Scientist who faked data in his thesis will keep his Ph.D. - <AUTHOR> http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/13/scientist-who-faked-data-in-his-thesis-will-keep-his-phd/ <comment><USER2> Situations like this reminds me of my favorite part of Brave New World:

> Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in > the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, > incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the > rock is all one scarlet blob.

This doesn't wear a hole into what a PhD is and erode away the foundation. It smothers it in something else, and slowly but surely we're not left with a rock, but one soft blob of wax -- totally different from what a PhD is, but slowly enough that we still pretend we're dealing with what it was.

</comment><comment><USER3> Of all the experiments Ive ever performed western blots are probably my most hated and for that I empathise with the doctor. Theres something particularly painful about performing an experiment that consistently fails and has a significant number of variables which forces you to repeat the experiment under various conditions to determine whether you genuinly have noo result or the experiment failed.

Ive spent 6 months doing western blots trying to workout whether the protein i was interested in was actually not expressed or whether something was wrong. It turned out that the commercial antibodies I was using had failed.

Theres enough pressure in research to destroy ones confidencce and self esteem and I genuinly understand that urge to sometimes just turn a blind eye or pretend I saw something I didnt.

At the end of the day though you have to be honest with yourself and decide which road you will travel. Im glad they didn't strip him of his PhD. The public humiliation will warrant enough misfortune for the scientist and hopefully he will learn from his mistakes.

<comment><USER4> He faked data in his graduate thesis, in applications for National Institutes of Health and American Heart Association grant, and in two published papers, so his behavior is part of a rather inexcusable pattern.

Doctorate work is supposed to be difficult, and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement.

The only responsible course of action they could have taken was to strip him of his credentials. They didn't do that, so one must naturally question every single doctorate they hand out.

Perhaps it doesn't matter to some that they hand out PhD's in the bottom of Cracker Jack boxes, but this is a serious issue that shouldn't be taken lightly.

<comment><USER5> > and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement.

Absolutely not. A doctorate is an apprenticeship in research, and the thesis produced is your "final test" as an apprentice. It's supposed to be the start of your academic career, not its pinnacle.

<comment><USER6> Forgive me for being pedantic...but the "German" degree system (Bachelors, Masters, Ph.D.) inherits its tradition from the guild system. In this sense, a doctoral dissertation is the modern-day equivalent of a "masterpiece", the item you produce to prove to your peers that your are deserving of the title "Master". So you are wrong in that doctoral studies should be regarded as journeyman training, not an apprenticeship, but you are right in that a dissertation is only the start of ones career as a master.

That said, I think it's an unfortunate course of modern research that the prestige of a doctorate has eroded over time...

<comment><USER7> While you are right from a certain very point of view, a doctorate is really not the pinnacle in any sense of your life or your career. Nor is it meant to be. It is as the parent said the beginning of your career. The gateway into research. Really, there is only so much you can accomplish in a few years. However, hopefully it will provide you a solid foundation for many years of fruitful investigation. All to often however the research conducted can turn out to be a dead end after the PhD is completed. It is a start not the goal.

<comment><USER8> Perhaps more correctly a doctorate can be considered the pinnacle of your educational achievement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is what happens when your PHD is dependent on how important you graduate thesis is.

I understand the urge to make it difficult but when PHD's are dependent on papers people will do whatever it takes and we get a lot of fake scientific papers because people want the degree.

You should be doing research because you are genuinely interested in the results not to get a piece of paper you can show your family and friends to show them how smart you are.

Worst of all the fake research dilutes the value of research papers in general making you question all your assumptions and the papers they come from.

<comment><USER10> I agree completely, and there is also a profit motive. PhD candidates typically make paltry pay, but have often racked up a good amount of debt that was delayed during their PhD work. In order to get a job that can actually make those years of study and work economically viable, they have to have first authorship on huge papers. At least that's the case in biology right now.

<comment><USER11> That's a tragic (bad word, but it's early) amount of pressure to put on someone in their mid twenties...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _> Aggarwal is now working at Bristol-Myers Squibb._

I wonder what action, if any, his employer will take.

<comment><USER13> He's fast-tracked for management no doubt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> IMO, The question whether the scientist gets to keep his PhD is secondary. The more important question is how do we make sure that we base our research on sound results.

<comment><USER15> By punishing those who would fake them. For instance, retracting degrees based on falsified work.

This university has substantially lowered the reputation conferred by their degree by allowing this person to keep his.

<comment><USER16> You must be a wife beater too. You know, spank your spouse if she/he does something wrong.

<comment><USER17> I think, by your comment, you are not a scientist. As a scientist, there is absolutely nothing more despicable than intentionally and continuously publishing fraudulent data. This is the highest ethical standard in our field. Falsifying data is like an MD intentionally killing a patient because they couldn't handle the stress/demands of treating them any longer (yes, this is a drastic analogy, but I want you to understand the severity of what this man did). It is exceptionally unfortunately that this is perpetrated by scientists who are established in their fields but when this occurs as a graduate student, when the university is still accountable for the research and when you are still training to become an independent scientist the degree should never be granted and should be revoked.

A PhD is awarded for the contributions made to scientific discovery, whether the data is negative or positive (to the hypothesis). Doctoral training in the US has requirements for ethics training. This student demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a blatant disregard for scientific ethics. He also falsified his data, so he made no real contribution to scientific discovery. He has failed to meet two of the most basic requirements for a doctoral degree.

As someone who recently finished her own PhD, this is utterly disgusting. There is enough incorrect information in scientific literature as is from well conducted, controlled research because of the human error of data analysis and the fact that we simply don't know everything yet. We don't need it to be intentionally polluted by individuals who cannot or will not bear the rigors of research.

<comment><USER18> I think his dishonestly will end up helping him. Companies these days are looking for employees that will go the extra mile especially if they can produce fraudulent results and keep them covered up.

<comment><USER16> I was just talking about empathy. I thought stripping one of his degree for made up data is a bit too harsh. I'm not for dishonesty, just for some empathy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Nitin Aggarwal" is a very common name - 332 hits on LinkedIn. With his ill- gotten PhD in hand, he will very likely be able to continue his research career while "hiding in plain view."

<comment><USER20> Conversely, if any of those other Aggarwals have a Ph.D., they might have a rather hard time doing research or becoming employed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So, what are the criteria of "scientifically valid" theses these days?

I would have preferred a statement like, "After discarding all parts which relied upon the fabricated data, the resulting thesis is still acceptable to the committee as a doctoral thesis." However, I feel bad about all the Ph.D.'s out there who may feel they have to defend the integrity of their work. (Mine is in pure math; fabricated data is not a big worry for us :D )

<comment><USER10> I was very surprised by the response from the institution. I wonder what the backlash will be with regard to those grants (NIH and AHA). Should this invalidate those grants?

<comment><USER22> In a world where grant funding is extremely limited, yes. Funding agencies are looking for any reason to reject a grant. I think the only reason to not retract the grant(s) would be the difficulty / practicality of doing so.

Nonetheless, this guy's PhD is practically worthless in this country. He will be unemployable and unfundable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So if I claim to have a degree from MCW, who would ever find out I'm lying? I'm also wondering if Bristol-Myers Squibb considers the ability to fake data a plus or a minus ... I guess it's a plus before you're caught and a minus afterwards?

</comment><comment><USER24> Working on a journal of negative results for two years, this does not surprise me...

</comment><comment><USER25> Faking data is a very bayesian thing to do...

<comment><USER25> I should have put some "irony" markers around that... Mathmatical humor is difficult...</comment></comment>


LayerVault is shutting down - <AUTHOR> https://layervault.com/?

<comment><USER2> Pretty straight up reasoning:

> Some folks may be wondering: Why? We will try to share our experience as > best we can via post-mortems and blog posts, but the short answer is simple: > _we failed to make LayerVault financially viable, exhausted our existing > capital reserves, and were unable to secure additional capital to sustain > uninterrupted service. We ran out of money._ Although the service will > cease, we're still hopeful that the technology may find a home.</comment>


Show HN: WWW search powered by OSS and common data - <AUTHOR> https://crawlcrawler.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN, I'm Marcus Lager. I'd like to present Crawl Crawler, a search engine powered by OSS and common data where there are some extra steps involved before you get excellent search results.

Crawl Crawler is as much a JSON HTTP API for private and corporate data hungry text projects as it is plain ol' non-tracking, keyword-based web search, results marked up with ad-free non-dynamic HTML, served cookie-free.

Crawl Crawler gives you the ability to search four grand sources of data, plus your own: the Common Crawl meta-data, text, and HTML repositories as well as WWW itself.

Use Crawl Crawler to

\- find what data you need from Common Crawl/WWW and for whatever reason, in JSON or HTML, using any device.

\- create and periodically refresh your indices, perhaps from your favorite parts of the web.

\- periodically crawl your site and replace your in-site search engine with HTTP requests towards Crawl Crawler.

\- execute natural language or structured queries.

\- build apps.

\- take part in the enrichment process. The more you enrich Crawl Crawler the wider, deeper and more current its indices become, in real time.

Ask me anything.</comment>


Metasploit ships single-click exploit for Android - <AUTHOR> https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit/blog/2014/02/12/weekly-metasploit-update

<comment><AUTHOR> Scan a QR code, click the link --- aaaaand attacker has a shell on your phone.

