The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech - <AUTHOR> http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/ <comment><USER2> The trend of outrage posses armed with pitchforks and torches in politics, gender debates and whatnot is particularly worrying for those of us that need some slack and don't deserve to be crucified by an angry mob because we used the wrong word or said the "wrong", e.g. politically incorrect thing; even as most of that crowd of the offended know very well no actual harm was intended, they still choose to dramatise the situation for their own political or psychological needs.

This is why I defend freedom of speech and freedom to offend, because I know that I am somewhat on that autistic spectrum and can say things that might offend some people, and that even though those people know deep down inside there was no the intention to hurt or say bad things, they still want to make a point out of it. Having a strong feeling about something doesn't make you right. Emotional drama can make you an asshole, too.

I can pretend this is merely about ideological matters, but in all honesty, my stance likely finds its true origin in my own neurological "layout" and life experiences – as probably counts for anyone who has a strong opinion about something.

People who are somewhat on the autistic spectrum tend to have an affinity for rationality and some difficulties with emotions and "group-feel", and it's sad that this irrational polarising climate isolates them more and makes them avoid others as much as possible.

We really need to get away from this mindset of: the other side is wrong and they are nazis and hence deserve bad things happening to them and we will get you fired and come and rape you and an angry soapbox SJW will piss in your shoe.

It's the 21st century, get your shit together, no matter what side you are on or what crazy thing you believe in.

<comment><USER3> You have overgeneralized the description so it's meaningless.

Those with coprolalia also say 'the wrong word or [say] the "wrong", e.g. politically incorrect thing; even as most of that crowd of the offended know very well no actual harm was intended', yet they do not receive the "pitchforks and torches" treatment, to repeat the phrase that you have to "dramatise the situation for [your] own political or psychological [need]."

You are, of course, talking about metaphorical torches. Those marching with real torches recently had very different views.

I defend the freedom of association, which is a necessary balance to the freedom of speech. Without both, there is no liberty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is the hypothesis that seems important for the article - that civilization was mostly advanced by lone neurodiverse geniuses - actually true? Sounds dubious, but who knows. At least modern science seems to be a very collaborative affair.

Was there ever a poll or study to find out if university faculty as a whole actually is scared to offend people or threatened by some hypothetical PC police? I would imagine that the debate is only relevant for the social sciences anyway, since you shouldn't have opportunities to offend people in more technical subjects anyway.

<comment><USER5> No, but it mainly points out that _some_ of the people which are globally seen as geniuses that advanced the world, with names that are written down in the history books - Newton, Einstein, Jobs - all had neurodivergent disorders.

It indicates that those people wouldn't have fit in in modern universities, but I don't know enough about those people, whether they were politically incorrect or whatever. I know Jobs was a dick (based on reading a biography), but again, not sure if that would've been different if he lived in the age of college speech rules or code of conducts - I think he wouldn't have given a fuck and would've done his things regardless.

The article mentions Newton too, who, or so I read recently, published some pretty blasphemous stuff - e.g. agreeing with the Copernican view of the universe - but managed to add some nuance and such at the end of his treatsie, making sure to point out that God works in mysterious ways and such.

<comment><USER3> "Newton, Einstein, Jobs - all had neurodivergent disorders"

There are many people who claim that.

Is it true?

Because every time I've looked into it, it comes across as wishful thinking. It's almost like "<famous person> paid attention to detail and didn't have a normal social life so must have been on the autistic spectrum." What are the diagnostic tests for evaluating neurodivergent disorders of historical figures, and how accurate are they?

Next, I don't know how you can say those people "wouldn't have fit in in modern universities".

First, there's the obvious problem the historic Newton of 1700 could not be employed by a modern university, so you mean something different than that. What do you mean?

Second, there are two issues: going to college as a student and doing research at a college. Jobs went to Reed College for two years, but unlike Einstein was never a professor.

Third, Einstein went to the Swiss Federal Polytechnic. Einstein was able to live under the strict policies they had in 1896. Why wouldn't the modern Einstein not be able to live under the modern Harvard restrictions?

("Strict policies"? I quote from [http://www-history.mcs.st- and.ac.uk/HistTopics/ETH_history.h...](http://www-history.mcs.st- and.ac.uk/HistTopics/ETH_history.html) :

> the Polytechnic's governing bodies maintained strict discipline and punished > transgressions accordingly. Polytechnic students were not granted the same > freedom as their University counterparts, both with regard to academic > matters and expected code of conduct. As a result of these differences a > rivalry between the two different cohorts developed, which even led to duels > [5, p. 106-109]. In 1881, partly due to a petition by its alumni association > GEP, the Polytechnic revised some of its regulations. Students were given > more flexibility in their final year of study, ... More comprehensive > reforms were only implemented in the early 20th century.

That is, even during Einstein's time, the Polytechnic required stricter discipline than Swiss universities at that time.)

"The article mentions Newton .. agreeing with the Copernican view of the universe ..."

You have confused Galileo and 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' with Newton.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Newton also wants to publish Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, to > explain the laws of motion governing the universe. But his literary agent > explains that he can't get a decent book deal until Newton builds his > 'author platform' to include at least 20k Twitter followers

Is this really a thing? Can authors nowadays be required to have a strong social media presence?

<comment><USER7> If you're a Harvard professor, you'll find someone to print your book. No worries.

For others, it could obviously be something that makes it easier to find a publisher. Not because it somehow proves your PC-credentials, but simply because it's sort-of proof that you have an audience.

<comment><USER8> Harvard has _its own press_ for this sort of thing. They produce all sorts of books with tiny print runs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is one more hidden bias, which (IMHO) have much stronger impact for aspies - application forms and grant proposals.

Even though officially it's all about merits of accomplishments and ideas, almost always there is an expectation to deliver it in a form of "sales pitch". So, any honest and straightforward presentation is unlikely to stand a chance with one full of "soft bullshit" (e.g. promises to cure cancer, create universal quantum computer, etc).

<comment><USER10> Not only that, as you undoubtedly know, but the implicit social expectations and judgments are strongly present even in supposedly objective areas such as courts of law.

I don't remember all the specifics and I've lost most of the references since then, but I've read some research on this, and regardless if you are a victim or accused for a crime, if you have ASD you are at a massive disadvantage.

One example: Research appear to show that while people with ASD commit violent crimes at about the same rate as the general population, they are incarcerated at a much higher rate. I've seen numbers between 2 to 4 times the incarnation rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article already fails with it little thought experiment. Because if there's one thing we can probably agree on it's that freedom of speech today is larger than it was in 17th century England.

Since he was able to publish back then, he would be able to publish today.

Other than that, this is just the slippery slope again, although I appreciate that they throw in Newton–considering he's arguably the inventor of the slippery slope.

<comment><USER11> The Newton example is not about free speech but rather his behaviour, actions, and perceptions of non academics. The example given implies that he would be able to publish, but he wouldn't be able to get a decent (i.e. well promoted, popular) book deal. The example of Newton at the beginning of the article is a little thought experiment where we consider how having odd or off coloured views, or behaving strangely is treated differently by the outside of the academy. Such a thought experiment leads me to think that in the 17th Century it was easier to be a genius, odd, socially awkward mad professor than it is now. I don't know what it was actually like back then, but I do know that today the academy is in the spotlight more than it was when I was in it.

<comment><USER12> But it's a really bad example. In real history, Newton was able to keep quiet about views that would have gotten him fired and possibly imprisoned. Most of the "weird" Newtonian stuff the author is referring to are things Newton kept private, not stuff he published; we only know about them because of work done by historians in the 20th Century.

In particular, we know from Newton's private writings that he had strong Unitarian tendencies (that is, he doubted the validity of the Trinity). Had he made those views public, he would certainly have been fired and possibly suffered worse. (By the late 17th Century, it was illegal for Oxford or Cambridge to hire or even teach people who weren't proper Anglicans; denying the Trinity would have put Newton into this category.)

<comment><USER13> It's also a bad example because "Greek alchemy, Biblical cryptography, fiat currency, Jewish mysticism, or how to predict the exact date of the Apocalypse" are not the sort of thing which are censored by even the most ardent proponents of political correctness today.

They might expose him to _ridicule_ , but that's actually an integral part of free speech, as well as being far less onerous than the explicit bans on the religiously unorthodox having any involvement in academia in Newton's time

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thank goodness we are still able to make the case. The only alternative to free speech is violence. I want to be able to hear what the alt-right has to say, what Islamic extremists have to say, what misogynists have to say, etc.

<comment><USER15> Hoping that's not a sarcastic comment (it's hard to tell online).

I want to be able to hear what all those people have to say, so I can try to persuade them that they're wrong.

<comment><USER14> Not sarcastic.

Yes, persuade people they are wrong where they are wrong; learn from them where they are right (we are all fallible). Persuade _other_ people that they are wrong; teach other people where they are right. Plus an unlimited number of other possible responses.

>I can try to persuade them that they're wrong

That assumes you know what their ideas are. If present trends against free speech continue, it's not a luxury you're necessarily going to have.

<comment><USER15> Yes, learn from people where they are right as well - +1 to that. It might be that they're none of the horrible things people claim and are just victims of unfortunate name calling or mud slinging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Pure BS. Newton wouldn't be able to publish through a modern Harvard because nothing would be new. Recall too that the publication of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was completely funded by a private party, Halley.

