A profound apology - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.uber.com/a-profound-apology/ <comment><USER2> Here's the conversation that took place:

      Travis: So we are reducing the number of black cars in the next few months.
      Fawzi: It's good.
      Travis: You probably saw some email.
      Fawzi: I saw the email [that says] it starts in May. But you're raising the standards and dropping the prices.
      Travis: We're not dropping the prices on Black.
      Fawzi: But in general.
      Travis: In general, but we have competitors. Otherwise we'd be out of business.
      Fawzi: Competitors? You had the business model in your hands, you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride.
      Travis: No, no no. You misunderstand me. We started high-end. We didn't go low-end because we wanted to. We went low-end because we had to because we'd be out of business.
      Fawzi: But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you.  You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day.
      Travis: Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?
      Fawzi: You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.
      Travis: On Black? Bullshit.
      Fawzi: We started with $20.
      Travis: You know what, some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. Good luck!
      Fawzi: Good luck to you too, I know that you aren't going to go far.

<comment><USER2> Personally, I didn't find this disproportionately disrespectful. The driver makes a couple unsubstantiated claims (perfectly ok--it's a car discussion). Travis does the same. The driver starts making accusations ("you keep changing every day"). Travis asks for clarification. The driver keeps up his attack ("You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices.")

If someone accused me in such a fashion, and persisted despite me asking for clarification and trying to actually explain my view to them, I'd probably be a lot more vitriolic than Travis was. (It's a character flaw of mine.) And saying that some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit is, well, true?

I don't like that billionaires are held to a different standard. People say, "they don't need protection; they're rich." Ok, but if you discount something a billionaire says for no reason other than that they're rich and have easy lives, you're not a dispassionate truthseeker.

<comment><USER3> From the Bloomberg article - > In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute.

The least a CEO could have said is to thank the driver for his feedback and promise to look into it.

Just because you're disrespectful doesn't mean the CEO of a consumer facing company can treat its partners like that.

<comment><USER2> I spent the last half hour thinking about this on and off, trying to shift my perspective. I feel sort of guilty. Advocating for objectivity and dispassionate truthseeking is the second easiest way to curry favor on HN, and it feels cheap. (The easiest is still outrage, never to be topped anywhere :))

If anything, I find it sort of funny that Travis got mad. He handled it pretty well at first; they were just having an honest disagreement. Then it was like he just decided, "fuck it, I've had a bad day, and I don't need to take this guy's shit." He might meditate on the fact that this guy spends his evenings being the reason that Uber's business model works.

<comment><USER4> The whole thing reminds me of when Tommy Carcetti becoming mayor scene from the Wire. The old outgoing mayor is giving him some advice and he basically explains that when you're mayor you have to smile and eat shit from everybody- the unions, the lobbyists, the press, the teachers, the churches... and smile and act gracious while you're doing it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzqO6UOPFQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzqO6UOPFQ)

Travis should have just smiled and eaten this guys shit, because that's just part of being CEO. "Thank you for your feedback, we'll look into it. Keep up the good work and thanks for the ride!"

<comment><USER5> Even then, at some point, you're off stage so to speak when it comes to managing that "impression" for others. You can't always be fake all the time, it gets draining.

<comment><USER6> Eh, I think that just means the role of the CEO is not one you're cut out for. I know people who spend their entire workday and their entire work-related interactions outside of the workday being fake, because that's what they need to do to succeed at their job. They come out of it completely exhausted, and they have friends they can recharge with, privately. But if they get an urgent email or IM on the weekend, it's back to being fake. And they're not even CEO- level.

It's a job skill. The job of CEO requires a lot of skills, almost none of which are the ability to come up with and execute on a great initial idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a bit unclear what is so negative about this. While there is an argument that a leader should be able to handle criticism without losing his/her temper, he appears to respond to the driver as an equal with whom he profoundly disagrees. He didn't write the man off or act as though he wasn't worth his time, he simply responded in a frustrated manner to an interaction that he clearly was not in the mood for.

Does being brusque require a public apology?

<comment><USER8> >Kalanick: You know what?

>Kamel: What?

>Kalanick: Some people don't like to take responsibility for their own shit. They blame everything in their life on somebody else.

I think that is a very insulting and superior thing to say to someone.

<comment><USER9> Something that struck me is: almost half of the country would disagree with you (the more conservative half). A lot of the American public believes what Kalanick said to be very true when it comes to low-ish income people complaining about what wealthier people do to them.

<comment> gingerbread-man In my experience, it isn't the wealthy who think the poor are lazy/irresponsible-- it's the working poor and the lower middle class. The "more conservative half" of the country isn't particularly the wealthier half of the country. Speculating as to why that is would probably overflow this comments section.

<comment><USER10> I know a lot of well off programmers who absolutely believe that the only reason anyone isn't a well off programmer is laziness and poor character. Don't know how you're making your class divisions, but I certainly wouldn't call them lower middle class or below.

<comment> gingerbread-man Many lower-middle-class Americans look down on the poor because they see themselves on equal footing, and believe that "If I can work two jobs and make ends meet, so could s/he if s/he had the work ethic."

The most arrogant programmers I know seem to think the exact opposite: that they are among the elite few graced with the gift of true programming intuition. (Not true.) They don't think the poor are lazy, they think the poor are helpless and un-talented.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but those are just two different ways to achieving the same goal: a feeling of superiority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > By now I'm sure you've seen the video where I treated an Uber driver > disrespectfully. To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement. My > job as your leader is to lead…and that starts with behaving in a way that > makes us all proud. That is not what I did, and it cannot be explained away. > > It's clear this video is a reflection of me—and the criticism we've > received is a stark reminder that I must fundamentally change as a leader > and grow up....

I watched the video 3 times, and did not find anything wrong with the CEO's behavior. And don't understand why the CEO should be issuing any apology at all for this video.

He was explaining the situation politely. Its when the driver started placing his $97K bankruptcy charge on the CEO - the CEO lost his cool.

If the CEO is contemplating changing this polite no-nonsense behavior -investors should be very concerned

EDIT: I came across this interesting comment from _gpawl_ , somewhere down this thread

>>> It's a good tactic -- blow off all the worse things you do, then apologize for the one time you weren't at fault, people notice and give you sympathy, and start to forget those worse things.

<comment><USER13> You copied this comment from another thread, where I responded:

Uber isn't the driver's employer. Uber is a vendor to the driver. The driver is complaining that its vendor made commitments, on which the driver depended, and then reneged. The driver might be right or might be wrong, but in no discussion with a vendor in the history of the Fortune 500 has it ever been OK for the vendor to accuse their customer of "not taking responsibility for their own shit".

What the video shows isn't wrong on the level of the Fowler post. It just shows Kalanick as petty and deeply unserious about his role, which is an alarming look for someone whose company is embroiled in scandals about mismanagement.

<comment><USER12> Yes, that thread was marked duplicate.

At least with this instance, it did not seem like the Kalanick's fault (nor the driver's fault). The driver got a bit aggressive and we know why.

I don't agree with the statement: "Uber is a vendor to the driver".

This is theoretically true, but doesn't work that way in practice. Uber is like a freelance marketplace for drivers. In practice I have never seen individual or handful of freelancers having any power over monopolistic marketplace authorities. Nobody stopped the driver from working with Uber - but he can't! Uber is a vendor for the riders only.

<comment><USER14> The $97k, and the reason the driver is bankrupt has a _ton_ to do with Travis' actions as CEO of Uber, and is where Uber becomes, in a non-traditional sense, the vendor to the driver.

