Impersonators who are paid to flirt on dating apps - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1247382/online-dating-is-so-awful-that-people-are-paying-virtual-dating-assistants-to-impersonate-them/ <comment><USER3> It is very informative to make a an online dating profile of the opposite gender. I'm a man, but when I made an account on tinder with a female friend's pictures I was blown away by just how radically different the experience was.

Almost every person would match with me. Everyone would message me straight away. If I didn't reply most would message again in a few hours. A few would get very angry/upset that I didn't reply.

I think Tinder is a real stroke of genius. All users, men and women, get given the same interface and the same choices. But of course things are not really equal. Men shotgun and women pick and choose. Tinder has essentially made Bumble, but they have plausible deniability. No need to enforce any rules about women messaging first when that emerges naturally.

<comment><USER4> I worked for $large_dating_site for a number of years. The real genius of Tinder was giving women the power. We came to the same realization as well: that no matter how bad you make the user experience for men, they will use the app endlessly if real women are there. Online dating business models are exclusively based around enticing men with sex, and giving women the power to choose precisely who they want.

<comment><USER5> What I've long wondered is how women react in the real world now that they have all the power on dating apps. Why would they try to find a date in any other way?

There were a few articles that came out a few years ago arguing that, no, dating apps were terrible for women because it makes men even more noncommittal with such easy access to dates. My hypothesis was that the women they interviewed for those pieces were all going after the same small group of elite men. Thus, ~3% of the whole male population is sleeping around with ~20% of the female population. Makes me wonder if polygamy is the natural course of things.

<comment><USER6> That's historically the case: [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men- dn...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human- gene-pool)

The other implication of polygamy is that a lot of men simply didn't have a chance to pass on their genes at all.

<comment><USER7> I sometimes wonder if a big reason why monogamous marriage exists as a concept in human society is as a strategy for mitigating violent upheaval. By using cultural pressure to force single-partner relationships (at least on the surface), you no longer had a large group of sexually frustrated men with nothing to lose looking around and wondering how to get a piece of what the elite have that they don't.

<comment><USER4> A lot of what we think of as "marriage" comes from the entirety of human history where women were bought and sold as bargaining chips in their male family member's lives. They were used to ensure inheritance, line of succession, and to cement business relationships. Not until just the past couple centuries in western society has there even been a concept of marrying for romantic love.

<comment><USER8> Behavior you describe is traditionally attributed to the upper classes of pre- modern nobility. At least that's how popular imagination paints it (see Game of Thrones).

I am not so sure this was modus operandi for commoners when it came to marriage. Caste-bound poor village dwellers, with few prospects and no family wealth to maintain, I imagine married for love more often than not.

<comment><USER9> Poor village workers had to work physically and strength mattered a lot. Also, you paid taxes per household making it very hard for single women to make it. E.g. girl has to marry cause living without man is super hard.

You dated two weeks at 15 and then announced marriage and then it was for live.

<comment><USER8> And that somehow precludes marrying for love?.. You are a village girl, you've been around the village, you know all the boys you age. You marry the one you like. Love.

I am not denying that pre-arranged marriages are a thing, and that they played a more prominent role in the past, but to say that genuine love played no part in the match making process until 200 years ago, like the OP suggested, is an exaggeration.

Love is a part of human evolutionary toolbox, it's been around for a while. Accordingly, the subject of love, and marrying for love, comes up in literary works since the start of recorded history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I figured something like this would exist, but I don't think it's very useful.

I've walked the dark path of trying to implement "pickup artist" material(can't imagine that'll be received well), and I can say that:

      A) an objective approach works (if you're humble and willing to recognize/adjust for failure)
      B) there's a torrent of snake oil out there
      C) you learn a lot when you try this stuff. A lot.

A lot of that material is laughably bad, but the general formula of "know your value, be confident and unapologetic about what you want, be ready to accept 'no' quickly and gracefully" is the buried gold. Maybe it's just me but grinding through failure after failure after failure taught me those things.

You can't buy them, and if you don't have them, it shows in your behavior.

You can't have someone Cyrano de Bergerac your way into a date by behaving that way, because in the end the girl shows up and meets _you_.

Furthermore, the proposition that this is a service for people who don't have time to send messages in these apps doesn't hold water. Not having the time to respond promptly is an asset. Bailing on some conversations is an asset. You're a busy man with a lot going on, not a desperate man glued to every prospect.

That's my two cents.

<comment><USER11> While I agree with the general thrust of this, and am perfectly fine with the consequences and outcomes that redpill might land you if you're showing responsibility and taking steps to flirt with someone to such length -- I genuinely loathe appealing to a stereotype of women that are interested in this, because the kind of person it appeals to, or the kind of relationship it generates doesn't get me anything I like when it works!

That is to say, unless I feel like being more plastic than a Ken barbie doll, and less significant in identity, emotion, and purpose than the next 5,000 Ken models off the factory line, then I don't see how I couldn't possibly feel any _more_ alone after applying redpill?

What I found after taking redpill and succeeding by their standards, I didn't find myself in any way _happier_ or more at peace with myself, or happier in the company of anyone that is attracted to that. Maybe it has just been highly successful at producing traumatic experiences, which does help me grow. But there has been nothing redpill or the women it has been able to match me with that has been able to counter the type of gutless, "take-take", or just purely sexual tension-oriented relationships it seems to encourage men to get involved with! Those are highly destructive experiences if you're not careful.

My peace of mind is worth so much more than that.

I can respect redpill, because I understand what it's for. But I don't enjoy the people it connects me with. I think it boils down to a lack of a proper examination of personal happiness in redpill's promise at large, and i don't think they contend with that subject nearly as much as they should! (Though I can understand why the women like it, because it encourages men to not care about what they need to grow as a person, while essentially demeaning them to the point of being uncompensated and emotionally-deprived and ego-devalued sex servants =P)

<comment><USER12> Exactly. I think there's a huge flaw in even the toned-down version of that that both sexes buy into -- making a dating profile (or just their public personality) as generically appealing as possible. Yes, highlighting your travel and exercise pics to the exclusion of all else will probably get you more dates.. but how satisfying will the connection generally be? "Likes: food, laughter, exercise, travel, dogs" tells me maybe 1% of the information I need to know to determine compatibility.. especially when most people are exaggerating the importance of the travel and the exercise in their daily life. So the 'matches' made on those generic terms, in my experience, are largely unsatisfying and based on physical attraction -- not exactly the recipe for a rewarding long-term relationship.

Meanwhile, the people who were bold enough to actually talk about their more individualized interests got my attention and resulted in some great conversation and dates, even if they didn't result in relationships.

I fell into the trap in my 20's of being generically appealing. I did very well in the 'dating' market, had attractive partners, married a particularly beautiful one. Then I realized that 'success rate' meant squat other than a minor ego boost, and I was stuck with a person attracted to generically appealing me and not ME. And physical attraction fades.

Luckily I got out of that situation, started representing myself accurately, and I live in a large enough city to be able to find at least some women online who do the same. The conversation, dates, and relationships have been SO much more rewarding, because the people connect with ME and not a generically appealing version of me.

I think being generically appealing does build confidence, and confidence is important. But hopefully redpillers and all the generic profile creators online can eventually see the value of specificity.. and attracting quality over quantity. I think it'll breed a lot more happy relationships.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> His blog may not be to everyone's taste, but the writer 'Delicious Tacos' pioneered this with OK Cupid years ago. On his blog he shares his online dating exploits along with some nice openers ("You are attractive, and I want to go out with you. Basically" being one that I stole and overused).

Anyway, all that online dating made him horribly cynical. But damn if it doesn't make for good writing:

> _If she doesn't give the number, if she ignores your request and tries to > continue the conversation– it's dead. Maybe means no. Hesitation means no. > I've had a few exceptions. But frankly, if a woman wants to make you work > for it, it's an insult. And all online conversation is just a chance to f%ck > up. The point of OKCupid is that we are dehumanized slabs of f%ckmeat and > there are a million of us. No individual matters. Move on._

For more: [https://delicioustacos.com/2014/08/04/okcupid-starter-kit- co...](https://delicioustacos.com/2014/08/04/okcupid-starter-kit-copy-this- and-tell-me-what-happens/)

<comment><USER14> I heard the horror stories about online dating however my experience as a man was nothing but positive.

I got responses maybe half the time and a date (coffee, nothing involving alcohol) maybe a third - I probably messaged 15 women over a year.

Two proper relationships and one that is two years old in July and I plan to spend the rest of my life in.

I did not use the shotgun approach, I excluded any woman who didn't fill her profile in with information (if they don't tell you about themselves how the hell do you know if you have anything potentially in common), excluded ones with terrible spelling and grammar (I'm not Chaucer but again it shows effort) and then only replied to ones where we had at least some interests in common (the two relationships where cycling and heavy metal respectively).

I wasn't looking for one night stands, didn't push for dates, asked questions relevant to their interests and discussed mine.

And it was all fine.

My current partner showed me her messages after we'd been dating for a while and it was just a sea of "hey Babi, want sum fuck?", I mean she speaks three languages and has a degree in finance that approach was never going to open a conversation.

My bar was "if I didn't find this person attractive would I want to be friends with them?"

If the answer wasn't yes then it was a pass.

I wasn't on there just for sex, if that was the goal I can just go out on the piss on a Saturday night.

I also avoided tinder like the plague, it's just too shallow (for me), I did like OKC though (where I met my current partner).

<comment><USER15> OK, so... since no one else has asked... are you really hot?

