Does Causation Imply Correlation? - <AUTHOR> http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/26300/does-causation-imply-correlation

<comment><USER2> My favourite counter-example is the one with a thermostat.

If someone controls the thermostat so that the temperature in the room stays constant no matter the temperature outside, then you record the temperature inside and the thermostat setting over many days, the two series will be completely uncorrelated. But you will have a perfect correlation between thermostat setting and outside temperature.

<comment><USER3> " But you will have a perfect correlation between thermostat setting and outside temperature."

You meant a perfect _causation_ between thermostat setting and _inside_ temperature, right?

<comment><USER2> Well yes, but I also meant what I wrote.

When the temperature outside goes down, the thermostat goes up and the other way around. They are perfectly correlated, even though you can't really say one causes the other (outside temperature does in a very roundabout way cause thermostat setting).

I like that example because it counters both "causation implies correlation" and "correlation implies causation".

<comment><USER4> I'm confused. Don't you simply set a thermostat to the desired indoor temperature and leave it? Assuming the desired indoor temperature is constant, I would expect the thermostat setting to be constant, the internal temperature to be nearly constant, the outdoor temperature to be uncorrelated, and the energy usage of the heating/cooling system to be correlated with the outdoor temperature (namely, the difference between outdoor temperature and desired internal temperature).

<comment><USER5> I think the confusion arises from the term "thermostat". The example works much better with a "heating power dial", not a "desired indoor temperature dial".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's a harder question: is it ever possible to deduce causation based on data alone? We all know that correlation does not imply causation, but is there anything that does?

If not: prove it. And if yes, under what conditions exactly?

<comment><USER7> In general, no. Simple counterexample: everyday it rains my grass is wet, and everyday it doesn't rain the grass is dry. Does the rain cause the grass to be wet? Well, probably. But maybe my grass is in a greenhouse, and I only turn on my sprinkler when it rains so the grass gets a "natural" amount of water. In this case the wet grass is not causally linked to the rain, even though it looks exactly like the situation where it is. My action of turning on the sprinkler is known as a "confounding factor".

You need to make assumptions to be able to draw a causation from data. This is what people are doing when they design controlled experiments.

<comment><USER8> I'm not an expert in algebraic statistics, but I think sometimes the answer is yes: [http://acritch.com/media/math/critch-causality-talk- slides.p...](http://acritch.com/media/math/critch-causality-talk-slides.pdf)

You have to assume the data you have is all that there is, and sometimes the math will only give a class of causal graphs instead of a single causal graph.

<comment><USER7> From what I can tell, that presentation is assuming a certain class of graph structures in its DACB example - for example that there isn't an element E that can causally link the other nodes, emulating a causal relationship without there being one. Assuming a class of structures is not a general approach; in my example this would be the equivalent of assuming there is no sprinkler, but how can you make that assumption from the data alone?

There's another issue: their approach is statistical, so even if you assume a class of graph structures you can only draw conclusions that the causal structure "almost surely" exists, not that it does exist. What this means is that even within infinite data, you can't prove that the other structures are impossible. If I turn on my sprinkler when it rains the first {very large number} times, you may conclude that there is almost surely a causal link between the rain and wet grass, but there is no reason I have to do it. You aren't left with a proof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This comes down to vocabulary.

If by correlation we mean Pearson correlation (linearly related) the answer is no.

If by correlation we mean some hand-waving association between A and B then yes. Since if A causes B there is some hand-waving association between them, namely causation.

I suggest we reserve 'correlation' for linear relationships and stop using it in the second sense. It's unhelpful and confusing.

<comment><USER10> Two problems: first is that casual association may be invisible to even hand- waving criteria; think good crypto PRNG output which is fully determined by seed and is serial number, but the parameters are practically unfittable from the data because the function is so chaotic. Second thing is that the more hand-waving you allow the more totally incidental relations will look "true". With a modern amounts of hypotheses, even Pearson correlation often becomes useless in this manner.

<comment><USER9> mbq, I would not contradict your points.

Though first sense 'correlation' could well be useless in many cases at least I know what it means.

The second sense is perfidious as it's virtually impossible to deny there's a 'correlation' between any two things since the term so poorly defined.

<comment><USER10> Note that I am criticising the idea of "general" or "intuitive" correlation; actually useful correlation measures (like Pearson or Spearman) will be just always tied to some model of dependence. This way it cannot be directly tied to the obviously absolute dependence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wouldn't a Random Number Generator be a case of causation not implying correlation?

<comment><USER12> If you're talking about PRNGs, then no - there is a very specific correlation between successive numbers in a PRNG.

<comment><USER13> But it's highly non-linear. They have an expected Pearson correlation of zero.

Note: there are simple counter example of variables that have a Pearson correlation of 0 yet some non-linear dependency structure as in the 3rd row of the plot of:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence)

<comment><USER14> If the question is "does causation imply linear correlation", then the answer is obviously and trivially "no".

But we don't need a PRNG to see that. Take a series of chutes whose entrances are lined up in a row, and whose exits are arranged in a circle. Now start dropping balls in the entrances and see where they end up.

Obviously there is a causal relationship between where we drop the ball and where it lands, but it's not a linear correlation. But there's still a correlation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wrong verbage here - would suggest seems better?

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably. One of the answers on there also has a discussion of referring to it as 'correlation', which has a specific statistical meaning that is often ignored when people trot out "Correlation != Causation".

A better wordsmithed version of the question would probably be "Does Association Suggest Causation?"

<comment><USER16> Correlation does not always mean Pearson's r², which is the thing with a specific statistical meaning. There are other specific correlations, and general correlation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Never the less, I think 'association' is a better general term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there.'"

[http://xkcd.com/552/](http://xkcd.com/552/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Does a headline with two HN memes get extra points?

</comment><comment><USER19> Most of the time...</comment>


Entrepreneurs are crazy. - <AUTHOR> http://austinbrandt.posterous.com/entrepreneurs-are-crazy

<comment><USER2> I read that more as the fact that people've really been locked into the college-career-retirement mindset, especially as it seems to be the fact that you're dropping out of college that's driving the response.

There's such thing as viable alternatives, of course. But they're alternatives, as opposed to mainstream.Frankly, I prefer the alternatives myself.</comment>


Guaranteed Profits in Stock Market Options - <AUTHOR> http://www.durangobill.com/LP_Options.html <comment><USER2> The article's punch line:

 _The bad news is that an outside investor must have some brokerage company execute the mixed strategy on an "all or none" basis. Unfortunately, this has proven to be virtually impossible. However, it is an example of the action in derivatives that many brokerage companies use._

Although different, this reminds me of the "guaranteed to win" casino strategy where you keep doubling your bets. This fails for two reasons:

* Losing streaks can be very long and requires that you have access to a large sum of money since the bets are growing exponentially.

* House limits prevents you from doubling indefinitely</comment>


Ask HN: Favorite Basic Programming Interview Question? - <AUTHOR> I'm conducting some short interviews with college grads for junior positions.  I have the interviews mapped out, but I'm still deciding on some simple programming questions to start with.<p>Do you have any short, simple questions you like? <comment><USER2> "Write a function which produces the prime factors of a given integer."

The kinds of people that I'm tasked with interviewing are not web developers nor user interface types but are generally more back end/non off the shelf solutions type of programmers. I also point out that I realize that it's an atypical programming question and I let them think about it on their own for 5-10 minutes if needed before helping them along if they go astray.

How they react to the question is as telling as how long it takes them to realize that they do not need a function to determine if a number is prime or not.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fizzbuzz?

I find the reaction to being asked such an "elementary" question as informative as the approach and solution.

And then there are the "programmers" who can't write a solution.

The rest depends on your niche. For instance, I like asking junior server side web developers to design (but not write all the code for) a URL shortening system. It's simple enough to describe in 10 minutes on a whiteboard but complex enough to spur conversations about decisions and trade-offs.</comment>


Before Straight and Gay: The discreet, disorienting passions of the Victorian era - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/before-straight-and-gay/513812/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> To a certain extent I certainly find the current/modern fixation with classifying gender and orientation odd. It's not entirely clear to me why it's important that I know somebody is a "queer sapiosexual" or whatever else. But there are clearly a lot of people who think such things are very important.

