Make Ruby Great Again [transcript] - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jm3/makerubygreatagain-9d328b96cad8 <comment><USER2> Unfortunately, I don't disagree with these points.

But the author says at the end: "So my message is: Make Ruby Great Again."

Ending the talk with this implies that this is the message they've been saying up to that point. But there is no discussion given as to how Ruby should be made "Great Again".

As a 3-year Ruby programmer (who started with the language), I don't hear this and get filled with optimism or inspiration. The underlying message seems to be that it's time to move on.

<comment><AUTHOR> I feel similarly: it's a scary message! I posted it and emphasized some of the points because I think it's important to not be complacent. If you're a rubyist who lived through the excitement and explosion of 2006-2010-ish, you might dismiss Node.js and friends as fads. You might assume that the rest of the world will have learned from the lessons of the Ruby community. Even if you don't believe those things, I wouldn't blame rubyists for assuming that previous pillars / saviors of the Ruby community — Yehuda, DHH, _Why, Matz, etc. — will soon stand up again and "make things right" by setting the tech community straight as to the benefits of Ruby / Rails.

But what this post concisely shows is that those heroes of the past probably won't. Many of them have moved on. Ruby hasn't been the "new shiny" darling of the open source community for some time. Ruby is in a very delicate transitional time. And unless the current group of active Rubyists take this very seriously, and ask how they (we!) can help make Ruby a durable, meaningful, dynamic, powerful community for the long-term, that much of the efforts and great work of Ruby and Rails will likely forgetten faster than you can say "down-vote".

see also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11789913](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11789913)

<comment><USER2> I finished my ruby 'bootcamp' in 2014 and the two < 6 month Rails API jobs I've held have been rather shitty. So I don't feel this invincibility. For me, it's more been a process of realizing the bootcamp ads are, well ... ads. And I'd bet that Rubyists are probably majority bootcamp grads. I'll groan and admit a defeated sigh.</comment></comment></comment>


Conan O'Brien's 2011 Dartmouth Commencement Speech - <AUTHOR> http://video.teamcoco.com/video/conan.jsp?oid=254559

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice quote:

"It is our failure to become our perceived ideal, that ultimately defines us, and makes us unique. It's not easy, but if you accept your misfortune, and handle it right, your perceived failure can become a catalyst for reinvention."

</comment><comment><USER2> as I watch this, I need to point out the amazing Harvard commencement speech from Conan in 2000

Video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFY0-IFcwc> Transcript: <http://www.allowe.com/Humor/book/COBspeech2k.htm>

edit: watched it. The harvard one was much better, imo. highly recommended.

<comment><USER3> and also Conan's commencement speech to Stuyvesant High School in 2006: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi4-1d9DB9Q>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I enjoyed this greatly _when I found it on Reddit_.

Flagged.</comment>


A ridiculous Common Core test for first graders - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/31/a-ridiculous-common-core-test-for-first-graders/ <comment><USER2> As the father of a five-year-old, two things puzzled me here:

1) "In the United States, students begin Grade 1 at the age of 5 or 6." Say what? In our part of Michigan, kids begin kindergarten at 5 or 6, leaning towards 6.

2) I see people here complaining about the math on the test, but what boggles me is the reading! Are beginning first graders really expected to be able to handle word problems? Maybe it's just been too long since I was there myself, but I thought we were just learning to read "See Spot run" at that point in school. For sure it seems like an insane amount of reading skill to ask of a five-year-old.

<comment><USER3> You make some good points.

People are put off by the jargon. The jargon in the test will have been introduced in class by the teacher. For example, "number sentence" is "equation". I support that one. It gets kids understanding the equal sign, probably the most important symbol of mathematics, and making the connection between story problems (in English sentences) and their mathematical interpretation (in equations).

And the idea of a "related subtraction sentence" is good too. The related subtraction sentences for 4 + 3 = 7 are 7 - 3 = 4 and 7 - 4 = 3. That's one way to teach subtraction, as the inverse of addition. Understanding it this way helps to remember the subtraction tables.

The problem is that the test itself is rubbish. (My third-grader has been through this curriculum, in CA, but not with this test.) The worst one is question 12, which asks for a subtraction sentence, but none of the choices are subtraction. D'oh!

<comment><USER4> I'm curious, you say your child has been through this curriculum. Are you saying your child was in a school using the Pearson curriculum or that your child's school used a curriculum based on common core?

<comment><USER3> Common core curriculum (in CA, not NY, but they seem to be similar), but not Pearson tests.

Her tests and homework were reasonable.

I do have a problem with the attention her district pays to testing, but not really with the curriculum per se. The testing does give teachers less latitude with what subjects they teach, and when they teach it. They have to cover certain concepts by the time the test is taken, which in her schools is March or April. This means they have to re-order the curriculum to cover the subjects to-be-tested in time for the test.

<comment><USER4> > Common core curriculum (in CA, not NY, but they seem to be similar), but not > Pearson tests.

Yeah, the whole point is that if both states are implementing common core they should be the same. If you look at the NY Common Core standard it's a word for word match with what is posted on achievethecore.org and commoncore.org. Where the differences lie is in the curriculums that each state, and even each school district within a state, choose to buy and then how the schools implement it. I'm seeing some schools being extremely strict and enforcing scripted curriculum on teachers such as that provided by Success for All and other schools allowing teachers leeway to teach how they feel is best for their class each year so long as it's consistent across the grade level (all teachers teaching the same concepts at the same times).

> I do have a problem with the attention her district pays to testing, but not > really with the curriculum per se.

Has California, or specifically your school district, implemented performance based pay or bonuses? That's in a trial run here and there have already been complaints about increases in test focus at the schools in the trial. A big part of the performance evaluation is based on test scores.

edit: I should note that there's the common core standards and then common core curriculums. The curriculums should be compliant with the standards but aren't the same thing. So NY and CA should both be adhering to the same standard while they are free to use different curriculum (and almost certainly do from district to district).

<comment><USER3> Performance-based pay has been proposed and heartily resisted by teachers in LAUSD (Los Angeles). This article ([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/lausd-teacher- evalu...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/lausd-teacher-evaluation- utla_n_2517684.html)) says the union (UTLA) voted in January to allow performance-based _evaluation_ , but I don't think this is linked to _pay_ yet.

Indeed, the superintendent of LAUSD is at this moment threatening to resign ([http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/25/local/la- me-1026-dea...](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/25/local/la- me-1026-deasy-20131026)) because he and the school board (which is dominated by UTLA) are fighting about this linkage.

The thing I just learned is that LAUSD has been forced to (eventually) link evaluations to pay due to something called the Stull Act. And it looks like that is a state-wide ruling that will eventually force all CA districts to do this.

It's quite a situation. The outgoing mayor had made reform (a loaded word) of LAUSD a priority, but his candidates failed to dominate the school board. The charters and testing have the union grumpy. There were layoffs after the recession and several idealistic and highly-motivated LAUSD teachers I know were forced out under the union's last-in, first-out policy. They are now at charters and private schools.

 __*

I'm actually pretty doubtful about the precision of these test scores; I think they are noisier than most administrators seem to. And once you link pay to the scores, things are going to go downhill fast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Question 1 was bizarre. I'm not even sure what they were trying to ask.

Question 2 "There are 8 Jars. 6 Jars have Jelly. The rest have peanut butter. How many Jars have Peanut Butter."

The first thing that occurred to me is that we didn't specify the Jars with Jelly don't have peanut butter. Horrible question.

Question 3,4 I can live with.

Question 10 was greek.

Question 11 - Once again, nothing states that the others aren't red as well. Reinforcing poor logical thinking.

Question 12 "Related Subtraction Sentence?" No wonder these kids are crying.

I couldn't read any further. This is how they are trying to teach kids math?

<comment><USER6> I'm okay with questions 2 and 11. Admittedly #2 could be made more explicit by adding the word "only" after "have", but I think in the absence of the word "some" then it's a valid inference to conclude the writer meant "only". Same thing with #11, it could have been made more explicit (in two ways!) by saying "only 2 are entirely red" and asking how many are not entirely red. But again, I think in the absence of a phrase like "at least two of them are partially red" then inferring "only two are entirely red" is valid. I also think the majority would have no problem making those inferences -- the person whose test was uploaded didn't have a problem (they just failed with subtraction on #11).

I think I get #5. The person wrote a 9 when they should have written a 4.

#6 is fine, but then it makes #12 not make sense. Shouldn't a subtraction sentence have a subtraction symbol in it? Or is a "related subtraction sentence" an actual thing, not just asking what the subtraction sentence is in relation to the picture?

