Uber to engineer: Return stolen docs, or swear you didn't steal them - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Uber-to-engineer-Return-stolen-docs-or-swear-11158980.php <comment><USER2> And now we see the scapegoat being thrown under the bus.

Google claims Uber execs were meeting with Levandowski long before he left Google, that his entire leaving Google to form Otto (which would be soon bought by Uber) was planned alongside Uber.

Now Uber is saying "Hey, we didn't know anything about that, but I think you guys _really_ should go after this guy here". Somehow, given Uber's reputation as a moral and ethical company, I am not shocked by this development.

Edit: And another thought- why wouldn't Levandowski now walk into the justice department and say "Give me immunity, and I'll give you all the evidence that Uber was in on this plan from the start". If Uber are going to screw him over, why wouldn't he return the favour?

<comment><USER3> >"Give me immunity, and I'll give you all the evidence that Uber was in on this plan from the start"

I get that Uber is a toxic company, but I'm not sure if immunity is a good idea.

"If you steal on behalf of Big Corp and gets caught, you can just rat out Big Corp and get off scot-free."

Is that really the sort of signal that we want our court systems to send out?

<comment><USER4> yes. we absolutely want to encourage whistle blowers.

obviously the level of immunity will vary based on the circumstances of each case, but again, we absolutely want to encourage this type of behavior.

<comment><USER5> Whistle blower tend to be lower on the totem pole. If it really is conspiracy your not likely going to see anyone in the court offer immunities for something he benefited hundreds of millions of dollars for.

<comment><USER6> That can all be worked out as part of his plea deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title is odd. It makes it seem like Levandowski is some random "engineer" that is just a leaf node in this whole story. The whole suit is centered around him and Uber spent around a billion dollars (if not more) trusting him. Seeing him being referred to as "engineer" just seems odd.

<comment><USER8> I agree. The title should be changed to "Uber to Levandowski".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems like this is a pretty positive scenario for Uber: Levandowski will refuse to drop his privilege, they'll fire him, and there appears to be no sign in the rest of the discovery of Google's stolen files.

At that point, what can Google really hope to get? Alsup won't give them a preliminary injunction without more evidence, and they'll have largely run out of levers to pull. I'm sure they won't just give up immediately, but I think that all they'll really do is ratchet up legal bills a bit higher.

They'll basically have to hope that losing Levandowski is a big blow for Uber.

I am not a lawyer.

<comment><USER2> >It seems like this is a pretty positive scenario for Uber

Is it though? Google's claim is that Levandowski was meeting with Uber execs long before he left Waymo to form Otto. Now they're throwing Levandowski under the bus.

What happens if tomorrow, Levandowski turns around and says "Yes, I did everything that Google claims- and Uber told me to do it". What if he provides evidence of those meetings, all those things. This stuff has been referred to criminal courts now, and Levandowski is at risk of possible _jail time_.

He's no fool, and now he knows he has no one protecting him. Why _not_ screw over Uber if they're willing to do the same to him?

<comment><USER9> Well, the "why not" of that scenario is that Levandowski would have to abandon his 5th Amendment protection in order to do so, and almost guarantee criminal prosecution.

I don't really agree with the characterization of Uber throwing Levandowski under the bus: they've been very scrupulous with him, and basically they're only threatening firing because Alsup twisted their arm. But let's say that Levandowski feels betrayed.

First: Note that Levandowski is super rich (Google paid him north of $100M). It's not like losing his job is going to prevent him from living a life of luxury forever.

Second: If he maintains his 5th Amendment protections, even if he does get prosecuted, what's going to happen? It seems like there's pretty good evidence that he stole the files, but without something more, how much in the way of damages will the prosecution be able to prove? Is this something that the US Attorney even wants to bother with?

<comment><USER2> So he strikes a deal with the Justice Department. Minimal sentence (or maybe immunity?) and he hands them the execs of a company that has continually pissed off governments world-wide by skirting around laws.

<comment><USER10> There are no federal or criminal charges at all. This is all civil.

<comment><USER11> Yet. But I agree that this talk of a deal sounds rather baseless. Sounds more like hollywood than real life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's the official letter:

[https://www.scribd.com/document/348851011/Uber-2017-05-15-Lt...](https://www.scribd.com/document/348851011/Uber-2017-05-15-Ltr- to-a-Levandowski-Signed)

It's weird in the digital age to say information needs to be "returned" (although they did also say "and all copies"). Still, I'm reminded of the old "getting my song back fucker" quote:

[http://www.bash.org/?104052](http://www.bash.org/?104052)

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone who has read the injunction document from Judge Alsop already knows this was going to happen. Judge Alsop practically held Uber's hand through how it would go. He stated that Uber must use its full authority to compel him to turn over the files, to include threat of termination.

</comment><comment><USER14> Levandowski is extremely talented. See this video of the autonomous motorcycle he and his team built for the DARPA grand challenge: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgkNh_IPjU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgkNh_IPjU)

I can see why Uber would want to protect him and hang on to him. Still if he did what Waymo alleges he did, he should still have to answer for that, likely in criminal court.

<comment><USER15> People on HN routinely debunk the myth that that autonomous motorcycle was some unmatched achievement.

<comment><USER14> I've been on HN for years and have never seen "people" make such a debunking. But of course, in the abstract, "people" say lots of things...

<comment><USER16> Here's one from 'kchoudhu late last month[1].

 _Alas, no._

 _The 2005 Grand Challenge was divided into two parts: the national qualification event, where you went around an obstacle course on a closed raceway in an effort to qualify for a limited number of race slots, and the real race, which was a brutal 150 mile course through some pretty gnarly desert terrain._

 _Blue Team never made it past the NQE, which is why everyone 's obsession with the motorbike makes no sense to those of us who actually made it to the real deal._

 _The Smithsonian 's decision to memorialize Levandowski's engineering mediocrity is, to say the least, puzzling._

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14216609](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14216609)

<comment><USER17> Levandowski is surely a smart guy, but the fact that smarts alone in this day and age rarely get you to where his is now.

Who is he connected to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm wondering if Levandowski and Kalanick are meeting clandestinely at night for long walks and discussing how they're going to orchestrate this.

Kalanick "Hey Anthony, here's how it's going to go down. We're going to ask you to return the documents. But, don't do that. Continue with our strategy of taking the 5th for everything. We'll then fire you.

Levandowski "You're going to fire me after all I've done for you?"

Kalanick "Yeah, don't worry, though. When all of this dies down we'll hire you back on as a consultant and double your salary to show our appreciation for not ratting on us."

Levandowski "Sounds good, boss. Same time tomorrow?"

Kalanick "Naw, let's ice these walks for a while to throw those dogs off of our scent"

</comment><comment><USER19> Seeing a total scumbag get compensated over a hundred million from Google, and then hundreds more from Uber, is very demoralizing to me as a guy in Silicon Valley trying to contribute to technology and be paid enough just to live here. Sure, Lewandowski got caught stealing secrets, but that's post-facto. It couldn't be any clearer that comp and the economy in SV is a sucker's game for us peasants.

</comment><comment><USER20> Anthony Levandowski seems to have become the poster-child of the greedy, anything-goes, bro-developer in this age of the Millennial (stop me if I've gone too far).

Let him also be its poster-child as he is crucified/thrown-under-the-bus.

<comment><USER21> ...are you sure you haven't confused him with Kalanick?

Levandowski isn't a poster child of greedy, anything-goes, etc. He's not a poster child of _anything_ , full stop. 99% of the country doesn't recognize his name or the only company he ever founded. Most Silicon Valley engineers couldn't pick him out of a lineup. He's not even the most famous alleged code thief of the last few years, because that's Sergey Aleynikov.

<comment><USER22> I've been following Levandowski since 2004, he was the crazy college kid with the autonomous motorcycle. For the past 13 years he's been at beating the heart of the development of the most disruptive new technology since, I don't know, the internet maybe? I wouldn't consider him a poster child, that would imply he's representative of some broader group of people, he's a little too much of an anomaly for that, there's no one quite like Anthony Levandowski. 'Millenial tech bro' doesn't quite summarize him, he's a force of nature, for better or for worse.

<comment><USER15> A while back you posted

\---

Fricken 26 days ago [-]

Kalanick is a Napoleonesque figure, a great conqueror who doesn't know when to pull back on the reigns, because he knows nothing else. Our memories are short, we're skewering him for being exactly the kind of animal that not to long ago most everyone was rooting for.

\---

I just want to drop by to make it absolutely clear that there's many, many, many of us who've always hated Uber/Kalanick and seen right through the facade. You shouldn't assume "most everyone" holds the same opinions as you.

<comment><USER22> I was never rooting for Uber, I never said I was. I'm fascinated by Uber, I try to remain objective in my analysis, I don't think they're good guys. When they rolled into my city, I was the lone contrarian in my local subreddit saying 'Hey man, watch out, they play dirty', and getting downvoted into oblivion. I've never actually taken a ride in an Uber. For normal people outside the insular realm of tech news, I don't know anyone who's even paying attention to their borderline shenanigans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> See

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/uber- threatens-t...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/uber-threatens-to- fire-levandowski-if-he-doesnt-comply-with-court-order/)

especially the comments. Some of the commenters are lawyers, or at least people who understand the law and how it relates to this particular case very well.

