzsche a fun thinker. I guess what you are alluding to saying that this endless loop is always driving forward progress (or maybe your distinction is that it is always progressing and that isn't necessarily a value judgement on whether the 'progress' is good or bad, just that the situation is always becoming different), is that perhaps and I think that in some way this is the case that our actions and the record of it sort of acts like a ratchet. That is, it turns one way and once it turns that way it doesn't turn back the other way. That's analagous to 'some things can't be unseen' I suppose. Even if it's all reset you can't negate how far we did come this time.

<comment><USER22> >or maybe your distinction is that it is always progressing and that isn't necessarily a value judgement on whether the 'progress' is good or bad, just that the situation is always becoming different

That would be part of it, not all progress is what we think of as good but it's progress, evolution of the status quo.

The ratchet analogy also fits IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maximizing tolerance is a poor moral framework. All societies and people differentiate behavior last between tolerable and intolerable. As a culture, there is pretty much universal agreement that murder is intolerable.

There are however, differences between societies as to what is considered tolerable. The US considers making fun of deities tolerable, while in other societies blasphemy is intolerable and punishable by death.

Toleration can also evolve. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, explicit racial discrimation and segregation was considered tolerable. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we have signaled that that behavior is intolerable.

In addition, toleration has a pragmatic aspect. You may believe a behavior to be wrong, but it is not worth going to all out war over. For example, prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, Catholic principalities thought that their Protestant counterparts were intolerable and vice versa. However, after the 30 years war, while both Catholics and Protestants may not have liked each other, but decided that religious war between states was not worth it.

At the extreme end, toleration is deciding what behaviors that you do not approve of are worth killing and being killed over, and which are not. Less extreme are deciding which behaviors you do not approve of are worth losing family, friendship, or business over.

Toleration is by definition the tension between moral purity and inclusiveness. If we view it like then we can more logically talk about where the line between tolerable and intolerable should be, rather than both side putting forward sophist arguments why their opponent is intolerant and thus should not be tolerated.

</comment><comment><USER27> Popper's thought experiment is one of those neat little packaged concepts that people hear about and say "oh, right" and nod along with without really questioning its fundamental premise.

From a practical standpoint, nobody reasonable would say that a society must be always tolerant to everyone, all the time. All tolerance has a limit in the real world. Furthermore, a society can certainly accept a modest level of intolerance before it starts to encounter serious problems. Little examples of intolerance happen every day, in every city and country in the world, and yet we keep shuffling along.

Everyone also tends to ignore this part of his quote: "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

Popper follows this by saying that society must claim the right to suppress intolerance if it becomes a serious danger, but he is arguing against a strawman. Almost everyone would agree with this.

</comment><comment><USER28> It is a mistake to treat tolerance as a binary quantity (which is hinted at in the use of the phrase "unlimited tolerance"). Rather, the appropriate question to ask is, what degree of intolerance should be given to which actions, in order to form a high-tolerance stable equilibrium?

</comment><comment><USER29> > for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the > level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may > forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is > deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or > pistols.

This works until group A decides that group B is indeed acting as described above, and moves to destroy them. It's just an application of paranoia, and being an American I see it from both left and right.

</comment><comment><USER18> The paradox of tolerance (which some say isn't truly a paradox but I think that's beside the point of its content) was supported by Karl Popper, famously a defender of what he termed "the open society" \- but interestingly a much more aggressive and partisan option was put forward by an intellecutal rival to whom he was almost completely opposed - Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse's essay is a good read, whether you agree with it or not, for a different take on the issue at the height of what Marcuse saw as widespread dulling of our critical faculties.

J.S. Mill's democracy relies on the populace being informed - any attempt to block the populace being informed is therefore a threat to democracy. If democracy is blocked, democratic means cannot be used to solve the problem. Hence, Marcuse argues, we might have to resort to _apparently undemocratic_ means to resolve such a conflict.[0]

[0] [https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetol...](https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm)

<comment><USER30> I think you're getting downvoted 'cause you've taken Paradox to imply contradiction or impossibility - which it doesn't (merely the appearance or illusion of impossibility.)

<comment><USER18> I didn't really want to comment on what 'paradox' meant - I really don't think it's important, whether it's a true paradox or not doesn't matter to what the concept is trying to say. I wish it wasn't named "paradox" such that people could stop worrying about the naming and start talking about the concept it proposes instead.

<comment><USER30> I agree, so it's a shame your comment was misleading re the meaning of "Paradox"; I think everyone leapt on that error, I doubt they disagree re Marcuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If the definition of tolerant society S is one where everyone is tolerant of one another, then by definition it can't include anyone who's intolerant of at least one person in S. The intolerant person simply doesn't belong in S.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think this just shows that tolerance is a self defeating concept. Perhaps the celebration of tolerance should be replaced with celebration of other virtues like humility, empathy, patience, understanding and honest debate in search of truth. Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated.

<comment><USER11> > Tolerance itself seems to be bred out of the nihilistic view that there are > no ultimate truths and thus all ideas are to be equally tolerated.

That's what the intolerant say to make tolerance seem absurd. All that tolerance is about is the recognition that there are lots of different ways to live that are compatible with the same, real, "ultimate truths", and that just being different doesn't mean you are wrong. Interpreting that to mean that there is no right and wrong is simply a straw man.

