Ask HN: Refusing to join meetings that require proprietary programs - <AUTHOR> From now on I've made the conscious decision to stop joining meetings that requires installing the usual proprietary applications (Zoom, Skype, BlueJeans, etc).
I will accept joining Hangout calls even though it's also proprietary, but at least it doesn't require that I run a random executable on my personal computer.
Is anyone else also doing this? What are the challenges you had to face? I am well aware going this direction also means losing a few potential clients. <comment><USER3> I'm assuming the recent Zoom fiasco has pushed you to this, but I'm not so sure it's is an approach that's going to serve you well. It's quite likely to make you look difficult to work with in the eyes of some.

Here's an example: I _hate_ WebEx. I mean, _REALLY_ hate WebEx. It's a totally, utterly, inexusably bad, piece of turdware. There's always some drama with AV or somebody not being able to get into the call, which without fail wastes at least 5 minutes at the beginning of the meeting. It also obnoxiously announces latecomers, interrupting whatever discussion is going on. I hate it. I've had to deal with the damn cursed thing wasting so much of mine, and others, time over the years that I consider it utterly beyond the pale. More than this, call quality is often marginal at best, and it seems to deal with choppy connections much worse than many of the other options.

But guess what?

Some people have WebEx mandated as their corporate standard so they have to use it. And others aren't that computer savvy but they have WebEx installed and know how to use it. In every other case I just don't want the first substantive conversation I have with somebody be about how I refuse to use WebEx.

So sometimes I use WebEx too.

The point is this: pick your battles. From time to time you're going to deal with clients and customers whom you have to have difficult conversations with. Do you really want one of those conversations, and likely one of the first conversations you have, to be about videoconferencing software?

Do you really want your position on videoconferencing software to set the tone of your ongoing relationship?

<comment><USER4> In your case you could state that you strongly discourage the usage of that as it call quality is so poor that it is know to strongly negativity effect client outcomes.

In ops case he is going to to come across as an anoying extremist.

<comment><USER3> I actually did that after a particularly bad WebEx call, suggesting we try Zoom (ironically) for our next call. Anyway, although generally better, Zoom also proved to be something of a disaster so there were obviously other factors at play. We then switched to Fuze for the next call (client's new corporate standard), and it was still a bit ropey.

After that I decided it was best to just roll with it whatever they use because, with any videoconferencing or VOIP service, it's impossible to guarantee good performance on the day.

Still, I maintain that WebEx has been a fiasco ninety-plus percent of the time I've used it, which is way worse than anything else. The majority of the time Zoom, Hangouts, and even Microsoft's Teams seem to work well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Clients first.

Clients first.

I do support, 24/7, I get s..t from anything, including WhatsApp. After that I have the chance of reorganize the requests into my favorite task manager.

Customers just want to know you are there...

Clients first, and always replay via email. Be consistent in accept from any channel, replay, report, notify via email.

<comment><USER6> So. Much. This.

This also applies to colleges as well as clients.

If "meetings" implies "work" (which it _strongly_ does to me), then you use whatever the meeting requires.

Your job is to do the work. Not to dictate and ensure FOSS purity amongst co workers and clients.

On your _own_ hardware and for your personal comms, sure - knock yourself out. I have a similar refusal to use Facebook/Twitter for social/personal stuff. It means I get "left out" of some things where no-one remembers to mention to me an event organised exclusively thru FB, and I'm OK with that. Your boss should not be OK with you missing meetings or pissing off clients because you refuse to use Skype. Deal with it, perhaps while encouraging change from the inside without making annoying demands on everybody else - or quit. (Or be a jerk and wait until you get fired for it...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would not hire a vendor who presented such odd requirements to me as I would see it as trying to use my company as a vehicle for your personal crusade. The installation point is valid, but I would expect it to be nulled by offering you company-owned hardware to work on.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just use a VM or extra laptop. Client work and business in general is a combination of tradeoffs. Typically clients are coming to you to alleviate a stress in one category. Don't add another layer.

<comment><USER9> Exactly, I have a few VMs ready to spin-up just for this kind of thing. People or companies always want you to run some random crapware which I will never run on my actual system.

The other point here is also clearly security - one compromised client's crapware shouldn't compromise the rest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You use it to communicate with potential clients? I would offer an alternative to them and I think most of them will follow, but it is more of an annoyance than a serious issue to lose business over.

On a separate note 10 years ago there was a serious movement to adopt open protocols like Jabber and SIP and now even open-source communities are happy in using Slack and JIRA. Looking at you Clojurians.

<comment><USER11> > now even open-source communities are happy in using Slack and JIRA

That just means these systems aren't so hated that they have 0 users among those communities.

There are open-source communities I no longer participate in, purely because of the annoying collaboration tools they switched to. Just because some people are happy with a tool doesn't mean everyone is. It means a few people in charge chose a tool, and they're implicitly selecting their community from the people who are OK with that tool.

I don't know what the story is with Clojure that you refer to, but I've never had any trouble getting Clojure help on good ol' IRC. I've never left an open- source project for sticking with simple classic tools that work.

<comment><USER10> The clojurians slack seems to be the most active community, unfortunately. I'm glad that there are people in IRC too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Is anyone else also doing this?

Kinda. I refuse to use any software that doesn't work on Linux. Open source is preferred, but at least give me something that works. I'm not going to install some shitty OS just so that I can use a chat app, or whatever.

> What are the challenges you had to face?

None at all. Most people at my company use windows, and Skype for business to do text and video chat. If they want to send me a message via that, I tell them that skype doesn't work on Linux so they must use something else. If they don't want to use something else, then we don't have the video chat.

This is all fine for internal communication. If you have to deal with clients, then that's a more complicated issue.

</comment><comment><USER13> > proprietary applications (Zoom, Skype, BlueJeans, etc).

> I will accept joining Hangout calls

You're strange, really. Use __GigantiC __private data pump - Google and ignore Zoom & BlueJeans.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't like Google (for privacy and other reasons); however, I can join a Hangout call with a regular Firefox browser without installing additional plugins.

Yes, that doesn't mean I am comfortable with using Hangout, but what are the alternatives? Jitsi?

<comment><USER14> If "running in the browser without plugins" and getting your "I am against propriety software X, Y and Z, so I only use propriety software A and B!"-attitude openly communicated are your only concerns you could use Discord as well. You will probably reach a lot more people than with Hangouts, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I had such guy in my team, he was fired pretty soon.

</comment><comment><USER16> Buy a second, cheap laptop for videoconferencing, and don't put anything valuable on it.

<comment><USER17> or run them inside a VM.

<comment><AUTHOR> I use a QEMU VM for most of the projects I work with (rails, node, python, etc).

That said, I already tried using zoom with a QEMU VM but I was never able to get the microphone jack to work with the VM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I make use of [https://github.com/strukturag/spreed- webrtc](https://github.com/strukturag/spreed-webrtc) . I self-host and this gives me the ability to offer a high-quality video or voice stream for somebody. While I still have some bugs when contacted from an iPhone, it has been a generally easy option.

Alternatively, there are webrtc solutions like talky.io and appear.in which work well enough. I have never had a client have an issue with these solutions, and which I choose is more a function of how much I trust my own setup with the goal being to move all interactions to my self-hosted solutions.

</comment><comment><USER19> It depends on who you are meeting with.

If it's a FOSS collab, this seems like a reasonable stance to take. If it's in a professional capacity, eh, I honestly couldn't be bothered hiring or working with anyone under these kinds of restrictions.