<comment><USER2> While it's a rather ancient vulnerability (654 days at the least, according to the references), the Metasploit module is new. Metasploit versions of exploits tends to raise the profile of bugs, so hopefully the vendors will pay attention and maybe even come up with a solution for not selling brand new phones with old OSes.

(FD: I worked on this module a wee bit)</comment></comment>


Secessionists formally launch quest for California's independence - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-california-secession-calexit-htmlstory.html <comment><USER2> You know I was about to mock this as ridiculous and not worth any media attention, but then I stopped to realize I mocked the notion of a Trump presidency as ridiculous too.

I don't think there is any policitcal scenario that can be deemed far-fetched anymore in this alternate timeline we branched into.

<comment><USER3> There is nothing ridiculous about either.

Peaceful secession is the only humane way forward and the sooner people starting thinking about it seriously, the better for all of us.

<comment><USER4> And what if, say, next election, again someone you don't like gets elected ?

Bay area secession ?

<comment><USER3> Of course any idea can be reduced to absurdity but, as a general concept, I have no problem with city-states and free cities and would be very happy to see them revived as a widespread form of sovereignty.

<comment><USER5> Federalism is a perfectly good system for distributing sovereignty within a shared security arrangement so as to avoid the wars that naturally erupt between perfectly soverign states. Unfortunately we have spent the past 100 years eroding local and state sovereignty by treating national politics as the only place where meaningful government happens.

Devolution is a much saner path than sessesion.

<comment><USER3> I agree that federalism would be preferable in the case of the United States in theory, but experience has shown that in practice power tends to concentrate in the highest level of sovereignty.

I don't share your pessimism regarding wars and smaller sovereign states. I think a world filed with relatively small Switzerland-style nations would be a less bombed world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it ironic that many of the folks who feel this way are also seem to be those who lean (heavily) towards the federal government being the go-to solution for most/all issues. Maybe this is a good reminder that doesn't just apply when the government is aligned with your personal interests and beliefs?

<comment><USER5> Exactly. Everybody wants to rule the world, and the minute they can't they want an enclave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am a Californian. I do not support secession. I think it's stupid, and the people who support it are short-sighted. The movement got a lot of attention after Trump got elected, which to me, smells of a bunch of whiny babies who are stamping their feet because they didn't get their way (disclosure: I did not vote for Trump, nor am I happy he won).

Not only that, but I have a vague recollection of this being tried before. Exactly what makes secessionists think they can build an army large enough to beat the US military? Oh, ok. They want to vote themselves out of the union. Guess what, it doesn't work that way. And the second the US military comes by to put us all back in our place, the people crowing for secession are going to run with their tails between their legs. Also, how are we going to build a militia with all of our strict gun laws??

If our economy is so much bigger and worth more representation than everyone else's, let's quit whining and start flexing that muscle more...many regulations we enact here have the ability to force companies across the nation to adopt them.

We have the amount of representation we have because of the US constitution. If that's a problem, either change the constitution or find other ways to exert power. Secession is going to be a _lot_ more expensive in the long run.

<comment><USER8> Secession does not require war. Look at your northern neighbors, or even several states which broke away from their parent states.

<comment><USER7> Sorry, which states in the US have successfully seceded from the union?

<comment><USER8> I never said any have. Just because none have does not make it impossible, especially in modern times. If California voted for independence on the US stopped it then the would be seen as a belligerent invading nation and suffer tough sanctions.

<comment><USER9> There is no formal right to or recognition of secession in international law, even if the seceding population votes for it.

Kosovo and Bangladesh were widely recognised as valid seceded nations due to previous oppression; Rhodesia and Biafra were not and suffered fatal international sanctions as a result.

But there was no rule of law behind this, in each they were sponsored or opposed by a powerful nation which had an interest in the outcome. It's who you have as friends that determines whether the seceder or the supranation is 'right'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not going to happen. Can't secede. See "American Civil War".

But read "Ecotopia" and "Ecotopia Emerging".

<comment><USER11> Any state willing to secede would no longer recognize the authority of the US government, or the Constitution, so that's a moot point. It was treason for the US to secede from Great Britain, but we did it anyway.

It's not a question of "can" or "can't," but whether or not a state is willing to fight another civil war.

<comment><USER12> It's not even whether the _state_ is willing, but whether the _people_ of the state are willing. I doubt whether California could field a sufficient force if the US government declared their succession illegal.

(Go out and get shot at rather than hitting the beach? C'mon...)

<comment><USER13> That is what other foreign allies are for.

<comment><USER12> That are willing to fight the US military so that Californians can hit the beach rather than fight for their own independence? I doubt you'd find many takers.

And who would be the taker? Russia? China? North Korea? Iran? Venezuela? Are any of them going to really want to go against the US military within North America? (The closest I could see happening is some Russian statement of support and an attempt at nuclear blackmail, but few or no troops on the ground.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Intriguing idea. Let's talk logistics.

Almost 46% of the land area of the state of California is owned by the US Federal Government through some agency (BLM, National Park Service, DoD, etc) [1], including several key military bases, like Naval Base San Diego, home of the US Pacific Fleet. Furthermore, federally recognized Indian Tribes are domestic dependent nations of the United States and as such tribal authority on Indian land isn't granted by the states in which they appear to be in [2]. The US Government also owns the territorial sea of California further out than 3 nautical miles from the baseline on the shore [3].

These, among others, are issues that would have to be settled.

[1] [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf) [2] [https://books.google.com/books?id=IHKXAAAAMAAJ](https://books.google.com/books?id=IHKXAAAAMAAJ) [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_Lands_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_Lands_Act)

</comment><comment><USER15> If California secedes, it will no longer be in the US' best interest to give them water for free. Who knows what the price will be!

<comment><USER16> They stop giving us water, we stop giving them food. Agriculture is 2% of the state GDP, 20% of the US food supply, and 80% of state water use.

<comment><USER17> Oh no, the US will starve relying on the enormous strip of super fertile land between Texas and Idaho.

<comment><USER16> Point is, the US needs to consume the food more than we need to grow it. The water is not that great a threat.

<comment><USER18> Actually if California stopped producing food we would still be fine. Most of what is produced is fruits.

Most likely the US could halt 1/2 of its food production and still have plenty of food. We have no shortage of arable land, we have a greater shortage of people actually wanting to be farmers/ranchers :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So Cascadia is actually happening?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movem...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29)

</comment><comment><USER20> I doubt that the outrage from Democrats over Trump will be able to sustain the time frame necessary to make this a reality.

On the other hand, Republicans have historically been more supportive of secession than democrats. They might have a slim chance by linking up with Republican led secession movements in other states / prospective city states.

</comment><comment><USER21> Wouldn't it be enough to just make use of the tenth amendment to reduce the scope of the federal government?

<comment><USER22> Would it? How many pot growers and dispensaries were raided before the Obama administration directed more reserved behavior. The federal government kinda does what it wants, and rarely do the (federal) courts agree with states on where the limits of federal power lie.

I'm not saying that's always a bad thing. In Texas, for instance, the federal government knocked down numerous anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional, and I support that federal encroachment on behalf of individuals (because Texas is run by petty tyrants, when it comes to women and minorities).

But, I suspect the answer is "no, it wouldn't be enough to just make use of the tenth amendment", particularly when the president is Trump. I doubt anything will be sacred under president Trump. We've entered a new era that is pretty much entirely unpredictable.

<comment><USER12> The Tenth Amendment has been ignored for a very long time. It's not just Trump. The courts have decided that the commerce clause gives the Federal government almost unlimited power. (See _Wickard v. Filburn_ for one of the most outrageous examples.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > "Is there anything of yours that we could keep as a memento of this visit?"

> "Take California."

\- The Propellerheads ('Take California')

</comment><comment><USER24> Let's play this out: CA secedes and suddenly there is no hope of blues winning elections in the US for the foreseeable future. So suddenly CA is a nation surrounded almost entirely by a Republican-run United States with all that goes with that. Sounds like a bad situation for everyone involved.

<comment><USER8> The north east would very quickly have their own independence movement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Let's assume for a second that this could happen. Then, assuming no foreign alliances, the US could simply conquer California back.

CA has the largest contingent of military personnel by state (about 190k) but not per capita. The size of the brave population is actually small compared to the population of the free and it's likely most of them will swear allegiance to the US. And it's not like all of the sudden a lot of free people from the large, typically peaceful cities in CA will all of the sudden find the courage to fight. Historically, outside of the military and rural areas, CA is not known to be a land of fighters (like, say, Texans).

Source: [http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers- uni...](http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers-united- states-military-come/)

Nomenclature: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star- Spangled_Banner](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner)

</comment><comment><USER26> Things to consider:

\- Product safety

\- Electrical device standards

\- Radio spectrum allocation

\- Education

\- Disaster response

\- Vices: alcohol, marijuana, tobacco

\- Medical and medicine research & regulation

\- Intellectual property

\- Food inspection / standards

\- Environmental standards

\- Chemical safety

\- Prisons

\- Courts

\- Mining

\- Agriculture

\- Highways and transportation

\- Aviation licensing / safety / incident investigation

\- Defense

\- Trade deals / bargaining leverage

\- Bank regulations

\- Securities regulations

\- Currency

\- Military

\- On and on...

Conclusion: pipe-dream

</comment><comment><USER27> I totally support this. Take Oregon and Washington, too.

