Prashanth Chandrasekar Replacing Joel Spolsky as Stack Overflow CEO - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/09/24/announcing-stack-overflows-new-ceo-prashanth-chandrasekar? <comment><USER2> > We were looking for that rare combination of someone who could foster the > community while accelerating the growth of our businesses, especially Teams, > where we are starting to close many huge deals and becoming a hyper-growth > enterprise software company very quickly.

To bad they're on the hyper-growth train now as well, but I guess their investors want to get some money back. I'd preferred seeing them grow slow and stable, because I feel that focusing solely on growth often leads to decisions not in the interest of the users.

<comment><USER3> I suspect (based on nothing so take it for what that's worth) that the FogCreek Illuminati feel burned by the Trello experience: there they carefully tended, had high organic growth, spun it out to its own company after three years, and ended up selling for less than half a billion dollars _in 2017_. This is bad because 2017 was quite probably the highest valuations for privately held technology companies in this cycle, and they weren't a unicorn, unlike plenty of other companies at the time- Quora raised 85m at a 1.7g valuation in April 2017, to pick a business that FogCreek would know well.

SO, like Trello, took a long time to find a business model (honestly Trello never really did); it seems clear that SO Jobs didn't work, but enterprise sales is the key, just based on what they emphasized in the announcement. Using the SaaS website as a loss leader advertisement for the shrinkwrap software is an interesting model: I see it as somewhat similar to the old 'give away Unix and C free to universities, sell System V to the companies those students work at' model, modernized for the internet age.

<comment><USER4> I dunno. Quora had a 1.7B valuation but Trello had an actual exit. If I were an investor or employee I might prefer the latter. $425M exit after a mere 3 years of operation as an independent company is nothing to sniff at. Trello is merely a shared todo list, when you boil it down. Was a unicorn exit necessarily expected of them?

<comment><USER5> I agree with that premise. Quora will be lucky to bail out with a $425 million exit on the downside of this expansion. They're a decade old, the VCs are going to want their money soon and the clock is ticking on this long up-cycle (as the desperate IPO rush blatantly indicates). Who is paying $1+ billion for Quora? There are no overpaying buyers for that type of entity - Yahoo is dead, AOL is dead, and InteractiveCorp is far too shrewd to pay that extreme valuation. Quora is worth $100-$200m tops right now.

Genius is in the same boat. A decade old, failed premise (turns out people don't actually want to annotate everything), failed expansion plans (so... back to lyrics then), no business model. At the mercy of the VCs, they'll eventually be passed around for $10m or $20m like MySpace or Tumblr.

These companies are this start-up generation's About.com (or the latest eHow).

Simple rule for anyone doing a knowledge service: if you put the profit motive over the knowledge motive (which is the only choice if you take a lot of VC), your service will end up in the dustbin of history, no exceptions.

<comment><USER6> What exactly is the value of Quora? It's Yahoo Answers with better CSS and the idiots filtered out. I assume it's ad-supported - they have started supposedly sharing revenue with users.

It could disappear tomorrow and leave barely a memory.

<comment><USER7> Don't know about the idiots. My quora feed keeps coming up with pairs of "What is the square root of nnnn?" for seemingly random integer nnnn. Don't know how to stop it. When I feel like it, I answer "2".

<comment><USER8> Quora pays people who ask questions, based on how many views their question gets. Now it's full of people spamming as many questions as they can, trying to game it.

<comment><USER6> Ah. When they started, they were seeding it with high quality questions and famous answerers. I guess the floodgates have now opened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Prasanth was an I-banker. Looks like SO is being set up for a sale, most likely to private equity or as someone else said perhaps Microsoft.

<comment><USER10> Not in his recent roles. His focus was on execution at Rackspace, plain and simple.

<comment><USER11> I love Stack Overflow but there's a lot about this announcement that doesn't make sense.

One: is Rackspace really such a great company? Hard to say. Maybe this CEO was able to achieve great results there. From where I'm sitting, Rackspace is a third-tier cloud infrastructure provider at best, falling farther and farther behind competent "supermarkets" like Azure/GCE/AWS, as well as niche providers like Digital Ocean, Hetzner, or Softlayer.

As for the announcement itself, this feels _incredibly_ "photoshopped". I give Joel a lot of credit for stepping back from something he wasn't excited about, but this press release reads as just this -- a press release. This is the guy who wrote "Hitting the High Notes", "The Guerilla Guide to Interviewing", and many other fantastic essays. The entire tone of this release just screamed "PR".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I predict Microsoft will acquire SO in the next 5 years.

<comment><USER13> It would be interesting to see it integrate with GitHub. Not sure if that's a good thing, but it would definitely be interesting.

<comment><USER14> And VS Code time and time again showing suggestions from SO Answers and Github - Coding made easy for any!

<comment><USER15> And after people provide them with enough suggestions-samples-picks, they will train AI to do the coding for you.

<comment><USER16> Then we'll just need some sort of a language to explain to the model what we want the software to do....

<comment><USER17> "Cortana, make the bike shed pink instead ..." ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I hope when he asked why he was getting replaced he got a [DUPLICATE QUESTION] reply.

<comment><USER19> Or even better, the classic SO "What are you _actually_ trying to do?" non- answer!

<comment><USER20> > _Or even better, the classic SO "What are you actually trying to do?" non- > answer!_

I've never contributed anything to SO, but this is one of the most valuable answers they could give.

Worst case, the people helping you can better understand the context around what you're trying to accomplish. Best case they recognize that there's a much easier way to do what you're trying to do, when you're too busy bashing your head against the wall on the particular implementation that you chose.

So often when people get stuck, it's because they were shaving a Great Brown yak.

But the Great Brown Yak can only be shaved with a razor from Bhutan. So they go to get the Bhutaneese razor but first they need to prove their worth by climbing the nearby mountain.

In order to climb that mountain they need the best climbing gear in the world, which is only available from a small shop in Honduras.

To get to Honduras from Bhutan they need their passport, but they lost the page with their photo on it.

Since they can't get back to their home country they need to get a passport photo some other way.

So they go to Stack Overflow and beg for someone to help them forge a passport photo.

SO asks what they're trying to accomplish, and they mention they need some Yak fur, and it needs to be brown.

SO suggests that they shave the Minor Brown Yak which can be shaved with an off the shelf Gillette but produces indistinguishable brown Yak fur, and could be done in five minutes.

<comment><USER21> Nice parable. :) This is sometimes called the "XY problem."

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

<comment><USER22> Another parable

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_Hole_in_My_Bucke...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_Hole_in_My_Bucket)

<comment><USER19> Yea, I'm aware of the XY problem. It is still irritating when someone presumes to know your problem statement better than you and insists on having you change your question. Sometimes I simply want to learn the answer to this very specific question and not keep restating my problem until I find one the answerer knows the answer to.

A better way to respond would be: "Here is how to do precisely what you're asking, but there may be a better way if you more clearly stated your end goal."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Thanks Joel for number of years that you have been a thought leader, nudging developer communities towards right direction. There are may be 5 people who could have started stackoverflow successfully, Joel was one of them. He had a huge, cult like following before starting SO and he leveraged that in creating a product which is immensely useful to many users. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER24> They went theough 200 candidates and finally decided in the former rackspace ceo? Look for stackoverflow paid services getting a big push.

<comment><USER25> I heard from someone who worked at Rackspace that Chandrasekar was a Senior VP, not CEO.

<comment><USER26> Confirmed on his LinkedIn:

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/pchandrasekar](https://www.linkedin.com/in/pchandrasekar)

Rackspace trajectory:

Rackspace - 7 years

Senior Vice President & GM, Cloud & Infrastructure Services 2019 – Present

Senior Vice President & GM, Global Managed Public Clouds Business 2017 – 2019

Vice President & GM, Global AWS Business Unit 2015 – 2017

Senior Director & GM, SMB Marquee Business Segment 2013 – 2015

Director & Chief of Staff 2012 – 2013

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I worked with Prashanth at Barclays. He was principled, energetic, had a great attitude, low on ego and worked his ass off. I personally feel SO stagnated a bit over the past few years. I don't think this would be an easy job for anyone but I genuinely believe he has the potential to bring back the right kind of creative energy and enthusiasm into the products. I wish him the best of luck.

<comment><USER28> What kind of culture did he create?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Under his leadership, Rackspace successfully pivoted from a leading managed > hosting company to a cloud services company

That's a pretty big deal and probably saved them from looming irrelevance.

<comment><USER30> No, it just moved their existing customers from trash level hosting at luxury prices with "Fanatical Support"(tm), to trash level cloud services at luxury prices with "Fanatical Support"(tm).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Now would be a good time to spin up a Stack Overflow alternative. By the time VCs are done with SO, there will only be a smoldering crater.

</comment><comment><USER32> people that yet dont know that, read Joel's blog and books. He shares so many gold nuggets

<comment><USER33> second this, can not remember reading an article that did not give me a new perspective on the topic.

Also Jeff Atwood, the other cofounder of SO has a blog that is very informative called Coding Horror.

<comment><USER34> The good old days when there would be at least one Coding Horror post at the top in HN, regularly.

