Tech's Military Dilemma - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/148870/techs-military-dilemma-silicon-valley <comment><USER2> I like how most comments here ignore that if the US military / intelligence apparatus simply stopped engaging in morally dubious or bankrupt operations, most people would have no problem helping them create weapons. Would I create weapons if I knew they would only be used in defense or other highly ethical ways? Of course. But you're kidding yourself if you think the current US military and its contractors won't use those weapons to drone innocent people in Yemen and sell those weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia.

This is a two sided debate but all I see here is people arguing whether tech workers should or should not care about personal politics. The other side is whether the US cares enough about having good technology that they're willing to act more morally. Perhaps neglecting that possibility shows we don't even think there's a chance of that happening

<comment><USER3> > But you're kidding yourself if you think the current US military and its > contractors won't use those weapons to drone innocent people in Yemen

The US military actually doesn't want that to happen. It invests huge amount of resources in developing processes and tech to minimize collateral damage and civilian deaths. Winning hearts and minds is just as important to the mission as dropping bombs on ISIS and Al Qeada.

<comment><USER2> Even if the US military itself doesn't, the US has allies who don't seem to care as much about innocent people being hurt: [https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/08/yemen-us-made-bombs- used...](https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/08/yemen-us-made-bombs-used- unlawful-airstrikes)

That doesn't even touch on the fact that the US involves itself in many conflicts where the enemy combatants are pretty much "innocent" relative to the US, and continually approves arms sales to despotic dictators installed via US-backed regime change. A lot of the unethical actions of the US are outsourced

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A lot of great tech has came out of military projects like GPS and virtually all of space technology. Arguably, a lot of these tech would not have been developed otherwise because either there was no commercial use case or capital requirements would have been too high. A lot of research is funded by programs like DARPA. There are several military projects that can actually prevent wars and save lives (drone surveillance in war zone being one). I think companies need to take balanced look.

<comment><USER5> That's not because the military technology was intrinsically good though, but rather a side effect of the massive budgets that governments will give towards military R&D.

If the government threw just as much money into civilian research, we'd likely get just as much good, without finding more efficient ways to kill each other.

For instance, Australia has CSIRO [1], which is sort of like DARPA, but without the military bent. They've managed to invent all sorts of cool new stuff.

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

<comment><USER6> Intel corporation is still larger than DARPA and DARPA is much more diffuse. The impact shouldn't be that great.

<comment><USER7> A better comparison would be Intel Research and DARPA or Intel and the whole DOD. By either of those measures the military budget is much bigger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If the source is looked at as a labor movement it would be a deeply atypical example of the bloc. Normally labor movements are all about guaranteeing good conditions and pay but such efforts have historically received chilly receptions despite obvious grounds for appealing to them like long hours and poor work-life balance. They appear to generally desire a competitive workforce and to reap the benefits of success. There are elements of that in other professions with guilds but those have operated in at times naked self- interest. It isn't even quite 'organized' labor per say - at least not yet. Even Free Software fundamentalists haven't signed on charters refusing to work with proprietary software for instance.

Instead ethics are what finally seem to have pushed tech workers to unify against their employer's raw immediate financial interests in spite of often having shares to benefit from them. It doesn't even seem to map consistently to either 'mainstream' or 'geek' ethics perfectly either although growing disillusionment with the government appears to be part of it.

I suppose the tech political mainstream also can be considered 'misfit' in other ways not fitting entirely in the typical left or right bounds.

<comment><USER9> It's deeply atypical of the US labor movement because the Taft-Hartley act was specifically designed to curb union power and, correspondingly, class consciousness and class solidarity. This combined with the vicious (not to mention deeply anti-Semitic) purge of socialists and communists was intended to narrowly circumscribe what union membership meant and furthered.[0] It's far different in Europe, where labor unions are much more expressly engaged with the formation of political parties that serve their interests[1]

If tech workers are waking up to their class position as labor, learning the power inherent in collective action, refusing to help further US imperialism, that's something to be celebrated. And if anything, it's a brilliant recognition of their position relative to other laborers (highly paid and benefitted), that they first use their power for the sake of ethics before pursuing their self-interest.

[0] [https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/taft-hartley-unions-right- to-...](https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/taft-hartley-unions-right-to-work)

[1] It's a bit hard to explain in an HN post, but essentially, the way that labor-oriented political parties are constituted and have their priorities decided in the US is backwards from those in Europe (top-down vs bottom-up). Seth Ackerman outlines this in this podcast episode, if you have time to listen:

[https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/35556305/a-new-party-of-a- new...](https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/35556305/a-new-party-of-a-new-kind/)

<comment><USER10> Not a chance. Like the comment below mentions, Snowden probable expected there were others like him. Nope. Not a one. Very few people have that sort of conviction.

But mainly, technical work is just different in nature. It's a lot more competitive and the hierarchy is more fluid. There's not an obvious floor like there is with factory workers, where there are a few managers and administrators for hundreds of workers. And the work is almost never manual. Technical workers are also constantly concerned with implementation and that sh were their attention goes. I don't ever see this actually happening.

<comment><USER9> Actually, lots of people have that conviction. Over a thousand people inside Google signed on against the company's collaboration with the military, there was all kinds of internal outcry and contention at internal forums, they pushed strongly back against executives bald-faced lies. It already happened:

[https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven- military...](https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military- tech-workers)

And here's the thing about labor struggle: the reason why Capital owners try to quash it before it gets started is because it's transformative. Once people see the power they have when they act collectively, what really turns the wheels at work and in society, they're changed.

<comment><USER11> > Once people see the power they have when they act collectively

Also, once people see things under the facade, such as

> "Letting you ask that question is the voice that you have. Very few > companies would allow you to do that."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's pretty gross how the author alluded to IBM's involvement on the allied side in WWII but neglects to mention the nature of those contracts: the management of concentration camps on both sides.

