What Your Boss Could Learn by Reading the Whole Company's Emails - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/the-secrets-in-your-inbox/565745/?single_page=true <comment><USER3> "In an ideal world, employees would be honest with their bosses,"

Haha, this is a nice bit of rhetoric judo. I think the bigger issue is usually bosses being honest with employees.

</comment><comment><USER4> Maybe managers could get the same benefit if they would encourage employees to speak up and actually follow the advice some of them might have.

</comment><comment><USER5> It seems like this article is advocating for Big Brother to watch you...

<comment><USER6> > When I asked Mirovic about privacy concerns, he said that KeenCorp does not > collect, store, or report any information at the individual level. According > to KeenCorp, all messages are "stripped and treated so that the privacy of > individual employees is fully protected."

They collect meta data, but it's still a group invasion of privacy.

Also, the article reads like a sales pitch for KeenCorp.

<comment><USER7> > but it's still a group invasion of privacy.

You shouldn't expect any privacy regarding anything you do at or for work (other than using the restroom). The email and chat servers are theirs, and they have every right to read the emails. Good companies will at least tell you when they're reading your email, but legally they don't even have to do that.

<comment><USER8> A very concerning attitude, to assume people have no rights at a workplace. Ironically and disappointingly this attitude seems prevalent among Americans.

<comment><USER9> I don't think you can quite equate "monitoring of company email usage" with "no rights at a workplace;" also "stating a fact" is not the same as "assuming," it's not even the same as "advocating for" or "liking."

I doubt there exists a company anywhere that's not monitoring email at least for spam and viruses.

There's certain times where it's not only acceptable but actually required to "violate employee's privacy" by searching their personal possessions - <USER2> airline employees, prison employees, etc.

Most companies will have some sort of auditing software on their critical servers to detect (and report) both unauthorized access but also unauthorized activity. I seriously doubt this is illegal in Europe. It's very difficult to take serious the position "my boss shouldn't know I logged into the production server and downloaded the whole database because 'I have privacy.'"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Invading privacy is good, but only when the more powerful do it to the less > powerful.

</comment><comment><USER11> I work for a big firm. Very little of our personal communication happens over email these days. They would have to analyse chat logs instead to really understand what is going on.

<comment><USER12> If there's not a Slack plugin yet, we can bet they're working on it.

<comment><USER13> Owner of Slack instance can request all data, including direct messages, as far as I remember.

<comment><USER14> our company moved away from slack distinctly because it was too cumbersome for them to look into a person's chat logs. IIRC they also notify the user when a manager requested/looked at their logs. They moved to a local instance of Mattermost for 'privacy' reasons, but it was the opposite of what you would think. The privacy isn't of the user, but rather they wanted a lack of privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Back in the '90's we used to say the e in email is for "evidence"

<comment><USER16> Back in the day, I spent many days skimming email printouts, produced in discovery, and organizing them for review. Defendants were obligated to produce everything relevant, but not necessarily in any order. So basically, they'd dump everything out, mix well, and then pack in boxes. Or at least, that's how it seemed to some of us.

<comment><USER17> I have heard that was a tactic banks used when they were investigated by Congress after the financial crisis. "you want documents? No problem. Here are several trucks loaded with printouts. Enjoy!".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >KeenCorp doesn't read the emails, exactly—its software focuses on word patterns and their context.

Well if that isn't the biggest pile of horse shit I've ever heard, I don't know what is.

We don't read your e-mails, we just have a program that injests the contents of your email and assign you an unexplainable number that might get you fired. Oh, and we lied about reading your e-mails, this software totally does that. Trust us!

</comment><comment><USER19> This looks like a submarine article for Keencorp. The way it tries to build suspense on Fastow's answer by taking a hard turn towards "textual analysis" is a dead giveaway.

</comment><comment><USER20> And nothing bad could POSSIBLY go wrong with this. </sarcasm></comment>


Unlearning the myth of American innocence - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/08/unlearning-the-myth-of-american-innocence <comment><USER2> America is indeed an empire. Apparently the author was oblivious to this, and her epiphany that empire creates a reality distortion field for all those within it is really not that much of a revelation, except to her. Perpetuating unthinking patriotism is fundamental to empiric survival. Only as long as the populace believes in their inherent superiority (AKA exceptionalism) do their eyes remain blissfully closed to the consequences of their righteousness on others.

The rest of the article (book?) is about the author's slow growing awareness that non-Americans are warped by these distortions of reality too, in ways that are just as self-delusional and self-destructive. Yes, power does corrupt. Absolutely.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone over 30 could find this piece compelling. It's founded in a childish self-centered view of the world, a self-indulgent bubble that finally popped for the author, but not until age 30?

Has this become typical? Even an Ivy League American student can be so insulated that they're not aware that people elsewhere in the world see the world so differently? That their disenfranchisement from power, both locally and globally leaves them bitter and mistrustful of all forms of authority? Who doesn't know this? Jeez. We just elected TRUMP, dammit. Who isn't aware that even the average _American_ feels disempowered by the routine abuse of authority by self-perpetuating elites?

Likewise, I was equally taken aback at the general public's response to "Hillbilly Elegy" as epiphany. Back in the 1970's I lived on the edge of Appalachia, which left me well aware of the subsistence lifestyle in rural America that the book revealed as something new (to most?). Are such wide dynamic ranges of experience in and outside the USA really so invisible to most of us?

If so, that's freaking inexcusable. We live in an era where the ubiquity of the Net can make you aware of virtually every aspect of human experience on Earth in less than a heartbeat. Just open your eyes.

<comment><USER3> i found it strange that she was sort of selling a story of the provincial country girl when she grew up in jersey.

<comment><USER4> New Jersey is a very, very diverse place. Things may not be as spaced out as they are in the Midwest, but culturally the New Jersey countryside is very very different from the sections on the Shore, on the Northeast Corridor, and in the affluent North.

<comment><USER5> > New Jersey

> ...

> affluent North.

Good one!

<comment><USER4> Meant the part of North Jersey that is affluent, not that all of North Jersey is affluent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The piece is stating the obvious, and the reactions in this thread -- predictably -- prove the author's point. Expatriation, even temporary, has so many benefits. I'd be curious to correlate the postures of HN commentators with their provenance and life experience.

<comment><USER7> The piece is also full of guilt for American foreign policy that's mainly decided by special interests, but then gets blamed on ordinary Americans.

Aren't they lucky - first they get their democracy subverted by multinational corporations, then they get to feel guilty about what those same corporations do.

Source: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on- poli...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on- politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups- and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)

<comment><USER8> > _The piece is also full of guilt for American foreign policy that 's mainly > decided by special interests, but then gets blamed on ordinary Americans._

Well, ordinary citizens also get to benefit from a strong position of their country in the world arena.

Plus, in a democracy ordinary citizens are also to blame for their government's decisions. They can always vote something else, protest, revolt etc. People all around the world have done it for their governments (and of course Americans at different times).

Lastly, some (if not most) of those actions also have strong popular support (whether for misinformation, misplaced patriotism, or just because of strong propaganda).

<comment><USER9> > Plus, in a democracy ordinary citizens are also to blame for their > government's decisions. They can always vote something else, protest, revolt > etc. People all around the world have done it for their governments (and of > course Americans at different times).

Those BASTARD Mosul Kurds ! I KNEW they did something to deserve getting mass- murdered and raped.

Thanks for clarifying that not revolting means you are guilty of whatever government happens to rule the piece of land you're currently occupying does. And of course, what it did in the past.

I must say, I was not clear on that. Well, I still am not clear on that.

<comment><USER8> > _Those BASTARD Mosul Kurds ! I KNEW they did something to deserve getting > mass-murdered and raped._

First of all, I wrote "in a democracy". For all the sneer, you missed that part.

Second, those "Mosul Kurds" did very much rebel, and for a long long time. For all the sneer, your example doesn't match their history.

Third, even if they hadn't that would be irrelevant, as they were a minority in that country. It's the duty of the general population that first and foremost should not let its government do injustice, not of an oppressed minority, that not only doesn't control the government but also has the majority against it. For all the sneer, you missed that obvious counter- argument as well.

> _Thanks for clarifying that not revolting means you are guilty of whatever > government happens to rule the piece of land you 're currently occupying > does._

You're welcome. People in a democracy are not just random bodies occupying random pieces of land and getting on with our lives whatever happens. They are citizens, they vote, they participate in the public discussion, the voice their opinions, etc. Silence is complicity.

<comment><USER9> > First of all, I wrote "in a democracy". For all the sneer, you missed that > part.

Iraq was a democracy at the time. In fact this is one of the big grievances that is blamed for the creation and advance of ISIS.

Oops.

