Tell HN: Downmodding needs to die - <AUTHOR> Dear HN,
I have always considered HN, as a community, to be a place of great insight, interesting viewpoints, and otherwise extremely relevant information. I have enjoyed many conversations, and had even more educational moments, thanks to its users.
But we seriously need to talk about the downmods.
Downmodding, on its own, is harmless. Allowing users to downmod each other, as a means of curbing abuse, is an invaluable tool: self-policing of users has obvious merits which should be rightly acknowledged. However, downmodding as a means of pure disagreement should be unconditionally banned on Hacker News. The fact that downmodding is an acceptable means of expressing disagreement is a disservice to public commentary. If a comment is relevant and non-abusive, there is no reason it should ever be downmodded.
In other words: If you are downmodding out of disagreement, you should not have downmod privileges. If you don't agree with a message, use your words. Don't try to prevent others from reading it.
Downmodding only serves to promote resentment among users with unique viewpoints. The ability to express relevant but controversial opinions is fatally hindered when those opinions are suppressed due to unpopularity. Downmodding is a form of communal censorship, and it should be treated as such. For a community which bills itself as for hackers, and by hackers, "popular opinion" should be the least of all factors -- it should be scoffed at by any self-respecting hacker. Dissenting opinions, especially unpopular ones, should be championed -- not downmodded. <comment><USER2> People who complain about downvote for disagreement all say the same thing: "downvotes turn comments grey and thus hide the conversation".

No.

Downvoting will only turn a comment grey if none of the ten thousand logged in users thinks your post is good enough to upvote, and if someone downvotes it.

Greyed comments are not the result of one or two down-vote abusing people but the result of very many people thinking your comment doesn't add enough to get an upvote.

And this is true even after the comment is grey. In that case none of the people with upvote privs (anyone with an account) thinks the downvote was wrong enough to need correcting.

The only reason to stop downvoting for disagreemet is to stop people posting these meta threads.

People _will_ downvote to disagree. You need to work on methods to fix the result rather than changing behaviour -- upvote those comments that you think are incorrectly downvoted.

EDIT: if anything we need more downvoting and flagging.

Here's a comment that had one or two downvotes and went at least thirty days live. (It got more flags when I pointed out that someone was talking to a holocaust denying troll) HN is not a free for all - there are other places for that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9200905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9200905)

<comment><USER3> So let me see if I understand your suggestion:

I see Billy has posted a comment. Jane has replied to Billy's comment, with a dissenting viewpoint, and her comment has subsequently been down voted because people disagree.

I happen to agree with Billy's point of view and disagree with Jane, but if I want to support a truly _open_ discussion about the topic, I have to upvote a comment I disagree with?

How does that make _any_ sense?

<comment><USER2> You upvote comments that add to the conversation. When you see a comment that adds value you upvote it _even if you disagree with it_ , especially if you think it has been unfairly downvoted.

There are people on HN who do this.

Edit: I mean, there are so many people saying "don't downvote to disagree" that the problem of greyed but constructive comments would be fixed if they just upvoted more often. Why don't they take this burden upon themselves, changing their own behaviour, rather than calling for other people to change theirs?

<comment><USER3> I'm having a hard time following your logic..

\- Upvotes are to indicate a comment adds to the conversation, regardless of whether I agree with the view point expressed.

\- Down votes are to indicate that _either_ I disagree with a comment, OR that the comment is abusive, argumentative, etc, but there is no way to specify which of those...

???

In reply to the edit:

Some of us _do_ actively upvote greyed comments, that's hardly a reason not to fix a system that's _broken_

<comment><USER2> > \- Down votes are to indicate that either I disagree with a comment, OR that > the comment is abusive, argumentative, etc, but there is no way to specify > which of those...

Yes. (You list misses "the tiny buttons are so close that people sometimes accidentally downvote") There are different people on HN and they use the downvote to differently from each other to communicate different information. I'm not sure why that concept is confusing?

It's sometimes confusing if a post is downvoted. Don't pay too much attention to a single downvote if you can't work out why it happened. If you get two or three downvotes you might want to look at your post to see if there's a problem with tone or content.

<comment><USER3> When it's "accepted behaviour" to down vote merely because you disagree with the opinion stated, telling me "you might want to look at your post to see if there's a problem with tone or content" is fucking insulting.

Do you seriously not see the irony in suggesting that removing dissenting opinions merely because they are not aligned with your own, is acceptable behaviour on a site called __Hacker News __??

For reference:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4uTEEOJlM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4uTEEOJlM)

<comment><USER2> Calm down.

> Do you seriously not see the irony in suggesting that removing dissenting > opinions merely because they are not aligned with your own, is acceptable > behaviour on a site called Hacker News??

A single down vote does not remove a disenting opinion. Multiple downvotes, and a lack of upvotes, remove a post. There are plenty of opinions that are eauivalent to trollingI don't want to bother with on HN. EG I don't want to bother telling a holocaust denier that they're wrong. I'm not going to change their opinion and everything I say is presented better by other people elsewhere.

This is supported multiple times in the guidelines. (Deeply interesting, not shallow but intensely interesting.)

When you're getting multiple downvotes it's usually for tone or style or factual inaccuracy, not because you've said something that people disagree with.

Do you have examples of comments that were heavily downvoted that should not have been?

<comment><USER4> > Do you have examples of comments that were heavily downvoted that should not > have been?

Here you go:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9409007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9409007) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9405216](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9405216) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399966) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400562) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400379)

<comment><USER2> Two of those got a single downvote each. Those aren't great examples of heavily downvoted comments.

The other two are clearly my poor communication about report early report often means more visits, but that (and this is the bit I missed) thathose visits should be benign for the vast majority of cases. I'm not sure which comment you're linking to with the first link - you've linked to my comment which is not downvoted; the only comment in that linked thread that is downvoted is a semi-comprehensible rant, and they always (rightly IMO) get downvoted.

I'm fine with those downvotes - 9 downvotes over 4 comments isn't detering me from commenting, but is reminding me to not assume the reader will be familiar with my argument. IE, downvotes work.

Feel free to upvote them if you feel they're unfairly downvoted.

<comment><USER4> Those comments were all very gray when I linked to them. You are also hard to discuss with because you are inventing reasons why those downvotes were fair without considering the obvious reason: they were unfair.

> I'm fine with those downvotes - 9 downvotes over 4 comments isn't detering > me from commenting, but is reminding me to not assume the reader will be > familiar with my argument. IE, downvotes work.

Expand your mind - realize that not everyone works like you. There are people who are deterred by downvotes. Personally, I only use downvotes on comments which I think are crap (and your comments weren't crap, hence the downvotes were unfair IMO) so the point, at least of _my_ downvotes, is to deter the commentor from posting more crappy comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > If you are downmodding out of disagreement

Regarding the _downmod:_ I completely agree with your post. Users are generally incapable of using downmods correctly. No matter which community. The UX of HN tends towards moderation usage of the arrow - heavily downvoted comments get grayed out and disappear from the discussion: they have become moderated.

Regarding the _downvote_ (disagreement): Indicating that the arrow can be used for disagreement means that the downmod argument becomes irrelevant (ignoring the UX concerns). The truth is: your disagreement is completely worthless if you cannot vocalize that disagreement. Bad arguments will fall below the good arguments by virtue of the votes the good arguments receive.

One of the greatest memes on the internet is possibly: "can someone tell me why my comment has been downvoted?"

Either remove the arrow, only show it _after_ you have responded to a comment, and/or make it cost 1 karma to downvote.

<comment><USER2> > your disagreement is completely worthless if you cannot vocalize that > disagreement.

I would far rather see pedants downvoting than leaving comments. I would far rather see two people who dislike each other just downvote each other than carry out a tiresome argument.

> Bad arguments will fall below the good arguments by virtue of the votes the > good arguments receive.

A bad argument that recieves comments that are upvoted is pushed higher up the page. Do young the top comments on an article to be someone saying something dumb, with replies telling them why they're dumb?

<comment><USER5> > just downvote each other than carry out a tiresome argument.

You can't currently downvote a reply.

> I would far rather see two people who dislike each other just downvote each > other than carry out a tiresome argument.

HN seems to limit the depth you can go to within your own comment line, I'm not sure what the exact rules are but once you reach a certain depth the reply option disappears.

> A bad argument that recieves comments that are upvoted is pushed higher up > the page.

Which means that those upvoted comments hold value - so, yes, I'd still like to see them.

<comment><USER2> > HN seems to limit the depth you can go to within your own comment line, I'm > not sure what the exact rules are but once you reach a certain depth the > reply option disappears.

Yes. The reply option takes longer and longer to appear as threads get deeper. Even the software wants to prevent those people from replying to each other.