#7 is fine.

#8 introduces the "number sentence". (What's wrong with the word "equation"?) But aren't all of the examples "subtraction sentences"? Bah! Apart from that it's fine...

#9 introduces the "subtraction story". Guh?

<comment><USER5> "but I think in the absence of the word "some" then it's a valid inference to conclude the writer meant "only""

The first two years of critical thinking were dedicated to trying to drive that type of logic out of our head. "Six Jars Have Jelly" in no way implies they don't also have peanut butter, it simply makes explicit that six jars have Jelly. "The rest have peanut butter" doesn't imply the rest don't have jelly, it simply makes explicit there are at _least_ two jars with Peanut Butter. That entire sentence would have been perfectly applied to 8 jars of peanut butter/jelly. By suggesting it does not, you are setting in place logical frameworks in a child's head that become very difficult to remove - even if it's clear they are invalid frameworks.

When you say, "I also think the majority would have no problem making those inferences" \- you are just making my point - the Majority of people come to conclusions that are in no way supported by the text, and, even worse, when you point out their error, they instead suggest an inference has been made in the text, when it very clearly has not.

"Some of the Apples in the barrel" in no way suggests not all of the Apples are rotten. "A few people in the crowd acted out against the police" doesn't imply they didn't all act against the police, etc...

The person whose test was uploaded is a six year old who is doing their level best to come up with the "right" answer. In ten years, they are they same type of student, who, in a chemistry exam, when provided with the question, "What particle in an atom has the least negative charge" will answer, "Electron".

<comment><USER6> I wonder how many years of probabilistic thinking it would take to drive it back into your head?

What's your prior for p1 = P(jars contain jelly and something else | you're told "six jars have jelly"), and your prior for p2 = P(jars contain only jelly | you're told "six jars have jelly")? Are they the same for you? For me, they're quite different: p1 << p2. Why is that? As a first guess, I'm very unused to seeing jars containing jelly plus other crap, even though I have seen those strange peanut butter + jelly combo jars. ([http://www.americansweets.co.uk/ekmps/shops/statesidecandy/i...](http://www.americansweets.co.uk/ekmps/shops/statesidecandy/images/american- smuckers-goober-grape-peanut-butter-jelly-combination-510g-759-p.jpg)) Furthermore I'm unused to being told "a jar contains X" when a jar in fact contains "X and Y (and Z and ...)".

The Majority use probabilistic reasoning (even if they often suck at it) in every day life. Rational agents (which humans approximate) use probabilistic reasoning, see Cox's Theorem and the work of others. This is (part of) why calling out a logical fallacy in an argument is often a mistake -- a lot of arguments aren't small (or large) trades of deductive proofs, they're probabilistic arguments where each side is trying to update the other side with supposedly new information. Many logical fallacies can turn into probabilistic theorems. For example, "arguments from authority" can become valid in a probabilistic framework. How? While [expert said X is true] --> [X is true] is a fallacious deduction (unless you assume as a premise that whatever expert says is true, then it's just a tautology...), probabilistically our everyday experience suggests P(x is true | expert said x is true) > P(x is true | random nobody said x is true). We can find plenty of cases where experts are wrong, but in general that pattern seems to hold, and we're more willing to accept counter-intuitive truths from experts than from people on the street.

To address one of your examples: [We're informed 'a few people in the crowd acted out against the police'] --> [Not all of them acted out] is indeed an invalid logical deduction without more premises, but let's treat this probabilistically. (Fair warning: I tried my best to make sure there are no errors in my math but I've been up all night writing signal processing code...)

Let x="Not all of the crowd acted out",

let y="We're informed 'a few people in the crowd acted out against the police'",

and let c=our general background context="We know an incident occurred with the crowd and the police".

We have a prior belief about x: P(x | c) = P("Not all of the crowd acted out" | "we know an incident occurred").

We receive a new piece of information, y: "We're informed 'a few people in the crowd acted out against the police'". Now let's perform a Bayesian update:

P(x | y and c) = P(x | c) * P(y | x and c) / P(y | c)

Clearly if P(y | x and c) > P(y | c), then our updated belief about "Not all of the crowd acted out" will go up, and the inference [y] --> [x] is valid. (You would interpret the --> not as "therefore" but "increases our confidence in". [Being informed the phrase 'a few people acted out'] increases our confidence in ['not all people acted out'].)

I think it's clear that P(y | x and c) is in fact greater than P(y | c). If you don't, then continue with this next section. Using marginalization we can break down P(y | c) independent of x, then use the product rule to break it down even further: P(y | c) = P(y and x | c) + P(y and not(x) | c) = P(y | x and c) * P(x | c) + P(y | not(x) and c) * P(not(x) | c)

So, is P(y | x and c) >? P(y | x and c) * P(x | c) + P(y | not(x) and c) * P(not(x) | c), subtract and factor:

P(y | x and c) * (1 - P(x | c)) >? P(y | not(x) and c) * P(not(x) | c), by the sum rule:

P(y | x and c) * p(not(x) | c) >? P(y | not(x) and c) * P(not(x) | c)

P(y | x and c) >? P(y | not(x) and c)

Reminding what all the variables are again (temporarily dropping off the c for brevity):

P("told 'a few' acted out" | "not all acted out") >? P("told 'a few' acted out" | "all acted out!")

I don't know about you, but I think it's very unlikely to be told 'a few' acted out if in reality everyone acted out. QED.~

To put my whole comment another way: try writing an AI and sick it on this test. If it doesn't use probabilistic algorithms and instead insists when it comes to question #2 that "I cannot know the answer other than it's between 0 and 8, the question isn't explicit enough!", it's going to perform very poorly. Human language is not crisp, treating it as if it were is a bad idea, that's why we use crisp math when we want to be crisp and if we can do automated proofs so much the better.

On your last remark, I find it amusing that if I take your "it's not explicit enough!" complaint seriously, I'm not sure whether you think the correct answer is supposed to be "proton" or "neutron" or "electron". That's because I'm not sure whether you mean "least negative" to mean to "furthest to the right from negative epsilon (i.e. 'most positive')", implying the proton, or "smallest member of the negative reals excluding 0", implying the electron, or "smallest member of the negative reals and 0", implying the neutron. If I wrote the question I think I would have meant "proton" as the answer. So given that the answer is proton, however, the error the student most likely made is just a parse error, failing to properly change "least negative" into "most positive". Similar to answering "yes" to the question "the sky is not not green?", or asserting -3 * -3=-9. It's a different sort of trick on the student than what you insist question #2 could be tricking the student. In #2, the trick would be "Aha, but we never said the jars were _entirely_ jelly! Don't insert words that aren't there!" In this charge question, the trick is "Aha, you didn't parse 'least negative' into 'most positive'! Read carefully!"

<comment><USER5> I don't disagree with you, that, if we have to make a "Best Guess", we need to bring in our day to day context - but using the the one word, "only" \- not only eliminates the guessing, it also helps to reinforce logical thinking.

Re: Electron - I was trying to use it as an example of a poorly written exam. This particular question was on a Grade 10 final exam, and I thought it was obviously, "proton." The "correct" (for some definition of correct?) was "electron." I was using it as an example to demonstrated that "test creators" \- are people, just like you and me, who make mistakes. Also using it to show how the student who is always looking for the "correct" answer (as compared to the correct answer) starts to lose their ability to parse and logically communicate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >Take a look at question No. 1, which shows students five pennies, under which it says "part I know," and then a full coffee cup labeled with a "6″ and, under it, the word, "Whole." Students are asked to find "the missing part" from a list of four numbers.

Wat.

Edit: [http://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/the- math-...](http://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/the-math- test.pdf) ; That's the actual test, apparently. I still think "Wat" is an appropriate response though.

<comment><USER8> Some of those questions are fine. Some of those questions I hope have some surrounding context. And some of them are pretty ridiculous.

I went in expecting (hoping) to see some above grade level questions that simply let the really good students excel. I left disappointed.

That said, thank you for the link to the actual test.

<comment><USER4> Some probably do have surrounding context and in the case of #3 the kids were probably provided with manipulatives so they could literally use cubes to solve the problem. The test is still terrible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This test is so, so bad. If this is how I had been exposed to math when I was in the first grade, I hate to think how my life would have been different. (I have two degrees in mathematics.)

I've heard stories of my first grader niece crying while trying to complete her daily homework. I'm starting to understand why.

