The Fleecing of Millennials - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/opinion/buttigieg-2020-millennials.html <comment><USER2> The fleecing affects millennials in that they cannot save and invest their income. Once they've paid their health care and education [1] payments, they have nothing left to save.

Per capita, in 2017 dollars, 1970 Americans spent $1,797 on health care. In 2017, $10,739 [0]. In return on that $9,000 annual investment: Life expectancy rose from 74.7 to 78.6, adding 3.9 years.

In 1993, the annual cost for tuition & fees to attending a UC as an in-state was $5,000. Today, it's $15,000 [2]. That's a 3x increase during a period when inflation was 1.7x. A Gen Y-er would have paid $20,000 in tuition for a 4-year degree. A millenial, $60,000. That $40,000 is money that could otherwise have been saved.

Since those costs were lower as a percentage of income for boomers, Gen X and Gen Y, those prior generations had a better chance to save. Today, they also have highest incomes, and again, can save if that's how they prioritize their finances.

Millennials, not so much. For sure, health care and education affects earlier generations, but they were better able to save in 401(k) plans because the portion of their income that went to health and education was substantially less than for millennials.

[0] [https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s- spe...](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending- healthcare-changed-time/#item-total-health-expenditures-have-increased- substantially-over-the-past-several-decades_2017)

[1] [https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/growth-in- student-l...](https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/growth-in-student-loan- debt-at-graduation-slows-as-borrowers-hit-loan-limits)

[2] [https://www.kqed.org/news/70585/csu-and-uc-tuition-hikes- ove...](https://www.kqed.org/news/70585/csu-and-uc-tuition-hikes-over-time)

<comment><USER3> I think it's worth pointing out here that the terms Gen Y and Millenial both refer to the same generation (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials))

<comment><USER4> You're correct. None of the parent's argument makes any sense in light of this error. I don't understand why the post is being upvoted--the data is outright wrong!

I sense that people may blindly upvote posts reporting figures, especially if they come with sources.

<comment><USER5> Generation X and Millennial isn't really a sharp transition. No generation is, but it is even more diffuse this time since there wasn't necessarily one or multiple "big events" at a fixed date. I don't know if parent's argument is correct, but what is being said is essentially early Millennial, ~1985 and late Millennial, ~1995. Huge difference in many e.g. housing markets. Once people born around the actual millennial gets old enough we might start talking about Generation Z instead.

<comment><USER6> Most people born in 1985 had their income affected too much by the Great Recession to really take advantage of the lower housing prices then.

<comment><USER5> Could be the case for many people. I think the commonality between generations might even be declining in favor of other divides. It is in some ways assumed that many people are starting at the bottom and mostly share paths based on development. But I am not sure that is the case anymore, if it ever really were.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Boomer's may have accumulated a large amount of wealth, but that wealth is going to be hit hard by Baumol's cost disease.

Right now the US has ~4 workers per retiree. That's going to be dropping to about 2 in the next few decades. And despite frantic efforts from the Japanese, the services that the elderly need are hard to automate. These services generally suffer from Baumol's cost disease: nursing et al are very 1:1 jobs with or without the help of technology.

<comment><USER8> It's weird though - my girlfriend studies nursing and Geriatric Nursing is still one of the lowest paid specialisations with poor conditions and respect (compared to say working in the ICU).

It seems residential homes charge the 'guests' loads and pay the staff (carers, nurses, cleaners etc.) very, very little.

<comment><USER9> Hopefully not offending anyone, but it is one of the most manual labor intensive and has some of the lowest educational requirements and cognitive overhead of the various nursing specialties. It also carries lower requisite insurance costs.

<comment><USER5> Also one of the best examples of what you lose in this changing society though. The decline of the middle class in general is of course problematic, but at least some of these jobs weren't worth saving as activities (though probably as careers). However that you can't have sustainable career as a common nurse, teacher or construction worker is a huge problem. Because these professions can't necessarily be paid a lot and also serve the public.

<comment><USER7> Geriatric may be one of the worst paid of the nursing professions, but nursing itself has seen its salaries increase dramatically. Partially due to demand, partially due to increasing responsibilities, and partially due to the equal pay for equal work movement. I know nurses who make well into 6 figures. That's because they work way more than 40 hours / week, with much of that night shift, but even without it's not the horrible pay it used to to. Nursing is definitely a "sustainable career".

<comment><USER5> I hope you are correct. Point still stands that professions like nursing to some extent have an inverse relationship between utility and cost. Everyone can't be a nurses with specialist education, a teachers at private school or a construction worker building luxury apartment buildings. If people do not want to pay more, and probably also lose more in transit, I think it is crucial that you can live a good life at low costs in those professions. Otherwise no one is going be left to care for the weak, tech the poor or build housing for the middle class. At least not with good results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's cute that they call it a fleecing, as if millenials could really have done anything about this.

Sadly (I guess...) I suspect the generation responsible for all of this is going to end up paying some unexpected prices when the time comes as they age out of power and have to look to millenials for care.

<comment><USER11> That's a good point.

However, the narrative of "blame the boomers" is a con.

Blow this off if you want, but just realize that unless you're a russian bot or an ally of the American oligarchs you're working against your own self interests.

The con is blame the problems of one group on another group to separate them and get them fighting each other. This distracts everyone from the real causes of the problems. It's the same as blaming the brown people, which is pretty popular right now too. (Not a coincidence: in both cases the groups have a hard time understanding each other and it's very easy to identify the other group.) Another big one is getting people to identify as Ds and Rs and letting them blame and fight each other. (They are somewhat harder to identify, but the red hats help.)

It's important for millennials to understand this because without addressing the actual problem you are not going to end up with an actual working solution.

You'll go after boomers and still see no improvements. No doubt the people benefitting from the con will say you simply need to go after them harder. Guess what? That other group of people aren't actually demons and anyone demonizing them is bs'ing you, whether wittingly or not.

That's not to say boomers haven't benefited from the current system -- they have ( _generally_ ). But their main advantage there is that they vote. (I don't know the full solution to that, but one thing is we _have_ to make voting easier.)

I think the main problem is the massive money in politics. The people with money have always used it to influence politics in order to get more money. But they seem to have basically won outright at this point, with firm control of congress and the supreme court. The executive is mostly under control. The guy at the top is a wild-card but can be managed and is incompetent in any case.

Anyway, I wish I had a lot of answers but I don't. Just keep your eyes open and don't fall for the con. That's probably not enough to ensure a good outcome, but if you don't it's enough to ensure a bad outcome.

<comment><USER4> > I don't know the full solution to that, but one thing is we have to make > voting easier.

I wholeheartedly agree. We need absolutely zero friction to onboard younger generations.

What does this look like to you? Do we provide an app where people can input their social security, driver's license, or other ID number? How do we keep it from being abused if this information was stolen by a third party?

Ideally we could have something as simple as download -> vote -> submit. And also provide a website version that doesn't even need to be downloaded.

How do we get something like this approved? What states would be the most likely to go for this?

<comment><USER11> > What does this look like to you?

I don't know, really.

An app & web site are great for convenience, but large-scale hacking needs to be very difficult to do and easy to detect and verify... vs. highly motivated & well-funded state-level actors. That's not easy. On a related note, people generally also have to have a level of trust and comfort with the system.

While those "details" are worked out, maybe some enhancements to the existing mechanisms will help...

* pre-paid postage on mail-in ballots? I've heard that the post office will deliver mail-in ballots even without postage, but when the envelope clearly says "postage required" not a lot of people are going to attempt that route.

* Same day voter registration? There's some increased potential for fraud. But it's also the day where all the political officials & volunteers of all parties from big to small are mobilized and watching. It should be possible to have a system for this that is very difficult to perpetrate fraud against it at any scale.

* Make voting day a Saturday or Sunday? (A national holiday is tricky. A lot of people don't get paid when they don't work, it doesn't matter if it's a national holiday or not. And I expect a new national holiday will be largely used for purposes other than the intended one.)

* 6am to 9pm polling hours? This is tough. There are real people working the polls all day, from before they open until after they close, sometimes a long time after. IDK, maybe 6am to 8pm?

* Give people a sandwich or a pizza when they vote? I guess more generally, get food trucks to come out and work the polling places which accept vouchers from the polling place?

IDK. There are surely people who've worked on this for years so my off-the- top-of-my-head ideas are surely hopelessly naive, aside from the ones I've gotten from those people.

<comment><USER4> These are fantastic ideas (many I hadn't thought of), and I'll definitely advocate for them! Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A major contributor to millennials' expenses is housing. NIMBYism will continue to be a contraint to having sufficiently more living units in existing major cities for the foreseeable future.

