"That's Why You Don't Have Any Friends." - <AUTHOR> http://joethepeacock.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/thats-why-you-dont-have-any-friends.html <comment><USER2> I'm about as asocial and celebratory of diversity as they come, and I love this essay, especially the conversational style. But I'd be careful not to take this argument too far into sophistry.

In school people clan and desperately look for some identity to copy. This leads to all the terrible social behavior you see in most secondary and high school in the U.S. Somebody calling you "weird" can really be a badge of honor.

But there's nothing to be gained in being different in itself. While you should be who you are, if you only define yourself in how weird you are compared to others _you're doing the same thing, only in reverse._ Instead of saying "I will look at my peers and copy them" you're saying "I will look at my peers and do the opposite" Both of these are just the same kind of herd thinking. Being weird? Awesome. Being deliberately different? Not so much. You need to do a gut check on this one. Schools are full of a bunch of people who all are very proud of being different, just like everybody else.

I also note that the gym conversation consisted of people comparing social preferences: sports teams, hollywood stars, and so on. These kinds of conversations form a type of social bonding -- a joining of group opinion (even if outliers are allowed). It's this very banter that creates the group identity that then shuns other people for being "weird".

People are some funny animals.

<comment><USER3> Why does every post on here need someone coming in explaining how it's wrong in some way.

It's not only disingenuous, but outright wrong to assume the author was saying "be weird for the sake of being weird." He's saying he _is_ weird, and that's OK, just he won't see a lot of good in it in high school.

You're acting like he's advocating becoming a hipster, a straw man you invented.

<comment><USER4> Did you come in looking for a fight? Daniel clearly stated that he thought the argument was a good one, but it's too easy to take the extreme from the headline (or miss the point of the essay entirely), and say that being "weird" is good in and of itself. It's not, clearly. What he's saying is, find your passion and damn the social torpedoes, because it'll all work out in the end.

Daniel's point was that being "weird" for the sake of it is not really the point of the essay. He was not creating any type of straw man. You read it too fast or not at all if you think he was.

<comment><USER3> "But I'd be careful not to take this argument too far into sophistry."

"But there's nothing to be gained in being different in itself."

The essay needed no cautionary caveat, and that's what Daniel purported it was missing. I posit it was missing nothing at all, and that only the most hopelessly pedantic interpretation of it would call for an explanation of exception.

So, no, not looking for for a fight, just a little tired the "making a point for the sake of making a point."

<comment><USER5> A difficulty i have is that it sounds like you're nit-picking OP, claiming that he's nit-picking.

The reason why I bring this up is that i don't think Daniel's point is a small one. And perhaps he hasn't couched it in the most benign of ways (although it is pretty benign), there is a difference between saying "Be true to yourself" and "Being different is okay". It may well be the case that these two things coincide occasionally, but i agree with Daniel that conflating the two misstates what sucks about high school, and how life may change in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The sentiment of the article is great, but a lot of it just doesn't quite ring true.

When the auther starts going on about other people being losers, and him being a winner, because they do things he doesn't personally value, you start to wonder if he is really free from defining himself in contrast to the guys who excluded him years ago. Life isn't a competition like that.

There's a classic transformation you see a lot of high-functioning geeks go through when they leave school, and start earning more money, living more cosmopolitan lifestyles and meeting more interesting people than those they left behind - they flip around and start juding their ex-classmates negatively in just the way their classmates judged them. You see it a lot on places like reddit, and I think it comes through a little in this article.

<comment><USER7> It might come through a little, but there's a difference between comparing yourself perpetually to the people who used to torture you, and feeling sympathetic to a 14-year-old kid who's being tortured now because you remember what it was like to be his age. It's not too bad to remember that things used to suck, and that they're better now. Plus, I don't know a thing about this guy, but he sounds like like a cool dude from this blog post.

<comment><USER6> I know, but on a (probably unfairly) uncharitable reading his advice is 'don't worry, that girl who didn't want to kiss you is a loser, and so are the people who don't want to hang out with you'. It might be comforting, but I don't think it's healthy or true attitude to take.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really identified with the article, and the author seems to have taken a reasonable course.

But I would not call all groups with social norms that differ from you 'losers' that 'lost the battle to be themselves.' The author's transformation seems like it had more to do with finding somewhere he fit the social norms than realizing any group that didn't want him was full of losers with no personality. After all, the author found a group in _like-minded_ anime fanatics, and his group has its own norms regarding conversation:

 _The topics change -- what cars are best, what sports are better than other sports, what teams are better than other teams, what shows are better than other shows (but never politics or religion -- something you learn really fast in a gym is to never bring up the two topics most likely to incite violence in a building filled with metal bars and heavy plates)._

Someone who walked in talking about the Talmud all the time probably wouldn't fit in.

And that's fine. It would just be sad if the kid, like a lot of nerds I've seen, unwittingly developed his own social norms, but was just as heart- breakingly rigid about them as the kids in his school.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like the article, a lot. But I have some reserve with the advice given.

In my experience, many people would actually be glad to hangout with someone weird if he gives them some time to get used to it, and take it easy on the weirdness at first. I consider myself weird (my weirdness is that I mostly don't give a shit about conventional thinking and politically correct things. I just love a good argument, to the point where I would provoke people I barely know into arguments about politics, religion, whatever), and I have to be extra-careful with what I say and do, otherwise people freak out. Sometimes I slip and people think I'm crazy. But I'm getting better know, and I have a group of friend with which I can be myself. I provoke them playfully and they understand that it's just the way I am. And I'm grateful that they do.

Someone quoted Alain de Boutton in the thread: "Intimacy is the capacity to be rather weird with someone - and finding that that's ok with them". That's exactly right, but intimacy is not something you get immediately, for free. It's something you have to build, it takes time, and sometimes it doesn't work. Most of all, it takes compromises: people will accept you as you are when they realize that you're interesting and that you care about them.

Now why should weird people go out of their way to befriend other people? Well you have to be pragmatic here, and think about what you really want. Friendship is an amazing thing, and is available to anyone, weird or not, and doesn't require you to change who you are. It just requires you to be patient and take it step by step. Is it being hypocritical? Pretending you're normal when you really aren't? Not if it's temporary. Think of it as a way to create a first contact, before working your way to a real connection, where both parties can act natural. That's what social interactions are about, that's what all this highschool BS is about, and that's why I think it's a bad idea to home school your kids.

EDIT: An example of my weirdness in action: I often mess up with girls I really like just because I can't help saying outrageous things just to spark a good old argument. Damn.

<comment><USER10> I'm with you right up to that part about not homeschooling your kids (homeschool dad here). But I'll let it go since I think you may just be trying to provoke an argument. :)

(Unless you've homeschooled, I don't think you have any idea how much social interaction homeschool kids can get; we don't just sit at home all day.)

Edit: I see comments below on homeschooling and from homeschoolers. Our kids get a ton of social interaction outside the home: homeschool co- ops/events/park days with other homeschoolers, language lessons, sports (karate, soccer, equestrian), music lessons, girlscouts/boyscouts, university outreach programs, town provided activities (acting, choir, pottery, etc), temple, playing with all the neighborhood kids, and that's just off the top of my head.

My kids are 9 and 11 right now and are way more comfortable socially, and better at it, than I (public school) ever was.

Ultimately I think a lot of it has to do with the kids and the parents. We chose to homeschool our kids because we think we can do a better job with their education, but it certainly hasn't hindered them socially.

<comment><USER11> I went to a well respected magnet school for high school, so we had a lot of HS freshmen that were previously home-schooled. Then I majored in Physics in college, so we had a lot of college freshmen that were previously home- schooled.

I came to the conclusion that while there is a strong correlation between home-schooled kids and poor socialization, it's almost certainly not as causal as most people assume. All the "really weird kids" that were homeschooled had equally weird parents, so there is a good likelyhood they would have had issues even being in public school.

That being said, it did seem clear (and obvious in retrospect) that what homeschooling does is allow the parents to have a much larger influence on their kids up to an older age. The typical late-elementry aged kid will have picked up a lot of behavior and habits from their peers, wheras the homeschooled kid of similar age will have done so to a much lesser extent. However, that influence seems to expire aproximately 4-8 weeks after the kid leaves the homeschool environment so I don't think it's a big deal in the long-term

<comment><USER12> There could also a be a self-selection bias.

Kids who like to socialize might resist homeschooling even if their parents wanted it, because they want to be at school with their friends. On the other hand, "weird" kids might beg their parents to be homeschooled because school is so painful for them. So it would be too simplistic to say that homeschooling _causes_ poor socialization. It could very well be the other way around, too.

<comment><USER13> There are also pretty strong influences on parents choosing to homeschool, which filters down the _parents_ as well (and who the parents are has a huge impact on what the child's experience will be).

Obviously the parents who homeschool because they want to keep extreme control of their children's lives & ideas (like hyper-religious parents who don't want their children taught evolution, or getting ideas that a woman might want to do something other than marry & have children) won't be giving their children a good experience.

But the biggest thing that strikes me is that parents who themselves are succeeding in engaging the world at any kind of scale -- in making rich & fulfilling lives of their own -- will find it extremely hard to be responsible for so much of their kid's time.