And of course what seems a tendency towards needlessly complicated overly- expository self-labeling encompasses a lot more than gender these days. It feels like there's a subtext to a lot of it which sort of suggests that ideas can only be heard and understood clearly by those who own the appropriate labels (including gender), and so people seek to have expansive identities that give them the social bona fides necessary to have their opinions, thoughts, and ideas treated with respect and presumed relevance.

In other eras perhaps these social credentials came from wealth or class or other "accomplishments." But the modern world seems to have let an obsession with the the variously unfair, arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory nature of these previous credentials become the basis for inventing new ones based around constructed identities, since such constructs are available to all.

In a way we can see this in how protest movements are labeled - it used to be that they were labeled by their goals or the problems they were trying to solve, like the "Civil Rights Movement" or the "Conservation Movement." But now we label things by their identity. Rather than conservation movement, at some point we ended up with "conservationists" and "environmentalists," which have given way to things like the "Women's March," "Scientist's March," etc, which seem to imply that identity necessarily indicates viewpoint - just by knowing what category/identity is marching I should know what it is trying to say.

As a lazy human being I find this not an all-together pleasing development, mostly because it seems to go along with a bit of all-or-nothingism, particularly for "allies," who, absent the appropriate labels, may only accept or not accept the broad determinations of those who own the operative label at risk of being excluded/denounced.

Anyway, I enjoyed the piece. Always enjoy reading about Victorian stuff.

<comment><USER3> It can be difficult to feel normal if there isn't a word to describe how you feel. If all you see is depictions of a certain kind of person (straight and cisgender [1]), but you don't feel that way, are you broken, wrong, crazy even? I've seen countless accounts of people that fit the formula of "I felt different all my life, and it wasn't until I heard the word <label> that I understood."

So yes, maybe if you're straight and cisgender you never gave a thought to it, because the majority of people around you were as well, but to a little transgender or asexual teen, hearing the label is like finding a community and comfort blanket all in one.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender) \- Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people who have a gender identity that matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Cisgender may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex."[1] It is the opposite of the term transgender.

Edit: kid->teen, I'm not talking about pre-pubescent children

<comment><USER4> Whenever I see cis- and trans- applied to humans, I get the creeping suspicion that some subset of ortho-, meta-, para-, dextro-, levo-, gem-, vic-, hom-, syn-, anti-, exo-, and endo- will be next, and everyone will need to pass an organic chemistry course just to sign up for a dating service.

      (In queue at the local coffee shop.)
      Couple-A:  (reading a Quandr-E profile out loud) Orthodisexual
                 dextromasculine cismale seeks polyamorous dyad for
                 exo- addition (or endo- if it feels right)....
      Couple-B:  Awww... dang.  Too bad drhe isn't *para*-disexual.
                 Swipe left.
      Sasquatch:  I know, right?  But gotta respect drhis life choices.
      Couple-A:  Hey, you wouldn't happen to be...
      Sasquatch:  Nope.  I only date unicorns.
      Senior Coffee-Service Engineer:  (surreptitiously applies alicorn wax)
      Dude:  (enters) Any hetero cisfemales in here?
      Chorus:  No!
      Dude:  (exits)
      Dodecagenarian:  One half-liter fair-trade, please.  No saccharoids.
                       Double cannabis-butter shot.
      Senior Coffee-Service Engineer: That will be $6129, sir and/or ma'am.
      Rod Serling:  (appearing from nowhere) Submitted for your approval:
                    Birmingham, Alabama, in the year 2040,
                    just 2 years after the Social Justice War....

<comment><USER5> Beautifully dense satire. A+, would read again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _Though sex between men was a criminal offense ..., there was, as yet, > hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early > 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any > respect "abnormal"_

How do you reconcile the fact that gay sex was a criminal offense with the claim that it wasn't considered abnormal?

This feels like wishful history rewriting.

<comment><USER7> > How do you reconcile the fact that gay sex was a criminal offense with the > claim that it wasn't considered abnormal?

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people consider it abnormal. (I agree with you that it feels historically revisionist, but I don't agree with your argument.)

For instance, smoking marijuana isn't considered "abnormal" by many folks. And yet it is a serious federal criminal offense in the US, punishable by significant jail time.

<comment><USER6> That's a good point but there is lots of evidence indicating the prevalence and acceptance of marijuana in spite of its illegality. Where is the evidence that make homosexuality was largely considered acceptable or normal by before the early 1950s?

Again, this just feels like historical revisionism. As if gay male sex was totally acceptable until a ~50 year period starting in 1950. Meanwhile this whole article is about a family of gay people who (at least the males) couldn't or didn't engage in this supposedly accepted behavior.

<comment><USER8> > Where is the evidence that make homosexuality was largely considered > acceptable or normal by before the early 1950s?

To be clear, the article's not saying that male homosexuality was largely considered normal. It's saying that having sex with men was not considered abnormal, which is a bit different. I think this is probably a bit of an oversimplification, but certainly, men who had sex with men would have been less inclined to think of themselves as different at the time than now.

<comment><USER6> I have trouble buying that claim. In a world where gay sex happens but isn't acknowledged, I don't see how people engaging in gay sex would consider it "normal". As if it became "abnormal" only when we started labeling it consistently as homosexuality. Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it?

I can buy that men who had sex with men wouldn't consider themselves gay (or bisexual or whatever) because that wasn't really a recognized thing. That doesn't mean that the gay sex itself would have been considered "normal" even by the people engaged in it.

<comment><USER9> > Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it?

Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an article on Winston Churchill:

> Like other lovers, they invented pet names for each other. Clementine was > "Cat", or "Kat", Winston was "Pug", then "Amber Pug", then "Pig". Drawings > of these animals decorated the margins of their letters to each other, and > at dinner parties Winston would reach across the table, squeeze her hand, > and murmur "Dear Cat". [...]

> These were not one-offs, taken out of context. Due to Churchill's odd > schedule and frequent travels, he and his beloved Kat didn't see much of > each other, and even while living in the same house they wrote each other > frequent letters. Practically all of them are full of love—and they're > equally full of what we today would recognize in a heartbeat as typical > anthropomorphic on-line role-play.

[http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil- tears-...](http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil-tears-and- fur/)

<comment><USER6> > _Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of > how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote > from an article on Winston Churchill_

I think you're answering a much different question than what I asked. You seem to be answering whether it existed before it had a name. I was asking whether it was _normal_ before it had a name. I have no idea whether Churchill was actually a "furry" but I don't think giving it a name suddenly made it _abnormal_. To whatever extend "furry" behavior is normal or abnormal, it was the same before and after it had a name.

<comment><USER9> Admittedly I did not make this point particularly clearly. [I also realized as I was writing this reply that I made a possibly unwarranted assumption: that Churchill's actions were well-known and generally accepted at the time. I took from the quote that he was doing this at dinner parties, but have no idea what the public scope was. The remainder of the reply continues with this assumption, but I would want to do more research before continuing to use this particular example.]

I'm interpreting "normal" as _considered not out of the ordinary by a reference group_ (as opposed to e.g. _within one standard deviation of the mean_ ). This brings the opinions of the group (here the general public) into play. I argue that giving it a name did, in fact, make it abnormal. It is difficult to discuss anything without having words to describe it with, in part because no clear boundaries have yet been defined. As a result, these sorts of things fall into a grey zone where they can't really be described as "normal" or "abnormal" (even if individual instances could be called "unusual"). Once they have been classified, they can be given a name (e.g. "furry"), and also the group as a whole can then be easily classified as normal or abnormal.

<comment><USER6> Holding someone's hand and calling them a pet name at dinner is not the same as having one's private sex/romance practices publicly known. I doubt that if Churchill was engaging in furry fetishes that it was well known. But even if it were well-known that wouldn't mean it was generally accepted as normal. But it's weird debating Churchill since I have no idea if it's even true or if it's made up or or wildly misinterpreted.