</comment><comment><USER13> Grounding Pinochet: [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/nae-pasaran-chile- coup-sc...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/nae-pasaran-chile-coup- scotland-solidarity)

<comment><USER14> That was what I thought of immediately. [https://www.scottishdocinstitute.com/films/nae-pasaran- featu...](https://www.scottishdocinstitute.com/films/nae-pasaran-feature/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article, and some comments, assume that certain political stance is shared between all the tech workers. Meanwhile, I know quite a lot of people in tech of many different countries who would be enthusiastic to work for the military, and would gladly accept lower salaries for the honor.

<comment><USER16> >I know quite a lot of people in tech of many different countries who would be enthusiastic to work for the military, and would gladly accept lower salaries for the honor.

Their respective militaries, or the American military?

<comment><USER15> Their respective - which includes american as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If there is a major war, there will be no dilemma. The country with the best tech will win, the latter will suffer in a way we can not predict.

</comment><comment><USER18> It is amusing to read people's opinion on the military yet work for Google, Facebook, Twitter etc... Who put profits above everything else, without concern for privacy, security or their users. While the US military isn't a beacon of ethics, it has done far more good for our country than any tech company.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a subtle argument that tech firms who enable the military are profit mongers. That is a serious accusation, completely non-empathetic, coming from someone with experience that merely grants him an overview of the foreign- affairs landscape, and the military's role in that.

</comment><comment><USER20> One 1930s essay to read before creating war-focused technology: "War Is A Racket By Marine Major General Smedley Butler" [https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html](https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html) "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. ... For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out. ..."

</comment><comment><USER21> People in tech tend to take extreme positions in the debate about supplying tech to the military. But the extreme positions -- whether they be pacifist and assume all military engagement is bad, or militarist and stick to "my country right or wrong" \-- ignore the real issues.

Even the author seems to present a false dichotomy: either tech is benevolent to society or it is driven entirely by the profit motive. Tech can have several motives at once, and one of them may include ensuring the national security of the country that allows large tech companies to operate smoothly and peacefully in a relatively uncorrupt and democratic society.

Does tech make money off of defense? Of course. That should come as news to no one. The DoD is the Fortune 1, the largest customer in the world. There's nothing wrong with selling to them per se. And there's nothing inherently wrong with being "compliant", even though the author seems to consider that a fault.[0][1] We should assume that all major tech companies are fully compliant. The exist in a matrix of laws they must obey.

One of the important questions we should be asking is: Do we want the US defense establishment to run on good, modern tech or crappy, outdated tech? Large sections of it still run on VAX and Cobol, and they will for the foreseeable future.

It's my personal belief that society is engaged in a global asymmetric war against militant groups, in a technological context where individual actors have access to more and more powerful weapons of destruction. I would hope that the organizations in charge of defending civilians would have the best technology at their disposal to detect and prevent attacks.

It's also clear that Western liberal society in particular is under attack by hostile state actors intent on destabilizing the EU and the US democratic system. The field of battle is online, and if you don't have good tech in that fight, you lose.

I'm not saying the US military is right all the time, or undeserving of criticism. But I would ask people who think good technology should not be supplied to the US military: what outcome do you want? Have you considered the scenario where West liberal democracy loses, and we replace the imperfect system we have with a much worse, authoritarian system without democratic feedback loops. Because that's the endgame if we lose, and we lose without good tech.

[0] "Major companies had complied with—and profited from—government demands for unwarranted data collection."

[1] "...tech companies will be forced to choose whether they can feasibly continue to preach the values of liberal-minded innovation and independence from big government while serving as its well-paid and compliant partners."

</comment><comment><USER22> Related: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo)

</comment><comment><USER23> This subject quite simply comes down to people wanting to express personal politics in the office and forming collectives or trends around a given opinion.

(I am not saying anything for or against the politics motive.)

<comment><USER24> Not expressing an opinion against immoral things is also a political act. You are saying that profits should come before everything else.

<comment><USER25> Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological arguments. By the time the discussion gets this generic, there's nothing left but flamewar. And it's always the same.

Also, re "you are saying", there's an HN guideline that asks you not to argue this way: " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize._" That's because arguing this way consistently leads to more boring comments, and it's easy enough not to do if you remember the rule.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER24> My statement very directly refutes the assertion that they are "bringing politics into the office", when in fact politics are already there.

Summarizing arguments is necessary when people obfuscate the true argument they are making. Dog whistles are a great example of this. If you can't all an argument out for what it is, you can't refute it at all.

<comment><USER25> When you 'call out' an argument that no one was actually making, you're lowering discussion quality by quite a bit. Making it personal ("you are saying $stupid-offensive-thing") doubles the damage. That's why we have that guideline, so please follow it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> From an essay I wrote in 2010: [https://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony- is-a-key-to-tra...](https://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to- transcending-militarism.html)

Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism

Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?

Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?

Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old- fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?

These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ...

Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. ...

There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.

So, while in the past, we had "nothing to fear but fear itself", the thing to fear these days is ironically ... irony. :-) ...

The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.

We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). [See for example the book "Brittle Power"] ...

Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. ...

</comment><comment><USER26> 'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'

Orwell

<comment><USER27> Though that wasn't his quote, he says something broadly similar about an extreme form of pacifism where all fighting is intolerable. It doesn't really apply here as it's hard to argue that our safety is really threatened if the US wasn't involved in various wars.

<comment><USER26> If this satisfies you better then: "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."

I suppose the problem with taking a position that says 'I'm not going to work for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy' is that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no?

<comment><USER27> When you quote someone, it's best to do it accurately.

>that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no?

No, or unlikely. Any foreseeable threat is mutually assured destruction, and someone would need to discover a way to disable all nukes they don't control simultaneously for the US to be behind their for. Not only does that seem implausible, actively pursuing the technology would likely cause war.