<comment><USER28> Don't think the new CEO will be doing any of that sadly

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is quite surprising from Joel... So the new CEO is MBA and doesn't even seem to have profile on StackOverflow. This tell me he has little clue how this complex community hangs on balance and what makes it tick. It's also painful to see that we have now one of the largest website for developers run by guy who isn't a developer. It looks like this person's main achievement was to create business unit at Rackspace. How does it help building open community like SO? I can't help but reminded of Jobs bringing in Scully with enthusiasm to do "business things". I have admired Joel's writing and wisdom for years but this somehow feels wrong given they could have chose almost anyone from their vast highly dedicated user base who understands the complex dynamics in SO community. Do we expect full blown value destroying commercialization of SO from now on?

</comment><comment><USER28> This person doesn't seem to be a real technologist, unlike Spolsky. That maybe OK in most compsniea, but seems like a risky choice for a company so developer-focused.

<comment><USER36> I will never understand why tech companies suddenly let non tech people step up as CEO.

It _always_ failed (failed = does not continue on the same trajectory; at best is stable and in the long term eaten up by more innovative companies).

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The OP created their Hacker News account 21 days ago and has only posted 2 articles, both about Stack Overflow. It looks an awful lot like someone is just trying to drive site traffic to SO with this post. It wont matter much but I figured it was worth pointing out ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

</comment><comment><USER38> It's interesting to see how Joel's stance on VC-backed businesses seems to have changed over the years. I think he was clearly against it in his FogCreek/FogBugz days, but now seems to have come round to the idea.

I wonder if he regrets not taking VC money earlier - maybe then FogBugz would be the new jira, and FogCreek would be as big as Atlassian.

<comment><USER39> But Atlassian was bootstrapped for a lot of its history. It didn't take VC funding until 2010 when Stack Overflow did too. Fogbugz isn't much older than Atlassian.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Congrats to the CEO. Welcome to the issues of SO. I have a major problem with the way SO is handling the license agreements and Joel's opinion on developer side projects as well. I plan to make a public statement on my YouTube channel about it. I'm so sick of tech companies thinking they can act however they want with impunity.

<comment><USER41> Can you share what the issues are with license agreements?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Anybody else noticing StackOverflow is not the number one source to get answers anymore?

<comment><USER42> I feel like I find more useful answers in GitHub issues (also through google) now than a year or two ago

<comment><USER43> I think this could be a function of what you have been working on. If you're working on cutting edge/niche things, github might be better. For good ol' tech stack, Stackoverflow is still golden.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Empty suit

</comment><comment><USER45> Yes! We need more diversity in the executives club!

<comment><USER46> How is this materially different from an old white dude cheering for more white people?

<comment><USER47> I don't actually think the comment you replied to is necessarily productive.

That being said, your hypothetical is materially different in that it's literally not increasing the type of diversity they were referring to. This is assuming a reasonable metric of diversity, probably similar to something I've encountered, Shannon entropy, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any interest in a startup book review site? - <AUTHOR>

(Treat this as a customer discovery phase)
After searching for some non-trivial amount of time I have yet to find a good review site/blog that caters to books of interest to the start up community. Since we're always strapped for time, I wonder whether it would help to create a site that would serve as a hub for these book reviews.
The core value here isn't just the reviews themselves but other related resources - TED talks, slides, HN discussion threads, case studies, links to "I used the advice in this book and this was my experience" articles, etc.
A peripheral value here is this site/blog would be indexed, categorized and of course searchable. <comment><USER2> <http://hn-books.com> is on the same lines.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I hadn't come across that in my search.

That site seems to solve the problem of finding book recommendations in a way that's easily filtered/sorted. I like the fact that it lists additional versions (ebook, pdf, etc.) of the book.

My thoughts were that the community might want to read reviews from a startup- oriented individual rather than the default synopsis from the book's publisher. I also imagined that multiple reviewers could review the same book (either on the hub site or their own blog).

<comment><USER2> DanielBMarkham, who runs hn books does write reviews as well. Letting users review would probably be a nice addition.

Since you are going down the lean path, presumably you want to make money from this. How will you do that?

<comment><AUTHOR> I wasn't exactly looking to make it a business but enough money to cover operational costs. The revenue could be a mix of affiliate links + Adsense (kept to a minimal).

The focus here is to create a community-focused treasure trove of startup knowledge rather than a page-view focused content site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.hackerbooks.com/book/learning-python-3rd- edition/...](http://www.hackerbooks.com/book/learning-python-3rd- edition/0596513984)

<http://bibliotechnical.com/books/learning-python>

I made the latter; the problem I ran into was generating quality reviews and related information. I found it was going to take a lot of manual curation to get good results.

HN is also a tough crowd for this kind of project, I think you would be more profitable trying to optimize for people searching for 'java book' instead of those looking for the 'best java book given that I know how to program and know these other languages'.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.goodreads.com/> already exists. It simply lacks a strong HN- focused community. As others pointed out, we also have hn-books.com.

</comment><comment><USER5> We already have hn-books.com and, IIRC, at least one competitor.

The transparent commerciality (bit.ly -> Amazon affiliate links) turns me off, but others may think otherwise.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, not sure why people have objection to this. It's not like they are affected. Sure, it reveals a motivation that otherwise might not be there, but everyone has hidden motivations.</comment></comment>


With a Filter Bypass and Some Hexadecimal,Credit Card Numbers Are Google-able - <AUTHOR> http://www.toptal.com/web/with-a-filter-bypass-credit-card-numbers-are-still-still-google-able

<comment><USER2> Use Hex, Luke!</comment>


Lawyer: 'It's a Free for All' for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/30/lawyer-its-a-free-for-all-for-criminals-on-bart/ <comment><USER2> This is why it's hard to get support for public transit funding. People don't want to take public transit if they will fear for their lives, or be surrounded by drug addicts and mentally disturbed people yelling at and spitting on other passengers.

BART trains and stations are like this on a regular basis; Muni has the same problems but not as bad. I've seen this kind of thing happen on Caltrain late at night also, but much less often. I have never, ever seen it happen in London or anywhere in Japan.

It's easy for people in the Bay Area to believe this is what all public transit is like, unless they have experienced better systems elsewhere. Why would they want to use it, or pay for it with their tax money? It's safer to take your own car, or an Uber.

I'm a big fan of public transit, especially trains, but it's just never going to be improved in the Bay Area if people don't feel safe.

<comment><USER3> Is this just an American thing? Healthcare funding, or something?

I've never been to SF, but I've visited NYC, and the subway there feels like stepping in to a horror movie.

During a two week visit I saw people passing out and being ignored (I was the only one attempting to help), individuals swinging around bricks in socks, and various other obvious examples of severely mentally ill individuals.

In London I've never seen anything like it.

It genuinely felt like stepping in to some sort of twilight zone. Compounded by the fact that other commuters seemed jaded, as if it was normal to be regularly surrounded by individuals who act more like rogue AIs than human beings.

<comment><USER4> The funny thing is that, to me, the NYC system seems to work so much better than San Francisco's, based on my usage of it. And NYC also has a much bigger police presence than San Francisco, which results in it feeling like a much safer city.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. NYC didn't feel much worse than London or Berlin. Even late at night. Public transport in SF was _scary_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you take BART and ride into Oakland -- you are on your own.

There is no one that will protect you. My next door neighbor was assaulted. She was brutalized. Sigh. It was bad. THEN she went home, reported it with police.

This is where it gets weird. The people that assaulted her -- armed with her ID card went to her _APARTMENT_ \-- luckly she was somewhere else with her parents. The people that brutalized her ransacked her apartment without care of being caught.

The detective on the case was really awesome from Oakland PD. He talked with me since I saw one of the guys leave the apartment. He mentioned: "She is lucky". Unfortunately, he explained, there is no way to prosecute these guys unless there is camera evidence.

<comment><USER7> This ideology of inaction, or "nothing" we can do about it, is a phenomenon unique to the bay area. I used to live there, and it is one of the reasons I left. Criminal activity is not pursued, bad behavior is not penalized. I'm sure there are many reasons, but I suspect a big factor is that police and politicians are afraid of cracking down due to the political fallout and backlash. There is a palpable disdain for police officers there.

The ironic thing is the people who are mostly likely voters and taxpayers are the ones who are fed up with the crime and leaving.

<comment><USER8> Yea I'm in SF not sure how long I'll last.

It's a cess pool. Criminals have more rights than children.

There was a crazy homeless guy who would shit everyday in front of a school in Bernal. The police couldn't do anything about it.

You are completely right about the fear of political fallout for wanting to uphold the law. It's sad.

<comment><USER9> > _You are completely right about the fear of political fallout for wanting to > uphold the law._

The erosion of respect for the rule of law is a direct result of the attempt to use law to implement a top-down social design, chiefly the "war on drugs". With policing being a public good, those with the least means _should_ appreciate police _the most_. But rather their communities were persecuted using the police, and so those communities were pushed into adopting an alternative view. Similarly, even mainstream society does not actually expect police to be helpful towards us but rather as a source of trouble to be avoided (eg speeding tickets).

