Deep Dive: New Bookmark Sync in Firefox Nightly - <AUTHOR> https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/05/14/deep-dive-new-bookmark-sync-in-nightly/ <comment><USER2> > For the last two years, the Firefox Sync team has been hard at work > improving bookmarks on all our platforms

If they only would improve the actual bookmark manager. It's been a thorn in my eyes for quite some time now.

\- you can't find duplicates

\- it takes 0.5-3sec/bookmark to delete bookmarks (on my devices at least)

\- you can't cut found bookmarks out of a search (it copies it)

\- the bookmark search sucks

And there are multiple other minor annoyances that bug me or features I would wish for (searchable offline bookmarks anyone? [I know that's going more in the direction search engine, but it sure as hell would be nice])

I'm kind of a horder when it comes to open tabs and bookmarks, so it is a pain in the butt to manage those. Last time I cleaned all my bookmarks I exported them and managed them with buku[0]. "Lost" my directory structure through this but it was worth it.

[0] [https://github.com/jarun/Buku](https://github.com/jarun/Buku)

<comment><USER3> An offline full text search for bookmarks would be really useful.

<comment><USER4> What would be even more useful is if this would integrate with a web search engine somehow. E.g., search for a term, and it will first show matches in bookmarks, and then matches from the web. Also nice if this would integrate with the filesystem, e.g., it would show matches in documents/filenames on the local system.

<comment><USER5> That's already what the Awesome Bar does if it's configured to show search results (in Preferences > Search). You can also search only bookmarks with the * keyword.

<comment><USER2> Thx didn't know about the * keyword will use this from now on. (I disabled the search and justed used the open tabs, history and bookmark suggestion function from the awesomebar)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > You might visit dozens or hundreds of sites in a week, and it's okay if some > pages get lost in the shuffle

My opinion is it's not okay. Why would it be?

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I'm now remembering a handful of really frustrating sessions of pouring over my history looking for a now-important resource I didn't bookmark, triple-checking and etc... and it may have not been there in the first place? That's awful.

<comment> cup-of-tea *poring

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I recognize not everyone liked it, I really enjoyed Chrome Bookmark Manager extension[1]. It made it a lot easier for me to sift through my hoarded bookmarks. I switched to Firefox after Quantum because it was noticeably faster, and this style of bookmark management is something I miss from Chrome. I haven't found a Firefox alternative yet.

[1]: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bookmark- manager/g...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bookmark- manager/gmlllbghnfkpflemihljekbapjopfjik?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER9> I once accidentally deleted some of my bookmarks because I thought I had disabled sync (which I hadn't). To my surprise, I found out that Firefox maintains a (local) bookmarks history, so I was able to fully restore them. This was really a lifesaver.

</comment><comment><USER10> While I've never experienced conflict issues with bookmark sync, one pet peeve of mine is how their sync implementation has never supported syncing search engines.

I mean proper OpenSearch support, different from using keyboard bookmarks with %s as a hack, since you actually get proper autocomplete.

In fact that whole situation there is just a mess, no proper way to use sites that implemented OpenSearch from the awesomebar like the Tab to search in chrome's omnibar.

<comment><USER11> Historically this has been a little tricky to add due to some peculiarities with addons. That shouldn't be an issue anymore, although I don't think anybody's jumping at implementing the bug, presumably since it seems like it will require walking on eggshells to avoid upsetting search contracts (for example, it becomes tricky when you consider that search contracts are by location but users could have devices in multiple locations. There are several other headaches around this too).

We do sync bookmark keywords FWIW, which can be used as a sort of search, but it's a bit indiscoverable and not the same as syncing settings like your default search engine.

(I work on firefox sync)

<comment><USER10> I did mention using bookmark keyword searches as hack to get sync, but I'm talking about proper support for syncing user registered OpenSearch[1] providers (and any user configured keyword shortcuts for them)

As of now you can add an OpenSearch[1] provider in Firefox using the javascript api `window.external.AddSearchProvider(engineURL)` where engineURL is the XML file description of the search engine like this one for IMDb search:

[https://m.media- amazon.com/images/G/01/imdb/images/imdbsearc...](https://m.media- amazon.com/images/G/01/imdb/images/imdbsearch-3349468880._CB499558879_.xml)

This is the method the Mycroft[2] project uses, which Firefox recommends. Chrome though, besides also supporting that API, looks for a search meta tag in a page's head after you visit it liking to the same OpenSearch provider xml

<link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="[https://m.media- amazon.com/images/G/01/imdb/images/imdbsearc...](https://m.media- amazon.com/images/G/01/imdb/images/imdbsearch-3349468880._CB499558879_.xml") title="IMDb">

In Chrome, after you visit their home page with that metadata it's registered as a provider so once you start typing Imdb in the omnibox, you see an indication to press 'Tab' in the right corner of the omnibox, and it switches to searching imdb instead. Even providing autocomplete if the search provider supports it.

Firefox could make registering these more discoverable from the UI (adding via a page action as an example at least?)

[1] [http://www.opensearch.org/Home](http://www.opensearch.org/Home) [2] [http://mycroftproject.com/](http://mycroftproject.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I remember using FoxMarks/XMarks [1], started by Mitch Kapoor. I just looked it up and saw it came out in 2006. That made me feel old.

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

<comment><USER13> Wow, I didn't know that they just shut down this month. I definitely still have the add-on installed in all my browsers, and thought it was still syncing...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Using this post to ask a question about bookmarks sync: does anyone have found a way to periodically sync bookmarks from Firefox/Chrome with Safari?

I use Safari on iOS for obvious reasons and the inability to export the bookmarks I have on my Mac browser to Safari is really annoying. Fun fact: if you have a Windows computer you can do it [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT203519](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203519)

<comment><USER15> > I use Safari on iOS for obvious reasons and the inability to export the > bookmarks I have on my Mac browser to Safari is really annoying.

What obvious reasons? Why not just use Firefox for iOS instead?

<comment><USER16> Firefox for iOS is abysmally slow. We're talking 6-10 seconds from cold start to being able to navigate.

One of the main reasons I wanted to use it was to pass pages from desktop to Firefox for iOS, but on top of start time it would take upwards of 20-30s just for the tabs to sync across devices.

<comment><USER15> It has a slower startup, but seeing as it is one of only 4-5 apps I run on a regular basis, I don't really notice.

What I _would_ notice is constantly having to look up my sync-data like history and passwords from elsewhere because Safari is a walled garden. That would seriously hinder me and slow me down on a quite so regular basis.

Different folks, different strokes, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I really hope they improve also tab sync - for some reason it usually doesn't work (or better yet it works but I see tabs from months ago, which is quite useless)

<comment><USER11> It shouldn't unless your device is unable to sync for some reason. You may have error logs in one of your firefoxes at about:sync-log. Either way it's probably worth either filing a bug or asking in #sync in mozilla IRC.

<comment><USER7> I'd just like to say, as kindly as possible, that this is another thing that drove me away from Firefox. There is so much community support! ...but it's always of the "works here, have you tried rebooting" school of thought.

The classic is deleting your profile, that unique Firefox troubleshooting standby. As if regularly nuking all of your browser personalizations to fix inconsistent bugs is at all acceptable even if it did work.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, sorry. I worked on tab sync and the debugging process would be involved enough that it's not practical to do over HN comments. In practice there are a couple concrete things that can cause this, and but all should be reported in about:sync-log.

Not sure how to help more specifically than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to self host my bookmarks and sync them myself across devices, seems impossible and I might end up using cronjobs.

<comment><USER2> If you mean your own firefox sync then here you go [0] if you mean an actual cross device, cross browser sync then you probably need to write something yourself. It seems like a need for something like this does exist [1]. Maybe a simple sync server and a cross browser plugin? Anyway have a nice day :)

[0] [https://github.com/mozilla- services/syncserver](https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncserver)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17072977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17072977)

<comment><USER18> I had problems trying to install syncserver in the past, maybe it's worth giving it nother shot - thanks!

I'd rather skip plugins because I'd like to use the default bookmarking function (especially on mobile)

<comment><USER18> ah the problem was related to the auth server, given Mozilla's attitude towards data I'd rather avoid their system.

I think I'll stick to an hackish backup to my server via scp and Termux - thanks again!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Thanks to the magic of complex distributed systems, corruption also isn't > stable: inconsistent data can become eventually consistent, and much of Sync > relies on this property to work.

Oh boy. The whole article reads like a lesson in over engineering and trying to find the most complex solution. "But it's a really hard problem." \- yeah, every problem can be framed in an arbitrarily hard context if you need to supply a group of people with work and resume-includable buzzwords.

<comment><USER20> Seems more like they used an existing solution that was not quite up to the task. Also had the handicap of not being able to rely on the server due to client-side encryption.</comment></comment>


Observations on remote work - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ovalerio.net/archives/1352 <comment><USER2> I use remote workers and it is cost effective, within budget and produces quality results. Check out my site for case study. [https://latechnews.org/](https://latechnews.org/)</comment>


Ask HN: Should I use languages that cross compile to JS? - <AUTHOR>

There seems to be a strong trend towards working away from vanilla JS. Is this a good thing?
My reservations are that adding a compile step with a dynamic language seems like added complexity and debugging (even though source maps and live reload tools help pretend it's not the case), and that if JS is so bad to work with directly, why not support an alternative completely?
I've worked on a full project in CoffeeScript before, I've done the ASM.js hello world from C, I've also looked at Dart, Clojure and Typescript.
It just seams like those solutions are not taken by choice, but by necessity.
Thoughts? (hears can of worms open) <comment><USER2> Personally I prefer to avoid any kind of JavaScript simplifier just because I view it as a crutch. When it comes to job interviews and being able to just pick up and start coding, knowing how to do it purely is going to give you the advantage.