<comment><USER26> Who's to say your opponent will always be sane, or have something to lose? It's remarkably blasé to just say meh, MAD. Also there are many threats that could significantly degrade the US without destroying it, for example anti- satellite, cyber, to name a couple of obvious examples.

<comment><USER27> Nothing you've mentioned changes the fact that every truly existential threat ends up being mutually assured destruction. It's true even with desperate, insane foes that try a non nuclear attack first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's not a "dilemma", you either support violence or you oppose it.

All this hemming and hawing because people want to be polite and keep their jobs is silly, just be honest with yourself about your worldview.

</comment><comment><USER29> Everyone has their price..

<comment><USER30> And its not restricted to tech, everything can be used for good or bad so invariably everything could have a military application in the right situation. Perhaps a better argument would be, should innovation and creativity be banned to avoid its use in Military applications? Still one thing I learned from a psychology study, is we have longer lasting memories if they were fearful, perhaps its a survival trait of the brain, which probably means we should all smoke pot, get paranoid and then go to school as what we learn will stay fresh in the memory for longer.

<comment><USER31> If history is a guide, the research will go on and these protest movements will have only a superficial effect. Just compare Draper Laboratories to Lincoln Labs. Both were MIT-owned partnerships focused on military research. MIT divested of Draper and it was spun off on its own during Vietnam, while they still hold their stake in Lincoln today. Why the difference? Because Draper is in downtown Cambridge, where students could easily protest, and Lincoln is way off in the Boston suburbs. In any case, both labs continue to carry out military research and maintain very close relationships with MIT and its graduates. As long as the military continues to pay well, researchers and tech specialists will continue to work for them.</comment></comment></comment>


UPS: We've Been Hacked – May have compromised customer card information - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/3151681/ups-hack/

<comment><USER2> "The malware began to infiltrate the system as early as January 20, but the majority of the attacks began after March 26. UPS says the threat was eliminated as of August 11 and that customers can shop safely at all locations."

I can't "safely shop at all locations" knowing that it took this company 6 months to stop a malware attack.

<comment><USER3> Yes you can, because you're not liable for credit card fraud committed against you.

<comment><USER4> Any claims go on your credit report, so it isn't totally true that there are zero repercussions.

<comment><USER3> You're being downvoted because this is wrong.

Some banks will allow you to essentially say, "I made this charge but I don't want to pay it." In that case, the merchant can go after you for the product you stole, and you can even be charged with shoplifting. (People might do this if they're dissatisfied with the product but can't return it, claim it didn't arrive, etc.) That could go on your credit report as an unpaid debt to the merchant you stole from.

There is no credit score penalty for reporting that you saw an unauthorized transaction. The bank just wipes it out and issues you a new card. It's happened to my family multiple times.

<comment><USER5> It's true that this doesn't land on your credit score, but that doesn't mean that you can chargeback without anybody ever noticing. Issuing banks collect lists of credit cards that have issued chargebacks. A merchant may be able to purchase access to this list from their merchant bank.

This is sort of a big hammer for a merchant to bring out: it will probably not catch any stolen cards (since those would have been cancelled as soon as the fraud was detected, before the chargeback was even processed), and it will simply block customers who have made a chargeback, without any idea of fault.

The only people who would ever use this, one would presume, are at a very high risk for chargebacks and on the verge of having their merchant accounts cancelled. For example: "web sites with monthly, recurring subscriptions". You might be surprised how many men and women with teenage boys in their house dispute charges for these types of web sites!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oddly enough, my local UPS store installed brand new POS credit card readers a bit over a week ago. It's not listed on the ones affected, but now I believe I understand the timing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Payment card information. What does that mean exactly?

<comment><USER8> Payment card information is a subset of personally identifiable information (PII). Generally when someone talks about payment card information, they mean the information that is necessary to process a payment card:

First and Last Name

Credit Card Number (and/or PIN and/or CVV and/or routing number/account number)</comment></comment>


Twitter Goes Mainstream - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122461906719455335.html <comment><USER2> This reads like a submarine PR-post. At least Twitter is trying to woo investors and users alike with WSJ articles.

</comment><comment><USER3> For me I knew twitter had gone mainstream when I was reminded that the clocks in the UK had gone back (to winter time) by a tweet from Stephen Fry!

</comment><comment><USER4> Twitter will be mainstream when everyone's mom and dad doesn't say "huh?" when you say "I Twittered" or "tweeted" something.

</comment><comment><USER5> twitter is on CNN everyday - if that's not mainstream I don't know what is</comment>


Independent SQL-On-Hadoop Benchmark of SparkSQL, Impala, and Hive - <AUTHOR> http://blog.atscale.com/how-different-sql-on-hadoop-engines-satisfy-bi-workloads <comment><AUTHOR> 50 days ago on the "Announcing Spark 1.6 (databricks.com)" thread I mentioned that we were doing a 3rd party SQL-on-Hadoop benchmark ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10837758](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10837758)) and a bunch of folks sent me notes asking for a heads up when the results were in.

Well, we are done with our analysis and have a blog post offering up up the bulk of the results - [http://blog.atscale.com/how-different-sql-on-hadoop- engines-...](http://blog.atscale.com/how-different-sql-on-hadoop-engines- satisfy-bi-workloads)

The blog has the majority of the results, and additionally there is a registration link for the full 17 page whitepaper if you are really keen on SQL-on-Hadoop. www.atscale.com/benchmark

Trystan, the engineer that did the bulk of the benchmark work, would be happy to answer questions regarding the methodology, hardware, etc.