Uber behaved as the vendor for a $97k auto loan, in so far as Uber is the one with the big name that worked with car dealers and loan companies to get into the subprime auto loan business because that's what a bunch of stand up guys Uber is, and 2008 was _years_ ago.

It was only with Uber's help, that the loan company came to the table so that driver could sign a contract to finance a $97k car. An expensive car, to be sure, but you're not allowed to drive for Uber Black in a Toyota Corolla from 1990, so you actually need a stupidly expensive car to drive for Uber Black. Unfortunately, financing on that expensive a car leaves the driver in a $5k hole every month for car payment. Not too bad, but if a driver can make $8k/month; $10k with extra work and some luck, that's not a bad deal.

Travis' and Uber then pulled the rug out from under drivers after they'd signed the loan. Drivers could no longer limit themselves to driving Uber Black. Uber, as a platform, forced them to accept UberX rides, or risk being permanently banned. UberX rides aren't as lucrative for the driver which really cuts into amount earned per month. Then Uber also lowered rates for Uber Black rides, making it cheaper for passengers, but, again, cutting into drivers' wage.

Suddenly, the drivers were beholden to a car loan and driving for Uber wasn't making enough money to stay afloat. This is how the driver got into that $97k hole.

In the video, Travis' and thus ultimately Uber's defense is that the driver being in this hole is in _no_ way Uber's fault, which is a crock of shit.

Saying "the driver knew what they were getting into, and they signed a contract" does makes it legal, but when that's what they have to fall back on, Uber might be run by a bunch of assholes, starting from the top.

<comment><USER15> Holy shit. That explains why I took a S550 the other day despite it being an UberX ride. This would have been avoided if Uber had never got into the auto loan business.

This is gross. I'm glad to have deleted my account and go full Lyft.

<comment><USER16> Not so fast! Lyft has done something rather similar: [http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lyft-Plus-changes- ups...](http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Lyft-Plus-changes-upset-some- drivers-5768364.php)

<comment><USER15> The biggest difference is that Lyft didn't create a car lending program and dupe people into thinking that their $5k/month Escalade would ALWAYS yield $10k/mo profits.

Lyft cars are wholly owned by their drivers

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Honestly, most of the conversation is a lot more genuine than most interactions as seen on the internet. Most execs would have shut up and avoided any discussion. I am not saying that I agree with everything, but of all the Uber news, this is the least worrying.

<comment><USER18> I'm rarely one to defend Uber, but I agree. I didn't see the big deal. He was a little rude, callous, and aloof. Not great, but meh.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> He was a little rude, callous, and aloof.

This is the big deal. It's solidifying the picture that's been built of him over the last few weeks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This doesn't excuse the way he talked to the driver either way, but who was factually correct in the conversation?

[http://www.recode.net/2017/2/28/14766964/video-uber- travis-k...](http://www.recode.net/2017/2/28/14766964/video-uber-travis- kalanick-driver-argument)

>Kamel: "But people are not trusting you anymore. Do you think people will buy cars anymore? ... I lost $97,000 because of you. I'm bankrupt because of you. You keep changing every day. You keep changing every day."

>Kalanick: "Hold on a second. What have I changed about Black?"

>Kamel: "You changed the whole business! You dropped the prices."

>Kalanick: "On Black? Bullshit."

>Kamel: "We started with $20."

<comment><USER20> The Bloomberg article notes the decreased rates:

> In 2012, Uber Black cost riders $4.90 per mile or $1.25 per minute in San > Francisco, according to an old version of Uber's website. Today, Uber > charges $3.75 per mile and $0.65 per minute.

<comment><USER21> That's a good data point, but not perfect, since the amount Uber charges customers isn't necessarily directly correlated with the amount they pay drivers...

<comment><USER22> I thought Uber took a standard %?

<comment><USER23> They do. However I believe compensation to drivers is more complicated because of what are essentially marketing costs in the form of subsidized rides. A year or so ago before Uber left Austin a driver told me one weekend that Uber guaranteed him something like $400 to drive for the weekend so long as he picked up 30 fares (I'm fudging the numbers a bit here because I cant remember). Based on promotions being run for customers and increased rates Uber was definitely going to have to come out of their own pocket to meet that guarantee.

<comment><USER24> Are you sure that $400 amount wasn't just credits for using the app rather than actual money?

I've seen both Uber and Lyft advertise that if you become a driver and do X rides in Y time you'll get Z credits to use as a rider.

<comment><USER25> No, uber offers heavy incentives to drivers.

When I drove a few years ago, easily half of my income came from subsidies and guarantees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The driver covertly filmed a passenger during a ride he was being paid for and disclosed the footage to a news organisation. This is extremely unethical IMO. Even if this is the CEO of Uber, it is entirely inappropriate, and he IMO is still entitled to an expectation of privacy equally as you or I would when we are paying for the exclusive private hire of a vehicle.

<comment><USER27> Every taxicab I have been in for the last few years has had internal video cameras. Where are you getting the idea that someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's vehicle, for hire or not? In general in America, this expectation extends no further than one's home.

<comment><USER26> I live in the UK and the place is covered by CCTV including private hire vehicles, but we also have the Data Protection Act, which makes this kind of thing illegal. I know if I am being filmed in a taxi because there must a notice prominently displayed, and I also know that the only way this footage will ever be used, is if I attack the driver and it is used as criminal evidence against me, or if make a complaint about a driver and he uses it to bolster his case with Transport for London.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > This is the first time I've been willing to admit that I need leadership > help and I intend to get it.

That's bold. I can't remember hearing any recent CEO saying this.

Best of luck to Uber and their CEO.

<comment><USER29> That's because normally the CEO is fired after presiding over a fuckup of this magnitude. (The rampant racism and sexism, not just this latest)

<comment><USER28> If social media wants his head, I'm sure they can get it.

I think it's bad for tech and the country when we don't support people who say they made a mistake and are seeking help. If you do that, you only end up with really good liars in charge.

Allow someone, somewhere, to admit a mistake and correct it in a leadership position.

<comment><USER30> > we don't support people who say they made a mistake and are seeking help.

> you only end up with really good liars in charge.

There's a difference between someone realizing they've made a mistake and openly admitting it without needing external pressure / evidence versus someone just "handling" more evidence of wrong-doing coming up.

In this case, at a cursory glance, it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven. If that's what's happened in this case, then I'm not sure that forgiving them / supporting their subsequent activities is safe since it would be more like enablement, ie: just enabling the person to continue.

If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.

<comment><USER28> > There's a difference between someone realizing they've made a mistake and > openly admitting it without needing external pressure / evidence versus > someone just "handling" more evidence of wrong-doing coming up.

I agree there's a difference, I just don't see the value in calling for his head. There's nothing else to expect of him. He clearly wants to stay and keep trying. It's the board's job to decide if he's fit to remain as CEO.

> it looks more like someone was accused of a negative type of behavior, the > person never acknowledged it or resolved it for a long period, then suddenly > a series of events followed by video evidence came-up, only then the person > acknowledges it and issues an apology and demands/expects to be forgiven

I don't see him expecting anything more from anyone but himself. You may infer that, but it's not written there.

I think his message is simple. He wants to remain as CEO and is willing to take steps to improve his leadership style to do so. You may feel those are empty words. To me, they're meaningful because I've read stories of companies that have been transformed by CEOs who become aware how their faults effect the company. It's possible he is not being sincere, but, I don't see much value in wishing for his demise. An in-company replacement would likely keep the same culture going, and an outside replacement isn't reliable in the tech world. As John Sculley showed, that's risky.

