A startup's guide to using Trello. - <AUTHOR> http://www.tintup.com/blog/how-tint-uses-trello/

<comment><USER2> Who else uses Trello and how do you use it?</comment>


My Journey From Blindness to Building a Fully Conversational User Interface - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@CMaury/war-stories-my-journey-from-blindness-to-building-a-fully-conversational-user-interface-5ffb74a74c6d#.2i29t9d3n <comment><USER2> I got so excited when I read this headline because I thought there was a product I could get for the 80 year old blind lady I work with that would allow her to read her email by talking to her computer, but alas it's just for shopping.

Computers are presently absolutely terrible for the visually impaired and there is no product I can find that even begins to address it.

As the article said screen readers right now are ass backwards, it might read to you, but you still need to be able to see move the mouse and do anything with it.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but you have to build a business that makes money first. It's still a step forward. Every time someone solves a problem with voice, it becomes easier for the next person.

Some in the hacker community are working on voice solutions to help program with off the shelf programs, for example:

[https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes/blob/master/progra...](https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes/blob/master/programming_by_voice.org)

Someone could probably use the same solution to help the visually impaired.

Throw in the new motion gesture technology, like that by Intel: [http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and- tech...](http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and- technology/realsense-overview.html)

And soon we'll all have more natural ways to interact with computers.

<comment><USER4> I have no real knowledge, but I imagine that gesture interfaces would be massively worse than keyboard for visually impaired because the lack of tactile feedback.

<comment><USER5> Not necessarily. Successfully thinking about this stuff requires stripping interactions all the way back to their intent. The intent of either a key press or gesture is to change some state and the intent of the feedback is to communicate both the change and the new state.

The tactile feedback from a key press is at best only a small proportion of that. You get to know you mushed a key, but not what (if anything) it changed. Assistive tech using keyboard input will generally fill in that gap with voice feedback. Gesture input with haptic and audio/voice feedback should be usable in some scenarios. I'm currently working on a couple of iOS apps in the fitness space that have this as a key part of their UI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Always great to see innovation in this space, will be really great to see how this approach pans out.

I've mixed feelings about conversational UI personally but one of the things that makes accessibility so hard is that there really is no 'one size fits all' solution.

As the author signposts, people who lose their sight later in life tend to struggle a great deal more than those of us lucky enough never to have known anything different - we had the advantage of naturally developing all the appropriate strategies and skills while our brains were still plastic.

That group would doubtless benefit from an assistive tech stack that 'just works' and doesn't require a bunch of training and knowledge acquisition to get even the simplest things done.

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow, just reading your story makes me frustrated. I can't imaging trying to program without being able to see my screen.

How do you anticipate programming as you become legally blind? Will you start dictating code and having it read back to you?

<comment><USER7> There are a lot of professional developers who are blind. They use accessible IDEs paired with a Screen reader. Here is a good description: [http://stackoverflow.com/a/453758/319013](http://stackoverflow.com/a/453758/319013)

In the future, I think there is a lot of potential for pairing a Conversational UI and a natural language programming...language. Eve looks really promising, and could change the way that everyone writes software, and not just the blind: [http://eve-lang.com/](http://eve-lang.com/)

Here is a demo: [https://youtu.be/VZQoAKJPbh8?t=46m52s](https://youtu.be/VZQoAKJPbh8?t=46m52s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone else experience a psychosomatic reaction from this story? My eyes started to ache just reading it. What a terrifying prospect.

</comment><comment><USER4> Okay, this is really more nitpicking than anything else, but this passage struck me as odd:

> When it came to the people I met, many who have been blind since they were > very young and who have worse vision than I will ever have, I was blown > away. _The term disabled does not apply to them._ They are extremely > independent, good natured, and very successful in whatever field they chose > to be in.

Instead of saying that the term disabled does not apply to successful etc people, I think better phrasing would be that meeting these people changed what he considered disabled to mean/imply.

Other than that, I like the overall message. I do think that it's good idea to focus on making purpose-built applications for vision (or otherwise) impaired people, maybe even trying to grow a small niche ecosystem.

<comment><USER9> Agreed, thanks for saying this. I'm always a bit weirded out when someone tries to tell me I'm not disabled because I'm successful, so of course I'm able. I get that, probably from a pure linguistic perspective, the word "disabled" has negative connotations. In actuality though, there's a rich disability community. Chicago (I think, anyway) has an annual disability pride parade. We live in a culture that tries to strip lots away from us when we're disabled, and sometimes it's all we can do to claw some of that back. So while someone may mean well by claiming that someone who is successful or competent shouldn't be called disabled, it takes away that person's autonomy and ability to self-identify, and also removes success and competence from what people think of when they think "disabled." IOW, if someone can say that the word "disabled" doesn't apply to a person because they do something well, others in the set of disabled people have it a bit worse off because they're both faced with a challenge and not able to handle it well.

That said, I didn't think this was the author's intent. But I can't count how many times someone didn't think I was blind because I wrote well, and they couldn't conceive of how someone who couldn't see could write a coherent sentence. :) Try applying for jobs in that expectational landscape and, well, it's challenging and is why I don't even like working for others anymore.

<comment><USER7> This really wasn't my intent. I sincerely apologize for communicating otherwise.

I identify as blind or low-viz and wouldn't want to take away from others who also identify as such or as disabled.

That line was meant to be a response to the fears that it seemed like my family and friends had about my diagnosis. Fears, that I wouldn't be able to remain independent or be successful. You know how loved ones generally fear the worst possible scenario. Anyway, wording it this was was terrible, and I'm sorry. I'll see if I can make an edit and rephrase things.

<comment><USER9> Thanks, I know it wasn't. Likewise, my intent wasn't to make you feel bad. I imagine this landscape is all very new to you, and recognize that it's probably lots to come to grips with and navigate. To that end, kudos for finding a problem and running with it. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So I'm not trying to discount the author's company or experiences, but as a blind person myself, the tone of this article is confusing. My takeaway is that apps, screen readers and our current concept of computing are supposed to be terrible for me and difficult to use, but I don't get that. I don't doubt that someone newly blind after years of productive computer use or someone blind after a lifetime of being sighted would find things challenging. But if I suddenly found myself in a wheelchair, I'd likely find aspects of my daily life post-transition challenging, and would try not to write articles that made general statements about _every_ wheelchair user's experience and challenges. :)

Are screen readers difficult to use? Sure, but no more so than typical desktop environments. Describing them as "requiring special training from organizations like the Lighthouse for the Blind" feels like a bit of a stretch. Would some folks require training? Sure, just as they might require training to learn OS X if they're familiar with Windows, but that's true of _anyone_ sighted or not, and hardly a requirement. Also, while I agree that licensing costs for some screen readers are enormous, just about every mobile and desktop platform has at least one free, competent alternative. Someone newly blind or blind after years of sighted life might certainly need training, but in general I find picking up a new screen reader to be no different than learning any other semi-complex app. If using Word/LibreOffice is part of your job then you sit down, learn it and become competent with it over time, or you get trained. Categorizing screen readers as being different and worse in this regard feels unfair.

"All of the time and energy that goes into creating the perfect user experience for an app is wasted, or even worse, adversely impacting the experience for blind users." Again, I strongly disagree with this. The problem is that UX time and energy is misspent almost exclusively on visual aesthetics, or even worse, on a certain _type_ of visual aesthetic. For instance, say you use icon fonts because they're a cool thing to do. That choice has accessibility impact beyond blindness. Had a UI/UX designer focused on universal design and on crafting experiences that both look well and perform nicely from a keyboard/switch user's perspective, that interface will be visually appealing, nice to use via the keyboard, easy for users with low hand dexterity using switch controllers, etc.

Again, kudos to you for driving innovation in this space. I wish access tech didn't always feel like an industry stuck a few decades in the past, or wasn't being driven forward by companies with a medical-model concept of disability who view us as a market to be pitied rather than sold to. To that end, I like seeing exciting tech in this space, even if I can't imagine ever preferring to shop by a conversational interface. But I read headlines like "Apps are a nightmare for the visually impaired" and think "huh, _I 'm_ building an app for the visually impaired and hope it isn't a nightmare." And I worry that, rather than learning about how universal design can build experiences that look and work well for _everyone_ , software developers and companies will read this post and think "I don't have to make my app accessible because blind people are using special custom interfaces anyway, so when a blind person tells me my app isn't accessible, I can pretend ARIA attributes are hard and write them off." Again, not trying to be negative, I just wish folks understood that we don't need separate interfaces and experiences.

<comment><USER7> I definitely agree with you that the last thing I would want readers to take away from this article, is that they don't have to worry about accessibility or universal design. Until we have better tools, we should be providing the best possible experience with the tools we do have.

I also agree that we shouldn't be creating separate experiences for the blind. I think it's generally acknowledged that they end up being worse than a combined interface, never getting the resources or new features that experiences for sighted users get.

Where we seem to disagree is on the roll that screen readers play in limiting the usability of technology. On the one hand they are amazing because they provide access to technology that would otherwise not exist. On the other hand, by virtue of the way they function-mapping a 2 dimensional visual experience into a one dimensional stream of audio-using a screen reader can only be so efficient.

