So is it nature not nurture after all? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nature-not-nurture-after-all-genetics-robert-plomin-polygenic-testing <comment><USER2> When people try to be positive by saying: "it's not all natural talent, you must also work hard and persevere!", I wonder, aren't those also shaped by our genes? Is the ability to work hard and the mental fortitude not to give up not also something dictated by our genetics?

<comment><USER3> This is my lazy excuse for not being an overachiever. I see people at the top of their fields and they so obviously seem innately driven to perform and be amazing. I was not born with that instinct and my brain doesn't reward me the same way theirs does. I'm fine with this.

<comment><USER4> You could also be "fated" to begin achieving the things you want tomorrow. The universe being deterministic doesn't mean that you personally know your own future. Our predictions for ourselves are likely to be wrong in many ways. We can't know until we try.

It's a balance to both accept reality as it is while also striving to achieve things that we didn't know for sure were possible (or that we hadn't even conceived of yet!).

It seems that we must carefully straddle the boundary between the known and the unknown. Of course, this will look different for everyone.

<comment><USER3> I focus on gaining meaning and happiness in life from things other than achievement. The things I do mean less to me than the experiences and relationships I have in life. I don't need a $100 million yacht and a Wikipedia page to love the people around me and feel loved in return. I think what I have is a lot more valuable.

<comment><USER4> That is awesome. Nothing wrong with that at all. I was mainly responding to the fatalist side of your comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not controversial that the large intelligence differences between cats, dogs and chimpanzees are genetic. Nobody says that in the right environment and nurture a cat will become as smart as a chimpanzee.

But somehow it's very controversial that the small intelligence differences between humans might be genetic, as if a species has a fixed IQ number, and the only IQ jumps are strictly between species, but not between individuals.

<comment><USER6> It's not controversial at all in the scientific community, is it?

If people are talking about political ideology and wishful thinking, rather than science, then that's another matter. As the article says:

> those on the left have tended to see the environment as the critical factor > because it ties in with notions of egalitarianism

<comment><USER7> That depends on what you mean. If you mean "there is a genetic component to intelligence", that is not controversial. If you mean "there are intrinsic differences in the genetic backgrounds of particular races that lead to differences in intellectual ability", that is extraordinarily controversial.

<comment><USER8> Sorry, what is the evidence that there is a genetic component to intelligence?

<comment><USER9> All of it.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. I feel that you and I must have drastically different starting assumptions, because your question seems meaningless in my context.

Do you dispute that Homo sapiens has a higher intelligence than H. erectus did? Than other primates?

Or are you alleging that the genetic basis for that intelligence difference shows _no_ variation across human populations?

I feel like I have to stretch what you said to give it a charitable interpretation, but here goes: are you asking whether there's any evidence that the genetic component's variation across human populations contributes to significant phenotypic variation _when compared to_ environmental factors?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you want a very good summary of recent genetics research results, have a look at Adam Rutherford's _A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes._ Basically, even the most careful and underwhelming claims from the popular press overstate how much we actually understand about the connection between genes and real world attributes of people.

</comment><comment><USER11> Anecdotally, anyone who has ever recontacted an adopted-out sibling will be able to tell you how much this is true.

We got back into contact with my older sister who had been adopted when I was about 12. She's absolutely the spitting image of her parents, both in looks and behavior, despite being raised in about as different a household as is possible.

<comment><USER12> Yea, we reconnected with a half-brother on our Dad's side. Jeezum. It's just so clear, it's weird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The obvious pull quote, already in this thread, seems to say that this is a case of looking where we have the tools to look rather than where it makes a difference. Because you can get DNA with a swab and a MiSeq, you should try to determine the causes there rather than do the hard work of determining confounding environmental factors.

The end argument works out to laziness if the goal is to determine causes. If the goal is engineering change, the article makes it's own countercase - improvements to society-wide resources make for society-wide changes in behavior.

<comment><USER14> _The end argument works out to laziness if the goal is to determine causes._

If your argument is that it must be so for reasons of ideological aesthetics, then you're in the company of Lysenko.

 _If the goal is engineering change, the article makes it 's own countercase - improvements to society-wide resources make for society-wide changes in behavior._

If the culture would broadly accept that _both nature and nurture_ contribute something, we'd be much better able to deal with a ground truth which is complex and nuanced.

Biology is one of those areas where ground truth tends to be complex and nuanced. Psychology is another field like this. The practice of good governance is yet another.

<comment><USER7> It would help if would-be popularizers of the "nature" factor could get basic concepts straight, like (in Plomin's case) the difference between correlation and causation, or (in Plomin's pop-sci advocates' case) the meaning of "heritability".

<comment><USER14> These are general problems in the interpretation of science, and their presence isn't exclusive to the political left or right. (The one exception I can make out being Climate Change.)

<comment><USER7> "Left" or "right"? I'm talking about the "nature" versus "nurture" debate in human behavior and performance.

<comment><USER14> It shouldn't be a debate. It should be a "knob" we're tuning in. In general, the Left has had an ideological stake in "nurture." Various progressive utopian visions had such an ideological stake, communism being the most obvious one. Intersectionality and Feminism have taken up the nurture baton, as they have an ideological stake in forwarding nurture and denying any significant role for nature.

Again, in a field like biology, many of the answers are going to be complex and nuanced. Black and white binaries mandated by ideology are not going to be the likeliest answers.

<comment><USER7> It... clearly is a debate? Like, a fundamental and unanswered question spanning many scientific fields? That's interesting to me. The political valences you choose to assign to each side of the debate: not so much.

<comment><USER14> _It... clearly is a debate?_

In as much as Climate Change is a debate. Which is to say, it isn't, except for ideological wishful thinking. It's settled science that both nature and nurture are involved in human behavior to some extent. It's only a question as to how much, with a lot of noise generated in popular accounts motivated by ideology.

 _The political valences you choose to assign to each side of the debate: not so much._

Skewing of politics to the left or right in a given field can cause systemic bias. Both conservative and more open voices need to be heard to avoid groupthink causing the social environments within each field from going off the rails.

You and I have already had discussions about how fields can engage in such behaviors to produce artificial exclusivity and act in ways contrary to facts and their own and society's self interests.

<comment><USER7> I think you're pretty much begging the question now, aren't you? "There's no debate except HOW MUCH genes influence behavior". Well, we pretty much all agree that Downs Syndrome exists, so I think we knew going into this thread that there was _some_ genetic component.

I'm just not interested in your politics, sorry.

<comment><USER14> _Well, we pretty much all agree that Downs Syndrome exists, so I think we knew going into this thread that there was some genetic component._

It's not begging the question, if you're going to concede the point that it's not a question of if, but how much. Are you also in denial of genetic, epigenetic, and in-utero biological factors affecting behavior in large mammals and highly intelligent animals? I should hope not. Are you in denial of biological factors affecting social organization behaviors in such animals? Are you asking for a special exception to all the above for _Homo sapiens_ for reasons of ideology? In that case, I'm not the one begging the question here.

 _I 'm just not interested in your politics, sorry._

If you're politicizing science, then you are interested in such politics. So is your position now that the effect is nonzero, but it can't be much larger because of ideological/aesthetic reasons?

What I'm asking for is _less_ politicization of science. Science has gotten politicized in the US and much of the west, to the point where people can be _un-personed for wrongthink._ Ideas should be tested and bad ideas should be debunked. Suppressing words and ideas for the sake of feelings is the real danger. Incitement and other real harms are ultimately fueled by strong feelings combined with de-personalization, not by cold rationality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Biological determinism flatters the current elite -- "You're on top because you're inherently superior!" \-- so it will always find an eager audience regardless of whether it is true. All the excess cheerleading makes it incredibly hard to assess.

<comment><USER16> I would have thought the exact opposite. Wouldn't the current elite rather believe that they are on top because they worked hard and earned their place? That way they can look down on the rest in good conscience while gutting welfare systems that only benefit those who "didn't" earn their own way.