> If on the other hand, the perpetrator acknowledged not just this specific > issue that had video evidence, but also acknowledged other issues/faults and > gave a plan of action for how they were changing their behavior (more than > I'm getting help now), then it would be something positive.

Given the shortness of this apology, I'd guess he isn't quite sure what his other faults are, and is seeking help to identify them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It takes a certain kind of person to declare that their own apology is "profound".

<comment><USER32> Profound has two meanings. You're confusing one meaning ("having great knowledge or insight") with the other ("very great or intense").

"He has profound insights on the topic of healthcare" vs. "Please accept my profound sorrow for your loss".

<comment><USER31> No. The profound in "please accept my sorrow" is a comment on the depth of your sorrow, something that you are uniquely equipped to describe. "A profound apology follows:" is a comment on how I expect my reader to interpret this message, something I am not at all equipped to describe.

<comment><USER32> And the "profound" in "please accept my profound apology" can't likewise be a comment on the depth and sincerity of the apology, a trait the issuer is similarly uniquely equipped to describe?

Come on. I get all the backlash against Uber — the outrage they're experiencing is rightly deserved — but this is truly asinine.

<comment><USER31> I still think my initial reaction was reasonable, albeit subjective. But ya, we can stop debating semantics now.

<comment><USER33> FWIW I thought the same thing. It's an artless word choice by someone without enough experience of real life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Here is the video for the curious: [https://youtu.be/gTEDYCkNqns?t=237](https://youtu.be/gTEDYCkNqns?t=237)

To his credit he did actually try to engage with the upset driver - most other executives would just dodge the conversation to avoid looking bad.

<comment><USER35> True, and he might have also responded with a safe on-brand reply that would have been criticized as "corporate disingenuous".

Give me the genuine emotional reply any day, that's where you find truth, strengths, weaknesses out in the open.

Whether the business model is unfair on drivers is a separate issue to the conduct of this encounter. At the end of the day, the driver went too far saying "I'm bankrupt because of you", I have no sympathy for people who exaggerate to score points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It strikes me as a mistake to apologise for something that you shouldn't apologise for.

I thought the video was humanising, and if anything, he remained cool in the face of threatening behaviour. Apologising just legitimses the critics, who'll remain critical regardless.

<comment><USER37> For me the video humanizes Uber drivers - the people who have the most to lose when Uber brass damage the company through scandal and mismanagement. The fact that Kalanick dismisses the driver's opinions on what might be good for the company reveals the fragility of his ego. If he'd listen to the opinions of the people who actual make Uber work, he might learn a lot.

<comment><USER38> The drivers are just a stopgap until most Uber rides are self driving cars.

They're all screwed in the end anyway.

<comment><USER39> The problem is, Uber will be gone too, unless they will provide a valet service or become a brand for one of the big car companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I would like to hear an argument for why Travis should remain as CEO.

In my mind there's simply been too many colossal failures as a leader, and while I don't consider this video in particular to be resignation worthy, I feel like it's just another datapoint in a growing dataset showing that he's not mature enough (at 40 no less) to handle his role. A straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. This letter _seems_ sincere, but I was fairly disappointed that there have been no high-level firings or resignations (that I'm aware of) since the Fowler story broke. There's a deep credibility issue here, and the only way I can think of to fix it is if he leaves.

So why should he stay?

Edit: I'm wrong, Amit Singhal was asked to resign due to not disclosing an alleged sexual harassment offense at Google.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/technology/uber-sexual- ha...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/technology/uber-sexual-harassment- amit-singhal-resign.html?_r=0)

FTA: A little more than a week after Uber faced stinging accusations that it had ignored female employees' complaints of sexual harassment, the company dismissed the head of its engineering efforts for failing to disclose a sexual harassment claim from his previous job.

<comment><USER41> Being an ass hole is sometimes an effective form of leadership. This event may be a datapoint FOR keeping him as a leader.

Steve Jobs was an ass hole.

<comment><USER42> Don't confuse someone being successful _because_ they're an asshole with someone being successful _despite_ being an asshole.

<comment><USER41> Part of Steve Jobs success was attributed to the fact that he was an asshole not despite of it. Read his biography.

<comment><USER42> I've read two Steve Jobs biographies.

Don't confuse Steve Jobs being successful _because_ he's an asshole with Steve Jobs being successful _despite_ being an asshole.

<comment><USER41> Steve jobs success is attributed to MANY things, part of his success is attributed to his personality for which he is known to be an asshole. If you read two biographies, you'd know.

<comment><USER42> > Being an ass hole is sometimes an effective form of leadership. This event > may be a datapoint FOR keeping him as a leader.

"Being an asshole doesn't make you Steve Jobs." \- Steve Jobs

Anyway, I'd suggest you consider what kind of leader you'd be willing to follow and then work backwards to define your concept of what good leadership may or may not be.

Steve Jobs may have existed in a very special circumstance that allowed him certain, um, behavioral privileges. That does _not_ necessarily make every aspect of his character worth modeling.

<comment><USER41> Never said every aspect was worth modeling. I specifically used the term "effective leader." An effective leader is one who delivers results, not necessarily one that is admired.

An effective leader knows when to sacrifice pawns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I saw th video and it wasn't that disrepectful if you were a normal person, but since he is the CEO of some mega corp, any slight temperament in a bad way will get you this PR

</comment><comment><USER44> From the post:

        > It's clear this video is a reflection of me—and
        > the criticism we've received is a stark reminder that
        > I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.
        > This is the first time I've been willing to admit that
        > I need leadership help and I intend to get it.

I'm no fan of Uber, these past few months lowered my opinion of them, and words are just words, but even still: this is a very unequivocal statement, and very difficult for someone to make so publicly, in the lime light. A good step, I think.

And, for what it's worth, the video conversation doesn't seem to bad. I think Travis has more on his mind than just the recent video, but it's safer to pin it on that one thing.

<comment><USER45> How difficult is it, really, when billions of your own dollars are on the line? We sure do have a tendency to infantilize the infinitely privileged.

Showing up to excel at a job where you have to navigate a minefield of sexual misconduct, hostile management and complicit HR is difficult.

For Travis, stepping aside to let a new leader build the culture of respect and accountability that he has abysmally failed to foster would actually be difficult.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The problem for Travis is now everyone will still believe this is just a reaction to getting bad press, because historically, they have just done that :)

</comment><comment><USER47> Care to venture a guess that he wouldn't have apologized if the video wasn't made public? Much like the recent sexually abusive culture revelations. Travis continues to do the least he can actually do without doing anything that would actually hurt himself, as resigning and putting a true and tried professional CEO in charge would - and let's be clear, he just made it clear that he never intends on stepping down.

</comment><comment><USER48> Kalanick is also a leader in many communities: in Silicon Valley, in the business community, in the U.S., and worldwide.

Many respond to such issues with more bluster, with defensiveness, with pressure on the weaker party (who then retracts their claims, blames themselves, forgives the powerful person, etc.), with claims that such behavior is appropriate. Unfortunately this behavior is now seen in world leaders.

I think his note is responsible and appropriate. It's good to see.

(I'm no Uber fan; I don't use them due to their treatment of their drivers, and their disrespect for and undermining of local legal authority.)

</comment><comment> git-pull Here's the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns)

</comment><comment><USER49> I did not find this video problematic at all. If anything, I am impressed that Kalanick went for a conversation with the driver and on the same level. This could be a cultural difference, but I perceived the driver tone as aggressive and bullying, when Kalanick was eager but civil. I think Kalanick handled the confrontation (which is what this was) pretty well. This fits his style and my perception of him and while he may not be a person I would want to hang out with, this is why Uber is successful with Kalanick as a CEO.