<comment><USER10> I think grade school math curriculums are incredibly bad in most of the world, though. I know it's awful here in Ontario. Everything I learned about mathematics was from non-textbooks (e.g. Dover math books), lectures, papers and blog posts. School didn't teach me a thing. I think the only decent "textbook" I have is Concrete Mathematics, and that's not even close to most textbooks. It's probably been posted a million times before on here, but [http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm](http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm)

<comment><USER11> Wonderful article, but one verdict turns out to be wrong:

 _Translating from one base to another is an utterly useless thing. If you can do it, maybe it 's entertaining; if you can't do it, forget it. There's no point to it._

<comment><USER12> I'd say it's still a generally true statement. Other than base 2, 8, or 16, there isn't much use for translating from one base to another.

<comment><USER13> The purpose of working in number bases other than 10 is to reinforce the meaning of place value, and to implicitly teach students that the way we write numerals is (1) very logical and sensible, but (2) an accident of biology.

What we should really do is make students add and multiply in Roman numerals. Quick, what's LXXVII x XLIV? Attempting that will make you appreciate decimal notation _real_ quick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One of my favorite stories regarding an elementary level Standards of Learning (SOL) test in Virginia. . .Students are taught how to estimate relatively simple sums, difference, products and quotients in their heads. Students are required to select the "correct" estimate. One of the questions accidentally (I guess) included the _actual_ answer among the choices. My son selected the actual answer rather than the "correct" estimate and it was marked wrong.

OK, technically he didn't follow directions. . .the question asked for the estimate. But. . .really. . .you penalize a kid for calculating the correct answer and selecting that over the correct estimate??

<comment><USER15> First, I should apologize for relating a personal anecdote, because it doesn't have anything to do with Common Core. It does provide something of a benchmark for the state of education 25-ish years ago, and it's troubling to me that we're continuing a downward spiral. Your story made me think immediately of this.

When I was in 2nd grade sometime toward the late 1980s, I was subjected to a science test with the following question:

"Which of the following is the closest star to Earth?"

The answers provided were "the sun," "the moon," "Venus," and "Mars."

I selected "the sun." I was marked off, and the teacher had returned the test with "the moon" circled as the correct answer. I don't recall being bothered so much by having marks taken off for providing an answer I knew with certainty was the truth.

Following receipt of the test, I distinctly recall my mum heading off to the school with me the following day to dispute this "fact." The teacher in question and the school's principal both provided the bothersome answer "Well, it's marked as 'the moon' in the answer sheet, so that's what we have to go by."

While I don't recall what became of that particular test or my final grade, it stands out as one of my earliest negative experiences in public education. I can only imagine what these poor kids are feeling when faced with questions that make no reasonable sense. It upsets me to think what memories they might harbor in the years to come, because kids certainly do NOT forget.

And to think that education has only gotten worse since. Troubling times ahead indeed!

<comment><USER16> _" Well, it's marked as 'the moon' in the answer sheet, so that's what we have to go by."_

Or, in other words: "We were just following orders. We are not allowed to think for ourselves."

It's tragic that these are the attitudes of the people entrusted to educate children.

<comment><USER17> > It's tragic that these are the attitudes of the people entrusted to educate > children.

One person != everyone. Most of my teachers were good ones, willing to show me things other people considered "too advanced" for kids like me. Such people were the reason I could do things like purchase ethyl acetate as a child. Yes, that gives off poisonous fumes. It's used in entomology and was recommended by the books I was following.

<comment><USER15> > One person != everyone.

While true, and certainly many of the teachers I had when I was young were quite good, some memories are punctuated by the inane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> When I didn't have kids, I thought homeschooling was for nut jobs.

Hi. I'm a nut job.

<comment><USER19> Nut job here, too. Common core is terrifying. Glad it's getting some bad press.

<comment><USER4> Why is common core terrifying?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How much of this is the "backmapping" of 12th grade skills to 1st grade, and how much of it is simply incompetent test and exercise authorship?

<comment><USER4> I showed the test to my wife who is a 2nd grade teacher in a school district implementing common core. She was appalled both at the grading and the test itself. Then I showed her that it was from Pearson and she exclaimed "That's your problem right there."

<comment><USER3> Exactly. The concepts are appropriate (maybe not for this age though, I was unaware that NY first-graders could be only 5 in October), but the test is crap.

<comment><USER4> > I was unaware that NY first-graders could be only 5 in October

That surprised me also. Here in Nevada the cut off is in September and so any child in first grade would be at least six years old by October. A month or two doesn't make a huge difference so perhaps their cutoff is in October or November.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have an 8 yo going through the common core transition now. What I would recommend parents do is teach the traditional fundamentals after school. Give your kid regular work. Its not worth being an experiment.

<comment><USER22> I'd recommend you send your kids to a school with a sane curriculum. The only thing these public school morons will understand is when they start losing students (and corresponding dollars that go along with that).

The public school system here is up in arms about a quite limited voucher program, because their funding is based on the number of bodies in the classroom. So they see it as taking "their" money, rather than thinking "I wonder why those parents don't want their kids to go to our schools."

<comment><USER21> That's a great idea, but with two kids in grade school, the local private schools would cost me about $30k per year. I would rather invest 15 minutes a day with augmenting what they are doing in the classroom. If you have the resources to go private, more power to you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It seems like they tried to dumb down certain words like "equation" into "number sentence", but only succeeded in making it confusing and ridiculous.

And on top of that these are problem solving questions introduced way too soon. What's wrong with just asking a kid some addition and subtraction questions without all the fluff? I know it's trying to tease out whether they understand the fundamental concept and all that, but it's horribly done and kids of that age shouldn't have to be self-aware of their own learning.

<comment><USER4> > And on top of that these are problem solving questions introduced way too > soon.

While those questions weren't appropriate for a first grader at the beginning of the school year introducing problem solving is a big part of common core.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I was caught out by "number sentence" at first, I'm used to hearing the word "expression".

Is this a re-emergence of _the new maths_?

<comment><USER25> I agree, I've never heard that phrase and I have a degree in Mathematics.

<comment><USER24> Cheers...

I am an amateur mathematician, but these days I focus more on imperative programming languages. I tend to use the term _expression_ for both equations and expressions, since in computing an expression returns a value of any type, not just numerical types.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> oh god. I hate math, but I'm very very good at basic math, if I had had to learn like this, I cant see how I would have learned anything except that I didnt want to learn more.

<comment><USER10> The only thing I ever learned from math in high school was "I don't care why it's true, just give me the right answer" (the attitude of every single student other than myself).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> One penny-cup. That is the answer to the first question. The answers needed units.</comment>


Show HN: HN for Ethereum directly on the Blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://tomw1808.github.io/Freshdapps/#/ <comment><USER2> But if this is running on Ethereum, who is paying for it? Doesn't it need "gas"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Better late than never:

It needs gas only when there is a change (add/remove), it doesn't need gas to read.</comment></comment>


"This mistake will become the thing you are best known for" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/paulg/status/649274159076274176 <comment><USER2> [https://mobile.twitter.com/GovMaryFallin/status/649328672231...](https://mobile.twitter.com/GovMaryFallin/status/649328672231555072)

"I have issued a 37 day stay for Richard Glossip while the state addresses questions about its execution protocol"

<comment><USER3> It's to investigate the legality of potassium acetate and, unfortunately, does not address any issue that could save his life. It's 37 days more time to try to come up with a challenge to save his life, but the challenge here was about the methodology of execution.

The governor also threw in an apology to the victims family which makes me think that she is of no mind to spare his life.

<comment><USER4> Her Twitter blew up. Take a look at the list of celebrities and organizations that called on her to do this - even the Pope! This is a "face-saving" (if transparent) way to buy time while she works out if Paul Graham is right.

[https://twitter.com/search?q=%40GovMaryFallin&src=typd](https://twitter.com/search?q=%40GovMaryFallin&src=typd)

<comment><USER3> That's wholly possible, I don't know the specific inner workings of her office. I think it is also possible that someone outside created this challenge on constitutional grounds and she has to legally respond to it. All- in-all the delay is a good thing, I'm just concerned that she's too 'hard on crime' to back down here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I had a professor in law school -- Robert Blecker -- who is one of the few, if not the only, full tenured US law professors that is a staunch advocate for the death penalty. He is the go to guy when journalists need someone to give the pro-death penalty point of view.

He doesn't think Glossip ought to be executed.[1] That's good enough for me.

[1] [https://www.vice.com/read/a-possibly-innocent-oklahoma- death...](https://www.vice.com/read/a-possibly-innocent-oklahoma-death-row- inmate-caught-a-break-hours-before-his-execution-916)

</comment><comment><USER6> Albert Einstein:

"I have reached the conviction that the abolition of the death penalty is desirable. Reasons: 1) Irreparability in the event of an error of justice, 2) Detrimental moral influence of the execution procedure on those who, whether directly or indirectly, have to do with the procedure."

