Shedding Light on the "Black Box of Inappropriateness" - <AUTHOR> https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-black-box-of-inappropriateness/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing this. Reading Dave's post the first time, all I could think was "this seems like the most bland, cop-out, vague apology I've ever seen." He didn't list the specifics of what he felt bad about, and the whole thing read like a PR release to get ahead of any potential fallout.

Reading the "kudos" from men who thought he was a great guy for coming forward only after years of harassment came to a head was unpleasant.

<comment><USER3> Not in any way to defend Dave, but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved.

But I strongly support them coming forward and telling their own stories. That has value and gives the accusations their proper perspective and gravity. It truly is different to be confronted with the details.

<comment><USER4> > but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that > could cause further distress to the victims involved.

But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.

<comment><USER5> I was wondering how true this was. It's here:

>With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I'd like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christine Tsai to begin a formal interview process with 500, where Christine and others on the team met with her. Ultimately, 500 decided not to offer Sarah a job. Again my apologies to Sarah for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not. It was my fault and I take full responsibility. She was correct in calling me out.

[https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m- sorry-d2c13e996ea0](https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0)

The NYT article ([https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women- entrepre...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women- entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html)) did not go into these specifics.

Below is all it discusses about her:

>In 2014, Sarah Kunst, 31, an entrepreneur, said she discussed a potential job at 500 Startups, a start-up incubator in San Francisco. During the recruiting process, Mr. McClure, a founder of 500 Startups and an investor, sent her a Facebook message that read in part, "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you."

>Ms. Kunst, who now runs a fitness start-up, said she declined Mr. McClure's advance. When she later discussed the message with one of Mr. McClure's colleagues, she said 500 Startups ended its conversations with her.

<comment><USER6> For anyone for whom it's not obvious. The point is not that he spiked her chances to get hired for rejecting his advances, or that she wasn't treated fairly by in the remainder of the interview process. The point is that he hit on her when she was expressing interest in a job, an advance backed by not only an (even if ultimately unfounded) fear that her application MIGHT be spiked if she rejected his advances, but a strong impression that ACCEPTING these advances would GET her the job. Sex and romance in the workplace is always fraught, but this is why above almost all you never, never initiate them with someone in your chain of command or when they are attempting to move into it. Contrary to what others are saying it is still in and of itself probably not a crime in most jurisdictions but it is a serious civil wrong that can cost immense money and goodwill, besides being just wrong. And if you're the CEO of the organization, well, you should be appropriately compensated already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a really great post, both in the courage it took to write and the logical analysis it provides.

I have to provide a bit of mea culpa here. When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line of flirting which went overboard (to an unacceptable but understandable level). It's much worse than that. This is undoubtably sexual harassment and those differences/nuances matter.

All I can say is that I'm sorry I didn't believe it was more serious when first reported. I know it's difficult, but I wish more women had the courage to come forward with full stories so we could more accurately judge the context and actions involved (ex. with other VCs, like Chris Sacca).

<comment><USER8> > When this issue first surfaced, I thought it was much more towards the line > of flirting which went overboard.

"Flirting which goes overboard" is perhaps understandable from a co-worker or peer. It is absolutely, 100% an abuse of power when a VC does it to a potential investee. Imagine it from the woman's point of view. Suppose you had an idea you worked long and hard on, and then when you present it to a VC, he starts flirting with you? What do you do? Are you worried that spurning his advances will jeopardize your potential funding? Worse, it has to be incredibly demoralizing to want to be treated in the basis of your accomplishments but then know the VC is judging you through the primary lens of sex.

<comment><USER7> I didn't say it was okay or acceptable, but I had a much easier time imagining how a powerful VC ends up making a woman uncomfortable through flirting than full-on sexual assault.

Like I said, that was my fault. This is a lot more serious than I first realized when stories surfaced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Elizabeth Yin (500 startups partner) just quit:

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email- claims-500-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email- claims-500-startups-leadership-delayed-acknowledging-mcclures-harassment-as- new-allegations-surface/)

</comment><comment><USER10> As the father of three daughters I always cringe a bit when I read things like this. Thanks Cheryl for sharing your story, and men please remember it isn't how _you_ feel about whether or not an action was appropriate or inappropriate, it is how _they_ feel about it.

<comment><USER11> As a father of a daughter and a son, I disagree strongly with what you say. Feelings are completely irrelevant here.

Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when being told "no", is not sexual assault; regardless of how either person felt about that. You can consider it awkward, ridiculous, or just normal human sexual behaviour. But it is not by any means assault.

<comment><USER12> > Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when > being told "no", is not sexual assault;

That's not an accurate summary of her account. He'd been rebuffed repeatedly and clearly _before_ forcing her into a corner and trying to kiss her. While the exact legal definition of "sexual assault" varies depending on the jurisdiction, if it came down to a court decision I don't like his chances.

<comment><USER11> > ... forcing her into a corner ...

I did nor interpret her text that way. To be fair, the whole text is very confusing for an article that purports to be "shedding light". The sentence that talks about the corner is this:

"On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me, and said (...)"

Now, this is extremely vague and can mean anything. He was already going out, but she was in the way, and the exit door was on a corner? He pushed himself without touching her (because the contact was later, during the kiss attempt)? This can be construed as assault or as a normal goodbye when leaving the house of somebody.

It is infuriating that this crucial part of the text (where the alleged assault happens), is extremely vague. Moreover, the fact that the text is riddled with bogus claims like "unwanted propositions", does not play in favor of its credibility. That's actually the whole point of propositions, to see if you are wanted or not! What does it matter if a proposition is wanted or not? This is ridiculous.

In the end, this noise plays against the victims of assault. When somebody is assaulted, she should go immediately to the police, not write a vague article three years later, mixing real problems with imaginary ones in the same list.

<comment> grey-area _Now, this is extremely vague and can mean anything. He was already going out, but she was in the way, and the exit door was on a corner?...This can be construed as assault or as a normal goodbye when leaving the house of somebody._

A normal goodbye is not forced on someone who has repeatedly said no to advances. The account was really quite clear, far clearer than McClure's apology. And yet you feel the need to make up details (where the door was etc) in order to try to excuse his behaviour, and call her a liar. Why is that? Why do you think she would lie in this situation and he would not?

Your response says more about you than her. Also, your incredulous response is the perfect illustration of why this woman didn't go the police and go public with her story years ago - she was in a vulnerable position, and would be slandered and called a liar if she made the claims public, and likely disbelieved by most of the men she worked with and then calumnied in court by well paid lawyers. The woman has zero incentive to lie, and frankly very little incentive in our current society to come forward, it is highly likely she is telling the truth in this situation simply because the balance of power likes with McClure and if she lied her career would be over (it will be harder even if she tells the truth).

The reaction on HN to these stories has been damning (for the global tech industry) - it's clear tech has a long way to go before even confronting these issues truthfully and without prejudice, let alone actually dealing with them.

The first step to dealing with this problem properly is not to write long screeds about how this woman might well be lying (the implication being this is a common occurrence, not an outlier), but to accept her story at face value - leave it to the police or those investigating the incident to verify it.

<comment><USER11> I do not believe the author is lying. I honestly do not understand the relevance problem that she is reporting. She cried after an awkward interaction? This happened to me all the time when I was younger, no big deal really.

<comment><USER13> The "awkward interaction" here is being physically intimidated by someone who doesn't respect being told No, who is big enough to overpower you and who is in a position. Of power with clear conflict of interest.

It's great that you wouldn't be terrified in this kind of situation. It's also important to know that not everyone feels the same way that you do, and that it's entirely reasonable and expected for someone to be scared shitless given the situation described. It's not their fault to feel that way, and they're not the ones who should "grow a pair". Everyone here needs to make sure that physical intimidation doesn't happen, and if you're not sure about whether it's wanted, get a clear approval before you storm onto someone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's going to be pretty impossible to sow doubt about the 'setting' on this one like he did with the previous instance. Makes you wonder how often this sort of thing played out, 10's of times? 100's?

<comment><USER14> At least 12 women according to the update in Cheryl's post. Most, if not all of these women, are also people of color according to Sarah Kunst.

 _< <Update>> I just spoke to Sarah Kunst and learned from her that at least 12 other women including me, have faced sexual harassment or advances from Dave of various degrees. Some of them are portfolio company CEOs like myself. They're afraid to come out, but some eventually will. I had doubts publishing this, but after talking to Sarah, it is clear to me now that I can't just sit silently and trust that Dave's behavior will stop, or that we can just file his misconduct under "Dave being Dave." This is about protecting other women who might otherwise be subjected to his future unwanted sexual advances._

<comment><USER15> Why was this downvoted? Asking sincerely in an effort to understand and learn.

<comment><USER14> Because there are tons of apologists in the valley. Men who also harass women like McClure and feel they're entitled to it, especially against women of color.

<comment><USER16> The overwhelming majority of HN votes don't come from "the valley". And to the extent we have data on this the geographical trend is probably opposite to what you're suggesting.