We should push for building new cities or upgrading existing small ones. We can create them to fit with lifestyles of the young: walkable, bike- and pedestrian-friendly, well-served by public transportation, etc.

Having good jobs nearby would be important. I believe developing new cities close to major universities (in smaller towns) and possibly adjacent to existing job centers would help garner critical mass to kickstart their momentum relatively quickly.

<comment><USER13> It's not just NIMBYism, but also down right selfishness. My parents are retired and live in a house that backs on to an elementary school. What the hell are retired childless couples doing living next to schools?

I'm in the process of looking for my first house and my mother said to me the other day, "why don't you try something out in the country". I have 40 years left to work, why don't YOU move out to the country!

At some point, we're going to have a bunch of vacant schools because all these old farts won't leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone know / remember if there were similar pieces written in the late 90s about people in their 20s and 30s then? Ie is this a trend that has always happened or something new?

<comment><USER15> They were a lost generation for different reasons. A little earlier than late 90s:

The Thatcher/Reagan de-industrialisation through the 80s meant a huge number of children deprived of opportunity as whole regions and cities lost their major employers. In the UK it was effectively the start of our drug problem. Criminalisation had only arrived in the late 60s. Then we got the big recession of the early 90s.

Most of those de-industrialised areas had huge crime and drug problems, lost opportunities and parents who were broke, jobless and without hope. London and the South East was turbo-charging banking so we got Harry Enfield's comedy "Loadsa Money" character on tv, and plenty of market traders becoming stock traders. If you were early into IT you avoided it too.

So London and the South East was mostly OK, the rest, not so much. For those coming onto the job market it was a time of very high youth unemployment and limited chances. By the late 90s it had settled and most were busy spending it.

Some of those hardest hit areas are _still_ not fully recovered. The cities have, mostly.

My father's generation were lost in the Great Depression, then got to go to WW2.

His father's in WW1.

We can learn from history that we don't treat the unlucky at all well, or try and prevent damage to the next generation. Oh, and that we mostly don't learn from history.

<comment><USER5> I am not sure it is the same thing, but maybe in the UK it was. As you say there have always been turmoil. But most of the time the young were seen as getting a better deal. Factories closed and older generations suffered, but the young got other jobs and at least to some extent benefited from the transition. Today we are talking about how young people get it almost universally worse from an economic standpoint and it is people in their ~forties that are winning in e.g. the housing market.

<comment><USER15> That's exactly what I saw then too.

In the 90s recession youth unemployment was over 20% nationally. Can't find any decent regional or city figures now, and the tories changed the way unemployment was measured during that recession, so anything earlier is incomparable. In Scotland, the NW and NE, and probably the Midlands it was well over that.

Apprenticeships had recently disappeared (my generation was probably the last where some got a chance to leave school at 16 and go into a 3 or 4 year apprenticeship, as a few of my school friends did). Instead of going into work with prospects they ended up on long term unemployment benefit, maybe crime or drugs for some. Those who came out of college with engineering or manufacturing related skills find there's loads more chasing the industrial and engineering jobs that remained with poor chances.

Or simply take a dead end job unrelated to their qualifications, because money - the Deliveroo and Uber of their day, and many tried to move, failed, and got the dead end job somewhere expensive (SE). A CV with 5 or 10 years of all the wrong experience for a chosen career. Sure, some made it through unaffected too.

Kids coming onto the job market late 90s were fine, the economy was booming. Still far more so in the SE though. Those in the early and mid 80s mostly were too, unless they got unlucky with employer in the 90s recession, or bet on the about to die skills.

That generation had few chances of being paid as much as mum or dad, buying house or getting a mortgage until late or even the lifetime career prospects they might. Looking at them now, many got to OK. Though much later, on less money, in a smaller house, probably with more career and job switches and a far harder journey. Not a better deal at all.

Sheffield, Scotland and Liverpool probably _still_ haven't forgiven the Tories for those years. Scotland certainly hasn;t looking at election results. Manchester and Leeds are pretty vibrant now, after many years repair and struggle. I don't know, but would imagine the story in the US rust belt would be frighteningly close.

<comment><USER5> Ah, I get what you are saying. Certainly not a good situation either. I guess the UK is a bit ahead of its time on this front. I still think there is a bit of difference though. In earlier recessions there at least seemed to be some recourse. Certainly harder to e.g. study in the UK I would imagine. But when the market turned you could get a chance.

In Sweden we had had high youth unemployment for 15 years (it's "low" now at 16%), but as people study or get a bit older they get work. Today though, it almost doesn't matter what you do. You either have to take a 100 year mortgage, or pay some significant rent, to live in e.g. Stockholm. And if you don't you are looking at declining job markets. It just seems like getting screwed has become ingrained in the system. Heads they win, tails you lose. Things are going well, you pay a lot. Things go bad, you are paid nothing. Maybe that was always the case and it is just easier to be informed now.

<comment><USER15> It was partly because it was policy. De-industrialising kept on throughout the 80s, not while in the recession as would have been the case in the past. Even as recession ends industrials were still being kicked. Kids in sharp 80s shiny suits would turn up on TV news telling us we shouldn't do yesterday's car making, tool making or $niche any more and all go into services or banking. Germany was far more pragmatic about it.

The biggest difference I see is housing. They keep getting more and more absurdly expensive with no signs of stopping. Even in countries far less attached to the idea of ownership than the UK. Which is more neoliberal policy again - public housing is right out of fashion everywhere it seems, even places that once did public housing really well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Medicare and Social Security have been spared from cuts. Programs that > benefit younger workers and families have not.

This is a political incentive problem. Retired people tend to have free time to engage in politics (or at least watch TV all day and get fed "news") and they turn out to votes in droves (as they don't have to e.g. take a day off to vote!), while young people mainly have the power to pull off a shitstorm in social media and that's it, they don't vote enough for politicians to prioritize them over retirees (how can they, when they have to work two jobs to survive and are threatened with losing their job for missing work to vote - no matter if it's illegal, someone depending on the job will NOT complain).

In addition, retirees are way better organized and actually have the free time on their hands to do stuff like mass phone calling of representatives.

<comment><USER17> While I agree that older people tend to vote in greater numbers, the excuse that they do so because they have more free time is just that, an excuse. Early voting and absentee ballots render that excuse irrelevant, regardless of the number of jobs worked.

EDIT: Thanks for educating me regarding some states not offering those options. Although, in those states, I would think most employers would make it easier for their employees to vote on voting day. I mean, I realize that some may not, but that would be the exception not the rule.

<comment><USER18> While his point about having more time is questionable, I think its fair to point out that in some states early voting isn't an option and absentee voting is reserved for military, disabled people, and poll watchers: like Alabama.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is an honest question I have that's tangentially related to this article (everyone on this forum is a lot smarter than I am so apologies if this is a stupid question):

What is the catalyst for any action/change in regards to reversing these trends? I feel like I've been reading versions of the same article for the last 10 years with negligible change.

<comment><USER20> The people in power have to start representing the interests of the millennials. This will only happen when people of that generation are in power, or people in power are being influenced by them.

<comment><USER21> Millennials don't seem to have a clue what's in their best interest so I'm going to disagree with you. If there were any solid ideas coming from anybody in terms of helping millennials those ideas would have political traction. To think that only millennials can represent millennial interests is stupid.

<comment><USER20> We'll have to agree to disagree. Millennial lives and issues are far removed from the current establishment to be completely alien to people in power at present. To be disingenuous enough to believe millennials don't have a clue what's in their best interest is stupid.

<comment><USER22> Considering a majority of millennials support socialism, but also cannot provide a meaningful definition of the term...

I don't think most have a serious position worth considering. I say this as someone lumped in this demographic whipping boy.

There is plenty to be legitimately angry about too. I just don't trust this generation to come up with solutions that aren't literally "let's try real communism. This time it will work!"

<comment><USER20> > There is plenty to be legitimately angry about too. I just don't trust this > generation to come up with solutions that aren't literally "let's try real > communism. This time it will work!"

What makes you feel this generation would go that far? I haven't seen anything that's led me to believe they think this way, in my understanding, they are more aware of and accepting of fundamentally "socialist" concepts such as government assistance and high-taxation. That's a far cry from communism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Federal debt and surface temperature charts are telling because they include 20+ year projections periods--and of course those projections are dire (and bullshit). It's clear the story this "opinion columnist" (bullshit artist) is trying to craft.

To me, net worth by age group is the troubling chart. If I read this correctly, median net worth for all age groups under 44 years old is significantly negative. The scale isn't clear since the chart is indexed. What do you think is the source of so much debt? My guess: student loans and home mortgages.

<comment><USER24> Note that a mortgage should not lead to negative net worth in the general case. Because you own a house, a mortgage with 0% down payment should have no immediate effect on your net worth. There are people who are upside-down on their mortgages, but that isn't the common case.

