Afrofuturism Can Help the World Mend - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/how-afrofuturism-can-help-the-world-mend/ <comment><USER2> If by "the world" the author means the US, then sure. But nearly every time I engage with Afrofuturist work, it's as though there's a constant tiny disclaimer running through my head: "No actual Africans were consulted in the creation of this work". I'm not really sold on the global relevance of such locally minded narratives.

To be clear, I don't mean that _individual_ Africans or recent African emigrants don't work on these projects (although they're often missing that way too). It's the way the genre tends to completely ignore the very present, very vibrant, very alive contemporary continent, treating it as though it was some dead bygone thing to excavate for scraps of inspiration. The narratives tend to not think of the implications for those of us who, you know, _live here_ at all. Black Panther and its Wakanda are particularly egregious in this regard.

Nnedi Okorafor describes her work as (and is rather militant about it being called) Africanfuturist rather than Afrofuturist for this reason - in her words, as an author she is concerned with what is and can/will be, not what "could have been".</comment>


Ask YC: Anyone want to make a website? - <AUTHOR>

I'm bored. I've got some skills. Ideas? <comment><USER2> Boredom relieving sites?</comment>


RIAA Wants Web Browsers to Block Pirate Sites, And More - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-wants-web-browsers-to-block-pirate-sites-and-more-130918/ <comment><USER2> > and search engines such as Google will be expected to do more, including > fitting Chrome with systems to block infringing sites and divert users to > official sources.

The day Google agrees to having their browser hijacked like that by others, is the day I stop using Chrome. Thankfully we live in a world where it's pretty easy to quit your browser if you really don't like something about it, and find it totally unacceptable.</comment>


Ask HN: Your experience with a 'lesser known' incubator? - <AUTHOR>

Did you attend an incubator besides TechStars, YC or 500? What was the experience like...pros? cons? <comment><USER2> I was in MassChallenge '10 and it was a great experience. One big difference between MC and most incubators is that it's a non-profit. You get free office space, access to a great set of mentors, and, if you're one of the top teams, you get a share of $1m. Everything, including the money, is non-dilutive and comes with no strings attached.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is actually pretty cool.

I am noticing that many state governments are also sponsoring various forms of incubators, which also offer non-dilutive funds. I think that can be just what some start-ups need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I was in LaunchBox DC (which has since moved to NC Raleigh/Durham area) it was a very positive experience. The advisors brought in great connections: Steve Case, Tim O'Reilly, various startup CEO's, etc for weekly round table discussions and advice.

The overall outcome was a third of the class ended up either getting acqui- hired or taking additional investment, a third is still bootstrapping, and everyone else scaled things down to a side business or just faded away.

</comment><comment><USER4> Kincast is in Sproutbox <http://sproutbox.com/> right now. The experience has been great. You instantly get a great UX person, designer, and a few developers without having to recruit and hire people. You don't get lots of cash, but the instant access to more engineering resources is very nice.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'll join the question - have any of you ever had any experience with seedcamp?

<comment><USER6> I can't say from personal experience having only met the team behind it and many founders but can refer you to a number of people that know a lot about it.

I've heard it's on par and similar to the 500 startups accelerator in Mountain View and they work together quite a lot from what I've seen.</comment></comment>


Alzheimer's vaccine trial a success - <AUTHOR> http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?l=en&d=130&a=145109&newsdep=130 <comment><USER2> It looks like this was primarily examining the safety of the drug in human subjects.

<http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00411580>

Trial went from 2005 to 2010, results are just now out. Medical research is _so_ _slow_ , but there is some seriously cool stuff over the horizon nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER3> All they have demonstrated is the vacine is creating an immunogenic response against beta-amyloid. Which is a great step. However, whether or not this will slowdown Alzheimer is whole different story. But I sure hope the answer could be as simple.

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, the fact it's not causing liver failure/brain damage/bouts of pedantic arguing/etc is a good thing. Waiting another decade to see if it actually works isn't too bad either, we haven't had a vaccine for the last 10,000 years of human civilisation, so what's another 10?

<comment><USER5> > , we haven't had a vaccine for the last 10,000 years of human civilisation, > so what's another 10?

If you had a family member with a devastating disease like this, right now, you might not be so glib about waiting another 10 years. For some folks, they don't have another 10 years to spare.

<comment><USER6> I'd politely disagree. My mother is already showing early stages of Alzheimer's, and while I honestly hope for a cure or even for treatments to arrest the progression of the disease, with medicine I think it's something that should be done right the first time.

Honestly, I am tempted to want to push this out myself. In the end though, given the medical, legal, and social (note: anti-vaccine crowds) implications of pushing out a faulty drug, I think in the long run it's better to wait and make sure it's safe first before opening treatment to the public.

<comment><USER7> Better for whom, exactly? Clearly not better for the people who could have been helped in the meantime.

<comment><USER8> Well, take all the ways that it could be unsafe, and (by some measure) estimate some utilitarian cost of rolling the drug out early for each individual person for each unsafe scenario. Now multiply each of those costs by the probability of that unsafe outcome happening for a given individual, sum those up and place them in column A. Now take the probability that the drug is effective and multiply it by each individual's probability of getting Alzheimer's, and then multiply that by the utilitarian penalty for that person having Alzheimer's. Put that in column B. Subtract column B from column A and put that in column C. Any row who has a positive value in column C - that is for whom it's better to wait and vet the treatment's safety.

Practically speaking, these will be people who know they are genetically predisposed to Alzheimer's and get the vaccine before they show any signs.

Now, if we could _actually_ run the calculations I mentioned above, the problem would disappear because we wouldn't simply say "approved as safe" or "rejected as unsafe". We'd just keep a running tally of the odds of safety and give the treatment to people according to the desperation of their individual case. But unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm always glad to see news like this.

After I got my B.S. in computer science three years ago I decided to start "from scratch" and applied to molecular biology and genetics. I was fascinated by research done in immunology, cancer biology and many other fields which helped prolong human life considerably during 20th century.

However after some time I realised that improving human health and prolonging life is just one side of the coin and that there is something equally important (and sadly often neglected especially in the media): we should strive very strongly on improving quality of life and not "only" it's length.

There's a very good chance that you and me will live quite a long life, according to statistics. But over the last year I experienced some things that really shook my personal and professional view on this... That's probably the same for anyone who had at least some experience with any case of mental deterioration disease, not only in case of elderly people even though they're affected most often. I've realized there is no point in living into one's eighties without some dignity or without being able to enjoy it.

Luckily for as all there's an amazing research being done in the field of neuroscience so I have my hopes up.

<comment><USER10> As someone with a bit more knowledge in the field, can you help inform me: I thought the consensus was that beta amyloid was a second order effect of Alzheimers. Didn't we (as in the medical community) establish that it was now likely to be a result of chronic sugar toxicity? I'll find the relevant study

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a safety only trial this leaves quite a bit to be desired. "Larger trials must now be conducted to confirm the CAD106 vaccine's efficacy".

<comment><USER12> Stage 1 clinical trials are this way by design. Drugs passing stage 1 are then given to larger groups of people for stage 2 trials in which efficacy is tested. After that step, stage 3 trials are open to an even larger group, often enrolling subjects at doctors' offices, clinics, and research centers nationwide. Stage 3 compares an experimental treatment directly against the currently standard treatment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would like to know what happened to the other 20%

<comment><USER14> They can't remember.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone use Search HN before submitting articles to prevent duplicates? - <AUTHOR> https://www.hnsearch.com/ <comment><USER2> Nope. There is code in place to detect (some) dupes and turn the re-submit into an upvote for the original submission. For anything that makes it through the dupe detector, I'm satisfied to assume that it's probably worth a second discussion. Note that not all duplicates are a Bad Thing, and there are a few links that show up on HN about once a year or so anyway, and rightly so.