The time it takes to get acquainted with these pre-compiled versions is hardly worth the supposed savings in syntax or function writing.

<comment><USER3> I too believe in using vanilla JavaScript in general.

That said, for the OP's purposes, if you like the look of AtScript, by all means, write it! If not, feel free not to use it or to move onto libraries that don't - every choice you make has benefits and tradeoffs, make the ones that make sense for your situation/fulfills what you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Depends on what you're working on and how you work...

If you have legacy code in JS to work with and/or like full fledged IDEs, you're probably better off with plain JS.

If you start new projects and are more of a TextMate/Sublime Text dev, you can have fun times with compile-to-JS languages.

I was using plain JS for years, with some hand-made frameworks, ExtJS4 and EmberJS and always used WebStorm.

When I switched to LiveScript, the IDE features didn't help me anymore and it became a slow editor for me, so I switched to Sublime Text for editing and coded some tools with GulpJS to automate the compilation.

So it's not just the languages, but their tooling and interaction with other JS-code, you have to consider, when choosing what to use :)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've done the last 10 months at work in CoffeeScript. The previous 12 were full time client side JavaScript.

I think if you have a team of people dedicated to keeping your dev and build environment working then CoffeeScript might be worth it. Maybe.

You just lose so much. You lose debugging tools. You lose being able to run your code outside of a build environment. You lose being able to copy/paste between your code and the browser. You lose being able to understand what happens when you run your code (unless you memorize the full implementation of CoffeeScript.) You lose being able to differentiate between foo and var foo.

I actually feel like there is a movement back in the other direction. Pure js. Small modules that do one thing well. Functional programming. It's not a terrible scene.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just FYI, this post was partly inspired by the fact Angular 2.0 seems to be a mess of JS and Dart support via AtScript...

Good reasons or not, the added barrier to contributions, and choosing yet another language that isn't JS still ultimately leads me to the conclusion many at Google don't believe in JS in the long haul, not as a language to write in.

[http://eisenbergeffect.bluespire.com/all-about- angular-2-0/](http://eisenbergeffect.bluespire.com/all-about-angular-2-0/)

<comment><USER6> Writing a lot of JS makes you stop believing in JS for the long haul. It's just impossible to write anything large without lots of fragility, and the bugs are often incredibly subtle.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do work professionally writing JS (client side and Node.js), I see where you are coming from, but I certainly found CoffeeScript had lots of new subtle bugs and issues to replace the JS ones, and ultimately I wouldn't recommend it over Vanilla JS. I don't exactly love it JS either, but I feel if I were to really switch to something, it had better truly offer me something useful.

Facebook opt-in strict typing tool might be a decent option.

I also have many interests beyond JS, such as learning Go recently. I'm happy to bin it for a better life, my real question is will I have a better life?

<comment><USER6> There are lots of alternatives other than CoffeeScript[1]. HN has recently been full of "[some language] transpiler to JavaScript" posts. A strong type system and more sane error-handling seem to be major motivators.

Glad to hear you've been learning Go -- there's a transpiler for that!

1\. [https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of- langu...](https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of-languages- that-compile-to-js)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Try it, then decide for yourself. But yes, I use Clojurescript and much faster then Javascript to release stuff as the language is so complete</comment>


Petition to drop charges against Kiera Wilmot - <AUTHOR> http://www.change.org/petitions/the-bartow-police-and-bartow-high-school-drop-charges-against-kiera-wilmot

<comment><USER2> I imagine arresting teenagers and throwing them in jail for practising chemistry will continue to help the US's already stellar rankings in science compared to other nations...

</comment><comment><USER3> We're getting awfully close to an upper class imposing lifelong penalties on lower class members for stepping out of line. A felony is a lifelong handicap to the working class.

How much longer until we're (figuratively) cutting off the hands of orphans for stealing loaves of bread?

<comment><USER4> Which teachers and administrators at the school do you feel are a part of this "upper class?" There are certainly no millionaires handing down decrees at the schools near me.

<comment><USER5> That is because they are the upper classes in terms of power, not money (there is some overlap, but not as much as there have been, historically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The police report* says it was Assistant State Attorney Tammy Glotfelty that initially came up with the two felony charges.

* <http://www.scribd.com/doc/138927259/Wilmot-Arrest>

<comment><USER7> Just last week, this ASA decided not to prosecute a teenager named Taylor Richardson who accidentally shot and killed his younger brother with a BB gun.

<comment><USER8> And how is that relevant?

<comment><USER7> Do I really need to explain it? According to this attorney, accidentally setting off a small explosion that results in no physical harm being done warrants a felony while murder doesn't even warrant a slap on the wrist.

It* baffles me.

<comment><USER8> _I baffles me._

Ironic typo. How is an accidental shooting equate to murder? Manslaughter maybe, but it only escalates to that level in a case of negligence.

<comment><USER9> > _"How is an accidental shooting equate to murder?"_

Zimahl, minutes after making the above comment: _"a bomb is a bomb"_

How is popping a soda bottle equivalent to a brick of C4?

<comment><USER8> _Zimahl, minutes after making the above comment: "a bomb is a bomb"_

A bomb _is_ a bomb. Whether it's thermonuclear or a "works bomb" is irrelevant. However, even killing someone isn't always murder.

 _How is popping a soda bottle equivalent to a brick of C4?_

Not my words, I certainly didn't equate the two. But I also wasn't the one who equated a "works bomb" as you called it to popping a paper sack behind someone's head. My comment of "a bomb is a bomb" is in regards to the fact that she knew it was illegal because she knew it was a bomb. And everyone these days damn well knows you don't do that shit at school, nor even bring a rubberband gun to school. You'll get, at a minimum, expelled.

I never said I agreed with the felonies but this shouldn't be chalked up to some simple slap on the wrist. She knew what she was doing.

<comment><USER9> > _A bomb is a bomb. Whether it's thermonuclear or a "works bomb" is > irrelevant_

 _Bull. Shit._

Is a dry ice bomb also _"a bomb is a bomb"_ and therefore plainly as illegal as any other bomb? What if I use coke and mentos instead? What if I use alka- seltzer instead? What if I didn't use anything at all, and merely gave the bottle a good vigorous shake then slammed it down onto the curb? What if I use alka-seltzer but instead of a soda bottle use a film canister instead? What about popping a paper bag instead of a film canister?

Or is it merely the word "bomb" that makes something a considered a plainly illegal bomb to you? What if instead of a brown paper bag is is an origami paper bomb? Is a rubber water bomb now illegal? Is a non-pyrotechnic stink bomb a "bomb" on par legally with a hand grenade? Is making the hallway stink bad now a felony? Is itching powder a chemical weapon? Should students be wary of photo bombing each other?

This seemingly magical equivalence between "bombs" before the law only exists in your head. It is the product of an acceptance and internalization of the zero-tolerance mindset, _not_ critical thinking.

> _Not my words, I certainly didn't equate the two._

You sure seem to think they are equivalent before the law... You keep on mindlessly repeating "a bomb is a bomb", what else could you possibly mean?

You also seem to think the apparent illegality of the works bomb changes the situation for some unstated reason. Nobody is questioning that some seem to think it is illegal; obviously the prosecutor thinks that it was illegal. We all know this. What we are upset with is this plainly abusive application of the law. Officially, the validity of application of the law will probably be decided in a courtroom. Unofficially, everyone here but you seems to recognize it is abusive and absurd. If they get away with it, it will be a travesty.

> _I also wasn't the one who equated a "works bomb" as you called it to > popping a paper sack behind someone's head._

You're right, she didn't pop a paper sack near somebody's head. She popped a soda bottle near _nobodys'_ head...

> _she knew it was illegal because she knew it was a bomb_

The first does not follow from the second, _and_ she disputes the second. _EVEN IF_ both of those are true, the reaction she has received is wildly out of line. Damn near everybody but you seems to realize this.

<comment><USER8> You are as naive as her to believe that setting this thing off at school shouldn't have consequences.

 _You also seem to think the apparent illegality of the works bomb changes the situation for some unstated reason._

I've never agreed with the felony charges. But you seem to think that because you think it's no big deal that there shouldn't be any punishment.

And you can keep twisting my "bomb is a bomb" quote into whatever you want but as far as the zero tolerance policy is concerned it doesn't matter. The problem with all you idiots on here defending her is that you are equating this to an anti-science thing where she's being kept down by "the man". One poster likened this to Socrates.

The other point is that she's an honor student yet didn't know it was dangerous and illegal? So what is she, the naive, stupid little fawn or the smart, intelligent student with a bright future?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone have any links to better articles on this situation? I feel like we've only heard one side of this from the media. Now, the media could just be portraying the truth or they could be distorting the facts. Here are the questions I've yet heard answered:

The actions were performed before school started (apparently). I call them 'actions' for a specific reason. Were these actions sponsored by a teacher? Were these actions an actual experiment? Were these actions performed within a science lab or somewhere else on school grounds? Were these actions associated with any curriculum the student was studying at the time?