<comment><USER28> There's about 39 million Californians, about 7 million Washingtonions and about 4 million Oregonians. As an Oregonian, the idea is kind of appealing but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of being politically dominated by California.

<comment><USER27> >I'm not very comfortable with the idea of being politically dominated by California

That's how many Americans feel when the presidential election rolls around.

<comment><USER29> Many Californians feel like their votes are useless in comparison to the number of electoral votes the tiny states get.

<comment><USER27> California is one of the 50 states and yet the candidate who wins it (obviously a Democrat) is already a fifth of the way to winning the presidency.

<comment><USER30> I think your phrasing makes this sound worse than it is. The candidate is a 5th of the way toward winning, but has a 10th of the electoral votes. And California has more than a 10th of the US population, so I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Succession is the long term solution to a short term problem. The irony of California wanting to be segregated from opposing opinions alone should be alarming enough to send everyones hypocricy meter into a tizzy. These people are exactly who SNL was addressing in their Bubble skit. [https://youtu.be/vKOb-kmOgpI](https://youtu.be/vKOb-kmOgpI)

<comment><USER32> > The irony of California wanting to be segregated from opposing opinions...

This probably isn't the primary drive behind the secession movement. Not wanting to pay federal taxes to a government that you don't feel represents your interests (see the CA popular vote difference for president) is probably more important.

<comment><USER31> It would be one thing if California had a history of reasonable public finance policy but the argument looses weight when you consider how much money California is wasting on the Crony Express. You can't be the arbiter of fiscal responsibility while simultaneously building the equivalent of the Springfield monorail.

<comment><USER33> Do you think High Speed Rail is a stupid idea, or just the implementation is wasteful/corrupt?

I am asking this as I am traveling from NYC to Boston via train, and it takes almost 4hrs on a french made train, while if it was in France, it would have taken only 1.5 hrs to 2hrs max.

In one thing the US is behind the rest of the developed world, fast train travel is one of them.

<comment><USER31> The biggest problem is that the Santa Monica Mountains block the high speed rail from connecting to LA. The closest they can get is Burbank. Having lived in LA for college, I can tell you that the time it takes to get from say Santa Monica to Burbank is often more than it takes to fly to San Francisco from LAX. I'm not kidding.

Flight Time: [https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=LAX;t=SFO;d=2016-12...](https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=LAX;t=SFO;d=2016-12-06;r=2016-12-10;q=lax+to+san+francisco+flight+time)

Traffic Time from Santa Monica to Burbank alone: [https://www.google.com/search?q=santa+monica+to+burbank&btnG...](https://www.google.com/search?q=santa+monica+to+burbank&btnG=)

The plan fully acknowledges this short coming and responds with nothing more than a shoulder shrug to the glaring problem. Now consider the costs of the train compared to that of a flight, when you have factored in LA's terrible public transportation and suddenly flights are clearly more economical.

Even worse is that California only has less than 50% of the funding for the project secured and that is without cost overruns. Jerry Brown is hoping to put enough sunk cost into the rail line that we are forced to build the entire thing much to the benefit of the select few land owners in the central california.

I'm all for improved public transportation but the whole thing is a giant scam taking advantage of Californians affinity for the environment and ignorance of bond measures.I have yet to hear a convincing argument on why people would take the train when they could be in SF by the time the get to the train station.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Funny thing is that these people were making fun of Texas' efforts a while back.

<comment><USER34> Texas has the resources to do it. We're largely separate from the nationwide power grid, have plenty of petroleum and resources to trade.

I'm not a fan of Texas' secession dreams in spite of my username, but considering the basic resources that California lacks I can't imagine their secession being a good idea.

<comment><USER22> What does California lack? I think I can see a pretty good case for either Texas or California to be able to stand alone. (Not that I'm really on board with either secessionist movement, but I've lived in Texas and California, and, both are huge states with huge economies, and they both produce a lot of food and have tons of resources, both natural and human.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is a deeply stupid and un-American idea, which will harm the US and help its enemies while distracting Americans themselves from the work they have to do to take back their country. As campaigns like this occupy our headlines, we are already losing on other fronts:

Russia Deploys New Missiles to the Baltic Sea Region [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/21/world/europe/ap-e...](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/21/world/europe/ap- eu-russia-military.html)

We'll see a lot more erosion of our influence over the next few years while Trump's clown car rolls over US civil liberties. We have to focus. Secession is not the answer.

Finally, I'd simply point out to the "Yes California" people that large parts of California a) don't want to break away from the US (including but not limited to much of northern and eastern CA) and therefore b) would be perfectly within their rights to secede from the new nation state in an infinity of recursively splintering secessions that will finally be reduced to one dumb guy who cuts off his nose to grant it independence (and to spite his face).

<comment><USER32> When is there ever unanimity behind any separationist movement? Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work too well here. By your logic, the colonies shouldn't have declared independence from Britain since it wasn't unanimous.

<comment><USER35> Actually, reductio ad absurdum is precisely why self-determination is problematic, because it raises the question of where you draw the line between a nation that initiates its own sovereignty and a bunch of wackos who don't like taxes (all too common in this country).

Secessionist movements typically underestimate the costs of separation. Like the UK post-Brexit, no one knows how an independent CA would relate to the rump US. Would it enjoy the free movement of goods, services and people? I doubt it.

There is almost no basis to consider Californians as a separate people, which is usually what drives self-determination. I live in CA. We do not share a common language or religion or history distinct from our neighbors.</comment></comment></comment>


Want to Make Millions? Copy Someone's Cryptocurrency Project - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/cryptocurrency-white-paper-plagiarism-tron-justin-sun <comment><USER2> From just the past week:

1\. Tons of Twitter impersonation scams asking to send BTC/ETH for money in return (aka Nigerian Prince scam).

2\. A project that straight up plagiarized and then used a picture of Ryan Gosling as one of their "founding members", along with an Asian guy named "Tyrone Fountain".

3\. Scam websites exploiting unicode characters in URLs (screenshot evidence: [https://i.redd.it/vo09n565f4h01.jpg](https://i.redd.it/vo09n565f4h01.jpg)).

I know people hate regulation, but... this is why humans can't have nice things.</comment>


NexusOne: Usability and Design Issues (Part I) - <AUTHOR> http://leovernazza.com/2010/10/15/nexusone-usability-and-design-issues-part-i/

<comment><USER2> These are valid complaints about Android, although the one about there being a URL address entry, google page, and google button is way over the top, even if it is a valid UX issue.

But...

[http://www.himalia.net/blogs/leovernazza/archive/2007_03_01_...](http://www.himalia.net/blogs/leovernazza/archive/2007_03_01_archive.html)

Scroll down to see the nice pics of author with the Microsoft guys where he starts the post "Microsoft (through Wilson Pais) invited me to talk in the first Architect Forum of the year in Santiago de Chile."

I wonder if there is some MS bias here.</comment>


Lakers Fan BOT - <AUTHOR> http://m.me/624922737714696 <comment><AUTHOR> Chat with the Lakers Fan BOT through Facebook Messenger to get player info, upcoming schedules and standings.

[http://m.me/624922737714696](http://m.me/624922737714696)</comment>


Reddit cracks down on abuse as CEO apologizes for trolling the trolls - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/30/when-your-ceo-is-a-troll-too/ <comment><USER2> I don't really want to comment - but I'd just say to anyone (including the writer of this article) to imagine someone artificially limiting the impact of your favorite platform of free expression. Hell just turn the mental corner and consider your arguments FOR net neutrality. Or try to recall your disappointment every time you read about some site being banned in China or Iran.

To China and Iran - facebook is a "disruptive community." To use reddit's language.

Its a sad moment in history that the people calling themselves liberals don't actually know what it means.

<comment><USER3> The subreddit in question manipulates the algorithm in bad faith and bans any sort of dissent or disagreement.

They're not attacking free expression but trying to reign in abuse of their platform.

Nobody really knows what "liberal" means because it's been used in several very opposite ways in different times and places.

<comment><USER2> I don't buy the argument that they are exploiting anything - but I do recognize that their community is very overly active but I wouldn't call that exploiting

<comment><USER3> The vote totals aren't anything like any other subreddit has been. They were also using the pinning in a way no other subreddit did.

Just google – the_donald upvote script – to get an idea. Several tools were released for users to upvote or downvote everything targeting a subreddit or user. It's a sort of grassroots vote manipulation scheme.

<comment><USER2> Well I could write a r/hillaryclinton upvote script and post on gists in a few minutes - doesn't really prove anything. The only people who could have real evidence of rule breaking would be the admins and from the little we know we know the admins hate TD - if they are being botted they'd be gone already

<comment><USER3> You could; I'm not talking about the existence of such things but the prevalence. There probably wasn't much blatant botting, but a lot of mild botting which is much more difficult to detect and lives in a grey area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao made a good comment on the controversy: [https://reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5frg1n/tifu_by_e...](https://reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5frg1n/tifu_by_editing_some_comments_and_creating_an/damuzhb/?context=1)

<comment><USER5> That's very childish and lame for Steve Huffman to say "Ellen wasn't the first Reddit engineer, so she probably lacked the expertise to do it, and even if she did, she was smart enough to not".

I think this guy needs to grow up.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, he is a child. I can't imagine a CEO of any company I have ever worked at acting as such. I wonder how employees of reddit feel at the moment?

<comment><USER7> I cannot understand how the board hasn't dismissed him over the comment editing subterfuge. It's simply not how a CEO should behave. No matter what is being said about him.