<comment><USER23> That's true. I misread the chart anyway, so it isn't necessarily saying anything about debt levels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> >Given these trends, you'd think the government would be trying to help the young. But it's not. If anything, federal and state policy is going in the other direction

guess which age group is not represented in congress

</comment><comment><USER26> I filed my taxes with Turbo Tax the other day and they compared my salary to other people my age (27) in my state (Oregon), I didn't double check the numbers but Turbo Tax reported that I made about 5 times the average 27 year old in Oregon.

What I've noticed is that there is a huge inequality gap among millennials as well, a lot of millennials have crushing debt and poor job prospects yes -- but others get a job at FAANG at 21. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as millennials age.

<comment><USER27> What will happen is those that have better options will have kids. Similar to why there are so many people with last names of miller or smith. Both trades were protected to a point by not going to war and having the means to have kids. If we still went with our father's trades as last names, the next generation would probably be full (relatively) of Jane and Joe Engineer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is related to the topic of this interesting book about how baby boomers stole resources from their own children (although obviously the supposed cause is quite different from the article):

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future- Shou...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future- Should/dp/1848872321)

</comment><comment><USER29> Larry Littlefield writes a lot of interesting blog posts on generational equity, mainly with a focus on the US, and New York in particular:

[https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/category/generational...](https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/category/generational- equity/)

</comment><comment><USER30> The first chart shows the trends started around 1978. Someone who was 25 then would be 65 now. And the worst time to be 25ish was the mid 1980s. That cohort is in their late 50s now. So I bet the 65+ line will fall as those who were less than 25 in 1978 start to join that group.

</comment><comment><USER31> The income and wealth plots seem misleading... No one has been aged 25-34 for nearly 30 years. And 65+ life expectancy has gone up.

</comment><comment><USER32> There is an income gap that continues to grow. I think that is the real culprit. Those at the top continue taking more slices of the pie. Bad capitalism is amazingly resilient. After decades of being pushed back on things like unionization, pensions, monopolies and taxes. Capitalism has begun pushing back and winning.

The problem with this beyond the wealth gap is you're going to see an over correction with hard left policies. This is going to be yet another interesting election cycle. I just hope enough moderates remain to create reasonable solutions to these problems.</comment>


iPhone 3.0 Released - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/?3

<comment><USER2> Ars Technica has their usual thorough review here:

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/06/hands-on- review...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/06/hands-on-review- iphone-os-30-chock-full-of-changes.ars)

</comment><comment><USER3> The iPhone 3.0 SDK is public now as well. I'm downloading it now.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is anyone else's update failing with "The iPhone activation server is temporarily unavailable."?

<comment><USER5> Yes, everyone's is: <http://search.twitter.com/search?q=iphone+activation+server>.

<comment><USER6> If you start the update, and then while it is extracting, disconnect your Internet connection, the update process doesn't try to contact the activation server.

<http://twitter.com/JeremyCurry/statuses/2211487905>

<comment><USER7> (I'm confirming that this works)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Now, all I need is PwnageTool/QuickPwn.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm an iPhone 3G customer in the States (AT&T), but I'm in Japan at the moment, roaming on either Softbank or NTT Docomo, depending on the particulars of my location. It's not clear to me exactly what the activation process does after an upgrade; does it need access to the home carrier's mobile network, or does everything happen over the Internet? Anyone know whether upgrading to 3.0 from a foreign country brick the phone until I get back to the U.S.?

<comment><USER10> I'm in same situation. Did you figure it out?

<comment><USER9> No, not yet. Earlier today Apple's activation servers were down, and people got around it by disconnecting from the Internet while updating the firmware; apparently this bypasses the Internet part of the activation at least, c.f.,

<http://twitter.com/JeremyCurry/statuses/2211487905>

(This workaround was verified by multiple people on Twitter and on HN, see other posts in this thread.) So it sounds like there is a portion of the activation that happens over the Internet, but I don't know whether there's also a carrier wireless network activation.

<comment><USER9> I just upgraded to 3.0 from my hotel room in Osaka and it worked fine. I put the phone into airplane mode before upgrading, but after the firmware update finished, it was out of airplane mode and communicating with the Softbank mobile network again, so I don't think it made any difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The iPhone 3.0 SDK GM seed has been available for a while now.

</comment><comment><USER12> Finally!

</comment><comment><USER13> I think I agree with the conclusion: If you already have an iPhone 3G, this update is more than good enough reason not to even consider a iPhone 3G S.

<comment><USER14> I agree, although I'd love to have the updated camera. Andy Ihnatko got to review it early, and he posted some pictures from it to Flickr: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyi/sets/72157619833958006/>

<comment><USER3> His actual review is quite positive on the 3G S:

[http://www.suntimes.com/business/1626818,ihnatko- iphone-3-re...](http://www.suntimes.com/business/1626818,ihnatko- iphone-3-review-061709.article)

I tend to feel like I'm waiting for my iPhone slightly more often, and I'm already bumping my head against 16GB of storage, so I'm sorely tempted - especially now that AT&T has relaxed slightly on the iPhone contract timing.

<comment><USER15> How have they relaxed on iPhone contract timing? An upgrade to a 32GB iPhone is $399, if you qualify for early upgrade and $699 if you don't!

<comment><USER3> [http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/17/atandt-relents-a- little-l...](http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/17/atandt-relents-a-little-lets- iphone-3g-customers-with-upcoming-up/)

(I probably should have said "upgrade timing" and not "contract timing". Either way, my full-subsidy upgrade date is July 12th, so I could pick one up for $299 on Friday.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> smart to wait for a couple of days to weed out any bugs, it's what I plan to do.</comment>


How my sexual health searches ended up in the hands of big tech companies - <AUTHOR> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-23/health-data-shared-with-tech-companies/10521456 <comment><USER3> Last week, I got hit by a car while riding my bicycle. You won't believe in how many colors an upper arm can shine. Anyhow, I took a picture of the arm, shared it to a friend on WhatsApp and promptly got a newsletter from Pinterest promoting tattoo posts. I do not have the Pinterest app on my phone, barely use it otherwise and would never search for tattoos since I'm just not interested.

I've been trying to find out since then where and how Pinterest might have gotten my blue/red/yellow/green arm picture from to analyze it, interpret it and link it to my account. They might be able to search my friend's phone's pictures (in case he's got the app which I'm not sure) and link the picture back to my account. Spooky though.

<comment><USER4> I haven't used Pinterest in years and may have accidentally clicked on a Pinterest result in Google search results and suddenly started getting all kinds of desktop popup notifications from them and don't know how or why.

<comment><USER5> This is probably chrome desktop notifications. The box to enable them on a website looks quite a lot like one of those "do you want cookies?" Boxes, so it's easy to click without thinking about it.

They are (to me) one of the most user-hostile features chrome has added, because it's non-obvious what they are, and how to disable them. You can configure them somewhere in settings (I am on my phone right now).

<comment><USER6> I have the below address bookmarked - easier than digging through menus!

chrome://settings/content/notifications

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had a related thing happen a couple of months ago: I started getting some lower back pain that I thought might be kidney stones based on a couple of Google searches. Went to my doctor, who prescribed a muscle relaxant, which I got at the pharmacy across the street. It went away.

Over the next few weeks I got several robocalls on my cell phone from a pain clinic offering me relief for my "chronic pain", so it was either triggered by my online searches or my doctor's office or pharmacy sold off my private information.

<comment><USER8> Does anyone know how effective incognito mode is at preventing data and privacy abuses like this? I've been using it more and more, but I imagine there may some clever ways of tracking even across incognito sessions (or between incognito and regular).

<comment><USER9> If google is the issue maybe - but I _seriously_ doubt they are the issue: they sell their ability to target you, and selling your data to third parties would essentially be against their interest. This kind of FUD has been repeated ad nauseam here and everywhere in tech sites (against Facebook too usually), but that's not the way their business model works.

If it's your doctor or your pharmacist, or the shop you bought online (or offline) something once, incognito will not help at all. They have your personal information already, the only thing that can stop them is law. The cause of the robocalls may also have been his medical insurance, if you want to go full paranoia. :)

Note those shops, the sites you created an account on, the companies those shops sold your personal data to, all of them can target you with ads on both facebook and google by using your PI (essentially donating your data to facebook and google in the process).

<comment><USER7> When I said triggered by my google searches, I mean the sites I clicked on were able to correlate to my personal details that got collected somewhere else, not that google sold my details. The thing that makes me suspect the doctor or pharmacy, though, is that I've done that sort of search in the past, but I didn't start getting the pill mill calls until I got that prescription.

<comment><USER10> Read the documents doctors have you sign very carefully.