</comment><comment><USER24> Does this allow Uber to dismiss Anthony "for cause" in order to get out of double-trigger acceleration?

<comment><USER9> The letter from Uber threatens dismissal for cause.</comment></comment>


Ad-based versus direct monetization: Which one is better for you? - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchenblog.com/2008/11/03/ad-based-versus-direct-monetization-which-one-is-better-for-you/

<comment><USER2> comparing the leaders in both monetization methods is easy - what about the results in general?

I'd guess the answer would be 'none work': you rarely break even with ad-based businesses (since as the traffic grows, there's a tendency of getting more maintenance cost than revenue per user) nor with paid services (since it's hard to attract paying users when you have so many people offering the same stuff for free)...</comment>


Show HN: Server Check.in, one year later - <AUTHOR>

It's been a year since my original Show HN post [1] announcing Server Check.in [2], so I thought I'd post a reflection after my first year running the service.
Server Check.in is an inexpensive website uptime monitoring service that I started out of my own need—if I had no users, I'd still keep it going. Fortunately, there are enough paid customers to keep me interested, and I've learned a lot from their feedback.
I had a good initial batch of signups after the announcement post on HN. These early customers gave me a <i>lot</i> of feedback, and some suggested fairly major revisions to the service. It took a lot of discipline to make sure I only worked on the most valuable features first.
I decided early on to focus on stability, scalability, and performance before working on some requested features, which was a great decision. The distributed Node.js-based server checking is working very well, and my master server running Drupal/PHP/MySQL still has plenty of capacity.
Below are some of the major lessons I've learned in the past year; I wrote a blog post [3] explaining the points below with more detail, and I hope you can learn something from my experience.

  1. Your priorities are not your customer's priorities.

  2. Sales is an uphill battle (for a developer).

  3. Contributing back to OSS improves you and your code.

  4. Keeping a good work-life balance prevents burnout.

  5. Experimenting makes you a better developer.

  6. It's harder than you think to build a simple tool like Server Check.in.
 (Note: For HN readers, use coupon code SHOWHNAGAIN for 25% off a year of service.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4901350
[2] https://servercheck.in/
[3] https://servercheck.in/blog/server-checkin-one-year-later <comment><USER2> Nice. I was looking for something like this for a while. I finally settled on [http://www.logicmonitor.com/](http://www.logicmonitor.com/) but this is a cool alternative

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I don't think Server Check.in will ever get all the same features as something like Logic Monitor or Pingdom, but my goal is to help smaller businesses and developers who simply need monitoring (and might not need to monitor many kinds of services/ports at once).

<comment><USER2> I agree. I wish I woulda been able to start with something like this. Some of the LM features are overkill & clunky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://servercheck.in/](https://servercheck.in/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Great info! Thanks! Are you a solo? Are you able to make enough to pay your own?</comment>


ProPublica posts NYPD records, bypassing judge's blockade - <AUTHOR> https://apnews.com/b58c024d68048781af36f2c631290779 <comment><USER2> Hm, on the metadata page [0], the size is less than a mebibyte, and there's only about 18 bytes per row. Is this a compressed size, or have rows been redacted?

I'd check myself, but honestly I'm not sure I could resist the temptation to bypass the Terms of Use and redistribute such a small and politically important dataset.

[0] [https://www.propublica.org/datastore/dataset/civilian- compla...](https://www.propublica.org/datastore/dataset/civilian-complaints- against-new-york-city-police-officers)

<comment><USER3> zipped file, with 33000 rows, and most columns chosen from a list of options, so it looks very easy to compress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Previous discussion of original source: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23957892](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23957892)</comment>


How can I grab the video for roundness region? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> There are a number of ways to take screen shots on a Macintosh using the OS-X operating system. To take a screenshot of the entire screen simply hit COMMAND and SHIFT and the number 3 at the same time. This will create a PNG file and place it on your desktop.

To take a screenshot of a part of the screen hit COMMAND and SHIFT and the number 4. This will put a box on your screen with handles. Select the part of the screen you want and release the mouse button and a screen shot will be saved to your desktop.

To take a screenshot of an open window, hit COMMAND and SHIFT and the number 4. Then hit the space key and click on the open window to take your shot. To save a file to the clipboard use the same control sequence but also click the CONTROL key. This will save the window, whole screen or part of the screen to the clipboard.

Finally there is a lot of free image capture software for your Mac. One of my favorites is this Screenshot capture for Mac. Not only does Mac screenshot capture allows you to capture screens but you can add text, objects and arrows to your capture and save it in a variety of formats. Source(s): <http://macscreenshots.com/screenshotcapture_mac.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> you can try the onde screen capture for mac. <http://macscreenshots.com/index.html></comment>


They're Made Out of Meat (1991) - <AUTHOR> https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html <comment><AUTHOR> Previous thread from '12: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3549320](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3549320)</comment>


Show HN: A web app to manage patches sent using git-sendemail - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lu-zero/plaid

<comment><USER2> A screenshot or a demo instance would be nice</comment>


A better Photoshop experience - <AUTHOR> http://creativedo.co/doco/ This is a Photoshop extension that shows thumbnails of all your open photoshop documents and allows you to perform tasks which previously required a lot of effort. It's the missing documents panel I always wanted, and it completely changes the Photoshop experience. <comment><AUTHOR> I always felt there must be a better way to handle multiple documents in Photoshop. So I've created Doco. It's the missing documents panel I always wanted, and it completely changes the Photoshop experience. Love to hear your thoughts about it.</comment>


Emails suggest reviews from the Wirecutter are "pay to play" (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to-play-model <comment><USER2> This happened in 2014, why the hell is this being brought up now? It should be noted that NextDesk changed their name to Xdesk after this debacle years ago.

Also NOT published and considered in this flame throwing is Wirecutter's response. There is a clear agenda. I only know this fiasco because I spent hours looking for a standing desk yesterday.

\- In terms of durability: laminate > bamboo > powdercoat. Powdercoat feels EXTREMELY nice, but it's made of compacted shards so not really lasting.

\- Most use Chinese motors but they're not really an issue.

\- Just get whatever is the cheapest from a common brand. Fully (Jarvis), UPLIFT, VertDesk are all good. Jarvis and UPLIFT are similarly priced but UPLIFT's bamboo table is thicker. Xdesk is personally too expensive for something I would go to Herman Miller or Steelcase for a similarly priced desk.

\- The wobble at high heights for the ones above ^ exists but is in practice not really an issue (at like the maximum height where your arms would be at an uncomfortable position then). Personally, I only want a standing desk so I can adjust to a good height for my chair, so I would never use it to stand at 5' for hours at a time. BTOD produces good reviews on YouTube and their site but keep in mind they create the VertDesk.

[https://thewirecutter.com/our-response-to- nextdesk/](https://thewirecutter.com/our-response-to-nextdesk/)

<comment><AUTHOR> "This happened in 2014, why the hell is this being brought up now?"

I just found out about it, and thought others might be interested. I have used The Wirecutter reviews to make purchasing decisions. For me, this incident just a few years ago makes me doubt their objectivity today.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for posting this, definitely interesting and useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The folks that made outdoorgearlab.com have always struck me as being very honest and real with their reviews. I've bought thousands of dollars of outdoor / climbing gear from their recommendations and generally agree with their assessment.

They started a tech oriented site and I would tend to trust it: [https://www.techgearlab.com/](https://www.techgearlab.com/)

From their FAQ:

Q: Do companies pay you to review their gear? A: No, we never receive money from companies for reviewing their gear.

Q: How do you get the gear for your reviews? A: We buy all the products we review ourselves, at retail just like you, to help assure complete objectivity and independence in our ratings. We won't accept any free evaluation units from manufacturers.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, it's a fantastic resource. I really only care about crampons when I need to buy a new pair and they are the perfect place to look. I didn't know they were expanding!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> About the only source of reviews I would believe isn't primarily paid advertorials is Consumer Reports, and those have to be filtered through CR's own particular set of biases. Even sites that aren't blatantly pay to play (and Wirecutter was pretty obviously in that camp basically from the very start) are usually compromised by being provided expensive hardware they could not economically review otherwise, and know that negative reviews will cut them off from the very thing that enables them to exist.

Picking signal out of the shill review background noise is really hard these days.

<comment><USER7> Fakespot can really help for the biggest sites with reviews [0]. Previous to using it, I just ignored Amazon reviews completely. But this does a really good job of cutting through the shit to get something approaching public sentiment. Half of my buying decision these days is actually whether or not the company has a history of buying reviews for their products.

[0] [https://fakespot.com](https://fakespot.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I...always thought they were pretty up front that their revenue model was affiliate marketing.

<comment><USER9> Affiliate marketing when it's offered is one thing.

Requesting affiliate marketing when it's not offered, is another (but still OK).

Pushing for affiliate marketing and when not getting it, changing your review, is something totally else and NOT OK.

And of course, considering only products with affiliate marketing, is the opposite of "objective review site".

<comment><USER10> And pushing for affiliate revenue, then changing your review, then lying that the new top pick does not have any affiliate revenue either is even worse.