<comment><USER15> Arguments that the successful are _morally_ superior will also find an eager audience. In contrast, arguments that successful are inherently inferior in any way are a hard sell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's seems to be an uphill battle. The Swedish researcher Amir Sariaslan has given up due to a uninterested or even hostile reception.

The Economist called his paper disturbing (but interesting).

One would imagine that bringing facts to the table is a good thing, but apparently not.

[https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/4/1057/656274](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/42/4/1057/656274)

[https://www.economist.com/science-and- technology/2014/08/21/...](https://www.economist.com/science-and- technology/2014/08/21/to-have-and-have-not)

</comment><comment><USER18> Plomin's central argument seems to be that once you control for environment, genetics explains the remaining differences:

"Plomin's argument is that, in a society with universal education, the greatest part of the variation in learning abilities is accounted for by genetics...

...Thus, the average height of northern European males has increased by more than 15cm in the past two centuries. That is obviously due to changes in environment. However, the variation in height between northern European males is down to genetics"

To conclude that it is "nature not nurture after all" based on this argument, seems quite backwards.

</comment><comment><USER19> Regarding socio-economic status: I have more than 2 university degrees. My dad attained the lowest higher educational attainment there is. My mom did not even finish high school. My mom and dad have all kinds of addiction issues regarding alcohol and drugs. I don't. I have more patience than both of them and am more level-headed. And I'm also pretty sure I'd be a better parent than them, since they set such a low bar that I had to be adopted and raised by my grandparents after 1 year.

Sometimes I wonder how I am a product of both my mom and my dad, because there are quite a bit of things in which I don't recognize myself in. If it was all nature, then it'd have been easier to spot and I'd also be addicted to a lot more things.

My upbringing was similar with regards to my mom (same people). But the situation was different, my grandpa didn't work much when I was around but was a workaholic during my moms time. My dad was beaten as a kid. I wasn't.

If it really is al genetics then how do you explain such a difference in socio-economic status? I think for them it's part drug abuse, a fucked up childhood and no nudge to do your best at school (in my dad's case, I don't know about my mom). I know that my dad had a propensity for learning but he never got to utilize it.

I'm pretty sure that if my dad had been in a better upbringing that he'd have fared better. I'm also pretty sure that if my momd would've been born around 1995 that she'd have fared better.

<comment><USER20> One interesting thing about genetics, and a very conspicuous one, is that _randomness_ plays a not so little part in the process. Otherwise you wouldn't even have _evolution_. How could a species adapt to a changing environment if heritability was the only determining factor?

In that case, it could be justified to think of you as one of those wildcards that nature continuously throws into the mix to sharpen the species adaptability _.

_ That is, if you spread your genes around and those also prove more adapted. And so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> On its face this study doesn't seem controversial, but it's easy to see how people can find confirmations of their own biases in it. For example when discussing race and gender.

</comment><comment><USER22> The article mentions that much of this research is based on twin studies. I have a question about how these studies work - perhaps someone here has done this sort of research and can answer.

Here's my understanding of twin studies: you have some identical and fraternal twins. Each pair of twins are raised in the same household, and presumably experience the same environmental "nurture" effects. So, if we see stronger intellectual similarities between identical twins than fraternal twins, then we conclude that this difference is genetic.

But how valid is the assumption that the environments that fraternal twins face are as similar as those of identical twins? Let's assume for instance that: 1) women and men have the same innate potential for mathematical skill 2) our education system does a better job fostering mathematical ability in men than women 3) over time, this discrepancy causes women to score lower on tests of mathematical skill than men

While our identical twin pairs will all be of the same gender, the fraternal twin pairs may not. Two identical twin boys might receive the same environmental effects on their mathematical ability, but a girl and her twin brother will not, even if they have equal mathematical potential.

Given these assumptions, if we conducted a twin study on mathematical ability, we would see a stronger correlation between the scores of identical twins than those of fraternal twins, due to gender difference, and we would conclude that mathematical ability has a genetic component.

And our conclusion wouldn't be wrong! If gender impacts mathematical ability, and gender is genetic, then mathematical ability does arguably have a genetic component. But this gender difference comes about not because of an innate intellectual difference between women and men, but because of how a child's environment "nurture" changes depending on an arbitrary genetic trait "nature". In a world where these assumptions are true, a child's genes influence their future mathematical abilities - but in another world without gender-based educational discrepancies, the same genetic difference might not have any effect.

How do twin studies account for these more nuanced situations, where society causes nature and nurture to coincide in roundabout ways? Does it make sense to simply call these "second-order" socio-genetic effects "nature"?

<comment><USER23> The best twin studies look at pairs of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different households. If they still end up more similar to each other than to their adopted siblings on some trait, we conclude that trait has a significant genetic component, and more sophisticated analysis can measure how significant it is. Note that the technique I described is not strictly able to determine whether the effect is from genetics or some other pre-birth shared environment, like maternal alcohol consumption. For many practical purposes, that distinction doesn't really matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't like the way he seems to connect the science to the political spectrum. I think it would be the thinking of the left that we need to improve the environment especially for the disadvantaged (including those disadvantaged for genetic reasons) in order to improve society as a whole. Then he mentions how it was "dangerous" to publish his research, feeding the victim complex of those whose thinking doesn't line up with what he considers to be the left apparantly. Whoever claims that raw, uncivilized human nature bolsters equality can't be thinking straight.

I think it was a good point, that we have come a long way to equalizing the environment and that leaves a big part of the differences to genetics. I would say that is very high praise to the achievements we already made and shows that we are on the right way. I would guess that the same study made in a more unequal society would have different results.

</comment><comment><USER25> An essential concept for this discussion:

 _Another problem that Plomin encounters with explaining his findings is that people often confuse group and individual differences – or, to put it another way, the distinction between means and variances. Thus, the average height of northern European males has increased by more than 15cm in the past two centuries. That is obviously due to changes in environment. However, the variation in height between northern European males is down to genetics. The same applies to psychological traits.

"The causes of average differences," he says, "aren't necessarily related to causes of individual differences. So that's why you can say heritability can be very high for a trait, but the average differences between groups – ethnic groups, gender – could be entirely environmental; for example, as a result of discrimination. The confusion between means and variances is a fundamental misunderstanding."_

<comment><USER26> How does this work? How can one thing that causes the motion of the average not also affect the variation? How wouldn't the one which inherited the worst genes not benefit from environment?

<comment><USER27> It is like how rising tides lift all boats. A good environment helps people without the right genetics; but this does not mean that this group can beat another set with right genetics in the same good environment.

<comment><USER25> > A good environment helps people without the right genetics; but this does > not mean that this group can beat another set with right genetics in the > same good environment.

I think that's backwards from what Plomin is saying in that quote. He's saying that, regardless of genetics, a better environment will cause the average performance of the group experiencing it to outperform the average performance of a group experiencing a worse environment. And he's saying that DNA influences the amount of each group's variation around that average performance. For example, if we were looking at height,

* There are two groups, 1 and 2; people in Group 1 have one kind of tallness DNA (tDNA, something I just made up), and people in Group 2 have another kind of tDNA; also, Group 1 grows up in an environment with better nutrition and exercise than Group 2. Both groups are one gender, let's say women, to simplify height statistics.

* Group 1 averages a height of 5'7" due to their relatively better environment, and due to their tDNA their variance is that 50% are between 5'5" and 5'8", a 3-inch range, and 95% are between 5'3" and 5'10", a 7-inch range.

* Group 2 averages a height of 5'5" due to their relatively worse environment, and due to their different tDNA their variance is larger: 50% score between 5'3" and 5'9", a 6-inch range, and 95% are between 5'0" and 5'11", an 11-inch range.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Whoa, this is encouraging. A thoughtfully-written piece on an extremely important (and, lamentably, controversial) subject devoid of hyperbole and rancorous partisanship.

... published by The Guardian, no less. I am shocked and very pleased.

</comment><comment><USER29> Human performance depends on a number of factors. These factors form a chain and this chain is as strong as its weakest link. So yes, some genetic diseases are severe enough to undermine cognitive performance. But no, genes are not the weakest link for most people. We are still wasting most of the human potential we already have. There is no need to seek genetic improvements at this stage.