> You can't currently downvote a reply.

Ann posts something. Bob hates Ann. I would prefer it if Bob just downvotes Ann rather than making a post. I can upvote Ann if I think she's been unfair downvoted.

<comment><USER3> So now, personal disagreement with another person is a valid reason to down vote, _regardless_ of what they said?

Next on HN: down vote people who prefer a different breakfast cereal.

<comment><USER2> > so now

Now? It's been accepted for longer than you've been a member.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

<comment><USER3> That comment mentions disagreement, and the context implies it means disagreement with the comment itself.

You said:

> Bob hates Ann. I would prefer it if Bob just downvotes Ann rather than > making a post.

How is that _not_ abuse: down voting because of _who_ the person is (Bob hates Ann) rather than because of the comment itself.

<comment><USER2> You're right, and I should have been more careful with my wording.

Bob hates everything that Ann says. Ann makes a post. Ideally Bob would read it charitably and reply carefully. What sometimes happens is that Bob reads it critically and replies harshly. I would prefer Bob to do the former, or just ignore the post, or just downvote it and move on, (in this order) to grumpily answering Ann.

Yes, a downvote in this example is abusive, but a simple solution exists - upvote often.

(Btw: please do remember that I'm just one person and that very many people on HN agree with you that downvote should only be used for low quality posts that don't reach the threshold for flagging. You definitely are the target audience.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Downvotes for disagreement and downvotes for non-constructiveness are sometimes hard to distinguish. At the most obvious, a comment saying justt "I think you're wrong" clearly expresses a position that at least one person disagrees with, but is also almost certainly non-constructive, and potentially abusive in the form of being disrespectful. If you have arguments, make them. If the person you're arguing with made an argument, give the phrasing of the argument the benefit of the doubt, and engage with it as if it is a serious argument. (And if there's no way to do that, then _their_ comment should be downvoted, because it's non-constructive.) To do otherwise is disrespectful of the person you're replying to, as well as to the community of people reading comments.

A lot of times I see people making repetitive and poorly-informed comments that also happen to be disagreeable on the merits. They're relevant, they toe the line of "non-abusive", but they don't belong. For instance, a recent comment thread had someone asking about whether Microsoft accepts pull requests on GitHub. It got two replies: one person explaining that they were aiming to, and one person saying that, of course MS would never do such a thing. The latter comment got downvoted a fair bit. I'd imagine most of the people downvoting disagreed on the facts, since the comment happened to be wrong. But it also did not contribute to the discussion, since it was made out of ignorance and assumption, and rightly got downvoted on those grounds.

<comment><USER2> > A lot of times I see people making repetitive and poorly-informed comments > that also happen to be disagreeable on the merits. They're relevant, they > toe the line of "non-abusive", but they don't belong.

This is a great example of where downvotes should be used.

People should flag, not just downvote, abusive posts. Anyone can flag a post (click the timestamp to reveal the link). This deliberate design choice by the HN programmers leaves downvoting free for posts that are not outright abuse but which do not add value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I agree. I almost never downvote. I try to read commentS that I disagree with in a charitable fashion. It seems rather small minded to not be able to consider views outside your own.

It would be nice to see some metrics associated with members such as their up vote to down vote ratio. I suspect that a very few members do most of the down voting.

</comment><comment><USER8> PG thinks downvoting out of disagreement is fine.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

<comment><USER3> Just because one person thinks/says something, doesn't make it true.

<comment><USER8> Agreed--which goes for the OP as well.

I think my point is this place is more PG's than it is OP's, and more than that, it's unlikely this post will enact any change given the stance of PG on the issue.

He's not involved now, but certainly his opinion still carries weight.

<comment><USER3> Nothing ever changes if people just blindly accept the status quo.

I've yet to see _anyone_ explain how down votes can be a valid response to __both __alternative /different ideas AND abusive/argumentative/etc comments.

<comment><USER9> Rules for a valid downvote: Someone clicked the button and it wasn't part of a blatant pattern (so abuse happens when someone tries to downvote every comment by someone else, or something like that).

Rules for a valid upvote: Someone clicked the button and it wasn't part of a blatant pattern.

How do you know why someone voted? You read their mind. This is just as easy for users to do as it is for the site.

Out of this horrifying ambiguity, you end up in situations where you might disagree with a comment and consider downvoting it because of that, but end up upvoting it because you step back from that feeling and decide that it is an interesting contribution to the discussion. Or you might not decide and thus not click either button.

If you think of the voting as a way to improve the ordering of the comments on the page and not as a way of doling out punishments and rewards, the lack of a precise specification makes more sense (because you hope a preponderance of users want the comments to appear in an interesting order, not to click and clack to suit their worldview).

<comment><USER3> > If you think of the voting as a way to improve the ordering of the comments > on the page and not as a way of doling out punishments and rewards

But we aren't just talking about changing the order of things. Down voted comments get __hidden __

This is the entire argument - opinions and points of view that go against the "hive mind" are regularly down voted into oblivion until _no one_ can see them.

> the lack of a precise specification makes more sense

Sorry, but no. When moderation and user agree/disagree functionality is mangled like this, nothing makes sense.

> (because you hope a preponderance of users want the comments to appear in an > interesting order, not to click and clack to suit their worldview).

That's _exactly_ what happens though.

<comment><USER8> Maybe an appropriate response is to stop hiding comments, then.

I personally make sure to read all of the (non-short) greyed out comments as usually I find the perspective interesting (and wrong, but interesting).

I wouldn't care if it was flagged somehow but left entirely visible.

<comment><USER3> Exactly my point. There is nothing wrong with indicating you disagree with something. There is something very wrong when disagreement with an opinion leads to the removal of that opinion.

<comment><USER9> There is an option in your profile "Show Dead". Turn it on. You can now see anything that has not been directly deleted (deletion is something a user can do to their own content for a short time, the mods mark stuff as dead instead of deleting it).

<comment><USER8> He's not talking about comments from dead users, rather the near-impossible to read comments that have been downvoted.

<comment><USER9> That is not how I read _down voted into oblivion until no one can see them._

I could be wrong but "oblivion" and the emphasis on "no one" are what I am going on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Up/Down voting on HN and most other sites makes me think of the Yo app, where there are simply too few choices to express what you wish to say. A simple solution which I doubt will ever be enacted would be to increase the options from 2 (3 if you count clicking the time stamp then flagging) to 5: useful, not useful, agree, disagree, flag. Then those votes could be used more intelligently to determine the best display order for comments.

<comment><USER11> > Up/Down voting on HN and most other sites makes me think of the Yo app, > where there are simply too few choices to express what you wish to say.

If you wish to say something more than up/down votes, that's what the "reply" function is for.

<comment><USER10> No, the reply function is for when you have something meaningful to add. If all you have to say is "I agree/disagree" or "your comment was useful/not useful", the reply function is not the right function to use. But unfortunately, the up/down functionality isn't quite right either because you can't determine why the vote was cast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Quite agreed. Suggesting that downvotes were appropriate for signalling disagreement instead of civility is one of the few mistakes pg has made on an otherwise excellent site.

In the meantime, though, post fearlessly, argue soundly, and hope for the best.

</comment><comment><USER13> Any person who wants to express their "unique viewpoints" or "relevant but controversial opinions" runs the risk of being taken for a troll. That risk can be mitigated but not eliminated with thoughtful writing and careful exposition supported by examples, rationales, and sound logic. If it's not worth the risk, then I don't write it. Upon realizing what I am writing is crap, I delete it. If I realize what I have written is crap, I delete it if it's not to late.

And when I've decided to risk it, I live with the downvotes. I don't expect everyone to be as brilliant as I like to imagine myself to be...including myself. Write good comments and downvotes aren't much of an issue.

<comment><USER4> That's the whole point! I don't give a flying fuck if my comments are downvoted to -inf. I have enough useless internet points as it is. However, when people like you moderates _your_ comments and sees it as a risk whether to post it or not, then that reduces the amount of good comments on hn making _my_ hacker news reading experience _worse_.

Now I just glanced through your comment history, but you don't appear to be an asshole, troll or write inflammatory stuff so if your comments are frequently getting downvoted then downvote-to-disagree has gotten out of hand. IMHO

<comment><USER2> > Now I just glanced through your comment history, but you don't appear to be > an asshole, troll or write inflammatory stuff so if your comments are > frequently getting downvoted then downvote-to-disagree has gotten out of > hand. IMHO

Parent poster talks about how downvoting makes them carefully with wording. You read their post history and say that they appear to write good posts.

Downvoting works, even for people who are not downvoted?

<comment><USER4> No, parent poster talks about how downvoting makes them careful with _what they comment on_ : "If it's not worth the risk, then I don't write it." From personal experience I can say (and you can too, I bet) there is a much stronger correlation between downvotes and disagreement than between downvotes and not being eloquent enough.