<comment><USER17> There's really been a considerable change in HN in the past few years. A couple of years ago, a thread like this would have been 100% apologists and victim-blaming, laced with a heavy dose of outright misogyny. It would have been flagged off the the front page in minutes. Today, the threads are much better with only a small amount of that.

I'm unclear whether this is because a) Silicon Valley is changing b) the user composition of HN is changing or c) the misogynist types are just feeling less confident. Regardless of the reason, it's a change for the better.

<comment><USER18> I have to credit 'dang and 'sctb's public moderation and tone-setting for a lot of it (and I've been a critic of weak and permissive moderation here in the past, so credit where credit is due). HN still has some really profound problems with punching down, but so does everywhere else and it's improved significantly; amongst the places I hang out it's gone from perhaps the most egregious example of the kind of nastiness in the industry to somewhere better than the median.

<comment><USER19> I will second that the moderators deserve credit for the change in "tone" as you put it. But it is not really a change in tone, but rather that the hold- on-a-seconders, whose "tone" is generally utterly anodyne in comparison to the reflexive vituperation they receive (not that it bothers me) have been warned off contributing. And so it goes.

<comment><USER20> The contributions of those anodyne 'hold-on-a-seconders' should not be missed. There was a reflexive script that they worked off that sounded all very mature but pretty much came down to people wandering into every thread and reminding everyone that sometimes victims lie.

They never had any specific reason to do this; it was never the case that these guys had new information. They just felt consistently moved to remind us all that No-one Really Can Know All The Facts every time an allegation turned up, like they had just invented epistemology and wanted to tell the world.

<comment><USER18> Exactly this. It's whataboutism designed to discredit and damage the victims and to that end I actively don't respect (and do downvote, and sometimes flag) those posts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Question for me is when did Christine Tsai know and why was nothing done sooner?

She tweeted (now deleted) about Caldbeck a week before asking "Where's the Outrage?" when it now sounds like she kept the real reason why McClure was put in a "limited" role in April for reasons unknown to even the 500 staff (and obviously the public until this past weekend) [https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email- claims-500-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email- claims-500-startups-leadership-delayed-acknowledging-mcclures-harassment-as- new-allegations-surface/)

Hard for me to defend the public moral outrage she showed for the Binary cap situation when she clearly kept silent about similar issues with her own firm.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm male and I find it so bizarre that men behave in this manner. But it happens so often that I wonder sometimes if I'm the one who is not normal.

I love women. I am attracted to them constantly. But the thought of making sexual advances towards them when I have not received any sign of interest beyond friendship or business etc, repulses me.

How hard can it be to just be nice.

As men we really need to do better.

<comment><USER23> I have felt this way my whole life. I'm just starting to think the same, that I'm the abnormal one. I had assumed that we, as a society, were on the downhill side of women's equality. Then Sessions became the AG and I watched women testifying in front of Congress treated like it was 1950.

I think all that progress we made over the last 50 years was partly in my head.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Beyond creepy. It seems he has a pattern of this behavior, and I'm wondering how often he succeeds in his hunt. Thanks for getting your story out!

<comment><USER14> Enough to keep on doing it year after year after year.

<comment> at-fates-hands Which is the part that puzzles me. Successful guy, plenty of money. Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely.

If he was after something deeper, hire a dating consultant and find something worthwhile.

It just amazes me that people who have both the means and ability to get what they want do foolish stuff like he's doing.

<comment><USER25> > Get a high priced call girl, go on a sex site and get a woman who wants what > you want. I mean I used to be in a band and it was easy to have a woman in > nearly every city you could call when you feel lonely.

That's not the point. The point is precisely the power and coercion. Paying someone or finding someone like-minded doesn't hit that button anywhere near the same way that assault and blackmail does.

If you're strong-arming women into sex, it's not about the sex, it's about the strong-arming. The very inappropriateness itself is the goal.

<comment><USER26> People say this all the time, but is there any actual rigorous evidence or argument for it?

As far as I can tell it's just a way to demonize and dehumanize a group of really unpopular people in order to feel better about taking retribution against them. Comparable to saying, "She didn't murder her kids because of depression, but because she wanted them and her husband to suffer. The pain itself is the goal."

So is this really a rent-paying belief? Or is it rather a way to feel good about hating someone and absolve yourself from the responsibility to understand the internal experiences of people who do bad things?

This is important, by the way. If the goal is to feel good about hating people who did wrong, dehumanize away. If the goal is actually to prevent other people from doing wrong, you need understand accurately why the wrong was being done in the first place, and that's what I'm afraid isn't being done here.

<comment><USER25> I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who pays attention to the way good people are seduced into bad actions by the exercise of power beyond what's appropriate.

I do this precisely because I want to avoid situations where my behavior and viewpoint will be compromised by the level of authority I wield.

The very point I'm _attempting_ to make, anyway, is that if you hand even the best humans inordinate power they _will abuse it_. That's how power is. It's not about the people - it's about the power structures we inhabit.

Reference the milgram experiment, the stanford prison experiment, whatever you like. They're not definitive, by any means, but they show you what is _possible_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> One of the most eye opening experiences I have ever had in the workplace was in a sexual harassment class which was required for a big corp. The instructor laid out the rules, but people in the class had a hard time grasping the logical structure. Two different scenarios which clearly had the same structure would trip people up by swapping out variables. I was never good with math, but I picked up on these structures right way. Maybe the class should have been taught as a philosophy class from the start. It was amazing to me how difficult such an important subject was for people to pick up.

As difficult as sexual harassment is to learn and teach, I imagine most smaller businesses / start-ups don't make much of an attempt, if at all. Obviously HR is lacking. This might be a good place for improvement for a start-up to tackle.

<comment><USER28> 'Don't try to sexually force yourself on someone who just asked you to leave their residence' is not a complex issue limited by inadequate HR training. It's basic sane social behaviour. McClure didn't do this because he was unaware of the intricacies of workspace laws and regulations. He did it because he thought he could and would get away with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Good article - at first I was wary because of vagueness in the first few paragraphs, terms like "inappropriateness", "sexual harassment", "non- consensual sexual advances" etc. that are flung around so freely nowadays yet so open to interpretation, and which often go viral and get people fired.

But in fact that was the point - that the devil's in the details and specifics really help. And the specifics in her case were clearly not cool. Kudos for putting them out there.

</comment><comment><USER30> I will note a pattern I have noticed:

In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get." The problem for women with careers is that walking away entirely from a powerful man would mean walking away from all kinds of professional settings where she is likely to run into him. Cutting him out of her life entirely would be career suicide.

The one message we really need to get powerful men to get is this:

Working women are talking to you at all for the exact same reason working men are talking to you. And it isn't because they think you are hot. They are trying to make a business deal or further a career goal, not fulfill your wildest fantasies.

I think this is why so many men persist in saying things like "I just misread the situation." And we will keep hearing that until it is the cultural norm for men to assume that women they work with are there to work, and that's it.

<comment><USER31> A good point, but a grossly over-generalized one. Men "not taking no for an answer" after rejection is the exception, not the general norm, even if it's over represented in the VC scandal. That's why it's a scandal.

<comment><USER30> I think you are misunderstanding my remarks in some way. Nowhere did I use the phrase "not taking no for an answer."

I am not talking about normal situations where it is possible for clear, unambiguous communication to take place. I am talking about a gray zone that makes it inherently challenging. I have written about this before:

[http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray- zon...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zone.html)

And I am saying we need to work at fostering a culture where people in power default to an assumption that if there is any doubt, they need to err on the side of assuming "This is about business, not romance. Period." Because my firsthand experience and pieces like the one under discussion agree that, all too often, a woman just can't seem to adequately signal "romance is NOT on the table here" and also remain on good working terms with a man in power. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. It has nothing to do with asserting that _men don 't take no for an answer._

<comment><USER31> I paraphrase, only because the exact quote was pretty long:

 _In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get."_

Perhaps your intent was more nuanced than your literal text. Either way, men in general do not "consistently" keep pursuing after rejection, just because the female doesn't cut them out of their lives altogether.

<comment><USER30> I chose the phrase "make initial inquiries" very carefully. It is not intended to describe a situation where men are openly and unambiguously hitting on a woman. In my experience, in delicate situations, there is a feeling out process. It isn't a bald question.

If you go back and read the article under discussion, he repeatedly asked her to have wine with him. Sometimes she said _no._ Other times, she said _yes_ and it went fine. She herself was confused as to whether or not he was hitting on her. It wasn't clear to her until it crossed some incredibly unambiguous line.

If they were not working together, a woman sometimes saying _yes_ to wine and sometimes saying _no_ but remaining on warm friendly terms could be called _dating._ Studies show that it takes women longer to warm up to sex than it does men. Most men are used to having to work at getting to _yes_ romantically. And the usual way you get there is by repeatedly pursuing _social_ interaction. If the social interaction goes well, your hopes that it might lead to sex are not dead yet.

Given that fact, it isn't crazy for a man to interpret these situations as a potential budding romance -- unless you posit that she was ONLY there to do business and needed contact with him because of his position of power.