They often include a waiver that allows them to share your PHI with whomever they want.

You're under no obligation to allow them to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Indeed, large sections of the site's privacy policy were updated overnight.

So basically you get caught, so you change the rules. Companies shouldn't be able to violate their own privacy policy, or say they can change it at any time without any warning, especially retroactively - which usually these things are covered in the privacy policy. What use is that?! Why bother having a policy at all?

<comment><USER12> > Why bother having a policy at all?

Because it's legally required.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> One of my "wake up" moments was when I searched for the phone number of a local physical therapy office on Google. Within the day, I started getting Youtube video recommendations for massage techniques to relieve shoulder pain.

Google and all of its employees who make products like this are on the absolute wrong side of history. Society will only take so much before breaking; they need to figure out their business model, and fast.

<comment><USER14> > Google and all of its employees who make products like this are on the > absolute wrong side of history.

A few things:

1\. It takes a fairly high throne to look down on people for their employers issues.

2\. You assume a great deal about what people are willing to put up with for free services.

I think you're probably going to be wrong. Most people will whore themselves out for convenience because they don't care if they get targeted ads in order to get those free services.

<comment> denerio-a WRT point 1 - Wait what? You can work for not-not-evil employers now and all the ethical blame is on the CEO?

> Corporation: an ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual > responsibility - <USER2>

<comment><USER14> Bad or good companies are subjective. My family > your ideals. Sorry man, I'm not going to take a pay cut because of _your_ list of companies that are subjectively bad.

<comment> denerio-a I'm struggling to read your comment as anything but a direct and unapologetic "Fuck you I got mine".

Are _my rights_ as beneath your family as my ideals? And how does the fact that you're not self employed absolve you of this, exactly?

<comment><USER14> You don't have "the right" to no targeted advertising. You have every right to do whatever you legally can to prevent it from happening. Your rights aren't being violated. If I'm knowingly participating in a violation of your rights, I'm culpable. If I participate, knowingly or otherwise, in something that bothers you, you are _exactly_ right fuck you I got mine. I'm not subject to other peoples belief systems.

<comment> denerio-a >I'm not subject to other people's belief systems

You live in a society. Your actions have consequences, and if you can ignore that to get your fat paycheck then I can certainly judge the shit out of you, without a very high chair.

The fact that you claim rational discourse has ended when people invoke the lessons of Nuremberg - "because Godwin's law" - is a stain on, and reflection of your own character.

Godwin compares people to Nazis sometime himself you know, when there's a call for it. When this many people are calling you on it, maybe you should be listening a little better..

<comment><USER14> > You live in a society. Your actions have consequences, and if you can ignore > that to get your fat paycheck then I can certainly judge the shit out of > you, without a very high chair.

My actions don't involve the harm of others, outside of their fragile egos and obsession with what they think should be their rights. I couldn't possibly care less about your judgement.

> The fact that you claim rational discourse has ended when people invoke the > lessons of Nuremberg - "because Godwin's law" - is a stain on, and > reflection of your own character.

The fact that you think an argument about a subject with a variety of opinions deserves comparison to one of the most horrible events in human history is a reflection on your character.

> Godwin compares people to Nazis sometime himself you know, when there's a > call for it. When this many people are calling you on it, maybe you should > be listening a little better..

It's valid when their behavior is something akin to Nazism. Not very many people are calling me on it... on the contrary, my post is getting upvoted. Because the reality of the situation is, targeted advertising is a topic that needs discussion but it has no place in a comparison with the death of millions of people because of their heritage/religion.

It's pathetic hyperbole people use when they can't win an argument on its merits.

<comment><USER15> Unfortunately, you are very very wrong, and World war 2 is a great example why:

Some countries had census data containing the religion of every family. People proudly declared themselves Jewish. When the Nazis invaded the countries, they grabbed the available data and instantly knew who to send to the camps. One reason why so many Jews died was the speed with which the situation evolved. Sometimes there were 2 weeks between 'nothing to wory' and the deportation.

The same principle holds for every big list of intrusive data. Yes, you are grabbing all the data you can only to target ads. Today. But that same data in other hands can block people's access to loan, deny them healthcare or make them look like terrorists.

The US democracy is eroding, fast. It is not that far fetched to see the data ending up with the government: 1) How many data has ended up in a FOIA request? You don't know, as you don't see them. 2) Snowden proved that Google already leaked data to the government without even realizing it 3) An executive order from the US president will give him any access to the data.

And that's just the US government. Businesses sell data to each other whenever they want. Today Google seems not to do it, but one CxO change or bad financial quarter can change a lot here, fast.

Basically, Google is playing with fire, in a political situation equivalent to a big gas leak. Be very carefull.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Further proof, as if any was needed, why other countries require something like the GDPR, backed up be significant penalties, and well-resourced enforcement.

It won't happen in Australia though, as we are governed by fools who barely understand technology, and if they need to, rely on the representations of business to make any decisions.

<comment><USER17> From the perspective of a casual, non-European observer, the only effect of the GDPR that I've witnessed is the explosion of websites being extremely aggressive about forcing me to consent to their tracking cookies.

Where is the real benefit to Europeans' privacy?

<comment><USER18> Are you potentially confusing GODR with the EU cookie law?

<comment><USER19> No, GDPR created a new storm of more fine-grained requests for permissions to store information -- on top of the old cookie-law related cookie popups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I use DuckDuckGo, XMPP, ownCloud, Firefox with bunch of privacy enhancing extensions... My main phone is Maemo based, and I keep one with LineageOS and microG (so no Google Play Services) around as well. I access Facebook and Twitter only via webapps, with isolated wrappers like FaceSlim on mobile. Not only I feel somewhat safer about my data - battery usage, speed and user experience is so much better! Win-win :D

<comment><USER21> Did you read the article? Author says he searched using DuckDuckgo.

<comment><USER20> What this article tries to tell is that using DuckDuckGo is just a one small piece of bigger puzzle, not that DuckDuckGo tracks you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you block 3rd party cookies, can the (exact) scenario described in the article still happen ?

<comment><USER23> Pretty sure yes; after Safari started blocking third party cookies by default a few years ago, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have all started supporting the option to use first party cookies to get around this. As I understand it, they deploy code that stores tracking information on-site using first party cookies, then access that data directly.

[https://digiday.com/marketing/wtf-what-are-facebooks- first-p...](https://digiday.com/marketing/wtf-what-are-facebooks-first-party- cookies-pixel/)

[https://searchengineland.com/google-analytics-adwords- respon...](https://searchengineland.com/google-analytics-adwords-response- apple-intelligent-tracking-prevention-282233)

[https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-apple-intelligent- trac...](https://searchengineland.com/bing-ads-apple-intelligent-tracking- prevention-response-conversion-tracking-290763)

Someone please correct me if my understanding of this is incorrect, I've been out the ad world for awhile (thankfully!)

<comment><USER22> This is terrifying, thx for the answer</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the next opportunity as Internet speeds increase? - <AUTHOR>

I would like to put this out there for you to ponder:<p>In 5-10 years, internet speeds around the world should be double to triple to that of what they are now. As time goes on, I believe 1GBPS will not be uncommon even for a cheap student plan. That being said, what business opportunities will come from such fast speeds of internet. I invite you to think about the size of data, and what could be possible with very fast speeds for all consumers. <comment><USER2> What are you basing the "double to triple" speeds comment on? I haven't found anything relevant to that point.

Notably, in the United States, speeds do have the chance to climb that much (if not more) due to shifting monopolies and pressure from incumbents.

But world-wide? Doubtful. Additionally, are you considering the fact that much of this shift is not likely to take place in the mobile space, where usage is exploding and likely to dwarf any hard-line Internet usage in the coming years?

</comment><comment><USER3> Super fast porn. And kittens. The internet loves kittens.</comment>


Anti-selfconsciousness theory – John Stuart Mill - <AUTHOR> http://theliterarylink.com/anti_selfconsciousness.html <comment><AUTHOR>
      Ask yourself whether you are happy,
      and you cease to be so.

      The only chance is to treat,
      not happiness, but some end
      external to it
      as the purpose of life.

      Let your self-consciousness, your
      scrutiny, your self-interrogation
      exhaust themselves on that.</comment>


Announcement – React Native Conference 2017 – Portland - <AUTHOR> https://shift.infinite.red/introducing-chain-react-the-react-native-conference-37cab9692132#.rlb8i3gw9 <comment><USER2> Portland is amazing in the summer, so if you get a chance to come visit us and attend this conference, please do!</comment>


Things I've learned from running a business (ie: Don't do what I did) - <AUTHOR> http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/599009962631/m/548003192931

<comment><AUTHOR> For some back story:

I wrote the publishing system that powers Ars Technica, with the intention of selling it to other sites. Ars sold to Conde Nast and threw my life into a turmoil. The resulting self evaluation led to this post, and I thought some of you crazy h4x0rs might find it interesting.