Whereas the parents who would find it easiest are basically those who are already at home and have lots of spare time -- but what example does that give? And worse... if the parent's way to do something meaningful in the world is to raise a child who will do something meaningful (i.e., pass the buck, really), those expectations can put a huge strain on the child.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author's observation about high school is exactly why my kids, by default, will be home schooled. If they decide they want to go to public or private school at some point, I'll let them. Unlike a lot of kids that end up getting bullied, they'll know that their attendance is completely optional. I'm not looking to shelter them from the real world, only the fake miniature society that exists at school.

<comment><USER15> While I understand your point of view based on this one observation, I think this is a terrible idea if you look at the big picture.

Whether they get bullied or not, high school is an extremely important time for kids to gain social skills and learn how to deal with people. Dealing with people is one of the most important skills you can have, period. And that often means dealing with people that are being dicks, _and_ people who you like and are good friends. And if people are being dicks, which they inevitably will be, it's a good time for you to think about it, build your self confidence, and figure out who you are.

I understand that sheltering them from the real world is not your _motivation_ for this opinion, but it is the reality of what will happen. Your kids will miss out on a huge period of personal growth and a large expansion of their experience dealing with other people which they will never be able to get back later.

<comment><USER16> The thing is: school is _nothing_ like the real world. It teaches you how to deal with school.

School is a very weird, twisted little society where none of the work has any real point, there's no source of purpose other than pure social approval, and everybody is either the same age or an authority figure.

The strategies you use for dealing with difficult people _in the real world_ are completely different from what you have to do in school. Same goes for how to find friends, or how to decide what to do.

That's precisely why everyone is always saying "it will get better after you get out of high school". Because the conditions in school are not at all representative of the rest of your life.

<comment><USER17> > [...] and everybody is either the same age or an authority figure.

At least nominally. Plenty of teachers turn into laughing stock.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Slightly off-topic, but still relevant: a great quote from Alain de Botton:

"Intimacy is the capacity to be rather weird with someone - and finding that that's ok with them."

[https://twitter.com/#!/alaindebotton/status/1924914438840115...](https://twitter.com/#!/alaindebotton/status/192491443884011520)

<comment><USER19> Also slightly off-topic, but in one of Alain de Botton's videos on Youtube titled "Epicurus on Happiness" [1], he states that Epicurus saw happiness as having 3 components: self-reflection, self-sufficiency and friendship. This leaves the question of 'can happiness be hacked?' to be pondered.

[1] - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LTTRQcZ8c>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is also a hidden aspect of it: Those people who don't overcome teenage awkwardness. Those who never regain their confidence and end up the weird tech dude at the office whom no one ever speaks to. This guy might be able to feed the kids confidence, and then you can encourage "weirdness", but it isn't always as easy as that. Sometimes parents should just tell their kids to go play sports or whatever, no matter if they want it or not, just so they can learn to interact with other people and "be normal".

<comment><USER21> I'm hoping you mean encouraging your child to continue seeking out new and different groups (sports, clubs, whatever) until he finds a place where people will accept his strong individuality.

If, however, you mean forcing him to join a group of "normal" people who will hammer him into the "normal" mold, I take great exception to your advice.

There is no worse blow to your self esteem than selling out on yourself to gain the approval of others. Yes, people in general like to belong, so let them CHOOSE to belong to a group that accepts them being themselves.

Here's what generally happens when you force an individualist into a group not of his choosing:

1\. He resents you for deciding whom his friends should be.

2\. It destroys his confidence because even YOU don't believe in him.

3\. By the law of averages, his new group is likely to be comprised of exactly the kinds of phonies he hates, and they're likely to dislike him for his "weirdness".

Confidence is one of the, if not THE most important thing in the world. People respect confidence, even if they hate you. Bullying is an attempt to destroy your confidence while building the bully's confidence in himself by thinking he's the better man for destroying someone weaker than him (and so long as you don't fight back, he's right, btw). Most people get their confidence by herding with other people and mimicking them. It gives them a false sense of security, but it's confidence all the same. Unfortunately, that confidence comes at the price of never being able to be their true selves, and never being able to chase dreams that differ too much from the accepted norm.

Individuality and confidence are a potent blend. They breed explorers and free thinkers, poets, philosophers, disruptors, and cross-cultural bridges. They drive a person to blaze a trail of his own, bringing him after many trials and tribulations to doors that open but for a select few. However, this only happens _IF_ he has the confidence in himself to try, and that comes both from within, and from his support base (you). Don't take that away from him!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> You can have all of the upvotes they'll let me give you. It's amazing being "all grown up" and looking out and realizing that highschool and all of the shit that happens while growing up has almost no connection to the real world.

<comment><USER23> Isn't the 'real world' relative? To a kid in high school, that is the real world. To a grown man among his peers at work, that is the real world. I never understood telling kids that high school wasn't the real world. I can understand telling them it gets better (and it does, I know) but to try to mask certain stages of their lives as not real doesn't seem genuine.

<comment><USER24> Maybe "the real world" isn't the right term, but high school certainly is an isolated, controlled, and artificial environment compared to the rest of the outside world. The kids are locked down and have little to no freedom and little to no control over their environment. Also, some things that are socially acceptable in high school are NOT socially acceptable in an adult workplace.

In that sense, high school is not "the real world", because high school students don't have the same freedom or the same tools to deal with obnoxious people as they otherwise would in the adult world. In "the real world", you have legal recourse if someone in your workplace is harassing you. You can get a restraining order. You can talk to your H.R. department. You can sue your workplace and/or the person if you've taken the above steps and nothing has been done. You can quit your job and get a new one. In high school you have none of those luxuries. Unless the harassment is extreme, there is very little likelihood of getting a restraining order against another student. Furthermore, getting a restraining order is not something a high schooler can do on their own (they would need help from their parents). You can talk to the administration at the school, but they don't have the same power, nor the same incentive to avoid lawsuits (although this is changing) as a company's H.R. department. Also, many school administrators are still of the mindset that "kids will be kids" when it comes to bullying/harassment, and are unwilling to do anything about the issue. Finally, a high schooler cannot simply quit high school like an adult can quit his or her job. Again, it involves their parents's help.

That is the difference between high school and "the real world". In the real world, harassment is a serious legal issue; in high school, it's just "kids will be kids". In the real world, you have at least a modicum of control over your environment; in high school, kids have no control. In the real world, actions have consequences; in high school, apparently, they do not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Highschool is one thing, but don't let this advice fool you into believing that every subtle faux pas is a badge of honor. I know several brilliant "weird" people who have learned to love themselves but have simultaneously rejected the notion of managing their social quirks.

You know the kind I'm talking about; the knowledgeable but frustratingly pedantic and egotistical smart-ass who can't glance passed his own hubris to consider the lowly opinions of mere mortals, or the talkative engineer who spends 30 minutes every morning boasting about his cool personal projects in your office (completely oblivious to the social cues that say "stop talking, let us get back to work"), or the enthusiastic geek who alienates non-nerds by _always_ steering the conversation to obscure technical topics that half the group has no interest or knowledge of.

Don't be ashamed of who you are, but don't let a headstrong attitude make you believe that it's never your own fault that others find your presence alienating.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is this a US thing?

In Ukraine, no-one is weird. No-one is a geek, or a nerd -- there aren't even equivalent words in our language. Nobody thinks less of you if you're smart, shy, or talk about transistors on occasion. There are no "popular kids", and even the scariest kid in school is not a bully.

So, again, what is wrong with US schools?

<comment><USER27> I'm from Ukraine and I can say that at least in case of one school you are wrong. There was complete pack of school BS - nerds, geeks, alpha's, omega's, dominance games, bullying, etc. etc. And it was a little better than average school in the capital. I wondered at times what it is like in the regional schools... PS: you don't need to call geek "a geek" to bully him ;)

<comment><USER28> Those (regional or generally crappy) places can actually be better for some people -- true, bullying for the select unlucky few can be far worse, but on the other hand in my experience the rest of the students tend to be less cliquish compared to the "a little better than average" places.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nice, that will help him alot.

As somebody from Europe, we always see these typical American High Schools and think it can really be like this. Sure they overdo it in movies but I have read a fair amount of blogpost and reddit comments that discribe the same problem.

There is grouping and groupe think too in Schools here but not in the same extrem way. It could be selection bios on my part but lets look at the diffrents in the schooling system.

In Switzerland (most parts) we have 1-2 years of Kindergarden, 6 years of Elementry School and then the people get split up in 3 diffrent section depending on your grade. The lower to only take 3 more years and after them mandatory school is finished and most people start an profecional education via the Dual Education System (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_education_system>). The other way is to go 6 more years and then most people go to a universety.

The good parts are that more often then not you put people to gather that go together. The typical movie example where the bull beats up the nerd doesnt really happen. The next positiv thing is that you put people together that are about equal in how fast they learn. The guy who always distracts the class will not hold back the guy who wants to learn. The studends get the matiral in there own speed, thus they don't feel stupid because of the fast learners, witch can be bad for confidence and it can cause social conflicts.

The bad is of course that you split up frindships because people go to diffrent schools and you just don't see each other that much anymore. This happend to me and only years later we really start hanging out again. Today kids are much better equiped to deal with this. To other bad thing is that often good studends could help the others.

It seams to me spliting up teenagers that are in puberty is good way to avoid social problems.

Other opinions why this problem seams worst in the US or is it just selection bias?