</comment><comment><USER50> You need to directly link to this because this apology does not actually show up on [https://newsroom.uber.com/](https://newsroom.uber.com/) . [http://i.imgur.com/9fiFNJx.png](http://i.imgur.com/9fiFNJx.png)

<comment><USER51> Strange! I was perplexed that the apology is followed by a multi-racial image of gym rats, but then saw it was part of a "featured article" on Uber delivered influenza vaccine from last year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Wow, from the title I thought this would be in regards to the multiple claims of sexual harassment and a hostile workplace. Have they acknowledged those situations yet?

With this video, he got triggered and left. I'm sure he's sorry but I don't see this as anywhere remotely close to the experiences several female engineers have shared. Hopefully his response to them is magnitudes more heartfelt, apologetic and transformative.

</comment><comment><USER53> It's almost as if many of Uber's problems stem from mistreatment of lower- level employees.. not only on the corporate side, but also by customers against drivers.

</comment><comment><USER54> At this point who can have empathy for the management of this company? This overvalued, overinvested company.

</comment><comment><USER55> I fail to see the issue here.

If anything, this whole thing makes me respect Kalanick and Uber more.

I watched the video of the driver ambushing Kalanick - and yes, it was clearly an ambush:

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

If anything, he handled himself quite well - especially considering he probably just wanted to go home.

Can any of you say you would have handled a tense situation, with somebody abusing you any better?

It's all well and good to sit in your chair at home, comfortable - but how many of you had to deal with

The fact that he took the time to actually talk with the driver says something. At worst, he said b*llshit at the end, when he's clearly frustrated at what's becoming a rant. The driver obviously just needed to vent.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady Reading the conversation they had in the thread here it seemed 50/50 to me. Watching the video completely changed my mind so if you're ITT and making a judgement based on a transcript take a look at the video. The driver is pretty calm and then seems to touch a nerve with Kalanick who gets loud and rude. Also as they're talking over each the transcripts here aren't accurate. The driver is actually quoting figures, not just complaining without evidence.

I wish Lyft would expand out of the US. If they did, they'd have my business immediately. As for Uber, with everything over the last few weeks they've lost it.

</comment><comment><USER56> Can someone link to the video? This is all news to me...

<comment><USER57> On front page earlier, with couple hundred comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13757628](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13757628)

Direct link: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in- video-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-uber- ceo-argues-with-driver-over-falling-fares)

<comment><USER58> Seems to have gotten flagged off the front page fairly quickly.

(Actually a lot of stuff seems to do that lately - I find myself doing a daily check of the second page, just to see which big stories got flagged down before I saw them.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> What's missing from this apology is any statement about what, specifically, he's going to do to change.

If you're reading this, Travis, here are some ideas:

\- Overhaul transparency at Uber because you don't know how to monitor your culture & doing so takes longer to learn than letting in some light

\- Mindfulness meditation (lots of it)

\- Become an Uber driver for a month and only live off what you make driving. Do the Undercover Boss thing.

\- Brain programming (shameless plug: I invented methods for doing this & they double as mindfulness practices)

</comment><comment><USER60> Don't we remember this?

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-executive-reportedly- ad...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-executive-reportedly-advocated- smearing-some-journalists-1.2838674)

> A senior executive at U.S. ride-sharing company Uber suggested that the > company should spend a million dollars to hire a team of opposition > researchers to "dig up dirt" on its critics in the media, BuzzFeed reported.

</comment><comment><USER61> I suspect Uber's board was threatening to fire him. A person like Kalanick makes no apologies unless forced to do so by people even more powerful than him.

</comment><comment><USER62> Nothing like a mea culpa dragged from you by the threat of impending lawsuits and a truly vicious turn of public opinion. I'm sure that he's utterly sincere, and this is in no way just an empty reaction to external and internal pressures.

Seriously.

Right?

<comment><USER63> I certainly do not intend to take Travis' side on anything, but sometimes genuine internal realizations are set off by external events (e.g. Spiderman and his Uncle getting shot, or in more seriousness, any number of reformed ex- cons). The problem is that it is largely impossible for an external observer to differentiate genuine internal realization and competency at public relations.

<comment><USER64> > ...it is largely impossible for an external observer to differentiate...

Not impossible at all. You do it by observing behavior before and after the supposed epiphany; time will reveal whether this particular leopard has truly managed to change his shorts.

It'll be interesting, in particular, to observe how he reacts when people directly challenge his fitness to discharge his role in ways he can't or won't ignore. I gather that in the past he's tended to react to such challenges precipitously and, where possible, punitively. If he's genuinely gained a new perspective on his behavior and its consequences, I would not expect that to continue.

<comment><USER63> Very fair. I meant to say that it is hard to tell in this moment, and agree with your assessment that behavior change over a future time interval (presumably with longer intervals resulting in better confidence) is a good test.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Uber is a dumpster fire. Whenever I see a black Prius with the Uber sticker on the car cutting through traffic, tailgating cars, rolling right turns, and general assery... it reminds me that moral bankruptcy pervades the whole company culture.

Stay away from this company.

</comment><comment><USER66> Uber needs to stop playing this game. They need to be quite and let the courts/legal system deal with any issues. 99.99% of people don't give a shit about any of this and people have really really short memory.

Someone is giving them bad PR advice.

</comment><comment><USER67> Was there any word on whether Travis banned the driver after that encounter? I heard from employees that, in the early days, he had to be pried away from Twitter due to a propensity for perma-banning those who harshly criticized the company.

<comment><USER60> Fun fact: according to the article, the driver gave him a 1 star.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> The true character of Kalanick is what you see in that video.

The apology doesn't mean much.

He is giving an impression of accountability when in reality that driver does not need an apology, he needs a viable business model that allows him to make a decent living.

</comment><comment><USER69> BS plauditory apology.

You don't get to call something you said "profound." Others can find it profound, but you can't. It's like a comedian finding themselves funny. It's normally the audience that finds the comedian funny.

</comment><comment><USER70> This looks to me as if Uber wants to say we are so sensitive to be fair and honest that even for such a minor thing CEO publicly apologizes. Imagine what we do with real problems like sexual harassment in the office.

</comment><comment><USER71> Putting Travis to the side, nobody cares about the privacy of the two ladies in the video who have been involuntarily dragged into national news? (i assume nobody asked their consent to publish the video)

<comment><USER72> You give up your privacy when you enter an Uber vehicle.

If the two ladies are upset, they should address the issue with Travis the next time they hang out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> That is a good apology.

We've seen Uber discussed here and not just in context of this incident, but much worse stuff. It would be interesting to see what comes of that...

But taken it on its own, this is what apologies should be like and not the "I am so very sorry you all feel this way" type apologies which then usually also proceed to shift blame (circumstances, others, acts of God, bad mood, etc).

Now whether he actually feels this way or not or this is just good PR I am not sure. It remains to be seen.

</comment><comment><USER74> By "ashamed" I assume he really meant "embarrassed". I'm just glad that I'm not a well known figure, because I embarrass myself almost daily.

</comment><comment><USER75> Please help me understand this.

These Uber drivers disrupted the regular cab/taxi business by driving their wages low, and now their complain is their wages are going low?

Sorry but that is how capitalism/free market economy in general works.

You won't always be on the positive side of the profit.