"Sooner or later, he would say 'offensive' things that get reported to Harvard and that get picked up by mainstream media as moral-outrage clickbait."

Again, BS. Newton was an anti-trinitarian. He believed that worshiping Christ as God was idolatry. And he was a fellow at _Trinity College_. Had he mentioned this, he would have lost his job, at the very least. (It would have been a powerful weapon for the Leibniz side during the so-called calculus wars.) He even managed to get the job requirements for his position changed so he wouldn't have to lie about his beliefs.

Instead, he kept his heretical ideas secret that it wasn't until long after he died that others had an clue about them. In other words, "picked up by mainstream media as moral-outrage clickbait".

He was used to it then, and he would be used to it now.

<comment><USER16> > Pure BS. Newton wouldn't be able to publish through a modern Harvard because > nothing would be new.

It's a thought experiment. Hypothetical modern-day Newton would have some hypothetical novel discovery.

> Instead, he kept his heretical ideas secret that it wasn't until long after > he died that others had an clue about them.

It's true that Newton kept some of his religious views secret, but he made other controversial views known and was widely regarded as a misanthrope. Had modern university speech codes existed back then, Newton would have likely been fired over some controversy. As a result, science would have advanced more slowly.

That's the article's core argument: University speech codes filter out many eccentric geniuses, reducing the quality of ideas and slowing scientific progress. It's something I hadn't considered before, and I'm hard-pressed to find a good counterargument. It's definitely not dismissible as, "Pure BS."

<comment><USER3> It's a thought experiment using an ahistoric Newton as a straw man to fit the argument.

An argument by an author who likes to make lists of famous people who are conjectured to have Aspergers ... I write "conjectured" because most of those assignments seem more based in hope than any historical reality, as pointed out in the comments to the essay.

Thought experiment: university speech codes allow other types of geniuses. Modern science is highly collaborative, and misanthropic lone geniuses like Newton will do little to advance most fields, but much to retard them by creating an environment which rejects geniuses that don't wish to be in a misanthropic environment.

See, BS handwaving is easy!

<comment><USER3> To follow up, Newton can be characterized various ways, including "English academic around 1600", "possible Asbergers", and "possible asexual".

The argument is something like "Newton was neurologically atypical and the Newton of the 1600s couldn't manage the speech codes at modern Harvard therefore the speech codes at modern Harvard discriminate against the neurologically atypical."

However, replace "neurologically atypical" with "English academic around 1700s", which could include Hooke, Boyle, Halley, and many others. Would _they_ be able to be at a modern Harvard? I suspect not all of them would.

On the other hand, the author lists many scientists "who seem, given biographical records, to have been on the autism/Asperger's spectrum." Two are Barbara McClintock and Alan Turing. I selected them because I have read biographies about their lives.

Would they be able to be at a modern Harvard? Almost certainly.

So it's not obvious that rejecting Newton implies rejecting all those who are on the autism/Asperger's spectrum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The article is unreadable on Chrome on Android; after load is complete, the related-articles div fights with a pop-in div for control, both of them rendering repeatedly on top of each other and continually yanking the scroll to the bottom of the page.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's funny how you're arguing a case where an angry mob "crucifies" the poor sap who accidentally used a wrong word, when the actual event that kicked off this debate was an actual angry mob, with real torches, honest swastikas, and loaded semi-automatic weapons who not-so-metaphorically ran over a completely non-threatening young woman.

The people marching and screaming "Jews will not replace us" also don't strike me as the autistic type abhorring "group-think", considering their enjoyment of shouting hateful slogans in unisono.

And lets not get into your contention that these peoples' only fault is somehow being "too rational". Just take a look at any photos from that rally and decide for yourself if they seem to be the sort of people who got an extra helping of rationality. Hint: some of them have face tattoos.

<comment><USER18> This was posted on the 18th of July. The Charlottesville rally is not relevant.

<comment><USER7> Edit (previous, sarcastic comment below): I belief it is disingenuous to try to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. I also felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that direction.

In addition, I feel there are two mechanisms in play here that undermine an honest debate: First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. It reminds me of the "movement for ethics in game journalism" that had nothing to do with misogyny, no sir.

Secondly, the debate is moved to some other subject where people will agree with the idea that it would be absurd to, for example, censor something like the Principia Mathematica. That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. The underlying idea is, once again, the slippery slope, or some sort of inability to differentiate things that are obviously different.

(Previous reply mocking the objection regarding the timeline: "At the moment I posted, my post did not yet exist, nor did your objection to it. Therefore, I will refuse to take it into consideration.")

<comment><USER19> >First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally.

I'm sorry but I'm really having a hard time understanding your reasoning here. Are you really suggesting that the majority of people on HN who are defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville are doing so because they actually agree with the message those neo-Nazis and white supremacists are spewing? If this is what you believe, then please just come out and say that anyone defending this type of speech is in fact a neo-Nazi. You talk about mechanisms that undermine an honest debate but in the very next sentence you essentially argue that anyone in support(I'm adding an edit here to clarify: I mean support for the right to this kind of speech, not support for it's actual content) of this kind of objectionable speech is a Nazi in disguise. That certainly seems like undermining the debate to me. I don't like this kind of character assassination in disguise. Either be willing to call people out as Nazis and white supremacists, and back up your assertions, or give them the courtesy that they might be taking a stand in defense of a principle they actually believe in regarding speech, even in cases where they disagree with contents of said speech.

I personally don't believe a reasonable person can be a neo-Nazi and thus I have very little interest in arguing or engaging with these types of people. When it comes to free speech I tend to fall on the side of having fewer restrictions on speech, although even here my views aren't really set in stone and do change on occasion. With that being said, unlike my views on Nazism, I do think reasonable people can disagree on the issues of where to draw the line on speech. Again, while I personally fall into the less restrictions camp, I don't think its unreasonable for someone to want restrictions on certain types of speech and thus I don't automatically assume those arguing for these restrictions are authoritarians in disguise. If you think this makes me a neo-Nazi I would prefer you just come out and say it, this is of course in the interest of "honest debate".

Edited for spelling and grammar.

<comment><USER8> > defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in > Charlottesville

I have become suspicious of which kinds of speech and which contexts people choose to become vocally defensive of.

In the context of "what can you say without being fired by your employer", there are people fired every week for trying to organise unions at work. Somehow there isn't the same outrage from HN at _those_ people having their free speech impaired.

(Random example in case people claim this doesn't happen: [https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers- alleged...](https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-allegedly- fired-union-activity-reach-settlement-seiu) )

It's not that people supporting the free speech of Nazis _are_ transitively Nazis, but people doing so ought to take a good hard look at themselves and why they choose to spend their time and energy on this cause rather than others.

Not to mention that there really are a lot of dedicated Internet trolls constantly probing the velociraptor fences of exactly how close to Nazi ideology they can get on any given platform without being spotted.

<comment><USER19> Interesting, so now we've gone from labelling people Nazis if they vocally defend specific free speech rights, to being suspicious that they might be Nazis if they don't vocally defend other specific speech rights, speech that may concern topics that might never get to the front page of HN resulting in widespread discussion?

Again, personally I tend to fall on the side of the government having less ability to restrict speech but it doesn't really bother me if companies want to restrict the kind of speech their employees can engage in at work, or what kind of speech they'll allow on their platforms. This gets trickier in cases where the companies might have businesses that approach what I would consider a utility, but that's a different topic, and really that has more to do with regulating companies as utilities.

I'm not positive in this, but I do suspect that if stories like the one you linked found themselves on the front page for hours at a time, perhaps if some Googlers tried to unionize and they were all fired, we would probably see quite a few people be defensive of their right to speech. I doubt we would see a complete overlap, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we would see some overlap in the posters defending their speech rights with those defending the speech rights of neo-Nazis. I suspect we might also see some posters who think all Nazi speech should be outlawed but think this kind of unionization related speech should be protected.

You're of course correct that these topics do tend to bring out the trolls, but on a site like HN I tend to find it relatively easy to identify trolls, even if not through a specific post they make, a quick glance through their posting history often reveals whether they are engaging with the community in good faith.

<comment><USER8> A quick check reveals a discussion of Amazon unionization, which has no mention of speech at all. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566059](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566059)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7559869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7559869) somewhat old, one comment saying "It will be interesting to see whether the people rallying to Eich's free speech rights despite his homophobia will be similarly impassioned about rallying to yours despite your rejection of serfdom."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14905937](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14905937) Nissan: not very highly voted, probably never made it to front page. No mention of speech.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973506](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973506) fired for speaking at DEFCON: astonishingly, nobody bothers with the "free speech" argument.

> suspicious that they might be Nazis if they don't vocally defend other > specific speech rights

If someone only bothers to make the "free speech" argument in that context? I'm going to infer some things from that.

<comment><USER19> Those are all good points, and I don't have much to rebut.

I guess the only thing I still take issue with is the notion that so much can be inferred not just from which topics people comment on but which ones they don't. Especially if that inference comes with the tacit accusation of Nazism.

Again, going by my own experience, I tend to be pretty limited in the topics I comment on. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I don't have a ton of time to browse HN so the most likely topics for me are those that are on the front page long enough for me to see. Second, I'm no where near knowledgeable enough to comment substantively on the more technical topics, which leaves me with the more social/political ones. At the same time I don't want to get into the habit of commenting extensively and only on those topics since I don't think that's good for the community. Thirdly, if I'm being honest here, my lack of education and poor writing ability is a constant source of embarrassment, I try very hard to formulate my ideas into coherent comments and I suspect it takes me much longer to do this than it does for the average HN user. I try not to make quick low effort comments, but the alternative requires a pretty serious time commitment on my part.