<comment><USER30> Does this mean that if kid is underachieving in Elementary school he is screwed up for life? I've heard that similar system is in Germany. And at very early stage in someone life he could be relegated to be second-class citizen.

<comment><USER29> It is a problem but I think the system is pretty well optimized to allow to jump around.

If after three years you want to do the mid-level instead of the low one you can just add a year and do it.

If you do the mid-level you can go to something called "Kurzzeit Gymnasium" witch will take you four years but you end up with the same with the top-level kids.

Even if you do a educatonaly simple job with a start from the lowest level you can do a 'Berufsmatura' combined with working. This gives you almost the same thing as the normal top-level would give you. You can go to some university (there is no word for them in english but you get a beachlor all the same). With one extra year of school you can go to all of them.

In that respect im pretty happe with the system. Socialy it works out pretty good too, you arn't some kind of idiot if you go to the lowest level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I like the essay as a whole, but there is one clue that struck me.

"Then one day, Mike got tired of my bullshit and said those words to me. "That's why you don't have any friends," he said at very high volume. He deserved to say it -- I'd just told him to go fuck himself when he tried to explain why my girlfriend at the time was screwing someone behind my back. I called him every name in the book."

It's not being weird that will make you a pariah; being an asshole does.

<comment><USER32> If you read Daniel Goleman's Social Intelligence, he claims that being awkward will make you a bigger pariah than if you were just an asshole. Not sure how true that is. But I was certainly both awkward and weird in high school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> My takeaway from this post is that, " You can really make a difference in someones life if you take a moment to empathize with their situation, and share a word or two of support."

I bet that kid will remember this speech for the rest of his life. I know, cuz I have my share of good and not-so-good memories from as young as a little boy to as recent as yesterday about how far a nice sympathetic and understanding word or two can go, and how damaging a cruel and dismissive comment can be.

We should all take a lesson from this. We are all human beings, and we all have commonalities we can empathize with and relate to in some capacity. It's all about perspective, and guess what... Perspective is all we have!

Use it at your discretion.

But remember, when that awkward weird boy changes the world one day, and looks back and says, "I was once in a gym hanging out with some older blokes, and one fellow gave me the confidence to be myself.I owe it all to him."

</comment><comment><USER34> I didn't have social trouble in high school, I had trouble in college. And that's something that I think goes unrecognized. Everybody knows about the crazy suburban high school experience, but a surprising number of my friends were severely unhappy in college. I can barely remember my freshman year -- I pretty much blocked it out. And I went to an Ivy League school. There was a kind of background noise level of callousness; people who were "different" in various ways were singled out for mockery in the school paper, people who were struggling were ostracized. And the undergrad culture was seriously misogynistic -- I accepted it as a given while I was there, but by the time I graduated I noticed I was advising girls not to go there if they had other options.

It's not just high school that can suck. Teenagers are immature, but there are other kinds of environments that can be stressful and isolating. And the advice is the same -- get through it, and then find a culture where you fit in better.

</comment><comment><USER35> That sounds like a pretty good speech, but I can tell you from experience that the thing that will help kids most is _listening_ to them. We tend to project whatever our frustrations were in childhood onto all struggling adolescents (and almost all adolescents are struggling) but the content of these heartfelt talks is much less important to the kid than being heard and knowing people care.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's definitely an inspirational story in a way...but lets not be quick to call the other kids "losers".

We must remember that they are all kids just trying to find their way. Some kids find their way by trying their best to fit in while others might be like the kid in this story.

You can build this kid up while not tearing the others down. Even the kids who are popular and mean, like the girl he mentions in the story, may at an older age find some of the things they did in school reprehensible. Lets not condemn them while they are still young and immature.

</comment><comment><USER37> Awesome.

On a side note, I wonder why this culture of popularity has to be the default in our schools?

<comment><USER19> Always odd to have always realized that the 'cool' kids are popular because they can successfully mimic styles and behaviors pushed on them by corporations and style-makers. Shouldn't they instead be called 'mindless drones'?

Merchants of Cool <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/>

<comment><USER38> And it's the wealthier kids that can afford the stuff that makes them cool. It's all about getting the wealthy to feel superior to the rest of us and pretending that wealth had nothing to do with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is a nice story but it makes everything seem too easy and I say this as someone who had a similar experience at secondary school. Even though it has been 7 years since it was over, I still relive it.

I was rarely bullied but I was almost completely ostracised for two years of my life. Before these years I had only a few friends and acquaintances. It's difficult to pinpoint any particular reason, but it was probably because I had truly awful brace treatments and that I was shy to the point of awkwardness; my geekyness and creativity could have been offset if I had been able to socially manouvre. To my detriment, my upbringing at home was fairly traditional and my parents believed that I should 'be a man'. I kept quiet. (They also didn't believe it was worth the money to buy me a school dinner so I could sit with everybody else, or drive me to friend's houses more than a couple of miles away... _sigh_ )

To survive: I learnt to cope with silence, I learnt to be my own person, I learnt to concentrate on my hobbies, and I learnt self-control. However as the weeks passed and I 'stood strong' my actual thought patterns deteriorated. Weird fantasies of not existing or martyring myself crept into my mind, and I began to find it difficult to pay attention to school work or imagine a better future. My grades dropped from A/Bs to C/Ds. I was very depressed, and my upbringing and personality gave me little opportunity to get help. All the time this went on, people washed their hands of me, understanding me to be yet another introverted kid who was happy to be on his own. I suspect there is very little which could have helped me even if I had spoken out.

My point is that: a few days alone is uncomfortable, a few weeks unbearable, but a few months or years is traumatic.

But, I will tell you the upside. The stressful moments in your life generate the person you are. The old adage is true: "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger." and so one day I lay back and decided I would fix everything.

Few will understand: after a difficult life, all adversity is shallow. "Ethos Anthropos Daimon."

I destroyed my social anxiety. I gained back my self-confidence. I am driving myself like a machine to work and to educate myself.

But it is so difficult to atone, and I am off the beaten track with strong individualistic values, constantly striving to be more. While I can empathise with all that have struggled, who can empathise with me?

<comment><USER40> I had to register just to point out how dead-on accurate you are.

I was never bullied either because I became an expert at never being noticed. Camouflage is a fine defense mechanism if you're an octopus, but a human can't live that way indefinitely at the cost of his own individualism. Sooner or later you'll _want_ to be noticed by potential friends and by the opposite sex. That "hide in the shadows" mentality which kept you alive through high school will start to work against you and the world will seem much smaller, colder and meaningless.

Any success you have in life gets attributed to dumb luck. The mind kills any thoughts of pride in your work. You see no point in meeting new people because "they won't like me anyway" or "I just won't know what to say," which does nothing but fulfill your self-inflicted prophecy. You feel nothing but the lows in life; if you're like me, you may have used drugs to simulate the highs. Thoughts of martyrdom become common after a couple of years because if your life is going to be meaningless then at least your death shouldn't be. This kind of thought process takes years to form and unfortunately just as long to destroy.

And after you succeed, you're still left with lingering thoughts about how many years you've wasted and how you'll never get them back. That particular demon is a serious little fucker because it's rooted in truth. If you've made it this far, though, then you've already faced worse.

I eventually saw the problem and rooted it out, but many people never will. Hopefully this kind of discourse gets through to a few of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Interesting. I learned during my tenure in college (still here) that everyone is weird.. has their quiddities and more over it's more or less isolated from what is really going on outside of it. You really aren't lonely, as per say. You always have the opportunity to connect to people who aren't similar to you, but quality over quantity I say. :)

</comment><comment><USER42> It's a great post. One of my kids struggles socially, and I've had similar conversations.

I'd add this: You have to love the things you love. When you meet people who love the same things, and it could be a while, your friendships will go deep because they're founded on something deep and dear to you. And you'll be a great partner in exploration because you know these great things. Conceding yourself to other people's notions now erodes your ability to form real relationships later.

Which isn't to say such kids shouldn't look for as much commonality they can find. And they should note that they may have some genuinely negative and offputting behaviors which they shouldn't accept in themselves. It's very hard for these kids to pick out the social cues that they should read because they get so many they shouldn't.

But yeah, kids need to hear that it can sometimes take a long time to find their place.

</comment><comment><USER43> Loved the story and it's very good advice indeed. I'd like to add one thing though. Having a "fuck them" or "they are losers" attitude (not saying the article advocates that) isn't really healthy. It might be great for a boosting your ego short term but it isn't constructive in the long run.

I don't think one should look down or harbor anger/resentment towards _anyone_. Not because it hurts them, but because it hurts you, and your happiness.

So my advice would be to try and understand why people act the way they do, why it probably is caused by some underlying problems/childhood whatever and if anything feel pity (so long it doesn't go into besserwisser territory) rather than resentment.

It's also great to be able to socialize with all kinds of people. They might not be exactly like you, they might not share all or any of your values but surely you can find something interesting in interacting and trying to understand them.

Another sign of personal growth is that you don't have to convince other people they're wrong or convert them to your views. If it's being discussed you can put front your opinion in a constructive manner and let it be up to them whether to agree or disagree. Also always be open minded about other people's viewpoints and try to understand where there coming from and if there might be something to it.

Sorry if I sounds a little fluffy or obivous but I feel that changing my own perspective on things like that has been very beneficial

</comment><comment><USER44> Yep, I was one of the brainiacs, socially awkward... not necessarily alone. More in the "activities" clique, which was by no means cool. I'm still pretty awkward, honestly. I'm either the life of the party or climbing the walls trying to get away from people. I have no middle ground.