<comment><USER72> No. "Uber Black" requires a luxury car and uber offers a 3 year lease program to help drivers purchase a vehicle. People signed up and then uber changed the rules so that they now have to accept "Uber x" fares too. Uber changed the rules and drivers are, correctly, pissed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I ride with Uber drivers who complain to me about their earnings all the time and I just nod graciously and agree with them. (Even though I couldn't care less.) Maybe Uber should hire me as CEO, I'll even give them a discount.

</comment><comment><USER77> The key question is how many people will stop using Uber based on this video. I for one will still continue using their services. I know Travis is an asshole and I hate Uber, but I hate cabs even more. And I can't depend just on Lyft every time

</comment><comment><USER78> Forgive me for not being glued to the news about Uber. What did he say to the driver?

</comment><comment><USER79> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTsDqIcpHUc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTsDqIcpHUc) comes to mind. Words are cheap.

</comment><comment><USER80> The horse left that barn a long time ago.

This macho crap pervades the actions, language and demeanour of modern business and notably technology.

Time to grow up and take responsibility.

</comment><comment> m-j-fox Am I the only one who found the first part of the video more interesting?

That guy is full of drugs. No judgement. Just recognizing what drugs looks like.

<comment><USER81> He look's drunk/high, but I wouldn't say he's "full of drugs"

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> At least he's owning up to things. I would hate to be him right now. Companies have fallen into obscurity for less than this.

</comment><comment><USER83> Did Uber fire the driver? Or are they ok with passengers being recorded and those recordings being made public?

</comment><comment><USER84> Am I the only one who finds his conversation around the 1:45-2:15 mark of the video to be hilarious?

</comment><comment><USER85> Using the label "profound" on your own statement seems a bit self- aggrandizing.

</comment><comment><USER86> What low rent CEO of a $70B company goes home in a taxi?

<comment><USER84> My understanding is that this was in an Uber Black. He's using the nicest version of his product and the one that pays out the most to the drivers. Sounds about like what I would expect him to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> I thought this was for female employees at Uber.

</comment><comment><USER88> s/profound/short/

Also: "I want to apologise" and "I apologise" are subtly but distinctly different.

</comment><comment><USER89> So, no stepping down yet?

</comment><comment><USER90> Why is he still in charge? The dude is running the company into the ground as fast as he can.

</comment><comment><USER91> Just the qualities of a leader that driver needed.

Oh wait, sorry, that would imply some acceptance of responsibility.

<comment><USER92> Please don't post snark about inflammatory topics. It's the last thing we need more of here.

If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully. If you don't, please don't post at all.

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13761339](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13761339) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> The problem with SV's propensity for turning twenty-somethings into CXOs is that they are fundamentally _NOT_ mature. Studies have shown that our brains aren't fully mature until we're 25 but it seems to take a long time for the feeling of entitlement you garner before that age to wear off after you've reached the quarter-century mark.

I actually do hope he's sincere - I hope he's really going to get help - and I specifically hope that counseling leads him to eliminate the misogyny that we've all read about the last couple days. I'm not holding my breath that any of this will happen. After all, how would it move the valuation forward? Unfortunately I think that the most likely scenario is that he'll become more of a detriment to the company and the investors will "ease him out".

<comment><USER94> Travis is 40.

<comment><USER95> Maturity comes with experience, not time.

Perhaps the experience of having one of his contractor-chumps call him out on his worker-hostile corporate policy changes _while working_ will mature him a bit more.

The rest of us have to make do with mundane stuff like the births of our children, not making rent/mortgage on the first of the month, having our water/power/gas shut off, getting laid off, drinking too much tequila, catching a flat tire at 1 AM during a downpour, losing the championship match, putting our favorite dog or cat down, burying our parents, getting married, experiencing a perfect day miles from any stranger out in the wilderness, finishing the marathon run, getting stopped by the cops for a BS pretext reason, or writing a horrendously long run-on sentence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> Get out while you can! Too little, too late.</comment>


Show HN: Alias – Create aliases in Slack and type less - <AUTHOR> http://www.aliasbot.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all, Vic the creator here.

I build this app to help myself type less in Slack. I found myself typing very long phrases (chrome extension, facebook messenger etc) over and over again and so I build this tool.

I can just make an alias, "ce" and have it be seen by my recipient as the full "chrome extension" phrase.

Please leave any feedback or questions in the comments and I'll be around to answer them!</comment>


Summary: Sinfonia, A New Paradigm for Building Scalable Distributed Systems - <AUTHOR> http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2011/03/sinfonia-new-paradigm-for-building.html <comment><USER2> Discussion in the other HN thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2294188></comment>


Math from Three to Seven: Chapters One and Three [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ams.org/bookstore/pspdf/mcl-5-prev.pdf <comment><USER2> I believe the most important learning device used is the fact that he is sitting patiently with the kids and giving them his full attention, sending the meta-message to them that "this is important stuff and you will be rewarded with an adult's undivided interest if you work with this".

All children (and most adults) crave attention, and the giving and taking of it is perhaps the most powerful tool that a parent and/or teacher has in the arsenal.

I've always thought a lot of parents do it totally wrong...they give the misbehaving kid lots of (albeit negative) attention while the quiet, well- behaved one they ignore.

My parenting style was the exact opposite...I always stroked good behaviours and tried my best to ignore bad ones.

<comment><USER3> This is an exceptionally good point. I've read a lot about early child development, and I've never come across this before. It sounds very plausible though: children seek attention, so reward good behavior with attention. Of course.

The same goes for schools, of course. The misbehavers earn the attention of both teachers and students alike, and if they do it enough, even that of their parents and the administrators. The promising students, on the other hand, are often expected to do their work in near-monastic solitude: usually, the only reason for special attention is if a student is performing weakly.

This is necessarily the case given that a teacher having to divide their attention between twenty students and the current priority structure of our schools. Regardless, that's a clear area for improvement.

<comment><USER2> _This is necessarily the case given that a teacher having to divide their attention between twenty students and the current priority structure of our schools._

But is it? Don't we all remember that "one teacher" who seemed to give us that little extra attention or push when we needed it the most?

Good teachers (at least my good ones) all seem to understand the attention- tool intuitively, but it just became glaringly obvious to me raising my three children and seeing young children behave badly to obviously get their parents attention, and many parents obliging them without thinking.

The rather odd part, for me, was, when mentioning this to parents in social groups, I was often looked at like I was nuts...like the idea of bothering a well-behaving kids with attention was beyond the realm of reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> (Chapter Two is left as an exercise for the student?)

The comment "What an idiot I was," I thought. "That was just an axiom, it is called commutativity. One doesn't prove axioms." is interesting. What's chosen as an axiom, and why, is an advanced question. Unless you get into foundations of mathematics, that question is seldom addressed. It's way beyond most pre- college math teachers. It's the sort of question that occurs to smart kids, but there's no easy answer you can give them. The usual answers are theological, and boil down to "shut up, kid". Here's a discussion on Stack Exchange of that subject: [http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/127158/in- what-sense...](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/127158/in-what-sense- are-math-axioms-true)

(If you get into automatic theorem proving, you have to address such issues head-on. Adding an inconsistent axiom can create a contradiction and break the system. This leads to constructive mathematics, Russell and Whitehead, Boyer and Moore, and an incredible amount of grinding just to get the basics of arithmetic and number theory locked down solid. In constructive mathematics, commutativity of integer addition is a provable theorem, not an axiom.

I once spent time developing and machine-proving a constructive theory of arrays, without the "axioms" of set theory. The "axioms" of arrays are in fact provable as theorems using constructive methods. It took a lot of automated case analysis, but I was able to come up with a set of theorems which the Boyer-Moore prover could prove in sequence to get to the usual rules for arrays. Some mathematicians who looked at that result didn't like seeing so much grinding needed to prove things that seemed fundamental. This was in the 1980s; today's mathematicians would not be bothered by a need for mechanized case analysis.)