<comment><USER32> I think there's a conflation going on here between tolerance of ideas and tolerance of people. My statement was regarding tolerance of ideas, you're talking about tolerance of people.

So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to attack those ideas.

So applying this to real world example, my culture has the caste system which some experts say has been as damaging for the lower caste individuals as slavery has been for people in the West. Demanding tolerance of the caste system because we should 'tolerate different ways of living' is absurd. It is a bad idea and should be challenged. I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems. This is a case where there is obvious truth vs untruth - ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now know to be false. Calling for intolerance of this untrue belief is in no way the same thing as calling for intolerance of or mistreatment of Indians or Hindu people.

<comment><USER11> > So attacking people for living a different way is obviously wrong. At the > same time, if a lifestyle is based on bad ideas, it seems like a benefit to > attack those ideas.

Yes. But the point is that it should be attacked because it is a bad idea, not because it is a different idea. There is no need for tolerance to be limitless in order to be considered tolerance, just as there is no need for democracy to accept the election of a dictator in order to be considered a democracy.

> I see nothing wrong with being intolerant of caste systems.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that you are intolerant, the same way that attempts to assassinate (democratically elected) Hitler were not anti- democratic. It is neither necessary nor helpful to define those terms in such a way that they are self-defeating, there is a useful concept there that can sensibly be labeled "tolerance" that encompasses only the non-self-defeating aspects of tolerance.

> ie. the caste system is based on beliefs about reincarnation which we now > know to be false

I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs, but it's usually better to avoid an unnecessary burden of proof ;-)

<comment><USER32> >I am not too familiar with it, but is it really something that we know to be false, or just something unfalsifiable and therefore epistemically irresponsible to accept, as most religious claims the world over are? Not that it makes any difference for the relevance of those beliefs,

But that's just the point, if reincarnation is a valid belief, then the caste system is valid as well. The two justify each other. The caste system posits that your social status (caste) in this life is a result of your actions in the previous life. It's based on the theory of reincarnation that you will be born again and your next life will be determined by your actions in this one.

Reincarnation is only 'unfalsifiable', because of the nihilistic version of tolerance. Under any fair standandard it's properly classified as wrong. There is no rational reason to believe that you switch bodies after death. No rational person should believe such things absent strong evidence. It is mere superstition. We should be able to say that. Superstitions and false beliefs can and do cause harm, as with reincarnation upholding the caste system.

I think it's this misplaced notions of tolerance (like saying it's merely unfalsifiable rather than calling it what it is - wrong - that allow bad ideas to persist. And let's be honest, to say that belief in reincarnation is as valid as scientific beliefs or beliefs based on reason is basically a nihilistic denial of truth.

<comment><USER11> > Reincarnation is only 'unfalsifiable', because of the nihilistic version of > tolerance.

No, it is unfalsifiable because there is no way to prove it wrong even if it is wrong, that is the definition of unfalsifiability, and has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance.

> There is no rational reason to believe that you switch bodies after death. > No rational person should believe such things absent strong evidence. We > should be able to say that. Superstitions and false beliefs can and do cause > harm, as with reincarnation upholding the caste system.

I agree with all of that. But none of that gets you to "and therefore, this is false". The position that it is false is equally unsupported by evidence, and hence that no rational person should believe it does apply to that claim as well.

> I think it's this misplaced notions of tolerance (like saying it's merely > unfalsifiable rather than calling it what it is - wrong - that allow bad > ideas to persist.

Except you don't know it to be wrong, and making that unsubstantiated claim unnecessarily puts you in a weaker position, because a believer will in many cases notice that your position is just as unsubstantiated as theirs and say things like "but your position also requires faith!", which is indeed correct, and thus allows them to defend their position against your argument.

The idea of reincarnation is not "merely unfalsifiable", it is unfalsifiable. It is irrational to believe unfalsifiable claims. When you try to argue that their position is wrong, you are taking on a burden of proof that you simply aren't responsible for and that you also cannot meet. You are essentially shifting the topic in their favour: The question is whether they know that reincarnation is real, and instead of showing that they don't know that, you shift the discussion to whether you know that reincarnation is not real. Whether you know that reincarnation is not real is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. They don't know what they are claiming to know, and that is why their position is irrational and not worth consideration.

If anything, the idea that you have to disprove all unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable bullshit before it should be considered irrational nonsense is what allows those ideas to persist, because it erects a barrier that is impossible to overcome. Showing that a claim is unsubstantiated and/or unfalsifiable should be enough to undermine the credibilitiy of any such claim.

> And let's be honest, to say that belief in reincarnation is as valid as > scientific beliefs or beliefs based on reason is basically a nihilistic > denial of truth.

And you know why? Because one requirement for a belief to be considered scientific is that is has to be falsifiable. Being unfalsifiable disqualifies any claim from being considered scientific.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If the law is the "intolerance" of society to those who behave anti-social, then yes it's true. But so many nowadays try to justify their own radical ideas by citing this...

</comment><comment><USER34> > Intolerant zealots (religious or otherwise) can weaponize tolerance against > itself.

> Bigots can weaponize the paradox of tolerance for purely hateful aims.