I don't agree with the naming argument. It might be harder to discuss something without a label on it but the underlying behavior can still be seen as normal or abnormal. We didn't have a real word for cisgender until recently but it doesn't seem to have made a difference in how cisgender people are perceived. We still don't have a word for people who are sexually excited by Ikea couches but it's pretty unusual/abnormal regardless. (I don't see unusual and abnormal as meaningfully different here.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The implication is that the modern identity of "gay" is a recent, politicized, Western (& really more like American) construction. The further implication is that this identity is also deconstructable. Which seemingly refutes the whole idea of "innate gayness" in as much as it amounts to any particular pattern of behavior.

<comment><USER11> > The implication is that the modern identity of "gay" is a recent, > politicized, Western (& really more like American) construction. The further > implication is that this identity is also deconstructable.

Yes, that's the implication, and it's one that most people who have studied historical attitudes to homosexual behavior agree with.

> Which seemingly refutes the whole idea of "innate gayness" in as much as it > amounts to any particular pattern of behavior.

There is no refutation of that -- behavior and predispositions can be innate, but basing a person's identity on a certain set of them is a social construction. We know that is the case because all human societies exhibit homosexual behavior, but only some have adopted the concept of homosexuality as a personal identity, frequently as a binary opposite of heterosexuality -- and western society only did so somewhat recently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> [nothing]

<comment><USER13> Labels are just an easy way for people to dismiss each other. Let's not.

<comment><USER14> Categorization is important. Those who wish to use such categorization as a means to discriminate are not important, and should not be given any services until they change their ways. If society went back to this simple structure, (plus our educational system would recognize this instead of co-opting it) then this would change. But we're now in a more complex age. Good luck with that.

<comment><USER15> I disagree. I think "description" is important, and some words facilitate communication.

For example, I consider "heterosexual" and "homosexual" mostly as _categorization_ words, as they tell you almost nothing about a person.

On the other hand, if we used words like "penis-loving" and "vagina-loving", which are descriptions, we'd get along much better. I'm pretty sure I have more in common with vagina-loving women (i.e. bisexual women and lesbians) than with only-penis-loving men (gay men).

<comment><USER16> >On the other hand, if we used words like "penis-loving" and "vagina-loving", which are descriptions, we'd get along much better.

I think that would just be confusing, as you're conflating very different things. I'm gay in terms of who I'm actually attracted to, but I find both penises and vaginas sexually interesting. Similarly, gay men aren't necessarily particularly into penises and straight men aren't necessarily particularly into vaginas. (With regard to the latter, witness all the nasty misogynistic things straight men are liable to say about them.)

I'd also point out that as a gay man I'm far more attracted to transguys, who generally have vaginas, than I am to transwomen, who generally have penises.

So in short, describing my sexuality in terms of which genitalia get me going would be very misleading, and I'm not an isolated case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is it just me, or are people who were telling us that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition the same ones now saying that it's a choice and things are flexible?

<comment><USER17> First you need to stop seeing it as a binary (being gay isn't a bit that gets 'flipped,' it's more of a range that you are predisposed to fall somewhere within) and then this will start making more compatible sense. If you're willing to accept that, here's a really good interview on the subject: [http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_invention_of_the_heteros...](http://www.salon.com/2012/01/22/the_invention_of_the_heterosexual/)

<comment><USER13> Yeah, but that's always been true. So why was the emphasis on immutability for a long while?

<comment><USER18> Maybe look at the various social consequences in places where the "immutability" line is or has been sold, versus places and times where it isn't or wasn't.

<comment><USER13> Could you be more specific?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can't be the only one that read "of all the doings in the Benson household" as "of all the dongs in the Benson household".</comment>


Ask HN: Canadian IT/Tech Scene? - <AUTHOR> Anyone running a tech. team or company out of Canada? Wondering what the tech scene there is in general. I know Canada is a huge country but specifically places like Toronto etc. are of interest. I am asking because we are considering setting up a small office in Canada (for our US based company). Any insight is appreciated. <comment><USER2> The Greater Toronto Area has added more jobs than Silicon Valley in the last year.

Vancouver also has a strong tech scene. Microsoft and Amazon have setup shop here. Apple also has a small team here, and are growing their presence in the next couple of years.

There are also lots of other tech companies such as ACL, SAP etc, as well as other local companies such as Unbounce and Hootsuite, and myriad other smaller tech startups.

Pay scale in Vancouver is good, and certainly lower than the Valley. Not sure how Toronto shapes up with both of those areas.

Rent is expensive in Vancouver and Toronto, and that can prove a barrier to entry here unless you find a good realtor to work , and depending on the needs of your team.

</comment><comment><USER3> In Toronto you want to be either in Markham or downtown Toronto. Everywhere else it's going to be hard finding quality employees. Renting in downtown is pretty expensive almost 3-4x the rent of outside of downtown, that's if you can find office space, and many US companies are opening their doors here/buying the startups here while keeping operations here. What specifically do you want to know? Salaries are much less than SV, also a lot of the top talent leaves to work in the US because it's almost 2-3x the salary compared to Toronto.</comment>


Ask HN: When is it safe to upgrade to Ubuntu 17.10 - <AUTHOR> This page still discourages "download of Ubuntu 17.10":
https://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop
Do we know any ETA when this advisory will be lifted? Does this only apply to fresh installs, or are upgrades equally affected? I know I can click through to Launchpad tickets, but I was rather hoping for some clearer statement somewhere (the primary Launchpad ticket has over 400 comments to sift through).
I only recently moved to Ubuntu Desktop, coming from Windows (though having used a lot of Linux on servers). I'm on 16.04 now, but I'd like to upgrade. I happen to be using a Lenovo YOGA 710-15IKB laptop. <comment><USER2> "The target release date for these updated images is Thursday, January 11." from [https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu- release/2018-Januar...](https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu- release/2018-January/004263.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> 16.04 is an LTS. Just wait for 18.04.1 which is due about next summer.

</comment><comment><USER4> safe? Never.</comment>


Ask HN: Computer Science/Engineering Museums? - <AUTHOR> Any museums, exhibits or tours related to computer science/engineering?
Computer History Museum @ Mountain View http://www.computerhistory.org/
Intel Museum @ Santa Clara https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/company-overview/intel-museum.html
Living Computer Museum @ Seattle http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org/ <comment><USER3> Bletchley Park is great for its own exhibition, plus it has the UK's national museum of computing: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Museum_of_Compu...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Museum_of_Computing)

There's a fine guidebook called the Geek Atlas, which should be what you're looking for. Bit US centric though: [http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596523213.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596523213.do)

<comment><USER4>
        > Bletchley Park is great for its own exhibition, plus it
        > has the UK's national museum of computing

Came to say the same. It's recently had a bout of lottery funding too.

They still have a running Colossus replica too - well worth a visit.

<comment><USER5> Note that the museum of computing didn't get any of that funding, and visitors to the main Bletchley park site are not told about it apart from a single sign in the lobby. Unless you know it's there you won't find it.

[http://www.tnmoc.org/](http://www.tnmoc.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was going to say the BT Museum, but that closed to visitors in 1997(!).

The replacement is "Connected Earth": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected_Earth)

> Connected Earth is a UK network of organisations, primarily museums, that > preserve the history of telecommunications in the UK. Heritage artefacts are > physically dispersed to Connected Earth partners and other institutions as > appropriate, and are brought together again online through virtual > galleries, searchable catalogues and educational resources at its website.

</comment><comment><USER7> MIT Museum [http://mitmuseum.mit.edu](http://mitmuseum.mit.edu)

</comment><comment><USER8> I was just at the American Computer & Robotics Museum in Bozeman, MT not too long ago. It's pretty small but they have some interesting stuff - <USER2> example, an Apple I donated by Woz, a control module from a Minuteman ICBM, some Apollo moon mission hardware, among other things...</comment>


This laptop is able to fit in a pocket but has massive specs - <AUTHOR> http://www.gadgetdx.com/smallest-laptop-biggest-specs/ <comment><USER2> "The device is still a prototype."

Call me when it's out of R & D.</comment>


American businesses have the power to change China's behavior - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/03/american-businesses-have-power-change-chinas-behavior-time-step-up/ <comment><USER2> Honestly it's unlikely. At most they will delay China, maybe make it pretend for a bit it changed.