The main point I'm attempting to illustrate here, possibly quite poorly, is that I already feel I have to be very careful in my commenting. This isn't a bad thing, it's arguably what makes HN's comment section so much better than anywhere else I've found, but after your comments I now also feel like in addition to making sure my comments aren't too political, or that I'm not only commenting on political topics, and that my arguments are actually coherent, again all good things to think about when engaging with a community, I now also have to think whether someone might mistake me for a Nazi because I commented on one topic and not on another.

This of course is by any measure a pretty meaningless hardship, there are much bigger worries in life, and while I don't think I add much to the HN community, I think we should be extra careful when accusing others of being Nazis. It carries a fairly heavy social penalty, in most places at least, and rightfully so, and can make people more hesitant to speak. I'm not saying this is something you've done, in fact I usually recognize your username and you definitely aren't guilty of this, but I've seen quite a few comments over the last few weeks implying that anyone standing up for certain free speech rights, and in this case I'm specifically referring to government action regarding speech not corporate action, is siding with Nazis.

Sorry if this comment is somewhat rambling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's fascinating to see an article about neurodiversity and freedom of speech with the comments section closed.

<comment><USER5> Just because of all that doesn't mean it's not controversial - that's kind of what the article is trying to point out.

I wanted to share it with e.g. colleagues as a thoughtpiece, but decided not to because of what it might say about me.

<comment><USER20> Still, I'd imagine someone who publishes an article defending the extremes of freedom of speech would not have the comments section closed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> They lost me when they used the word "Inquisition".

We have a need of unbiased discussion. This is not it.

<comment><USER13> A quick Google suggests the author was subject to a bit of adverse publicity for tweeting "Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth" and continues to publish and teach at the same institution after making his excuses and apologies and getting a formal warning.

It's a sad irony indeed if it's people frowning on that comment that's lead him to lecture everyone else on [censorious academic culture] arbitrarily deterring marginalised people from study.

<comment><USER21> The Author is Autistic. It's likely he didn't realise what we was saying was offensive until after the fact.

<comment><USER4> And is it a bad thing to let him know it is offensive? If he can't comprehend it naturally, maybe he can at least learn.

I guess you could make a case that people who are diagnosed to lie on the autistic spectrum should get a bit more leeway from the administration with regard to disciplinary action (because it's not really their fault), but what else are you gonna do? Give them a free pass? I don't think that even has much to do with the feared political correctness anymore.

<comment><USER21> No, but do we let him know by educating him, or should his "lesson" be getting fired from the University or facing disciplinary action that is likely to worsen his condition? Hopefully he will take legal action against the universities policies if it's the latter on the grounds of unfair disability discrimination.

<comment><USER4> Seems hard to judge which of his statements are caused by his condition and which by him just being a vocal and opinionated person in general - but I guess that's a point in his favor because if that distinction is hard to make, it's probably better to err on the side of free speech instead of trying to figure out what's typical and what's atypical behavior which gets a free pass.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What advice would you give yourself looking back on your journey? - <AUTHOR> Got a lot to learn, unlearn, relearn. No time to waste. <comment><USER2> "Stop being so arrogant! You need people!", that would be one thing I would tell my past self, right after I smacked him upside the head.

Be humble, trust win, trust lose, trust again. Adapt to the market, don't think it'll adapt to you!

Also, the real meaning of life is to find your creator, not make millions of dollars. When they bury your sad fat rear end in the ground, all you've made goes to someone else. The afterlife is a part of life. Read Acts 2:38.

<comment><USER3> This reminds me of the story of dying wish of the billionaire(?) Edward Reichmann:

He died in Jerusalem after a long illness at the age of 80 years old. He was a real estate tycoon who had become a billionaire. When he passed away, he left a vast fortune worth billions of dollars. He left 2 wills directing that one be opened immediately and that the other one to be opened 30 days later. Among the instructions left in his first will was the request that he be buried with a certain pair of socks he owned. The Reichmann children immediately brought the socks to the (religious) burial group, requesting that their father be buried in them. Of course the group refused, reminding the family that it is against Jewish law. They pleaded explaining that their father was a very pious and learned man, and he obviously had a very good reason to make this request, but the group remained firm in their refusal.

The family frantically summoned the burial group to the religious courts where the great Rabbi explained to them "Although your father left that request when he was in this world, now that he is in the world of truth, he surely understands that it is in his best interests to be buried without the socks."

Mr. Reichmann was buried without his socks.

30 days later, the second will was opened and it read something like this: "My dear children, by now you must have buried me without my socks. I wanted you to truly understand that a man can have a billion dollars, but in the end, he can't even take along one pair of socks!"

<comment><USER4> It was Paul (Moshe) Reichmann and his children said that the story never happened

<comment><USER3> Mythbuster! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A few things.

* Don't necessarily trust, without thorough vetting, those who made money extremely quickly and claim to truly understand business. Being successful at business and understanding business can and often are very different achievements.

* You can entirely do it on your own, you don't need anyone else. [1]

* You cannot entirely do it on your own, you need a partner. [1]

* Maybe my greatest business insight: the longer it takes to find revenue to less likely you will be to find revenue or profitability.

[1] These are not mutually exclusive. For me, I needed to realize that I did not have to be trapped by a partner. And I also needed to realize I should not be trapped by doing things by myself. Picking the right partner is essential whether in business or just in life. I have been lucky to find them in both cases.

</comment><comment><USER6> Stop working on random side projects after work.

Do what you enjoy in the evenings.

And if you still want to do a side project then work on it and market it for maximum of an hour every day but for, at least, a year before starting a next project.

<comment><USER7> Ack. I had this thing where I would feel guilty in the evenings for not working on side projects.

I was getting up at 6am and doing the dad thing for my two kids getting them fed and ready for school. Walking the dog at 8am and then working from 9am to 5-6pm. Then I would do the dad thing again, until the kids went to bed at 7-8 pm. Spend an hour or so with my wife and then stare bleary eyed at a load of terminals and code until 11-12pm, feeling guilty that I was not the next greatest individual creating cutting edge tech.

Now I have a no work policy in the evening. I still spend time on learning new tech, but I do this for short periods during the working week / hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Don't waste time. Don't abuse alcohol. You wouldn't shoot heroin, so for the same reasons, don't 'fall in love' either. You think of yourself as frugal, but you aren't even close. Save your money. Don't speculate on stocks. Buy the smallest house you can find. Meditate. Don't interact with people at all while emotional."

<comment><USER9> Very good.

I'd add don't smoke weed much either. Ya I know, it makes you more creative and no one has ever overdosed on it etc. etc. But not many who achieve a lot smoke it habitually either. Except Snoop Dog maybe but that's probably not the career you are going for. The "creativity" is often not quite as valuable as it seems at the time. You'll spend a lot of time down dead end paths before you realize how dead end they actually are.

Don't speculate is huge. If I had the money back from when I was younger and thought I was very clever and going to make a quick mint through this or that I'd be quite pleased.

I may disagree about falling in love. The effects can indeed be bad but it can also be more than worth it. This reality is about a lot more than how much we can accumulate in life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of my college professors once said "I am the primitive of my way." It has taken me a long time to realize that people who are currently "successful" are not necessarily people I should try to follow in the footsteps of. It is better to try to stand on their shoulders and see farther than they could, so to speak.

They aren't where they are because everything they do is brilliant. A lot of what they do can be improved upon. Admiring their accomplishments is fine. Trying to understand their success is fine. But assuming that they are unequivocally _better_ than me in every way is problematic and simply not true.

I wish I had gotten the memo sooner that other people in positions of influence or whatever don't necessarily know more than me or have better answers than I have. It is a lot more complicated than that.

</comment><comment><USER9> -People are more important than anything else but they come and go. They are still more important than anything else.

-Don't get lost in the weeds. It's easy to let small things that are immediately interesting take precedence over more important things.

-You won't be what you are now in 10 or 20 years. You'll think differently and have different abilities. Age comes before you know it. Remember this always and don't think you have it all figured out because you never do.

-Work hard but take it easy. Don't let stress over little shit destroy your long term productivity (see lost in the weeds section). It's a marathon not a sprint.

-Things change fast. Plan for the future but do so loosely because you are probably going to have to re-asses shortly enough.

-A little a day for 10 years is worth more than a lot for 1 year in terms of what it gets you. Saving, learning, all those thing. Don't plan on big windfalls.

<comment><USER2> _It 's a marathon not a sprint._

That is a good one. Very true.

<comment><USER11> It's a marathon not a sprint; so start now

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Learn about yourself - what motivates you, what are your limits etc. This way you'll know if some goals are realistic or just pipe dreams.

To expand on that, let's say that you want to become an uber-programmer, like John Carmack. In his own words (paraphrasing), "everyone can do it, all resources are available online, you just need sit and do it". While this is technically true, the reality is that he seems to be extremely gifted when it comes to sustaining focus when working on abstract/technical tasks (while your average developer starts checking out after 4-5 hours). If you're like that and read about people like him, the conclusion is that you're like a short person trying to compete in NBA - technically feasible, but the odds are against you.

</comment><comment><USER13> Taking something personally - e.g. what happens to you, or how someone treats you - is a choice. Choose not to take everything personal, because things rarely are.