Right now I feel that this could have very well be the scientific community rallying around someone who could've been doing something very dangerous that wasn't sanctioned by the school. I would love some answers so I could know whether the charge is fair or not.

<comment><USER10> From what I can tell, much of chemistry is highly dangerous. The only real question, afaict, is whether the person knows how to correctly handle the danger.

I _absolutely_ am OK with students doing things on school grounds not sponsored by a teacher, not an actual experiment, and generally faffing about in the name of curiosity and learning. Schools shouldn't be running on a whitelist principle.

IMO, the only reason this student should be given a felony charge is if she was planning to perform a dangerous detonation with malicious intent to harm.

Even if she was being stupid and ignorant and planned to scare her friends, no harm was caused.

Harmless foolishness should not be a felony... harmless learning even less so!

<comment><USER8> _I absolutely am OK with students doing things on school grounds not sponsored by a teacher, not an actual experiment, and generally faffing about in the name of curiosity and learning._

Really? I mean, it would've been OK if she did this in the middle of a cafeteria during lunch? And, yes, much of chemistry is highly dangerous and that's the reason it is done in a lab with fume hoods and safety equipment.

 _MO, the only reason this student should be given a felony charge is if she was planning to perform a dangerous detonation with malicious intent to harm._

The reason why I asked for more information is because we don't really know whether or not this wasn't her intent. Was she being bullied and was going to do this to someone else? I have a hard time associating this with 'science' because the narrative seems so one-sided.

<comment><USER9> _"Was she being bullied and was going to do this to someone else?"_

Do what to someone else, hurt their ears? Have you ever actually seen a works bomb go off?

<comment><USER8> I've seen one on Youtube and they are all fine and dandy when everyone is aware what is going to happen and moves away. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be anywhere next to one when they went off and possibly get Drano or toilet cleaner in my eyes.

<comment><USER9> Surely if you were going to intentionally cause harm in such a way you would save yourself a lot of trouble and just throw Drano at the person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In the interest of balance, I'd like to point out that Ms. Wilmot was almost certainly _intending_ to make an explosive (A weak one, but one nonetheless). Ie, this was not simply a science experiment gone wrong and she was not just "practicing chemistry". And intentionally creating an explosive on school grounds definitely merits punishment.

That said, felony charges are clearly ludicrous (The set of actions a teenager could commit, barring actual malice, that merit a felony charge is in my mind vanishingly small).

<comment><USER9> > _"intending to make an explosive"_

That is a meaningless statement by itself, and "making an explosion" does not merit punishment in and of itself. You may as well say _"Stan was clearly intending to make a fire (A small one, but one nonetheless). ...intentionally creating a fire on school grounds definitely merits punishment)"_ What do we mean by fire? Did he set his desk ablaze, or did he light a wooden splint? _"He intentionally set a fire"_ gives us no basis to make a blanket judgement.

Explosions do not inherently merit punishment, just as fires do not. The massive range of intended harm and magnitude that could be encompassed by the general description "explosion" or "fire" means that these acts cover everything deserving of _"a stern look from the teacher"_ to _"lock them away and throw away the key"_.

Edit to add: When I was in 10th grade my physics class was making alka-seltzer rockets in the football field. A few of us threw a bunch into a 12-oz pop bottle and blew it up. We got an eye-roll from our teacher; it wasn't even considered worth a comment.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure fire is a great example. Fire can get out of hand and grow. Just as I don't want you playing with matches in my house, you probably shouldn't be playing with matches in school.

In the end, it all comes down to intent. If you lit some paper on fire and threw it in a trashcan to cause a disturbance that's an issue and a serious one. I am having trouble finding a good reason to light a fire in a school other than to light a Bunsen burner. _shrug_

The problem with an IED (perfectly fine name for what was made) is that it's affects are much less controllable. Many could be hurt and very quickly. I think it might warrant a very stern response and possibly legal punishment. Once again, to me it somewhat comes down to intent, although with IEDs I don't think the law really cares.

<comment><USER9> > _I am having trouble finding a good reason to light a fire in a school other > than to light a Bunsen burner. shrug_

For highschool students I think the usual 'good' reason is _"Well we already have this bunsen burner going for this lab, we are bored, we have all of these extra wooden splints, and we are teenagers."_ There really is little to no harm that is going to come of that sort of situation so, although the rules clearly forbid it, any reasonable teacher is just going to ignore them or tell them to knock it off. Zero-tolerance attitudes benefit nobody.

> _IED (perfectly fine name for what was made)_

You have got to be kidding me. The only reason to call it that is to invoke an emotional reaction.

<comment><USER8> _> IED (perfectly fine name for what was made)_

 _You have got to be kidding me. The only reason to call it that is to invoke an emotional reaction._

IED stands for "improvised explosive device". It might be emotional to you, however, it's exactly what was made. It's a device that is improvised from household materials with the entire point of exploding. It explodes via pressure but in no way does the IED label require it to be a brick of C4 detonated via a burner cell phone.

<comment><USER12> Right, and lighting a cigarette with a $1 convenience store butane lighter can be described innocuously as:

      Intentional ignition of an incendiary device via the combustion
      of highly compressed explosive gas using a manually triggered
      high voltage electrical discharge.

Edit: while you're technically correct that if what was made was designed to explode then it is an IED, you could also say that blowing air into a Ziploc bag, sealing it, and then stomping on it is also an IED. Are Ziploc bags designed for this use? No, thus it was improvised. Did it explode? Yes. Was it a device? Yes. The problem is that IED is such a loaded term and its use in this case can be quite misleading.

<comment> jack-r-abbit but... smoking at school is not allowed so it doesn't really matter how you describe it. Oh... unless maybe you were just conducting an experiment... then it would be ok... I guess?

<comment><USER9> Well then in that case lets arrest all of those delinquent smokers for attempted arson.

The issue here is proportionality of response (and, local to this particular thread, the use of absurdly loaded language to exaggerate the nature of an offense in order to justify disproportionate responses).

<comment> jack-r-abbit Again... there does not have to be an "all or nothing" situation. There is punishment less than felony conviction. I don't believe this girl is a felon and I don't believe she should go on without consequence.

<comment><USER13> What do you think would be an appropriate punishment?

<comment> jack-r-abbit I'd go with detention. Maybe something creative like 2 weeks cleaning up the science lab after school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit Why do they just gloss over the location of this "experiment"? Was it in the science lab? doesn't sound like it. Was it out in the school yard? sounds like it. Was it being supervised by a teacher? nope. Was it assigned by a teacher? doesn't sound like it. I think context matters. I can think a few bad things to do that could simply be labeled as an "experiment" when you get caught.

I hate that we have two such extremes. On one end we have this hyper-militant, zero tolerance agenda that turns every little thing into a felony (kindergartners getting kicked out for gun shaped finger pointing). On the other side we have hyper sensitive, rights agenda that wants to let little billy express his creativity even if that means a few bottle bombs go off on school grounds once in a while.

Is this girl a felon? hell no. what a stupid over reaction. But let's not pretend she didn't do anything wrong.

<comment> guard-of-terra The only result of you "not pretending she didn't do anything wrong" is she becoming a felon.

You never support wrongful accusation on the matters that the person accused is guilty of "something". That's what gets the person pronounced guilty and now you share this sin and is going to rot in hell and everybody loses: you, the society, the wrongfully accused.

<comment> jack-r-abbit I said the felony was an overreaction. Your statement really confuses me. Are you saying there is only two outcomes: 1) she suffers 0 punishment or 2) she is a felon

Surely there is something in the middle.

<comment> guard-of-terra No there isn't unfortunately. Courts do not work that way. They either let you go or you suffer fixed punishment not necessarily related to severity of your crime. That's what killed Socrates.

<comment> jack-r-abbit Fixed punishment is tied to the level of crime you are convicted of. There are many levels of "crime" that this could fall into. I don't think it has to be felony or nothing.

<comment> guard-of-terra These days of zero-tolerance (that is, most days on the planet except mid- twentieth century) it is too easy to just go with the flow and convict of whatever is brought to the eyes of justice. You need luck, good lawyer or both to get fair treatment, especially if the public thinks you're guilty of "something".

<comment> jack-r-abbit Well, the answer to zero tolerance is not "ALL tolerance". If those are my only choices and I am absolutely forced to pick one of those two sides, then I'm going to go with the side that doesn't foster an environment of "do as you please... we'll tolerate anything". That is a pretty slippery slope to get on. We have to have _some_ amount of rules and punishment.

<comment> guard-of-terra Well then, you are wrong and you are going to rot in hell for that sin as I told.

<comment> jack-r-abbit well that escalated quickly. sheesh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the charges are ridiculous. But I also think Hacker News can do better for content than hosting a link to every change.org petition that comes by, as the great majority of change.org petitions are a lot more ridiculous than this petition. And even when the petition urges a sensible position, the petition is almost never the best means to achieve the desired result.

From the Hacker News guidelines:

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off- topic."

This story has been adequately covered by the TV news and by news outlets all over the world. The petition doesn't add any "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" value to the Hacker News community.

<comment><USER15>
      Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

If an article is on the front page it's because the community wants it on the front page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> <http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/bottlebomb.asp>

<comment><USER17> What ever happened to just dry ice and water? Drano...really? Kids these days. :\

<comment><USER9> Where I grew up local stores would not sell either dry ice or "the works" (the favored brand, apparently) to kids. The effect is the same, which you choose is probably just a matter of which is available.