China is clearly pursing US Tech independence since a long time. They are not there yet, but they constantly get closer. If Tech companies in US/EU would have been more careful with cooperation and IT-espionage maybe then it would be true. But by now it's pretty much to late. They already have a solid enough foundation to become US Tech independent. The question is just how long it will take. And how it currently looks not too long.

<comment><USER3> As much as I want to believe your reasoning, I just can't fathom how Chinese copycats could actually yield next generation tech...have you had a chance to search "Chinese structure collapses" on YouTube? I believe there are over a hundred videos showcasing their ingenuity.

<comment><USER4> The Chinese can't innovate or create is really just a relic of 90's racism+orientalism. Seriously, only if you believe somehow the Chinese people have different brain structure, there is absolutely no reason why they can't do what West can do.

Yes Chinese wasn't doing super innovative stuff back like 10 years ago.

Reason? Because they don't have to. There is easier money to make at a lower segment of the market that fits them better. The China back then is under developed, spending in R&D isn't something that would benefit them than simply importing last-gen Western technology.

Now they have educated themselves and clambbed up the value chain, that is when the innovations become profitable to them.

The West still enjoys some advantage, in certain key areas, but it is diminishing, and diminishing fast.

<comment><USER5> It's not about the Chinese people but about their government. Smart people don't want to contribute to the regime and leave the country. _This_ is where the comment "the Chinese can't innovate" comes from - it's about the political regime being unable to cultivate innovation, not the people lacking the faculties to do it.

The fact that China, the country, has to steal all their tech, while Chinese people contribute to innovation all around the world proves my point.

<comment><USER6> Not everyone leaves. They got families and friends after all.

And once this becomes too much of an issue, I'd wager they'll just blacklist anyone leaving from ever coming back. That's gonna make almost everyone stay where they are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> American Consumers have even more power, look at the human rights records of the countries you are buying products from rather than just looking at the lowest sticker price.

<comment><USER8> Can you even buy a smartphone that's not assembled in China?

<comment><USER9> Sure. Nokia apparently is making some in India. Samsung does some in S Korea and some in Vietnam, unless that's changed recently.

<comment><USER10> And how is a consumer supposed to know which models?

<comment><USER9> Currently, it's not easy. I'm a bit of a phone/tiny computer geek, so I read a lot. When I was younger, where a product was made was something everyone wanted to know. China was seen as junk, and rightly so. Now, nobody cares, so it's rarely advertised.

I'd love for us to hold companies to the standards they hold us to. Say something unpopular, and you'll get fired, or have advertising pulled away. By the same companies using sweatshops in countries that abuse people.

Consider this example: Nike pulled it's Redskins gear, because it's possibly offensive to Native Americans. Yet Nike exploits the system to have that gear made by women and children, by force or necessity, in countries that are truly horrible to their people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article doesn't really support the headline. It concedes that we can't know if it will help and makes more of a yolo argument instead:

> It's possible, of course, that the Chinese might decide to give up U.S. > markets rather than liberalize, as they gave up Hong Kong's usefulness as a > financial hub. But if we can make a difference, we should find out.

<comment><USER12> > as they gave up Hong Kong's usefulness as a financial hub

Did they though? Many banks are still based there - but relative to the rest of the PRC, HK became less important because the rest of the country developed at lightning pace.

<comment> dan-robertson It's unclear. The usefulness of Hong Kong is supposed to stem from it being a bridge between China and the global financial system (allowing Chinese firms to raise foreign capital and Chinese citizens to get their money out of China), and secondarily as a place with stable legal institutions which are useful to businesses. It seems like the former advantage is being reduced through HK's special treatment being reduced, and the latter may or may not go away for businesses but I think that remains to be seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So rather than competing with the duopoly of AliPay and WeChat, Stripe decided to not enter the Chinese market because it will change China's behavior- Somehow letting the profits flow to two Chinese giants will help its society become more free.

<comment><USER14> That's not the real problem. The real problem is By leaving America is doing charity work. Another player from another country is just going to fill in the void. The idea of voluntary exit is as good as we should all be model citizens.

Indeed an idea as good as communism. It's beautiful on paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> American businesses _are_ Chinese businesses.

</comment><comment><USER8> In the 1980s the West used boycotts and divestment to criticize apartheid South Africa. It's time the West does the same to China to criticize its treatment of the Uyghurs.

The problem though as an individual consumer is that electronics products made in China are so ubiquitous that it's difficult to impossible navigate a boycott.

Please HNers at big corps, if you are in any sort of position to influence where your hardware products are made, please push to have your products made elsewhere.

<comment><USER16> This is a curious comment in that the West set up apartheid in the first place. Millions of Africans suffered under it and thousands died in the struggle to overthrow it. The role that external condemnation from western countries played, if any, pales in comparison to what actual Africans sacrificed and accomplished.

Western sanctions generally produce misery and discontent as their main outcomes. North Korea has been sanctioned for decades and shows no signs of responding positively. Iraq was sanctioned for decades until the US invaded and further ruined the lives of everyone there.

<comment><USER17> The reason why north korea is still around is because China enables it's existence, and as a result, that little hell, which wasn't that much different from china 35 years ago, still persists.

<comment><USER16> South Korea was similarly ravaged after the war, and was ruled by a series of various dictators until the 90s. Luckily they were authoritarian capitalists instead of authoritarian communists, and were propped up by US aid (much better than Chinese aid, since the Chinese could barely feed themselves).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The entire point of China pushing HK is that China thinks they don't need HK anymore.

<comment><USER2> And that China sees HK to some degree as a symbol of shame.

Else they might just have keep it for some more years because it doesn't hurt them I thing, well more like guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Despite Collison's example, most CEOs probably won't take that risk on their > own; they will be too afraid of being undercut by less scrupulous > competitors who retain their access to China's markets and manufacturing > prowess. So on this Fourth of July, it falls to the American public...

This is the weakness of American individualism. Some form of organization is necessary to achieve anything meaningful here. This is a job for regulation/trade policy. Attempting to shame individual companies or "the public" is at best pointless, and at worst a distraction from a real solution.

There's a pretty funny example here from the tech world: web search, google, and microsoft. What has been achieved by google abandoning the Chinese search market? It sure as hell isn't respect for that decision. Far more vitriol (even at the level of US congress) has been directed at google over this than microsoft, who operate bing in China!

Don't get me wrong, google deserved the criticism over dragonfly. But where is the outrage over microsoft operating bing under China's censorship policies? This is why organization/regulation is required: people are really bad at maintaining a coherent position even in the absence of market pressures, which are massive in the case of trade with China.

<comment><USER20> 2017 - I remember when Trump had initiated the trade war, it was such a taboo to support it. I am not a fan of trump but the progressives in the Silicon Valley would abandon me in a mob mentality god forbid if I said something I like about Trump. I had pretty unpleasant pushbacks during lunch breaks and then I stopped discussing things all together.

Living here in the valley, I wonder what's the difference between aggressively progressive places and aggressively conservative places like a small town in Arkansas? To me, they are both intolerant of opposing views, don't think for themselves and subscribe to extremely strong stances.

Being a centrist, I feel like I am exiled in this country by all sides. The stronger one's view, the more burden is on them to prove their view with data, successive chain of logic and reasoning. I am constantly wary of my own views because either circumstances change, my understanding improves or new data is available. This is the HN way.

<comment><USER21> As a centrist saying. Irving particularly offensive your post was downvoted. I feel my days on HN are numbered. One used to be able to have an intellectually honest discussion. Now step out of line and it's downvotes. This kind of monoculture isn't healthy.

<comment><USER22> Just say your thing and make your reasoned points and who cares about downvotes.

<comment><USER23> Downvotes are a flag for disagreement. I am interested in the reasoned points of those who disagree with me. Since I was downvoted and no comment was left, I requested that those who downvoted come forth with their reasoned points. One or both of us have an opportunity to learn something when that happens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Let's take a step back and look at the quote in the article's opening paragraph: "As a US business (and tech) community I think we should be significantly clearer about our horror at, and opposition to, the atrocities being committed by the Chinese government against its own people."

Now let's swap the words "US" and "Chinese" around. Maybe it's not so absurd after all.

<comment><USER25> Doesn't seem to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Abandon money for virtue signaling?

This is a capitalistic world, money will go where it can multiply itself.