</comment><comment><USER14> Find the right people with who you enjoy working instead of assimilating corporate culture.

Stand up for your real values and stay true to them.

Don't just learn something, but publish, write, talk, demonstrate what you have learned. It helps build a public profile.

</comment><comment><USER15> Direction of energy is more important than anything else.

Who do you give energy and to what tasks? Make sure it's good.

</comment><comment><USER16> Your kids should have priority over your side projects. Yes, you're going to get interrupted a lot. Welcome it rather than resenting it - you are privileged to be able to now spend your time on something more important.

</comment><comment><USER17> Whatever energy you have left to feel guilty about "not doing enough", reinvest it into letting go. Don't take being bored, in the moment, and content. We've unlearned these very basic things in this contemporary age.

Make a goal because it's a good exercise to start the journey. But just follow your heart after you start walking because if it was meaningful, you will find some way to incorporate it into your life.

Go slower. Enjoy the things you could only in university; there's no need to graduate earlier; you can work while going to school, but you cannot go back to thinking like a student after you've started working.

</comment><comment><USER18> Well-roundedness is overrated. Focus focus focus.

Invest as early as possible. Don't throw away money on flashy material crap.

</comment><comment><USER19> Few worthwhile efforts are ever successful on the first attempt. Failure is just another useful metric. It has nothing to do with guilt.

</comment><comment><USER20> You don't always have to know the answer, just understand the question.

</comment><comment><USER21> Trust yourself.

Take care of your health.

If it's not working for you, walk away.

Have fun. If you're not having fun, change things.

Deal with fear and anger. They're useful, but only if you take positive action. Let them fester, and they will destroy you.

There are no guarantees.

TANSTAAFL

</comment><comment><USER22> It's ok to set impossible goals as long as you get going in that direction....like walking toward the horizon, you can always see farther the more you walk.

</comment><comment><USER23> Rather than looking forward to the next big thing, and trying to hype myself up over a random idea, look back: what are your greatest memories, successes, and create more of them.

</comment><comment><USER24> Move to the US for work. I'm Canadian and have probably given up hundreds of thousands of dollars because of not moving sooner.

</comment><comment><USER7> "Just say no."

</comment><comment><USER25> Relax

</comment><comment><USER26> 1\. Set up priorities

2\. Focus

3\. Take a break

</comment><comment><USER27> eat healthier.</comment>


Improve your Linux battery life with tlp - <AUTHOR> http://www.jonathan-petitcolas.com/2014/08/22/improve-linux-battery-life-tlp.html

<comment><USER2> It's a good tool. If you have a thinkpad, there are extras that can be installed to support battery charge thresholds, etc.

My x220 idles at around 6.5 Watts with wifi on, bluetooth off.</comment>


Retroviruses 'almost half a billion years old' - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/9051.html <comment><USER2> Blogspam of Oxford press release:

[http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-01-10-retroviruses-%E2%80%98al...](http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-01-10-retroviruses-%E2%80%98almost- half-billion-years-old%E2%80%99)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it's strange that the retroviruses are only half a billon year old. I'd have guessed that they are almost as old as the first cell, but I'm not an expert in this subject.

Do invertebrates/fungus/plante/archea/bacteria have retrovirus? Are they related?</comment>


Valuing high-tech companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/valuing-high-tech-companies <comment><USER2> I worked at a McKinsey once upon a time, and this is exactly how we did valuations. But this article elides the fact that with this kind of model, you can quite literally get any output you want from choosing your assumptions. In my view, it was better used as a "what assumptions would you have to believe to believe in a given valuation" rather than a valuation approach per se. It can be helpful to know that you'd have to have untenable assumptions to justify a given valuation. In any case, I bet the DCF model generates lower values than the private markets are paying, so it's only interesting to such companies in the public markets where you can act on your beliefs by going short.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the comment. Though I am wondering, as a consulting firm not a finance firm, why does McKinsey model and value companies? Are they brought into double check?

<comment><USER4> I worked in a different consulting company.

We're brought in to double check, but also do conduct due diligence and valuation. There's some overlap between financial services and consulting companies. In some deals, you might have a bank on one side and a bank + consultants on the other.

Also, banks are good at doing standard, off-the-shelf valuations. They usually know little about the specific industry and use one-size-fits-all models.

If you want a detailed valuation, taking in account scenarios, industry changes, etc. you need people who know the industry pretty well, which usually means hiring consultants (who either are industry experts, or hire external industry experts).

In some cases, private equity firms also fill in the role of the bank in valuations. I've worked on a multi-party investment deal where one company had consultants (us), another had a bank, and another had a PE firm helping them. Looking at the different approaches and models from each company was a very interesting experience.

<comment><USER5> Exactly. I was a partner at McK and, at the time, valuation engagements were an important line-of-business, both for private equity firms or in tandem with bankers (M&A, IPOs...).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The title uses the word "high-tech", while the article uses "Hot startup", I doubt if Yelp can still be classified as a "Hot startup". Answering whether Yelp is truly "high-tech" does not matters since the article makes no assertion that relies on assuming Yelp to be "High-Tech".

The article is selling standard business analysis, packaged as if it was some kind of brilliant visionary insight. This "Retro analysis"completely ignores new streams of businesses that Yelp is getting into such as Food delivery. These typically have much higher revenue albeit at lower margins, than just advertising. Not factoring it is a gross miscalculation. The article also fails to compare Yelp with Grubhub. Which would have produced a much more realistic expectation.

The article reminds me of this video by Steve Jobs discussing how Marketing & Sales end up destroying companies. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxZofbMGpM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxZofbMGpM)

<comment><USER7> I don't think their analysis "ignores new streams of business". They specifically highlight how the different potential markets should be approximated.

<comment><USER8> Not only that but Yelp "getting into" a new line of business or revenue stream does not mean you get to say "it's a $50 billion market we're getting into so clearly we can add $5 billion to Yelp's value!"

Until it's generating something (e.g. cash on the balance sheet or some other tangible benefit) I don't see how it would affect valuation at all.

<comment><USER9> Totally agree in principle, but it does seem like just "getting into" the food delivery business is a humorously quick way to get a $X00M valuation in the private markets.

<comment><USER6> Well YELP is public. Public markets can also be quite irrational.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Whether this price is appropriate depends on your confidence in the > forecasts and their respective probabilities.

Did I miss something or did the authors not mention a discount rate, or Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)? Unless I'm wrong, a discount factor is needed to calculate the present value, regardless of using a probability- weighted DCF or a simple DCF model.

If true, then without more information on the WACC, the price they state does not only depend on our confidence in the forecasts and their respective probabilities.

</comment><comment><USER11> The target audience for this article is executives at corporate America, who understand very little of tech. It is helpful to understand how the rest of the world looks at tech.

</comment><comment><USER12> For those of you who want to learn more and don't want to waste money on a finance text book, check out Aswath Damodoran's website. Pretty much everything you need to know about valuation finance can be found there, along with a lot of data.

Importantly he has a lot of sample models and calculations which will help make the principles "real" for those of you who prefer details to simplistic high-level concepts.

</comment><comment><USER13> Do analysts ever share their data models publicly? It'd be interesting to see the data and be able to play with numbers along with these kinds of reports.

<comment><USER14> You'll never see any of their data models or data

<comment><USER13> Really? I find it very surprising that investors would follow such guidance without being able to see the numbers. How are businesses who produce this kind of report evaluated? Do people count the number of times they predicted correctly or incorrectly?

<comment><USER15> I have a good friend who worked in investor relations for a tech company that IPO'd. He worked with these analysts and they would send him models. I'm told that most of these analysts were juggling 5+ companies and couldn't devote much time to any particular company without neglecting the others. Due to this, their models were often very poor or were missing large, publicly known items.

Something to think about.

<comment><USER16> Some stories are incredible, for example the Dragon horror story that was featured here a few weeks ago:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/business/goldman-sachs- and...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/business/goldman-sachs-and-a-sale- gone-horribly-awry.html?_r=2)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10994707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10994707)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In my opinion, you can only value tech companies relative to each other, because as a whole their price/earnings ratios are all too high. For example, if you sum the value of the entire solar power industry, you get roughly the value of Twitter. That does not make sense to me.

<comment><USER18> The money is made by being able to predict the future, be that lottery numbers, disasters or the future earnings of companies.

Modelling startups is hard, because there is so much estimation and variance. But the fact that it's hard is why its so important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Thanks for sharing, it's quite handy to see the thought process written down, quite educational.</comment>


The Mobile-Home Trap (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/the-mobile-home-trap-how-a-warren-buffett-empire-preys-on-the-poor/ <comment><USER2> Resident Owned Communities ([https://rocusa.org/](https://rocusa.org/)) are by far the more human option here.

"your home that you own depreciates like a car and you merely rent the land under it and we can raise the rent whenever we want" is a crock, and needs to end.

Resident cooperative ownership of the land is superior in every way, and Buffett should honestly be ashamed of himself for playing this game.

<comment><USER3> _" your home that you own depreciates like a car [...]" is a crock_

I agree the organizational structure of it all can lead to some very bad outcomes, but it's not some grand design that a mobile home depreciates. It's a material good, it wears out. The only reason e.g. a SFH appreciates is because the land is appreciating faster than the structure is depreciating.