<comment><USER7> All events are irreparable. Justice cannot be absolute, in either direction. This is not a flaw in morality, but in our limited abilities. Acceptance of that is not weakness, but awareness.

No amount of intelligence necessitates wisdom. Sorry Einstein.

<comment><USER8> No punishment can be _completely_ undone, but there are few, if any, punishments as irreparable as the death penalty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the saddest death penalty cases I have heard is that of Cameron Todd Willingham. Texas executed him in 2004 for arson that killed three of his daughters. The "science" behind the arson conviction turned out to be not a science at all. I believe he was 100% innocent. More here: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-d...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh- doubts-over-a-texas-execution/)

<comment><USER10> First he lost his wife and kids in a tragic fire. Then he was arrested and charged with their murder. Then, using investigative techniques that have been scientifically proven to be inaccurate, he was convicted and sentenced to death. Then he was executed.

If the state can inflict this kind of nightmare on one person, it could do it to any one of us.

<comment><USER9> Correction: He didn't lose his wife in the fire. His wife stood by him (initially) and didn't believe he deliberately started the fire. But shortly before the execution she reversed herself. See: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/cameron-todd- willin...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/cameron-todd-willingham- stacy-kuykendall-texas-pardon_n_2058042.html)

<comment><USER11> Which is probably the only sane way to cope with such an event.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The background to this case seems a little one-sided, is there anything that explains how he was convicted?

It's supposed to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Supposedly the only evidence was another person's testimony, who was going to get the death penalty if they didn't (i.e., they were compelled). Even without being compelled, it's still reasonable to believe that the person may be lying. There must be more to this....

<comment><USER13> I read this yesterday and it was useful:

[http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf](http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf)

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the link. There's some VERY suspect behavior by this guy. Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt? I don't know, but lying that the boss was running an errand to another employee the morning after he was murdered certainly seems to align closer to the "hitman's" side of the story. Now couple that with another employee being told by the boss that he was going to run the hotel if this guy got fired for embezzlement, and you have a motive, the guy lying about his boss's whereabouts after the murder, and the hitman stating that they split $4000 taken from the bosses car, and they both had well over $1000 in cash their possession when they were arrested. Honestly, it sounds like the only evidence that this guy is innocent is that another convict said that the hitman bragged about "setting the guy up". That is one heck of a setup if true.

<comment><USER11> It's entirely possible that the one that actually did the murder (Justin Sneed) came up with the idea, proposed it, and Glossip just went along with it or sanctioned it ("great idea, here's how we can do it"). Their actions would be basically identical on the outside right?

<comment><USER14> excellent point. I do suppose that being an accomplice to murder probably carries a less severe punishment than hiring a hitman and being the mastermind behind it. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in general, and wish it wouldn't be used in today's society. But claiming that this guy is "innocent" seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. It's amazing how one-sided the articles I've read about this have been.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This tweet desperately needs some context:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Glossip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Glossip)

<comment><USER16> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10306024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10306024), [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10293793](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10293793), and [https://theintercept.com/2015/09/29/glossip-to-die- tomorrow/](https://theintercept.com/2015/09/29/glossip-to-die-tomorrow/), which I don't think was posted to HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What I cannot fathom is that police officers are universally judged for decisions they have to take in split seconds, yet judges, attorneys (and ultimately the governor) do not have any repercussions at all if they cause the death of an innocent person in trials that last months or years.

<comment><USER18> Not only do I think there is a lack of accountability for negligent or mistaken judges, etc., but I've seen no concern for accuracy on their part. For example, if you were designing a system that made determinations about reality, wouldn't you study its accuracy, including false-positive and false- negative rates? If I was just an individual judge or DA, I'd like to think I'd implment it. Such quality control should be the norm but I've never seen it outside of academic studies.

A couple of more tangential points:

> police officers are universally judged for decisions they have to take in > split seconds

I think the objection that many people (certainly not all) have is that police escape judgment; they act with impunity. Recently there's been media coverage of some incidents, but that is the exception.

> judges, attorneys (and ultimately the governor) do not have any > repercussions at all

The state, on whose behalf those people are acting, does have repercussions in the form of large payments due to civil lawsuits. I do think that there is not enough accountability for ne

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the laws of a US state even allowed the possibility of a death sentence for someone that did not personally kill someone else is a serious problem. That's before even considering the possibility that he may have been wrongly convicted.

Personally, I don't understand why we have the death penalty in the US. First, the possibility of a wrongful conviction is real. Second, we have prisons that are brutal and allow very few escapes, making life in prison a far worse punishment than the death penalty. Remember that the death penalty for a prisoner these days consists of falling asleep and not waking up. There simply are no valid reasons to impose the death penalty in a country like the US.

<comment><USER20> What? Glossip hired a hitman to kill someone. How is that not murder? Just because you're wealthy enough to not do the dirty work means you're somehow above the DP, but poor people who can't should get the DP? That's insane!

There are irregular aspects to this case, but the idea of hitman hirers being immune from the DP is pretty crazy. That's the same as murdering someone with your own hands, both morally and legally.

<comment><USER21> No, what's insane is the collective desire, the organised process, the co- opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of another human being's life. Guilty or not, the idea of "punishing" by killing is barbaric, illogical and uneducated.

The field of neuroscience based psychiatry and the works of the great minds like Robert Sapolsky must prevail. This has to stop.

<comment><USER22> >the co-opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of another human being's life

So you want to ban abortion? Assisted suicide?

<comment><USER21> Do I "want" an end to elected abortion? Yes.

Do I "want" to stop assisted suicide? No.

Do I "want" an end to organised execution of convicted criminals? Yes.

Your move.

<comment><USER22> Does assisted suicide not break the Hippocratic Oath?

<comment><USER21> Not all the time. These points:

1\. There are times when doctors, in order to reduce pain in their patients, accelerate their death as part of pain management. This is usually done at the end of long incurable illnesses or injuries from which recovery is unlikely. The consequence of alleviating pain can be death. Whether it is thought of deliberately or not by the caregivers/doctors does not matter. The point is that the event of death is hastened directly by the act of helping the patient.

2\. The patient is choosing to end his life. (I hope you don't ask what is to be done with depression/suicidal patients.)

... and lastly, and simply:

3\. Many times the assistance may be done by a non-doctor - so the Hippocratic Oath may not apply directly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> (From an NBC news summary): _Glossip 's conviction hinged largely on the testimony of the man who actually carried out the 1997 bludgeoning murder of his boss. That man, Justin Sneed, is serving a life sentence._

I see this over and over again in criminal justice. Someone who has actually committed murder sells out someone else in a plea bargain and ends up with a lighter sentence than the person who (allegedly) planned the murder but didn't carry it out. There was a woman executed in Georgia yesterday for arranging the killing of her husband; her lover, who carried out the deed, is eligible for automatic parole in 2022. WTF.

</comment><comment><USER24> While I agree with the opinion, what makes pg the person to quote here? There should be a little filter before we all just latch on to what pg says. He has great experience with technology and startups but how does that make it something for us to care about? Is he involved in this case at all or an expert on human rights issues?

<comment><USER20> Yeah, its scary that PG is morphing into a liberal social media celebrity. Especially with a contextless outraged tone like this. I never understood this kind of easy and emotionally gratifying slacktivism. Considering his wealth and influence, if he cared so much about DP issues, why doesn't he fund or start a think tank or policy lobbyist organization to fight it? Yelling at governors seems incredibly short-sighted and knee-jerk to me.

I don't think this helps matters politically, it just builds echo chambers and extremism. I don't know any liberals, for example, who would remotely consider any conservative view, or vice-versa. There's a real "internet identity poltics" aspect going on here we just take on face value and don't criticize.

Even criticizing the default liberal position on the sites like HN, reddit, etc is just an invitation to downvote hell, no wonder we can't have any kind of interesting discourse on these forums. The majority group can just downvote you into censorship. It sad that if you're into tech sites you have to tolerate and unquestionably deal with angry liberal screeds all the time and never be able to hear a rounded commentary.

We're not building common ground with our political opposites, we're not enlightening anyone, etc. We're just yelling and being angry. What exactly do we expect to happen here? Nothing has happened since John Edwards had complained about the "Two Americas" back in 2004. If anything, things have somehow gotten worse since. I suspect low information twitter, reddit, tumblr, facebook, etc protests are a contributing factor. This is especially worrying as we see the left consistantly lose elections in congress, the senate, the state legislature, and the state governor's offices. As a left-leaning moderate, this is not good and the left and far left are failing to appeal to voters, which means conservatives will continue to win office and implement conservative policies.