<comment><USER14> What's the relation with FOSS and Hangouts, though? Also, are there any commonly used existing FOSS solutions?

<comment><USER19> No idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's usually been salespeople trying to sell me stuff when I've been asked to use proprietary video plug-ins. The calls with clients usually are scheduled by my side and use our choice (now usually Hangouts or Uberconference, both of which work in Firefox without additional executables).

I always just join the call-in number on the calendar invite. If needed, I just say something along the lines of, "couldn't get the plug-in installed, sorry". Not usually been a problem other than missing the screen-share presentation.

</comment><comment><USER21> Zoom, Gotomeeting, Skype, SkypeForBusiness(Lync), Hangouts, Some shitty free meeting telephone service, Whatsapp, Email, Trello, etc...

Whatever is convenient for the customer really. Often though, you get the chance to recommend a tech to someone, so take that opportunity, but I figure that I'm the tech guy. If they've got a meeting software that they're happy with, well the least I can do is fit in.

I'm not too worried having a few smaller meeting-based apps on my machine though.

</comment><comment><USER22> BlueJeans and Zoom both don't require installing a proprietary application, so this isn't a problem I have ever faced.

You don't need to lose clients; just don't install the app. Both support joining calls from a web browser, or dialing in from a phone number. Skype also has some kind of web client but I don't know if it does video calls, or only chat.

You are setting yourself up for a moral dilemma that doesn't exist.

</comment><comment><USER23> I have a "clean" hard drive and a "dirty" hard drive.

The clean hard drive runs Linux and I carefully curate the software that I install.

The dirty hard drive runs Windows 7. I use it only when I need to do something with Windows. I never log into my bank or anything important using the dirty hard drive, so I feel relatively free to install malwaresque software on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does it not annoy you having to reboot all the time?

<comment><USER23> Not really. I think it's a lower price to pay in comparison to:

(a) Using a "dirty" computer as my daily driver. (I wouldn't sleep at night)

(b) Not being able to use proprietary programs in case of emergency.

I used to boot into Windows everyday when I played League of Legends, but now I only boot into it when I need MS Word (clients love Word for some reason) or something like that.

If your computer is powerful, running a "dirty" VM is another viable option.

<comment><USER24> I use Codeweavers([https://www.codeweavers.com/](https://www.codeweavers.com/)) on my Debian system to run Word and other MS Office products and haven't faced any issues so far. Office was a major reason for me as well to boot into windows and with this setup I don't need to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If your concern is about installing an untrusted executable. Zoom actually has a web client now. For the others you could pick a platform that's already sandboxed like iOS or Android.

Or these platforms tend to support dialling in from a phone. You can even walk to a pay phone and dial in from there with cash.

<comment><USER6> I would listen to an argument that Zoom's recent behaviour makes them potentially too untrustworthy to even allow them to run javascript in a browser...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's absolutely always Skype for Business where I am making my monthly income. This will not fly in a corporate setting.

Also, Skype for Business & Teams works really well.

I'd like to live in a world where free and open solutions existed - <USER2> feature parity and quality of Skype for Business.

</comment><comment><USER27> +1 to a VM or a 'burner' laptop - this is how I've generally seen this problem solved before. Many people (particularly in large corps) are actively prohibited from using other solutions by IT and/or Legal policies.

</comment><comment><USER28> I do a variant of this with open source projects: refuse to participate in community interaction over a proprietary platform, e.g. Slack (Clojure uses that). It's a way to support open source with relatively minimal personal cost.

</comment><comment><USER29> Key point: "download and install an executable"

Yes, I'm in agreement on this one. The nice thing about a good old fashioned phone call is you can't hijack my life during the process....

<comment><USER30> Same here. I do not use anything that needs a java runtime or accept MS office documents that I cant open with alternative office suites. Also "keep your hands out of my kernel" so no weird third party drivers or hooks and that includes third party hypervisor software.

As for the meetings I can join those as long as there is an iOS app I can install on my iPad or iPhone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I often use my smartphone for such meetings, mostly Hangouts/Meet. But not using Zoom and Skype at all will provide difficulties with clients.

</comment><comment><USER32> When consulting, I've found that people really like zero-install video conferencing solutions based on WebRTC (e.g. appear.in / Jitsi)

</comment><comment><USER14> > Is anyone else also doing this?

Can you provide some reasons other than a seemingly random statement like "run a random executable on my personal computer", that apparently is based on some specific certain personal perception? I'd call Skype anything but random ... at least in comparison with Hangouts. What is your point?

Also you might want to change your title. You talk about not joining meetings with propriety software, then mention Hangouts is okay, which - as you even mention by yourself - is proprietary software.

tl;dr your post is really confusing and I am not sure what you are trying to tell.

<comment><USER6> > I'd call Skype anything but random

I suspect week ago, people would have said "It's not just 'some random executable', it's _Zoom!_ What're they gonna do, leave an undisclosed web server running on your machine that allows them to remotely install whatever software they want? Ah ha! You're so paranoid!!!"

<comment><USER14> And how exactly is Hangouts better? I mean I sort of get your argument and what you are trying to tell, but what's your punch line here?

<comment><USER6> At least some people trust Google more than they trust Zoom?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't, and I wish I can quit using gmail too, but I still need to find the alternative.

<comment><USER14> And what about my initial question?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that statement was contradictory and I realize I should stop using Hangouts too.

Does that answer your question?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I borrow a laptop from work for zoom meetings and the like, and it seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

</comment><comment><USER34> Care to elaborate on the reasons?

<comment><USER35> I'd assume for issues like this: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/8/20687014/zoom-security- fla...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/8/20687014/zoom-security-flaw-video- conference-websites-hijack-mac-cameras)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Bluejeans works fine in the browser too, so if hangouts is fine so is BJN.

</comment><comment><USER37> You can join zoom meetings on your phone without installing anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't have a smartphone.

<comment><USER38> The cost of losing clients is probably far more than the cost of a cheap phone or laptop.

<comment><USER11> Clearly -- and therefore, throwaway83945 must be doing it for non-monetary reasons.

Why is everyone offering suggestions for roundabout ways to do exactly what OP "made the conscious decision" not to do? That's not helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> So that means you're forcing others to install Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox onto their computer as they're the only web browsers that currently support Google Hangouts.

</comment><comment><USER40> Use snap or flatpak?

<comment><USER41> I like the sentiment and practice it myself, but you need to be careful with snaps. They more often than not come with the home[1] interface connected by default. To me, that somewhat defeats the purpose of running the snap.

1\. [https://docs.snapcraft.io/home-interface](https://docs.snapcraft.io/home- interface)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Does your company not offer a corporate laptop with these executables pre- installed (and presumably, internally managed by corporate IT)?

<comment><AUTHOR> I work from home (remotely) so I tend to use my personal stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Despite their recent issues, Zoom is mostly innocuous and the single best video conferencing software I've ever used. I don't think it's that big of a deal. Skype on the other hand, I'll never use.

If it's part of a job, then if you're not talking about a company-supplied laptop, then get a cheap laptop yourself, or maybe you can install a VM and install the software on there and give it access to a cheap USB camera.</comment>


Show HN: Morse code radio [audio] - <AUTHOR> http://morsecode.me/

<comment><USER2> If a link is going to destroy your speakers, give you temporary deafness and a good scare I would really like to have a warning in the title.

<comment><AUTHOR> Added a warning. Did not anticipate what this would be like when 30 people are all mashing keys at once, sorry!

<comment><USER3> Not a problem.

No worse than being on the receiving end of a pileup.