<comment><USER2> So you're not part of Ars itself but a consultant to them?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > That's such an unrealistic timeline for a bootstrapped company it's not even > funny.

thanks for this section

</comment><comment><USER4> Great post. Content like this is why I love news.yc.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've made the mistake of taking on work that competes with the startup. It has hurt. People have segued from the "day job" to the dream job but it's likely much easier to do it all at once. PG understands that and funds startups to do nothing but work for at least 3 months.

</comment><comment><USER6> This post has so much wisdom in it, I don't know where to start. So instead, I'll just cite one thing:

 _So I'm now left with a good number of people who'd give me money if I had something… and I don't!_

Bingo! He hits the nail right on the head. There is a certain "binaryness" to a software business (MBAs and vaporware aside). Either you have it or you don't. Period.

Beware spending time on anything besides hacking. Sure, there are a lot of other things to do, but in the long run, all the prospects in the world mean little without a product.

<comment><USER7> Amen! To put it succinctly Enough language wars and bullshit like that. Go out there and build something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Unfortunately, it looks like the ars forums are down. Anybody happen to have a copy? These comments have piqued my curiosity.

<comment><USER9> It's back up - or maybe it's just your part of the Internet that's having trouble.

use <http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/> if you want to check whether it's a local problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have to remember to never to work on any project with "Ars" in the name. It seems they'll always end in tears.</comment>


LC Was Right! Twitter Advertising! - <AUTHOR> http://www.livecrunch.com/2008/04/23/livecrunch-was-right-twitter-is-adding-advertisings/

<comment><USER2> Whoah -- I'm the one who suggested HN when Problogger tweeted on your behalf looking for startup sites. So cool to see you here.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are everywhere arent we.</comment></comment>


To Glenn Greenwald: A Better Response to "I have nothing to hide" - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@aaron_michael_hatch/to-glenn-greenwald-a-better-response-to-i-have-nothing-to-hide-4ee0f0948cf#.37d4ql7tj <comment><USER2> We have nothing to hide from a government whose IRS can decide to confiscate your bank account because they claim it looks like you've been trying to skirt reporting regulations? It has happened, enough that the IRS has announced they'll no longer do this. But _they_ decided to do it, _they_ decided to not do it, and _they_ can decide to do it again.

We have nothing to hide from a government whose police forces can stop your car, pressure you to allow a search, and then confiscate any money found?

We have nothing to hide from a government that has been demonstrated willing and eager to take any law and subvert it to allow just about anything they want to do? A government that routes around the Constitution?

We have nothing to hide from a government that can't even keep personnel records, security clearance investigation records, secure from internet hackers? That right there has to be the ultimate argument; they can't be trusted to keep the information they gather, legitimately or not, from criminals, regardless of any bad intent or not.

I do have something to hide from government: the keys to government.</comment>


Anki-Slideshow: Publish Anki flashcards to the web - <AUTHOR> http://tedpak.com/2013/10/30/exporting-anki-flashcards-to-the-web <comment><USER2> This is really neat. Thanks for sharing! I'll pass the learn.tedpak.com page to med students I know.</comment>


Komiser: Open Source project to monitor your AWS infrastructure and reduce costs - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mlabouardy/komiser <comment><AUTHOR> What do you think guys ?</comment>


How Inmates Play Tabletop RPGs in Prisons Where Dice Are Contraband - <AUTHOR> https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/padk7z/how-inmates-play-tabletop-rpgs-in-prisons-where-dice-are-contraband <comment><USER2> For a semester, I taught in a state prison for a prisoner educational program. Every time I went in, I was struck by how punitively petty so many of the rules and corrections officers were. The environment is carefully crafted to suck out all joy and hope from the inmates. Azkaban with its dementor guards is a pretty good illustration of an American prison.

Guards are as likely to confiscate gaming materials (and punish inmates) for breaking the rules as they are to do the same because they stubbed their toe or someone looked at them funny.

Thankfully we do have some more progressive correctional programs making a little headway like the one I taught for, but nothing about this article surprised me.

edit: I accidentally a word.

<comment><USER3> I'm just giving anecdata here so I'm curious to see if you agree with me. Having known two people that went to prison, my opinion on the system is that I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason. That being said, a lot of people I meet seem to associate going to prison with deserving to live in a hellhole. No one considers the social exclusion itself a hellhole as evidenced by the ubiquitousness of rape jokes about prison. The reason I mentioned that the point about the prisoners deserving it from a legal perspective is because I think this is the point where most people lose sympathy for the prisoner population, it's the moment when they just sort've assume that anything that comes after being found guilty is just more of a reason not to commit a crime in the first place which is a horrific outlook in my opinion.

<comment><USER4> > I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason

Or not, if most of the incriminating information was eyewitness testimony, the #1 cause of wrongful convictions:

[https://www.innocenceproject.org/](https://www.innocenceproject.org/)

MY opinion of the US criminal justice system is that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation) is almost definitely not being followed, with the bias far into the false- positive conviction camp.

Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? In other words, set up a mock situation where you know in advance who is innocent and who is not (because it's a setup), and run a mock trial by all the rules using actual jurors, and compare the outcome of the trial to the actual innocence or guilt of the actor?

<comment><USER5> > Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? In > other words, set up a mock situation where you know in advance who is > innocent and who is not (because it's a setup), and run a mock trial by all > the rules using actual jurors, and compare the outcome of the trial to the > actual innocence or guilt of the actor?

Probably for the same reason most things are or aren't done - some form of status-quo bias. I mean, someone has to think of the idea, push it, administer it, etc. It's a lot of work. And no one really has an incentive to do that work right now.

Btw, your statement isn't really accurate: >> I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason >Or not, if most of the incriminating information was eyewitness testimony, the #1 cause of wrongful convictions:

The fact that eyewitness testimony is the #1 cause of wrongful convictions doesn't tell us anything about the rate at which wrong convictions occur. It's possible for eyewitness testimony to be the #1 cause of wrongful convictions, but for there to be only e.g. 3 wrong convictions a year out of 100k trials. Which would probably be pretty "acceptable".

(I say this because it sounded like you were making the common probability mistake of flipping two things: knowledge of how often a wrongful conviction is caused by eyewitness testimony, and knowledge of how often eyewitness testimony causes a wrongful conviction. Knowing the former doesn't mean we know the latter. Not sure if you're actually claiming this, but wanted to clarify what it sounded like to me).

<comment><USER6> >It's possible for eyewitness testimony to be the #1 cause of wrongful convictions, but for there to be only e.g. 3 wrong convictions a year out of 100k trials. Which would probably be pretty "acceptable".

"It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." Three innocent people being punished is a travesty and in no way acceptable.

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation) actually says that it is better that 10, not 100, guilty go free.

And sadly, in a world of imperfect information, it is arguable that 3 wrongly convicted innocents out of 100,000 trials is "acceptable," because you're never going to get to 100% precision/accuracy.

<comment><USER6> Benjamin Franklin's paraphrase of the principle says 100, which is my direct quote ;D

I don't disagree that it's unrealistic to achieve 100% accuracy, but it should never be accepted - we should never, ever stop striving for improvement in this arena, and to err on the side of letting people go free if it can't be conclusively and impartially proven they are guilty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At the prison I was in (northern Indiana), dice were banned as "tools for gambling" \-- yet playing cards were OK. Yea, it didn't make sense to any of the staff either.

We carved our own out of bars of "state soap" (the cheap Barker brand inmate soap that gets distributed in just about every institution). We carved out the little divots on each side for the numbers and used Kool-Aid to stain them. Some of the older guys who had been incarcerated for a long time were so good at making them[1] that they were damn near indistinguishable from the real thing until you felt them of course (they were made out of soap after all). They actually rolled fairly true as well.

\-----

1: they could also carve out some very intricate chess pieces. I mean these were damn near works of art. You couldn't use state soap for those though, it's far too thin and brittle. You needed the good Ivory-brand stuff from the commissary.

<comment><USER8> What did they carve with?

<comment><USER7> I can only speak for what I saw done first-hand. Some guys used their own shanks/shivs/whatever you want to call it, basically any old piece of metal. This was obviously done in their cells on their own. Much more frequently [and out in the open] though was guys using the plastic butter "knives" that came in the dinner trays (think KFC, individually wrapped sets of 1 plastic spork, 1 wetnap, and 1 plastic butter knife with a kinda serrated edge - though still dull as all hell). For doing the divots we used the end-tip of the long piece on the cap of a typical old-school style Bic pen - this worked extremely well and quick.