<comment><USER3> I don't mind the dupes when they are spaced out by months or more. The instances that bother me are times when a user appends $x=y to a URL to get best the detector on a regular basis. For instance:

      http://www.restorethefourth.net/?s=hn  15.000 days ago thepumpkin1979  350+ points
      http://www.restorethefourth.net/       15.001 days ago iProject 2 points

This means that pumpkin submitted the bare URL saw that someone else submitted it and then appended s=hn and resubmitted the URL to get past the dupe detector for fun and karma.

pg needs to figure out how to embed ColinWright into the duplication detection process, nothing gets by him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Personally I don't mind about duplicates. Quite frequently stories make it to the TOP20 where (I believe) that I had submitted these previously (from another news outlet).

Hackernews is a lot about timing, and I really don't mind it if some stories need a few attempts until they break through. This randomness is part of the fun in submitting stories to hn.

</comment><comment><USER5> No, HN detects duplicates automatically. And if that mechanism fails, either the article just won't get upvoted, or it's an evergreen that is OK to repeat now and then.

<comment><USER6> I've seen multiple threads where the original submission received 100+ upvotes and 100+ comments, and the repost also received 100+ upvotes and 100+ comments. Sometimes the repost comments went in an entirely different direction from the original post comments.

<comment><USER5> I suppose if the repost gets a lot of upvotes, it was a good thing that it was reposted?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> No, this is what computers are for. There's no reason a user should have to check if a link is a duplicate.

</comment><comment><USER8> Duck Duck Go with !hn appended

</comment><comment><USER9> I always check hnsearch before submitting an article. It only takes a few seconds to do, and I don't want to be that guy who submits a duplicate article.

<comment><USER10> you wont be - hn is smart enough to consider your resubmission equivalent to an upvote. Dont waste those valuable seconds ;)

<comment><USER9> Judging by the number of duplicate submissions that I flag on a daily basis, the duplicate-finding algorithm doesn't work very well, even on variants of the same URL (e.g., parameters after the "?", like "print=yes" aren't always ignored). And there are lots of things the algorithm won't find at all but are obvious to a person:

\- Frequently, the _identical_ story is cross-posted to multiple sites.

\- Someone posts the mobile version of an article (m.foo.com) in addition to the canonical URL (www.foo.com).

\- Several very similar articles on the same topic: every breaking news story on the Zimmerman verdict or the Bolivian president's plane had pretty much the same facts in it, so if you've seen one, you've seen them all.

So I'll just keep on spending those valuable seconds for the good of the HN community.

<comment><USER10> true - ive seen the same story with almost no different facts but from different news sources on the home page multiple times - e.g. when steve jobs passed etc - my point was just about posting a single url - the hn algorithm is typically decent enough. AT the end of the day - if its already been posted - it shouldnt end up getting upvoted much anyways - but in any case - if it makes you feel good - you should keep doing that :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I thought HN automatically de-duped articles.

<comment><USER12> Almost. HN only does exact matching, so if the duplicate article varies even slightly, it would not be detected. Variations include query params at the end of a URL such as &utm_medium=...

An automatically detected article will upvote the original article.

<comment><USER13> Anyone else habitually clean off &utm_* query strings before sharing a link anywhere? Feels so dirty leaving them on.

<comment><USER14> Do you mean removing referral links from legit links? Yep. No reason to give them even more information than they already get from the visit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The problem with de-duping is that there's usually no chance of sustaining discussion on a duplicate that was submitted more than perhaps a week ago, which could be the reason why PG hasn't implemented fuzzy de-duping yet.

</comment><comment><USER16> if you're karma motivated users have no incentive to look for a duplicate. if you're not karma motivated, then submitting bare URLs is usually enough for dupe detection (IMO).

I'm admittedly somewhat karma motivated but I think I'm pretty clean with respect to my submissions since I dislike when people try to game the submission system and i don't want to be one of them.

</comment><comment><USER17> It would be nice if there was a search box on HN itself. Why should I have to remember some other site to search?

<comment><USER18> There is. In the footer.

<comment><USER19> I guess I'm blind for not noticing it.

<comment><USER17> Me too :) I guess I just expect it to be up at the top, like every other website.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Earliest known photos of an Apple iPad prototype - <AUTHOR> https://www.networkworld.com/article/2222798/wireless/earliest-known-photos-of-an-apple-ipad-prototype.html <comment><USER2> Very interesting, looks like it used the same design language as the iBooks/iMacs of the era, with white plastic and an outer layer of acrylic. I wonder what OS it ran… Given the device's thickness, I would guess it used iBook/PowerBook hardware and ran a modified build of OS X.</comment>


The GOP Tax Plan Will Destroy Graduate Education - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/07/the-gop-tax-plan-will-destroy-graduate-education/#6ebc79e63d2f <comment><USER3> My alternate headline: GOP Tax Plan will force institutions to alter graduate tuition accounting

Tuition waivers are currently used, especially in the science disciplines, to have outside research grant dollars pay for grad-student tuition. If this tax plan passes, tuition waivers would no longer make sense and the dollars from research grants would need to shift. This probably means lower tuition for certain programs and more money from the research grant going to institutional administrative costs.

<comment><USER4> Exactly.

Personally, I'd like to see a balanced approach: shift some of the money to increase those laughable stipends into something livable, and put the rest where it belongs: on admin costs.

The shell game universities are playing is part of the problem. Hopefully, if this change makes it into the final bill, Universities do the right thing and don't stick it to their Grad Students.

<comment><USER5> Can you elaborate more on what is going on at universities?

Are you saying that grant money comes in for research, but gets funneled back to the university through tuition?

<comment><USER6> The default tax rule in the U.S. is that any benefit you receive, in any form, is earned income and taxable.

Layered atop that default rule are a long list of exceptions, which are generally categorized as (1) exemptions and (2) deductions.

If you attend a Ph.D program where the advertised tuition is $30k per year, and you get a tuition waiver (or w'ever it's called), the default tax rule says that you still earned income because you received a benefit. The nominal value of that benefit is $30k, therefore the student would need to pay taxes on that $30k.

Apparently there's an exemption or deduction that excepts tuition waivers from the default rule, meaning such tuition waivers wouldn't be considered taxable income.

As part of the GOP plan to pay for corporate income tax rate cuts, they must discard many kinds of exemptions and deductions to replace lost revenue from the corporate rate cuts.

To those who say that this is a shell game[1], note that if it was just a shell game then the change wouldn't have been made. In other words, there's an expectation that discarding this exclusion will generate more revenue. That revenue would directly come from students and/or universities, one way or another.

Universities could lower tuition, but one reason for the disparity between nominal tuition and effective tuition is that foreign students disproportionately pay the nominal tuition. Reduce nominal tuition and you reduce the foreign subsidy for domestic students. Not only does the effective price of a graduate education go up, but you're likely to see even more foreign students. Depending on which country you hold citizenship, that's either good for your career prospects or bad for your career prospects.

[1] All the news reports make a point of saying that the university "pays" the tuition waiver. It's a distinction without a difference. The student still derives a benefit, and however the university cares to balance its books (e.g. with double-entry accounting) is entirely irrelevant unless there's incredibly esoteric technical requirement to the particular earned income exception. Such esoteric technical requirements are rare since the 1986 reform as the text of modern rules emphasize underlying economic benefits and not accounting practices, as focusing on the latter create more opportunities for gaming the tax code.

<comment><USER7> Getting rid of exemptions and deductions is also "simplification" and "reform".

I mean, I agree that the plan is focused on paying for corporate and high end tax cuts, but how do you do tax simplification if special interests are all off limits?