<comment><USER16> I realize the targeted approach also works much better for me than the shotgun approach. (Should this be surprising? ;) Speaking of myself, I'm not hot, barely average lol.

So I signed up at OKC before and deleted my account at some point frustrated. Actually I even had 2 dates through it - after tons of right swiping and writing so many messages that I had to delete ones from my Sent folder.

When I recently signed up again, at first it didn't really work out again. I swiped right when I thought the person looks good.

So I changed my approach: I swipe right when I imagine I would feel at least kind of comfortable meeting that person. And tadah, I have far more matches. Also I recommend stopping to write a person immediately when there is obviously no interest, that just brings frustration which doesn't improve the writing in turn. So I think 3 women were then willing to date me, although somehow it didn't happen because of difficulties finding a proper date/time. (Yup that also changed, I prioritize realworld higher than online ;) - doesn't really help with dating but maybe better for general happiness)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I guess unless your good looking to hot as a guy Tinder is crickets as girls filter you out.

I'm bi so i use all apps .. i sure as hell wish Tinder was like Grindr and Scruff are for me. Open either app and have tons of messages .. pick and choose who you want to chat with and boom you have a collection of potential guys to meet up with for fun when the mood hits you. I guess that's what its like for average to good looking to hot women ... have a collection of guys to pick, choose and chat. Guess it's the Same for good looking to hot str8 guys.

Not surprised about paid dating apps and their fake news scams. Match.com suddenly sends you a ton of winks and messages just as your subscription is about to expire yet there all fake or paid impersonators. Not sure how that is legal?

<comment><USER18> > Guess it's the Same for good looking to hot str8 guys.

Unless you don't meet the minimum height requirement. That's more important than looks.

<comment><USER19> I honestly feel that IRL, height is less important than a lot of people think. I'm a 5'5 man.

<comment><USER20> It is ultimately superficial once someone knows more about you, but that doesn't stop people from setting it as their pre-filter before they see what they truly want.

You ask people to improve the carriage, they'll tell you to make a faster horse. If you ask a woman what they want, they'll tell you tall dark and handsome.

<comment><USER21> Dark?

<comment><USER20> "Tall dark and handsome" is a Western cliche. You can adjust it as you see fit based on regional prejudices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > As we grow accustomed to foisting more and more complicated emotional tasks > onto digital butlers, we lose our ability to tolerate inelegance or find > value in social failure. Moments of awkwardness and heartbreak are an > inevitable part of the dating experience, and they are essential in our > evolution into mature adults.

That is a very recent, Western view of finding a partner. For much of history, and even now in large parts of the world, a person's family had/has the job of finding a suitable match often with the aid of "professional" matchmakers. I wonder what percentage of people who grew up in this current Western model of individuals dating and finding partners would trade it for the other model if they could?

<comment><USER23> This is not like courtship or arranged marriages. In what you call "much of history" it was done openly and it was clear that you were arranging a marriage for you son or daughter or what have you. This is more covert and deceitful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can see the evolution of this: ripe for machine learning disruption. Then in a few years all we have are AI bots chatting each other up, and then informing us who we are to mate.

<comment><USER25> You might like the TV series _Black Mirror_. Especially Season 4 Episode 4.

<comment><USER26> One of my favorite episodes of the whole run, actually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Back in the chat room days, I jumped into one that I knew was frequented by a male coworker. I'm male, but picked a female name and started to chat with him. Since we were local he suggested meeting up. That would have been a bit awkward, so I gave him the address to my friend's all girls apartment and the name of her roommate. She ended up marrying the stranger who showed up unannounced at her door.

<comment><USER28> Now that's a hell of a story! We're you invited to the wedding?

<comment><USER27> Yes, and they made me stand up when they told the story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Standard 'its a three legged stool' spiel. Photos, profile, and messaging. Really messaging is the easiest part. Here is a high-conversion-rate formula:

        0) playful message about profile/photo
        1) flirt for one or two exchanges
        2) pivot to drinks.  I like the highly elaborate, "Sounds like something we could take about over drinks, are you free this week?"

Photos are probably the easiest way to stand out. Most guys seem to just do the 'house selfie in a t-shirt' thing. If you try a bit harder and maybe hire a friend for a sunny afternoon with a few changes of clothes to take some creative pictures you can generally do better than 99% percent of guys in your 'range'. This is to say if you're a 7, you gotta date <=7s. This, like the speed of light, seems to be a hard constant of the universe.

<comment><USER30> If you're a 7 dating a 5, didn't the 5 break the constant?

Reminds me of this story:

 _One day in September, in a conference room populated with about 25 members of the Mac team, Steve [Jobs] was lecturing on how to hire._

 _" A players hire A players," he said. "B players hire C players. Do you get it?"_

 _Apparently not. Somebody in the back of the room raised his hand and asked, "so how do you hire more B players?"_

[https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...](https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=How_to_Hire_Insanely_Great_Employees.txt)

<comment><USER29> Like the speed of light, reference frames matter. The 5 convinced you they were a >=7.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder if dating is one of the few arenas of human life in which tools and services to make it easier create invariably bad ethics. When you boil it all down, mating is an adversarial process dressed up as a cooperative one, making deception the order of the day. Tools and services, even with the best of intentions, wind up only serving those deceptive purposes.

In my own life, despite being an uber-introverted nerd, I've gravitated towards just the normal way of finding people I'm interested in in person and just asking them out. The advantage of this is feedback is much easier to intuit when the person you're asking out is right there in front of you.

I don't really see the point anymore in spending large amounts of time and effort to optimize a algorithmic online search pattern when daily life in a city gives one all the bandwidth one could ever need to find someone.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is a major part of the Japanese "dating app" experience - they're known as "Sakura"; same as the offline version of people who are paid to, for example, play pachinko and win or stand in line excitedly to buy something. Most Japanese dating apps also don't have a free mode, and require you to use coins or some such token to message or even view profiles. They use Sakura to run down your coins, and then message you saying they want to meet up -- "Message me back! Let's make plans!". Rinse and repeat.

</comment><comment><USER33> The most important takeaway from this article is that knowing how to flirt IRL is a bigger competitive advantage than ever.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm pretty sure we're very close to getting a I'll Have Sex For You As A Service. I love how the article tries to show the moral dilemas but I see none... you're getting paid to impersonate someone else in a kind of interpersonal relationship. That is just plain awful, I don't see how a dilemma can exist there.

</comment><comment><USER35> About eight years ago I knew a teenager making over $100k a month sending dating site affiliate offers through Chatroulette. He had a bot that setup a fake stream and then pushed the affiliate links in the chat.

This is _not_ new. Back then it was affectionately called "e-whoring."

<comment><USER36> The new thing with this is hiring offshored clickfarm workers (basically the same recruit pool of people who would be farming gold in WoW for $1.25/hour in a developing nation, or working in an IRS-scam call center), who multitask and use a set of pre-prepared scripts and their own customizations to have a few lines of back and forth chat with the (mostly male) rubes, then send them an affiliate link to get them to click on. This has the advantage of putting a human in the loop to solve captchas, and enough randomness from the human's behavior that the bot-like behavior is not immediately apparent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I don't even get this. If you don't have time to date, how would you have time for a relationship?

<comment><USER38> I think your confusion comes because online dating isn't dating. A date takes potentially a couple of hours at max. Online dating refers to the process of searching for someone to date via the internet. A date can take an hour or two. Looking for a date online can take hundreds of hours without any results save for a few catfish scams.

<comment><USER37> I think you've confused "going on date" with "dating". The process called "dating" has always included the initial part of sorting through possible prospects to go on a date with. Online dating is more efficient than what went before.

The process has also included getting-to-know-you conversation and trust- building, neither of which this impersonation accomplishes.

A date does take a couple of hours max. But if it works, it blossoms into a relationship, which takes significant time. And that same sort of significant time can be applied to dating.

<comment><USER38> Dating has multiple different meanings in English. Not only do I know this, but you're attempt to correct me is a re-statement of what I said in my own post: dating can refer to the process of finding someone to begin dating.

Online dating can be a long torturous experience. That is why people are saying they want to skip it and do the parts that are enjoyable. Some because it was long and people don't have time for it. Some because it can be torturous and life is too short to put up with that.

<comment><USER37> Dating can be a long, difficult experience, on line or off. So the online part is irrelevant here except that it makes fraud possible.

I understand that humans in general are lazy, and normally I am fine with that. But a) being lazy is different than not having time, b) if you don't have time to date, you also don't have time for a relationship, and c) you can't just skip the early parts of building a relationship. That's not how dating works.

<comment><USER38> Dating offline can be one of the most frightening euphoric experiences a person will ever have even if the result of an attempted approach is rejection. I remember asking a girl out for the first time. It was nothing like swiping right a few hundreds times and then sending a message to someone who swiped back only to never receive a response. I felt so good that it scared me even hours later when I was no longer feeling the euphoria. There are huge differences between dating online and offline. Real differences that really matter.

It isn't true that online dating isn't relevant to whether a person can have time in their life for online dating.

When people talk about not having time for something, they are speaking in a metaphorical sense about the value of their time. Truly, most people have time to count to a million, but most people don't have time to count to a million.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If you really want to see something weird (from an American perspective) take a look at "matrimonial" websites such as shaadi.com , and Indian dating apps. The selection criteria for ethnic groups and religions! In the North American melting pot it's crude and racist to put blunt preferences in a dating ad, in India (and Pakistan, and Bangaldesh) apparently it's the norm.

