The Programming Steamroller Waits For No One (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://thecodist.com/article/the_programming_steamroller_waits_for_no_one <comment> rob-anderson There is no steamroller.

I know many programmers feel this way, but in my humble opinion it is a fallacy, and not a very healthy one.

No-one can deny that our industry is evolving at breakneck speed, and it is an exhilarating place to be. But just because there's a new technology every week on HN doesn't mean that we are losing old ones at a similar rate.

It is perfectly possible to have done nothing but C or Java for your entire career and yet remain extremely employable. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are highly paid COBOL jobs still out there, nursing some vast banking-industry mainframe which is too precious to risk replacing.

In fact I'm hard pressed to think of any programming language which I would dare declare 'dead' in a HN comment.

But even if you're a specialist in something which you feel is in decline, or for which there are newer, snazzier replacements, you've got every opportunity to learn something new, taking as long as you like to do so. There's extensive documentation for every technology under the sun available for free on the internet, and an army of friendly, helpful people willing to provide help and advice without expecting anything in return.

In fact, it's entirely possible you could even get paid to cross-train. In my own company we use RoR for which (in England at least) demand far outstrips supply. I've paid PHP developers to learn Rails, and I would consider anyone with an in-depth knowledge of any language as potentially employable.

Really, the only way an experienced developer is going to end up flipping burgers or flying a manager's desk is because they have lost the desire to learn - ie fallen out of love with programming in general. I believe few people work in this industry for money alone - you either love programming or you don't do it - and if you love it then you will pick up new technologies out of sheer intellectual curiosity.

Feverishly reading HN every day and feeling threatened by the emergence of every new 'next best thing' is not a good idea. I would advise anyone feeling this way to take a chill pill and remember why they took up programming in the first place.

<comment><USER2> I'm in agreement here. The engineers that will lose out are the ones that think that by learning the latest and greatest frameworks and libraries, they are somehow improving in their mastery.

This is, in fact, stamp collecting. Fewer and fewer engineers feel comfortable doing the basics. Implementing a raw custom data structure, writing a new parser, twiddling bits on a wire, debugging segmentation faults. The new-age programmer is in reality, a scripter who learns hundreds of different ways to do more or less the same thing.

There is no steamroller, but there is stagnation.

<comment><USER3> Maybe there are lots of types of programmer now. I tend to do the sort of things you mentioned, and look in awe at the amount of api / domain knowledge good Java or web developers have.

Actually, I wonder if the steamroller is age.

I can remember talking to a HR at a company I used to work for. I asked why they spent so much more effort on recruiting graduates and juniors than seniors.

'Seniors cost twice as much as juniors. We need them, but we only need one for every three juniors'

If that means only one in three juniors gets to be a senior, I wonder what happened to the other two. No one hires a junior with ten years experience, so I guess they don't work as programmers anymore. I hope they are project managers. Maybe that explains why project managers are always so angry.

<comment><USER4> They go to work for companies with the opposite philosophy. Some companies do no or very limited entry-level hiring, because they choose to hire programmers who made their mistakes on someone else's dime.

Yes, some also go into technical management or project management roles, but in my base of anecdata, that was either out of a genuine preference or because they realized they weren't all that good at coding. And of course, some leave the field, but this is by no means an industry where only 1 in 3 entrants has a spot 10 years later if they want one. If you're even halfway decent as a coder, you'll have a chair and the music will keep playing for you as long as you reasonably elect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I enjoyed this article. However, haven't many of the core fundamental concepts and abstractions found in computing technologies stayed relatively the same over the past 40 years? Minus the occasional paradigm shift, of course.

<comment><USER6> It really amazes me that Unix has not only lasted so long, but actually increased in its relevance (being the foundation behind Android, iPhone, OS X, AWS, etc.) How many computing technologies from 1969 are we still in daily contact with?

Nassim Taleb has this nice heuristic that says that the expected future life of something is proportional to how long it's been around.

So ASCII text will outlast HTML, because it preceded it. And HTML will outlast JavaScript.

So you might guess that Unix will outlast even the web. I doubt that a deep knowledge of Unix will become obsolete in the lifetime of anyone alive today. We might ubiquitous computing and networked sensors and AI, but it seems like all of those things will be running on Unix.

(note: this is of course a heuristic)

<comment><USER7> "How many computing technologies from 1969 are we still in daily contact with?"

Lisp? We're all reading HN which is written in some Lisp dialect. There are also quite a few Clojure devs in here (including me) and a few using other Lisp dialects (and participating in flamewars about what a true Lisp is or is not). Don't know if it counts ^ ^

And then not 1969 but 1976: daily Emacs user here...

<comment><USER6> Yup, Lisp will definitely be around long after most of the technologies we read about today :)

I have yet to do much with Clojure, mainly because I'm not really in the JVM ecosystem. But I think its focus on immutability is a great contribution to Lisp and will last a long time. It's an idea that transcends a particular implementation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is not specific to coding. My background is in molecular biology and almost everything I have learnt has become worthless because of new techniques - about the only skill I have from my junior years that now has value is how to use a Gilson correctly.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't think this is exactly true. There are still many COBOL programmers hard at work.

</comment><comment><USER10> Learn computer science and you'll know what's coming (Though not the exact form) over the next 30-40 years. Maybe even longer.

For those who were paying attention in language classes it's a game of waiting for industry to catch up. A long one at that.

<comment><USER11> Let's say you are a workaday programmer doing something like database-driven apps for enterprises. You used to build terminal-based apps. Then you moved to GUI apps. Now you are doing web-based apps. All of it covers a good 30 years of change. How would computer science have informed you about those changes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As a counterpoint, read SICP. It's timeless. NOTHING that book says about programming has changed since the eighties. The foundations on which programming and engineering are built do not change quickly.

</comment><comment> a-saleh Actually, if the OP's way to stay ahead of it is to learn an emerging technology every 7 years or so, it seems the steam-roller is moving quite slowly.

80 - everybody does fortran (57) \- play around with pascal (70), basic (64) \- evaluates Unix and C (73) \- play around with small-talk (80), learn OO

I seems, like the pattern is, to figure out what language/paradigm, that was invented 10 years ago, and just seems to have matured enough, that everybody will be trying to use it/imitate it 10 years down the line :-)

<comment> a-saleh Ok, maybe the window is getting shorter...

I.e Ajax, invented ~2000, production use by google ~2005, everybody's grandmother uses it ~2010.

<comment><USER13> Let's not kid ourselves, AJAX is a very minor technology. It may be widely used these days, but there's not that much to it, conceptually.

It's the kind of thing that even a moderately experienced programmer can understand within 10 minutes, and then have used it successfully another 10 minutes after that.

Asynchronous HTTP requests weren't a new idea in the early 2000s, by any means. I'd used C and Perl libraries that allowed for just that back in the 1990s. The only thing novel about it is that it could be done from the browser, using JavaScript. Really, AJAX is more a testament to how limited the browser and JavaScript are, rather than some great new technology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Man this is depressing.

I don't want to learn tech because I'm afraid of getting my bones crushed by a steam roller.

I would rather learn tech because of the new and interesting things I can do with it.

</comment><comment><USER15> In my opinion, this is less of a problem for a programmer than for a product- company.

Depending on the size of the change, a reasonably competent programmer can pick up enough of a new programming language or framework in something between a weekend and a month of playing around with it.

However, if a company has invested years of work into a product, they can't simply switch the programming language or framework. Worst case is that they have to rewrite everything.

I'm in a position where pretty much exactly 5 years ago, at the company I worked at we evaluated which web-framework and programming language we should switch to and rewrite the product in (that was previously written in Perl).

We decided to go with Java, as it seemed a safe bet. That was before Sun was bought and, while Java wasn't an innovation leader, the language was being properly maintained. E.g. Lambdas didn't seem to far away, there was talk about replacing get/set methods with properties etc. Then Oracle came along and drove the whole process straight off a cliff. Meanwhile, even Objective C has both properties and blocks!

We chose the Seam Framework: Open Source, innovative, trying to get their stuff into the standards. The last part actually worked somewhat, however stateful web framework have proven to be a looser: Especially in enterprise, back in 08/09 browser performance was terrible and you'd try to do as much as possible on the server. Today, it's the other way around.

Plus, the stateful Seam Framework works really bad in the cloud. Each server needs memory to store session state. Want to load balance requests between servers? Want to be able to kill a server? Synchronize the state between servers and loose as much performance as you gain by adding a new server. Plus, you'll always have to buy beefy instances to have enough memory at hand. 5 years ago, cloud was much more about IaaS than PaaS and during the hype anything was ready-for-cloud and every solution had lots of initial quirks.