<comment><USER8> You don't. The complexity of the tax code isn't a bug, its a feature because people don't want a simple code, they want a simple code _with_ all the exemptions they're likely to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> No, it won't. The sensationalism all around is just infuriating; I know it's basically politics in a nutshell, but this sort of crap is getting really old. It's not going to destroy higher education; it might raise the bar a bit of who goes to graduate school, and force schools to do more to entice top tier talent to come to their school, but it's not going to destroy it.

<comment><USER10> Can you provide any specific details on how the new suggested tax plan will raise the bar? It seems as though we should be encouraging Graduate and PhD students. It seems as though it would force additional students into taking out loans if their tuition is not waived?

<comment><USER9> If the only thing standing in the way of a student continuing on Graduate or PhD studies is grant money, they shouldn't have trouble finding a job. In that case, if the university wants to attract those students from the private sector, they'll have to find a way to increase a student's stipend to cover these expenses. At top-tier schools where tuition is the highest, their endowment is likely large enough to support this move.

Alternatively, the schools could adjust what they charge students for tuition. As the article states, the cost of a year at Princeton's grad school is $49k/yr. Somehow I suspect that this sticker price is not tied to much in terms of their cost, but if it means charging less to students if that allows them to attract top talent, they could probably do that as well.

In terms of raising the bar, to me this would mean that if graduate schools want top talent, they'll have to find a way to do it: raise the stipend, lower the cost of tuition or something else. In this case, a very bright student who can't afford graduate school will either have to go into industry or the schools will have to find a way to keep them.

On the downside, if we follow the pattern of the last 30 years, the reaction will go something like:

1) Students struggle to afford college tuition

2) Government steps in to make large cheap-ish loans available beyond what might be reasonable ( _).

3) Students now have access to loans to go to any school they want

4) Colleges notice that they can raise price because students don't price shop

5) Colleges raise their prices

(_) They're government backed loans that are difficult to discharge, mostly because there is nothing to repossess and interest rates would likely go through the roof if students could graduate and immediately discharge their loans.

<comment><USER11> > 3) Students now have access to loans to go to any school they want

> 4) Colleges notice that they can raise price because students don't price > shop

When has this ever been true. I applied to school many schools back in the day and it usually came down to finance and then reputation. Whichever school granted you the most tuition and living expenses, and wasn't steaming pile of shit is where 99% of my working class peers and I attended.

<comment><USER9> Speaking only anecdotally, friends who complain the most about college loans are the ones who took out massive (~$100k) loans to go to private schools. With some exceptions, private schools are likely not to be worth the extra money; problem is, loans are due later, but awesome "dream school" is now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The misinformation in this thread is astounding. This is targeting _graduate student tuition waivers_ : waivers given to students who are usually also receiving a stipend, who are almost never taking out loans to manage degree costs. It's likely that there is a better way for universities to quantify the net movement of money between student and institution, but to have lowly-paid graduate students bear the brunt of the change is unconscionable.

<comment><USER13> Uh, it worked the same way for Masters degrees at Wisconsin (source: I have one and this tax "reform" would have screwed me).

I don't understand your undergrad comment, the tax bill doesn't change anything there so far as I know.

<comment><USER12> You're right, it would've been more accurate to just say "graduate" instead of "PhD", I'll edit it. I don't think I mentioned undergrads though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand this. During my PhD my "scholarship" was just basically the university choosing not to charge me money. It's not as though I sat down and set on fire $20k worth of paper every year. So now they have to pay tax on to the amount they would have otherwise charged me? Isn't that kind of a hypothetical concept? Like, can't they say, "Oh the tuition for the civil engineering PhD program is now zero"? Virtually no one in my program had ever paid tuition before.

Maybe what they could do is claim we are first and foremost employees and that the PhD is a certificate of on-the-job training. Presumably they are not going to charge Facebook for the training courses they give their employees.

<comment><USER15> The proper way to view it is that the university is giving you an "in kind" benefit, in this case a free education. "In kind" benefits are taxable. An employer cannot say, for example, that providing a free apartment to an employee is not compensation, because the employer is "simply choosing not to charge the employee rent."

<comment><USER16> But obviously this is one variable that can be highly fudged. They can provide apartments at 1/3 the normal cost, but claim to be charging you rent. Or, if you want to go further, have those rooms "available" for guest faculty and you're just holding the key.

Or, well, this is how it's done in some places in Europe, where benefits "in kind" are "taxed". Except they're not taxed. You can't make that happen.

<comment><USER15> You can fudge a bit but not that much. In an audit, it's pretty easy to notice if your company is leasing out employees an apartment for 1/3 of market rate. Few companies are going to risk tax fraud charges for that. It's particularly difficult in the case (as with universities) where you're literally in the business of selling the same product a particular price to other people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Despite all the comments, it seems hard to gauge what would happen if something this insane were to actually pass.

Hopefully universities would find a way to "creatively adjust" their accounting such that graduate students are paid the same net amount as they were, but universities are big bureaucratic institutions and slow to change or adapt.

I'll only speak to what I know, which is fully-funded PhD programs in STEM. If this change hit students directly, it would be devastating.

If you look at top private institutions in the USA, you might notice that the socioeconomics of the undergrads skew rich-rich-rich but the STEM PhD students come from all walks of life (and countries all over the world). That's because the programs pay them enough to live on, albeit barely in many cases. If that fact goes away, so will the students.

Now maybe universities will be able to adapt and either pay enough to make up for it, or change their accounting. But most likely there will be a dichotomy where the richest and most successful programs have the easiest time negotiating the change while the others get hit hard.

<comment><USER3> STEM PhD students provide USA universities with inexpensive teaching labor, prestige, future donation revenue, future patent revenue, and the labor to complete research grants. The best research institutions will move quickly to keep the graduate system in place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think this is a good thing. Graduate education is grossly overpriced, because institutions know the government will help pickup the tab.

<comment><USER19> I don't follow your line of thought. How is the government picking up the tab? The government isn't making any payment back to the institution.

<comment><USER20> I believe what Overtonwindow meant was that the cost of education has gotten out of control primarily because whenever the government guarantees debt ( _cough_ housing _cough_ ) it creates a perverse incentive where the lenders profit by bigger loan values and the schools profit by jacking up the cost of their service for which the loans are issued.

Essentially, there is far less of a check and balance on the price of the good/service. Whenever you have true cost hidden or put way down the road it tends to significantly increase the total cost. Also, there was a hard limit on the cost of education previously because it used to be hard to get a loan for school. People had to actually save money for it, get a scholarship, or pay as they went along. There was a natural limit based on the available money people had available and were willing and able to use to purchase education.

Less than a decade ago (2008/2009) the average in-state tuition was $6,585 for a public school. I graduated in 2006 and this number seems accurate. My undergrad tuition in 2006 was something like $5,500-$6,000. Based on data from the College Board, the inflation factor for 2008 is ~9.5 (against the reference value in 1978 of 1, when the numbers begin). Which means the average cost of tuition for in-state public schools was $693. The minimum wage in 1978 was $2.65. It would thus take 262 hours to be able to earn enough to pay that tuition. That averages out to a mere 5 hours a week! And that's the worst case scenario (making minimum wage). Using the 2008 numbers, the minimum wage was $6.55, so it would take 3.83 times longer to pay tuition (1005 hours)! And that was nearly a decade ago - it's gotten far, far worse since then. Viewed another way, if the cost of college was subject to the normal inflation that the rest of the economy average, that $693 would be a mere $2,737 for 2008.

<comment><USER19> In my state the state legislature has repeatedly and dramatically curtailed state funding for the public colleges, which of course has led to tuition increases. Then the state legislature capped the percentage in-state tuition may increase on an annual basis. Now the public schools take far fewer in- state students and instead focus on out-of-state and foreign students who are able to pay the pretty darn near private school tuition.

Education is a global commodity and the pricing is set by demand. The fact is other governments are assisting their best and brightest to attend American universities, which are considered amongst the best in the world, while our government is making it harder for our best and brightest to attend our own universities. This doesn't seem like a good strategy for America.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Destroy is certainly too strong of a word to use.