<comment><USER4> The value is also affected by perception. Older mobile homes were built with materials and processes that made them more difficult to update and maintain than site built homes. I believe this is largely not the case anymore but the idea that a mobile home has a shorter life span persists.

<comment><USER5> Older mobile homes turned to kindling during extreme weather. Newer ones are built much better because now there are building codes they have to meet. But reality is you pay for what you get.

Newer mobile homes are treated like custom homes. Including being cemented to the floor, permanently. They cost more, mortgages are larger, so banks treat those homes as permanent. Going so far as making sure the undercarriage is completely dismantled and removed. If the owner defaults bank employees have shown up to take possession only to find an empty lot!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Followup article [1] in response to berkshire's response [2]after the article was published.

[1] [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times- watchdog/a-l...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times- watchdog/a-look-at-berkshire-hathaways-response-to-mobile-home-investigation/)

[2] [https://www.omaha.com/clayton-homes-statement-on-mobile- home...](https://www.omaha.com/clayton-homes-statement-on-mobile-home-buyer- investigation/article_7052e0c4-da3b-11e4-8abd-5f0b53380837.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been a real estate broker specializing in this property type for 5 years. I've noticed the trend of large private equity companies like Blackrock buying mom and pop parks and raising rents or redeveloping the property leaving the tenants out in the cold. The cost to move a mobile home is on average $5k - $20k forcing many tenants to abandon their homes. I have a small startup called movemymobile.com that addresses this issue. We currently are finishing up our MVP and should be done within two months.

</comment><comment><USER8> John Oliver (love him or hate him does not matter!) did a video on this issue a while back: [http://time.com/5565832/john-oliver-mobile-homes-last- week-t...](http://time.com/5565832/john-oliver-mobile-homes-last-week- tonight/)

The TL;DR is owning a mobile home but leasing the land (lot) underneath it is a very bad idea and will most likely harm you financially.

More detail: Large funds are buying up mobile home parks and increasing the monthly rent for the lot. Since a mobile home is not really mobile (watch the video) the person living there is trapped. The fund wins even if the resident leaves because they can take ownership of the home and lease it to someone else.

<comment><USER9> There are a million ways poor people suffer for being poor. In my opinion cataloging all million is less useful than working to acquire and protect wealth, by fighting against (and seizing the resources of) the powerful forces that array against them. Onesie twosie banning specific exploitations is not scaleable, and the powerful forces will quickly move in to find other ways to pick pockets to the bone.

<comment><USER7> There are free market solutions to the problem with mobile home parks. Even from an economic standpoint there is a huge inefficiency in the industry to the benefit of the landlords.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Out of curiosity, when the fed rate is almost zero in the US what's a really good rate for a loan there? These subprime mortgages which offer double digit interest rates even _with_ collateral seem pretty extreme. Being poor must be expensive...

<comment><USER11> Here's some historical data: [http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html](http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html)

<comment><USER10> Ah. They are fixed long term, that explains the huge margins. Here we do 3-months mostly so the lenders risk in terms of future costs of their borrowing is near zero. That's why my rate is e.g 1.3%. I have part of my mortgage fixed at a 2y interest rate but I wouldn't want to fix it longer (and I would hate to have pegged my rate pre-2008 to some interest rate based on the expectation of inflation from back then)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Kind of a bummer to see this as I semi rural town with several mobile home parks. They were good places where folks could buy an affordable place rather than rent, and then move up if they could do so later.

<comment><USER13> Thats exactly the trap, though. You are renting and owning at the same time, which is the worst of both worlds - you are more stuck than any average renter because you have this depreciating house on top of land you don't own that is incredibly expensive and time consuming to move and you have no power to ever really move up and just sell the home because its contingent on finding a buyer who is also willing to agree to the rental terms and the landlord has to approve of the new renter before you can sell.

Almost every time it ends up being a rental park where the tenants paid dramatically more into it and can be held partially liable when they leave for huge sums of money they get no value out of. Its externalized costs of constructing apartments if anything.

<comment><USER7> Zanny,

I am working on a startup to change this. Although the cost to move is extremely expensive, a knowledgeable tenant may find the competing park down the street will cover the cost of the move. I know this does not change their situation of being in a mobile home park but it gives tenants options and forces mobile home parks to compete.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone living in a mom and pop mobile home park should seek to lock their rents down contractually even if they end up paying a little more per month now.

</comment><comment><USER15> Sounds like a good old japanese zaibatsu.

</comment><comment><USER16> It seems that this would apply to the Tiny House movement as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Most of the time these are not in mobile home parks.

<comment><USER16> However, it would apply if the residents were renting the land.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sorry, what is mobile home? A trailer in trailer park?

<comment><USER18> Sometimes, but in this context it means a smallish semi-permanent house that's built at a factory, then transported to a site on a flatbed truck. They can be moved, but they usually aren't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This was recently featured on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver [1] which also does a good job of covering this issue.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC8fPQOaxU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC8fPQOaxU)

</comment><comment><USER20> Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough?

<comment><USER21> > Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if > we look close enough?

This arbitrary and dangerous thinking.

But if you really feel like it by all means start looking closely at as many billionaires as you can identify and prove that each of their gains were ill- gotten.

Just please avoid the generalization.

<comment><USER22> I think the question "Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten" is a good question to ask.

There are over 2000 billionaires in the world, and rich people often pay extra for privacy. Learning about all of them isn't a small feat. It's good and proper to have public discussion about such questions before entering research.

<comment><USER23> I would contribute towards crowdfunding for investigative journalism to dive into the finances of billionaires, with the caveat that I'd expect any whistleblower or other awards for finding wrongdoing would be invested back into the enterprise.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The OED and its chief word detective - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22378819

<comment><USER2> What a pity they mention ETAOIN SHRDLU in an article the English language and don't mention why the Linotype machine had the keys in that order.</comment>


Project-FiFo Zero Touch Cloud Released - <AUTHOR> https://project-fifo.net/ztc <comment><USER2> This is fantastic! For non-tech (or even tech focused!) organizations it is very useful to be able to outsource the operation of their cloud infrastructure. Do what you do best, let others take care of the rest.</comment>


Light Table needs a community - <AUTHOR>

I really want to get into Light Table (http://www.lighttable.com/), but even after 3 days of being interested in Light Table, I barely figured out how to usy any of its magical features. I need a place to ask questions, I need great documentation, I need many many many screencasts showcasing its features. What I need is a community.
If you're a lighttable user, and you already know how to use it, please join a few communities, maybe answer a question per week, just help people out. Here are some communities that need more people:
The subreddit, www.reddit.com/r/lighttable (this subreddit is deserted, here I was, thinking the Sublime Text one was deserted...) The google discussion group, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/light-table-discussion Join the IRC at #lighttable on irc.freenode.net
If you're a passionate light-table user, please spend some time on improving the documentation! If you wrote a plugin, please write a blog post or make a screencast on how you did it, or live-stream the making-of! If you really like a feature, write an article, write a blog post, anything! Please write some blog posts, please write articles. This editor has so many hidden features I can't figure out because no-one is talking about them. If you don't have the time to write blog posts, or if you're at work and you're not allowed to stream, or anything else, even a simple tweet will spread the love <3
Light-table would be a revolutionary IDE if only it had a community. Chris (the author of light-table) has the right idea of what light-table should be, because it's based on a talk that changed the way Chris, I and many others think about programming. Chris however, made a crucial mistake from the very beginning of the project, he never invested in a community.
 The talk is available here, http://vimeo.com/36579366 <comment><USER2> I wish they just focused on being the new Emacs. Now it's in an awkward state where it's not Emacs enough for Emacs people but weird enough [in an emacs way] for others.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thank you for posting this. I use Light Table on a daily basis, but don't participate in the community. This is good motivation for me to get more involved. If you have any questions here feel free to ask!

</comment><comment><USER4> > Light-table would be a revolutionary IDE if only it had a community.

Documentation?</comment>


Hacked – Ten years of data from over 200 police departments - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/elijahdaniel/status/1274456796896219136 <comment><USER2> Cant wait for independent research and analysis this will enable. Things like correlating and fishing out systemic examples of [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/us/whereabouts-of-cast- ou...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/us/whereabouts-of-cast-out-police- officers-other-cities-often-hire-them.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone have a torrent hash? I can't find it, and opening that large of a file is absurd.

<comment><USER4> This tweet has a magnet link:

[https://twitter.com/eldstal1/status/1274660276508545025](https://twitter.com/eldstal1/status/1274660276508545025)

<comment><USER3> Thanks, this is it for anyone interested, it has decent peers but is rather slow on DL speeds:

CCCAAD8D8B856C9609137890D5802189D841AD2C</comment></comment></comment>


8760 hours: How to get the most out of next year - <AUTHOR> https://alexvermeer.com/8760hours/ <comment><USER2> First read [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18789591](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18789591), then spread more love.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Discussed here (2016): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13249796](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13249796)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, this has been discussed already but it's GREAT to be reminded. Life moves forward with you or without you. It's best if you make the best of it- even if you don't feel like it.

Important Tip: Reading about things is ok but acting on them is what makes the difference. Get up NOW and start changing your life for the better.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm currently examining my daily routine to be more productive and find the times of day that I am naturally productive. I've read 8760 hours the last 2 years and find some helpful advice.