Given that public opinion cannot be directly changed, good initial steps to restoring public faith in the institution would be to eliminate invasive vice legislation, completely remove police from the enforcement of traffic regulations, as well as fully prosecuting criminals even when they're police officers.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure I follow or agree with your first premise RE war on drugs. (The 'why')

But I do agree on your initial steps for restoring public faith.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm sure that some other people have run into this scam on BART but I had it happen a few years ago.

Right before the doors close at the SFO BART stop headed to Milbrae, a guy runs on all out of breath yelling and pleading for money to get a ticket for his sick daughter. He's a war vet and needs to get her to the hospital in Travis but they won't let her on the plane for some reason etc...Does this till the Milbrae stop and I assume gets on going back and does it again.

When I told him I'd help him if he could just produce his mil-ID or VA-ID he came over and flashed a wad of 50's and 100's and threateningly said "I don't need to show you shit." Then went back to his histrionics.

Obviously this wasn't an attack, or illegal but it was pretty brazen, as it was in front of everyone and he didn't even seem to care that everyone saw his huge wad of cash. Most of the people I see doing illegal stuff on BART (and even on WMATA here in DC) don't really seem to think anyone is going to stop them and they seem to be right most of the time.

<comment><USER11> Ha, I had a guy similar to this today on the SFO airtram going from the rental car drop off to the terminal. He got on at International A and got off at the next stop.

Like your guy, he was pleading for money for his daughter. He had a very long back story, including the fact that a police officer already gave him $17 (and referred to the cop by name). Lots of unnecessary detail like that, trying to make it seem more plausible.

Everyone ignored him. He got off then jumped on the train going the opposite direction.

I wonder how much he makes a day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was especially surprised when that gang of 50 people stormed a Bart and robbed a bunch of passengers and nobody was ever arrested. I don't know if it's the Bart police at fault or the Oakland police but it sure seems like law enforcement is weak on the Bart.

<comment><USER5> Very rarely see police on the Tube in London (or in Berlin, Lisbon, Milan or Barcelona for that matter). Still little crime (other than pickpockets) and practically no violent crime.

Seems to me like the problem is probably bigger than just failings in law enforcement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is, I think, partially the result of decriminalization. When a vocal sub- population says "oh no, but poor people have no agency, and therefore no choice but to commit crime / evade fares, etc. and we should be more lenient" this is the result. And the people who suffer the disproportionately are the working class who rely on public transit.

Even if BART doesn't have enough officers, spending a few thousand to put up high-def cameras so some other PD can kick open these assailants' doors and arrest them would help significantly.

<comment><USER14> Evading fares is one thing. Assaulting people us a whole other matter!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My coworker was sexually assaulted on the BART, on the East Bay side of the tracks. A group of youths started sitting around her, took off her headphones, groped her, took her picture several times with them groping her, laughed and then left after terrorizing her for 10 minutes unabated. There was nothing she could do, she is a tiny, attractive Asian female sitting by herself and no one stepped in to help her (to be fair, who would risk themselves by stepping in against a large group of youths). She contacted the police, but they said there was nothing they could do and frankly they couldn't have cared any less. She never took the BART again, and moved to the peninsula.

There's nothing stopping criminals from victimizing you except the law of large numbers, meaning your only protection is dumb luck these days, and not the police. And if it happens to you, the police largely won't do anything about it.

<comment><USER16> "These days"? So there was some magical protection against criminals in the past, which no longer exists?

<comment><USER17> Yes, it was called the criminal justice system. At some point along the way we decided to have a minimal police force and prosecute only the most obvious and heinous crimes, letting all kinds of "low level" stuff like this become effectively consequence-free.

<comment><USER16> Sources on when "we" decided that and on the actual reduction in numbers of police, please.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yeah, BART police is a joke. I don't remember ever seeing a BART police officer riding a train with me. I rarely see them in stations. Getting in and out without paying almost seems easier than paying. SF and Oakland officers never stroll through stations, which is so obviously wrong from a public safety standpoint, yet it seems to be policy. Then again I rarely see SF police officers walking the streets as it is.

Yet we just kind of let it happen. Not sure what to do to fix it.

<comment><USER18> Fixing it is easy. Arrest and prosecute criminal behavior. California won't do it though. It's only a matter of time till some of the larger tech companies decide that the Bay Area is too far gone and start leaving.

<comment><USER19> What makes you think the people who make these sorts of decisions are exposed to any of this?

<comment><USER18> When people stop taking jobs in these areas. Not sure how long that will take. I do remember reading how the American Medical Association canceled their conference in San Francisco due to the homeless issues. [https://abc7news.com/medical-association-cancels-san- francis...](https://abc7news.com/medical-association-cancels-san-francisco- convention/3693233/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The HN demographic skews male, and I suspect a lot of the men who are big fans of public transport here fail to appreciate how unsafe many women feel on those systems.

<comment><USER21> Yes. There's a reason that Japan created a new term "Chikan" to describe gropers on trains. It's exceedingly common. Recent reports, suggest that almost every woman who has used a underground in Japan regularly has been groped at some point.

I asked the women in Japan who I know well enough, and they confirmed this.

Japan tries to combat this with female only carriages.

I was recently talking to a woman in the US about this, she suggested that it was also quite common in the US. So perhaps, there's just a more public discussion about this in Japan.

I'd love to see statistics on this, if anyone has them.

<comment><USER22> Groping is certainly an issue in Japan, but much less so than in the past. MOJ stats show around 8K cases/year in the sixties and seventies, with that dropping to ~1.5K by 1990 and ~1K in recent years. (Anecdotally it's probably dropped even more than that, as one would expect more cases went unreported in the 60s than today.)

Stats: e.g. [http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001178520.pdf](http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001178520.pdf)

Side note: according to an article I read at some point, women-only train carriages have apparently not noticeably affected statistics on groping cases. (Which is not to suggest they're not worthwhile for other reasons.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The April 22nd attack was the thing that drove me to pull the trigger on my plans to leave the bay area. I was not going to live in a place where the local authorities were unwilling or unable to keep me safe to that degree.

I'm glad that now, finally, the victims of that might be getting some justice

</comment><comment><USER24> If BART wants its ridership to feel safe they need two things: increase officer presence (and prosecute vigorously) and two add cameras all over their properties. No fake pretend cameras. Deter and prosecute violators. Looking the other way when things happen, slaps on the wrists, etc., don't work.

I think BART is shy because at least there is one incident of manslaughter by one of their officers. On the other hand not having officers also leads to death and assuaults of passengers and loss of ridership.

Have a strict code of conduct, enforce it vigorously, train officers properly and educate riders via station and in car infation systems.

Otherwise it risks going into a service death spiral.

<comment><USER25>
      one incident of manslaughter by one of their officers

If you're referring to Oscar Grant[0], the verdict was involuntary manslaughter, but I thought it was clearly murder (with, perhaps, questionable sanity) -- Grant was fully subdued and not resisting when he was shot.

Ironically, the sentence of IM plus the gun enhancement meant more prison time than Voluntary Manslaughter alone would have.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Closin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Closing_arguments_and_verdict)

<comment><USER24> Obviously they need better training --they should not accidentally shoot people/suspects under control. They could make more use of K9 units to neutralize suspects as well --much as they do in Germany.

We should demand more from their security forces as well as from the public both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm a big dude, 6'2" and broad shouldered, and even I regularly feel unsafe on BART. I've seen tweakers spit on women and attack them, I've seen out of their mind bums screaming racist slurs at people in their face, and yet I've never seen cops do anything about it. Likewise, I even see BART employees at that window open the disabled stall and emergency exit for homeless people and tweakers to get into BART. If they'd just keep the people out who aren't paying, they'd fix most of the issues but they don't even bother. Although, I have seen more cops lately patrolling BART stations (Montgomery and Embarcadero during business hours...) but never seen them in the trains.

</comment><comment><USER27> It seems like the Bay Area is going through what New York City went through in the 1970s and 1980s.

<comment><USER16> Not really. Check the violent crime stats before making such claims.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Given our overall expenditures on BART, would it cost so very much to ramp up security presence to a level that would prevent at least 90% of these offenses?

BART is a critical resource in the Bay Area. It has to be safe and reliable to be useful. I feel like we've spent 95% of what is needed, but haven't gone above the 75% yield threshold.

<comment><USER29> By stopping free rides the enforcement will pay for itself and the empty cars will make everyone happier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This sounds like the symptoms of a death spiral to me. BART doesn't have enough money to police its cars and stations. They get sued for failing to provide security, resulting in even less money for policing...

However, I'm not sure whether it's actually true that BART is low on funds.

</comment><comment><USER8> Same is true for San Francisco.

Criminals have more rights than children.

Or taxpayers...

If we are to have a functional civilization we must remain open but also learn how to say no to unacceptable behavior.

Especially the egregious. Like you see everyday. People littering, shooting up and shitting on the sidewalk.

Meanwhile our legislators are passing laws to limit the amount of restaurants in certain neighborhoods. Or trying to ban companies from having their own cafeterias.

It's the ideology of 'sounding good'.

Empiricism needs to take its place.

<comment><USER31> You're the second person I've seen to say "Criminals have more rights than children"

Where do you get your talking points from?