Anyway, while I totally understand supporting this kid and letting him know there's nothing wrong with him, I'm not so sure it's healthy to feed the "us vs them" (or "me vs them") mindset either. Though I totally understand it. Yes, everyone is an idiot in high school. Even him. The "cool" kids aren't necessarily giving up their identity just to fit in. Maybe they just like the same things. But honestly they're probably not all that happy either. Everyone is miserable, and they're all pretty much idiots. I mean, you're in high school.

I think the important thing is to help build confidence (and importantly not arrogance, which is just a defense mechanism) in these kids. Find something they love to do and support them. Confidence is really the most attractive trait. Outside of just being super-hot, that is. :-)

My son is five years old now, and I can already see his social skills following his daddy's footsteps. I see the other kids talk to him when I drop him off for school, and he'll just ignore them and stand off by himself. It's not them or anything they're doing, it's his mindset. I would desperately like to help him avoid the some of the mistakes I made. I think I'm actually pretty hard on him because of this. And then I feel pretty awful myself.

Anyway, sorry for the verbose meandering comment... I've just been thinking through this stuff myself, so it's useful to write it out.

</comment><comment><USER45> There is a lot to learned and gained from learning how to deal with people. Becoming a hermit is not an achievement. Most people who "do not have friends" are not in that situation because they are something extra special and different snowflakes but because they have not learned how to communicate, empathize, follow simple social norms and perhaps even take shower time to time. Not being an ass usually gets you at least few decent friends.

</comment><comment><USER46> It was the same for me in Fiji. I was into comics, computers, video games and not rugby. In Fiji, not liking rugby instantly makes you an outcast. 7 years later and I'm no better. All that loneliness led to insecurities that I have yet to shake. Now I work in a studio with a bunch of designers, photographers and on occasion, models and I feel as lonely as ever.

Hopefully in 10 years I can belong to a studio of amazingly weird, relatable people.

</comment><comment><USER47> The money line: _You want to know what's weird? Hiding who you are just to have the company of people you don't even like. That's weird._

I was an athlete in high school, so early on I hung out with the athletes. Those in that group were not particularly enjoyable company, but I was too young to know what enjoyable company was.

When I finally stopped hanging out with athletes and took my proper place among the band geeks and drama nerds, that's when high school started to suck less (it always sucked, but it sucked a whole lot less when I discovered the type of people I liked being around).

Everyone needs validation. Everyone needs needs social acceptance. Everyone needs human affection. We're hard wired to require these things. But this can only truly come through introspection. You must conclude that you are a deeply flawed individual, and that those flaws don't separate you from your peers, but are actually the common ground.

The reason why you don't have any friends is because there is a failure to realize these common flaws. One side will often point this out: "You're weird. You're odd. You're not normal". Such phrases are not meant to affect any emotion in the target, but rather to hide the flaws of the speaker.

It is the truly enlightened individual that can recognize the speaker is as deeply flawed as they, and counter with affection and affirmation: "You're dead on. I'm crazy weird. You're beautiful/smart/funny/athletic, and I'm happy to be weird enough to say so"

How much better would high school be for everyone involved if high schoolers could just avoid going on the offensive to hide their own flaws, stop thinking about what makes them better than those around them in the ceaseless measuring of cocks, and start measuring and encouraging the best qualities in their peers?

Can such a (high school)world exist? I pray that it can.

</comment><comment><USER48> reminds me of this: <http://www.viruscomix.com/page500.html>

</comment><comment><USER49> I resonate with the article but I think the author only groks half the lesson.

And, "Fuck them" is rarely the solution.

It isn't being different, accepted, weird or yourself that is important. It is how well you can interact with other human beings. You can bang on about finding your niche or just being true to yourself but you are then following just another brand of conformity and group dynamics. The author himself realises this. He's in a gym, in this tale, with others he bonds with through social interaction and bonding (talking about sports, not pissing people off, joking about). What the author has stumbled upon is an understanding of the nuances of socialising and friendship.

I resonate with the post because like the author I was weird in school. I'm still weird as an adult. I had few friends (sometimes no friends) and would frequently fight. I was an outsider. Growing up didn't change many of those things (well, I don't have to live in a Lord-of-the-Flies style dystopia any more). Growing up helped me realise it isn't about who you think you are it is about _how_ you interact with others.

I'm still an anti-social outsider but now I know how to make friends and get along with other people. Weirdness isn't something I wear as a badge of honour, it's just a factor of my personality. I can hide it to fit in. I can appear different to how I really am in order to get things done. You can be yourself, and you should with people you want to get close to. You have thousands of other people you will need to interact with to get things done, it is them that you have to be "less weird" for.

Now, I can bond with people who once upon a time would (and did) attack me on sight. Since then, I've sat around talking the gossip/sport/trivia/current events/reported speech topic that gets them excited over a beer or other social medium. Everyone loves to think there is some huge unfathomable difference between them and people that they don't get along with. There isn't, the only thing preventing you and anyone getting along is how well you can socialise.

It's the conclusion that I disagree with the author over. They are already practising the solution, his gym buddies are bonding with the kid and the kid seems to be learning. Most of us eventually learn how to interact with each other civilly, that's what growing up is about.

Eventually, almost all of us learn how to be part of one tribe or another. We are biologically programmed to find our tribe. So what's you favourite....

</comment><comment><USER50> Good story. As a side note: why do men have to be so mind numbingly boring? I had the misfortune of hanging out with a bunch of guys I didn't really know recently and the talk was similar to that described here (sports, women, avoidance of anything actually interesting like religion or politics). It was so boring I just left and went back to work.

As a gender, I think men have a lot to answer for in terms of conversation skills. Stop being so boring and predictable. Stop talking about sports as a habit.

<comment><USER51> Hang out with different men, odds are they will talk about different things. Or, find sports and women more interesting.

It's quite unlikely that all men, everywhere, only talk about things that everyone really thinks are boring. It's also unlikely that everyone everywhere thinks discussing politics and religion is particularly interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> reminds me one of xkcd comic: <http://xkcd.com/610/>

<comment><USER53> Haha, xkcd FTW!

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Never till I went to MIT did I not feel that I was weird. At MIT, it felt ok to be me. I was like that, and others were kinda like that, and we were good together.

</comment><comment><USER55> "Even the furry had more friends than I did."

That's a bit harsh.

Still, the overall sentiment is very much on point. It's not really expected that a high school student should think for himself and go about his life _normally_ , without adopting a particular social identity. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't occur to some of us to bother trying to fit in. But if you keep an independent, open mind and learn to deal with people, you'll do fine no matter what.

</comment><comment><USER56> I am very late to this discussion, but I wanted to share my thoughts. I didn't like too much the advice of the article. I would have taken the opportunity to tell the kid about diversity, to appreciate the diversity of other people and specially his own. Observe that every body has strengths and weakness, that no one is perfect. Also, It can't be that everybody is an asshole. But even if they are, it is not his fault.

</comment><comment><USER57> I went through a similar phase during my high school years where I felt like I was weird and an outsider. When I was about to graduate, I found a gym, started working out and it changed my life. I feel happy for the kid in this story because he was at the gym, interacting with mature adults, and learning the discipline of weight training - great way to build a good foundation for his future.

</comment><comment><USER58> This message that you will get out of your small town and meet likeminded people is a big one. However, why wait miserable years? I think even in a small town there are on average enough freaks so that you don't have to be lonely. The question is how to find and activate them. Also, some socialization might be acceptable even for freaks, for example "normal" clothing, showering etc.

</comment><comment> g-garron Wow, that was a little long-post, but I enjoyed it a lot. It remembered my school days, I used to be interested in computers and physics and math. Usually others seek me because they needed help on homework. Yes you feel yourself a little weird, but then you grow up, and you realize that weird is also cool. If you enjoy being weird. Let's be weird, if you want to.

</comment><comment><USER59> By the way, what's with the "even the furry had more friends than me" bigotry? Would "even the gay had more friends than me" fly?

<comment><USER60> Considering the fact that he speaks fondly of him outside of that line, I assumed he was being facetious and playing off the common social view of furries as loner weirdos. Not that that makes it okay, but I don't think it was meant to be harmful.

<comment><USER55> I chalk it up to the fact that what's perfectly normal within a group of friends can seem harsh from the outside. He's probably just accustomed to making jokes like that with Jay, so sees no issue putting it on his blog.

<comment><USER61> "Perfectly normal within friends."

What is perfectly normal within friends can still be unwanted, even if it was okay at first. It's why I don't like to encourage jokey insults like this any more. Sure at first I was okay with homophobic comments, but after a while it turns from being playful with friends into hurtful and annoying.

I definitely agree with StavrosK, it does feel very off to me.

<comment><USER55> Well, yes. I did find the comment in extremely poor taste, but I also don't pretend to have enough information to assess it further. Nothing to do but suspend judgement and give a measured response.

<comment><USER59> Well, if a gay friend of mine doesn't mind "even the gay gets laid more than me", it still doesn't mean I'll go around saying it in public or online, I don't have the relationship I have with my friend with everyone.

Anyway, I was just checking to see if that was a generally accepted statement just because the word "furry" was there rather than something else, or if I was missing something.