<comment><USER4> Ironically that this comment was downvoted too without being rude or "bad". So I don't win the karma race but I damn sure is proven right.

<comment><USER13> The comment deliberately mischaracterized my words for rhetorical effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> internet: srs bsns

<comment><USER15> Don't agree; downvoted.</comment></comment>


Pyxley: Python Powered Dashboards - <AUTHOR> http://multithreaded.stitchfix.com/blog/2015/07/16/pyxley/ <comment><USER5> I've been looking for something to do this (below) in python at least on backend.

Big screen on wall with 6 or so boxes. Each box displaying data which updates in real time. Such as

      - scrolling list of source control commits
      - graph of busy/idle slaves
      - single big number, pending builds
      - graph of open ticket counts
      - <USER2>

I can't tell if this is one of Pyxley's use cases?

<comment><USER6> I actually just implemented some thing very similar to this. You probably want to checkout Dashing [1] which has built in plugins for a lot of things already. It's pretty easy to work with as well.

[1] [https://shopify.github.io/dashing/](https://shopify.github.io/dashing/)

<comment><USER7> Dashing is great, but it's Ruby on the backend, not Python :)

<comment><USER8> It actually has a REST API for sending a dashboard data so you can pump in new data from Python or any language.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, well aware. I was only address this from GP:

> I've been looking for something to do this (below) in python at least on > backend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Will work great until you try to render 50,000 points and your browser crashes because it's build on d3.

<comment><USER10> D3 is pretty ok with large datasets but I understand your point.

What Shiny does to get around this is natively 'evaluate' the plots on the backend, creating a rasterized PNG file. A similar approach could work for Pyxley (using matplotlib or Seaborn to render the plot, and then sending that image file to the front end) but I fear with so much development time spent on d3 support such an approach would not be natively implemented.

<comment><USER11> >What Shiny does to get around this is natively 'evaluate' the plots on the backend, creating a rasterized PNG file

I don't think that's the case for D3 charts, because that would kill the interactivity that is so great about D3. I use RCharts to inject D3 into my Shiny applications, and have ran into into performance issues with just a couple hundred data points. I think this is because all heavy lifting is done by the client (browser), not the server.

<comment><USER12> htmlweidget is kinda an evolution to rcharts by the same person if i recall correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How easy is it to integrate a chart or graph into a larger project? My biggest gripe with Shiny is how difficult is to use the R calculate and graphing functions in a larger project without using OpenCPU as an API.

My guess is that with Python being a more general purpose language, this should be easier..

<comment><USER12> Why you don't want to use OpenCPU?

<comment><USER10> I've been working with it and it's not bad - won't tear my hair out if it's what I use in the end. But a couple pain points for me are the need to rewrite my code to grab 'session variables', needing to understand how images are returned, especially if you need to return more than one, and so on - <USER3> Shiny, which allows me to more or less drop in the code I've already been working with. Oh, and parallel requests are just not possible.

Of course, most of these issues are understandable and possibly by design, especially since OpenCPU was designed for embedded systems. That's fine - <USER4> just makes creating webapps or dashboards around R a more complicated usecase.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How important is flask in this mix? How difficult would it be to back this by a django app for example? I'm asking because the charting would be REALLY useful for me right now, and I already have the django models...

<comment><USER14> The flask dependency is pretty strong because I used the requests module for the api route functions. It should be possible to override it and use django instead, but I don't know django that well. It's probably a good idea to separate that dependency so it's a little more flexible.

<comment><USER15> >The flask dependency is pretty strong because I used the requests module for the api route functions.

Not sure I understand? Are you talking about Kenneth Reitz's requests module? Why would that tie you to Flask or any other framework or library?

<comment><USER16> pyxley uses `flask.request`, not Kenneth Reitz's `requests`.

<comment><USER14> Yup, that one. I planned on simply filtering a pandas dataframe using the request.args that are passed in. The javascript components can be used directly, but I wrote the python wrappers as a convenience for really simple dataframes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> link to examples is 404, a possibly correct link [https://github.com/stitchfix/pyxley/tree/master/examples](https://github.com/stitchfix/pyxley/tree/master/examples)

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed! Thanks for the catch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, this is really cool. Playing around w/ US state maps in examples right now. I love stuff like this partially because of the hands on introductions to component technologies I had heard of but not used before.

</comment><comment><USER18> Hmm I have a python script that monitors a few datapoints but don't know how to appropriately save them and plot data on a graph/webpage. I might give this a shot?

</comment><comment><USER19> This seems nice, but where did you define the datasource(s) for your examples? Did I miss something? I'm already using Flask, so I'd be interested in using this.

</comment><comment><USER20> looks great. but i can't help but think it would save everyone a lot of time -- maybe not up-front, but in the long-run -- if we wrote these frameworks in c and just wrote language bindings for r, python, ruby, etc. why are we rebuilding good frameworks over again just because they're not written in our preferred language?

<comment><USER21> There is a big divide between interpreted and compiled resources though.

If you have the original source in an interpreted language, it supports your ARM raspberry pi or chromebook just as well. With the C variation you need to build / package / install.

I've kinda just come to accept that code re-use cross language has _never_ been good except with the unix pipe.

<comment><USER20> haven't linux package managers (e.g. emerge, aptitude, yum, etc.) basically solved the packaging problem?

<comment><USER22> Not really.

The problem there is updates: you'll get bugfixes, maybe even backported bugfixes, but in order to get a new version with new features you either have to deal with installing/building from a non-OS-package-manager source, or upgrade your entire OS.

<comment><USER23> Or add ppa/OBS/hosted repo that builds the latest version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> looks cool. shiny is very neat, but has the limitation of having R behind it and debugging ain't fun. I very much look forward to testing pyxley!

<comment><USER25> Why is having R a limitation? R is a fantastic data language which arguably beats all others in terms of number of libraries and data manipulation tools.

<comment><USER26> R has no native bayesian library like Pymc 3 (Must use stan which is c++). Also Python is better for ad hoc and agent based modeling and for out of core data with blaze and dask.

So no, R is not ahead in everything.

<comment><USER27> I'm not trying to get into a R vs. Python argument, both have their strengths, but is it really true that R doesn't have anything like Pymc?

[https://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Bayesian.html](https://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Bayesian.html)

<comment><USER26> Unless you can help here, I see alot of pre coded models and older samplers, but nothing with a flexible JIT for user extensible variab;es and autodiff for newer HMC and NUTS type samplers. Exception being STAN, but that is its own C++ modeling language, can't talk to R functions , is more verbose than PYMC 3 and doesn't do discrete variables (unlike pymc3).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Too many dependencies and layers as compared to a pure python solution like bokeh, or seaborn and flask. I like that dataframe integration.</comment>


Microsoft Employees Pressure Leadership to Cancel ICE Contract - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-employees-pressure-leadership-to-cancel-ice-c-1826965297 <comment><USER2> Governments will always do evil. Not to everyone, all of the time - but they are by nature evil.

When I wrote the War FTP Daemon in 1996, as freeware, this became a problem to me. I did want to give away my work for free, but I did _not_ want any government agency to abuse it. So I came up with a solution - a GPL license with an additional clause - that the government - _any_ government - could not use it for any purpose.

Someone actually complained to the Free Software Foundation about this clause, and they concluded, at that time, that it was permissible.

In years to follow I received many emails from universities, schools, hospitals, research facilities - with requests to use the software. In most cases I granted them permission. But by doing it this way, I could sleep well at night - knowing that my software could not - legally - be used to separate children from parents, or for any other evil purpose by any governments around the globe.

\----

War Software series Copyright (C) 1996 - 2018 by Jarle (jgaa) Aase (www.jgaa.com) This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation version 2 of the License - WITH THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS:

      * GOVERNMENTS, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES OR COMMERCIAL
        COMPANIES OWNED 50% OR MORE BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE
        NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE SOFTWARE OR SORCE CODE FOR
        ANY PURPOSE. THIS RESTRICTION ALSO APPLIES FOR
        PROGRAMS DERIVED FROM THE SOURCE CODE, OR PROGRAMS/
        SOURCE CODE THAT USE SPECIAL TECHNICS/ALOGRITHMS
        INVENTED IN THIS SOFTWARE.

      * THE FULL SOURCE CODE IS WITHELD FROM A PUBLIC RELEASE
        UNTIL THE LINUX VERSION IS RELEASED.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

<comment><USER3> Corporations are no less evil than governments. If anything, they may be more evil, as they are motivated solely by profit and have no particular reason to care about the population at large.

Why single out governments?