<comment> jack-r-abbit When the thing bursts and sends liquid splattering all about... would you prefer it to be water with dry ice? or Drano? I know dry ice has some safety concerns but I can't imagine it is worse than getting sprayed with Drano. But I could be wrong about just how dangerous dry ice is.

<comment><USER9> I wouldn't want to be sprayed by drano, but I wouldn't want to be next to either anyway. I have never heard of anyone actually being hurt by these things. Considering how popular they are, if they presented any appreciable danger you would think lots of people would be getting hurt by them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Signed...wish there was some way to donate to a scholarship fund or something for her...anyone know?

<comment><USER2> yes actually, I'd think about donating except that what would the US gov think of people donating money to a bomber? we all might get a check in our files for supporting terrorism... :(

<comment><USER19> That would be good. _Everybody_ should strive to get that check next to their name. Then it becomes a useless bit of information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would guess that what she was doing was causing the bottle to pop by doing a chemical reaction inside it that creates lots of gas as a by product of the chemical reaction, enough to cause a significant increase in pressure until the bottle pops.

This is actually something that kids did when I was in high school 10+ years ago (although never at school or during school hours). I don't think it is a good thing for kids to be doing, but I do think authorities are over reacting (pun intended), it is not a real explosion or bomb, just a bottle popping. However I do think someone could get hurt if they were right next to it when it pops.

</comment><comment><USER21> Petitions aren't as effective as campaigns to elect the opponents of those mentioned in the petition.

Even if you fail to prevent reelection, you have a better chance of changing the behavior of the incumbents.

</comment><comment><USER22> Like everyone else, I don't think this should result in a felony. But (apparently) unlike everyone else, I don't think it's particularly appropriate to build a small bomb at school, and I am pretty skeptical of the "I was just doing a science experiment" explanation.

I mean, when I was a kid we used to shoot stuff (with a pellet gun) and blow stuff up (with fireworks) because shooting stuff and blowing stuff up was cool. But we didn't try to pretend we were "doing science", and we were smart enough to do it in my backyard, not at school.

<comment><USER23> _we were smart enough to do it in my backyard_

Does she have a backyard?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What have been the most significant real-world effects of change.org petitions?

<comment><AUTHOR> While I understand (and often share) your cynicism, change.org has won some victories in the past: <http://www.change.org/victories>

The level of the "victories" do vary. But, in this particular case, I think a mass expression of support for this girl could actually encourage the local DA and school reconsider moving forward with prosecution.

<comment><USER24> So merely asking how effective they are is "cynicism," got it.

Most of those victories can be chalked up to "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

<comment><USER25> Perhaps steer clear of questioning whether he was correct to guess your meaning when following it with a line that confirms you were indeed being cynical. Not saying you are wrong to be cynical, but you are (as am I).

<comment><USER24> Still not cynical (nor hypocritical in case that's what you're implying), and many change.org victories being _post hoc_ instances is demonstrable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> We have a hyper-sensitive populace and so-called educators and "authorities" that are continually trying to nanny-fy the U.S. Thirty years ago something like this would have been laughed at as jr. mad scientist kid doing what jr. mad scientist kids do.

Do they even sell those little chemistry labs in a box that you could buy 30 or so years ago, or has "homeland security" deemed that dangerous?

<comment><USER27> They still sell them, but everything in them must be edible (seriously):

[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/27/do-modern-no- chem...](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/27/do-modern-no-chemical- chemistry-kits-for-kids-take-the-fun-out-of-science/#)</comment></comment>


Rails Misapprehensions: Helpers are shit. - <AUTHOR> http://nicksda.apotomo.de/2011/10/rails-misapprehensions-helpers-are-shit/ <comment><USER2> Nick, thank-you for putting into words and exemplifying something I have always suspected.</comment>


Barrett Brown Taken Back into Custody Before PBS Interview - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/04/27/formerly-imprisoned-journalist-barrett-brown-taken-back-into-custody-before-pbs-interview/ <comment><USER2> In other news... US ranked #43 for press freedom by Reporters Without Borders. [https://rsf.org/en/ranking](https://rsf.org/en/ranking)

<comment><USER3> Unsurprisingly, the US is in the "Fairly Good" bracket on RSF's index. This is despite the fact that it has a lower "abuse" score, which is based on documented incidents and not survey results, than Germany, the largest European country with "Good" status.

If you read the 87-question RSF survey, you'll see that it's pretty unlikely that the US will ever break into the top "Good" bracket, despite the fact that we don't have state control of the media (some "Good" countries, including Belgium, actually _license_ journalists), the fact that we lead the world in the education of journalists (I'm not making a big deal about that --- the questionnaire does), and the fact that virtually everyone who wants to function as an online journalist has adequate internet access; the questionnaire is also full of subjective questions that have more to do with assessments by journalists of the culture. So regardless of the status of our laws, the fact that journalists fear cultural reputational damage for challenging power, for instance, is going to weight the US down.

Expect the score to drop precipitously next year, by the way: the questionnaire directly asks, in multiple questions, whether the government attempts to discredit the media.

I think the Trump administration is a travesty and that their treatment of the press is actually a significant indicator of how much of a travesty it is. But it's frustrating that the hallmark of a truly free press is its ability to continue functioning _despite_ brickbats thrown from the administration. Our free press will be challenged in the next few years as it hasn't been challenged for many decades prior, and I expect our system will persevere. Despite that fact, our RSF score will drop as a result of us weathering those challenges.

So, I'm not a fan of the RSF methodology or really of any of these indices. But if you look at the underlying data I think you'll see that "ranked #43" isn't as interesting as it sounds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is no plausible set of circumstances in which Brown would have faced "100 years in prison". The press (and the DOJ) arrive at these false prospective sentencing claims by taking every individual count and adding them up. But that's not how federal sentencing works: under the sentencing guidelines, like charges group, and the sentence applying to the most severe charge defines the sentence. The severity of a sentence will have to do with a defined set of factors, including previous criminal history, actual harm done, remunerative intent, &c.

For more on this topic, Google "Popehat whale sushi".

<comment><USER4> Popehat's math is lengthy - suggesting the sushi chef would get 2 years instead of 67.

By a similar ratio Brown would have got less than the 5 years he got with a plea deal.

If so, why did he take a plea deal and lose his day in court ? Was it just bad advice ?

[edit]Was Brown prosecuted : because of the severity of his crime; because he was easier to catch; or because he was embarrassing the powerful ?[/edit]

[edited]Whatever one's opinion of Brown, he certainly is a journalist and the Intercept is right to draw attention to his censoring and investigate if it is politically motivated or simply the result of a miscommunication about the forms he was given.[/edit]

<comment><USER3> We can read the indictment, stipulate that every claim in the indictment held up at trial, research his criminal history, and then match that up to the guidelines, which are easily Google-able. I don't know, and haven't done this analysis, but I doubt it's 10 years.

What I do know is that it's _not_ 100 years, and that The Intercept isn't actually informing you of anything when they claim it is. You're no closer to understanding the severity of the charges he was facing after reading this article.

 _The parent comment was completely rewritten after I responded to it. I have no idea what the answer to whatever the current version of the question they 're trying to ask is._

<comment><USER4> Apologies for the editing, very bad form on my part and thank you for taking the time to answer - I added edit tags to the additions.

It certainly puts a different light on things that he took a plea for 5 years instead of fighting it and risking 10, [edit] rather than 100.[/edit]

I will contact the journalist with Popehat's work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Man. I remember growing up reading books about Nazi Germany and Russia where they had two classes of prisoner in their jails, political prisoners and 'common' prisoners (thieves, etc)

It sure feels fucking _crazy_ to think the US has political prisoners in its own jails now.

<comment><USER3> For as long as the US has had prisons, it has had prisoners who claimed to be held for political reasons, and supporters who acknowledged and amplified those claims. Sometimes those claims are almost certainly true, as anyone who's spent any time volunteering with Amnesty surely knows. Other times, they are not. Barrett Brown would certainly prefer you to look at his conviction as politically motivated. But there's a lot of things Brown would like you to believe that are probably false.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, read up on Assata Shakur (I'm not even remotely qualified to discuss whether or not AS _was_ a political prisoner, but certainly such a controversy existed, and she's still living in Cuba)

Equally, from the bugging of Martin Luther King to the Committee on Unamerican Activities, it is inarguable that the government does sometimes take direct action against those whose views it regards as dangerous.</comment></comment></comment>


Group Testing: A New Weapon in the Fight Against Syphilis - <AUTHOR> http://blog.shriphani.com/2015/07/21/a-new-weapon-in-the-fight-against-syphilis/

<comment><USER2> Why test everyone if the group is tainted? A binary search (subdividing into two groups) would seem more efficient. Perhaps they had to call everyone back in for a second sample and thought that three times would seem silly.

<comment><USER3> The largest possible _n_ is the total number of population, and if the expected number of infected soldiers is == 0 the largest _n_ is also the optimal one. Since we know the percentage of infections is a lot more than 0, the largest _n_ isn't optimal. Otherwise if 1 person is infected, you'd be back to square one and your initial test of a cocktail of your entire populations' samples was fruitless.

The second largest _n_ one could choose is half the population by dividing into two groups. It's the most optimal _n_ if the expected number of infected soldiers is around 1. Since we know the percentage of infections is a lot more than 1, the largest _n_ isn't optimal. Otherwise, if 1 person in each group is infected, you'd be back to square one and your initial test of two cocktails of each half of the populations' samples was fruitless.