We tried to make a couple of safer bets 5 years ago. We lost. As a programmer, I easily moved on to greener pastures. But migrating that product off to something like Angular in the frontend or to a stateless architecture in the backend? Even if the new technology doubles the development speed, halfs the maintenance effort and hosting costs, it'll take a massive investment... by the time it pays off, half of the technology is probably hopelessly outdated again.

<comment><USER16> It could be worse, you could have been one of those companies that tied themselves to IE6.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge explores this idea and where it takes us in 20 years. The book is set in a pre-singularity world where technological progress in every field is tethered to advances in computing power, and new fields emerge and die in a few months. I don't think this is particularly implausible, eventually. In any case the idea that you can get a job at an auto manufacturing plant and stay there for the rest of your life, get a fat retirement check etc without ever really having to worry about change, has clearly been smashed by globalization (via technology) in the last 30 years, and I think the same process is accelerating in other fields. Of course not "[losing] the desire to learn" is exactly what the author is prescribing here, and I think as usual many people are just talking over one another.

</comment><comment><USER18> The field has widened, but that just means you have to choose between being an expert and being a jack-of-all-trades. You can't be an expert at everything.

It takes a decade to learn something inside and out, and then you can't spend all day learning which JS mvc framework has gone out of style over the weekend. If your technology lasted long enough for you to become an expert, you can probably make a living on it even if it goes out of style like COBOL. And if you are a skilled developer you have no problem applying your knowledge to a new platform/language.

Those who get steamrolled are those who work but don't develop their skils. After 10 years with COBOL you will be steamrolled unless you have actually become an expert at software development, not just an expert at your job.

<comment><USER19> But the problem is if somebody has 10 years of COBOL, the only job they will be able to get is a COBOL programming job. That's the real problem here: Employability. If you let your resume get too stagnant, you're in trouble. On the other hand if you move from job to job too much (to stay current) than that's a sort of 'ding' in your record also.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think of the steamroller in a slightly different way. When a technology is in its infancy, you get paid more because it is still an evolving space - demand is increasing, but supply is still short (think node right now). Then the technology reaches mass market - cost becomes a factor in whether we write the app in Foo or Bar and rates drop (java). Then, on the tail end of a tech life time (cobol), rates are high again as people retire or move on to the Next Big Thing and supply is low - demand may be low too, but the install base really depends on the tech so will pay a premium. So, will you get steamrolled? Only if you are expecting to make a premium but don't recognize where you are in the lifecycle.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is the _fun_ part in this like working!

There is always something new to learn, something new pick up and explore.

I am doing this for over 20 years now, and it was like changing my job completely every 2-4 years. If one is open to change and adaptable there is no steamroller.

</comment><comment><USER22> Computer science concepts build on each other, but technology and frameworks don't necessarily get more and more complex. If you fall behind, you could always skip a generation of technology, and pick up the one after just as easily. In fact, it may be even easier. I've noticed the trend of new frameworks and APIs getting simpler and easier to use over time.

Yes. In the world of programming you have to always be learning, but you can take a break from learning, and jump in later if you stay in the same place technologically for too long. It's not like if you fall behind, you need to learn everything in the time period between then and now. You just need to learn now.

</comment><comment><USER23> > People could even get a programming job with no experience or education, as > I did.

...well, they still can you know, and this is part of the beauty of the field, you get to work with people with all sorts of backgrounds. Now, yes, you need a github with some cool projects, some contributions to interesting projects and/or a mini-portfolio of projects that you did for free for schools/charities (and yeah, "cool" and "interesting" are in the eyes of the employer), but compared to most other technical field, it's much easier to make it without a degree or ample experience!

</comment><comment><USER24> I think it is funny how he sees managers - the ranks of managers include those who could not stay ahead and were flattened by the steamroller. Do managers see themselves that way or in the cab driving the thing?

<comment><USER25> Both views are likely correct, in my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _" What the hell will the next 30 years be like? Will there still be programmers or will we all wind up flat?"_

Given the amount of maintenance needed for all the polyglot legacy code bases, I would imagine that there will be plenty of work for people as they move through their own career cycle.

OP Links to a Ray Kurzweil article at end of his piece that could be useful!

</comment><comment><USER27> First I was going to write "That's not true". Then I reread the article. That steamroller is a really slow one. :)

</comment><comment><USER28> It made me feel so much better, reading this. I thought it was some kind of personal failing that I can't keep up with all the changes. I definitely feel the hot breath of the steamroller, but in a way I'm enjoying the ride.

</comment><comment><USER29> The "steamroller" problem is an artifact of the anti-intellectual business culture, not technology. Technology is about expanding capacity; the anti- intellectual mainstream business culture is about zero-sum dynamics and competition for its own sake.

If you're smart about it, you hire programmers because of their ability to _solve problems_. If she used Ruby for 10 years and did great things, and you use Clojure, no matter. People can learn new things. The core ideas and competencies haven't changed much. The tools and APIs seem to have a half-life of 5 years, except for the proven winners (C, Unix, Lisp as a concept if not a specific dialect yet).

If you're a dumbass, however, you hire based on trivia. You ask for minuscule details of C++ templates or Python metaclasses or JVM internals. You let your HR write hiring specifications like "must have PhD and 5+ years in <three- year-old technology>". The trivia questions are fine interview material if the person is claiming to be an expert in that technology. They're useless at determining whether a person is generally capable.

The problem is that companies tend to fuck up one of two opposing ways. The more common failing is the HR fuckuppery I described above, of hiring for specific easy-to-learn skills rather than actual capability. This tends to hurt older people, who (after a decade or so, when all the half-hearted programmers have dropped out) want to develop genuine competence rather than chasing every crappy new thing that pops up. That seems to be why every good programmer above 35 either wants to be an architect or data scientist or something other than a "regular ol'" programmer, i.e. an "X who programs"; because the way programmers are evaluated is completely borked.

The (much less common, but still irritating) opposite end of the spectrum is the "hire ALL the talentz" attitude you see at certain very large tech companies, where they "hire generalists" but that's an excuse for a one-size- fits-all, CommodityDeveloper, internal attitude. If you're running a closed allocation shop, you really can't hire people "just because" they're talented. You have to hire to the specific role or you'll have a morale problem and possibly an HR disaster inside of 12 months.

So, really, the only way to avoid falling into one of these vicious patterns or the other is to implement open allocation. But we all knew that already.

The problem isn't that there's a steamroller. It's that it's driven by idiots who don't understand the first thing about _any_ creative process-- closed allocation is a laughably terrible idea-- much less a constantly changing one like technology.</comment>


Ask HN: I'm trying to find an RSS reader posted here that 'learns'. - <AUTHOR>

I ran across an RSS reader on HN recently (maybe a month or two ago) that 'learns', and prioritizes stories likely to be most important to you, based on some sort of like/dislike system. It easily integrated with Google Reader. Any ideas? <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1680575>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, Newsblur it was. Link for others: <http://www.newsblur.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Maybe you are thinking about feedly.

<http://www.feedly.com/>

</comment><comment><USER4> not sure if this is it but:

<http://feedafever.com/></comment>


Ask HN: Best textbooks for learning operating systems - <AUTHOR> For someone comfortable with programming in C (say, enough to pass tech interviews with the language) what are some good textbooks or other resources to learn more about operating systems. <comment><USER2> _Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces_ [0] coupled with Xv6[1].

Once you understand the fundamental ideas, you can move on to a specific real world implementation like _The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System_ by Marshall Kirk McKusick et. al or _Linux Kernel Development_ by Robert Love.

[0]: [http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/OSTEP/](http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/OSTEP/)

[1]: [https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6.html](https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/xv6.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I have heard good things about the 'Dinosaur book', "Operating Systems Concepts" by Silberschatz.[0]

[0]: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1119456339/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1119456339/)

<comment><USER4> It's good. I found it way more readable and engaging than other CS textbooks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can second the recommendation of Robert Love's books on Linux ([https://rlove.org/](https://rlove.org/)) as well as "How Linux Works" by Brian Ward. I personally enjoyed "Linux Kernel Development" by Robert Love more than the former as it teaches you more about Kernel internals (IMHO). The drawback is that it's a bit outdated already (it's based on the 2.6 kernel) but on the other hand most things are still relevant as far as I know. Andrew Tanenbaum et. al.'s "Modern Operating Systems" is a good reference to learn about operating systems otherwise, independent of Linux.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you want a quick, concise, pragmatic course to learn about OS, I would recommend Paul Krzyzanowski's OS Course that he teaches at Rutgers University. [1]. See course material at [2].

[1] [https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~pxk/416/index.html](https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~pxk/416/index.html) [2] [https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~pxk/416/syllabus.html](https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~pxk/416/syllabus.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> On the Windows OS side of the house, the Windows Internals book is a great dive into the nether regions of the OS.