I am generally pretty sympathetic to the man's side here, so it aggravates me when I so consistently get accused of BS like this. Because when I try too hard to make it clear I am not accusing men of anything, then I get called a _rape apologist._

I keep waiting for my long track record of even-handed remarks on the topic to pay off and get me interpreted as _not a man-hating bitch._ I am beginning to think that is expecting too much of the world.

I feel strongly this is very much a situational problem. But no one seems to want to hear that. People are too busy lining up on the side of the accusers and planning witch hunts or on the side of the defenders and excusing the behavior. And then everything I say gets interpreted through a lens of "which side of this war are you on?" The answer is "Neither. I would like to broker a peace deal." And that message goes unheard by people whose minds are made up, and don't confuse them with the facts.

<comment><USER31> Your post and bio give the impression of seeing yourself as an "HN celebrity", frustrated at people purposely ignoring your blog. Are you aware of HN's scale? I've been here for about 5 years, and have never heard of you prior to an hour ago. I'd be astounded if a full 1% of HN's readership has clicked on a single page on your blog, ever.

In reality, we seem to be in near-total alignment. Within a larger comment, you had one statement that seems over-generalized. After _agreeing_ with the gist of your post, I mildly and respectfully challenged that one over- generalized statement.

That's not a big deal. It might catch a downvote or two, because HN is HN. But that's what normal healthy human conversation sounds like, outside of any particular echo chamber. It's not an attack, and not really even a defense.

Somehow you're now in a "witch hunt", or being called a "man-hating bitch", or otherwise under attack from the "other side", etc. I can't even... uhh... just, no... you're _not_. And if you feel like you have to take it to that level, in order not to be called a "rape apologist", then maybe you run with the wrong circles online.

<comment><USER30> I wrote a piece recently about the witch hunt atmosphere that is developing.

Just because you have never heard of me before does not mean I do not routinely run into people who clearly know who I am when I have never heard of them. That isn't delusion on my part.

After advising you that you misunderstood and clarifying, you basically doubled down, thus positioning yourself as an adversary. Now you are attacking me and making a lot of derogatory comments. This does not back up your assertion that you were engaging in good faith and I am just overreacting.

If you and I were really on the same page, my clarification would have been the end of the matter, not the start of escalating aggressive remarks on your side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What a terrible story. I'm sorry she had to go through that and appreciate her sharing it.

I'm curious about the legal aspect of it. "Sexual assault" is a crime, right? The worst repercussions I hear from these stories are maybe a resignation at best. But if this is truly a crime shouldn't it be prosecuted?

<comment><AUTHOR> Many victims decline to prosecute to avoid the mental toll the process takes, including having to relive their trauma, having their credibility torn to shreds and possibility of the perp being acquitted even in face of compelling evidence. Trying to recover and generally move on with their lives is already hard enough.

<comment><USER33> Depending on the jurisdiction, strictly speaking it's not up to the victim to pursue charges. The prosecutor can bring charges whether the victim wants to or not.

In practice if the victim doesn't want to testify there's usually no way to get a conviction so it won't be prosecuted. But the decision lies with the prosecutor.

(There are some exceptions- private prosecutions used to be the norm in English common law, but the US largely didn't seem to inherit that portion [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sf...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sfla1) )

[http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges- wh...](http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-what-does-it- mean-and-who-does-it.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I like it - the all or nothing approach is terrifying as a guy, and defining levels of inappropriateness with exact descriptions of actions is very helpful for those who are freaked out they are going to unwittingly harass someone they are attracted to even just acting naturally. I'm hopefully not belittling the recipients of undesired advances of VC assholes like McClure, but I hope it's also not wrong to say these scandals induce anxiety in a ton of well meaning lower level guys who get circled over as part of the problem, and thinking of a solution that considers this large segment of guys is nice to hear.

<comment><USER35> Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no goes a long way.

Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"

<comment><USER36> Often the counter-argument to this is that it feels artificial, unnatural, and it will definitely kill the mood. So I want to preemptively address it.

When a guy asks before touching me, and of course I'm already interested, it makes me melt. It is so sexy and it definitely improves the mood. I just want to point to myself as one data-point.

If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model walks up to you and asks if she can rub your shoulders. Would you be like, "Uh, no, by communicating with me you have completely killed my interest"?

<comment><USER37> I'm convinced the whole "kills the mood" line is coming from folks where the mood never existed but they thought it did. It's basically victim blaming :/

Your example is spot on.

<comment><USER38> As a person who asks, I can tell you that you're wrong. My spouse confided in me (years after it happened) that when I asked to kiss them the very first time, they thought it was kind of a turn-off and wished I had just done it. (But they said "yes", so there's that.)

<comment><USER35> As a woman who is submissive sometimes, I totally want certain people to do things to me without asking, but there are other people I don't want to do these things.

Explicit communication is not a barrier for me experiencing submissiveness because the fact I consented years ago to my partner doing such things to me does not make it any less fun.

I'm definitely willing to forgoe some fun on the first date to avoid having it done to me by someone I'm not into or don't feel safe around (separate variables!).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> There is one point i am curious nobody mentions. If we do not want companies run like fraternity houses, how about not hiring actual fraternity alumni as executives?

</comment><comment><USER40> I am glad to see more people speaking up. I also really like the policies proposed at the end of this, and I would love to see them get implemented.

</comment><comment><USER29> The mass flagging / censoring of comments people disagree with below seems a little petty, I'm curious what the original posts are. I'd rather hear a dumb opinion and make my own choice.

<comment><USER16> Anybody who wants to can see all the original posts by setting 'showdead' to 'yes' in their profile.

Outright deletion of comments (or comment text) is comparatively rare and always done by authors themselves.

<comment><USER29> Thanks, didn't know about that feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Wow. Reading that, I would be too grossed out to touch the hand of someone like Dave. Creep is not putting it strongly enough - serial sexual assaulter is correct.

<comment><USER42> Yes, calling him creepy is horribly unfair to creeps everywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The obvious answer to avoiding workplace issues seems to be never mix business with pleasure.

If the person who you proposition only has to consider the singular question of whether or not they are interested in you their decision will be natural and unforced.

Anyone in a workplace has to constantly consider how this interaction will help or harm future prospects and even if no power differential exists may feel pressured. Many people are weak and may feel dissatisfied or put upon, many are shitty at expressing themselves, asserting themselves, or even at analyzing their own feelings. Then people have to work together after inevitably some of those interactions go bad.

People express this issue as its some complex minefield. It's easy. Just don't do it. Get a hobby and meet people there.

Go to work do whatever you are paid to do and find romance on your own time.

<comment><USER44> Due to the diversity of human preference and desire, I don't think that's a realistic course of action for a broad swath of humanity. People are going to be attracted to each other irregardless of principle. In fact, you could even argue that by pushing this sort of relationship towards the forbidden or taboo, it highlights the appeal. When people are going to spend hours and hours of time together, there's no helping the fact that feelings are going to happen eventually.

It's also not hard to conceive of a person who wants a power relationship with a strong, motivated, and ambitious person. That being said, where are you likely to meet someone who is grinding out the hours to reach success?

None of this is to say your proposed approach is invalid. It's an approach that works for some people. I just don't think it's realistic to expect that it's going to be widely followed. As this article notes:

 _" Workplace romances are commonplace. Statistics indicate that anywhere from 40-47% of employees surveyed had been involved in a workplace romance. Beyond the 47% involved, about 20% indicated they were receptive to an office romance."_

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in- dating/20...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in- dating/201306/workplace-romance-motives)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clarification in response to comments that assume I'm the OP: It's not my story, I just reposted from author's site.

</comment><comment><USER45> Thanks for stepping forward. It takes a lot of courage to come out publicly with such a personal story, especially when the offender is as well-known as Dave McClure.

</comment><comment><USER46> Thanks Cheryl for sharing your story and thanks for contributing a lot to Malaysian startup scenes.

</comment><comment><USER47> First question: which PR agency hand-crafted that disingenuous apology on Dave McClure's blog?

Second question: did 500 Startups foot the bill (the allegations are kryptonite to their brand)?

<comment><USER42> I would think a paid professional pr firm would know not to half-ass an apology and would do a better job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> As YC has a very strong policy in regards to sexual harrassment, are these incidents going to affect how they deal with other VCs (either individuals or companies)?

</comment><comment><USER49> We have half of the comments here trying to figure out what "sexual harassment" actually entails which makes a pretty darn good point in my opinion - people get triggered in different ways. This could be anything from an actual sexual advance to a poorly placed bad joke or a simple misunderstanding due to inability to read social cues. Some employers, usually large corps, blur the lines even more by allowing and even encouraging dating co-workers which presents a whole different perspective on this issue. Bottom line is it's a grey area and I don't really see how we fight this by improving incident reporting. I think if anything it would just make interacting with female co-workers terrifying (it already is to some extent if you're a male). I think this is a social issue and there has to be a mind shift of some sort in order to combat this. Maybe even taking this to schools and teaching kids workplace etiquette.

</comment><comment><USER50> I've seen a few comments on this and articles like this to the effect of "so any time you proposition a woman it could be assault?" and I think it's worth responding to that idea in general.