</comment><comment><USER25> AFAIK, the consequences of DNA depend as much or more on the processing of them by RNA and otherwise than on the original genes. I wonder how the theory accounts for that (I'm not pointing out flaw as an armchair cynic, but asking a question.)

Also, obviously environment plays a major role in our lives and I'm certain Plomin would agree: Abusive parents (or no parents), childhood experiences (think of rape survivors), education, the opportunities around us, access to resources, etc. etc. I would guess he's talking about an essential psychological nature that may determine how we respond to those things. My question is, where does he draw the line between that 'essential nature' (accepting for sake of argument that it exists) and environmental influence?

EDIT: "Plomin's argument is that, in a society with universal education, the greatest part of the variation in learning abilities is accounted for by genetics, not home environment or quality of school– these factors, he says, do have an effect but it's much smaller than is popularly believed."

Calling it "universal education" (the Guardian's paraphrase, not necessarily Plomin's words) is a big stretch - it's so different in different places, including in the same country, that it doesn't all fit under one term. Without more specific claims, it's hard to address that quote but I was reading in the last year about one poor school district which had accomplished a milestone: Half the third graders could read. Half those kids are in deep trouble, and I don't think that's due to genetics.

<comment><USER30> Re processing of DNA etc, this isn't the level these studies are typically working at. There's no biochemistry knowledge involved. They are just looking at DNA sequences, and what data they have about outcomes. Whether a piece of DNA makes something critical for some muscle, or is 10 steps away in part of some complicated switching apparatus, of indeed just influences something else which causes the growing animal to enjoy behaviour which happen to exercise this muscle -- all of this detail is a black box, all of these would contribute to genetic effect.

Re universal education, etc: in adoption studies this translates to "among parents who will be approved to adopt", and this indeed cuts the very bottom off the distribution of some factors. I don't think it's a huge issue, but not an expert.

But my understanding of the point Plomin is making there is a bit different. Regardless of the current state of (say) schooling, he's pointing out that moving from a system with large schooling inequalities, to a system of absolute schooling equality, would almost certainly _increase_ the heritability of education. In the unequal system, some bright kids are stunted etc, weakening the correlation between input and output; but in the equal one, all the variation in the output will be driven by the input.

At least I think that's what he's saying. Haven't read the book, and not really my field at all...

<comment><USER25> Thanks. Good point about the DNA 'black box'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > _As Plomin writes: "We now know that DNA differences are the major > systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental > effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they > are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot > do much about them."_

I'm not sure what to read in the implied statement that we _can_ do something about genes

<comment><USER32> The famous example is myopia. Myopia is very, very genetic (something like 70-80% heritable IIRC). But you can do something about it: wear spectacles.

Genetic cause does not imply genetic cure.

<comment><USER33> Can you give a source for that? I remember reading something contradicting this statement and my own research into possible myopia causes seems to indicate environmental factors as the cause (but not conclusively).

As a myopic person that has no one in my extended family suffering from it, I am very confused as to the possible causes.

<comment><USER32> Wikipedia seems to give the relevant cites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Not sure why this is so hard to accept, why would evolution stop at the neck? Nobody has a problem with saying height is mostly genetic, yet say the same of intelligence and it's controversial.

<comment><USER35> > height is mostly genetic

And yet until the industrial revolution, environmental factors were the dominant effect. Anyone could have been taller with enough nutrition.

Genes are only ever expressed under certain environmntal conditions. The minimal condition for all of them is being alive. Malnourishment, or perhaps too much caffeine, amongst a hundred other things, all determine how our genes for height express themselves.

Which is all to say, people are wrong when they say height is mostly genetic. It may be true enough under current social conditions though. I think the same problem applies to calling intelligence "largely" genetic.

<comment><USER36> > Malnourishment, or perhaps too much caffeine, amongst a hundred other > things, all determine how our genes for height express themselves.

Not arguing your idea in general, but the caffeine example is probably a myth[1].

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/the-claim- drinking...](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/the-claim-drinking- coffee-can-stunt-a-childs-growth.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> steven pinker convinced me some time ago.

</comment><comment><USER38> Re: autism, there are examples of identical twins where one has/develops autism and the other does not. Clearly nurture still plays a role.

<comment><USER14> I would be very happy if such scientific inquiries were freed from the depredations of the culture war, and our culture accepted the nuanced and moderate truth: both nature and nurture play a role.

<comment><USER39> My lizard brain demands a winner and a loser though.

<comment><USER14> _My lizard brain demands a winner and a loser though._

So those of us who strive to do better than the lizard brain should be taking up the nuanced, moderate view.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir <comment><USER2> I was delighted to discover that AO3 has no fewer than _eleven_ fanfics about the complaint tablet: [https://archiveofourown.org/tags/Ea- Nasir%20(Mesopotamian)/w...](https://archiveofourown.org/tags/Ea- Nasir%20\(Mesopotamian\)/works)

Including at least one smutty one, which I thought was really funny: [https://archiveofourown.org/works/9008380](https://archiveofourown.org/works/9008380)

The Internet's a wonderful thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I enjoyed the comments in the smutty fanfic submission too!

Looks like Ea-Nasir has fans!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> People haven't changed much in nearly 3K years. I wonder if he ever got a fair deal.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's really nuanced. 1. He takes on an implied insult because the servant wasn't treated properly 2. It was actually Nanni who owed Ea-Nasir a Mina of silver. 3. Comparisons between others who traded with Ea-Nasir..

And finally: [..]Other tablets have been found in the ruins believed to be Ea- nasir's dwelling. These include a letter from a man named Arbituram who complained he had not received his copper yet, while another from Imgur-sin says he was tired of receiving bad copper.[..]

Ea-Nasir seems like a chuckling evil genius ..he kept all the complaint tablets..probably read them and had the last laugh while enjoying a nightcap.

I was very impressed by the stern tone of the complaint while weaving in personal grievances.

Fascinating!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The layout of that house is so strange. Why would it be designed like that?

<comment><USER5> 1) entrances - prosaically, like a mud room. Ea-nasir's porters would've hung out here and kept riff raff out while announcing and carrying stuff in and out for desired guests. I don't know what old babylon was like for civil policing, but two entrances on different streets can be very useful in areas of unrest. In more peaceable environments, they can be decorated differently, so tradesmen, house servants/employees etc. use the back door while business partners, priests and politicians use the front.

2) a courtyard - compare roman architecture. Useful for light when one doesn't have electricity. In other cultures was used for rain water capture/storage. As 5 and 6 don't seem to have been stalls for household animals, they probably would've been running around here too.

3) stairs - I would bet residential was on the upper levels. (compare Bathsheba bathing)

4) lavatory - Ea-nasir was better equipped than the NCC-1701 _Enterprise_.

5) conference room? flunkies meet in the courtyard. Big deals with big shots get inked (clayed?) in room 5. (might it have had fancy beer and wine vessels at disposal?)

6) warehouse? when you've got a lot of copper ingots, best to store it as far away from the high traffic areas of the household as possible. And you're certainly not going to sleep out of earshot of the entrances to your copper store. (why was Boaz sleeping on the threshing-room floor in the book of Ruth? Because that's where his grain was.)</comment></comment>


ICE Fails to Redact Document, Reveals Location of 'Urban Warfare' Facility - <AUTHOR> https://www.newsweek.com/ice-fails-redact-document-reveals-location-urban-warfare-training-facility-1458732 <comment><USER2> Why would ICE need an "Urban Warfare" facility? Note that this is at the famous counter-insurgency training centre, the US army "School of Americas", notorious for training central and South American death squads.

<comment><USER3> It's just a fancy SWAT team training facility. Probably has "Warfare" in the name because it's getting built on Ft. Benning, an Army base. Wouldn't be surprised if the facility gets shared with Army units who also do indoor and urban combat training.

<comment><USER4> Why is this downvoted? He has a point to a plausible reason for the name. It's built at an army base that is also likely used for multiple different types of units. Would it make everyone sleep better at night naming it "Fluffy Bear Facility"? Would everyone prefer that we don't have the tactical ability when and if needed? I am personally highly against war, but at the same time I feel much more comfortable knowing that we do have the ability and advantage when needed. I think the argument should be "how is this facility used and under what circumstances do these trained units utilize their skills?"