Due to how fast these engines are evolving, we plan on doing an update to this benchmark on a quarterly basis.</comment>


This Startup Will Make You Drool - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekatsea.com/BigStove

<comment><USER2> Bad article: the "how it works" section does not explain how it works at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, terrible article. I am sure you would have written a better one. Somebody's gotta slap the author upside down. ugh!</comment></comment>


Two abandoned Soviet space shuttles left in the Kazakh steppe - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/style/article/baikonur-buran-soviet-space-shuttle/index.html <comment><USER2> I read a short novel about the legendary flight written by a security officer that was deployed at Bakonur at the time. It was in Russian (of course) and called "How we launched Buran". The novel had all sorts of fascinating details about the enormous state enterprise as well as various anecdotes about the Army and the KGB folks.

I tried looking for it, but could not find it. Perhaps someone had saved a copy... or even stumbled upon an English translation.

<comment><USER3> [http://buran.ru/htm/memory.htm](http://buran.ru/htm/memory.htm)

<comment><USER4> English Translation:

[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fburan.ru%2Fhtm%2Fmemory.htm&edit- text=&act=url)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This video showing some guys sneaking into the facility might have been staged, but it does show good pictures of the vehicles:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7ZVXOU3kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7ZVXOU3kM)</comment>


The New York Times 2020 Report - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/ <comment><USER2> crickets: the NYT has completely lost prominence courtesy of its overt political bias, just like Fox News.</comment>


Splitting The Equity Pie With Investors - <AUTHOR> http://fundersandfounders.com/how-funding-works-splitting-equity/

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately this is reality. Happened to me on my first company. I'm hoping to get my current startup cashflow positive before a series A so I can get a revolver instead. My previous company was user-based so it was equity or nothing

<comment><AUTHOR> For a user-based startups, it is all about traction. And it is really hard to become cashflow positive before a series A.</comment></comment>


Is HN only about saying nice things about everything? - <AUTHOR> My personal problem with HN, is that every time I dare to write a comment that is not positive about something, I get downvoted and in most cases the downvoter doesn't care much about explaining it, even when my comment spawned an interesting discussion.
It's very annoying that 100+ karma users could act as really good trolls, they could just go around and downvote everybody without ever loosing karma, but costing the commenter karma.
Don't get me wrong I really enjoy the HN community, there are a lot of bright people here and very good content and discussions, it's just that the system discourages you to have your own opinion on anything, because if you write something that a 100+ user doesn't like he can simply downvote you irresponsibly.
TL, DR: I don't know maybe it's me, maybe I have too radical opinions on stuff. But overall I feel that the downvoters should loose some karma too, and maybe force the downvoter to write a reason for it, to make sure that they downvote responsibly.
PS: I am not saying neither that I'm always right nor that I never deserved the downvote. <comment><USER6> I can only speak of my own personal approach to commenting. I evaluate my own comments by one metric - whether I think my comment will make HN a smarter, more interesting place. I see HN comments less as a forum for chit-chat and more as a venue for a series of short essays on the topic of the original post. I try to avoid making comments of the sort that are satisfying to post but that I would not be interested in reading. If I don't think I'm being reasonably insightful, I don't bother. For every comment I post, there are usually one or two comments on other items that I decided weren't good enough to post.

It seems to me that HN is relatively neutral in terms of your opinion; People here seem to avoid the vice of downvoting based simply on a difference of opinion, at least in my experience. The community generally seems to award karma based on how thoughtful and carefully-constructed your comments are. I have one one occasion been downvoted into oblivion for politely and carefully expressing an opinion that is generally morally unpalatable, but someone came to my defence and I eventually ended up with a small amount of positive karma for the comment.

I think the easiest rule of thumb is to try and be the opposite of cable news. The calmer and more dispassionate your tone, the more detailed and precise you are in your reasoning, the more carefully you reference reliable sources, the better your chances of being strongly upvoted.

</comment><comment><USER7> There's criticism and there's negativity. You seem to be confusing these two things. You can put your point across without snarky comments like:

 _"Vertical list of applications??? Microsoft what have you been smoking?"_

(As we're quoting rap lyrics today) I think that you'll be doing just fine if you relax a little.

<comment><AUTHOR> I may be alone in this, but I like expressing my thoughts/feelings, as a matter of fact, most of the time I want to make it really clear that what I say is just my the way I see it.

Do I go a little bit too far with it? Maybe.

<comment><USER8> I grew up in a blunt, German family. Very straight forward, often crude. I am, as a result, one to speak my mind. Effective criticism is best delivered from a high position: hyperbole and mistakes like "my the way I" debase an otherwise salient point.

A good insult is like a fine, dry wine; it is bitter and refined. You come across in your comment history as a dullard, enamored of his own ability to shout at crowds.

<comment><USER9> I'm picturing Dwight Schrute as I read this. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Schrute>

<comment><USER8> I'm afraid that I have no understanding of that popular culture reference. Are you calling me a fascist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Based on a cursory look at your comments I would guess the problem is not what you say but how.

<comment><USER11> He's not the only one discontented with the state of the community. It's gotten so bad here that I can't convince half the programmers I know that this place is any better than a cult locked in a warehouse.

Almost no one I know takes anything anybody says here seriously, even if the content stream is marginally better than the alternatives.

The focus has shifted from intelligent and thoughtful writing seeded by your essays, to business-oriented boosterism fed by a provincial navel-gazing audience who fail to censure themselves.

I'm someone who's already had a failed business, and even when my finances were falling apart, I loved the thrill of it.

I love hacker culture and ambitious people. I plan to begin work on another idea soon.

However, the situation here is untenable and the utility I once extracted from being exposed to this community is being destroyed for the sake of a minority's craven ambition and desire to fit in with the shibboleths of those around them. I am not by any means alone. Everyone I know who follows the kind of news and interests that is discussed here has been increasingly disenchanted over the past year with hackernews.

This is not a site or community unto itself, it serves a real purpose for YC and everyone is aware of this. You might call it a garden.

The garden needs pruning.

<comment><USER10> Actually there was more business-oriented boosterism when we first launched. The site was called "Startup News" initially.