> Second, those "Mosul Kurds" did very much rebel

No they didn't. Not when it mattered. Here is the sequence of events, in the hope that it can show you just how wrong you are :

Iraq was a sectarian country. That America made it a democracy is part of the causal chain that gave us Daesh/isis. Here's what happened:

1) Saddam (gets put into power as an ally of Hitler and more generally as a product of the nationalistic ideologies sweeping the world)

2) Saddam is a Sunni muslim, and rules in sectarian fashion. This means that anybody in government jobs is a Sunni muslim too (sunni muslims, in case you don't know, are the ones behind most terrorism, the ones behind daesh/isis, and the largest group of muslims (80% or so). They are completely intolerant of other islamic groups, and of course of any other faiths and atheists).

3) Sunnis, however are a minority in Iraq. Shi'a, the "Iranian/Persian" "branch" of islam, are the majority. Other minorities include Kurds, Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, and expats.

4) America fights two wars against Iraq. Second time, they install a democracy.

5) The democracy puts the majority Shi'a in power. They put Shi'as in power who, together with Americans, fire pretty much every Sunni in government service, which were pretty much the only remaining jobs.

6) After that, of course, those Shi'as found that over time they had been relocated to areas of the country that were unimportant economically, where Sunni's lived.

7) Sunnis react to this state of affairs by attacking everyone and everything. As a result of this, the Christian community of Iraq has essentially been murdered out of existence.

8) Shi'as remove Sunnis from those economic areas, by simply destroying their houses, villages, etc. and shooting everyone. The Shi'a police force, with help from Americans, learn to deal with the Sunni terror attacks over time and those become ineffective.

9) The Sunni band together and form Daesh/isis, and take territory. Confronted with an organized force, the Shi'a soldiers simply abandon their posts and let them take large parts of the country.

So, firstly, not only were the Kurds living in a democracy, but a democracy that was doing very unacceptable things (by our moral code, not by theirs). A racist democracy, installed and supported by the US and Iran (yes, really).

In the areas that were conquered, everyone saw it coming.

But of course outside of that we simply cannot accept that, given the chance, in the middle east (and elsewhere I might add) muslims simply immediately oppress and even massacre anyone even slightly different from them. When they get control of a government, they replace the agents on the ground, the police and the army, so that, firstly, they can do whatever they want, and second the government itself helps with the ethnic cleansing. And of course, that happens whether that government is a dictatorship or a democracy, because that fact simply has nothing to do with the problem. People might even suggest that similar things are in the very early stages of happening in cities like Paris, in a few districts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Exceptionalism always carries with it the danger of supremacism and once that gets you as individual, group or country there is a constant desire to find the 'logic and evidence' to support the position post-facto.

Identity becomes deeply entwined with protecting the purity of the 'exceptional group' with an unhealthy reductive interest in judging others and clearly demarcating the 'unexceptional'. This is a very negative space.

The problem with sweeping articles like this is it requires intense engagement with history, reason and reflection to escape the generalization and find a truth you can be comfortable with.

No one can define you, you can always choose what you want to be. On a wider level people have always been led and as long as exceptionalism remains a low key 'motivator' it works but its a dangerous game as the lines can blur pretty quickly.

</comment><comment><USER11> My take. She is a journalist. They have to write. She writes. We read.

The old saying is "everybody has one novel in them." updated verson: everyone has a blog post in them.

Her words are ok. Not inspiring whatsoever. Not dramatic. Not new.

I take it for what it is. Let her get better at her job.

</comment><comment><USER12> It very much glosses over Turkey's own history of (Greek, Armenian) genocide and the very real differences in religious and other liberties between Turkey and the U.S.

<comment><USER13> She's not talking about Turkey as something superior to the US. Quite the opposite!

She notices _similarities_ between Turkish nationalism and American patriotic world view, and that includes being a very aggressive state.

<comment><USER14> Yes, we must see ourselves in others. My epiphany was when I realized how similar the political decision-making process in Pakistan is to that in USA. Short answer: in both places, the military-industrial complex dictates the "reality" it's acceptable to perceive, and all decisions flow from that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My take on the topics raised - US innocence, hostility towards the US, patriotism, nationalism... my take is that these are changes in prevailing opinions and notions. The cumulative of subjective opinions. I'm not American, btw.

There are a few big reasons for what the author is observing and commenting on, that get too little attention IMO.

One is the end of the cold war, and the wars preceding it. The cold war was cold, but the psychology was regular war psychology. Fear, demonisation, rallying around your side... Relative evaluation of conduct and goals, rather than idealistic evaluation.

In the corld-war-world, the US represented democracy, personal liberty and its associated human rights, and (very importantly) culturally icons. US and western police forces behaved well relative to Soviet police forces. US Movies & Music were better. Press was more honest. The comparison was not made relative to an idealised concept of democracy or human rights (or music). It was made relative to the Soviet Union associated states. It was also mostly made in Eastern Europe, where the divide was arbitrary, non-national and highly visible.

That dichotomy world is gone. These days, I think people evaluate these things in a more abstract way, relative to abstract idealizations.

A second effect is US politics' global viewership. This is a product of globalized media, the dramatic merits of US political theater, the genuine impacts of big US decisions and other reasons.

This is huge. I live in Ireland. The _majority_ of people are more knowledgeable, vested and opinionated about US politics than local politics. They have a strong opinion on US health policies, but not Irish ones. This is a recipe for insanity. US politicians are pandering to US opinions, not Danish or Georgian or Irish opinions. Of course they feel unrepresented. When one side loses a heated election, large numbers always feel alienated and angry at the country. It passes, a normal part of democracy. Many Danes (and everyone) were involved enough emotionally to get the same feeling but being non- americans aren't as affected by the normalizing effects that bring everything together in the end.

When Europeans express a frustrated criticism of US politics, they are doing it as insiders. They are criticising it the same way they would criticize a local party coming to power, one which they don't like. Imagine how angry Americans would get at the Danish or Mexican parliament if they were following it like this.

A third issue is the "someone must be driving" fallacy. In this sense being angry at the US is like the constant anger at one's own government. There is so much wrong with everything and it has to be someone's fault.

The US has been having a bad run in foreign policy. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, even N. Korea, ... The US is (rightly or wrongly) held responsible as the guy in charge. Politics rarely rewards successes. The failures are just more visible.

Who do you get angry at for the Syrian civil war? Who's to blame? The UN?

<comment><USER16> Thank you for this comment. I'm an American but have lived abroad for most of the last 13 years in various countries and articles like this drive me nuts. Yes, the US has made a lot of terrible mistakes in our foreign policy, but we have also paid for and ensured (basically unilaterally) the security of free trade (securing shipping routes, underwriting NATO, projecting force against anyone that tried to disrupt international trade). We did this readily during the Cold War because markets were our strongest weapon against the Soviet Union. Now that there is no equal existential threat, we no longer have much motivation for ensuring global security.

When I read shallow reflections like this article, I think, here's a person that judges the wartime decisions of the past in the peace of the present, and submits to the vapid criticism every government levels against the world's boogieman.

<comment><USER15> A appreciate it.

But, I don't really think the writer of this article is all that bad. He's obviously writing from a personal perspective. Basically narrating his "disilusionment," for lack of a better term. It's actually a fairly poor term. We always start from simpler idea, less knowledge and grow from there.

The reality is that there is no such things as patriotism. It's a made up concept to describe how we feel about our country (another made up concept). There is no True narrative of Turkey's political saga.

These are all opinions and narratives, subjective by nature. Facts play a roles, but they are intermingles with a lot of stuff that isn't factual in nature. That doesn't make it shallow.

The problem is that we're all playing a losing game. You can't read an article like this, and just fish for stuff that supports are weakens your own position in some meta-trial conducted in the minds of the whole world.

<comment><USER17> > He's obviously writing from a personal perspective.

He?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _For all their patriotism, Americans rarely think about how their national identities relate to their personal ones. This indifference is particular to the psychology of white Americans and has a history unique to the US._

This is the thesis of the piece. The rest is an extended critique of Americans.

I have difficultly buying into the thesis, so the rest of it reads like a very long-winded opinion piece with the standard throwaway charges about how the U.S. is horribly bad.

This seems to be a perennial topic and folks all over the world eat it up. It's nice to see it done in such a talented way. Just not my thing.

<comment><USER19> It's certainly going to be an easy sell to the bulk of the Guardian's readership.

Can't see them publishing the equivalent article about the prejudices of, say, the north London elite.

<comment><USER20> Actually I think they probably would. The Guardian's schtick is quite full of "Oh god we're all so awful, we must repent". Although you may be right - it's more likely to be aimed at everyone they consider less enlightened than them.

All that said, there certainly is something in what she writes, particularly about the naivety of people growing up with little world perspective like that.

<comment><USER21> Her assertion that world geography is not taught to US high school students shocked me.

<comment><USER8> How about not taught properly?

How many US high school students can pinpoint even fairly known countries on the map?

(Come to Austria, meet the Kangaroos)

<comment><USER22> I see this accusation leveled at the U.S. all the time, usually in highly contrived scenarios (random people picked off the street, asked to locate landmarks in another country, then the worst/funniest performers made into a gag reel). It shits me because it's so hypocritical. I'm not from the U.S. and I have no idea where your capital city is (let alone state capitals and whatnot) and I really don't give a crap, so why should you care about mine? It's just "hurr, durr, murkins are stupid" so that equally stupid people can feel superior about something.

