Is Algebra Necessary? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all <comment><USER3> It's easy to recognize that the author's arguments could apply just as well to any academic subject: literature, history, you name it. ("We should just teach 'citizen reading', where students learn to read recipes and furniture assembly instructions.")

But the real surprise to me is his ignorance of actual college math curricula. He says, "Why not mathematics in art and music — even poetry — along with its role in assorted sciences? The aim would be to treat mathematics as a liberal art". I don't know about his college, but the math requirement where I teach can be met with courses such as "Math in Art and Nature" or "Liberal Arts Mathematics". It's not as if his suggestions there are novel! But here's the kicker: for both of those classes, proficiency in algebra is a prerequisite. It turns out that you can't really describe those topics that he likes without actually using some math.

On the other hand, I _have_ come around to agree that statistics is more broadly useful than calculus. Here's a TED talk by one of my old math professors making that case: [http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_chang...](http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html)

<comment><USER4> I don't get that TED talk. For example, how are you meant to properly understand the ubiquitous Gaussian distribution without learning Calculus first?

<comment><USER3> I may not entirely understand your question. My wife has taught statistics college statistics many times (including Gaussian distributions), and her classes have never had a calculus prerequisite.

Are some topics easier to understand if you already know calculus? Sure. (I assume she has to do the same sort of brief "area under a curve" explanations there that I have to do when I teach algebra-based physics.) Can you understand the topic in greater depth using calculus? Of course. But for a first exposure to basic statistics I think you can mostly dodge the issue.

(And really, apart from already knowing the concept of an integral, does knowing calculus really buy you much when studying Gaussian distributions? You can't even _do_ those integrals! That frustration might be even more annoying to a calculus student than to others.)

<comment><USER5> I've taken an introduction to statistics course with social science students and based on that experience, I can relate to what you are saying, 100%.

However, I think there is a broad group of students[1] for which a significantly earlier exposure to calculus would be beneficial and make learning statistics (and physics) a lot easier or at least faster.

When I took introduction to statistics as a math major, I found the subject extremely confusing because the discrete and continuous case where taught completely disconnected and useful anchors for understanding such as basic measure theory and Lebesgue integration where left out. That's certainly a good way to teach for many but for some it doesn't work.

A similar case was physics for me (classical mechanics in particular). From grade 5 to 10 (after which I avoided the subject) there was little insight gained (e.g. heavy things fall down, there may be some friction, memorize all those seemingly random formulas and if you use a long lever, make sure you pick a strong material). Then I was exposed to an introduction to physics course at university (for non-majors) and the revelation that all those random formulas have a strong grounding in just 3 general principles and can then be developed with some help from calculus was liberating. Just too late in my case. Maybe I would have loved physics and actually study it, had they told me in 7th grade that there is something tying all of it together, and the ultimate goal of the class was to reach that summit. Just trying to show the other side of the coin which should be integrated into the way math and science is taught in schools in my opinion :-)

[1] Say, the top 5-10% of middle school students.

<comment><USER3> Oh, don't get me wrong: _I_ was served very well by today's standard math sequence. I learned fascinating stuff in precalc, and calculus was a revelation and a profound joy. Prof. Benjamin's argument favoring statistics instead was a tough sell for me.

But I'm a theoretical physicist. As much as I hate to say it, structuring the entire standard math curriculum so it works best for kids like me (or even for the top 10% of students) just isn't reasonable. (Ideally, a solid gifted program could fill that gap.) I think that we agree on that.

I'd like to think that there are ways of introducing concepts from physics or statistics that do highlight the underlying structure of the field, even if the students don't yet know all of the math they'd need to work through the details themselves. If I find a perfect way to do it, I'll let you know!

<comment><USER6> One approach I've seen and thought was interesting is the course schedule offered at the Illinois Math and Science Academy.

Their pre-calculus courses have been somewhat radically reorganized into a curriculum called "mathematical investigations" which orders the topics according to more of a practical progression. So, for example, bits of linear algebra are pulled all the way up into precalc because they're useful in geometry, and will also work better with the science curriculum. Perhaps physics teachers inheriting students who already understand vectors, for example.

Then the calculus curriculum is split into two tracks, one more basic, and a more intensive one for students who anticipate going into fields that require more calculus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Recent example. A family member who is an artist asked me about submission rules to a guild competition (now, of all people, the artists are commonly believed to require algebra knowledge the least). The flyer indicated, "the photos/scans you submit must be 300dpi" (dots/pixels per inch). Which is perfectly confusing because even a 100x100 pixel thumbnail can be considered 300dpi if you set its width to 1/3 inches. When I tried to explain said family member that the guideline is confusing, that whoever wrote it probably failed their high-school algebra, he started to mistrust what I'm saying. Words can't explain how dumb the situation was: one idiot writes a guideline that can't be followed (or rather one that can be satisfied even by a still from a security camera), another takes what is written on blind faith and refuses to use logic to understand why the guideline is insufficient.

Now imagine dealing with people who never completed high-school algebra but who are trying to calculate dosage of a drug. According to a pharmacist I knew, a child died on his watch because of incorrect dosage.

<comment><USER8> Hold on there hot shot, they're likely saying the required scanning resolution of submittals. While not incredibly clear, 300dpi is the general high- resolution setting on most scanners and they're just indicating as such.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an interesting read, but the author is also a political science professor. If this article had been by a mathematics educator, it might be a bit more persuasive.

I'd argue that algebra is fundamental - the excerpts taken involve the quadratic equation and other supposedly tedious tasks, while ignoring that these are foundations for higher level problem solving. In almost any field, somebody will ask at some point "how many X do I need for Y" - and it's usually not that clear.

I would almost posit that the author is trolling the NY Times, but today that's probably not the case. While math is hard for some students, it's an essential part of education for just about anybody that hopes to be a mildly functional member of society.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was forced to read _The Scarlett Letter_ in high school, and I have never once had to use that knowledge in my professional life.

I memorized dates for history exams in high school, and that knowledge has had no practical impact on my life whatsoever.

When introducing myself to (non-math/science) academics and telling them I was a (now former) physics professor, I can't tell you how often the first thing out of their mouth was something along the lines of "I was never very good at math" or "I never liked science." I frequently have had doctors tell me how much they hated physics as a pre-med student. That kind of pride in ignorance is quite rare in the opposite direction. The most broadly educated people I know are scientists.

[edit: typo fix]

<comment><USER9> As a followup, a nice blog essay on the theme of intellectual contempt for math and science:

[http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/07/26/the- innumeracy...](http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/07/26/the-innumeracy- of-intellectual/)

I often wanted to call bullshit on those people too, and reply with something like "I always hated reading" or "What use is Shakespeare, anyway?" Of course, I never did, out of both social politeness and an actual respect for the humanities and what they bring to civilization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes it is.

You can easily swap solving math problems for writing essays in that article and get the same conclusion. Also the whole article completely lacks any statistic basis. 42% of students didn't pass their bachelor exams and 57% students of one university (not saying which faculties were included in statistics) didn't pass algebra course (one math course only is mentioned). So what? How is that connected? What are the long term trends? What about other courses and other universities? Same applies for all the article - <USER2> together random numbers that SEEM to be related (they may be, of course).

Very shallow and probably incorrect article.

<comment><USER11> I agree with what you are saying, and I think algebra is an incredibly important skill. However, the article touches on an underlying issue that I think is true: the US education system does not prepare people for certain jobs that are in high demand. Many jobs that could be learned at a vocational or "trade" school don't require much high school math.

<comment><USER12> You need Algebra even for "trade" school. According to <http://www.njatc.org/training/apprenticeship/index.aspx>, you need "One Year of High School Algebra" to become an electrician. I think the same is true for other trades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a perfect example of how Betteridge's Law can fail. Yes, algebra is necessary. Very much so. It's basically the first time students are required to operate on a formal system, which requires strictness and analytical thinking. As another poster has pointed out, algebra is a gym for your brain. Also, algebra has tons and tons of applications. Anybody claiming they "never needed to solve for x" has completely missed the point of symbols. They have certainly solved for x but haven't realized it yet.

The article lists arguments which can be applied to about everything else you learn in secondary education. How comes nobody ever complains about learning literature, arts, music or whatever, but people seem to insist that they'll never need math in their jobs, when in fact, math has made their lives possible as they know it.

</rant>

</comment><comment><USER14> "But there's no evidence that being able to prove (x² + y²)² = (x² - y²)² + (2xy)² leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis"

Nothing else leads to that either. Political opinions and social analysis have zilch value in understanding the Universe we live in. Math does.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hmm.. Algebra is not hard. Its actually pretty easy if you know what you're looking for. Heck, the professor even tells you the answers before every test. Just follow the steps.