<comment><USER2> > Corporations are no less evil than governments. If anything, they may be > more evil, as they are motivated solely by profit and have no particular > reason to care about the population at large.

Corporations are accountable. They are accountable as entities, and as individuals (owners, managers, employees). If they do fatal decisions, the corporation may go bankrupt. If people act immoral, they may get fired. If they cheat, they may be caught and go to jail.

Corporations can also choose to act ethically - and, according to a recent Freakonomics podcast, actually benefit from that by attracting better employees :)

<comment><USER4> Meanwhile in the real world, many corporations get away with doing all these things, abusing labour, regulatory capture and the people running them get rich as Croesus doing it.

<comment><USER2> Yes. And often with support from the Government.

In USA, corruption is regulated by law... Politics is all about getting financial support and basically selling laws and policies to the highest bidder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "Our current engagement with ICE is focused on moving legacy infrastructure > such as mail, calendar, messaging and document management to the cloud using > Azure."

I don't understand why this makes it any better. I'm sure there's a lot of "messaging and document management" needed to run those detainment centers. And besides, what's going to happen in the future when they do ask to use Cognitive Services in their mission? "Sorry, you only get O365?"

<comment><USER6> Child concentration camps run a lot smoother on Office 365, now on Azure!

EDIT: Anyone that collaborates with ICE from this point forward is complicit. In a just world, collaborators, ICE officers, and high officials would be tried in the International Criminal Court. Following orders or making money was not an acceptable defensible at Nuremberg, nor will it be in the coming future when the US loses enough international standing.

<comment><USER7> Why on earth would you want to prosecute the supermarket where ICE buys loo roll? The builders merchant who sold them fence posts?

I mean, the hyperbole is real here - because there's zero chance the international courts prosecute any US citizen - but if they did it's not going to be the people who sold them spreadsheet software.

<comment><USER8> Perhaps for the same reason the US extended its trade embargo with Cuba to include foreign companies trading with Cuba - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act)

Or for the reasons that people have divested from companies doing business with South Africa under apartheid, or the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement regarding Israel, or any of a number of other examples.

See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_action) .

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As I get older, it's becoming clear how intertwined our morality is with our politics. And how that bleeds into business, sports, religion, etc.

It's nice to think of aspects of life that should be free from politics, but in reality that seems hard to achieve.

<comment><USER10> This situation in particular is more complicated than the media portrays. Separating children from parents is obviously bad, and needs to stop. Zero tolerance for illegal crossings, on the other hand, is probably actually good. The prior policy of letting anyone with children go & handing them a court date heavily incentivized human trafficking of children, because a child was a golden ticket into the USA (and indeed, many children were trafficked as a result). To eliminate that incentive, deportation after an illegal crossing needs to be enforced, even when a child is in tow. I think that the best answer is detention as a family during the process of prosecution and deportation, but I understand that there are some legal hurdles to that. They need to work them out, and fast.

<comment><USER11> From my experience talking to different people in US, most of them on both sides of the immigration debate have zero clue what their immigration laws are even like. One theme that's particularly common is hearing "they should just get into the line and wait for their turn". They genuinely don't understand that there is no line for the majority of those people - they don't have any legal avenues for immigration at all, except for winning the diversity visa lottery (the chances for which for any individual person are so slim, no-one in a sane mind would plan around that as a strategy).

<comment><USER12> But that isn't true. Asylum applications can be submitted to a US consulate. There is a process. Syrian refugees didn't just show up in Laredo. Asylum can also be requested at a legal port of entry. These unlawful entry arrests are from aliens entering the country while avoiding ports of entry.

<comment><USER13> Quoiting from the first sentence on the main page about asylum on usembassy.gov, which is the first hit I got on Google:

"The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States."

So I guess it's understandable that some people might believe they have to be physically present in the United States to be apply for asylum

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It would be nice if the recent instances of employee pressure in Google and Microsoft are early signs of software workers organizing.

<comment><USER15> How would employees at Google or Microsoft benefit from unionizing?

<comment><USER16> The same way any other unionized employees do: higher wages, better benefits, collective bargaining, serious representation in the corporate hierarchy, better job security.

<comment><USER12> And Google employees don't already that? What better benefits could a Google possibly want? How much higher could their salaries go?

<comment><USER13> _What better benefits could a Google possibly want?_

More vacation time, more reasonable working hours, a more transparent process for promotions and raises, better paternity/maternity polices, a seat on the board and more say into how the company is run.

There is a lot more to collective bargaining than salaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I for one am glad that at least some employees of companies like Google and Microsoft are taking ethical stances for the greater good. A job cannot be seen as just something that provides some personal satisfaction and puts food on the table. There are lines that, when crossed, have larger implications for a large population and how we as humankind want the world to be. Where there's more clarity on certain topics, taking a strong stance is the right thing to do!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Statement from Satya Nadella: [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-views-us- immigration-polic...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-views-us-immigration- policy-satya-nadella/?published=t)

</comment><comment><USER18> >part of a backlash against the agency's policy of separating children from their families at the U.S. border.

Is that a policy that ICE can simply drop?

<comment><USER19> trump/sessions specifically mandated this policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yet another reason to choose Open Source.

There will be other political skirmishes. How to decide what to take a stand on? What if time reveals you made a mistake (i.e. NOW supporting Bill Clinton)? People are too easily manipulated.

<comment><USER21> > Yet another reason to choose Open Source.

I'm an open source fan but I fail to see your point.

Open source software can be used by anyone, including people you don't agree with. You can suddenly find yourself helping bad people just by maintaining or developing your open source software.

I have had it happen with one of my project, where people used it (and are probably still using it) for activities I disagree with. The only thing you can do is not interact with them, but they are still benefiting from the work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> They do know that if M$FT cancels, the contract will just go to someone with zero scruples about this, right?

It's better to keep things you dislike close so you can keep an eye on them than to pretend like they don't exist.

<comment><USER23> Haven't seen anyone non-ironically use M$FT in like 20 years. It on the same fringe scale as wiring "First!" on a comment section.

<comment><USER24> By all means they should keep typing the "$" so I can more quickly skip over their post as someone who hasn't changed their worldview since the 90s, and someone who is susceptible to memetic bandwagonning.

<comment><USER25> Yeah after two decades and the adoption of Unicode, everyone knows the contemporary problem is Fac€book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17351353](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17351353)

</comment><comment><USER27> Don't panic, I'm sure Peter Theil can pick up the slack if Microsoft cancel.

</comment><comment><USER28> I just don't think we're tracking towards a healthy world where your email vendor pulls the plug on your contract because of your activities. I don't think any business should be allowed to deny their offering to any paying customer.

Edit: Does that mean I have to sell lumber to the KKK even though they will likely burn a cross with it? Yes, unless they explicitly say they're going to. Leave those policing problems to the police, don't ask everyone to become a member of the police.

<comment><USER29> When ICE violates human rights, it's no longer a free speech issue. Microsoft shouldn't work with ICE in the same way that banks shouldn't work with sanctioned oligarchs.

<comment><USER30> ELI5 what human rights is ICE violating in this case? Is due process not being followed?

<comment><USER5> Separating children from parents causes permanent changes to a developing brain due to toxic amounts of stress. It's torture.

<comment><USER30> It seems like we are treating these children well (and I'm glad): "he seemed cheerful, "He shared how he was learning English, playing games and being well treated," Ms. Ortiz said." [1]

However, I was appalled by the horrible "children in cages" photo taken during the Obama era. How was this allowed to happen? Wish I/we all had known about this, back then.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration- deported-p...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported- parents.html)

<comment><USER5> > Under federal law, which adopts the United Nations definition, torture is: > "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is > intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as … punishing him or > her for an act he or she or a third person … has committed or is suspected > of having committed." And though in theory any action inflicting such > suffering is banned, that is what is inflicted by separating parents and > children in border detention.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/15/separating- children-from-parents-at-the-border-isnt-just-cruel-its-torture/)

<comment><USER31> If being separated from your parents is torture, then what about the prison system?

<comment><USER5> The U.S. prison system is widely condemned as inhumane, overcrowded, and violent. So yeah, I would say that's torture, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The problem is that "doing evil" is in the eyes of the beholder. To some it is performing a gay wedding. Are we supporting a world where it is ok to refuse to sell a cake because it would be used in a gay wedding? Is it a good thing that the major cloud providers and OS makers enforce a democrat agenda on their clients? I think this is undesirable and dangerous. Already there are many calls for social medias to step in to police the political debate and suppress comments that are deemed to carry fake news. It is only too obvious how such a responsability can be abused (and if human nature and history teaches us anything, _will_ be abused).

<comment><USER33> I don't know. "Does it violate the UN Convention on Human Rights?" is a good start. Also "Does it violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?". Or, y'know, the Kantian Imperative.