<comment><USER8> > _(random people picked off the street, asked to locate landmarks in another > country, then the worst /funniest performers made into a gag reel)._

Only it's not like that. You can ask random people yourself to verify, or you can trust one of several surveys and/or studies in the subject. E.g:

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html)

> _It shits me because it 's so hypocritical. I'm not from the U.S. and I have > no idea where your capital city is (let alone state capitals and whatnot) > and I really don't give a crap, so why should you care about mine?_

Well, it's exactly the "don't know, don't care" attitude we're arguing against here.

A basic knowledge of geography is not only essential in the modern, globalized world, but also indicative of a lack of knowledge in other areas, including history and current world affairs. And that, for a country that's intervening left and right, and whose citizens are trusted to vote, rally for, or oppose parties that will perform such international interventions, diplomatic actions, etc, a lack of such knowledge is shameful.

Not as if lack of knowledge was ever some kind of badge of honor.

<comment><USER22> Memorizing names and locations of cities and landmarks in a far-off country that you have no plan to visit, when those names and locations are instantly publicly available and there is an infinite number of more useful things to learn instead, is a waste of time.

Don't conflate being able to recite geographic info with knowledge. It's not knowledge, it's just... data.

<comment><USER8> > _Memorizing names and locations of cities and landmarks in a far-off country > that you have no plan to visit, when those names and locations are instantly > publicly available and there is an infinite number of more useful things to > learn instead, is a waste of time_

Which would be relevant if anybody had asked them to do that. Nobody suggested people should "memorize names and locations of cities and landmarks in a far- off country that you have no plan to visit".

I (and others, including classical education) suggested a working knowledge of work geography -- what the continents are, what the major countries are, major cities. They should also know a thing or two about their history. You know, the history of human civilization, even if they have no plans to contribute to it.

And the "instantly public availability" of information doesn't make one smarter. Only the information already accessed (and even more so, evaluated and assessed) does. Things you know are there in your mind, available for your thoughts and comprehension, can help you follow a discussion, can be used to make judgements etc. Things one can merely look up do not inform your worldview -- they are absent from it.

> _Don 't conflate being able to recite geographic info with knowledge. It's > not knowledge, it's just... data._

Knowledge itself is just data plus understanding them in context. Without data there's no knowledge. Don't conflate potential access to data with actually knowing things.

<comment><USER8> a working knowledge of work geography -> a working knowledge of world geography

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Quite a few years ago, I saw a trailer for a movie about the 1950s quiz-show scandal. It included a clip of the producer, Robert Redford, saying something about "the end of American innocence." At that point, I started wondering about the man's smarts.

</comment><comment><USER24> One thing I find very interesting is how entertainment media, probably as a result of needing to pander to whatever the mainstream sensibility of the moment is, really works as a barometer for how people in America see themselves.

Back when America could do no wrong, America was Rocky, or one of those glistening 80s heros. Maybe a bit flawed, but generally a family man vs. evildoers, a plucky little upstart.

Then America was Bruce Willis in Die Hard, rough around the edges and divorced but still a good guy, trying to do the right thing. Then America was Keifer Sutherland in 24... somebody's gotta do the torturing! For a good cause, though.

The more and more dirt comes out, the more public sensibilities turn to stuff like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones and House of Cards, reassuring watchers that nobody's good, that if you try to do the right thing the world will crush you, that all that matters is being top-dog. Sucks, but "that's the way the world really is".

It's super interesting. You'd think the character development in those shows is indicting, but it really is mostly immunizing and pride-preserving.

<comment><USER25> I'd like to throw in that I wonder if this article is a bit late, and in a way Americans are already coming out of exceptionalism.

I was noticing I cared more about international politics than I previously did, and I saw a lot of other Americans putting more skin in the game than in the past (Although the only way I know this is from the last days of the French Election, where a bunch of tone-deaf English/bad French memes were being pushed to save Le Pen). It is European focused but hey its a start I guess.

More importantly though, is the lack of trust in institutions. When the article started talking about conspiracy theories and the deep state I had be do a double take for a second on whether she was still talking about Turkey.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Summary of Americans responses here: "Oh no, this doesn't apply to me"

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm surprised at how easily another "original sin" doctrine has taken root. I suppose if it works, it works. Still, I'd have expected people to build up some kind of immunity.

</comment><comment><USER28> Jordan Peterson has a great take on the attitude this author (and many others like her) have about America, and the West in general: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc&t=1s)

The modern Left is dripping with hatred for the West - quite ironic given that we live in one the most free, prosperous societies ever created in human history. They are driven almost entirely by resentment, and lack even a shred of gratitude for the vast wealth, comfort and freedom they've been born into.

<comment><USER7> > lack a shred of gratitude for the vast wealth, comfort and freedom they've > been born into.

That's 'privilege', and is something to feel guilty about. It's not something to be grateful to your ancestors for providing, but something you get unfairly by 'accident of birth'. Only when it comes to guilt is your connection to your ancestors and ethnicity more than an accident.

Edit: I did not think a 'sarcasm' tag necessary.

<comment><USER28> Yet another example of what I was referring to.

I happen to be quite grateful for the sacrifices my ancestors (and the human race more broadly) made in building civilization, so that I don't have to live in a Hobbesian world where death by age 30 is the norm.

<comment><USER29> _Yet another example of what I was referring to._

Pretty sure DarkKomunalec is being sarcastic, but good job reinforcing your biases.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=white%20by:DarkKomunalec&sort=...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=white%20by:DarkKomunalec&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Notation as a Tool of Thought (1979) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pdf <comment><USER2> See also: [http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/DFSP.htm](http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/DFSP.htm) \- impressive practical application of this notation. I've never seen a more succinct (yet still rigorous to the point of being executable) description of the Simplex algorithm, which is given as an example here.

I wish more people were familiar with Iverson's work (APL, J) and its descendents (mostly K). Everything else is so needlessly complex in comparison.

There is a steep learning curve, true - but it is well worth it.

<comment><USER3> I'm still on the far low end of the curve, but APL (I prefer APL due to its non-ASCIIness) has quite a beauty in it. For "play" I wrote a sample for a normal distribution (using Box-Müller, since it was simpler than other, faster algorithms.) Here's the code (u is a function returning a sample from a uniform between 0 and 1, so just calling u is a random number in [0,1]). The only non-self evident bits would be →(s≥1)/ (which means if s greater than 1, jump to whatever label is after the slash) and ⍟var which is Pi times var. APL is really neat, and this is not even an example of a nice, array-oriented algorithm.

      ∇a←norm;uu;vv;s
        ⍝ Normal distribution around 0 (using the Box-Muller transform in polar form
        ⍝ Local variables go in the header after semicolons
        CHOOSE:
        uu←u
        vv←u
        s←(uu * 2)+vv * 2
        →(s≥1)/CHOOSE
        →(s=0)/CHOOSE
        m←(((¯2×⍟s)÷s) * 0.5)
        a←uu×m
      ∇

Edit: forgot to format

<comment><USER4> Other things that are non-self-evident except to people already familiar with APL: * means exponentiation, not multiplication; and "⍟var which is Pi times var" is incorrect: it's actually log(var).

I have to confess that I don't find this sort of example very compelling; Box- Muller isn't much more than a one-liner in any language. I mean, here it is in C, not noted for its richly expressive terseness:

      double norm(void) {
        while (1) {
          double u=rand01(), v=rand01();
          double s = u*u+v*v;
          if (0 < s && s <= 1) return u * sqrt(-2*log(s)/s);
        }
      }

(I assumed that we already had a rand01() function equivalent to your "u"; I suggest that in any nontrivial program the gain in brevity from the single- character name is outweighed by being unable to call a local variable "u" and, if you have a bunch of these, the cognitive load of remembering what all the single-character names mean.)

I bet the C implementation is distinctly easier to make sense of for most mathematicians and most programmers, and it's not even substantially longer. (APL: 94 non-blank characters. C: 111 non-blank characters. I remark that counting non-blank characters is about as favourable a metric for APL as one can reasonably ask for.) One can code-golf it further: combine the declaration of u,v with that of s (saves 5 non-blank characters --> 106); switch to your "u" instead of my "rand01" and rename u,v to (say) x,y (saves 10 characters --> 96); convert to do/while and use commas instead of {;;;} for body (saves 4 characters -> 92). That looks like this, and I think is still pretty easy to read:

      double norm(void) {
        double x,y,s;
        do x=u(), y=u(), s=x*x+y*y; while (s==0 || s>1);
        return x*sqrt(-2*log(s)/s);
      }

(Note: character-counting is by hand and it's entirely possible I'm out by a couple of chars either way.)