<comment><USER25> What a strange comment. Isn't Paul allowed to be a guy posting stuff that he cares about on Twitter, just like the rest of us? Does his relative fame (in some circles) have any real bearing on it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This will probably blow over in a few days without anything changing. If you think otherwise, read up on Cameron Todd Willingham

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham)

<comment><USER27> Willingham was convicted by expert testimony that later turned out to be pseudoscience. This is terrible but it's easy to see how it can fool a court system, and easy to see how close-minded people can later discount contradictory expert testimony.

Glossip was convicted on the unverifiable testimony of a known liar. It's evidence that wouldn't pass muster in a game of Mafia.

<comment><USER28> I know almost nothing about this case, but from the bare-bones description in TFA saying that two juries believed Glossip was part of a "murder for hire" scheme, I'd say that there are lots of places where the testimony should be verifiable:

      * Does the murderer get any benefit from identifying this
        guy (reduced sentence, etc.)?
      * Does the murderer have any motive?  That article
        implies that robbery was the motive, this could be
        substantiated by looking at what he took, how much it
        was worth, and whether he'd have any reason to target
        this guy otherwise.  For example whether he ignored any
        obviously better targets of opportunity to get this
        specific person.
      * Did the murderer know things about why Glossip
        allegedly wanted this guy dead that he couldn't
        reasonably have known otherwise?
      * This was allegedly murder for hire:  did Glossip give
        this man any large amounts of money and if he did, was
        there any other explanation?  Has he given out large
        amounts of cash before?
      * Does the murderer have any psychiatric or drug-induced
        conditions that make him see things that aren't there?
      * Are there any provable lies in either person's story or
        any history of lying to investigators in the past?  If
        so, are the lies better explained by confusion or
        self-protection?
      * Did Glossip ever know things he shouldn't have known
        about the murder?

I do not claim to know the truth of any of the above statements, mind you. It's very possible that the answers exonerate Glossip, but the story should be something that can be corroborated and verified. There are lots of facts implied by the story which can be substantiated (or disproved) with sufficient investigation. So it shouldn't be the case that we just don't know--the facts will tell a story if the questions above are carefully investigated.

That said, I would think that they really shouldn't go for the death penalty if they don't have direct evidence, that just seems like too much. But they could, in theory, have answers to the above that eliminate reasonable doubts about his guilt, or lack thereof.

That aside, I am wary of the techie bias of ignoring motives entirely and looking only at physical evidence. Death Note, of all things, illustrates the difference the best, with Light always taking pains to produce no physical evidence, while L counters this with deep insight into his motives. We saw a lot of that with Reiser, as I recall.

In the end, though, I lack sufficient data to claim to have any reasonable idea about whether Glossip is innocent or guilty. All I'm saying here is that it shouldn't be the case that it's somehow unknowable or unverifiable given enough investigation into the questions posed above.

\-----

EDIT: Another comment pointed to this: [http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf](http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf)

I can see lots of places to corroborate (or disprove) the story -

> Sneed said that he and Glossip went to room 102 to make sure Van Treese was > dead.

This could have left physical evidence (or witnesses).

> He found an envelope with about $4000.00 cash under the seat. He came back > and swept up the glass. He put the broken glass in room 102, just inside the > door. He said that Glossip took the envelope from him and divided the money > with him. He also testified that Glossip helped him put a shower curtain > over the window, and he helped him cover Van Treese's body.

There may be physical evidence left by this (or not), not to mention the money & envelope (fingerprints?).

> D-Anna Wood testified that she and Glossip were awakened at around 4:00 a.m. > by Sneed. She testified that Glossip got out of bed and went to the front > door. When he returned, Glossip told her that it was Sneed reporting that > two drunks got into a fight and broke a window. She testified that Glossip > then returned to bed.

This seems to say that Sneed is lying, unless D-Anna has some motive for protecting Glossip. Given that they're in bed together, and given the following, it's not implausible that she was protecting him.

> [Billye Hooper] asked Glossip about the car, and Glossip told her that Mr. > Van Treese had left to get supplies for remodeling rooms.

This is highly suspicious.

> Cliff Everhart, who worked security for Mr. Van Treese in exchange for a 1% > ownership, was already at the motel. He told Sneed to check all of the > rooms. Sneed indicated that he did so.

This is also really suspicious. He really should've known this guy was dead by then, but it really looks like he's avoiding it. And there are two people poking holes in his story.

> Subsequent searches revealed that Sneed possessed approximately $1,700.00 in > cash, and that Glossip possessed approximately $1,200.00. Glossip claimed > this money came from his paycheck and proceeds from the sale of vending > machines and his furniture

This corroborates Glossip's story, though we'd have to see if there was any merit to Sneed's alibi or not. One could look for physical evidence around the money, etc.

<comment><USER28> To answer my own questions:

      * Yes, Sneed has a motive for lying (reduced sentence).
      * Yes, Sneed has a motive (loss of job).  So does Glossip.
      * Sneed could have known this info without Glossip.
      * Yes, Sneed got lots of money.  The judgement was not clear
        about how much we know about where it came from or Glossip's
        connection to it.
      * Robbery doesn't make a lot of sense as a motive: Sneed had
        access to the other rooms to steal and better targets.  But
        Sneed had other possible motives than robbery, too.
      * Someone else mentioned Sneed was a meth addict, but this wans't
        mentioned in this ruling that I saw.
      * There are several big lies in Glossip's story that he has no
        good explanation for.  Him avoiding letting others into room 102
        is highly suspect.
      * There's also evidence that someone lied to protect him, given the
        story from the woman who was sleeping with him.  I'm not clear on
        what her relationship to Glossip is, only that the testimony puts
        both of them into the same bed that night.

So, we do have good reason to believe that he's covering something up here. This could be further substantiated with physical evidence tying him to the envelope of money, etc. In particular, to the curtain covering the body. But there are also problems with Sneed's story.

I'd say they should, if they haven't already done so, gather physical evidence that corroborates Sneed's story. If he's being honest, I don't think Glossip was so perfect as to have left nothing behind. I suppose they'd explain that away by saying that he managed the motel and might have touched any random thing, but having his fingerprints/hair/etc. on something connected to the body would make this a lot harder to explain away.

It looks to me like he's lying and the juries appear to have agreed. I wouldn't care to execute someone on a case like that, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Background:

[http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard- glo...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard-glossip- explainer-20150930-htmlstory.html)

<comment><USER30> I don't get it. If he hired the guy to commit the murder, that's 100% Murder One and is a life sentence in any state. I oppose the death penalty in general, but I don't see how this guy is innocent because he didn't swing the bat. Hiring someone to commit murder is treated more harshly than a personal act of rage because it's premeditated.

<comment><USER31> Yes, of course.

However, the primary evidence we have that Glossip ordered the killing is the testimony of the guy who actually did the deed, and who avoided a death sentence in exchange for that testimony. It's a little fishy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why would it? People are wrongfully executed all the time, but can you off the top of your head name one governor who has become known for that?

Executions serve no purpose for society except to satisfy our thirst for revenge, it makes little difference if the person they kill is innocent or not.

If he turns out to be innocent, they can always execute someone else to save face. Not the ones responsible for his execution, of course. Ironically, wrongfully executing someone doesn't carry the death penalty.

<comment><USER33> That's _awfully_ cynical.

<comment><USER34> This is name-calling, not an argument

<comment><USER33> Ok, here's argument.

> People are wrongfully executed all the time

Citation needed. I'm not aware of people who have been persuasively shown to be innocent post-execution.

> Executions serve no purpose for society except to satisfy our thirst for > revenge,

Wrong, many studies show a deterrent effect.

> it makes little difference if the person they kill is innocent or not.

What? Of course it does.

> If he turns out to be innocent, they can always execute someone else to save > face. Not the ones responsible for his execution, of course.

This hardly deserves a response.

<comment><USER35> _> Citation needed. I'm not aware of people who have been persuasively shown to be innocent post-execution._

The size of the US list is concerning - and it isn't even complete. There's also the possibility of executions that haven't been further looked into where the person may have also been innocent.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution)

<comment><USER33> In your first link, I'm seeing pre-execution exonerations, not innocents executed. In your second, I'm seeing that some people have "doubts." Not exactly the same as "the wrong person was definitely executed."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There are at least 5 questions here which seem to be conflated:

1\. Is there a good process in place?

2\. Was the process followed?

3\. Is he actually guilty?

4\. Is execution an appropriate punishment in his case?

5\. Is execution ever an appropriate punishment?