<comment><USER39> I don't see what's wrong in being upfront about what you want and facilitating that. It keeps the process simple and works as a pretty good initial filter.

While you're talking about the melting pot in the western world, it just so happens that eventually most whites end up with just whites, and blacks just blacks. Most beautiful women end up with rich men, and religious people end up with religious people. Long term "melting pot" relationships aren't as common as you think. If sexual selection eventually filters all but those common traits, why not be blunt about them?

E.g., while the Indian dating sites you talk about bluntly list salary, western sites use complicated proxies (like interests == international tourism, or your profile photo with a tesla you own).

That dating has to be complicated and subtle and what you need has to only be "hinted" isn't any better than being blunt about what you're looking for, and being blunt about what value you think you'll provide to the other. At the least, you'll have saved time and heartbreaks.

<comment><USER36> I didn't say that it's wrong, just that it's weird and different from American cultural norms. Things americans do are weird and different to Indians. I think one of the main differences, and this is a gross overgeneralization, is that south asian dating sites and apps are much more aimed at people who are looking for marriage. Whereas Americans enjoy "casual dating" \- good luck getting a casual dating app to take off in Peshawar, Pakistan.

<comment><USER40> What makes you say it's weird and different? Match.com lets you filter by ethnicity and faith...

<comment><USER36> here's some more "traditional" matrimonial ads:

[http://www.thehindu.com/classifieds/matrimonial/](http://www.thehindu.com/classifieds/matrimonial/)

there's a whole jargon and set of acronyms that takes some puzzling out. I guess what I was trying to write in my original post, is that if someone is developing software/database/backend (or presentation layer) for a dating website or app, that there's a considerable diversity of ways people search for certain criteria, other than those that are commonly seen on a site like plenty of fish, bumble, etc.

sort of like this problem: [https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods- programmers-...](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers- believe-about-names/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> HN being mostly male and as a guy, I've seen this discussion on the frustrations of online dating and how the system evolves many times.

Are there similar threads in mostly female communities to see their perspective?

<comment><USER42> Any mostly female community on the internet inevitably gets overrun with men trying to provide their perspective. /r/twoxchromosomes on Reddit is now 75-80% male in the comments, or more.

<comment><USER41> Sounds like the boy scouts in real life. It seems to happen in both directions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Shameless plug for a friend who described the experience of having virtual dating assistants in a book: "Dating Vandalized".

[https://www.amazon.ca/Dating-Vandalized-Katerina-Lyadova- ebo...](https://www.amazon.ca/Dating-Vandalized-Katerina-Lyadova- ebook/dp/B071YKY2PV/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1524832672&sr=8-3&keywords=lyadova)

</comment><comment><USER44> Sexism aside, the morality of this service is interesting. What if this service was involved in a match, and some time later the couple married?

<comment><USER45> simply keep up the appearance that everything was "sincere" from the get go?

<comment><USER46> Ah yes, because relationships founded on white lies are the _best_ ones.

<comment><USER45> oh I see! you are right, I thought we were only talking about extramarital marriages...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> New Turing test-like challenge...

Build an AI to automate this process using the same guidelines.

</comment><comment><USER48> This just confirms my strong distrust of online messaging with a stranger. Life is short. If you can't agree to meet me for coffee and conversation in a neutral location, I'm not interested.

</comment><comment><USER49> This is how it will end:

[https://www.oglaf.com/performance- anxiety/](https://www.oglaf.com/performance-anxiety/)

Not safe for work obviously.

And at least they're honest.

</comment><comment><USER50> Hold on... So there are companies out there that you can pay to do your flirting for you?

I don't know what this says about us as people, but damn... that's so sad.

</comment><comment><USER51> > This messaging "blast" technique may appear lucrative compared to the > average neighborhood yenta, but it has occurred to me that good matchmaking > may not be in the company's financial interest. When a client pairs up, they > leave the service.

This is only true if client is looking for a long-term monogamous relationship.

</comment><comment><USER52> Founder of Relationship Hero (YC S17) here.

We also help with online-dating messages, but we'll help you to improve your own communication skills. Text flirting seems like such a trivial thing, but getting better at it can be life-changing, because it ultimately leads to better relationships.

</comment><comment><USER53> If you squint just a bit, these impersonators look a lot like headhunters / recruitment agents.

</comment><comment><USER54> This should be considered fraud.

<comment><USER55> .

<comment><USER54> Except that some dating apps have micropayments in them. e.g: they sell you the ability to bump you in search results.

Keeping you engaged with fake activity to increase the chances of becoming a paying user seems very questionable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Honestly if you're lazy enough to rely on the superficialness of online dating apps like Tinder, you're already in a gray area. If you're judging people purely by looks (which would be an inefficiency since in real life in person looks aren't as important), then someone else is justified in re-balancing that inefficiency by doing something like hiring a text writer.

<comment><USER56> > looks aren't as important

That's not true for the majority. Looks are the first signal you notice of the other person. Unless you are after poets, artists or other people whose work reach other people without "the looks" then I don't see how - <USER2> subconsciously - it's not important. Pics are furthermore do indicate personality.

I agree that Tinder is an industrial scale meat grinder, but the advantage is that wide exposure is better for your chances. It's like saying HI to a tons of people on the street you otherwise wouldn't meet.

<comment><USER57> The thing about Tinder that sucks is that you don't get a very good idea about a person from it, because all you get is a few pictures and if you're lucky, a very short free-form text session where hopefully they wrote something substantive about themselves.

However, the thing that makes Tinder great (and also Bumble, though I haven't tried that one yet) is that both parties must "like" each other for any messaging to occur. This still isn't the norm on "traditional" dating sites, for some reason. The traditional sites are bad for men, because they're encouraged to put forth a lot of effort to write meaningful messages to women, but almost all the effort is simply wasted because most of them go to women that have no interest in those men, and the man has no way of knowing this.

Tinder/Bumble fix this by forcing the woman to "like" a man's profile first, before he wastes any time and effort writing her a message. It also helps women by massively reducing the amount of unwanted messages they receive from men: if they get unwanted messages, it's partly their fault (and entirely under their control) for "liking" those men, and encourages them to be more selective with their right-swipes (so maybe they'll come up with some strategies for avoiding creeps, such as only right-swiping people with something meaningful written in their profile, and not just guys with gym selfies and backwards ball caps).

<comment><USER20> I think the problem with "not enough information" is that if people actually successfully progress from just using it to text each and count matches, you'll find that using just looks is extremely inefficient in actually finding quality matches. But seeing has how it's stereotypical for Tinder to be for hookups (even though most people I know use it for dating), it's probably justifiable for their intended use case.

<comment><USER57> Absolutely, for its _intended_ use case (hookups), it's absolutely a far more efficient and utilitarian interface.

But for dating, I think it's pretty lousy. But as you said, most people (over the age of 30 I suspect) seem to use it for dating, not casual sex. And they're right to use it for that, because even though it's lousy IMO, it's where everyone is, and despite the rest of the UI being lousy for selecting quality matches IMO, the killer feature is the fact that both parties have to "like" each other. Why other dating sites like OKcupid don't adopt this, I have no idea, except maybe it's not good for their business model in their view. For women I've talked to, sites like OKC are just awful because they get so many unsolicited messages; this isn't much of a problem on Tinder and Bumble since they're in control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The resemblance to the career of the lead character from Her is undeniable.

</comment><comment><USER58> Am I supposed to be utterly shocked this happens?

</comment><comment><USER59> If I create a dating app I'd use the VC money to contract some sex professionals to create a great atmosphere.

</comment><comment><USER60> it's like that scene from the movie Hurt Locker [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1OOI6m4b7c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1OOI6m4b7c) where he's trying to decide which cereal from so many choices. Old fashion family arranged marriages make so much sense to me now. JUST PICK SOMEONE!

</comment><comment><USER61> Oh my lord, these comments are really surfacing the number of incels and MRA's on hacker news. Wow.

When I hear criticisms of the tech community being so bro-y and full of insecure dudes, I tend to rebuff them because I don't personally see it as much. But man, that behavior is coming out in full force on this post.

<comment><USER62> How lackadaisical has stereotyping gotten that that there is any overlap between the sets {incels, MRAs} and {bros}?

Aren't they mutually exclusive by definition? Or does "bro" now mean "any men I don't like"?</comment></comment>


Wage stagnation in nine charts [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.epi.org/files/2013/wage-stagnation-in-nine-charts.pdf <comment><USER2> "Wage stagnation for the vast majority was not created by abstract economic trends. Rather, wages were suppressed by policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power."

Sounds a lot like Lawrence Lessig was correct:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic,_Lost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic,_Lost)</comment>


Ask HN: Any Developers enjoy the new MBP 15"? - <AUTHOR> I recently bought one for development and am very impressed with it.
I've seen all day battery life unplugged during my work outside of the house which is 6-8 hour range.  Even within that range it estimates I have 10+ hours of battery life left.
I love the display. Much better than my older MBP and am overall very satisfied with the purchase.
Wondering if any other devs/users like it as well? <comment><USER2> I'm pleased with it.

At first I had some issues with it thinking my external display was a TV -- but now that I've taught it the difference between shit and Shinola, everything's good.

I'm stoked that the company bought me a new machine -- and I think it's pretty nice. My only complaint is that I wish they still made a 17" MBP. My eyes aren't what they used to be.

</comment><comment><USER3> Apple hardware has fallen so far behind I've become a Hackintosh convert.