<comment><USER9> you had bics? like these?

[http://webcuriosita.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/penna- bic....](http://webcuriosita.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/penna-bic.jpg)

at school we used those as dices directly, notches on each of their six sides, making them roll in a bunch was random enough.

<comment><USER7> Close, but they were more the "older" style Bic pens from WAY back in the days. These:

[http://www.bonvan.com/images/up_images/officepen/229.jpg](http://www.bonvan.com/images/up_images/officepen/229.jpg)

The end of the piece that sticks out from the cap worked just like a tiny plastic shovel

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I guess I can understand the dice ban (sort of?) but the fact that some prisons have apparently have banned games like D&D altogether is bizarre to me. It seems like a healthy, relatively peaceful way to pass time and do something creative. I can't see it having a negative effect that other prison activities don't already make possible.

<comment><USER11> U.S. jails/prisons are designed specifically to make the inmate's life as miserable as they are allowed to by law. Trust me, if jails/prisons could ban books or commissary, they would. What you describe is what the Swedish prison system is all about. [https://mic.com/articles/109138/sweden-has-done-for-its- pris...](https://mic.com/articles/109138/sweden-has-done-for-its-prisoners- what-the-u-s-won-t#.mQMRZKmf6). This is a system designed to make people not only pay for their crimes but to help them rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. Pretty much the polar opposite of the US system of mass incarceration with a revolving door attached to the end.

<comment><USER12> >if jails/prisons could ban books...

They sorta have. If you want to send a book to an inmate, it must be paperback, must be brand new, and shipped from the retailer.

The books cannot have "controversial" material. I've heard of some tech books getting rejected because of "hacking".

I know all of this because I have participated in my local Anarchist Black Cross events which is a prison abolition group. Often times, we would hear about some of the prisoners we wrote to having to undergo solitary confinement for some amount of time for minor rule violations.

The US prison system as a form of rehabilitation is a cruel joke. Prisoners are treated as scum the moment they enter with no rights. Worse, when prisoners leave, they expect the inmates to adjust back to life normally while employers can discriminate against the former inmates, and the government still treats them like scum. Often times, former inmates can't even rent housing anymore and political/social elites act so surprised that homelessness is on the rise.

<comment><USER13> The US prison system is largely a loophole to recreate slavery without violating the letter of the 13th Amendment. [http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/gilmoreprisonslavery...](http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/gilmoreprisonslavery.html)

<comment><USER14> Despite black Americans being incarcerated at greater rates than white Americans, there are far more white Americans incarcerated than there are black Americans.

So if the objective was to re-create slavery, they did a very poor job out of it.

No, our prison system hurts _all_ races: white, black, Asian, native, etc. And sadly -- because of the racism prevalent in US society -- if we want true prison reform, we have to educate people that prison affects _all_ communities, and not just communities of color.

Because there will never be reform as long as around 30% of America's white population believes that prison mainly hurts black people.

Just like it took heroin to finally wake white Americans up to the fact that the drug war is hurting us all, so we must find a way to wake people up to the fact that the prison system is terrible burden to us all. Repeating the false claim that prison is primarily a black problem only prolongs the problem.

<comment><USER15> OP never said anything about race or incarceration statistics -- he just said the prison system is a mechanism to recreate slavery. To Americans, the word "slave" has a very, very particular meaning -- revolving around the nature and history of black people in our country.

But it should not, and _can not_ , not be divorced from the abstract concept of what slavery _is_. Slavery is about power, and slaves come in many forms and fashions. And if you forget that, you'll be made a slave yourself. You don't have to be in chains to be one. This is what OP is referring to -- not that prisons and their systems seek to reintroduce "black american slavery", but to reintroduce, and normalize, the abstract concept of 'slavery' in society, all on its own. That's much more dangerous.

You see it in a lot of places where people talk about the lives prisoners lived, during and after release -- go check the comments on any news article. You'll see how many people think it is "just" that said convict has their entire being and life crushed. That it's good, good that they're a slave, in return for the crimes they committed.

This isn't really very different from what you're saying, in a sense -- that everyone is set back when we lose track of these things. But the difference between "slave" meaning "black american slaves" and "slave as a concept" is an important distinction to draw. There's an important ontological gap, there.

Frederick Douglass took note of this well over 150 years ago:

> The power of the antebellum slaveholding class, after all, resided not only > in its direct domination of black slaves, but in its ability to divide and > exploit an even larger multiracial working class. Douglass knew how well > this system worked from bitter personal experience: As a hired slave in > Baltimore, he was assaulted by white dockworkers with bricks and handspikes. > Yet he remained clearheaded about who benefited from this racial violence. > As he wrote in 1855: "The slaveholders, with a craftiness peculiar to > themselves, by encouraging the enmity of the poor, laboring white man > against the blacks, succeeds in making the said white man almost as much a > slave as the black slave himself…. Both are plundered, and by the same > plunderers."

[https://www.thenation.com/article/the-enduring- struggle/](https://www.thenation.com/article/the-enduring-struggle/)

<comment><USER14> > OP never said anything about race or incarceration statistics -- he just > said the prison system is a mechanism to recreate slavery.

He used the term "recreate slavery", which in this context would mean to re- establish the chattel slavery of people of African ancestry that existed previously in US. And the article he referenced very specifically discussed African-American slavery. So that's what I responded to.

As an aside, Americans of Scotch-Irish [1] ancestry (which includes my own background) are a very vengeful people. This culture, which also has some positive traits (bravery, loyalty, etc), had a huge impact on the general culture United States and its attitudes toward criminal justice.

But if you've never been around rural people of Scotch-Irish ancestry, you'd probably find their beliefs on justice fairly shocking. These are the people who often believe that if someone who goes to prison for a relatively minor, non-violent offense, and is raped in prison -- even if they're a family member! -- that this person "had it coming" or "deserved it". Prison is for suffering, not redemption.

Ironically, these same people are frequently very overt Christians, often evangelicals (they converted en masse from Calvinism--typically Presbyterianism--to Baptist during the great awakenings of the 19th century). But they're definitely Old Testament Christians, with not much use for most of the New Testament (except perhaps Revelations).

Anyway, combine that kind of culture with some of the other factors you describe, and you end up with the prison culture we have today in the United States.

1\. And no, for us it's not "Scots-Irish". "Scotch-Irish" was in common usage when they immigrated to the US in the 18th century, and that's what's been passed down over the years (and it's how my grandparents described our ancestry, which after careful genealogical study was indeed Ulster Scots with a bit of German thrown in): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch- Irish_Americans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_Americans)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Disappointing to hear that some prisons are cracking down on D&D, like the Idaho State Correctional Instutition whose rules are quoted ITA. It seems like a productive outlet to me. Locking someone up for a few years with nothing interesting to do sounds like a good way to make someone come out the other end worse than they were before.

<comment><USER17> > Locking someone up for a few years with nothing interesting to do sounds > like a good way to make someone come out the other end worse than they were > before.

Given the (growing) number of private, for-profit prisons - that would be seen as a feature, not a bug. Because if they leave worse off, they'll likely be returning - thus generating a steady income stream courtesy of taxpayers.

Cynical, yes - but likely true.

<comment><USER18> Do you have any info on the growing aspect of private prisons.

The last time I looked they were statistically insignificant. Even then I don't agree with the concept but if my hazy memory is correct it was close to 5 percent

<comment><USER19> > Broken down to prison type, 19.1% of the federal prison population in the > United States is housed in private prisons and 6.8% of the U.S. state prison > population is housed in private prisons.

> the overall trend over the past decade has been a slow increase

> In the past two decades CCA has seen its profits increase by more than 500 > percent.[22] The prison industry as a whole took in over $5 billion in > revenue in 2011.[23]

> A 2016 report by the U.S. Department of Justice asserts that privately > operated federal facilities are less safe, less secure and more punitive > than other federal prisons

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Development_2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Development_2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have fond memories of playing D&D in the barracks with my fellow "volunteers" during US Army basic training. For those not aware, the conditions for enlistees are very similar to prison. We made a d20 out of wadded up toilet paper and a sharpie that had to be kept hidden until late at night. Our "rulebook" consisted of the hazy memory of our DM who had memorized most of 5E (He also had a separate project going at the time of writing down word for word the entire script of LOTR: Return of the King in a notebook, from memory, to pass the time.). It's one of the few things that kept me sane during that time.

<comment><USER21> This reminds me of the semi-relevant story about the first translation of "The Hobbit" to Hebrew: four fighter pilots who were POWs in Egypt from 1970 to 1973 decided to translate the book so that their non-English-speaking friends could enjoy it too. It took them 4 months, and filled 7 notebooks. Even though their translation was not a professional one, it got published in 1977 and became pretty popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was waiting for the article to mention using those 6 sided pencil stubs in the first image as dice. Seems like a good way to disguise a die.