<comment><USER4> that was what I thought too... it's a good thing :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Cool idea. I'm glad I remembered how to say "ASS".

Typical morse code keyers have 2 buttons, long and short, so you don't have to worry about how long to hold it down. I think that would make this a lot easier.

<comment><USER6> Too bad our keyboards only have one button. :(

<comment><USER7> My iambic paddle is connected to my mouse; it's an easy hack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As silly as it may sound, toys like this are the sort of thing that remind me that in this community I've found my favorite people in the world. No matter what age.

<comment><AUTHOR> And _this_ is why I make software :)

<comment><USER8> And I thank you for it :D I loved the overall UX feeling.

Even if it gets messy with so many "morsers" in the room, what's not to love about mess? For a moment there, I felt like part of an orchestra, tuning my instrument; adding my bit to a more transcendent byte, petabyte, or whatever.

Just to illustrate, watch this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxz630u7YlQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxz630u7YlQ)

Oldie but goodie

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is hilarious. There's like 30 people beeping and no one can spell anything out. I was so proud of myself when I finally got "H E LL O" to appear.

<comment><USER10> I'm still stuck on the "HELLO" boss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11>
      function cheat(str, name) {

        if (!name) {name = me.id}

        var arr = str.split();

        for (var i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {

          socket.emit('l', {id: name, l: arr[i]});

        }

      }

      cheat("hello world!", "god");

<comment><USER12>
        function cheat(m){for(var i in m)socket.emit("l", {l:m[i]})}

<comment><USER11> Yeah I've been avoiding for-in loops in Javascript since getting burned by a colleague that was attaching objects to arrays. :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Lot of fun. Even more fun would be to give each active user a different column, but obviously that has a pretty small limit. But this is cool.

To make this work, use the space bar on your keyboard as if it were a straight key.

Don't try to send faster than about 18 WPM. Leave really long spaces between words--longer than you would otherwise.

Morse code is one of the few protocols that is readily understandable by both humans and computers. You might be on the verge of something with a lot of potential.

de w8lvn

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, appreciate it! The auto-translator is set to 15 WPM, so like you said anything faster than 18 or so doesn't get recognized. If real, interested people actually end up using this I'd be happy to make that user-configurable!

<comment><USER3> My max straight key speed these days is 20, but 15 is certainly fine for this experiment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oh wow. This is cool. And clever. And making me remember my old morse. Who said Ham radio is dead? DE K2KD....

</comment><comment><USER14> There is a bug in Linux where if the key is pressed and released too quickly the site assumes you're just holding it down indefinitely.

This is unfortunate since I was trying to cheat with xdotool and it kept bugging out depending on how many people were beeping along with me.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is really cool, but quite hard. Maybe you could add some tip on how long you are supposed to hold the tones for? I'd also like to see who I am more prominently displayed, it took me a while to find it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestions! There's certainly a steep learning curve, and based on my observations over the last few days I've come to realize that you're right, it's important to give an example to beginners so they can get a better feel for the pacing. Just a side project but I'll see if I can work that in!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Morse code instructional video from the US Army: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li8Hiwbc664](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li8Hiwbc664)

<comment><USER8> The "Juliette" and "Romeo" suggested mnemonic imagery on 4:57 was hilarious and very revealing about other suggested "attitudes" of the time and context.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am trying to send "A", but it keeps sending "E" \- anyone else noticed that ?

edit: seems like I have been timing it badly. Does work now well.

</comment><comment><USER18> Doesn't seem to work correctly on firefox nightly, just instantly sends "E" on any letter that begins with a dot no matter how fast I key. :(

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm in channel 2 if anyone wants to try actually morse-ing rather than mashing on the keys ;)

<comment><USER15> Maybe there should be a channel with a password that you have to morse to enter ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's hilarious and might be something I build in!

Of course, this place'll be quiet after it's off HN so it may be a non-issue!

<comment><USER19> Not necessarily - in the few minutes I played with it, I managed to memorize the code for A, E, H, I, L, M, T, Y, :, and /. This seems like a great learning tool. I'm excited to keep playing with it in the future!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I hope you do!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Oh God. If we ever need to use morse code to fight super intelligent machines. We are doomed.

<comment><USER21> When I had to learn morse for my pilot license most People tried to learn using codewords for each letter. But that wa you yave to lear two different thigs. For me the easiest way is to take any text and start translating it in to written morse. Once you are fluent writting you take any morse program and start doing the same into sounds. And then listening. The learning rithm is similar to learning to type in a keyboard. In a couple of weeks you can be pretty good.

<comment><USER21> But then you have to learn two different things, Sorry for this aweful sentence! writing from the iphone it´s difficul to to spot sometimes.

"But that wa you yave to lear two different thigs"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> this is pretty cool -- it actually works if a few people send proper morse.

</comment><comment><USER22> Gah, not done morse code in years. This is so difficult

<comment><AUTHOR> Friend of mine joked that "this is the slowest IRC ever".

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The site is vulnerable to xss

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the heads up, will fix. Edit: wait, is it? I'm not seeing it..</comment></comment>


Orange County Choppers Builds an EV. Seriously - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/08/occ-electric-chopper/ <comment><USER2> The styling seems a little too inspired by the segway...

Silence wouldn't be valued by the bikies I've seen. Also, pedestrian accidents will probably increase for a while, until we stop trusting our ears for traffic. On my bicycle, I've noticed people not looking for traffic because can't hear any traffic.

I wonder if there is a segment of motorbike riders for whom silence is a crucial benefit? That could be a good niche to start. Teenagers, sneaking home late? Shy people? Hunters? Burglars? Spies? Ninjas?

<comment><USER3> Loud motorcycles are one of my pet peeves. I have never been able to figure out why someone would want to make their motorcycle as loud as possible. Don't they realize how rude it is to every single house, pedestrian, etc. they pass? When I see one I immediately project a complete a-hole personallity onto that person, because I assume he really doesn't care about anyone but himself.

<comment><USER4> I find them annoying too, but the safety advantage while riding on highways is clear. The safety of the rider is, in my opinion, of more importance than any mild annoyance a loud bike might cause. That said, I suspect, like you, that safety was not the reason a lot of riders picked a loud bike.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel dumb asking this, but what does EV stand for? Obviously, it's an electric motorcycle, but does it just mean electric vehicle?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, EV stands for Electric Vehicle

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is brilliant. Not cheap, not practical, but it'll add some big brand credence to EV technology that nobody else can muster, given the world wide fan base that OCC enjoys. Nice work junior :-)

</comment><comment><USER7> This makes a lot of sense; bikes have a lot less extraneous weight to carry around than cars do, so it should be a lot easier to get a good milage/performance combo out of an electric engine than with a car. There's less room for the engine and batteries, but those are small/dense enough now that the overall ratio should be a win.

</comment><comment><USER8> dammit, couldn't this story come around 2 weeks from now.

OT: I sell custom choppers, with electric engines just rolling in the shop floor, if anybody is interested (just got the contract last week, still flogging the web designers)

<comment><USER9> What's the mileage like? You'd have to be proud if its comparable to a technology giant like Siemens!

<comment><USER8> We license Yamaha, Honda engines for now. We might even get this engine, but the body is custom built.

Current site is flash-based. The company is an Aussie boutique shop with A-list celebrity and activist clients:

<http://deus.com.au/>

I am bringing that to the U.S., Middle East and Europe.

[Edit: We're also offering a very handsome sales commission for referrals. Email in profile. I can say this in HN can't I? Fuckit, it's business!]

<comment><USER10> Holy crap.