<comment><USER55> Oh, undoubtedly. Even online, the vast majority of people don't know or understand internet subcultures nearly as well as general issues of sexuality. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise.

I take more good-natured flak from my friends for identifying as a furry than for being bisexual. This without even associating with roleplay, pornography, fursuiting, conventions, Otherkin, or any of the "sub-subcultures" that get attention for their peculiarities. I just think anthropomorphic animal characters are pretty swell.

<comment><USER62> While I'd agree if this was just a random friend he was referring to as a furry, but... this is Jay Naylor we're talking about. His being a furry is very, very, very public -- in fact, he's one of the best known furries out there. I think you're taking this entirely too seriously.

<comment><USER55> Distasteful is not serious. Consider the durian fruit, how it smells, how it makes us hold our noses and laugh. No, I don't take this seriously. I have already forgotten it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> It is not about you or them being weird, it is about being real. If you are real you will get respect for that no matter what you are. You might not get respect from the "cool" group or the "geek" group but you will get respect from all those who would like to be like you but are not because they try to fit in.

</comment><comment><USER64> If you are considered "wiered" that means you probably also lack the social competence to know what is the definition of word "friend". so don't wory as far as you know you may have many friends, but wrongly think that you dont have any. and your enemy may be your best friend. as far as you know.

</comment><comment><USER65> By motivating the boy, I believe it could only strengthen his own motivation. Keep it up.

</comment><comment><USER66> After reading this article I am sure of one thing, he is not a minority. This existential crisis of "weirdness" he refers to is the luxury of those who are supposed to be normal.

</comment><comment><USER67> Thanks for this. I was the "weird" kid in junior high and someone just like you gave me that speech. It helped tremendously, and you changed that kid's life.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm glad there is still awesome people out there and thriving. I'm 25 and I still feel like the weird kid sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER68> outstanding article; things ring so so true. Highschool is such a rough time with getting people singled out, and it's hard for those who are individuals.

Kudos to this guy for an outstanding talk to this kid; inspires hopefully many of us to share our experiences and reach out to younger kids we see.

</comment><comment><USER69> I wish someone explained it to me like this, back then.

</comment><comment><USER70> tl;dr: "has it ever occured to you that it's just everybody else's problem that they can't get along with you?"

</comment><comment><USER71> I really love this story. It's so incredibly hard to see the forest for the trees when you're that age.

I love PG's notion that some kids are playing the popularity game and others are playing an entirely different game, because they're being individuals and are learning or pursuing something they want, regardless of popularity.</comment>


"I am calling you from Windows": A tech support scammer  - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/i-am-calling-you-from-windows-a-tech-support-scammer-dials-ars-technica/ <comment><USER2> Having done my time in the tech support trenches, I do one hell of an "end user" impersonation. I held one of these guys on the line for 1 hour 20 minutes one evening, then told him my phone was dying and that I'd need to call him back. I called back two days later and tied him up for another 20 minutes before he finally cracked and hung up on me.

Yes, it was a terrific waste of time, but boy did it feel good. I consider it volunteering. All the time I spent on the phone with the scammer was time they couldn't spend targeting vulnerable individuals.

<comment><USER3> As much as I'd like to congratulate your volunteerism: you know that your time is valuable and his employer is probably paying him $1/hr to call you?

<comment><USER4> Only your work time is valuable. Fucking with scammers is liesure time. It's like working in your garden.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Got the call from these guys a few weeks ago - actually about 20 calls. I finally picked up and kept the guy on for about 10 minutes asking him progressively dumber questions. Finally, I told him I was running OSX, which led him to call his manager. The manager had a really hard time understanding that I wasn't running Windows. It did not sit with his worldview at all.

<comment><USER6> This now makes me hope I get called. If so, I'm going to say that I'm from Internet Explorer support and that THEY have viruses and they need to download a program so I can remove the virus from their computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What is most bizarre to me is that someone could actually do this and do it more than once.

Why wouldn't people feel bad about scamming someone like this? You have to talk to someone, get them on your side, and then scam them?

I could maybe imagine myself in an alternate universe doing something like this, perhaps enjoying a sort of "heist" feeling like when you're playing poker and no one's aware that you're totally prepared to take the table. But if I succeeded (at the scamming call) I'm sure I would feel devastated that I just did that to someone.

Maybe I'm just supremely naive, but it seems hard for me to imagine anyone I've ever met in my life scamming someone like this. It seems so completely incredible that it could ever happen on such a large scale.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Is there something in a culture (besides wealth discrepancy per se) that makes this sort of thing more OK?

<comment><USER8> Sociopaths don't care about other people. At all.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't classify these kinds of people as sociopaths, just opportunists.

<comment><USER9> I would guess that the 'successful' ones have a higher percentage of sociopaths in their group than the general population.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I get them I generally just put the phone down immediately, or I'll wind them up asking stupid questions about their qualifications. However, my nana has had a few recently who've been super aggressive about it, I told her not to do anything they say and to call me if she's unsure, but apparently saying 'no' and putting the phone down gets you repeat calls if you sound like like a good mark.

Edit: I'll point out, this happens in legitimate call centres as well. I worked for a fairly well known a credit card company and left not long after I heard a top seller say "Focus on old people, scare them enough and they'll always buy".

</comment><comment><USER11> I've had these calls too, now and again but never had the patience to keep them on the line.

So , they want to install some kind of remote admin software on your PC? I'm going to assume it is something based on VNC or RDP.

In that case if you really wanted to troll them it might be fun to figure out which protocol it was using and implement a custom server that you can run when they call you.

Any fun ideas as to what that could do?

<comment><USER12> It seems to me that the best idea would be for credit card companies to issue "Fraud" cc numbers to certain groups of people.

Once a few these are processed, that merchant account can be shut down... it's a fraud.

<comment><USER2> You needn't issue any special CC numbers. "Follow the money" is standard fraud investigation practice, and a defrauded consumer's CC will do just fine. Tracing the transactions back to the processor and merchant account is doable, but it's often a temporary solution. How do you stop them from simply opening another?

When someone establishes a merchant account, they often do so as a corporation. Corporation blacklisted? Start another one. The requirements for opening a merchant account are similar to a standard credit check. If you have no credit history, your terms will be worse, and the bank will probably hold funds for a longer period of time than if you had good credit, but ultimately, that's just a cost of doing business. If there's inbound cash flow to be had, the exercise of managing costs is standard business practice.

To stop them, you have to find the people behind the operation and put them in jail. Given that they're not US-based, that takes time. Most foreign governments have more pressing matters than taking down the scammer that is stealing money from non-constituents.

<comment><USER13> That's what MATCH (Member Alert to Control High-Risk Merchants) and TMF (Terminated Merchant File) are for.

When someone establishes a merchant account, they must provide the tax IDs (SSNs) of the principals of the business, not just the business itself. If the account is terminated for an egregious offense, like fraud, all those principals get added to MATCH and TMF, which all acquiring banks have access to when reviewing new applications.

In theory, it should be impossible to open multiple Visa/MasterCard merchant accounts for fraudulent purposes without having a new human being signing up each time, not just a new shell corporation.

<comment><USER2> It has been years since I worked in the industry, but once upon a time, I worked for some online pharmacy guys. Yeah, I know. Yeah, I'm ashamed to admit it, but I never spammed anyone, and we never did anything nefarious (technologically speaking).

Anyway, things might have changed theses days, but the guy who ran that business was always fighting to keep merchant accounts online. He kept the dev team out of the business side, but I overheard plenty of conversations involving fake identities and shell companies. I have little doubt that its harder than it used to be, but still, it remains a "cost of doing business" issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Had it happen to many people I know. They only were successful with one person I know - they replaced her OEM Windows XP license with a pirated/fake one...then stole the original perhaps? Can't imagine how useful an OEM XP license to a Acer POS netbook would be valuable.

If you get one of these calls, just screw with them - pretend you are following their instructions for as long as possible before saying "Ubuntu doesn't have that."

<comment><USER15> > pretend you are following their instructions for as long as possible

It's not just fun, it's a very responsible thing to do. Every minute they spend with you is a minute they don't spend screwing over someone else.

But don't end with "Ubuntu doesn't have that" or "I only have a Mac, sorry" or some other snarky comment. Just fake stupidity until they give up. They are constantly tuning their scams based on successful and unsuccesful cons, and if they realize you're screwing with them they'll just filter you out of that. Or worse, they'll realize that "calling from the windows" tipped you off and change it to "Microsoft Support Associate" or something.

If you instead come across as someone who _believes_ the "calling from windows" bit, but for some reason aren't able to open the remote control software ("i try to download it but the screen moves?" or "when i click RUN, it says dotnet could not complete the operation?"), you will reinforce the stupid parts of the scam, and _possibly_ have them waste time trying to research the technical difficulty you "experienced".

<comment><USER11> I wonder why they are not also targeting Macs?

I guess they are trying to get money out of people and Mac users probably have more money (on a broad average).

I suppose they say they are calling from "Windows Support" but would it be a far stretch to also claim to represent someone from Apple? Or put someone else on the line under the premise of transferring you to Apple.

<comment><USER15> > Mac users probably have more money (on a broad average).

I sadly suspect this is part of the reason. They have more money and chose a Mac because they are educated and can get a decent salary _and_ mentally independent enough to make a conscious purchasing decision.