Basically, by not firing him, the board is sending a message. It is saying that 1. The platform and it's comments cannot be trusted. and 2. That it's ok for employees to surreptitiously edit comments. If the CEO did it and didn't get fired, then how could they fire a lower level employee for doing it?

The CEO has set the standard through his own behaviour. And that is now the culture of reddit. By not dismissing the CEO, the board has sent the message that they accept this behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would hardly call this an apology. Also kind-of bold of him to use this as a platform to implement new abusive rules. I don't like the subreddit, but selective enforcement and targeting a single community is very toxic to what little trust I had left in the reddit admins.

<comment><USER8> The problem is they aren't their own little community. They actively target, brigade (large group upvoting/downvoting), and intentionally troll other communities with their only goal being to fuck with people and overwhelmingly push their rhetoric.

Reddit strives to have a positive community and when you let the trolls run the system, you end up with an utter cesspool (e.g. [https://voat.co/](https://voat.co/)), and that kills your company's value.

Reddit (nor Twitter) is under no obligation to be a platform for free speech, and it's completely within their right to dictate who gets to participate and what they're allowed to discuss.

<comment><USER9> > They actively target, brigade (large group upvoting/downvoting), and > intentionally troll other communities with their only goal being to fuck > with people and overwhelmingly push their rhetoric.

[citation needed]

I'm there every day and I don't know about that, quite the opposite.

We don't link outside the sub, heck we are not even allowed to mention /r/politics in post titles under threat from Reddit admins. It is now know as /r/[redacted] for that reason.

EDIT: downvotes are not citations

<comment><USER8> [http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-tearing-itself- apart-1789406294](http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-tearing-itself- apart-1789406294) has a decent summary of the problems over the past few months.

> Centipede Central is the chat Reddit is referring to—a chat room within the > Slack-like Discord program ... its users have encouraged the harassment of > other moderators, artificially inflated the vote count on posts, rigged off- > Reddit polls, and posted John Podesta's personal Netflix login information > for the chat's 1000+ members to use at will.

<comment><USER9> There are 300k+ subscribers to T_D

I am one of those who have never even heard of that chat room, nor visited. And I am on T_D all day long every day since February.

We have posts with 7k+ points and 56% upvoted.

[https://i.redditmedia.com/RbqqP0Cpfs- o-B1DVWIwIqtUU8-dtxUahf...](https://i.redditmedia.com/RbqqP0Cpfs- o-B1DVWIwIqtUU8-dtxUahf_uosOAKB0.png?w=848&s=d639846d2be5372531367f9a5e8073aa)

If anyone is under attack, it is us.

Even the famous Ellen Pao thinks Spez made a huge mistake and says "I would have immiediately fired anyone did that [edited user posts]"

[https://i.redditmedia.com/-VmuoYhuKv-Uj- Ild8_FAhGgQgXM68OsuN...](https://i.redditmedia.com/-VmuoYhuKv-Uj- Ild8_FAhGgQgXM68OsuN_E-DYOxyc.jpg?w=1024&s=826da08b70c7409958d08b2b70b1209f)

/r/all is now a safe space for people who can't handle seeing certain text !!

And the stupidest part is : Reddit is a commercial enterprise.

300k t_d subscribers. Instead of embracing a customer base and working out how to profit from it, he's pissed everybody off my repeatedly kicking the nest. Either directly or by letting CTR take over r/politics. They should have had a sales team focussing directly upon us and building an income stream. Instead they've generated a whole bunch of people who actively boycott buying Reddit Gold, will never click on your ads, even in other subreddits.

What would you give for 300k high energy cross demographic customers with a tight focus on conservatism. I wouldn't be giving them annoyance and grief.

"Front Page of the Internet" is the greatest joke of all

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Calling people you disagree with "trolls" and dismissing censoring as just "trolling" is a poor attempt at an apology. And that's coming from someone who hates /r/the_donald.

<comment><USER11> Calling part of their user base trolls is just dehumanization, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of fair treatment.

<comment><USER12> Calling a troll a troll is not dehumanization. Especially when spez called HIMSELF a troll and said he was trolling and was raised as a troll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is how moderator/admin abuse is done now, selective enforcement of the rules, even HN is guilty of this sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder how many comments per thread like this are typed and then abandoned by people saying "It just isn't worth it."

</comment><comment><USER15> Nothing new and nobody should be surprised. Over 5 years ago I moderated a community that had extensive problems with a subset of very problematic users. This lead to real world problems and ultimately intervention from local law enforcement. It was during this time that I learned the admin team dealt with these times of users by working, not dealing, with them. It became evident that [a]dmins had been tipping off these users, keeping them one step ahead. As these admins were called out they would fall silent and the cycle would begin again.

</comment><comment><USER16> Isn't Reddit a platform for trolls? Even Quora these days has become crazy to read through all the silly stuff.

</comment><comment><USER17> Since #PizzaGate is the backdrop, I learned a few minutes ago about the breitbart podesta tweet. Maybe it will interest someone [https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920](https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920)

</comment><comment><USER18> Short version:

* The steps to allow for censorship in the software and diminish the visibility of asshattery is a necessary thing. * It is unfortunate that it wasn't done before. * It is a pattern that has repeated itself many times over the decades. * Read A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. * Web 2.0 puts too much work on too few people.

Long version:

One of the talks that was passed around (I think it was Everything2 that introduced me to it, but I could be wrong) is A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy ( [http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html](http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html) ). This goes to the problems and some necessary designs for social software - reddit is one such example.

The story in that talk that this current episode reminds me of is that of Communitree:

\----

> Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue. > "Communitree" \-- the name just says "California in the Seventies." And the > notion was, effectively, throw off structure and new and beautiful patterns > will arise.

> And, indeed, as anyone who has put discussion software into groups that were > previously disconnected has seen, that does happen. Incredible things > happen. The early days of Echo, the early days of usenet, the early days of > Lucasfilms Habitat, over and over again, you see all this incredible > upwelling of people who suddenly are connected in ways they weren't before.

> And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the > difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that > got hold of some modems was a high school. And who, in 1978, was hanging out > in the room with the computer and the modems in it, but the boys of that > high school. And the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult > conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in > salacious talk. They were interested in running amok and posting four-letter > words and nyah-nyah-nyah, all over the bulletin board.

> And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by > these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open > access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own > users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They > had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant."

> But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being > overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, > and as a result, they simply shut the site down.

\----

To me, Reddit is facing this exact same problem. It wants to be a place for free speech, but the right type of free speech. It also hasn't designed the necessary infrastructure of code to allow the community of not t_d to defend itself and maintain the type of content that that core community wants.

And thus, backchannel slack channels to try to get people to tone it down a bit - because the software didn't support the necessary structures to prevent it from happening.

That passage quoted above goes on:

> Now you could ask whether or not the founders' inability to defend > themselves from this onslaught, from being overrun, was a technical or a > social problem. Did the software not allow the problem to be solved? Or was > it the social configuration of the group that founded it, where they simply > couldn't stomach the idea of adding censorship to protect their system. But > in a way, it doesn't matter, because technical and social issues are deeply > intertwined. There's no way to completely separate them.

> What matters is, a group designed this and then was unable, in the context > they'd set up, partly a technical and partly a social context, to save it > from this attack from within. And attack from within is what matters. > Communitree wasn't shut down by people trying to crash or syn-flood the > server. It was shut down by people logging in and posting, which is what the > system was designed to allow. The technological pattern of normal use and > attack were identical at the machine level, so there was no way to specify > technologically what should and shouldn't happen. Some of the users wanted > the system to continue to exist and to provide a forum for discussion. And > other of the users, the high school boys, either didn't care or were > actively inimical. And the system provided no way for the former group to > defend itself from the latter.

> Now, this story has been written many times. It's actually frustrating to > see how many times it's been written. You'd hope that at some point that > someone would write it down, and they often do, but what then doesn't happen > is other people don't read it.

\----

I believe that the failing of Web 2.0 is that most people don't care. User moderated content is a great thing - when its moderated. Without that moderation (which often falls disproportionately on a very, very, small group) you end up with doing tech support for people who are either asses to the world or intentionally trying to make your job suck in a very hostile way.

Back channels and trying to appeal to individuals doesn't scale. The software needs to support the necessary tools of moderation (which include censorship and banning).

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone else not care?

</comment><comment><USER19> that is so meta...

</comment><comment><USER20> reddit does not owe alt-right assholes a zero-dollar platform to have a free forum.

If alt right people want to run their own web forum they are more than welcome to find sufficient technical clue to rent a $250/mo dedicated server and install some http/https based forum software on it.

people cry "censorship", but it's a private company, and if you're paying $0 they don't owe you anything. Set up your own system if you don't like what their management is doing. You'd think that ultra right wingers, of all people, would appreciate the irony of depending on somebody else's free forum because they're too lazy, incompetent or feckless to do it themselves.

<comment><USER10> This isn't about left or right, it's about a CEO censoring opinions that he doesn't agree with. If it helps you understand, pretend he censored Hillary or Bernie supporters.

<comment><USER20> It's not a CEO censoring anything, it's a subreddit of people who troll for the lulz having a minuscule example of their own tactics turned around upon them, for the fleeting amusement of somebody with admin access on the servers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Trolling the trolls" is a very stupid euphemism. The mainstream media is losing all credibility built in the past decades and seems to not be able to figure out how to halt the proccess (while changing nothing about the "values" [and people] they protect).