If you're paying for top of the line build quality, you shouldn't have to sacrifice for last-gen hardware for the sake to be 1mm thinner.</comment>


Startup Is Developing Finger-Prick Blood Tests, but Don't Call It Theranos 2 - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/arleneweintraub/2018/07/13/this-startup-is-developing-finger-prick-blood-tests-but-dont-call-it-theranos-2/amp/ <comment><USER2> I'm not entirely sure what's so interesting or novel about this. There are a large number of these companies in the UK already and you can achieve it pretty affordably using lab produced results + capillary blood in about 24hrs and offer online dashboards with tracking and some advice. Perhaps i misunderstand the focus on the value of automation.

[https://werlabs.co.uk/](https://werlabs.co.uk/)

[https://www.forthwithlife.co.uk/](https://www.forthwithlife.co.uk/)

[https://bluehorizonmedicals.co.uk/sample- collection/finger-p...](https://bluehorizonmedicals.co.uk/sample- collection/finger-prick-kits)

[https://thriva.co/](https://thriva.co/)

[https://werlabs.co.uk/](https://werlabs.co.uk/)

[https://www.letsgetchecked.com/](https://www.letsgetchecked.com/)

[https://www.getlivesmart.com/](https://www.getlivesmart.com/)

Most of these end up at somewhere like [http://www.countypathology.co.uk/](http://www.countypathology.co.uk/) (Thriva and forthwithlife both use this lab)</comment>


A bill in Congress legalizes cell phone unlocking and fixes the DMCA - <AUTHOR> http://fixthedmca.org/unlocking-technology-act.html?r=hn <comment><USER2> If you want this to pass, don't sign the petition, and don't email or write your congresscritter. _Call them_. Interact with a human being in their office. Anecdotally, that has a much greater impact.

(Source: my cousin and his wife were congressional staffers for several years.)

<comment><USER3> For someone who has never called a politician to lobby for something, what do you say when you call them up? Is it as simple as "I'd like for you back this bill?" Honest question.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Hi, My name is ____, and I'm one of Senator/Representative ____ constitutents from ___. I'm calling to tell my Representative/Senator that I think the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is affecting my freedoms as a consumer by preventing me from unlocking or jailbreaking my phone or tablets without fear of legal repercussions. I'd like to urge representative/senator ____ to join in supporting the Unlocking Technology Act, H.R. 1892. Not only would it grant greater consumer freedoms, but it would also empower security researchers, documentary filmmakers, remix artists, and archivists to do their important work without facing legal threats."

Make sure they catch and make a note of "the Unlocking Technology Act - H.R. 1892" part, as that's what they'll note down and use in their own counts of how many calls they've received.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This legislation doesn't entirely fix the DMCA. It fixes some problems but more remain.

Copyright is some seriously fucked up shit right now. It has been dominated by big money interests for the last 50 years.

<comment><USER5> Forward progress is still forward progress.

<comment><USER6> Those of us in the UK who voted for AV+ because we saw it as a step toward proportional representation thought that too. Then the notion that it was a half-baked solution was used as a weapon by the "No" campaign, and now voting reform is off the table entirely for the foreseeable future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It would be nice if the Digital Millennium __Copyright __Act only applied to Copyright violations.

<comment><USER8> That would make sense, and it's analogous to the laws in some states where it's legal to own lockpicks and use them on locks you own, but if you get caught with them while breaking & entering, the lockpicks become illegal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now is a good time to show that people are capable at _passing_ legislation instead of _blocking_ it.

It's easier to enshrine rights in law than to oppose every iteration of PIPA and CISPA, every time they try to let it slip through unnoticed.

<comment><USER10> It would give me hope for America's technological future if this one can be pushed through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If someone has information that they only want certain people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, internal documents, trade secrets and documents under NDAs?

If someone has information they only want licensed people to see, would circumventing a technological measure that controls access to that information be allowed under this bill? For example, publishers of stock market analysis which is released only to licensed subscribers.

<comment><USER12> Why do you need the DMCA to protect these things?

<comment><USER11> I'm asking for clarification of the impact of this bill. Do you know the answers to those two questions off hand?

<comment><USER13> Why would you expose such information in a way that it is protected only by a mechanism that the public has access to? It seems like you are asking if fixing the DMCA would remove protection for irresponsible behavior.

<comment><USER14> IIRC, the DMCA makes it a criminal act, whereas otherwise it might only be governed by civil law. If I'm contractually obligated to only read a stock market report myself, but I show it to a friend, do I deserve jail time, or just to get sued?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Equally important after signing the petition is sharing it on social networks; you know so that the effort gets amplified.

</comment><comment><USER16> One of the most important things about this bill is that it takes care of the anti-circumvention provisions in a general way, rather than narrowly targeting cell phone unlocking.

> (3) It is not a violation of this section to use, manufacture, import, offer > to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, > service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or > pro- duced for the purpose of facilitating noninfringing uses of works > protected under this title by circumventing a technological measure that > effectively controls access to that work, unless it is the intent of the > person that uses, manufactures, imports, offers to the public, provides, or > traffics in the technology, product, service, device, component, or part to > infringe copyright or to facilitate the infringement of a copyright.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you prefer, here's the bill on POPVOX <https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr1892/>

Also makes it very easy to contact your representative.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is very dangerous. Just from the first paragraph of the page, it is stated that the bill will allow all types of software modification.

A bill like this will have a very hard time passing. This was originally suppose to be only about unlocking cell phones for use with other carriers. Now conditions have been added that make the bill very arguable. It is asking for more than we can take. Companies like Apple and Sony will be very likely against this.

Every part of me wants this to pass, but this bill is sadly unlikely to. ... sadface

</comment><comment><USER19> History has taught us if you want to change something within Congress, you need a lot of lobbying cash to buy off as many key votes as possible. While it makes sense to allow cell phone unlocking (here in Australia it's legal) I have a feeling those who benefit off of locking you in will be spending some of their lobby change as well. That's not to say the bill won't pass though, there is still a chance if enough people make enough noise and ask questions, flood the airway.

</comment><comment><USER20> Perhaps it would also have been useful if they had addressed the pre-1972 recording issue that came up recently. I.e., they don't appear to be covered by the DMCA safe-harbor provision, leading to unintended liability. See: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-denies- groo...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-denies-grooveshark- dmca-protection-for-songs-like-johnny-b-goode/)

</comment><comment><USER21> I was with fixthedmca and grassroots.io during StartupBus and Sina works at the same office with me — the cause is important and the new design is very good!

</comment><comment><USER22> Is there any reason not to support this? What negative impacts could this have towards the companies that this effects?

<comment><USER23> I want to know this too. When I see thing like "This fixes the DMCA", it makes me question the intentions of the advocating website. It sounds too good to be true.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I'm the FixtheDMCA founder. I set the whole thing up, and really I don't have any ulterior motives. When I was in college (2003-2006), I wrote and sold software to unlock Motorola phones (back when the RAZR was big). It was my first startup, and was a lot of fun to build. But about a year in I was sent a cease and desist by Motorola for violating the DMCA, even though there was no copyright infringement involved.

A very lovely lawyer by the name of Jennifer Granick at Stanford Cyberlaw helped me out pro bono, the case was dropped, and Jennifer went on to petition the Librarian of Congress to have an exemption for unlocking added. That exemption was granted in 2006, renewed in 2009, then dropped in 2012. I haven't been in the unlocking business for a long time, but I thought I should do something about it. I started the WH petition, which got 114k signatures and a positive response from the WH. But I realized that the real culprit is DMCA Section 1201, it really is just a really poorly written law, and it effects a whole load of people. So, with the help of some friends (shout outs to Azat, Joe, Austin and Dmitri) we threw up the FixtheDMCA site over the course of three days, and I've been maintaining it since. Meanwhile I've been trying to coordinate with folks like the EFF and Public Knowledge who are pushing things on the DC side.

For me it's kind of a fun break from startups, and I kind of feel like it's paying back the favor J. Granick did to me back when I was a college student.

I would really love to hear some decent, reasoned arguments why the DMCA shouldn't be fixed (and by fixed I mean limited to cases of copyright infringement only), as I think at a certain point the content lobbies will probably start making them and I'd love to have responses ready.

<comment><USER24> _> some decent, reasoned arguments why the DMCA shouldn't be fixed_

I doubt there can be any _decent_ arguments, since DRM itself is by definition indecent, and DMCA 1201 is DRM derivative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> And for canadians: [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Lan...](http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5227186)

</comment><comment><USER26> "As a constitutient, I write today to urge you to support the the.."

Seriously? C'mon!

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, I can fortunately plass off blame to EFF for writing that. I'll fix it now :).

Edit: Should be fixed now.

<comment><USER26> Thanks, for both the original and the fix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For a second I thought this was an April Fool's day post!

</comment><comment><USER28> Email Sent.

<comment><USER29> Emails will be ignored. Call them. They notice that.

<comment><USER30> I'm not sure I agree. Every email I've sent from a site like this actually does get a reply a few days later.

<comment><USER29> And that's how you know you've made a big impression on their autoresponder. ;-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Frame, notetaking app that can answer your questions - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jddunn/frame <comment><USER2> I see a potential in this for academic research work as well, are you planning to develop it further?

<comment><AUTHOR> At the moment I'm pausing development to focus on other things, but there are a few features needed to really make it useful.

Eventually I'd like to add in building various text corpora by parsing the entire collection of the entries, by selection of entries, and by tags / groupings. Currently, the analysis isn't taking advantage of the recursive data structure of the library.</comment></comment>


Programmatic programming font exploration - <AUTHOR> http://1overN.com

<comment><USER2> Hey Adrock,

From this (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2140643>) thread:

Inconsolata

Liberation Mono

Bitstream Vera Sans Mono

Terminus.