That's the problem though. There are many steps to be learned. Things like "order of operations" and "FOIL" are necessary to get the correct answer. Its not that learning Algebra is hard, its the discipline that comes from the. Trouble is, most young people don't see the rewards in learning this discipline.

For example here's a few other disciplines that takes time but seems more rewarding to a young student (or anyone)

Swimming - can have more fun at the beach Martial Arts - self defense and confidence, and proof that you're a bad ass Learning a FPS - bragging rights, more fun online against friends and other gamers Guitar Lessons - sing your favorite songs, perform live, get lots of friends/admirers

Algebra - learn about long term goals and ... processes?

Kids are not into the "long term". They are into the short term. Thus, they are kids. Adults needs to show them why it is important to learn how to find "X". Unfortunately, most adults would rather stay far away from that stuff because they've had a hard time with it as a child as well. Its painful to them. Its easier to tell the child "because it is important" than explain why.

I personally think algebra is very cool. I like how things can workout just because you know a proven formula for solving that problem. But then again, that's why I (and other CS) make the big bucks. We do the things that no one else wants to deal with.

Using your brain is hard. Solving a tough equation is probably equivalent to running a mile. It can be done. It can be fun. Yet, you don't see many people with long slender bodies running around everywhere do we?

Everyone has their niche. Its really up to them to find it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I find it challenging to believe that individuals incapable of basic, entry- level algebra are really qualified to attend a university in the first place.

Having many good friends in disciplines which will never require the use of any sort of mathematics, I can safely say that none of them have had trouble with high-school level algebra.

Portions of the article strike me as a depressing appeal to entitlement amongst the lowest common denominator of students to a university education.

</comment><comment><USER17> True story. I was having trouble sleeping and I went to a big box home improvement store for some custom cut roller blinds. I measured the blinds to the nearest 1/8 inch so less light would leak around the edges. I grab the blinds and go to the blind cutting machine, which has an arm marked off like a ruler to 16ths of an inch, with the cutting blade held by a screw clamp. There are no detents or grooves to force discrete measurements, just a screw clamp, so this machine can do any length between its min and max length.

Well, the young woman who comes looks at the measurements I wrote down and looks at me and says, "The machine doesn't do fractions."

I was floored. She was lying to cover her innumeracy, because _she_ didn't do fractions. If this is indicative of a trend, it's bad news for the future of the United States.

<comment><USER3> More charitably, she wasn't lying, she was just ignorant (and therefore wrong). An innumerate person might simply not recognize all those extra marks as having any meaning at all, or at least not as having anything to do with those dreaded "fractions" from school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Making a subject mandatory is a great recipe for sucking all the life out of it, and mathematics is one of the best examples. Is algebra awesome? Absolutely. Does every member of our society need to be able to factor polynomials? ...not really, especially not at the expense of a child's natural love of learning.

</comment><comment><USER19> See algebra as the gym for your brain. Although you might not need algebra, you will benefit from the exercises.

<comment><USER20> I think that's a dangerous line of reasoning. Why not learn to memorize ingredients on a can of soup? That is also exercise for your brain.

Algebra lets us describe relationships between unknown quantities. Nearly every physical law is expressed as an algebraic equation (or Calculus, which requires it). It's the lingua franca of describing the world. That's why we need it :).

<comment><USER19> Memorizing trains memory, that's not the same exercise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Understanding variables is a hallmark of the "formal operational" stage of development.[1] It's the same reason why we hear some people "just don't get" programming. Same reason why languages like LOGO avoid this construct.

If grasping Algebra is actually about attaining this developmental stage, we need to be approaching the problem on a more fundamental level. Kids will move through these stages at a different pace and if you're on the tail end of developmental pace you're going to fall through the cracks.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development#Formal_operational_stage)

<comment><USER5> I had totally forgotten about this :-(

Searching a little I found this interesting document addressing some of the problems which I have put on my reading list: "The Science of Thinking, and Science for Thinking: A Description of Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE)" (Philip Adey, 1999).

Assuming the idea of a "formal operational" stage of development applies, the situation looks abysmal (at least in the US and Germany, can't say much about other countries):

From the little I gathered so far (on the internet, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt) it seems that (1) a vast majority (over 60%) of people never reach formal operational maturity. (2) Ideas of how teaching can actually help with it are in it's infancy. (3) Application of said ideas is not very far along. (4) Educational systems keep leaving many (or most) students behind early, especially in math and science, while other students get bored and waste their time in class, being taught a mind-choking curriculum.

Ok, I guess I'm ranting now :-) Saddens me greatly, though.

[1] [http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publ...](http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/innodata/inno02.pdf)

edit: spelling, grammar

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There was a recent discussion on reddit following some Khan Academy controversy, where some education people mentioned some research about the concept of slope.

It turns out that a significant number of people don't understand speed as a rate. They think of it as an intensity, as in volume of sound or brightness. (Those are flux, which are related to rate, though that's not how we perceive them.)

People like that are alien to me. I think it also explains why freeway drivers in Houston often have about 0.3 seconds of separation between cars.

</comment><comment><USER22> Math literacy is valuable even for regular people.

Case in point - an innumerate relative of mine has been duped into selling "Nu-skin" products for virtually no money. Nu-skin gave her documents explicitly stating her odds - 99.5% of active nu-skin sellers make < $15k/year. But they also showed her videos of people who won won carribean cruises and made thousands/millions.

Guess which one she bought into?

A math literate person would recognize that her odds are better working at chipotle and reinvesting some of the proceeds in vegas.

<comment><USER23> I agree with your main claim about the value of mathematical literacy, but your example is terrible. It's not really about math at all. It seems to be about decision making and many people's tendency to choose very faint hopes, no matter how well they understand (on some level) that the odds are massively against them. I very much doubt that's about math _per se_. That is, your relative didn't misunderstand how little 99.5 leaves from 100. She simply isn't a logical machine.

tl;dr What a person recognizes and what a person acts on are _not_ always the same.

<comment><USER22> Having actually had conversations with her about the matter, I can tell you that the fundamental problem is she just doesn't get what 99.5% means.

A numerate person looks at things like this as a math problem. An innumerate person doesn't.

<comment> UK-AL It's hard not to understand 0.5% is not a lot. It's seems to me she knew risks, but ignored them.

<comment><USER24> Not a lot? As odds in a lottery that pays millions to the winner (original remark said thousands/millions, but that 'thousands' would seem less than the <15K that the 99.5 would get) and still pays out to everybody, it looks incredibly enticing.

The lie with these kinds of things is not as much in those percentages as it is that it is not a lottery. There are people who can sell anything; they are the winners. Also, typically, there is some kind of pyramid scheme involved. You get stats on the early birds, but you cannot become an early bird yourself.

<comment> UK-AL When you talking income, you don't want high risk/high payout, because your going to have serious cash flow problems, if you don't win, which the most likely case.

A small chance of winning, but with otherwise serious cash problems? Or high probability of a nice stable income?

I know what I would choose.

<comment><USER24> I know what I would choose, too, but I have an income. The target for such schemes is people who don't have that, or have a really low one. For them, the options look like "about what I get now, and I can choose my own working hours, and no longer have to listen to a boss" and "bingo".

And that likely is true. If you choose any 20 hours to work each day, 7 days a week and have some talent for sales, you likely will make that 15K.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > Mathematics, both pure and applied, is integral to our civilization, whether > the realm is aesthetic or electronic. But for most adults, it is more feared > or revered than understood.

This is very true, but lowering expectations is hardly a solution. Ignorance (in the form of oh-well-that's-the-class-smart-people-take) is no better than fear. Before we set the bar too low, let's keep pushing to make mathematics _less_ intimidating, _less_ foreign and easier to learn for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER26> I agree that algebra in and of itself is not particularly useful. However, an in-depth understanding of statistics is vital to basic scientific literacy and most certainly "leads to more credible political opinions or social analysis. I've often wondered why high schools don't place a bigger emphasis on statistics, but I'm not sure if you can teach basic statistics without algebra (or calculus).

<comment><USER3> Most basic statistics classes that I've seen don't require calculus. My wife (who's taught stats in college many times) claims that they don't _really_ use algebra all that much, either (you aren't generally solving quadratics or anything), but they certainly require the comfort with complicated symbols and formulas that algebra classes teach.

Have a look at the TED talk linked in my top-level comment for an argument along the lines of what you're making here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think algebra is necessary, and calculus, and geometry, and trigonometry, and everything else I don't understand in the realm of mathematics.

But they're important in the context of real life.

So, yes, we should keep these classes, keep having kids go through algebra and calculus and geometry...

...But you shouldn't be bound by arbitrary rules. Algebra is important, but if you find "x" by doing something other than some arbitrary thing where you subtract both sides, etc., you shouldn't get an F in the class.