<comment><USER34> I think that's actually a good standard. How are determinations made for what violates the UN Convention on Human Rights?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Weird, employees had nothing to say in 2014 when these images were published:

[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/18/photos- ob...](http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/18/photos-obama-used- same-so-called-cages-to-detain-child-border-crossers/)

Kids were being separated then and being housed in the exact same facilities being used now.

Interestingly, this story "breaks" the exact same week the FBI inspector general's report was released.

I am not judging the wrongness or rightness of what is and has happened in terms of illegal immigrants, however, a thinking person ought to be very skeptical about how this story catches fire at exactly the same time a significant piece of news happens: the inspector general's damning report of the FBI. Were Microsoft employees sleeping when reports of these sorts of situations where being reported in 2014? Or was it more acceptable then because it was a different president?

<comment><USER35> >Kids were being separated then

Incorrect; the story you linked describes unaccompanied minors. Separating families is solely the doing of the Trump Administration.

"Detaining child border crossers was a policy during the Obama administration, where Breitbart Texas exclusively reported on the conditions in which unaccompanied minors were being packed into crowded cells and holding facilities."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/politics/new-us- effort...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/politics/new-us-effort-to- aid-unaccompanied-child-migrants.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/us/us-sets-up-crisis- shel...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/us/us-sets-up-crisis-shelter-as- children-flow-across-border-alone.html)

>Were Microsoft employees sleeping when reports of these sorts of situations where being reported in 2014? Or was it more acceptable then because it was a different president?

The key issue here which is different from what you suggest is the same in 2014 is that the Trump administration separates children from their parents. The Obama administration, rightly or wrongly, detained unaccompanied minors. The Trump administration is detaining children who had their parents with them, and in cases deporting parents without their children. Surely you see this as a different situation??

<comment><USER36> I think the part people like OP are missing is if it was happening as they say then, it doesn't make it right now. They're just shifting blame for something they can be a part of stopping.

<comment><USER23> Sort of. More like if you are outraged now but not then, if it is only covered now and not then, if "reasonable" people only care now that it can be attributed to BadManTheyDontLike... that's dishonest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > I think that what we're seeing right now with ICE is deeply immoral. It's a > violation of human rights on all kinds of levels.

Treating criminals as criminals happens every day in every country and comes with the same consequences - children are separated from their parents.

Right now there are tens of thousands of broken black homes as one or two parents are in prison - where's the outrage for them and what about their human rights and their families?

This moral panic, fanned by the media, truly reflects an inability for critical thought. Illegal aliens ignore US law, knowing full well that their acts are illegal and have consequences. Go to a port of entry or embassy like all other immigrants. It's that simple.

<comment><USER38> These people are asylum seekers. What they are doing is literally not illegal. According to USCIS, asylum seekers must be physically present in the US to apply: To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

[https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees- asylum/asylum/ob...](https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees- asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states)

These people are being punished for following the law.

Additionally, there is no need to detain parents separately from children, and prior to the Trump administration, while deportations of asylum seekers did happen, families were not split up.

> Right now there are tens of thousands of broken black homes as one or two > parents are in prison - where's the outrage for them and what about their > human rights and their families?

Nice of you to pretend to care. Can I refer you to your closest Black Lives Matter chapter?

<comment><USER18> The legal way to claim asylum is to do so from official points of entry.

<comment><USER39> No. The legal way to claim asylum is to do so within a year of entering the country, regardless of whether your entry was official[1].

The US is currently breaking its commitment to the 1951 UN convention on the rights of refugees by _not_ ignoring "irregular entry."

[1]: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158)

<comment><USER40> Sure, they may apply for asylum. However, if they entered illegally, then they should be detained so that if they are not accepted for asylum then they can get deported.

<comment><USER39> First: They are _not_ entering illegally if they _intend_ to report within a year. Entering illegally is something that non-refugees do. This is why Nielsen's claims about "criminal refugees" are misleading at best -- she's talking about the "crime" of entering the country in the way we explicitly allow.

Second: Consider what an actual refugee crisis looks like. You _can 't_ detain hundreds of thousands of people crossing over a massive border, both for logistical and humanitarian reasons. That's why we're a signatory to the 1951 agreement.

This is probably what 45 is referring to when he talks about a "loophole" in immigration law, and why he feels politically safe asking for a legislative rather than executive solution. But to be absolutely clear: _nothing_ about our current _laws_ requires that we separate children from their parents, _or_ detain refugee applicants indefinitely. Those are both cruel options, chosen to terrorize an already vulnerable population.

<comment><USER18> >First: They are not entering illegally if they intend to report within a year.

Illegal entry is illegal entry. I don't know what you're talking about. There is no exemption for asylum seekers.

>This is probably what 45 is referring to when he talks about a "loophole" in immigration law

The loophole is that the Trump administration is enforcing an existing law that was not enforced by previous administrations. You're advocating for following the precedent set by previous administrations and simply ignore the law again.

>and why he feels politically safe asking for a legislative rather than executive solution.

But it should be a legislative solution. It is a bad law that was made worse by the ninth circuit interpretation. If 1/10th of the pressure that is levied on Trump was put on Congress, this law would be changed already.

The fact that Democrats in Congress are now using this for political gains is incredibly distasteful. [1]

[1][http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects- go...](http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal- to-address-border-crisis)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dissolve the SEC - <AUTHOR> http://mathbabe.org/2012/10/06/dissolve-the-sec/ <comment><USER2> This article comes from the assumption that the goal of the SEC is to stop the industry from doing Bad Things.

That is wrong. The goal of the SEC is to provide a veneer of regulation while ensuring current members that they will have a profitable future in the financial industry.

If you get rid of the SEC and replace it with something, this does not improve. Either you wind up with nobody watching these companies - and hence not even a pretense of regulation - or else you will recreate the incentives that lead to the SEC being broken in the way that it currently is.

Regulatory capture is an intrinsically hard problem. Anything you do about it is bound to fail in time. However what is most likely to work in my opinion is for someone else - for instance the FBI, to investigate current and past members of the SEC for evidence of corruption. Then have a high profile lawsuit.

Once jail time is added to the list of incentives for people in the SEC, we might see more meaningful enforcement from them.

<comment><USER3> > Regulatory capture is an intrinsically hard problem.

What's beginning to bug me about regulatory capture is that it's a two party system: subject and observer. Seems to frail.

The brilliance of the US constitution is the balance of power between executive, legislative, and judicial. Over the long term, it seems to be largely self-correcting. Or at least correctable.

That the players are fighting each other is the only thing that's keeps everyone honest. There's some cliche about mutual distrust guaranteeing trust in a system

For all the belly aching about over bearing government and onerous regulation, it seems to me the regulators are way too cozy with the entities they regulate. In general.

Oh well. I haven't been able to imagine a system other than subject and observer. So I can't imagine a persistent system resistant to regulatory capture.

Maybe there's some novel market-based solutions which build in the right incentives. Kind of like the capitation model for healthcare, which rewards wellness (vs the USA's current fee-for-service model which rewards treating disease.).

Or maybe one of those self-managed collectives, like the managed fisheries of the north east, who's mission is to prevent the tragedy of the commons (destroying a common resource).

<comment><USER4> i dont believe the three prongs of the gov't really ensures that none is doing "sus" things. I think its just that judges are help up as people with integrity and societal pressure forces them to behave, where as the SEC regulators are less well known, and the average joe won't really have a clue as to how he/she is being fucked over (indirectly of course).

What you need is a incentivization system in which the players are rewarded properly for the tasks that benefit the whole. May be one way is to have the pay bonus of SEC directly related to the amount of fines/corruption/bad behaviour that exists in the corporations they regulate. I m not sure if this will work, as the real cause of the problem is that those with financial power can translate it into political power.

<comment><USER3> I'm totally onboard with aligning incentives with desired (societal) outcomes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _I get it, I've talked to people inside the SEC who want to do a better job > but feel like they aren't being given the power to._

She has a nice rant, but completely missed the point: The SEC is made of people, all of whom are in finance, and most of whom would like a high-paying job on wall-street.

The term "regulatory capture" needs to appear in there somewhere.

<comment><USER4> I think the root of the problem isn't that SEC can be captured - all industry regulators can be captured, if given enough funds.

The root of the problem is that the financial industry has so much money - money that may not represent real value, and thus, force ripple thru out the rest of the world when some group decides to take huge, but externalized risks. The problem is that this single industry is responsible for too much money generation. If a player in a game has too much power, the power to change the rules will eventually appear. and no amount of regulation can fix that. I m unsure what can actually fix it, other than setting laws such that money cannot be used to make money. Then, this problem will disappear (but so will the livelyhood of many people who currently depend on this).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _On the one hand, I'm outraged that these fraudulent practices are being so lightly punished._

I wonder if the author of the article actually understands what the SEC fined this "dark pool exchange" firm for doing.