[https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/sysinternals/learn/windows-...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/sysinternals/learn/windows-internals)

</comment><comment><USER8> Try ops-class.org from Geoffrey Challen that uses OS/161 for programming assignments, all of the material is free. I'm doing that one now. Highly recommend Operating Systems in Three Easy pieces as well.

</comment><comment><USER9> Operating Systems Design & Implementation

The book is about MINIX operating system, a operating system without hacks, to showcase the concepts.

Linux is a fork from MINIX.

<comment><USER10> > Linux is a fork from MINIX.

This is false. Linux kernel even in the early stages didn't share any code with MINIX. MINIX had a restrictive license and this was partly why Linus decided to roll his own OS kernel.

Further, the two OSs differ fundamentally from an architecture standpoint (microkernel vs monolithic kernel).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I love the XINU book. Just beautiful writing. Used it recently while building my own memory allocator. Will give you a lot of insight.

The Thomas Anderson books are a multi-volume guide to OSs.

</comment><comment><USER12> As far as textbooks go "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System" by McKusick is a good resource on the UNIX side of things.

</comment><comment><USER13> Linux Device Drivers is nice, and free.</comment>


How To Ask Questions The Smart Way - <AUTHOR> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Prompted by the discussion and submission here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994998>

I've realised that most of the material there is already present in Raymond's essay, albeit more abrasively written. There's also a lot in common with Carnegie's "How To Win Friends ...", and several other older essays that I've seen.

There's a common theme - do the work first, only ask the question after you've demonstrated that you've put in the effort. This is very like the "Proof of Work" spam avoidance idea - make someone prove they're serious by dedicating some CPU for every recipient.

The same is true of CVs I receive. They claim all these wonderful skills and personality traits, but offer very little proof of their claims. They say "Work well in a team, or when self-directed." without showing any evidence.

Show me the money! Where's the beef?

Show me you're serious, and I'll take you seriously.</comment>


MSU Vice President of research & innovation Steve Hsu has been forced to resign - <AUTHOR> https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/resignation.html <comment> tuna-piano Relevant quote from him:

"I've always said that I'm agnostic on whether... so there are observed test score differences between groups, I think that's clear, you can't deny that.

The causality of that, whether it's partially due to genetics, I've always been agnostic on. Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive.

But even just not being willing to categorically rule out that God could have created us with average group differences has gotten me into trouble. And I think that's just absurd. So for someone to attack me for saying 'We don't know the answer to this question, let's do the science first and then talk about it.' Even that position is actually not tenable in the current social justice warrior political climate."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=XHUSl9FLAmE...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=XHUSl9FLAmE&feature=emb_title)

[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and- de...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense- of.html?m=1)

<comment><USER2> >Not because I think it's impossible, but because it's such a charged thing we should really make sure the science is solid before we speculate. We shouldn't randomly speculate on something that sensitive.

I think he doesn't go far enough. Its not enough to just "not speculate," you have to also be responsible with how you use your reputation as a researcher in the field. As an analogy, it doesn't matter how principled or academic a political philosopher's belief in state's rights is, he'll lose his credibility if he agrees to speak at a bunch of racist confederate organizations. Even if he sticks to a boring non-racist script.

There is a movement out there seeking to drape their racist ideas in the trappings of science and reason. This researcher knows this. He ought to view it as his responsibility to make sure his good name is not attached to that movement. He could stay completely inside his ivory tower until he has the solid science, or he could heavily screen the media he speaks to. He has very clearly failed in that responsibility by going on Mr. "Humanity is not a single species[1]" Molyneux's show and saying that he thinks appealing to the environment as an explanation for group differences in IQ is a-scientific.

[1] [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist- files/indi...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist- files/individual/stefan-molyneux)

<comment><USER3> Noam Chomsky also interviewed the same man. Should Noam Chomsky have known better?

<comment><USER2> Yes. To be fair to Noam Chomsky, he very directly attacked Stefan's ideas, so I don't think there can be quite as much perception of support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm currently a student of Michigan State. While I don't like Dr. Hsu very much (and I see more merit to the criticisms of him than I suspect many here) I see this as grievous damage to my university. This will be proof that researchers should be scared what they say will incite a twitter mob against them and get them fired. Instead, they should be insulated from public backlash and not be afraid to say what they believe no matter how controversial. Lacking that, the entire purpose of research universities (and with it our ability to speak of a consensus among experts) is corrupted.

<comment><USER5> Maybe I missed something. Did anyone threaten his tenure? I would distinguish say an admin appointment from a research appointment.

</comment></comment><comment> tuna-piano We all look at history and view the Church as both stupid and evil for arresting Galileo when he published evidence that Earth revolved around the sun. Why do we look at history that way and how is Steve Hsu different from Galileo?

Don't like his facts/scientific methods/conclusions? Fight them with other facts and methods and conclusions!

When you try and suppress the scientific method (especially in the age of the internet), you give the conspiracy theorists and white supremacists ammunition for a new generation of recruits. "Here are the facts they are hiding from you!"\- they'll say. Fight ideas with better ideas, not by firings.

<comment><USER6> Hsu remains a professor with tenure at MSU. Faculty and students only called for him to be removed from an administrative position.

<comment><USER7> It is naturally great progress they did not burn him on spot then, heh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the campus group calling for his firing [1]:

>However, these categories overlap & are all rooted in Hsu's beliefs in innate biological differences between human populations, especially regarding intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him unsuited to direct a research institution's funding or its graduate studies

Humans are, biologically, extremely diverse. Visible attributes, disease risk, geometry of the physical body, etc. Some groups are more prone to certain genetic disease risk factors, for example.

Doesn't it follow that the brains of different groups of humans might group into certain traits, including intelligence?

I'm asking in all sincerity. I'd love to hear if there's some evidence that my thinking is wrong.

[1] [https://twitter.com/GradEmpUnion/status/1270829006439485441](https://twitter.com/GradEmpUnion/status/1270829006439485441)

<comment><USER9> It's complicated. One thing we do know is that the variance in intelligence is larger than any group differences. People therefore often assume that anyone that insists on emphasizing the average difference is using it as a dog- whistle for some kind of bias. Whether the principle of charity should be applied or not is up to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Moderators: Can we please have a different link which attempts to provide more context?

Maybe a news article like [https://www.wilx.com/content/news/MSU-Vice- President-of-rese...](https://www.wilx.com/content/news/MSU-Vice-President-of- research-and-innovation-Stephen-Hsu-resigns-571381341.html) or [https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/asmsu-advocates- call-t...](https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/asmsu-advocates-call-to- remove-stephen-hsu-as-vp-of-research) or [https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/15/mi...](https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2020/06/15/michigan- state-msu-stephen-hsu-research-removal-petition-graduate-employees- union/5345120002/)

<comment><USER11> > Hsu sparked outrage again when he cited a 2019 study in a blog post > concluding, "there is no widespread racial bias in police shootings."

(from link 1)

<comment><USER12> "no racial bias in police shootings" is something I've seen from a few studies. It all depends on how you define "racial bias", of course. (In other words, in a given situation police shootings seem to be even across races - but those situations are less common for non-hispanic whites and far less common for asians than for african americans)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm surprised how one sided the conversation is here.

This isn't "mob rule," this is the reasoned opinions of skilled scientists saying that Hsu's political opinions are 1) not backed by the science, and 2) establish strong ground to believe that he will not use his position of power fairly.

People have a right to be judged fairly in their careers, and those in leadership positions should not be unfairly prejudiced by bad beliefs. It might be fine for a tenured physics professor, but it's not OK for somebody making hiring and promotion decisions.

<comment><USER14> 1\. The idea that someone's political views are not backed by science is a pretty bold claim. Who decides what political views are acceptably scientific? 2\. Strong grounds? Is it possible to quickly present strong grounds in a twitter thread? Up until today he has done well in his job, and no one seemed to have a problem with him for 8 years. His boss or colleagues. Now, suddenly, we have deep concerns about how he hires people... why exactly? Because his political views aren't scientific?

This is tribal mob rule under the guise of a sophisticated intellectual rationalization.

<comment><USER15> Up until today? You have no idea what you are talking about. I have colleagues at the university that have been trying to have him removed for years; several have left in part because of him.

<comment><USER3> Can you elaborate on the details that your colleagues conveyed to you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Anyone looking for context.

[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and- de...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense- of.html?m=1)

Does anyone have more information for the opposing side?

Seems pretty terrible that people can take things you said over the years out of context and destroy your reputation.

<comment><USER17> I mean, have you looked at the resources linked on the Twitter thread he links to in that post? To call it "damning" is an understatement.