Same with calculus, geometry, everything. The importance is the thinking and the logic, and what real-life application you can take from your knowledge. Making hard rules for these math courses, for example, definitely hurts this and does some of the things this article claims.

But true, honest exploration in math and thinking about it is very important, and if it's free and done in an honest way there is no question about whether it's necessary or not.

Richard Feynman covered this better than I ever could: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZED4gITL28>

<comment><USER28> > ...But you shouldn't be bound by arbitrary rules. Algebra is important, but > if you find "x" by doing something other than some arbitrary thing where you > subtract both sides, etc., you shouldn't get an F in the class.

In middle school at least this kind of thing was allowed as long as we could show why what we did worked. The idea being that we would have to understand what we did in order to know either when it would work or when it would fail so that we could apply it correctly. If we could do that we weren't given full credit for anything because the homework/tests were meant to check that we understood how to get the correct answer (other than copying from the nerds like me).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's hard for me to comprehend that someone could understand any subtle (or even not-so-subtle) distinctions or complex arguments without at least a basic understanding of algebra and statistics.

I could be wrong though. What about famous thinkers like Jefferson or Lincoln -- did they understand algebra and statistics at all?

<comment><USER9> Jefferson was quite well educated in science and mathematics for the day:

<http://www.math.virginia.edu/Jefferson/jefferson.htm>

Geometry was prominent in those days, but as a student he also learned physics with Newton's _Principia_ and _Optiks_ as textbooks.

Lincoln was mostly self-educated, but I have no idea what his background in math was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It seems likely to me that algebra during school is a cause for dropout not because it's harder, but because it's more objective.

If someone doesn't know anything about history, you can pass them along, claiming that they wrote a few essays or something. It's fraud, and any expert can see it, but it's easy enough to ignore it if you try.

But with algebra you can't ignore failure. It's obvious. Even the most basic tests will reveal ignorance quickly.

I conjecture that those people who drop out "because of algebra" are not proficient in any subject.

I observe that the alternatives suggested are less objective and more "hands- on". What does it mean to learn about the consumer price index without learning basic algebra? The only explanation I can think of is that it offers more opportunity to ignore educational fraud.

</comment><comment><USER30> How is this not an article from The Onion?

</comment><comment><USER31> To the extent that algebra courses consist of solving # + x = # over and over again, I agree that they are mostly useless. In life, algebraic questions don't come at you in symbols and numbers, they come in words. And I would argue that these questions surround us! It's just a matter of people recognizing that they are there. Therefore, in my opinion, a good algebra course (which is essential!) focuses on problem solving. Necessarily, the course would involve some mindless equation solving to learn the framework of algebra.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm biased since I'm a software engineer, but I believe algebra is extremely valuable. I can't imagine not knowing it! If I were to revise math education I would balance the amount of time spent on geometry (1 year HS), trig (1 year HS) and calculus (1 year HS, 2.5 yrs undergrad) better with discrete math, linear algebra, probability and statistics. The current system seems to be disposed toward creating 50's NASA fodder and economists.

</comment><comment><USER33> I rarely comment, but I feel compelled to add to this discussion.

Algebra, as it is taught today in the U.S., is not necessary, and is probably detrimental in many of the ways stated in the article. I can't speak for non- traditional schools, but public schools, with their focus on standardized testing, have effectively destroyed the original spirit behind teaching mathematics.

Mathematics, much like other academic topics (e.g. literary analysis), was taught not as a practical skill, but as a way to improve your abstract thinking and problem solving skills. As another commenter stated, Mathematics (along with most later academics) should be a gymnasium for your brain. I like this metaphor, because if you think about solo athletics, all students are not expected to achieve at a pre-defined level. Rather students are evaluated based on improvement in performance over time.

Sadly, mathematics in recent years has become less about abstract thinking and problem solving and more about rote memorization, computation, and application. I taught basic algebra to college students for a semester. One of my most interesting experiences was with the dreaded story problem. Most of the students were simply unable to apply math to solve a problem. They were all very good all computation, but when faced with a problem in a form they didn't recognize they instantly began flailing.

Standardized testing has turned math into the process of recognizing a form, plugging in the numbers, and computing. We're now starting to see the first generation of math teachers that are a product of standardized testing, and the results are frankly, frightening. I've spoken with younger math teachers who couldn't explain the practical importance of their subject. While they loved math, they couldn't tell me why they were teaching it, other than: "It's on the [standardized] test."

This is the kind of Algebra we don't need.

* * *

Incidentally, the only way I avoided the shocking deficiencies of standard high school "math" was by fighting my way into an advanced program at the local University. It was there I was introduced to Euclidean geometry and really learned what math was all about. I think everyone should learn Geometry using the Euclidean method. I learned from a simplified book (Geometry, by Moise/Downs) which starts out with a few more postulates than Euclid did. I'd go as far to say that geometry (properly taught) will make you a better programmer/problem solver/thinker.

</comment><comment><USER34> Yes it is and we need to train teachers to teach it better.

</comment><comment><USER35> Yes.

</comment><comment><USER36> I stopped reading the moment I encountered 'I say this as a writer and social scientist...'

<comment><USER37> Do you believe that writers and social scientists have nothing to add to this discussion? Not everyone is a scientist, not everyone is a mathematician, not everyone is an expert in education.

Equally, not everyone's opinion is equally valid, but they too may have something to add. In particular, find people with full and meaningful lives who have _not_ done algebra, and that will show that it's not essential.

Showing them that their lives would be better _with_ a working knowledge of algebra would be a challenge worth considering.

<comment><USER36> _Do you believe that writers and social scientists have nothing to add to this discussion?_

Mostly, Yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Telling that students struggling with a subject is considered evidence of a problem with the subject. Couldn't be the teachers or the curriculum or the students.

<comment><USER7> In math, a good teacher goes further than in any other subject. For example, in Eastern Europe, the teaching facilities has been very poor in the past century, but it is ridiculous how many influential 20th century mathematicians were Hungarian. I couldn't understand this phenomenon for a long time until I realized that it nearly entirely has to do with the fact that most of those mathematicians studied under eminent Austro-Hungarian mathematicians who studied under eminent German mathematicians who studied under eminent French or Italian mathematicians all the way back to the Renaissance. Look up Paul Erdos (<http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=19470>) for example, and keep clicking on "advisor" until you reach 15th century Italy.

This is why I love online learning and have good hopes for the Khan academy. Projects like that can set us/our children free from the plague of bad teaching.</comment></comment>


Why Tech Companies Design Products with Their Destruction in Mind - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-tech-companies-design-products-with-their-destruction-in-mind-1465351202 <comment><AUTHOR> Just make everything as recyclable as possible so we can repair and repurpose it in addition to recycling.</comment>


Scalable Python Code with Pandas UDFs - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/scalable-python-code-with-pandas-udfs-a-data-science-application-dd515a628896 <comment><USER2> Could this same problem be solved by using Apache Arrow, to convert to/from pandas, and cut down the complexity in the process?

<comment><USER3> This does use Apache arrow, that's how the data is transferred from spark to pandas and back.

<comment><USER2> Great, glad this was confirmed as I am about to solve a similar problem and my expectation is that Apache Arrow will be needed. So pyarrow = Apache Arrow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This approach makes sense for predicting the data. Obviously, one could split the data to run distributed prediction. But, how does this work for training the linear model mentioned here with scikit-learn in a distributed fashion?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are approaches for using Spark to distribute hyperparameter tuning and cross validation: [https://databricks.com/blog/2016/02/08/auto-scaling- scikit-l...](https://databricks.com/blog/2016/02/08/auto-scaling-scikit-learn- with-apache-spark.html)

However, for the example in this post, I would recommended using the logistic regression provided by MLlib to scale up.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Non paywall link: [https://medium.com/p/scalable-python-code-with-pandas- udfs-a...](https://medium.com/p/scalable-python-code-with-pandas-udfs-a-data- science-application-dd515a628896?source=email-a80e1f69e782-- writer.postDistributed&sk=a6c9f3be9fe3904b79d3e443a13e6ab9)</comment>


Spanking the gray matter out of our kids - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/health/effects-spanking-brain/index.html

<comment><USER2> There are always two sides to a coin. This article only describes what spanking causes (conveniently listing just bad things). However, there's no mention (or research, for that matter) of how _not_ spanking affects kids, especially if they are prone to doing bad things - parents can only prevent so much, but then kindergarden and elementary school does it's _magic_

<comment><USER3> "No mention", except for the part '"There's no study that I've ever done that's found a positive consequence of spanking," Gershoff said.'</comment></comment>


Hacking Wired's Ad Blocker Blocker #6f0 - <AUTHOR> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Wired <comment><USER2> Use this when you reached the Ad-Blocker-Blocker popup,

javascript:document.getElementById("veil").hidden = true; document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].classList.remove('no-scroll');

^ This fixes the no-scrolling issue too.</comment>


SUSE Linux says Btrfs is ready for production use, now officially supported - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/systems-management/677226-suse-linux-says-btrfs-is-ready-to-rock

<comment><USER2> I filed this serious bug in btrfs about 2 months ago, and nothing has been done about it. This worries me.