...etc...

At _p_ = 0.01, the optimal _n_ is, according to this article, around 20-25.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A O(log(n)) approach to syphilis testing by using the physical equivalent of search trees. Very interesting.

It only works well if a small percentage of the population is infected.

</comment><comment><USER5> Really enjoyed this. Great applications to both cost reduction and privacy. I've seen pooling strategies like this for monitoring cars.</comment>


Smokers' Ranks Look Conspicuously Sparse in Obamacare - <AUTHOR> http://khn.org/news/smokers-ranks-look-conspicuously-sparse-in-obamacare/ <comment><AUTHOR> Obamacare allows for charging smokers a 50% premium increase, thus non-smokers would not be subsidizing the much higher health care costs of smokers. The problem is that the insurance companies are not allowed by law to verify whether someone is a non-smoker, thus, few people buy the smokers policy. This means that non-smokers have higher rates to pay as a result.</comment>


All the laptops that came out at CES 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/13/laptops-at-ces-2019 <comment><USER2> Almost all the laptops, they neglected to mention the refreshed thinkpads</comment>


How Does America "Reshore" Skills That Have Disappeared? - <AUTHOR> http://craftsmanship.net/reshore-skills-disappeared/ <comment><USER2> If you want Americans to reenter the manufacturing workforce, you need to convince _everyone_ that manufacturing is a decent path to a good wage and lifestyle. And then you need to make it actually happen.

Unfortunately, over the last 25 years the US has decimated vocational education in the high schools while simultaneously convincing families that a 4-year college degree is the only way to a viable lifestyle. So we cram college-prep and AP classes down everyone's throats while we auction off the drafting tables and auto shop tools.

It's for the best, since there's nowhere for a voc-ed student to go after graduation other than community college. Meanwhile we've moved on to dismantling unions and apprenticeships and all the other things that tracked workers into the factories and guaranteed them living wages.

I'll let our European friends explain how they don't have this same problem.

<comment><USER3> I think decimated vocational education is a symptom not a cause.

If manufacturing paid a living wage, we'd figure out a way to get people prepared to do it. It doesn't, and baring unions, never will again.

<comment><USER4> Actually, voc tech careers _do_ pay a pretty healthy wage, for certain things. Welders, electricians, plumbers, HVAC, mechanics, those are all still decent paying jobs. Hard, more dangerous than white-collar work, but you can make respectable money doing them. It's getting so the certifications are getting a little onerous, but it's still better than dumping tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into a college education.

Especially for those that don't have the wherewithal or temperament to do school

<comment><USER3> I can verify that's not true for electricians, at least in WI -- father is an electrician. For his generation, it was true. For the current generation, it's no longer the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> By training people, of course. If you want good welders, you need to set up a welding training course, hire people who can't weld, and teach them to weld properly. There's a corporate mindset that companies should have a "flexible workforce" available to them. This means expecting people to show up with the desired skills at some arbitrary location for a job with no job security and pays slightly above the minimum wage.

<comment><USER6> It usually only makes sense to invest in a good you own. An employer might train a worker, only to have the worker jump ship to a competitor immediately after receiving training.

Historical labor force norms made it more difficult to change jobs which mitigated this problem. In a sense the employer owned the worker and training made sense. Workers now own themselves, so it's up to the worker to invest in their own training.

Do we really want to go back to the older era?

<comment><USER7> No we don't want to go back, but there is a middle ground. The employer can _loan_ workers the money to pay for training, and then forgive the loan after the worker completes a year or two on the job. That's how my former employer funded part of my graduate school tuition and it seemed completely fair to me.

<comment><USER8> It's fairly common. Employers are often more explicit - they'll pay for the training, but if you leave the organisation with 6 months-1 year of completion of training then you have to pay them back for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The answer is simple.

 _Pay_ _them_ _money_.

Why is it businesses never seem to see capitalism as the answer when it means they have to write checks instead of cash them?

<comment><USER10> Because customers will ultimately pay a higher price for the goods in question, which is fairly terrible for a consumption-based economy.

Manufacturing will always happen where labor costs are lower (assuming the other requirements are in place), or lowest: automated. And American companies are already well into the process of moving production from Asia to Mexico.

<comment><USER11> Why does it always seem that the only solution to higher wages is to increase the cost of the good? How about this solution: pay the workers higher wages, keep prices flat, and take a lower profit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As others have said, the answer to the question is simply training. But the better question which is hinted at in the article is "How should America _rethink_ skills that disappeared?"

One of the things that "drove out" manufacturers in the Bay Area were a slew of environmental regulations which added cost to the process with no customer visible benefit. That pushed manufacturers to use the same process where they didn't have those costs. And surprisingly places that witnesses the environmental impact of these practices didn't preemptively implement those controls themselves. So we have identical environmental damage elsewhere which was regulated out in the US.

So a more interesting question for me is how do we rethink this stuff in a way that understands the external costs of the activity and works in a way that makes those costs containable?

<comment><USER13> The answer is simple. Tax imports in an amount equal to the avoided costs of environmental and labor regulations from producing things abroad.

<comment><USER12> Heh, always important to remember Mencken though :-)

Looking at the historical effectiveness of tariffs suggests they are not effective at solving this particular problem, although if you were proposing something different, such as a national sales tax which would be applied to different products based on their country of origin then I would agree that hasn't been explored. But more specifically, using the power of the state to impose taxes as a means of repricing the effectiveness of capital can only work when capital is itself priced on the same basis. Arbitrarily adjusting the exchange rage for Reminbi to account for price differentials can (and does) happen.

What is worse, applying the tax allows practices such as child labor to be "priced under the tax" which does nothing for the children at all. Effectively rethinking the system such that a good can be manufactured in the US or nearby at a cost that both allows the humans involved to have a living wage, and one which makes sweatshops impractical, solves both problems, both increasing the standard of living for workers here and removing the market forces that enslave children far away.

I recognize however the essential truth in your suggestion which is the limit on anyone's ability to make systemic changes in a market can only reach so far. Altering the economics through taxation or tariffs is achievable through fiat and one has to weigh that against the negative incentives it creates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the bigger problem is how does America compete with $1.50/hr wages for skilled workers?

If we could, the companies would pay for any necessary training. It doesn't cost much in the long run.

But of course we can't compete with that.

And it's not changing any time soon, with the yuan pegged to the dollar, and the existing trade agreements.

That's why Steve Jobs told President Obama _" Those jobs aren't coming back"_.

<comment><USER15> I haven't the faintest idea why you're being downvoted when you're the only one who actually hit the real issue directly.

Free trade isn't free. We can not possibly compete fairly with countries who employ indentured servants or slaves compared to our working condition expectations and wages. Nor should we.

We need fair trade if we want to keep manufacturing in the country. Further, I'd say it needs to be sustainable if we're going to ever correctly price in the true cost of a product into the retail price. That by definition includes the cradle-to-grave life cycle of a product and all of its constituent parts and raw ingredients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I rent out rooms in my house to two peers that are both college dropouts. Both work jobs that net less than $12/hour. I keep telling them to go to trade school but they never follow through.

I got a 4 year degree, realized it was worthless (BFA in Digital Art), and proceeded to go to trade school for a certificate in manufacturing.

Manufacturing sucks. For a hacker it is easy. I could quit today and be employed again by next week. The pay is good but not great.

For someone votech was meant for, I don't think they have the same mobility as I do.

Personally I keep looking to jump into development but I just haven't found the opportunity yet.

</comment><comment><USER17> Change regulatory and tax policy to make it less expensive to hire.

</comment><comment><USER18> While classical manufacturing jobs may be on the decline in the western world, there's actually a programme in Germany to counteract this ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_4.0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_4.0)) whose premise is production of customisable products at scale, whereby the focus is on automation engineering instead of manual labor (that programme is very much a WIP right now; I know the article mentioned it briefly, but I feel it could be a viable way to retain/regain competitiveness in manufacturing).

Siemens, VW and others made short videos on this (e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPRURtORnis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPRURtORnis) or [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTl8w6yAjds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTl8w6yAjds))

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the answer is to incentivize people to get back into those skills. Likewise, the corporations need incentive to keep those jobs here. We, as a nation, can't do this if everything like those jobs gets sent over seas.

</comment><comment><USER20> One option is for a group of large manufacturers to come together and sponsor a paid apprenticeship program. The program would have performance standards just like a real job would.

Besides the PR benefits, it could be a cost effective way to determine which workers to hire in a way that is less risky than just hiring them outright.

</comment><comment><USER21> A robust economy needs a proper amount of manufacturing. While Wall Street might post revenue numbers a manufacturer can only dream of, the financial crisis of the past should show clearly enough that finance and services alone cannot sustain a national economy. The good news is though, that globalization is a two-way road. In our day and age, manual labor becomes a constantly smaller part of the industrial production costs. This means, that even at higher wages, production can be competitive, if it is balanced by quality, less transport cost and being closer to your customer.

</comment><comment><USER22> Thats not how its going to work.

It's no issue getting production back to the US is just wont be with any workers in there.

</comment><comment><USER23> Note: the article seems to conflate the U.S. trade deficit with the U.S. federal debt.

Not crucial to its argument, though.