[EDITED to fix formatting screwage; aargh, I hate HN's treatment of asterisks]

<comment><USER3> You are right, π times is the monadic "circle" function... Still trying to learn fluently all operators. And indeed, it's not a specially good example, but I don't have a lot of APL code written (the "nicest" being a Mandelbrot set one-liner), the "longest" being this one and a function to generate histograms, but way harder to read, since it uses quite a few operators:

      ∇a←n hist x
        ⍝ Histogram data from x in n buckets
        s←x[⍋ x]
        mx←¯1 ↑ s
        mn←1 ↑ s
        bk←mn+(⍳n)×(mx-mn)÷n
        a←+/(~(↑bk)<s)
        s←((↑bk)<s)/s
        bk←1↓bk
        LOOP:→(0=⍴bk)/END
        a←a,+/(~(↑bk)<s)
        s←((↑bk)<s)/s
        bk←1↓bk
        →LOOP
        END:
      ∇

Not brilliant, and even at the time of writing (5 or 6 months ago) I had the feeling it may be possible to write it loopless or close enough. Variables in this one are still "global" since (even if it works) I was still checking it for possible bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Iverson was a great man. His specialized notation that was the undercarriage of APL changed many people's view of programming because he forced a more mathematical and consistent use of array notation, far beyond the simple subroutine notations used in FORTRAN at the time.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> APL buttons for your favorite UniComp/IBM buckling spring keyboard.

[http://pckeyboard.com/page/Buttons/USAPLSET](http://pckeyboard.com/page/Buttons/USAPLSET)

</comment><comment><USER6> My version: Choosing the right tool for the job is half the battle.

</comment><comment><USER7> The ACM paywall is pretty horrible. How about a version that people can actually read:

[http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pd...](http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~jzhu/csc326/readings/iverson.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Thanks! Changed from [http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=358899&ftid=289773&dwn=1](http://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=358899&ftid=289773&dwn=1).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Error: Access forbidden. (They're sorry though.)</comment>


Improving your (Python) code with modern idioms - <AUTHOR> http://python3porting.com/improving.html

<comment><USER2> Why change the excellent printf-style string formatting syntax to the vastly inferior slf4j-style? If I want simple concatenation, i use concatenation. If I want really complex formatting I write explicit code to do it. Printf style hits a sweet spot: it formats common datatypes to common presentation formats. Python 3 adds a formatting mini-language which looks more convoluted for simple tasks and unreadable for complex ones. Why change the syntax?

<comment><USER3> I'm in the same boat. It's an old joke that Java tried to kill off printf style formatting but had to bring it back because _it's a really great idea_ :

1980: C

printf("%10.2f", x);

1988: C++

cout << setw(10) << setprecision(2) << showpoint << x;

1996: Java

java.text.NumberFormat formatter = java.text.NumberFormat.getNumberInstance(); formatter.setMinimumFractionDigits(2); formatter.setMaximumFractionDigits(2); String s = formatter.format(x); for (int i = s.length(); i < 10; i++) System.out.print(' '); System.out.print(s);

2004: Java

System.out.printf("%10.2f", x);

2008: Scala and Groovy

printf("%10.2f", x)

(from <http://www.horstmann.com>)

To complete the circle I'd add:

2009: Go

fmt.Printf("%10.2f", x)

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't argue against using a formatting string in general, but the printf style order-based formatting strings are really bad once you need to localize your app and have to support languages with different word order. In this sense, .NET or Python3-like formatting strings with position-based formatting is orders of magnitude better and I was surprised that Sun decided to use %* instead.

Take a simple example in the lines of "I've seen {0} {1} {2}".format("John", "eat", "an apple") ...and try localizing this message into e.g. German.

I have a feeling that printf-style is one of the reasons, why the texts in localized versions of some programs are as bad as they are.

<comment><USER5> glibc sprintf supports that as something like %2$s %1$s which Python could potentially support.

I don't buy the internationalization argument however. You have to explicitly select strings for i18n anyway and run them through something that retrieves the data from a catalogue based on the current language. It's not like you will override str.__mod__ to start i18n.

And if you want to do it right, there are more complex rules that need a special formatting language. For example if you want to display {count} error/errors, then the text of error/errors will vary based on language not just based on count 0/1/more but even more wildly based on language. E.g. some have a special noun declension for 2. For example in Polish, that might be when there are 5 errors: <http://blogs.transparent.com/polish/cardinal- numbers/>

<comment><USER6> Python supports `"%(name)s"`, which means you're not dependent on order at all -- in my opinion, much nicer than indexing into the parameter list:

      >>> "%(name)s has %(count)d %(thing)s" % {'thing': 'bananas', 'count': 10, 'name': "Phil"}
      'Phil has 10 bananas'

<comment><USER7> The new-style formatting allows that as well:

        >>> "{name} has {count} {thing}".format(
              thing='bananas', count=10, name='Phil')
        'Phil has 10 bananas'

It also allows for more complex expressions inside of format specifiers, so if you need to grab data out of an object, you can do something like:

        >>> from collections import namedtuple
        >>> Sentence = namedtuple('Sentence', ['name', 'thing', 'count'])
        >>> s = Sentence(name='Phil', thing='bananas', count=10)
        >>> '{dat[0]} has {dat.count} {dat.thing}'.format(dat=s)
        'Phil has 10 bananas'

which is verbose and contrived here, but could be immensely useful in cases like

        >>> '... {numeral[5]} {item.plural}'.format(
              numeral=fr_numerals, item=animal)
        '... cinq animaux'

<comment><USER8> How do you handle it when you need to convert, e.g., "American woman" to "femme américaine"?

<comment><USER7> You use something else. It's still just a format string, not a whole localization solution. Named arguments means it might be easier to hack together something like

        templates = {'en': '{adj} {noun}', 'fr': '{noun} {adj}'}
        print(templates['fr'].format(noun='fromage', adj='délicieux')

but that's still a hack, and doesn't even come close to addressing cases like Chinese's "{adj} {counter_word[noun]} {noun}" or gender concord or any of the myriad other things you come across in practice.

Edit: used 'positional' instead of 'named'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article contains excellent recommendations except for one (the numbers.py module is nearly useless).

<comment><USER10> Raymond, what's your take on the ``redirect_stdout`` class not inheriting? I thought with new-style classes inheriting from ``object`` was the standard.

<comment><USER11> Python 3 removes old-style classes and thus removes the need to explicitly inherit from object.

(Also it appears it's just an example to illustrate the use of context managers, not of the perfect Python program. You'd never want to use the code in practice, if only because it relies on changing global state and thus will mess up when multiple threads use it at once)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The bit on the yield is a little thin. The other day I noticed that generators have a `send` and `throw` method which provide interesting ways for controlling flow.

<http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0342/>

</comment><comment><USER13> Before you decide to go with advanced string formatting, beware the encoding bug: <http://bugs.python.org/issue7300>

</comment><comment><USER14> The Python vs Ruby thing is tired by now but reading this reminds me again of how many problems Ruby managed to solve with just one construct (blocks).

Python was my first "scripting" language but modern idiomatic Python is almost unrecognizable compared to the Python I started out with in 1997.

The fact that the Ruby I was writing in 2002 looks almost modern is a testament to Matz' foresight.

<comment><USER15> Here's code I wrote in early 1998, and posted to comp.lang.python: <http://lwn.net/1998/1105/a/crosscopy.html> .

The code still looks stylistically modern, except for its use of getopt, but that's a library issue, not a syntax one. It's by far from "almost unrecognizable."

Can you therefore elaborate with an example from that era?

<comment><USER14> Python from that era didn't have generators, new classes, list comprehensions, annotations etc. If you're not using any of these in your code now you're not writing idiomatic modern Python.

But the point of my post wasn't to bash Python but rather to note that Ruby got an unusually large number of thing right on the first try.

<comment><USER16> Or that it hasn't fixed the warts it has. I use Ruby rarely enough to really, really miss explicit imports. I guess it's not a problem if you use it all the time and magically know what's in the global namespace at any given time but it's a pain in the ass when you have to touch a legacy rails app twice a year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _There is however no benefit in replacing a mylist.sort() with mylist = sorted(mylist), in fact it will use more memory._

Isn't that kind of a deal-breaker?

<comment><USER18> It depends on you case.

If you are doing:

       slist = list(mylist) #create new copy of the list
       slist.sort() #sort the list
       use_sorted_list(slist)

The use of sorted is more more convenient, and really doesn't use more memory (since the memory from that statement you quoted is for the list copy).

More usefully: sorted will take anything that is iterable, allowing you to write simpler code, rather than testing for various types and dealing with them in type specific ways.</comment></comment>


Enigmail did not encrypt email to recipients - <AUTHOR> http://sourceforge.net/p/enigmail/forum/support/thread/3e7268a4/ <comment><USER2> > These people may have heard about a rule that it is good to upgrade your > system, so their TB and enigmail is upgraded (semi)automagically.

This type of user behaviour has been exploited by the security services many- a-time. If that's who you're up against then somewhat counter-intuitively the advice is actually to run "old faithful" encryption suites which have been verified and just keep an eye on the changelog for any actual security issues (ignore feature updates).

If you have automatic updates turned on, there's nothing stopping them from MiTM-ling that and injecting a specially crafted (malware) version which will allow them to decrypt the traffic without you knowing (or just send them the private key(S)).