This lack of usability puts access to technology beyond the reach of many who are less tech savvy than you or I, and given that the vast majority of people losing their vision in the US are the elderly, there are a lot of people who fall into that category. What's worse, the rate of vision loss is set to double as baby-boomer's age out.

I totally agree that the medical-model of Accessibility sucks, but I think Screen Readers fall into that category. They seek to adapt an experience designed for others to the needs of the disabled. Conversational interfaces have the potential to create a consumer quality experience, that by it's very nature is accessible (at least to the blind). And accessible by default is the best possible outcome.

<comment><USER9> It's interesting to read that you conceptualize screen readers as rendering a 2-D environment as audio. I'm a very visual/spatial person, but I've always conceptualized them as rendering a tree of GUI widgets, rather than a visual environment. I guess it's the difference between thinking of my desk as a visual collection of objects, and more as an object with an Arduino/RPI in the top drawer, papers and folders in the second, etc. Not saying either is wrong, just that maybe it's a matter of conceptualizing UIs as groups of collected and organized widgets, rather than as laid out on a map. I've come to enjoy developing with React because I can say "here's my workspace for a given task. It has a toolbar containing these related functions, these two loosely-related larger workspaces, etc." Then I let a visual designer come along after and make things look better. :)

Anyhow, I look forward to reading more about your SDK. Where can I learn more? I'm building an app that could benefit from a conversational UI on top of the traditional one and would be interested in reading up on what you offer, particularly as it's meant for blind users too.

<comment><USER7> You can check our SDK out at developer.conversantlabs.com. It's currently in a developer preview. Send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com. It would be great to talk more. If our conversation in this thread is any indication, I think we'll have a pretty good discussion :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Really great article. It's really inspiring to watch someone face their problem head on, but stay focused on how it helps other people. This technology will certainly also have applications beyond the visually impaired community.

</comment><comment><USER11> I was very excited when I read the title, but was sort of disappointed when i found out it was mostly shopping. But I do think that they are paving the way for something special and cannot wait to see where this is in 5 years time.

</comment><comment><USER12> Ive been told my eyes show eventual macular degeneration. I will not be able to use this computer. I don't know when it will happen. I will be blind before I die.

I might have 10years, 20, 30... we don't know.

<comment><USER13> That's bad news, I'm sorry. However there's no reason you wont be able to use a computer. I have been blind since birth and use a computer and a smart phone every day. NVDA is an excelent open source screen reader for Windows. There are screen readers for other operating systems too. If you like emacs, emacspeak makes it talk. on Linux there is Orca, Speakup etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very very cool. I've met Chris and he is a super nice guy.

</comment><comment><USER15> Great story! They're definitely paving the way when it comes to accessibility. Need to look more at their SDK...

</comment><comment><USER11> I thought this article was very insightful and I cannot imagine where this will be 5 years down the road.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is an interesting approach. It does, though, make me think of the command line.. how many tasks are there that we can do, now, with a command line reader? Certainly covers stuff like email, at least for somewhat technical users.

</comment><comment><USER17> Well, $1800 for a single license. I don't think so: [http://www.nvaccess.org/](http://www.nvaccess.org/)

<comment><USER18> JAWS seems to be the standard big businesses target, it costs around $1000.

Although NVDA is free, its not as high a priority for some reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well done to Target for allowing them to build a product.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is really cool. The key point is your last line

> For the first time accessible technology for the blind can drive innovation > for everyone else, rather than having to play catchup, and that's pretty > cool

I wouldn't say for the first time though. Many solutions designed to address accessibility needs result in improved UX for all users. My team puts a lot of emphasis on accessibility for this reason. plug - I'm currently hiring a web accessibility engineer too so if you're interested find me on twitter @kenwarner</comment>


Sexism in Tech: Don't Ask Me Unless You're Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@katylevinson/sexism-in-tech-don-t-ask-me-unless-you-re-ready-to-call-somebody-a-whistleblower-e5d545e547b0 <comment><USER3> I feel so naive asking this, but I really would like to better understand the specific scenario that led to being raped repeatedly "several times over months" by a colleague. Especially because it apparently happened to another female colleague by another man "in much the same way my attacker had raped me."

I don't doubt FOR A MINUTE that this can happen but perhaps understanding the circumstances could provide a focal point for specific change.

For example, how do colleagues end up even physically alone in the same space together especially after the first RAPE? Does this stem from unsupervised after-work parties that employees feel obligated to attend? Is it related to conferences or work travel? Clearly she would seek to avoid being near her rapist alone but couldn't. Are there things companies can be doing to better avoid such scenarios?

<comment><USER4> Story from a friend of a friend's law firm. Young associate worked for this partner. Over the course of months, he coerced her into giving him blowjobs. Eventually she quit.

1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence.

2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss.

3) Why let it happen more than once? If you've ruled out calling the police, what are you going to do? Can you afford to quit your job on the spot? Can you compromise your long term future at the firm by bringing it to the management? You've worked years to get to where you are, and you just want to do your job and try to get ahead, just like your coworkers who didn't catch the eye of some creep.

<comment><USER5> I'm sure that as a heterosexual man, regardless of my financial circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving blowjobs under the threat of losing my job. I'd quit and take my chances. What am I missing here?

<comment><USER6> From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was. Also,

      > Young associate worked for this partner

I don't know how the legal profession works. But:

1\. It's quite likely that leaving firm as a young associate carries a huge negative connotation. In other words, her choices might not have been "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job." It might have been more like "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job, and maybe not find another job because there's this _huge negative_ on her resume."

2\. The law profession has a reputation for being quite chummy. If she had quit over this harassment, even if she filed no charges then it's quite possible that this partner would have gone on the offensive to discredit her character to other influential people.

<comment><USER7> In the US, if she was at Biglaw, then my impression is that leaving is basically unheard of. You're intended to work for a firm for 2-4 years and move on, or stay at the firm on a partner track.

Once you're out, it's very hard to get back in. So in practice firms have quite a bit of leverage to demand things like work 100 hours in a week, staying until 2am, cancel plans with family on short notice, etc.

 __Edit: __I mean unheard of to leave with no new job and try to get another one in Biglaw.

<comment><USER8> Its not that unheard of to leave. In fact probably 50% do by year 3. Though quitting without a job is really damn dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm sorry but this is insane. I guess I can only speak to the segment of the tech industry I've been exposed to, but a woman would not be labelled a liability for reporting a rape or an assault, unless maybe it turned out to be false, in which case that's no different than any other industry. I am sure workplace rape and assault happens in every industry, unfortunately, but I've seen no evidence it's more common or accepted in tech than anywhere else. It's certainly not systematized or condoned. I can't believe Google (for whom she has worked) has any more lenient of a policy on sexual harassment or assault than any other Fortune 500.

And if it were this bad, why would she fear being ostracized? If my options were to stay in an industry and be repeatedly harassed, beaten, and raped, or switch careers, I don't think it'd be a tough call.

<comment><USER10> If you look through the comments here and in other similar threads you'll see numerous variations on the "what wait? just leave." It's an understandable but wrong response to these situations. It shifts the problem from the perpetrator to the victim. It's similar to asking women to be covered from head to toe so that they can't somehow tempt males. The onus isn't on the male to control his desires it's on the female to ensure that his desires are not aroused. So if rape and sexual harassment is happening at a workplace don't blame the victim for not leaving blame the perpetrator for bringing that into the workplace.

<comment><USER11> You unwittingly fall into an enclosure filled with angry chimpanzees.

A crowd gathers, and shouts "Leave the enclosure, climb out, there's a ladder!"

Another crowd gathers and shouts at the first crowd "Shut up. Stop blaming the victim!"

Which crowd has your best interests at heart?

<comment><USER12> Tech companies are staffed with humans, not angry chimpanzees; this analogy is stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I didn't understand what this was about, based on the title.

As it turned out, it's an incredibly interesting, important, and sad essay on the severe consequences that exist for women who fight for their own physical/emotional safety (and the safety of others).

If you want to know how people can repeatedly rape coworkers and get away with it, you should read this article.

<comment><USER14> I think it all sucks... on the one hand, being falsly accused of something because someone made a bad decision in a moment, or exaggerated is pretty bad.

* Two people get drunk and hook up after a party... afterwards the woman cries rape. (there's a difference between rape and a bad decision)

* A person asks another person they work with out. (this isn't harassment, though once a firm no is given they should not ask again)

The problem with the first, is it does happen, for any number of reasons... the second less so, but often women will give a soft decline instead of just saying they aren't interested.

On the flip side, continual harassment, rape, sexism and just general asshole behavior does exist, and should rightly be called out. The trouble is, without repeated offenses, it's almost impossible to know the difference as an outsider.

<comment><USER15> > * Two people get drunk and hook up after a party... afterwards the woman > cries rape. (there's a difference between rape and a bad decision)

Did I miss somewhere in the post where the regret of a (mutually) drunken one- night-stand was equated with rape? Or are you bringing this up because you believe such occurrences happen often?

If it's the latter, would you mind sharing sources? I've heard people suggest that these things happen (where the "victim" was either embarrassed of sleeping with the person, or perhaps was ashamed due to their morals), but I have never seen a man or women ever claim that they were raped when it was in reality just "a bad decision" ... which makes me wonder if the mentioning of the scenario you give is just a common device for distracting from the topic of rape.