Side note: I actually like the authors website. I wouldn't mind something laid out like this for my website.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've used this review last year to prep for 2018. Ended up being extremely useful for prepping and orienting the year ahead. Looking forward to using it this year again.</comment>


Preferences for Trains vs. Buses - <AUTHOR> http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/02/the-myth-that-everyone-naturally-prefers-trains-to-buses/385759/?utm_source=wired&mbid=social_fb <comment><USER2> People do in general prefer trains over buses. This article is basically just saying that as you make the buses more train-like by giving them dedicated lanes and more reliability, people start to like buses more. Make them longer (articulated), faster, with dedicated lanes, and basically they start to become like a train with rubber tires. I think that is in fact, confirming people like trains better.

Titles do matter and I have an issue with the title of the article. It's like saying people prefer lobster soup over pea soup, but as you start to add more lobster to the pea soup... people start to like the pea soup... and therefore, it's a "myth" that people prefer lobster over peas. People prefer faster, reliable service with fewer stops - duh.

<comment><USER3> Boses have traffic. People don't like traffic. Trains don't have traffic.

<comment><USER4> Trains also sometimes have lounge cars, dining cars and theaters.

Buses confine you to a cramped seat and if you're lucky there's a tiny bathroom on board.

<comment><USER5> In England some coaches (long distance buses) have tables (seat four people); power sockets and WIFI. They might have a fridge with cold bottled water.

Some buses have WIFI.

<comment><USER3> We have wifi and nice coach buses in the US. Still don't want to ride them over a train. Trains are certainly faster and more dependable in terms of time of arrival.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > people have just used "trains" to mean "good transit" and "buses" to mean > "bad transit." If that's the case, then marketing better buses as something > like trains (or, at least, something other than buses) should weaken this > automatic association.

> But such efforts will fall flat without meaningful investments in well- > designed service: dedicated lanes, reliable peak and off-peak service, off- > board fare payments, comfortable stations or enhanced shelters, or > reconfigured routes, to start the list. A pretty picture alone isn't enough.

I wish the author had taken this further. It's not a "myth" that people like trains over buses, it's true and for really good reasons.

Buses / BRT _are_ "bad transit", and Light Rail (or trains / subways / etc) _are_ "good transit" the vast majority of the time it's actually deployed today. That's not "perception", it's truth. You can use marketing to hide that, but the fact will still remain.

This is intentional -- BRT intentionally comes full of big compromises that Light Rail typically doesn't have. These compromises are what makes BRT cheaper than Light Rail in the first place.

Transit authorities want to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to pay for good service, but they want to pretend BRT is "like Light Rail" to make people think they've gotten good service -- that a route hasn't been shortchanged. It doesn't work that way -- claming BRT is "like Light Rail" is like slapping wheels onto a tent and saying its "like a RV".

The article is right to promote actual investments in transit. But if your going through the investment of making BRT as good as Light Rail (such as 100% dedicated grade-separated routes that can't be impacted by traffic) then your going to incur most of the costs of real Light Rail anyway, so you might as well make the service real Light Rail and get the full benefits of that investment (such as faster transit, smoother rides, much larger carrying capacity, less local air pollution, etc)

</comment><comment><USER7> _The scenes are remarkably similar. This train travels in the same dedicated lane and even has the same style. The only real difference you 'll find, if you look very close, is the faint sign of tracks on the ground._

The faint sign of tracks on the ground... and that the tram is 50% longer than the bus. That's not minor. It's crazy that they went to the extent of designing the bus and the tram to look identical, then just lobbed on another 50% length to the rail.

There are also experiential differences between bus and tram, at least here in my city (which has the most heavily-trammed road in the world). A tram pulls up, and punters can get on from a variety of doors. A bus pulls up, and you can only get on at the front, and have to shuffle your way down the vehicle. Buses are usually a lot more cramped as well - few buses handle a stroller well, though some of the newer ones do.

In any case, if you're running your buses like trams, with their own dedicated lane and so forth... then you may as well turn them into rail vehicles, because they're cheaper to run (both in maintenance and wages) and service more people. Of the two images presented, each vehicle has one driver, but the tram carries 50% more folks.

<comment><USER8> Thank you! I can't believe I had to scroll almost to the bottom of the comments before someone picked up on the length issue.

To add to the already comprehensive list of reasons you gave for tram superiority - due to the electrical drivetrain and bogey system that all rail- based vehicles implement, there is generally more usable room for passengers inside the vehicle, as well as a much quieter environment due to the lack of engine noise. Additionally, the fact that light rail runs on, well, rails, means that generally speaking you enjoy a much more comfortable, smooth ride.

<comment><USER9> I've ridden on light rail - and the 'quiet' feature was noticeably lacking. It was rattling, clacking, whooshing, pitching, vibrating so loudly that conversation was impossible. Whilst a bus is generally pretty comfortable and convenient. So I don't agree on that point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a catch-22 with buses.

Buses would be a lot better if cities had congestion pricing that could greatly reduce traffic delays. Buses would also be a lot better if there were more routes and better frequency.

But people oppose congestion pricing because it would make commutes much more expensive for the poor. But if you actually had it, then the bus would be a much more feasible form of transportation, because it would be quicker. And as it became quicker, more people would take it, and the frequency would increase. And that would altogether be much cheaper for the poor than commuting by car.

So we cannot have good bus transportation until we have congestion pricing. But we cannot have congestion pricing until busses are a much better way to get to work.

<comment><USER11> > congestion pricing

Is that a surcharge for being on certain roads at certain times of the day? It's a good idea if it could be undertaken in a somewhat fair way, are there any well thought out theories that you know of?

<comment><USER12> London has been doing it since 2003.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The problem with buses is that they're completely unpredictable. You might as well not even look at the schedule. There's also the issue of having to purchase your ticket; buses rarely have automatic kiosks as do trains and light rail, and you often have to talk to the operator to get your ticket. Finally, bus routes are byzantine and completely impossible to unravel by looking at a map. Rail systems are much more amenable to mapping, and if you're lost, you can always find a rail stop just by looking under your feet or giving your favorite mapping app a quick scan.

<comment><USER14> None of those problems apply to proper BRT systems. That's the author's point.

<comment><USER13> I don't see how you can avoid delays if you still have to follow traffic.

<comment><USER14> Good BRT systems use tunnels / bridges to avoid traffic. When they do interact with traffic lights, they have priority access.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can only speak from the experience of my own country, but in Ireland

This is the inside of a bus: [http://www.cityswifty.com/SC241interior1.JPG](http://www.cityswifty.com/SC241interior1.JPG)

This is the inside of a train: [https://c3.staticflickr.com/3/2831/9337782850_41264e4fd4_b.j...](https://c3.staticflickr.com/3/2831/9337782850_41264e4fd4_b.jpg)

That should say it all as to why people like trains more.

<comment><USER16> Are those both public transit? Both of those, but particularly the bus, put anything I've seen here in America to shame. (Even _private_ bus transit doesn't look that nice…)

<comment><USER17> (German here.) Both look pretty standard to me. Although I think buses like that are more common for long-distance. Most buses for public transit I've seen have more space for standing people:

[http://www.bahnreiseberichte.de/050-Rottalerland- Thueringen/...](http://www.bahnreiseberichte.de/050-Rottalerland- Thueringen/50-003Bus908-Innen.JPG) [http://www.eifel-rur- bus.de/seiten/nachrichten/2007/nachrich...](http://www.eifel-rur- bus.de/seiten/nachrichten/2007/nachrichten_2007-02/koof_dnak24_2007-03-10_innen01.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm prone to motion sickness on buses.

Even for people who aren't, I can't imagine the joltiness of travelling in a geared vehicle that's not on tracks is more pleasant than a train.

<comment><USER19> _I 'm prone to motion sickness on buses._

Me too.

Plus, the question is often not trains versus buses; it's about grade- separated versus not grade-separated. Separating the trains from the cars is a huge improvement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Most train systems I've taken don't have to stop at stop lights, but the buses I've ridden, even with a dedicated lane, still stop at the lights. This means twice as many stops and starts. Big negative in my mind. But then again, maybe this is another small improvement which could be made.

<comment><USER21> The stop lights for a train are scheduled such that the train doesn't need to stop if it is keeping to the schedule. This works on both smaller and larger lines.

The stop lights for a bus are scheduled in line with the general car population, so it's pretty hard for the bus to keep to its schedule. There's a lot of work goes into timing traffic lights (for cars), how much of that thought process involves keeping the number 49 on time?

<comment><USER16> I think perhaps what the parent comment meant was more that trains aren't inhibited by normal traffic lights; upon approaching a crossing with a road, the train is immediately given the right-of-way — i.e., the lights activate, the gates close, the cars stop and allow the train to pass.

True, there is a separate signal for the train, though it's more if the train(s) ahead of it are keeping to schedule than the train itself. (Rush-hour trains here are regularly delayed due to the train ahead of the one I tend to ride being so delayed.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have taken a "first class" bus from Framingham to New York. It was less reliable than Amtrak.

"less reliable than Amtrak"

Takes some doing.

<comment><USER7> As a tourist who missed his Amtrak train by minutes in Pittsburgh, I headed over to the bus station. I had no idea you could basically use your train ticket as a bus ticket, and I didn't even finish the sentence "Hi there, I missed my train..." before the teller took my ticket out of my hands and converted it into a bus ticket. A nice surprise - I was expecting to have to do a little cajoling, but I didn't even get a chance to say boo. :) (the bus ride was less than pleasant, though...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Part of the preference for trains is that the sunk investment in right-of-way is a strong disincentive to move or discontinue service. This allows people to feel confident that they can depend on the service to stay there, and invest in the areas around these transit corridors.