If you just obediently go with what the trustworthy computer salesman pushes at you, you end up with a Windows computer. And obedient trusting people are what the scammers want to target.

<comment><USER16> _They have more money and chose a Mac because they are educated and can get a decent salary and mentally independent enough to make a conscious purchasing decision._

I'm going to have to disagree with that. I know plenty of people (with money, yes) that want to "get a Mac". There's no mentally independent purchasing decision, it's just what other people have, and they look cool.

As it happens, it's a good choice. But it could easily not be, and they'd still do it.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps even knowing enough to discern between a Mac and PC is enough to make them a poor mark.

Notice that they are saying "Windows support" not "Microsoft Support", not knowing that Windows is a product from Microsoft would suggest they are looking for people with a very low level of knowledge.

I'm guessing retired people who have a good pension coming in.

OTOH that must put an upper limit to the amount people are willing to spend to get their computers back from the scammers. If you only paid $300 for a PC from wallmart you won't pay more than that surely.

<comment><USER2> > Notice that they are saying "Windows support" not "Microsoft Support", not > knowing that Windows is a product from Microsoft would suggest they are > looking for people with a very low level of knowledge.

They do this to avoid being cornered. On one occasion, when screwing with one of the callers, I had a little rage fit accusing them of breaking all kinds of laws. The "manager" informed me that "We never claimed that we were calling from Microsoft, we're calling from Windows Tech Support, which is the name of our company." The agents are very careful not to say they're calling from Microsoft. I suspect that this is some attempt at circumventing exposure to local fraud laws wherever they are based. I'm not saying it will be effective, mind you; just that I suspect that's why.

<comment><USER17> It could also be that they're trying to filter out people who know "Windows support" sounds dodgy. This also fits with the fact that they still seem to all have Indian accents -- an immediate off-put to those who have heard about these scams. People who don't hang up when they hear the words "Windows support" coming from someone with an Indian accent would probably be very much more likely to fall for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how these guys are organised. Is it just a bunch of people doing this from home who have heard about the scam from a friend and have tried to imitate it?

Or are there actually physical call centres with rows of desks of scammers doing this as a 9-5?

<comment><USER18> There has to be large scale call centres. The number of calls they're making is impressive. I got two of them from different people last night (I'm in Australia).

<comment><USER11> Although that might suggest independent scammers. It would seem inefficient to cold call the same person again if the first was unsuccessful. Although it is possible they just take random numbers from a big list and don't update it until the end of the day.

If they are indeed operated from actual call centres I would be curious to know how agents are recruited. I wonder if people actually apply for call centre jobs and are told they will be working for "Windows support" in other words, maybe some of them don't even know that they are scamming people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have also had this happen to me and a friend. We have both calls recorded and the numbers logged, is there anywhere we are supposed to send these reports?

<comment><USER20> [http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/security/online- privacy/phish...](http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/security/online- privacy/phishing-scams.aspx)

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytipstalk/archive/2010/03/09/...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytipstalk/archive/2010/03/09/don- t-fall-for-phony-phone-tech-support.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> We get these in the UK all the time. Usually either try and hold them on the line as long as possible (if bored) or tell them to "fuck off" straight away.

<comment><USER22> I use the "I'll just go and get the PC owner ... he's at the bottom of the garden". Then put the phone on mute. My personal record is getting them to hang on for 5 minutes.

<comment><USER23> Not quite the same, but I was on the phone to BT (British ISP) a couple of years ago as my internet was down _yet again_ , and they were telling me to reboot my router. I'd already does as much diagnosing myself as possible, and completely knew rebooting my router would do nothing, but of course they wouldn't budge. I was in a pretty bad mood at them, so I said I'd put them on hold to go do it, then I went and had a bath. Twenty-five minutes later they were still on the line, and I got back and said "OK it's rebooted, still not working" and the call went on...

<comment><USER24> The joke might be on you. Support calls to your ISP typically have a price per minute.

<comment><USER23> Luckily I'm not dumb enough to not know whether a phone call is costing me an arm and a leg :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I won't answer when the caller has masked their phone number. I have too many things to do. They can leave a msg if it's important. They never do.

<comment><USER26> One of the things that frustrates me is that phone companies will carry calls purporting to be from numbers that don't terminate. Why would they ever think that was a good idea?

You get a scammer, they've sent their [spoofed] number, you ring it and get 'boo-boo-boop this number is not recognised'. The phone company knows the numbers that aren't taken because they use that list when you set up a new phone line.

Though it does just strike me that it's possible the number actual did terminate but the scammers pretend it didn't; but that seems a long shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Back when I was a BOFH, I would string these calls on all the time. Usually I could manage 30-40 minutes before the Indian would get tired of it and hang up. Occasionally I'd get one that would last for over an hour.

<comment><USER26> I've done this a few times at work - they are very convincing. This would definitely catch some of the MS Windows users I know.

One time the Asian guy on the other end (who couldn't pronounce what he said was his name) accused me of wasting his time and said that they were going to invoice me! That was probably the funniest.

After a couple of goes around it gets boring. Now I just go along for the first bit and then say I have to put the phone handset down to type and leave the phone on the side until it screeches at me that I've forgotten to put it 'on the hook'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The most effective way to troll these types of scams is to let them convince you, but repeatedly tell them that your computer froze and needs to be restarted. If they feel certain you're willing to pay, they will wait for the 20 minutes it takes to "restart" your computer. The more you "restart" your computer, time they invest in you, and the less costly that 20 minutes will seem.

That said I don't think I'd have the patience to do it more than once. And I suppose there are better ways to help humanity than trolling scammers.

<comment><USER29> I'd suggest trying to get the email address and any other personal info. of the scammer. Tell them you have an office with 200 PC's and they're all infected. Tell them you want to buy their software for all of your PC's. Try to get bank wire/routing info or a mailing address to send payment. Then report to FTC, DHS, FBI, et al.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If you've not seen it... <http://www.itslenny.com/> you can forward VOIP telemarkers to "lenny" - an automated bot who will happily chat with them for ... ever..

There are some classic mp3s to listen to.

</comment><comment><USER31> I couldn't help but read it in the Russell Peters style Indian accent. It wasn't until the middle of article that I noticed the subconscious act.

(DISCLAIMER: I belong to the same part of the world and probably have the same accent)

</comment><comment><USER32> Ugh. A friend's mother fell for this exact thing. Spent a couple days "disinfecting" her computer. A few hours later, it finally dawned on her that she had been scammed (when someone asked her how the people could have known she had viruses), but she was too proud to talk about it/fight with the scammers.

Very smart though, targeting home phones, as they're just the right generation to fall for this type of scam.

</comment><comment><USER33> I had exactly the same call with someone, I wish I'd thought of the VM idea but I didn't, however I did record it -

[http://soundcloud.com/gbrewer-1/microsoft-telephone- scam/s-e...](http://soundcloud.com/gbrewer-1/microsoft-telephone-scam/s-ezcsf)

I felt a bit sorry for the guy it's clearly a boiler room with high expectations.

</comment><comment><USER34> Ah such tales are so entertaining. There was a brief period here in New Zealand when I'd receive a few of these kinds of calls. Folks in my Computer Science class considered it a badge of honor to receive a call and troll the scammer. It's been a while since I received any calls and I guess thats a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER35> I would answer him "Sorry, I use Linux".

<comment><USER36> If you really wanted to mess with them, you could tell them you were using an old version of Lindows (now Linspire...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Potential idea for a hackathon! A 419eater.com for tech support scammers.

Some of them are amazing: <http://www.419eater.com/html/samuel_eze.htm>

</comment><comment><USER38> The pitches for these sites can be seen on day-time tv, and late night tv, sandwiched between infomercials. I heard these on radio too. ex: doublemyspeed.com , totallyfast.com

</comment><comment><USER39> The scam site: <http://windows4pc.webs.com/>

EDIT: Webs.com has just frozen it.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is interesting but the article is really sub-par and they ended too soon.

</comment><comment><USER41> These guys call me every month. I hope the FTC does do something about it.

</comment><comment><USER42> haha nice post!

can someone call me like this?

i got windows xp only in a VM :D</comment>


"Just-in-time code generation" the coolest language feature you never heard of - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/manifold-systems/manifold/tree/master/manifold-core-parent/manifold#the-big-picture <comment><USER2> This reminds me of AspectJ in that its a language extension with many similar features (extension methods etc). As useful as those features were, the syntactic sugar you get is confusing to new contributors to a project.

Here's a scenario thats played out. In the extension methods example on the Manifold README, it's highlighted that you can add your own methods to Java types. If any dev saw this in the project and they were unaware of manifold, it wouldn't be immediately clear what enables the addition of methods to the Java String type. They would figure it out eventually by either investigating or by debugging. These features blur the lines between programming language and framework.

Where I get weary about adding a dependency is when I see documentation with ~100 line boilerplate examples peppered with terms I've never heard before. Just because you use the word simple when describing something complex does not make it so.

<comment><USER3> > Where I get weary

I think you mean either "wary" or "leery" but not both at the same time!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems to be one of the ideas that just comes up again and again in the Java community. While it has its uses, it comes with a free downsides. The biggest is that debugging becomes very difficult, especially as the code becomes complex. Imagine building it a framework with a subtle is bug and your newest junior engineer struggling with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I never hear this idea coming up. Can you provide a reference? In any case what is the alternative? More of the same conventional code generation that destroys _everyone 's_ productivity? And is no easier to debug. In fact the just-in-time approach improves the debugging situation with uniform tooling (see the IntelliJ support).</comment></comment>


Poetry: Python dependency management and packaging made easy - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sdispater/poetry <comment><AUTHOR> Poetry is a new tool to help you manage your Python projects.