US can leave China as they want, will EU follow? How about Japan? My bet will be that they will be happy to take up the vacuum US left and make a huge fortune out of it.

Corporate America, if they can act coordinately, they can fix so many things domestically in this country. Yet, they didn't and probably won't. It make zero sense that they can achieve that in China.

</comment><comment><USER14> This article is incredibly ignorant, and is more of the same realities detached day dreaming that the left likes to partake.

Why should American businesses voluntarily abandon an sizable overseas market and supply chain when China keeps getting access to our home market? In effect, placing a punitive tariff over our own heads and puts our American firms at a competitive disadvantage over our European and Chinese counterparts? Why should such a tax be born by the American corporation, workers and taxpayers?

If America has decided to decouple from China, then the solution should be legislative as it creates a level playing field for all firms involved, such that no one in particular is punished by a voluntary withdraw.

The saving grace is I believe world leaders are aware of this "you withdraw you loose" dilemma and are starting to cooperate to form a unified front against China. Donald Trump did well in waking the world up against the Chinese threat, but I'm afraid we now need a diplomat to finish the war.

</comment><comment><USER26> LOL. What a load of lies.

American businesses had the power to change American behavior in the 1800s and 1900s. Did they do it? No.

American businesses could have helped outlawed slavery in America. They could have forced the issue onto their politicians. Did they do it? No.

Then in the 1900s, American businesses could have outlawed racism. They could have forced civil rights onto their politicians. Did they do it? No.

And today. American businesses can force the end of police violence against minorities onto their politicians. Are they doing it? No.

American businesses can ensure fair distribution of wages, and financial equality, and social equality to help their minority citizens. Are they doing it? No.

Hence, give me some evidence that American businesses can actually do something useful at home first, before making them a pawn in this stupid game of geopolitics that the Washington elites are playing against a nation on the other side of the world, and forcing the rest of us to choose sides on. When, they themselves do nothing for us.

My point is, the problems we have in America, has nothing to do with China. This is all home grown. We have within ourselves, the ability to make life better, fairer, and more equitable to all Americans. Instead, what does the politicians do? Nothing. Instead, they do everything to support the rich, and the elite. While the rest of us gets fleeced, are lied to, and gets hoodwinked.

The biggest lie that they sold to us, is that Trickle Down Economics will work for everyone. That tax cuts for the wealthy will help drive business growth. Trickle Down Economics should instead be renamed to Trickle Up Economics.

The problem is not China. The problem is our corrupt political and financial system.

<comment><USER27> There are places where a "corrupt political and financial system" intersect with China.

I was kind of startled to find out that Chinese companies listed in the US are not held to the same standards as those from the US and other countries,[1] because the Chinese government will not allow auditing in the same way. It seems this is a genuine issue and not about xenophobia, even if it gets muddled with it by people who just don't like China. And it is corruption.

Threatening to move listings out of the US, while of course it is an option, does not seem (or should not be) relevant to the US changing policies which have been corrupted due to Chinese demands based on "national security". It's about the US fixing its problems, not China per se.

It's easy for a casual observer to see the Trump administration saying something and dismiss it, especially as their credibility is so low many news articles are automatically slanted. However, the SEC and PCAOB have some credibility to me.

[1][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-china- exchan...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-china- exchanges/u-s-must-have-access-to-u-s-listed-chinese-firms-audit-documents- lawmakers-say-idUSKCN1T7060)</comment></comment>


Monopolies cost Americans $300 a month - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/america-was-once-the-land-of-free-markets-now-theyre-becoming-a-myth <comment><USER2> My Verizon bill is $200/month and my Internet bill is $150/month, so the numbers seem about right.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand much of the article, I was mainly looking for a breakdown of how exactly it costs $300 per month. I've never heard of amything similar so I'm curious now. That's a crazy number when for example most basic income proposals are $1000.

</comment><comment><USER4> Unfortunately no discussion of exactly how this $300/month is calculated.

<comment><USER5> The authors papers can be traced through Google Scholar and other sources (though giving the specifid study in the OpEd would have been thoughtful). His homepage at NYU Stern does _not_ list recent papers.

I suspect this is the paper in question: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w24700](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24700)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> they mention the professor stating this, could have at least hyperlinked to his studies that are relevant to the statement. Sigh, bad journalism.</comment>


Deadly Startup Diseases—and How to Cure Them - <AUTHOR> http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/nine-deadly-startup-diseases

<comment><USER2> Since you just posted two different "Top N Things" articles in a row, I thought I'd point out the guidelines:

 _If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."_

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html></comment>


Teaching my daughter to code – 7yr old - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC2Paw1JjzA <comment><AUTHOR> We started the process of learning to code a few months back.

Right now, we focus more about developing "the engineer mind" rather than syntax.

The design process and thinking through the problems are much more important.

In this video, we talk through a project idea she had and work through it. It all comes together in the end of the video where I "translate" her thoughts to syntax.

We had a blast, people asked questions in the chat and it really motivated her to continue with it.

Previos blog posts:

[https://hackernoon.com/fun-flash-cards-react-native-app-i- bu...](https://hackernoon.com/fun-flash-cards-react-native-app-i-built-with- my-daughter-eb813340179e)

[https://medium.com/@kensodev/dad-i-have-an-idea-for- another-...](https://medium.com/@kensodev/dad-i-have-an-idea-for-another- app-b3629821ce82)</comment>


The long-term cost of sexual harassment - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/20/the-long-term-cost-of-sexual-harassment/ <comment><USER2> Knowing how extremely adversely even minor harassment can affect someone in the workplace, I can't fathom how ANY company doesn't have an absolute-zero- tolerance policy for harassment, especially of a sexual nature. There's literally zero reasonable excuse for having to tolerate this kind of crap in a work situation, including "outside-of-work" events.

<comment><USER3> Because 1\. It cost money to replace people 2\. If the CEO doesn't see it as a problem, he's not going to put resources on it. 3\. Zero-tolerance policies are usually bad in every context. You were too flirty with a girl at work and put your arm around her? Bam, you're fired. 4\. To understand a situation, you have to see it from both sides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why is anyone acting surprised that the man is still in place at his company, when Mr. Grab-em-by-the-pussy is also Mr. Most-powerful-man-on-the-planet?

Especially considering he was elected by the United States of America AFTER those comments were made public?

Control your expectations about the world people. It's only a nice place as depicted in media. Many, many, terms and conditions sadly apply :-(

<comment><USER5> The "Lead by example" behaviour mode is going to get more visible in the US, I imagine. Let's hope that most of the population has a good sense of what is right and what is wrong and only do the right things.

<comment><USER6> We like to think that is the case, but just the presidential election itself has shown this not to be true. I'm tired of people apologizing for Trump voters by saying that they were choosing the lesser of two evils or whatever other crap they say. The election showed that almost half of Americans simply don't give a shit what their party does as long as its THEIR party, they will continue to vote for it. Such partisanship not only gave us President Trump, but is actively hindering efforts to reign in the descent into dictatorship. e.g. Republican congressmen and Senators seem unwilling to address some rather serious concerns with the Trump family because they know now that it doesn't matter. As long as they're not "liberal snowflakes", anything, anything goes.

The optimist in me looks at the other half of Americans who still have their good sense intact, and even those who chose not to vote. But as Robert Reich and Dan Rather have said repeatedly: these are dangerous times for our democracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> FYI: The photo in the article is not clearly labeled, but it seems to be a photo of the incident taken at the time it happened. She is a little Asian woman. He towers over her.

My assumption is this noticeable size difference contributed to how strongly this incident impacted her.

<comment><USER8> The article clearly states the photo is the moment he's forcibly holding the woman's hand against her will.

<comment><USER7> I can't tell if you are trying to be helpful or trying to be critical of me. I don't see a clear label. The photo fits the description given in the article, but if the article clearly states that THIS, right here, is the photo in question, I am failing to see it.

Which, you know, could just be because I have pathetic eyesight. But I honestly do not see a clear and unequivocal indicator to that effect.

<comment><USER8> Trying to be helpful.

Here are the excerpts from the article.

> I realized she was taking a photo. Later, when I asked her why she had done > that, she said she didn't get what was going on. Being photographed in that > situation by someone I kept hoping would help me felt terrible.