If tolerance _and_ the paradox of tolerance can both be weaponized equally easily, what does this make of the recommendation for _not_ being "tolerant of the intolerant"? Isn't it simply a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"?</comment>


Hillary Clinton announces tech platform - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/28/hillary-clinton-tech-platform/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook&sr_share=facebook <comment><USER2> She still touts a "Manhattan-like project" [1] to break encryption, calling it "cybersecurity" does not change that. This alone is enough to lose my support.

Maybe this really can be the year of the 3rd party.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary- clinton-w...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton- wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/)

<comment><USER3> This idea of her's scares me. There is mathematically no way to allow the government access to encrypted documents without potentially allowing bad actors access to them. It's math, you can't just change math because you will it.

And even if you could somehow get encryption that maintains security and allows government investigation, there is no stoping people from just using software written outside the law.

And that is assuming that you don't consider the government itself or any person who works for it as a potential bad actor.

That whole idea is all sorts of bad. It makes law abiding citizens less safe while doing almost nothing for our security.

<comment><USER4> This depends greatly on the form it takes. I am not optimistic, but if it is "pour tremendous resources into cryptanalysis research, honestly advising people to move away from algorithms as we find weaknesses and eventually publishing them", that could be a good thing. If anyone can break an algorithm, it's possibly best if it's the US govt first.

If it involves trying to get people to use compromised systems, that won't work out well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The decision to announce her technology imperatives outside of Silicon > Valley may seem strange,

Given the response from Silicon Valley to the "Manhattan-like Project" on compromising digital privacy, the most political salient piece of those "imperatives" \-- which has been announced previously, though some of the other elements may not have been -- its not at all surprising that she chose to announce the "tech platform" somewhere else.

</comment><comment><USER6> > The decision to announce her technology imperatives outside of Silicon > Valley may seem strange, but it represents one of the platform objectives: > to democratize tech industry growth across the country, rather than just > leaving the industry isolated on its most well-known turf.

This alone is enough to win my support.

</comment><comment><USER7> Any specifics on visas? Seems like that should be part of any tech platform one way or another.</comment>


The IT Contract from Hell - <AUTHOR> http://www.itcontractor.com/Articles_IR35_News_Advice/view_article.asp?id_no=4842 <comment><USER2> E-gad. I wouldn't want to work with any of these jerks, including the author. What kind of punk keeps a diary of how bad his contract is?

I've never had a bad contract -- and I've been in situations more stressful than this. A good attitude, good people skills (fundies a problem? Yeesh. What a piece of cake), and the ability to say "no" will fix about anything.

But I have worked with a lot of folks who were smarter than everybody else, who kept a running list of grievances, who had to work with poor managers.

Contracts are like playing cards. Each time you get a different combination of people, skills, and faults. I can imagine myself walking into a job with such a piss-poor manager: you either convince them that you are working to cover up for them and make them look good or you fold your cards and find another contract. Sulking for 5 months isn't much of a life. Life is short.

It was a bad contract, yes. But it takes two parties to continue something that painful. The author bears quite a bit of responsibility (and needs to grow up), in my opinion.

<comment><USER3> > What kind of punk keeps a diary of how bad his contract is?

An IT guy who has nothing better to do because they won't let him go online. Somebody who's working in hell and has one place to truly vent. Someone with self-restraint? This guy's unbelievably patient; I might've been out of there in a week. Looks like the catharsis paid off...give him a break.

<comment><USER2> There are two sides to every story, and all I got by reading this story is that the guy learned absolutely nothing in all that time he was there -- not how to respect others' viewpoints, not how to deal with insecure bosses, not how to make decisions regarding money vs. job enjoyment, not how to make allies of people who have different cultural/religious views than your own.

He probably has the ability to be a good worker -- there's too little to go on here. But I'm seeing a lack of seeing both sides that is crippling for a career. It just doesn't appeal to me. In fact, if anything it's sad to see a waste of time and energy.

Sorry. I don't see any catharsis. All I see is a lack of evolution in attitudes. There are a lot more bosses and jobs like this one. At the end of all of that, I'd really hope he made some decisions/grew so not to end up there again.

By calling it out in a harsh light, I _am_ trying to give him a break.

<comment><USER3> > By calling it out in a harsh light, I _am_ trying to give him a break.

You just made my brain reboot. How does that make any sense?

<comment><USER2> Because the easy thing to do would be to simply laugh along with his story and miss the larger problems he is skating around. That'd just reinforce the bad attitude. He needs somebody to say look, crappy jobs are part of life, if you want to have a better career instead of keeping a list of gripes learn some interpersonal and professional skills and don't do this again. It's not something to praise. You deserve better.

I guess why I'm harsher than usual on this article is that consulting is basically being somebody's smart friend for money. They pay you, and you're supposed to put their interests above your own for a period of time (within reason, of course). Friends don't keep running lists of grievances against each other -- it's counterproductive and it makes interpersonal progress damn near impossible.

I have a good friend who I went to school with. He is a card-carrying conservative evangelical holy-roller. Even became a minister. He also does network and server administration. His current gig? Working as network admin inside the beltway for one of the most liberal, anti-religious organizations on the planet (You'd instantly recognize the name)

Does he keep a list of how offensive these people are to him? Not at all. His job is to put their interests first and to take care of them as a friend. They like him so much he's been there over ten years and moved up a couple of spots.