Yes, there is generally an expectation that men initiate romance, and that is an unfair burden both on men (who have to do the propositioning) and women (who have to decline unwanted propositions). For game-theoretic reasons, this is difficult to change, but it is changing slowly.

In the mean time, restrictions on how to initiate disproportionately affect men, and a lack of restrictions disproportionately affects women. Even more so in situations of gender imbalance (look up "Petrie Multiplier" for more on this). I believe it's for this reason that some men are resistant to "err on the safe side" type policies; as long as they are expected to initiate, they can't succeed without taking risks.

But it's impossible to address this without also including the effect of power imbalance. Even in a world where women initiate 100% of the time, men would in almost all cases still be more physically powerful, and sometimes hold other kinds of social or institutional power. This power can be used to coerce, assault or rape but, even if it isn't, the consequences of a power disparity can be an implicit part of the equation (cf "I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go").

So, what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Sarah Kunst? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a potential employer that made it more difficult for her to say no. Worse still, "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" makes that relationship explicit.

And what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Cheryl Yeoh? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a physically stronger man alone with her in her bedroom, and then forcing himself on her when she said no. I repeat: he could only have done this because he was physically stronger, and even if he didn't, the possibility was there.

So to anyone who's wondering if this means men hitting on women is now outlawed, I hope this can provide a healthy framework for thinking about it. It's okay to hit on people, but avoid doing so in situations with a power imbalance that could mean there are consequences for saying no. And also if they do say no don't assault them.

Unfortunately, as a man, you probably have the ability to physically overpower most women if you want. Hopefully you don't want, but it's worth considering that you have that ability, and she may not know whether you're going to use it.

For a shorter and funnier version of this line of thinking, I suggest this clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE)

<comment><USER51> I am pleased to see you attempt a logical exploration of this topic.

However, I object to a couple points. First, there is almost always potential for consequences for saying no, so long as you allow a physical power imbalance.

Second, and most importantly, you are neglecting that power imbalance forms an entire framework for human sexual interaction, one which is as old as our species. This is at a minimum a biological imperative (hormonal, genetic) and an emergent psychological imperative (physical size/strength/endurance differences). These natural drives are responsible for most men desiring power and most women desiring powerful men.

Now suddenly, over the last few decades, we've turned this intrinsic human nature on its head, and I think that is why this is such a difficult topic for people to grasp/discuss.

I think people underestimate how far removed the current push for gender parity is from human history. This is more of an experiment than most people realize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> It is unfortunate that these kind of things happen. They shed a bad light on our industry as a whole due to (hopefully a few) rotten apples.

Thanks for writing this, takes courage!

<comment><USER53> Let's stop perpetuating this myth that this is a "few rotten apples".

This is a systemic problem in our industry, and we need to all realize this, so that we can start teaching each other what behavior is and is not appropriate in a very clear, concise, and precise manner.

<comment><USER54> I agree that we can teach each other what kind of culture we want to instill, and one that allows people to work in an environment that boosts their potential.

However, from my observations, to flat out list a finite list of behaviorism, will manifest yet another set of behaviorism, which will manifest another list.

I do not view this as a simple systematic problem, but rather a deep-wedged symptom of a sick society. We all are complicit.

A society that is focused on results and ego and success will always encourage such behavior (of debasing others, exploiting others regardless of their being — even white men are exploited and debased by other "higher-paying" white men). No set of rules will change this until we change our society's culture.

The culture cannot change through scolding, but rather a deep, opening conversation that will be conversed again and again until people find no use for the word harassment or sexual harassment or the desire to hurt or debase others in name of success.

<comment><USER55> Oh what a dream. If only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I am seeing an enormous percentage of comments here flagged, including one of mine which is a first for me on this site, or any site.

Upon trying to figure out what's going on I think we need a meta-instruction for comments here?

Like, perhaps the intention is to keep comments focused more on the general problem of sexual harassment in the industry and to not start making a bunch of assertions regarding the specifics of the author's story?

Although I personally think khazhoux's comment pointing to alcohol being a common factor is a pretty good one.

I'm actually having trouble understanding where the line is here so personally going to run away from the thread, but I think a better indication of the ground rules might be helpful to everyone.

<comment><USER57> First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons.

I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're providing tools for abusers to justify and minimize their abuse. Obviously flagging isn't going to solve the problem on its own, but maybe if I go into more detail it will help a little more.

Both comments focus on what their authors imagine themselves doing in a similar situation:

 _> …I never drink more than a wee amount (one glass max) when I'm with co- workers in any sort of work setting._

 _> …I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years, especially not someone who has the strength of will to start a company._

Then they generalize their imagined behavior to what all people should do or should be able to do:

 _> But on general principle, he shouldn't have gotten drunk (which I assume he was??), nor she._

 _> Just because someone else did something wrong is no reason to carry it with you for years._

Who are these comments being written for? In both cases, the person being imagined is the person being abused. It's possible to read these as advice for people potentially facing abuse: don't drink, don't dwell on the past.

There are a few problems with this interpretation. First of all, they take abuse as a fixed part of the world that we just need to deal with: _" Because in my world people do that."_ The conclusion is that people being abused need to change their behavior to avoid it. But the truth is that the abusers are the ones who need to change their behavior.

The second problem is that the advice doesn't work. People are abused whether they drink or not. Memories and thoughts have a way of surfacing whether you intentionally dwell on them or not. If you can't imagine an event haunting Cheryl for years after she has explicitly told you that one has, the problem is with your imagination, not her experiences.

So as advice, these comments are relatively weak. Is there a sense in which they have a stronger function? Let's see:

"I never drink more than a wee amount" isn't excusing Dave's behavior directly. But it makes a strong implication -- if you _do_ drink more than that, you're less responsible for what happens. Do you think Dave kept pouring scotch into her glass on accident? He knows society has a tendency to excuse behavior from a drunk person that they'd never accept from someone sober.

"I can't imagine it haunting anyone for years" doesn't mean Dave's behavior was inconsequential. But it makes a strong implication -- that the consequences of his behavior would be much less if Cheryl didn't make such a big deal out of it.

Both of these perspectives enable abuse. Abusers intentionally use alcohol to provide cover for their behavior. Even when they were planning to do it all along. Dave McClure abused his power to put Cheryl Yeoh into a position she "shouldn't" be in -- so he could turn around and use the very fact she was in such a position to minimize people's reaction to his abuse!

Then, when she admits how much the abuse affected her, he relies on comments like yours to remind us that his role in this was incredibly minor -- just one event that probably lasted less than a minute. The real abuse was just in her head. I don't think you would put it this bluntly, but that's the story the abuser is hoping you take away.

That is to say, the primary function of comments like these is not actually providing advice to people who might be abused. Following this advice will not help them. Whether intentionally or not, their primary function ends up as tools that abusers use to justify and minimize their abuse. That's why I flagged them -- to take these tools out of abusers' hands in whatever small way I can.

<comment><USER29> So the mere idea of avoiding drinking, or that different people will react to an event in different ways is so dangerous and empowering to potential abusers that the entire HN readership needs to be protected from seeing it? Are we adults here? Sorry to be critical, I'm sure you meant well. For a weak comment though, "flagged" seems like a really extreme reaction.

<comment><USER57> It's not the idea of avoiding drinking: it's the creation of a situation (being drunk with coworkers) which you shouldn't be in. Once an abuser can get you into such a situation, they have an excuse for their abuse -- you shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.

And it's not that different people will react to an event in different ways: it's the idea that you _could_ always have reacted to an event in a certain way. If you didn't react to it that way, that's on you -- it's not the abuser's fault.

Put enough of these "mere ideas" together and you get the culture responsible for this environment of abuse that women are facing. We should try to chip away at as many bad ideas as we can!

You're right that flagging may not be the right tool to use here, though. Everyone says they want a reply, but in practice that tends to produce long discussions that rarely end up anywhere useful. What would you suggest? Maybe a mod could weigh in?

<comment><USER29> Agreed, ideas create culture - I guess I've found personally that respectful discussion with those of opposing viewpoints is more productive than 'fighting' them or shutting them down entirely, which flagging kinda seems like. Those have the paradoxical effect of making the person more defensive and angry and work harder to promote their point. So a downvote and a reply with a more convincing argument seems reasonable. I don't know the HN systems that well though, I only post occasionally. And yeah, the discussions may not go anywhere. That's democracy :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> _> By the way: any analysis on how the victim of the abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim-blaming, even if you add a disclaimer claiming otherwise._

No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has any right to shout me down or shut me up.

" _I would rather have questions that can 't be answered than answers that can't be questioned._" — Richard Feynman

<comment><USER59> Wait, so you have the right to raise every issue you wish but I don't have the right voice my disapproval or attach a negative label to what you say? The hypocrisy should make your head spin.

Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a thread about sexual harassment, just like some comments are inappropriate at a funeral.

<comment><USER8> You are completely mischaracterizing qubex's point. The objection is not that you are pointing out a specific statement is victim blaming, it's that you are painting an entire topic as "off limits" by trying to label anyone who brings up the topic, however respectfully and with a view toward future prevention, as a "victim blamer."