<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978>

<comment><USER3> You:

1) Appear to be the only one affected by it. 2) Don't have exact steps to reproduce it.

This makes it very difficult for anybody apart from you to work on the issue.

> nothing has been done about it.

From the bug, it looks like lots has been done about it.

> This worries me.

I think this is justified for you, but has little bearing on others. Software projects are full of bugs that only appear to affect one person. These bugs make little progress but don't necessarily reflect on the general quality of the software. Admittedly it is more of a concern on something like a filesystem, but I am still skeptical.

<comment><USER2> (a) It's easy to reproduce. There are exact steps in the bug and in the mailing list thread. In fact, the steps are so simple I'll tell you what they are: (1) Run mkfs.btrfs, (2) Run any btrfs command on the filesystem. Put (1) + (2) into a shell script so they run immediately after each other. Put a loop around it so it tries over and over again. Bang => data corruption.

(b) It's a data corrupter. That should be an immediate "stop everything" red flag (for a serious filesystem at least).

 _Edit:_ Rereading this comment, I sound like I'm being very negative about btrfs. I just want to say that I really want btrfs to work, because it's based on very sound principles. I've also offered to help immediately testing any proposed patches for this bug.

<comment><USER4> Wait, why would you format the fs, do something with it, format the fs, do something with it, and so on? Isn't one pass enough?

<comment><USER2> Because it's a test designed to reproduce a bug. We hit the bug all the time in libguestfs which spends much of its time formatting filesystems and immediately using them, but it doesn't happen 100% of the time. It's a race condition somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think that SUSE are trying to differentiate themselves by supporting Btrfs, which is a nice move on their part. Btrfs extensive features can be very useful in quite a few scenarios, so its wider adoption is more than welcome. I know quite a few people that have been longing for ZFS's functionality for years and Btrfs provides the most important (IMHO) ones.

For some time Btrfs has been rapidly stabilizing and I expect the other distros to jump ship and provide support as well.

<comment><USER6> Redhat is supposed to support it with version 7. I believe Oracle already supports it.

iirc Suse isn't supporting all the features yet, such as compression.

I really tried to go zfs for enterprise nfs at work and have decided to wait until Redhat 7 and btrfs. various problems with solaris and x86 hardware from hp while not getting the support iI needed internally to do zfs for linux. btrfs still has catch up to do. Last iI heard data De duplication isn't sted yet. No block level send/receive like zfs, btrfs send/receive is different.

sorry for typos typed on my phone

<comment><USER7> I run ZFS on FreeBSD (have done for a few years now) and quite frankly I think it's a seriously overlooked alternative.

<comment><USER8> "Alternative" is an understatement. ZFS's block-level deduping and compression are great and they were here years ago.

It's disappointing the licensing problems cannot be solved -- great as it is, I cannot really use it until it's a supported part of RHEL.

<comment><USER9> I know it is not the same as a supported module, but zfsonlinux.org has been reliable for me on a CentOS 6 dev box. Of course as an RC, I would not deploy it in production, but I have high hopes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone know the reasoning for Ext3 to be supported but not Ext4?

From the article, "A notable omission is Ext4; read-only functionality is supported for migrating to a different filesystem. Full read-write support is available with the ext4-writeable KMPkernel module from the SLES11-Extras repository, but it is not supported."

<comment><USER11> Ext3 is basically the venerable ext2 plus journaling. It's not a dramatic change.

Ext4 is more or less a rewrite.

<comment><USER12> That's not true. The changes from ext4 to ext3 are evolutionary, not revolutionary. There is full backwards compatibility, and there's still a lot of the original ext3 code in ext4 (in particular, we still support old- fashioned indirect blocks in ext4, even though it's not the default, and we do that using a copy of the ext3 code).

If you look in the git history, you can see all of the changes as we added new features into ext3 during the course of the ext4 development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> SuSE was also the first distribution to embrace ReiserFS, only to find it inadequate.

I seem to recall that SuSE used to talk about adopting OCFS2 as its primary filesystem. Thank goodness they didn't go that direction.

<comment><USER14> Why was it inadequate? Perhaps it is not well supported anymore but I haven't heard it called inadequate before.

<comment><USER15> It had problems with wife fragmentation.

<comment><USER16> probably the "worst" joke I've read on HN... but still I can't stop laughing

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I decided to run a couple partitions on several computer with btrfs about a year or so ago. At some point I noticed that things were going _really_ slow. I ended replacing all my btrfs partitions with lvm + xfs a couple months ago.

It made me sad because I loved the design ideas behind btrfs and really wanted it to be great. But right now with lvm and xfs I have a very stable and fast system (we're talking an order of magnitude faster--seriously).

I think SUSE is crazy to call it ready at this point.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a nice development even for those of us not using SUSE -- I like Btrfs, I'm looking forward to using it, but I won't trust it with my own data until it's been dubbed "production ready" and used that way in the wild for several years. Glad the clock's started ticking for Btrfs on a major distro.

<comment><USER19> Same here. There are some kinds of software I'm not comfortable experimenting with - or at least not experimenting with using valuable data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone know what the story with file systems and SSD's is?

Google did made it clear that some tuning makes sense for SSD's, but did not make it clear whether the various file systems are more or less suited to SSD's.

<comment><USER21> Btrfs and Ext4 work fine with tuning (enabling TRIM, partition alignment, etc.[1][2]).

Samsung is working on a log-structured file system designed with SSDs in mind called F2FS[3]. There is also NILFS (also log-structured) which has been around for awhile[4].

I would stick with Ext4+TRIM for now on a personal laptop.

1: [http://superuser.com/questions/228657/which-linux- filesystem...](http://superuser.com/questions/228657/which-linux-filesystem- works-best-with-ssd)

2: <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Solid_State_Drives>

3: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2FS>

4: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639762>

<comment><USER22> these solid state specific file systems are not intended for use on the types of ssds you buy to plug into a SATA port, those are already heavily abstracted by their firmware, which handles stuff like wear leveling and block deallocation.

These types of filesystems are intended for when the kernel has access to the raw addressing of the flash chips themselves, such as on some cellphones and embedded devices. They handle stuff like wear leveling, and deleting blocks.

<comment><USER23> i think you are confusing f2fs and nilfs which work with regular block devices (including ssds, but also cheaper flash (and also poorly regular harddrives)) with jffs(2) which will only work on raw flash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> <https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfsck>

I am wondering how it's ready for production use.

<comment><USER25> Google 'zfs no fsck' (no quotes) and you'll find many reasons why it's not needed.

<comment><USER26> Why not tell him the reasons, rather than saying "reasons exist, go look for them yourself"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I thought it was shitty for databases. Is that still true? I forget what version I heard that for, but it was at least a year ago.

<comment><USER2> It has notably poor performance for virtual machine disk images. These require large amount of in-place changes, which simply isn't what it's good for. I've not tried databases, but I imagine it could be bad for them, for the same reasons.

<comment><USER28> So why would Oracle support it?

<comment><USER2> Presumably because Oracle wants you to use ASMlib / raw disks / O_DIRECT to partitions, and wouldn't support Oracle database on btrfs. Btrfs is for their RHEL clone OS. Big company, different departments ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd like to look at btrfs, but right now I really want a raidz. I understand btrfs cannot (can it?) help me in any way here.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, it can't. I'm going with ZFS for the same reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I believe Oracle also supports btrfs already.</comment>


Home-Made Optical P2P Data Link (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://ronja.twibright.com/about.php <comment><USER2> With PJON you can apply laser communication using AnalogSampling, see: [https://github.com/gioblu/PJON/tree/master/src/strategies/An...](https://github.com/gioblu/PJON/tree/master/src/strategies/AnalogSampling)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've read about it years ago. Nice concept but if you have line of sight, WiFi with directional antennas is still better, you can get the standard 802.11g speeds (~20Mbps real throughput) at even longer range and/or in worse weather (and even some trees in the way).

<comment><USER4> Of course this device is probably legal while the WiFi setup would be definitely illegal (in the US).

<comment><USER5> Unlicensed point-to-point links are permitted in the US provided that the Part 15 EIRP limits are respected. You are allowed to push up to 53 dBm of EIRP on the 5.8 GHz ISM band (30 dBm power + 23 dBm antenna gain), which gives a lot of link margin to play with.