It is both a dependency management tool and a packaging tool. Note that for the moment the focus has been on the dependency management part but the work on the packaging/publishing has started and is ready for simple, pure-python projects.

Most of the reasons why I started this are detailed in the README (along with why I don't want to use Pipenv) but if you want to know the advantages of Poetry compared to existing tools, here are a few:

\- Exhaustive dependency resolver

\- Intuitive CLI (See [Commands]([https://github.com/sdispater/poetry#commands)](https://github.com/sdispater/poetry#commands\)))

\- Emphasis on semantic versioning and constraint specification so that wildcard dependencies (`*`) will be considered bad practice

\- Support for dependencies caret, tilde, wildcard, inequality and multiple requirements.

\- Only one file: the standardised `pyproject.toml` which aims at being readable and clear.

\- Mandatory compatible python versions specification.

This project is a revamped version of [pypoet]([https://github.com/sdispater/poet](https://github.com/sdispater/poet)) to have a cleaner codebase.

Be aware that not all the features described in the README are implemented yet (but most of them are).

Also, Poetry is Python 3.6+ only but can manage Python 2 projects without any problem.

And finally, Poetry is not stable yet so internally things can change but the CLI and commands are pretty much stable so backwards-incompatible changes should not happen too often.</comment>


RISC Is Fundamentally Unscalable - <AUTHOR> https://blackhole12.com/blog/risc-is-fundamentally-unscalable/ <comment><USER2> "Practicality beats purity", and conversions like integer<>floating point are ripe for efficient implementation using a small number of gates. CVT.W.D in MIPS did that decades ago (including setting a condition bit for cases which could not be converted). In a world where, for better or for worse, "how fast it runs javascript" is an important metric, engineers (armed with copious execution traces of real world software) should make a rational choice and find a way to include FJCVTZS in an instruction set next to other more traditional conversions like whatever ARM's equivalent of CVT.W.D is.

</comment><comment><USER3> CISC is basically a specialized data compression codec for micro-ops. That is all.

<comment><USER4> But his point on pipelining vs VLIW seems valid</comment></comment>


Zynga earnings miss, FB also falling - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/zynga-misses-estimates-as-users-flee-social-games-for-mobile.html <comment><USER2> This was a very well written comment on ZNGA nearly 2 months earlier : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4101906> I kept it in my bookmarks to go back to.

The essence is that Zynga makes its revenue selling fake stuff, and the size of its market for its stuff is its users, and if they lose users their 'value' has to go down because their total available market got smaller.

This struck me as potentially a very durable way of measuring value for 'information goods' type businesses. I don't see anything in Zynga's latest results to contradict this analysis.

<comment><USER3> Chuck I read very smart comment as well, although cannot point to the source now.

It basically said that you cannot look at it as "selling fake stuff", but rather look as "selling something users like". This approach, I think, made Zynga (at least initially) successful where others couldnt believe you would spend money on "buying fake stuff".

Same way you can say about many other things. Going to the cinema. Its fake. You can't eat the picture, you can't take it with you, you cannot even record it for later. You pay for the ticket and that ticket buys you pleasure and happiness for 90 minutes, hopefully. But other than that, 90 minutes later you have nothing. Once could say: this is fake.

Therefore, people that buy "fake" pigs and harvest "fake" fields, would still pay real money for doing so, because Zynga made it look and feel so great that the result (pleasure) is worth paying real money.

The true reason why Zynga is falling through cracks, I believe, is because having fake farms that you pay with real money was a fashionable moment; something cool to do, but at some point, people got tired and it stopped being popular/trendy. That's it. Now its up to Zynga to figure whether they can keep users busy some other ways (and spend money), or they won't until they get delisted from Nasdaq and subsequently file for Chapter 11.

I believe in the latter.

<comment><USER2> I use the term 'fake' here in the context of a product made entirely out of information, and your cinema example is a good one. The experience is the sale, not the asset. That said, the other company I'm watching in this space is Blizzard which recently opened up their real money 'auctions' for items in Diablo III. This legitimizes what has been an underground industry for years and recognizes that there is some business value in trading "products" made out of bits instead of materials. Unlike Zynga the Blizzard scheme has users selling to users and Blizzard just takes a percentage. If the model generates any serious revenue at all for Blizzard I would expect Zynga to follow suit, allowing Farmville users whose cow births a gold medal calf or something to trade that for Zyngian currency or even real money. These businesses have to be careful not to create an actual currency because the government will shut that down, but trading virtual goods has so far passed muster on that score.[1]

That said, the analysis I've seen on Zynga games relates the pleasure not from the virtual farming, so much as the chance to get more out than you put in (the gambling rush as it is known in Las Vegas). You plant your farm and you get a golden bean or something that is now 'valuable' as opposed to all those other times you planted and got regular beans. Its a powerful tool, wielded well by Zynga and others.

[1] You will know you are trouble when your customer wants to pay you with rare gear from Diablo or extra egg laying chickens or something.

<comment><USER4> I enjoyed Zynga games for a while, but there was a change at some point along the line where you could no longer play the game as it was designed without spending money. That's when I stopped playing.

It's fine to have the spend-money parts as fun add-ons. I might even spend a dollar or two here or there on such things.

But I will not play a game that tries to hook me in for free but then requires me to purchase pieces of it just to play it as it is designed.

That's a tricky line, of course. I'll play WoW sometimes, and I pay for that. But I'm not paying real money to give my character some spell that's required for basic play. For a funny hat or a cool mount (that's functionally the same as a free one), sure.

Greed, for lack of a better word, killed Zynga. They pushed it too far.

<comment><USER2> I think this captures a very common sentiment. Certainly folks I know have expressed it as well, which is that its one thing to have 'bonus' items cost real money but its another thing entirely to feel 'duped' into investing in something without knowing the costs. Its a challenging line in the freemium world because on the one hand you can 'dial in the amount of money you want' and on the other hand folks defect. There is an interesting corollary in taxation [1].

With Blizzard, one wonders if they will begin to compete with their customers by creating and then selling through their auction system rare or unique, and by definition game changing, items. The temptation will always be there of course, a company has to choose not to step over that line.

[1] I worry about using that example because it sounds like a troll, it is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A problem with some 'viral' models is that eventually the herd develops an immunity.

<comment><USER6> Brilliant.

Some are immune prior, some become immune, and others will always get sick...

This is the business model.

Spike, Plateau, drop....

I'd like to hink that those of us on HN are fairly immune...

You know what would be an interesting model: figure out the ratio of users on a site to users on HN for given things to determine a prediction of stupid adopters to smart adopters.

Then take that ration and apply it to the total adoption, and determine the real profit margin a site could get.

I am not sure how this would work, but I think we can derive the number of people that will do stupid investments of time vs those who see through the scam...

(I am positive this is what quants are masters at...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The New York Times reporting on this issue,

[http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/07/25/business/25reuters...](http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/07/25/business/25reuters- zynga-earnings.html)

kindly shared to HN by iProject,

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4293713>

includes this amazing statement: "The company blamed the poor performance of its established, money-making games - Facebook-based titles like 'Cityville' - on changes to Facebook's algorithm, which Zynga said spurred users to discover new games rather than repeatedly play existing Zynga offerings." So Zynga is saying it was hosed by the algorithms of the site that made its games famous-- the site that derives a lot of its own revenue from a cut of Zynga's revenue. It looks like Facebook has a rather odd idea of how to be a "partner" with another business that uses its platform. No wonder the stock of both companies went down when Zynga's results were announced. This should increase interest in Facebook's results and Facebook's spin on its results, including any response Facebook has to what Zynga's excuse for its performance is.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm confident Zynga will succeed, and this is just a temporary setback. They are incredibly smart and have a solid business model. I don't think social games are going out of fashion any time soon, although I do think they are moving toward the mobile realm. Zynga also has an amazing track record of growing companies it acquires. After the purchase of Words with Friends from Newtoy for $53M, they doubled their daily active users in 6 months. I do think they may have to focus more of an effort on figuring out new avenues of driving revenue for the company. Because ultimately that's what investors are looking for.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think Zynga will be a very hard stock for wall street to understand for some time. Since it's revenue is so tied to usage (meaning unpredictable after hockey stick growth flattens) and since usage is so tied to external factors (e.g., Facebook Open Graph changes), I think it will be a very difficult company to forecast. In general, it's tough to be a public company if you can't have some predictability to your financial results.

<comment><USER10> I don't think the two points you make: tied to usage and external factors, equate to difficult forecasts. Look at airlines, they are definitely tied to usage, empty planes and bad routes impact revenues; and external factors come into play with things like fuel costs and union negotiations (at least in the US). The things you list as making them a "hard stock for wall street to understand" are actually what make the sharks see right through zynga's value proposition/bullshit.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the response and I think I probably should have been clearer. Zynga is fundamentally tied (today) to factors outside of its control (like airlines) but that are (a) controlled largely by one entity (facebook) and (b) opaque to the outside world. By comparison, airlines are tied to factors (GDP, fuel cost, etc.) that are not controlled by any single entity and that are more transparent (e.g., real-time markets for fuel, widely available forecasts for GDP). Regardless, I wasn't defending the stock - on the contrary I was saying this is going to be a very tough public company in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Last week, Zynga expanded its board as it named former Yahoo! Inc. executive Ellen Siminoff its first female director."