Hacker News is one of the last places in the internet where I think there is (comparatively) a minimum of tribalism in discourse. What qubex and I are pushing back against is the idea is branding anyone who brings up this topic (or any topic, really) as essentially "the enemy" regardless of their intent.

<comment><USER59> Sexism is off-limits, and victim blaming is sexist and so as a consequence off-limits. What is and what isn't victim blaming is well-defined: I'm not making this up as I go along. So this isn't about me or my tribe.

I don't blame you or consider you "the enemy". Your understanding of victim blaming is simply wrong, and I encourage you to look it up on Google if you don't believe me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Not really a big deal to be honest. Innapropriate but not enough for a scandal. She was inebriated and she gracefully fails to mention if he was, and he was probably. Its not exactly the next cosby is it?

</comment><comment><USER61> Don't date women from work. Don't dip your pen in the company ink, guys. Just from a power perspective, there's no way to get it right, even if you think she's your peer.

<comment><USER62> That's good advice for people _already_ in a relationship. I don't think that's good advice for singles. Outside of school (writ large) work is one of the places people get to know each other, socialize and mingle. It would be sad to see one of the main places people get to meet to be set "off-limits".

There is nothing mysterious. Just don't be crude. Don't buck convention. Know accepted social norms.

<comment><USER61> Oh goodness, why take that risk? Why would a single guy aching for sex start their hunt in the workplace? Your concept of what the workplace is for is really screwed up. Unwise. Foolish danger.

I have been told stories of companies with no-dating rules where inevitable attraction and secret love affair between coworkers led them to both quit in order to go public with their romance.

That's not what I'm talking about. Obviously, nature is powerful, and attraction between coworkers can just simply happen. I'm not talking about accidents, which are hopefully few and far between. I'm talking about _conscious_ choices that men make.

It's not like there aren't equally convenient ways to meet women to those at work. If you want a (chaotic) hookup, get on Tinder or Craig's List or the local club. If you want the thrill of the meat market, try Match. If you'd like to get married, goto eharmony.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Not defending McClure but it's worth noting sexual assault and 'unwanted touching' are different problems that require different solutions. Any classification system used here should probably differentiate the two. When you combine them you suggest they're the same which does a disservice to those who have been sexually assaulted (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ). The low-fidelity of language here confuses people which then confuses statistics which leads to ineffective policy.

I do think there is a possible SAAS app here for employees to report these incidents in a confidential way and to help shape the culture by providing an immediate notification to the McClure-types that their behavior is both being tracked and isn't going to be tolerated. This would promote immediate action on the part of the company instead of needing a dozen or so claims, a viral blog post, and or a nytimes article before action is taken.

<comment><USER12> > (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ).

That's not the definition of "sexual assault". It varies by jurisdiction, and has been discussed extensively elsethread. "Unwanted touching" and "sexual assault" overlap. More important than anatomy is consent.

<comment><USER63> It's the definition in California. See penal code 243.4 By blurring the lines you contribute to the problem - the author's entire goal in reliving and blogging her experience is that the details matter and we need a sensible framework to define and understand these issues or we can't address them.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the statutory reference. I decided to research this more closely, and looked into several specific definitions. The most widely known (and the one I'd already seen) is the Justice Department's:

[https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual- assault#sa](https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa)

      Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior
      that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
      Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual
      activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy,
      child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

However, the DOJ reference is not a statute. The other state statutes I looked at (New York, Washington, Delaware, Texas) seem to define "[aggravated/unlawful] [sexual/intimate] [assault/abuse/contact] similarly to California, with "intimate parts" enumerated.

So, backing someone into a corner and forcibly attempting to kiss them might not bring a sexual assault charge unless accompanied by groping. Nevertheless, such actions can still result in charges of battery or false imprisonment.

I agree that we need clearer collective understanding of the issues involved. However, the main concern remains consent. It's not "kisses OK, groping not OK" \-- coerced intimacy is always problematic because it is coerced, no matter which statutory lines are crossed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > Generalized sexist statements and behavior that convey insulting or > degrading attitudes about women (e.g. Insulting remarks, obscene jokes or > humor about sex or women in general)

This should be generalized to include both sexes. I often see insulting or degrading comments about men by people in the tech world, especially with terms like "mansplaining".

<comment><USER65> I agree with you. I don't agree with you being down-voted. Complaining about the down-voting does you no good though.

<comment><USER64> I don't care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I have experienced similarly persistent (or arguably even more persistent) unwanted sexual advances from other men, but I certainly didn't feel "assaulted".

As a socially clueless gay man, I was hoping someone could help elucidate the most problematic parts of McClure's behavior here. The two factors that stand out for me are

1) McClure controlled the funding of the agency Yeoh was heading, so he was in a position of power

2) McClure is a man and Yeoh is a woman, so McClure can be assumed to be more physically imposing

Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's behavior inappropriate? In any other context, I would consider asking someone something a third time after two "no"s to be an example of annoying badgering, but not necessarily harassment.

<comment><USER28> _Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure 's behavior inappropriate?_

No, it would not be, at all.

"At this point, I led him to the door and told him he needs to leave. On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me,"</comment></comment>


Redesigning Python's named tuples - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/Articles/731423/ <comment><USER2> It seems like the python maintainers always try to complicate things for themselves to cater for some obscure use case that nobody use. I mean really, when was the last time you ever accessed a namedtuple by index?? (For vectors i do see a benefit that you can throw it right into a matrix multiplication that is designed for arrays but really, you can do that equally easy in other ways). And constructing them on the fly doesn't make much sense either as it defats the benefits of a shared type across the code base.

All people ever wanted was just a way to write in one line ´Point3D = struct(x, y, z)´ that translates into the _exact equivalent_ of:

        class Point3D:
            def __init__(x, y, z):
                self.x = x
                self.y = y
                self.z = z

What would be the startup performance of parsing the above 5 line class compared to a namedtuple? Surely it should be faster to create it with a shorthand form built into the language, if the functionality is equivalent?

<comment><USER3> > _It seems like the python maintainers always try to complicate things for > themselves to cater for some obscure use case that nobody use. I mean > really, when was the last time you ever accessed a namedtuple by index??_

Notice how when someone asks something like that, some bizarro practitioners of such methods would always appear and say how they are invaluable for them...

<comment><USER4> It's called a _tuple_ so why would accessing its elements by index be "bizarre" in any way?

<comment><USER5> Because order should be unimportant for a tuple.

<comment><USER6> Are you joking or serious? I can't read your tone without emoji.

<comment><USER5> Serious; see coldtea's reply for a fuller explanation.

Or consider (firstname="John", lastname="Doe") vs (lastname="Doe", firstname="John").

I think you'd agree that they're the same.

<comment><USER7> They are the "same" by equality, but that's not the only relevant comparison. Ordering is important if you want lexicographic less than.

Without ordering, you wouldn't be able to sanely run `sorted` on a iterable of namedtuples.

<comment><USER8> Dumb question from a non-developer: wouldn't using a dict object make more sense if someone wanted an unordered named tuple?

<comment><USER3> It's not about the storage (besides Python also has order dicts).

Namedtuples are for the convenience of creating a record type (though indeed as others say, treating it as tuple where things expect a tuple is also a benefit).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article is ostensibly about how the current implementation of namedtuples has had serious consequences for the startup time of Python, because namedtuples are used in the compilation of classes (roughly). However, somehow this buries the lede...the most "interesting" discussion is kicked off by the first comment:

      Issues around the performance of Python and programs
      written in it have far wider consequences than startup
      time. During all the time any Python program is running,
      its host machine is consuming power that typically depends
      on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If most of that power is
      wasted, the effects go far beyond extra money to buy
      it, or to operate extra servers, or users who wait a
      little longer. The carbon footprint of a Python program
      that runs throughout a data center, or many data centers,
      adds up.

There was an article earlier on HN about the energy consumption pattern of Bitcoin/Ethereum and presumably any blockchain that implements a proof-of-work protocol/scheme, and between that article and this comment - I've started to notice a growing unease (I am probably waaay behind on the uptake) about the "world-eating" capacity of software.

I wonder how quantifiable implementation decisions like the ones exhibited by namedtuples in Python, which one might argue is an unfortunate/accidental side-effect vis-a-vis energy consumption, versus ones like proof-of-work, which I would argue are explicitly designed to be expensive.

And if anything should come of that quantification, namely, does optimizing code really become a moral imperative, and if so are there some usability and refactorability metrics that are often held in high regard that we ought to consider abandoning in the name of "energy efficient" software.

Obviously, this isn't a simple tradeoff, software that is difficult to write because it is highly optimized is difficult to maintain, and it might be the case that performance derived energy savings are outweighed by the energy cost of maintenance (literally, the energy cost of debugging and testing).

<comment><USER10> I do believe that we should consider a moral obligation to optimize the sh$$ out of widely used software. Inefficient algorithms running in millions of billions of instances (cloud data centers, smartphones, home routers, smart TVs...) create a considerable environmental footprint fast. This is especially true as long as we are powering them using non-renewable energy sources.