<comment><USER14> As someone who _WAS_ falsely accused of rape (in my early 20's), I'm pretty sensitive to the issue... and yes, it does happen often enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems to me that a lot of women are left with pretty much two options in a lot of these situations: the lethal option, and submission. Calling the police or going to HR is the "lethal" option, meaning that, in all likelihood, there is going to be a big problem, and somebody is going to suffer.

I think the following scenario should be easy to understand (if not familiar) for most people: A person is walking down the street, when somebody approaches them and tells them to surrender their wallet. What would most people recommend in this situation? "Let them take your wallet, there's no point in risking your life"? What if the person being mugged revealed they were carrying a weapon capable of deadly force? Would you recommend that they use it to defend themselves?

Would your recommendation change if the threatening person in question had a position of default trust (e.g. a police officer), or a member of a powerful gang?

Now imagine a person in a scenario where, instead of just walking down the street, they are approached _in their office_ by somebody they trust, and instead of being asked for their wallet, they are asked for something incredibly more traumatic and unrecoverable, under the threat of complete financial destruction or possibly even physical harm.

I would never want to find out which way I would decide, in any of these situations. It's abominable that anyone should have to make that kind of choice, and it's worse still that it seems to be happening under our very noses and nobody can see it.

I think this article sets forth some very powerful, actionable ideas that are not only gender-neutral, but generally applicable in many other industries for many other classes of people who need options.

</comment><comment><USER17> As a hetero male that is relatively new to management, what can I do to let my direct reports, indirect reports, and other colleagues know that they can report these kinds of things to me, and I will take them seriously? I don't have any women reporting directly to me right now, but it's very likely to happen over the next year, and I want to be proactive from the get-go.

<comment><USER18> Your eagerness to help is very good, and I think expressing that you care about these issues to your employees is great, but unless you tattoo it on your forehead, most employees won't know about your personal stances. Your personal stance will come much more into play when a complaint is brought to management level, since the odds of you being the one randomly handed it are pretty low.

I think the lowest hanging fruit in your own workplace will be to make sure the escalation structures that already exist are strong, protect those who are afraid, and have clearly defined expected fair outcomes for when a complaint is heard. Too often reports of problems just disappear into management and die down before anything happens because nobody's planned out what they are suppose to do if there is a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've heard men in the tech space who I would normally have considered very nice people say extremely sexist / homophobic / transphobic things. When I've called them out on it, they've been surprised that anyone was offended. As I've said, otherwise really nice guys, but they seem to have just thought such comments were acceptable in the context of the 'community'. Strange stuff.

<comment><USER20> "they've been surprised that anyone was offended"

What did they say?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wow. This is such a good piece. Seriously, this is incredibly well-thought out and well-written, in a very intentional way. Thanks to the author.

I am pleased that it's on the HN front page. And I was at first pleased to see such a long comments thread, that people were interested in discussing it.

But man, this discussion is depressing me. Arguing about the legal definition of rape, really, that's what HN feels like talking about in response to this piece?

<comment><USER22> The discussion on the definition is because we're shocked that someone could be repeatedly raped without calling the cops. From accounts I've heard, rape seems much more serious than, say, being mugged or stabbed. If someone were to say they were mugged several times by a colleague, we'd ask why the cops weren't called. Hence it's terribly upsetting to hear a colleague repeatedly does worse.

But if the definition of mugged was that someone's colleague repeatedly left them with $500 bar tabs that they felt compelled to pay, then we might say, yeah, I see the issue. It's not actually a legal mugging in such a case, even if it's effectively as bad (minus the trauma of having, say, a gun pointed at you).

<comment><USER21> "From accounts I've heard, rape seems much more serious than, say, being mugged or stabbed."

For real, bro?

So let me get this straight, you're either upset that someone was mugged or stabbed without calling the cops, or you're upset (but maybe not as upset) that a colleague has done something worse than mugging or stabbing (a colleague of yours? that you know of? Have _you_ considered calling the police?)

You can 'see the issue' with $500 bar tabs, but not with muggings? Or wait, by 'you can see the issue' you mean you _don 't believe_ the author, you think she's lying or confused when she writes 'rape', unless she says that she didn't _really_ mean rape, in which case now you 'see the issue' and are wiling to support doing something about it? If you don't believe the author, it would be less confusing if you just said so. Or is it that you're only willing to do something about $500 bar tabs if you can first convince the person subject to them to stop calling it a mugging, cause that's the important thing here, eliminating that mugging/bar-tab confusion which is a scourge on our society? Me, I'd start out assuming if the author wrote rape she didn't mean a $500 bar tab. But the ironic thing is that most of the essay isn't actually about rape.

Man. Yeah, I'm not contributing to a useful conversation, I realize. I have _no idea_ how the author manages to engage in this sort of conversation -- which the OP article is, an engagement in this sort of conversation, as well as the author's participation in this reddit thread -- while maintaining such an even temper, and always making the most charitable possible interpretation of everyone's comments (or at least successfully pretending to). I am impressed. I would need to work a lot harder than apparently I'm willing to, to pull that off.

<comment><USER22> I'm not quite sure I follow. My reaction was to the article was shock, when I read that she was raped repeatedly. Then, like most people, I assume, the question that springs to mind is: how can that happen? It violates a lot of assumptions we have about civilized society.

One way of making sense of it is determining that an unlawful act wasn't committed. Then, yeah, you can't call the cops, it's not "really rape" (according to the law), and it's terrible because there's no recourse without destroying one's career.

I'm not saying that's what happened to the OP. Just explaining why the definition of rape matters. If it was legal rape, then we're left wondering even more why going to the cops wasn't an option. If it wasn't legal rape, then it's much more difficult.

(And in case my writing wasn't clear, I'm suggesting that a $500 bar tab could be called a mugging, if you didn't willingly pay for it. But the law wouldn't consider that a mugging. So if someone meant a colleague pulled a knife on them repeatedly, then yeah, the response is "what about the cops"? Whereas in the bar tab scenario, I can " see the issue " of no recourse. Same way that you might sleep with someone because you felt you had to, but the law wouldn't consider that a rape.[1] I'm not saying this is what happened to the OP, at all, just responding to your questioning of why HN would discuss the definitional aspects.[2])

1: This is further aggravated by some people thinking rape is over claimed, perhaps in response to other people suggesting that two drunk people having sex means they taped raped each other. And by extension, that means people on permanent medication, who are never "sober" are always being raped. Totally unrelated to the OP, yet a driver of rather useless discussion.

2: And I probably am terrible for saying this, but I just don't tend to empathize with such stories much. The huge amount of suffering in the world overall (let alone the disgusting implications of MWI) has numbed me. Plus the situation described is not very relatable to me. While I experienced the outrage when personal (eg when something happened to my daughter), other accounts tend to provoke a more... distanced reaction. Having nothing to contribute or say regarding the actual problem, I'll respond to branching topics like yours. Terrible as that is, perhaps that's another explanation for the type of discussion you find here. And I'm probably not the only guy on HN with similar feelings, maybe.

<comment><USER18> Well, I don't know how to reach your empathy, but we do need your help creating safe spaces, educating folks in a non-destructive way, and getting people to talk about these issues until the truth and solutions are found.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _I feel they could have done it without making my boss feel like he was being directly threatened with a huge HR complaint. It's a real shame for our tech culture that there is no way to get somebody tutored about what is and isn't appropriate without also landing them in deep trouble._

I'd like to add the only education available to teach people social interactions, outside of being self-taught, is PUA material, as well as in- house education on how to influence masses in the intelligence community. Which means if you weren't in a situation to talk to enough people while you were growing up, later on in life you'll miss out on jobs, you'll feel insecure, you'll make inappropriate comments, you'll have difficulty making friends, you'll have difficulty seducing a potential mate, you'll get divorced later on due to inability to manage arguments and fights and conflicts.

Families have been getting smaller - first people stopped living with close to their relatives, then people stopped living with their parents and siblings, and now people begin to stop living with their husbands or wives, and children without at least one of their parents, and parents having fewer siblings in general.

People are receiving less practical experience in interacting socially as they are growing up. You either fit in at school and do well, or you don't and isolate yourself and fall behind.

We have a mess at university campuses. We have a mess in tech companies. We have growing numbers of men who are 'losers'. We have growing numbers of women who can't get married if they want to. We have growing instances of inappropriate behaviour at work. Men and women resorting to electronic means to communicate, and avoiding face-to-face interaction, even among friends. Parents sent to nursing homes, pension spending growing and unsustainable. People growing up with little to no spiritual values besides materialism. etc, etc.

I think all of these stem from smaller families, causing less exposure to social interaction with others of the same age as well as with the older generation, resulting in less wisdom passed down, and decreased social ability of people growing up.

And it's only going to continue to get worse.

Though maybe people getting poor and being forced to stay with their parents for long might just be where the second derivative is beginning to turn.

<comment><USER24> Because there was less rape when there were larger family. Right...