<comment><USER32> I can't speak for the above commenter, but in a way street people in SF really are more free than employed people. If I were to break into a car and steal stuff I'd get jailed and released a couple days later, or even the same day. But I'd probably get fired. Whereas someone with no job would get jaled and released with no real consequences. Because the city refuses to enforce many crimes (basically, anything short of significant violence) beyond catching and releasing, the only thing keeping people in line are their employers and peers. And if someone doesn't have a job and their peers don't care about committing crimes, then a whole bunch of stuff becomes de-facto legal.

<comment><USER8> I agree. I try not to think about it. Or what I could do for myself and the community with my tax dollars. Instead of sending them 5000 miles away to DC. What a joke.

Also not to mention, if you were jailed for some reason, you'd get fired and probably fined $10,000. If you don't have the money: Well, Welcome to the streets!

People are so ego-invested in this absurd and hysterical reality. I don't get it. I will say it seems to be reinforced every minute through our tv media.

For example, sometimes when I speak with someone hysterical (80% of SF and some of my family now) they'll calm down and we'll have an open rational (non- ideological) dialogue. After, I think to myself 'ok it's not all lost'.

Then I see them again and they're back to the hysteria. It's like a robot who forgot their programming.

<comment><USER33> It seems to be a similar sort of addiction as Candy Crush. Hysteria is a kind of entertainment, always easily accessible.

<comment><USER8> I haven't thought of it that way. That's a good one. It seems to tie into fear porn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> In Melbourne, we have a special police force (protective services officers) to patrol train stations at night.

The anti-authoritarian in my dislikes them, but by all accounts (especially from my female friends), they're actually great. Their mandate is only to stop violence and disorderly behaviour, and they're actually super chill. Ticket inspection and fare evasion isn't part of their purview, which means they're not just armed ticket inspectors. I've had lost of friendly conversations with them while waiting for the train. Compare this to Sydney, where they post full fledged police officers with drug dogs at train stations, which is straight up fascist.

The PSOs are also really great at helping out with medical emergencies. I actually see them applying first aid more often than I seem them arresting people.

I know that HN is generally an anti-police crowd, and I have no idea what the financial implications would be for getting something like that on the BART (in Melbourne there's generally 2 officers at each station), but they do generally make the train stations a lot safer at night. I don't want to wade too deep into the gun control debate, but it also helps that petty criminals in Australia don't have guns. Unless you're involved with organised crime, there's almost chance you'll be a victim of gun violence here.

<comment><USER35> I don't like the police any more than you do, but calling police presence in train stations "straight up fascist" cheapens the term.

When you call every slightly authoritarian policy "straight up fascist", nobody will take you seriously when you denounce _actually_ fascist regimes.

<comment><USER34> Having police with drug dogs, posted at train stations to catch random people with personal quantities of drugs is straight up fascist in my opinion.

Drug use crosses socioeconomic lines, yet drug dogs at train stations (targeted in the poorer suburbs too) ends up unfairly targeting poor people (who are often minorities), especially as wealthier people tend to drive rather than take public transport. Send some drug dogs through the bank offices on a Friday evening and see how much coke you find. Instead they're busting poor people for having a gram of weed on them.

Personally, I'd rather that they didn't have drug dogs at all, they tend to victimise users rather than actually stop the root cause of the "problem" (I'm not a fan of drug prohibition at all), i.e. the dealers and the traffickers. Drug traffickers aren't going to be transporting commercial quantities of drugs on the train, they're going to be driving cars. Drug dogs are also generally ineffective and respond more to their handlers signals than actually detecting drugs by scent and are therefore susceptible to their handlers biases, further victimising minorities.

<comment> King-Aaron I smoke pot, and don't like the idea of being targeted at train stations because I smoked a spliff the night before while wearing the same sweater. FYI I am not 'poor' and I do have a small fleet of my own cars, but people with a small quantity of money behind them a) also like to smoke drugs on occasion and b) also do use public transport.

Edit: I realize that sounded a bit snide, apologies. I think my point is that it's not so much a fascist thing, and I agree with the GP that calling the draconian drug policies fascist does detract from the _legitimately_ scary/quasi-fascist things that are going on. I fear that the more we misconstrue these kinds of arguments, the harder it will be to make progress.

<comment><USER34> I guess calling it all-out fascist is perhaps a hyperbole. But it's creeping authoritarianism.

To me though, having police posted with dogs at train stations just looks especially authoritarian. Police dogs (whether drug dogs or attack dogs) are primarily a tool for intimidation.

<comment> King-Aaron I agree with you tbh. Considering the tremendous false positive rate with sniffer dogs too, I find the use of them especially hard to justify as anything other than intimidation.

Got to remember though that when police do big operations like that, they _may_ also often be looking for one specific target/individual, but have to use a blanket approach to apprehend them. So while you may be caught up in the "random" checks, they may just be using it as a facade to catch a truly dangerous person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Does BART have unlimited liability for the actions of others? Probably not.

Should BART have more security at problem stations? Sure.

Most of this sounds like a failure of the local police though, transit security is generally not going to handle reporting assault and theft, as those are the jurisdiction of the municipality where the crime occured.

<comment><USER37> AFAIK bart police are actual peace officers: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_Polic...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_Police_Department) I remember i used to see ads of theirs years ago, prominently displaying their 150K starting salary.

Anecdotally, i agree that riding bart has felt sketchier the past few years. I generally ride from SF to Lake Merritt or 12th St Oakland.

<comment><USER38> > prominently displaying their 150K starting salary

I thought that seemed high, but they are still paid quite well.

[https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Bart-Police-Officer- Salarie...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Bart-Police-Officer- Salaries-E13156_D_KO5,19.htm)

<comment><USER39> There are lots of BART security job vacancies, probably because no matter how high the salary it would be a very dangerous job. This is similar to the social situation in NYC when the Guardian Angels were formed, but what is extraordinary is how wealthy the bay area is today compared to 1980's New York area... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels)

<comment><USER20> Law enforcement is not even on the top 10 list for most dangerous jobs. I suspect there must be other reasons for the high vacancy rate.

[http://time.com/5074471/most-dangerous-jobs/](http://time.com/5074471/most- dangerous-jobs/)

<comment><USER40> This statistic might be completely different on BART officers only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have heard it said that BART is still safer, despite these recent crimes, than walking the streets that BART travels under.

<comment><USER42> Suppose it depends on what street you are referencing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> It doesn't seem quite that bad in St. Louis, but the Metrolink has a lot of similar characteristics.

Just the fact that all the platforms are open (there are no turnstiles, so you don't even need to pay a cent to board a train or lurk on a platform, any time of day) seems like a major contributing factor.

And in my recent rides, maybe 1/5 times would there ever be a person checking tickets.

It's definitely a chicken-and-egg problem here—nobody wants the lines expanded if their only experiences are dodgy and slow at best. And it doesn't help that the local news seems to highlight all the public transit crimes on a weekly basis (especially on slower news weeks).

<comment><USER44> Having gotten a failure to pay ticket on metro the first time I ride for not understanding the system I can tell you it's quite steep $90 in 2000. And it only takes the officers about four stops to walk the whole train. That's a lot of rides without a fare ticket to pay for the one penalty ticket.

Also you can often get tickets from other riders. I get asked for my stubs every time I'm in town

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> How about putting cameras in train?

</comment><comment><USER46> I will need to ride the BART this Friday and this thread is not giving me much confidence...

<comment><USER47> If you're riding during rush hour you will be fine. During the work day (between rush hours) is also okay, but less people around.

Riding early morning or at night is when the real trouble generally happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Funny that I'm reading this as I'm riding BART.

</comment><comment><USER49> My self defense is someone else's responsibility...

</comment><comment><USER50> Maybe they should issue more concealed carry permits in bay area counties. It's wrong for the police to simultaneously neglect your protection and also prevent you from protecting yourself.

<comment><USER51> It's probably safer to just carry a little extra cash and pay off the robbers..

<comment><USER52> I don't think that's a good idea. Seeing you have some cash on hand is a signal that you are more well-of and they might be more incentivized than they were previously to take your bag/wallet/etc. Basically there's no incentive for them to stop at just taking that extra cash when they can take that _and_ whatever else they were planning to.

<comment><USER53> The trick is to dramatically throw all the cash into the air and run. :)

<comment><USER2> While you are in an enclosed train car? Good luck getting away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> "Sibia caught a glimpse of a revolver in the man's waist, and let go. The assailant slipped out just as the train doors closed behind him, he said."

I was under the impression that concealed carry permits are extremely difficult to get in the vast majority of California?

<comment><USER55> Criminals don't bother to try and get permits.

<comment><USER56> "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

<comment><USER26> And yet the countries that make obtaining guns more difficult are still much safer. It's almost like if you rigorously regulate guns and have strict background checks, you can dramatically reduce gun violence... see Japan or Switzerland as proof where you can still own a gun but they don't have mass shootings like we do here. And no, mental illness isn't the issue. We have roughly the same amount of mentally ill as other countries, it's the easy access to funds that explains the 10x increase in gun violence.

<comment><USER55> That doesn't prove anything because those countries were also much safer than the US before they had gun control. [https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/doc...](https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf) (page 2).

Until 1978, you could buy handguns and automatic weapons in Canada without a license. You could buy rifles without a license until the 1990s. But the gap in US-Canadian homicide rates was the lowest in 1960. And the gap was largest during the first 40 years of the 20th century, before Canada required licensing and background checks.