Now before you say "but the executable is signed!!!" well that's grand, but these guys have a CA in your certificate store. So they can generate fake certificates at a whim.

This logic also extends to any automatic updates on your system (e.g. Mac OSX system-updates have been exploited before in this way). A lot of software will download updates then run the "installer" in ring 0 (root). Even if you trust the source of the updates, do you trust all of the CAs in your CA store? I certainly do not.

<comment><USER3> Shouldn't the certs related to OS / app updates be self-signed (the root of trust being Microsoft/Apple/pkgmanager*), rather than anyone in your CA? Like, a new Java update should be signed by Oracle, not signed by Joe Schmo's Honest CA.

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but the original Evilgrade exploit for Apple was completely unencrypted, right?

Edit: You use "these guys" to refer to the attacker quite a bit in your statement above, it'd be smart to think about your threat model a bit. For instance, it's likely that some actors can get a root WEB CA, and somewhat unlikely that they've gotten into Apple's chain of trust. These are different targets with different threat models.

<comment><USER4> > Shouldn't the certs related to OS / app updates be self-signed (the root of > trust being Microsoft/Apple/pkgmanager*), rather than anyone in your CA?

Yes, this is how Debian works (they use a well known gpg key to sign their list of packages).

I believe the popular Mac OS X library Sparkle also works like this—the master public key is shipped with the App so that it only accepts updates that are signed by that particular key (if you use Apple's code signing then it only accepts new updates if they are signed by a key assigned to the developer).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use enigmail because it's an easy way to generate a bit more PGP signed/encrypted traffic, which is a good thing.

If it was important, I would probably encrypt on the command line, on a more trustworthy device than my regular PC.

Also, I haven't checked, but I have a suspicion Thunderbird saves unencrypted drafts to the server while you're composing.

<comment><USER6> You should check on that. I'm pretty sure I've seen lots of encrypted drafts on the server after I finish composing an email. I think it's bad at deleting them when it's finished.

<comment><USER5> Ok, with my default-ish settings, it doesn't seem to save drafts at all after I tell it I want the message encrypted.

However if I write the message before specifying that I want it encrypted, it gets sent to the server unencrypted.

Which kind of makes sense I suppose, but seems like a bit of a usability gotcha.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> And this is why us financial people have our own secure messaging services that don't touch email systems other than for notification...

<comment><USER8> What made your company choose to start encrypting your email? Could you share some more info on your setup?

<comment><USER9> MessageLabs.com is a common one I've seen different financial institutions use. IIRC, it's ugly but functional. It's an odd UI flow but tolerable:

1\. Get an email at your normal email that you have a message at secure email provider

2\. Click link, get taken to a web page where you need to make an account to read the mail

3\. Read mail at the link, you can reply and attach stuff to it, and that's it. No create mail functionality.

So you end with up with "email conversation as a link" sort of feeling. Very odd when you're used to dealing with any other "normal" webmail site.

<comment><USER10> What happens when A. you click a phishing link which takes your username and password, logs into the real site and downloads all of the data, B. the site is hacked and all of the mail on the site including archived stuff is leaked, or C. someone manages it MitM your network, uses a quasi-signed cert to spoof the actual website and reads all of your mail or finally D. the hosting provider is raided, and all data is handed over to an authority?

I don't think trusting a third-party with highly confidential financial data is very good practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In the comment that person says:

> I understand your anger, but this is a volunteer. It seems obvous to me too > that he messed up because the latest version is broken for me too. but let's > cut him a little slack

I also don't agree. This project is featured on the homepage of add-ons list and I bet thousands of people rely on it. That's not how things work, software should be tested. [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/thunderbird/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/)

<comment><USER12> I try hard not to be the "you should ask for your money back" person, but I don't see that hand-wringing like this is any use as regards open-source software.

"Software should be tested" is indirect speech which leaves out the subject. Who should ensure that the tests are in the codebase? The creator? The writer of this update? If this was a first-time volunteer and his patches were acked by someone, the person who cleared them is arguably more at fault – the original contributor should not be blamed.

Developing OSS is a complex endeavor depending upon the donated time of hundreds of people. Sometimes I'm surprised that there are well-functioning, robust pieces of OSS out there at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Regarding e-mail encryption I am really anticipating Lavaboom to kick off [https://www.lavaboom.com/en/](https://www.lavaboom.com/en/)

<comment><USER14> Shorter Lavaboom: "We've never heard of node-webkit"

<comment><USER14> To the people who downvoted this comment: Read their FAQ and you'll see what I mean. Also, learn to take a fucking joke.</comment></comment></comment>


A Better Way to Shoot Down Spam - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/23086/

<comment><AUTHOR> The technique of doing packet level inspection is very interesting. I don't agree that "ham tends to come from computers that have a lot of channels, or ports, open for communication". The ips could have easily been allocated to a new customer by the time they were able to check for open ports. I believe ham comes from legitimate edge mail servers.</comment>


Ask HN: How can I sell a piece of my profitable SaaS? - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I've been running a Saas now for about 6-7 years and it's been going really well. It's very profitable (around 200k/year) and not taking up too much of my time.
I have now reached the point where I would like to sell part of it to an investor (or someone who brings expertise that can help grow the business even more).
It would be very easy for me to share revenue, as my payment provider allows me to setup a royalty partner and that would divide revenue automatically.
I've thought about going through a broker, but they take a ridiculous percentage (up to 15%) and their best interest is to do as many deals as possible rather than get me the best deal.
Any thoughts? <comment><USER2> Are you looking to sell a component of the SaaS or just to get a partner that will help you grow the business more?

Selling a portion of the business that is profitable so you can pursue another segment is not much different than selling any other business, you are selling the assets, liabilities and income stream. To do this you need to either use a broker or find a buyer yourself.

If you are instead just looking for someone to buy in and work with you to grow the business that is a different avenue and brokers wouldn't be who I'd ever look at for that type of scenario. Essentially you are looking for a co- owner that wants to be operational, so most investors are also probably the wrong avenue and you should instead be looking for co-founder types. To do that you need to find out what skills you really need that would compliment your skills and help the business grow and you should be looking down that angle.

You might consider just hiring in a hungry new-grad or experience manager that can help scale the business but is just an employee or contractor. This way while you give up some of your profit temporarily in the form of pay to this person, in the long run you'll maintain ownership and the higher profit as they grow the business. When I got bored with a small but profitable business prior I just hired a person to run it for me. Sure they took some of the first years profits, but they grew the business and I was only involved basically for status meetings and guidance. So in the end the business became more profitable and freed me up to pursue other ventures. I would do this again in a heartbeat. It also lets you sell the business later on for a higher value usually because it is self sustained, plus you personally don't have to be committed to any long term support agreement. Usually those businesses sell easier and faster because they are less dependent on a founder operator.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd prefer a partner that would deliver a new impetus, but would still want a buy-in in that case.

There's not much work to outsource at the moment. Right now everything pretty much runs by itself and most days it's minutes rather than hours of work. That's also why I found it hard to search for someone to take over. I had smaller sites in the past where I'd hire help and it would definitely pay off. But this is such a niche and (like I said) such a small amount of support that it's not really worth it.

I've setup everything in such a way that it's quickly transferable, because almost everything is automated or documented...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Have you considered [https://tinyseed.com/](https://tinyseed.com/)?

<comment><AUTHOR> No - I wasn't familiar with them. But I'm not looking to start up so much as I am to transfer / sell off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there a way to get in touch with you to learn more?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes - try firstname.lastname@example.com (this is a temporary email)</comment></comment>


Millions of Water Bottles Left on Puerto Rico Runway for 1 Year - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/hurricane-maria-millions-of-water-bottles-left-on-runway-for-over-a-year <comment> donkey-hotei Who would've thought that we might need a logistical supply chain?

</comment><comment><USER2> A very recent podcast by historians entitled 'After Hurricane Maria' will help those unfamiliar with Puerto Rico's history to understand what happened. It's "a look at the historical relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States."

A transcript is also available.

[https://www.backstoryradio.org/shows/after-hurricane- maria/](https://www.backstoryradio.org/shows/after-hurricane-maria/)

PR is not a state, and it has no Senators or Congresscritters to represent it. It is what in other countries is called a 'dependency'. And deliberately kept that way for over a century.

<comment><USER3> It has one seat in the House, carrying the title of Resident Commissioner (as opposed to Delegate, which is how most other territorial members are titled).

As I understand it (very limited), the position's voting rights/opportunities are severely constrained and, in most or all significant matters, non- existent.