The top stories don't seem visibly worse than they were in the good old days, whenever those were. There are more dumb and/or mean comments than there used to be, but they usually end up at the bottom of the page.

<comment><USER11> You seem to understand this, but it's hardly that I'm advocating tolerance for dumb/mean commentary, but rather galled by the hostility towards healthy skepticism.

We probably agree more than we don't. I might as well drop this albatross since I don't have any real conclusions to draw or ideas to advocate.

Back to code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Dude, it's karma points on HN. A number on a server somewhere that has no bearing whatsoever on your real life. Have some perspective.

<comment><USER13> I don't know about it not being important, I have made several important connections on HN that I don't think would have happened if I had little to no Karma. I have helped two individuals on here with advice on their start-ups offline from HN, I have worked with another to help him advance himself personally. I have picked up a few freelance gigs on HN. And I have expanded my network.

I feel confidence that if I where in a pinch, I could call on the community to help me find some contract work if need be.

To say that it is just some virtual bits floating around somewhere is to discount the real world connections that this site provides and I think Kara at some level serves as you credibility when making those connections, just like everything else, it is what you make of it.

The constant focus on not being adversarial promotes an environment of collaboration over competition, in which the individual members feel a bond of tribe among one another and therefore look to help one another out. I have to say it is a refreshing break from some of the rudely arrogant attitudes that are tolerated and sometimes promoted on some other sites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wrote about this on my own blog, and someone from Hacker News came and posted a highly critical comment about me. They concluded:

"The reason you were downvoted and will continue to be downvoted is because you don't discuss topics with any intellectual integrity."

The comment was interesting since it was such a pure, mirror reflection of what the commenter was doing. For instance, they posted anonymously, whereas I always write using my real name, yet they called me a troll. They also accused me of repeating myself, though they had also repeated themselves many times. You can see the comment here:

[http://www.smashcompany.com/politics/the-stuff-that-gets- dow...](http://www.smashcompany.com/politics/the-stuff-that-gets-downvoted-on- hacker-news)

As the post indicates, I'm feeling ambivalent about Hacker News right now. Sometimes the conversations are really interesting, but there is also a lot of noise. Sometimes I learn a lot by participating in the conversations, but other times I feel like I'm talking to people who have no interest in understanding what I'm trying to say, and who are willing to use downvoting as a method of shouting me down.

I'm ambivalent. I enjoy this forum, but I'm also thinking I should probably invest my energy elsewhere. I've been reading this site for almost 2 years now, and I've learned a great deal, and every day there are interesting new articles posted. All the same, I get bored with conversations where I think the other person isn't really interested in hearing what I might have to say. And no doubt, vice versa, of course - clearly I upset someone, if they were willing to pursue the conversation to my own blog (where I was writing about Hacker News).

<comment><USER15> I don't agree with the drive by anonymous poster to your blog, but I do agree with the downvotes you got below <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1821175>. (And no, I was not the downvoter.)

The open question was how big of a stick the government should wield, and your response was to implicitly ask whether the other person believed in capitalism, and if not then should we go with communism? This is a straw man comparison. There is a world of difference between saying that the government should punish bad behavior harshly, and saying that the government should have any active role in the day to day management of businesses.

In particular Stiglitz' proposal is that executives who can be shown to have engaged in fraud and theft, be punished for it. He further seems quite unhappy about corporate governance issues that in practice make it very hard for shareholders - the theoretical owners of a company - to have any direct ability to control compensation of CEOs, or to get an accurate picture of what their own company is doing.

The appropriate discussion to have about this is whether Stiglitz' characterization of the behavior is correct. And, if it is, then whether his proscription would be reasonable, and whether or not it would solve more problems than it causes. It is not to accuse someone of not believing that capitalism works.

<comment><USER14> No where did I bring communism or capitalism into the conversation.

And, mind you, I am not critical of the anonymous poster on my blog - <USER2> has a right to be critical. But it did make me think twice about whether Hacker News is the right place for me to invest my time.

<comment><USER15> _No where did I bring communism or capitalism into the conversation._

Really? From <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1821175> I find:

 _Do you feel that economies where the bulk of economic activity is organized via free actors engage in voluntary exchange tend to be more dynamic than economies where the government plays the major role in organizing economic activity?_

What are you talking about if not capitalism? Then you go on to say:

 _If not, on what basis would you justify allowing the existence of non- governmental economic activity?_

That sure as heck looks like a reference to something that famously happens in communism.

And both were straw men when referring to the parent comment. Which in effect boiled down to saying that it was possible that it could be easier to discourage gaming the system by providing bigger punishments for bad behavior than it is to do it by providing bigger incentives for not gaming the system.

Which actually seems like a good point to me. Increasing punishment would mean punishing CEOs that all agree have done something wrong, possibly with prison. Providing counter incentives means what? Do we give them more money than they would have made gaming the system as a thank you for not having gamed it? I for one would find that hard to swallow, and I doubt I'm alone!

Returning to the main thread of this conversation, it is up to each of us to decide how to spend our time. If you're not getting value (enjoyment, learning, reputation etc) for energy spent here or anywhere else, you shouldn't do it. If you are, you should continue to do it, and maybe should do it more. I can't make the decision for you. But that anonymous poster struck me as out of line, and doesn't seem to me to be the norm for this community.

<comment><USER14> btilly, nowhere did I bring communism or capitalism into the conversation. It is interesting that you think I did. This is the where so many of these conversations break down: people use these words differently, and so, often a diverse group of people, not understanding each other's vocabulary, will end up talking past one another, each thinking that the other means something else.

You wrote:

"Which in effect boiled down to saying that it was possible that it could be easier to discourage gaming the system by providing bigger punishments for bad behavior than it is to do it by providing bigger incentives for not gaming the system."