> I saved the photo my friend took, even though I hated knowing it was in my > storage.

<comment><USER7> Yes, I saw those remarks, which is how I inferred this was the photo in question. But I still see no statement nor caption clearly saying "THIS photo RIGHT HERE is the photo we are talking about."

That may seem pedantic to you, but I have had a couple of law classes and I worked in insurance for over 5 years. Those are environments in which such distinctions matter.

I am inferring that it is the photo and you apparently agree that it is, but I still don't believe there is a clear and unequivocal statement in the article to that effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "He put his arm around my shoulders and whispered "Can't you pretend you're single?" in my ear. I shrugged him off. "

At that point an approach was made and met with a clear response. That was when things should have stopped. That is how potential relationship escalation should work: an offer is made in some way and based on the response the proposer gets an idea on how to proceed (in this case - bugger off).

It is absolutely unacceptable that anyone should be assaulted.

<comment><USER10> It's one of the biggest problems we have. Typical response from a man is that I'm a great catch; she just doesn't know that she wants me. Once she's had sex with me she'll marry me.

This is actually someone threatening rape (imo). Unfortunately it's something our President has said.

We need to stop this behavior where people think they are entitled to someone else. We also need to have our Law enforcement act more appropriately to handle this; ensure Rape Kits are tested promptly.

Educating our children and adults reminding them what is and what isn't acceptable. It isn't acceptable to touch someone on the shoulder if they asked you to remove it.

Lastly we need to call sexual harassment what it is. It's harassment; it's something as a society we have ignored for far too long.

<comment><USER7> _Typical response from a man is that I 'm a great catch; she just doesn't know that she wants me. Once she's had sex with me she'll marry me._

It's worse than that. For various reasons, some men are actively more interested if you reject them. It is a little bit like the principle that running from a bear will incite its chase instinct.

<comment><USER11> I don't know if it's the same for everyone else but growing up I was told you're supposed to chase girls and that if you don't actively pursue them you'll end up alone. I think that's where this kind of thing comes from.

<comment><USER12> Also, as a man, you are respected to break the girl's apparent resistance. If you are in early stages of relationship and want to wait for the girl to be comfortable to kiss you, you'll never get here. Asking a girl if you can kiss her will be awkward too and will probably be a no. Leaning in and kissing her will do the trick.

Obviously if she says no and leans away, you stop and don't try it.

<comment><USER7> I really liked the scene in some movie where Will Smith's character is coaching some guy to lean in like 80% of the way and then let her decide whether or not to seal the deal with a kiss.

I'm pretty picky about consent. There are men who know how to delicately signal their interest and invite me to signal back whether or not I am amenable. I have the general impression that such tactics get men a lot more action than tactics that intentionally step on a woman's boundaries as a matter of course.

<comment><USER6> This. Precisely this. I would just like to add that the lean in does work, but only when its pretty clear that you're having a great time and are very comfortable with each other. e.g. holding hands in a booth in a bar, dancing together and having fun etc.

But there are also many women, in my experience, that for whatever reason, don't or can't signal their interest or intentions. In that case I ASK them. It sounds very awkward to say it, but if done in private (i.e. you don't shout it out) I've actually noticed it creates a lot of comfort in the women. e.g. once I asked a girl I was on a date with, and she said she wasn't comfortable with PDA (we were inside a bar). I didn't push it, but after we left the bar and nobody was in sight outside, we did make out. I like to think if I had just "gone for it" in the bar, she would have been uncomfortable, I would feel rejected, and generally bad things all around...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a fair point on the long-term cost of sexual harassment combined with an uncivilized, one-sided public accusation. Do I miss something here?

Which part of the argument could not have been made without ruining a reputation through TC reach? How far are those accusations confirmed?

I've no stake in any of those people and I am not particularly opinionated about the current cultural matters surrounding harassment, but this is not a very civil approach and I am not sure it does a favor for the cause of greater awareness on the issue.

<comment><USER14> Sexual harassment is not a very civil approach either.

She states that she was inspired to share her experience (with photographic evidence) base on accounts of other women coming forward in a similiar manner.

<comment><USER13> My criticism was meant to be valid irrespective of the actual accusations quality. The concern would still stand for the accusation of more serious crimes like rape, murder, genocide, etc.

Being inspired to skip the trial and personally decide to put somebody in the pillory is an understandable, but deeply flawed motivation.

The author can, of course, make every accusation. The publication however should not make the crime appear to be a secured fact. Breaching the journalistic objectivity might be a current trend but is intellectually dishonest and no service to the cause.

This looks more like vigilantism than a serious conversation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> And how do you think that individuals' behavior can lower the friction of "male-female" relationship in a societal scale so a man wouldn't abuse a powerful position to approach and seduce a woman and that a woman wouldn't abuse its position of dozens of men courting her?

<comment><USER16> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14822155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14822155) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER15> Why?

> on: The long-term cost of sexual harassment

<comment><USER16> Because it started a flamewar. Comments like [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14823319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14823319) are particularly bad.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Level Up as a Developer - <AUTHOR> http://jasonrudolph.com/blog/2011/08/09/programming-achievements-how-to-level-up-as-a-developer/ <comment><USER2> Grind up on apps which solve business problems in underserved markets. The gold drops are better, the mobs easier to kill, and you'll get ganked less than in the hostile PVP zone of Stuff For Poor Twenty-something Men. Your support inbox may end up looking like Barrens chat; this is normal.

A note with regards to specs: you may be tempted to dump all your points into the Programming tree. Don't. It gets nerfed every few years anyhow, and respec costs will be murderous. Instead, spread some points into Soft Skills and Domain Expertise. Get the ult in Domain Expertise and you'll melt your competitors' faces regardless of their programming ability on virtually any raid except Next Google. (P.S. Expected rewards per hour on that raid are terrible, since _everyone wipes_. If you're good enough to do it you could AFK your way through any number of raids, pick one of them instead.)

Many developers get deeply into debates over who has the best class. "My class is better than your class" doesn't kill mobs, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Improving one's grinding skill can improve gold per hour marginally, but understanding the economic meta-game has a much, much better ROI.

<comment><USER3> The top comment on a post about how to become a better programmer effectively amounts to "Don't try to be a better programmer, instead do X, Y, and Z because that will make more money"?

I remember you saying somewhere that you're into optimizing businesses and money is a great way to keep score, and in light of that, this comment even makes sense, but please keep in mind that for some people becoming a better programmer is not about maximizing ROI.

<comment><USER4> I took two things away from what patio11 said.

One is to do things start to finish. Tests, deployment, faqs, code, marketing, polish, etc. You learn to appreciate the people and teams around you. You also gain useful skills.

The other is to emphasize learning the most for areas that have the largest payoff. For most programmers this means stuff that isn't programming. This dovetails nicely with an idea that CrossFit points out: Pullups make downhill skiers better. That exercise has no direct functional application to downhill skiing, but improving your big weaknesses in fitness often pays off more than perfecting your strengths.

<comment><USER5> I think your last point is heavily situation-dependent. What you really want to do is maximize the area of your Voronoi-diagram: the problem space for which you or resources you control are the best available solution. Sometimes the best way to do this is to eliminate a weakness, so that it's no longer a dealbreaker for people that wish to use you as a solution. But many times, the best way is to perfect your strengths, so that you're clearly better than the alternatives around you. People are willing to forgive and work around many weaknesses if you're very, very good at your strengths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This isn't a plan for becoming a better developer. It's an aimless laundry list of all possible things a developer could do (if they had limitless time and no particular goals).

It kinda reminds me of the "shotgun marketing" employed by, well, almost all companies, which comes down to "we don't know what people want but if we do everything then surely something will stick, right? If not, we'll withdraw the product and fire another random shotgun blast."

This list is the shotgun approach to becoming a better developer.

<comment><USER7> I was just coming here to say the exact same thing.

 _Write a program in assembly language_

 _Write an application in a functional language_

 _Write an application in an object-oriented language_

 _Write an application in a prototype-based language_

 _Write an application in a logic programming language_

 _Write an application using the Actor model_

 _Write an application in Forth [C]_

I totally respect the author's POV, and have no doubt that he is a hilariously better programmer than I am, but none of this would help me do the day to day stuff that all of my clients hire me to do.