 _Dark pools are a growing part of the trading world and are legal but they do not disclose the identity of buyers and sellers. Quotes on securities are not displayed to the public, as they are with major mainstream stock exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange. Participants in dark pools have access to trades that other investors in public exchanges do not_

The SEC fine was for "allowing" a dark pool to be not-so-dark. She seems to be arguing that the fine should be higher, which would mean firms would have an incentive to go "darker".

Dark pools are bad for markets. Allowing a select few (the wealthiest select few? why are they pooling in the dark?) to "collude" and thus have significant impact on the price of a security can hurt the ability of other investors to extract their fair value. Why is the general public being excluded from these trades that affect the FMV (Fair Market Value), and more importantly, does this pooling actually hurt FMV?

Maybe dark pools should be illegal. In which case a small fine here makes sense.

But what probably happened is that when this dark pool firm leaked the identities / trades of some of its insiders, those insiders freaked out. And now these dark pool exchange firms have been poked in the direction to "stay dark".

So where are the incentives to make dark trading more light? Can we invent some?

The SEC could reward firms that make colluding dark-pool firms more transparent. I'm sure there's something in the mission statement of the SEC (<http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml>) that would justify the need for fairness to aid in potential linkage of insider trading of securities that for whatever reason aren't public.

[edited for typos and content]

<comment><USER7> Dark pools are bad for the exchange operators of public exchanges (like NYSE and NASDAQ) but it's far from obvious that they are bad for the financial industry.

There are certain advantages: for example, even now, all it takes is $50-100K to whip the price of certain public companies like Alcoa (AA), a Dow 30 component. I have rocked the boat many times, and the fact that most small traders can do the same doesn't bode well for the markets. The dark pools do allow for large transactions without affecting the price too much, keeping some sense of order (as vacuous as that sounds).

It's important in these discussions to understand that the various companies take sides based on their desired outcome. Other effects like insider trading are far more disconcerting than the issues claimed in this case.

<comment><USER8> > The dark pools do allow for large transactions without affecting the price > too much, keeping some sense of order (as vacuous as that sounds).

Another way to read your statement: "The dark pools allow the inherently unstable and fragile market to appear more robust than it is". Which, I think, is a bad thing for society. Because a fragile market will break, sooner or later, and it's better if the fragility is visible so that players can actually evaluate their risks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Congress has continually cut the SEC's budget at the request of Wall Street. Wall Street has bought off their cops just as much as the Mexican drug cartels have bought off their cops. The only difference is that in Mexico the population understands what's going on, here people don't understand it and probably wouldn't care if they did.

</comment><comment><USER10> I read the headline and immediately thought "but that's the only conference where they play real football!" <sigh>

</comment><comment><USER11> Sometimes when a government agency settles with a low fine, its a case they know is on shaky grounds. Defendant thinks they can win but also knows how much it will cost. Usually more than the fine.

If something is so serious that the company should be put out of business for doing it, then it needs to involve more than a rule a government regulatory agency wrote themselves. Especially when the government agency is composed of individuals eager for private sector work after they "retire."

</comment><comment><USER12> I agree with the author, but I don't think that dissolving the SEC will solve the problem of the SEC. The SEC is corrupt, but no one cares enough to fix it.

I think the way to do it is to create an new exchange whose primary focus is to create a level playing field for all participants. This means that things are done fairly, and people won't game the system. Anyone who games the system will be forbidden from trading on it. This also means that they will enforce their own rules at a stricter level than what the SEC would regulate at.

If investors are truly concerned about fairness in the system, then eventually, an exchange like this could get enough liquidity to compete against NYSE and NASDAQ.

If you read "Dark Pools" by Scott Patterson, he describes how Island was created by a lone hacker, Josh Levine, and he completely disrupted the industry. Maybe there's room for another disruption, along the lines of fairness.

</comment><comment><USER13> Don't dissolve the SEC because it gives people false hope - dissolve it because it is the poster child for regulatory capture. The top regulators do not hand down big fines because the SEC is a revolving door and the regulators don't want to muck up their post-government careers. It is so utterly corrupt the only solution is to demolish it and replace it with a new enforcement body with some teeth.

<comment><USER14> What's the solution? Another body that will then be corrupted by Wall Street?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The SEC has been demoralized, and defunded for a long time. While people argue regulatory capture, its only a small part.

There are other things most people don't know about the street habits and saves - sort of like the hidden rules of your favorite language.

Firstly - The SEC is also working to improve. In 2009 they got their new head of enforcement Robert Khuzami - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Khuzami>

Read his wikipedia page, and his case history, this is the kind of person who you _Want_ fighting for you.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Secondly Rituals: Most industries over time identify patterns and streamline them, but for outsiders they would be arcane. Mathbabe, the ex finance girl who decided to leave finance for something, should already know this.

For the rest of us:

The SEC has x resources - so they pick and choose cases that they know they have a bullet proof case for.

AS a result, when its announced that the SEC is investigating you, most Wall Street firms know that they are in trouble. (OTOH most normal people would think its just an investigation, not the announcement of a verdict )

At this point, all firms know they have a call to make - Fight it out, or cave.

* Almost Everyone goes to the negotiating table.

The thing most firms want is to plea bargain, and then get a statement where they accept whatever fine they have to accept, while never having to publicly admit to wrong doing.

Thats the ritual

\</comment><comment>

In 2010, there was 1 firm which decided it had the stones to go against the grain - Goldman Sachs.

It was hilarious - the disparaging comments here are praise compared to what Fox news and GS churned out.

The SEC is clueless and dumb, filled with people who couldn't make it in finance. The SEC is a lap dog of the Govt. etc etc.

IIRC the CEO even went on record expressing his confidence on having the case thrown out.

The SEC won and GS paid the largest fine (in the SEC's history AFAIK) of $550 million.

The next day the news papers were crowing about how the fine is only a blip on the radar a days fluctuation on the stock market.

The guy who prosecuted the case, the head of the SEC

\----

Also please note the author of the article is reading a book and has recently reached the section which discusses regulatory capture, and is particualrly incensed by it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Hey, please get that gun out of my face!

If you don't like the way an exchange plays, make your own exchange that has better rules and that operates transparently, or patronize one that does.

Besides being morally wrong (this is supposed to be a free country), regulation harms innovation, results in winner-picking, and results in regulatory capture. Nothing good can come of it.

<comment><USER17> Societies need to be regulated. When Moses came down with the commandment: "thou shalt not steal" that was regulation. That was a restriction on what otherwise free people could do in organized society. That was a regulation that involved a "gun in your face."

I'll start taking libertarians seriously when they can come up with anything more than strained and ad-hoc distinctions between regulations pertaining to property and other sorts of regulations.

<comment><USER16> _I'll start taking libertarians seriously_

FWIW, I'm not a libertarian.

 _more than strained and ad-hoc distinctions between regulations pertaining to property and other sorts of regulations_

If you believe each person should work to achieve their own happiness and has no duty to sacrifice for others, then it follows that the role of government should _only_ be to protect citizens from the initiation of physical force. That's the fundamental principle that is relevant to our discussion--not something to do with property. (Granted, some libertarians would argue, incorrectly, that property is fundamental.) For a full explanation, see "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.

<comment><USER17> > If you believe each person should work to achieve their own happiness and > has no duty to sacrifice for others, then it follows that the role of > government should only be to protect citizens from the initiation of > physical force.

I don't see how you get from "no duty to others" to "government should protect citizens from initiation of physical force." It doesn't logically follow in any way. It's an arbitrary bit of line drawing. If people have no duty to others, why may they not use physical force to achieve their own happiness? This is after all the state of nature. The wolf owes no duty to the deer, and no government restrains him in his use of force to achieve his happiness.

Taking physical force off the table is inconsistent with the idea that people have no duty to others. For a great many people, physical force is their competitive advantage. They were born big and strong. They would rule the world instead of the bankers and the politicians if it were not for the government restraining them. Yet the government does restrain them, and that often relegates them to the lowest rungs of society. Imposing that restraint on them is certainly imposing on them a duty. It forces them to sacrifice for the rest of society.

<comment><USER16> _It doesn't logically follow in any way. It's an arbitrary bit of line drawing._

Actually, given what I said, you're right to say that.

When I said "If X, then it follows that Y," I left off the fact that not only X, but also X->Y, relies on a vast amount of _inductive generalization_ from the facts of reality (including facts about human beings, value pursuit, etc.). Although I put it in the form of a deductive statement, the argument is not actually deductive.