[Addendum: Depending upon committee memberships, arguably, being able to vote in/on committee matters -- particularly, to move legislation out of committee -- may be a significant power in particular circumstances. As well perhaps, again in particular circumstances, the ability to introduce legislation. Occasionally, the latter exerts significant political influence regardless of the success or failure to pass of said legislation.]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_members_of_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Delegates)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenniffer_Gonz%C3%A1lez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenniffer_Gonz%C3%A1lez)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_\(United_States_Congress\))

 _are representatives of their territory in the House of Representatives, but who do not have a right to vote on proposed legislation in the full House but are nevertheless able to participate in certain other House functions. Non- voting members may vote in a House committee of which they are a member and introduce legislation._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_\(United_States_Congress\)#Expanding_\(and_contracting\)_voting_rights)

\--

Separately, note also:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_\(United_States_Congress\)#Resident_commissioner)

 _Similar to delegates are resident commissioners, who represented the large areas acquired during the Spanish–American War, and for much of the 20th century were considered colonies, not territories and unlike the previously acquired areas which would become the contiguous U.S. or Alaska and Hawaii, did not have residents with the rights of, or to U.S. citizenship.[13] Unlike incorporated territories, they have the right to secede from the Union, and in the case of the Philippines, they have._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why didn't someone raid this water supply? Was it heavily guarded, or just extremely remote?

</comment><comment><USER5> Since 1 million is totally meaningless to me, this is roughly speaking 17 semi trucks full of water per million.

It's obvious that it's a failure of logistics, but missing 17 semi truck loads doesn't seem insane to me.

</comment><comment><USER6> TFA links to longer original:

[http://uk.businessinsider.com/puerto-rico-water-bottle- fema-...](http://uk.businessinsider.com/puerto-rico-water-bottle-fema- hurrican-maria-2018-9)

</comment><comment><USER7> Who to blame when the incompetence of the Trump administration runs up against the incompetence of the Puerto Rican government?

<comment><USER8> Generally speaking, the federal emergency response is an adjunct to the state emergency response and is supposed to help fill gaps, so we can blame both for their parts. The extenuating circumstance of the debt crisis of Puerto Rico means there is a lot of federal oversight of the budget of Puerto Rico for decades, the subsidies we might see prop up states in a similar circumstance have been drying up for Puerto Rico over the same time period, but that blame can be extended over many sessions of Congress and administrations prior to Trump.</comment></comment>


Gender Study Women Pay More for Almost Everything [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC.pdf <comment><USER2> The title needs a colon or something. Right now it reads like only women involved in Gender Studies pay more for stuff.

The article is pretty interesting. There are a few stark contrasts where you see the exact same item costing twice as much in pink than red.

I think there is an interesting philosophical debate to be had here (which the article implies, but doesn't address): Is this gender-based price discrimination? I'm going to contend: no.

First of all, I think the article falls into some kind of Political Correctness trap by claiming that certain products are for boys and others are for girls. Why couldn't a boy want the pink scooter? Why couldn't a girl want red?

Building on that, if we see the pink one as "girls" and the red one as "boys" then it does look like discrimination. However, if we view the red one as "neutral/base color" and the pink one as a less popular "color option" it seems less like discrimination and more like paying for a unique customization. Do we know there isn't a blue scooter priced the same as pink?

Let's look at the jeans. Are the Men's and women's jeans actually the same? Probably not. I'm guessing the women's jeans are cut much differently. When I was in Boy Scouts I (male, with typical male proportions) bought the "Adult Womens'" uniform because it was cut different and fit me better. I didn't actually notice the price because that was back in the glory days of my parents buying me stuff, but I would have chosen the "womens'" uniform even if it were twice the price.

The conclusion states:

> DCA found, on average, that women pay approximately 7 percent more than men > for similar products. Products' price differences based on gender are > largely inescapable for female consumers simply due to the product offerings > available in the market.

This seems fundamentally contradictory to me. If the products are sufficiently similar but priced differently, why would women buy the "women's version?" What makes it "inescapable?" If product A is so much better than product B, such that buying Product A is "inescapable," I'd expect a difference of more than 7% in price.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's because most men are happy with the cheapest alternative.</comment>


Scaled Distribution in JavaScript: WIP and Open Source - <AUTHOR> http://codepen.io/kryo2k/pen/NPxVZN

<comment><AUTHOR> Open Source, potentially useful, Javascript to compare attribution models or other algorithms impact on data visually.

On Codepen, my CTO has been sharing, well, everything.

It's awesome.

Suppose you want to compare various attribution models to your online marketing, like Google Analytics. It's a bit tricky to get the math right in Javascript to show how the various algorithms impact the distribution of the data.

The project has a link to the open source URL on github, but, I still haven't picked a license type, so, I'm not expecting people to download or contribute (yet). Also, if you do get curious about the code, any / all feedback welcome :) It's why I'm here...

and, if you are passionate about open source license types, as I am, and have wrestled with, "Which one do I pick?" Pointers hugely appreciated. I'm as anxious about helping build the software as I am about making sure that people are encouraged and happy to use what we produce.

(go easy; I bruise).</comment>


French drug trial leaves six hospitalized, one brain-dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/world/europe/french-drug-trial-hospitalization.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> The unfortunate nature of the seen and the unseen is that we will always notice the times we approved a drug too early or tested too aggressively, but we will never notice the deaths that happen because we were too timid or cautious in our approach.

While this case should be studied to ascertain whether process changes could prevent it, the solution is absolutely not further testing, control, and regulation. Hundreds of thousands of people already die or suffer every year because of the paternalistic, conservative policies governing medicine.

<comment><USER3> _Primum non nocere_ (first, do no harm[1])

Medical research is conservative, cautious, and regulated because we strive to move beyond the ugly abuses of our past[2]. It should not be the Wild West.

For insight into modern medical ethics, read the Belmont Report[3]. It's what contemporary researchers must read before conducting any studies involving human subjects. Where I work, we're tested on it.

(This is opinion, but...) Harm today is in research guided more by profit than by benefit. Chronic disease is more profitable than cures or prevention. With rapidly-emergent antibiotic resistance there is little private incentive to develop new antibiotics. We must rely on and expand research in the public interest (funded by NIH, philanthropy, and so on) to balance private biomedical research.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_ethics_cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_ethics_cases)

3\. [http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html](http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html)

<comment><USER4> I'm really surprised that this is news, or that it's being upvoted on HN. Apparently deaths during trials are really rare. From the article:

>A meta-analysis of non-cancer Phase 1 drug trials, published last year in The British Medical Journal, found serious adverse events in only 0.31 percent of participants, and no life-threatening events or deaths.

And the last event comparable to this, according to the article, happened in 2006 in a different country.

I was surprised by this. I would not have expected drug trials to be risk free, in fact I thought that was the whole point. Apparently they are already super conservative and safe. I'm not sure why people are alarmed or calling for more regulation.

It's probably impossible to 100% safety, and certainly not desirable. Parent comment is definitely right that we kill more people through inaction and need to be far more liberal. Total lives saved is all that should matter.

Somehow one person dying out of many drug trials over many years is news that's on the front page of HN. But the 22,000 people that died of cancer today isn't.

<comment><USER5> Part of the issue is, medically, _we_ (where we = the medical community) killed those people, whereas cancer killed the other 22,000.

Medical ethics are expressly meant to protect subjects from experimentation purely on the basis of "This will probably help more people than it hurts." Given the events that prompted the development of those guidelines, I'm not sure they're wrong.

<comment><USER6> > experimentation purely on the basis of "This will probably help more people > than it hurts."

And why is this bad?

<comment><USER7> Because people are actually kind of shitty at estimating probabilities, and overconfidence in this area is likely to kill or injure a lot of people. I'm a utilitarian by temperament, but a deontologist in practice because I'm aware that my powers of foresight are actually quite limited and I will very rarely be presented with neatly predictable conflicting imperatives as in the trolley problem. Many self-professed utilitarians _wildly_ overestimate their own intellectual and analytical abilities and come to grief on the rocks of failed predictions. Unfortunately this also tends to involve a lot of innocent casualties too.

<comment><USER4> On a case by case basis you might have a point, but over time we have tons of statistics on how many drug trials fail and hurt people, vs succeed and save people. It would be relatively easy to calculate the risk/benefit objectively.

That's also an ideal use case for prediction markets, if you want to get really good predictions.

Also, I've heard this argument used before in other contexts. Do people really believe that because you can't make perfect predictions, you should default to inaction? That's just silly. You do the best with what you know and believe.

And if you really believe your predictions are wrong, then you can just adjust them accordingly and make them correct. If you don't believe that, then you obviously wouldn't find that argument convincing in the first place.

<comment><USER5> We don't default to inaction. We default to careful action. There's a vast difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The drug in question is a Monoclonal Antibody (mab) intended to boost immune response. [1] Mabs do have a tendency to runaway reactions. [2].

Mab treatments are likely to explode in coming years as immunomodulators to both boost the immune system to fight disease and suppress immune reactions in autoimmune diseases (some arthritis, asthma, severe allergies, etc)

You have to dig to find this information, posting it here for visibility.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412)

2\. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20305665](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20305665)

<comment><USER9> I found a French website claiming the drug is BIA 10-2474, with reference to a patient who received an offer to join this trial but decided not to: [http://www.breizh-info.com/2016/01/15/rennes-biotrial- biales...](http://www.breizh-info.com/2016/01/15/rennes-biotrial-bialessai- therapeutique/)

And of course, the information around this particular drug is completely missing or intentionally vague. edit: there seems to be a lot of people who believe the drug is a FAAH2 inhibitor, based on previous work from the same company, Bial Pharmaceuticals out of Portugal. The drug works on/around endocannabinoids, which might be why the media was confused about this being cannibis related.