<comment><USER37> I would suggest that your 3,4 and 5 are actually just questioning 1 and 2 in specific ways.

<comment><USER36> No, you could have a horrible process and he could still be guilty.

That's why I'm trying to separate the issues. I'm confused about why this case is getting particular attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Did I miss something? Why is PG so obsessed over this one guy Glossip? The state (and federal level) has killed all sorts of innocent people over the years, and the police (and judicial process) kill innocent, unarmed people all the time. It makes the efforts like those of PG now seem, well.... pathetically emotional and short-term. And, frankly, a little racist.

A rich white tech magnate suddenly cares about a single innocent white guy getting killed by the state, while saying nothing about innocent unarmed black men get killed by the state all the time, every year.

Save Glossip, sure, it's a good cause. But PG isn't going to invest this much of himself in the next Glossip, or the next Rumain Brisbon, or the next Tamir Rice, or the next Akai Gurley, or the next Kajieme Powell, or the next Ezell Ford, or the next Dante Parker, or the next Michael Brown, or the next John Crawford III, or the next Tyree Woodson, or the next Eric Garner, or the next Victor White III, or the next Yvette Smith, or the next McKenzie Cochran, or the next Jordan Baker, or the next Andy Lopez, or the next .....

<comment><USER39> > But PG isn't going to invest this much of himself

Yes, a single tweet is such a high investment of one's time.

<comment><USER38> Clearly you don't invest much time in your comments, as you failed to see the other 13 tweets he's made about it in the past few days as well as the blog post.

<comment><USER39> I stand corrected. I did miss the blog post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Fwiw, the increased scrutiny that goes with death penalty cases raises uncomfortable questions about the justice system in general.

Would this case be acceptable if Glossip had only received a life sentence? I'm not sure either way. But it does seem that the justice system should have more accommodation for uncertainty than a complicated appeals process that seems to focus on procedural issues.

What form would an uncertainty-conscious justice system take? Economists might suggest that you can account for uncertainty merely by lowering punishment accordingly to account for "risk," (e.g. we will lower punishment by X percent because we're only Y percent sure you are guilty) but that doesn't seem to work here. On the other hand we clearly can't have a justice system that never acts for fear of wrongful incarceration.

</comment><comment><USER41> This situation is a bit reminiscent of the Randal Dale Adams[0] case, which was the subject of the documentary The Thin Blue Line[1]. In a nutshell, Adams was sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer based on the fabricated eye-witness accounts, and more importantly the testimony of another suspect. Won't spoil it for those that haven't seen it. It's a good documentary though, albeit with somewhat cheesy reenactments.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Dale_Adams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Dale_Adams)

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_(1988_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_\(1988_film\))

</comment><comment><USER42> The governor's tweet has been deleted. Anyone have a screenshot?

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm not completely anti-death penalty, but I think there's a very strong argument that we can't properly administer death penalty cases (so I'm effectively saying we shouldn't execute people while recognizing that there are crimes that warrant the death penalty).

In any case, since we're calling on the governor to stay this execution, I'd suggest we're concerned enough with properly separating the innocent from the guilty to call for a moratorium on drone strikes, smart bomb raids, etc. If we want to kill a specific terrorist (or other military target), we should send a sniper. How about a second campaign to convince @obama?

</comment><comment><USER21> I have just two things to say about this sad event:

1) A quote:

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." ~ Dostoyevsky

2) This link: [http://brainsontrial.com/](http://brainsontrial.com/)

For me, the conversation that Alan Alda has walking on the campus of Stanford Uni with Robert Sapolsky is quite possibly the most intelligent and paradigm shifting exchange ever!

Edit: Direct link: [http://brainsontrial.com/watch-videos/video/alan-alda- with-r...](http://brainsontrial.com/watch-videos/video/alan-alda-with-robert- sapolsky-of-stanford-university/)

</comment><comment><USER44> It looks like he has gotten some more time.

[https://twitter.com/willrdupree/status/649328519596503040](https://twitter.com/willrdupree/status/649328519596503040)

[https://twitter.com/EJUSA/status/649328136849629184](https://twitter.com/EJUSA/status/649328136849629184)

</comment><comment><USER45> "Richard Glossip case: Here's the story of his victim"

[http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/richard-glossip- case-h...](http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/richard-glossip-case-here-s- the-story-of-his-victim/article_1247f4c4-a8be-5492-b438-1c5d39c8b571.html)

</comment><comment><USER46> It appears a stay has been issued by the Governor: [https://twitter.com/grahambrewer/status/649327710699831296](https://twitter.com/grahambrewer/status/649327710699831296)

</comment><comment><USER47> I think the death penalty should be abolished, both for adults and for unborn children.

<comment><USER48> Agree 100% I have a really hard time listening to pro-life people say how great the death penalty is, and then hear abortion supporters protest over the death penalty. Both acts grossly dehumanize the deceased whether they are guilty of doing the same thing, or haven't even been given the chance. As a civilized society, we are better than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Relevant: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin#Lethal_injection_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin#Lethal_injection_controversy)

</comment><comment><USER50> If I may pitch in:

The part about what he did is completely irrelevant. Sparing a life is the point regardless of what the crime was.

This is the sort of bias you get from perspectives with a word count.

<comment><USER33> > The part about what he did is completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, actions have consequences.

> Sparing a life is the point regardless of what the crime was.

Most people would disagree with you here, word count or no.

<comment><USER51> Most people? More countries have abolished it then still use it.

<comment><USER33> Many countries have abolished it. That doesn't mean much about popular opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Sadly, I think Paul Graham underestimates the American public's ability to forgive for the overzealous application of "justice".

</comment><comment><USER53> Fuck it, lets communicate with Gov. Fallin the way she understands.. creating a super pac to fund any opponent against the execution.

</comment><comment><USER54> Many people are against the death penalty not because there aren't people who deserve it, but because it's possible to make a mistake. I wonder if that's what PG means here by "mistake."

</comment><comment><USER22> I am opposed to the death penalty for various unpopular reasons and PG is usually very eloquent, I am not sure why that was not the case here. It is all very vague. Calling for a boycott of OK would have made it seem less like slacktivism.

</comment><comment><USER55> I find it insulting to any logical concept of justice that people who _murder_ other people deserve what they willfully deprived of their victims. Nonsense about forgiveness and "becoming one of them" is just that... nonsense.

Now everyone wants to defend this man's life, a man who _intentionally_ took the life of another by hiring a hitman. He doesn't deserve life. Why should the victim's family be obligated to respect the right he willfully deprived the victim of?

Queue the "because forgiveness herp derp civil society" comments. Spare me. An eye for an eye does not make those blind who didn't poke someone's eyes out.

If you take a $500 item from me, you owe me $500 not $250. If you take my life you owe my family my life, instead of being housed, clothed, and fed on my family's dime.

<comment><USER56> THose defending him are doing so because the evidence available almost certainly indicates that he was convicted solely on the lies of someone under threat of the death penalty himself.

If he legitimately didn't do what he is almost certainly falsely accused of, that makes your bloodthirstiness even more uncomfortable and unjust.

Are you comfortable with your judgment to take someone's life on the desperate accusation of a meth-head avoiding death himself?

<comment><USER55> Straw man. The innocent are punished for crimes they didn't commit regardless of the crime or punishment. It's irrelevant to my issue of how the guilty are to be punished.

<comment><USER57> One key difference being that the death penalty removes the ability for later appeals and compensation if they are found to be innocent. According to one study the wrongful conviction rate of prisoners on death row could be around 4.1% [1] - that equates to around 120 innocent people currently being on death row.

[1] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners- on-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row- are-wrongfully-convicted/)

<comment><USER55> Why doesn't that argument apply to all punishments? Isn't it better to let the guilty go free than falsely imprison someone for life? There's more than an estimated 20,000 innocent in prison who are not on death row. Why are the innocent good enough to be spared the death penalty but not life in prison?

<comment><USER58> If an imprisoned man is later found innocent, you release him.

If an executed man is later found innocent, you can... uh...

<comment><USER59> Solution: forced cryonics, with elements of Demolition Man thrown in as desired.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Open Letter to Steve Ballmer - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2008/tc2008027_990635.htm <comment><USER2> He should have written an open letter not to Ballmer but to Microsoft board. The letter could have been much shorter, while enormously more useful for Microsoft shareholders.