<comment><USER4> I was actually unaware of the exceptions for dedicated p2p links.

FWIW, You can get also get 52dBm of EIRP on 2.4GHz with a dedicated antenna by 22dBm of power with 30 dBi antenna gain.

Also, the FCC specifically forbids running multiple pyshically-colocated unlicensed p2p links in parallel, and point-to-multipoint is also disallowed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would love to have some of these, but I have no tools to make one.</comment>


Christopher Hitchens Was Shaky in His Atheism, New Book Suggests - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/christopher-hitchens-was-shaky-in-his-atheism-new-book-suggests.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article <comment><AUTHOR> I suspect this is pure spin doctoring and poppycock. As someone who was raised Catholic and was an altar boy, there is for the thoughtful atheist, absolutely no shame in having an emotional reaction to the words, the pageantry, and the music of the religion of your youth. I might get the "heebeejeebies" in a creaky old house, but this doesn't mean I will start making political and investment decisions on the basis of the existence of ghosts.

Also, there is nothing wrong with speaking to other people in the philosophical language they understand. As a humanist, I believe in "walking a mile" in your shoes, even if you are a 1st world middle-class Christian. You are still definitely human, after all.</comment>


IMDB for learning resources - <AUTHOR> This is my first project: edualist.com.
I am building a place where users could rank educational materials on broad range of subjects. What we have for now, is providers section and two subjects filled with some materials: python programming and startups.
Edualist was built because I discover that often it is a struggle for me to decide which book or course I should take first or take at all. Sometimes it is so addictive you can never really start learning. This is a disaster. What I expect to see in near future, is a place where one with desire to learn, say, how to program, or how to sing, can get a list of best existed guides, books and courses instantly and for free.
Actually, it was my first programming experience and first skill that i learned solely on my own at the computer in my college dorm room. There are many distractions you have through the learning process. As for me, I spent an incredible amount of time on which language I should learn first, then found courses and books, and only after that I finally started to progress. Now I wonder what took more time: deciding what language and MOOC I should take or building a site, where I including python, django, html, css, git, javascript, js frameworks, hosting, deploying and so on.
Now I want you guys to share your thoughts on that project and, perhaps, some suggestions. I believe that this place could be found useful by many people and they could also contribute to their favorite subject, say, Poker, with the best resources they know.
Sorry for the mistakes I surely made, english is not my native. <comment><USER2> > Edualist was built because I discover that often it is a struggle for me to > decide which book or course I should take first or take at all.

And that's exactly what teacher is for.

> I spent an incredible amount of time on which language I should learn first, > then found courses and books, and only after that I finally started to > progress.

You have problem with making decisions, not with lack of guidance.

A rule of a thumb: start fast with _anything_ , learn whatever basics you need in the process, and then _adjust_ your choices once they turn out to be inappropriate for you.

As a novice you are not in a position to make decisions about your direction. Your teacher is. If you have none, just start and learn enough of the field to make further decisions.</comment>


Riding the crest: Twitter API Traffic is 10x Twitter's Site Traffic - <AUTHOR> http://blog.programmableweb.com/2007/09/10/twitter-api-traffic-is-10x-twitters-site/

<comment><USER2> I can see how exciting and satisfying this can be for the Twitter team. There's nothing like watching your creation start to grow on its own.

I can also see how this helps Twitter's overall growth.

But I still can't help thinking - doesn't this mean that Twitter can only monetize 10% of their traffic? Given the choice between 100K web users + 900K API users, and 200K web users + 0 API users, which one is really preferable?

<comment><USER3> Whichever gives faster and more sustained growth is preferable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe this shows that there's plenty of room for innovation for API's that have seamless integration with SMS/E-mail/IM.</comment>


You Have One Job – Eliminate my Fear - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdisruptive.com/2013/03/14/you-have-one-job-eliminate-my-fear/

<comment><USER2> In sales we call this objection handling. List every possible objection the other party will put up and prepare answers for them.

Once prepared, ask the other party what objections they actually have and keep asking for more until they have no more.

Then respond to each one, plus any "elephants in the room" they didn't mention. That usually sorts out the "fear" issue. You'll know soon enough if there are any other ones they haven't shared with you.

Same approach helps for getting teams around you together - it builds trust and fosters transparency.</comment>


QEMU Maintainers on the 2.4 Release - <AUTHOR> http://log.amitshah.net/2015/09/qemu-maintainers-on-the-2-4-release/ <comment><USER2> Offtopic, but this site is blocked by uMatrix for me. I loaded it in another private window and I can't see why it would be blocked. Weird.

<comment><USER3> The blog author got some QEMU devs to meet and talk then put together a video of it. The post describes who's there and links to these:

[https://plus.google.com/101344524535025574253/posts/dz35k6aC...](https://plus.google.com/101344524535025574253/posts/dz35k6aCt7g)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWyCwnBbwC4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWyCwnBbwC4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Posted this today, too. What's up with HN?</comment>


What Your Internet Plan Will Look Like Without Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> http://www.willchatham.com/news/politics/what-your-internet-plan-will-look-like-without-net-neutrality/

<comment><USER2> I'm looking at the service tiers and I've got to wonder what use is putting google access in a tier? You use google to find other things, and if those things aren't in your package... Which brings me to small, personal web sites. What happens to them? In what tier do they belong?

Also: what about spammers? Will they have to pay for access? That would almost be worth it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Service providers can try, but will inevitably fail. We the people will always find a way around restrictions like this via VPN's, proxies and whatnot. Those without the know-how of bypassing such blocks will be the ones who get stung and end up paying if something like this ever happens.</comment>


Tim O'Reilly: Really, Google is evil now? Let's Get Real. How About Apple? - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/fWJtC2mb3Eq <comment><USER3> Do we really have to go down that same path that we went down with Microsoft vs. Apple? Each company should be held responsible for their own, singular actions. If Google is doing wrong, then Google is at fault, let's not pass the blame to Apple, or vice-versa.

Honestly, it's in the media's best interest for fanboys on each side to be at war with each other, not anyone else's. If you like an Android phone, use Android, if you prefer an iPhone, use an iPhone. It doesn't need to be a point of contention.

Both companies have made mistakes, but we needn't go "Oh, you think Google is evil? Well, let me tell you about Apple". The truth is, it's hard to not be "evil" and have the insane amount of revenue's that these companies both share. Of course, this all depends on how you interpret "evil".

Steve Jobs famously said: "We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job".

<comment><USER4> That's missing the point of the article, which his update was added to clarify.

This article is NOT saying "why is everybody angry at Google for being evil? We can't forget about all these other evil companies!" That's the common problem a lot of articles like this one run into, but not this one specifically.

Tim's point is that "Google is /not/ evil. Google is doing something that may seem evil, but is in fact not. Google could do something in the future that may end up as evil, but that has yet to happen. To compare, let me show you an example of actual evil. [Enter Apple.]"

Apple is used to demonstrate what, in his opinion, actual evil looks like and how that differs from what Google is doing, therefore making Google's actions not evil. The Apple example (which could be Ford or Monsanto, doesn't matter) does not serve to to excuse Google.

<comment><USER5> "Tim's point is that "Google is /not/ evil."

Tim has spectacularly missed the forest for the trees. Google isn't just evil today because they updated their privacy policy. If turning a blind or half blind eye to suppliers in Asia is evil then they, like every other tech company, are evil and have been for a long time.

Where do the 700,000 Android phones that get activated every day get made? Is Google blameless because they dont make it themselves? Would Apple be blameless if they just designed the phones and contracted someone else to build it? Well they did so I guess not...

Look, it's clear that Apple, as the most visible brand, is going to get the lion's share of attention here the same way Nike was the target of sweatshop complaints in the 80's.

That said, as opposed to just shaming the Big Bad Apple, I'd really love to see a detailed comparison between the standards and practices of Apple and other first world companies contracting with suppliers in Asia (and elsewhere).

<comment><USER6> >Where do the 700,000 Android phones that get activated every day get made? Is Google blameless because they dont make it themselves?

But..but..but...as we are tirelessly reminded by some folks here, Apple takes most of the profits of the mobile handset industry, so they're in the best position to lessen their huge margin by a few percentage points so as to not endanger the lives of the people that make the phones. If they make the most money from making people work in inhumane conditions, they deserve the most blame, esp. since they have the most leverage to pay more.

<comment><USER7> According to Tim Cook's company email on the matter, they do.