Correct, which is I why I suggested that larger fines might be a reasonable option to look at. In the article, Stiglitz' points out that the fines that are now imposed are laughably small compared to the money that some of these people made in the financial deals discussed in the article. To my mind, the next obvious step is to increase the fines, till they offer a reasonable incentive not to engage in a particular activity. As I wrote before "I can think of a lot of incentives that might be put in place to help align the interests of those writing the mortgages and those who are receiving the mortgages". Larger fines for misrepresentation would be the most obvious incentive to try here.

I could go into some detail about the different ways that people have historically used the words "capitalism" and "communism." However, past a certain point, such writing becomes incredibly tedious. Strunk and White, in their book Elements Of Style, compare normal writing to legal writing. No one can write well, they say, who doubts the intelligence of their reader. Good writing depends on assuming good will on the part of ones readers. They contrast that to legal writing. When lawyers draw up a legal document, they assume the document will be read in bad faith. After all, if 2 parties still have good will between them, they rarely need to consult their written agreements. It's when all good will is gone that people pull out the contracts. Therefore legal documents need to be written with great redundancy and verbosity, to try to drive out any ambiguity and to try to cover every edge case.

Not mentioned in Strunk and White is the case where the reader bears no ill will to the writer, but through inexperience with the subject is unable to reach conclusions that the writer regards as obvious. For this latter kind of reader, a simplified kind of writing is sometimes required, and this kind of writing resembles the kind of writing you would do if you were assuming bad faith on the part of the reader - it is a kind of writing that tries to define everything, and drive out ambiguity. I often engage in this kind of writing when I'm trying to explain things to my customers.

This kind of writing can be compared to the kind of software that tries to take into account every edge case. We all know that, for non-trivial software, there is a substantial gap between the effort needed to get the software working for the simplest case, versus the effort needed to ensure that the same software takes into account every edge case that it might face. The first kind of coding tends to be fun, the second kind of coding tends to be tedious.

I'm willing to engage in that latter kind of writing for my job. Should I make that kind of effort on Hacker News? Such writing can be exhausting - it is often a verbose kind of writing, and, above all, it needs to be a very careful kind of writing. There are places where I recognize the importance of making such an effort - at work, and with certain friends when a subject is emotionally charged, and when I've undertaken some substantial responsibility. I find that I'm only able to write like that for maybe 5 or 6 hours a day - <USER3> takes too much out of me to focus at that level for much longer than that. Does it make sense for me to invest some of those hours on Hacker News?

To the extent that I can assume I'm being read in good faith, I can write with some shortcuts. That is the way I have conversations with friends. If I can't assume good faith, then I need to engage in much more careful style. As I said, this only seems worth it to me when the stakes are high.

You can, perhaps, understand my ambivalence? On a subject like the one involving the article about Stiglitz, yes, I could spend 2 hours putting together a careful essay explaining my views, how they formed, who I've read and how it influenced my thinking on the subject, and why I think an important aspect of the article is being overlooked. But am I being paid to to spend 2 hours that way? If not, I can probably spend those 2 hours more profitably elsewhere.

Thus, as I said, I'm ambivalent about continuing to participate on Hacker News.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is one of several diseases in HackerNews.

There's a whole spectrum of ways to disagree, _all of which_ have value in the right situation. Here, a good portion of that spectrum has been lobbed off in the name of niceness and nothing more. Is it worth it? Decide for yourself. I say nay.

Bonus disease: PG worship. Don't get me wrong, he's a brilliant guy; we're all here (directly or indirectly) because of him. But it goes too far.

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure it's exactly a disease. I'd rather call it a blindspot.

On the topic of "PG worship" I think, yes, perhaps the constant extolment goes a little to far. I think this is a blindspot of HN simply because most of us are pretty polite. One doesn't go into a host's house and take a dump on the floor, if I may. Sometimes I feel it may be rude to criticize Paul in this forum for a similar reason.

<comment><USER16> I feel that mindset runs contrary to the mission of the site itself.

Criticism is not impolite. In fact, it's the direct opposite. Criticism is a show of respect. You criticize someone when you care about them, when you desire their betterment _and_ you respect them enough to be confident that they will not react negatively to the idea that someone else may know better than they do.

<comment><USER17> I agree -- it just brought a viscerally bad reaction the first time I did it. After reflection, though, I saw nothing wrong. I think that a similar experience may occur with others. It may help if Paul himself said something about this, but I'm not sure it's important enough to merit the attention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is fascinating, because there was a post a little while back proposing the opposite effect, titled "the default position of HN is skepticism". Here it is:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629583>

</comment><comment><USER19> My observation over a couple of years is that HN is consistently - <USER4> boringly - critical. The top comment often is in disagreement with the submission, sometimes focusing on an incidental point, and it can seem that people actually compete to criticise on HN.

Since this is HN, you might consider reading pg's essay _how to disagree_ , and apply it to your comments before adding them: <http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html> Note that articulate, dispassionate criticism is one of the most difficult skills to master - so don't be discouraged if it takes a while to make progress. It's a valuable skill, and well worth the effort.

tl;dr HN upvotes intellectual disagreement.

<comment><USER20> Intellectual disagreements are usually more interesting than agreements, particularly when the original article is well written and doesn't require commentators to fill in the gaps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There _is_ a bit of a bad psychological effect on HNers: don't say things that might get people angry/to disagree, or your Karma goes down. But there is also a good psychological effect as well: don't say stupid things (like "LOL, wut?"), or you'll get down-voted.

Either way you look at it, there's a bit of good and bad in HN.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Well I did not expect so many responses. Thanks everyone for both the positive and negative comments, I have read all of them and I will keep them in mind.

BTW: It's not the Karma points that bothered me, it's the grayish color that some of my comments got and that some downvoters just downvote and don't respond.