You learn to deal with adverse conditions without holding grudges, keeping logs, or keeping it all inside. That's not an easy lesson to learn, but it's critical. I was trying to cut the guy some slack by pointing out that facing your problems and growing from them is the better way long-term. You don't want to get into a pattern where you're the smart genius and all the gigs you've worked were full of barely functional morons. That's Dilbert, not real life.

Sorry about running on so long. It just got under my skin as a professional skills thing. Everybody has war stories, but you tell them knowing that from the other side, _you_ were the moron. I didn't see that.

EDIT: "Giving somebody a break"= doing the harder thing for you to do which results in the easier path for the person involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      2.The ADMINISTRATIVE FASCIST. Usually a retentive drone (or rarely, a harridan ex-secretary) who
        has been forced into system administration.

<comment><USER5> as a sysadmin, i can only wish i had the power to kick people out of meetings...

i guess i haven't tried shrieking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's nothing worse than an insecure boss.

<comment><USER4> A horny boss?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd reply "a horny, insecure boss?", but then people will accuse me of turning this place into another reddit - and they'll be right!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The "digital service" comment takes me back to right after college when I took a job full of idiots using odd and just-plain-wrong terminology like that all the time. Made me feel really dumb until I learned they were all full of shit. Ha.

</comment><comment><USER8> At least the payment was not from hell, from the sounds of it.

<comment><USER9> The sad thing is that the company was _not_ getting fleeced... They were paying a premium for having made a bad hire that they couldn't get rid of. I bet they settled on the high price after having found that anyone paid less leaves right away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Those guys didn't know about the DNS? Heck, I bet they had another contractor setup their domain name too. :P

The statement below was right in the face!

 _"That's what I get paid the extra for"_

</comment><comment><USER11> Maybe I'm crazy, but that job sounds like fun. I love messing with incompetent people.

</comment><comment><USER12> Mail this to Scott Adams!!!

</comment><comment><USER13> How does anyone with dev background bear a job for any length of time where all you are doing is editing HTML and ftp'ing it?

<comment><USER14> The money was "that" good</comment></comment>


Announcing Oculus Connect, RakNet Open Source, and E3 2014 Awards - <AUTHOR> http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/announcing-oculus-connect-raknet-open-source-and-e3-2014-awards/ <comment><USER2> RakNet's ([http://www.jenkinssoftware.com/](http://www.jenkinssoftware.com/)) low-level killer feature is a tweakable guaranteed-messaging-layer on top of UDP. One can send messages as unreliable-unordered, reliable-unordered, unreliable-ordered and reliable-ordered. Messages can be sent in ordering channels (messages in one channel are only ordered between each other, not with messages in other channels). ENET ([http://enet.bespin.org/Features.html](http://enet.bespin.org/Features.html)) has a similar low-level feature set, but lacks RakNet's high-level features as far as I know (replication RPC, voice etc).

<comment><USER3> I wonder why they didn't include the commit history in the RakNet repository though - [https://github.com/OculusVR/RakNet](https://github.com/OculusVR/RakNet)

<comment><USER4> There are some interesting issues already appearing on GitHub for this, buffer overflows and SQL injections. Hopefully open sourcing this should make it more secure as well as free to use.

I've been looking at networking libraries recently so this news has come at a good time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is it just me or does it feel like so far Oculus is doing pretty much everything right. It very well could just be the fanboy in me.

On a semi related note, the title really scared me before I saw the article. I thought 'Oculus Connect' was going to be some sort of Facebook Connect style social integration.

<comment><USER6> I don't think they're "doing pretty much everything right" but, then again, I'm not getting paid to say so.

<comment><USER5> Are you insinuating I am getting paid to? Sorry if it came off that way, I tried to acknowledge my fanboyism. It's mostly that I just have this believe that everything John Carmack touches turns to gold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> RakNet is pretty legit. It's very low level so it doesn't make making a networking multiplayer video game easy, but it does do a good job solving one critical component in doing so. Great move.

</comment><comment><USER8> Looking forward to the Carmack and Abrash talks.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does this mean the second dev kits are about to ship?

<comment><USER10> Yep. They announced a few days ago that the first DK2s are moving from manufacturing to distribution: [https://developer.oculusvr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1...](https://developer.oculusvr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=10044)</comment></comment>


Sad News: Jim Weirich (author of Rake and Builder) passed away - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/evanphx/status/436408348968120320 <comment><USER2> Jim was a phenomenal teacher, speaker, hacker, and all-around good guy. He probably attended more programming conferences than anyone I know, and he was always more than happy to stop in the hallway, during lunch, or whenever to talk. If you have a moment today, maybe take some time to watch one of his talks: [http://www.confreaks.com/presenters/24-jim- weirich](http://www.confreaks.com/presenters/24-jim-weirich) (there's _more_ than enough to choose from!)

</comment><comment><USER3> Rest in peace. Thanks for Rake and everything. :(</comment>


Show HN: TrueUX prototype, text command wireframing - <AUTHOR> http://trueuxapp.pythonanywhere.com <comment><AUTHOR> It's a command based UX tool prototype. Current focus is on wireframing, but should grow beyond that. Let me know what you think!