This tax plan would likely mean more student loan debt. That's also bad - <USER2> it isn't going to destroy graduate education.

<comment><USER22> If I can't make rent doing this, I am unlikely to keep at it.

<comment><USER23> PhD programs already have insane attrition rates. Not difficult to imagine that any factor that makes it even _slightly_ more untenable than it already is could have a big impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A similar analysis has been circulating mailing lists at MIT over the past few days and all the grad students are already freaked out by this.

As someone who is in the process of applying to phd programs and has already made peace with the lost earnings this really sucks. If this provision makes it into the tax code I will have to strongly reconsider my plans, as will many other students.

<comment><USER25> It might be better to start the program, and then, if the finances of all academia get nuked by Congressional Republicans, your adviser can help you find some place outside the USA to transfer or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So the plan is...

>> Under the new GOP tax plan, however, those tuition waivers would be taxed as regular income...

Sensationalist headlines aside... Why is this being targeted in the new tax plan? Usually I can find something with a quote from someone that explains.

<comment><USER27> The reason is to balance rate decreases at the top percentile, to decrease the corporate tax rate, and to finance lost revenues from dropping the estate tax. The rest of the reasons people state are needlessly obtuse or purposefully deceptive.

There's one mathematical reason, it's because this bill can not increase deficit past a certain amount, and so to balance giveaways to the rich we must demand more of every other income quintile.

<comment><USER28> Bingo. I think you hit the nail on the head here. To offset the decrease in revenues expected from the upper quintiles (and the corporate tax), they need to raise revenues elsewhere. This is not a change that can be addressed by a simple accounting trick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Under the logic of the tax code, tuition waivers should obviously be taxable. The University is basically paying for graduate student labor with a vastly below-minimum wage stipend, along with a very valuable free education. "In kind" benefits (such as the use of an apartment) provided by an employer are generally taxable. That doesn't mean tuition waivers _should be taxed._ It just means you have to be intellectually honest and call them what they are: a tax break.

But viewed in that light, maybe they're not so defensible. While a small minority of graduate students may come from the lowest income backgrounds, on average they're highly educated and privileged. So in essence, it's a tax break for among the most advantaged people. Why is that "fair?"

<comment><USER29> At the same time, repealing the tax break hurts those least privileged the most. Why is that making things more "fair"?

<comment><USER15> Graduate students, as a class, are not the "least privileged." Most are from families that are pretty educated and well-off to begin with.

<comment><USER29> That is true, and is unrelated to my comment. I was referring to the least privileged members as a subset of that class. I know plenty of PhD students who were the first in their family to attend college, or graduate high school.

<comment><USER15> It depends on what you do with the extra revenue after you repeal. Repealing it and using the revenue to lower corporate taxes may or may not be fair (maybe it creates more jobs for lower-income people, who knows). Repealing it to increase the earned-income tax credit would almost certainly be fair. You'd be getting rid of a tax break that disproportionately benefits more privileged people, and expanding a tax break that disproportionately benefits less advantaged people.

<comment><USER29> > Repealing it to increase the earned-income tax credit would almost certainly > be fair.

False. The IRS states that the EITC only applies to those over age 25 if you do not have a qualifying child (many graduate students fail both). Also, some graduate students fail the most basic tests for EITC-eligibility since they do not have "earned income" despite having taxable income.

Another thing is that the tuition being added to AGI means every single graduate student will be ineligible for the EITC just on AGI grounds.

Anyway the plan uses it to fund corporate tax cuts so your hypotheticals don't really apply -- we have a concrete bill to discuss.

See: [https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned- in...](https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax- credit/claiming-eitc-without-a-qualifying-child)

[https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned- in...](https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax- credit/do-i-qualify-for-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc)

<comment><USER15> The fact that graduate students may not be eligible for the EITC is irrelevant. The point is that the people who _are eligible_ for the EITC are statistically much more likely to be underprivileged than graduate students are (as a group).

As to the plan to use the tax break to fund corporate tax cuts, it depends on economic conclusions that are beyond my understanding. I tend to be of the mind that we shouldn't tax corporations at all, and focus on taxing individuals.

<comment><USER29> Since you acknowledge the increases in the EITC are unhelpful to these underprivileged students you are then saying it is acceptable to raise taxes on the underprivileged portion of a largely privileged group because it's statistically hard to tease out the difference. That's...heartless?

Balancing it out in other members of the lower income class doesn't really help, IMO. You are penalizing people who are underprivileged for trying to improve their lot in life and move into a higher class with one of the best means possible: higher educational attainment.

It's obscene.

P.S. your point about taxation of corporations is interesting too: corporates shouldn't be considered people for purposes of taxation but can participate in political activity and speech (political donations) using rights of individuals. Nice deal, if you can get it.

<comment><USER15> > Since you acknowledge the increases in the EITC are unhelpful to these > underprivileged students you are then saying it is acceptable to raise taxes > on the underprivileged portion of a largely privileged group because it's > statistically hard to tease out the difference. That's...heartless?

No, it's utilitarianism. A tax break that disproportionately benefits the educated and well-off shouldn't be preserved just because a small minority of the people it benefits are not well off. Better to eliminate it in favor of a tax break that primarily goes to disadvantaged people.

> You are penalizing people who are underprivileged for trying to improve > their lot in life and move into a higher class with one of the best means > possible: higher educational attainment.

Someone who has gotten into graduate school necessarily has an undergraduate degree, and probably can make a decent living. At that point, it's better to focus government money on people who aren't so lucky.

> corporates shouldn't be considered people for purposes of taxation but can > participate in political activity and speech (political donations) using > rights of individuals.

The "people" thing is a red herring. "People" shouldn't lose their free speech rights just because they act in concert through a corporation. That has no bearing on whether "people" are more appropriately taxed at the corporate level or the individual one. The latter is a purely utilitarian concern. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with taxing corporations, I just think it's not worth the hassle given how easy it is for corporations to move to low-tax countries.

<comment><USER29> Okay, I think I understand your position now and I agree it's self-consistent, even though I disagree.

Still, good luck to the US remaining a scientific leader with this change.

<comment><USER30> Is your logic here that major research universities would maintain the same fee structure and allow less qualified wealthy students to assume the spots lost by students who can't afford the tax change?

Universities compete for research talent. Won't they simply adjust their fee and stipend structures to accommodate this change?

<comment><USER29> I assume stasis in the rest of the ecosystem, yes. It's hard to predict exactly what the repercussions would be. Yes, it's unrealistic. What else can we do? Also, the GOP wouldn't have repealed this exemption in the bill if it didn't mean increased tax revenue, so the money has to come from somewhere. In the end it's a reduction in funding for higher education.

Universities compete with each other for research talent, but they also compete with private industry for graduating BS/BA students. If the amount of money flowing to higher education in general is reduced, it may be harder for graduate schools to compete for the best students _against private industry_ , even though they continue to compete as best they can with each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's probably a bit late to worry about graduate education being destroyed. 30 or 35 years ago might have been more helpful.

</comment><comment><USER32> Sensationalism at its finest. At some point we have to demand some sort of integrity from our media. This is getting out of hand. The tax plan will force schools to alter graduate tuition accounting. But "Destroy" really?

<comment><USER28> As a former Ph.D. student and now graduate, I would have to say the title is is not sensationalist at all. This aspect of the tax plan will raise additional funds (to at least partially offset the magnitude of the revenue reductions). Where do you think those funds are going to come from? They come from the graduate students who will now be taxed on these tuition waiver amounts.

It is extremely facile to just waive arms and assert that, somehow, the schools will simply get around the issue by changing their accounting. If that were the case, why would this even be in the tax bill?