</comment><comment><USER24> Program robots with those skills?</comment>


Ask HN: How do I cut the other cord? - <AUTHOR>

Help, I just moved into my new place and found out that Comcast has a monopoly over the building.<p>Are there any other options out there for me? I know Verizon offers 4G cards, etc. Are those comparable in terms of speed/price/reliance? Or am I doomed to use Comcast? <comment><USER2> No, you're not going to be happy with a Verizon 4G card compared to Comcast. They're comparable to early-2000s DSL, but with higher latency. Completely usable for day-to-day work, but not so fast that you can stream Netflix just as easily as changing the channel on your TV.

I wouldn't be happy either if my only choice was Comcast, but then I'd get over it and sign up.

Do they have a monopoly over all Internet service at your building, or just cable? AT&T can't deliver DSL to you over their copper?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, after doing the research it seems like the only choice is to suck it up.

Thanks for the reply.</comment></comment>


Space Nazi Trailers Draw Crowd Funding for Iron Sky Movie - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/06/iron-sky-space-nazis/ <comment><USER2> It's been true about them ever since they were actually walking around in reality. It's even truer since they faded into history. It was true in Star Wars. It's true in Mel Brooks' parody of Star Wars, and a whole bunch of his other films besides. It's true in Indiana Jones. In a way it's true on Seinfeld. Even Charlie Chaplin found it to be true. Poor old Leni Riefenstahl knew it was true, personally, then spent the rest of her life paying the price.

What is it? _Nazis make for good cinema!_

It makes sense, really. A bunch of guys running around in the 20th century, with mechanized warfare and a world view that would've fit in perfectly well in Genghis Khan's time. It's as if a writer for a video game made them up and they escaped through a time portal into the 1st half of the 20th century.

Why do I even bother with posts like this? _Automatic Godwin's!_

(Standard Godwin's Disclaimers: Nazis were real and as evil as you can get. The Holocaust actually happened.)

<comment><USER3> They're also the "safe bad guy" - you can make Nazis the villain in your movie / game and no one will complain (except don't show the swastika, ss in some countries.)

Spielberg promised not to use Nazis as a trope after Schilder's list, and the last Indy movies suffered for it. Using commies as the enemy seems so dated and Jingoistic, even though the conflict was more recent.

<comment><USER2> Yes, but the "safe" aspect is only a side benefit. Artistically, they're _perfect_. Really, the more you think about it, the more it seems like a video game or comic book writer made them up and they escaped into reality and stole a time machine.

They were into the occult and old Nordic/Germanic mythology. They were developing and had bonafide super-science weapons: jets, ICBMs, and stealth aircraft while some of their opponents early in the war were still using cavalry charges. There was real-life superscience intrigue involving highly gifted super-geniuses. This intrigue involved _nuclear weapons_. They were _urgently_ bent on world domination -- not as an eventual goal or as a someday-daydream wish, but as an urgent we-need-to-do-this-ASAP real-world project.

They also seem to be securely in the top 5% of everyone _fictional or real_ as far of level of atrocities goes.

They just flat-out make really cool villains.

<comment><USER4> "Artistically, they're perfect."

Curious turn of phrase, considering that one of the most enduring legacies of the Nazis is their sense of taste. The Nazis had a very Platonic idea of the purpose of art and everything that they touched was imbued with their aesthetic. From the parades, to the propaganda leaflets, there was a uniform sense of purpose and higher meaning.

Hitler himself began as a starving artist and when he took over he made everything his. He was, arguably, the most successful art-critic of the 20th century.

So, yeah, the Nazis are very distinct.

<comment><USER2> This makes me want to search on YouTube for one of those Hitler bunker videos criticizing Star Wars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh, man, they're really making some serious progress there, aren't they? At this rate, they might finish the movie before 2018 (when the space Nazis are to return to Earth).

I'm looking forward to this one.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sorta like Starship Troopers, no?

<comment><USER7> Heinlein's Rocket Ship Galileo (1947), actually.

For a vague, SPOILER-ish description (the book's cover often gives it away anyhow): A group of teens build a moon rocket, but someone (wonder who?) is there to meet them.

<comment><USER8> Noooo :P (I am actually reading the book right now ! - they were on their way to the moon when I stopped reading. I don't mind the spoiler that much. Since it's an ebook I don't have the cover anyways)

On the story itself, it's almost too naive to be believed, but I hope it makes for a good movie.

Heinlein's later novels are much better but often repeat themselves and he became obsessed with his "World as Myth" idea (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_as_Myth>)

I wish they made a "Glory Road" movie... sounds like good material there :) (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_Road>)</comment></comment></comment>


Why Britain banned mobile apps for government agencies - <AUTHOR> https://govinsider.asia/smart-gov/why-britain-banned-mobile-apps/ <comment><USER2> GDS have done a fantastic job of what you might call "government UX", by getting people with the right technical ethos in charge. HN would approve of their minimalist, functional, responsive approach.

Letting govt agencies who don't know what they're doing go out and tender for private sector building of internet services would be a disaster; they'd be oversold six ways from Sunday. Treble the cost to build the same thing three times for the three mobile platforms? Sure. Given that 99% of the stuff is simple secure form-filling, it doesn't need to be more than a web page.

I can file my taxes or renew my driving license online. The system works.

<comment><USER3> Can you link to some favorite examples?

<comment><USER4> Overall, gov.uk is really well done; minimalistic but works.

Some things bug me though, as some services are only available during "open hours" ([https://www.buysellvehicle.service.gov.uk/sell- private/vehic...](https://www.buysellvehicle.service.gov.uk/sell- private/vehicle-lookup)): I didn't know that servers needed to sleep.

<comment><USER5> I recently came across a system in a bank that is available from 0800 to 1500 and 1530 to 1700. Apparently it not only needs to sleep, but it takes a tea break in the afternoon.

<comment><USER6> The person responsible for the system can hardly be held responsible when they're on a break, can they?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a Briton, the idea of having to access government services through mobile apps seems vaguely offensive.

Apps are expensive to build, allow rampant surveillance that it's very hard to audit under the hood, and mean that customer information is distributed based on your ability to access a smartphone.

The U.K. government also has a poor record of delivering large scale IT projects with complex chains of dependencies (the overhaul of the NHS IT system was cancelled after spending several billions on a Patient Information system that no one ever ended up using). Given the chance, departments would have tried to create the 'Everything App' at enormous expense and with zero interoperability between depts.

The decision to push the GDS methodology across the whole of government was hugely unpopular within the civil service at the time but they've been absolutely vindicated in their approach.

<comment><USER8> I agree with most of this except the 'allow rampant surveillance' and 'very hard to audit'.

How are apps special in these regards?

<comment><USER9> It is significantly harder to audit the security of an app than a webpage, because with a webpage all the code is visible to you, the end user.

<comment><USER10> Anyone vaguely skilled can reverse engineer an android app. Modern versions of android (ie Android 6, which I appreciate only 0.0001% of android users actually have) let you control which permissions an app can use.

<comment><USER11> If "vaguely skilled" is what it takes to audit an Android app, then "borderline incompetent" is all you need to audit a web app. Other commenters are talking about relative ease, not absolute impossibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I deeply believe this is the right way.

The Web is THE open platform of the Internet and if you don't need special native functionality , always go for web.

<comment><USER13> True! Web must stay open, services that are limited to smartphone owners are just classist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love that our government created GDS, they get a lot of flack but GDS has been an unmitigated success.

They've got really great public performance dashboards[1] as well, you can see how many people are using 'gov.uk' right now[2].

Edit: It's a bit disconcerting 'Give up (renounce) British citizenship or nationality' is the top trending content!

1\. [https://www.gov.uk/performance](https://www.gov.uk/performance)

2\. [https://www.gov.uk/performance/site- activity](https://www.gov.uk/performance/site-activity)

<comment><USER15> We'll see in a few years if it's an unmitigated success.

When mid level bureaucrats are getting significant facetime in the media, you should be very wary. Civil servants are supposed to toil in obscurity -- they exist to glorify King and country. When you see exceptions to that, there's often a real shitshow behind the scenes.

<comment><USER16> What? Where do all of these conjectures come from? Is there any evidence?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Key to the GDS' approach is designing for user needs, not organizational > requirements, Terrett says. "That is how good digital services designed and > built these days. That is how everyone does it, whether that's google or > facebook or British Airways or whoever."

> The problem is that public sector agencies tend not to design with citizens > in mind. "Things are just designed to suit the very silos that the project > sits in, and the user gets lost in there," Terrett adds.

Amen. Unfortunately, it is very much not how everyone does it.

<comment><USER18> The Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> To be clear, it's why the British Government banned mobile apps for government agencies. Good article though.

This actually goes back to Steve Job's original vision for the iPhone. He didn't intend there to ever be 3rd party apps for the phone, because he saw the internet as being the perfect platform for them.

<comment><USER20> > This actually goes back to Steve Job's original vision for the iPhone. He > didn't intend there to ever be 3rd party apps for the phone, because he saw > the internet as being the perfect platform for them.

Do you have a link that lays this out in more detail?

<comment><USER21> The most succinct quote from Jobs is:

        There's no SDK that you need! You've got
        everything you need if you know how to
        write apps using the most modern web
        standards to write amazing apps for the
        iPhone today.

The full quote and the video in which he said it can be found here: [http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for- the-i...](http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone- no-third-party-native-apps/)

<comment><USER22> And then you can hear the sucking void of silence of a response from the crowd and a few months later an sdk was out.