<comment><USER5> Because 1) there is nothing in the document about it being a shared resource (copy at [https://www.wabe.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/LSJ_Hyper_Re...](https://www.wabe.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/LSJ_Hyper_Realistic_Training_Devices_redacted__1__pdf_AZUFaO_Z.pdf) ), and 2) the FBI already has such facilities, like 'Hogan's Alley' at Quantico ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan's_Alley_(FBI)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan's_Alley_\(FBI\)) ). There are many other similar facilities, like in Artesia, NM [https://www.fletc.gov/artesia-new-mexico](https://www.fletc.gov/artesia-new- mexico)

Now, the document claims that this will be a "hyper-realistic" facility, and that only one company is able to provide such unique capabilities.

This leads to some obvious questions: 1) if hyperrealism is so important, why aren't the other facilities, including the FBI, already asking for improvements to their existing sites? 2) why should there be new sites for these sorts of training facilities - what tactical training abilities aren't already available? and 3) if it's so important, why isn't it explicitly being developed as a shared resource?

I think the bureaucratic is more reasonable than the one proposed by the grandparent post, that is, each federal organization acts as its own fiefdom and wants its own things. Plus, there's probably some graft - is it really the case that only a single company can provide such construction?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "... training facility that is expected to include "hyper-realistic" > simulations of homes, hotels and commercial buildings in Chicago and > Arizona."

Is there something special about Chicago and Arizona?

<comment><USER7> Most likely areas where they perform a lot of family separations that can also be close enough to other common locations with many people of color to be a useful training aid. Arizona is close to the south with wide open cities and Chicago is indicative of a lot of northern cities with choose packed buildings. There's already a ton of teaching facilities for individual houses or foreign locations. This is really not that surprising. If they were building something like Minneapolis or Boise I'd take more notice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just curious, if this seems to be of uttermost importance pertaining to national security, then why do the media broadcast it for the rest of the world to see?

<comment><USER9> The fifth estate isn't an apparatus of the government. Sometimes, it must act counter to the interests of the government.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Me - <AUTHOR> https://timothycrosley.com/whoami <comment><USER2> From the ShowHN rules [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

> _What to Submit_

> _Show HN is for something you 've made that other people can play with. HN > users can try it out, give you feedback, and ask questions in the thread._

It's OK to submit your stuff here, but for a ShowHN there are some special rules.

I recommend to submit blog post about something more specific and something more technical (and with a few photos / graphics). The "about" age of the blog is unually not a popular submission.

You have a few open source projects. A good article can be about a problem that you had with one of your projects and how you solved it, or a problem of someone else that was solved with your project. (And a few photos / graphics.) Which one is your more popular project? Which one is your more technical difficult project? Do you have a transcript of your talk that can be transformed into an article?</comment>


DIY Kit Overclocks Your Brain With Direct Current - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27636/

<comment><USER2> It looks like such an obvious scam. The thing is, this kit is using proven technology. Who knows, six months from now maybe we will all be walking around with boxes strapped to our foreheads.</comment>


[video] The future of photography. Jump to 1:18:00 and stick with it for 10 mins - <AUTHOR> http://livesmooth.istreamplanet.com/nvidia100921/

<comment><USER2> Very impressive.

The video perormance sucked for me until I toggled full screen display

</comment><comment><USER3> [VIDEO]!!!</comment>


Ask HN: What book changed your life in 2015? - <AUTHOR> I'm just compiling my reading list for the next year and found some great suggestions in threads from previous years (the same question was asked in 2012, 13, 14)<p>So here's this year's attempt to find out what the HN community has been reading in the last year. <comment><USER2> The pledge by Micheal Masterson [http://www.amazon.com/The-Pledge-Your-Master- Abundant/dp/047...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Pledge-Your-Master- Abundant/dp/0470922400)

It showed me 3 things

1\. A super-easy Goal setting system - It showed me a simple way to set and achieve goals in all the areas in my life. Actually I learnt that, we have to set goals in only 4 areas in our life. (Health, Wealth, self-improvement, and social). No other book showed me that I need to look at only 4 areas to have a great life. This was life changing for me and now I have clear goals setup for 2016.

2\. How to read a book super-fast : I found the easiest way to read a book. Now I can read a book in about 1hr. Previously it used to take me 10hrs. This was not speed-reading, but another technique. I used to practice speed reading before, but this book showed me that there is a completely different way.

3\. The best way to make money is entrepreneurship: I learnt that the best way to make money is not stock markets, day trading and others, but it is only through entrepreneurship. I learnt that we we don't need millions to retire in life and we can achieve the money we need by starting a lifestyle business with just one employee(me).</comment>


An Update to "Welcome to the Unicorn Club" - <AUTHOR> http://www.breakoutlist.com/unicorn-club/

<comment><USER2> If execution is so important, why do I see the same investors again and again in each deal? How much is cause and how much is effect?</comment>


Leaving no room for a lower-level language: A C++ Subset - <AUTHOR> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1105r0.html <comment><USER2> Sutters proposal on "static exceptions" looks like a clean solution, rather than a hack. As far as i can tell it addresses all of the issues with using C++ and STL in embedded or kernel environments.

If you read between the lines the dynamic exceptions was a fundamental design mistake by Bjarne. Once we get static exceptions, then dynamic exceptions might not be needed at all, and it can be deprecated.

"Zero-overhead deterministic exceptions": [http://www.open- std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p070...](http://www.open- std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0709r1.pdf)</comment>


Russian regulators bring case to court calling for mailbox.org ban in Russia - <AUTHOR> https://mailbox.org/en/post/russian-regulators-at-roskomnadzor-bring-case-to-court-calling-for-mailbox-org-ban-in-russia <comment><AUTHOR> related to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22180164](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22180164) [Russia blocks ProtonMail]</comment>


Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-03-27/bosses-panic-buy-spy-software-to-keep-tabs-on-remote-workers <comment><USER2> This happened to me years ago. I was put in an empty office at the opposite end from my boss, and because he couldn't walk up behind me to see me working, he secretly installed a program on my computer that took a screenshot every 30 seconds (or so?).

I quickly noticed that my computer was hitching regularly (when the screenshot was taken - this was in the late 90s BTW), and so investigated my computer on a day when he wasn't in the office.

After finding what looked like malware on my computer, I checked with other colleagues - and the other owner - and no one had any idea what it was.

So we put the office network on lockdown, halted everything and started the process of rotating all our passwords and scanning every computer in the office looking for signs of intrusion, etc..

We lost a solid day of productivity for everyone, and when we finally reached the other boss, he owned up to what he had done, and the other owner - who had spent the day in a panic - wasn't thrilled about it to say the least.

The irony was that I was probably the most productive person in that office (in my humble opinion).

<comment><USER3> > because he couldn't walk up behind me to see me working, he secretly > installed a program on my computer that took a screenshot every 30 seconds

> The irony was that I was probably the most productive person in that office > (in my humble opinion).

The easiest and the most efficient way to ruin my productivity is to look at my screen. I can't work (nor can I pee - a funny coincidence, that's called "paruresis") when somebody is watching.

<comment><USER4> Off topic, but related to this...

I had, what I felt, was the best seat in the office at my previous job. We had an open office with short cubicles and standing desks, and the cubicles were arranged so that two people shared a small area with two desks/cabinets/etc.

For a while, it was wonderful. My "cube-mate" worked from home 4 days a week and only came in for meetings, and we had a window on one side and an empty desk on the other. It was about as great as an open office can be.

And then my manager moved into the cube nextdoor, and arranged his desk so that when he stood at his standing desk (which was most of the time), he was looking directly over the cube wall at me and my monitors. It made me very self-concsious and uncomfortable, and was (a small) part of the reason I left, TBH.

<comment><USER5> You know, I've always wondered why there are so many stories about these middle management types who seem to pay so close attention to things that are _not_ employee productivity. I guess on first glance, it may appear that "looking busy" corrates to "getting stuff done", but why not cut out the middle man and pay attention to what the employee actually does?