<comment><USER32> > I would have to say the title is not sensationalist at all

It's appalling that you don't find the title extreme. No way will a tax plan completely destroy higher education as we know it.

> Where do you think those funds are going to come from?

Its simple. The schools are going to start including the cost of taxes when covering the grad students tuition costs. For example, if tuition is 50k + a tax of 10k. The schools will cover the 60k for tuition for a full ride. No school with a conscious is going to slap a grad student with a sizable tax bill.

<comment><USER28> Appalling? Now who is being sensationalist? What you are saying is that the school is going to bear the cost rather than the student. Probably. But then, the Ph.D. program just becomes much more expensive for the school to administer. As such, all but the most well-endowed are going to simply stop admitting Ph.D. students. Your simplified, and actually unworkable, accounting trick achieves the same effect of destroying our world-class and unparalleled STEM graduate system.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google's New Logo Is Trying Really Hard to Look Friendly - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/09/googles-new-logo-trying-really-hard-look-friendly/

<comment><USER2> [http://i.imgur.com/x7HQW.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/x7HQW.jpg)</comment>


Ask HN: The Best Password Cipher? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to use the best cipher possible for encrypting passwords.  (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=762708)
Bcrypt was mentioned in the above article as being good because it's so slow.  I have the option of using any of these ciphers (from the lisp Ironclad library): AES DES 3DES Blowfish(bcrypt) Twofish RC5 RC6 Arcfour(RC4).  With AES and DES, I can use the following modes: ECB, CBC, OFB, CFB, CFB8, CTR.
Are there any encryption gurus that know the best option? <comment><USER2> Your link seems quite conclusive.

Allow me to prompt you to searchyc.com for posts by cperciva and tptacek, and to explain your need a bit more.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good reference - thanks. Among the tidbits, I found this one extremely entertaining: <http://xkcd.com/538/> It looks like bcrypt is the big winner though, no salt needed. <http://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/></comment></comment>


Why You Can't Lose Weight on a Diet - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/why-you-cant-lose-weight-on-a-diet.html <comment><USER2> This has seemed a little suspect to me since it started making the rounds earlier this week. Does the set point not work in reverse? What I mean is, the article states "starts at 300 lbs", but no one starts at 300 lbs, people get there through poor diet. So, why doesn't the set point push them back to 200 lbs? It seems to me set point is not the complete story when it comes to weight.

<comment><USER3> Sadly, or biology is hardwired to be thrifty. It's better to be reasonably overweight than starved, especially if life expectancy was short.

Case in point: Once you exceed the set point enough you get leptin resistance. This means that suddenly your organism is more sensitive to any drop in general energy store state as it is transmitted via leptin system with additional inputs from insulin and amylin.

So, the right way to diet might be to actually diet while supplementing leptin or a leptin receptor agonist and only very, very slowly reducing it over time.</comment></comment>


They are taking our jobs - <AUTHOR> http://newsletters.iafrikan.com/issues/they-are-taking-our-jobs-186076 <comment><USER2> Sorry, am i the only one who heard, "They're taking our Jerbs..." because you watch south park?...sorry...moving on.</comment>


Career Monogamy: The Awkward Tech Sin of Longevity - <AUTHOR> https://nemhouse.com/career-monogamy-the-awkward-tech-sin-of-longevity-59ac7fe8de47 <comment><USER2> There is a difference being doing the same job for 20 years and being at the same place for 20 years.

If you're doing different things within the same company every few years, and taking increasingly more challenging and essential roles, then employers will likely look very favourably upon that because having that progression shows that you will likely produce a lot of value for them.

Why? With the exception of a few niche domains (scientific research, pharma, etc), it doesn't take very many years to master a domain. The problem set can only get so varied and complex. In fact, it's quite the opposite; problems tend to get less complicated over time as they get more automated/well known. Easier to solve == cheaper to hire for.

Most people that have been with a "young" company for 20 years that hasn't turned itself over and are high value will likely have large networks and will be somewhat well known by dint of having closer ties with the founding/senior leadership.

So if you're doing the same rote job for n years, and the costs of hiring someone to replace you and train them are greater than the costs of keeping you, then you are vulnerable to "redundancy." While there is NOTHING WRONG with wanting to do the same thing forever and prioritize other things, this is the risk that comes with that. (I personally have no idea how people achieve that; there is so much opportunity in the world to make money, and being restricted by money sucks).

This was true of cotton millers, milkmen, switchboard operators, and is still true for developers and operators.

<comment><USER3> > taking increasingly more challenging and essential roles

What is a "more essential" role? Higher in the company hierarchy? I would bet that a guy who knows how to fix 20 year old system, behind the scenes and without fanfares, is probably more essential for your business, than just another suit talking bullshit like he did in his last gig.

The problem is right here - there is no "essential". There is only work that needs to be done. It's always better to have somebody who has deep knowledge of the problem to do the job. And it takes time to get that knowledge.

There are no shortcuts, like, doing "high-level" things. No, you actually suck at your job, because you have superficial understanding, you just reframed so it wouldn't be obvious.

I am not against people doing high-level things. What I am saying is that being tricked into thinking that this is somewhat more important, though, is at the core of this stupidity. It isn't more important, it's a trade-off.

<comment><USER4> In a company I work for the more essential role would be someone responsible for either larger chunk of work or more important chunk of work.

Think analyst solely responsible for communication with customer and giving tasks to multiple programmers. Think programmer being told "we need this new module" along with phone call to contact person in customer company being trusted that new module happen and questions will be asked and no customer will be offended in the process. It might mean being assigned to tasks that are really important as opposed to tasks that are less important.

There is more critical and less critical (essential) work. Who gets which one depends on trust a lot. It is not so much about deep knowledge of some tech, although that one play the role. Tech is easily learnable. Whether you are able to makes sense of vague customer, whether you can work without having hand holded is more of factor.

<comment><USER3> That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication with analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is feasible and what is not.

The problem with your argument is that you see a person "making" the decisions, and somehow you decided that he is the important guy. But if he is not a complete idiot, he is not making the decisions alone in the dark, but always goes to the more experienced (with the technology) people to get their opinion.

Of course there is important and less important work. But this has nothing to do with an importance of a job or profession, which is an ill-posed question to begin with.

And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again. If you don't have anything to lose, you don't have "more responsibility". A doctor or nurse, who can kill a patient and go to prison for that, has responsibility. A manager who will at worst lose the extra money and social status he gained for "having more responsibility" doesn't actually have any more responsibility - because he has in fact nothing to lose compared to what he had before.

<comment><USER4> It was real world example and had nothing to do with making decisions.

> That's not a very realistic example. In the real world, the communication > with analyst goes both ways - the programmers also have to tell him what is > feasible and what is not.

Yes and many people have problem to handle that. Also, programmers sometimes lie. But mostly, you go visit customer and three people there tell you completely contradictory requirements. And they hate each other and occasionally lie. Or more likely, give you requirements that make no sense, you have to ask right questions and push them right directions. The technology is not the issue there, making sense of vague requirements and creating consistent goal is. It is harder to replace such person then css guy. Of course it is immensely important how software looks like, but that skill is easier to measure during interview.

But as I told, the real difference is how much supervision you need, how likely you are to create organizational mess and so on.

A single programmer can not do all that much damage and there are processes to mitigate that risk. The point of contact can make a lot of damage. That is why it is more essential - your failure has bigger consequences for the whole project/company.

> And regarding responsibility.. I believe it's mostly status game again.

It is not. Responsibility is not about being punished nor height of that punishment. It is about being reliable without there being the need for threat of punishment over your head. If you don't work unless there is daily standup to report progress at, then you can not be trusted with larger more important tasks - no matter how genius you are.

If I am manager and tell you "this is half written requirements and the phone number" can she or he just go back to the office expecting you to communicate/do the rest? Or does he/she needs to visit you every week and ask you right questions and remind you to send important mails? That is the responsibility and that is what many people fail at.