I don't know much about motorcycles, but some of those SR400 models are mindblowingly beautiful.

Well done.

<comment><USER8> Thank you. They're made with love.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Right Answer by Isaac Asimov (1996) - <AUTHOR> http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-05-the-right-answer-by-isaac-asimov

<comment><USER2> Isaac Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"

<comment><USER3> We do not test voters for critical thinking skills before they cast a vote, nor on their knowledge of the facts surrounding the issues they will vote on. Further, there have been many "get out the vote" campaigns but no (to my knowledge) "learn how to vote wisely" campaigns. Note that I would define "voting wisely" as "voting in accordance with my own views, the facts as I accept them, and the choices I've been given", as held by the voter.

Anti-intellectualism isn't a thread winding it's way through our democracy, that it's a cornerstone of our democracy.

<comment><USER4> _> We do not test voters for critical thinking skills before they cast a vote, nor on their knowledge of the facts surrounding the issues they will vote on._

As much as I would love to see these things done, there is no way to do them in a democracy, because how would you determine the content of the tests? In a democracy, you would have to vote on them, which just brings you back to the same problem.

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty sure tests like these were used to exclude black voters in the US for a long time. I seem to remember them being literacy tests.

There's a good reason we should not have tests. A democratic system as we now understand it broadly means that every citizen is enfranchised. As soon as you start implementing tests, you being to interfere with the right of an individual to vote on arbitrary grounds.

While you could try to use this argument to argue for children's suffrage, I'm not sure it holds. Tests like the above have no cutoff, they can apply to someone their entire life. There are many things we don't allow children to do, but once they come of age they are (largely) free to do so. I don't know why I'm arguing against an argument I just came up with that might, hypothetically, be used as a counterargument to my original argument, but that's the internet for you.

<comment><USER4> _> A democratic system as we now understand it broadly means that every citizen is enfranchised. As soon as you start implementing tests, you being to interfere with the right of an individual to vote on arbitrary grounds._

Yes, that was my point: any kind of test of this nature is incompatible with democracy as we now understand it. But that also means that democracy as we now understand it has a serious flaw: people can vote regardless of how well informed they are or how good their judgment is. That fact, combined with the fact that one person's individual vote only has a very small impact, means that it is rational for voters not to bother being informed, but to vote on very superficial factors. As a result, in the US, we have a Congress with approval ratings in the single digits but reelection rates for incumbents in the high 90s.

<comment><USER5> I suppose it depends on what the purpose of democracy is. Is it better create legislation, in which case it is a flawed system and should probably be changed, or is it, which is much more likely IMO, to allow citizens to have agency in their lives by allowing them to have a hand in who legislates, in which case there is no alternative.

I'm normally the first person to say that we should stop all the ill-informed people voting (which tends to mean excluding the majority of the right-wing), but this is so subjective that I don't even know if it's a real dilemma.

Ultimately any compromise will frustrate people, it's where we draw the line that counts.

Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more partisan than those in Europe, although we have our own fair share of stupid policies based on popularism and ill-thought-through ideology.

<comment><USER4> _> to allow citizens to have agency in their lives by allowing them to have a hand in who legislates_

But that kind of agency is very, very weak; my vote has only a miniscule impact on who legislates. I personally would be quite willing to trade that tiny bit of agency for the government's agreement to not mess with so many things.

 _> Apropos of the system in the US, I think your politicians are far more partisan than those in Europe_

I think this is true, and there are two reasons for it that I can see, one good and one bad.

The good reason is that there is more diversity of thought in the US in general, and that gets reflected in a wider range of political viewpoints. Some partisanship is based on honest differences of opinion in areas where nobody really knows the right answer; in such cases, it's better to have multiple viewpoints represented and give each of them a chance to try things out.

The bad reason is that more Americans have crazy beliefs, so that we have people in, say, the US Congress with widely different beliefs even about matters of simple fact like how old the Earth is. Of course that's going to make it harder to govern and increase the likelihood of highly polarized debates with no resolution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's unfortunate that we're still having the same arguments decades later.

</comment><comment><USER7> A stopped clock is right twice a day.

<comment><USER8> Meh, that's why I have a 24 hour watch.</comment></comment>


Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/inequality-work-hours/422775/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> One answer is that the market forces tend to funnel all increases in income to landowners as rent.

I was not familiar with this theory until a few days ago, when someone here on HN linked to an online version (edited and abridged) of Henry George's _Progress and Poverty_ [0]. I've been reading it since; its clarity is stunning: I feel as if a great veil has been lifted from my eyes. Whether I'll still feel that way in a few days, months, or years remains to be seen, but for the moment, Henry George has me eating out of the palm of his hand.

Whatever the general validity of his theory, it certainly seems to explain the SF Bay Area extremely well. Salaries here sound incredible to people outside the area, but then it costs so much more to live here as to deny the wage earner much of the benefit. Broadly, we can break the population into three groups. Renters, obviously, have to pay the market rents, which seem to rise inexorably. Those who bought houses here years ago, before the big increases in property values, and are still living in them, are the ones who can really enjoy the high salaries they can earn here. Those who bought property here more recently, on the other hand, have large mortgages, because someone who _previously_ owned the property made a pile of money when they sold it. In effect, the mortgage is like rent being paid to whichever previous owner or owners saw the property appreciate.

George's theory starts with Ricardo's law of rent [1], which is a truism of classical economics (and another idea I was not aware of until just recently). One could say it takes that law to its logical conclusion.

EDITED to add: while George's theory has not been fully embraced by mainstream economics, it hasn't been completely rejected by any means. Joseph Stiglitz, Herbert Simon, and to some extent Milton Friedman are some of its adherents, and Hayek credits George with awakening his interest in economics. [2]

[0] [http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm](http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

<comment><USER3> _One answer is that the market forces tend to funnel all increases in income to landowners as rent._

This is partially a result of Americans choosing to consume more housing than citizens of peer nations or, indeed, Americans historically. The size of the average owned American home doubled since 1950. You can save a _substantial_ amount of money if you're willing to live like a 2015 Japanese salaryman or a 1950 American middle class family, but the modal American considers that standard of living "poverty" and is unwilling to accept it.

Another layer is that big houses gate access to good school districts, which is a very, very deep can of worms.

<comment><USER4> Zoning has a lot to do with home sizes. In general American cities are zoned to not allow smaller units, even for those who might prefer the cheaper rent if given a choice. Japan has much simpler and more flexible zoning laws.

...But Japan doesn't have the history of racially motivated urban design in general, so the story is a bit complicated.

That, and America has been heavily subsidizing an automobile-based lifestyle for 60–70 years, encouraging people to trade more living space for longer commutes, without facing the full infrastructure costs of the choice.

<comment><USER5> Japan has extreme ghettoization of immigrants; most landlords will simply refuse to rent to foreigners.

<comment><USER4> Sure. I don't mean that Americans are as a rule more racist than Japanese, or anything like that.

What I mean is, Japan didn't design its whole large-scale metropolitan plan around racial segregation, the way many places in America did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Because when you devalue the currency through a policy of secular inflation, you have to work harder to maintain the same standard of living: this is the whole point of manipulating the economy using the inflation/employment connection (aka Phillips curve). You can't negotiate a wage reduction with your employee due to sticky wages, so for a country to make it appear like they're doing a good job keeping employment numbers up, they have to screw over everyone (of course screwing the poor the hardest)

<comment><USER7> The simple answer is: because Keynesian economics doesn't work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> When a company buys a 2x faster copy machine, they don't double the salary of the human operator. If a department is able to lay off half its staff thanks to automation, they don't double the salaries of the remaining staff.