<comment><USER6> I'll give you a potential corollary. Quality control.

In a perfect world, quality control twiddles their thumbs all day, does some tests, and collects a paycheck because everything is perfect the first time.

In practice, I know engineers who leave in tiny and easy to fix mistakes for QC to catch. They do this because if they turn in something with no errors QC finds something for them to add, frequently requiring larger changes and thus creating a crunch. QC does this because they have someone breathing down their neck who measures their effectiveness by how many errors they caught. I'll refer you to Goodhart's Law[0].

I'll also note that I see this as a common "tip" for paper submissions. But I'm not sure it is as strong of a correlation as when passing things through QC.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law)

<comment><USER7> Related: "Just remove the duck"

[https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2013/06/05/duck/](https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2013/06/05/duck/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Two sides of the story.

One: people that are doing this are likely to have already been bad bosses. I don't think this changes anything.

Two: I work for a large bank. My director, on a town hall, told us they do understand that not everybody will be able to focus on the job as before and that they expect us to spend less time actually working and be unavailable more often. Then he _URGED_ us to actually do so. To take time off, to deal with family problems first. He wanted us to know it is ok and that they will allow it without deducting pay so that we don't have to worry about our salaries.

I am pretty sure there will be people that will abuse this. You know what? People who do this probably have already been bad employees so not much is lost. Most people I know to be good employees feel very happy about this as a convenient option and do whatever they can to use it as little as possible. I see this as an investment that is most likely return in other ways, employee happiness, retention, engagement from the staff you really want engaged.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I think bosses who freak out about people not being productive while working from home underestimate how much people can avoid being productive while physically at work.

<comment><USER8> Exactly. Wrong mental model. Your best bet is to hire/make/keep people interested in being productive. When this is lost there isn't going much you can do to improve productivity. Keeping employee chained to their desks will not magically make things get done. This is so naive. I wonder how humanity landed in the situation where half of all managers don't get the first thing about managing people.

<comment><USER10> Given the panic-buy, I'm sure you're right about most people thinking this will keep people productive.

I've wanted something like this before, though, when I got some bad people on my team who weren't worth what they were getting paid and were sometimes a net negative on the team. We couldn't fire them because everything was at least somewhat subjective and HR and my own boss wanted a solid case. Oh they didn't get anything done? That's subjective - maybe the assigned tasks were harder than we thought. We need more evidence. Oh they were on Facebook most of the time when I walked into their office? Maybe it was a coincidence. We need more evidence.

I feel like, "look - here are screenshots from every 30 seconds and they really spent 90% of their day farting around on dumb websites", would have ended that far more efficiently than how we eventually got rid of them. It's less about prevention, and more about a way to fix the problem when people already aren't productive.

This is ripe for abuse by bosses - but at least part of that is because of bad employees too.

<comment><USER8> I feel for any person that has to deal with this type of employee. It is very demoralizing to give responsibilities you know are not going to be handled well (but you still have to do this), it is also very demoralizing to the rest of the team to observe this unfairness go unpunished.

Still, I would focus my efforts on the productive part of the team. Making them feel safe and appreciated seems to be more worth than spying on the ones that drag the team down. People do observe how you treat team members with "problems" and will see that your measured response means they can feel safe. Safety I find to be prerequisite to healthy work atmosphere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My institution tried to implement "productivity" software during the shutdown. I, and one other director, were the sole voices of reason, saying "this is a waste of money and time when we're busy enough as it is".

We apparently were persuasive, they cancelled that buy. Then, once we were out, executive leadership tried to implement a 'task tracking' timesheet to be filled out by every employee.

I took a HUGE chance on my career. I e-mailed all leadership and the board, explaining that implementing this was needless busy work. If we were working remotely, and the expectations were that the same things were getting done, implementing something like this and NOT when we were physically present would just prove that 'management' at our institution meant control of people's lives.

We're higher education, and everyone is slightly anti-establishment in some fashion. This put the hair up on everyone's neck. One hellstorm of an e-mail thread later, and they killed that form, too.

Management just needs to realize that people fuck around at work. It is not important whether that is at physical work, or remote. It will happen. What is important is that you evaluate the work done, and, unless you're working on billable hours, evaluate whether there are more efficient ways to do business. If you enter those conversations honestly, then your people will have just enough time to fuck around, while still being super productive.

Being human is part of work. Fucking around with the people you spend a lot of time with is part of being human.

</comment><comment><USER12> We had a bad manager at my last company who really wanted to do this sort of thing.

I said to him "So this is an interesting proposal... if we install this software then I can save on management costs by replacing your position with this spyware?" He never brought it up again and we later just got rid of him completely.

Micromanagement and this sort of spying rarely builds high performing teams. Managing worker productivity is one thing but blatant spying is a sign of much deeper problems with a company and its management.

I've generally found a fairly strong inverse correlation between how good a manager is and the amount of paranoia they have on their teams not doing what they should. Good managers build great teams and then trust them.

<comment><USER13> micromanagement is life support for low performers

<comment><USER14> For those doing it or for those receiving it?

<comment><USER15> yes

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Two things:

Productivity is going to plunge no matter what, with the possible exception of singles who don't have roommates. There is no way that during an ad hoc and unorganized push to work remote (though necessary in this circumstance) can result in good productivity, monitoring or not. Under the best of circumstances it would take months for a mass of people to adjust and be productive.

The apex for open office design was reached and we'll go back to something more normal. It's funny people derided "cubicle farms" but we're more or less okay being in a "bullpen" like setting cuz it was sold as being counter cultural and cool.

<comment><USER17> I'm surprised cubicles get so much hate. I loved mine at my first job. Oodles of desk space. Locking drawers and cabinets. There was a chair in the corner so a guest could sit. Made it easy to have 2 meetings without disturbing people.

less aesthetically pleasing in office photographs, but overall a much better work environment than any open plan I've experienced.

<comment><USER2> I think it depends on the nature of your job. If you regularly need to interact verbally with colleagues, cubes are kind of a pain.

I forget where I saw this but there was a company that had set up what were basically "team offices" so teams that worked closely together each had their own closed room where they worked, so they could collaborate in their own manner.

Quiet when they needed it, loud when they needed it, and on their own schedule.

That seems like a good middle.

<comment><USER18> I had a setup like this. The IT Office which was its own room, then had 4 of those L cubicles in it.

If you're reading this and you have this setup - don't take the bait to move to the newly remodeled building - it's a trap!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have moved from "solutions architect" to "WFH consultant" at the behest of my clients.

The problem I am seeing is that many managers have NO idea how their employees actually work. If you take your average MacDonalds manager they can (mostly) work every station in the joint and then know how to do MORE things. Your average corporate middle manager has NO idea what their staff does or how.

To be quite honest, most of these middle managers are not only at a loss as to what they should be doing but are also dealing with the isolation far worse than "staff". I have come to realize that a lot of their time was spent on social aspects of the workplace and they have been removed.

I have one client who wants to snapshot staff at their computers, and another who is ready to cut middle management fat... we live in interesting times.

<comment><USER20> > To be quite honest, most of these middle managers are not only at a loss as > to what they should be doing but are also dealing with the isolation far > worse than "staff". I have come to realize that a lot of their time was > spent on social aspects of the workplace and they have been removed.

I know exactly the affect you are describing but it just seems so backwards to me because this is the point at which the social aspects of work become more important. Coworkers aren't going to be informally communicating the way they used to so managers have way more "social" work to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> As someone who has recently seen a lot of freelance work as a "Remote Coach" for companies who aren't used to remote teams, I have the following observation: If you have trouble managing remote teams, you're likely not great at managing teams in general.

The largest part of my calls were not about remote specific topics, but rather general management topics like result-oriented management vs time management and how trust and alignment is foundational for motivation.

Not surprising in hindsight, but due to selection bias from working remotely for many years now, I'm used to companies who don't require spyware to get results from their team, and was quite taken aback at first.

</comment><comment><USER22> This may be hard for those of us in tech to comprehend; not everyone can function without having a boss to keep them 100% accountable.