Australia shows the same pattern. It introduced major gun control in the 1990s. But the gap in US-Australian homicide rates actually shrank after that time: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gu...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf/page1-640px- Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf.jpg)

<comment><USER26> Australia didn't have a single mass shooting after they imposed strict gun control in the 90s. You're just ignoring the evidence that's right in front of you. Gun control works—period.

<comment><USER57> Please don't cross into personal attack, regardless of how wrong you think another commenter is.

We've had to ask you this more than once before.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> From June/July

<comment><USER59> so?</comment></comment>


Take time out, particularly when you're really busy. - <AUTHOR> http://sgaw.tumblr.com/post/25150715387/the-depressed-developer

<comment><USER2> Like in sports, the right balance between load and relief makes you perform.</comment>


The world is socialist - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/c8f0a6dfffab <comment><USER3> _If you want to go back to the point where we decided to be socialist and try to undo it, you 're going to have to kill most of the people on the planet who depend on the current system for sustenance. And like it or not, that probably includes you. It certainly includes most of the idiots running around preaching Ayn Rand these days._

This is my favorite part. So many people who claim, or seem to have taken inspiration from Rand would, in fact, be "bad guys" in Atlas Shrugged. A nice example is Paul Ryan, who has spent his entire life in politics instead of actually creating anything useful. There are also a number of nice examples of people who would almost certainly be "good guys", but who are Democrats in real life (not that a Democrat can't be selfish, but the GOP seems to have claimed Rand lately). Bill Gates is the most obvious example, right down to getting blind-sided by government regulators in the 90s (whether the regulators were right or wrong, legally speaking, is immaterial here BTW).

<comment><USER4> _" So many people who claim, or seem to have taken inspiration from Rand would, in fact, be "bad guys" in Atlas Shrugged."_

Case in point: Rand hated Libertarians.[1]

Some typical examples from the article:

\- She called Libertarianism _" a mockery of philosophy and ideology"_

\- She accused Libertarians of _" slinging slogans and trying to ride on two bandwagons"_

Later, she accuses them of entertaining _" amateur political notions"_ and _" rushing into politics in order to get publicity"_.

She says that Libertarians

\- are based on _" half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas"_.

\- _" spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas"_.

\- _" are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable."_

\- would _" like to have an amoral political program"_

[1] - [http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=113321](http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=113321)

<comment><USER5> Rand hated everyone apart from tall, arrogant & selfish men.

<comment><USER6> And those only if she could convince to have sex with her or obey her otherwise. Else, she hated them too.

Basically, she hated everyone apart from herself.

<comment><USER7> > Basically, she hated everyone apart from herself.

No evidence, but my gut says that self-hate was at the root of it all. Arrogance usually masks feelings of inferiority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ayn Rand was a strange and interesting woman who, among other things, sexually abused her most devoted fans and manipulated them in horrible ways. She was never considered an important, serious, or good writer, and her works were ridiculed pretty much as soon as people first first laid eyes on them. But, her novels are, to this day, bestsellers, especially popular, as you write yourself, with teenagers. They are meant to spark a feeling of grandeur, which they effectively do as the task is not hard by any means in people of that age.

Refuting her claims and observations may be a bit redundant as they've never been taken seriously outside a very specific circle, but since her ideas have been influential inside that circle, and because said circle is not small in the US, where, quite amazingly, Rand's works are liked even by some _adults_ (it's hard to believe but it's true), you can always shoot some more arrows into that corpse, for whatever good that would do. She does make an easy, and fun, target, and there are all those teenagers you can upset, which is always fun to watch. As to those American adults still fond of her works well into their mid-twenties and even beyond, well, it's best to keep a safe distance from them. Once you do, you might want to go back for a more sober look at Ayn Rand because she was a fascinating person, and her ideas have influenced some of the more colorful branches of American politics. Here's a famous interview she gave Mike Wallace in 1959: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouBZ- YqOnsU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouBZ-YqOnsU)

<comment><USER9> > sexually abused her most devoted fans

Source?

<comment><USER8> Sources aplenty. There are probably other authors who could claim the same, but I doubt there are any women among them :) An interesting character, indeed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 1\. Can we agree that both full socialism and full rand style capitalism end in tears?

2\. Token rebuttals.

a. Someone lives irresponsibly, I live responsibly. The sick that comes for us all devastates them early and I'm told "since we all get sick, they got sick much earlier due to all the crack and booze, they can't pay because they were grasshoppering it up while you worked, so now you pay". This is an extreme example, but I work in healthcare and I think I'm no stable ground saying that you can substitute cheeseburger for crack and get a majority. Is this how we want to set things up and call it just?

b. Snow comes. I get out my shovel and go help my neighbor. I don't think doing this flies in the face of Rand. I do it because it is right to do in my gut because I know I'm fit to do it and they aren't. I don't think Rand says not to shovel, I think she says it is MY CHOICE to shovel or not and I own that moral choice after I make it. There's still a right and a wrong choice.

<comment><USER11> When somebody gets TB, regardless of their lifestyle, is it in your best interests that they get a full course of treatment in an isolation ward in hospital, or that they wander the streets coughing blood all over the place and incubate a new drug-resistant strain? Is it in your best interests that tap water is maintained by competing for-profit companies (see Victorian Britain and cholera), and is it better for you to pay 'insurance' to competing for-profit fire services?

<comment><USER12> > is it in your best interests that they get a full course of treatment in an > isolation ward in hospital, or that they wander the streets coughing blood > all over the place and incubate a new drug-resistant strain?

That's a false dichotomy. An example of a 3rd option is to put them in an isolation ward, and allow them to simply die if they can't pay for treatment.

When it comes to medical care, the question of how to allocate resources on quality of life improvements is never so simply and black and white.

<comment><USER11> > That's a false dichotomy.

No it's not, it already happened in New York in the 90's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When you attack capitalism by attacking Ayn Rand, you are attacking a terrible straw man.

You'll notice that people rarely start by attacking the works of von Mises or Hayek or Rothbard, because those guys were actual serious academics who knew what they were talking about.

Much easier to poke holes in the eccentric philosophy of one novelist.

<comment> guard-of-terra I doubt the point was attacking capitalism.

Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive in a society.

<comment><USER14> They are. Socialism is an economy where production is owned and run by the workers for the benefit of the working class, which would be the ruling class at that time.

Simply having a welfare state or some nationalized industries is not socialism. The source of power and ownership of production is still in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Mises as serious? Hah. But yes, he and the others are attacked less but only because they are less famous. Their ideas are as worthless.

<comment> guard-of-terra "Socialism is an economy where production is owned and run by the workers for the benefit of the working class"

Isn't that communism?

<comment><USER15> No. There's a reason why they are two different words. Socialism is after capitalism but before communism in terms of Marxist theory. From my understanding the big difference is there is still competition in socialism and things are privately owned by the workers, where as everything is publicly owned in communism. Remember that during Marx's time it was unusual to have the boss down on the production line working with his employees. Now a days people have become what Seth Godin like to call linchpins. It's not rare to have your boss coding or designing with you if you work at a start-up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > All these people who are so great aren't really that much greater than the > average schmuck on the subway. There really isn't that much range in the > smartness or fitness of human beings.

Whelp, you've lost me. The difference in productivity and smartness---as measured by the _consistent_ ability to impact the world---of people is enormous (the additional importance of luck notwithstanding). I'm not sure why you thought you were going to make progress on these deep philosophical issues with a 400 word blog post, but you're even more sunk if you throw in empirical claims that contradict both intuition and the data.

<comment><USER17> I've taught programming to kids from very poor classes of society who grokked it and excelled at it. But, guess what– a lot of them will be stuck working at McDonald's because they can't go to college, or because even if they could go to public universities their family didn't understand why they should spend 4+ years not bringing in any money when they could work at McDonald's right away.

I've also taught/privately tutored CS students from some of the US's best universities. The range in intellectual capacity between the two groups is shockingly consistent. I've had students who attended Stanford who would have been put to shame by some of my "first of the family to finish high school but can't go to college" students.

If Bill Gates hadn't been born to lawyers and bankers, data says he would likely be part of the "average schmucks on the subway".

Successful people consistently underestimate how lucky they are.

<comment><USER18> > Successful people consistently underestimate how lucky they are.

Meanwhile mediocre people consistently attribute other people's success to luck. As luck would have it, they are both right and wrong. I am a high school dropout who never went to college, yet I sold 2 companies in the last 2 years. Is my success just a matter of luck, or am I that much better than the average population. Maybe the answer is that neither are that important. What I can say for sure that I work harder than the average population, much, much harder. And that's my general problem with those who champion socialism, they never seem to want to work as hard as I do. Among ditch diggers, there are always a few men leaning on their hoe handles.

<comment><USER17> Well the solution seems to be pretty simple then- if everyone worked as hard as you did, we wouldn't have to worry about poverty, unemployment, and so on! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ayn Rand's philosophy is widely criticized for being contradictory. This seems pretty accurate to me.