There's little in the way of forces that push wages up. Unions, basically, acting on the idea that rich companies should share the wealth. The market value of a human butt-in-chair operator remains low. Unskilled labor is a commodity, and it can be found increasingly cheaply on the global market.

Keynes died before the first computer was invented. Probably his concepts of "technological innovation" and "worker productivity" do not apply today.

</comment><comment><USER9> This article is deeply flawed... change in wages != change in standard of living.

But that aside, in addition to people wanting to take part in higher standards of living, I'd hypothesize that another driver is social status. In our culture, wealth seems to translate pretty directly to social status, and I think that's a pretty core human need/desire that most people aren't willing to opt out of competing for.

<comment><USER10> > This article is deeply flawed... change in wages != change in standard of > living.

Measuring "standard of living" is a very hard problem. At least they're being clear about their definition, so I can judge the correlations they find for myself.

<comment><USER9> Sure, maybe coming up with a good rigorous definition is difficult, but I think it's pretty obvious that standard of living is rising drastically. Smart phones are now ubiquitous, for example, whereas they essentially didn't exist a decade ago. You could have had all of the wealth of the planet but no antibiotics less than a century ago. Conflating wages with standard of living is a glaring error.

<comment><USER11> I think the biggest complaint is that the improvement in quality of life and agency, is not even slightly evenly distributed. I'm not knowledgeable enough to posit good arguments, so you'll have to research this on your own. I'm sure with a modest bit of effort and investigation you'll come to a more balanced position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are some aspects of wealth that basic economic concepts and models don't capture. Here for example, diminishing marginal utility doesn't seem to play as big a part as it did.

My guess is that competitive dynamics dominate this issue. Within a career/job it is hard to progress with less than full effort because of competition, for example. On the consumption side, by working less an individual becomes poor relative to his peers. This in itself is meaningful. Where 4 kids in a small 2 bedroom was normal and middle class throughout Europe in Keynes' time, it is hardship today. Living without smartphones or Internet is hard because they are normal, both psychologically and practically.

Second, inflation is unevenly distributed. The average salary/price ratio for bread and cheese and cutlery sets improved miraculously but the ratio for a tennis lesson did not.

Then, there are many markets that are zero sum or reduced sum. The price of real estate in many limited supply areas like cities rises to the limit of affordability for the corresponding percentile of the population. IE the median house corresponds to the maximal borrowing amount for a median household.

I also think "you make what you measure" applies. Our governments' highest measurable priorities are usually gdp and employment. Then there's wealth distribution. Will the median person's wealth increase 8 fold?

All that said. I think number of working years is a place to look for any changes that did occur. College, travel retirement. People had longer working lives back the, especially considering life expectancy.

</comment><comment><USER13> Number of hours worked per week is not everything. I suspect that Americans do work less over the whole lifetime -- the retirement age has decreased (at least for men, see [1]) while life expectancy is increasing. The problem is that it's impossible to estimate total hours worked over lifetime for people presently in their 20s-30s and current pensioners give you a delayed statistic.

Personally I think that economy based on a 15-hour work week would be sub- optimal. Total salaries being equal, I'd rather employ a single person working 40 hours than three working 15 where you need to deal with lots of communication and administrative overhead.

Maybe the solution would be taking multiple "gap years" during your career or "mini retirements" but many employers don't like holes in your CVs.

[1] [https://www.soa.org/News-and- Publications/Newsletters/Pensio...](https://www.soa.org/News-and- Publications/Newsletters/Pension-Section-News/2012/february/What-Is-The- Average-Retirement-Age-.aspx)

<comment><USER14> That's the trouble. From an employee's perspective, I'd like a job with less than 40 hours per week (but also be paid lesson for it). But full working hours are favourable to employers.

<comment><USER13> You're right but I wouldn't like that even as an employee (which I am). Imagine your that your team triples in size and everyone is in some kind of part-time arrangement that makes it difficult to synchronize any kind of real- time communication. Horror.

<comment><USER5> It seems easy enough to agree some kind of core - "everyone comes in 2-4pm on Wednesday and we do any meetings then" or some such. I mean, all-remote teams manage to get work done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think much of the choice of work hours must be down to human nature. We are awake about 112 hours a week and choose to work between a half (56 hours) and a quarter (28 hours) typically. People are seldom very happy unemployed. If money was the only reason people worked, the likes of Paul Graham would put their feet up when they cashed in for millions from Yahoo but they almost never do.

<comment><USER16> I really doubt that. Choose to work 40 hrs?

There are a few people who are lucky enough whose work is their hobby, and who feel happy doing it, but mostly, work is draining and stressful. And I don't mean physically draining.

I'm convinced the 'Fall from Eden' story was inspired by the invention of agriculture. Suddenly, people had to work a lot more (hunter-gatherers typically work 4-5 hours a day). Only the aristocracy inherited the privilege of having a lot of leisure time and being able to hunt(barring the US, hunting is extremely restricted).

Nutrition got worse, it took millenia of improvement till skeletons of farmers started to look as well-fed as those of hunter gatherers.

And of course proximity to farm animals and greater population introduced all those nice pathogens: tuberculosis, smallpox, flu...

<comment><USER17> That's a remarkable explanation for the myth.

<comment><USER18> I find it convincing too. Check out the 'Big History' lecture series. Particularly the lecture on the transition to agriculture. I was inclined to think that humans transitioned to agriculture as soon as it was 'invented'. But the lecture suggests that humans knew perfectly well how to farm long before, but didn't because it seemed like too much hard work. We didn't transition until forced to by climatic conditions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >What Keynes foretold was a very optimistic version of what economists call technological unemployment—the idea that less labor will be necessary because machines can do so much. In Keynes's vision, the resulting unemployment would be distributed more or less evenly across society in the form of increased leisure.

I would be shocked if that actually happened. From what I can tell most people would rather make more money than have more leisure, even if it's not a conscious decision. Since employers would rather hire one guy for 40 hour weeks instead of two guys for 20, if marketable people don't demand shorter hours (and less money) it's never going to happen.

Also, it's an overly simple view of technological innovation. Technology tends to eliminate low skill and unskilled jobs, creating fewer numbers of higher skilled positions. It's pretty naive to think if you automate a steel mill you're going to be able to transition people from that mill into medicine or software development.

<comment><USER20> >From what I can tell most people would rather make more money than have more leisure

Totally false in most places in the world. Totally true in the U.S.

<comment><USER19> I don't know how much it's true in other countries, but in the US it's pretty common to see people trap themselves in debt. You see a lot of people with six figure incomes living paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to take less money because they've already spent it.

<comment><USER20> The U.S. is full of all kinds of behavior that is uniquely American. I was amazed how different the U.S. actually is when I left it several years ago to live and work in other nations. the U.S. has a _lot_ it could learn from other places. I definitely think Americans are on average unhappier than the citizens of other Western nations, for a wide range of reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The thing about capitalism is that the capitalists tend to win. Gains have accrued to capitalists mostly. Lack of leverage on the part of labour means they are expected to be more productive not work less.

<comment><USER22> > The thing about capitalism is that the capitalists tend to win.

That's because the capitalists are the ones that already "won".

A capitalist - or aspiring capitalist - that fails, is/becomes a worker.

Anything that squeezes the economy of capitalists as a group forces some of them into the working class.

<comment><USER23> This comment adds nothing to what was said above. Capitalists started out advantaged at the advent of modern commerce and have accrued gains.