Menlo.

Monaco

andale mono

More fonts listed in:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4689/recommended-fonts- fo...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4689/recommended-fonts-for- programming)

by way of ambirex

<comment><USER3> I like "Proggy Clean Slashed Zero", because it is readable at small sizes. <http://www.proggyfonts.com/index.php?menu=download>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also, if you're a LaTeX fan, Computer Modern Typewriter makes a decent editor font. (<http://canopus.iacp.dvo.ru/~panov/cm-unicode/download.html>).

The download link doesn't have a preview image, but you can see one here: ([http://www.identifont.com/find?font=Computer+Modern+Teletype...](http://www.identifont.com/find?font=Computer+Modern+Teletype&q=Go)) It's like a nicer Courier.

I used to use it for everything, but at work I've settled on 16-point Inconsolata. On a 2560x1600 display it's very easy on the eyes.

</comment><comment><USER5> I liked that the largest single-char difference between DejaVu Sans Mono and Droid Sans Mono is that the Droid version has a G in the style of Google's favicon.

</comment><comment><USER6> I still love my standard XWindows fonts. My favorite is 6x13.

+No fuzzy font-smoothing edges to give you a headache.

+l's, 1', 0's, O's, and symbols are easily distinguished.

+doesn't take up too much space so I can have more code windows open

+wide Unicode support, just in case

+Works great with both programmers' editors. Yes, both. No need to fight.

+stable, proven, familiar, and established

</comment><comment><USER7> After searching high and low for many years, I've settled on Akkurat Mono--a commercial font, well hinted, and gorgeous on Mac OS X.

edit: link: [http://www.lineto.com/The+Fonts/Font+Categories/Text+Fonts/A...](http://www.lineto.com/The+Fonts/Font+Categories/Text+Fonts/Akkurat+Mono/)

<comment><USER8> Wow thats a beautiful font, thanks

Edit: 190.380 USD or 140 EUR, Really? How can a font be that expensive?... I could pay 10 to 20 euro but man, the price of this font is almost half of my rent...

Edit 2: Just discovered Inconsolata, also beautiful, and free <http://www.levien.com/type/myfonts/inconsolata.html>

<comment><USER7> It's expensive, true: but if you value your eyes, you should get something which is _not_ fuzzy at common point sizes, but is still readable and with pleasing shapes even when rendering with sub-pixel anti-aliasing.

I do like Inconsolata as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's going on with the symbols (%, #, @, etc.) in those comparisons? It looks like they're getting pulled from Courier New.

I recently discovered the M+ fonts ([http://mplus-fonts.sourceforge.jp/mplus- outline-fonts/design...](http://mplus-fonts.sourceforge.jp/mplus-outline- fonts/design/index-en.html)). "M+ 1m" is a very nice condensed monospace font that works well on my 13" MacBook Pro's small screen. However, there seems to be too much vertical space between lines, and it tends to be blurry at smaller font sizes, so I wouldn't recommend it 100%.

<comment><USER9> > What's going on with the symbols (%, #, @, etc.) in those comparisons? It > looks like they're getting pulled from Courier New.

Mathematica can be really finicky regarding fonts in graphics when it comes to what it thinks of as "math" symbols. This has to do with the way that it typesets equations- most fonts won't have glyphs for integral symbols, for example. Let's say that for some odd reason you wanted to typeset an equation in Zapfino. Mathematica will be happy to do this, but since Zapfino lacks integral signs and numerous other mathematical symbols, Mathematica will helpfully substitute glyphs from its own built-in fonts "as needed."

Unfortunately, it can be overzealous about this- its definition of "as needed" is awfully broad. I recently had a seriously annoying problem involving a graph I was trying to export- I'd set the graph up using Optima, but the graph's title included parentheses and a percentage sign. It all looked fine on the screen, but upon exporting it I found that the (, ), and % were all in the wrong font, since Mathematica decided that those were math symbols and as such needed to be substituted out for glyphs from another font. Turns out there's a (well-hidden and poorly-documented) way to manually override this font-embedding behavior- if any Mathematica users out there are interested, drop me an email.

<comment><AUTHOR> Someone was kind enough to comment on the post with this gem:

Style["( . ) ( . ) ", 60, FontFamily -> "Comic Sans MS", PrivateFontOptions -> {"OperatorSubstitution" -> False}]

<comment><USER9> Yup, that's the one. I would've included it in my post, but I couldn't quite remember the specific syntax. Even with this option, though, I ran into some irregularities involving font embedding and Adobe Illustrator.

Supposedly, the newest version of MMA has improved its font embedding behavior such that it all should "just work," but I haven't had a chance to test it out yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> I evaluated this notebook with Mathematica 8, so it unfortunately doesn't just work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My favorite programming font is Pragmata[1]. It is however, commercial and not very cheap.

[1] <http://www.fsd.it/fonts/pragma.htm>

</comment><comment><USER11> This is a great visualisation. What's frustrating, and what few font designers seem to realise, is that it's not enough for two letters to be distinguishable if they're next to each other; I need to be able to glance at a lowercase L and know immediately that it isn't the number 1, even if there are no other l's or 1's in view. Many of these fonts have a very distinct lowercase L but the number 1 could go either way. Others have a distinctive number 1 but if you saw a variable named l you'd be momentarily confused.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd really appreciate any suggestions for additional fonts to include in my explorations. Also, any ideas for visualizations you'd like to see are welcomed!

<comment><USER12> I find using black for the common areas to be more useful visually. For the subtle shape differences, it is easier to pick out a fringe of color against black than the hue shift of lavender to cyan.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point. I'll do this in future posts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I did a little exploration like this for the new MS fonts:

<http://cronus.ws/~mta/fonts/>

</comment><comment><USER13> On my screen the color differences don't appear very obvious. Any ideas?</comment>


3 Guys Build a Start-up While Streaming the Process - <AUTHOR> http://www.ustream.tv/channel/backly

<comment><USER2> its been fun to watch this start up from the very beginning.</comment>


Police arrest student leader over laser pointers in Hong Kong - <AUTHOR> https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1473126-20190806.htm?spTabChangeable=0 <comment><USER2> Thought I'd agree with this, but they were found in his bag. Doesn't sound like he used them and there's no mention of whether or not they're of an illegal class (assuming some are illegal in HK).

Another article (1) quotes the Chief Inspector as saying: "If anyone uses such an object to attack a person, it could also be deemed an offensive weapon" but no mention of such an attack in this specific case.

Can anyone supplement my (long-ago) grade 11 law class: is mens rea alone isn't enough to be convicted of a crime?

(1) [https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and- crime/article/30...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and- crime/article/3021716/tear-gas-fired-sham-shui-po-hong-kong-after-students)

<comment><USER3> There's actual video footage of HK police officers arresting a kid because he had a flashlight in his backpack. They deemed it as a "weapon". Right now, HKPD is going on a rampage and making up excuses to arrest anyone who is brazen enough to talk back at them. It's juvenile. Good luck to the police officers who think that they'll magically go back to their normal lives after this. After grossly mistreating so many ppl in the community they swore to protect, they should expect spit in their food.

<comment><USER4> Some flashlights can definitely be used as weapons. A Maglite to the clavical while holding the bulb end is a pretty sure fire way to break ones collar bone and otherwise incapacitate an assailant. One of the reasons I keep one in my car. I once had the use it as a deterrent in a road rage incident. Random guy got pissed at me for driving aggressively in a school (I was driving the speed limit and he tried to pull out in front of me from a parallel parking spot, I had to swerve to avoid him and he followed me until I got stopped by a red light.).

Anyways, this guy gets out of his car and starts aproaching my car, and I get out of my car with the flashlight. Guy was easily 80-100 lbs larger than me. He immediately stepped back and accused me of being offensive. I responded with: you honked at me, gave me the finger, got out of your car at a light to confront me. I'm being defensive. You also have a significant size advantage. You have a problem with how I drive? Follow me to the police department and I'll tell them what I witnessed. Come a step closer, and you're going to the hospital, most likely.

Guy got back in his car and didnt follow up on my offer to speak with the police.

Used properly, a Maglite can be a great personal defense weapon. Swing toward the clavical (the area where neck meats shoulders). Again, hold by the bulb end; the shape will naturally help hold itself in your hand and youve got 3 C cell batteries at the other end which give a bit of heft to a swing.

<comment><USER5> A flashlight in your backpack is not a weapon.

Also an inexperienced person trying to use a blunt force weapon is more likely to become the victim.

<comment><USER6> In the eyes of the law, the intent matters much more than whether you can actually use the "weapon" effectively, especially if it can be demonstrated that _somebody_ with enough skill/experience (not necessarily the person being found in possession) can use the "weapon" effectively.

<comment><USER4> Also, in the case of something like AntiFa, even if you had something like a Maglite in a backpack, intent to use could easily be construed. Broad daylight, youve got a Maglite? To what end?

<comment><USER7> Because days end?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some relevant context: laser pointers have been being used by HK protesters lately to interfere with facial recognition on security cameras

<comment><USER9> Some more context; they're not only used to interfere with facial recognition. They're also being used to annoy the police officers, as well as people who are watching from their windows when protestors pass by. I've had lasers pointed at me when I was just looking out of my window over the protests.

<comment><USER10> Is there a reason to lase random people looking out the window? Is it to shame you for not joining the protest, or because you could be a police or pro-China observer, etc.?