But I don't think modern readers of _Atlas Shrugged_ , _The Fountainhead_ , _Anthem_ , et al., are listening to her as a preacher, to apply her ideas to the entirety of their lives, but rather as inspiration for their own philosophy. That is, after all, one reason to read literature that challenges your opinions.

That's why I read and appreciate Rand. It's not because the American Libertarian movement made her a mascot.

Take her introduction to _The Fountainhead_ that she wrote in 1968, years after it was published and became successful:

> It is not in the nature of man--nor of any living entity--to start out by > giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that > requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man. > Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by > imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they > lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell > them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, > of abandoning one's values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few > hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning > how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the > dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's > potential. There are very few guideposts to find. The Fountainhead is one of > them. This is one of the cardinal reasons of The Fountainhead's lasting > appeal: it is a confirmation of the spirit of youth, proclaiming man's > glory, showing how much is possible.

By posting this I hope to defend Rand in the sense of helping people realize she does more then what the modern political landscape has created for her. I was certainly inspired by her approach to self, as I imagine countless others have been.

<comment><USER8> I love that quote. So pure; so childish. Ayn Rand was, at heart, a little girl (and who of us isn't at heart a small child?). Of course Rand is inspiring, just like "Jack and the Beanstalk". Inspiring children is easy. I just hope that as her readers mature, they come to realize that Dr Seuss's work, has more sophistication and truth to it than Rand's writing, while being no less inspiring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> We all get hungry, but we buy food from farmers on the market. We all need shelter, but we're buy our rent our homes. We all need clothing, but we clothing manufacturers are for profit.

There are a variety of good arguments for socialized health care, but "we all get sick" is not among them.

This article is banal in the extreme, and I'm not sure why it's on the front page.

<comment><USER21> > There are a variety of good arguments for socialized health care, but "we > all get sick" is not among them.

I disagree. The more specific "we all can get _very_ sick, and being _very_ sick is _very_ expensive" is a _very_ good argument for pooling our resources to make sure that we all get help when we need it.

<comment><USER22> Playing Devil's advocate, there are other ways of pooling resources, such as insurance or mutual-aid societies, the latter of which were mostly crowded out by state provided healthcare. There was a recent Econtalk podcast which touched on these issues: [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/07/michael_lind_on.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/07/michael_lind_on.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This essay is attacking a straw man, not Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was not an anarchist and did not oppose government entirely:

[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand...](http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government)

I'm a having a little trouble believing the author actually read Atlas Shrugged - in it, one of the productive characters (Ragnar, if I remember right) explicitly lists many legitimate functions of government. One of them is maintaining public roads.

The author also deliberately fails to acknowledge the difference between public goods (blizzard cleanup) and private goods (medicine and financial services).

<comment><USER24> Medical care is not unequivocally a private good.

<comment><USER23> True, but epidemic prevention is an extremely small problem (and a very cheap one to address), at least in the US. Virtually no one across the political spectrum (including most libertarians) opposes it.

Near as I can tell, the OP wasn't talking about it either.

<comment><USER25> But the same morals and 'ethical guideposts' apply throughout, do they not?

By way logic does a libertarian say that e.g. government coercing people to obey quarantines is acceptable, but that the government coercing people to pay for cheap public preventive care (before expensive specialist treatments become necessary) is not?

<comment><USER23> Quarantine prevents others from getting sick, while preventative care only prevents you from getting sick.

For comparison, compare laws against punching other people to laws against punching yourself.

<comment><USER25> And if you prevent someone from getting sick via preventable care you prevent them from spreading that sickness to others. Additionally even non- communicable diseases often have large impacts on those related to the person with the disease, so I don't see how you can truly separate the logic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Since almost all the comments in this thread are about Ayn Rand rather than about other details of the submitted article, I may as well share here from Kung Fu Monkey "Ephemera 2009 (7)"

[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)

a quotation I may have learned about first here on HN:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: _The Lord of the Rings_ and _Atlas Shrugged._ One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

</comment><comment><USER27> These discussions on HN are a bit ironic to me. HN seems to cut across several areas of discussion, and a large one is the startup world (principally the SF one). In general, the culture seems to be very liberal and sympathetic to socialism. Socialism isn't necessary mutually exclusive with capitalism, but it tends to be opposed. At the very least, it aims to level out the bell curve a bit, eliminating capitalistic excess.

Today's startup scene: Talk about capitalistic excess. Everyone's running around with MacBook Airs and Pros, iPhones, and iPads. The true "rebels" running Android: they're cheerleading for a phone that's backed by a mega-corp with a $300B market cap, so from an excess perspective, not much different.

The culture wants home runs. 9 or 10 figure exits. Built a photo sharing app or game moving blocks around on the your phone? Is $1B for your company really the best way for society to allocate its resources? VC's throw money away everyday on dumb companies that they know will fail; they're just keeping skin in the game knowing that if they do, they'll inevitably hit some home runs.

tl;dr Went all meta on the idea that startup culture that drives HN is capitalistic excess, opposite of socialism

 _edit "opposite of capitalism" should have been "opposite of socialism"; some grammar_

</comment><comment><USER28> I admit, I'm not sure what the argument is exactly. Nature is chaotic, therefore socialism?

I cannot speak for Randians or Objectivists, but an advocate of a private property society does not have a problem with insurance. Insurance is a perfectly legitimate good that can be provided in markets. It's the whole pay- us-or-go-to-prison monopoly thing that doesn't sit well.

Further, many rich business people are rich precisely because of government privilege, including protections of so-called intellectual property. You'd be hard pressed to name a successful person in modern times who hasn't made or at least maintained his riches because of some special privilege.

</comment><comment><USER29> As I have spent (too) many years living in such a system, let me explain what I've observed in practice.

First of all there would be, in principle, differences per culture but it will level down when troubles strike -- then it is universally everyone for himself. The only difference being how big the trouble must be for this to trigger.

Generic problems observed in practice:

\- ownership by everyone means in practice ownership by no one as proven every single day by comparing the same business run by a state or a city or privately -- it is always worse and more expensive

\- maybe it is strictly separate subject but in socialism somehow people are expected to be equal; since this is obviously a wrong assumption people will be forced to be equal which is never pleasant for the "better" onces (whatever that means); economically it will include taking from richer and giving to poorer (again, regardless whether these differences would be labeled fair or not and whether the reacher earned it by working hard or the poorer was just lazy)

So, unless your culture isn't aready "trained" in putting the good of the group above individual and, believe me, US population is not, socialsim will not work for you on a long run.

P.S. I wouldn't write this if this article wasn't so painfully stupid -- I'm not calling the author stupid, only this idealistic view. Socialism is NOT about dishing the same stuff to everyone like a storm or a disease. It is a much more complex system that is incompatible with human beings. Maybe permanently, maybe just not right now. It is not wrong, it is not bad on its own. It just doesn't work today for most of us. In addition any stystem that attaches an adjective to the word "justice" \-- as in "social justice" \-- needs a very, very careful investigation. At least.

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't think I've ever read such a patronising dismissal of objectivism.

>It's a beautiful story for a person caught between childhood and adulthood

I could say the same thing about every religion, I doubt it would get a warm response.

<comment><USER31> But it'd be just as true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Disease is socialist" but most cures come out of commercial drug companies cure them. Weird. I think the reader has a healthy aversion to Rand, but there is _certainly_ a difference between great acts and mediocre ones.

<comment><USER33> And many cures come from publicly funded research universities. And even those commercial drug companies benefit greatly from government subsidies, patents issued by the government, roads built by the government, and a population educated in public universities. It's disingenuous to pretend those "commercial" drug companies forged their own universe and created these products benevolently.

<comment><USER28> I suppose that would be disingenuous... if anyone were to suggest it.

You have no idea, of those government provisions you listed, what the actual costs are. You won't be able to get the most efficient allocation of resources, because it's not a market allocation (people freely paying), but a political allocation.

Oh, and I don't care if a drug company is benevolent. Just that they are free to offer me the goods at a price that isn't rigged (as by regulation of competitors, for example).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wonder why some people cannot stop saying how wrong Ayn Rand had been in general and how wrong is Atlas Shrugged in particular.

If it's a book of lies then why do you care so much? Don't you think for the book to have any effect on you it has to be true, at least in your own opinion.

<comment><USER35> People care about books not only for their truths but also for the lies that influence others. The former should be lauded while the latter needs to be combatted.

<comment><USER34> I don't see every other liberal blogger going on and on against the whole host of lying books (e.g. astrology, esoteric etc). And please don't tell me they are not influential. Much more people know their astrological sign and how bad is to hurt one's Karma than people who know who is John Galt.

<comment><USER35> When you say liberal you are referring to a political leaning. Rand's growing influence is on politics. If people started electing astrological evangelist preachers to government positions and it resulted in policies that they disagreed with, then people would spend a lot more time combatting the phony astrology that the movement is based on. That focus wouldn't make astrology any truer.

<comment><USER34> Thanks, this is the point I am trying to make. If you are opposing an ideology then have balls to attack the ideology straight on. I don't see people often attacking Marxism on the basis that Karl Marx was hiding from child support obligations and that Lenin had syphilis. Yet it's par for the course to dismiss whatever ideology Rand is representing just by attacking her character.