Anecdote: I lived in Seattle for 10 years without a car. (A city with surprisingly high transit ridership considering the lack of any sort of rail network, notwithstanding toy trolleys and the lone light-rail line from downtown to the airport.) More than once I moved apartments due to bus routes I relied upon being discontinued or rendered unreliable by drastic service cuts (e.g. instead of all-day service, you now have 4 trips per weekday, peak direction only, and if you miss them you're either making two transfers or walking 2 miles to the nearest direct all-day service. Weekend service? hahaha.)

This doesn't (often) happen with rail, heavy or light. Being unable to depend on bus service in any particular corridor to last more then a year or two without realignment or service cuts made it hard to justify settling down. If I wanted to buy a car and drive everywhere, why pay the premium to live in the city in the first place? In the end, I moved back to a real city where I could depend on the metro.

<comment><USER24> Depends on the city though. Bus routes in London haven't changed for a long time. The buses I used 30 years ago all have basically the same routes. There are probably routes that are over 80 years old. But buses could never be grade separated in London. There's just not enough room.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Light train is still a much smoother riding experience than anything a bus can achieve. Just get your laptop out and try to do something.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra I wonder what would happen if they also included trolleybuses in the mix.</comment>


Open-Sourcing Bit: Exploring Large-Scale Pre-Training for Computer Vision - <AUTHOR> https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/05/open-sourcing-bit-exploring-large-scale.html <comment><USER2> I've been going through the fast.ai course, and pre-training is like witchcraft, it's so spookily effective.

You can take a 15MB mobilenet model, add a layer at the end, fine tune with half a dozen examples of a few different image classes (in a few minutes on a consumer grade laptop), and recognize lots of different examples in real time with a web app reading continuously from a webcam.

The advances made in Computer Vision in the last ten years are mind blowing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting experiments. Too bad they're not releasing the JFT pretrained models. I guess the cutoff point of what's too valuable to share has been reached.

<comment><USER4> GB has been pretty good about releasing models (especially compared to, say, DeepMind), such as EfficientNet.

JFT is the exception. I find JFT interesting so I pay close attention to anything using it, and as far as I've noticed, no model has ever been released based on JFT, going back to 2015 at least when it was much smaller. It's always either held back or the released model is based on public datasets (eg BigGAN - released G was on ImageNet though the paper notes that the JFT BigGAN completely avoided divergence problems, which is very interesting). I've wondered if legal/copyright issues block any release: there's always someone who tries to argue that a model is a derived work, and nothing in the JFT-300M papers mentions having licenses covering public redistribution.

<comment><USER5> I don't think Google has ever released models trained on JFT. But if you're interested in large-scale vision models, you can check out these models from Facebook trained on 940M Instagram images (several times bigger than JFT!)

[https://github.com/facebookresearch/WSL- Images](https://github.com/facebookresearch/WSL-Images)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No comments, probably because everyone is trying to fire up the demo code in colab and trying to make "whose dick is it?" classifiers...

<comment><USER7> Well for my humble needs, the first layers of a pretrained VGG16 were already good enough, so I have little use for yet another even more resource hungry visual encoder.</comment></comment>


Is it OK for fitted-shirt startup to ask for "ethnic" info? - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/can-a-dress-shirt-be-racist-6b74244446e9#.c8at644ox <comment><USER2> The article sort of dances around the core problem: a few broad "ethnicity" categories lacks precision and fails to account for a ton of diversity within those categories.

If you're doing a serious study, I'd keep that question, then add an additional question (probably: "where were your grandparents born?"), and see what the data looks like.

</comment><comment><USER3> A better question to pose might be should we tell alphago what nationality a player is.</comment>


Will Digg.com be sold in 2007? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> Considering Reddit's exit strategy last year, it makes sense to evaluate if Digg will be up for grabs this year. While LinkedIn and Facebook have signalled towards a possible IPO, Digg hasn't. So in your opinion, will Kevin Rose receive his big paycheck this year? Who is likely to acquire them, and for how much?

<comment><USER2> Digg's generated revenue is still nothing to sneeze at (an article in BusinessWeek reports that they brought in $3 million in ad revenue for 2006). I wouldn't be surprised if they held out for quite a while longer.

Kevin Rose seems to be putting a lot of energy into Revision3 right now. Seeing as Digg is a integral part of some of their productions, I think they'd like to retain control.</comment></comment>


California Sues City Over Lack of Affordable Housing - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-to-sue-city-over-lack-of-affordable-housing-11548439811 <comment><USER2> I live in Huntington Beach (HB) so I'm happy to read this on HN! My friend rented a 2 bedroom, 2 bath apt in HB for many years at $1,800 / month. His apt complex was recently sold and the new owners immediately served him an eviction notice as it appears they are planning to renovate and increase rent. He's now scrambling to find a new place in HB with similar rent but 2 bedrooms are going for at least $2,200 / month. There are new apt developments in the city but they are going for at least $3,000 / month. My friend is saying most people who rent these are coming from the mid-west and willing to pay extra for coastal living even if that means having 6 people in one apt.

<comment><USER3> From the Midwest.. ha. yeah right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of city's local newspapers broke this story, and has a very detailed (seemingly) non-paywall article about it:

[http://www.ocregister.com/gov-gavin-newsom-says-state-to- sue...](http://www.ocregister.com/gov-gavin-newsom-says-state-to-sue- huntington-beach-over-affordable-housing)

</comment><comment><USER5> There's an argument for a fifth amendment violation here.</comment>


The Pope of Opium (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://mikejay.net/the-pope-of-opium/ <comment><USER2> I.e., The Popium.

I cannot bring myself to click through to the article because it cannot possibly live up to the title.

If you have read it and disagree, please reply and say so, or why.

<comment><USER3> I found it remarkably interesting. The site itself is a simple platform not too caught up in news site trappings of ad overflow and trackers galore, but with the same quality of writing I'd expect from a more contemporary publication. It has its fair share of pretense, but almost nothing else quite feels right for so thoroughly bohemian of a figure. Do give it a look, it's rather engrossing.</comment></comment>


Mastering Remote Presentations - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/65093919

<comment><AUTHOR> Since we're talking about remote work a lot these days, and I have a remote presentation to make on Saturday, I documented myself and came across this great remote presentation on doing remote presentations.

Also relevant: Google Hangout, [http://presentation.io/](http://presentation.io/) which I both tried out so far.</comment>


"Chloroquine is a Zinc Ionophore" – Zinc may boost (hydroxy)chloroquine - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/ <comment><USER2> All the human cell cultures infected with covid-19 will certainly rejoice... whether it's effective in real cases is completely another matter.

Remember while it's a commonly used drug, (hydroxy)chloroquine _can_ kill you. So whatever you do, don't take it at your own initiative!

Immune system boosted by regular long sleep at night might actually be _one_ of the best ways to avoid this disease. Probably also a good idea to get enough Vitamin D.

The best way to avoid it is of course isolation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Side_effect...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Side_effects)</comment>


In Hong Kong, one protester pulls off his mask and defines a movement - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-hong-kong-unmasked-protester-identity-dissent-20190706-story.html <comment><AUTHOR> I've been thinking about this man all night. He, alone among his peers, took an action with foreseeable and negative personal consequences. Whether spontaneous or planned, he made a choice that may well define the rest of his life, for good or ill.

I took the time to reflect on my own weekend, celebrating America's independence against different totalitarian rule. I spent it with family, safe, free, and relaxed. I couldn't help but wonder if i would have the fortitude of this man, even basking in the freedoms I now, blithely, take for granted. Base rates for humans show that amidst totalitarian regimes, most choose silence and going with the flow. While i like to imagine otherwise, I am a product of my culture - and self-protective.

Yet, this man, on one evening, said "here I am. And this is who I am."

Knowing nothing else about him, he is a hero.

<comment><USER2> It is a magnificent thing to see people defend their civil rights. And it is the rational ting too: given the implications of the extradition bill, a few days on the street will seem a tiny price to pay.

And indeed, given ever growing intrusion into HK by the main land and ever increasing biometric surveillance technology, once on film, I doubt the surgical masks will provide anonymity for all the decades these folks will live.

<comment> T-A > a few days on the street will seem a tiny price to pay

From the article: "He could face up to 10 years in prison, or even abduction and secret detention in China, as has happened to others in Hong Kong."

</comment></comment></comment><comment> git-pull It's hard to draw broad strokes about this. But I really really deeply like HK.

One thing about Hong Kong that's a lot to take in is how western-friendly the culture is. I think there was a western news channel playing while I was on the MTR last time.

I am guessing some may find the rallies annoying. They may view them as hooligans, but even the cynical still are happy with HK being HK.

To understand more about HK system of government, check out the basic law: [https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/facts/index.html](https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/facts/index.html), [https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/index.html](https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/index.html). This effectively serves as the constitution of HK.

And it's a weird thing: Because it's effectively a client state constitution. heh. They have their own judiciary, they have their own case law, but the people of HK cannot amend their constitution.

P.S. I haven't read the latest part of the extradition law they're trying to pass (anyone have it?)

<comment><USER3> This is an older version of the bill: [https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/brief/b201903...](https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/brief/b201903291_brf.pdf)

Before they have amended it, conceding to concerns and up the minimum requirement for an offence to be extradictable from 3 years to 7 years.