<comment><USER3> All your arguments are also true in the reverse. It's not like analysts give programmers a proof that the work they should do is without contradictions. There are also many decisions that programmers make which actually do have big impact, although nobody really notices because there is no one to understand.

> But as I told, the real difference is how much supervision you need, how > likely you are to create organizational mess and so on.

Yeah, but this is true for any skill. Anybody who has skill doesn't need supervision. It does not by itself prove that some role has "bigger impact".

> Responsibility is not about being punished nor height of that punishment.

I am talking about "having responsibility", you're talking about "being responsible". Those are two different things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "These were the folks who were experts at knowing how to run the business > exactly as it was, and fought change like antibodies repelling a toxic > substance. They would use their longevity to shout down new ideas because > they had already been attempted and failed, even if the attempts had come > years earlier with different people and circumstances."

If staying long in your company makes this to people, the issue is not longevity vs job hopping. It is that company management that rewards the above behavior. The people who stayed longer are the ones acculturated - if they are stagnating then it means you reward stagnation. If your people needs to leave in two years or they become passive, then maybe you should stop punishing active people.

> "He identified a prevalent mindset with employees who were working more to > secure their jobs than to take the risks necessary to forge a bright > future."

I do not know what he means by risk. Learning new things is not risky. Employee does not need to be personally in risk if he/she works on project with low chance of success. People lately use the word risk a.) as it would be something inherently good which it is not b.) in relation to behavior that puts you in no danger.

> "These were the folks who would listen intently at employee meetings for the > names of the projects or products that executives mentioned, and then > eagerly try to find safe passage aboard what they now perceived to be safe > areas of the company."

What exactly are "unsafe" areas of the company, what will happen to me if I work there? And wouldn't it a good idea to make working there less risky if that is what you want from your employees?

<comment><USER5> _What exactly are "unsafe" areas of the company_

Areas that don't have the general support of the higher ups in the company. Areas that are seen as unimportant or a burden. Areas which have a reputation for not delivering

 _what will happen to me if I work there?_

You'll get passed up for promotions, raises and bonuses. You might also find yourself 'marked' and have a hard time moving to other parts of the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm prone to long stints. My problem is that I'm never able to find jobs that pay more, and I am not able to identify real opportunities for advancement at other firms. Every dev job sounds exactly the same, and everyone spews the same old we're so awesome come work for us bullshit.

So jumping ship seems worse than taking a risk - it's more like a total gamble.

<comment><USER7> I've found the same, it is a total gamble. Most companies are equally good at selling you bullshit. I'm at a good place now but below the salary I want.

I'm just going to jump every year or two until I'm in top 10% of engineer salary in my area. Then I'll sit back and become a lifer.

It's too bad nobody gives decent raises, it's most of the reason young devs jump from job to job. People have told me it doesn't work but every time I've jumped I've gotten at least 10% more. One time I got offered 20% on the spot to not leave and I said no because I had a job lined up for 50% more.

<comment><USER8> In my experience, you don't get meaningful raises from an employer without asking for one, and making a good case for it.

For example, one year I went and interviewed at a number of different companies, got some offers that were significantly higher than what I was currently making, then went to my manager and made the case based on the highest offer I received. At the same time, I made it clear that I liked my current job and didn't want to leave.

What have you done already in this area?

<comment><USER7> If you have to go out and get offers why not just take another job? It's basically doing the same amount of work but at least with a new job you might get a title change.

<comment><USER5> _why not just take another job?_

Having done the same thing, I didn't automatically take the other job because I liked the job I had. I liked the people, I liked the challenges and I liked the domain, all I didn't like was the salary. In my case they ended up meeting me about halfway between my current salary and the best offer I'd received, and I was happy to take it since that job with the better offer didn't sound as interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of my friends is caught in a similar trap. He has been at the same company for 20 years, and his skills have degraded completely. He is a middle manager and he's been interviewing for the past year with zero success. The technology he has been working with is so out of date, no one is willing to give him a chance, and frankly, if I came across his resume, neither would I.

He is the product of getting far too comfortable early on, and being afraid of change. Once you let that sink in, then you get stuck and it becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. I don't see him getting another job soon, and if he gets laid off, I think he's seriously fucked.

Meanwhile in 27 years, I've had over 10 jobs. I have no problems learning new technology, or jumping into a codebase and making code fixes the first day. I have a long trail of friends from all of my previous companies that I could call up and go for lunch with that day, and I still feel energetic about coding and learning the newest and latest. But I haven't been there long enough to effect change the way other long-timers have, and hence why I'm still a programmer as opposed to a tech lead or architect, etc.

<comment><USER10> I think there is a difference between longevity and stagnation. You are describing stagnation, but I don't think that is what the SA is about. When people see the former, they may assume the latter. This is understandable - people make all kinds of simplistic generalizations to reduce cognitive load but like any bias it is one you should be mindful of.

In hindsight I see longevity as a mistake - because this bias exists and it limits opportunity even when misapplied. Also I find it does take more work - or at least more attention - to stay current when you aren't being pressured by your job.

<comment><USER11> I am 20+ years in and am just realizing the truth of this perception. I knew that it was more and more acceptable to move around, but missed the memo that staying put is more and more unacceptable. If no change is 1 and constant change is 10, I am probably a 6. This is a wake up call to pick up more and more newer things. The trick is to balance staying relevant with chasing the shiny object and changing just for the sake of change. Change is only good if it is better.

<comment><USER12> It can be difficult to quantify "better". It is easier to quantify "different". If the goal is to truly learn, try the things most different from what you already know first. Even if it's not strictly better, it will be different, and it will open your mind to different ways to view problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Capitalist, so called "meritocratic", system doesn't actually value education or knowledge, it values ability to convince other people about being educated or having knowledge.

There is of course nothing wrong with doing one thing for years. Japanese built a successful, innovative economy just around that.

It's just another form of self-deception. You have 1 year in 20 different skills, therefore _sure_ you must be more productive than the human that has 20 years in one skill.

Guess what - likely not.

<comment><USER13> > Capitalist, so called "meritocratic"

And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that mythical 'capitalsim'.

Do you have any knowledge, for example, of how were promotions and salary raises distributed on a typical soviet factory?

Edit: since HN' genius anti-spam system prevents me from posting new comments after a couple of downvotes, I will use this comment to reply instead. (If you're annoyed at this, welcome to the club).

> You shouldn't prop an utterly corrupt system built by perverting an > impossible fantasy as proof that we can't do better.

Let's put aside the argument that "USSR wasn't communist/socialist" (which is bullshit, but for different reasons). Let's imagine that USSR was, actually, something else - because it sure as hell wasn't capitalism.

From that, we can infer that the same problem with promotion and corruption happened in vastly different economic and social systems, and, therefore, is not specific nor especially connected to the idea of capitalism.

> I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a > stab at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things > are somehow valued, when in fact, they are not.

Being a user makes you related to HN in a sense that you make up HN community - which is exactly what I was referring to.

> In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more > equal

They certainly were - that's exactly what I hate about them and why I embrace capitalism instead.

<comment><USER3> > And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that > mythical 'capitalsim'.

I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a stab at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things are somehow valued, when in fact, they are not.

Can't speak for Soviet, but I can somewhat speak for communist Czechoslovakia. In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more equal. I like to say that whatever was good about communist regime (you would find couple things) was mostly copied from the West in the 50s and 60s. For example, research institutions where there was a big freedom to spend time on research, without being constrained too much by grants and academic performance. (Actually the similar thing was true in the industry, because of the essentially lifetime employment.) Some used it to do good research, some used it to slack off, sure. But it certainly provided somewhat an option to spent a lifetime in one field only, if we return to the topic of the article.