Some background info here: [https://medium.com/proof-of-concept/introducing- the-trueux-s...](https://medium.com/proof-of-concept/introducing-the-trueux- sandbox-prototype-a-free-wireframing-ux-tool-88c93a12a4cd)

If you want to sign up to our newsletter, provide some extra feedback, you can do that here: [https://goo.gl/forms/tHg5YMr8hbJIXRke2](https://goo.gl/forms/tHg5YMr8hbJIXRke2)</comment>


AWS Reserved Instances and Purchasing Strategy - <AUTHOR> https://www.raveld.com/blog/content/2012/05/08/reserved-instances-and-purchasing-strategy/

<comment><USER2> For me I purchased the reserved instance( a micro one ) last october. I planned to use it as the host of my personal site (for some projects' demo) and weblog. As the post claims, the main concern before purchasing a reserved instance is it cannot scale. My personal site, which I believe will not gain so much view in all 3 years, benefits the most from the average low price.

for those suggests GithubPages to host one's blog, thank you for your information. Gh-pages is a great option and I recommend it too if one just need a place to host a static blog. However for me, I need a VPN server at the same time because yes, I live in China. That's why I chose AWS services.

</comment><comment><USER3> The last time I did the numbers on reserved instances, I was initially surprised (and subsequently not surprised at all) to find that the present value cost of reserved vs payg was close to identical assuming a typical A- rated corporate debt rate. Given that my cost of capital is higher than Jeff's but my inherent risk (in demand i.e. workload predictability) low, it made sense to go reserved.</comment>


Hyperpage – The Limitless Web Hosting Platform - <AUTHOR> https://www.hyperpage.co/?ref=hackernews <comment><USER2> Is this an article from 10 years ago? You could buy an SSD yourself every two months at the going rate.</comment>


Show HN: CorrelatePro – Visualize your investments - <AUTHOR> https://correlate.pro <comment><USER2> We'll be hanging around the comments to answer any questions, talk about investments, etc!

This project came from our frustrations with today's analytics. There are a lot of problems, but we focused on diversification. With companies like Tesla spanning multiple industries, it's no longer sufficient to think that having investments in multiple industries is "diverse". Instead, let's look at the math and see which companies' returns are not closely correlated and build a portfolio from there.

Finally, we build with a focus on design and empathy. With correlations, we realized that a graph is a simple, intuitive way to visualize our statistics.

<comment><AUTHOR> Excited to hear what you all think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> the end of your page says: '© 2017 CorrelatePro. All rights reserved.'

but it is 2018 now... and those litl things might matter to some... they do to me

<comment><AUTHOR> Holy smokes. Those things do matter. Thank you so much for pointing that out.</comment></comment>


Google Drive broken due to deployment of internal version? - <AUTHOR> Looks like Google deployed an employee-only version of Google Drive, which is apparently being renamed to Backup-and-Sync [1]. The result is that the new Backup-and-Sync app comes up with a "Sorry, the app needs to close, please email @ to get your account whitelisted" -- meaning, apparently, that the app is restricted to Google employees.
I went looking for info and the only reference to the error I could find was one Reddit thread. Thought HN readers might want to know what's up as well -- and hoped that maybe someone at Google might notice this and fix it ASAP, please, because I am using Google Drive as part of my workflow right now? :)
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/5zrwwp/google_drive_is_now_backup_and_sync_error/ <comment><USER2> No new apk on apkmirror.com, no pending update on the German play store. If they deployed a dogfooding version, it didn't rollout world-wide.

<comment><USER2> It's about the Windows app.</comment></comment>


The Birth of Calculus (1986) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObPg3ki9GOI <comment><USER2> The really interesting thing about this video, to me, is the explanation of how tangents were calculated _before_ calculus. You can see how awkward it would have been to do things that way, and how it would have been difficult to realize they was something far far easier.

<comment><USER3> Trigonometric functions have existed for a long time. And in the past, more trigonometric functions were used:

\- versed sine (versin) and versed cosine (vercos)

\- coversed sine (coversin) and coversed cosine (covercos)

\- haversed sine (haversin) and haversed cosine (havercos)

\- hacoversed sine (hacoversin) and hacoversed cosine (hacovercos)

\- exsecant and excosecant

Perhaps I am forgetting some. Many alternative mnemonics exist for these too.

This formula was very important: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wonderful. Some very interesting and very precise historical details.

I can only be sad to imagine how something on that subject would be produced today (with so much sound and visual effects and removing the substance to be practically unwatchable). They just don't make them like that anymore, sadly.

Also good to be remembered that a lot of work of Leibniz was in some way inspired or motivated by, or related to his work on his calculating machine:

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

<comment><USER5> There's some math content on youtube that's great, and wouldn't have been possible 30-odd years ago. I'm mostly thinking of 3blue1brown, but I'm sure there are other examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> People often know about Isaac Newton but not Isaac Barrow.

Or the greatest of all, the doctor that rediscovered integration in 1994. [https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical- research...](https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher- discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/)

<comment><USER6> OP is not joking, the original paper is available here:

[https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMethod.pdf](https://math.berkeley.edu/~ehallman/math1B/TaisMethod.pdf)

> RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— In Tai's Model, the total area under a curve is > computed by dividing the area under the curve between two designated values > on the X-axis (abscissas) into small segments (rectangles and triangles) > whose areas can be accurately calculated from their respective geometrical > formulas. The total sum of these individual areas thus represents the total > area under the curve

<comment><USER7> Is this not just the trapezoidal rule for numeric integration?