<comment><USER23> We used these at school. We punched indentations in the sides using a compass point. Obviously _that_ isn't going to work in prison, but you could make marks with a fingernail easily enough. (Of interest, note how the pencil is short in the photo - makes it harder to use as a shank.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Surprised that prisons ban dice but not cards which can be used to substitute for dice.

Interestingly some of the early board games used spinners as dice where seen as sinful, normally by the more hard core protestants.

<comment><USER25> I'm ready to take the hit for asking a very stupid question: why are dice considered contraband?

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow inmates access to dice and real spinners? They're human beings with brains. Wouldn't correction officers prefer that they spent their time playing games instead of thinking of ways to escape or "cause trouble"?

<comment><USER26> The prisons want to ban gambling and currency counters (coins, chips, etc) in order to disrupt the rise of debt-based gang activity.

"The house always wins" turns a prison into an organized structure of debtors and owners fairly rapidly, I'd imagine. And you can't fault the far fewer security guards from wanting to avoid a face-off with a unified enemy.

<comment><USER27> Well, there's no house in non-casino gambling; it's just in the nature of gambling that some people will lose and some people will win, and some people will borrow money to continue to play when they shouldn't. The only mechanism to force repayment of loans without government is violence or monopoly.

<comment><USER28> _The only mechanism to force repayment of loans without government is violence or monopoly._

Nonsense. First, while this is phrased to position government as an alternative to violence, forcing repayment of loans _with_ government involves both violence and a monopoly—a monopoly on "legitimate" violence being the main factor which all governments have in common. Second, government cannot be relied upon to force repayment of loans (e.g. they allow debts to be discharged in bankruptcy). Third, social pressure can effectively force people to repay their loans without resorting to violence. As things stand today, the main factor that keeps people from skipping out on loans is not the threat that the government might get involved, or a more general fear of violence, but rather the impact it would have on their credit score—in other words, the risk of acquiring a reputation as someone who does not repay their debts, and consequently losing access to future credit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Well, they can't ban 1-bit random number generators (e.g. coins) and with a bit of time, you can simulate any of dice used in RPGs.

<comment><AUTHOR> "With a thunderous roar, the colossal red dragon envelops the party in a cruel wave of fire! You each take 24d10 damage, but while I'm sitting here flipping this coin six hundred times please do let me know if you make your reflex save for half..."

<comment><USER30> If you converted the rules to be powers of 2, each coin representing a binary digit, it shouldn't be too bad

24d10 becomes 0-240, so change it to 0-256 and you've got 8 flips (8d2?)

Distribution won't be correct but hey, 8 flips

<comment><USER31> I didn't know the central limit theorem when I played D&D, but it's interesting how massively different those two distributions are -- 24d10 versus a uniform 24-240 distribution.

24d10 is 24 independently rolled d10's, that means we convolute the uniform distribution with itself 24 times and the result will be nearly indistinguishable from a scaled bell curve.

Edit: Click the "Graph" button here to visualize: [http://anydice.com/program/4ddf](http://anydice.com/program/4ddf)

<comment><USER32> I'd like to just add a shoutout for the word "convolve" as the verb referring to this particular action of convolution.

<comment><USER31> Ah that's nice. I took the relevant course in Swedish, where we use the German loan word "Faltung" (turns to faltning in Swedish) for this operation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is a refreshing read that I can relate to personally. I have never been to prison, but myself and a group of fellow soldiers played D&D in army basic training. We drew all maps on notepad paper, played using rules someone either recalled or made up on the spot, and carved bars of soap into dice. It always sticks out in my memory as a great example of how humans can figure out a way to find joy in an _extremely_ bleak environment.

</comment><comment><USER34> This article is extremely well documented. It must have taken a lot of time to investigate the matter. It becomes rare enough to notice this!

</comment><comment><USER35> Or they could simulate dice by each person picking a number, adding them all up, and then modding by 6 (+1). Could lead to interesting results methinks...

<comment><AUTHOR> This would be a variant of Odds and Evens ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_and_evens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_and_evens) ), though Odds and Evens is kept honest by the fact that it's an adversarial game, so there's no point in players colluding to fix the outcome. To obviate any concerns of player collusion you'd need to ensure that the GM is one of the people picking the numbers, and once you've gone this far you actually only need two people to pick the numbers (the GM and one player), which will be just as random as having all players pick the numbers (setting aside the human tendency to pick "random" numbers non-randomly, which is hopefully mitigated by the adversarial nature of the choice). You'd also need some way for the adversaries to prove that they chose their numbers before the other number was revealed, which, as in Odds and Evens, you can do with your fingers (don't fret about the d20, you can count to 20 on your fingers with enough imagination).

<comment><USER35> I have never played any of these games, are some of them without competition? Like everyone is on the same side? It wouldn't work in that case. But all you need is one person picking numbers to be on an adversarial team in order for this to work.

<comment><USER36> The typical D&D game will have a group of players working as a team and exploring a monster-filled dungeon. A different person is the Dungeon Master and is responsible for crafting the plot of the adventure and presenting challenges to the players (monsters to battle, though choices to make, and so on). However, it isn't really an adversarial thing. A good DM doesn't "play to win" as their goal is to create the most fun experience for everyone.

<comment><USER37> Exactly. A good DM thinks up challenges that make players work together to succeed. If plot material is available, the DM doesn't necessarily have to be able to think that up, but it was by far the funnest part of being a DM for me.

I once ran a group adventure where the players' characters were hired by a noble to provide escort for his daughter to a distant kingdom. Along the way, in every town the players stayed, mysterious murders started taking place. Over the trip, authorities started to suspect the adventurers due to circumstances. This really rankled the players and when they discovered the noble daughter in their charge was an evil assassin having fun, they had a massive range of emotions to their reaction. Not only did they have to prove their innocence, they had to find evidence to do so. Some of the players were really torn - what would the noble father do to them if they turned the daughter over? What would happen to them if they didn't?

One interesting effect to running a good adventure in the prison was that a number of non-playing inmates wanted to hear about the latest gaming events, much like following a soap opera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Comming from Norway where we have a very different attitude towards prisoners, I never cease to being amazed at the sheer pettiness towards prisoners in the US. Are they not supposed to have an ounce of enjoyment in life? A dice is contraband!!! Seriously!!

Is the point of prison to be miserable every single day? How is hating yourself, your life and everything every day supposed to make somebody a better person?

It often feels like the US is mentally speaking where we were 100 years ago in Norway. It is just bizarre how such a modern innovative country is so backwards with respect to how people are treated. Norway legislated national maternity leave over 100 years ago. It still doesn't exist in the US.

Somehow it seems like the US is regressing. Many of the progressive ideas we use came from the US originally. Liberal American professors have spread ideas which have benefited Nordic countries a lot, such as Harvey Milkman which solved the drug and subsistence abuse in Iceland.

</comment><comment><USER19> There is an enthralling article in The Intercept by incarcerated hacker Barrett Brown about his time playing DnD and other RPGs in prison.

He also details the spinner:

> With unlimited paper and pencils provided by the federal government, we had > everything we needed except for a set of variously sided dice. It turned out > that this was generally handled by making a spinner out of cardboard, a > paperclip, and the empty internal plastic tube from an ink pen. This latter > item is impaled loosely on the paperclip, itself positioned in the center of > the cardboard, on which has been drawn a diminishing series of concentric > circles divided into 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, and 4 equal segments, respectively.

[https://theintercept.com/2016/10/16/i-am-fully-capable-of- en...](https://theintercept.com/2016/10/16/i-am-fully-capable-of-entertaining- myself-in-prison-for-decades-if-need-be/)

</comment><comment><USER39> You can also use the last digit on a stopwatch stopped randomly (hundredth of a second), or open a book on a random page

</comment><comment><USER40> I understand the dice ban somewhat, I mean, gambling is principally what they'd be used for, but why is chess of all things banned? Seems.. counterproductive.

</comment><comment><USER41> We used to make them with toilet papier-mâché.

Just add water and push them into the corner of the locker. When it dries, put on dots and wrap it in clear tape to protect the dots.

<comment><USER24> Would not using cards (which appear to be allowed) be simpler

<comment><AUTHOR> Even though the section on cards mentions that "many prisons" do allow them, what the article is trying to emphasize there is that playing cards can be used to simulate dice _if_ the prison happens to allow them (while also implicitly demonstrating that the rules against gambling are often inconsistent and arbitrary). The implication seems to be that there are more prisons that disallow cards than that allow them, and indeed earlier on the article quotes a prison handbook that explicitly mentions cards as contraband.