<comment><USER14> On one side, meritocracy is overstated. Low social mobility being the proof:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio- economic_mobility_in_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio- economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#/media/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png)

On the the other hand, increased meritocracy is double edged sword, at least depending on what really "merit" is.

<comment><USER3> I eventually concluded that people don't actually want meritocracy. They just use the word when it happens to suit them.

For example, no one would want to have their salary decreased based on current performance. Yet it would be meritocratic. A true meritocracy would be perceived by most people as a cold psychopathic dystopia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As someone who has been in many startups over my career so far, your journey sounds appealing in many ways.

Many of the best people I know have been at Amazon or Google for years.

</comment><comment><USER16> > A slap to the face is always preferable to a knife in the back.

Offtopic, but I'd prefer a slap to the back than a knife to the face. It's more about slap vs knife than about back to face.

<comment><USER17> It's not about either, it's about the motive behind the well known idioms. One implies being frank and upfront, while the other implies being secretive and bad surprises. The adjectives and nouns involved aren't really relevant.

<comment><USER18> But I could argue that in corporate politics a knife to the back is more common than a slap to the face. At least it seems that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A nit on the title's terminology: I think this article is more about the long- term aspect than the monogamy. I think monogamy in career terms would be not taking on a job on the side; many job hoppers are serially monogamous.

</comment><comment><USER20> Off topic, but here is an obituary of Hans Grande - [https://haas.berkeley.edu/groups/pubs/calbusiness/winter2007...](https://haas.berkeley.edu/groups/pubs/calbusiness/winter2007/alumni06.html). RIP.

</comment><comment><USER21> This was written by the guy who turned Adobe from a company that made useful retail software into a money-grubbing subscription operation where everything costs forever and is slaved to Master Control. And he's proud of that.

<comment><USER22> You say it like it's a bad thing to find ways to make your employer more profitable in the long term.

Adobe is not a non-profit organization. Profits are the sole reason of their existence.

If you think their products are too expensive, don't buy them. It's not like there's some human right saying that "everybody must be provided access to professionally grade design and publishing software".

PS: I'm not affiliated with Afobe in any way. Besides pdf readers I don't know of using any of their software anymore (not even flash, because I have the flash plugins disabled in my browsers)

<comment><USER14> > Adobe is not a non-profit organization. Profits are the sole reason of their > existence.

[http://www.adobe.com/corporate- responsibility.html](http://www.adobe.com/corporate-responsibility.html) says otherwise. Either the company is not following what they preach or they are "bending the truth" in that page. Both options are not good.</comment></comment></comment>


Ghost villages of northern France - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20181122-the-nine-ghost-villages-of-northern-france <comment><USER2> Was expecting more photos. I didn't really see or understand what the villages are... just about them. :(

</comment><comment><USER3> In WWI these towns were destroyed by incidentally being close to the front. In WWII towns were destroyed by genocide. One example is covered by "The World at War" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b4g4ZZNC1E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b4g4ZZNC1E)

<comment><USER4> Given how many innocents died in London, Dresden, Leningrad, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc -- not to mention the Holocaust itself -- "genocide" seems rather overwrought. This one sounds about like Mỹ Lai. And the troop psychology was probably similar.

<comment><USER5> > _...London, Dresden, Leningrad, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc -- not to > mention the Holocaust itself..._

Don't forget the deaths in China and the rest of Asia. The estimate of 17-22 million civilians dead is around double even that of the Holocaust.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, China. I know of the Cultural Revolution, and maybe there's more. And it was careless to forget the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Human language may be shaped by climate and terrain - <AUTHOR> http://news.sciencemag.org/2015/11/human-language-may-be-shaped-climate-and-terrain <comment><USER2> This is a very misleading headline. As one commenter on the /r/linguistics discussion[1] notes,

>"Although the findings remain purely correlational, and not based on any experimental evidence", they use 10% of the world's languages, and the ecological factors all taken together amount to 25% of the factors influencing vowel/consonant distribution. Not very convincing.

The paper was given at a conference, so the findings are preliminary at best. The connection between geography and characteristics of language is still very poorly understood. For a similar idea, cf. Daniel Everett [of Pirahã fame]'s son's paper claiming that ejectives are correlated with altitude[2].

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/3rluhy/human_l...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/3rluhy/human_language_may_be_shaped_by_climate_and/)

[2] [http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4685](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4685)

<comment><USER3> Explaining 25% of the variance seems pretty respectable to me... certainly consistent with a "human languages may be shaped by X" headline. No one's claiming this is the _only_ thing shaping human languages.

Also, 10% of languages (about 600 languages) is basically as good as it gets for linguistic typology studies. [1] argues that around 500 independent languages is what you need to make strong claims about linguistic universals.

[1] [http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Piantado...](http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Piantadosi_and_Gibson_2014_CogSci.pdf) (pdf)

<comment><USER4> That's an interesting paper, but what they conclude is that is effectively impossible to get a sufficiently large sample to make strong claims for absolute linguistic universals.

"It is important to emphasize one aspect of this analysis. The sampling procedure we use assumed independent samples from the true distribution. This means that what is really required is 500 independent languages, not 500 languages overall. For instance, Spanish and Italian do not count as two separate languages in this analysis since they are genetically related. This means that the real number of languages necessary may be much larger than 500 when sampling uses non-independent languages. Correlated samples will probably increase the number of samples needed to stay below a given false positive rate.

Note, though, that the languages need not be independent in all respects: They need only be independent with respect to the relevant feature, which may be possible in some cases. To the best of our knowledge, it will in general not be possible to find 500 independent languages. There are, for instance, 212 language families in WALS, yet language families already are not independent samples. More aggressive independence methods—based on, for instance, geography (e.g., Dryer, 1989)—will likely arrive at much more independent samples, but orders of magnitude fewer of them. This means that it is very unlikely that statistical analysis will provide sufficient evidence to justify absolute universals."

This is an interesting result, and confirms the poor history of reasoning about the so-called "linguistic universals". They seem to be taken for granted in generativist-influenced circles (rather than among linguistic typologists), but they frequently get debunked soon after they are hypothesized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like a dubious correlation. Geographic language distribution patterns are subject to the vicissitudes of migration, conquest, and technological and environmental change. A lot of the features discussed are driven by outliers, like the consonant-heaviness of the Caucasian or Salishan languages.

</comment><comment><USER5> Or there is an account, perhaps apocryphal, of a royal's lisp resulting in the shift from /s/ to /þ/ "th" in parts of Spain. For example the surname Perez is still Peres in Portugal.

<comment><USER4> This is a well-known legend, but very unlikely. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Spanis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Spanish_coronal_fricatives#Castilian_.27lisp.27)</comment></comment>


Norway to hit those breaking quarantine with $2k fines - <AUTHOR> https://www.thelocal.no/20200316/norway-to-hit-those-breaking-quarantine-with-2000-fines <comment><USER2> Meanwhile in France the fine starts at €38 and can go as high as €135. Seems incredibly low, though if someone is convinced that they want to break the rules then a larger fine isn't likely to persuade them not to do so.

Source: [https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/coronavirus-ce-que- vous-...](https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/coronavirus-ce-que-vous-risquez- si-vous-ne-respectez-pas-le-confinement-renforce_fr_5e6fe867c5b63c3b648306b1)

</comment><comment><USER3>
      Anyone who is caught staying in their country cottage, rather than their official residence

What's wrong with doing the quarantine in the country cottage ?!

<comment><USER4> Cottages can be hard to reach, especially in winter. Health personell can't prioritize thus. Also, there are entire cottage villages, adding 20000-30000 to small town populations. The ban is for preventing future unnecessary crisis that could weaken health coverage.

<comment><USER3> That make sense. Thank you ^^

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In Australia, the fines are as high as 19k for breaking self isolation. We have the government door knocking and also calling daily to those that have tested positive.