</comment><comment><USER22> OK, I bit and looked at your comments. You _did_ grab some upvotes when it was snarky-but-clever, or simultaneously raised a good question. Most other comments are not getting upvotes due to unfiltered venting. Maybe apply a filter. A lot of knee-jerk anti-MS in there. I have similar gut reactions to the keywords MS and Ballmer but I noticed a long time ago that many people (even tech professionals!) did not relate (what are they smoking!?). Maybe try some other topics that allow you to share more concrete knowledge with HN readers.

</comment><comment><USER23> Some things you could do to make your critical comments more valuable to the community:

1\. Avoid unnecessary profanity.

2\. Avoid ridicule and sarcasm, especially when directed at other HNers.

3\. Avoid complaining about "trolls" downvoting you. In fact, avoid discussing karma in general.

4\. Avoid using emotionally laden terms of disapproval. Instead use direct objective language ("There were rendering artifacts in the rotation effects") or clearly state the subjective aspects of what you are discussing ("Something about the rotation effects rubs me the wrong way.")

5\. Be concise and relatively formal in your language.

</comment><comment><USER24> To me it seems that HN has mostly been about content and thoughtful presentation. Not all of my comments are always happy unicorn rainbows, but if I'm presenting an alternative or unpopular opinion I (try) to at least explain my reasoning and logic.

Lame jabs, cheap shots, bad jokes, and vapid comments DO seem to get rightly pounded down.

</comment><comment><USER25> Consider your question here

> Is HN only about saying nice things about everything?

This implies fault lies with HN. You make the assumption that you are right (despite your PS).

A better question is:

> I'd like to contribute; can anyone offer advice to improve my comments?

Humility, and no assumption.

Again, here:

> I don't know maybe it's me, maybe I have too radical opinions on stuff.

Again, this is conceited. It's not your 'radicalism.' It's your ego talking.

> I am not saying neither that I'm always right nor that I never deserved the > downvote.

But your entire comment suggested that you weren't in the wrong.

> I may be alone in this, but I like expressing my thoughts/feelings, as a > matter of fact, most of the time I want to make it really clear that what I > say is just my the way I see it.

No, you aren't. You aren't "alone" in this. Rather, your ability to communicate effectively is lacking. Indeed, it's very egotistical. You're focused completely on "your opinion" and frankly, your opinion holds no value.

In all your comments, I see you place a lot of value on your opinion. Your opinion can't be wrong, and it's yours, and you'll share it. But who are you that we should care about your opinion?

This doesn't mean you can't offer opinion. It's just that you need to qualify you opinion with reasoning. You can't just state an opinion and expect everyone to see the wisdom.

Listen, you seem like your interested in providing value here. Disagree with whatever you want. But don't just disagree, explain why you disagree. With examples is best!

Be specific.

Do more than ask pointless questions (especially questions that are answered). Anyone can ask questions.

> Vertical list of applications??? Microsoft what have you been smoking?

Provides no value.

> Vertical list of applications? I'm not sure this will grow well. As users > add applications, it will make for a lot of scrolling.

Goes further and provides actual meaning. People might still disagree, but now you've explained your opinion.

You've generated discussion.

Hopefully all of this (thread) helps! =)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, you have a point, the thing that has annoyed me is that I got downvoted for comments that are not "ego talking".

If I write something like "<something> is a load of crap in my opinion" I don't mind getting downvoted, but a lof of times I get downvoted even when I am strict and technical, and again this won't bother me if people would supply a response.

Having a "well formed" comment simply downvoted is equal to simply replying that "Your comment is so crap that it's not even worth my time to explain why.".

> You've generated discussion.

Yes it seems that there is a way to do this properly, as I wrote I still get downvoted, even when I'm polite, but it looks like the bright people greatly outnumber the others here in HN.

<comment><USER26> Keep in mind that it takes just one or two person to downvote you while there might be 400 or more readers who had nothing to complain about your comment. So it may not be as bad as it looks. Especially if the downvotes are because you just used three ??? Or !!11! Instead of one.

If it's frequent then there might be indeed a problem. Think about and try to understand what PG observed about your comments.

I also often get downvoted. Think of it as just a tool helping to sort comments, not to judge you. I benefit from it too to read the "best" comments first. But when i'm really interrested in the topic i read all comments, even if they are downvoted. I also sometime upvote downvoted comment when I think it was abusive because I know how it feels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I decided to look through your comment history to see what postings you've been downvoted for. There's a decently common theme. Usually they have flippant remarks and/or curse words.

"Microsoft what have you been smoking?"; "You are so fuckin wrong"; "OMG so much stupidity."; "Windows Phone 7 is a really good vapor-ware. And ridiculous patents + broken patent system are the key to success" (when Windows Phone 7 had already shipped to OEMs); "I guess if they get killed, they had it coming."; "(YAWN) You could have written that code in most languages with most databases years ago!"

We're looking for a level of respect that isn't shown by those phrases. The Hacker News Guidelines (<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>) are a good place to start:

* Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.

It's common to bash people on the internet, but we tend not to like that here. We do disagree here. Recently there was a large thread on Ubercab and whether their service is so ethical and responsible. Lots of people with lots of differing viewpoints were upvoted. They raised issues (rather than just being blindly for or against someone). It was enlightening to see the nuance and insight that lots of different people brought to the discussion and how complex the issue was. You can disagree without attacking a person.

* When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Comments that include things like "OMG so much stupidity" just make people feel attacked and defensive. The statement doesn't add to the discussion and just makes things more combative. It's as if you're trying to discourage people from disagreeing with you because you'll call them stupid if they do. "I think this is important to consider"; "OMG, you're just so stupid". It isn't helpful. Plus, there are plenty of places on the internet if your interest is flamewars.

* Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

</comment><comment><USER28> Example thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1829049> \- the open source campfire submission. People thrashed the UI in this thread but for the best part weren't negative or offensive.

People on HN are happy to pull something apart if it's incorrect, they just do it in an even tempered manner.