It could have said: _"Get rid of Ballmer The Car Salesman and get yourself a real technology-focused CEO"_

</comment><comment><USER3> He was so selective in his list of big mergers.. I'd say all the companies that merged into Verizon were pretty damn successful.</comment>


Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/2013/04/ask-a-knifemaker-the-truth-about-damascus/ <comment><USER5> Back in my high school days, I made a beautiful damascus blade from 5160 leaf springs and 1095. After having worked in the labs at [https://www.scotforge.com/](https://www.scotforge.com/), it is apparent damascus has very little large scale use due to weak tensile strengths(which of course depends on the forging process). However, in personal, small scale use, I've noticed my damascus blade has withstood much more than say, a pure 1095 blade could endure. Essentially, the higher the carbon the more brittle the blade despite the heat treatment process. Damascus in a small blade seemed to yield properties of each steel involved without using a costly alloy. It is very difficult to combine high carbon steels with stainless steels due to the large difference in heat treatment processes, as stainless steels are very often air hardened, and carbon steels are hardened in a brine or oil solution.

</comment><comment><USER6> pattern welding is, effectively, a solution to a problem we don't have any more.

When steel quality varied widely between batches, you needed a reliable way to mix it up so that the overall properties of the resulting object were predictable. This evolved into a more sophisticated technique that gave you not only predictability but differential properties (harder steel at the edge, more ductile in the spine) and a pretty visual result.

The batch variability problem isn't a problem any more, and we can get differential properties with very precise heat treatments now, so all that's left is the pretty visual result.

So, if it appeals to you; great! Just don't think you're getting anything that's super magical above and beyond what a modern alloy can do.

<comment><USER7> I know this does not have anithing to do with knives but Samurai swords are made from four different kinds of steel. The core, back, sides and the cutting edge. The sword is straight when forged and the arc comes from the hardening when the cutting edge expands more than the rest. Source: witnessed in person the first time when a katana was forged outside of japan at a festival at the japanese culture institute in cologne. The swordsmiths have the rank of a priest and wear white robes.

<comment><USER8> From a pure material perpective, the issues, also for the Japanese, was poor steel and iron ore quality (as an other comment stated above). So in order to get all you inpurities out of the final product, melting processes weren't up to the task yet, you are basically obliged to pattern weld the shit out of your steel.

Particularly in Japan, this was compounded by having iron ore mostly as part of a sand-ore mixture (without magnets getting the pure ore out without mixing it with sand is close to impossible). As a result the Japanese came up with a very smart forging technioque to solve that problem. And the swords, at least the high end ones, are pieces of art. Not fielding full-plate armor like the Europeans did, cutting remained a desired quality for a soldiers side arm. So they stuck with it. Simultaniously, the Europeans developed spring steel and weapons developed in a totally different direction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For the pocket knife aficionados out there, if your ever in Portland higly reccomend taking a tour of Benchmade's factory. They've got a ton of history about the company and you get a chance to view the factory floor(industrial laser cutters!) where all their knives are made.

<comment><USER10> My day job is driving a 4kW fibre laser for cutting steel. AMA ;)

Recently a couple of people have had me cut knives from old circular saw blades from timber mills. It's a fairly hard wearing steel, and they got the old blades for free.

Just hobby knives, I think they do it mostly for the enjoyment of making their own knives, well fitting and shaping the handle, sharpening it. You'd still be able to say "I made that" to a much greater extend than a store bought one.

<comment><USER9> That's pretty cool, I'm assuming it runs from 240 or is it something beefier?

Their factory is pretty neat, it's much smaller than I would have expected given their volume. Happy to support a company that does all it's work in the US even if the prices are higher.

One of the thing that was interesting from the factory tour was that they were really just a high precision (at the time in the 80s) machine shop. Most of their work is pairing with an existing designer(Osbourne, Pardue, Williams, etc). It's an interesting business model compared to some of the other manufacturers out there.

<comment><USER11> Not the OP, but the "standard" electrical connection in a metal shop is usually 480v 3-phase, most tools are going to use that.

<comment><USER10> Yep, this is correct, 3 phase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _When it comes down to it, most of today's super exotic alloys will > outperform any pattern-welded steel ... A well-made Damascus blade will stay > sharp for longer than most production quality knives, but if you're looking > for the ends-of-the-earth best performing blade steel, look elsewhere_

Can someone link/name one of these super exotic alloys knifes?

<comment><USER13> Some examples would be CPM S30V, S35VN, S90V, and S110V; CPM 3V, 9V, 10V, 15V; A2, D2, O1 and S7; VG-10.

Some of these are arguably "more Damascus than Damascus", in a sense that they're also mixes, but on a much finer level. For example, S30V - <USER2> relatively affordable "super steel" \- is one of those known as "powder steels" due to the way they're made, achieving extreme uniformity and purity of the alloy even at microscopic level:

[https://www.knifeart.com/particlesteel.html](https://www.knifeart.com/particlesteel.html)

This lets knife makers create alloys that are outright impossible using traditional methods (because they wouldn't be able to make them uniform enough). It also means that they can formulate an alloy precisely to match the desired qualities, instead of approximating it by mixing steels in layers as Damascus does.

The kind of stuff we can do with modern technology and modern materials would be considered genuine magic back in the days where the quality of those blades was a life-or-death matter. It's kinda ironic that these days, we use it for EDC knives to avoid sharpening them more often than we'd like.

Here's a good example of how a modern knife made from one of the highest-end steels performs (scroll down to the "Performance" section):

[http://knifeinformer.com/spyderco- military-s110v-review/](http://knifeinformer.com/spyderco- military-s110v-review/)

<comment><USER9> Really big fan of S30V, it's a pretty decent blend of edge retention without being an absolute pain to resharpen.

There's some really interesting specialty metals out there like Boye Dendritic Cobalt[1]. I've got one of their sheepsfoot folders and it's a pretty neat for a specialty knife.

[1] [https://www.boyeknives.com/pages/new-dendritic- cobalt](https://www.boyeknives.com/pages/new-dendritic-cobalt)

<comment><USER13> I actually find even S30V to be a bit overkill as far as resharpening goes, and prefer softer steels that are easier to keep sharp with little effort and basic tools, even if you need to do it more often - such as 14C28N and VG-10.

But it's all very subjective. I have some S30V and S35VN folders, too, and large 3V choppers (got a couple Fehrmans back in the day on a whim). They're all great blades, and if it comes to a zombie apocalypse, I'm definitely swinging a Fehrman. But until then... ~

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I've got a Benchmade Anthem which is easily one of my favorites(aside from the fact that the incredibly smooth action may qualify it as a gravity knife in some overly zealous jurisdictions), however the CPM-20SV is pretty hard to resharpen if you let it go too far.

I probably just need to spend some proper time to learn it as almost all my other stuff is either 30SV or 154CM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Unfortunately, the technique for making both Damascus and Wootz steel has > been lost to the centuries.

I've watched the artists on Man at Arms Reforged make wootz steel in a kiln from pig iron and wrought iron when recreating a Viking-era sword. It certainly isn't lost.

edit: video here if anyone is interested: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EG34YoRHs8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EG34YoRHs8)

<comment><USER15> Nobody knows if the modern approach is the same, even if using historically appropriate tools and materials.

<comment><USER16> But if the result is indistinguishable from old examples, does it matter if the approach is different?

<comment><USER17> The discussion is whether the _technique_ is lost, not whether we can reproduce the results. So... yes, it does matter. It is, in fact, the crux of the matter.

<comment><USER18> If we can map all possible ways of making the material, surely one of them must be the ancient technique.

<comment><USER19> If we arrange all possible combinations of letters into strings, then we can have all the books which burned in Alexandria. But if you had to walk along an isle in the library of the superset of all possible books, you would die before you came across one that existed. And if you could live forever, there would be uncountable minor varations variations of imposter books before the actual one.

<comment><USER20> If this isn't already the plot to a Borges short story, it should be.

<comment><USER21> It is - The Library of Babel.

<comment><USER20> Sounds like I'm past due for pulling _Labyrinths_ out of storage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Knife community is pretty tight and also pretty accessible. I've exchanged emails with Devin Thomas and I'm a relative newbie.

I think of damascus as an aesthetic element first. Some people really like it, others find it too flashy.

<comment><USER23> Can I ask how you got started, and why? Thinking about picking up knife making as a hobby and curious about your experience. Feel free to email me - <USER3> in profile.