In 2004, I worked for a startup and we had beer in the fridge. We'd have an occasional afternoon where we would grab them. No big deal.

Most startups I worked at embraced a similar attitude.

Finally I worked for a company that went a step further and had beer on tap, but had rules, no beer until 5p M-Th, and 4p Friday.

It was foreign to me, but understood that in other divisions, the types of employees (like inside sales) were essentially entry-level roles.

Many of us in industry are used to flex hours, and the ability to remotely (including WFH), that we forget that for many others, it's novel. Seeing "asses in chairs" was a proxy for diagnosing productivity deficiencies, and bosses thrust into this new paradigm of working haven't necessarily picked up the skill sets to effectively manage remote teams.

<comment><USER11> I've read this comment like 10 times in the last hour. I get what you're saying, but it misses the point, I think.

>entry-level roles.

>used to flex hours, and the ability to remotely (including WFH), that we forget that for many others, it's novel.

That's the point of management and leadership. You take new people and make sure they have what they need to get the job done. For most people, that 'what they need' is a literal statement of "I know you have access to beer, and I know you just graduated college, but don't get hammered on company time" or "I know you're 22, but flex hours means your work still gets done".

If you don't say it out loud, and assume people will pick it up via osmosis, you're a bad leader.

>bosses thrust into this new paradigm of working haven't necessarily picked up the skill sets to effectively manage remote

As someone who has never worked remotely, and manages a team very much focused on human interaction (higher ed), and who is now 100% remote, I need to know what you mean by this. Other than needing to automatically over-communicate everything (by my definition), how is remote different than in-person?

<comment><USER22> > If you don't say it out loud, and assume people will pick it up via osmosis, > you're a bad leader.

To some extent, I agree, though it largely depends on the role. Setting expectations clearly is important as a leader, as is providing clear, timely feedback when expectations aren't met.

In college, it's a wake up call to students, because professors do not provide followup the way grade school teachers do. You are given your work and expected to turn it in.

For engineers, it's largely as you said--you're an adult. Act like an adult. If you're getting hammered on company time, we'll have a discussion about it, and why it's happening.

On the flip-side, I had a house-hold employee who dressed completely inappropriately for her job. I wrote her up about it and sent her information (guidelines) around appropriate dress code for her role.

> How is remote different than in-person?

Physical presence can correlate with productivity. That may be the sole signal that triggers a boss to look at actual productivity metrics.

There are other approximations, such as responsiveness to communications (email, slack etc) as well.

But I posit the leaders who are spying on employees have trained their intuition to be based on physical presence. Without that, they're scared.

I follow the model that the team owns their deliverables, and delivery dates, with input from me. I advocate shorter deliverables or checkpoints to uncover issues with estimates sooner, but ultimately leave it up to the team to execute. If something isn't delivered on time, I as a leader address the underlying causes.

My philosophy as a boss is "You have a lot of flexibility. Just get your work done when you say you will." And not everyone has the maturity to work in such an environment.

I hope that explains my feelings more clearly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I found this article pretty funny, but not in the way intended.

Here is a tip for managers (new and experienced out there): If you can't tell by their _work product_ if your people are working or not, then you have a much bigger problem than what they are doing on their computer when you aren't looking.

My experience as a new manager was pretty chaotic. I knew it was my job to lead my team to get something done but between telling them to get something done, and it being done, how could I know that they were working on it? It drove me nuts for a while so I asked a friend who had been a manager for while what they did and the answer surprised me in its simplicity, it was "How much time do you give people to do something, and did they do it?"

The secret was having something that was unambiguously measurable as "done" and establishing that expectation at the beginning. These days I'll say to the team "When we are done, these things will be true ..." and list off the set of things we can say are true to indicate completion. I'll also note them in my notebook so that I can track them over time.

The whole team knows what the exit criteria are so everyone knows if we're done or not. Once you get to know your team better you can add incentive things, so that conversation would sound more like, "The minimum we have to do to insure this is done are x, y, and z. If we can also do p, q, or r it will have this additional positive effect."

It also means I can go to a team member at a 1:1 and say, "Ok, I'd like you to take x, what needs to be true for you to be able to say that x is true?" Which encourages them to break up the problem into smaller bits.

If you have weekly 1:1s with people then you can check in on the status of their smaller bits, toward making the larger bits true. You always know who is doing work and who is under performing or needs help.

For more service type teams (like IT or SRE) you measure things like "our backlog has not grown over the last 30 days" or "the median time to resolve tickets is less than 24 hrs" etc. The key is you can measure it, and the measurement is not subjective.

Managers who need "spyware" to figure out if there folks are working or not need to be replaced with managers who know how to manage.

</comment><comment><USER24> Upwork has a system to automatically capture screenshots while a user is on the "clock". While we never request this functionality, some people enable it. I found it interesting to browse, however, I found it distracts from the ultimate goal, work product. It can also breed distrust, i.e. instead of looking at what your co-workers/team gets done, you start asking questions like, why is this person doing that. My point is, it's counterproductive.

What we found was very product was goal setting and work product review at regular intervals. I.e. once a week evaluate the code quality and velocity of work. What we found was if it's good, it's almost always good, and if it's bad, its bad from the start and doesn't really improve.

</comment><comment><USER25> " Frost declined to comment on whether Garrabrants, one of America's top-paid bank CEOs in 2018, is subject to the same monitoring when he works from home."

Tells it all pretty much...

<comment><USER26> A lot of "very important" employee-control bullshit suddenly doesn't matter when the person in question is in a C-level or board position. See also: piss tests, limits on doing other work while with an employer. Very important you're sober as a judge and giving your company your undivided productive output—unless you're CEO, then, a weekend habit or two and you're involved with four companies at once in some capacity? Sure, go nuts.

<comment><USER27> Anyone who hasn't read "Bullshit Jobs" really should. It's a book for the times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> PSA for businesses: how about instead of spying on the deadweight you fire them and reward the productive employees.

There are tons of work from home employees (who normally work from home) who are 10x more productive than the in-office ones, because they realize the value of what they have.

It's too bad most people will only work when you're looking over their shoulder, but lets not keep that on life-support with spyware. Let it die and usher in a time when people actually take the initiative to do their work.

<comment><USER28> I think deciding which human being to label as "dead weight" and overfocus on that question is on the same path to paranoia as thinking you need to monitor them all closely.

How many times have you seen contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses mislabelled as "dead weight"? I think it happens pretty often, especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures.

<comment><USER13> >contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses

Indeed, this is a problem too. In that case I'd point the finger at the boss who can't recognize what is and isn't a valuable contribution.

None of this is 100% exact science, but have you worked with someone who did _nothing_ but somehow kept their job, no problem, not even an eyebrow raised? I have, and these types of people won't last if the performance metric changes from time in seat to work produced.

<comment><USER20> People are just naturally biased towards rewarding effort though. It feels really uncomfortable to label someone who gets into work before you, leaves work after you, and isn't ever seen to be doing obvious goof-off things as "dead weight"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Mark Cuban got it right last week when he said that the way companies treat their employees over the next few months will define their brand for the next several decades. Companies insisting on this level of control are simply adding cost now and making employee retention difficult for when we end up coming out of this. If your company can't handle ground-level employees having some autonomy in their work, then your business model isn't likely to survive.

Besides, given the extraordinary circumstances I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be equally productive to being in the office. In addition to the fact that some people just don't perform as well without the structure of an office (I'm personally one of them), we've got kids to take care of, extra chores to do, and the general anxiety coming from the media. People are not going to be 100% right now, so the need to build a work culture that can support that reality is more important now than ever.

<comment><USER30> > If your company can't handle ground-level employees having some autonomy in > their work, then your business model isn't likely to survive.

> Besides, given the extraordinary circumstances I don't think it's fair to > expect everyone to be equally productive to being in the office.

It's worth noting that you're describing a very specific subset of the world of employment, namely people who work with some degree of autonomy in an office setting.

I would be shocked if even half of the American workforce primarily works in an "at a desk" or equivalent type position.