<comment><USER22> That's wild oversimplification. A lot of people have become capitalists without a privileged start, and a lot of people have lost all their privilege.

The point is that what was said above was a meaningless truism to say that "the capitalists tends to win" because (still) being a capitalist is the prize.

<comment><USER23> Not even worth responding to

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> That sounds pretty legitimate.

My first thought is that what you're worth is not what you want, and not according to your contribution to productivity. You're paid according to what you'll accept.

So you gotta wonder, if there starts to be a slight shortage of jobs, what do the different actors do? The middle manager and the employee... Well, as an employee you have less and less say, and you probably want to try to prove yourself and work harder or longer. Motivation is toward equal or higher hours than normal.

And the employer just wants to get the job done. They don't want to sift through MORE employees to do it. That means more training, more managing, and generally more hassle. Motivation is toward giving employees equal or more hours than normal.

</comment><comment><USER20> Meanwhile, the Netherlands has a new law in effect on January 1 that requires employers to allow for shorter working days unless there is a strong reason to prevent them. And since the Netherlands is one of several European companies on the list of world's "most prosperous" [0], a list which does not include the U.S. in the top 10, perhaps this is validation of Keynes afterall.

[0] [http://www.prosperity.com/#!/](http://www.prosperity.com/#!/)

</comment><comment><USER25> We are hostages to our genetic and cultural heritages. Until the last 100 years (and even less in many countries) wealth = survival. To expect this drive to go away after 10,000 years of enormous selective pressure because the need for wealth has gone away is not how evolution (both culturally and genetically) works.

</comment><comment><USER26> So that the rich people can get richer, it's that simple :)

If somebody has income without working, the somebody else is working without getting an income.

</comment><comment><USER27> Fear, manufactured competition and a lack of a social safety net?

</comment><comment><USER28> all of these comments are totally wrong. why do the richest Americans work the most, why did Gates work insane hours like 100 a week?

obviously it's not because they can't afford to stop working. it's because America has a culture that work is - awesome.

what other country could give developers unlimited vacation days? (for example.)

</comment><comment><USER29> Can you think outside of the communist box?

Competition is in part due to the fact there are more humans alive today fighting for the same resources. It's kinda similar to dating, where things are not getting easier(except for those who inherited good genes). Today with dating you have to do more to get the same result people use to get with less effort.

Lack of social safety net? Why do you care about that? You don't have a safety net when you get dumped. You know, if your girlfriend dumps you, you don't get another girl to give you blowjobs, because otherwise you might get depressed and suicidal. You're expected to figure it out on your own and you might not do it - you might end up lonely, without dates and maybe even commit suicide because of that. So, why not hold wage earners to the same standard? Don't be a hypocrite!

<comment><USER30> "..there are more humans alive today fighting for the same resources"

If by "resources" you mean world GDP, then no, the GDP per person has never been higher:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+gdp+%2F+world+pop...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+gdp+%2F+world+population+from+1900+to+2015)

<comment><USER29> What does GDP have to do with resources? GDP measures volume of transactions. Resources are oil, gas, silver etc. Also, there is real estate. Land on Earth is limited. There are 10s of millions of people who want to live in Malibu, for example. But, number of spots there is limited, so who is going to live there? Those who have the most money.

Do you get it now - more people alive means more competition for land and other resources.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I Changed My Mind On Klout (And Invested) - <AUTHOR> http://uncrunched.com/2012/08/16/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-klout-and-invested/ <comment><USER2> Investor endorses investment. Film at 11.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anything to do with social media is absolute rubbish until people use it, then its suddenly revolutionary. I personally think Klout is great.

<comment><USER4> I'm trying to understand why?

If you are a member of the "social media elite" then you get a nice score and can get sweet deals from advertisers.

If you are trying to spend your company's advertising budget on social media instead of traditional channels, then I would guess this would make it easier. Instead of picking shows or channels just pick available people with high Klout scores.

Those two groups probably are enough to sustain a business, but I have no clue what anyone else would get out of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can understand trusting someone to monetize their product, but trusting someone to change a site based entirely on gimmicks and the narcissism of their customers or incestuous nature of the "social media elite"? Eesh.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Why I want you to help inflate the stock I just purchased"

Fixed that for you.</comment>


Show HN: Concurrent Sorting in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jfcg/sorty <comment><AUTHOR> I wanted to test a minimum argument list in srt function. Otherwise you need to give slice and wait group as function params

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've improved the api and hid the global vars.

</comment><comment><USER2> Serious question: Why use global variables?</comment>


The Mystery of the Tainted Cocaine - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=4683741&mode=print <comment><USER2> The levamisole test kits should be made available to the smugglers. If the smugglers knew they were shipping (detectably) impure cocaine, there would be pressure on the producers to stop cutting the product.

(... and a little voice in my head tells me that we'd be better off if drugs were regulated rather than illegal.)

<comment><USER3> Decriminalisation, and to some extent regulation (addicts can take pure drugs in certain clinics as part of a process to stop taking drugs), is currently providing some improvement in user and crime rates in Portugal: [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht...](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _As Dr. Clark put it: "The idea of letting addicts die to make drugs scarier > is reprehensible."_

Yes.

<comment><USER5> Why? Let them have cake... and die.

Let me explain what I mean. The "idea" may be reprehensible from a humanistic point of view and perhaps even from the drug pusher's point of view that it is bad business to kill your customers (too) quickly.

However, from a purely psychological viewpoint, the cocaine addicts are merely trying to escape their current reality, albeit temporarily, but at a well publicised cost to themselves, their families and their country. So, why not make that uber costly escape permanent?

The argument that drug addiction is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the drug addict is patently fatalistic and self-defeating. If you don't like the risk of dying of something then don't be involved in an activity that has a high propensity to lead to death by its very nature.

Of course the wisecracks will always argue that life is a disease with a bad prognosis because the outcome is always death... But I say, if all an addict seeks is escape from life by patently dangerous means, then let them have it, for good.

EDIT: Spelling & Grammar.

<comment><USER6> Do you consume caffeine for "escape"? How does your argument look if you replace cocaine with caffeine?

Your comment reads like you're regurgitating government propaganda swallowed wholesale.

<comment><USER5> Sure. Just because the government is saying something, even truth, does not automatically make it false.

Replacing cocaine with not only "caffeine", but also "theophylline" and "sildenafil citrate" also works. Only, neither of those has the propensity for "addiction" or "dependence" to the degree that "cocaine" does.

Or perhaps you have done some research that proves otherwise?

<comment><USER7> According to the WHO, cocaine use, when done safely and responsibly, is non- addictive causes essentially zero problems in the vast majority of users:

"Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems ... a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use. ... Use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive, therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations."[1]

Also, there is a wealth of research indicating that cocaine is vastly safer than caffeine, especially when it comes to the health and safety of unborn babies.

[1] <http://www.tni.org/archives/drugscoca-docs_sixhorsemen>

<comment><USER5> Perhaps your references need updating.

The current WHO statement is here: [http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.ht...](http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cocaine/en/index.html)

Furthermore, the reference you cite is : "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 5 March 1995 (unpublished Briefing Kit)."

An "unpublished Briefing Kit", oh come on !!! ??? !!!

<comment><USER7> You conveniently left out the part about it being the largest survey of cocaine use ever conducted. But no matter, the Consumer Reports guide to drugs will tell you essentially the same thing:

[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumen...](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Part two was just posted a few days ago:

[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&m...](http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=5393442&mode=print)

I'd encourage everyone to read this. About 1 in 3 Americans die from drug use or drug-related causes, so there is a real need for more people to become the 'drug geek' among their circle of friends.