</comment><comment><USER5> Absorbing tales, most likely for those of us with young children in the aforementioned age bracket. First time I'd read about Jean Piaget too. Was reading through @tokenadult's[1] site earlier and didn't see much mention of Piaget, so another good reference to add to the list.

This is the probably the most insightful part of the AMS narrative:

>OK, if it is so hard to teach kids the notion of a number, what am I trying to do? What is the point of my lessons? I said it many times and I am going to say it again: the meaning of the lessons is the lessons themselves. Because they are fun. Because it's fun to ask questions and look for the answers. It's a way of life.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tokenadult](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tokenadult)

<comment><AUTHOR> More direct link to his homeschooling site (because his profile is quite lengthy and filled with links): [http://learninfreedom.org/](http://learninfreedom.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Summary and table of contents at [http://www.ams.org/bookstore- getitem/item=MCL-5](http://www.ams.org/bookstore-getitem/item=MCL-5)

<comment><AUTHOR> Since posting the excerpt, I have learned you can find the entire book here: [http://www.msri.org/people/staff/levy/files/MCL/Zvonkin.pdf](http://www.msri.org/people/staff/levy/files/MCL/Zvonkin.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Alexander Zvonkin's book is worthwhile both for math pedagogy and Soviet insight... the OP doesn't link the full book... either [http://www.ams.org/bookstore- getitem/item=MCL-5](http://www.ams.org/bookstore-getitem/item=MCL-5) or [http://www.amazon.com/Math-Three-Seven-Mathematical- Preschoo...](http://www.amazon.com/Math-Three-Seven-Mathematical- Preschoolers/dp/082186873X) is a great example of a preschool Math Circle.

If math pedagogy is your main interest any of the MSRI Math Circle Library books are worthwhile. This includes "Circle in a Box" which is a Math Circle starter kit freely available here [http://www.mathcircles.org/GettingStartedForNewOrganizers_Wh...](http://www.mathcircles.org/GettingStartedForNewOrganizers_WhatIsAMathCircle_CircleInABox)

</comment><comment><USER8> On coins and buttons: Perhaps the children are intuitively comparing the areas of the convex hulls, a thing humans are good at, is an interesting mathematical problem, and could be the basis of interesting alternative mathematics.

You could have a whole set of sessions with children exploring different arrangements of coins and noting that no matter how many you add within the hull, you don't get any 'more coin' (altering the plurality may help adults understand this problem.) If you have some button[s] and much more coin[s], can you add just one coin so that you have more coin than button? How far away do you need to add it?

</comment><comment><USER9> There is a big gap between chapter 1 and chapter 3, which makes me doubt this book is very unrealistic. In chapter 1, it argues kids cannot follow logic, it is not trivial for them to understand the counting with rearrangement; in chapter 3, they suddenly can count c(5,2), and they even can understand this number by using symbols URR.., which requires an algebraic mind.

don't be fooled by the title of the book. The content is beyond 7 year old kids in the US.

</comment><comment><USER10> How did you find this sample? Is there any list of sample chapters available from all AMS books, or do you just have to look at catalogue pages and hope?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you go to the AMS bookstore and click on a title, there is often a link near the top of the page called "preview materials." I have no idea if that is for every single book or most or a few. The small sample I checked all had a preview available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do we really need to work so hard to stimulate curiosity in people? Aren't people inherently very curious?

<comment><USER12> I think his point is that we need to work hard to avoid discouraging curiosity. Often it is replaced with rote memorization or knowing things because an authority figure says it is so.

<comment><USER13> This is particularly true in math, as it is presented in many schools.

<comment><USER14> Math is a weird topic. It can be completely wrong when teachers don't understand maths, and even with teachers that do convey the goal and added values of math, it's still off to me. The algorithms are too complex and learned without any real clues (you basically program pupils as biological Turing Machines / Arithmetic Units.. very sad).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Toxo, the cysts in our brains from cats, can improve self-control (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/do-cats-control-my-mind/282045/ <comment><USER2> There's a fascinating RadioLab episode which focuses on various parasites, including Toxo (Season 6, Episode 3: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/91689-parasites/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/91689-parasites/)).

One of the key mechanisms of Toxo's behavior is that it can penetrate the brain of rodents and make them sexually attracted to feline urine -- the point is to facilitate the reproduction of the parasite which can occur only on feline intestines.

<comment><USER3> Some additional examples: [http://www.businessinsider.com/scariest-parasites- in-the-wor...](http://www.businessinsider.com/scariest-parasites-in-the- world-2012-6?op=1)

The Sacculina genus of parasitic barnacles--which has dozens of species--is spectacularly creepy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacculina](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacculina)

They infect both female and male crabs and completely subvert their biochemistry, to the extent of feminizing the males. They then lay their own eggs in the crab's carapace, the way the crab normally would, and the crab-- male or female--behaves as if it was carrying its own eggs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two theories I've thought about.

I have a theory that those infected with cats promote their cats on the internet via photos, videos and social networks. More so than dogs, or other pets, for example. In terms of stories, anecdotes or praise about the animals, a cat would have less said about them, but more and more images and publicity about them. Why? Possibly because the parasite requires animals to have more contact with the cat?

The second to last paragraph in this article is fascinating to me also. Those with flu are more socially outgoing, and I have read that they are more flirtatious, wearing less etc. It leads to a theory that these viruses could actually be sexually transmitted and actually encourage more sexual activity. Slightly related perhaps: the stereotypes of "cat ladies" being single is not because they are single, but because they have cats!

I'm slowly collecting these theories - and the wilder the notions the better when it comes to brain controlling parasites. Of course in terms of behaviour, the range of human behaviour is so wide it almost encompasses the slight influences of parasites. Makes you think what else is in us that could be contributing to our behaviour.

<comment><USER5> Here's a good take on why we share cats on the internet, including brain- control, by pbs' idea channel: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ_6aRjYR0w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ_6aRjYR0w)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> >> Up to a third of the world's human population is estimated to carry a Toxoplasma infection [[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis)]

That's almost inconceivable. The other studies around this bounce from 10-25% too. I assumed toxoplasmosis was rare - but that kinda scares me.

How do I get a test for me and the family?

<comment><USER7> It shouldn't really. Your immune system evolved in an environment where it expected to be under constant barrage from foreign organisms, in the absence of those many modern people suffer from diseases of the immune system where it misbehaves because it doesn't have enough to do.

"Most infected cats will shed oocysts only once in their lifetimes, for a period of about one to two weeks."

Your question is best addressed to your physician. If you spend too much time reading about diseases, you'll spend all of your time needlessly worrying about them.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I look forward to perfect medical-introspection technology, but I don't think we're ready for what we'll find. I suspect we'll find that we're positively riddled with parasites, subclinical tumours, and all kinds of squick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A new business idea (inspired by colechristensen's comment: "Most infected cats will shed oocysts only once in their lifetimes, for a period of about one to two weeks.") - How about selling infected cats who's already shed their oocysts, i.e. "safe cats"? Don't downvote, I'm joking.

<comment><USER8> What about bio-engineering cats that fluoresce when they're infected?

<comment><USER9> GMOphobes will close you down before opening!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is the article sensational when it says that about cysts in the brain? Cause I've had a cat for over 4.5 years now.!?

The wikepedia article says that Toxo is linked to ADHD and OCD, both of which I have, OCD since last year.