I think the examples you gave are extremely relevant, good examples, that are based in reality and need to be dealt with (and can be). Of course, we're not going to induct an entire philosophical system in the comments of HN.

I would urge you to check out the book I referenced earlier. If you put enough effort into it, you will find that a rational philosophy (including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics) not only can be discovered, but has been.

<comment><USER18> You end up with a self-consistent philosophy, but there are plenty of those around. It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism, and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions.

<comment><USER16> _You end up with a self-consistent philosophy_

Wow, people's view of Ayn Rand is really getting better :).

 _but there are plenty of those around._

Plenty of those around? I disagree. Even if you're willing to make liberties for what we count as a philosophical system, there are actually only a few options at most. For example, existentialism, Marxism, Kantianism (not even sure I'd count that), various religions (which are really just a primitive kind of philosophy).

Historically, there are three highly unique philosophical "giants." Basically every other philosopher falls into one of these three camps. They are: Aristotle, Plato, and Kant. Aristotle was the this-worldly, holding that knowledge is induced from reality. Plato was other-worldly, holding that knowledge comes about through revelation from a higher realm. Kant was anti- worldly, holding that actual knowledge is impossible.

Rand is the only modern, system-building philosopher who is heavily Aristotelian. Thus, she deserves a serious look from people who are curious as to whether an objective philosophy is possible.

 _It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism_

Utilitarianism is just an ethical doctrine (not a philosophy). Nit picks aside: there are various justifications for it, all of which fall short, because they tell you to sacrifice yourself.

I've never seen a supporter of this position who thinks that the is-ought gap can be bridged, so as far as I'm aware, in any justification of utilitarianism, ethics is _just a game_ , anyway. So yes, people will say "modern utilitarianism is objectively as good as any solution," _since no ethical sytems is any "better" than any other_. But what if that's not the case? Common sense and history would suggest that some ethical systems are much better than others.

 _and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions._

Given humanity's history, any moral system that aligns well with people's intuitions is probably a bloody and destructive one, and so people should be keeping a lookout for something fundamentally different.

Intuitions are just non-explicit ideas that people have been raised with; they don't count towards establishing truth or goodness.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Unparalleled': Snapchat snaps up ad talent ahead of IPO - <AUTHOR> http://digiday.com/publishers/unparalleled-snapchats-ipo-plans-come-hiring-spree/ <comment><USER2> This should be interesting. I would actually buy a considerable amount of snap-stock(snapchat stock). I just hope if there is ever an IPO; that the price holds, and climbs up not just only disappears like its messages _pun intended_.</comment>


Man gets threats–not bug bounty–after finding DJI customer data in public view - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/dji-left-private-keys-for-ssl-cloud-storage-in-public-view-and-exposed-customers/ <comment><USER2> DJI cant be trusted at all, some countries has also launched investigations into mafia like behaivour by them.</comment>


5 Ways to Improve Your Pricing - <AUTHOR> http://www.americanventuremagazine.com/articles/746 <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. By those descriptions, using different prices is almost like matching different products to different sets of customers.

<comment><USER2> The book "Information Rules" goes much more in depth into the theory behind the pricing of information goods. I attempted to capture the gist of it in my summary:

<http://tinyurl.com/ys99ah>

(hopefully not being spammed at the moment)

Wikipedia, as always, has more information as well:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination></comment></comment>


ReactJS with Component state and then Context for shared data and actions - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/ryanflorence/2eaf456fc62acc73894a <comment><USER2> Context (pun not avoidable): [https://twitter.com/ryanflorence/status/643831687013515264](https://twitter.com/ryanflorence/status/643831687013515264)</comment>


On Sigils (Perl) - <AUTHOR> http://perltricks.com/article/on-sigils/ <comment><USER2> I'm so used to how sigils in perl5 work that I don't think I could convert to perl6 very easily.

I've always wondered though, under use strict, why couldn't the behavior of sigils be modified. Your declaring the variable ahead of time, you could give hints to the compiler about what kind of variable it is. If it clashes with a reserved word, strict could cause it to fail.

Example 1: my $string = "this is a string"; # works like past versions

$string .= "!"; # this is a string!

Example 2: use 5.30;

use strict;

my string($) = "this is a string";

string .= "!"; # this is a string!

<comment><USER3> One of the functions of sigils is to serve as mini namespaces. While your example might be technically possible, it means that variable names can now clash with function and type names (something that I, as a long-term Perl programmer, find very inconvenient in Python).

Another complication is that Perl uses predictive parsing. It always knows whether the next thing it expects is an operator or a term. That's what allows the use of / for both the division operator and a delimiter for regexes. After a variable, the parser always expects an operator. After a function name it expects a term (because you can leave out the parens in a function call, foo($bar); being the same as foo $bar;).

While there are a few exceptions to that rule (like subroutines with empty prototypes), introducing many exceptions through unsigiled variables might lead to code that's not very intuitive to parse anymore. (Or might not; might an interesting experiment).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        my %ordered-hash is OrderedHash;
        my @ordered-hash := %ordered-hash;

If you don't care for sigils:

        my \ordered-hash = OrderedHash.new;

        say ordered-hash<foo>;
        for ordered-hash {…}

Note that you can only assign to sigilless variables when you declare them.

You could assign an anonymous scalar to it to allow you to assign to it later.

        my \sigilless = my Int:D $ is default(0) = 5;
        sigilless = 4;</comment>


Startups, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://ryancarson.com/post/47618850291/startups-you-dont-need-to-be-in-silicon-valley

<comment><USER3> He is mischaracterizing Paul Graham's argument. The argument pg makes is that if all other things are held equal, your chances of success are higher in Silicon Valley than they are in other cities, which is not the same thing as saying that Silicon Valley is the only place you can do a startup.

<comment><USER4> It's fairly common to do this. When someone says 'X is harder unless Y' and people accept it, then soon everyone doing X must do Y as well. When the pendulum swings far enough towards Y, people start doing Not-Y and succeed, pulling the pendulum back.

Basically, Paul Graham's argument about being in a startup hub was so clear cut a few years ago that everyone doing a startup moved to SV. Now with SV overcrowded with startups all trying to get the same investments and publicity, it might actually be easier to start a startup outside of the hub where there is far less competition for finance and talent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm very convinced of Paul Graham's take on this, in that there are positive network effects to locating near people and organizations like yours.

That being said, I agree with the author...but only because I'm starting to think that the toxicity level of SV culture is starting to outweigh its positive network benefits of talent. SV startups are completely overrun by a TechCrunch mentality of hype-machine backed, poorly conceived products...and if you aren't funded you are dead. Some startups may thrive in that culture, but far from all will.

I would argue that you should locate where you get the benefit of colocation of focused talent, rather than colocation of focused intent. In other words, if you are a cruise vacation startup, you need to be in Miami, not Cupertino. And if you are a media startup, you need to be in Los Angeles or New York, not Mountain View.

<comment><USER6> Actually.... I would argue that the "TechCrunch / HackerNews" mentality (as you describe it) is more common OUTSIDE of the Bay Area than it is within it.

In the Bay Area you are surrounded by real world examples of success and failure, and enough of each so that you can actually derive repeatable lessons. Outside the Bay Area there is the tendency to believe that if it's written about on one of these sites it's gospel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So he has one data point, therefore generalizes for everyone. That takes away credibility from the article. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. All you need is luck :)

I've seen many startups benefit greatly from moving to Silicon Valley (including my own). Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. However, it does help tremendously for many types of companies.

<comment><USER8> _So he has one data point, therefore generalizes for everyone. That takes away credibility from the article. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. All you need is luck_

Are you saying you _don't_ need luck if you locate to Silicon Valley???

Anyway, as for the "generalizing to everyone" bit... IF the opposing argument was actually that you _must_ be in Silicon Valley to be successful, then even one opposing datapoint invalidates that argument. I'm not sure that actually is pg's argument though, but nonetheless, every successful startup that exists outside of SV serves to demonstrate that you certainly can be successful starting in other places.

 _Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. However, it does help tremendously for many types of companies._

I'm guessing it can also hurt for some types as well. If you're doing something fashion related, for example, you might be better served to be in NYC, London or even LA.

Beyond that, the higher cost of living, increased competition for technical talent, etc., could be reasons a given startup would be better off not being in the valley.

<comment><USER9> Come on, you're getting pedantic. Hacker News and its participants should be better than that.

> Are you saying you don't need luck if you locate to Silicon Valley???

He's saying you're less dependent on luck for success if you're in SV. The mean of the "success" probability distribution is shifted towards the right.

> IF the opposing argument was actually that you must be in Silicon Valley to > be successful, then even one opposing datapoint invalidates that argument.