<comment><USER6> It's also up to a $100k fine for companies [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/17/how- australia-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/17/how-australia- will-enforce-coronavirus-self-isolation-rules-for-overseas-arrivals)</comment></comment>


Python Developers Survey 2019 Results - <AUTHOR> https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/python-developers-survey-2019/ <comment><AUTHOR> > The data include responses only from the official Python Software Foundation > channels ... collected in October and November of 2019 through the promotion > of the survey on python.org, the PSF blog, the PSF's Twitter and LinkedIn > accounts, official Python mailing lists, and Python-related subreddits. In > order to prevent the survey from being slanted in favor of any specific tool > or technology, no product-, service-, or vendor-related channels were used > to collect responses.</comment>


PythonScript - a Python to JS compiler that works like PyPy - <AUTHOR> http://apppyjs.appspot.com/

<comment><USER2> Very nice - thanks for posting this!</comment>


Ask HN: Feedback on my web app: govcheck.net - <AUTHOR> http://govcheck.net/ <comment><USER3> First off, best to indicate that this is for India.

The UI is not bad, but I would make the font bigger in most cases, particularly the link targets. For example, why not make the entire cell clickable for each entry here <http://govcheck.net/party/> ? Would greatly speed my navigation through the site.

You'll need a subtitle, or a one line description of your site, otherwise I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for. "Get information..." is good, but tell me what the purpose of the site it. Something like, "All the stats on your Indian politicians."

On the graphs here, <http://govcheck.net/mp/111/> label the axis. I don't know how to interpret this, other than it's trending downward.

Overall a very cool site, I like the idea behind it, and I'm glad to see you launching and polishing it. Well done!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tips. The one about indicating this is for India seems to be something I should really do. Going through the server logs, it looks like lots of people are searching for states/cities in North America.

One more question I would like to ask people though is if I should try to make this site compatible with IE6. I have done _no_ testing with it, and done very rudimentary testing with IE7. I have not yet had too many users using IE6 to view the site, but my target audience includes rural parts of India - <USER2> where people use antiquated machines. Is it a good idea to try to fix this issue now, or wait until I see more people using IE6 before diving in?

<comment><USER4> If it is not too much of an hassle, I would advise you to test on IE6. But, unfortunaltely, it is usually too much of an hassle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good idea. UI-wise, I would get rid of the "Welcome to GovCheck" text and replace it with a tagline. Saying "Welcome to..." doesn't really tell me why I should be on your site. I need to know what's in it for me, otherwise, I'm heading off to another site. I would also de-emphasize the logo (eg. make it smaller) and emphasize the search box more.

On your search results page, I would change the label of the "submit" button to "Search" and remove that secondary search at the top right. If you need that global search for some other page than the search results, I would suggest adding a button to the right of the text field and label it "Search".

It would also be a good idea to add a "you-are-here" indicator on your tabs.

Colors could also use some polishing. Try <http://www.colourlovers.com/palettes/> for some great color palettes to choose from.

Good luck on your application!

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a very cool site. I can quite appreciate the amount of work you've put in here. I was trying to get something along these lines going myself, albeit unsuccessfully - I was unable to do a good job scraping LS/RS :(

Second sgrove's suggestions. Further, it isn't immediately obvious that I can click on the graphs to get participation details, attendance details, party members in LS, etc. When comparing records, I found it difficult to identify exact values in the bar graph - there are no axes lines or values provided.

Testing in IE7/IE8 is a must. IE6 has certainly diminished in popularity, but your target audience doesn't necessarily live on cutting edge (or even close to it), so some testing is required (atleast so the site degrades gracefully).

As for UI, I think you could make better use of the white space on some of the pages. The search box at the top right is too small, yet search is a primary navigation tool. The logo is a bit jarring on the blue bg. A breadcrumb would be nice too. If my search returns a unique result, like your example for 'Gujarat', it would be nice to be taken directly to the result instead of seeing the intermediate page with only one result - one less click, but a big step in usability, friendliness. Also, are you using exact matches only, for the search? Would full-text be applicable here?

One thing I see you haven't addressed is localization (unless it's there and I'm missing it, I apologise). Translations to regional languages is important when targeting the rural markets.

It's important to make this information more accessible and I think you've made a great start.

PS: I know you've done a lot of the work already, but I'm interested in helping out if needed. Email is in the profile.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've launched with approximately 20% of the data I'm collecting so far. I was not yet fully comfortable with the stability of those scraping scripts and so wanted to give myself some more time.

Any feedback on the data and/or presentation is welcome. I would also really love to know what people think of the design/layout - I'm not a UI guy, and I know there are many improvements I can make.

</comment><comment><USER7> At first I was disappointed that when I searched "Washington" (my home state), nothing came up. Then when I clicked the 'States' link, I saw it was not for the U.S.

But I think you are doing something that truly matters.

Keep up the good work, I think every country needs a Sunlight Foundation!

</comment><comment><USER8> Search need more work. I search for 'Vishnu' I get two names 'Sai,Shri Vishnu Dev' is one of them. Then I type 'Vishnu sai' nothing comes up. It tells me that you are doing a simple database search.

Database typical search is not going to cut it, think of other ways to do search; why not open source.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes - the search right now is a simple database search. Fixing it is high on my todo list - I've been debating between implementing something on my own or just farming it out to google custom search. Which is more recommended (given that I don't want to do anything fancy with search right now - just looking up names of Representatives, States etc. would suffice for now).

<comment><USER8> For Google custom search you will need to expose all your content, I'm not sure if you want to do that. I will advice for you to look at open source, stuff like Lucerne.

Who knows later in your evolution you may want to get Intelliverb DBCSS (<http://intelliverb.com/DBCSS.htm>) we are currently doing a private beta for enterprise level; the hosted solution will be a perfect fit for you but that is down the line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I, too, like the idea very much. But the color scheme could use some work. The red/blue contrast of the logo against the background is evil. Also orange on purple doesn't work too well for me.

I don't think I could use this site for longer than a few minutes before the colors drive me away. But well, that should be an easy fix...

</comment><comment><USER4> You know, today morning I was thinking of exactly same project. A bit like everyblock.com

I am interested in contributing to the project, if you need help. Let me know.

</comment><comment><USER10> The purple logo on the blue background is a bit hard on the eyes. Maybe a softer purple?

</comment><comment><USER11> you're not helping me get the US government to send me a check? what _do_ you do? make it more obvious.</comment>


Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-man-behind-a-third-of-whats-on-wikipedia/ <comment><USER2> 'History is written by the vict..err..a huge history buff'

</comment><comment><USER3> Pretty annoying how such an interesting person gets so badly interviewed and kind of mocked by the show.

Here is a much better article about him: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/meet- the-m...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/meet-the-most- prolific-contributor-to-the-english-version-of- wikipedia/2018/10/02/a6497a74-9411-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html)

Still that's the only video of him I could find, pretty interesting.

</comment><comment><USER4> Latest contributions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contribut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao&limit=500)

Not all edits are of equal weight; most of it looks like non-content-based edits, like adding/reorganizing categories. Not to say these contributions aren't valuable--this sort of thing is certainly important--but the article quite overstates his impact.

<comment><USER3> Categories are part of the content (at the bottom of each page) and actually require a lot of Wikipedia-specific knowledge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get it- the title is totally incorrect. He hasn't written a third of what's on Wikipedia.

<comment><USER6> CBS News. I don't even really notice sensationalized or misleading headlines so much these days, until they're pointed out to me.

Perhaps this guy's contribution count represents one-third of a top- contributors list, and the author conflated that with "all of Wikipedia" out of laziness? Curious that "Steven Pruitt" (or any usernames that look like they might be owned by him) doesn't even show up on any of Wikipedia's own lists:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits)

<comment><USER7> He is on those top-contributors lists. His username is "Ser Amantio di Nicolao" per article.</comment></comment></comment>