(They claimed their new top pick also didn't have an affiliate relationship. But the way back machine archive showed that they were in fact linking to the new desk via an Amazon affiliate link.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> All affiliate sites eventually become this way. As a data point from someone who owns a NextDesk Terra and a Jarvis Fully, though, I agree with the basic point of the article. The Jarvis is functionally equivalent to the NextDesk even though the NextDesk is clearly a more luxe and high-end product. I'd compare the difference to the Acura and Infiniti Q45 that I owned... both were great cars and totally reliable, and I crashed both of them badly and walked away unscathed, but the Infiniti was just one level higher in fit and finish.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've bought several things on recommendation from the Wirecutter, and repeatedly been disappointed, so this is not so surprising - what a shame.

<comment><USER13> IMO they have the same problem as most online review sites. The reviewers lack the industry knowledge needed to assess a product in isolation, so they end up with reviews where products are compared to each other. A review of dozen piece of trash products always ends with a recommendation even if they're all a waste of money.

IE: Check out our review for the tastiest dog shit of 2018.

<comment><USER14> They actually occasionally write reviews that tell you not to buy any product in a category. For example, "The Best Automatic Cat Litter Box (But We Don't Recommend It)".([https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-automatic-cat- litter-...](https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-automatic-cat-litter-box- but-we-dont-recommend-it/))

<comment><USER10> My guess is that affiliate revenues for automatic cat litter boxes are somewhat low. Judging by their behavior and response to these allegations, I'm inclined to think that, if the product was higher volume, they would go ahead and recommend it wholeheartedly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The Wirecutter was bought by the NYT in 2016: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/new- york-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-13/new-york-times- rebrands-wirecutter-as-product-review-sales-grow)

</comment><comment><USER16> If it is a standard affiliate program he is after, why does he not just say that in the email?

I don't think there is anything wrong for Wirecutter to say "hey, we make money from affiliate sales - do you guys have a program we can sign up to?". That's totally cool. But he does such an awful job of saying that and makes it sound so much worse.

<comment><USER17> Can't believe he actually used the word "kickbacks." At least he's being transparent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> FWIW, Wirecutter (and sister site Sweethome) were purchased by NYTimes in 2016.

From the about on their site ([https://thewirecutter.com/about/](https://thewirecutter.com/about/)): "Do your affiliate commissions make you biased?

Up front: Our writers and editors are never made aware of which companies may have established affiliate relationships with our business team prior to making their picks. If readers choose to buy the products we recommend as a result of our research, analysis, interviews, and testing, our work is often (but not always) supported through an affiliate commission from the _retailer_ when they make a purchase. If readers return their purchases because they're dissatisfied or the recommendation is bad, we make nothing. There's no incentive for us to pick inferior products or respond to pressure from manufacturers—in fact, it's quite the opposite. We think that's a pretty fair system that keeps us committed to serving our readers first.

The most important thing to us is the trust we have from readers. If we were to recommend something because we are biased or lazy, readers like you wouldn't support our work. We also invite you to fact-check our pieces, which carefully outline the time, logic, and energy spent researching, interviewing experts, and testing the gear. Often, this takes dozens—sometimes even hundreds—of hours. Each guide plainly lays out all the evidence for why we made our picks so you can judge for yourself."

I think the distinction that this is affiliate marketing for the retailers -- not the product manufacturers themselves -- is an important one to make. Also, I think their path of separating business from editorial is entirely sensible for a NYTimes company.

That being said, reviews (and review sites) always fall under "buyer beware" in my mind (I once read a 1 star review of a DVD player stating that it gave it 1 star because it wasn't a VHS player...seriously).

<comment><USER10> I don't think getting affiliate revenues is necessarily a problem, however, there is an inherent conflict of interest considering that different retailers pay different affiliate rates and some manufacturers sell direct and pay higher affiliate commissions.

Also, getting a commission on sales encourages the reviewers to select more expensive options.

I usually like Wirecutter reviews. But I do find that they sometimes seem to favor more expensive options when cheaper alternatives are nearly the same or better. (Even their budget pick tends to be high and sometimes I think the budget pick should be the overall pick).

You will see a lot of products frequently at the top of review lists (not just Wirecutter) that are not sold on Amazon. These are usually sold at a premium direct from the manufacturer and a higher commission can be paid. (15-25%)

The thermapen thermometer is one of these. They will always link directly to thermoworks website, who is the sole distributor in the US. I'm sure they pay a higher commission than Amazon's 8% for comparable but cheaper alternatives like the javelin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> RIP. What's a good alternative?

</comment><comment><USER20> For tech products I always presume that "pay to play" is a component of the reviews from a review source. Even if it's not explicit the large brands buy a lot of the advertising and will get some 'editorial compensation' almost certainly.

This doesn't mean the reviews are worthless though. By checking several sources of reviews for the same product type one can often get a sense of which are really the top products. After all, a review site would look pretty bad if it really promoted a dog product that no other reviewer liked. What does often get over looked though are the really good products from small suppliers.

</comment><comment><USER21> Wouldn't it be fairly easy for, say, the FTC to expose such behavior? Why aren't they putting review sites to the test on a regular basis?

</comment><comment><USER22> Wirecutter was since bought by the New York Times, which gives a lot more journalistic credibility IMO.

</comment><comment><USER23> They were purchased by NYT — wouldn't they fall under their higher journalistic standards now?

<comment><USER9> Like reviewing the best WMDs?</comment></comment>


My Father's Weakness for Beer Never Lessened His Strengths - <AUTHOR> https://longreads.com/2017/06/15/my-fathers-weakness-for-beer-never-lessened-his-strengths/ <comment><USER2> I had a relative that was a high functioning alcoholic, until he wasn't. He could show up to family functions, be completely charming and entertaining, and still was a degenerate alcoholic drinker in private to the suffering of his family.

After many attempts at sobriety, he finally died in a hot tub. He was found much later than one would want if cleaning up was a concern. Think "soup". My relative, his wife, was questioned and presumed a murderer until a full investigation was concluded.

"I'll sleep when I'm dead"... indeed.

This author's fetishization of the father's drinking habit creeps me out a bit.

<comment><USER3> It's very human to idolize your father, see them more than human, a super hero.

<comment><USER4> I'd argue idolization itself is a bad habit of people. Doesn't mean you can't appreciate people's work or strive to be more like them in their positive properties, but idolization itself is blind faith, which is not a good thing to have.

<comment><USER4> I'm surprised I got downvoted for advocating divergent and critical thinking on HN.

<comment><USER5> Please don't comment on receiving downvotes. It's frowned upon in the guidelines. Your other comment stands on its own and doesn't seem heavily downvoted.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Mentioning "high-functioning alcoholic" reminded me of a story about Churchill's drinking habits (and a modern-day journalist being unable to match it):

 _He died 50 years ago this month - the anniversary of his funeral will be marked later this week -- at the ripe age of 90. A miracle, considering he had drunk an estimated 42,000 bottles of Pol Roger champagne through his life; he thought nothing of starting the morning with cold game and a glass of hock and ending it at 3am with the best part of a bottle of cognac._

(via [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/drinks/the-day- i-t...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/drinks/the-day-i-tried-to- match-churchill-drink-for-drink/))

Churchill was nevertheless able to write numerous political tracts, pamphlets, speeches, a six-volume history of the first world war, a six-volume history of the second world war, and a four-volume history of the English speaking people. He won the Nobel Prize for literature, and throughout his long political career served as Home Secretary, Minister of Defense, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and PM (twice).

<comment><USER7> Alcohol is a problem exactly insofar as it negatively affects your life. The problem is that, like all drugs—indeed, all vices of any kind—the thing itself is exactly what will convince you that it's not causing problems. If you live a long, full life, if your health and relationships aren't suffering, who's to say there's anything wrong with it? But it's very hard for an individual in it to know that those things are true.

<comment><USER8> I'm an alcoholic. I'm an alcoholic but I don't have a problem, and I don't see what it is about alcohol that would possibly cause people to think they're not problem alcoholics.

I drink "too much", by which I mean I definitely exceed the so-called healthy amount of four standard drinks a day over the long term, and just between you and me I also exceed that amount over the short term, if you know what I mean, but as I said earlier I also think that I don't have a problem. I know alcohol is a vice, but it's not a vice I just have, it's a vice I luxuriate in. It's a vice that gives me comfort and pleasure and just sometimes a little bit of pain, but never regret. It's not a habit, it's a hobby.

Every weekday morning, after a night of drinking beers at the pub with friends, or after a bottle of wine while playing video games, or after sharing stories with a bartender at a cocktail bar, I wake up, I shit, I shower and I shave, and I head to work on the train among all of the healthy, non-alcoholic commuters. I achieve what I need to every day at work, being easily one of the most productive people at the job, and I come home and I spend time with my family, and my friends, and except for the part where I have a glass of gin in my hand you'd never pick me as the guy who drinks "too much". I blend in. I blend in not because I try, but because it's not actually really an issue. Not a problem.

Sometimes, rarely enough to call it rare but repeatable enough to call it occasional, on a Saturday morning I'll wake up with blurry eyes and a pounding headache and I'll know I've definitely overdone it. That the night before I had -- in full knowledge of the consequences, and accepting them -- found the limit of the amount that I should have had to drink and gone right past it without looking back. That maybe I should have stopped four or five or six or seven drinks earlier in the night, if only for the fact that drinking is too much fun and too delicious. If only for the fact that I didn't so much enjoy being drunk, with the knots in my brain unwound, feeling like I'm finally able to relax my consciousness with a drink like I relax my body with a massage.