<comment><USER23> Dude. From the article:

 _I had a boss once who knew he was sexist (also homophobic and transphobic), but was trying to get over it. He said some incredibly dumb things, like offering to have a company meeting at a strip club. He genuinely had bizarre concepts of what's appropriate and inappropriate behavior. He was ashamed of this and really trying to improve. Listening to him quote the sexual harassment seminars was the saddest bit: on one hand he was really trying, but on the other, everything he was quoting made absolutely no sense. I frequently found him putting so much effort in where it didn't really matter, like obsessively counting how many times he had asked a man vs a woman to carry heavy equipment. He always seemed overloaded with things to remember about "not being sexist" and afraid to get something wrong. It seemed almost heartless to risk getting him in trouble.

On the whole, however, I don't hold against him all the inappropriate things he did. The best I could do was kindly remind my boss when something made me uncomfortable, but he always looked panicked when I did. I didn't want to get him in trouble; in fact, half of my comments to him started with phrases like "you know people are going to take it the wrong way if they hear you saying that." I wish my male peers had helped him more in this regard. I feel they could have done it without making my boss feel like he was being directly threatened with a huge HR complaint. It's a real shame for our tech culture that there is no way to get somebody tutored about what is and isn't appropriate without also landing them in deep trouble._

And yes I think with a larger family you're less likely to have men thinking its OK to corner a woman in office, because they'll have better upbringing. If you want to change culture the best chance you have is the educate your children because of all people they will be most receptive of your perspective.

Thanks for the snark anyway, I deserved it because I see family as a good thing to have, and as such I'm a rapist. And thanks for derailing the points OP and I were making. I deserve to be hanged by the side of the road, by social activists like you (according to your profile).

<comment><USER24> You quoted a bit from the article that had nothing to do with family, and then instead of justifying your point, you just re-iterated it. Then you made up what you thought my opinion of you was. Like, get a grip.

You know what increases in large families? Chances of sibling sexual abuse. [http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111312p18.shtml](http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111312p18.shtml)

> social activists like you

You say it like it's a bad thing. :)

<comment><USER23> _You quoted a bit from the article that had nothing to do with family_

She suggested a phenomenon and I suggested a cause.

 _Because there was less rape when there were larger family. Right..._

Your sarcasm indicates you think there was more rape in larger families, yet you claim our culture have become a rape culture.

If there hasn't been more rape, then it's just culture, or there is more rape nowawdays, and nowadays there are small families, and there would have been less rape when there used to be bigger ones.

Anywhere you have men and women together there's always a chance of hetero- sexual abuse, you suggest smaller families will reduce chance of sexual abuse, but why not suggest female only offices to reduce chance of work place abuse? Of course that's not the right thing to do, and the right thing to do is to educate men not to sexual abuse in the first place. How are you going to get people to educate their children, if their children spend all day with a 14 year old babysitter watching tv (and you know, porn) while their parents both work, and never visit their aunts, uncles and grandparents?

It's getting to be a long discussion and I'd like to hear more logical and well-argued points than snark and rhetoric from your perspective, if you can leave your email or have a website or something we can continue this discussion there. Maybe you're on mobile, that's why I'm unconvinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> #2 of the recommendations at the end (correction without punishment when appropriate) is an excellent point that I've rarely/never seen discussed in articles like this. It reminds me of a past job where a friend of mine silently put up with (relatively low-level) harassment because she didn't want to get the guy pilloried.

I think one confounding issue with sexism in tech is that companies find it so uncomfortable to talk about that they shy away from real analysis - <USER2> whatever policy comes to mind without seriously examining what the root cause was and whether they're addressing it.

The only solution is cogent discussion, like this excellent article.

</comment><comment><USER26> I can't help but think this is a problem in america and not a problem in tech. Over here (UK) I've never seen or heard of anything like this.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and I've just never seen it.

Either way, it's not on and it needs to stop

<comment><USER27> I'd like to say having worked in both Canada and New Zealand over 18 odd years now and I've never seen anything like this also. I read these articles and I'm simply stunned. I keep wondering what the heck is going on in companies/cultures/environments for these things to happen.

Every time I read an article along these lines I feel even more grateful to work in environments where there haven't been glass ceilings, hiring is on merit and the workplaces are incredibly diverse.

<comment><USER10> Other people have made this comment but I'll repeat it. Have you ever talked about this with female colleagues? It's scary what they tell you. I would say 95% of males get through their entire working career without ever feeling sexually uncomfortable or worse from another colleague at least once. I'd say about 10% of females would say that was true. Seriously, go talk with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't know what it's like to be raped or sexually harassed, but I am frequently amused at how skeptics think it's so cut-and-dry to just report the issue. This came up in Kelly Ellis's public revelation yesterday that she had been sexually harassed at Google.

The Twitter thread starts here:

[https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/574092972624490497](https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/574092972624490497)

The following is Ellis's statement, and then one of her more earnest "Oh really?" critics:

Ellis: _Rod Chavez is an engineering director at Google, he sexually harassed me, Google did nothing about it. Reprimanded me instead of him_

Twitter user: _That 's a very serious allegation. Hope you have evidence to back it up._

Ellis: _Lol already dudes going, "where's the proof?" Do you expect women to wear wires whenever they're sexually harassed? Trust women._

Twitter user: _there is a difference between questioning and accusations. I 'm not calling her liar. Just requesting evidence...In general, to have been a victim of a crime, and not seeing the offender be punished must be awful. But there is a reason...we have the right to a fair trial. We all know the consequences of letting random people on the Internet serve justice._

Again, I've never been raped. But the last time I made a criminal complaint, it was when I was robbed of my phone at gunpoint a few years ago in New York. Granted, I acted quite foolishly...not having my phone, and not having used a payphone in years...My first instinct was to continue heading home, which was about 6 to 7 blocks away, so that I could lookup the nearest police station and walk over there...not realizing I could dial 911 anywhere, or at least go into the nearest storefront. So that bizarre behavior led to me getting quite the grilling from the first detective to respond, who outright accused me of making up the story because I didn't want to admit that I had a rough night with a hooker who robbed me of my belongings (apparently it's weird for a man to walk alone through Greeenwich Village at night)?

Anyway, long story short, no big deal. I knew I had plenty of evidence that this happened to me, including having tracking software on my (Android) phone...and while that was my first time being a victim of a violent crime, I've had enough experience with cops (being a former cops reporter) to understand where the skepticism was coming from, and also, to know that it was pretty tame compared to what other victims get. That said, if that was the treatment that _I_ got, for an extremely cut-and-dry kind of crime (not too many debates over what constitutes armed robbery)...can you imagine the process that a rape victim has to go through? Or in the case of Ellis, someone who experienced non-criminal sexual harassment? Reporting a crime or a violation isn't as simple as hitting a button, it always consists of a non- trivial process (for me, besides the 4 hours of waiting for and then talking to the detective on the night of the incident, I missed a couple days of work to go to the station, fill out paperwork, do more interviews, etc).

To use the parlance of today's times, there's considerable "friction" in reporting an incident, regardless of the complexity of the issue. Whatever your stance on "is sexual harassment a prevalent problem or not?", at least recognize that the reporting of such a problem is easier to think about than to actually _do_.

edit:

To elaborate a little more...in my situation, the choice to report a crime was pretty obvious: I want my phone back, and also, the robber is obviously in the wrong. Quite frankly, I don't think I would've gone to the cops had it been a midnight phone-snatching (it's New York after all)...but since the robber escalated it by introducing a weapon, can't really just ignore the incident.

From my understanding, a rape or harassment victim does not have even remotely such an easy decision. Besides the emotional trauma, there's a huge amount of plain confusion -- rape/harassment is almost always perpetrated by someone who knows the victim, and sometimes someone the victim considered to be a friend. If a friend randomly punches me and takes my phone, after the "WTF was that about?" that I'd go through...I'm not even sure I could just go straight to the cops...Maybe my friend was drunk? Or pulling an elaborate prank? I'd at least want to call him (or email him, since he has my phone). And I guarantee that unless the punch caused serious injury to me, the cops are going to say, "WTF is wrong with you and your friend?", not immediately put out an all- points-bulletin to arrest my friend. And even if he's clearly in the wrong, think about all awkwardness in your social network that comes when the cops do arrive and arrest your friend...and we're not even at the indictment phase yet.

So again, just making assumptions, but when the crime is as controversial and "he said/she said" as rape or harassment...the decision to make a report does not at all seem like an easy one.

<comment><USER29> The Ellis example is a good one, I think.

She went public with concrete names and bad things that happened to her while working at Google, regarding both an engineering manager Rod Chavez, and a VP, Vic Gondotra. While there were a few of the expected "where's the proof" people on Twitter, as Kelly said, the large majority of responses she got were supportive, from lots of men and women.

In addition, in the google+ thread, several people from inside Google expressed shock (they only heard about it now, it wasn't common knowledge across the company) and mentioned that a lot of noise is going on internally right now about this.

Gondotra isn't still with Google, but Chavez is. I would bet that won't be for long.

Overall, the responses internally at Google were horrible, back then. HR tried to save the company from liability, not help her. But when she went public now, the responses were good, and change might actually happen.

As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The article here is correct to say that it's scary to be a whistleblower, but Kelly Ellis shows it's possible to be brave, and that the industry and community will in fact react positively when you do.

<comment><USER30> > While there were a few of the expected "where's the proof" people on > Twitter, as Kelly said, the large majority of responses she got were > supportive, from lots of men and women.

You raise a good point, but the problem is that not all supportiveness is equal.