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure what the reason is. There's a hotel across the street from me, and some people were looking out of the window, instantly they had 5 lasers pointed at them. Someone was pointing a laser at me too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I support Democracy in HK. Please contact your representatives to support Democracy too

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Late to the party but thought I'd clarify because some comments are extremely misleading.

He's a member of the Astronomy Club. Also 7 Aug, the following night, is the "Seven Sister's Festival", a traditional festival in Hong Kong which stargazing is a common activity to do during.

Stargazing was a perfectly legal and reasonable intent. Not to say he was definitely not involved in the protests, but there was absolutely no evidence that he intended to use them as weapons.

The officers who approached him didn't show their warrant card at first. They also held his throat. Given the current situation in Hong Kong (triad members attacked citizens in public on 21 July and 5 Aug in 3 different places, and NO POLICE arrived at the scenes until well after the incidents, and so far no attacker is being prosecuted, despite the abundant video footage of the attacks), running away also was what sane people would do when they're threatened by 4 men with dubious identities.

</comment><comment><USER12> You try pointing a laser-pointer at a police officer around here and you will be lucky if you are just arrested.

<comment><USER13> > "Officers later searched his bag and found the pointers. Fong is heard > saying he bought them for star-gazing."

This is from the article. The pointers were in his bag. He didn't point at anyone. Your comment implied that he did, and that's factually incorrect.

<comment><USER12> Sure. But the reason why the police is looking for laser-pointers is kinda obvious isn't? I am merely pointing out that what you kids are getting away in Hong Kong would have been met with a much stronger reaction elsewhere.

<comment><USER13> You seem to carry a lot of unwarranted assumptions with you. For example, you assume my age and call people "you kids", despite not displaying enough maturity in your own comments. You assume the reason the police is looking for laser pointers is obvious. It's actually not. Depends on the side you ask, the answer could be that the police are just looking to frame the student, or that the student pointed the lazer pointer at someone, then hid it in his bag. I suggest you take a step back and assume fewer things. It will help you to be more rational and less emotionally charged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am pretty sure China doesn't have a restriction on laser pointers. There are laser pointers up to 1W for sale on taobao.com

<comment><USER15> And in case it's not obvious, they're incredibly dangerous to eyesight. They'll literally blind you before you can blink.

<comment><USER16> It really depends on the power. The lasers the protesters use wouldn't blind you due to the blink reflex. If what you're saying was true, hundreds of police officers would be blind right now.

<comment><USER15> I was referring to the 1W lasers the parent commenter mentioned, but yes of course.

A volunteer at Burning Man was blinded in one eye a few years ago: [https://journal.burningman.org/2015/03/black-rock- city/tales...](https://journal.burningman.org/2015/03/black-rock-city/tales- from-the-playa/theres-a-black-dot-in-the-middle-of-everything-i-see/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Part of me wants to start protest at Chinese embassies in the US. I wonder what the response would be.

<comment><USER18> Nitpick: There's only one Chinese embassy in the USA, in Washington D.C.

The other diplomatic offices are consulates.

If it's anything like the Chinese Embassy in New Zealand, there's usually regular protests outside, for a variety of reasons. Their response would be to ignore them, like they usually do.

<comment><USER19> Double nitpick: China has a second embassy in the US, the UN embassy in Manhattan.

<comment><USER20> Triple nitpick: China calls its diplomatic mission to the UN a "permanent mission", not an "embassy".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> With the current situation in HK, and his position, there may be valid concern it may not be used legally

It's not that hard to prove intent if he is really innocent

If he's really star gazing, why does he need 10 lasers? Show some evidence of your plan (where you are planning to go to star gaze, who you are going with (10 lasers are a bit too many for 1 person's needs). Have you always been interested in Astronomy? It is rare (not impossible) for someone to suddenly find an interest in star gazing overnight.

Of course, it may be hard for police to actually prosecute him based on just intent - HK laws are still quite good. However, if he's been seen on the protest frontlines, plus ownership of lasers, it might make more of a case.

HK is not a place known for star gazers really - the light pollution is horrendous</comment>


Show HN: Biboumi – An XMPP-to-IRC gateway - <AUTHOR> https://biboumi.louiz.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> I just released version 5.0.

Among other things, this release includes a new feature that can make it behave like an IRC bouncer. Coupled with a few modern XMPP features, it makes IRC mobile friendly: you can mark a channel as persistent, join it from your mobile XMPP client (like Conversations), and whenever you get disconnected due to bad connectivity biboumi will stay online, and when you go back online it will send you all the messages you missed.

<comment><USER2> This is very cool, does it support working as an IRC->IRC bouncer, as well? Or would I have to run an instance for mobile, in addition to ZNC for desktop?

<comment><AUTHOR> You could do something like this

      Conversations -> Biboumi --
                                 \
                      irssi   ->  znc -> IRC

But it has a few gotchas (like when znc "force-join" a channel, that can't be done with XMPP, so biboumi will send you an invite instead, that's confusing), and it quickly gets complicated to manage. You could try that, but you might encounter a few usage issues.

And no, it doesn't do an IRC->IRC bouncer, so you can't replace your znc entirely if you still want to use a real IRC client on your desktop.

I think the best solution is to have two independent biboumi and znc.

<comment><USER3> Would this sort of thing be too convoluted?

          Conversations -> Biboumi -> IRC
                           /
        irssi -> bitlbee -´

I suppose some fidelity is lost in the irc->xmpp->irc conversion, but for basic use that might work?

<comment><USER4> I've been using mutter -> ZNC (with mutter push module) -> bitlbee for some years and it works fine here for basic XMPP usage.

EDIT: (I'm on a bunch of IRC servers too so this gives me one app for everything on the phone)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We are using Biboumi as our official IRC gateway for movim.eu (at irc.movim.eu) for a couple of years now :) Never had any trouble with it. It's a wonderful piece of software that I recommend to everyone!

</comment><comment><USER6> I've heard of lots of people using IRC clients for XMPP, but doing the opposite just feels strange.

<comment><USER7> Using an IRC client for XMPP guarantees a sub-par experience. I've been doing that for years with bitlbee (how do you join a MUC again?) and later with irssi-xmpp (whoops, Segmentation fault), but IRC has much fewer features than XMPP, so it really doesn't make sense.

My favorite XMPP feature is Message Delivery Receipts ([0], the nice little green checkmarks that you have in modern XMPP clients, similar to WhatsApp), that just aren't supported in the IRC protocol. Other gotchas are chat state notifications ([1] "user is typing"), last message correction ([2]) and multiple client resources.

It does make sense to use an XMPP client for IRC, though, as most of the IRC features can be easily mapped onto XMPP. I'm using yaxim and poezio to chat with folks on IRC, via biboumi.

[0] [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0184.html)

[1] [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0085.html](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0085.html)

[2] [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0308.html](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0308.html)

<comment><USER2> IME read receipts and "typing" updates are widely reviled for making online chat more awkward. I know heaps of people who go out of their way to disable receipts and status notifications in their chat apps (iMessage etc). I've even been criticized for _not_ having them disabled in iMessage.

<comment><USER7> I tend to agree for privacy reasons, but message _delivery_ receipts are really useful, especially when the other party is using a mobile connection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> gm-conspiracy What is a good iOS XMPP client?

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a _good_ xmpp client for iOS. ChatSecure is ok and seems to be as good as it gets.</comment></comment>


Blockchain Technology and the Law Are Allies, Not Enemies - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/consensys-media/blockchain-technology-and-the-law-are-allies-not-enemies-da0cb7b98298 <comment><USER2> They are precisely incompatible because Blockchains are all about programmatic, self-enforcing arbitration. In a correctly-functioning Blockchain, there is no entry-point for non-permissioned humans to meddle with outcomes. This is not a bug but a feature.

Ethereum keeps hard-forking and has thereby undermined its legitimacy. The premise that code is law is central to Blockchains. The necessary corollary is that human-law is irrelevant within the space of outcomes on the Blockchain.

In Bitcoin, no human court can prohibit a transaction from going through, or being valid. Bitcoins cannot be confiscated by fiat. Full stop. Blockchains were designed to create a purer, more mechanical and reliable arbitration than the courts can give.

<comment><USER3> > In a correctly-functioning Blockchain, there is no entry-point for non- > permissioned humans to meddle with outcomes. This is not a bug but a > feature.

How about that DAO, eh. [https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/the- dao.html](https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/the-dao.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Car and guns are the allies of the law, not enemies.

Yes, if it become mainstream enough and if the law adapts.

If not, blockchains are just some dark corner for money laundering.

</comment><comment><USER5> How can I read the articles? Or are they generally not more but a few sentences?

<comment><USER6> The original was posted on medium: [https://medium.com/consensys- media/blockchain-technology-and...](https://medium.com/consensys- media/blockchain-technology-and-the-law-are-allies-not-enemies- da0cb7b98298#.bxw68clm2)

<comment><USER7> Thanks, we've updated the link from [http://blockgeeks.com/blockchain- technology/](http://blockgeeks.com/blockchain-technology/).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Things like smart contracts would kill off the very need for many law firms so I'm not sure I followed the article well.</comment>


37signals is down again... - <AUTHOR>

It starts to get far too regular for a paid service! <comment><USER2> Only one comment needed <http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Damn, down again, but it seems just for me...

Thanks for the link!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not down for me . . .