Even those mornings after I think to myself that I don't have a problem. Maybe it's just my naïveté.

<comment><USER9> I'm in the same boat, but I know it's a problem.

Yes, I get everything done I need to and then some. I'm up by 7 every day of the week, I work efficiently 50, sometimes 60+ hours a week. I'm with my family nights and weekends. I exercise, I play basketball, I play music.

I'm 5 drinks in right now. I drink alone, every night after my wife and son are asleep. I'm usually working and drinking from 9 or 10 until 2 or 3 and then up a few hours later. I feel a little off for the first hour or so and then drink enough coffee to plow through the day. To be completely honest I think I've been drinking enough that getting a hangover would take a phenomenal amount of effort. I've acclimated to having booze every night. That's a problem. But it's not the big one.

The big deal is: alcohol is unequivocally bad for you long-term. If it doesn't kill you directly through fatty liver/cirrhosis it'll contribute to an early death through many, many forms of cancer, heart disease, dementia, etc. You won't find many doctors who will say that drinking is not bad for you. My doctor was shocked even though I _lied about how much I drink_. I lowballed it and my doctor said "whoa, that's too much"

It is a problem. A serious problem that is too often marginalized by alcohol's social role.

<comment><USER8> I don't know you and you don't know me, despite the fact that you say we're in the same boat, but it sounds to me like you're saying you really think it's time to start bailing. I hope by the same boat you just mean the same model, because if what you're saying is as true for me as it is for you, I'm going to sink, because honestly I don't feel like I'm gaining water.

I feel like I might have stretched the analogy too far, but here's the thing: What's the first step, again?

If you're happy, and if you _honestly_ don't think you have a problem after some serious introspection, then you don't have a problem. You might have a diminished life span and you might have some health complications, but if the root cause of those things is you living your life the way you want to, maybe that's something you should have the choice to do.

<comment><USER10> I had 2 uncles that were high functioning alcoholics, that would do the same as you, but drink substantially more (1-2 bottles of rye a day). By the time they were in their early 60s, both of them (they were brothers) had to have their legs amputated because of circulation issues related to alcohol consumption.

It can lead to more problems than you'd think.

I guess my first thought when I see people like this, especially people who can clearly do their job quite well, is don't you wonder what you could accomplish when you're not drunk?

<comment><USER11> > I guess my first thought when I see people like this, especially people who > can clearly do their job quite well, is don't you wonder what you could > accomplish when you're not drunk?

... and that says to me that you didn't absorb what those guys wrote. like, for example, this:

> If only for the fact that I didn't so much enjoy being drunk, with the knots > in my brain unwound, feeling like I'm finally able to relax my consciousness > with a drink like I relax my body with a massage.

therefore, the answer to "what you could accomplish when you're not drunk" might well be "a whole hell of a lot less than he's accomplishing right now."

<comment><USER12> Actually, I suspect those knots are thwarted ambition or unaddressed life problems or something else that could be fixed that alcohol is just anesthesizing.

It might still be rational. The costs of change on other people, like children, may make it not worthwhile, or the struggle to fulfill ambition might rationally be viewed as pointless. Just don't dismiss the knots as things that can only be treated with alcohol.

<comment><USER8> Just to clarify -- although I was hoping it would be conveyed by the tone and the flavour of my original post -- I don't have life problems. I also don't have a struggle to fulfill ambition: I passed the goal I set for myself at fifteen as a highschool dropout, and I did so with flying colours.

I love my life. I don't know, really, what would improve it a whole lot. Perhaps winning the lottery would help, although I wouldn't bet on it -- I have a lovely partner, a comfortable home, enough money to spend on hobbies and travel and, yes, drinking -- I make art and I make infrastructure, and everything is great.

But I still drink.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> No need for judgement. But I'm wondering if she has had the opportunity to grieve a childhood with a father who was checked out emotionally and how that relationship has laid a foundation for how she relates to her partner and the world.

No need to "judge", but if she's still seeing her father as super human, she's probably got some healing to do to allow him, and her, to be ok with their humanity.

</comment><comment><USER14> Seriously not trying to undermine the reality of this article but something made me think here. I thought it was worth sharing.

I keep trying to drink beer out of my coffee travel mug but I find the walking motion really flattens it and makes it unbearable.

Vodka and Gatorade works better here. I'd like beer though.

Could someone invent a cup that can carry beer without ruining the carbonation?

<comment><USER15> Gimballed drink holders exist, chiefly for boating, but you seem to want a gimballed cup that is meant for carrying rather than mounting to something. This kind of falls short of being a gimballed cup but seems neat nonetheless: [https://www.3dagogo.com/EricYoung/designs/GimbalDrinkHolder](https://www.3dagogo.com/EricYoung/designs/GimbalDrinkHolder)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Did I miss where in the article the OP describes his alcoholic habits? Established his weakness for beer? I don't doubt that her father was, but it felt weird that I missed his alcoholism. Was it regularly having a beer in a to-go-cup?

<comment><USER17> He apparently drank _even while driving._ And also drank while visiting relatives when he had to make the long drive back because his wife did not drive.

<comment><USER18> There's no mention of when this was. It's easy to judge past events by our modern morals and laws, but keep in mind that those weren't always the same. Even within the baby boomers' lifetimes standards were drastically different...

Personally, I think the better example is that his wife was constantly arguing with him about it. Regardless of the actual standards at the time, he was apparently routinely crossing the line with the woman that presumably loved him and bore his children.

Of course just as the author tacitly accepts alcoholism because of her upbringing it's possible her mother is the exact opposite because of hers, but it seems unlikely...

<comment><USER17> I wasn't judging anything. I was just giving a TLDR of the drinking habits referenced in the article.

My father drank pretty heavily. No one in the family ever called him an alcoholic. He quit after he left the army, having fought in the front lines of two wars. I think he drank to quiet the nightmares so he could sleep.

He was already dead (at about age 89) when I finally realized that for all that he was a raconteur who told endless stories, he never told war stories about WW2. His stories about Vietnam were told humorously. If Vietnam was joke-worthy, WW2 was apparently _unspeakable._

I am the last person who would be judgy about this story.

<comment><USER18> The italicized "even while driving" seemed a bit judgemental. My bad if I misread that.

<comment><USER17> No, it was just something that implies that he drank _constantly,_ except at work and for 40 days each year for Lent. At a very early age, the author learned to pour dad's beer in the car for his travel cup. This was a routine and ongoing practice. It is a detail that is suggestive of "If he isn't sleeping or at work, he has a beer in his hand. That's how much he drinks."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I like drinking from time to time, but the hangovers put me off, which is nature's way of saying, leave off. If I have more than four drinks I have to spend the next day in bed. I simply can't function. I know a couple of alcoholics and neither suffer from hangovers (or ever have done). When I read "functional alcoholic" I think of someone who doesn't suffer from hangovers.

<comment><USER20> I'm the same way. Four drinks is too much for me. I usually feel I the next day after 2. I.enjoy drinking for the duration of the act, and every moment after that is mostly regret.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anyone have stats on rates of alcohol use over time, compared to other medications? For example, maybe people are using anti-depressants instead of medicating themselves with alcohol?

</comment><comment><USER22> I have a 2.5 year old daughter. Beer doesn't do much for me, but that made me weepy.

</comment><comment><USER23> "The good deeds a man has done before defend him." (Oppenheimer)

</comment><comment><USER24> Too sad. Shouldn't have read. Now I can't unread it. Darnit!:)

Well written piece.

</comment><comment><USER25> good essay. i like the somber tone that neither glorifies nor pscyhologies her father's disease.

</comment><comment><USER26> Really good story. Really good writing.

I wasen't expecting this. I thought it would be another blame the alcoholic father.

My dad was an alcoholic. He died of a football sized tumor in his liver. It went undiagnosed for at least a decade. The doctor thought it was just scar tissue from a previous umbilical hernia operation.

Now my father was a piece of work, but it wasen't the alcohol that made him difficult to be around. It was just his personality. He was actually more pleasant to be around when he was drinking.

As to his drinking, and driving. Some of you will question what I'm going to say, but he was a better driver when drinking. I know blasphemy, but true.

It could be that he was more coordinated than the average person, or that he was driving daily since he was 14. Yes, he drive to high school in the Richmond district in San Francisco. Forget the high school, but that actress in West side Story, and Rebel without a Cause--Natalie Wood went to. It was Lincoln high. His could I forget that school?

Any who, he was the good driver sober, or after a few. And he was a functional alcoholic. He never missed work due to a hang over. Then again it was a different era.

Drinking on the job was almost encouraged. Yes--union electricians could drink beer if doing something mundane. It wouldn't happen these days, but did back in the day.

He was very conservative guy, but always kinda nervous. It could have been genes(he was Irish), or just his personality?

He used to say if opium wasen't illegial, I think I would like the effect.

Later on life, I knew what he was getting at. I don't know the alternative to alcohol is. It's not benzodiazepines, anti-depressants, or opium. You would think by now, we would have a safe drug to take tge edge off? And no, he tried all the strains of marijuana. It just name him more nervous.

Anyways, keep up the truthful--honest writing. Don't sellout.

<comment><USER27> Thanks for sharing.

> but it wasn't the alcohol that made him difficult to be around. It was just > his personality.

I've heard of that and that people often use alcohol to self-medicate or to ease social anxiety for example. They soon enough learn that they can function better if they drink.