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

It's not even a particular good choice for the specific problem (glucose curve) because the trapezoidal rule will systematically underestimate the true area when the curvature is always negative. Simpson's rule is almost always a better choice:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_rule)

Fun fact: although the method is attributed to the 18th century mathematician Simpson, Kepler is known to have used it in the 17th century.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The difference between Newton and Leibniz seems remarkably similar to the difference between say: Einstein and Feynman. One seems to be discovering the maths while the other seems to be forging it. Personally, I prefer and understand the forged methodology better myself, but then again I have always been a tinkerer.

</comment><comment><USER9> Transcript: [https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=ObPg3ki9GOI](https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=ObPg3ki9GOI)

</comment><comment><USER10> Are the original notebooks online?

<comment><USER11> I've seen Newton's notebooks online before.</comment></comment>


Dangers and benefits of the freemium model - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sashidoio/dangers-and-benefits-of-the-freemium-model-what-did-we-learn-out-of-parses-shutdown-79becb215c84 <comment><USER2> These companies shouldn't have closed if they had as many users as the article says.

Change your plans and charge more. Or in the case of these, start charging at all instead of giving everything for free.

If that implies 50% of free users leaving, so be it! Don't be scared about loosing them, they are NOT even customers by definition.</comment>


Show HN: A faster, cleaner YouTube built on Angular.js and Foundation - <AUTHOR> http://toogl.es

<comment><USER2> This is awesome, thanks for sharing! Why is it so fast? Is it angular???

<comment><AUTHOR> Angular + the fact that YouTube serves up JSONP requests really really fast :). The code is at <http://github.com/mikecrittenden/toogles> if you're curious.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, this has actually sparked my interest in learning Angular. I was ready to start with Ember.js, but this has pushed down a different path. Appreciate you sharing the source code.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can highly recommend Angular. I used Ember for awhile (built minutefavors.com on it so I did get some decent real world experience) and was a fan until finding Angular. Angular just makes a lot more sense to me and I can get more done with less code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It is a pretty smooth from 1 page to next. Nice job. Quick Q for you: which api endpoint are you using to get the youtube listing on the frontpage?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Most viewed in the last day. Code here: [https://github.com/mikecrittenden/toogles/blob/master/app/sc...](https://github.com/mikecrittenden/toogles/blob/master/app/scripts/controllers/main.js#L43)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm impressed! It loads super fast. Good work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for trying it out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Loving the Yeoman favicon! But really clean site, and it feels pretty fast, i like it :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, for some reason making a custom favicon is one of my least favorite parts of this process so I always put it off. :). Glad you like it! Thanks for trying it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> awesome! Page Weight matters for youtube though ;) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957992></comment>


India power plant fire: Nine reported dead in major blaze in Telangana - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53861457 <comment><USER2> Could also be a cyberattack,given the border tensions with country have one of the most advanced cyber military,

You never know!</comment>


De-emphasize Age, Refocus on Play - <AUTHOR> http://simplyryan.com/2010/08/29/de-emphasize-age-refocus-on-play/

<comment><USER2> I think that this is a better and more constructive article than the various other age-related articles drifting around. It may very well be that the level of fluid intelligence is the real issue, and that this level is partially inversely correlated with age because, as time goes on, more and more people stop playing, and few ever start playing again once they've stopped.

Many people probably stop play-like activities because they consider it to be wasted time, much like sleep, and so it gets the axe when time is scarce. Perhaps if they realized its importance, they'd make time for it.

<comment><USER3> I think a culprit in age-related decline of fluid intelligence is Careerism.

I don't mean the idea that you should take your career seriously. That would be lower-case-C careerism. What I mean is the idea that you should evaluate every aspect of your life from a point of view of "will this get me a promotion" or "will this get me a better job?"

That not only causes you to stop playing, but in my experience it kills all creativity dead.

<comment><AUTHOR> I complete agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some of the more creative people I've known seem to be the same ones that blur the lines between work and play. They'll have an interest in something and dive into it having a great time. They're constantly thinking, analyzing, enjoying what they're doing, looking at every angle of doing something. (sounds like Apple?) They're not afraid of much of anything either, including some failures (which they also learn from). They're not going through some memorized motions, they're heavily involved.

I guess that's where they play side of it ties in... heavy involvement, and the happy-chemicals that go with fun/play help to more easily form mental pathways. Disliking what you're doing, being completely bored/mechanical or having excessive levels of anxiety tends to shut one down mentally.

Work hard and play hard

</comment><comment><USER5> Does playing video games count? I have plenty of those under my belt. :)

<comment><USER6> Yes [1].