<comment><USER10> In the video they say that the drug in question is intended to control pain via the endocannabinoid system.

She was also very careful to insist that the drug neither contains cannabis or any substance derived from cannabis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Note from the NYTimes:

 _Contrary to several reports in the French news media, the drug was not a cannabis-based painkiller, Ms. Touraine said._

Early reports in The Guardian, the BBC, and elsewhere called it a cannabinoid- based painkiller. (That sounded rather implausible because (a) cannabinoids have a _ridiculously_ high therapeutic index -- ratio of medically effective dose to toxic dose -- and (b) with cannabis decriminalization spreading internationally, the commercial benefit of patenting a drug in the same space as a cheap non-proprietary alternative would appear to be small.)

Edit: The Guardian amended their piece to state that it was a monoclonal antibody targeting the brain's endocannabinoid receptors. (Interesting idea, but Mabs have some really lethal failure modes, notably triggering a cytokine storm in some cases, cf. TGN1412.)

<comment><USER12> _cannabinoids have a ridiculously high therapeutic index_

 _Some_ cannabinoids have a high therapeutic index. Some of the THC analogues being used as "fake weed" are quite toxic.

Also, there is a huge market for cannabinoid-like drugs. If you have chronic pain, would you want to be stoned all day? Or take a drug that provides pain relief, but doesn't alter your mood?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> There are some oddities here.

(1) It sounds like the trial started on July 9

(2) These 6 people all started receiving the drug January 7 and all got sick

(3) 90 people total have received the drug, so I assume 84 people safely received the drug.

This sounds like there was a bad batch that hospitalized everyone who received the drug on January 7.

<comment><USER14> It could well be a trial where they gradually increase the dose to find out what a safe dose is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just some background about clinical trials that may yield more insight into the drug approval process:

Phase I: intended to determine a loose range of safe doses for patients. Subjects enrolled in Phase I clinical trials are informed that it is unlikely for the drug to benefit them. Normally, subjects are healthy volunteers that are put into buckets of different doses to determine the Maximal Tolerated Dose (MTD).

Phase II: Intended to characterize the efficacy of the drug (on a small scale). There are several methods of conducting Phase II trials; some are simply longitudinal case studies, and others are structured more like randomized controlled trials (the type of clinical trial generally considered the most valid [i.e. maintains the highest internal validity]).

Phase III: Randomized controlled trial. Patients are randomized into the test group vs. placebo/current standard of care to determine whether the new drug is effective. The best RCTs are double-blinded though this is not always the case.

This drug, a monoclonal antibody intended to alter the immune response, was halted in the Phase I clinical trial.

</comment><comment><USER16> While I do worry about the state of the FDA and prescription drugs in the US, things like this make me feel glad that drug companies have a well regulated process to catch issues like this before they can become more widespread.

<comment><USER17> It's all the supplements and other homeopathic exemption stuff that worries me. Not only do they not have to prove they're effect (at all, let alone more effective than the standard treatment), but they've had serious safety issues in the past. Ephedra is a classic example. Plus there are so many times people do tests that find supplements don't contain what they claim.

<comment><USER18> Or contain more than they should.

Reading the FDA recall database is quite illuminating

[http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugRecalls/default.htm](http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugRecalls/default.htm)

The food one is also an eye opener, 8 so far in 2016

[http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Recalls/...](http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Recalls/default.htm)

Last year I scraped the whole database and read every one to analyse the reasons for a Uni project. I'm surprised anyone is still alive!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One of the recommendations from the previous episode (TGN1412) was that in the first trial on humans, the administrations should be staggered so that if there is an unexpected adverse reaction, you only get one or two patients down. It sounds like that may not have been taken on board.

</comment><comment><USER20> FYI, the drug being tested was for Parkinson's disease (nytimes doesn't say that but lemonde does): [http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/01/15/essai- thera...](http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/01/15/essai- therapeutique-a-rennes-un-volontaire-en-etat-de-mort- cerebrale_4848001_3224.html)

<comment><USER21> Seems weird to do a Phase I trial in healthy volunteers for a monoclonal antibody targeted to Parkinson's.

<comment><USER22> This is the whole point of a Phase 1 trial.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research#Ph...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research#Phase_I)

<comment><USER21> You don't test Phase 1 anticancer drugs in healthy volunteers. So likewise monoclonal antibodies for Parkinson's should probably be first tested in the affected population.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3678815/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3678815/)

<comment><USER23> Perhaps they do - if all Phase 1 is done on healthy human guinea pigs. Better question is why do we allow otherwise healthy people to be guinea pigs?

<comment><USER5> Because we need to know about drug side effects, and it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to parse out those effects in people who are already very sick. Additionally, those side effects are likely far less dangerous in an otherwise healthy individual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is why for years here on Hacker News I have been more than a little skeptical about university press releases announcing that this or that group of researchers has discovered a new breakthrough for curing this or that human disease. It is wonderful that medical researchers continue to do basic research better to understand physiology, genetics, and biochemistry. And it is especially wonderful that researchers doing basic research sometimes think about translational research to apply to basic science findings to clinical medicine. But that takes a lot of time and careful work.

Here on Hacker News, we all like to be excited by possible breakthroughs that will help us or our loved ones to enjoy longer, healthier lives. But an announcement of a laboratory result in cultured cell lines or in mice or some other preliminary model is a LONG way from a demonstration of safety and effectiveness for a new treatment of a human disease. Let's keep funding and celebrating basic research, and let's keep advancing the frontier in clinical trials on human patients, but let's reality-check every step of the way to make sure that proposed new treatments really do good, and really do more good than harm.

For perspective on this, it's important to note that age-adjusted all-cause mortality has been steadily going DOWN all over the world. Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout both the developed countries and the still developing countries of the world.[1] Right now, the number-one thing we can do to reduce our own risk of disability or death is to take action on known individual preventive measures that raise likelihood of good health and to set up institutional incentives for doctors and other practitioners to use best-practice means of preventing and treating disease. Steady incremental improvements of many kinds are increasing healthy human lifespan all over the world at all ages.[2]

[1] "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel

[http://www.demographic- challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2...](http://www.demographic- challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf)

[2] [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html)

<comment><USER12> I think your perspective is exactly right. Most of the articles you see on HN are about pre-clinical work (not done in humans). This is so early in the development time that the chance of the technology failing is huge.

Keep in mind that for drugs that actually enter human trials, the success rate is typically less than 5%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Seeing this reminds me of how there is never an exciting story to publish for the far greater of number who suffer great illness or death because of regulators being _too_ cautious about allowing trials of new treatments.

<comment><USER26> There are plenty of stories published with exactly that message. Granted, they might not be exciting, but hit pieces are fairly common.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> A sobering report for biotech entrepeneurs (and the industry in general). Hopefully more details become avalible, not for blame but to learn from it.

There is a duty of care and caution needed in medicine. Of course this needs to be balanced with the damage from slowing or preventing innovation.

<comment><USER28> The realities of biotech made real.

Somehow, "move fast and break things" doesn't quite translate to biology.

<comment><USER29> Sure it does, only too aptly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "British regulators approved the trial in just 17 days, and the testing company, based in Massachusetts, did not have an adequate response plan in the event of a disastrous adverse reaction, British investigators concluded."

This seems like a bit of an issue.

EDIT: Not the same trial, I'm a fool.

<comment><USER31> That paragraph is referring to a previous incident. The current incident occurred in France in behalf of a Portuguese firm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Here is more information on the trial mentioned in the last two paragraphs: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412)

</comment><comment><USER33> While this is truly a sad event, there are some things to note here, primarily:

This was a Stage 1 trial, whose sole goal is to determine the minimum-tolerate dose. The idea here is that after we've identified a possible drug, we do preliminary tests in animals and follow some well established dosage-scaling formulas to determine human dosages.

They then scale that waayy down, and gradually scale up the drug in different patients until side-effects are noticed.

Although the article describes the patients as being healthy, people who volunteer for these types of studies usually have exhausted all possible alternatives and aren't usually given good prognosis.

If a study is conducted ethically, they aren't given any hope that the drug will positively effect them in any way, and that they are truly doing this for the possible benefit of Stage >1 patients.

Usually, toxicity is found before patients die (although that happens). What makes this unprecedented, imho, is that so many died. What makes it personally disheartening is that one is brain-dead, which is a special kind of hell for a family to go through.

While these patients weren't told "this drug will murder you, or maybe leave you brain-dead, with high-likelihood", however, in a Phase I trial, that is very much the risk you're running at such an early stage of drug development.