<comment><USER31> _I would be shocked if even half of the American workforce primarily works in an "at a desk" or equivalent type position._

I'm curious about this but don't have time to look up numbers. It's hard to make a reasonable guess because while cities (and the offices within them) have the highest density, there could be a very long tail of factory, strip mall, grocery store, etc. jobs that would be higher per capita outside of cities and invisible to someone living inside a city.

<comment><USER30> Even in a city you're completely surrounded by people who don't have desk jobs. All the people who deliver stuff to your office, the maintenance staff, all retail and restaurant employees, law enforcement and fire/EMS, taxi and car service drivers, and on and on and on.

And that's just what's _in an office district_. Drive down the NJ Turnpike or something and count how many massive employment centers you see that are primarily not office jobs. Everything from the shopping mall to the refinery to the airport to the distribution center.

<comment><USER31> It's easy to be deceived by the fact that it _looks_ like there's one floor of non-office and 40+ floors of office in a downtown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> We need a tutorial on how to detect if you're being monitored like this. As an employee I would like to know just so that I'm aware. I don't necessarily think my company is doing this but it would still be great if there was some kind of a way to at least know.

It's a given that any company you work for has full and complete access to your work email and private Slack workspace messages(DM or private channel). Same goes for MS Teams or anything else similarly paid for and/or run by the company.

I would especially like know if they were doing something like:

\- keystroke logging

\- taking screenshots at intervals

\- process monitoring

\- deep packet inspection

<comment><USER33> Until they mention of it (or you hear of it), it doesn't much matter. Once they do, leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> My recommendation:

A) Audit your base machine for any suspicious processes. Most of the time, something will stick out. For Windows boxes, pay attention to the Startup/Autorun sections of the Windows Registry/Group Policy. On *Nix boxes, either unit or init scripts; audit your launched plists.

B) If you do suspect information exfiltration/monitoring; cripple/subvert the sensors/information stream. Exact details will vary depending on the nature of the spyware. A hardware bug is harder to do deal with than a software one, and some forms of software bugging are more difficult to circumvent than others.

C) If it is really overt and obnoxious; organize with coworkers. The only thing that'll eventually get the message across to unscrupulous and invasive employers is collective organized resistance. One or two or up to 100 depending on size they may not give a damn, but when half the workforce is up in arms, there will have to be a carefully considered response.

D) Always be ready to leave. Seriously. Particularly in today's day and age. I don't think it's natural at first, as we all at some level I think hope that our employer has some intrinsic loyalty toward us as an employee; but that really isn't the case at all culturally anymore. Don't let it hold you back from doing your best, but always keep in mind they are making more off you than you them; otherwise it isn't a business that's going to be staying around for very long.

<comment><USER11> I think 'D' only applies if (1) you work in a privileged sector, or (2) we're not expecting a 25%+ unemployment rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> A manager wanting to use spy software is overtly telling the world and themselves they are a poor manager.

</comment><comment><USER36> No, just no. If a boss can't communicate deliverables and verify that these are getting finished, they are too incompetent to manage their domain. They shouldn't be scraping personal information off screencaps, video or audio feeds. This doesn't even seem like it ought to be legal.

Workers are there to do a job, not have every personal detail monitored and tracked. Should the show password feature be turned off in UIs given how much sensitive information shows up on a screen? How much control of people's lives can a free society hand over to shareholders before it's no longer considered humane?

<comment><USER37> > _They shouldn 't be scraping personal information off screencaps_

I agree, but so should the employee not be accessing any personal information on company screens.

<comment><USER36> Employees do access personal information on company screens. If I check my healthcare plan or retirement plan, use the show password feature, look for another job outside my managers group, etc...

This is to say nothing of a normal employer who doesn't mind breaks if you're getting work done. I'd sooner try my luck living in the forest with the other animals than work under such surveillance. I feel sorry for those who are in a rough spot and feel pressed into this sort of thing.

<comment><USER37> > _Employees do access personal information on company screens._

I think that this was more of an issue back when every person on staff didn't have their own personal wireless touchscreen computer on them at all times. Now it's just a training issue: company hardware for company tasks, personal hardware for personal tasks.

<comment><USER38> But what if they use company electricity to charge their personal devices?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Eventually someone will come up with a site that lists which companies install spyware on worker's computers, after which there will be a shaming period, and then only the scummiest companies will continue with such a policy.

</comment><comment><USER40> Here is the key part of the article:

> Straight-up Big Brother, perhaps, but it's perfectly legal for businesses to > keep an unblinking eye on employees as long as they disclose they're doing > it.

It is the companies equipment, network (on their side of the VPN), time, and so forth. That being said it is legally fine so long as they disclose they are doing so.

If they monitor in ways that have not been disclosed they risk of a class action lawsuit should that knowledge be leaked to employees.

Let's look at a far more extreme example: US Army. US Army is not allowed to monitor user activity in that way and all users of Army networks are made aware of this. Users must also sign their agreement to an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) before gaining access to the network. The Army example is more extreme because the Army owns the computers, the network, and all physical network infrastructure that companies typically lease to ISPs. The Army has the ability to monitor user activity in ways that companies cannot and yet the Army does not do so because it's illegal without a probable cause search warrant or command directive with legal authorization.

For example, computers with an Army image monitor for attachment of mass storage devices and moment a phone or hard drive is plugged in the network administrator is immediately notified, the local network switch is automatically dropped from the network, and a report is automatically drafted for the respective violating unit. The Army can monitor for that because it is a violation of the AUP users signed, but they cannot monitor any associated content without probably cause and an AUP violation on its own is not probable cause.

I have heard, on the other hand, the Air Force monitors absolutely everything because they require their users to sign a consent to monitoring directive to gain access to the network.

<comment><USER27> > It is the companies equipment, network (on their side of the VPN), time, and > so forth. That being said it is legally fine so long as they disclose they > are doing so.

Is the employee's house company property? Are the other people living there company property?

<comment><USER40> Then use your personal computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I would like to see a study of the productivity drain of having to have someone interpret all this extra data. Who looks at all the screenshots and keystrokes and logins to decide if they're kosher? It seems ridiculous and meaningless.

A manager in another department has sent a spreadsheet around for WFHers to fill in what they do _hour by hour_. Aside from the relentless mocking that the guy has received behind the scenes, does anybody believe that he'll be reading all that and gaining useful insights?

I think that assumptions on how people are going to act unsupervised are a great window on how the person making those assumptions would act in those circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wrote an article regarding this topic few days ago: [https://medium.com/@mjasinski5/how-companies-failed-a- trust-...](https://medium.com/@mjasinski5/how-companies-failed-a-trust-exam- by-coronavirus-96b1843093a3)

The same its happening in Poland and probably all over the world. Companies do not trust their employees.. and it doesnt end on buying spy software.

</comment><comment><USER43> Where I work there is less focus on micromanaging people's time and more focus on results. Having your activity micromanaged at that level is mentally exhausting. When I was in college and had no skills whatsoever I used to do Lionbridge/Leapforce which had you do all kinds of stuff like rank search results, check videos for nudity, etc. They had an extension that would monitor all your activity and if you stopped and got distracted it would impact your rating/health and you could eventually be fired (not sure if firing is the right word its a gig type thing). IMO this is very nerve wracking and not mentally healthy for workers to experience. Treat people like adults and on average they will act like adults. You will always have underperformers regardless of whether you are micromanaging their time or not. Sometimes I want to take a break to play with my dog or decompress after a long meeting. Everyone should have the same right to do so. Ironically, archaic notions about micromanaging workers time works against employers more than working for them.

</comment><comment><USER44> Human to human communication is such a better way to do it.

We've adjusted our "standups" (I say it with quotes as our standups are pretty informal compared to what some folks describe) to include folks who usually weren't included (president of company) before and done a better job of tracking time on our own.

That seems to make everyone happier... granted we're a small shop.

There's probably a "bad boss / culture" thing here for folks who are desperate to do these things... are just going to do it and don't know / care to do better / have no clue how to really grok productivity and the inherent vagaries of it.

Everyone else is just chugging along without these issues.