There are a lot of people who share their opinions when an incident like this goes public, and depending on what communities you happen to draw the attention of, the response may well be more positive than negative. But there's a much smaller number of people (like bosses and future bosses, for instance) whose response will have a real, tangible effect on your career and future.

If those few people happen to be an unlucky random sample -- like, say, the HN commenter who said about Kelly Ellis that "the only thing I have learnt from this and the Adria Richards nonsense is when I am hiring I will screen for radical feminism" \-- then the supportive comments from complete strangers don't mean much. And so it's understandable why someone would be reluctant to take that risk.

<comment><USER29> The reluctance is understandable. But we can't understate the positive: In that very google+ thread, more than one former colleague from Google said something to the effect of "I've always considered you someone to try to hire for my future startup, and I still do."

In other words, even if some wary bosses would see any whistleblowing as a risk factor, the fact is that the large majority of responses she got were positive. People believe her, and people strongly feel she got treated unfairly. She's also, according to many accounts, a talented engineer. Signs for her future employment are very positive.

She also mentioned herself that her current job at Medium is with a very supportive team. (edit: i misunderstood something here)

Once more, none of this is to diminish the understandable concerns with going public with allegations. But in the Ellis case, I think we see that the overall outcome can be quite positive. It's good for the whistleblower, it's good for the tech industry as a whole, it's really just bad only for the small amount of bad people we need to get rid of.

<comment><USER18> I don't work at Medium. I'm taking some time between work right now. I don't think I could have written this if I had a job with a conventional employer. No matter how great my employer is, if the post got popular, it would be pretty irresponsible and could hurt my employer. I'd at least talk it over with my coworkers and have addressed it directly in the article.

<comment><USER29> Oh - sorry! I must have misread something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "I have been raped by a colleague — not just once, but several times over months."

As much as I want to read this as hyperbole it doesn't look like that's the case. I guess it may be because I consider myself a level-headed person, and have (to the best of my knowledge) never even interacted with someone that vicious.

A person like that doesn't deserve just to be reprimanded. They should be in jail.

</comment><comment><USER32> I cannot fathom how it is possible to get raped by a co-worker several times. This is obviously a sore point socially so I'll emphasize here that that's what I assume has happened _because she wrote so_. I'm just curious about how that could, in reality, happen?

I can think of a few cases where rape could plausibly happen in a work setting but I can't see how they could continue:

1) violent rape using physical force: there will be fighting back, injuries, scars, and blood from the assault, and the victim goes to file a report to the police, and gets to a doctor to be examined and her (his?) intimate cavities analyzed for the rapist DNA. These facts can be verified quite easily if the rapist is known.

2) a dinner, for example, at a work trip together with the co-worker went one step too far: depending on what actually happened this could translate back to 1) or fall in the grey area in which case the bare minimum that can be done is to not spend time with said co-worker alone again in non-public places.

A majority of rapes fall into domestic relationships, dating gone wrong, passing out in wrong company after too much alcohol, or other circumstances projected on an established or a potential sexual relationship, and these might traditionally be the cases where women generally don't report them as rapes for one reason or another. Maybe she is loyal to her abusing husband. Or maybe she thinks she gave wrong signals at the end of the date.

But work relations do not by default imply sexual relations: there's no pretense that could escalate in a horribly wrong way. This sounds stupid but, for example, you can't go to too many meetings and let someone interpret that as a "yes". So I'm just wondering that barring 1), the violent assault, how does this happen?

</comment><comment><USER33> > he frequently came out with scary-harsh messages that had little relation to > reality, like being worried about who he asked to help carry heavy equipment

That's "scary-harsh?"

Fact: women are not as strong as men. It's not even a question.

Go look at weightlifting records, if you don't believe that. Even elite, lifelong female powerlifters max out at weights that a man in the same weight class can throw up for reps with just a moderate amount of training.

Disclaimer: I believe everything else cited in the article is absolutely horrible, but this particular thing is not.

<comment><USER34> > Even elite, lifelong female powerlifters max out at weights that a man in > the same weight class can throw up for reps with just a moderate amount of > training.

That's not a true statement. A quick look at the IPF female world records shows an unequipped lifter putting up a 230 kg squat at 107 kg body weight. That would be considered almost an elite lift for a male of the same weight class, which requires far more than "moderate" training.

Regardless, the main point of your post holds true.

<comment><USER35> Massively offtopic, but powerlifting records ([http://www.usapowerlifting.com/records/national- championship...](http://www.usapowerlifting.com/records/national-championship- records/)) support that yes, elite female powerlifters top out at what would be considered a rep weight for a male lifter in the same weight class.

<comment><USER34> I'm not arguing that males aren't stronger than females in the same weight class. I'm saying an untrained male can't receive moderate training and suddenly massively out lift elite female powerlifers in the same weight class.

<comment><USER35> Oh, certainly. To address the original post, though, the numbers that the top- tier gals are putting up are in the same league as male lifters with 2-3 years of training, which sounds fairly moderate to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The title with punctuation:

 _Sexism in Tech: Don't Ask Me Unless You're Ready To Call Somebody a Whistleblower_

I found it intersting, but there is a part I couldn't really understand.

Does she define rape as an aggretion and not just grey area sex? Because as I understand it it would fall under criminal charges, not 'sexism', most of the time there would be physical/tangible proofs attached to it, and the police arresting a co-worker wouldn't be whistleblowing, just basic law inforcement.

<comment><USER37> It's dangerous to go down the path of talking about "real rape", which is kinda where you seem to be going with this.

Most rape is not "real rape" according to the rapist. Most rape is date rape; the rapist finds a target who is too intoxicated to meaningfully consent (and wouldn't consent when sober), or the rapist is in a position of power over their target (such as a manager with an employee), or they simply don't take "no" for an answer and their target feels they would be in more danger from fighting than from submitting.

Our justice system is not helpful to most rape victims, because it is not "real rape"; with fighting, injuries, blood, bruises, etc. And, most rape victims choose not to report the crime because it would further harm them to go through the process of being grilled by police and forced to relive the experience for an audience of likely unsympathetic or even overtly hostile people (this is not to say all police officers are unsympathetic or hostile to rape reports, but the fear that they will be is real and valid).

 _" most of the time there would be physical/tangible proofs attached to it"_

Most of the time it is a "he said, she said" situation, and any proof can be interpreted as consensual sex, depending on the person hearing the story.

<comment><USER38> I honestly had a similar question in mind. The phrases "raped by a colleague — not just once, but several times over months" and "female colleagues told me later that he raped some of them, and in much the same way my attacker had raped me." got me confused. Rape is defined as "unlawful sexual intercourse", is there a movement towards broadening that definition to encompass other kinds of sexual assault? Or am I being too naive?

<comment><USER37> _" is there a movement towards broadening that definition to encompass any kind of sexual assault?"_

Not that I'm aware of (and I'm relatively familiar with the feminist activist community and current feminist writing). I read it to mean she was raped by a colleague, not that she was sexually assaulted by a colleague, though either would be inexcusable and _should_ be subject to the person being fired. But, again, in a workplace that is hostile to women, dismissive of women's words, and in which the person doing the raping or sexual assaulting or harassing is in a position of power over the women being raped, assaulted, or harassed, it can go on for a long time before someone is willing to throw away their career to make a public accusation, which is _exactly_ what this article is about and why I think it's valuable.

There are, clearly, a lot of men in our industry who have literally _no idea_ that this stuff is happening. Zero awareness to the point their instinctive response is to deny that it is true, or to attempt to redefine the words to mean something more palatable.

So, let me be clear: You've read an article about someone's experience in the workplace as a woman, and you're first response is effectively to say, "This cannot be true."

The author of this article is not the only woman to discuss these issues or to experience this kind of behavior in the workplace, particularly in tech though it is true in many industries. As long as the response of men in this industry is to read these experiences and immediately deny the words and counter-accuse the woman of lying, exaggerating, or "being dramatic", the problems will never go away.

<comment><USER38> I asked a honest question and did not accuse the author of lying. I really can't get my mind around such violence being common in the workplace without the attackers suffering any consequences. I'm astonished.

<comment><USER37> Apologies for misinterpreting your intentions. In my experience, denial is a very common response from men when faced with this kind of story. It is disappointingly common among men in tech, in particular.

<comment><USER39> And the accusations are equally predictable and disappointing.

Maybe some (or many) those "disappointingly common" cases aren't quite the clear-cut misogyny but more similar to what you ran into in this thread?

<comment><USER37> This conversation has a few misunderstandings (all of which, I think, have been resolved through polite clarification) and a number of clear examples of misogyny, which are more difficult to resolve through mere clarification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This girl is lying, the story doesn't make sense and everybody here are too nice to point it out so they try with this typical programmer passive nice way to point out how the story doesn't add up and how nobody actually faced this kind of environment anywhere.

Guys, have some balls, call bullshit when it's due. The tech industry is not more sexist than any other industry, the opposite. I have seen much more mischief in one coked up night among traders than my whole career in tech. And you know what, girls love those people and want to work with them or do other things with them, because they don't apologise and they call girls on their bullshit. That's why you will see more women in finance or law than in tech.

It's also easier and you don't have to spend your days and night secluded in front of a monitor. It is all excuses by women who don't want to put the time, effort and social price that it takes to become a good software developer. The women who do it right and i have worked with some during the years, don't complain about rape, they write great code and everybody respect them for that.