<comment><USER22> "Trolling the trolls" was language spez used. What does this have to do with the mainstream media?

<comment><USER21> Top down narrative. Reddit CEO didn't troll the trolls, it was a huge mistake that can put in check the entire company. TechCrunch could write 99 better stories about this issue than this piece of propaganda.

It also reminds me Hillary campaign (and their MSM friends) calling half of US voters deplorable.

<comment><USER23> He changed statements against him by trolls of the_donald to say the_donald so it appeared they were insulting themselves.

Seems like a (mild) form of trolling to me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Reccomendations for adult study in IT (SF bay area) - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I was wondering if you could provide some suggestions to a 30 year old sysadmin team lead who wants to gain a university based education in a related field (part-time)?
I currently do not hold any formal IT based qualifications (pending graduation of a diploma in network engineering from Tafe NSW Australia). I have over 12 years experience and work history that got me a work visa in the USA.
The ideal course would cover a moderate amount of programing / software development units, management units & project management. Any sysadmin type units would be nice too as they would hopefully get me some easier credits.
Ideally I would like to be able to complete the course work online, however a local presence in the SF bay area would be great for when I am stuck on some course work or want to get into a different environment to focus on my studies.
Can anyone recommend a "good" education provider with course/s that meets my needs that is not going to cost over a 50k USD? <comment><USER2> Two questions:

1\. What do you want to learn? Sysadmin stuff? Software development? Something else?

2\. Is your goal pure "learning", or is your goal to get some kind of degree/certification to put on your CV?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I want something along the lines of:

1: I would prefer a mix of management/project management with software engineering. I am not great at maths so I would like to avoid a course heavy on stats and discrete math for example.

Hopefully the outcome of this is to give me options to progress down the management track further. But also give me a reasonable option to move into software development should I want to.

2: Degree/certification to put on my CV. While also still having enough of a basis in software engineering to develop reasonable intermediate programing skills and to keep me interested in the course work.

<comment><USER2> In that case I'm not sure. But since we're on HN: Start a side project and make a business out of it. That way you'll get both engineering and business management skills ;)</comment></comment></comment>


In China, Projects to Make Great Wall Feel Small - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/business/international/in-china-projects-to-make-great-wall-feel-small-.html

<comment><USER2> [http://www.chacha.com/gallery/6490/15-things-china-doesn- t-w...](http://www.chacha.com/gallery/6490/15-things-china-doesn-t-want-you- to-know)

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't imagine what will happen when they run out of funds to maintain this 80 km long tunnel built in the middle of earthquake zones.

</comment><comment><USER4> My first read of the title is "Make Great Firewall Feel Small".</comment>


What's the oldest independently owned software company? - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/danielraffel/status/784936684408365059 <comment><USER2> The oldest one I can think of is SAS, which is 40 years old:

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Epic Systems is certainly up there ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Systems) ).</comment>


How Men's Emotions Are Preventing Gender Equality at Work - <AUTHOR> http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/wah-wah-why-dont-you-cry-a-little-more-you-little-man-jk-stfu

<comment><USER2> "/business-economics/wah-wah-why-dont-you-cry-a-little-more-you-little-man-jk- stfu" \- From the url.

Very professional.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I thought that was sucky too. But I don't control the URL. And it has decent data in it.</comment></comment>


Google Cloud: From "Up and Comer" to Full-On Threat - <AUTHOR> https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=lcUS44184518&pageType=PRINTFRIENDLY <comment><AUTHOR> The battle among the cloud's "megaplatform" players – global providers of IaaS/PaaS platforms – just got much more competitive. At the Google Cloud NEXT 2018 event last week, the company rolled out an ambitious hybrid strategy, stepped up its campaign to accelerate AI adoption and ratcheted up its partner programs and ecosystem. Google is starting to look a lot less like an aspiring "up and comer" than a full-on threat to #1 and #2 players, AWS and Microsoft.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it worth paying for a Coursera course? - <AUTHOR> There are lots of free courses online but some offer the option of paying and receiving a certificate on completion.<p>Does anyone here have one of those certs? Do they hold any value? Is it worth paying for the cert when you can still do the full course for free? <comment><USER3> I personally paid one course and one specialization courses.

There are the reasons why I paid:

1\. The course is awesome and I want to support the authors.

2\. The course I paid is new learning area I never use professionally during job but I wish to use at my job (or new job). Instead of say "I interested in XYZ", I said "I interested in XYZ so I took online course to learn" at my interview. This is to partially solve chicken and egg problem.

3\. For serious courses, I pay so I can have pressure and motivation to complete it.

<comment><USER4> If you've reached that stage yet, have you found prospective employers appreciate the (paid-for) certificate?

Over taking the course and saying "I'm interested in X, so I took the course for free, and consequently have no proof to show you".

<comment><USER5> I have some Machine Learning certificates from Coursera, and at the gig I'm working some really entry level Machine Learning was required.

I do believe it helped when I told them about the courses I took, showed them some code I had backed up online, at least it let them know I wasn't just completely bluffing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've taken several Coursera courses all the way since the beginning. My general impression is that the quality has gone down. Personally, I don't care about the certificates. I think a much better way to demonstrate that you have taken a course is to apply what you have learned, or blog about it, or review it on one of the review sites (I think the biggest ones are Class Central and Course Talk).

Courses I have taken (and reviewed):

[https://henrikwarne.com/2015/10/20/coursera-course-review- so...](https://henrikwarne.com/2015/10/20/coursera-course-review-software- security/)

[https://henrikwarne.com/2015/01/01/coursera-course-review- co...](https://henrikwarne.com/2015/01/01/coursera-course-review- computational-investing-part-1/)

[https://henrikwarne.com/2013/02/18/coursera-algorithms- cours...](https://henrikwarne.com/2013/02/18/coursera-algorithms-course- part2/)

[https://henrikwarne.com/2012/05/08/coursera-algorithms- cours...](https://henrikwarne.com/2012/05/08/coursera-algorithms-course/)

[https://henrikwarne.com/2011/12/18/introduction-to- databases...](https://henrikwarne.com/2011/12/18/introduction-to-databases-on- line-learning-done-well/)

[https://www.class-central.com/mooc/4893/coursera-the- global-...](https://www.class-central.com/mooc/4893/coursera-the-global- financial-crisis#reviews)

Review sites:

[https://www.class-central.com/](https://www.class-central.com/)

[https://www.coursetalk.com/](https://www.coursetalk.com/)

<comment><USER7> I think this is a great effort. Are you at beginner level or advanced? My nephew is currently learning to code and the book he is using is very much university level content (read: utter garbage), it goes as far as distinguishing "inner loops". Any developer knows that there is nothing special about an inner loop (besides O(N^2)) - it's nothing more than logical progression. I'm looking for something worthwhile for him to learn from.

I've saved these reviews and will be contemplating them for his education - <USER2> would help to know how far along you were when approaching them.

<comment><USER8> Depending on how you structure your loops, things can be optimized on how it hits the cache and reads contiguous memory addresses.

<comment><USER9> There was a time (late 90s) when GCC would optimize conditionals in an asymmetric way. Somebody will hopefully correct me, but I think the advice was to make conditionals usually be true, for best performance. Since most coders would never hear about this asymmetry (though that's just my impression) it was a bizarre case of favoring one branch of a conditional over another for purely historical (machine code) reasons.

<comment><USER10> I think now branch prediction on processors can go either way, just as long as it's biased one way or another. If it's not biased one way or another, try to reduce out branches into vectorizable instructions (or pray that GCC takes care of it for you).

Branch prediction isn't a GCC thing, it's a processor thing.

Observe this wonderful Stack Overflow question: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11227809/why-is- processin...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11227809/why-is-processing-a- sorted-array-faster-than-an-unsorted-array)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Coursera's assessment methodology started off bad, and when they moved to the new platform it became even worse. It's now basically impossible to write meaningful or good examinations using their platform.

Previously, you could do novel things like limit the number of times students could re-take exams and assign different point values to different questions. No longer!

All a Coursera completion tells me is that you were persistent enough to go back and re-take the (multiple choice) exams enough times to get a passing grade.

<comment><USER5> This is honestly true.

I take quite a few Coursera courses and I have had a score of '100' in all of them. And this is almost exclusively because even if I fail I can just see which question I failed, go back to the lecture, study that section again, and try again until I get the 100.

<comment><USER12> Of course, one might argue that, if you're using testing as a pedagogical technique as opposed to a certification mechanism, that's _exactly_ how it ought to work.

<comment><USER13> Exactly. If we go from the assumption that the whole _point_ of lectures and courses is to _acquire_ knowledge, doesn't it make sense to make sure knowledge is indeed acquired.

There's that saying that amateurs practice until they get it right and pros practice until they can't get it wrong.

A perfect score in the current configuration tells you that the students didn't just persist through the course, they went back and filled the gaps and made sure they get it right even if they got it wrong at first.

<comment><USER14> But is that long-term knowledge?

In college I took a class and, after the first session, realized the professor was utter shit[1]. I did not attend a single subsequent class or complete any reading/assignments. After cramming for the midterm for 10 hours, I earned an 80% and dropped the class to prove a point[2].

Could not tell you a single thing that was part of that class, but I got a lot of questions right.