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, it's up again for me as well. Maybe I was a bit too fast with my complain but the site was definitely out of reach for my colleague and me for the last couple of minutes.</comment></comment>


Google discloses Microsoft Edge security flaw before a patch is ready - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/19/17027138/google-microsoft-edge-security-flaw-disclosure <comment><USER2> Here's the bug:

[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project- zero/issues/detail?id=14...](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project- zero/issues/detail?id=1435)

It's a race condition that allows an ACG bypass. Under ACG, only privileged processes in the browser process ensemble can create new executable pages. But the mechanism by which privileged processes "give" executable pages to less- privileged processes enables the lesser processes to populate them with code of their choosing. It's medium severity because it's just a bypass of a (relatively new) security control. For it to be useful, you already need to have an RCE-able bug.

The headline is a bit misleading, and the article keeps you on the hook for a couple grafs before explaining.

You don't get "indefinitely, until the patch is released" from Google. You get 90 days. It's on you, the vendor that shipped the buggy software, to figure out how to ship a patch within 3 months. If you can't, you can ask for a grace period, which Google isn't obliged to give you (but did give here). I believe, but am not sure, that Google will give longer grace periods for very severe vulnerabilities, at their discretion.

This is how it has to be. Big vendors --- Google almost surely included! --- will backburner patches for months and months if they aren't given hard deadlines. Deadlines serve the users --- not just of the vulnerable software, but of all the other users that might depend on the people who use that software in some indirect way.

Either way, it doesn't look like anything was done to spite Microsoft. But a "business continued as usual" headline wouldn't attract as many clicks, I get that.

<comment><USER3> Yes Google allows longer for bigger issues. Meltdown and Spectre two great examples.

What surprises me is that so many of the really big ones seem to be found by Google.

Spectre and Meltdown by multiple poeple. But Shellshock, Broadpwn, Heartbleed, and Cloudbleed if memory serves all found by Google.

Off the top of my head can not think of a major one the last couple of years found by anyone but Google. Anyone else?

<comment><USER4> Project Zero remains one of the few true gems at Google. They do good work. They probably don't call out their own employer as much as they should (understandable, considering), but they do darn good work, and have made a significant impact in making the Internet more secure. Everything from competitors' operating systems to browser extensions has gotten their attention, almost seemingly at random.

I'd actually be super curious to know how they pick what they look into. Just a "hey, I wonder about this" while going about their day, or if they have some sort of agenda laid out for when to look at what software.

<comment><USER5> They probably call out their employer internally, know who to call directly when they find something, and so on. For stuff that isn't their own, the rules are probably very different.

At least that is how I would run something like this.

<comment><USER6> If I recall correctly a bug in chrome was disclosed before Google could fix it by the project zero team as the 3 month deadline had passed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whether google should disclose after 90 days or not is up for debate maybe, but i for one applaud the effort. Many many years, exploits have gone undetected/unpatched. If googles approach is to force people fix them, so be it.

Microsoft has no right to be angry - they should be thankful. This is peoples data, their business at risk. After being in the business for so long time, and with the resources they have, they can afford to put a small army of swes to fix security bugs.

Unlike a small company, the bugs in widely used software, by definition, affects a large set of people.

Disclaimer: google employee.

<comment><USER8> > If googles approach is to force people fix them, so be it.

That's not actually what responsible disclosure is for. Responsible disclosure is a process that [correctly] assumes that a malicious third party has also discovered the bug and is currently exploiting it or selling it, but acknowledges the assumption. If you disclosed bugs immediately, the could be novel and you could have let the cat out of the bag. If you never disclose bugs, they could already be in the wild and doing damage.

Forcing Microsoft to fix it is just a beneficial side-effect.

<comment><USER9> That's called coordinated disclosure. There can be no such thing as "responsible" disclosure, and Microsoft has disavowed that term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Or, the equivalent title: "Google gives Microsoft the standard 90 day window that it gives everyone"

<comment><USER11> Except Intel's CPU bugs, and perhaps others that I don't know about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> 90 days + 14 days grace time.

Why isn't that enough?

<comment><USER4> It took Google five months to get KRACK patched on the Pixel 2, despite third party ROM authors doing it in two days. Suffice to say, many vendors miss deadlines for this stuff on occasion. There are probably a number of reasons for this, including difficulty of repair, the fact that third party software may depend on the broken functionality, etc.

Microsoft and Google both patch security updates every single month that fall well within the common 90 day disclosure window. And then every so often, they fail to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "The public disclosure will likely anger Microsoft, once again." What has Microsoft done to retaliate in, if any, previous disclosures?</comment>


Ask HN: Do you travel regularly? Would you be interested in a Skype alternative? - <AUTHOR> I travel a lot and find Skype frustrating because it has rules for recharges based on which country you are currently in / where you created your account. I also often forget my Skype password. The result is when I need to make an international call, Skype, not that cheap, is also not easy.
I've been considering building something atop Twilio to solve my own problem, and putting the business viability aside, I'm wondering if any esteemed hackeroos could see themselves using like a "Web Payphone" where you can make international calls through your browser, after inserting some credit.
I'm thinking we could either do it once off, like make a hold on the credit, then after the call, charge for the actual amount ( say you insert 5 dollars, your call costs 1 dollar, we charge you for 1 dollar, and the 5 dollar hold comes off ). Or we could do regular PaYG. Also, if your call length is going to exceed 5 dollars, we warn on your side and cut it if it goes over (like a regular payphone of olde).
Apart from the retro tech fetishism of making a web based "payphone" (I remember them from youth), every time I need to dial international and I'm in a country, I wish I had an easy way to do it.
But I saw no one has made this, so I guess maybe it's not such a great idea. Still, it would help me. I've been thinking about it for a while and could probably build it.
I should add that this would not be for "Staying in touch with your friends"™ it would be for "utility" calls, like calling your bank when you're overseas. Not that you couldn't call any number you like, but with Whatsapp et al why would you want to pay to do so? <comment><USER2> I assume that Skype doesn't have those rules just to be annoying. They didn't start off with them -- they added them in response to some kind of problem. Perhaps it's a problem you wouldn't have if you're not a huge company, in which case you could have a great business. Or perhaps it's a problem that would be even worse for a small startup, such as rampant credit card fraud from some locations. (It's worse for a small company because a disproportionate number of your customers will be fraudsters who were blocked by everyone else, and you'll lose a huge amount of money right away.)

It can be hard to find out why rules exist, but very worthwhile.

</comment><comment><USER3> Honestly, I use FaceTime internationally and it's worked so far.

I used to use Skype regularly, but now there's no need for it.

<comment><USER4> FaceTime is great. Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp might also be viable options depending on the situation.</comment></comment>


Graduating into One of the Nastiest Job Markets in History - <AUTHOR> http://www.philalawyer.net/archives/graduating_into.phtml

<comment><USER2> I graduated last year, in England. In journalism. (In hindsight, perhaps not the brightest of choices.) I freelanced for a while, not earning nearly enough to live, before landing a job on a brand new small radio station. The station was a spectacular failure and went amazingly tits-up (I'm talking people removing equipment in front of us) after just six months.

Since then, I've been working a succession of shit temp jobs in supermarkets, fast food and so on. Next month, I'm moving to the Scottish islands. I've always wanted to, but I never have because "the opportunities aren't there". But now I've got a choice between working a rubbish warehouse job on a miserable industrial estate down here and working a rubbish job serving meals on a ferry surrounded by some of the world's most beautiful scenery, it's a no-brainer.

I _could_ stay here in the hope that the radio industry picks up at some point, but why bother? Our industry is all but dead and we've got so little to lose that it's worth being radical, leaving the career treadmill behind for a while, going somewhere different, trying something that's off the heavily beaten media industry track and maybe, just maybe, finding that one thing that stirs our individual passion in a way that the trendy career we picked under pressure at eighteen never has. (Personally, I can't believe universities are _still_ churning out broadcast journalists by the thousand, but that's off the point.)

You might as well grab your dream, run with it and see where it drags you.

(Posting under a false name because my main account's under my googleable real name)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not that bad. You probably don't have a mortgage, wife or children yet. You can usually still stay with your parents. You have enough freedom and enthousiasm to do a start-up. You can probably still secure an internship including a visa. If all else fails, you can even do a PhD.

</comment><comment><USER4> Maybe if you're a liberal arts major. I had three offers within two weeks of beginning my job search in January. This is NOT a bad time to be a CS graduate.

</comment><comment><USER5> Take comfort from the fact that you are graduating into one of the nastiest job markets in the history of the United States and still don't have to face the kind of competition that you would in any of these countries:

Liberia (80%)

Zimbabwe (70%)

East Timor (50%)

Bosnia (40%)

<http://www.aneki.com/unemployment.html>

Graduates in any of those countries would gladly swap places with you.</comment>


D-Wave Arms 'Smoking Gun' Proof of Quantum Computer - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/d-wave-arms-smoking-gun-proof-of-quantum-computer/ <comment><USER2> D-Wave has a history of making tall claims. Scott Aaronson (MIT EECS prof who works on quantum computing/complexity theory) has written about them a few times. <http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=306> He mentions, however, that "The people at D-Wave are not conscious frauds; they genuinely believe in what they're doing."