SCMP has an infographic comparing the existing process with the proposed one:

[https://multimedia.scmp.com/infographics/news/hong- kong/arti...](https://multimedia.scmp.com/infographics/news/hong- kong/article/3013512/hong-kong-extradition/index.html)

> One thing about Hong Kong that's a lot to take in is how western-friendly > the culture is.

They might be friendly, but often they don't understand it fully. Democracy isn't a silver-bullet that would cure all of Hong Kong's ills. And they're apt to label every change to be an extension of Beijing's reach.

For example, the change in school curriculum. No doubt that some of the content in there is objectionable to me. However, the often thrown around accusation is that singing the national anthem amounts to brainwashing. After emigrating in '95, I sang O Canada during the weekly assembly at school. I'm sure the Star-Spangled Banner is sung at American schools. I don't think a lot of them are aware of that.

Another example would be the customs procedures for the high-speed train in HK, in which they have harangued over and over. Canadian airports suffer from the exactly the same problem - US CBP operates at any Canadian airport. I did raise my concerns with my MP, and she did have an interesting argument. If a Canadian was to be detained, at least it would be far easier to provide support than if they flew into US, and then get detained at the US airport.

Or the case where the HKSAR government moving VJ day to line up with the mainland's VJ day date. Accusations of Beijing trying to erase history immediately flew. Honestly, under the Colonial system, they never taught us anything about that, or about remembrance day (I was there up til Grade 6). In Canada, they have no problems teaching students about it at Grade 6. I didn't even realize the scope of Canadian involvement until I went to the Canadian War Museum.

There is far more background context than a single article could put forth. But it's not hard to see HKers cling to the colonial past, when Hong Kong was economically bigger then, and mainlanders would bend over backwards if a visiting Hong Konger waves around HKD. Now the mainland economy and power is much bigger than Hong Kong, and to be fair, their increase meddling is really amping up anxieties. But it's so easy to focus those anxieties, and forget that the Colonial government shares blame for lots of the current issues plaguing daily lives there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What praise do I give to this oppression (China's influence over HK) where people, even a single person out of many thousands, are terrified of revealing their identity in a protest?

It seems unpopular on HN, but there is something that westerners are missing that makes the phrase "Boycott China" sound racist, ignorant and preposterous. Why is it so "wrong" to properly, sternly and unapologetically criticizing China? Even saying things like "I don't support buying Chinese goods" sound insane on HN. WHY!? Why should people praise Chinese economic progress, lifting middle class and giving a middle finger to IP, Shenzhen philosophy of quick business, etc. at the cost of loss of liberty and freedom, and democracy?

<comment><USER5> The hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters had no masks. The small group who vandalized the Legislative Council wore masks because they knew they were breaking HK laws. Indeed, they would be arrested and charged for such actions in any country, including colonial HK, UK, or US.

While there are plenty of reasons you may dislike the behavior of the Chinese government, I don't think this is one of them.

On another note, I'm not sure why you would admire one of the very few violent extremists who embarrassed the otherwise peaceful HK democracy movement. Just because an extremist is willing to risk jail sentence by revealing his face, he becomes a hero?

<comment><USER4> Accordingly to this logic, Gandhi was an extremist for breaking British law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Googling this man's name (Brian Leung Kai-ping) reveals a number of articles suggesting that he fled to the United States immediately after this event. However, I can't tell whether any of the web sites reporting this news are trustworthy. When I first read these reports I immediately dismissed him and his comments to the LA Times but now I wonder if the story of his flight is propaganda intended to negate his courage.

<comment><USER7> The most notable article I guess is from South China Morning Post ([https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3017530...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- kong/politics/article/3017530/only-unmasked-protester-hong-kong-legco- takeover-has-fled)) and they cite 'a source'.

Also in their article, there are clearly many others in the photographs without masks. So I think his impromptu speech is more important than taking off his mask, but lots of articles cite removal of his mask..

Since this organization has no leader, it would benefit the opposition to paint a leader out of thin air and show faults in him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> that one protester is now "too visible to arrest". China will "take care" of him when the dust settles down.

</comment><comment><USER9> Hong Kong reminds me a lot of Ukraine. They both want to be 'modern', 'western' and 'special', rejecting the 'backwards' ways of their imperial leaders. Unfortunately, their economic success was/is wholly dependant on said leaders, and they're shooting themselves in the foot by trying to break away.

No one in the west truly gives a shit about HK or Ukraine. We give them lip- service, but no one will go to war over it. We egg them on to stick it to China/Russia, and they get fucked.

The fact is, Hong Kong's entire success is due to the fact it was an entry point to doing business with China. Protesters have jeopardized that arrangement, Hong Kong will never see the same level of economic success (relative to China) again. Much like Ukraine which, without Russia as a partner, is now one of the poorest countries in Europe with a GDP per capita half that of Belarus', and a quarter of Russia's.

Hong Kongers want to be special, but they're killing the only thing which allowed them to be successful. After these protests simmer down, the west will forget about them again, having never done anything for them in the first place, and they'll be worse off.

<comment><USER10> >Ukraine which, without Russia as a partner, is now one of the poorest countries in Europe with a GDP per capita half that of Belarus', and a quarter of Russia's.

It was like this before the war. This was a big chance for Ukraine, to integrate with EU and trade with EU mainly not with Russia. Sadly Russian aggression changed that

<comment><USER9> The EU was never going to accept Ukraine as a member and never will, and they did reduce trade restrictions, but EU states don't want Ukrainian products. EU farmers already produce too much food, EU states won't eat Ukrainian foodstuffs since Slavic tastes are so different. The EU also doesn't want any more workers immigrating to richer states.

Also, Ukraine tried rapprochement with the EU after the Orange Revolution, but again, the west only wanted to use them to get at Russia, not to see them successful.

As for Ukraine's economic success, it's always been tied to Russia, and the successive revolutions have not been good for it. That's why every election after failed Euro-optimist governments can't deliver, Ukraine elects a pragmatic President.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [http://archive.is/99QgE](http://archive.is/99QgE)

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if he'll be this generation's Tank Man. Ironically, the situations couldn't be more different.

<comment><USER13> I can think of lots of scenarios in which the situations are more different. Not sure what you mean by that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am wondering what's the consequence if any American destroy the Capitol Building in Washington, will he be shoot before he crush into the building?</comment>


Show HN: Infinity Dashboard for Mac - <AUTHOR> https://fiplab.com/apps/infinity-dashboard-for-mac <comment><AUTHOR> We're super excited to be launching Infinity Dashboard for Mac - a beautifully organized app for keeping track of virtually anything that's important to you.

Our app has over 35 bundled modules, such as current weather, exchange rates, stock prices, countdown reminders, Amazon product price tracking, App Store sales, Clicky web stats, travel times, Zendesk open tickets, Fitbit stats, YouTube subscribers, Facebook fans and so much more. See the full list here: [http://infinitydashboard.com/](http://infinitydashboard.com/)

What's also great is that you can easily create custom modules to work within the app. All you need is knowledge of Javascript and to follow our super straightforward documentation. View our open source Github module repo here: [https://github.com/fiplab/Infinity-Dashboard- Modules](https://github.com/fiplab/Infinity-Dashboard-Modules)

We'd love to get your feedback on our version 1.0 - Anyone can try out the app for free for 7 days. Also, as a thank you, you can grab a 20% discount using coupon code: INFINITY20 if you decide you want to purchase the app :)

Also let us know if you think of a module we should consider adding to the app!</comment>


New Study show house flippers triggered market crash - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/ <comment><USER2> As opposed to the banks that lent them the money... sounds like a shift of blame to me.</comment>


Show HN: The Quibbler aggregates "fake news" - <AUTHOR> https://quibbler.press/#/ <comment><USER2> Seems to be 'stuff that the mainstream media doesn't cover or want you to know' rather than fake news.

From the about page: 'The Quibbler aggregates relevant news flagged as "fake news" by the media. It also provides links to corresponding Reddit discussions. It works by using "fake news" lists like the ones published by Washington Post. It also uses lists of news that is removed from social media.'

<comment><USER3> Looks like mostly fake news to me, with some real news from shady sites mixed in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looking at the "comments" buttons, it feels like this is just reposting highly voted stuff from a number of controversial sub-Reddits? Salaciously presented news is not necessarily "fake". Lots of real stories here, including facts like "Dow Hits 20,000 For First Time in History".

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder what's fake about this story listed on quibbler:

[http://www.dw.com/en/germany-slams-israel-over-latest- settle...](http://www.dw.com/en/germany-slams-israel-over-latest-settlement- expansion-in-east-jerusalem/a-37245765)

</comment><comment><USER6> Just what these stories need... more attention and ad revenue.

</comment><comment><USER7> Here's the solution to the substitution cipher on the "contact us" page, in case you were wondering.

        Hom ckxpt faji yfsrxa ukqlb fgmw hom rzvj edzwn. Hf bmae qm za mrmphwfaxp qzxr kbm hoxb zeewmbb: medxaomwm zh yqzxr efh pfq.
        The quick onyx goblin jumps over the lazy dwarf. To send me an electronic mail use this address: ......... at gmail dot com.

(I left out the username part of the email because I won't post other people's email addresses, but it's easy enough to decode.)

</comment><comment><USER8> Pretty good design. Some of the links aren't "fake" though.

</comment><comment><USER9> Brilliant name.</comment>