[1] Rosser JC Jr, Lynch PJ, Cuddihy L, Gentile DA, Klonsky J, Merrell R., The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century., Arch Surg. 2007 Feb;142(2):181-6; <http://archsurg.ama- assn.org/cgi/content/full/142/2/181>

<comment><USER5> Awesome! All those playing are not a waste of time as everyone has berated me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well great to know. But I thinks they are some other factors apart from Fluid and Crystallized intelligence.</comment>


Ask HN: How to move past 150k/200k in compensation? - <AUTHOR> It looks like i am stuck around 150k range compensation despite having 10+ yrs of experience. The only thing against me is that I am an immigrant.  Nowadays, new grads are pulling 120k to 130k right away.
I no longer enjoy coding but I am good at getting things done and building good rapo with people. What can I do to move into leadership roles?
How does someone like me get 200k or more in compensation?
PS- I am not a native English speaker but I have studied in English throughout my life.
Any suggestions? <comment><USER3> I know many people personally who make 200k+, with less than 10 years experience. Many of them are also immigrants. Some of the ways they got there:

\- live in a tech hub with high demand for programmers. The best places are NYC/SF and probably Seattle

\- switch companies every ~2 years, and negotiate for ~25% comp increases when you do. There are some tips that can help you achieve this, but it's a blog post in itself

\- work for a lucrative brand-name employer like Google/FB. First, you'll make a ton of money there. Second, having them on your resume will boost your future prospects and compensation offers

\- in order to accomplish the above, get really good at interviewing skills. Practice topcoder, cracking the coding interview, fundamental algorithms and data structures, communication and presentation skills, etc etc. Whatever it takes to ace the interviews, no matter how dumb you may think it is

\- be good at your craft. Read expert books, work on your own small side projects, push yourself to build high quality code, and not just barely functional junk. Do everything you can to become an expert in your area

\- be a great coworker. Leave a positive impression with your manager and colleagues. You don't have to be their friend, but you want to be someone they respect and would recommend to their friends

<comment><USER4> barely functional junk haha

Even at $10/hr? Hahaha

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most people who make > $200K in total comp receives the excess in either stock, bonuses, or percentages of a firm's profit. (There are some outliers, but even many C-level executives have salaries in that range and then millions in stock compensation.) Keep that in mind when you compare salaries with others - those Google engineers making $400K/year are usually making about $150-170K base, $50K bonus, and $200K+ in RSUs.

That also implies the way to break $200K: join a company whose stock is rising, perform well for them, and negotiate a generous equity grant.

<comment><USER6> Breaking the 200k ceiling in base is hard. I know I've plateaud.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Two things.

1\. Learn soft skills. If we look at the modern business exec they do a few things very well. They can speak to large groups of people with conviction. They can make tough decisions. They can articulate their thoughts through a variety of mediums. These skills are learned. They come from practice and experience. One of the first things I would recommend you do is join an organization like toastmasters and learn the basics of public speaking.

2\. Depending on your situation in life, take risk. Risk is what allows people to propel themselves into those 400k+ annual comp. A lot of these suggestions cite going into consulting, which is high billable if you're good. What they lack though is the necessity to win clients, build good relationships and grow your business. This is mitigation of risk + soft skills.

Relevant reading. [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/crackin...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/cracking- the-bamboo-ceiling/380800/)

<comment><USER8> Curious if you have read the book mentioned in the Atlantic link?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Go from employee to being a consultant. You can probably double that if you are good (possible to make 400-500k in a good year when you get a few good deals in a row). But there are limits to a one man company obviously so going beyond that is probably only possible by becoming a C level manager at a big company or CEO (so start your own company?) where millions in bonuses and stock compensations are normally part of compensation.

<comment><USER10> Do you have any resources on the transition from engineer to a consultant?

<comment> barry-cotter Make Money Online podcast. Kai Davis and Nick Disabato's sites and mailing lists. Alan Weiss has written s lot of books on being a consultant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's possible, but unusual, to earn over 200k as a base salary. Although it is more common at certain organizations (e.g. Google, Apple) and in roles like sales. As others have mentioned, often beyond that point you're in stock, bonuses and other incentives.

One reason is tax. After 200k almost half of what you earn is going in tax (Assuming US/California here). So going to 250k seems like a jump, but it's going to have a much less increment on your lifestyle.

So you may be better moving laterally/zig-zagging than continuing to optimize on the path you're on. Perhaps a smaller org that can still pay well, but gives you equity or leadership opportunities.

<comment><USER12> I am interested in moving into enterprise software sales to move into higher income brackets. Can you recommend any companies to work for?

<comment><USER11> If you've got a technical background there are a number of routes/companies. You could make the jump directly into sales, but without experience you'll have to start at the ground floor. If you take on a technical/pre-sales role you may be able to move laterally.

Probably lots of companies you can do that at. Will depend more on your geography, the opportunities that are available. Generally system integrators and technical consultancies can be a good place to start looking...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> \- Quickest way to make more money is to reduce your expenses. See where you are wasting money and optimize for that. Work remotely for the same amount of compensation and move to a place that has very low cost of living/rent etc (even within US).

\- Decide how much more you want to make? Is it purely a greed or do you really need that much money. You alway have to pay some cost to increase your income beyond certain point, it could be your time, safety, health. Calculate those factors in. Earning $50k more then if you end up spending that much on health would not be a good idea.

<comment><USER14> I think $140k/yr per single male is about the perfect "mix" of "I have money" and "I don't want to push it".

But that isn't San Francisco dollars. I guess it would be closer to $180k/yr there.

<comment><USER12> At $140k you would struggle to afford real estate in the major US cities. Sure, it's enough for a single male with few hobbies to live in a studio apartment and eat fast food whenever he wants, ignoring the prospects of retirement and starting a family -- but that's not really enough, now, is it?

<comment><USER15> Are you kidding? How narrow is your definition of major US city. That's a reasonable salary in Salt Lake City for a senior developer. And with that you can easily handle property, retirement, and eat quite well.