<comment><USER23> It was a crowd of Apple Mac OS X developers though, with a great deal of expertise in Obj-C, not the web, so it shouldn't be taken as an objective verdict on whether it was a good strategy or not.

<comment><USER24> I think it was inevitable. And probably planned for a second release too. Not that web APIs were lacking, but purely from performance perspective. By then, web was designed for 2GHz/2Gb desktop, not a 200MHz cpu from a dvd player.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Gov of Canada has a similar initiative with an open source project titled 'Web Experience Toolkit' [0], focusing on usability and cross platform support.

[0] [https://wet-boew.github.io/v4.0-ci/index-en.html](https://wet- boew.github.io/v4.0-ci/index-en.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> > Most Ministers might want there to be sharing options on websites so that > citizens can easily promote government on Facebook and Twitter. But the GDS > tested this, and found that only 0.1% of citizens

No shit. Every design job I've had ever.

<comment><USER27> Every client seems to request this... But sharing buttons are crap and always will be... So frustrating!

<comment><USER16> Why do you think that sharing buttons are crap?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone live in a city (within the US) that takes a similar approach to GDS? I live in SF and developers usually create their own apps for services (Like MUNI/BART) but the city seems to have a mix of good and bad UX when it comes to municipal services (from my experience, at least)

<comment><USER7> Not sure about at a municipal level, but USDS was based on GDS ([https://www.usds.gov/](https://www.usds.gov/)).

<comment><USER29> Strange how it doesn't credit GDS

<comment><USER7> It doesn't, but more detail here> [https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/01/16/us-uk-digital- gov...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/01/16/us-uk-digital-government- partnership)

<comment><USER30> Link to [https://data.gov.uk](https://data.gov.uk) on that page in fact points to 'file:///C:/Users/mcallister_mj2/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/5P3C0P9L/data.gov.uk'

Oh dear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> +1 for that decision: apps can also cause security issues. I only have a few apps installed on my cellphone. Web apps are fine for Twitter, Facebook, etc. Having to install a lot of apps to register to vote, etc. would be maximally irritating.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is an encouraging trend. It's inevitable that, within or lifetimes, legislation and regulations will eventually be tailored to existing software, rather than expensive snowflake systems being produced to automate arbitrary processes created by the whims of legislators and civil servants in every jurisdiction in the world.

</comment><comment><USER33> Sounds irrational :)

</comment><comment><USER34> Title needs to be improved, replace Britain with Britain GDS, maybe add "and use websites instead" (but that might spoil the article).

<comment><USER35> Agreed. Terrible link-bait title, and the article is mediocre. Please change it to something like : "UK GDS bans apps in favor of responsive websites"

<comment><USER36> I third that. The article doesnt provide much in the way of explaining it clearly enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> What a dumb title.

</comment><comment><USER38> Let us take the whole thing with a pinch of salt as it is highly one sided story.

Governments having their services on web is absolutely must but passing a decree against apps does seem a bit odd to me. Isn't it the case that more citizens own phones and have relatively poor connection speeds than other combinations ? Isn't it the case that citizens would be better served by apps that do one job right and do so more efficiently than web ?

I can understand the cost part but it appears to me that the government agency has shut down a completely new avenue of innovation for government agencies with this decree.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's obvious that they never heard of Hybrid Apps, or just never found them to be secure enough for their applications.

<comment><USER40> I'm not sure why you'd use a hybrid app over a minimalist, mobile-friendly website, particularly for something like form-filling.

As a user, getting me to install your app is a huge barrier. If I don't need to do something every day, I'm probably not going to download and install your app. So wrapping a webpage in an app seems like a really poor decision.

<comment><USER41> Agree. I intensely dislike having to install an app for a task that could be done by a simple Web page. I don't know what the app does; the amount of flashlight applications that want to access my files, location and call information is depressing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Meh; for their usual scope of work they don't actually need apps (infrequent desktop use) so it's not a notable decision. Open Society do apps where they are actually needed (e.g. reporting potholes).

Their decision to use Google as a home page and having all websites as plain as possible is horrific; with a lot of departments and agencies having lacklustre homepages that anyway aren't even aimed at the general public (e.g. arms-length-bodies).

They also made a half-assed job of promoting Agile and UCD through the government, where Agile is now misunderstood and despised. Probably because they never really tried to understand civil service politics.

Good ideas; badly executed.</comment>


Show HN: Focus – OKR Pulse software for team management - <AUTHOR> https://usefocus.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys,

I launched Focus ([https://usefocus.co/](https://usefocus.co/)).

Focus is an OKR Pulse platform that improves companies' execution through objectives, daily standups, and weekly updates.

We are trying to solve problems in team communication across different timezones. Focus keeps teams on the most important outcomes instead of the heap of messages, emails, and endless meetings - focus on what matters the most.

Right now, it works like that:

1\. The team sets Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) on the platform 2\. Afterward, the team runs daily standups and weekly updates for tracking the most important things 3\. When the goal was achieved, it has public praise feature to increase employees recognition and engagement

P.S. I would greatly appreciate any feedback, happy to answer any questions.</comment>


Scribd Goes Straight, Bans Porn - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/17/scribd-goes-straight-bans-porn/

<comment><USER2> Interestingly, I am revisiting Tim Brady's interview from Founders at work. Tim talks about the early days of Yahoo's traffic and says _"The sex category was probably 25% of web traffic, just like the VHS industry when it first got going, and the Internet was no different in that respect"_.

A year and half or so after launch, Yahoo pulled out all their porn links, in that sense Scribd seems to be doing the same thing.

Porn seems to provide the impetus for early traffic, and, once you get a bit of legs under your business, move away from it seems to be the strategy.

<comment><USER3> _and, once you get a bit of legs under your business, move away from it seems to be the strategy._

And as soon as someone buys your startup, the porn comes back (see nsfw reddit and Condé Nast)

<comment><USER4> That was a more personal initiative, though. As in, a user created the reddit again after people were allowed to make their own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Maybe Scribd is going to be acquired and porn is a big red flag for most companies that want to buy them.

Can someone refresh my memory, when did reddit remove their NSFW page -- before or after the CondeNest acqusition?

<comment><USER5> I think it was shortly after, but it's since been reinstated. They said at the time that they removed it because it wasn't being used as they wanted. People just submitted porn, rather than normal content that happened to be NSFW. (Looking at the page now, that still seems to be the case.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Should we expect Scribd's traffic to take a nosedive? Unlikely. Porn may have helped Scribd gain momentum in its infancy, but the site has long since proven its use as a blogging tool and a document repository. If anything, it's surprising that it took Scribd this long to make the switch."

so will Justin.tv ban illegal broadcasts as well?

seems the somewhat successful strategy for building content on these community apps is allowing either illegal or unscrupulous behavior to build traffic, and then nix it when you're big enough to survive on your own.

Is this the strategy PG recommends, or the YC founders just think of it on their own?

<comment><USER7> _seems the somewhat successful strategy for building content on these community apps is allowing either illegal or unscrupulous behavior to build traffic, and then nix it when you're big enough to survive on your own_

It worked for YouTube, didn't it?

 _Is this the strategy PG recommends, or the YC founders just think of it on their own?_

I think it's a bit too obvious to say that anyone "thought of it".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Heh. And this happens just one day after PG releases an essay about disconnecting distractions. Coincidence? I think not, my friends!

</comment><comment><USER9> This was the right decision for Scribd. Most of the "adult" content on Scribd was spammy crap anyway, feeble attempts at trying to get people to sign up to Adult Friend Finder or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is porn a huge problem for scribd? I've never really looked at scribd before, so I just went to check out the Adult section. I'm seeing a lot of PDFs written in Cyrillic, "Soft Drink Awareness - How Coke and Pepsi are HELPFUL" and then further down "PUMPING women - are you running out of gas?." I'm not seeing a lot of porn here. However the stuff that is here seems pretty weird and hopeless. Scribd should have no problems removing it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Good for them.

Porn sucks. Porn is to sex as chocolate life savers are to an artisanal chocolate cake.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, good point. Scribd should ditch the porn and introduce new features to provide their users actual _sex_ , now that would be a killer app!

<comment><USER13> That would be bigger than Google.</comment></comment></comment>


Neatness Counts - <AUTHOR> https://blog.plover.com/IT/formatting.html <comment><AUTHOR> In line lists and especially lists embedded in sentences seem to be the norm in law texts. I wonder if the bullet points wouldn't confuse a law trained person as much as a movie script _not_ written in Courier allegedly confuses movie producers.</comment>


Show HN: Teleportal – easy p2p persistent video portals - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/carlsverre/teleportal <comment><AUTHOR> Looking for feedback/ideas/contributions. So far this is working well at my company for having permanent links between rooms in different offices. Things that might be useful/fun to add:

1\. better theme - I didn't spend any time on the default looks/feel. Channel selection is low hanging fruit (dropdown might be better) 2\. make channel definitions dynamic rather than static 3\. let users add new channels via the UI rather 4\. show channel status so you know if a channel is already in use by a link 5\. fix the SSL issue - maybe use lets-encrypt with dns verification? Difficult thing is that this is intended to be used in intranet where the simple domain verification methods won't work.

<comment><USER2> Have you looked at some of the prior work in this area to see things that teams wanted?