It would be different if he came out now and said "here are the things I said then, here's why I said them, and here are the reasons those were problematic and wrong; I no longer align myself with those views." But instead, he dug in his heels saying that this comes down to suppressing scientific inquiry for ... not buying into eugenics.

<comment><USER14> He's doing research using newer high dimensional ML methods on the human genome to understand potential correlations with genetic information and other attributes, like general intelligence [https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2264](https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2264)

It's a valid research subject, and like all research subjects, it could be wrong.

If people think some questions are too dangerous to ask, just admit that and be honest. Instead of just calling it problematic because it's a potentially uncomfortable subject.

<comment><USER18> Personally I don't think any of this is particularly related to "dangerous questions," but you do you I guess.

In which he downplays racial bias in police shootings: [https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/re-post-joe-cesario- on...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/re-post-joe-cesario-on-police- decision.html)

In which he says lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance: [https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/03/claude-steele-on- chall...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/03/claude-steele-on-challenges- of-multi.html)

Interview with an open white supremacist, check: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux)

<comment><USER14> Part of the scientific process is being skeptical and considering cases and asking probing questions. He didn't make a blog post that said "lol racial bias is fake." He discusses it with respect to research on the matter.

It seems you don't feel that's an acceptable question to ask: is racial bias in police shooting real?

I'd call that a dangerous question to ask, and try to answer honestly, because it could get a person fired.

<comment><USER18> First objection: He has tenure. Getting fired is very hard when you have tenure. As a tenured professor you can scream for years that the sky is neon green and you'll be fine.

Secondly, he doesn't particularly discuss it with respect nor realism. However, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we have the same view on that.

What about the second and third ones?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One of the tweets:

 _> Hsu's beliefs in innate biological differences between human populations, especially regarding intelligence --an unscientific position which makes him unsuited to direct a research institution's funding or its graduate studies _

I can see why this belief is controversial and in an ideal world I wish everyone was born exactly the same. However I don't think applying strong scientific research and methods to try and answer this hypothesis is necessarily wrong. Unless it has already been proven otherwise in which case I am unaware of the research.

<comment><USER20> It has been studied pretty extensively. For example, see this survey [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-30052-009](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-30052-009)

In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more massive that between group differences. Unlike other things like height, eye colour, or facial hair growth, intelligence is highly variable even between identical twins. The genetic link seems weak at best.

It's also more or less impossible to study with great accuracy - you're trying to study how race affects intelligence, but how do you correct for non- biological factors? Race is deeply intertwined with economics, education, nutrition, healthcare, and every other aspect of society and culture. Any study you do, regardless of results, will have a mountain or potentially over corrected or under corrected factors.

Finally, what are we even studying? Defining intelligence is a nightmare, and a quick glance at history shows how the definition of intelligence has changed over time and between cultures. Trying to look at how race's biological factors affect intelligence irrespective of sociological factors is in many ways a fool's errand - the very definition of intelligence is wrapped right up in those sociological factors!

<comment><USER21> > In pretty much every study within group differences are far and away more > massive that between group differences.

You are perpetuating what's known as Lewontin's fallacy.

This claim is extremely narrowly true: clustering on a 1-dimensional fixation index is insufficient to reliably mechanically classify race. If you don't know what that means, stop trying to use this claim in your arguments.

Here's what it doesn't mean: it doesn't mean that there aren't significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups. These differences can include intelligence (and 30 years of twin studies suggests they probably do).

<comment><USER22> > Here's what it doesn't mean: it doesn't mean that there aren't significant > population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic group

But it does mean that we don't have any evidence for this claim.

> (and 30 years of twin studies suggests they probably do).

This would be a great place for a citation. I'm wondering how a twin study is going to show the effects of genetics on intelligence. As GP suggests, twin studies show differences in intelligence between even identical twins raised in the same household, so Amy conclusions from whatever study you're referencing would need to show statistically significant variation controlling for the noise.

<comment><USER21> > This would be a great place for a citation.

If you actually care, just google it. There are dozens of great large-n metastudies. Chances are you don't care (mostly based on the fact that you clearly haven't googled it already), so I have to be jealous of my time - sorry.

> would need to show statistically significant variation controlling for the > noise.

Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates place 60-80% of human intelligence variance as being _genetically_ heritable.

<comment><USER22> I've been able to find evidence that disagrees with you, but not evidence that agrees with you. Since you've made very specific claims that most contrary evidence is invalid because it is not multvariate.

It would have taken you less time to post a single link than to write your response, so I don't buy the time excuse.

> Obviously g-factor researchers have thought of this. Current best estimates > place 60-80%

I'm aware. You claimed that twin studies (which control for race by comparing between people of the same race and are usually limited to small sample sizes) have revealed racial ethnic differences in g controlling for the environmental factors.

This claim is questionable on its face. Your heritability claim is much less contentious, but heritability of g and race correlation of g, controlling for environmental factors, are very different claims.

<comment><USER21> [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/)

This took me literally 10 seconds to find.

Adult intelligence is ~80% heritable. There is >1stddev difference in mean intelligence between many ethnic groups. (Do you need me to provide a citation for this as well, or can you google it this time?) Do the math. What should your bayes factor be on this being environmental?

You can also find studies that specifically try to find environmental causal factors on intelligence - the effect sizes for identifiable factors (like poverty, or other common scapegoats) are laughably small. Once again, feel free to google this.

I'm sorry if I come across as hostile by asking you to look things up, but usually when people demand citations for things that A) they should already know if they're debating about this and B) are easy to find, I have to assume they're trying to waste my time and/or arguing from bad faith.

<comment><USER22> I never asked you to cite intelligence heritability. Like I said, I agree that intelligence is at least partially heritable.

I asked specifically for you to justify the original claim, that there are phenotypic differences between ethnic groups that include intelligence, as supported by twin studies. That's a very specific and as far as I know very unfounded claim.

<comment><USER21> As I explained - look at the percent of variance that's heritable. Now look at the measured difference in population intelligence. Now tell me - what's the probability of that being environmental, based on the fraction of intelligence variability that can't be attributed to genetics? A fermi estimate is fine - you'll end up close to zero anyway. You shouldn't need a document to spell this out for you in excruciating detail.

Edit: to humor the question: [https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton- Jense...](https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton- Jensen30years.pdf)

The conclusions in this paper should have been expected give the explanation I already gave.

<comment><USER22> Rushton is perhaps not the person you want to cite if you want to disassociate yourself from scientific racism.

And that paper, which I'm familiar with, doesn't address many of the modern criticisms of such theories that are based on the idea of "g" being socially constructed/influenced in the first place. (nor does it actually do much, if anything, to support the original claim you made: not all of their conclusions are phenotypic in nature, at a minimum, sections 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 can be explained culturally despite what the paper says).

I'd suggest "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability", or "Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called "X"-factors", which notes as a semi-conclusion that we know of environmental factors that have clear and demonstrable causal effect on IQ. We know of no specific genes that have this effect. So concluding that a bunch of individual genes have small effects is actually less supported than the similar claim that a bunch of individual societal/environmental factors have impact. Both of these are more recent than the paper you cite, and could be seen as academic responses to perceived flaws.

<comment><USER21> > So concluding that a bunch of individual genes have small effects is > actually less supported than the similar claim that a bunch of individual > societal/environmental factors have impact.

What an absurd claim! This is specifically the hypothesis that the last several decades of twin studies is designed to test. You are either ignorant of this body of research or you are being disingenuous. We can distinguish between these two cases because adopted twins and siblings have highly correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated environmental factors.

I notice that you keep avoiding the absurd improbability of environmental factors mediating bulk racial differences given the magnitude of population- level differences and the relatively small fraction of variance attributable to environment - but you seem desperate not to acknowledge the latter.

<comment><USER22> > We can distinguish between these two cases because adopted twins and > siblings have highly correlated genetic factors and weakly correlated > environmental factors.

We can't, and the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a phenomena called cultural filtering.

Like I said, I suggest you go and actually read recent papers instead of relying on a survey paper from fifteen years ago that relies on actual research older than many of the professors publishing this stuff today.

It's not worth having this conversation is you're unrolling to engage with modern research, and it'll just devolve into an ideological flamewar, which dang prefers us not to have. So again please read some modern research. Or don't, but don't claim this stuff is settled when your are a decade out of date.

<comment><USER21> I looked at the things you "cited" (i.e. name dropped without linking).

"Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called "X"-factors":

A) no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it

B) written by a philosophy professor, not a scientist, with no scientific background

C) the argument of this paper, as far as I can tell from the abstract, is "the pure-environmental hypothesis is nonfalsifiable", i.e. completely useless

I would critique it more if I could actually read it.

"Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" \- this isn't actually a paper, it's just a section in some article. Where did you even find this? It barely shows up on the internet - your comment is the third result. In any case, it A) doesn't seem to support your claim, and B) doesn't strike me as especially compelling research - they're just summarizing some thoughts about the Flynn effect.

This further increases my confidence that you are arguing in bad faith.

> the papers I cite give a highly coherent explanation for this, a phenomena > called cultural filtering.

I can't find this term anywhere in these papers (or elsewhere).

<comment><USER22> > no non-paywalled sources, so I'm suspicious if you even read it

I have access to many paywalled articles.

> "Reconciling IQ Gains and Heritability" \- this isn't actually a paper, it's > just a section in some article.

Ah you're right, I meant to cite that section of the larger article, but the wider article is rather well cited.

> phenomena called cultural filtering

tl;dr: The idea is that culture magnifies any underlying genetics. The example given is two siblings/twins separated at birth, both are taller than average. As a result, they both end up playing basketball and being better than average as children, and as a result attend basketball camps. They both get good training and end up as college basketball players.

The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying differences. And whether different culture(s) can magnify these differences in different ways.

<comment><USER21> > The question is to what extent culture serves to magnify any underlying > differences.

This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic groups".

<comment><USER22> > This sounds like irrelevant bikeshedding between genotypes and phenotypes. > It also doesn't have any bearing against my claims, c.f. my original comment > about "significant population-level phenotypic differences between ethnic > groups".

Of course it does: if the only concrete support for phenotypic differences is based on twin data (or similar), and that data is subject to magnification due to cultural factors, the underlying phenotypic impact is smaller.

<comment><USER21> That's not what "phenotypic" means. Phenotypic environment includes any "cultural amplification" or similar factors. Almost all genetic competitions are subject to some sort of king effect, e.g. hypergamy and concomitant GMV in non-monogamous species. We still consider the results of these effects to be phenotypic.

<comment><USER22> Ok then I'm really unclear what you're point is. Yes, there are observable performance differences that align across observable ethnic boundaries.

No one in this thread questioned this (keep in mind stereotype threat is a phenotypic difference). If that's the only claim you're making, I'm not sure why you felt the need to cite Rushton of all people, who was specifically arguing that these differences were genotypic in nature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Throwaway because with headlines like this, you can't be too careful. It's getting scary seeing people keeping quiet in predominantly progressive sectors like media, academia, and tech, out of fear that what they say today will get them fired tomorrow, fear that something they say will draw attention to something from five years ago, or that something they say today will cost them in five years.

There's a class of under-researched things that we know too little about, but for political reasons, no one can research. Anything around genetic traits of races, differences between men and women, research around causes of LGBT orientations and identities that could lead to preventing people from being LGBT.

These aren't even the ethically hard ones like genetic modifications in humans. These are just political suicide.

</comment><comment><USER24> "It is not within the power of practitioners of demonstrative sciences to change opinion at will, chooing now this and now that one; there is a great difference between giving orders to a mathematician or a philosopher and given them to a merchant or a lawyer; as demonstrated conclusions about natural and celestial phenomena cannot be changed with the same ease as opinions about what is or is not legitimate in a contract, in a rental, or in commerce." -Galileo

</comment><comment><USER25> A couple of clarifications, from the links:

1\. He wasn't forced to resign. He was requested to resign by the president of MSU.

2\. He's still a tenured professor, and he will be returning to that role.

3\. The group trying to oust him is the GEU (Graduate Employees Union, affiliated with the AFL-CIO), which represents 1200 graduate assistants at the University.

Apparently Dr. Hsu has made some controversial statements about genetics. The GEU's accusations appear to be about perceived racism.

One of Dr. Hsu's sins was appearing on a program with Stephane Molyneux, a conservative commentator whom they call "a white supremacist". I've watched several of Molyneux's programs and he is hardly a racist. Conservative and white, yes. I guess that's bad enough these days.

<comment><USER26> > I've watched several of Molyneux's programs and he is hardly a racist. > Conservative and white, yes.

From his Wikipedia page:

Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views.

Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as a far-right activist.[8][9][10][11] Tom Clements in The Independent described Molyneux as having "a perverse fixation on race and IQ".[12]

The Freedomain internet community which Molyneux leads has been described as a cult, and Molyneux has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination techniques on his followers.

Molyneux is a proponent of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory)

<comment><USER27> Be careful to distinguish between rhetoric, opinions, and facts.

<comment><USER26> How about from the horse's mouth: [https://i.redd.it/cc8wtw97vo931.jpg](https://i.redd.it/cc8wtw97vo931.jpg)

<comment><USER25> I couldn't find that tweet -- is it fabricated?

I did find this, from Molyneux:

"It's interesting that if you don't have a uterus, you can't have an opinion on women's issues, but you can compete in women's sports."

Apparently this is offensive to SPLC?

<comment><USER22> It was eventually deleted. He said the quiet part too loud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There are an incredible number of people on HN and in Silicon Valley who clearly believe that black people are on average genetically inferior to whites and Asians and also think they're being incredibly clever when they tap-dance around that core belief. Maybe now some of them will at least do the rest of us the courtesy of saying it outright.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've got a CS degree from MSU and haven't heard anything about this at all. Anyone have more background information?

<comment><USER30> Decent starting point:

[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and- de...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/twitter-attacks-and-defense- of.html)

<comment><USER31> > One of the video clips is taken from an interview I did with YouTuber Stefan > Molyneux in 2017. Molyneux was not a controversial figure in 2017, although > he has since become one.

I'm going with he is in way over his head, and didn't know who this guy was who interviewed him, or is lying. 10 minutes of research in 2017 easily would have shown this.

<comment><USER32> He wasn't nearly as controversial as today. Your standard for controversial and Steve's are different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am very glad this happened and this decision was very supported by the faculty of MSU. He is still a full professor at MSU making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. He's just no longer in charge of the research agenda. His own research on quantitative genetics is terrible and widely ridiculed. It's great that he's tenured and is allowed to have his poor scholarship justify his racist and sexist conclusions; but it doesn't mean he gets to automatically lead a research agenda for a whole university.

</comment><comment><USER33> Relevant post by Scott Alexander earlier this week is support of Steve Hsu: [https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open- thread-156-25/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/)

<comment><USER34> And Scott Aaronson: [https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4859](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4859)

<comment><USER5> He raises a good point that appearing on a podcast is a red herring. Suppose he actually just discussed say physics on the podcast? It would be more a question of what he said. Or, if he just said, "whoops, I had no idea who this guy was". Who he chooses to host on his own podcast is a different story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> People keep assuming that asking the question "what relationship (if any) is there between race and intelligence from a biological standpoint?" is the racist part. The question by itself isn't really the problem.

The racist part is pretending that it's still an open question. It isn't. There is no measurable biological relationship between race and intelligence.

There has been a massive amount of research into what influences "intelligence", and the sum of it makes it clear that environmental factors easily have a significant enough effect to explain differences in scores between racial groups on different metrics.

Someone might bring up the fact that often even when controlling for factors like education and family income, the racial gap narrows but might not disappear completely. The response is that it is fundamentally impossible to fully control for the effect of race on the environment someone grows up in. Even when absolutely every other factor is identical, a white person and a black person are not going to have the same environment because their race constantly affects how the rest of the world interacts with them.

Essentially: We know environmental factors can affect any given metric of intelligence on a magnitude consistent with racial performance gaps on those metrics. Proof of this can be found in things like the fact that average IQ scores have increased over time, and the average IQ of black people in the 1990s was equivalent to the average white IQ in the 1940s. Biology does not change in 50 years so the improvement must be entirely from changes in environmental factors.

In addition, race itself intrinsically has a significant effect on one's environment. Those two facts alone are enough to make it clear that any hypothetical biological component is too insignificant to be measured.

<comment><USER36> I'm no expert. But how can this be a settled question when people are still arguing what intelligence even is?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> For those who are unaware or operate under certain assumptions of how Universities work, they tend to be _highly_ politically charged places, and the value of "the brand" is more important than any individual. Regardless of what you think of Steve Hsu's statement ( measured vs tone-deaf, informed vs ignorant/racist), the mistake he made was taking a position to begin with. I was a the University where Trump went to undergrad when he was running for election, Not a single faculty/staff made comment about it because there was a directive from top down to say nothing. This is just how it is.

</comment><comment><USER38> What is this about?

</comment><comment><USER39> Exact same playbook used to try to discredit Jordan Peterson, except he told them to shove it and fought back against the mob in public space with a megaphone, while the crowd was hurling insults and jeering at him.

I know HN has a bit of an issue with JBP, but look at the this here yet again and think for yourselves.