<comment><USER36> Syphilis and child support payments aren't communicable by economic ideology in the same sort of way that lifestyles are by moral dictates.

Without taking a side either way of the AR thing - taking advice on how to live your life from people whose character you detest seems like it might be a bad call. Living your life in the manner they approve of, at least if they did so themselves, stands a good chance of making you more like them.

<comment><USER34> I don't think I understood. In the first paragraph you are saying that Marx's and Lenin's lifestyle choices are not going to affect their followers but in the second paragraph you are saying that following an ideology is going to make you like the ideology's leaders.

I don't think both of these can be true simultaneously so I guess I did not get what are you saying right.

<comment><USER36> You've dropped several conditionals that I placed in there.

The general theme is that things like macro economic theories place fewer constraints on individual action than moral ideologies - and that, provided that the person expounding the moral ideology claims to follow it themselves, your perception of their character counts as evidence for whether it's a good idea for you to accept it or not.

<comment><USER34> Ah, you believe that Marxism is a macro economic theory? Understood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> John Galt never made it past adolescence. He ultimately used his talents to make the world suffer, all along possessing the wherewithal to make the world a better place. But HE didn't think THEY deserved it. I shudder to think people wanted a John Galt admirer for U.S. Vice President (and were supporting him for that very reason).

<comment><USER38> I'm assuming your points are: 1\. John Galt used his talents to make the world suffer. 2\. John Galt is obligated to use those talents for the common good.

1\. In the sense of actively destroying things, nowhere in the book. Maybe he goes kicking around puppies somewhere off the pages, but he does nothing of the sort anywhere in the book. Ragnar Danneskjöd does, but that situation is hard to judge given the details in the book.

Galt did know that he had (assuming you mean the motor), the wherewithal to make the world a better place. But, a. He believed that doing so would only improve conditions in the short term, since the system in place was naturally errosive. Changing the system and then bringing forth his idea would provide longer term benefits. b. That assumes he was out for the common good. He wasn't. Doing what you proposed, namely comercializing his invention and "making the world a better place" would have led him through the same agony that Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart went through, trying to keep things together when they were clearly falling apart.

2\. I disagree with you that anybody is obligated to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think I must be the only person ever who read Atlas Shrugged and thought it was a very entertaining book, but didn't either love it or hate it because of the politics.

Is there anyone else out there who just loves the book like I do without applying the politics in real life?

<comment><USER40> As the book is so poorly written, those who enjoy it as literature are indeed in a small club.

<comment><USER41> As a writer, Rand gets better as she gets shorter. I'd say she never gets to the point where she could be called a good writer, but she does sometimes reach for and achieve passable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Socialism is forced cooperation, as opposed to voluntary cooperation.

<comment><USER35> There's no such thing as voluntary cooperation when all of the land is already owned.

<comment><USER28> Why not?

<comment><USER43> 1\. Because the majority does not possess the means of survival by subsistence and are forced to cooperate with proprietors.

2\. "Property" cannot exist without en _force_ ment. If you own land and I don't, chances are that I can find another poor bastard who will help me to take it from you.

<comment><USER28> I just want to note first that it is not clear that all land is currently owned. Natural owners (homesteaders) have been displaced many times by state violence and the threat of state violence keeps people from homesteading available space. I had sidestepped this earlier because, even if all land has legitimate private owners, that does not preclude voluntary cooperation.

1\. Your body is your property, and you have the right to contract (i.e. agree with another person to use your property in a particular way, for instance as a condition of transfer of property). So the filthy rich person who owns a country--which by the way I don't think is possible, since he probably just planted a flag and yelled that he owns it, which does not make a homestead... but for the sake of argument let's say he does own the country--this guy excludes thousands of people who only have the standing room on which they were born. Do tell me how this guy will eat. I will bet that, through the magic of self interest, the landowner will be happy to contract with the impoverished majority, say, for farming. Now if you're thinking ahead, you already see that the poor folk, _if their private property rights are respected_ , can save their income and trade and sell among themselves, maybe even buy some of that land from the country owner. The historic problem is not that ownership of land existed, but that it was never treated as a private property, or that the individual right to self-ownership and contract were not universally respected.

2\. So people can be crooks? I don't disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Why do people get so intensely attracted to Ayn Rand's philosophy, even if for just a short time? Because it resonates with their attempting to understanding of the world.

The necessary social systems that interlink us all have become overly complex and maladapted in their treatment of individual people, and by stepping back from "must" and asking "why" one begins to see this everywhere. But the only blessed means of change is democracy, and nuanced intellect doesn't win mob consensus - vague feel-something arguments do.

So the idea of taking one's ball and going home becomes very attractive - <USER2> if it's just a single croquet ball - because it's the final option available to avoid supporting the broken game. And morally, systems _should_ be setup to make this base case as easy as possible, even if it initially increases costs for the remaining players, for if the system is truly beneficial then it is still in most people's interest to participate.

But the mob has no concern for individuals, so our social systems lack this capability. Going against the grain is tiresome and unproductive, so most people eventually conform to what is demanded of them. And once you've given in, you're likely to stop dwelling on the faults of the systems you support and instead view them in a positive light for what they do accomplish.

</comment><comment><USER45> I have it on good word that Rand was pro health insurance.

<comment><USER46> "Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor)."

[http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against...](http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them)

<comment><USER45> This is a common smear spread by Rand's haters. She explained the principle in this article which the haters conveniently ignore;

[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scho...](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html#order_3)

<comment><USER41> So, her principle is basically "it's always bad to accept government handouts, unless you're an Objectivist, in which case it's fine so long as you complain very loudly while receiving them."

I wish I were kidding.

<comment><USER7> I don't agree with her on the specific point, but I actually agree with her more broadly. If your everyday life doesn't match up with your ideals, you don't have to martyr yourself to be a good person. Hypocrisy is a normal state of affairs. For example, it's okay for me to complain about sweatshops but still buy running shoes that are made in them. It's okay for me to send my kids to a private school because the public schools in my area are terrible, even though I believe in raising taxes to support a high quality public education for everyone and making private schools obsolete.

<comment><USER47> >For example, it's okay for me to complain about sweatshops but still buy running shoes that are made in them.

I don't think that's actually true, even though I do the same.

I think it cheapens my character. I believe even if I'm vocal about my feelings about sweatshop labor, that doesn't really matter when I still support it financially.

It really just means that I'm not as good of a person as I'd like to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> found this quote in the german wikipedia:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'Atlas Shrugged'. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." – John Rogers

</comment><comment><USER18> All of the typicsl straw man arguments about roads and healthcare are nonsense. Rand believed that any way society chose to organize itself to benefit its members was perfectly acceptable, as long as that organization was rooted in individual freedom of choice, and not extracted from individuals with violence - the tyranny of the majority.

</comment><comment><USER49> The article conflates social institutions with government (and possibly conflates the various levels of government) which is a common theme among many political ideas.

On the "Right", people often conclude that, because their religion is good, it should be enforced by the federal government. In reality, people can (generally) practice their religion freely through their church so long as the government policies aren't too overbearing.

On the "Left", people often conclude that, because charitable giving and safety nets and community projects are good, those things should be enforced and run by the federal government. In reality, there are many social institutions and mechanisms by which those things might happen (families and communities do many of these things already, and local governments can do many more), and the federal government is only one option and may only be suitable in specific circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER50> Rand is always popular among people, who get cheated. Kind of people among whom resentment(Bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly) is high. If you look at it closely these are generally the kind of people who do everything right, and then only find some not even 1/10th the worth take away fruits of their work.

These are generally the kind of hard working working people who get cheated due to office politics, or an unfair boss, or the people who score less marks because the teacher wanted to reward her otherwise favorite pupil.

One of the top reasons why people want to have their own business is because 'working for others' ultimately leads to a situation where you do all the work, while not getting nearly the atom worth the due rewards you deserve. Its not selfish or arrogant or even wrong that such people ultimately take things into their own hands and refuse to put up with being treated unfairly.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The philosophy of it looked straight obvious and something that I myself have gone through.

Rand's philosophy is not the case, but rather a effect of a deep rooted malaise where some people find it perfectly fine to cheat. And expect the person to be fine being cheated.

On a side note, I attended a Start up conference a years back here Bangalore. At the end there was open panel discussion as to what makes a better career option 'Start up or a Job at a Megacorp' a middle manager from representing a mega corp called start up founders are impatient, greedy and selfish. This is how bad the situation gets when you put up with unfair treatment, the person cheating thinks it's perfectly ok to treat you unfairly. And more, it is unfair to him that you refuse to get cheated.

Want to prevent the Rand philosophy from spreading, do something that triggers its flow and adoption at the first place. But we all already know that's not going to happen.

</comment><comment><USER51> Pretty flawed writing on Dave Winer's, like this part right here:

"Ayn Rand's philosophy might have worked in an agrarian society when people lived far apart, and couldn't pool their resources."

Agricultural coops were some of the earliest, most intense and long lived Socialism in the U.S. in fact some of them are still going. Building grain elevators, pooling expensive machinery, getting fertilizer and seed in bulk and at a reasonable price, shipping crops to market and trying to avoid getting screwed by middlemen, are things were Socialism had its place.