[1]: He was hired because the college wanted his wife, so they hired them both. Terrible hiring practice. [2]: Yes, I was a pain in the ass at that age.

<comment><USER13> Preaching to the choir, tyre: I have a catastrophic college track record, 9 years instead of 5, almost expelled, extremely poor grades, missed exams, pissed off some teachers because I didn't think their course was worth the time (because I knew more about the subject than they did and they weren't okay with that even though I shut my mouth unless they said something wrong and I would suggest something correct very discreetly, privately, and as a question not even a statement, giving them the opportunity to take credit for the embedded answer. Yet they didn't like it).. Those very same teachers would entrust me with the class to answer questions or assist students when I was there, and then give me poor grades.

It's hurting me right now because a recruiter would look at my grades and think I'm stupid, so you do have a point. I was looking at it from the personal quest to quench the thirst for knowledge, not how it looked from the outside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is it worth paying for a course?

No.

Is it worth paying for a course so that you complete it?

Yes. Paying for something hits us hard in the accountability checkbook. The more you pay (and the harder it is to get out of), the more you are committed.

Is it worth paying for a course and telling your friends, significant other, random strangers that you are going to learn X, even if that course is only part of learning X, so that you cannot quit because of pride and accountability?

Big YES.

<comment><USER16> > Is it worth paying for a course and telling your friends, significant other, > random strangers that you are going to learn X, even if that course is only > part of learning X, so that you cannot quit because of pride and > accountability?

Some people would mentally check-off the task as "done" after making a financial effort.

I learned that lesson when I was 20 and I saved money for weeks (I didn't have a job) to buy Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach. I told my friends how awesome the book was supposed to be. Then when I finally bought it I never got past the first chapter.

I never got rid of the book so that every time I see it I reminds me of that time. I now know that committing financially, or by telling other people about your goals doesn't mean a lot. Committing yourself mentally to the task is what's important.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree 100% with this

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I took four or five Coursera courses in 2012-2013 while trying to get into the industry. I listed the completed courses on my resume. Employers seemed mildly intrigued but never made a big deal about them, and no one ever asked to see certificates (back then they offered free certificates of completion if you completed the course with a sufficient grade--there was no webcam of typing verification back then, and I think the certificate was just a pdf you downloaded or something).

My experience may not generalize, but I'm not sure I'd worry about it.

Note: I also had an undergrad degree (math and philosophy, and graduate degree in philosophy, but no school CS experience. No idea how this changes if you don't have any degree).

</comment><comment><USER18> I paid* for and passed the cyber-security specialization from the University of Maryland. Overall I think it was worth it since I learned a lot and met some interesting people. Half of the courses were substantially less useful than the other half (Hardware Security / Usable Security were not as informative as Software Security / Cryptography). I added the specialization to my LinkedIn profile & Resume but I've never had anyone ask about it.

Coincidentally at my old job I was the cyber-security expert for my domain (HW), which only meant that I would be assigned to security relevant programs if we got any (we didn't), and they paid to send me to Defcon. They didn't even know I was taking the specialization, just that I like to talk about security.

*I say paid because I just got a refund since apparently there are some issues with migrating courses to a new format and not offering enough of them this year.

</comment><comment><USER19> My take as I have tried used all the major platforms. Edx has quality and more challenging tutorials Udacity is project focused, and coursera has lost its grip by chopping up courses and charging fees for each module.

If you feel the need to pay for anything I suggest you go for Edx Micromasters program or Udacity's Nanodegree. I think you'll derive a lot more from that.

</comment><comment><USER12> I suppose it wouldn't work for the VC-funded ventures like Coursera whose investors were presumably looking for big exits, but I've actually wondered if an organization like edX wouldn't have been better just having a "suggested donation" of the same magnitude as what a book costs--say $25 or so.

As soon as you have a formal price for a certificate, it shifts the conversation to how much personal value I'm getting from the certificate specifically as opposed to doing my small part to keep this sort of educational material available.

<comment><USER20> I agree, though I can only dream of the day when textbooks are $25

<comment><USER21> When I'm learning a subject for myself, I buy the previous edition from Amazon (if I can't get it from the local library). I rarely pay more than $25 for a book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I hate to sound glib, the answer really is "it depends". I'd question any blanket statements being made by anyone here, especially any saying "Coursera certifications hold no value" (or the opposite).

Ultimately it's just like any other certification, certificate, diploma, etc... the value is in the eye of the beholder. If you're applying for some jobs, I'm about 100% certain there are some people who would snicker and laugh at a Coursera cert and refuse to give it any weight whatsoever. OTOH, I am absolutely 100% certain that some people will give it at least a moderate amount of weight (I can say that, as I know I would do so).

Like other certifications like, say, being a Sun Certified Java Programmer or something, you usually don't want to be in a position where you're trying to stand on that as your _only_ credential, unless you are very young and early in your career. But if you had, for example, just graduated high-school and already gained a SCJP and a Data Science certification from Coursera, I'd be darn impressed and would probably want to hire you.

Similarly, if you've been programming for 10 years, in, say, Python and Java, and you're trying to transition away from "plain" programming and move more into data science, then _complementing_ your existing skills and knowledge by gaining some data science / machine learning certifications from Coursera (or Edx, or whatever) could, in some situations, give you the leverage to start bridging from one career track to another.

Ultimately, it's a judgment call. Myself, given how inexpensive the paid Coursera classes are (most of them seem to be around $50), I've chosen to go the paid route for a number of the ones I've taken. I've also done a bunch where I was literally in it for the knowledge alone and didn't bother with the certification. I wish I could tell you some strictly deterministic algorithm for figuring out when/if it makes sense to pay for a given class, but I honestly don't know. All I can tell you is that I think it does make sense in at least some situations.

</comment><comment><USER23> My 2 cents. Are you going to learn something at the end of the course? If yes, then it is worth paying something for, how much is depending on the value you feel it will net you.

Is a certification worth it. Personally, not likely, but I know people that live and die by the certs they hold. So to each their own. Is it going to get you in the door of an employer? Maybe if you have little or no experience and the guy/gal applying with you is similar it might give you a leg up. Otherwise, what you do and how you present yourself is more important than any certification you pass.

When I was actively hiring, I cared far more about what you have done, what you can explain to/show me, then any piece of paper you could present.

</comment><comment><USER24> Just couple days ago I decided to give 5 weeks android course on edx a shot. I'm in week 5, spend like 3-4hrs to complete 1-4 weeks work (including time spent watching videos), wrote probably no more than 30-50 lines of code mostly something simple as "smth++". I feel like the quality went down dramatically compared to first courses they had, now its all about the money...

<comment><USER12> Andecdotally, there does seem to be an increase in the number of courses on these platforms. I'm not sure that's wholly negative given that the data has shown pretty consistently that with each week more learners stop engaging. Which suggests that smaller chunking might be more effective.

Of course, it also means that there are more opportunities to sell for a given amount of content, so I certainly don't rule out monetization as a factor.

For me, it's something of a tradeoff. On the one hand, there aren't many courses that are good enough and that I care enough about to devote university levels of work to. On the other hand, I'm taken some that were so trivial that it would be hard to say I got anything lasting out of them.

<comment><USER24> I understand that the longer the course is the less people will complete it, but at the same time, if you have to write 3-5 lines of code for each assignment what is the value in there? What does the certificate certify?

<comment><USER12> No argument here. As I said, I've taken or started to take a few courses that were so cursory (at least with respect to my level of existing knowledge) that they were largely a waste of time. I may not be prepared to spend 10+ hours a week over the course of 2+ months for very many classes--but if the whole class amounts to watching a webinar or reading a chapter in a book, it's probably not very valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If you're talking only about the certificate: No.

Put the skills you learned in your resume or start working on projects which demonstrates those skills. List out the courses you completed under the 'Trainings' section of the resume and Mention MOOCs under your hobbies (If you have such a section a resume).

I was very interested in MOOCs (ai-class was awesome!) but unfortunately most of them seem to have gone the 'pay XX to get this certificate you can to print out!' route to make money.

The fact that you're interested in MOOCs says many positive things about you and shows that you're interested in learning and improving your skill-set, and at this point in time, I would be very surprised if anyone gave two shits about the certificate, because who the hell lies about taking a MOOC?

And in the case of coursera - many of the courses are actually poor quality. Udacity and Edx (especially EdX) seem to take quality much more seriously.

</comment><comment><USER26> For anyone interested I posted a review of the Data Science Specialization that I paid for and completed:

[http://sookocheff.com/post/datascience/datasciencespecializa...](http://sookocheff.com/post/datascience/datasciencespecialization/)

<comment><USER27> I also completed this specialization, but unpaid so did not do the capstone project. I agree with most of your take/skip assessments. The Statistical Inference course was particularly disappointing. I recommend the excellent Data Analysis and Statistical Inference ([https://www.coursera.org/course/statistics](https://www.coursera.org/course/statistics)) to fill in that missing area of learning.

<comment><USER22> I was just about to sign up for the Statistical Inference class, and happened to read some reviews before hand. I'm glad I did. A number of people have pointed out how that class diverges from the others, becomes very math heavy without covering basic pre-requisites, etc. Everybody is saying to make sure you've taken a least a basic Statistics class before taking that one, and since I haven't had a Stats 101 class, I'm going through a bunch of Stats material _before_ signing up for this class.