The fact is, you can't just pour money over the place and see what comes out of it. Especially in a country like China, and with multiple factories sizing in the range of 100'000s of workers. Hundred fscking thousands. This is the same order of magnitude as the _whole of General Motors_ , for a _single factory_. The whole thing is architected to be able to reconfigure itself to produce whatever the demand needs almost overnight. This is incredible. There is no single country out there which has such a powerful tool. It's of thermonuclear scale, when the US tries to fight with a bunch of Winchesters (and even smaller countries like France are battling with swords and bows in a stone castle). Even if you're Apple you can't come in cash in hand and say 'Okay folks, this is not how we want things to work here' and re-architect the whole thing in a day. As you said they're in the best position to use leverage and I think they're doing it but moving such a huge block needs a freaking huge lever, and time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm glad some people have perspective on this issue. I remember MG Siegler's ridiculous article about why he hated Android[1] and just how furiously angry he was that they didn't deliver on some overly ambitious promise to take out the phone carriers.

Yet when he (reluctantly) took the time to write about the recent Foxconn issues[2], he tried to deflect blame from Apple because they're simply an easy target considering they're "now arguably the most successful company on the planet." No furious anger, no outrage, just a simple "uh well shit happens, its unfortunate."

What kind of hypocrisy must exist inside someone's head to be capable of writing both of those articles? What's worse is that nearly every article MG's written this past week or so has been about just how amazingly-super-awesome it is that Apple made so much money. Apparently it's all great to be the most "successful company on the planet", but heaven forbid anyone dare look at how those profits are earned in a critical light.

But but but Mom, Samsung is doing it too!! No one is going to change their manufacturing practices as long as a company like Apple is reaping in some of the largest profits in recorded history using Foxconn style labor as a foundation.

[1]: <http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android>

[2]: [http://parislemon.com/post/16561630035/this-is-why-we- cant-h...](http://parislemon.com/post/16561630035/this-is-why-we-cant-have- nice-things)

<comment><USER9> Here's a hypothetical situation. What if MGS has a large stake relative to his own wealth in Apple stock. Would it be a bad thing for him to continue to write articles assailing Google and pumping Apple? I don't know if he has any inside knowledge or not but could what he writes which influences many readers who could be potential investors be considered illegal?

I really have no idea but if anybody does I'd like to hear it. I get really suspicious when I hear guys like Gruber and Siegler have such strong one-sided opinions about things like this when they reach such a wide audience.

<comment><USER8> MG has said a few times that he does not own stock in Apple.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Paul Krugman talked about the "Apple is evil" side of the argument many years ago.

<http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html> <http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm>

Key quote: "At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off. And it might not even do that. [...] A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its alleged beneficiaries."

Is he wrong? (Please don't downvote me just because you disagree with Krugman.)

<comment><USER11> China is far from a developing country. So this isn't about taking advantage of a developing nation. It's very difficult for many foreign company to start a business in China. These are companies that China has approved that are mistreating the Chinese people. The bulk of the blame falls on China for allowing their people to be used like robots. You can't openly treat American workers like this because American government won't legally allow it. The Chinese government has the all the power to dictate what a business can do in China. The government use it's power on many occasion silent dissent, why not use that power to help it's own people ?

<comment><USER12> China uses a lot of it's power to try and stop things just like this. What evidence do you have that they haven't tried?

Are you seriously going to try and argue the US doesn't exploit "American" workers? Or are you defining "American worker" as someone with american citizenship rather than a worker in america.

I still find it amazing the lack of 'personal accountablity' in your response. Companies aren't bad for exploiting people, countries are bad for letting them... seriously?

<comment><USER11> Not true, I said I would used an alternative to Apple if all tech companies did not produce computers in similar or worse factories. The bulk of the blame, not all of the blame, has to fall on Chinese government. The government is in the business of protecting it's people from foreign dangers. These multinational companies are allowing things to happen to foreigners (the chinese people) that would be illegal in their home nation. The Chinese government has the bulk of the blame because Chinese government approved these companies, the Chinese Government approves of every single foreign entity, it's not hands off. Immediately the abuses would stop if the Chinese government ordered it to. The Government can not protect it's own people from foreign harm, (foxxcon is not a Chinese company) then that Government should be blamed. No China is not using its power to stop this because if it did it won't happen on such a large scale. Moreover I never said American workers are not exploited, it happens, but what is happening in China is far worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Google is a huge customer of cheap electronics, and somewhat less directly behind the production of a whole lot more due to Android. Shouldn't some of the blame for awful working conditions apply to them as well? Unless their server farms are made only from components built in factories which treat their workers universally well (do such things even exist for everything you'd need?) they're just driving the demand that causes this stuff to happen.

I think that concentrating on Google, Apple, or any of these other big Western companies is getting off on the wrong foot. It makes us feel all self- righteous to do it, but doesn't actually get to the root of the problem. Ultimately, those countries which host cheap labor and allow its exploitation are responsible for offering it. Perhaps not the true in small, powerless countries which can get pushed around by large corporations, but China certainly doesn't fall into that category.

If we want things to change, I think we either need to turn our eye to the Chinese government for not enacting stricter controls, or simply declare that these problems are an inevitable result of poverty and industrialization, and that the only ways out are to either return everybody to agrarian lifestyles (which is in many ways worse than working in an evil factory) or allowing these poor conditions to produce economic growth.

</comment><comment><USER14> Apple is a client of FoxConn like all of these companies:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Major_customers>

FoxConn has almost 1 million employees, and they aren't all working on Apple products. If we're going to call out companies, shouldn't we be calling out them all?

<comment><USER11> I'm open to an alternative to Apple products, but I'm hard pressed to find a company that make computers that are not made in similar or worse factories. And why does China get a free pass in this ? Isn't communism suppose to prevent this sort of thing ?

<comment><USER15> I think a properly elected representative democratically elected government would help prevent this sort of thing regardless of economic ideology.

I've never been to china but the impression I have gotten is that it is basically a class system where those on the bottom have no power whatsoever.

This means that the Chinese government have no incentive to improve working conditions as they don't have any votes to win, workers can simply be used to "churn" which seems to be working well for boosting their economy right now.

<comment><USER16> > I think a properly elected representative democratically elected government > would help prevent this sort of thing regardless of economic ideology.

This may be rather naive. Similar conditions in Western factories didn't really go away until after World War 2; in the case of exposure to known- dangerous substances, not til the 60s or 70s. Some of the countries involved were democratic in the early 20th century; certainly the UK and arguably the US (I say 'arguably' because the US excluded a substantial part of its population from the franchise at the time). Certainly, government did something; the effective banning of factory towns (through banning scrip and mandatory rental), in particular, was very important. It was mostly down to the labour unions, though.

> This means that the Chinese government have no incentive to improve working > conditions as they don't have any votes to win

When has improving working conditions _ever_ been a vote winner for a major party, anywhere? Historically, it has almost always been done due to union pressure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I can't wait until I can buy an American made Android phone. Oh wait.

These arguments based on dichotomous binary are pointless. Nothing is as simple as "good" an "evil".

Nor is Apple to blame on their own for the China conditions. No more than Google is by benefiting from it.

It makes good headlines. That's it.

<comment><USER18> The box on the Galaxy S2 I got a few days ago says "Phone Made in Korea". Without knowing anything about Samsung's factories there, I feel very safe saying they're probably far better for workers than Foxconn.

<comment><USER19> <http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _"Of course, Apple never promised to do no evil, so they get a free pass"_

I think that sums it up quite nicely. There are (potentially) broken expectations with Google, which isn't really the case with Apple.

<comment><USER21> Exactly. With recent privacy changes we're reminded of what we've known all along but have been ignoring; that we have next-to-nothing protecting us.

We love all those free services and we're sort of OK with ever more targeted ads but we want to keep our illusion that Google are the good guys.

Unfortunately its an inevitable consequence of Google facing a competitor - Facebook - who is willing to step over limits in sacrificing our privacy, in the name of creating a more competitive ad network. Google has to follow suit or risk losing their business.

The question is where is the bottom of that race? Profiling people with tendency to get hooked on games and pushing them Zynga products seems pretty much like evil to me and I think we're already there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "You can either manufacture in comfortable, worker-friendly factories, or you can reinvent the product every year, and make it better and faster and cheaper, which requires factories that seem harsh by American standards," said a current Apple executive.

"And right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy- apples-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad- and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> Morality clashes with business priorities. Every single company under the sun deals with this fundamental conflict.

The myopic lens of online discourse is currently focused on Apple, presumably because it got the This American Life treatment, and because it is the most successful company of our time – but there isn't a single business out there that doesn't have _something_ to answer for.

<comment><USER24> While you're definitely right that the other manufacturers are playing the same game, i think it makes perfect sense to focus on The Most Successful Company of Our Time, just like the adbusters/anti-sweatshop movement did with Nike in the nineties.

<comment><USER19> _i think it makes perfect sense to focus on The Most Successful Company of Our Time_

Sure, and Apple is (and has been) doing something about this. Hopefully they will do more, but as long as their competitors continue to make use of the price advantage of Chinese labor, there is only so much they can do.