<comment><USER18> What evidence do you have that the tech industry is less sexist than other places? Are you arguing that women like working with sexist people through your finance experience? Are you arguing that women who talk about rape don't have the respect of their peers and must be bad coders? I don't understand any of what you said.

<comment><USER40> What evidence you got that it is more sexist?

Girls don't like sexist people, they like confident people and I have learned it from life.

As for the last claim, I don't know how you read it from my comment.

<comment><USER18> I have no evidence it is more sexist than anywhere else. I only said it was a problem and that it needs solving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I don't want to openly doubt rape, but jesus, several times over several months? Call the police, or at least avoid a situation if possible. Clearly she is willing to talk about it, so where's the police report?

Also, every time I read one of these articles I cringe. There's a big movement to "include women in tech", but it's interesting to note that (in my experience) there is a large group (bordering on majority) of women in tech that are just as disgusted by these articles.

My girlfriend finds it particularly offensive, her comments usually being something along the lines of: "If women want to be treated as equals, they should act like equals, not complain." Point being, she finds these articles counter productive, and most of the women whinny. She thinks a lot of the people in tech can be weird, and this can lead to people believing it there sexism, when in actuality it is just awkward behavior.

Finally, and my personal opinion, no one supports rape, sexual harassment or racism, and _any_ subconscious bias is pretty hard to discern. It would be better to involve the authorities if you feel you are being rapped or harassed. From my personal point of view I have seen SO many women complain about being harassed or put down, and the fact is they may have, but I have never seen it. I work regularly with women in my jobs and I've never seen or had a problem. Some are bad team members and some are good. They are usually treated by skill level from my experience, and I have seen this taken as sexism more than once.

Other places are different (apparently) and if that's the case, punish the crap out of the people who harass women/race.

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, stop putting me in a group with these people. I'm calling bullshit on not just this article, but half these articles. There is definitely less women in tech, and nothing is inherently wrong with that. If there's something I can do to make it more inclusive, I will. However, please OP and anyone reading this, come at it with an open mind. Just because women aren't in tech does not imply something is wrong. Women and men are different, it's okay as long as it is not a sexist barrier. Just not having a lot of women does not mean there is that barrier.

Every situation is different, and you may have indeed been wronged (and I can sympathize), but stop generalizing. It's borderline sexism to claim "everyone in tech is sexist against women," we all know males have to watch themselves and be careful. That's probably why the OP was offered money, people are so scared of being called sexist, because it's so blown out of proportion. Handle it like everything else, with a clear mind.

If we are going to talk about sexism, give me the facts, give me the barrier, and give me a way I can fix it besides just being "subconsciously and uncontrollably bias." If that can't be done, then there probably isn't justification to discuss the concerns (yet).

<comment><USER19> See? This is what I mean. I'm sure the parent poster is generally a nice person, but while they make what I'm certain they believe is an innocent comment, they claim a) women are less suited for technical careers (which has no basis in fact and is sexist as hell), b) suggest that women should "not complain" because by complaining they only cause men to reject them even more, but then c) on the flip-side say that if a woman is being harassed or raped they should call the police (which is certainly going to end their career if even talking about it is a no-no), and finally d) if there is a problem, I have nothing to do with it and should have no responsibility for it (which has all sorts of negative historical connotations).

All of these statements are questionable but were presumably made in good faith, by what I assume to be a reasonable person. That's the curious thing about all of this.

<comment><USER41> Wow, well... to be honest I have no idea where you are coming from:

> women are less suited for technical careers (which has no basis in fact and > is sexist as hell)

a) All I claimed was that it isn't inherently bad to have less women. It could be due to sexism, a distaste for sitting in front of a computer all day, bad food or something else. My point is each situation should be based on it's own merit, and not generalized. I am sick of being called sexist if I don't think everyone is sexist.

> suggest that women should "not complain" because by complaining they only > cause men to reject them even more, but then

b) My claim is that a complaint should have merit, be taken care of immediately. I'm sick of posts like this, where the OP is claiming something happened years later, without proof or taking action. More over, I am claiming that there are a large group of men and women who believe it is easier to prove equality, as opposed to articles which create a further divide (by claiming everyone's a sexist).

Further sick of being criticized for sharing an alternative view, and immediately called a sexist.

> on the flip-side say that if a woman is being harassed or raped they should > call the police (which is certainly going to end their career if even > talking about it is a no-no),

c) I hope you are joking. It wont end their career, it's just like every other job in the world. If your boss rapes you or co-worker THEY get in trouble. Trust me, the police aren't in this tech sexism too. They only care that someone was hurt. No employer would be like, "oh hey, I see you were sexually assaulted by your last boss..." No, not going to happen, this is fear mongering, and is just a downright distasteful argument. Not one that should be an actual concern.

> if there is a problem, I have nothing to do with it and should have no > responsibility for it (which has all sorts of negative historical > connotations).

d) Where the hell did you read this? I made the claim that I need evidence, proof, something I can see and fix. If I have no direction what can I do? I have rarely heard clear arguments about sexism and the issues. It is always like the OP, just a bunch of claims without a way I (or anyone) could help.

You say:

> All of these statements are questionable but were presumably made in good > faith, by what I assume to be a reasonable person. That's the curious thing > about all of this.

You may disagree with my statements, but your statements are even more curious. It is as if you didn't read what I wrote and just decided to call me a sexist for having an alternative view point. Especially, your "a" point:

No where did I claim:

> women are less suited for technical career

Stop putting words in my mouth, stop calling me a sexist. The tech world isn't out to get women, just make cool stuff and money. If anything, we are scared of being called sexist and annoyed with these constant comments.

<comment><USER42>
       Where do these people live/work where going to the police and reporting an assault/rape or whatever is going to end there career? I'm starting to think that all these stories about sexism against women in tech is some sort of ploy to convince women to not get into the industry. But then I realize that the people spreading this nonsense are the same people who are crying out that there is not enough women in tech and we should do something about it.. It just makes no sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> U.N. Finds 'Alarmingly High' Levels of Violence Against Women - About 35 percent of women worldwide — more than one in three — said they had experienced violence in their lifetime, whether physical, sexual, or both, the report finds. One in 10 girls under the age of 18 was forced to have sex, it says.

</comment><comment><USER44> I didn't read the whole article on my first read, and missed the most important parts, which are "What can I do?". So I'm going to throw HN etiquette to the wind, and just quote it verbatim.

        > What needs to change is three-fold.
        >
        > The first thing needed is pretty simple: In all organizations, demand that there
        > exists a code of conduct and clear methodto report misconduct. Imagine right
        > now that you have just witnessed something inappropriate in your workplace, at
        > a conference or in a community. Do you have a place you could report it? Do you
        > trust that it would be handled properly, or would they just try to avoid
        > liability? Do you believe you would personally suffer for making such a report?
        > If you're not comfortable with any of those answers, you have work to do.
        > Reconsider what systems have been created, and fight for ones that treat this
        > like a whistleblowing issue, not something to be "kept under control."
        >
        > Second, while there will always be truly malicious people, most people are just
        > don't realize the harm of their action. There needs to be correction without
        > punishment for people who are not malicious. With such a mechanism in place,
        > people who see sexism in action can help fix it. At the same time, it allows
        > those who are doing things wrong to learn in a safe environment. For more about
        > this approach, check out some of the great articles about call-in culture. The
        > goal is simple here: help your well-intentioned friends figure out they are
        > hurting people without making it seem like a threat or shaming. It's easiest for
        > you if you aren't the one being wronged. This step is important because
        > whistleblowers need allies, and we need people to not be afraid of announcing
        > they are allies. This means two things: One, that we be welcoming and patient
        > with those striving to be better, and two, that our allies (and those of us
        > trying to lead the charge) be committed to self-improvement whenever the
        > opportunity presents.
        >
        > Third, and most important, is making a serious personal commitment to solving
        > this. You're tired of hearing about this "women in tech" stuff, and we're tired
        > of living it, but there are some big issues here, and we're not going to solve
        > them by pretending they don't exist because we're bored or afraid of them. We
        > need serious discussions, and we have to have educated opinions about what's
        > wrong and how to fix it. We need to mull these ideas around until we come to
        > some combination of hard data and cultural consensus before we can get
        > meaningful change.
        >
        > Making a personal commitment means forming an opinion on more than just the
        > broad concepts. It also requires learning about specific instances of
        > harassment. Spend enough time reading material from both sides to develop a
        > well-informed opinion, or be honest about not knowing enough. Don't defend an
        > opinion that isn't well thought through. Then, use that opinion to make sure
        > whistleblowing is taken seriously. When we fail to engage whistleblowing in our
        > own lives or in institutions we deal with, we're hanging the whistleblowers out
        > to dry. At best, we allow them to be marked as "liabilities"; at worst, we leave
        > them to suffer from enemies we don't care to protect them against.
        >
        > For clarity, I'm going to now state my three specific requests:
        >
        > 1. Make sure the systems to handle malicious abuses of power against women have
        > teeth, and that they seek to let the disenfranchised blow the whistle, rather
        > than simply "keeping stuff under control."
        >
        > 2. Help your well-intentioned peers who are still making mistakes do better
        > without threatening them or humiliating them.
        >
        > 3. Make a public commitment to taking potential whistleblowers seriously. Commit
        > to educating yourself, to having an opinion, and, if you believe the
        > whistleblower's claims might have merit, to helping. Live up to that commitment.
        >

</comment><comment><USER45> > Realistically, only bad things happen to the whistleblower. So when someone > tries to discredit one, ask yourself — what could the whistleblower's motive > possibly be? They're knowingly ruining their own lives.