<comment><USER11> Cat's get far more blame than is really warranted. In order to get it from a cat, you need to first have the cat get infected by eating an infected mouse, then during a roughly two week period where it is shedding the parasite in its feces, you need to eat the cat's feces. If either your cat does not have access to mice to eat, or you don't eat your cat's feces, then you are fine.

<comment><USER12> You let the cat outside, and changed its litter-box.

<comment><USER11> No I don't let it outside, that's the point. And I don't eat anything I find in the litter box while changing it.

<comment><USER13> do you really think that the people who get the parasite are knowingly eating pieces of cat feces?

<comment><USER11> No, I think they are eating undercooked meat. Remember, a cat can only spread it for about two weeks. The people who do get it from cats are most likely not washing their hands after cleaning the litter box. That is eating feces, just indirectly. I do not do that, I wash my hands.

<comment><USER8> Or petting a cat. Or allowing a cat into their bed. Or sleeping on a couch that an infections cat has climbed onto. Or the cat walks across the dinner table or kitchen counter.

You seem to have a really wrong mental model of how fecal-oral transmission happens.

If I have Norwalk (Norovirus) someone else doesn't need to literally lick my butt or eat my feces to get it. If I wandered around their apartment naked (interesting image) and sat on or walked across random pieces of furniture, they'd be very likely to get it.

<comment><USER11> You are seriously overestimating the likelihood of transfer via those methods. The odds are actually very small. Simply having a cat walking around gives you very poor odds of transmission. It is not a cold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I believe there is a parasite that infects snails that similarly alters their brain chemistry to drive them to reckless behaviour (if that doesn't sound too comic wrt snails) such that they are more likely to be spotted and eaten by birds, thereby enabling the parasite's dispersal. In fact a hell of a lot of biology and evolution can be seen to be driven by parasitism. The book "Parasite Rex" is a good if unsettling source.

</comment><comment><USER9> I love(d) cats, but after reading this [1] back in 2012 again, in The Atlantic, I stay away.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how- your...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is- making-you-crazy/308873/?single_page=true)

<comment><USER15> You are perhaps missing the point, then. You are _vastly_ more likely to get toxo from undercooked meat or unwashed vegetables than from cats, especially if you don't clean litterboxes yourself. Recoiling in horror from cats and cat owners is not productive behavior.

<comment><USER9> Why do you assume I eat undercooked meat or unwashed vegetables? I was talking about myself and my family, not what everybody else should be doing. I'm Bulgarian and the meat we eat is either well-done (roasted or fried) or boiled (healthiest, no doubt) - we don't ever eat rare meat. That's why we don't like beef - it's hard to chew unless it's rare. Regarding the veggies, our culture is to eat veggies in soups or fried (not ideal, I know), and we eat limited veggies raw, but most of them area easy to clean (like tomatoes, sweet peppers, and cukes), but, in general, washing well or cutting outer layers (which usually contain the most nutrients, I know) is done as people are very cautious. I'm always surprised how farmers markets here in the States give samples from unwashed produce - I'm literary getting grossed out! Some of the germs on them are beneficial, I know, but the risks outweigh the benefits.

<comment><USER15> You've missed the point entirely. You're looking at toxo infection rates and saying "My God, cats are riddled with disease, shun them!" But most of those infections are not caused by human contact with cats. There's no need to "stay away" from felines as long as you wash your hands after petting them or cleaning the litterbox.

<comment><USER9> No, I'm not missing the point - I have kids and although they have good hygiene, they don't always wash their hands. In the States though, people are crazy - I've see tons of videos of cat licking people's mouth (right after they wiped their ass clean), sleeping in their beds, and same applies to dogs. Caution is good. In fact, if you read The Longevity Project book, the conclusions are clear - overoptimistic and non-cautious people live less. Also, the myth that living with pets increases lifespan is also busted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've always been suspicious of cats.

</comment><comment><USER17> "it seems to make men more introverted, suspicious, unattractive to women, and oblivious to the way others see them"

So basically, cats created 4chan and its userbase. Well played!

But seriously, none of these articles ever seem to mention that a cure is being worked on. Also, is there an easy way to test for this parasite?

<comment><USER18> > introverted, suspicious, unattractive to women

I suspect I may be infected.

<comment><USER19> I think we all are and that's the reason why we're here...</comment></comment></comment>


The Internet of Things is broken. How to fix it and why we should - <AUTHOR> http://www.xithing.io/iot_is_broken.html <comment><USER2> It's sad, but the first thing I think of now when I see or read about a new IoT technology is "what extra data about me does this expose to bulk collection programs and advertisers?"

Disney has some really amazing tech where a smartwatch device can detect what dumb object you are holding, be it a pair of scissors, your refrigerator handle, hand tools, etc. This kind of tech would be absolutely game changing for many people on a fundamental level, but when you think about what could be learned about you from mining that data, and then you realise it would be foolish to think that you can somehow keep that data private.... Gah, it just pisses me off that we have to assume any new info we create about ourselves digitally will likely be abused.

On the other hand, maybe once tech enables governments to know every detail of your life down to the most private level people will get fed up and things will change. Phone calls and email are one thing, but IoT means every moment of your life, every activity, every preference, every habit could be exposed catalogued and stored.

<comment><USER3> IoT scares me for that very reason. I don't like the idea of people trying to infer things about me by how often I use my toaster, and I don't feel like I gain enough by my household appliances connecting to the internet to offset that privacy issue.

<comment><USER2> To me, that feeling is a fundamental warning that something is deeply wrong with the way we handle privacy in modern society.

It should be completely unacceptable that we have to worry about this.

<comment><USER4> The incentive isn't there for building secure IoT products, but products that use online connectivity to offset costs by capturing value back from the consumer. When every refrigerator built monitors your purchases and consumption on behalf of the manufacturer, the store you bought it from and the companies who made the food in it, and probably the pizza box you just stuffed in there knows what shows you're watching, what are people going to do, just go back to using iceboxes?

<comment><USER2> And even if devices are designed to be secure, what good does it do when agencies with nearly unlimited resources actively try to subvert it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Let me tell you how to fix it. Burn it with fire. Napalm should do. If it does not, try termite (of course metaphorically speaking).

We should not allow collection of data about our very close environment, especially home. This will open a direct threat to our well being.

I give you one specific example.

Suppose you have an IoT device in your bedroom that uploads CO2 values (of course it may also do something useful too such us showing this data to you or regulating the ventilation).

Now the rate of CO2 production depends on bodily activities. More activity means more CO2 production. I suppose that you agree that having this information you more or less are capable to deduce when a couple has sex.

This means that we could calculate a metric how much sex is going on and relate it to specific user.

Suppose that we detect that rate of sex has gone down by 20 (a made up number dependant of our model). We can now sell this information.

This information is for example useful perhaps for psychologist who want to sell you counselling.

But it is even more interesting for divorce lawyers who now could prey on couples having period of difficulty in their sex lives.

Even more, this information could be made more valuable by some additional influence. For example feeding the user with articles related to marital happiness and sex life.

I leave the rest for you imagination.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Judging on research by Gartner and McKinsey, who predict that the IoT will > add $1.9 trillion to the global economy by 2020, and $2.7-$6.2 trillion by > 2025, we really seem to want to do just that. But why? The answer could be > as simple as powerful: because it could vastly improve our lives.

Improve our lives or those who sell the idea of IoT and what comes with it (data) ?

I still don't believe what improvement it brings and if those outweigh possible privacy and security implications.

<comment><USER2> >I still don't believe what improvement it brings and if those outweigh possible privacy and security implications.