My grandfather was a bit that way, I only have fond memories of him being warm, and kind when he was drunk. When sober he was mean, cold and not very approachable. He fought in the WW2 and drove the Germans all the way to Berlin, got wounded twice, saw pretty horrible things I imagine, but never talked about it. But probably had some effect on his drinking as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> How did this get to the front page?

<comment><USER29> There's a pretty strong drinking culture among the hacker crowd. I feel many have their doubts, and want reassurance.

<comment><USER4> As somebody who doesn't drink and considering that people are usually not drinking on the job, I cannot tell, but yes, I think the critical thinking part coming along with this job might lead to people getting more into drinking to cope than average. (just speculation)

<comment><USER29> I think it's has a lot to do with the cultural landscape you're in. Among the younger, "startupy" crowd it's more prevalent than Hanselman's hidden 99%.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yun Wang Improvising on Mozart's Alla Turca - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXtAGzfOQw <comment><AUTHOR> All pianists/harpsichordists of her caliber (which would be a low number regardless of the era) were expected to do this from about the time of Bach until about the time of Mozart. The art of classical pianists improvising is coming back, but she stands out dramatically.</comment>


My Post-PRISM checklist - <AUTHOR> http://vertis.io/2013/06/11/post-prism-checklist.html

<comment><USER2> A decent alternative for Google Analytics is Piwik. It's open source and can be self-hosted or you can pay for a SAAS version of it (though not sure if any exist outside of the US. The interface is not nearly as nice or powerful as the one offered by Google Analytics, but it's open and uses a simple SQL backend, so if you self-host it, it can basically do whatever you want it to do.

A good alternative to Dropbox is Bittorrent Sync and Dokku looks like an interesting way to do your own Heroku ([https://github.com/progrium/dokku](https://github.com/progrium/dokku)).

</comment><comment><USER3> Well I think the Point is that a self-made solution won't be directly parse able for the $NSA. As a minimum some type of scraping Spider would be needed that indexes the content. Then it would need classification. If everybody were to do this then the job of automatically indexing social relationships wold be much harder.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why would you close Twitter, Github and onther similar services? All the data there is already public, so moving somewhere else and make it public again won't change anything regarding privacy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I pay for private GitHub hosting.

<comment><USER5> I use GitLab extensively and it has an acceptable level of friction:value for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FYI: Move back to Android, install ParanoidAndroid. This will not help if you are going to install the Google Apps suite.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, actually I don't have a good solution here. But better an open source platform than one written by Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great list. Could you post your alternatives to each one once you're done?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. I'll definitely expand the page out as I go. I just wanted to get everything I have to do recorded.</comment></comment>


Objective-C in the Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://objective-cloud.com/2013/12/17/public-beta.html <comment><USER2> I'm torn how to feel about this. I've been developing with objective-c on iOS for several years now, and to say this as gently as I can ..it's not my favorite language. I want to play devil's advocate for a moment and ask some tough questions (these may go away in a request/response scenario where the app isn't running continuously):

* How does Objective-Cloud handle circular references (will memory leaks be a problem?)

* Is there a way to cut down on boilerplate (having to declare member variables, accessors, synthesize them, and understand the differences between var = _var, self.var, static class vars, etc?)

* Any plans to port to other platforms (Android) and if so, will it still use objective-c?

* How do you sandbox binary code (will security be a problem?)

* Will you allow third party binaries/libraries to be uploaded with the code (or will everything be open source/code only?)

To be fair, I believe that this style of development may be the future. Perhaps we need a wrapper around pure C because it doesn't do enough to promote inter-module communication, and C++ dropped the ball on that.

I'm just concerned because objective-c is ideologically different from, say, Boost, D, or Go. It focusses more on patterns than abstractions and simplicity over correctness. I've found it nearly impossible to build an app in obj-c above a certain size that's guaranteed to run indefinitely, stably and without leaks. And I've found that large obj-c projects often lead to spaghetti code and repetition, because of a lack of understanding about things like delegates, inheritance, using notifications instead of nesting code, etc. Some aspects of obj-c are quite brilliant (like queuing tasks on the main run loop) but others like manual memory management are antiquated.

But kudos for this effort. I'm curious how this plays out.

<comment><USER3> I happened to be at a presentation the creators of this gave a few months ago

* I think ARC helps with most of the problems, of course you'll have to understand where to use weak or strong etc.

* You don't have to write @synthezize anymore, literals remove a lot of boilerplate too: [http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ObjectiveCLiterals.html](http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ObjectiveCLiterals.html)

* As far as I know the protocol between server and client is just HTTP + JSON

* They use the BSD sandboxing facility [https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man7/sandbox.7.html)

<comment><USER4> It's still pretty trivial to mess up memory management and segfault and die. Speaking as a full-time iOS person, I don't think I want to write a backend in Obj-C.

When I flub a strong/weak reference on a phone, my app crashes. The user is mildly inconvenienced as they launch the app again.

When I flub a strong/weak reference on a server, my app crashes. That server is now down and my ops guy (probably me) will have some unkind words for me, particularly if it's in the middle of the night.

It's tempting to say at this point "well, don't flub references, n00b", which is much easier said than done. Bear in mind that we _did_ use to write webapps in C - we moved to higher-level, more resilient languages for a reason.

I don't mind Obj-C/Cocoa. I'm a graphics guy at heart, so the closer-to-the- metal implementation makes me happy and lets me spin all kinds of neato magic with custom UIs... none of this is necessary serving data off a server.

<comment><USER5> Your server crashing can also be a mild inconvenience if your ops person sets things up properly. An occasional crash should lead to an automatic restart + an email to investigate later. A single process crashing is not a good reason to wake anyone up in the middle of the night.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, the cloud apps are restarted automatically after a crash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So this is still pretty mac-centric, right?

I tried using Obj-C on Linux as a "better C", much like people use C++, D, Rust...

The language is... acceptable. The ecosystem is just, mac, mac, mac.

<comment><USER6> We made the service completely non-mac-centric. One of the basic ideas is, that you can develop a service on the mac that uses all the frameworks of OS X, but the client can be written in C, C++, Java, … Anything that knows HTTP and JSON.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks very awesome! I like what this is providing. I really like coding in Obj-c (not my most used language but love the syntax and feel) and being able to make a backend using code that could be shared with an iOS/Mac client is a very attractive feature to myself.

I'm already sold on your service. I can't wait to get started and I'm really looking forward to the iOS and Mac SDKs.

</comment><comment><USER9> WebObjects 4.5 anyone? For those not familiar WebObjects was the Objective-C framework created at NeXT for developing Web Apps in the 90's.

It was then later on ported to 100% Java.

WebObjects 4.5 was the latest ObjC version and was cross platform even at the time: NeXT, Windows, Solaris and HP-UX.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been playing around with the API and tools for the last hour. Seems pretty cool. Very easy to understand and very straightforward. It sure is nice to be able to share code/language between the client and the server. If not for immediate full blown production usage, this can still be a very effective tool for an iOS/Mac developer who might not know their server's language and frameworks. The developer will be able to get a useful, functional prototype up and running very quickly. It does seem like a very enabling tech for iOS/Mac developers.

Edited for style.

</comment><comment><USER11> I currently use Parse but I could definitely benefit from not having to switch between Obj-C/Javascript(Parse Cloud Code) when writing my backend. As well it would be nice to copy/paste logic between client/server. However, I think I'd have to see Push notifications and another layer of abstraction added to the database layer before I considered switching to Objective-Cloud.

If Apportable delivers on its promises you could theoretically never leave Objective-C land.

</comment><comment><USER12> This definitely looks very interesting. I think I'll give it a try later this week. It would be awesome to do some coding in Obj-c for HTTP services for a change. Also, the name works out perfectly (Objective-C)loud, hah.

</comment><comment><USER6> The client SDKs will be published next week.

</comment><comment><USER13> Very cool. Looking forward for the iOS SDK

</comment><comment><USER14> objcloud.com is available, why not go with that?

<comment><USER15> Because I just bought it for no real reason.</comment></comment>


Jane Carlyle survived a miserable marriage by satirizing it - <AUTHOR> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/how-jane-carlyle-survived-a-miserable-marriage/# <comment><USER2> 'It was very good of God to let Carlyle and Mrs Carlyle marry one another,' he quipped, 'and so make only two people miserable and not four.'

<comment><USER3> (said by a third party, Samuel Butler)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Drawing from the 44 volumes of their letters and journals..."

This has been commented on many times but never ceases to amaze me: The sheer bulk of correspondence, journals, and other writing educated people kept in earlier times.

<comment><USER5> I'm always shocked by how well-read they were. Teenage Jane Carlyle could have passed as a classics professor at an elite university in our time. One anecdote that stands out in Carlyle's Memoirs is that she had learned Latin well enough to understand and recite the Aeneid; as a game at nine years old, she recited Dido's speech from memory while burning a doll on a makeshift pyre.

I'm sure Jane Carlyle was exceptional, but still, one gets this impression from most educated people from the time.