Furthermore, even if cards are explicitly allowed by the rules, that doesn't mean that cards (along with pretty much anything else) can't be confiscated at any moment. For those instances, it's good to have a backup that involves materials that are always on hand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> No dice? Sounds like they'd be better off playing Diplomacy instead.

</comment><comment> pure-awesome Personally, I would probably have just played a simple, diceless RPG, like Archipelago: [https://norwegianstyle.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/archipelago-...](https://norwegianstyle.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/archipelago- iii/)

</comment><comment><USER43> I did this in the 90s, we just used card and referenced a table for whatever card was drawn.

</comment><comment><USER37> We used cardboard spinners. A thumbtack was pushed through and bent over to form the pivot. We got the cardboard from the back of notepads of paper. Concentric circles had equal divisions to form the d4, d6, d8, d12, and d20 ranges.

</comment><comment><USER44> Fascinating read, didn't know this was a thing in prison, but makes total sense.

Also, now have a few more ideas of how to get creative when pieces of games are missing. Creativity FTW.

</comment><comment><USER45> When I was a teen I hung out with a SHARP crew in SoCal, we played D&D all the time. We had some members go to prison and they started up their own games inside.

</comment><comment><USER46> Aren't dice and coins banned because they can be sharpened into a shiv? That would explain why cards are allowed.

<comment><USER44> If that were true though, then they wouldn't confiscate any of the makeshift dice, made of paper/cardboard etc.

<comment><USER2> Nah, sometimes stuff is confiscated just to make life more miserable for the inmates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Some of those dice are beautifully designed--it wouldn't surprise me if people would buy them (if able).

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm fascinated by this as a problem. I had an idea how to solve it. Books are not contraband and you can pick two random words from, say the Catcher in the Rye or to name a less controversial book, the Bible and use the first letter of each one to "roll the die". Wrote a small script that tries to balance the odds given the frequency of first letters of words in the English language (odds taken from [1]). Script can be found on Gist [2]. This can of course be adapted to provide tables for common probabilities (say 3d6 for example). All of the methods the prisoners are using is "good enough". Having a table that is not accurately 5% for each number should not be a problem. It will depend on the books used as well. Sample output:

        a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i  j  k  l  m  n  o  p  q  r  s  t  u  v  w  x  y  z
     a  6 15 14 16 18  4 12 16 11  5  7 13  9  3  7  1 11  9  5  2  4 16 20 13 20 20
     b 18 13  5 16  3 13  8  5 20  1 15 18 20 20  6 12  3  9  2 15 11  3  9  1 13 14
     c 18 10 12  6  1 18  1  1 11 11  8 15 14 20 20 19 19 17 17 19 17 10  1  4  7 10
     d 13  6  3 10 17 15 10 12  6 15 20  2 11  1  8  3  3  7 11 19  6  3 13  2  8 17
     e  1  4 12 19 17 12 13  6  3 15  9 14 14  9 10 11 19  4 15 10 16  3 14  4  1  9
     f  2  2  2 14  7  5  6 13 14 14 16 12 13 13  9  2  9 12 16 11 20  1 12  5 12 20
     g 16  8  7  5  1 18 12  8  1 13 13  8 13  2 17 10 12  1  9 11 10 13  5 18 17 12
     h 17 13  6 13 17 16 14  1 10  5  6 19 20  1  6 16 16 10  6 12  3 13 15 19 16  6
     i 15 12 20  3  6 12  9 17  4  7  1  9 19  9 11  7  5  5  7  9 12  6  5  1  1 10
     j 14 12 19 11  1 12 14 12 14 10 12  8 18  4  9  4 13  4 10 13  1  1  2 14 19 14
     k 19  1  7 17  5  4 15  9 14  5  7  3  2 12 14 20 14 15  8 12 10  8  5 19 16  3
     l  4 15  7  7  1  4  6  6 15 15 15 15  6 15  3 17  9  6 10 15 18 13 20 16 19 20
     m 14 19 13 14 14  5 12  5 11  5 16  7 18 10 14 16 16 19  7  4  7 16 15  2 15  9
     n 11  6 17 15  5  2 17 13 17  8  8 10 16  2 13  6  3  9 13  4 11 19  6 17 18  7
     o 20 13  6  3  1 20  4  7  2 12 19  9 19  2  4  2 16  4  1 10 18 15 15 14  7  2
     p 19 19 20  3  4  6 14 18 11  1 19  3  9  7 10 14 13 14 12 17  7  4  3  2  6 15
     q 12 20  7 15 17 20 20  2 12 20 13 11 19 14 16 12  9 17  7  4  8 10 19  5 13  4
     r  8  2  9 14 13  2 18 19 20 18 19 10 14 11  5  7 20 14  5  1 12 11  9 19  2  9
     s 17  1 10  4  5 18  5 13 16 15  2 17  9 18 14 12 18  9  4  8 11  9  3  6 17 16
     t  3  5  7  7  3 13  5 14 19  3 16 15 16  9 16  1  1 17 18  8 11 17 18 16  4 18
     u 12  5  6 17 20 16 15  6 19  5  8  5  9 14  8  7 10  2  5 14 12 16 15  8 14  5
     v 17 16 19  4 12 10  2 16  5 13 12 17  2  7 16 15  8 11 18 10 17  4  2  7 11  4
     w  5 11  8 20  7 13 18 17 20 20 20 11  5 13 12  4  5 13 12 10 11 17  1 11 13 12
     x  3 10 12 10 10  2  9 13 13  3  1 12  2 14  1 14 15 12  6 19  7 18 14  6 13 12
     y 13  6 13  8 15 19  9 17 13  7 12  3 18 10 20  6  4 14 14 12  4  8 16  4 16 12
     z 16 18 11 12  6  7  2 15  8  5 20 13  4 16 10  9 18  9  7 17 11  5 19 13 19 19

Difference between maximum and minimum odds: 0.004783609999999994

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency#Relative_frequencies_of_the_first_letters_of_a_word_in_the_English_language
      [2]: https://gist.github.com/arnists/d23194c4c48880979ed0993bd3ec4b7c

<comment><AUTHOR> Using a Bible is a good idea (and also amusingly ironic), because it would allow you to open to a random page, point at a random word, and use the _chapter and verse numbers_ as your random elements, no script required. The statistical distribution might be a bit curious, though...

<comment><USER48> Chapter and verse would not be good enough, they are not "random enough".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> tl;dr - they make dice.</comment>


Facebook acquires Divvyshot - <AUTHOR> http://venturehacks.com/articles/divvyshot-angellist

<comment><USER2> With this headline it is week old news. A better summary is "The angels behind Facebook acquired Divvyshot" or something similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought I wrote the headline as "Facebook acquires AngelList startup". Maybe I made a mistake.

<comment><USER3> I think one of the moderators changed it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also stupidly forgot to list YC as an investor. Fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone on HN (other than Divvyshot and the other stealth YC startup) used AngelList?

What has your experience been like, and would you recommend it?

<comment><USER5> If you have traction and need money you should apply. Nivi and Naval are like your uncle that's connected and knows everyone. If they think your start up is promising it will be shown to the right people. I applied.</comment></comment>


WebP images with fallback sources and placeholder to get max image optimization - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@tirthbodawala/use-webp-images-along-with-other-fallback-sources-to-and-placeholder-to-get-max-image-optimization-4cf7bda8348c <comment><USER2> Why are the base64 placeholders so long? Why have a placeholder at all rather than a fixed size div?</comment>


Facebook launches a new rival to Snapchat - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/06/17/facebook-slingshot/

<comment><USER2> _yawn_</comment>


Mikael Hed Steps Down as CEO of Wavering Angry Birds Maker Rovio - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/29/mikael-hed-steps-down-as-ceo-of-wavering-angry-birds-maker-rovio-pekka-rantala-steps-in/

<comment><USER2> Quote: "... its CEO Mikael Hed is stepping down, and he is passing on the reigns [sic] to Pekka Rantala ..."

I'm seeing this error more and more often.

* "Reigning" is what a monarch does to a kingdom.

* "Reining" is what a cowboy does to a horse.

The desired expression is "passing on the reins".</comment>


How to validate the attractiveness of your mobile game/app icon? - <AUTHOR>

Hello~
I've already made an iPhone game. I've prepared several versions of icons and hoping to test which icon is the best.
Any good (and cheap) method to test which icon does attract most users? Please advise.
I currently use Admob (the mobile advertising network), where I make advertising banners with icons and choose the icon with most click rate.
Any other ideas? <comment><USER2> Use voting buttons(message options)for your ICON images from the MS outlook and flood the mail across your list or organization to check which is the best. Ravikanth

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not put them on Amazon's Turk site and have people vote for their favorite one, for a small sum</comment>