<comment><USER22> I'm a knife owner not a maker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I just watched a recent documentary on an attempt to recreate Wootz steel. Worth checking out if you're interested in the subject.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP8PCkcBZU4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP8PCkcBZU4)

<comment><USER25> Al Pendray in the documentary also wrote a book about Wootz and explained why he believes the technique was 'lost to history':

> The smiths that produced the high-quality blades would most likely have kept > the process for making these blades a closely guarded secret to be passed on > only to their apprentices. The smiths would be able to teach the apprentices > the second and third points listed, but point one is something they would > not have known. There is no difference in physical appearance between an > ingot with the proper minor elements present and one without. Suppose that > during several generations all of the ingots from India were coming from an > ore body with the proper amount of minor elements present, and blades with > good patterns were being produced. Then, after a few centuries, the ore > source may have been exhausted or become inaccessible to the smithing > community; therefore, the technique no longer worked. With time, the smiths > who knew about the technique died out without passing it on to their > apprentices (since it no longer worked), so even if a similar source was > later found, the knowledge was no longer around to exploit it. The possible > validity of this theory could be examined if data were available on the > level of carbide-forming elements in the various ore deposits in India used > to produce wootz steel.

[http://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/2017/06/knifemaking- legen...](http://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/2017/06/knifemaking-legend-al- pendray-father-of-modern-wootz-has-passed/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Damascus steel requires much more time to hone. It holds an edge longer, but I'm not sure it is worth the frustration involved in getting an edge.

My favorite straight razors are my vintage ones, mostly because the steel is of lower quality....they take an edge real fast!

Damascus steel also makes products very expensive. I tend to lose straight razors and pocket knives, so it doesn't make sense to make such a large investment. The investment will extend to honing stones....you'll probably want a Belgian Coticule which run $100+.

Damascus steel looks super cool though. If I was a superstar sushi chef, I'd want Damasteel just for the brag points.

<comment><USER27> Your experience is not wrong, but the cause you attribute it to is. Damascus steels are made out of modern steels. Modern steels tend to contain molybdenum, vanadium, chromium, tungsten, etc. when they are heat treated, some of those elements above form carbides in the steel. When you try to cut those carbides with a stone, you don't. You need diamond stones to sharpen high carbide steel. Without that, the carbide scores the water stone and the stone erodes the steel around the carbide inclusions. Essentially making the edge lumpy.

In old steels -1077, 1084, and 1095, there are few carbides that aren't iron- based. This makes sharpening much much easier, and also makes edges dull much faster. In a straight razor, I (like you) would rather optimize for easy sharpening/honing, but, for other purposes, more modern steels perform better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Aren't Damascus blades originally an Indian invention?

<comment><USER29> The 'wootz' style Damascus is; Europeans didn't know it originally came from Southern India because it came through traders in Damascus.

The 'pattern-welded' Damascus is known from Europe (maybe as an attempt to replicate the 'wootz' style Damascus?) But it exists elsewhere as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Also possibly of interest: NHK World's _Japanology Plus_ episode "Bladed Tools": [https://youtu.be/afQgQ5gLYO8](https://youtu.be/afQgQ5gLYO8)

</comment><comment><USER31> My favorite knife is a Northman crafted hunting knife. It's beautiful, imperfect, and holds an edge really well.

[https://youtu.be/J3nojb-gFH4](https://youtu.be/J3nojb-gFH4)

</comment><comment><USER32> This guy explains it better I think: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISSGL4Ns2qw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISSGL4Ns2qw)

<comment><USER33> Walter is one strange person on Youtube, simply just for forging knives. Not a bit of showing off his history, he actually is a writer...

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is it possible to make corrosion resistant stainless in the Damascus style...or will the dissimilar materials cause galvanic corrosion or the spaces between the different alloys result in crevice corrosion?

<comment><USER20> The article explicitly mentions an all-stainless Damascus steel formulation:

> _" Devin makes all-stainless Damascus steel, _high contrast, double high > carbon, and many, many exotic patterns. _"_

<comment><USER34> Right, but even raw pure stainless of let's say 304 or 316 will rust in naked form due to the small crevices left on the surface straight from the mill...if multiple dissimilar layers of stainless or folded, it seems to me that stainless Damascus will be very vulnerable to rusting... unless there is something in the chemistry between the individual layers that mitigates this, no?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Just FYI:

Absolute hardest material for knife blades is ZrO2 (Zirconium dioxide == Ceramic).

It also the most brittle, but never rusts and holds sharpness for insane amount of time.

<comment><USER36> Kycoera is one popular brand. But off late it seems like ceramic knives have hit upon some production efficiency, and there are many brands to choose from.

They do blunt, say after 6 months of use. Kyocera for one, provides a free sharpening service if you mail their knives in. Ceramic blade gets sharpened on diamond wheels, and they have to be mailed in.

<comment><USER35> I own Kyocera kitchen knife as well as some made-in-china ceramic folder.

Both are performing really well. If I'd buy Chinese made steel knife - <USER4> probably would get dull after cutting 3 sandwiches or so. Ceramic knife apparently performing extremely well and remains sharp as expected.

Also - i saw there are ceramic knife sharpeners available - so i plan to get one sometime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Short reminder, that you can use Damascus steel.. everywhere and it looks really awesome. That's why I have some on my wedding ring... ^^

</comment><comment><USER38> Sad to see the Middle Eastern developed techniques for forging raw materials dug up in Pakistan into Damascus steel be lost to history.

</comment><comment><USER39> This post is blatantly wrong. Wootz steel (sourced from India but known in the West as Damascus steel because that was where a lot of the blades were made) was not pattern welded / folded.

Pattern welding was used in the West to try and emulate these blades, and has gotten the name "Damascus steel", but it is not classic Damascus / wootz steel.

<comment><USER20> The article makes exactly this point:

> _" First, let's do a little freshening up on what exactly "Damascus steel" > is. Damascus, Wootz, and patternweld are all names given to different types > of steels and blades. Basically, the idea is that two or more steel alloys > are forged/cast together through various methods to give the wavy artistic > pattern that comes from such a layering process. Unfortunately, the > technique for making both Damascus and Wootz steel has been lost to the > centuries. Anyone claiming to be making authentic Wootz/Damascus these days > is delusional. Or lying . . ."_

...

> _" The other type of pattern-welded steel is the so called "Damascus steel". > Originally used in middle eastern sword making, the method has been lost > since about the 16th century. The art form has resurfaced, though, and in > 1973 bladesmith William F. Moran unveiled his "Damascus knives" at the > Knifemakers' Guild Show. Ever since then modern pattern-welded steel blades > have been called "Damascus knives"."_

<comment><USER39> _> "The other type of pattern-welded steel is the so called "Damascus steel". Originally used in middle eastern sword making, the method has been lost since about the 16th century._

That's simply wrong. It wasn't pattern-welded. It appeared similar to pattern- welded steel, but was manufactured without any pattern-welding.

<comment><USER40> "but was manufactured without any pattern-welding."

How do we know? I see this claimed a lot by those into the mystique of Damascus, but if we don't know how they were made as you claim, then how do you know they're not pattern welded?

<comment><USER39> We do know generally how they were made. Wootz was crucible steel. It's just not a living tradition and we don't have documentation of the exact details.

In recent years, some people have been able to figure out the process, making use of impurities present in the original wootz, to create blades that chemically, structurally, and visually resemble the original wootz blade. The methods they have come up with are probably the same methods used to make original damascus blades; we just can't confirm that since the original process isn't documented well enough to know exact details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I chuckle when in film they describe a blade as folded over 200 times. 2^200 is a lot. And anything more than a few folds gives you mush.

</comment><comment><USER42> Demascene.

<comment><USER43> That, too, is an ambiguous term, since _damascene_ and _damascening_ can refer to ground, engraved or machined surface patterning (such as in watchmaking or "engine turned" panels).

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> So sad to see an article written about Damascus steel origin without the origin being mentioned. The origin of Damascus steel was India where it was called Ukku. Wootz is derived from Ukku.

</comment><comment><USER45> >Unfortunately, the technique for making both Damascus and Wootz steel has been lost to the centuries.

>For instance Devin Thomas is a master Damascus steel maker. He forges every billet himself and has the process down to a science.

So which one is it?

<comment><USER20> The article makes clear that the modern usage is a misnomer in that the process is not the same. That said, given that the term _is_ currently widely used for modern knives, it's needlessly pedantic to insist that one not call the modern knives Damascus steel.

> _" The other type of pattern-welded steel is the so called "Damascus steel". > Originally used in middle eastern sword making, the method has been lost > since about the 16th century. The art form has resurfaced, though, and in > 1973 bladesmith William F. Moran unveiled his "Damascus knives" at the > Knifemakers' Guild Show. Ever since then modern pattern-welded steel blades > have been called "Damascus knives"."_</comment></comment>


AT&T Brings Back Unlimited Data - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/at-t-resurrects-unlimited-data-1752209110 <comment><USER2> Misleading title -- data is actually subject to throttling.</comment>