<comment><USER5> Who?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Sometimes, when a cancer gets bad enough, all you can do is enjoy the time you have left

</comment><comment><USER41> So if you believe something to be a fact and supported by scientific research, and that fact is offensive to someone or a group if people, then you can be "cancelled"? American academia is in trouble.

<comment><USER15> He's still a fully tenured professor at MSU; free to research whatever he wants.

<comment><USER41> So it's okay that a Twitter mob had him removed from his previous more senior position?

<comment><USER15> Do you mean the hundreds of faculty at his university and the grad student union that called for his resignation from a position of power over them? Yeah, I think it's reasonable. He's still payed quite well and welcome to his crappy research ideas.

<comment><USER41> Yeah, all of those people. What makes an idea "crappy"?

You know you can disagree with ideas that offend you, right?

<comment><USER15> His genetics ideas are bad science. They are poorly thought out papers and overstate conclusions based on data that don't properly account for the population and environmental effects. Hsu has been doing this for many many years. Then he goes around alt-right circles and acts like there is controversy; and starts companies offering embryo selection based on polygenic scores; again terrible science and he didn't even state his conflict of interests on that. I disagree with all of those ideas and actions... and he still should be a professor. He just shouldn't be a VP of research at MSU. He's had several bad ethical lapses. The COI alone is grounds for firing... see the similar types of controversies surrounding the Harvard chemist who failed to disclose Chinese funding; that guy wasn't even vp of research. Finally, all of this controversy makes it nearly impossible to do the work of vp of research effectively. He gets to go back now to maybe making his research and papers better (in a fully tenured job).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> People really get their backs up about someone having to step down from a position of great power to a position of somewhat less, but still considerable, power. I suspect it speaks to people's feeling that there may be things they can't achieve if they don't behave or present a certain way.

But even if there was an injustice here, there are far greater injustices in the world, done to people who don't wield any power, who are just trying to get by. People who are denied even a modicum of self-determination, let alone power.

<comment> Trill-I-Am A lot of the readers of HN identify more with people at the top of society than at the bottom

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The Larry Nassar case exposed major cultural issues within the MSU administration. Is this treatment of Steve Hsu the pendulum swinging in the extreme opposite direction, or out of control woke-ism?

<comment><USER43> I think ultimately a university cares about its image more than anything. Nuking a tenured professor from a VP position is small potatoes for better optics (no matter the merit of allegations). I think the allegations do have merit at least for someone in an administrative position, not a purely academic one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> We're likely to see a certain reorientation of academia. The old business model was inherently unsustainable and even if it looks like it's under assault by the culture war it's probably a more systemic issue.

The Visigoths didn't bring down Rome. By the time they were on the scene Rome was a house of cards.

</comment><comment><USER45> I predict that what _will_ happen as a result of this type of activity is:

At some point an organised advanced threat, or a disorganised mob, will attempt to take down a truly bad individual or group, who will retaliate in a truly disastrous way.

Of course, this is inevitable given enough time.

My concern _now_ is that we are on a collision course with history, we can see that, and we appear to have no idea how to course-correct.</comment>


Ask HN: Is ChromeOS a viable platform for serious development? - <AUTHOR> I'm mainly a web developer (React on the front, PHP and Node on the back, some hybrid mobile with Ionic).  I would like to buy a Chromebook but am not sure if that's enough of a machine for development work.  The price for a machine with enough hardware seems to be at the point where I might as well just buy a Windows machine (and erase the SSD, install Linux and build out my dev environment there, of course).<p>Is there any reason for a developer to seriously consider a Chromebook as their main machine? <comment><USER2> It depends on your tooling needs and preferences.

I have used a Samsung Chromebook Plus and found that it worked well for web programming and scripting language development (Python and Perl).

Crostini makes it rather easy to use a surprising amount of Linux software with minimal effort. The biggest gotchas are:

1) the machine's processor which could limit software that only works on x86

2) some of the security restrictions of running in a container. Crostini might not be ideal if you are doing development that requires I/O to external devices (e.g. Android development over adb)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if it's still true of current Chromebooks but they used to have a way to going into 'dev mode' that behaves like a normal OS.</comment>


Bitcoin Black Friday: Why Namecheap is Participating - <AUTHOR> http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2013/11/25/bitcoin-black-friday/

<comment><USER3> I've bought a few different domains on Namecheap using BTC, the first time just after they started supporting it. Back then their implementation (or their provider's) was a bit broken, I had to wait a few hours for enough confirmations before I could spend the money.

They have since changed that so payment is instant (the effort required to double spend a $15 domain would be far more expensive than the benefit). The experience is awesome I must say. I just love being able to whip out my phone, scan a QR code on the screen and confirm the purchase and have it instantly go through.

Much, much better than having to pull out my credit card, type in 16 numbers, make sure I use the right zip, then remember what crazy authorized by mastercard password I used. Especially for digital goods, not having to do all the address verification etc.., sure makes the transaction nicer.

I doubt they gain a whole lot from using BTC (though I think there is real potential in developing countries), but hats off to them for supporting it anyways. They were my registrar of choice before and this only strengthened that.

<comment><USER4> >Much, much better than having to pull out my credit card, type in 16 numbers, make sure I use the right zip, then remember what crazy authorized by mastercard password I used. Especially for digital goods, not having to do all the address verification etc.., sure makes the transaction nicer.

IMHO you are heavily exaggerating how complicated it is to use CC and/or other payment options and how easy it is to use btc.

I select paypal, which already has me logged in to my account (or lastpass automatically logs me in), click "Pay Now". Instantly done.

Same goes for google wallet and similar services. Lastpass even has my CC info which I can use to fill out forms if I don't have an account. Even without lastpass I know my CC number, and I never have to make sure I use the right zip (how complicated is that to remember, seriously?)

It's much easier than having to pull out my phone (which is god knows where), open app, enter PIN (because security...), scan QR code from the screen and pay.

Or log into web wallet like blockchain.info by entering wallet ID, password and 2FA code,copy/paste bitcoin address somewhere and send money to it and if I get one letter/character wrong the money is forever gone because f __k chargebacks, right?

(Did I chose one of the more complicated scenarios? Yes, just like OP did in parent comment for CC payments)

It's good that they offer multiple payment options, but comments which highlight best case scenario when using bitcoin and worst case scenario(in terms of how easy it is) when using CCs/PP/etc are really annoying.

>though I think there is real potential in developing countries

I bet you that it's insanely easier to get CC than bitcoin in a lot of "developing countries", and average people from developing countries, which I assume have lower than most income, should really avoid bitcoin due to the price fluctuation. In theory it's great, in practice... not so much.

<comment><USER3> Agree that Paypal is pretty darn quick. I personally have issues with zip codes because I live abroad and always forget which zip code my credit card is on, but I agree that isn't typical.

The advantage is clearest when it is your first transaction, so not when using PayPal or Google Wallet. Because I live abroad (Rwanda) I have more hassle with credit cards than you might, specifically they are always getting flagged for fraud because I'm not where they expect. Yes, this isn't an issue if you live in the states at a permanent address.

> I bet you that it's insanely easier to get CC than bitcoin in a lot of > "developing countries", and average people from developing countries, which > I assume have lower than most income, should really avoid bitcoin due to the > price fluctuation. In theory it's great, in practice... not so much.

Not sure why you are using quotes, but you are wrong on this one, at least in East Africa where I live. Getting a credit card is pretty annoying and expensive in Rwanda. The vast majority of people do not have bank accounts, much less credit.

I wouldn't suggest Bitcoin as a store of value, but I do think there is potential as a form of payment in these markets. IE, buying $15 of bitcoins (which yes, can be had in various ways here) to register the domain and spending it the same day. That is indeed easier than getting a credit card here.

<comment><USER4> >I have more hassle with credit cards than you might, specifically they are always getting flagged for fraud because I'm not where they expect. Yes, this isn't an issue if you live in the states at a permanent address.

I have lived, well more of a stayed for few months than lived for longer period of time, in various countries in EU and I only had one time paypal block my payment with credit card issued in Bosnia. That was when I installed new OS(W8), different browser(trying out FF) and different country(Italy) - <USER2> made complete sense to block the purchase. And that was resolved in about 15 minutes after I contacted their support.

>Not sure why you are using quotes

I was quoting the scenario you named where bitcoin has advantages. I probably shouldn't have used quotes though...

>Getting a credit card is pretty annoying and expensive in Rwanda.

I don't know about Rwanda, but in most countries (even the developing ones) you do have access to CC. I'm pretty sure that everyone who can afford PC and internet access can also afford CC.

Of course there are exceptions, but those exceptions aren't really suitable for bitcoin either because it would be more complicated than just using cash - because you need phone or PC to make (normal) transaction.

>The vast majority of people do not have bank accounts, much less credit.