Unless of course they decide to manufacture in the US, in which case their prices will increase and we can go back to complaining about how much more expensive Apple stuff is compared to Dell, HP, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't know if I would call Google evil per se. Paternalistic and cavalier about invading people's personal space? Yes. Evil? Hmmm, I think that cheapens the word somehow.

</comment><comment><USER26> Disgusting, have you listen to this <http://www.thisamericanlife.org/play_full.php?play=454>

I swear, nearly had tears in my eyes. I'm not proud anymore to be part of this machine (we build iphone/mac apps).

We are fighting SOPA, anyone who care enough to fight this fight.

Any idea of what we can do?

<comment><USER12> It has more dimensions than is presented by Mike Daisey. I really is heart breaking, similar to the stores of child labour in Nike factories.

But on the flip side, you pull the industry out, and those 'poor workers' become just 'poor people with no income'. So the industry needs to be moved to more ethical standards. Apple do "seem" to be trying, with their releases of working conditions. But it's hard to tell how much of that is truth vs propaganda.

I guess raising awareness, will slowly put pressure on companies like Apple/HTC/etc to change these things.

Someone needs to think of a system that couples a profit motive to a 'people motive'...

<comment><USER26> Sure, pulling the industry is not the rigth way to go anyway.

I think that the population of china don't help... more than a billion.

I think that the world population is really the big issue of this century.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> His argument might have had some merit if he'd talked about the posh working conditions at Nexus factories. For all we know those are made at Foxconn as well.

And don't just blow off people's concerns about data mishandling. "We haven't done anything bad yet, so people shouldn't be worried." Go ahead and whistle past the graveyard, Tim.

<comment><USER16> The Nexus One was. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus are assembled in Korea, but parts are likely made by Foxconn, which is a Samsung contractor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apple's manufacturing should not be compared to Google, because they dont do any manufacturing. Lets wait and see what they do with their Motorola devices then comment on it. Until then, the best comparison to Apple's hardware manufacturing is Samsung who sell the most mobile devices. And where do they manufacture their phones? in Asia. And who do they partner with? Foxconn.

The question that we really need to ask about Apple is : Is Apple worse than Samsung in treating its laborers? I dont know. But my best guess is that its the opposite.

Google on the other hand is being given a hardtime lately because of the title Don't be evil that they enjoyed for a long time. That is not helping them to compete with Apple or Facebook. Now Page is taking a hard look at the company and transforming it to really compete with the frontrunners. To do that effectively they cannot send flowers to the war. And now when they pick up their weapons, they are being criticized for it.

As much as I love Tim, I don't think he thinks critically of Google as much as he does about Apple. He might have liked all they did in the past, but the new Google is not going to play the savior of the world. They are going to bring in their guns to the war, there is going to be blood spilled all over the field, and if they have to win, Google will be responsible for the blood as much as Facebook or Apple.

p.s: Tim is one of my few idols.

<comment><USER16> > Apple's manufacturing should not be compared to Google, because they dont do > any manufacturing

Strictly speaking, neither does Apple (or they do, but very little). Google has just contracted it out one step further.

> Is Apple worse than Samsung in treating its laborers? I dont know.

It's messier with Samsung, because there are three sets of workers; those in Korean Samsung factories, those in Chinese Samsung factories, and those in Foxconn (which contracts for Samsung). In the last case, they're the _same_ workers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Right, because Android devices are manufactured in USA standards factories where people make $10/hour. What a load of horseshit, especially since Google OWNS Motorola now (something people seem to constantly forget, including Google employees). He has no excuse, this is just a completely ridiculous and unfair comparison.

I might as well just say that Google is evil because they pay very little tax, and Apple is awesome because they give Americans good development jobs. Both facts are true about both company, but why let a little thing like reality stop you from ignoring that to serve your point?

The consumer electronics manufacturing and assembly business is ugly. No one company is better or worse unless they actually demonstrate that. Apple at the very least offers their reports. Where are the reports from all the assemblers that also use Foxconn, including ones involved in some high profile suicide related cases like Microsoft?

Oh right, Apple is the big boys so let's throw rocks at them. I get why the guy in the TAL segment focused on Apple. We can all agree they are an attention grabber and delving into "Well, Microsoft does it too" is totally missing the point in that instance.

However, if Googlers are going to start casting stones like they are sinless because they just deal in data and collecting data is A-OK, I'm afraid I'm going to have to point out what a load of crap that is.

<comment><USER30> It's somewhat of a moot point but since you capitalized "owns" in your post I thought I should point out that the merger still hasn't happened[1][2].

[1][http://androidandme.com/2012/01/news/motorola-provides-an- up...](http://androidandme.com/2012/01/news/motorola-provides-an-update-on- proposed-merger-with-google/)

[2][http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/248815/acquisi...](http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/248815/acquisition_investigations_drag_on_losses_mount_at_motorola.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I recently had to decide where my tech needs end and my beliefs begin - <USER2> bought a new laptop. Although Apple has amazing hardware, I had to decide if I was willing to support their practices or possibly use a machine that offered less CPUs/dollar.

In the end, I went Tim's route and went with a company that treats its workers better - but it was a very hard decision and I was struck by the similarities between my purchase and the localvoire trend.

<comment><USER32> What company/companies are threating their workers better and how do you know that? I seriously want to know, not just asking to undermine your point.

<comment><USER33> Me too, I am considering to leave the macbooks (sadly) to support my principles but it is not an easy task to find a company that threat their workers better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Data collection is not evil and Google's intentions may not be evil today. But storing too much personal information in one place is evil waiting to happen. Data could be stolen, subpoenaed or lost for instance. Or Google could turn evil (I'm starting to hate this word) down the road. I'd rather pay in a different currency.

About the factories of Apple's suppliers: I think the way towards better health and safety conditions for workers in developing countries is via local laws and rights. You can't rely on some corporation to police this.

The problem is if a government is known to be a bunch of thugs with guns whose children are the super rich owners of the country, can you rely on that government to play its part? What if that's not the case? Do you leave the country and maybe cause more poverty? I'm not sure.

</comment><comment><USER35> > Collecting data isn't evil. It's the currency of the future, a currency that > we provide in order to buy useful services...

For all I know, data is mostly used to sell other services for cash, except a little more effectively.

And blaming Apple for working condititions during manufacturing is missing the forest for the trees. The whole model of short-lived consumer electronics is absolutely terrible, starting with where materials come from, ending one some landfill where children burn valuable metals out of the remains. I think we could change much more if we would absolutely _oppose_ the notion that it is normal to throw away cellphones after two, and computers after three years.

</comment><comment><USER36> "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Oh my god, they're COLLECTING the information that I give to them, in order to organize it and make it universally accessible and useful?!

And they're giving me options to disable collecting my information, if I don't want them to?!

And if I do choose to let Google collect my information, they're giving me tools to audit the information they have on me?!

OUTRAGE!

Google should figure out a way to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, without first COLLECTING that information!!!

How long have they had this mission statement, anyway? Is it like a week old, or something?

</comment><comment><USER37> Google develops Android which runs on many devices made in similar or worse conditions. They could change the license under which Android is distributed under to include a clause that it cannot be used on devices that aren't made under certain minimum labour standards. They don't. Are they evil too then? It's really a lot more complex than good vs. evil. There are many fine religious books that tackle that subject. This is an economic issue not a religious issue.

<comment><USER33> You are really suggesting that a company create an open-source OS that is supposed to run only on devices produced under certain labour standards? OK, so if you put some software on Github and a company use it on any computer manufactured in China you are evil? This is the same principle that the iranian government is using on the Saeed Malekpour case and it is absurd.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57362506-93/iranian- court-u...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57362506-93/iranian-court- upholds-web-programmers-death-sentence/)

<comment><USER37> Not really just taking the argument to its logical moronic extreme. Google could simply change a few lines of text in a license agreement and (somehow) make life better for people in China. It's no different than the people who say Apple should (effectively) abandon the Chinese labour market and somehow the Chinese people would be better off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't disagree with him about Google but come on... Tim O'Reilly complains about journalists and then becomes one by pointing fingers and not following up on the entire story.

"Foxconn clients include American, European and Japanese companies. Notable products which the company manufactures include the Amazon Kindle, iPad,[5] iPhone,[6] PlayStation 3, Wii and Xbox 360." - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn>

</comment><comment><USER39> I may get in trouble for saying this, but here goes.

No good deed goes unpunished I say <sigh>. Google, a company which has been more transparent than most other companies I care to remember (and I've worked for a lot of shitty big companies). A company which gives away more open source than most other companies. A company which hires people based on "Googley" culture, which includes, a culture of employees who actually desire to be open and to act against abusing consumers and often confront management if they try to do so. A company which has stood up for the internet and protested SOPA. (A company I'm proud to work for.)