</comment><comment><USER45> I got hit with something similar the other day. The funny part is; I have systems in place to document everything I do as part of compliance. Plus it just makes my job easier. There's nothing worse than solving the same problem twice.

Lately my employer has been so on edge they want me to document the work I'm doing. So basically they want me to perform some work, document that for compliance purposes, and then document that I worked and documented it again just so someone can read it in their inbox instead of the self serve help desk. It's insanity.

</comment><comment><USER46> This thread is a funny coincidence. I was looking at mice to buy yesterday and came across this thing [0]. It's a dongle to make it look like your cursor moved because so many corporate laptops are locked down and it cant be done in software. People use them for everything from keeping the screen on to avoid going afk on work hours.

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/WiebeTech-Programmable-Mouse- Jiggler-...](https://www.amazon.com/WiebeTech-Programmable-Mouse-Jiggler- MJ-3/dp/B00MTZY7Y4)

</comment><comment><USER47> My workplace has been very reasonable about this. They were early to move to working from home, and simply accepted that it would hurt productivity. And yet the first remote-working sprint from my team has been incredibly productive. Less distraction from meetings and big lunches together, perhaps. I do miss the direct contact with my team mates, and we can't have the spontaneous brainstorming/whiteboard sessions we used to have, so we do need to figure out how to do those remotely.

</comment><comment><USER48> Is anyone working at a tech company where this is happening to you? I can't imagine the stress this would cause someone.

If anyone is considering leaving the enterprise, and going freelance. Think twice, especially in the current climate - [https://medium.com/@alexellisuk/what-you-need-to-know- before...](https://medium.com/@alexellisuk/what-you-need-to-know-before-you- go-freelance-259bd9d4b2d1)

</comment><comment><USER49> The boss of my girlfriend did this even when they were on-site.

I think such people should be forbidden from founding/leading a company. Nationalise that thing and be done with it.

</comment><comment><USER50> Upwork has largely required contractors to install and run their spy software in order to earn money through their system.

Thankfully MacOS Sierra put the kibosh on the capture ability without special permissions. I denied that request and the client never brought it up.

I do get why these tools are needed, however I find the use of them counterproductive and creates an adversarial posture between clients and contractors.

</comment><comment><USER51> Ugh I sat at a desk in front of our CIO once (I was service desk). I wasnt too concerned but boy was it didtracting! I couldnt see him so he could have been watching me all day, or just doing his work. The bottom line is it made me more stressed, lowered my productivity and I got VERY good at flipping between our asset database, ticketing tool and email.

</comment><comment><USER52> What if a remote employee makes one room available in their home for full monitoring, camera, audio, whatever?

If the employee is not in the room, that's like a break.

Employers monitor cubicles in offices. Would it be worse if the are allowed to monitor one room in the house of a remote employee?

Feel free to discuss. Pros? cons? privacy issues? any other other thoughts, comments.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder if the companies who make these products use their own product on their employees? I can't imagine them not (hard to sell a product you don't even use), but on the otherhand, it would be especially insulting as an employee to be developing the very tool that is being used to spy on you.

</comment><comment><USER54> Here's a crazy idea. Look at the worker's output. "Keeping tabs" on your workers doesn't tell you anything about the bottom line. The worker's output does.

Can't determine the worker's output? Then you have much bigger problems than remote workers taking a nap in the afternoon.

</comment><comment><USER55> And the old adage of "measure output, not input" comes to the fore again.

If you don't trust your staff to do good work when you're not looking, you hired the wrong people.

On the other hand, if productivity is within acceptable limits then why the need for monitoring in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER56> This is mildly infuriating, I'd quit on the spot because of 1) dignity, I'm not a slave 2) this is illegal in most jurisdictions 3) this shit means trust between employer-employee is non-existant in both directions, that's not a way to get any decent work done

</comment><comment><USER57> "Panic-buying" is buying something with the intent of securing it before the resource runs out. Given the near infinite scalability of software, the phrase seems poorly applied here.

<comment><USER58> I'm pretty sure it can also mean that you're buying something that you don't need because you're in a panic.

Where did you get the official definition?

<comment><USER57> > Panic buying: the action of buying large quantities of a particular product > or commodity due to sudden fears of a forthcoming shortage or price > increase.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+panic+buying](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+panic+buying)

<comment><USER58> Great! So it actually fits this situation wherein a large quantity of spyware has just been purchased...

the price increase being the amount they're paying for their workers productivity.

<comment><USER57> There isn't any evidence this software improves productivity. Also, they aren't purchasing the software because they expect the software to (a) increase in price or (b) become unavailable. So it isn't panic buying.

<comment><USER58> Well if someone is in a panic and they are buying something because of that panic I am going to continue calling that panic buying.

I'm sure that the definition or your understanding of that definition will catch up to my forward thinking at some point.

<comment><USER57> The definition provided by Google is probably the the most reasonable option to use, though I can see how pandemic is shifting the colloquial use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> If your boss is doing this to you, you need a union. The economy is crashing, while you need a paycheck, you still have a lot of power. The bosses are feeling extremely threatened right now.

</comment><comment><USER60> Of course they would. The modern work environment is as much about control as it is about money, if not even more.

Graeber goes a bit into this topic in his book bullshit jobs.

</comment><comment><USER61> Is this really that bad? A little creepy I guess. But with remote work, you do want to have at least some system in place to make sure people are actually working.

At my business we all track our hours (me included) and the app takes screenshots of the screen every 15 minutes. It's really in case there is a problem. Not like I have time to check it / watch my employees work. It's more of an invisible system that keeps people honest. Plus it gives me peace of mind so I don't have to worry if people are working or not. I think it helps me micromanage less.

</comment><comment><USER62> If you do not trust people then why did you hire them?

</comment><comment><USER63> "It's not because of lack of trust," Miller said, who compared the software to banks using security cameras. "It's because it's imprudent not to do it."

Puke!

</comment><comment><USER64> Is this really a war they want to start, considering the people they're messing with were often hired for their computer skills?

</comment><comment><USER65> Ironic that Bloomberg is reporting it, since Bloomberg spied on clients, and spied on employees' computers 30 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER66> If you need spy software to get an idea of your colleagues' productivity you've already failed on several levels.

</comment><comment><USER67> The more spy software a boss buys, the more insecure they really are about themselves.

<comment><USER68> Well its a good litmus to know where not to work. Better knowing with such a straight forward method.

<comment><USER16> With a quarter of the workforce furloughed or RIFed I'm not sure most people will have the option to be choosy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> honestly, if i were a manager and stuff wasn't getting done I would want to see what was going on. And that's a pretty common situation when people are implementing complex things like software.

</comment><comment><USER70> Is there a map of where this is legal and illegal?

<comment><USER71> Think this is uncharted territory and laws are probably irreconcilably disparate from state to state, from country to country.

In the U.S., it's likely that the most consistently established legal framework revolves around recorded telephone conversations, the one-party consent laws and two-party consent laws, of which some contain mentions and subsets of 'electronic communications.'

"Recording conversations in all 50 states chart" (PDF): [https://www.mwl- law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING...](https://www.mwl-law.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf)

Wikipedia has a list of countries with some laws, but, it's a very shy list.

List of two-party consent laws in the U.S. is very short.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> butts in seats equals results

</comment><comment><USER73> Paywalled

</comment><comment><USER74> I can not imagine wanting to work for someplace that doesn't have the infrastructure to allow for remote work. I'm lucky enough to be able to be choosy about who receives my labor and it's unfortunate that some people have to be relegate to working for bosses who fail to connect with people on a basic interpersonal level. It would be a good outcome for allowing remote work to become a new normal. Give the workers the option. You rely on them and your boss job is meaningless without them.

</comment><comment><USER75> "Panic buying" is the new word for "purchases I condemn"

</comment><comment><USER76> Aww, that's so cute, a humans making around x500 to x1000 more money as a median humans in their companies are crying about "unfaaair". Cry some more, @#$%^&*.

PS: somehow my 1000+ ppl international company manages to work from home and deliver results without authoritarian tools.</comment>