<comment><USER34> _people who volunteer for these types of studies usually have exhausted all possible alternatives and aren 't usually given good prognosis._

According to other comments here (e.g. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10910698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10910698)), this is incorrect. Stage 1 is given to otherwise healthy patients, to ascertain adverse effects of the drug. Stage 2 is where the positive effects of the drug are tested, that seems like the case you're describing here.

<comment><USER33> You are correct, and I beleive I mentioned in my comment that the sole purpose of Stage I is to asses the minimal tolerated dosage.

What I meant by the sentence you quoted is that because of the unknown human physiological consequences of the drug, it is usually only used on those who have no other recourse. Patients that have a clear course of treatment undergo those clear courses, and do not assume the risk of a Phase I drug.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can someone smart (I am not it) explain how can something that you ingest orally create brain damage? What is an example of something simpler that we all may be familiar with that could cause a similar effect, and the process through which it happens?

In advance, thank you for educating me.

<comment><USER36> Not quite on the same scale, but maybe more relatable: alcohol can have quite an effect on the brain. Luckily most of it is reversible.

<comment><USER37> Somewhat related, drinking methanol (wood alcohol) can make you blind or kill you. More information in Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Toxicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Toxicity)

Layman translation: Methanol is transformed into Formate, that is another substance. Formate mess with the functions of the mitochondria, that are the parts of the cells that use the oxygen. So each cell dies like it would die if you can't breath oxygen.

(I suppose that the neurons are more sensible, and the visual problems are easier to spot, so one of the first symptoms of Methanol poisoning is blindness.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> When it is the first use in humans, and the main point of Phase 1 is safety, why is there not an exponential turn on of the trial to avoid widespread harm? For example Patient 1 gets medicine for a week (or whatever), then patients 2 & 3 start their trial, etc. Where is the economic analysis of length of test vs risk of harm by various turn on strategies?

</comment><comment><USER39> Some information about the trial seems to be here: [http://www.breizh- info.com/2016/01/15/rennes-biotrial-biales...](http://www.breizh- info.com/2016/01/15/rennes-biotrial-bialessai-therapeutique/)

</comment><comment><USER40> This (HN) title is incorrect as it would make 7 "affected" instead of 6 as is written in article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed, thanks. Yay, counting!

<comment><USER40> Huh, I didn't even know you can edit titles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I can't seem to find the name of nature of the drug in question, does anyone know it? I ask because full CB1 agonists are already known to be problematic, but none of the articles mention anything other than endocannabinoid

<comment><USER42> There's speculation the structural family was disclosed in Bial's patent application [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150174103.pdf](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150174103.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> >Ms. Touraine said the drug had previously been tested on animals, including chimpanzees

testing an animals beside being a cruel practice that has to be stopped, is also useless even when the animals are that close to humans.

<comment><USER44> It's a series of filters - you test on animals before testing on humans. Of course some percentage of things that are not toxic to animals have a special toxicity in humans. To claim that it is "useless" means that you also believe there to be a large proportion of candidates which are toxic in animals that aren't toxic in humans.

I don't have the data on this, but, without necessarily defending the practice of animal testing, I suspect that toxicity in animals _is_ a good predictor for toxicity in humans in the forward direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Are all Phase 1 trials done on healthy human guinea pigs. Why do we allow otherwise healthy people to be guinea pigs? Presumably there are patients who have the disease this drug targets.

<comment><USER45> Parkinson's is a toughie - you don't _really_ know what a patient is suffering from, just the syndrome they're exhibiting. I "have Parkinson's", by which I mean I have a series of symptoms that aren't related to any known purely- genetic disease (there are several, and I've been tested for all of them), tumors or structural issues in the brain (lived many a night in various scanning devices), are similar in general tone to those common to Parkinson's sufferers, and which respond well to treatments for Parkinson's. The syndrome itself, though, is a bit idiosyncratic, and may in fact be a constellation of similar diseases rather than a single disease. Diagnosis is still mostly a process of observation and elimination, despite what a few optimistic studies may have reported.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> What _was_ the drug?

<comment><USER42> Some investigation of recent patents by Bial points to a probable candidate [http://cdsouthan.blogspot.nl/2016/01/the-unfortunate-case- of...](http://cdsouthan.blogspot.nl/2016/01/the-unfortunate-case-of- bia-10-2474.html)

<comment><USER46> So it might be an FAAH inhibitor? _one quick google search later_

So one of the things that FAAHs do is handle "endocannabinoids", which are chemicals that activate cannabinoid receptors, which are (as the name implies) also triggered by cannabis. That'd explain why people thought it was a cannabis-based painkiller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Keep in mind you never hear about all of the deaths from being too conservative in testing and approving medications but it's probably a lot.</comment>


Challenging Java Puzzles Regarding Synchronization. - <AUTHOR> http://wouter.coekaerts.be/2012/puzzle-dreams

<comment><USER2> I solved it.

Clue: break the synchronization</comment>


Google Code Jam void if you are resident of Quebec/Crimea/North Korea/Syria - <AUTHOR> https://code.google.com/codejam/terms <comment><USER2> > 1.6 Communications. All communications between Google and you, including the > Contest website and email communications, will be in English.

Since you can't use French to compete in Code Jam, I guess it violates Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

[http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/C-11](http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/C-11)

<comment><AUTHOR> Some of the wierd things I found out about Quebec's absurd language laws -

Toys and games, which require the use of a non-French vocabulary for their operation are prohibited on the Québec market, unless a French version of the toy or game is available on the Québec market on no less favourable terms.

KFC was renamed to PFC (Poulet Frit Kentucky) inorder to operate in Quebec.

The child of non English immigrants or naturalized citizens cannot go to English schools in Quebec by law !

What fun in Quebec.

<comment><USER3> I happened to be on vacation in Quebec when Law 1 (or was it 101?) went into effect. I remember the education minister threatening English-speaking schools with $x/child/day fines for sending to children from any but Anglophone homes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Being a new resident in Quebec, I started to notice a pattern here.

[https://www.spotify.com/ca-en/premium/](https://www.spotify.com/ca- en/premium/)

" Offer not available to users who already tried Premium or to users in Quebec. "

[https://www.amazon.ca/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...](https://www.amazon.ca/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201514610)

" Residents of Quebec aren't eligible for a free trial of Amazon Prime. "

<comment><USER4> Why is Quebec specifically excluded and not Canada as a whole?

EDIT: [https://www.thebalance.com/why-are-so-many-competitions- void...](https://www.thebalance.com/why-are-so-many-competitions-void-in- quebec-896835)

<comment><USER5> [https://www.thebalance.com/why-are-so-many-competitions- void...](https://www.thebalance.com/why-are-so-many-competitions-void-in- quebec-896835)

<comment><USER4> Great minds think alike! I just found that same link</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich <comment><USER2> Having just read the Population Bomb Revisited (linked in the article), I think I'm a bit shocked.

The Population Bomb was a political call to arms that used science to give it credence.

It turns out that much of the science was really, badly flawed. And not in subtle ways.

Revisited, while acknowledging some of the egregious issues, tries to diminish them by saying other experts thought so too or something else went bad so the point is still valid. It then goes on to say that they were still kind of right and it'll all go pear shaped in the future (they're a bit more careful not to say when this time).

But that's not science. Their conclusion was based on their predictions and their predictions were wrong. So their conclusions, even if accidentally correct (which they don't appear to be), are not justified by the evidence.

I find this lack of respect for science, by a Professor of Biology, quite astonishing.

<comment><USER3> Well he is so old he will die well before he can write Population Bomb Re- Revisited.

He would have taught his grandchildren to carry the message on, but he already knows they are doomed.</comment></comment>


Caterina Fake - Entrepreneurs gonna entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://caterina.net/wp-archives/81 <comment><USER2> _the best time to start a company is always two years ago, and the next best time is now. So now it is._

 _And_ two years ago, it seems. She launched (though didn't technically 'start') Hunch two years ago, almost to the day :-)</comment>


World's thinnest hologram paves path to new 3-D world - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/13142.html <comment><USER2> It is a pity an important article shows a picture of a "hologram" coming out of the screen beyond the limits of the edges of the screen from the point of view of the observer.

This totally misrepresents how a hologram image works.</comment>


Tim Berners-Lee on the future of the web: 'The system is failing' - <AUTHOR> https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/15/tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-net-neutrality <comment><USER2> Here is the non-AMP version:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/15/tim- berne...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/15/tim-berners-lee- world-wide-web-net-neutrality)</comment>


German Society Struggles to Find Right Approach to Populists - <AUTHOR> https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-society-struggles-to-find-right-approach-to-populists-a-1265498.html <comment><USER2> John le Carré had a good quote, cant remember in which book, which went something like - There are always some people in the population, who if you invite into a group want to control it, and if you kick them out treat the group as a conspiring enemy.</comment>


iPhone 6s plus survives airplane drop and a year in Icelandic wilderness - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/apple/2019/09/25/iphone-6s-plus-survives-airplane-drop-and-a-year-in-icelandic-wilderness/ <comment><USER2> The phone was lucky to get that experience :)</comment>