</comment><comment><USER12> Shouldn't this just be "Zynga earnings miss".

I don't see where the FB also failing comes into the picture.

<comment><USER13> Zynga is mainly based on Facebook's platform. They also explicitly said that getting revenue on that platform is harder than expected. That makes investors very nervous about FB's outlook. We'll know more tomorrow when FB releases their own performance and expectation numbers.

<comment><USER12> Which doesn't change that we don't know yet and there is nothing in the article that indicates what it writes.

I am not a big fan of the revisionists that are roaming HN but the title is flat out wrong.

<comment><USER14> FB is down 7% after hours, and the most likely culprit is this news, as the two companies' outlooks and stock performance have been tightly coupled after past quarterly reports.

The title looks factually accurate to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As Zynga copies games with some success, why has it been able to copy the Japanese model of social gaming? Gree and DeNA have been able to make money for several years now and it appears are growing sustainably.

Gree's most recent quarterly results: [http://v3.eir- parts.net/EIR/View.aspx?template=ir_material&#...</a>

</comment><comment><USER16> With all this recent talk of paid vs defense of free vs freemium, at the end of the day, certain basic principles apply. Revenues still matter, a lot.

</comment><comment><USER17> As soon as Zynga starts offering real money poker they will become the biggest and most profitable poker room in the world.

<comment><AUTHOR> MGM or LVS are better equipped to take advantage of a loosening of the internet gaming acts

<comment><USER17> But Zynga already operates the largest poker site in the world. They just need to add real money play and they're set.

<comment><AUTHOR> Adding "real money" isn't as simple as it sounds. Internet gambling in the US, if it returns, will be highly regulated.

<comment><USER18> Which just means that the regulations will be written for (and likely, by) the best-capitalized players in the market.

<comment><USER19> What's happening now is that all the old stalwarts in the poker world (Partypoker, PokerStars, and Full Tilt) are being sued by the federal government while, at the same time, the brick and mortar casinos and Indian tribes are ghostwriting gambling legislation to heavily favor themselves.

So, you're right, but it's an even shittier situation, because there already _was_ an online poker marketplace, and it's being _stolen_ from the original players in the industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well, if TechCrunch is right, already-public companies missing the mark leads to smaller valuations which leads to cheaper rent in the Valley. I'll take the smaller valuations in exchange for the cheaper rent. </selfishness>

</comment><comment><USER21> Zynga is (with some collaboration; to call it the singular reason would be a massive oversimplification) the reason Google+ Games failed, and the mediocrity of Google+ Games is one of the major reasons Google+ is seen as a "Me, too" product and will probably never have break-out success. Huge missed opportunity.

Given this, I can't say I'm upset to watch Zynga fail. Although much of this loss was indirect, they probably cost Google billions of dollars.

I predicted this in August 2011. I was at Google and wrote an internal missive on how social network fatigue, led by these shitty "social games", was about to evolve into outright brand damage and that it had the potential to ruin Google+ from the start. We had to differentiate ourselves from Facebook on the things that were causing SN fatigue. If we were going to do Games (which was a risky decision) we had to do them right.

To its credit, Google+ seems to have managed to avoid a persistent association. Google+ _isn't_ associated with Zynga shit-games. In fact, I'd bet that 99% of the people reading this have no idea there ever _was_ a Google Games. Google did a good job of hiding that one under the rug. But if they had engaged independent developers and built a real community (I suggested starting with the German-style board games, then moving into 2D RPGs and decent casual games) then they could have had something massively successful and important.</comment>


An Enormous Green Blob Just Bubbled Out of a Storm Drain in Utah - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/an-enormous-green-blob-just-bubbled-out-of-a-storm-drai-1784135139 <comment><USER2> Well now... you certainly don't read a headline so bizarre, yet entirely accurate every day do you? The article itself pays off in a big way too, with the looming specter of a "shit-fueled toxic algal bloom" emerging before the revelation of a "moss cleaner" as the likely culprit.

I laughed, I cried, I was on the edge of my seat. I lost my appetite, and I learned something.

</comment><comment><USER3> You know what else is in Bluffdale? The NSA. _queue X Files theme_</comment>


Ask HN: gifting suggestions using datamining and machine learning - <AUTHOR>

Hi fellow hackers,
I received the worst birthday present this year, so I decided I will make an app that will help people choose gifts, it does this by crawling your friends social stream, then using datamining and some machine learning alhorithms will offer some gifting suggestions.
Recently I found out that facebook is planning to launch gifing pretty soon, I can't find many details related to this, do you think it makes sens to push my app any further?
Regards, <comment><USER2> I think <http://www.giftivo.com/> is doing pretty much what you're describing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, this is very close to what I do indeed, but is not very helpfull for me because I can't purchase from amazon.</comment></comment>


Amateur Astronomers Flash the Space Station (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/ <comment><USER2> This is interesting because the Space Station is flashed regularly--but with other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum with ham radio:::; [https://www.ariss.org/contact-the-iss.html](https://www.ariss.org/contact- the-iss.html).</comment>


Ask HN: how to best prepare for a technical interview at a top software company - <AUTHOR>

Hi, all.  I've been a long-time participant on HN.  I was here from the beginning as a lurker, viewing all of the interesting developments in the startup world from afar as I ran an English teaching school in Taiwan.  Over the past few years I went from a brick and mortar business guy to a blogger to someone who coded small things out of interest to a semi-technical guy at a start-up in China.  Last summer I made a move to SF and it was rough.
But now, I'm finally in the position I've wanted. I'm in the interview pipeline both at start-ups and at two of the top software companies in the world.  I've been through intense study over the past few months and have been building things, but I've never been through the interview process at a top-tier software company.
I've been reviewing algorithms.  Anyone with experience getting into MS/FB/GOOG/AMZN etc have any favorite interview prepping resources?
I've worked with a bunch of technologies, but JavaScript is definitely my strength and the roles I'm interviewing for are all either front-end or full-stack.  As usual, thanks for sharing your experience and advice.  This site and community has already changed the direction of my life. <comment><USER2> Know how to implement basic data structures and when to use them. Know graph/tree traversal, breadth v depth etc. Explain Big O notation of your implementation and efficiency trade offs. know how how/when to use alternatives when resource constrained, ie sorting a data set bigger than main memory. Be able to implement, and iterate, these on a whiteboard (practice!). If you can do all this you're most of the way there. Ps I found working through _programming interviews exposed_ as good practice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you much. As soon as I get back from the photohackday (actually weekend) hackathon I'll have a look at them and work through as many as possible!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not sure how much time you have but this has helped me a lot.

<http://codingforinterviews.com/>

It doesn't look like they have historic emails but if you shoot me an email I'll forward them to you.

</comment><comment><USER4> I found this to be pretty helpful: [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Coding- Interview-Programming-...](http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Coding-Interview- Programming-Questions/dp/098478280X)

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://careercup.com> has sample interview questions and answers, sorted by problem category and company.</comment>


AngelSoft Relaunches as Gust.com, Now Connects Startups To Investors - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/13/angelsoft-relaunches-as-gust-com-now-connects-startups-to-investors/ <comment><USER2> This is just one more sign that investors fear AngelList. They are becoming increasingly desperate for anything that makes them not a commodity, and fragmentation is the only workable plan they have at this point.</comment>


What Are Websites Made Of? [Infographic] - <AUTHOR> http://sixrevisions.com/infographs/what-websites-madeof/

<comment><USER2> My personal favorite here is, without doubt, the analytics chart. _Amazingly_ vacuous visualisation. Doesn't really matter what you think of Tufte's work, but this type of presentation amounts to not much more than wasted space.

</comment><comment><USER3> Alternate title: How not to represent data in an infographic.

</comment><comment><USER4> Holy crap, that bulls-eye graph makes pie charts look extremely useful in comparison. Yuck yuck yuck.

</comment><comment><USER5> The web development language percentages only add up to 53.96% since it just shows stats for 3 languages, which probably aren't the top 3 most popular, as Ruby usage only comes in at 1.96%. The infographic could be improved to show usage percentages for say the top 10 most common languages.

<comment><USER6> I'm assuming that there are still a large number of static websites, without any server-side programming. But either way, a percent graph that doesn't add up to 100% is just absurd.

<comment><USER7> There are probably lots of static websites, but I also suspect that there were lots of dynamic web sites that are difficult to analyze.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting that ASP.NET is second only to PHP and holds a huge lead over RoR.

</comment><comment><USER9> The infographic is too full of eye candy (crap graphs) to be of any use. If you don't stare directly at the fans they cause an optical illusion and seem to spin.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just out of curiosity, where are they pulling the numbers from? I wasn't aware Internet Explorer had such a massive lead on Chrome.

<comment><USER11> IE probably has huge numbers because it's prevalent in the corporate world. Most corporations use Microsoft and either discourage or prevent their employees from downloading other browsers. If these people that are forced to use IE at work aren't tech savvy then they probably continue using IE at home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wonder how these numbers look when weighted by page views. Should be a good indication of what "happening" websites are made of.</comment>