The amount of effort that can be spent on optimizations on this kind of widely used software is enormous before the balance becomes negative. If an optimization that shaves off 1 second of CPU time used per year on each of a million devices will result in a net reduction in energy usage within the first year even if it takes 30 eight hour work days to develop.

This train of thought becomes particularly nasty when you realize that all the computational overhead introduced by the widespread usage of encryption (https etc.) must necessarily lead to environmental damage. To put it in the most provocative way I can think of right now: which is more important: the security of your personal data now or the safety and wellbeing of future generations of humankind?

<comment><USER11> Systems of elements that can trust each other are more efficient than systems of elements that must expend energy to check each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why don't languages like Python have the concept of a C-like struct? Seems like it should be straight forward to have with no downsides that I can think of.

<comment><USER13> I had this question for awhile too, but I realized after hacking on the Python interpreter that it breaks the execution model:

\- Python compiles a single module to bytecode at a time (.py to .pyc)

\- It interleaves execution and compilation -- imports are dynamic, you can put arbitrary computation between them, and conditionally import, etc.

If you had structs, then you would need to resolve names to offsets at compile time -- e.g p.x is offset 0, p.y is offset 4. That's a form of type information. Types can be defined in one module and used in another, and Python really has no infrastructure for that.

Nor do any other dynamic languages like Ruby, Perl, JavaScript, Lua, or PHP, as far as I can tell. They are all based on hash tables because deferring name lookup until runtime means that I can start executing "now" rather than looking all over the program for types. It probably helps a bit with the REPL too.

The need for type information in a translation unit is also what gives you C's header file mess, so it's not a trivial problem.

<comment><USER14> Common Lisp, Dylan and Julia do offer such support.

It is a matter of caring about it, and having JIT/AOT support as part of the standard tooling.

C header file mess is caused by its designers ignoring the work outside AT&T and not bothering to implement a module system.

<comment><USER15> > C header file mess is caused by its designers ignoring the work outside AT&T > and not bothering to implement a module system.

To be fair to them, they wanted to create a language whose compiler did fit into the limited hardware they had.

It's not their fault that UNIX had so much success and the world largely went there ignoring most of the progress made in programming tools and languages during the 70s.

<comment><USER14> That success was mostly caused by AT&T not being able to sell UNIX (at least during the first years of UNIX), so they just made the source code available to everyone willing to pay for a symbolic license, which was a tiny fraction of what vendors were charging for their own systems.

An OS and systems programming language available almost for free, including source code, versus what a commercial mainframe, its OS and SDK would cost without source code included, sure recipe for success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Previous LWN article on the subject: "Reducing Python's startup time" (Aug 16, 2017)

[https://lwn.net/Articles/730915/](https://lwn.net/Articles/730915/)

Related HN discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131981](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131981)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd be happy to see it optimized - namedtuple looks like a convenient way to quick-and-dirtily define a data structure, but several times I've ended up changing back to plain tuples because using namedtuple was much slower, especially when pickling.

Maybe they could add a variant that isn't a tuple as well.

</comment><comment><USER18> The subtext is jealousy of JavaScript object creation/destructing, it's the thing I like most about JavaScript I think, really makes your code feel fluid. I couldn't tell you what they preserve order though. There's even precompiler extensions to destructure immutable.js Maps.

<comment><USER19> Could you expand on the syntax you're referring to?

<comment><USER18> Not well but here is a link, the object destructing section [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Referen...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Destructuring_assignment)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have yet to encounter a time when a list of 2 items didn't suffice for tuples. I'm sure applications exist, as tuples are immutable, but I have never encountered the need for them.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Either way (or both) would be implemented in C for speed. It would allow > named tuples to be created without having to describe them up front, as is > done now. But it would also remove one of the principles that guided the > design of named tuples, as Tim Peters said:

> > How do you propose that the resulting object T know that T.x is 1. T.y is > 0, and T.z doesn't make sense? Declaring a namedtuple up front allows the > _class_ to know that all of its instances map attribute "x" to index 0 and > attribute "y" to index 1. The instances know nothing about that on their > own, and consume no more memory than a plain tuple. If your `ntuple()` > returns an object implementing its own mapping, it loses a primary advantage > (0 memory overhead) of namedtuples. Post-decree, Ethan Furman moved the > discussion to python-ideas and suggested looking at his aenum module as a > possible source for a new named tuple. But that implementation uses > metaclasses, which could lead to problems when subclassing as Van Rossum > pointed out.

> Jim Jewett's suggestion to make named tuples simply be a view into a > dictionary ran aground on too many incompatibilities with the existing > implementation. Python dictionaries are now ordered by default and are > optimized for speed, so they might be a reasonable choice, Jewett said. As > Greg Ewing and others noted, though, that would lose many of the attributes > that are valued for named tuples, including low memory overhead, access by > index, and being a subclass of tuple.

> Rodolà revived his proposal for named tuples without a declaration, but > there are a number of problems with that approach. One of the main stumbling > blocks is the type of these on-the-fly named tuples—effectively each one > created would have its own type even if it had the same names in the same > order. That is wasteful of memory, as is having each instance know about the > mapping from indexes to names; the current implementation puts that in the > class, which can be reused. There might be ways to cache these on-the-fly > named tuple types to avoid some of the wasted memory, however. Those > problems and concern that it would be abused led Van Rossum to declare the > "bare" syntax (e.g. (x=1, y=0)) proposal as dead.

From what I've read, v8's implementation of objects in Javascript goes basically like this: when you call a constructor function and assign properties to your object, it makes up struct types and ties the object to that type or something.

Like this:

        function Point2D(x, y) {
            this.x = x;
            this.y = y;
        }
        let p = new Point2D(1.0, 2.0)

initially you'll have an empty object, which will be an empty struct. 'this.x = x' will change the type to the 'X' struct, and 'this.y = y' will change the type to the 'XY' struct. If you do this again with another object, _they 'll share these underlying structs_.

Now this is perhaps easier with a JIT, and perhaps not. But it bears thinking about. Why not just make it so that (x: 1, y: 0) - which would be the best syntax IMO as it fills out the {set, dict; tuple, ???} square - creates an object that shares its class with every other namedtuple that has exactly the x and y properties in exactly that order?

It _really_ frustrates me when I read 'Those problems and concern that it would be abused led Van Rossum to declare the "bare" syntax (e.g. (x=1, y=0)) proposal as dead.' I mean come on, I know it's a different environment in Python than in V8, but seriously this is a solved problem. Those problems? Those problems are a solved problem that a solution was already proposed for in the thread. Just do that.

>He elaborated on the ordering problem by giving an example of a named tuple that stored the attributes of elementary particles (e.g. flavor, spin, charge) which do not have an automatic ordering. That argument seemed to resonate with several thread participants.

I don't want to be too harsh, but this is nonsensical rubbish. Dictionaries preserve order in Python. This ship sailed a long time ago. Namedtuples also already preserve order. Tuples preserve order. Lists preserve order. Dictionaries preserve order.

What _doesn 't_ preserve order? Like, I get that it's not strictly defined that dictionaries preserve order, but they do, and people do rely on that, and so it's never going to actually be changed.

>This is exactly why I scream at relational databases. If you can't tell the difference between a set and a list, and especially if you want to store a list in a set-based paradigm, you are going to have ALL SORTS of grief ...

Unrelated but I found this comment funny. This guy has heard of an index, right?

<comment><USER22> > Dictionaries preserve order in Python. This ship sailed a long time ago.

That ship only sailed last December with the release of 3.6. It is only an implementation detail for CPython. Other implementations can and will use the old behavior. Nobody should be writing code that depends on this behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Obviously, practicality should beat purity and very clever and reasobable syntax

       (x=1, y=2)

which could be used/generalized for a procedure arguments and effecient implementation in C (we have C-based arrays (lists) and hash-tables, so why not generalized records/tuples?) should be accepted.

The problem with a "pure democracy" is that majority cannot be smarter than the top 5% individuals, so really good ideas almost never getting thorough the bulk of a bell curve.

<comment><USER24> Why is (x=1, y=2) more practical than nt(x=1, y=2)? Also, we have a very efficient implementation for tuples. collections.namedtuple is quite fast and the article shows cnamedtuple (which I am the author of) which is a C implementation that is even faster. None of this needs a change to the language itself.

<comment><USER25> > Why is (x=1, y=2) more practical than nt(x=1, y=2)?

It was outlined in the linked article. Order of named arguments should not matter so new syntax would be better.</comment></comment></comment>


Equifax clears executives who sold shares after hack - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-equifax-cyber/equifax-clears-executives-who-sold-shares-after-hack-idUSKBN1D31EK <comment><USER2> Was anyone expecting a different outcome? To punish them would admit even more culpability, something Equifax has consistently resisted since day one

</comment><comment><USER3> While it's easy to attribute malicious intentions, open market "sell" trade seems to be pretty common at Equifax:

[http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/efx/insider- trades?sortname=tra...](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/efx/insider- trades?sortname=transtype&sorttype=1)

It is surprising considering executives normally set up _automatic sells_ , like in the Bezos case discussed yesterday:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15623102](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15623102)

So, it remains to be seen what actually happened here.