So how do you buy bitcoins? In person transactions? Isn't it worth it then, for someone who makes online payments frequently, to go through annoying process of getting the CC instead of finding people who are willing to sell bitcoins? Or go to a bank and make a wire transfer or WU transfer (which is, I assume, more expensive for large quantity of transfers than paying for CC)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm aware that bitcoin will have trouble succeeding if people don't start using it for normal transactions, but I wouldn't spend any bitcoins right now due to the price volatility. That $10 I use to buy a domain name could turn into $100, or maybe even $1000 dollars at some point.

<comment><USER6> That's the sunk cost fallacy talking. If you spend $10 on a domain name, you have $10 less with which to buy exposure to Google shares, bitcoins, yen, tulip bulbs, or Magic the Gathering cards. This is true regardless of how you decide to settle the transaction.

There are variants of your complaint which are much more dangerous to bitcoin. For example, suppose I hold no bitcoins and wish to either purchase or sell a domain name. Should I effect the transaction in dollars, or should I use something a little less boring, like Google shares, tulip bulbs, Magic the Gathering cards, or bitcoin? Well, most people wishing to buy domain names or sell domain names have access to dollars very quickly, but getting into or out of fractional alpha Black Lotuses depository certificates (FABLDC) takes a roundtrip of a few days and requires you to go either long or short FABLDC depending on whether you're buying or selling the domain name. You might, sensibly, not want to be either long or short FABLDC just to sell domain names, because a) price volatility, b) transaction costs (not just the vig you're charged when going to/from FABLDC by the various FABLDC exchanges but also the overhead of installing FABLDC payment code, explain FABLDC to your accountant, and self-insure for the risk that your FABLDC are stolen from the technology company you trust to manage them for you), and c) why worry about FABLDC in a world where money exists. (In a world where money didn't exist, FABLDC would be, quite literally, one of the most impressive achievements ever.)

n.b. I apologize to techies of my acquaintance who might assume, by construction, that I am comparing bitcoin to fractional Black Lotus depository certificates. Sorry for the implication -- it's mostly an extended rhetorical device. Like you, I also believe that alpha Black Lotuses are worth more than nothing.

[edit: Ah fudge, someone beat me to this metaphor on HN: [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5487050](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5487050) ]

<comment><USER7> > That's the sunk cost fallacy talking.

There is no sunk cost for a cost that hasn't been made yet (buying the domain). If you're referring to the "cost" of buying bitcoin then that isn't a sunk cost either (actually no cost at all since it's an expense for a semi- liquid asset that you still possess). So the parent is right to take opportunity costs into account, especially in case of deflationary currency.

<comment><USER8> I believe patio11's point is that the opportunity cost of a domain name is the same regardless of which currency you use to buy it. If you use Bitcoins, you have less Bitcoins. If you use dollars, you have less dollars to convert into Bitcoins if you think they will appreciate. Your net position in Bitcoins need not be affected by your choice of currency for this particular transaction.

<comment><USER9> I think that's right. But then, if you don't want your bitcoin position to change, and you have no need for its other features in this transaction, then why use bitcoin? The OP's point stands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the other participants, a VPN provider, lists your new IP and implies it is from Switzerland.

[https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/bitcoin- friday-2...](https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/bitcoin-friday-2013)

While the majority of sites list that IP as swiss. Some list is as Iranian:

[http://www.lookip.net/ip/220.127.116.11](http://www.lookip.net/ip/184.108.40.206)

If it actually were Iranian, then paying in bitcoins would be an effective way around the sanctions. If only Iran were more tech savy, then they could cater to the bitcoin early adopters and provide VPS, domain services, and the like.

<comment><USER11> Wait, let me get this straight. So in Iran where most people are tech savy enough to use external VPN or proxy services to bypass the government firewall you suggest that they offer VPS and domain services to anonymous bitcoin users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's awesome that they are accepting bitcoins BUT I wouldn't pay with bitcoins. Why? Well last week I bought some bitcoins through coinbase. The rate I paid would have be $65 for .1 BTC. Coin base takes 4 days to process your order. (I know right can you believe it?) but by the time I got the BTC credited to my account (yesterday) .1 BTC = $85. So the cool thing is I made $20 for nothing for each .1 BTC so why would I let some COMPANY make that instead of me?

I'll be happy to spend bitcoins after six months of small price variation (which I bet is a year after they run out of new coins) but until then they are staying air gapped on my rasb-py SD card.

</comment><comment><USER13> I used Namecheap's Bitcoin option to purchase a domain. The instructions were straightforward, and after your transaction is approved by the network your balance will appear on their site.

Why did I use Bitcoin? Partly as an experiment and partly to avoid questions at work, I registered [http://SecureDropDemo.org](http://SecureDropDemo.org) under a pseudonym. It's a demo of what you see if you leak documents through the SecureDrop whistleblowing platform, usually only accessible over Tor.

</comment><comment><USER14> So, I think bitcoin sort of shot itself in the foot with the low number of total bitcoins. I think if the actual $ value per bitcoin was more in line with the dollar, people would be more willing to spend them. Yes, you can spend fractions of bitcoins, but for instance here namecheap wants at least .1 bitcoins deposited. Currently, that's what, $80? why do I want to give them $80 when all I really want is 1 $10 domain? How about a 100/1 split :-)

<comment><USER15> > why do I want to give them $80 when all I really want is 1 $10 domain?

To qualify for the promo? They don't enforce a minimum purchase for BTC... I have bought several individual domains from them in BTC.

What is the point of a 100/1 split? Moving the decimals over is completely arbitrary, since you'd just have 6 decimal places at the end instead of 8.

<comment><USER16> I think a split would motivate speculators currently mentally deterred from the idea that this virtual thing is "so expensive". They'd rather own 60 coins than 0.6 of a coin.

Here's this virtual coin that a low level speculator can't even buy a full instance of. That has to put off a few people.

<comment><USER17> To achieve similar effect, some people are proposing changing the default unit to mBTC, uBTC, or satoshi. While it is not splitting, it should have similar effect. Instead of saying they own 0.6 BTC, they'll say they own 600 mBTC.

<comment><USER16> This is what I had in mind. Interesting to note that it's getting suggested already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Great that they are supporting bitcoin but encouraging people to deposit coins to build a balance at namecheap is the wrong way to go about it. Bitcoin's sweet spot is in making payments trivial, no need for a balance held on their servers.

If you want to use bitcoin, you cannot trust third parties to hold your coins for you.

<comment><USER19> They do have deposits for USD too. And I like this feature. I have a small deposit with namecheap (around $100) and it's good if I want to register my next domain instead of going through the CC transaction thing.

<comment><USER18> Deposits for USD are fine. If that gets stolen then their insurers and their bank's insurers will rectify the situation. Perhaps namecheap are offering the same protections for bitcoin deposits, I haven't looked at their TOS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> man, can't wait for the headlines about "bitcoin kwanzaa"</comment>


The private sale of guns online  is virtually lawless - <AUTHOR> http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/politics/216689-the-private-sale-of-guns-online <comment><USER2> The more I read articles like this, the more I realize that the war on drugs parallels the new war on guns. The outcomes will also be similar: when you restrict or outlaw something that people really want, they will just go to the black market.

3D printers are getting cheaper and cheaper and you can actually make a real gun from it. While these guns aren't that desirable or accurate, it's only a matter of time before they are. So what then? Are we going to ban 3D printers or make a person get a license??</comment>


Nobody thinks they're an enterprise - <AUTHOR> http://java.dzone.com/news/nobody-thinks-theyre-an-enterp

<comment><USER2> When I learned J2EE, I spent a while scratching my head and wondering how the word "Enterprise" related database abstraction layers, messaging systems, and Web services to one another. I finally concluded that "Enterprise" was marketing-speak for "costs at least $10K, so the person who decides whether to authorize purchasing the software is at least two levels removed from the people who actually use it".

Not that there's anything _wrong_ with licensing software for at least $10K -- I work for a company that does -- but collecting it all under the "Enterprise" label seems uninformative if not pretentious.

<comment><USER3> You're not truly an Enterprise class software maker unless your apps cost at least $100K</comment></comment>


Show HN: BOOLR, a digital logic simulator - <AUTHOR> I am a Dutch high school student and last year I had to do a large project of my own choice. Together with two other guys I decided to do a project about digital logic. We had an ambitious plan: building an 8-bits computer.
At that time I started learning programming and I already knew some HTML and CSS. So we decided to not build a physical computer, but one running in a self-built simulator. I was going to build the simulator, the other guys took care of the computer.
I was hard, our school hadn't taught us anything about computers and programming so we had to learn everything ourselves. Our mentor told us our project was impossible to do, but we didn't listen and we worked hard.
After a year we did it, I have built the simulator, called BOOLR, and the other guys have built the 8-bits computer, called Tineke. Our mentor was really impressed, we got a 10/10 grade.
I've created BOOLR with JavaScript and Electron, the UI with HTML & CSS.
<comment></comment><comment>-
About & Download website: http://boolr.me, feel free to download it and play around with it, it has a tutorial mode to show how everything works.
On Github: https://github.com/ggbrw/boolr, I'm new to programming so don't blame me for the ugly and messy code. Next year I am going to study computer science so I hope to learn more about organizing and optimizing my code, but I am really proud of the result. </comment><comment><USER2> This is absolutely brilliant! After looking at the demo video, I'm at a loss for words to describe how fantastic the user interface looks and how easy it appears to build components. I'll definitely have to find time to play with it.