<comment><USER3> Thanks, the article was scant on details as to what, exactly, they hope to prove by this. Given the blog post that you linked to, it sounds like they are still not going to gain credibility among the science community that their system is exhibiting quantum effects, and the times article makes it sound like a publicity stunt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of Greg Egan's Luminous. I can't find a link for it, but here's its sequel, which sort of alludes to all the important details: <http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0805/DarkINtegers.shtml></comment>


Scientific communication in a post-truth society - <AUTHOR> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/11/21/1805868115.short <comment><USER2> Why does this crap get published in PNAS and our papers don't? Oh i guess we ll never know , and i don't see a comment section. Apart from the suspicious title and almost vulgar buzzword journo-lingo, the article doesn't add citations for its their most controversial claims such as this:

> "Democrats are the party of the poor, city dwellers,women, nonwhites, and > secularists. Republicans, in contrast, represent white males, rural areas, > evangelicals, and the well off."

, they admit to invalid extrapolations of their own claims (ref 28) and their analysis lacks any attempts at comparative analysis. Their entire message is that "scientists have to put up with fake news". Yeah tough shit, this is 2018. So much more could be said about decades of promotic "scientific" politics (technocracy) and its failures as well.

And apparently, this is an opinion piece which somehow got peer reviewed and it dates from April.

<comment><USER3> Because in postmodernism, rationality and logic is a tool of the patriarchy, the (various types of) establishment, or otherwise a construct of those in power, against those who are not in power. Thus we must balance it out

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/)

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

[https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/why-rationalism-is- irra...](https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/03/why-rationalism-is-irrational/)

[http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html](http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html)

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

 _A number of different philosophical and historical schools, often grouped together as "postmodernism", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often positing the influence of politics and economics in the development of scientific theories in addition to scientific observations. Rather than being presented as working entirely from positivistic observations, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations._

<comment><USER4> Please don't do this here. Where by "this" I mean bringing in things you consider dumb, just to kick at them. This is not how we gratify intellectual curiosity.

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

<comment><USER3> Fair enough. That should be added to the official policies so it's known in advance.

However I do think it's a major trend that needs to be ridiculed. It's all across the map. Many of my rightwing and libertarian leaning facebook friends have increasingly become skeptical of the scientific establishment when it comes to climate change, evolution etc. Many of my friends on the left are likewise making these claims about GMOs or anti vaxxers (regardless of political affiliation) often claim that the vaccines are population control and any arguments are paid for by governments. People on both sides of the Israel Palestine issue and so on are claiming that historical facts or context is "just talking points". And yes, some major proponents of third wave feminism have espoused this as well.

To me these are all aspects of a weird "post modernist" approach to science, and particularly frustrating with climate change deniers (because it affects us all). It is a MINDSET where a rational argument is met with "oh well that's just the ESTABLISHMENT, you are a XYZ" where XYZ is the opposite political or ideological identity.

Frankly now that I think about it, it is exactly an answer to the parent's question. I will even quote Encyclopedia.com to show that my comment is "not just kicking at a position" but in fact simply stating it — and you are making a value judgment yourself:

[https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/art-and- arc...](https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/art-and- architecture/architecture/postmodernism)

 _de-centered postmodern heterogeneity makes obsolete the Enlightenment ideal of consensus, which all too frequently required the suppression of minority dissent. Postmodernity, with its heterogeneous interests and worldviews, allows previously oppressed or marginalized groups to make claims upon justice, and upon a position of centrality, even in the absence of majority consensus concerning such claims._

Here are other sources too:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463968/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel like anyone who uses the phrase "post-truth society" has an agenda.

<comment><USER6> Yeah especially since that term is used to describe the Trump campaign and fake news in one go.

More truthful analysis would reveal science was never objective and just a collection of best guesses by all the scientists that contribute to the body of work. Truth was never an easy to define concept so the fact we only now realize that is almost scarier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like the scientism in this paper neglected to historicise the notion of "post truth".

Sociologist and well studied scholar Nathan Jurgenson wrote a recent piece regarding our collective willingness to subscribe to this belief: [https://reallifemag.com/faked-out/](https://reallifemag.com/faked-out/)

> Kakutani misses how poststructural and postmodern thought has long been a > response to science's unwarranted claims of neutrality and objectivity. Yes, > sometimes this work really is just a set of stylistic whims and nihilistic > postures or arguments for full epistemic relativism. But the core of much of > what was popular and is still taught — Foucault, Haraway, Harding, Latour, > and so on — uses empirical evidence to show that objectivity is never as > such. These theorists show how accepted notions of truth are deeply rooted > in cultural contingencies, and that interrogating these notions helps better > articulate reality than accepting false objectivism with blind faith. This > work was not "post-truth," but rather called for smaller, more local truths > instead of absolute or universal claims made from a posture of neutrality.

Epistemology isn't new, and lays below the foundation of "science". This isn't a new concept, but one that we are sadly being forced to face in contemporary culture.

<comment><USER8> I feel like this is the philosophical equivalent of "all sides are the same." That is to say, it's a way to just dismiss the issues rather then try to fix them and be more objective.

<comment><USER6> Is that incorrect?

Is some science more correct than other science? All sides are the same in this case, and communication in a climate of science where P values are eeked out of questionable datasets who is truly agendaless?

Science used to carry this undeserved "objectivism" which has always been informed opinion, subject to change by newer more compelling research. So I don't understand what really changed. It's always been a post truth society.

<comment><USER8> All sides are not the same. First, science is a process with the goal of objectively determining truths about the world. Already it is wildly different from most other processes whose goals are things like building something, making money, influencing people, etc. Just that different alone is huge. It's like comparing runners to people who don't even enter the race and claiming they are the same.

But what most people refer to when they talk about science is the results of the process. There too, we have a wide spectrum of quality. It's rather dishonest to throw all results into a single bucket and then cherry pick the poor quality results and claim everything is the same. It is not.

On p-values, yes, there is currently a large problem _with some areas_ of science not understanding statistics correctly. This is not a problem with the theoretical process or goal, it is a problem with implementation that should be addressed. But again, to compare even this with non-scientific information which is literally made up to suite various non-scientific goals is very dishonest. These bodies of information are not remotely "the same."

The whole post-truth this article refers to is more about the wider dissemination of scientific knowledge to non-practitioners. While it's always been a challenge to communicate sometimes complex information to the wider public, what has changed in society today is arguably the amount of "corrupted" versions of the data. When you have people taking the scientific results and producing slightly distorted versions with the intention of misleading or making it hard to discern what is original, it's a bigger problem. This is what the article is referring to as "post-truth."

It's a wider societal problem that affects both scientific knowledge and other information alike. Let's not dismissing the problem by saying "all sides are the same." There is a very large range of quality of information, it is not all the same. The amount of bias and ulterior agenda in information varies hugely.

<comment><USER7> You failed to understand that science is built atop of epistemology. That is, there is no "post truth", but rather that Foucault and all have long since provided massive amounts of research to indicate the shifting floors of epistemology, where science is wielded as power. More recently, Dr. Audra J Wolfe has been exploring this complex tapestry. [http://audrajwolfe.com/](http://audrajwolfe.com/)

> There is a very large range of quality of information, it is not all the > same. The amount of bias and ulterior agenda in information varies hugely.

Again, you've lost the thread when you are grounding yourself in an "this is information" and "this is not". The question _before_ your presumption is an epistemological one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _Distrust in the scientific enterprise and misperceptions of scientific > knowledge increasingly stem less from problems of communication and more > from the widespread dissemination of misleading and biased information._

What's interesting about this is that I think it directly contradicts what people like Dan Kahan have been saying ([http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/](http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/)), which is that motivated reasoning has _always_ been the key problem for science communication, and that the only thing that really changes is not so much the degree of political partisanship but the choice of _which_ scientific issues are the ones that end up being linked to politics. (For example, vaccinations have all the potential to be divisive but nevertheless have almost no political partisanship about them apart from the occasional tweet by Trump.)

It seems they put up the videos of the colloquium at [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGJm1x3XQeK2xwsj2vkRg...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGJm1x3XQeK2xwsj2vkRgovtvIWSNstex)

Also, I had to look this up, it's an Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium, which is the Sackler that marketed Valium ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_M._Sackler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_M._Sackler)), not one of the Sacklers responsible for Oxycontin.

</comment><comment><USER10> Assuming that this is a well known and trusted scientific website, this kind of message just gives tons of ammo, very legitimate ammo, to political entities that claim the scientific community has political bias. This article is clearly left-wing, not neutral. It is absolutely imperative that science and politics are kept separate so that there is no opportunity for people to claim that a scientific insight is politically biased or motivated. For example, the left leaning tone of this article could make it more difficult for a right wing person to believe other scientific literature that claims global warming is real. Anyone who advocates political messages in the scientific community is an enemy of society.</comment>


Android updates embarrassing, but do users notice? - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-57449588-278/android-updates-embarrassing-but-do-users-notice/

<comment><USER2> CNET is Apple's b*tch, remember.

<comment><USER3> Can you please rephrase your comment on the bias without the asterisk?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the top features you look for in a low code/no-code platform? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> As long as its actually designed for Developers that know how to code it's probably somewhat useful... I.E. don't build it for the general public or the marketing crowd ;)</comment>


Steve Mnuchin: Officials should take a serious look at tech monopolies - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/steve-mnuchin-officials-should-take-a-serious-look-at-tech-monopolies.html <comment><USER2> If trump tries to trim down the monopolies it will only be in his favor.

I still won't mind because Microsoft faced a pretty big case over IE. It could do that behavior now and no one would stop them. Sure Firefox would care but I don't use their software anymore.

Breaking up Google would be a great start; then tackle the print giants and TV giants (oh and radio if it still exists)

Sinclair however makes trump happy so they are the first I'd like to see broken up.

<comment><USER3> Rather than whether it pleases DJT, Sinclair spreads lies and partisan propaganda, and are unapologetic about it.</comment></comment>