<comment><USER4> The initial reporting I saw on this indicated they sold something like 5% of their total stock in the company, which seems like kind of a small amount to risk insider trading charges over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> haha, oh well as long as the corporation has cleared them then they must be innocent! No conflict of interest here!

Okay joking aside, I am really curious, are these people idiots? Are they criminals? Are they both? What makes them think they can get away with these kinds of behaviors?

</comment><comment><USER6> Holy shit what needs to happen for the government to step in.

<comment><USER7> > The U.S. Justice Department is conducting its own criminal investigation > into the share sales.</comment></comment>


Ruby 1.9.1 Released: First Stable Ruby 1.9 Release - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/browse_thread/thread/35e963933f9d0b1a

<comment><USER2> I know the Rails team has worked hard towards getting 1.9 compatibility, but what are your opinions about using this on production servers? (I'm kinda edgey myself, it's why I ask.)

<comment><USER3> Not yet. Think about all of the gem/plugin dependencies which may not be 1.9 compatible.

<comment><USER4> But your saying that an out of the box rails 2.2.2 site works on ruby 1.9? If so, that's the first I've ever heard of it...

<comment><USER5> I think Rails itself works, the problem is the servers. Mongrel doesn't work on 1.9, and the others have problems too. Also the DB libraries.

Plenty of other gems don't work either, basic ones like JSON (works only in pure Ruby mode). Hopefully the stable 1.9 release spurs maintainers on a bit, but I imagine it'll take a while.

<comment><USER6> Then there are the DB libraries that only work in 1.9 like NeverBlock.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I heard years ago that Ruby 1.9 was going to have tail call optimization, but I can't find it anywhere in the news file. Does anyone know if this made it in or not?

<comment><USER6> I think it's been implemented in 1.9 for a long time, but it's not enabled by default. You have to set a #define to configure it, however I don't know why it's not enabled by default. Maybe someone in the "know" can tell us why.

<comment><USER8> "In fact, I don't check this option. So some bugs may hide on this option. And backtrace (what you see on exception) is changed. It's convention issue." -- <http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/164263></comment></comment></comment>


Google Chrome OS Leaked. Install it today - <AUTHOR> http://tedroden.tumblr.com/post/137816854/google-chrome-leaked-install-the-google-chrome

<comment><USER2> That's not Google's "Chrome" version of Linux - that's Chromium FOR Linux. It's a browser, not an OS, and it wasn't leaked, it's an open-source project that's been around for sometime. In fact, it's the base for the Google Chrome browser.

<comment><USER3> I think that was the point the author was trying to make. The Google OS is nothing more than Linux and the Chromium browser.</comment></comment>


Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive - <AUTHOR> http://techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml

<comment><USER2> I think it's important to note that this is an observation and not a correlation. It's a completely untestable hypothesis.

Besides, if the article is trying to contrast against technology, I don't think the development cost of recipes is anywhere close to that of semiconductors. I doubt it cost McDonald's eight figures to develop the egg mcmuffin.

<comment><USER3> I can't find a reference through all the noise, but I remember it being quite expensive for McDonald's to develop a new food. If they use a fresh egg for example, where will the supply come from when they can monopolize all the egg production for a region? The food must be formulated to be cheap, hit the right market, taste great, last, and have a high profit margin. Fast food is more of an industrial project. Then they have to worry about distribution, training, marketing, manufacturing, and how it will be manged throughout the world. 8 figures might not be a reach. And nobody can copy it because of the brand McDonalds and how they do all that other stuff. They don't need a patent.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Will HN allow account and comment deletions? - <AUTHOR> Ask HN: With the GDPR coming, the 'right to be forgotten', and the FB privacy flare-up, will HN ever allow comment and account deletions? <comment><USER2> Honestly, this should never be allowed.

It's archaeology-hostile. It pisses me off to no end when I am searching for information on reddit and come across people replying to deleted posts by some paranoid user who wishes comments were more ephemeral like Snapchat.

This is what the next dark age of mankind will be like, people from the future looking for historical information and finding nothing but deleted or decayed data.

Here's a tip: if you don't want something to be up for all time, don't even bother posting it. Keep it to your self. There are a lot of damning things and incidents that could end people's careers and reputations that I've never posted about because I do not want the permanent liability.

I feel like the art of staying anonymous has been lost on people. It's not that hard.

<comment><USER3> _Honestly, this should never be allowed._

I wouldn't go that far, though I am generally sympathetic to your overarching argument.

I wouldn't go that far in part because I'm a woman and women seem to attract stalkers a lot more than men. I was a homemaker for a long time and had a very private life. Trying to figure out how to interact effectively in the public sphere has been a struggle for me.

Part of that is me. Part of that is other people. People react differently to a woman than to a man.

So, on the one hand, I needed to figure out what I was simply doing wrong. On the other hand, I needed to figure out how to effectively navigate a situation that can, at times, be actively hostile and dangerous, even if I am not doing anything wrong. Those two things confound each other and I don't know of any good sources of instruction.

This has helped make me very aware that sometimes people get into real trouble and need extraordinary measures to help extract them from the mess.

I think those extraordinary measures should be made available at times. But I also think it should not be the default solution.

I generally agree with you that there are other approaches that we need to be pursuing that are more nuanced and that try to balance different concerns. I think gutting the value of a forum so that people can remove all their content at will on a whim can readily go bad places. I am not crazy about it as a policy/law.

<comment><USER4> > I think gutting the value of a forum so that people can remove all their > content at will on a whim can readily go bad places.

Thankfully, there's a really easy solution that HN today will not consider/is not taking seriously enough: Just change the goddamn displayed username for each comment to "<deleted>" or whatever.

1) this kind of (seemingly; it's all a black box in reality though) naval- gazing-based decision making is exactly why the GDPR makes sense. We can't run our lives on the whims of a few random people.

2) Does YCombinator tell us all of this stuff when we sign up to HN? No. We have to find it out by ourselves. When we e-mail them to ask them to delete our contributions, since there's no delete button, they just say "sorry, we can't do that".

This kind of stuff is what the GDPR is good for.

<comment><USER2> GDPR is one of the reasons I'm hoping for the collapse of the EU.

If a US company has no physical presence in Europe I see no reason why they should comply with their bullshit.

And under a Trump administration... good luck.

<comment><USER5> I bet Poland and Hungry are next to leave. It's a sad, predictable situation, take away the people's ability to check their own government, it's almost a law of physics that next to go is free speech (now), and then... history repeats. The BREXIT vote shows they know, but it's to be seen if the British can turn this one around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been emailing them about it once a year for 3 years, they keep saying they're working on it. Last month, they supposedly put me on a mailing list to be contacted when the feature is available.

I'd be fine with just being able to change my user name, or leaving my comments with a "[Deleted]" user name in place of my original like reddit.

</comment><comment> et-al This makes me a bit nostalgic for the older days when you just assumed you were chatting with a bunch of other weirdos online, so everyone went by aliases. And if you ever tired of your old identity, you'd shed that old screenname, sign up with a different one, and maybe never mention the past.

Facebook changed everything by encouraging people to match their online accounts to real names, supply photos of themselves, and their family tree. Usernames became actual people. And all of a sudden, anonymity was lost.

And now people want to be forgotten again. I shake my head at the heavy-handed way of mass deleting comments. It's understandable for Facebook where the person and account are closely tied, but for sites like HN, I hope we keep the shared knowledge, but just scrub out the name.

<comment><USER7> > Facebook changed everything by encouraging people to match their online > accounts to real names

s/encouraging/requiring/

<comment><USER8> You can still create an account with a fake name if you like. They don't have anything to enforce it.

<comment><USER9> They enforce it when reported. Who cares to report it, though?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude I have been partially doxed here and HN refuses to remove the comment.

<comment><USER10> If you are trying to be anonymous you really should try harder, it took me less than a minute to get your home address. For starters you should probably remove any identifying information from your profile.

<comment><USER11> >If you are trying to be anonymous you really should try harder, it took me less than a minute to get your home address.

It may be insightful for others if you divulge your methods.

<comment><USER10> When you have more than 50K HN Karma an extra toolbox opens up next to the usernames, one of those is 'autodoxx' (clearly a weak pun on autodocs).

You click the link and it will automatically query google, various Whois tools and other lookup services to get a fix on the user, the end result is a nice little one-page mash-up listing all the domains you own, a bunch of recent photographs, your political leanings, your sexual preferences, your last three known addresses, any children you have and where they go to school, your present location on a google maps page (it moves when you do, it's near real- time, maybe a minute or two delayed), your current employer and an estimate of your bank balance and some possible avenues for blackmail.

All this powered by the friendly AI of some HN start-ups that want to show off their technology, and blessed by the Holy Trinity of online surveillance: Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg. This _is_ Hacker News after all.

<comment><USER12> I love how much I can't tell if you're serious.

<comment><USER10> 49822 to go.

<comment> the-dude Your knowledge base is out of sync.

<comment><USER10> HN doesn't support programmatic content or I would have been happy to make it real time.

<comment> the-dude This is strange, there was another, very very similar comment here from another user, which disappeared after about 10-15 minutes.