It's tragic that this is true, because the benefits of this sort of tech to individuals could be huge, game changing. For this to get cut off at the knees because we live in a world where our privacy is not respected is infuriating.

<comment><USER7> Once upon a time I worked in what later became the "Solutions Experience Laboratory" at IBM Austin (I worked in it _physically_ ; I didn't do much there.) The lab had a set of advanced technology demos, one of which was the "kitchen of the future". (I helped set up the "office of the future, said in a deep, announcerly voice.)

Aside from the refrigerator/stove that you could put cold meals in, then connect over the internet to tell to start cooking, one of the best demos was an RFID reader built into the kitchen counter. You could set a prescription drug bottle down on the counter and a system would look up the interactions between that drug and the others that you had been prescribed, to warn you of harmful interactions. It could also warn you (or someone else) if you did not take your prescriptions on time or if you were running low on something necessary. (Honestly, the only thing cooler was the ice cream used to level- out the energy use of the freezer. (Yeah, and that experiment didn't last long.))

There are a lot of possibilities for the IoT, most of which are small, trivial things that could ultimately make a large difference. But mostly it seems set to make the world worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _" Why in the first place would you want to connect every object in your physical surrounding to the internet?"_

The great unanswered question of IoT.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, and I remember in the early 90's a lot of people asking me "But why would you want to carry a phone with you all the time?"

<comment><USER10> I believe this is not a very fair comparison to connecting things to the Internet. When people in the 90s question whether they needed a phone all the time, they were questioning the usefulness of doing so. In contrast, connecting things to the Internet exposes the user to an additional vector of attack and exploitation (crappy or non-existent security from manufacturers, adtech companies selling your data etc). So the question changes from "what convenience is there" to "why would you put yourself to such a risk?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> TL;DR: Security is a big deal, and IoT doesn't do it very well. Solutions will be talked about in another article.

I found that rather disappointing, and pretty much a waste of my time.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. I thought there would be an interesting proposition for how to fix, but instead it said "We should really think about it."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article doesn't seem to address much regarding the "Internet of Things", and seems to just be addressing security in general. None of this seems specific to IoT.

</comment><comment><USER14> I kept waiting for the article to actually say something of substance, but then I reached the end?</comment>


Subpixel considerations for AMOLED screens - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/352146450

<comment><USER2> I have a Nexus One. There's no reason to even bother with subpixel font rendering -- the DPI is so high that the text, with regular anti-aliasing, looks far sharper than ClearType on a normal density screen. I imagine Droid owners have the same experience.

<comment><USER3> The article is not discussing sub-pixel anti-aliasing, rather it makes a case for why understanding the sub-pixel properties of AMOLED screens can decrease power consumption while increasing screen life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really nice picture. Subpixel anti-aliasing looks like a bad idea when you look at the edges of the font in xmag, but it looks like an amazingly good idea when you look at the actual display.</comment>


Show HN: CryptoPocket.io – Track your crypto portfolios and your investments - <AUTHOR> https://cryptopocket.io/ <comment><USER2> Nice! I wish there was a way to import from Coinbase

<comment><AUTHOR> There will be :)</comment></comment>


Sea Peoples - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples <comment><USER2> See Also Extra Credits on the Bronze Age Collapse:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBM1qazAXE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBM1qazAXE)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-8uv4D7cOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-8uv4D7cOE) < This one in particular

<comment><USER3> Wow thanks, these were great. Can't wait for the next video in that series about the theory of systems collapse. Watching and reading about this stuff, I can't help but think about how prophetic these lessons may turn out to be for the world as we come to grips with the global effects of climate change.

<comment><USER4> I don't think those civilizations have much in common with today's simply due to technological and scientific progress that has taken place--they were barely literate and subject to mythological reasoning and magical thinking.

<comment><USER3> I kind of disagree with that. Yes we have more technology and science, but there are also lots of human processes and social orders (like nations and governments) that don't really change. I'm not sure superior technology guarantees the survival of civilization as we know it in the event of some cataclysm, or wide-scale famine... imagine how many things in the world would be messed up if the US and China were to lose all their value/power in a short amount of time.

Also, I think it's a mistake to assume people were dummies back then. If you think about it, humans have accomplished amazing things over the millenia, and some of those discoveries are still important today (every cryptography book still covers Euclid's GCD in its early chapters). Dismissing them as barely literate IMO is ignoring the important lessons that history has for us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My favorite podcast, "Ancient Greece Declassified" has a wonderful episode that discusses the Sea Peoples: [http://greecepodcast.com/episode2.html](http://greecepodcast.com/episode2.html).

</comment><comment><USER6> I recently stumbled upon this lecture, definitely recommended it (Sea Peoples introduced @ 08:20):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu- ysocX4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4) -1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed (Eric Cline, PhD)

<comment><USER7> Also recommend this which is an hour long presentation of his book which is also exceptional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel like we're seeing a bunch of Bronze Age Collapse stories popping up on the HN homepage lately. Why the pop in interest in the subject? Did it come up on a popular TV show or podcast or something?

(Note: I'm a history nerd, so I'm not complaining. Just legitimately curious.)

<comment><USER9> Extra History episode about it every week. Yesterday they released the 3rd one of the series about Bronze Age Collapse. This one was specifically about the Sea People - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-8uv4D7cOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-8uv4D7cOE)

I've noticed that history topics getting more popularity on HN usually correlate with recent Extra History episodes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> When I took world history at university, one of the biggest points taken from the bronze age section was that there hadn't been any hard evidence discovered to support an exodus of Israelites from Egypt to Palestine (Canaan), and that instead the evidence leaned more toward the "Sea Peoples" being the original progenitors of Israel.

Can anyone comment on whether this is still the most common accepted theory?

<comment><USER11> I think you may be confounding two related theories, from what I learned. There is little to no evidence for the Israelites ever being in Egypt, though there was a brief dynastic period (known to ancient historians as Hyksos, IIRC) of Canaanite rulers in Egypt, ostensibly as a brief post-war outcome, and it is possible but without evudence that some Israelites migrated during that time.

The "Sea Peoples", a term itself controversial because they don't seem to have any strict delineation in language, art, or leadership, subsumed a much larger presence in the Mediterranean, and it is during their height that we have the earliest solid evidence of Israelites, but also of other Bronze age tribes elsewhere in Greece, Anatolia, etc.

<comment><USER12> This is fascinating to me. From the Wikipedia page, the story of the Hyksos and how they were driven out of Egypt sounds very similar to the book of Exodus. Even the words Hyksos and Exodus sound similar.

<comment><USER13> _Even the words Hyksos and Exodus sound similar._

That comes under the heading "Wacky Coincidences in Liguistics". One means "rulers of foreign lands" in a an older Afro-Asiatic language (a precursor to Coptic); the other is an English retention of a Latin adaptation of a Greek word meaning "the road/path out" ( _exodos_ ) from the book titles in the Septuagint, all Indo-European. It's related to _exit_ (literally, "he goes out").</comment></comment></comment></comment>


(Thiel's Baby Geniuses) Candid Interviews With 5 Thiel Fellows - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailybrink.com

<comment><USER2> Awesome site design.</comment>


Show HN: 90 hour project to learn Rails: Roomiies - 'OKCupid for Roommates' - <AUTHOR> http://www.roomiies.com

<comment><USER2> Damn, how has no one thought of this before! Such a good idea. Nice site too.</comment>


Computers Are Learning to Read Emotion and the Business World Can't Wait - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/know-feel

<comment><USER2> Will the new AdBlock be a Guy Fawkes mask?</comment>