I'm still going to take it since I want to finish the specialization, but I'm glad I didn't wind up diving into it blind. I think I would have struggled with it if I had.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I took and completed Algorithms: Design and Analysis, Part 1 ([https://www.coursera.org/course/algo](https://www.coursera.org/course/algo)) for free, and it was 100% worth it. It was just the right amount of challenging, intellectually stimulating, and language agnostic so I think it actually made me a better JavaScript programmer in addition.

I made it a point to meet all the deadlines and assignments, which kept me honest and forced me to be timely. It was free when I did it, but I'm not sure if that's changed since looking at other courses I don't seem able to receive a certificate or weekly grades if not paying... Point being it may be worth it to pay just so you feel incentivized to finish the course with a passing grade :)

</comment><comment><USER29> If you believe an education system is directly tied to the advancement of humankind, globalizing access to advanced subject matter from some of the world's top professors could actually alter the course of human history for better. If that's something you care about, then it's probably something supporting with money.

It removes a suffocating constraint on the structure of the education system: finding instructors X capable of teaching some advanced/esoteric subject to students Y, in a sufficiently small geographic space. Under this constraint, sometimes the only solution has been a dumbed-down, cookie-cutter curriculum. Once online learning has matured, this will no longer be the case.

<comment><USER12> Or you could read books or watch videos on YouTube, etc. Unfortunately, MOOCs are (for the most part) best at the same sort of broadcasts of information that are already available in a number of different ways.

<comment><USER29> I wouldn't pose this as an either/or. MOOCs, as we know them today, are the next step in the evolution of online education.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Do the certs hold any value ? compared to a diploma or real work experience, the answer is no.

Can it be a plus on a CV the anwser is yes as it show you're willing to learn new techs/ skills continuously.

Coursera has great courses, no question, but clearly their certs offer very little value compared to official diplomas.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm on my 3rd module of a game design specialisation course.

So far I thought it was good, the content is not super deep but I kinda like it that way because it could fit in my busy schedule easier while also allowing me to practice writing. That's really my motivation to take the course, if I can start thinking like a game designer for £250, that's awesome enough. Personally I've 'outgrown'video games but taking the course has reignited that interest and I'm seriously considering a game idea :D

My assessments aren't multiple choice tests though, I had to submit written work every week which is then reviewed by at least two other classmates. I thought that system's pretty good. The forums are useless I find, as it's easy to have so many 'heyy nice to meet you' threads that I don't bother checking anymore. I do wish that we can have access to the tutors themselves though, it's not practical i guess but that would definitely enhance the course experience.

</comment><comment><USER32> Disclaimer: I've paid for many courses but never paid for a specialiazation.

I personally don't care about the effect of the certificate. I paid simply because what instructor taught me worth more than it cost.

<comment><AUTHOR> What courses did you do?

<comment><USER32> Most of them are about Data Science / Machine Learning and some math stuff

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Has anyone completed any business courses / specialisations on Coursera? Are they worth it for a developer trying to make the move into a business-oriented role? And, do you think, that certificates matter for securing such roles in companies?

<comment><USER34> What kind of business role do you want? If it's sales pickup books like Spin Selling, Launch (by Jeff Walker), and Predictable Profits Playbook.

If it's more general finance you want to learn coursera should be fine.

If it's leadership qualities, start with the book How Google Works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I pay for mine but not because I care about the certs. I have a better completion rate when I pay for the course (80% v 10%). I know it is purely a mental thing but it works for me and is worth the money I pay.

</comment><comment><USER36> For some people, but not others, paying for the course helps motivate the person toward completion.

For some people, but not others, the certificate holds value independent of the learning experience. That also can motivate the learner to completion or increase esteem for an applicant to an academic or commercial solicitation.

I have a bunch of the free unverified certificates from a few years ago. I found the certification _process_ motivating and a useful time management tool.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER37> About 5 years ago when I was still in high school I found $500 in a derelict paypal account that had been locked. Having finally gotten a debit card I was able to unlock the paypal account by linking my bank account. I decided to immediately chuck $350 of it at coursera (although it could've been a similar product I can't remember). I wanted to become a successful mobile app developer and self-learning seemed the best way to go.

Long story short the courses I happened to pick were of low quality and never completed. Four years later I still cringe when I hear the word eclipse (even though I'm getting into mobile development now after a few years in webdev land). While I'm sure there are a number of very good courses, and quite a few people capable of completing them and benefiting from them in their lives, I believe I was at the time not only the prime demographic for the product but also in the majority of their users.

TLDR; you can make any learning opportunity beneficial. Is courser and similar products worth the effort to make productive? Maybe, maybe not. There are other alternatives that should always be researched.

<comment><USER15> OT: As a web developer, you might be more comfortable with iOS development. Checkout Swift and Xcode Playgrounds. Even though Android Studio 2.0 was just released this week, iOS and Xcode is more like Visual Studio (complete ecosystem) than Android will ever be. Good luck!

[https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/recipes/Playground_H...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/recipes/Playground_Help/Chapters/AboutPlaygrounds.html)

Android Studio 2.0 released [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449029](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449029)

<comment><USER38> That really was off topic...

<comment><USER5> >I wanted to become a successful mobile app developer

>As a web developer, you might be more comfortable with iOS development

How was that off topic?

<comment><USER38> Or maybe my reading skills are off. I reread it before I posted but still, well deserved ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Recent memory research supports the way they structure the testing. The repetition and redoing things until you get the score of 100% not only shows sticktoitiveness, but the process improves retention. Also, the way they have the video lectures stop and ask questions which require the correct answer before continuing improves retention. So far, all the courses I've looked at have a free option, but some are more free than others. One course I enrolled for would let me take the tests, but wouldn't grade them. Guess what I didn't finish? What do the certificates look like? Do they name the school providing the class? Lots of colleges and universities are offering courses on coursera. Some charge more than others for the certificate. In theory, the value of the certificates should be affected by the outfit presenting the course. What does it matter who gives the course if the certificate is going to only say coursera? A certificate from a famous school is a certificate from a famous school. Coursera is just a classroom.

</comment><comment><USER12> I agree with most of the other answers here. If paying provides personal incentive or you want to "give back" (although I suspect that most of the money goes to Coursera and its VCs rather than the creator of the content), sure, go ahead. However, outside of edge cases such as needing a verified certificate for a continuing education requirement or something along those lines, it's hard to imagine the certificate itself having a lot of value.

(Which is one of the challenges for MOOCs. On the one hand, most adults aren't going to pay a lot of money just for a learning experience. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of value in the MOOC certification process. I suppose that a specialization from a good school _might_ be worth something in the absence of other relevant background that you could point to, but I have to believe it's marginal.)

</comment><comment><USER40> I agree with some of the comments about effectively being able to play the exam game. That said, some courses I've seen have offered extra credit, and distinction grades, if certain extra work is undertaken which is not simply guessing exam questions multiple times. Such an example is Cryptography by Prof Katz which is part of the Cybersecurity specialisation. You can pass the course by playing the system, but to do well you need to write code to crack crypto systems. Not something everyone is capable of and offers a different perspective on the overall result. I've done several coursera courses and they've landed me some pretty decent jobs. Just depends on how You sell them :-)

</comment><comment><USER41> Is it worth paying for the streaming rights to a TV program you can watch for free OTA? Is it worth paying fraternity dues when you could just have a party with friends?

As a hobby I'd say its pretty cheap per hour. I've paid for some of the data science classes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Those examples make no sense.

<comment><USER41> Exactly, yes. For small enough amounts of money, rational behavior is not expected, its surprising. Especially when its not mere quiet consumption, but the transaction has a fat dose of social signalling mixed in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> For the 3rd party (ones that you want to show off the achievement), I don't think there is any difference between "Passed course on Coursera" vs "Passed course on Coursera and paid for certificate".

</comment><comment><USER43> From answers given by some CS professors on Quora, just a cert from a MOOC means nothing to them if you are applying for PhD. What they really care is if you have mastered the techniques you got from learning the MOOC.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is the cert a step to proving you have mastered the techniques?

<comment><USER44> For many Coursera courses, absolutely not. The cert just says that you're good at knowing where to look for the answers when you take the quizzes/tests. I'm sure there are some courses where this is less true, but most I've taken are simple "what do the provided notes or videos say the answer should be?"

<comment><USER45> So it is pretty much the same as "regular" college courses?

<comment><USER44> Except you can retake the exams until you pass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I don't think is worth to pay for a course or specialization beyond the motivation of not losing the money invested because there is no difference at all between the free and paid version, which is more frustrating are the support forums, they are run very cheaply, getting an answer could take weeks and it's just the blind leading the blind, also there is no guarantee that a course offered today will be offered in the future, have that in mind if you start an specialization, if you miss a course it's impossible to get something that you paid for.

<comment><USER12> The forums and peer-to-peer interactions more broadly are unfortunately one aspect of MOOCs that scale poorly. MOOCs haven't really lived up to their hype (they're valuable but not transformative) because the thing they do really well--broadcast lectures--was largely a solved problem. While the thing that they do poorly--individual or small group interactions--is the part of education that's difficult and expensive.

For certain types of content, which happen to line up well with programming topics, autograding systems are another good innovation. But otherwise peer- grading and multiple choice tests are pretty weak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I don't care if you paid for it or not. I care if you learned anything.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've paid for a few courses to simply pay for the content that I'm watching. The Coursera crypto course was excellent. Lately, the better courses that I've seen have been on the edX platform.