Whistle blowers become folk heroes to a lot of people. No one cared what Edward Snowden, the NSA analyst had to say. Everyone cares what Edward Snowden, the whistleblower has to say. If you want that kind of popularity and respect, be a whistleblower. I'm by no means saying that's the motivation for all whistleblowers, but I'd be dumbfounded if it wasn't the motivation for some, and separating the two is frequently difficult.

</comment><comment><USER46> [http://www.reddit.com/user/bluehrair](http://www.reddit.com/user/bluehrair) <\- that's her reddit account

</comment><comment><USER47> This is a sad article. There used to exist guidelines to beahvior, one being "don't fish off the company dock". Following that would eliminate almost all of the sexual harassment BS.

</comment><comment><USER48> Every time an article like this gets posted, ignorant commenters pretty much prove the thesis of the article.

So far I have learned from HN commenters:

\- a hetero male would never give a BJ to a superior male no matter what therefore it is hard to understand why a woman would feel coerced into do so.

\- It is not possible/credible for a woman to be raped multiple times by a coworker.

\- It is the clearly the woman's fault for being raped multiple times because she should've reported it the first time and/or known how to avoid her rapist in the future

\- Women calling out sexual harassers in tech will hurt the cause of getting more women in tech, therefore they should stop

\- "You can't simply cry abuse and magically learn data structures and algorithms. You can't tweet or sue (well, suing require hard evidence) your way to gainful employment as an engineer. You also don't need social support to study programming, it's a hobby you can master regardless of what you look like. How did you manage"

Disappointing.

<comment><USER49> Writing whiny articles is counterproductive. A rapist is not going to read it and think - "Uh oh, turns our rape is bad, I should stop".

If there's some abuse/assault/rape, you deal with it like in any other field - you call the police, and then you press charges, and then you sue. It's the only thing that really stops the abusers/rapists.

<comment><USER18> Your argument is that writing an article doesn't stop rape. I find it true that writing an article won't fix my rape seeing as writing an article is not magic a time machine. However, I find it hard to believe that writing an article would not help reduce rape. Writing this article helps people understand rape is common and hopefully make people be more likely to believe the next person who comes forward and is ready to press charges.

How is writing an article counterproductive though? What am I hurting?

<comment><USER49> Rape is actually not common at all. 26-27 per 100,000 population. So one in 3700 - 3840 people get raped. 91% of them are women.

And it's steadily declining.

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

Again, how does complaining about rape stop a rapist?

<comment><USER18> Your numbers seem to be of police-recorded offenses. Many studies show that only a very small number of rapes are reported. I cited a study where 4% of men self-identified as rapists for scientific study. Half of those men were repeat offenders, and averaged 5.8 victims.

Complaining about rape doesn't stop people who already rape. I never made that argument. You argued that complaining about rape makes the situation in the world worse, and I was asking what your reasoning was for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm really sad this got downvoted off the front page (this article is only one hour old with 9 points, things 3 hours old with 9 points are still on the page). It's cool if not everybody is interested in talking about this, but I feel like the entire point of this article was that making whistle-blowers harder to hear is not good for society.

<comment><USER50> It didn't get downvoted; medium.com is in a class of websites that get mildly penalized by default pending moderator review. Not a great solution, but the alternative is reams of blogspam and fluff making the front page just because so much of it gets posted. We remove the penalty from solid articles (and typically reset the clock on them to restore a fair time window for upvotes), but it sometimes takes a while before that happens.

In the long run we intend to have the community do most of this, but finding and implementing the right mechanisms for that is a lengthy process.

<comment><USER18> I can't tell you how relieved I am to hear that. Thanks for telling me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> You run the risk when trying to say two issues, which many people consider separate, are related that you will just battle harden the opposing side. This is not a healthy article for discussion on either issue.</comment>


The techlash against Amazon, Facebook and Google, and what they can do - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/01/20/the-techlash-against-amazon-facebook-and-google-and-what-they-can-do <comment><USER2> You know writing has missed the mark when the only discussion is around the literary conceit.

Also let's please not start saying "techlash".

<comment><USER3> Honestly the whole concept seems like a media push by vested interests even considering my own bubbles and biases. I have encountered little of it from actual commenters - not even in areas where astroturfing and axe grinding is rampant. Anti-Facebook people usually just say delete your Facebook account not trust bust it. Anti-Amazon usually object to warehouse conditions and complain of counterfit products. Small business owners use it to project their reach. I have purchased comics from Amazon before and it was shipped directly from a neighboring state's comic book shop for one.

The concept of splitting is inane really - what would make a good division?

The selective condemnation is also highly suspicious - Comcast is one of the most hated companies and yet they don't talk about splitting them up or their defacto actual monopolies?

<comment><USER4> Journalism would be better off not taking liberties just so they can push their PoV.

Yes, there may be reasons to regulate some aspects of tech, and we can have discussions about the merits of breaking companies up.

However, the tendency to gang up and form public opinion on the public's behalf is concerning and rightfully leads to suspicion on the media, their intentions and allegiance (truth, narrative, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good job to Larry Page for side stepping and putting Sundar under the spotlight.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://archive.st/3mp8](https://archive.st/3mp8)

<comment><USER6> Tangental, but the mobile experience is terrible: [https://i.imgur.com/yW4VZNV.png](https://i.imgur.com/yW4VZNV.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://archive.fo/rjUB3](http://archive.fo/rjUB3)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Note that this is from January.

</comment><comment><USER8> > what they can do

I do find the presumptiousness of this type of clickbaity headline amusing, as if those three utter behemoths don't likely have vast amounts of brainpower deployed at corporate strategy already!

</comment><comment><USER9> Do you think the CC'd recipients actually email each other or participate in elite email chains like this?

That'd be something else.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure those email addresses are real. This seems more like a PR piece for the consulting company.

But they so write each other from time to time, at least I remember something along those lines from the no-poaching emails that surfaced in a lawsuit about agreed salary caps (My memory might be corrupted here, I'm not sure about it)

<comment><USER11> The address are not real, just like the email exchange. I think the consulting company is fake as well; the email format is just a stylistic choice to dress up the article in a different way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't that article just corporate propaganda?

<comment><USER13> Not, if you think it is suggesting giants to slow down a little.

<comment><USER12> Ah right, thanks for pointing that out. For some reason I read it as several emails sent from tech giants addressing the public concerns about themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ehh, I'm not sure if I liked this piece that much. I think it's grossly oversimplifying the issues and presenting the solution as "do this, not that, and everything will be ok". Also:

> Tim Cook <firstname.lastname@example.com>

That's not his real email.

<comment><USER14> It's a literary conceit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceit) ergo fictional addresses have been used, and madey-uppy corporate name referencing key idea from economist Adam Smith.

edit: Well, I liked it. I don't think it grossly oversimplified the issues.

Clearly big tech operates monopolies. Probably Google/Alphabet should never have been allowed top buy DoubleClick. Facebook definitely should not have been allowed to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. Microsoft _still_ has a desktop monopoly. As the article says Amazon controls 40% of online commerce (in the US). Imagine controlling 40% of bricks and mortar trade. The mind boggles. Apple has competition in every area _but_ they lock their users in to their ecosystem in a way that is not seen in other markets. Imagine if you bought a car and then you had to keep buying cars from that manufacturer because switching brands was too much of a hassle. Or banks. Or whatever. Netflix has competition so they're fine.

It's not a crime to have huge valuations. It should make people sit up and take notice. I don't think FAAAM will reform themselves. If it wasn't for open source and Linux things would be way way worse. If the regulators don't do their job it'll be up to people like us to build open source products to neuter these companies. Probably we should be doing that anyway.

<comment><USER15> lots of people do exactly that do. brand loyalty has some element of perception of difficulty in switching built in. you buy an iPhone coz you think finding all the apps you use will be too difficult. you buy a Toyota coz you think buying anything else would be a waste of money. you stick with a bank coz the thought of re-doing the documentation and talking to customer care is repulsive

companies spend a lot of time and money on enforcing that perception sometimes even acquiring other companies to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The irony about all of this is that you can live a perfectly normal life without Amazon, Facebook or Google these days. We sat around and watched in fascination and then horror as these companies became the "BAADD" companies they are today. Why does anyone expect them to self regulate? When you grow a business to this size, you not only learn a lot about your product and business but you also learn a lot about manhandling DC. As long as lobbying is a thing (FB has spent around $7 million this year alone), this is the shit sandwich we're all going to be eating for awhile.

<comment><USER17> >The irony about all of this is that you can live a perfectly normal life without Amazon, Facebook or Google these days.

What is considered 'Normal'. If I want users to find my website, they use google.

If I want to buy all of my components for a project and get them in 2 days, I use Amazon.

I suppose these are avoidable, I'd lose about 200 users a day + use digikey and spend more on 2 day shipping...