<comment><USER3> It's more like 1 in 139 - not 'one in three': [http://www.latimes.com/sns- viral-death-causes-pictures,0,407...](http://www.latimes.com/sns-viral-death- causes-pictures,0,4078414.photogallery)

The leading cause of death (Heart Disease) kills 1 in 3 or 4 depending on the source: <http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html#data_usa>

Illicit drug related deaths are relatively low, 17,000 deaths in 2000 <http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30> \- compared to nearly half a million deaths related to smoking.

That said, you are totally right - everyone should be aware of the risks - even if you don't take drugs others around you might need educating. And part 2 is a great read.

<comment><USER8> About heart disease --- are there any simple things I can do now (when I'm 22) that will save my life when I'm 60, 70, 80, 90?

<comment><USER9> Eat right and don't live a sedentary lifestyle. It's not an absolute panacea, but you will be less likely to suffer that fate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like this article.

I like how they talk about drug smuggling technology in terms of natural selection against an inhospitable environment. It reminds me of hacking.

Less people die from hacking.

<comment><USER11> Which is one of the reasons I stick to computers and avoid the black market.

<comment><USER10> You're living your life in fear! <g>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here is a related report from the CDC:

<http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5849a3.htm>

First, I think it is too easy to write off the Columbians not cutting the cocaine themselves. It used to be that the drugs were imported in as pure a form as possible, to reduce the weight and volume that needs to be smuggled. But what has changed today is that the Columbians no longer control the entire supply chain. Mexicans pick up the coke from Columbia and transport it themselves across the border.

In the 70s through to the 90s, Escobar, Ochoa and Lehder controlled everything from production to distribution in the USA (usually with Americans they hired - such as George Jung and the guys featured in Cocaine Cowboys). Today the Mexican cartels control all the smuggling and distribution in the USA - so it actually makes sense that the Columbians are cutting their product in order to increase profits.

I read up on Levamisole to get more information about it (its melting point is 30% higher than coke - molecular mass of a third more) . I was looking into this speculating that the reason it is used as a cutting agent could be because it isn't picked up in purity tests that the cartels use. For some reason the CDC and DEA are finding it (perhaps because they explicitly test for it) while the Mexican cartels are not. It is also suitable to use as a cutting agent since it is metabolized into a compound that has similar effects to amphetamines (which have also been used to cut coke with previously). The article suggests this, as there is currently no easy test kit for Levamisole.

Second part I would speculate on is that Levamisole is somehow finding its way into the production process unintentionally. It could be that livestock in Columbia is treated with the drug (de-worming etc.) and that the labs are contaminated because of the fertilizer used, or because of some other part of the process.

Nowhere online does it mention the quantities of Levamisole found in the cocaine, which makes it difficult to speculate on the source. If it was one part per thousand, you could narrow it down to contamination or impurities passing through, if it was 1 part in 5, you could argue that it is a cutting agent.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Right-wing paramilitary death squads—which are on U.S. lists of > international terrorist organizations.

Wait, did I read that right? From what I now most right-wing paramilitary death squads are on CIA's payroll.

<comment><USER14> Why do you think those are mutually exclusive?

<comment><USER13> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can read more comments here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628216> , from when this story was last posted.

It's still a great read.

</comment><comment><USER15> Thanks for linking to the print version - it is much more pleasant to read :)

Note however, that in the print version, the graph[1] that shows _Percentage of cocaine samples found to be cut with cattle-deworming drug levamisole_ vs. _Total number of cocaine samples seized by the DEA_ for 2005-2009 is not included.

[1]: <http://www.thestranger.com/binary/98a1/Feature1-570.jpg>

Edit: What I find odd, is that while they (thestranger.com) have opted to remove the main image for the article, they include all comments - which, with 97 comments so far, means that those who print the article are going to end up with 4 pages containing the article and 13 pages of comments.

</comment><comment><USER16> just a smuggling idea: why don't they build an unmanned sub to shuttle the drugs around the border? it could go much deeper (no air needed), move real slowly, stay submerged for a very long time at one place, navigate completely automatically using GPS (except someone needs to pick up the cargo on the other end) and if caught it's hard to catch the smugglers.

<comment><USER17> Radio communications for subs are very problematic because water is conductive and more or less shields all radio waves.

AFAIK there is a way to communicate through radio with an underwater sub but involves complex antennas very long radio waves and complex signal processing, etc. There is no way a sub would be able to get a GPS signal under water.

It is possible to have a sub that runs under water most of the time and only occasionally pops up to get its location via GPS, but that would require very complex autopilot software, which the narco trafficers do not have yet.

<comment><USER18> They will get it at some point though - not only are there a lot of programmers who would love to write something as complex as that, but they can afford to pay very, very well.

<comment><USER19> They basically need a GAVIA[1] system with an extra couple of battery modules and one of the dvl/ins modules to allow for long travel distances with less accumulated error. Build a payload module and screw them all together and you're there. [1]<http://www.gavia.is/Products/Gavia-Technology/Payloads/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> To solve this mystery you would need to know who traffics the cocaine. Your search might lead you here - <http://www.google.com/search?q=cia+drug+trafficking>

</comment><comment><USER21> Is there the remotest possibility that there is some problem on the cocoa plantations, and the South American suppliers are cutting the supply to hide the low production levels.

</comment><comment><USER22> As a work of fiction: Kyle Mills's Rising Phoenix deals with a group tainting drugs to create a panic.

</comment><comment><USER23> Would terrorist groups ever choose to contaminate street drugs? Has this happened in the past?

</comment><comment><USER24> If you do enough research on drug trafficking, you'll find that the ruling elite pretty much have that market locked up. It can be shown without a doubt that the CIA, the Mossad and British intelligence run about 70% of the world's drug supply.

It's a 500 billion dollar a year business. More than oil. Think about it.

<comment><USER25> _It can be shown without a doubt that the CIA, the Mossad and British intelligence run about 70% of the world's drug supply._

Then show it.

<comment><USER24> Oh and if you want to go with a slightly more tame fact...the estimated value of illegal drugs, go with that.

<http://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+drug+trade+estimate>

Once you're convinced of the estimated value...start using your own logic. The value of the market is absolutely tremendous. If you don't think that the ruling powers that run the governments around the world don't want a piece of that action, you'd better think again.

<comment><USER25> Saying "something is so because I can make an argument for it" is not enough. Just because something is _possible_ does not mean it _is_. And there's still an enormous difference between constructing an argument for something and demonstrating that it is, in fact, possible.

So. If you can show it, then show it. If you can't, then don't say you can. Instead say "I have no actual evidence to backup this claim, but my theory is..."

<comment><USER11> I think he knows that. I think he's just avoiding actually making his argument because nobody can counter his points if we don't know what they are.

Also, to White_N_Nerdy, before you go 'look at how much it's worth, they MUST want that and are therefore involved'- consider that the USA GDP is 15 trillion dollars. There's no way our government could control the entire drug trade, which means a fraction of 500 billion is the best they could do, and what's a chunk of 500 billion to the US gov't? Besides, is a chunk of 500 billion actually worth the risk of the ENTIRE WORLD discovering our government is the most evil and corrupt organization ever to walk the earth? (not that they are, but they would be if they were orchestrating the entire drug trade)

<comment><USER26> One could argue the US Government still is - but the list of reasons they would provide is long and may not contain any bullet points related to drugs.