Nobody reasonable is saying you MUST be in the Valley. They're saying it makes it considerably easier than being anywhere else on the planet.

> If you're doing something fashion related, for example, you might be better > served to be in NYC, London or even LA.

Again, we're speaking about all tech startups in general. Nobody is saying there aren't occasional exceptions.

> Beyond that, the higher cost of living, increased competition for technical > talent, etc., could be reasons a given startup would be better off not being > in the valley.

The higher cost of living is not a reason to definitely not be in the Valley (though it can be a factor). You can learn to live frugally if being an entrepreneur is that important to you. And the Valley _is_ the best place for technical talent (among other things important to startups).

<comment><USER8> _The higher cost of living is not a reason to definitely not be in the Valley (though it can be a factor). You can learn to live frugally if being an entrepreneur is that important to you. And the Valley is the best place for technical talent (among other things important to startups)._

Sure, although there is a (very big) open question about "how much" being in the valley shifts the probability distribution towards "success". It would also be interesting to understand more about exactly which types of startups benefit most from being in the valley, versus being somewhere else.

Actually, the bigger issue might not be any of this... it might be "assuming I don't _want_ to live in CA, what are my chances of success in $WHEREVER and how do I optimize them?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In some ways I personally think the Valley is a harder place to start a company these days. The competition for talent and sky high real estate prices translate to expensive salaries which entrepreneurs have to pay somehow, and employee loyalty is probably harder to achieve in a place where employees have so many job opportunities vying for their attention. Those factors make it harder to get a company off the ground, and harder to keep it going for the long term, somewhat offsetting the benefit of easier access to capital.

<comment><USER11> Agreed, a company's limited startup capital goes a lot further in other places. Office rent, housing, hell even Internet access and electricity are cheaper outside of the usual places startups locate. But then you have a reverse problem of not necessarily having enough talent in the area. However, if you're open to remote workers (which everyone should be) then that is much less of an issue.

<comment><USER8> _But then you have a reverse problem of not necessarily having enough talent in the area._

There's no doubt that some areas have a great concentration of talent than others. But there are definitely plenty of places besides SV where there is talent aplenty. Look at the Research Triangle Park area of NC... within something like a 25 mile radius you have 3 major research universities (UNC Chapel Hill, NC State and Duke), several smaller colleges, including the all- girl schools and the historically black colleges, Peace, North Carolina Central, Meredeith, Shaw, St. Augustines, etc., as well as two pretty good community colleges - Wake Tech and Durham Tech.

One of the suburbs here (Cary) has - if I recall correctly - the highest (or one of the highest) per capita concentrations of Phd holders of any city in the US. Yes, in North Carolina... fancy that, huh?

The challenge for startups here, in terms of talent, is to convince local graduates, and/or people who move here to work for IBM, Glaxo, Cisco, EMC, etc., to stay here and work for a startup. But the talent is here, and as the startup culture grows (and it has been growing, markedly so in the past 4-5 years I'd say), that becomes more and more viable.

<comment><USER12> What would you say about New York's concentration of talent, besides around NYC?

<comment><USER8> No clue... haven't spent enough time in New York to really have any insight on that one. :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ryan is already "known" and had a business that was profitable. I'm sure Biz Stone could raise money in Maine. Try being unknown in Orlando and raising money for a pre-revenue startup. YRMV

Also $7 million was raised with an office in Portland, which I'd consider a startup hub.

</comment><comment><USER14> Yes

It's a contradiction to establish a company that leverages users all around the world and then cram the team into a small geographical area together with similar companies.

"Oh but we want to raise money, financing is there", financing is everywhere.

And you will probably find that you don't need to raise that much money if you relocate somewhere else, since your employees can get a smaller compensation, since they don't have to fight for a place to rent.

Your office costs can be smaller as well

And no, you don't have to get your team together all the time, be creative, it is possible to come up with a product with a remote team. If they can meet a couple of days per week, even better.

<comment><USER15> Have you tried explaining to a developer (or anyone, for that matter) that they are objectively worth less in Missouri than they are in San Francisco?

Everyone loves it when they move from the midwest or southeast to the Valley because they can add a zero to their salary. Nobody moves out of the Valley precisely _because_ you're subtracting a zero from their salary. It seems folks are all about factoring in cost of living when it gets them an extra $40k/year. When it means they should earn less, they just ignore it and refuse to take a pay cut on principle. That's been my experience, at least.

<comment><USER14> Yes, it's really complicated

My personal benchmark is "take home money" which is net salary - <USER2>

Of course some other things help: commuting time, general costs, but also city opportunities, cultural life, schools, etc

So maybe you can't win them for Missouri, but maybe to Boston area, Seattle, or some other area (New Orleans or Florida or Texas even maybe)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Most businesses will succeed based on a variety of metrics, there are environmental factors that help some of those metrics.

Startups are _hard_ \- setting up shop in a startup hub helps you succeed at _being_ a startup. There's support and best practices in the air for you at being a startup, which is super super helpful. SF being the largest and most robust of these hubs provides probably the greatest support on this front.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes forgotten that startups often don't exist in a startup vacuum - they interact on a variety of levels with the world and different locations will help them succeed in these other aspects. If your startup deals with publishers, being in the location where all those publishers are helps you immensely. If you deal with fashion being in a fashion hub helps you. If you're schtick is some fancy machine learning thing, maybe you want to set up shop by MIT. Etc.

So while generically being in a startup hub will help most startups more than other locations. Specifically _your_ startup might see greater benefit elsewhere, or not in SF or whatever. And maybe, just maybe, you don't need these environmental boosts so just go wherever the hell you want to live. It's startups, break the rules when you want to - just know what you're giving up and what you're getting in return.

</comment><comment><USER17> I imagine as time goes on, and remote working becomes increasingly more and more common, that the notion of packing up and moving to a start up hub will become more and more rare. There's always going to be cases where it makes sense to have employees in the office, or a reasonably central hub, but given the majority of work can be handled from a tropical beach or a snow capped mountain it's less relevant.

</comment><comment><USER18> Agreed about Silicon Valley colocation being unnecessary. I'd go further and argue that imposed colocation anywhere is unnecessary. For over a decade I've worked exclusively on distributed teams which came together only during those times when it was naturally productive to do so. For the majority of the time, team members worked in distributed locations independently.

Consider Joy's Law [1]:

      "No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else"

Generalizing, I believe:

      "No matter where you are, most of the smartest people are somewhere else."

Face-to-face productivity gains are easily overwhelmed by losses due to having restricted the search for team members unnecessarily. Distributed organizations will win in the future.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy%27s_Law_(management)>

</comment><comment><USER19> Ryan, treehouse is an awesome way to learn technical subjects. It looks like you guys put a tremendous amount of effort into making the quality just superb. I'm curious if your pricing going forward will change with your focus on younger students. I have a little one at home who is really jazzed about the iOS classes, and the price is totally doable but causes a bit of a wince.

Secondly, I have really been wanting to setup a "Computer Club" for young kids in my town, but I don't have an educators training. Just wanted to say that this seems like a perfect fit for filling in the gaps of my knowledge by using your content and get this group up and running.

</comment><comment><USER20> The plural of anecdote is not data.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've worked at a startup in Santa Barbara CA, and one in the Bay Area. The reason I push to the Bay is for energy purposes. The inspiration of the startup community really boosted everyones energy up and pumped us up to work harder! It easier to work out with others that are working out rather than doing it alone in your living room.

</comment><comment><USER22> Depends on what you're doing. If I were starting up something around the oil industry, pretty sure I'd want to be in Houston. (Easy access to Austin talent being a bonus, but that's a tangent)

</comment><comment><USER6> Just because you don't NEED to be in Silicon Valley to build a successful venture backed start-up doesn't mean your odds of success are not IMPROVED by locating there.

</comment><comment><USER23> one point the article did not mentioned how often does Ryan travel to the valley (recruiting drive, meeting potential technology partners, etc).

What I am really saying is that if he frequently travels to the valley, or some other tech hub, is his generalisation in this article still valid?

<comment><USER24> His argument isn't "stay 1000 miles away from SV at all times". It's common for founders of more established startups to frequent SV (and other hotspots depending on industry and event locations), so I don't think it invalidates the argument if, for example, 5% of the company's total worker-days are spent in SV.</comment></comment>


NASA plans for Artemis 'base camp' on moon after 2024 - <AUTHOR> https://www.space.com/nasa-plans-artemis-moon-base-beyond-2024.html <comment><USER2> It's called "counting your chickens before they hatch".

NASA is still not yet capable of putting men into Low Earth Orbit, much less getting them to the Moon and back.

I do not believe at all that NASA has the capability to install a 'base camp' on the Moon in the very short time of 4 years.</comment>