To be competitive I need to use these services.

I cant say the same about Facebook, Apple, and Netflix. I dont use those services.</comment></comment>


Microsoft Now Has a Usable Dark Theme for File Explorer in Windows 10 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-now-has-a-usable-dark-theme-for-file-explorer-in-windows-10/ <comment><USER2> Bah. I hate Microsoft for taking away color customization in windows. I'm not colorblind.</comment>


New version of the Color app released; adds video sharing (with out audio) - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2011/12/06/new-version-of-the-color-app-is-available-for-download/?awesm=tnw.to_1C7Pj&utm_campaign=social%20media&utm_medium=Spreadus&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content=New%20version%20of%20the%20Color%20app%20is%20available%20for%20download

<comment><USER2> Once again I don't get it... oh well. I'm sure this is going to be hot with a select group of hipsters.</comment>


When Destructive Behavior Makes Biological Sense - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/31/stress/when-destructive-behavior-makes-biological-sense <comment><USER2> Long article but I'll boil it down to a poker analogy:

If you're short stacked, you have to take some chances.

Biology, economics, and just about any multiplayer game has mathematical underpinnings that call on the marginal player to take bigger risks than the average or wealthy.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a pretty insightful article. Summary:

There are two models of mammal reproduction strategies (fast and slow). The fast model are adopted when there's little control over a dangerous environment. Rabbits, who breed fast/frequently and die young, are examples. The slow model is adapted when the environment is secure. Elephants, who breed infrequently, are examples. People who grow up in dangerous environments (unstable/abusive) breed fast (ie teen pregnancies). They also tend to choose short term rewards over long term. The mentality of people in the fast model can be unlearned (ie 50 Cent).</comment>


The Strangest FOIA Redactions - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2019/03/10/redacted.html <comment><USER3> I've filed over 1,600 FOI requests for commercial ratepayer data in the UK over the last 4 years, and I've seen some truly pathetic reasons for rejection of my requests. The worst are the ones claiming that such data would cause terrorism.

</comment><comment><USER4> I filed a FOI request to the UK Ministry of Defence for a classified report in my field. About a month later they gave me a copy. The only redactions were names of various researchers, including the names of the authors of the report that I requested. The odd part was that I already knew the authors' names and gave them in the request in the first place. Must have been some policy that is followed regardless of whether it makes sense.

<comment><USER5> What if you knew the names of some of them but took a guess at the rest? Including the names would confirm your guess.

<comment><USER6> Good point, the same way if someone phones you out of the blue and asks you to confirm your name and date of birth (or other personally identifiable information), you don't tell them anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was amazed at how quickly they processed my FOIA requests. Asked customs for my travel so I could match up some dates on my heavily stamped passport. Within a month or so, they sent me a decade of travel all cleanly printed out. I'd already sent out the guestimate which is what inspired the request - <USER2> it was nice to sync up what I thought it was to what they thought it was.

<comment><USER8> Not surprising. Searching travel record is what they do in daily operation (applying visa, border control, etc..).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The person who can make an amazing, open source search engine (like the Google Appliance) that can take in Exchange Servers, File Shares, and any other data source and turn around and be able to do full text search on the data would become very rich- or very well liked.

Some of the examples here show that even in the government, information is not really centrally cataloged or searchable. One hand doesn't know about the other. Maybe some of it is malice, but I have to think part of it is just not having the ability to search Email, File Shares, Sharepoint, et cetera quickly and easily.

<comment><USER10> Elasticsearch?

<comment><USER9> You need to add data to Elasticsearch for it to be useful. I wrote a search engine for Confluence using Elasticsearch- which is amazing, but you need to add components to get it functional.

I'm thinking a "index this site" or "Index this fileshare" and go.

<comment><USER10> Think you can write a blog post on general purpose indexing with Elasticsearch?

(Also, thoughts on Mayan EDMS?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Neat - one of my requests is listed!

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/foilies-2019#seattle](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/foilies-2019#seattle)</comment>


Show HN: Rebound – turn webhook requests into REST calls - <AUTHOR> https://reboundx.herokuapp.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I had built this a while back - will add more details on the site/page if there is interest.

When using webhooks, I was frustrated that you need to write some code to take the request, transform the parameters a bit, and then make a REST or a DB call. This provides a IFTTT like glue to turn those webhook calls into REST API calls.

</comment><comment><USER2> Any plans to open source the code?

<comment><USER3> I'll put it out early next week. It is a very basic rails app at the moment, and to avoid running background tasks, the endpoint exposed is a blocking controller. Email if you want me to notify you.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Rumin – Interactive database for your unified knowledge - <AUTHOR> https://getrumin.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> As a former PM, the end-to-end friction in the process of synthesizing knowledge for my team (and other stakeholders) really bothered me.

In particular, the core challenges were: collecting information from disparate sources, arranging my ideas, and articulating them both concisely and accurately.

Rumin provides a hypertext interface to flexibly edit the structure of your knowledge, and tools to streamline the capturing and sharing of information.

I have been having fun using this for sampling and remixing ideas in my personal life as well.

Been exploring use cases with different user groups, but wanted to release this early product to hear feedback from the HN community!

</comment><comment><USER2> So it seems like this is like Roam Research but for teams?</comment>


Is Facebook down? - <AUTHOR> I'm getting a lot of "Service unavailable" when trying to access it, and an extremely slow navigation if I am ever able to get in... <comment><USER2> Both Facebook and Instagram are down for me. I'm in Central Texas. Maybe we'll luck out and it will stay that way forever.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some sysadmin is worrying about keeping their job right now.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yaah down for a while, maybe maintenance break. But it's doing good now.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's back now. But everything did indeed grind to a halt for a few minutes.

</comment><comment><USER6> apparently it is down for maintenance hmm

</comment><comment><USER7> yees. :)</comment>


An open letter from bunnie, author of Hacking the Xbox (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nostarch.com/xboxfree

<comment><USER2> If you've never been involved in a serious lawsuit there are no words that can sufficiently describe how soul crushing it is. To feebly defend yourself against the mighty US government is unbearable. When the Feds tell lies in court what are you supposed to do, sue them? I'd laugh but all I can muster is a frail cry.

</comment><comment><USER3> What an admirable stand by the AI Lab, in spite of the typical shenanigans of legal. I hope we have the same fortitude to stand up to defend those we are responsible for.

</comment><comment><USER4> The worst part about universities is their tendency to claim IP rights on any ideas produced by a student, but deny responsibility for any ideas that might cause them any sort of inconvenience.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can we get (2013) added to the title?

</comment><comment><USER6> Hacking the Xbox should be required reading for CS students. It is a seminal work -- splendidly written, dense and accessible, and perhaps more enlightening of the work of computer "systems engineering" than any other book I've ever read.

</comment><comment><USER7> > I started rebuilding my life overseas

Doesn't Bunnie now live in Singapore, not exactly a place known for freedom and empathy for the common man? What does he mean rebuilding his life?

<comment><USER8> Parent is getting downvoted, but he/she makes a legitimate point. As someone who spent some time in Singapore, it is an awesome place, great food and people and completely beautiful. But they will hang your ass for an ounce of weed, cops can search you without a warrent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_\(Singapore\)), and cane you for graffitti. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay)

Parent was just pointing out the irony.

<comment><USER9> Yes, but Singapore doesn't prosecute you for reverse engineering. That's why he is there. Your point of irony is directed towards other acts that are not relevant to Bunnie's situation.

<comment><USER8> According to wikipedia the US is fairly permissive regarding reverse engineering hardware [1]: _In the United States even if an artifact or process is protected by trade secrets, reverse-engineering the artifact or process is often lawful as long as it has been legitimately obtained._

Bunnies protest is about what happened to Aaron which was a case about data theft, copyright and the draconian way the us government intended to prosecute and punish.

Singapore has similar copyright and antipiracy laws, and an even more authoritarian and unfair legal process. [2] _Human rights activists, foreign scholars and opposition party members have pointed out that members of the opposition parties often suffer "misfortunes" of various kinds, including arrest, sued into bankruptcy especially in defamatory lawsuits, and imprisonment, with the convictions and bankruptcy in turn barring the opposition candidates from standing in elections._

For the record, I love Bunnie, Singapore and the USA

[1]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#United_States)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore#Criticis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore#Criticism)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm beginning to think that mentioning a university is the same as mentioning race irrelevantly.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's interesting how one popular post about nearly anything, will prompt people dredge up all sorts of things from past.

I suppose today's it's all things Bunnie.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Might is right" pretty much sums up the global legal infrastructure everywhere. USA is not party to some special case here, I think all hacking activity should be high risk for the individual(because all hacking is not ethical) and it is right that the law protect citizens from the unethical hackers that are able to affect us all in bad ways. For every Robin Hood there are many more who just don't care. I do think that hacking is required, simply as a check and balance against large institutions - but as an established practice like journalism, which is subject to special legal cases.

As with drug misuse, the penalty for me is the issue here. It's a lack of understanding about the causes or reasons behind the crime, a blunt response. Rethink or reduce the penalties and the practice becomes more attractive to people prepared to take the risk, for the right reasons.

This is a moral issue that will only become more complex, but embattling the issue into camps of the individual against the corporation will only serve the legal industry, not society at large.</comment>