<comment><USER6> I imagine a good amount (but by no means all) of what we would consider "well read" was having the leisure time to read for pleasure. The contemporary version might be someone well versed in Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek, or Friends, or Firefly, or Gilmore Girls, or the works of Stephen King. To those that have aligned interests, or aspire to, knowledge of these topics may not quite signal "well read", but they will signal shared knowledge and interests, and a starting point for conversation. I think a big difference between now and then is that now there _is so much more_ to consume. Go back 500 years, and you likely had to be a lord or in a monastery to have much to read (in the west), and the preponderance of that material was likely faith based in some respect (whether originally so or not).

It would be interesting to see how much media of each type was available at different time periods.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Stop, right now (okay when you can) and go read the "Five Love Languages". You'll have a much better marriage for it.

<comment><USER8> Certainly this is an interesting note: "the crippling remorse he will feel following her death in 1866, when he discovers, from her writing, how unhappy she had been".

It's fascinating to learn that a couple so verbal never (successfully) communicated this unhappiness. I had assumed from the introduction that these were people who did not care about one another's wellbeing, but Thomas at least was seemingly unaware of the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The wife of Thomas Carlyle... the early sociologist who is now revered by neoreactionary bloggers of the Dark Enlightenment... the movement that both presaged, and can be considered the intellectual counterpart of, the alt- right?

Nietzsche and Ayn Rand had difficult personal lives too, one notes.

<comment><USER5> I think it's unfair to paint Carlyle with too broad a brush. _The French Revolution_ is a really, really fantastic work. It's a little sad, to me, that Carlyle's contemporaries considered him one of the, if not _the_ , greatest writers of the century - even though almost all of them radically disagreed with him - and now he's fallen into relative obscurity because of his political opinions.

Carlyle's philosophical/sociological commentary is on occasion cited by neo- reactionary types, but I'm not convinced he would have been terribly fond of them. Carlyle _did_ have antidemocratic sentiments, but so do a lot of people nowadays - witness the criticism of the Brexit vote, or even the _possibility_ of the election of Trump. But it's not that he thought aristocrats or kings were necessarily better. Carlyle was a critic of both sides, and never really formulated an idea of how-the-world-should be. You see some of this in Emerson's _Carlyle_ essay:

[http://www.rwe.org/carlyle/](http://www.rwe.org/carlyle/)

 _If a Tory takes heart at his hatred of stump-oratory and model republics, he replies, "Yes, the idea of a pig-headed soldier who will obey orders, and fire on his own father at the command of his officer, is a great comfort to the aristocratic mind." It is not so much that Carlyle cares for this or that dogma, as that he likes genuineness (the source of all strength) in his companions._

Carlyle was a great _critic_ , a tearer-down of systems, and he had a lot of insightful criticisms about his society and the direction it was heading. He isn't always sympathetic(for example, his views on slavery were repugnant then and even moreso now), but he's usually _interesting_. I think, to the extent he's a reactionary, it's mostly a case of "there are _some_ good things about the old days, and we're throwing them away in the blind pursuit of the new"-type, rather than "older is always better".

<comment><USER9> Perhaps the neoreactionaries like his attitude- an anti-democracy gadfly! so pithy!- and some of his works more than who the man was in total. I could see archconservatives idolizing Chesterton for the same reasons.</comment></comment></comment>


Windows 10 Embracing Silicon Innovation - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/01/15/windows-10-embracing-silicon-innovation/#FLIYr7kdbpm8CgCQ.97 <comment><AUTHOR> Commentary here: [http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft- ma...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-made-em-do- it-the-latest-kaby-lake-zen-chips-will-support-only-windows-10.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> That's one way of saying you're dropping support for previous chips. Why can't Microsoft "embrace silicon innovation" _and_ support older chips?

With windows 7, I get it, they've already said they stopped doing "feature updates" for it, although I'm not sure ensuring your OS "works" with the newer chips would constitute a "feature." However, Windows 8 is supposed to get feature updates for quite a while longer, so other than an arbitrary decision from Microsoft so it can more forcefully push Windows 10 on the market, there's no good reason for windows 8 to not work on the newer chips.</comment>


Remember the Tasp from Larry Niven's Ringworld? They invented it.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn397

<comment><USER2> "Meloy has yet to test the device on men, but says there's no reason it shouldn't work in the same way."

I don't know about you, but I'm going to start investing in Fruit of the Loom RIGHT NOW.

</comment><comment><USER3> "a signal generator smaller than a packet of cigarettes implanted under the skin of one of the patient's buttocks" - that's a not-insignificant catch.

Also, I could see this causing some serious psychological cognitive dissonance - the stimulation coming without any of the other physical and mental factors associated with orgasms. Kind of like when that Chinese guy got a penile transplant and he had to get it removed because his wife found it creepy.

</comment><comment><USER4> Doesn't orgasm-on-demand kind of cheapen it?

Then again, think about how much young males would accomplish if they didn't spend all that time masturbating. Of course, they'd probably just do it more.

Maybe if you toned it down to non-orgasm status it would make my work day better...</comment>


Show HN: UvCharts - Simple yet powerful charting library for developers - <AUTHOR> http://imaginea.github.io/uvCharts/

<comment><USER2> This is awesome, but you should link to your quick start guide in your documentation. I almost missed it as the tiny link at the bottom of the homepage.

[https://github.com/Imaginea/uvCharts/wiki/guide](https://github.com/Imaginea/uvCharts/wiki/guide)

Can't wait for you to add more screenshots and examples as you work on this. I love d3.js, but what you're doing could be the way it gets a lot more popular since it more directly connects to solving an immediate problem.

Thanks for sharing!

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, Kevin. Thanks for the lovely feedback. I'll update the documentation and include the link</comment></comment>


Selection bias is the most powerful force in education - <AUTHOR> https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/03/29/why-selection-bias-is-the-most-powerful-force-in-education/ <comment><USER2> A while ago I read a review of a book called "The trouble with diversity" by Walter Benn Michaels. I was struck by his claim that universities serve to "launder privilege into qualifications".

To me, this helps to emphasize the importance of class in America. Rich kids go to Harvard, after graduating from wonderful high schools, helped by private tutors, and, _most importantly_ , knowing that their wealth and their parents' connections will guarantee them success. But since America is supposedly the land of equal opportunity, those kids must put on a facade to the world, which tells other people a lie: I succeeded because I'm smart, not because I'm rich.

<comment><USER3> > I succeeded because I'm smart, not because I'm rich.

This is a fair point, but in many cases you need to be rich, hard working, and smart. This is a major improvement over the old system where you just need to be rich.

This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Top universities in the UK and top grandes ecoles in France are also dominated by the middle class. I'm sure other countries are like that too if not worse.

I think any system with inequality will have this issue. Parents want to help their children and some parents will have a greater ability to do so.

This is not unique to capitalism either. I'm sure those of us from the Soviet Union will be intimately familiar with the concept of блат, which is significantly more pernicious than wealthy children doing better because they have tutors.

<comment><USER4> >This is a fair point, but in many cases you need to be rich, hard working, and smart.

Like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardasian, etc.? No, rich is still the only requirement. Those other things just give you more options.

<comment><USER5> > >This is a fair point, but in many cases you need to be rich, hard working, > and smart.

> Like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardasian, etc.? No, rich is still the only > requirement. Those other things just give you more options.

For every person you cite as being wildly successful only because of the money they were born into, you could also cite people who came from nothing and became multi-millionaires. Or people who were born rich and didn't succeed.

You're not wrong - there are people who only needed to be rich to begin with. But giving examples like you have doesn't counter the above point.

<comment><USER6> If you have 10 rich people with a 50% shot of making it : 99,990 people with a 0.005% shot of making it then the number of people with both backgrounds who made it is reasonably balanced. But, in no way is this a meritocracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Loved this article. It presents a compelling case that most colleges are providing near-equivalent _education_ , and that the variance is mostly in selection bias. My only objection: at the end, the author takes issue with the fact that it's nearly impossible to get people to take selection bias into account when choosing where to send their kids. However, there's another possible factor that I think parents might be considering: the network of connections that I build when I go to school X. Even if Harvard gives my daughter the same educational quality that, say, Florida State gives her... if she's likely to form a network of friends that are all approximately 100x higher in net worth, then if I care about her long-term economic outcomes, I'd still try hard to send her to Harvard, no?

I'm not saying that's ideal, and it's most certainly an outcome of the exact selection bias you're talking about... just that it's a semi-rational choice for the parents, because school choices can often be about non-educational effects.

Just my two cents, though... I could be way off. And regardless, thanks for the article.. definitely made me think about the topic more than I had.

<comment><USER8> I think the network is overrated. Everyone I've known has had the same experience - immediately after graduating, everyone gets a job, moves far away from one another, and slowly drifts apart from the friends they met in college.

You'll get a similar network working at your first job. And then your second job. The group you met in college is of little consequence in the end.

<comment><USER9> To give an opposing anecdote, I've landed more than half of my full time permanent positions through personal recommendations or references from people I know from university. And these jobs have by far been more interesting and/or better for my career than ones I found through recruiters or vacancy ads.

<comment><USER10> So, recommendations and references from people who never saw you at work. There's something wrong about that. I am not saying it doesn't happen, it does, but it still makes very little sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a good article. I wish I could force everyone who pontificates on schooling in Australia to read it.

We have an enormous private school system (part govt-funded, which is gross) that can get rid of students as they please. Then they go on to verbally dump shit on the public system, where they get to dump their problem students. Nice.

We also have a real fetish for selective schools, which are essentially selection bias driven to a huge extent. Any suggestion that this isn't a good idea is met by an chorus of "you must hate smart people".