After all that, people still keep putting up batshit crazy conspiracy theories about what Google plans to do ("dominate the world" and other crazy shit in comments). Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, Google management, although in the business of generating a return for shareholders, is not in the business of _maximizing_ shareholder returns at the cost of everything else, including abusing their customers, users, and employees? If Google's sole interest was to bend over for profits and shareholders (to go evil because that's what Wall Street demands), they could have cut costs a long time ago to boost EPS, or sold your data to direct marketers.

Or maybe, that tens of thousands of employees, trained into a progressive culture of openness and transparency, won't just sit idly by while some kind of uber conspiracy theory using your data takes place? Even if Larry and Sergey were false prophets, preaching sermons every week at TGIF about Googley-ness, but secretly practicing evil, they still have created an expectation in their employees of being well behaved, and that doesn't fade fast.

Google's been running lots of free services that cost a hell of a lot of money to develop, maintain, and host, from search, to email, to maps, street video, youtube, etc. Not to mention hundreds of open source projects, including big ones like Android and Chrome which are staffed by very large teams. None of this costs anything for the end user, except the ability to model your preferences and target advertising. For Developers, besides open source, Google runs lots of developer conventions, and hands out free hardware costing millions like candy. When you go to Apple developer events, how much does it cost, and how much free stuff do you get?

You may think that is a bad bargain, so then, don't use free web services. But there is nothing inherently evil about modeling users via their behavior. A perfect search engine would know enough about you from your behavior, to predict what your question really meant out of a set of possible ambiguous ones, and that requires a historical relationship with the person asking the question.

Google's privacy policy changes really is about simplifying the legalese as well as having single-sign on for its services, and combining data to allow all of them to better serve the user. We don't want to be like Yahoo, with 500 different properties, none of them integrated very well. We want our stuff to work together more seamlessly. After all, if you are trying to organize the world's information, that means aggregation.

You may cynically think this is bullshit, but us poor naive, deluded, employees actually believe that is what we're working on. So somewhere along the line, we will have to learn the evil truth that we're actually been building a weapon for world domination.

I guess it would be like working on nuclear energy and being told enriching uranium was only for peaceful purposes, and not for bombs. I suppose it's possible.

But do try to remember, this company has a reasonably flat management structure, that it has tens of thousands of people who care a lot about doing the right think because it is part of company culture.

That counts for something, at least, a check and balance.

<comment><USER40> Why is SPYW default? Why does Google anti-competitively fill it's search with preferred results for it's own services?

More than likely, you won't notice the change in what you're working on.

You're presuming you'll find something inexcusable, but it never works that way.

You boil the frog by starting with room temperature water.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Tim implies that Apple knowingly ordered the switch to n-hexane in "their factories" (actually Wintek's) to improve production numbers, with no regard for the safety of the workers. Evil indeed!

Sorry, I'm gonna need to see some proof before I believe that version. Everything I've read points to Wintek management (who have a long history of reported labor abuses) cutting corners left and right to make more profit.

</comment><comment><USER42> Yet another Google vs Apple. In the article he gave example the Apple factories in China and the employees in China. But what about Google's yellow badge employees in USA? [http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/70411-workers-l...](http://www.andrewnormanwilson.com/portfolios/70411-workers- leaving-the-googleplex) Remember?

</comment><comment><USER43> Large, publicly-traded corporations are highly incentivized towards sociopathy, with the only counteracting force being reputation and public opinion, which in practice still leaves a wide berth for bad behavior. The question shouldn't be why Apple and Google are evil, but why they aren't _more_ evil. (Give it time.)

</comment><comment> wes-exp This is the second time recently that Tim O'Reilly has publicly blasted Apple. Before this it was something about OS X.

I wonder how Tim feels about iBooks? Perhaps what's really upsetting is the thought that book publishers will become obsolete?

<comment><USER44> I believe that iBooks also count as a publisher minus all the 'good' things a publisher would give you. So I wouldn't say that publishers are going to become obsolete, I'd just say if iBooks really does pick up we'll have 1 publisher instead of several.

Doesn't sound good for authors or readers.

<comment> wes-exp Whether iBooks is a good thing or a bad thing is beside the point. All I'm trying to do is point out the possibility that O'Reilly be could biased against Apple due to his business concerns as a book publisher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> There is a reason why Google's mantra is Don't Be Evil rather than Be Good. Very few companies are Good. Most are neutral. Google might have some diseased bits near its heart, but evil? No. Certainly not Good though.

</comment><comment><USER46> i'm disturbed that tim o'reilly, of all people, is shocked--shocked!--to discover that apple's products are manufactured in some not-so-great places.

it does make me think that this story really needs more mainstream press.

</comment><comment><USER22> [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy- apples-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad- and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html)

</comment><comment><USER47> tl;dr - Data is the future (what Google is collecting); Apple squeezing manufacturers on price leading to poor working conditions is bad.

<comment><USER18> tl;dr - Collecting data isn't evil, doing bad things is evil. Google hasn't done anything evil, by comparison Apple has and is celebrated for it.

<comment><USER48> No, Tim says:

> There are many things that Google does that I consider as violations of its > "Don't be evil" mantram (including profiting from ads from content farms, > spammers, IP thieves, et al), but collecting and analyzing user data isn't > one of them

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> One company's transgressions does not excuse another's.

</comment><comment><USER50> An important difference is that one cannot effectively opt out of Google's data collection when using the internet, while one can avoid using Apple's products.

Google is high-fructose corn syrup, Apple is McDonald's.

<comment><USER51> It's pretty easy to opt out of being tracked. Install noscript and adblock, and don't load anything from Google's servers. Done.

(Not to mention the standard "do not track" support. But you might not want trackers to track the fact that you don't want to be tracked. So cut them out of the loop and avoid their content completely.)

<comment><USER50> Noscript leaves many websites unavailable because they do not load without google-APIs. Some sites even will not load without allowing google-analytics.

As for googles _opt out_ policies, they only apply in so far as one is already logged into a Google account - hardly more effective than simply not logging in to Google.

[Edit] How practical are your recommended solutions for the 13 year old children Google is now seeking to track? Never mind trying to apply noscript and adblock on a mobile device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Google, Apple, Microsoft. All of them are evil. Of course they are. Once you accept that, well you can choose with which one to do business. Because you're going to HAVE to sooner or later. And in ways you didn't even imagine or didn't suspect they were involved with.

</comment><comment><USER53> I do hope Google Plus is not the future of blogging. Much better to have stylized, distributed hosting with distributed syndicated commenting than the monotonous (and Safari on iPhone crashing) Google Plus.

</comment><comment><USER54> This is a cultural, social and political issue first. economics is secondary.

As a foreign-owned corporation Microsoft, Amazon, Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Apple do not have the authority, leverage or government support to change something that is so fundamental to China's culture and politics. This is the responsibility of Foxconn and the Chinese Government.

Are we forgetting something? This is China we're talking about. Foreigners do not have any say in this.

<comment><USER55> "Foreigners do not have any say in this."

That's a load of horseshit.

Foreigners were the lever used to end the Apartheid regime in South Africa due to the divestment movement which cut off economic support to the South African government, effectively forcing it to change.

This happened not only against the wishes of the South African government but also against the wishes of much of the then-American government (under Reagan).

Of _course_ foreigners have a say in this, if they have the will to act upon their principles.

<comment><USER16> > This happened not only against the wishes of the South African government > but also against the wishes of much of the then-American government (under > Reagan).

This is a somewhat idealistic view. South Africa only really came under serious pain when _countries_ embargoed them, particularly the UK and then the US (Desmond Tutu went to Washington and guilted the US government into producing a veto-proof majority for the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act; Reagan having vetoed it first timed round).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I guess Tim doesn't really comprehend the definitively Orwellian future that Google has in store for their users, and anyone who accesses any of their services. Centralized sharing and data storage, centralized application servers, centralized everything. All your data, email, communications, everything flowing through Google, and no hope of ever escaping their ads and related data analysis systems.

Google appears to really believe that people are going to sit around like sheep and let them rape every aspect of their online lives, and I can guarantee you this is not how it will play out. This is not the future I want. And Google will one day find out the hard way how wrong they are about their vision.

<comment><USER57> Rape? Really?

There's some impedance mismatch in communication here that I don't quite understand.

<comment><USER56> Yes Google is figuratively raping its users. Google is using dystopian fiction like 1984 as its blueprint for control and survellience its users, and the modification and manipulation of information.

You either understand this or you're the sheep that put money in its pockets.

<comment><USER57> I call Poe's Law on this one.</comment></comment></comment></comment>