America is the land of the free (for all). I consider the steady-state employment of government powers at the federal level nothing more than a score board on a death match server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> maybe its not cut with it, but a by-product of the manufacturing.

</comment><comment><USER28> They have "drug experts". How do these people learns about the drug trade?

<comment><USER11> If you're implying a drug expert must have been a druggie, consider: has a dolphin expert ever been a dolphin?</comment></comment>


Show HN: manPage.me - A quick way to understand command-line arguments - <AUTHOR> http://manpage.me/ <comment><USER2> Neat.

FYI -

         ls -1

Returns "Argument not found."

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the note. I still have some work to do on the regex.</comment></comment>


HumanOps – Focusing on the human aspects of running infrastructure - <AUTHOR> http://www.humanops.com/ <comment><USER2> I am reminded of campaign by Paul O'Neill to improve worker safety at Alcoa. O'Neill was the first Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush -- to his credit, he got fired early on. I came across this in Charles Duhigg's book, The Power of Habit. It's summarized here:

[http://www.post- gazette.com/business/businessnews/2012/05/13...](http://www.post- gazette.com/business/businessnews/2012/05/13/Habitual-excellence-The- workplace-according-to-Paul-O-Neill/stories/201205130249)

In my DevOps experience, I've seen a lot of room for the application of his approach. Unfortunately, what often prevails is hurried workarounds and post- facto ass-covering.

Here's how O'Neill sums up his approach in the article above:

> He saw his safety goal as part of a broader emphasis on creating "habitual > excellence."

> "I believe an organization has the potential for greatness if every person > can say yes to three questions without reservation," Mr. O'Neill said. "The > first is, 'Can I say every day I am treated with dignity and respect by > everyone I encounter without respect to my pay grade, or my title, or my > race, or ethnicity or religious beliefs or gender?' And you know, there are > not a lot of places like that.

> "The second question is, 'Am I given the things I need - education, > training, tools, encouragement - so I can make a contribution to this > organization that gives meaning to my life?'

> And the third question is, 'Am I recognized for what I do by someone I care > about?'

> "Every company I know of says somewhere in its annual report, 'People are > our most important resource,' but my observation from all these places I had > worked was that there was no evidence it was true."

<comment><USER3> This goes back to the recent findings that are leading to how to motivate employees better now instead of the tradition of compensation (staying under inflation for most workers while management bonuses trend upward, anyway) and stability / loyalty (which nobody has anymore culturally besides small companies perhaps). The new drivers to motivate modern workers is around three of their core desires: autonomy, mastery, purpose. With most corporations, workers get mostly none of these and so you get decreased engagement, lower productivity, etc. which translate into just plain worse outcomes despite the old fashioned idea that spending more money on people will correlate with better results. Start-ups are a clear antithesis to the usual corporate model, but I have almost no faith that managers at large corporations really look carefully at how small companies succeed because they tend to be suffering from being beaten down by the same cultural problems that led to them giving up on changing anything - even managers have little autonomy, mastery, and purpose relatively, after all.

I know we hate anecdotes here, but I left my last position despite feeling like I was respected (my opinions were taken into account somewhere) and provided certain tools and some recognition. The problem was that I was given responsibility with no authority to enact sufficient changes to improve conditions for those that did _not_ feel the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would hope this boils down to "The end of on-call, forever."

Boeing doesn't require an aeronautical engineer in the cockpit of every 787, because they engineer their product to be operable. Have smart people build your infrastructure so that junior people can operate it, or else you wind up with unstable, burned-out, formerly-smart-people.

<comment><USER5> Hear, hear!

I'd say, the blurring of work/off-work hours is one of the greatest coups of industry. Having someone on-call means they don't have to hire someone else to be there during "off-hours". I understand it adds costs --yes, pass them on [but someone else which cheap out and just have on-call and undersell us: pass laws to eliminate the choice.

I'm no fan of the industrial age with its "dehumanization"/abstraction of labor, but I do appreciate the hard delineation between work hours and non- work hours.

<comment><USER6> Not a coup. More like the continued ass kicking of labor by capital.

I had a leash (pager) in 1992 that was tugged often. The fur really flew if I didn't call back immediately. eg I almost got fired because I was in the shower at the gym (at 7:00am) and took 15 min to call back.

From what I can tell, since pretty much everyone I know has done a tour of duty at Amazon or equiv, things have only gotten worse.

 _" means they don't have to hire someone else"_

Natch. But I see it more like someone else's failure to plan creates an (recurring) emergency for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The biggest problem I've seen is business priority in work scheduling of development. When the business lead doesn't really get[1] that developers wanting to fix a bug that crops up in production will allow them to sleep the night. Worse when developers and support are separate. Lord help you if the DBA team cannot be bothered to wake up.

I swear, next time someone says "its just needs a little manual intervention, no big deal", I might fly into a violent rage. Particularly if the cause is documented and just waiting a "sprint" to slot it into.

1) often because the development manager is trying to work their way up the ladder and is being a kiss-a$$ about functionality - especially fun in companies that like to move managers around to get them "broad experience" in the company

</comment><comment><USER8> Ok. I see a lot of platitudes, but what are they doing?

These are the more detailed parts from page links:

[https://github.com/HumanOps/HumanOps/blob/master/mantra.rst](https://github.com/HumanOps/HumanOps/blob/master/mantra.rst)

[https://github.com/HumanOps/HumanOps/blob/master/HumanOps.rs...](https://github.com/HumanOps/HumanOps/blob/master/HumanOps.rst)

I see several high level goals, but nothing implementable or implemented. Am I missing something? Is there a tool or procedural system as an end goal here? The goals and mantra are definitely admirable, but how?

<comment><USER2> Implementation details are going to be an exercise for the organization. But if you start from the wrong guiding principles (or no principles at all), you're going to end up with a lot of avoidable mistakes and pointless middle- of-the-night bridge calls.

<comment><USER9> Someone should write a retrospective on the Twelve-Factor App. Have these guiding operational principles changed with the technology / available network bandwidth?

<comment><USER10> 12 factor is hard because it's a guiding philosophy and has shades rather than just being there or not there. Each factor needs to be looked at for each app. It takes time and experience to actually see 12 factor violations as real problems. Actually implementing 12 factor in an application requires a lot more work than just importing a library or choosing a stack. Developers get more excited about features than they do about infrastructure and so don't spend as much time as they should thinking about making refinements.

At my current job, three microservices exist in one code repository. Because of this, continuous integration makes one build of all three services rather than three builds. The CI service doesn't provision for different environment variables per build, so the app has to take the config for the CI environment from the codebase. This is recognized as a problem, but not enough of one to get a unanimous consensus on doing the work to change it. I want to change it now, because I know from experience that it's better to rip the bandaid off of architectural problems because it's only going to get harder to fix as time goes on. Also because it affects my daily workflow in weird ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not sure why this needs fancy branding. This sounds like what any ops organization is supposed to be focused on. I agree that there are plenty of places out there that approach ops poorly, but to me what they outline here doesn't sound like HumanOps it just sounds like the way you are supposed to approach ops in your engineering organization. All of the big name tech places I've worked at have had this attitude. I have interviewed at some other large tech places that do not deal with ops his way and I choose not to work for a company with what I view as a "broken" approach to operations.

<comment><USER12> It needs fancy branding only because the kind of people who generally prevent these basics from happening (read: management, who don't have to feel the pain of their decisions) also tend to latch on to Manifestos and Systems and Techniques and so on...that have fancy branding.

It's packaging up common-sense humane workplace policies in a way that people lacking common-sense or humane approaches can swallow.</comment></comment>