</comment><comment><USER49> I've taken a couple of courses and paid for one. The reason I paid it was simple - I loved the course, wanted to make a clear commitment that I was going to finish this one (I am poor with finishing projects :/).

The $49 for most courses was something which I could afford and it helped in serving as additional motivation. The reward at the end of it all felt good as well!

</comment><comment><USER50> Currently I am taking specialization in Python, it is Awesome. I can't pay for certificate so applied for financial aid. I've also received certificates for three courses in this specialization, all with 100%. For me it is fun learning experience.

</comment><comment><USER51> I have several from when they were free, and none from when they started to charge for them. I don't think it means anything, really. You can print your own score screen and show interviewers and it would mean as much as a coursera-generated pdf..

</comment><comment><USER52> Internet a great source. Internet resembles the sea.I think you should pay.

</comment><comment><USER53> There is enough free educational material on the web (google for Hackr.io etc.) What is the point of paying for a course if good (sometimes even better!) stuff is available for free?

</comment><comment><USER54> Wait what? You actually have to pay for Coursera courses nowadays? I remember they used to be completely free (as in "free beer")

<comment><USER31> Many of them are still free, but not the specialisation courses I know.

<comment><USER27> The free option means they are crippled. You can't take the tests or submit assignments for grading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Have you tried Smartly yet ([https://smart.ly](https://smart.ly)). Totally free!

</comment><comment><USER56> i'd say a course's institution of origin would play the biggest role in determining the certificate's 'value'. never hurts to say you got a certificate from yale. nobody's going to think you did your phd there, but it's still a fun resume stuffer.

</comment><comment><USER57> I think they have some financial aid for some people. That might be worth looking into.

</comment><comment><USER58> It 100% depends what your goal in taking the course is.

</comment><comment><USER59> A follow up question to the OP's:

Which courses are worth taking?

<comment><USER22> I'm just finishing up Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course and would definitely say it's worth it (depending on how much, if anything, you already know about ML).

I'm also about halfway through the Johns Hopkins Data Science specialization, and I've found all of those courses to be worthwhile. But then again, I'd never programmed in R before and that's something I very pointedly wanted to pick up. So far, this series has been invaluable in terms of learning R (much like I had to learn a fair amount of Octave for Andrew Ng's class).</comment></comment>


Remember That Nuclear Dump Site That 'Was Never Supposed to Leak'? - <AUTHOR> https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/25-3

<comment><USER2> It's strange that in neither the article nor the DOE report, there is any information about what is leaking and causing the radiation in the air. Is it Radom? Are there any plausible alternatives?

The article cites an expert that says that "[This] Radioactive material is attracted to your lung tissue." If the dump is leaking Radom, this sentence doesn't make sense.

Another problem is how much radiation is leaking.

From the article:

> _In their statement released Monday, the DOE sought to downplay the danger > from airborne radiation, claiming that the "concentrations remain well below > a level of public or environmental hazard" with a "potential dose of less > than one millirem." They compared this to the typical chest x-ray, in which > the patient is exposed to approximately 10 millirems._

From the DOE report:

> _Dose assessment modeling, which calculates potential radioactivity exposure > to people, from the release data showed a potential dose of less than one > millirem at each of the environmental sampling locations. A person receives > about 10 millirems from a single chest x-ray procedure. The average person > living in the United States receives an annual dose of about 620 millirem > from exposure to naturally occurring and other sources of radiation._

The articles drop the 620 millirem/year. Most of the people don't know that there are a lot of natural radiation sources.

In all the sources I could found, the radiation of a chest x-ray is approximately 2 millirem (not 10 millirems) (The equivalence is 1 Sv = 100 rem.) (A chest CT is much bigger, 800 millirem.)

And it's not clear if the radiation is 1 millirem/day or 1 millirem/year. In banana equivalent doses it's 100 bananas/day or 100 bananas/year.

From the redaction of the text, I guess it's 1 millirem/year = 100 bananas/year, so it's negligible, I probably eat 100 bananas/year.

(If I'm wrong and it's 1 millirem/day = 100 bananas/day, then it's more worrying. It's more than the EPA recommended yearly dose public, but it's still much less than a CT or the maximal yearly dose for radiation workers.)</comment>


Is Amazon not perfect? - <AUTHOR>

It is easy to buy a book as a gift on Amazon and have it sent to someone. Try that with Kindle! You can buy vouchers but you cannot buy a particular book as a gift for someone's Kindle. Wouldn't that be a logical feature? People have Kindles because they don't want books...but people often want to make personal presents not just vouchers. <comment><USER2> Boom:

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200555070)

<comment><AUTHOR> ...make sure that the e-mail address is valid and registered to the recipient's Kindle device or reading app... And how would one know that???</comment></comment>


The Masterless People: Pirates, Maroons, and the Struggle to Live Free - <AUTHOR> https://longreads.com/2018/10/30/the-masterless-people-pirates-maroons-and-the-struggle-to-live-free/ <comment><USER2> For anyone interested in that strange phenomenon, this book is a classic: [https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169171/art-not- being-...](https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169171/art-not-being- governed)

<comment><USER3> And his talks on the origins of the state (vulgarly summarized as "cities were not to keep barbarians OUT, they were to keep the slave classes IN": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ukte- je8k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ukte-je8k)

<comment><USER4> thanks for this link. amazing talk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1) Gets you curious about the name of the band Maroon 5.

2) Caribean islands are a cataclysm for your mind. Volcanic tropical islands with colonial remains everywhere. Between the wild gigantism of nature, the palette of colors, the mountains bathing in dark silk sand beaches. The intensity of the sun... I'd suggest everyone to try to visit (if you're not scared by humidity and insects of course)

<comment><USER6> Maroon 5 is apparently a riff on yellow5[0][1].

[0] [https://www.yellow5.com/pokey/](https://www.yellow5.com/pokey/)

[1] ref: the author is a friend of mine. I don't know how they determined the relationship, but I've no reason to doubt the author.

Update: corroborated(?) [https://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Li- Ou/Maroon-5.html](https://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Li-Ou/Maroon-5.html)

<comment><USER5> Thanks I couldnt fond any answer.

<comment><USER6> More importantly, pokey the penguin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What a great article. I only wish there was more to it.

<comment><USER8> There is - it's an excerpt from a book "Marooned: Jamestown, Shipwreck, and a New History of America's Origins" ISBN:9781632867797

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Civilization and society is built by people working together under the coercion of masters. Often, to be masterless, is to live on the fringes of civilization. That is, unless you, yourself are a master.

<comment><USER10> I think it would be more accurate to say it _has been_ built by people working under the coercion of masters. Just like civilization has been built by people subjected to rain, snow, drought and pestilence. These conditions may be necessary for civilization to work, but I don't think we can say for sure they are. It's just how we got here.

<comment><USER9> All of modern society is this way. Masters coerce with salaries. Societies can not be built or maintained through the power of inspirational charisma from leaders or good will from the people. Money talks. You need to pay me a salary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Marcus Rediker has some interesting scholarship on pirates, and expanding it out a little into the result of mercantile capitalism creating a new proletariat Linebaugh and Rediker's "Many Headed Hydra" is a good read: [http://www.beacon.org/The-Many-Headed- Hydra-P1017.aspx](http://www.beacon.org/The-Many-Headed-Hydra-P1017.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER11> True freedom cannot exist in the modern world. You are almost always indebted to a loan or a company or your tax man or your government. If you are telling yourself anything else, you are lying to yourself.

<comment><USER12> ...well....

I've been living in a vehicle driving around Africa for 2.5 years now[1]. I'm technically a resident of no country (I have not spent more than 3 months in a single country in the last 2.5 years, and in all of those I only had a tourist visa where work was strictly prohibited)

So I have no loans, and technically don't have to pay tax anywhere. I am not a citizen of the country I was previously residing in, so I have been unable to vote for 15 years, so I would say the government doesn't have much control over me. I would have to renew my passport in another 7 years, but I can do that online and just get it mailed anywhere in the world.

I suppose I do pay some bank fees, though those are more than cancelled out by interest.

I personally will run out of money and won't be able to do this forever, but I have bumped into hundreds of Germans who have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes, and have been driving and roaming around Africa/the entire world for 10+ years, utterly free. It's not uncommon.

[1] I'm [http://instagram.com/theroadchoseme/](http://instagram.com/theroadchoseme/)

<comment><USER13> > but I have bumped into hundreds of Germans who have more money than they > could spend in 10 lifetimes

Yes, those people are part of the class of "masters", and the money is the means by which they direct others to serve them. (Foregoing members of the "master" class have set up the mechanisms by which control can be applied, and other current members of the class spend some time supervising and directing maintenance of those mechanisms, but there are masters who just use the mechanisms without worrying about them.)

Being in the class of masters isn't the same as living in a masterless society.

<comment><USER14> Only by reducing "master" to nearly meaningless as a distinct term. I'm not sure what the conversation gains from that.

Anyway, there was never a claim to a masterless society, only a free individual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unless you don't exist you'll always have a dependence on something other than yourself. Utter independence is a logical impossibility. Although, you could convince yourself of solipism, which is the closest you can get, subjectively speaking. And we have a special place for these kinds of 'free' people.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for a perfect example of a strawman fallacy. Nobody is arguing completely independent, just free of masters</comment></comment>