<comment><USER8> I bet it would. Learning Ruby on the side made me a much better PHP programmer in 2005 because Ruby taught me how to do OO programming. Learning a little Clojure has made me a much better Ruby programmer because I started understanding the functional side of things.

Whenever I learn a new programming paradigm, I find it often does help me look at problems differently, and that does help me do the day to day stuff better.

Note I said new paradigm, not just a new language or framework. :)

<comment><USER7> Fair enough. I wrote that as I'm sitting here trying to puzzle out my very first project that requires me to use Windows (C# for Drupal developers anyone?), which is taking me away from really learning JS beyond jQuery to try and understand Node. I just can't imagine having the time to get through 10% of this list in the next 5 years.

<comment><USER9> 5 years? That list is more like a week. Unless your idea of "an application" is pretty grandiose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would argue that I have learned more about critical thinking and problem analysis and iteration by taking up Salsa dancing than by coding more. Guys and girls, you don't have to sit in front of a terminal to become a better developer. The OP's achievement list is daunting, and I wonder if time might be better invested in life rather than coding.

The beauty of life is that success is not transitive (e.g. being good at coding does not make you good at graphic design). But being better at graphic design or anything outside coding (try CrossFit, for example) may make you a happier coder.

<comment><USER11> After 5+ years in the salsa scene, most of the best male social dancers I've met work in a technical field -- software, engineering, etc. It requires tremendous mental acuity.

EDIT: I should add that it does not come naturally most of the time. It still requires hard (physical) work and persistence.

<comment><USER12> Having social danced and taught dance classes in various styles for over 10 years now, I think the reason you tend to see so many dancing computer geeks has nothing to do with "mental acuity," and everything to do with:

1\. We tend to be introverted, and are often drawn to dancing because it provides a _highly structured_ way of interacting with the opposite sex.

and

2\. We also tend to be obsessive -- it's how we complete lists like the OP, after all -- and thus once drawn to something, tend to have the doggedness to practice until rather good at it. Once you're good at it, a positive feedback loop ensues.

IMHO.

<comment><USER13> As a half decent dancer myself I think the structured part is really the key to why there are so many geeks in salsa. It starts like a way to hack the social aspect of life with a clear tutorial of how to be more confident there. And it really does work because most women are in fact interested in dancing so it acts as both a conversation starter and a shared topic for discussion. I'm not that sure that it helps for coding though. But it does help with happiness a lot.

As a side question - with all the technical talent in the salsa scene why is its web presence so ridiculously terrible? I actually haven't seen one site associated with salsa that I could qualify as "adequate".

<comment><USER14> Probably because there is no money in salsa. Many teachers, for the amount of work they do, don't earn that much money so paying for a website just isn't a priority. My teacher probably made a decent amount of money judging by the number of students she had but it was her life.

She would also regularly tell stories of her experiences. A lot of which involved salsa conferences and not getting paid because the only way many of the conferences can actually make money is by stiffing people on payment. It was quite a shocker to learn a lot about the behind-the-scene stuff.

<comment><USER10> > Probably because there is no money in salsa

The guy behind SalsaCrazy makes seven figures. And he (according to my sources) is not a good social dancer.

The economics of Salsa are driven by the race to the bottom when someone starts giving away classes for free. Most salsa dancers don't drink that much so expecting the bar or club to earn significant revenue from dancers is not that possible (but it depends on whether you are attracting the girls' night out crowd or the serious dancers).

The real money is made in the wedding dance preparation market. It really plays to the competitive landscape of showing off and SYTYCD. The recession has hurt the market some but most upwardly mobile couples will drop $2k for a package of twenty private lessons aimed to get them to the very important first dance as a married couple with style, confidence, and choreographed moves.

That is the secret of dance studios. Wedding couples are their fat cow.

To make money off a salsa conference is an impressive accomplishment.

<comment><USER14> That's the first I've heard of that site but I can see how it makes money. It's product-crazy. I have no doubt that some people make a lot of money but probably a lot just get by. My teacher also has mentioned how it took her many years to get to the level where she could even begin to teach full-time.

Some teachers might have their own products but usually they are still personally required. It's not unlike programmers selling their time. Many of the teachers do it because they like dancing, not running a business just like some programmers who like programming and don't like the business side. Anyway, it's a fascinating industry to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You can also decide to be less ignorant today than you were yesterday and just let that work itself out. If that's your attitude and you stick with it you'll do well.

I interviewed one guy recently who seemed smart and if he stopped playing Warhammer and Starcraft 2 he might have a decent career. As it stands now he did terrible in the interview and showed no signs of being interested in not being ignorant. If he picked up a book or two he might be good.

<comment><USER16> I agree. I work with a fellow who is intelligent, but has absolutely zero interest in learning technology on his own time. He's a decent Java guy who came from a C++ background, but the only area he stands out in (Swing development) isn't terribly marketable. He has no web experience, no knowledge of non-OO programming and his CS degree is far enough in the past that he has retained only limited knowledge of more interesting topics (e.g. compilers, AI, math coursework) that would give him a frame of reference to rebuild from.

The sad thing is that he's going on job interviews right now, and is having about as little luck as you might expect. He just got told by one interviewer that he's almost at the point of no return where his experience is so stale, it's going to be hard to transfer out to another job. From his perspective, he's caught between a rock and a hard place - because he's stuck in a job that he doesn't like, but that same job is keeping him from getting another. It would be so easy for him to jump out of this trap simply by dedicating a couple of hours a day to reading about things outside his experience. However, based on our conversations I doubt that's going to happen. It's especially disturbing because he's otherwise an intelligent guy, but he believes that his job is responsible for giving him marketable skills, and this is how people get stuck in jobs they don't like.

Don't be that guy. Tolle, lege!

<comment><USER17> If you wanted to be a white knight, you could invite him to work with you on a project in a language or domain unfamiliar to him - it might force him to catch up.

Or he could just go back to doing whatever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That is a really great list. I mean a _really, really_ great list, but, and I may be quite wrong about this, I think that it is missing something very important.

While a well-rounded computer-science curriculum should enable someone to check off at least half of those bullet points, I do not think that list would actually make someone a great developer.

I think that in order for someone to become a great developer, they should have knowledge that enables them to solve really hard problems in efficient ways. They must understand algorithms. I don't mean a surface level understanding either. They must have a deep, familiar, and complete comprehension of algorithms in general.

I'm not one to lecture on this subject, because I'm not quite there yet myself, but I really do think that if someone has a mastery of algorithms then the rest of the items on that list become significantly more achievable.

They would have a nice, strong general purpose set of tools that they can not only use in their own projects but also (and perhaps more importantly) in examining third party code and libraries as well.

<comment><USER19> A lot of people seem to believe that being strong on algoritms and data structures are important skills for a programmer. Maybe it has to do with the problem domain, but I have a hard time accepting that. I couldn't implement bubble sort from scratch if I tried - let alobe anything actually complicated. I could back in school, but in the 12 years since then, I have not once needed it. Understanding the finer details of coupling and coherence are much more importabt skills in my book. It's not as easy to messure though.

<comment><USER20> Without algorithms, you are limited to solving problems that can be tackled with mere plumbing.

You are right that there are lots of such problems. But there are also many others who can solve them too.

<comment><USER19> I completely disagree. Algoritms are exactly the kind of things that don't require any creative thinking, besides identifying when they may be applicable. That's easily outsourced to whoever charges the least.

<comment><USER20> Algorithms as taught in university are like single letters. We yearn to write compelling essays and deep poetry, and you are advocate having an illiterate person select letters one at a time and outsource the writing of them to the lowest bidder.

From your user name I guess you are a troll. But the best part is, there many people who really think that way. I think its the dominant view in the industry. For example at least some (and probably most) groups in redmond.

<comment><USER19> No, you have to read my response in context (E.g. as a response to _plumbing_ and _many others who can solve them_ ). I work with software that supports business processes, manage information and facilitates interaction between humans and machines. In that field (if it is even meaningful to speak of such a broad category as a single field), knowing how to write the most efficient sorting algoritm is fairly close to worthless.