One small suggestion: think of a student who only has access to the code on github and would like to create their own version to see how it works. (Perhaps, for some reason, the site boolr.me has been taken down.) Can you think of simple steps to write to your README file so that this student could get started?

</comment><comment><USER3> Awesome project! I know we don't like to take credit here in the Netherlands, but you should certainly add a small bio of the team members. Take pride in your work ;)

I read that you plan to study CS next year. If you are going to the TU Delft, send me a PM. I can introduce you to a couple of professors and their research groups.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! I am actually going to TU Delft next year :) Would be really awesome if you could introduce me! How can I PM you in here?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very nice! I just finished "Circuit scramble" on Android and will be able to create my own diabolical levels ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> Pretty slick for what I'm assuming is your first big project.

Tangentially related: do you think your mentor might have been indirectly encouraging you by telling you it was impossible? I've been on both ends of that trick and have seen mixed results. Any mentors here who have done something similar? How did it go?

<comment><USER6> I do this with some of the students I mentor, but it must depend on the students personality.

A rebellious student will be challenged by being told they're not allowed to do something.

A prideful or intellectually vain student will be stirred to action by being told something is impossible.

A timid student can be stirred into action by telling them you see greatness in them.

But you really have to get to know them before you decide which method to apply in a subtle matter, as an incorrect choice will be deleterious

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Beautiful piece of software. UI is simple and intuitive. You guys will go places.

</comment><comment> m-j-fox Nice work! You know EDA is big business and for some reason their UI uniformly sucks. You should talk to Cadence about doing the front end for all their tools. You'd make millions and more importantly end an epoch of suffering.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is amazing work! While watching the video, my jaw dropped when you selected "componetize." I'm looking forward to playing with this.

</comment><comment><USER9> Always wanted to do that. Very nice project and UI; congrats !

</comment><comment><USER10> Congratulations! It looks great!</comment>


Squirrel Programming Language - <AUTHOR> https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Squirrel <comment><USER2> Given that Lua and Squirrel are quite similar due to meta tables resembling each other, what does Squirrel provide compared to Lua except for the C-Style syntax?

<comment><USER3> It's hyper-optimized, small, and can be multithreaded or multiplexed trivially, but that's true of lua as well. The array thing gives it a leg up in speed as well, as does 0-indexing. Finally, its gc algorithm doesn't have cpu bursts (it's not "stop the world"). I don't know of Lua has this feature, but it makes the language ideal for real-time applications. Like games.

<comment><USER4> What does it mean by a language can be multiplexed trivially?

<comment><USER3> You can run multiple interpreters, embedded in the same application, in separate threads: multiplexing, as you have multiple instances, as opposed to multithreading, where you have a single instance.

<comment><USER5> Is that what [https://github.com/rvirding/luerl](https://github.com/rvirding/luerl) is doing in the erlang VM?

From the docs:

> It should give you a Lua environment that allows you to effortlessly run > tens of thousands of Lua processes in parallel, leveraging the famed > microprocesses implementation of the Erlang VM. The empty Luerl State > footprint will be yet smaller than the C Lua State footprint.

<comment><USER3> Yes. Lua does it quite well by default. Apparently, luerl aspires to do it better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Official site:

[http://squirrel-lang.org/](http://squirrel-lang.org/)

Similar:

[http://wren.io/index.html](http://wren.io/index.html)

<comment><USER7> AngelScript too:

[http://www.angelcode.com/angelscript/](http://www.angelcode.com/angelscript/)

<comment><USER8> Also Lily [https://github.com/jesserayadkins/lily](https://github.com/jesserayadkins/lily) recently discussed [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12015158](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12015158)

<comment><USER9> Lily's design is actually pretty unique; it feels a lot less "me too!" than the others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please could you explain to me, if Squirrel is "similar to Lua, but uses a C like syntax", why I wouldn't want to use C or Lua instead?

Is this about Steam? If not, is this (even) faster than Lua? Is it easier or safer than C? Am I missing something? You better have something seriously good to offer if in your first breath you're pitching yourself alongside the very best of both interpreted and compiled languages.

<comment><USER11> You would use this in the same arena you'd use Lua, not where you'd use C. That is, you want something more flexible than compiled C for your particular application.

Why you'd use it over Lua, I haven't figured out yet, but I don't use either so I have no basis for comparison.

<comment><USER12> Actually, there are arena's where C is replaced by Lua (with LuaJIT) see OpenResty / Nginx with Lua. Where the normally C plugins to nginx are implemented with lua.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you're changing the syntax, why not take the time to fix having to use `local` everywhere instead of making things local by default?

<comment><USER14> Presumably the author of Squirrel agrees with (one of) the authors of Lua: "Local by default is wrong" [1].

"The problem is that without local declarations, you cannot say where the variable is local to" [2]. Take Python, for example, where "local by default" means "local to the current function". Variables are created in the current function's scope on assignment, which causes 2 problems:

1\. It is awkward to modify variables in outer scopes, because an attempt to assign to them creates a new variable. Python works around this with the `global` and `nonlocal` keywords.

2\. Python does not support variables which are local to the current _block_ , for example, the body of a loop.

[1] [http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-10/msg00056.html](http://lua- users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-10/msg00056.html) [2] [http://lua- users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-10/msg00063.html](http://lua- users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-10/msg00063.html)

<comment><USER15> If Lua did the decent thing and insisted that you declare every variable first, it wouldn't have this stupid problem. Squirrel should probably do it, too. Python certainly should! (Even _Javascript_ , misguided as it is in so many respects, has strict mode!)

This sort of static checking massively increases the amount of code you can look after without going insane. Add static types too, and you're even better off.

(Last time I used Lua, I modified it so that all variables had to be introduced before their first use, either using `local', or a new `global' keyword. More static checks, and no more accidental globals.)

<comment><USER16> Lua's metatables are very powerful, and there's actually a tiny implementation of "strict mode" for Lua [1]. I do agree that static checks like these would help the language for serious applications. I recently got back into Lua a bit and the first error I made was omitting "local".

[1]: [http://metalua.luaforge.net/src/lib/strict.lua.html](http://metalua.luaforge.net/src/lib/strict.lua.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've played with Squirrel years ago and its a really nice language. But in the end, I went back to Lua because of LuaJIT.

</comment><comment><USER18> The 2008 WiiWare game "Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King" was implemented in Squirrel.

</comment><comment><USER19> I've also run across Squirrel (or a variant of it) on Electric Imp (an IoT/embedded platform): [https://electricimp.com/docs/squirrel/](https://electricimp.com/docs/squirrel/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Better to see the actual documentation at: [http://squirrel- lang.org/squirreldoc/reference/index.html](http://squirrel- lang.org/squirreldoc/reference/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Ron Gilbert is using Squirrel as a scripting language in the game Thimbleweed Park [1]. For someone developing games for as long as he has, I think it lends some credibility to it (though I would still evaluate it before I choose to use it for my use cases).

[1] [https://blog.thimbleweedpark.com/text_tron_3000](https://blog.thimbleweedpark.com/text_tron_3000)

<comment><USER22> I really appreciate his examples. I feel like it's a great example of experience seeing the value of a first-order iteration process, but making sure that the technical debt accrued is easily remedied by an automated process that has already been worked out. TLDR: the value of the speed obtained in accruing technical debt, and the wisdom to ensure that you don't have to really pay for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> New programming languages need really compelling, upfront "why this new language" arguments.

I love the idea of new languages but there's plenty of good ones out there so there has to be a super good argument in my face explaining why.

</comment><comment><USER24> I interviewed a candidate a year ago who said their preferred language was 'Squirrel'. This was my first interview ever I thought maybe I was being pranked. Was pretty straightforward to read though.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's also the scripting language for the Irrlicht rendering engine.

[http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/](http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/) (seems down at the moment)

</comment><comment><USER26> Does anybody remember Quake C?

</comment><comment><USER27> Why is it called Squirrel?

<comment><USER28> Squir-Rel who came from Superman's planet, you know.</comment></comment>