Atlas Shugged was written for and about railroad barons, industrialist and to a lesser extent Wall Streeters.

Classic Dave, say something that has no basis in fact, and hope no one calls him on the B.S. because he's Dave Winer.

</comment><comment><USER52> Everyday I wonder if people still read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

</comment><comment><USER53> Sometimes I feel like there are two different versions of Atlas Shrugged out in the world and different people read different ones. I just don't understand how someone can read the book I read and think that "snowplow drivers" is a complete rebuttal. The book has a lot of themes and I don't agree with all of them but lets hit a few that I took away.

Rand is best viewed as a reaction to the abuses of Russian Communism. Atlas Shrugged is extreme in the opposite direction but offers some good critiques of collectivism as she saw it practiced. Communism was always at the point of a gun, so one of her primary complaints was the the use of force by the incapable to demand things from the capable was immoral. So, it's immoral to force those who have snow plows to plow your road just because you have a gun.

Using a snowstorm is a funny example because I think that is exactly one of her main points. Nature doesn't care about your feelings or what you think you deserve. You will either use you mind to find solutions to problems or you will die. If you choose not to think for yourself, you don't have a right to take from those who do just because you have a gun. So, to answer the article's question, "Who is supposed plow the streets during the snowpocalypse?" Whoever the hell has a snowplow and has the ability to drive it. Probably in exchange for money. That's some crazy talk right there. Did I just blow your mind? It's not "a detail she never seemed to have gotten to", it's just a stupid question. You don't plow streets with Rearden metal. You plow it with a snow plow. Rand's point was that streets didn't get plowed by moochers and people who claimed they "deserved it". It got plowed by every great person that designed a combustable engine and metal and manufacturing processes and ultimately applied their mind to the challenges of nature(snow storms) and created an f'ing snow plow. The point is that it is the human mind is what makes the world work, not whining about your "rights".

As for "great individuals", yes, I think she over sold it a bit. However, very focused productive people applying their minds to problems have more influence and leverage today than ever before. She also spends a lot of time talking about "teaching men to think". So she talked a lot about everyone using their talents to create things, not just the John Galts. There are lots of characters who play bit parts in Atlas Shrugged that are respected in the book. Same for the fountain head. Lets talk about the exceptional though. No Bill Gates may not be francisco d'anconia, but he did have a big influence on the world. Now he is using his money to have an even bigger influence. Just for fun, and in the spirit of Rand, think about the difference between how Gates is spending his money, vs the way the Government has spent it. Compare the way a person that earned his money is spending it vs "looters" that took it from others. Plus, Gates seems less John Galt than someone like Von Neumann or Newton.

I just get really sick and tired of people knocking down Rand strawmen. No, she didn't offer the solution all the hard problems of balancing individual liberty and collective action, but if you read it with some context and think about it for yourself, you may find that she did offer some good ideas about the perils of collectivism and the potential of human ability. If you are curious about Rand, go read Fransico' Money Speech, [http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money- speec...](http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/) and skip this stupid, pointless blog post.

</comment><comment><USER54> The heart of the matter is this question: should the community violate the consent of the individual or not?

Coming at it from the utilitarian point of view (for sake of argument -- I am not a utilitarian[1]), does it really need to be argued that every humane person should naturally wish to respect individual consent to the fullest extent possible? The only remaining question should be to determine to what extent this is possible. Is there a way to get the road clearing paid for without violating the consent of those who don't care if it's cleared or not?

It turns out that we can form systems whereby this is possible. For example, take a home owners association (HOA). It violates no consent to have contracts that stipulate that you must pay a yearly fee (or "tax") to join the HOA. So there you go, the snowplowing problem is solved, all without any violation of consent.

If you're creative, it turns out that you can solve all of these dilemmas, without resorting to government fiat, which of course can only be implemented by being willing to point a gun at your neighbor's head. No humane person would prefer this, ergo actually humane people would seek more creative solutions.

[1] [https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty](https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty)

<comment><USER35> What happens when that HOA needs to make a new rule? From what you described it sounds like any person on the losing end of an argument is being violated, and an HOA that has to deal with anything but some basic set of agreed upon rules will not satisfy the non-violation requirements.

<comment><USER28> I cannot speak for the parent, but disagreements can be resolved by independent, third-party arbitration (which may have also been agreed upon by the HOA). This is not to be confused with a territorial monopoly on final arbitration, viz. a government court.

<comment><USER35> [http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m43fenS4rJ1rqfhi2o1_250.gi...](http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m43fenS4rJ1rqfhi2o1_250.gif)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> And this is where we see the clowns who don't understand economics. Snow removal is handled by the folks who have a greater vested financial interest in having roads clear. And if you seriously can't imagine a nation with private roads, than you simply haven't tried very hard.

<comment><USER28> It is strange how well conditioned people are to regard roads as this Great Social Problem even as they go about buying cheaper and cheaper stuff that does more and more everyday thanks to capitalism.

<comment><USER56> Not everything is made of transistors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I like the part about how nobody is great.

<comment><USER27> It's popular to read Bill Gates mentioned in the "nobody is great" bit, but if the author had instead said Steve Jobs ..

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Valar Morghulis.</comment>


Interactive Text Prediction Explainer - <AUTHOR> https://pudding.cool/2019/04/text-prediction/ <comment><USER2> The Mueller report got me thinking.

How hard would it be to put together a machine learning tool that guessed at the redacted material based on:

(a) The context of the surrounding words, and (b) In cases where just a couple words in a sentence are redacted, using the number of pixels to inform a likely combination of letters that would perfectly "fit" that space?

And what would be the legality?

<comment><USER3> I'm no lawyer but it seems hard to imagine it could be illegal as it would be based on supposition rather than fact and only someone in possession of the unredacted report would know for sure if it were right.

<comment><USER4> While we're speculating:

If the algorithm predicted, "Then CIA extraodinary-rendition'd $particular_person_of_interest_to_people_with_top_secret_clearance to a black site"

you'd hope to get a judge who's technical enough to understand that the algorithm didn't "know;" it just "predicted."

Point being, I don't personally have much faith that the justice system evaluates tech the way we would.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook is the top social network in 127 out of 137 countries - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2013/01/02/world-map-of-top-social-networks-shows-just-five-left-facebook-dominates-127-out-of-137-countries/ <comment><USER2> For me the news here was actually that there were countries where facebook is not number one.

<comment><USER3> It's quite simple Facebook is banned in certain countries and english isn't a native language for many of these countries. Considering this, the other local social networks have more specific features suited for the local crowd such weibo and qzone for china. Korea also has one. Weibo has more features than twitter. The principle of "less is more" doesn't work well with many of these other countries and their social networks.

<comment><USER4> That's discounting first-mover network effects before Facebook became as international as it is today (VKontakte in Russia) and the big case where Facebook is outright banned (China). For the rest, you have a point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Stats like this make me feel alienated from my fellow man (and woman).

I hate the fact that there is a whole universe of discourse from which I am excluded simply because I choose not to jump on board.

Take email for example. You can be on Hotmail, I can be on Gmail, she can run her own mail server (hopefully not sendmail!?) and we can all speak to each other. Open protocols, federated. Run your own, go with someone else's offering.

When, oh when, are we going to get federated social networking protocols? How hard can it be? You can be on G+, she can be on Facebook, I can run my own Diaspora* server and yet we can all friend and un-friend each other and follow and un-follow, unhindered by corporate boundaries.

I despise lock-in of all varieties. We've been there and back twenty years ago with Microsoft on the desktop, now we have to contend with Facebook on the web. Who will be next in twenty years time? Why does no one else care? Why do most people not see that this only and inevitably leads to a less well off world for all of us.

And yet here we are, the supposed digerati, and what are we doing about it? Sweet Fanny Adams, that's what. We jump on every story about Facebook because we know they are the new nexus of lock-in rather than trying to break their grip on the web.

I can tell you, I was never happier than when I deleted my Facebook account. Of course it could have something to do with the constant social anxiety I am afflicted with. Or I could chalk it down to my long-term vision of a better communing with my fellow man.

What does everyone else think?

<comment><USER6> My thought was that, simply by staying off of Facebook, I can avoid one of the more privacy intrusive social networks out there. I also avoid the place most targeted for tracking people.

I have a close collection of friends (defined as the people who will always show up to help me move) and family on Path, and, until Path move's (further?) into the dark side, we're all quite happy there. For the few people who are also on Facebook, they have a pass-through-posting capability that lets people post on both networks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Watching the animation it is interesting that Iran flipped from facebook being to dominant in June 2009 to Cloob being dominant in June 2010. Wonder if this was due to government action or something else?

EDIT: Read the actual story. It says due to state censorship.

</comment><comment><USER8> Rather interesting that S.Korean is colored red as well? Imagine that should be a mistake.

<comment><USER9> I don't think so, according to alexa, qq.com is the second most visited website in South Korea.

<comment><USER8> Wow...I just checked the top list on Alexa for S.Korea and there are 5 chinese websites in top 10 and 12 in top 20. For some reason that seriously surprised me. While Baidu I understand as it had been trying to reach its arms into Japan and S.K, but it just baffles me that QQ.com can be higher than Naver, which is home to the largest native S.K portal site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not in China</comment>