I'm sure that if you work at Google, where crunching big data is key; or in a company like Microsoft or Apple, where applications are much closer to the hardware; then these things do matter. But I propose that a major part of software development happens in a space where such things are irrelevant or at least very rarely relevant.

Regarding my outsourcing remark, let me clarify a bit. What I mean to say is that while the stuff that is close to the hardware might take skilled workers, it does not require cultural skills. For example, I would suggest that it's a lot easier to outsource a hardware driver than it is to outsource a workflow engine for an order process. For the latter, you need to be close to your users and you need to understand the business you're modeling.

Mind you, I think it's fine that we teach this stuff in universities - it's good background knowledge to have. But as a practical skill, I question its value. And in a job interview, I would suggest to test the skills that are actually needed in the relevant job.

Oh, and I didn't choose my name; My parents did. It's traditional and somewhat common name in Scandinavia. You're not the first to get that wrong though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The juxtaposition of the top two stories, "How to Level Up as a Developer" and "Gamification is bullshit," is pretty hilarious.

</comment><comment><USER22> Lists like this are designed to discourage developers, not help them "level up".

</comment><comment><USER23> Katas are such an apt analogy for any skill building. Japanese martial arts (in the past 100 years anyway) are a mature game system. The ranking and achievement systems might seem basic from the outside, but there is plenty of nuance (and precedent for gamification) under the surface. I've trained in lots of Japanese martial arts, and the lesson that was drilled into my head is this – mastery of basic skills and sequences is a prerequisite to further progress. For example, unlocking the "hidden achievements" in something as simple as a front punch. I'll never forget the day I noticed that the correct torsion of my body causes my lungs to breathe properly when I use proper form for front punch. Even explaining that phenomenon is next to impossible – it has to be experienced to be learned.

I like the OP's list of achievements because it represents a good selection of basic skills. All learners should focus on basic skills. You can't practice your kata too much!

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm pretty sure that most the programmers, who we consider to be at the top of the professional ladder, won't be able to check off even 30% of those "achievements".

<comment><USER25> My impression is that people with CS degrees have done at least half of them through coursework.

<comment><USER26> Stick the word "nontrivial" on the rest of the achievements and that number will drop rapidly. CS students do a lot of these things, but often not with much depth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Progression is everything to me. Not just as as developer, everything in life must progress. I found the article hit the nail on the head. You want to progress from decent-to-good, or good-to-great. You want to move forward.

I find it easy to continue getting better at what you're good at. You have a solid understanding of what you're working on, and it's easy to touch up areas where you might be lacking. But to make great strides, you really need to take on things you suck at. This is where the biggest progression leaps happen. It might be tough to get started, but once you accomplish something you have never touched before, that's where the true leaps in progression happen.

Being uncomfortable with what you're doing really exposes you to areas which need growth, keeps you humble and keep your hungry.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Levelling up" as a developer doesn't rest on checking off a bunch of points on somebody else's list (though many of those points may still be relevant to you on your journey), but rather a combination of a constant need for self- improvement and critical self-analysis, combined with a massive genuine passion for the field of programming, irrespective of which areas your interests lean toward. If you are never satisfied that you have "made it" and you are regularly not only getting excited by new ideas and new possibilities in this field, but also putting a lot of time into exploring your skills and constantly trying to improve them, there is very little chance that you're not going to massively improve as time goes on.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm surprised at how so many people are taking the list itself literally. If you're lucky enough, you might have found something REALLY interesting to do, which kept you motivated enough to keep learning new things as required until you become a Master. But that doesn't mean the rest of Us don't deserve to be good. What I'm trying to say is, if I wanted to be an awesome programmer just for the sake of it, it still counts. I don't have to have a Grand Idea I hope to achieve by becoming good at it. Once you start getting good at any non- trivial task through hard work, you begin to appreciate the acquired skill and feel good about it. This feedback is enough to keep you going.

I think you get better at getting better as you keep getting better. So as you gain experience, you can figure out what will interest you better and change your direction, rather than having a set path right from the start.

</comment><comment><USER30> Also important: stop doing stupid shit. [http://jinfiesto.posterous.com/how- to-seem-good-at-everythin...](http://jinfiesto.posterous.com/how-to-seem-good- at-everything-stop-doing-stu)

<comment><USER31> I totally agree. Personally, I've been using checklists. I use them to remind myself to put good architecture in place. I use them to remind myself to check for common bugs (calling functions or methods of null objects, forgetting to update the database schema when I update the model, etc). I use them to remind myself to go ahead and add the sorts of features that make a new feature more complete (email alerts, audit trails, reporting, etc). It may be a basic step, but it makes the development and testing go much more smoothly, and in my opinion, most web devs would become better developers faster by boning up on the basics than by learning more advanced subjects like algorithms and functional programming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't think anyone would have time to complete such a big list. Is it worthwhile anyway?

<comment><USER33> Most people will never run a 5 minute mile either (the author's analogy, not mine).

I was all ready to comment about how it wasn't a very fair comparison, but then I thought about it more and realized that I actually do agree with the analogy. My belief (and I realize this is probably a minority opinion) is that most people can never be great developers - it requires some combination of hard work and just "getting it".

<comment><USER34> "Getting it" is usually the result of hard work in most cases.

<comment><USER33> I'm talking about something different.

There are many people for whom a lifetime of hard work will not result in a 5 minute mile, and there are many people for whom a lifetime of hard work will not result in being a great programmer.

I _know_ this is an unpopular viewpoint, but it's what I believe. And I have spent many years both running and programming. I am really good at both those things, but neither Ryan Hall good at running, nor John Carmack good at programming.

<comment><USER35> Perhaps because you do both, ya? I bet if you only programmed you could be John Carmack good at programming and John Carmack good at running.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It looks like somebody has taken yet another stab at re-writing 'The Pragmatic Programmer' :-)

i don't think you've really leveled up until you get past using phrases like 'Level Up'. You're not a 14th level Ranger with a potion of strength and +4 leather armor. You're supposed to be an engineer ( or software developer or pick your favorite name ) helping real people solve real problems.

</comment><comment><USER37> I agree with the idea that the list is too focused, and probably doesn't help as much as it says it will.

After reading "Where Good Ideas come From" by Steve Johnson, I think a better approach is to be good at code, and decent at everything else. You don't need to run a 5 minute mile, but you should at least be able to run a mile without taking breaks, and be able to hold a conversation about Latin American Literature, and be fluent in your programming language, and kick out a decent design, and bowl a 150, and so on.

</comment><comment><USER38> Another nice quantitative measure may the number of questions you answered and got accepted in SO in your selected area of expertise.

</comment><comment><USER39> To validate this list, pick some developers you admire. How far along are they on this list? Are they much further than you?

<comment><USER40> Good question. Has Donald Knuth ever written a web app? Mobile app? Embedded app?

<comment><USER41> He's not a developer. He's a computer scientist.

<comment><USER42> Primarily a computer scientist, but also a developer, and an architect too. Not just in his youth, but in the mature years as well (TeX).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I wrote about an idea to level up for the daily js(<http://dailyjs.com/2011/07/25/alex-kessinger/>).

tldr: Try to use, and understand a tool before trying to write your own.

</comment><comment><USER44> Man just reading that list makes me tired...</comment>


Facebook in Hot Water Again Over European Privacy Concerns, and It's Stupid - <AUTHOR> http://tenscores.com/daily/facebook-ads/europe-privacy-lawsuit-201505290700/

<comment><USER2> I think massive tax-evasion schemes may also play a tiny part in this. And the ongoing practice of helping themselves to quite a bit more datum than even their terms of service warn.</comment>


Microsoft puts more muscle behind its potential 'Kumo' search brand - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1743

<comment><USER2> "It's 'hard to imagine the name changing if you've invested in all of these domains,' as a source of mine said."

Six or seven domains? What is that, like $300 or $400 dollars per year? I think Microsoft can absorb that cost to the point where they shouldn't let their investment in those domain names control their naming strategy. I think it's safe to say they could walk away from thousands of domain names without feeling the impact.</comment>


A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages - <AUTHOR> http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html <comment><USER2> I lol'd. Thank you for sharing.</comment>