<comment><USER12> The private school system in Australia saves the government money. Per student funding in the private system is lower than per student funding in the public system. This money is then available to spend more on government schools.

It also keeps the government system honest because people can and do leave schools that don't work such as many of those in poor areas in the outer suburbs of the big cities and regional areas. If there were no private system the only way to get into better schools would be to own very expensive houses.

Meanwhile, the selective schools show that the government can provide a good education for highly able students as well. In NSW ~18 of the top 20 high schools are government schools.

Personally I think most people are unwise to send their kids to expensive private schools and they would help their kids much more if they put the money toward investments. But they are free to waste, in my mind, their money to reduce the cost to the tax payer of education.

<comment> Paul-ish > The private school system in Australia saves the government money. Per > student funding in the private system is lower than per student funding in > the public system. This money is then available to spend more on government > schools.

Isn't this selection bias again? More difficult (expensive) students may get shunted into the public system.

<comment><USER12> A number of private schools roughly kick out people in the bottom 10-20% of results. They aren't necessarily that more expensive to teach, the private schools just don't want them.

The really expensive kids (say 20K+ per year) are those that are seriously disabled and they almost all go into the government system. But, if the government only has to pay ~1/3 of the cost of about 1/3 of students who are in the private system there is more money available for them.

<comment><USER13> There is a weird situation in Texas in the USA. The state is limiting the amount of funding for each local district to 8.5 percent for special education with the end result that families end up going to private schools to get special education. The one family in this school ended up paying 50,000 per year for private school for two kids with a readi ng disability. [http://www.houstonchronicle.com/denied/7/](http://www.houstonchronicle.com/denied/7/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sending a troubled kid to a great private school probably will cause the kid to do better: because all the other students are doing well the bad students peers are working hard so the bad student sees that example and is likely to succumb to peer pressure and do better.

For this to work the troubled kid needs to be kept out of the gangs and whatever else outside of school will lead to bad examples. However selection bias already does this: parents who care enough to send their kid to a private school are involved enough with their kid that they would probably do this anyway. In short these are kids that might have been troubled, but they still would have been at the top of the troubled group.

<comment><USER15> > Sending a troubled kid to a great private school probably will cause the kid > to do better ... However selection bias already does this

Funny thing, though. We've done a bunch of studies on this and it doesn't actually help. The people who care about their kids more getting them into better schools, yes - but placing the kids of parents who don't care into better schools, no.

This has been shown time and time again. The best results to the contrary managed this by ... drumroll ... designing selection bias into the study.

<comment><USER16> > Funny thing, though. We've done a bunch of studies on this and it doesn't > actually help.

> This has been shown time and time again.

One would think a link to at least _one_ study would be appropriate here?

<comment><USER17> The original article already provided evidence, based on analysis of the performance of similar students who do and do not get into a selective school. As it says...

"Except that attending those high schools simply doesn't matter in terms of conventional educational outcomes. When you look at the edge cases – when you restrict your analysis to those students who are among the last let into such schools and those who are among the last left out – you find no statistically meaningful differences between them."

So unless you're calling out the original article, how about offering counter- evidence?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think the real problem described is that people are judging schools based on the performance of their students. There are other objective factors that won't be as affected by selection bias such as: breadth of extra-curricular options in sports and in the arts. Number of AP classes offered. Teacher to student ratio. Budget per student. Does the school have newer computers, working instruments, modern facilities?

<comment><USER19> Are you saying that people should judge schools based on the inputs that go into the schools rather than on any effects the schools produce in their students?

<comment><USER18> The article points out the high degree of selection bias with schools and how that can make it very difficult to make apples-to-apples comparisons between schools.

I was just trying to mention ways to compare schools that won't be affected by the selection bias described in the article.

<comment><USER20> A proper analysis will attempt to identify such factors and how important they are. Since the sample size is big enough it is not impossible to determine how much of the effect is those other measurable factors.

Selection bias might be measured by the rejection rates on admission (esp. scores rejected)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That tricky thing when dealing with humans: are they learning because of our efforts to teach them or in spite of them?

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm from the midwest and most people who weren't aiming for Ivy Leagues just took the ACT.

<comment><USER23> Yah. It's weird that de Boer argues selection bias is in play in SAT participation between MS (3%) and CT (88%) when 100% of MS high schoolers take the ACT. That seems to be what's happening here: the kids in MS taking the SAT in addition to the ACT are the ones aiming for elite schools.

<comment><USER24> >the kids in MS taking the SAT in addition to the ACT are the ones aiming for elite schools

Which is an extreme selection bias. The ACT should have been mentioned to provide more context, but the actual argument works without it.

<comment><USER23> You say it better than I do. Agreed it's an extreme selection bias, just want to point out that it's slightly different than the one de Boer seemed to be pointing out.

<comment><USER24> It's still the same bias he argues, the three percent are the most motivated and prepared. Why the other 97% skip it isn't relevant in this argument, but the number is independently shocking without the context. I fell for it until the ND mention, and I took the ACT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This has long been my assertion about elite undergraduate engineering schools. The teaching is usually just OK but their main advantage is that they get to "skim the cream" from the applicant pool.

</comment><comment><USER26> My school has a large Chinese international student body. The school is marketed as being diverse, but really those students are from wealthy families and can easily afford the 40k+ tuition. In the end, the campus isn't diverse, it is segregated. But at least the uni has more money for research.

<comment><USER27> majority of that mooney doesn't go to research, it goes to admin

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> "People involved with the private high schools liked to brag about the high scores their students scored on standardized tests – without bothering to mention that you had to score well on such a test to get into them in the first place."

Few private schools have entrance exams. Most only care if the tuition check doesn't bounce.

</comment><comment><USER29> Education is about doing things at scale. Learning is about individual gain on delta. I believe better personal tools for learning could do a better job for individuals on average.

</comment><comment><USER30> He was wearing my Harvard tie. Can you believe it? My Harvard tie. Like oh, sure he went to Harvard.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/quotes](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/quotes)

</comment><comment><USER31> This is simply the best article I've ever read on this topic.

</comment><comment><USER32> > People involved with the private high schools liked to brag about the high > scores their students scored on standardized tests – without bothering to > mention that you had to score well on such a test to get into them in the > first place. This is, as I've said before, akin to having a height > requirement for your school and then bragging about how tall your student > body is.

Of course, that's a bad analogy, because average height isn't correlated with the amount of time teachers have to spend on OTHER kids, but average grades of the kids - is (inversely), so parents still prefer schools where other kids are as "smart" as possible, because that indirectly benefits their kids (more attention of teachers for their kid, higher expectations, peer pressure to perform, etc).

So - selection bias is one of the reasons kids do better, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also make teachers do better.

By the way, in my country (Poland) public universities are considered better, than the private ones (because of historical reasons, and the way free university education works). There's still selection bias (best students go to public universities and don't have to pay for education, so these universities have the best students and teachers, and the best results), but it's mostly unrelated to students' wealth (apart from extremes where kids don't have food or time to do homework in primary school, etc).

Do you still consider selection bias in education a bad thing, if it's only about results, not about your family, connections, wealth, etc.? It's easier to teach a group of people on similar skill level, than a group of people where a third is bored, a third is learning, and the rest don't get what's going on.

<comment><USER20> Selection bias makes it also easier to implement special measures. You know where the hot spots are and they are not diffuse.

(FWIW I live in Poland and had a short run with our private education system on both ends.)

What has to be fought is discrimination in employment based on the origin of degrees. All too common. There is enough of this based on connections already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've read the research about Stuyvesant, and several other articles with similar theme. The data and reasoning seems quite convincing. It's just I can't reconcile it with my personal experience.

All these studies seems to suggest it doesn't matter much where you go to school, everything is already decided. But I _know_ I've learned things in school, things that I can't expect to learn quite systematically should I just teach myself. And I also know there are schools that don't teach much, where teachers are exhausted for just maintaining order and keep violence to an acceptable level. It seems pretty obvious that I wouldn't learn much in this kind of environment. Maybe I can still get to a similar level as I am today but it be would much much harder.

</comment><comment><USER34> """ You believe that making your state's high school graduates more competitive in college admissions is a key aspect of improving the economy of the state. """

Well there's your problem. The link between educational attainment of a country and productivity is weak at best. (Switzerland being a good example of low university attendance and outrageously good economy)

Ha Joon Chang was quite persuasive on this - and suggests that the imaginary governor of the article should look to fix his states economy with focusing on improving the eco system of the economy - longer term more patient capital, regulatory regiemes that force longer term investment and behaviour, picking winners and protecting nascent growth industries. All the bad things.

</comment><comment><USER35> > _People involved with the private high schools liked to brag about the high > scores their students scored on standardized tests – without bothering to > mention that you had to score well on such a test to get into them in the > first place. This is, as I've said before, akin to having a height > requirement for your school and then bragging about how tall your student > body is._

Not quite — kids don't get shorter over time, but they can easily get worse grades/scores. It's true that having a screening test makes it more likely that your students will score well on other tests, but it's not a guarantee (as it is with the height example).

<comment><USER36> Yes quite; for example, kids who are in the 95th percentile of height at 9th grade might be only in the 60th percentile of height at 12th grade.