[http://danielodio.com/project-stargate-always-on-skype- video...](http://danielodio.com/project-stargate-always-on-skype-video- connection-for-remote-offices)

[http://danielodio.com/remote-always-on-connecting-our- office...](http://danielodio.com/remote-always-on-connecting-our-offices-with- sqwiggle)

Perch is a startup that's mentioned a lot in the comments, and I trialled it and it was pretty nice, but it just shut down last month. Perhaps their "customer stories" or "blog" sections have enough detail about the app's features, or perhaps the Internet Archive has a full copy of their old site:

[https://perch.co/customer-stories/](https://perch.co/customer-stories/)

[https://perch.co/blog/](https://perch.co/blog/)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20160911054842/http://www.perch....](https://web.archive.org/web/20160911054842/http://www.perch.co/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Just looked at perch. I remember seeing it when they showed up on the scene. Too bad they didn't get traction. I think there is an opportuity in this space, but it might just be for an open source entry rather than a startup.

<comment><USER2> [https://papercutsoftware.github.io/teleportme/](https://papercutsoftware.github.io/teleportme/) was an open-source-ish solution I came across recently (built on FaceTime), but I haven't tried it. Seems like they're making similar design decisions as you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


So You're Moving to Portland - <AUTHOR> https://al3x.net/2015/11/11/portland.html <comment><USER2> To the author of this: then it is essential that you and that cashier get involved in the political process to make sure that your voices are heard. Others are not going to do it for you. No one wants what is happening in San Francisco, but it is the inevitable outcome of the money that Silicon Valley is throwing off. As Portland (like Austin) becomes an increasingly popular destination for younger workers moving from places where there are no jobs, this will exert pressure on governments to grow. You must ensure that new politicians who fill the void are on your side. Because the other side (political hacks who are owned by some special interest), will step if you do not. Take some of that effort you put into organizing Strange Loop and use it to run for office. Five years from now, no one's likely to remember a single session from St. Louis, but five years in public office can affect real change.</comment>


The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/mother-jones/adfa0d026a7e

<comment><USER3> An article with that title should have mentioned the possibility of an _error cascade_. Occasionally - not often, but sometimes - the "consensus scientific view" on a subject happens to be _wrong_. Wrong views can persist for quite a while, and are more likely to do so when the subject is politically charged. Preference falsification _even among scientists_ can lead them to a false belief regarding what _their peers_ believe.

Here's a good discussion of error cascades in the context of climate change: [http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1642](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1642)

On the use of terms like 'deniers':

> _" Sound theory doesn't have to be buttressed by demonizing its opponents; > it demonstrates itself with predictive success."_

<comment><USER4> I don't believe error cascade is happening in the field of climate science. A multitude of accepted methodologies using scores of independent datasets from various fields overwhelmingly produce results consistent with anthropogenic global warming.

Additionally there are well funded groups who would love nothing more than to uncover such an error cascade. Yet even a study funded by the same people who run the Heartland Institute produced results consistent with AGW. Visit a website like WattsUpWithThat to witness intelligent people trying their very best to twist data or methods to fit their worldview. If something like this is there to be found, it would have been found by now. The first order science is truly simple. All that is being debated now is when and how severe the effect will be. Sadly by the time we can scientifically confirm the 'Welcome to AGW' sign, we may be 30 years inside the border.

Using the term denier does make convincing those people more difficult. Politically, however, it may be useful to label this small but vocal group as misinformed and stubborn, and get on with transitioning to a sustainable and stable future.

<comment><USER3> > _A multitude of accepted methodologies using scores of independent datasets > from various fields overwhelmingly produce results consistent with > anthropogenic global warming._

Of course they do. That doesn't mean there's no error cascade surrounding our understanding of what this means.

That past human activity has produced _some_ amount of warming is a pretty uninteresting factoid. In fact, it's trivially true in that land-use patterns alone can have a measurable impact on temperature - you don't even need a theory relating to CO2 to establish that there has been _some_ "anthropogenic global warming" (still less to find that data is merely "not inconsistent with" this notion).

But when alarmists raise alarm, they have something very different in mind. They believe that the warming rate and/or level is _unprecedented in human history_ , that warming has been _a bad thing_ and is likely to produce _net negative impacts_ in the near term. They tend to think it is sensible to talk about "climate sensitivity" having a _single value_ and that this value is _high_ \- at least 3 degrees per doubling. All of those are debatable points, and it's wrong to assume scientists agree on them based on their agreement with a much more vaguely defined "consensus view" that humans have caused some undefined amount of warming.

> _If something like this is there to be found, it would have been found by > now._

Several such things have been found. The post I linked to mentioned a few. The ongoing efforts to hide or minimize the MWP (and thereby show recent temperatures to be "unprecedented") is the usual example, perhaps best documented on ClimateAudit.org .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the bigger question this points to is the fact that _all_ human perceptions are a mix of emotion and reason. As humans we seem to keep wanting to live in black and white - in a place where we can name and label the cause and effect of things.

As people who build software, we know how complexity explodes with each option - and people are complex in millions of facets. Combine a few people together, and you have intractable combinations of emotions and environmental factors. At some point you have to give up on 'exact' and just go with 'directionally correct'.

My wish would be that we could somehow find a way to loosen people's grip on "this is the right way and I've proven it." Scientists and alternative medicine, religious, the irreligious, etc. All seem to think that _their_ brain was able to do what trillions of people before could not. I don't mean to say that there is no truth or 'right' in the universe, just that we are such imperfect measurement tools that we need to walk it out a bit more humbly.

It stands to reason that there's probably some good in the alternative medicine movement - since the goal is for people to feel better and get better. And apparently they are. And there's been good that comes from traditional medicine as we've seen.

One commenter on here was lamenting their parents alignment to some alternative medicine beliefs, stating "They believe this stuff even when it contradicts itself, " How ironic, because I think if you look in to any field there is a great deal of disagreement, and contradiction. You have people refuting and arguing in medical and science journals, both sides being convinced that they are 'correct'.

In many ways I think these behaviors are a symptom of a small-ish brain trying to collect and hold all the complexity of the world - and just failing spectacularly. Of course - we mix in some pride and arrogance, and we get what we've got now. :(

<comment><USER6> I think throwing the term "emotion" around closes discussion because it is such an ambiguous term. A better model would be reason versus obedience - <USER2> we believe our own senses or what we are told? Non-science is rooted in charlatans and manipulative "leaders". We should be examining how people choose who they believe to be authoritative. Then again, appeal to authority is a known logical fallacy so any conclusion based on an "expert" is suspect.

<comment><USER7> Obedience refers to a specific type of emotion, loyalty/obligations.

The term I try to use when thinking (and explaining) my own thought process is intuition. Often times when I try to issolate the source of my intution I come up with something that would gennerally be considered emotion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As my parents are getting older (nearing their 60s) it's being more difficult to talk about some subjects. They started believing all sorts of ridiculous stuff, even read Icke's books. It's hard to argue with someone who questions reason itself. It's even more difficult knowing they're teachers, well educated, liberal and open minded usually. They buy into the whole alternative medicine, all sorts of natural cures for cancer, even more bogus explanations about cancer causes. They believe this stuff even when it contradicts itself, how can you believe that cancer comes from high acid levels in the body or emotional conflicts, and then also be afraid of EM radiation? They believe in the sincerity and good intentions of people who publish this alternative material but they are extremely suspicious of "main-stream" science. Anyone having similar experience?

<comment><USER9> The irony in your comment is kicking me in the face through the computer screen.

<comment><USER8> Please enlighten me.

<comment><USER9> As per the article: You are not in anyway immune to the same processes that you are complaining your parents are beholden to.

Your views and experiences are reinforcing your own beliefs that your parents are not accepting the "facts" you know. Seeing one side as "unreasonable" to logic while your view is "obvious" is exactly the type of behaviour the article is attempting to underline.

The article also answers your question directly.

<comment><USER8> Maybe I should re-read the article, but I have a need to further explain my line of thought. I myself have no need to hold strong beliefs. I tend to accept overwhelming evidence from sources that seem credible and I will often juggle opposing views, perhaps even never forming a firm opinion on a subject. But I see a lot of people struggling with that, like never choosing a side or forming a conclusion will kill them or something. It's the same when people think never changing opinions (e.g. political) is a sign of good character.

Also, I am more interested in technology, science, nature etc. than other people and their lives. It seems that my parents', but maybe even the majority of "ordinary" folk's lives, revolves around what other people say, think or do. So much so, they interpret everybody's actions as intentional and try to explain a person's motives and will paint somebody's character based on some trivial event. For example, if I forget to call them, they'll perhaps discuss for hours how ungrateful and selfish I am and fabricate detailed explanations for my actions, e.g. how maybe my girlfriend's mother is pulling me away from them or something like that (I heard such stories from my brother).

In short, people try to find a (hidden) motive behind every action and think there always has to be one. I think it is this way of thinking and functioning that creates a fertile ground for conspiracy theorists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Somewhat oversimplifying, you can think of hierarchical individualists as akin to conservative Republicans, and egalitarian communitarians as liberal Democrats._

Somewhat? That's like saying that black is a dark colour like navy blue and white is more like royal blue.

Personally, I think the US would benefit by understanding just where in the overall spectrum they fit politically and how limited their "typical" options are.

Americans probably have the most limited options of any modern democracy on the planet, and yet most people think they are so different.

</comment><comment><USER10> That's perhaps the most hilariously ironic first paragraph of an article I've ever read.</comment>