<comment><USER16> Why would you choose a city in the middle of nowhere with air pollution issues as your example?

<comment><USER17> Wow, it's so surprising how people "can't" live well on $140k in major metro cities (e.g. NYC). I feel like that is a good salary. I wonder what people are spending their money on. Is it because most have student loans to pay? I want to know the breakdown of expenses before one can declare this salary is good or bad.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I'm not sure what these people are talking about.

I lived quite well as a single male working in Manhattan proper with a sub six-figure salary; living in Hoboken, and commuting maybe 15-20 mins everyday on the PATH. This was around 2013-14. And I lived like a king in my opinion... was able to save money, build my credit, eat out wherever, never pay attention to price tags when shopping, and take trips/vacations, etc.

Maybe things have changed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Switching from salary to consulting pretty much tripled my income to past that range.

<comment><USER20> Also curious as I'm a consultant, are you a private consultant? Do you go through a third-party to book? Are you a FTE at a consultant company?

I'm not happy currently with the amount of travel required nor the archaic mindset of some of the managers/planners.

<comment><USER19> I freelance and find my own clients.

<comment><USER21> How? The people I know who did this basically worked at consulting firms until they'd built a network, then set out on their own.

<comment><USER19> I did marketing for 7 years at brands, and had a network from that as well as from events I've been at. I also did some cold emailing that paid off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> You don't need to be a more productive widget, you need to own the share of output of an increasing number of productive widgets.

<comment><USER23> Shouldn't this be the case for most people? Increase leverage not output, or more ideally increase them both at the same time.

Without more leverage you may not be able to extract the extra value you create with more output, but without more output you can likely extract more value with more leverage. Though if you're concerned with fairness, increasing both is the way to go.

<comment><USER22> ummm... the point is take 10% of a billion dollars created by a thousand people, rather than try to be worth 100M$ yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Work for Google and be promoted once.

SDE III (a promotion up from new grad) has typical total comp in the 210 - <USER2> k$/yr range.

<comment><USER25> This is bang on target. I just did this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> solution architect: an iteration of your current job, except in the front office (working with customers), and paying 1.5-3x your current salary.

</comment><comment><USER27> Start your own thing, first as a side business and grow it from there... the sky is the limit aftear...

</comment><comment><USER28> Assuming you have 150k in compensation, your loaded value (the employer side contributions, benefits and taxes) may be another 20-25% bringing you closer to that number.

Consulting can bring you closer but you have to move up the food chain in the type of strategic consulting you do.

</comment><comment><USER29> Get an MBA and find a niche. Sometimes that means moving to a different company where supply and demand of a particular skill works in your favor, sometimes it means starting your own company.

</comment><comment><USER30> There are industries (finance?) that provide bonuses to employees based on certain performance goals. Perhaps a situation like that could help you break through?

</comment><comment><USER31> You're seriously saying you really can't find any companies that need lead devs or managers?

</comment><comment><USER32> Find some solid and trustworthy people you can work with and start a company and then pay yourself

<comment><USER32> I like how this gets downvoted on YCombinator of all places.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Be a guy who can do within 2 hours of a request in a way that leaves everyone satisfied. That is hard: you have to be very good. To be very good you spend 4-10 years of your life doing nothing but writing code, administering systems and understanding what makes things work. You learn to love it and live it.

But 'the system' is set against > 200K in compensation. You get taxed to the point of regret and even in the zone of 'getting better' you eventually realize you can't keep it up. If you are a social butterfly and watch for opportunities maybe you can make it to 500K by killing your friends, but that is what it takes.

</comment><comment><USER34> In what roles at which businesses are new grads earning 120k-130k?

<comment><USER35> Software engineers in NYC can make that out of college if they are competent interviews and negotiate their first salary

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Any big tech company

</comment><comment><USER37> Find some passive income like investing in CryptoCurrency.

<comment><USER38> Elaborate on how investing in CryptoCurrency generates passive income?

<comment><USER37> The marketcap for CryptoCurrency was $11b at this time last year. It's currently $153b as of today and growing fast. If you put $1000 into Ethereum in January you'd have over $30k today for example.

Making $150k/200k a few $1k investments shouldn't break the bank too much. If you are good at Internet research, finding new crypto's with groundbreaking tech before the masses can get you some good return. It may not last forever, but I think it's here to stay and the best ones will remain just like the dot- com bubble era.

<comment><USER39> Given your experience with this type of advice, would you suggest putting my money on red or black?

<comment><USER40> buy a big bucket of soap, a metal ring, make big bubbles, put your money in there and let it drift away :P

<comment><USER41> I am sure there are few players who are making money in the cryptocurrency market. It is hilarious to see how some people on HN downright reject the idea of investing in Crypto as if it is like throwing money to fire. To people who are making money and taking out profits from the market at same time will see these people living in denial.

Just for example, I bought few Ethereum when it was around $70 and sold half of it and took money out of market when it hit $300. Now I do not care if I loose my rest of money. I just invest in other cryptos for long run and watch where the market goes.

<comment><USER16> Probably just the good old "I missed out on it, therefore it's going to fail, and I'll be able to feel better about it".

Most people here are used to thinking that if there's something that looks too good, it's probably a scam and/or someone else is already doing it better. But just by being a software engineer and reading HN you are probably in the top percentile of people qualified to evaluate (and invest in) ICOs.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>