<comment><USER35> The example wasn't about height percentiles, which can change. it was about raw height. If his example had been about percentiles, then it wouldn't have been such a stark no-brainer. Because a high school that admits only taller students would be mostly girls, and by 12th grade they would be shorter than many/most boys.

I was taking issue with the example as given. If it were framed the way you suggested, it would not have had the rhetorical power that it did (at least at first glance).

<comment><USER36> It is assumed that schools bragging about how tall their students are are not doing so in a vacuum, and that they aren't bragging that their 12th graders are taller than the other school's 9th graders, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm amazed by the range of completion rates in that first scatter plot. Here are the Australian figures, for contrast. Note that living in the NT is strongly correlated with being Indigenous. (Indigenous Australians are the people formerly known as Aborigines.)

[http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/fact-sheets/senior- schoo...](http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/fact-sheets/senior-school-years- school-completion-uneven-across-australia/)

<comment><USER38> I assume your amazement is because some states have such low rates. If so, this is very misleading since there are two competing tests in the US (ACT and SAT). The states that have low rates for SAT almost all have very high rates for ACT and vice-versa.

In fact, looking at the chart you can see that it is a split distribution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> In education this is particularly bad. Students and parents also steer into selection bias under the assumption that peer groups are important.

But, to generalize the point into public discourse broadly: "Statistics are a problem."

A lot of public discourse revolve around quantitative arguments like this. Police shootings, women's 83 cents on the dollar, British Muslims' on Sharia, unemployment rates...

Even in the more intellectual branches of public discourse, bad arguments with a similar flavour can be the dominant ones.

</comment><comment><USER40> A professor at the University of Rochester (my alma mater) has begun a project to better evaluate the value of a liberal arts education, and to try and quantify what impact it truly has on the career trajectories and future earnings of graduates[1].

[1] [https://www.rochester.edu/pr/Review/V79N6/0304_lennie.html](https://www.rochester.edu/pr/Review/V79N6/0304_lennie.html)

<comment><USER41> The benefits of a higher education are more than just career path and earnings.

<comment><USER42> Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't; I'm not a Doctor of Education, so I can't and won't claim that I know the answer to that question.

 _My_ question to you, is applicable regardless:

As an industry-destined BSCS student, in what ways does my future improve as a result of my education, except for career path and earnings? And if there are such (nontrivial) ways, then why should I _care_ about them?

<comment><USER41> I can only speak from personal experience but I grew a great deal as a person while pursuing my B.S. I had experiences and met people I never would have otherwise. I very nearly stayed in my small rural town working retail and farming jobs but my education opened doors to new people and experiences. My worldview is much different now than it was before college and my life is much more fulfilling on a personal level.

While I was fortunate to select a degree that had positive economic benefits for me that is far from the only benefit. My B.S. was far from just a job training course. I studied a variety of topics and was exposed to ideas that I never considered before. I learned to think much more critically and to be more open to the world.

You should _care_ about this because money and a job are not everything in life. I know that sounds cliche but I am finally reaching a point in my life where I understand that. My education helped me reach this point.

I really cannot say enough about how much my education means to me. Even if I did not leverage that education to start my career I would still consider it to be completely worth it.

<comment><USER42> > I very nearly stayed in my small rural town working retail and farming jobs > but my education opened doors to new people and experiences.

So, that still falls under career path and earnings.

<comment><USER41> It doesn't, please read the rest of my post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> A simple thought experiment.

Consider bussing kids from 'good' places to bad and from 'bad' to good. See after how long their outcomes become equivalent. Do so at different grade levels to measure the convergence time versus age of displacement.

And now for the actual experiment: how do you impactfully present such results? I assume no outcome. Just the existence of an outcome.

I posit that priceless data would be worthless in American society.

<comment><USER44> How many parents, who probably paid a lot of money and work two full-time jobs to live in the "good" place so their kids could go to the good school, are going to be OK with this experiment? Do you plan to force them, if there aren't enough volunteers to get statistically significant results?

<comment><USER45> San Francisco, some of America's most expensive real estate, doesn't tie school assignments to geography. The system hasn't been voted out yet.

<comment><USER46> 30 percent of children in San Francisco attend private schools — the highest rate of private-school attendance in California, and the third-highest in the nation

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The article's hypothetical gubernatorial scenario is a big turn off. It states that Mississippi has higher SAT scores than Connecticut so Connecticut's Teacher Unions are bad.

As the article doesn't at all remark on the suspicious causality of that, it makes me more skeptical of the rest of the article.

<comment><USER48> That's not at all what the article claims. It presents a hypothetical scenario, based on real SAT average scores, where somebody can reach a very wrong conclusion (teacher unions are bad) based on this data. Then the article proceeds to explain how the difference in the average scores can be attributed to self-selection among students who take the SAT rather than unions. So, the article not only remarks on the suspicious causality but the suspicious causality is the article's main point.

<comment><USER47> I understand what you are saying, but really don't think that suspicious causality is what the article is about at all. It's about selection bias. (not the same as causality)

Indeed after reading the article I feel it is generally well written and compelling. However the contrived teacher union scenario is a big distraction for me as I was reading the article hoping that issue would be addressed and it wasn't. It would have been much stronger without this gaping logic hole introduced in the beginning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Nothing of substance to contribute but I'm immensely pleased to see Freddie DeBoer writing again.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think a corollary of the author's point is that _by the time someone is college age_ , selection bias is the most powerful force in education.

I'd be curious to see a study of younger people to see if perhaps there are some assimilation effects.

</comment><comment><USER51> Someday, people will wise up to the fact that success has more to do with psychological programming than resources. Actually they won't because they won't ever get enough of the programming themselves to realize it.

</comment><comment><USER52> I like the way the best public schools in Brazil select: randomly. In the first years is just a draw, in the advanced ones they have just a proficiency test, and then draw among who not failed.

</comment><comment><USER53> Parents, teachers, and students are so focused on "education" as a pedigree and job pipeline that if they don't see an immediate connection between a topic and a paycheck they're like "Who cares?! Why are you wasting my kid's time on that?"

When the whole thing is an exercise in competitive pedigreeing, of course it's going to be gamed. If it were more about human development, we'd be focusing on the deltas instead, and they'd be harder to fudge.

<comment><USER54> They're not wrong to worry about that, it's a rough world out there and getting a good job is vastly more important to most people than "human development". Parents don't send their kids to college to become better people, they do it to make sure they have a skill that can lead to a career so they can survive on their own. Only the rich have the luxury of being concerned about something other than a job.

<comment><USER55> On the contrary. The less you have, the more you stand to benefit from appreciating other things than possessions.

<comment><USER56> Yes, I'm sure a generation trying to save for a house under burden of student loans appreciates your sage bullshit advice.

Must really appreciate the lack of affordable health care and never being able to afford a family. But at least you can appreciate it!

<comment><USER55> Philosophies of life like Buddhism and Stoicism came about in times that were much less comfy than even the sad reality we have to endure. I am not saying people shouldn't demand things of society (quite the opposite, I think the level of organizing among the poor is the root of many of the issues we are seeing today), but I am saying that they can benefit from separating their happiness from the fulfillment of those demands.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Browser Pong - <AUTHOR> http://stewdio.org/pong/

<comment><USER2> Neat.

I'm sure I'm not the first to cheat by enlarging my paddle browser. But strange they didn't make the borders of the popup non-resizable.

<comment><USER3> I made both tall, but you can still win if you build up enough speed. The collision detection needs to be improved :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whoa! A new revolution in annoying advertisement pop-ups is coming...

</comment><comment><USER5> Doesn't work at all when using xmonad :)

<comment><USER6> It did not like dwm either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, the author's website has some fun stuff on it. Checkout hiding messages in Photoshop histograms: <http://stewdio.org/work/histoface/>

</comment><comment><USER8> The thing that most impresses me is that this is the first ball-and-paddle game that I've played with keyboard control that doesn't feel like it gets in your way.

</comment><comment><USER9> The AI is too hard for me ;) Owned by browser pong (head hung in shame)

</comment><comment><USER10> I kept losing instantly, took me a bit to remember I have a setting that forces new windows to be new tabs. Needless to say it is very hard to play that way.

</comment><comment><USER11> waaah sound - you've been warned

</comment><comment><USER12> "Now give each other a good elbow bump and don't forget to disinfect your keyboards. Tis swine flu season afterall."

</comment><comment><USER13> Discontinue your use of automatic popups.

<comment><USER14> Seriously? That's, like, the entire game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would be better done with canvas and javascript.

As of right now, it is a poorly done game with an ever expanding popup windows. It is hard to figure out what and where the paddle is. I automatically won 3 points merely being confused.

It is hard to see why the inhabitant of hacker news voted up the story.

<comment><USER2> It demonstrates a neat effect. I'm sure many people like me soon were right- clicking to inspect the code.

edit:

And I'm sure this was done with just our kind of people in mind:

/*

Dear Source-Code-Reader

First of all, thank you for caring. Not that many people view source. One of the beautiful things about JavaScript is that it's necessarily Open-Source. I like that a lot. I hope you find this source code somewhat useful, and not too dirty. Remeber to pay it forward.

Stewart Smith, Stewdio. December 2009.

*/

<comment><USER16> Well, the source simply being viewable for JavaScript is not the same as all JS being released under an open source license! I guess this is kind of like an open source license, though.</comment></comment></comment>