Then 15 minutes later, this comment appears, with only a slight variation in wording.

I am starting to doubt myself. Eerie.

<comment><USER13> I removed it for a couple of reasons: I try to keep my posts substantive (though I have been known to slip) because I strongly value that aspect of HN. And in particular I don't like to feed conspiracy theories, even when it's clear they're in jest. 'jacquesm's post upthread overwhelmed my usual caution, which led to a moment of weakness that I tried to correct.

Apologies if it may have (hopefully only temporarily) contributed even in its removal!

<comment> et-al > _I try to keep my posts substantive because I strongly value that aspect of > HN_

Thanks for trying. I've been noticing more reddit-like comments lately and it's tiring since it worsens the signal:noise ratio here.

<comment><USER11> Same. For the record, I did not intend to trigger a sarcastawar. Was hoping for: I went profile --> domain --> whois, validated against redfin/zillow / county court records... --> traded to equifax for salary history or similar

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It would be appreciated. I've recently been removing all history for my main alias (of which I don't use on HN for this very reason) from the internet.

<comment><USER15> Is there a nice summary of how to do this available? Or, if not, would you mind posting a few pointers?

<comment><USER14> It's nothing fancy. I'm simply deleting all my comments/posts on reddit and other forums I've participated in, manually. Of course, you can reach out to the admins and ask them to delete your data, but they may not be responsive...

One thing I haven't got to yet, and am not sure how to even approach, is removing my old Usenet posts, which you can find on Google Groups (from 1995!).

I still comment on reddit and such, as I like to help people. I just come back later and remove the comments.

<comment><USER16> > I still comment on reddit and such, as I like to help people. I just come > back later and remove the comments.

May I ask why? There are few things more frustrating than arriving in a help thread from search results and finding that the answer has been deleted.

<comment><USER14> That's fair, and I understand that pain.

It's a couple things. I may actually be wrong, and don't want to leave my stupidity open on the internet for all to see. And secondly, for those who figure out my alias in real life and snoop me up on the internet and find things out about me that I'd prefer to keep private (things I am interested in, activities I partake in, etc).

<comment> et-al Why not just create a new account every few weeks? It's trivially simple on reddit and HN, and they offer you some degree of anonymity unlike Facebook.

Like Sharparam, reddit search results can be fruitless because of all the deleted answers. Imagine if StackOverflow was like that.

<comment><USER17> I tried doing this, but many subreddits have a restriction against account ages. I frequently find myself being unable to post (or I am, but my posts are in the "shadows" with no notice), without getting an AutoMod telling me:

1). Your karma is too low

2). Your account is too young

3). You haven't been subscribed long enough

It's always a turn off when you've written a long and properly sourced info dump, but then the automod deletes it and you have to go fish it out of ceddit et al. And then asking admins to make an exception is always as fun as getting your license renewed. So I do what the OG does: Keep a couple of accounts dedicated to each subject-matter, and delete my posts routinely.

If what I post is important enough, it'll propagate. If it doesn't, it dies. That's not the reason I do it, however. It's a boycott against Reddit as the world's discussion platform. Good luck figuring out the answers to those really important questions or why all the commentators are applauding [deleted] ;)

<comment> et-al Yeah those are good points.

It is a pity Reddit has become the go-to discussion platform because you have one identity tied across multiple interests (unless you happen to create specialised accounts). It's also plagued with the eternal September because users easily hop between subreddits. As such, few people bother reading the FAQ or searching before asking a question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You might be able to but there are many copies of HN comments and databases floating around so even if HN did this properly likely there would still be other copies that you could not touch.

</comment><comment><USER18> Also, will the deletions be logical or physical. Will they be shallow or deep? Keep in mind that there are many types of "deletion".

Logical deletions would be just marking the user/comment as deleted ( updating a column in a table ) while keeping the data internally. Physical deletions would mean they remove the data on their servers.

Then the next question is whether the deletions are shallow ( superficial ) or deep ( complete ). For example, they can just do a shallow delete of the account/user on their front-end servers. But that leaves back-end servers, disaster recovery servers, staging servers, storage tape long term backups and also log backups.

Even if data is deleted on all live servers, database and log backups stored on tape and sent off to storage facilities still have your data.

Deleting your account/comment isn't as simple as people generally think.

</comment><comment><USER19> You can get individual comments deleted if you ask the moderator nicely.

I think at the very least a 'hide' feature for a comment would be useful. Presumably you don't want 'anonymous' comments created either so you'd need to hide the entire comment from the public and not just the username.

Sometimes one accidentally leaks personal information, and in this day and age privacy matters (or should).

</comment><comment><USER20> The GDPR isn't a magic shield though. It's designed to regulate privacy data, which is tied to European citizens, in systems designed to keep such data.

HN isn't such a system because HN isn't build to keep any privacy information. It'll be interesting to see how stuff like chosing your real name as a username plays out in the courts, but as it stands right now, HN won't have to delete your data because of the GDPR.

</comment><comment><USER21> Previous HN thread - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661323](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16661323)

<comment><USER22> I read the whole thing and all I came away with is that basically no one has a fucking clue if it applies, if it does apply technically does it even matter, and if it does matter how it's supposed to work without fucking up the site.

Yay GDPR!

<comment><USER23> Most of the deletion requirement for a user could probably be satisfied by removing the username from the posts. And not just for display, but in the db. If the data can't be recalled for a user, then (by my reading) that clears the GDPR requirement.

<comment><USER24> Comments have personally identifiable information in too, it really doesn't sound like it's enough.

<comment><USER23> how many comments list their own name? Very very few.

Other comments may refer to you but you have no gdpr privacy rights over that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude Thread has been buried from about 2300 CET.</comment>


Hyperloop Would Cross Entire State in 30 Minutes - <AUTHOR> https://news.thomasnet.com/featured/hyperloop-would-cross-entire-state-in-30-minutes- <comment><USER2> It had better cross in a straight line, or it will arrive filled with vomit.

I'm so tired of hearing about hyperloop, or "Vac-Trains" as they were known in the 1800's. Like Magic Leap's original claim of FSD it sounds good to people who don't understand the physical and physiological limitations. If you do understand them, it's just a terrible joke.

Drawing a vacuum deep enough to confer benefits in this case? Not easy, energetically expemsive, and requires extreme engineering.

Safety. So many aspects of safety.

Remember that fine tolerance engineering you did? Hope it wasn't somewhere seismically active...

Cost. Oh god the cost.

Your turning radius is going to be _huge_ unless you want to see what people look like after 30 minutes of projectile vomiting in a small space.

And more.</comment>


Ask HN: Internal SSD Recommendations? - <AUTHOR> It's been a while since I shopped. What are the brands, tips, specs to look for, or more specific recommendations you have for internal SSDs? I'm looking for something in the 500GB-1TB range (bulk storage for games), but also looking to keep things relatively cheap. <comment><USER2> Since you're asking in regard to bulk storage for games, I assume you're on a desktop?

There are primarily two form factors to consider ...

The 2.5" sata ssds offer nice price per GB. SanDisk and Crucial are two brands I've used that weren't as expensive as their Samsung counterpart, but still provided reliable value and performance. They have 500 GB - 1 TB drives on Amazon right now in the $70-$140 range, new. There's also the Samsung Evo in this form factor, but a little more.

NVME drives (M.2) offer better performance, but for bulk storage, that may not be so relevant. There are lower cost nvme drives in the $70-$80 range for 500 GB. I've only used Samsung NVME drives though, which tend to cost more, but they've never caused issues in my systems.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you feel about Intel? Theirs are actually a decent amount cheaper than Samsung

<comment><USER2> I've never used Intel ssds.

Of the ones I've seen commented about in the hardware community, I seem to recall lower pricing tied to lower quality (less durable) memory used. But again, if you just need the drive for storage, any concerns there may not impact your use case much.</comment></comment></comment>


Library for simple drawing with jQuery  - <AUTHOR> http://www.openstudio.fr/Library-for-simple-drawing-with.html <comment><USER2> Is it still relevant? As I can understand, this library is more of a programming exercise for the author, and it wasn't updated for over 2 years.

I am going to learn JavaScript and start with some simple drawing. I guess I have to learn a lot at once: JavaScript, CSS, some framework (i.e. jQuery, Dojo) I decided to try Dojo; it seems like a rich library with many extensions. It has graphics extension dojox.gfx which looks like a capable graphics library.

OTOH, jQuery doesnt't seem to offer graphics capabilities by itself. Versions of Tetris in jQuery that I saw [1] all use CSS manipulation to show bricks. I saw quite impressive reimplementation of classic game with jQuery [2] that seems to use CSS to implement tiles and goes from there. I can feel that code is clean and good, but there is too much for me at once.

[1] jQuery Tetris <http://nickolai.tumblr.com/post/363897937/jquery-tetris>

[2] jQuery Video Game Remake: T&C Surf [http://nickolai.tumblr.com/post/363884217/jquery-video- game-...](http://nickolai.tumblr.com/post/363884217/jquery-video-game-remake- t-c-surf-source)</comment>