Additionally: This isn't reddit or slashdot, a lot of people here are looking to gain funding or contacts, therefore HN has much lower anonymity. Therefore more likely to be civil and appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER29> Seems to me a fair number of your non-positive comments have been upvoted. If you dropped a lot, it could be from the / any -4 troll-claiming. Points only _display_ to -4, but they can go much lower.

But yes. Critical comments: frequently upvoted. Non-critical, _negative_ comments: _essentially_ worthless for the sake of discussion, and are frequently downvoted here. Not many other places online, but I think it's part of why the community is in general so much more useful and mature than many others.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think there's a difference between saying nice things about everything and being polite and constructive in your criticism.

Everyone can be a dick, sometimes. Heck, I'm probably a dick the majority of the time, but I decided a while back to be nicer to people on the Internet. That's part of the reason I upvote people who prove me wrong and thank them for it. If my horizons are expanded, or my assumptions challenged here and they stand on their own two feet then great. If not, then even better - I'm less wrong, so to speak.

The thing about this community is that brings together people like Zed Shaw and Seth Godin, two people I regard as polar opposites, each with their own focus. The people on the Seth side of the fence will be perhaps more likely to be turned off by the Zed Shaws of the world, as is vice versa.

Challenging them is fine and should be encouraged. Giving them grief, less so.

Usually when I read a techcrunch article posted here, I feel as though I die a little inside. Still, people like Gabriel, Patrick, Colin and even Thomas stand out to me as guys that I enjoy reading.

When criticising, it might help to consider the following:

* What does my comment add to the discussion?

* Can my comment be interpreted in a way other than how I intended it? (In which case a rewrite may be in order)

* How will other readers perceive what I write? (as an extension of the last one).

You get out what you put in. If you want to criticise, fine. But please do so in a constructive manner.

Any HN'ers got any more ideas for constructive criticism?

</comment><comment><USER13> _100+ user doesn't like he can simply downvote you irresponsibly_

I personally, think the downvote activation should be a combination of length of membership and karma. It does seem that as of late, there has been an increase in "I don't agree with you, so down you go".

I am with you on this one, there is a specific subject I talk about a lot on here "JavaScript based UI's", I have been doing web development since about the day after TBL released Mosaic (That is not an exaggeration) and it is my opinion that the web was broken shortly after we moved from CGI post to server side web frameworks that introduces state.

I think the JavaScript UI's and REST bring web apps back into the original architecture of the web and that they bring us back to the architecture that was started so long ago.

Anyway, I am getting off on a tangent. There are a good deal of developers who disagree with this, some instead of forming a rebuttal use the down arrow as their rebuttal.

For me personally I see it, when used in that context, as a "I don't have a strong rebuttal, so I will try to make you post go away" line of reasoning. I had one guy get so annoyed at me, that he went in and bombed me on any post that he and I did not have an exchange on (you can not down vote if you reply to a post).

To me those kinds of actions are site killers, fortunately for HN, it has not reached a critical mass, and it still has a good deal of intellectuals looking for good conversation. I have just chalked it up to, oh well you take you licks. At the point that all of my post get downvoted then I will know that I have been voted off the island, and that it is time for me to leave, which is fine as the community will not be representative of the people I am looking to interact with. As of yet that is not the case, so I just go with the flow.

</comment><comment><USER31> I just took a glance at my recent comments. Most of them are nominally negative (by about 2:1). Most of them have several upvotes, none of them appear to be downvoted.

People on HN enjoy criticism just fine, but they don't particularly enjoy standing next to a spigot of feces. The problem is that vitriol and excessive emotion skews debate. It makes the debate about the emotion itself, rather than about the issue at hand. When people get into a shouting match their brains shut down and people stop arguing rationally (the fight-or-flight response kicks in, blood starts being withdrawn from the extremities and some of the higher brain-function areas, the reptile brain starts taking over, and it becomes much more difficult to admit being wrong or that the other person might be right). This sort of thing is not helpful if the goal is productive rational debate.

<comment><USER22> You, sir, have ruined my dinner with your "spigot of feces" imagery. Upvoting since I need drop a few pounds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As annoyed as I get when I receive downvotes, I think for the most part looking back, the comments were either divisive (and hence got some heated disagreement-based downvotes) or probably justified as downvote-worthy.

For the most part the moderation system works. But it forces you to think very hard about how valuable your comment is.

</comment><comment><USER33> No, but you do have to say things nicely.

What does this mean?

Good attempt at spelling and punctuation. Don't curse too much, don't use excessive punctuation, proofread. Reread your post objectively and ask yourself 'am I trolling'. Attempt to make an argument supported by facts and intelligent reasoning.

Don't bother complaining about karma when someone down votes you for posting an unpopular opinion or being wrong. You posted an unpopular opinion or didn't check your facts thoroughly enough, what did you expect? With that 1 karma and a cup of coffee, you can sell the cup of coffee for a dollar.

Also, check your facts and post relevant links.

(So pretty much pretend like you are a hybrid of on a date, writing a term paper, and applying for a job, rather than posting on an internet forum.

Everyone posts a clunker once in a while, but try not to get too worked up about it. After all, this is entertainment, not serious business.

</comment><comment><USER34> I've found the contrary. On Reddit, the hivemind is ever present. On HN, generally it's far less prevalent... though it could just be confirmation bias.

Just like Reddit, downvotes should be cast on comments/submissions that don't add anything as opposed to providing an unpopular opinion.

</comment><comment><USER35> It doesn't matter what system you use, it will have good points and bad points. Ultimately, people issues aren't resolved by a better voting system or some such. They are resolved by fostering the right culture, which is somewhat independent of the system.

</comment><comment><USER36> You can say quite negative stuff, but it is much harder to get away with trolling outright.

My diatribe against django: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490415>

Me telling some digg engineer that the plan to switch to cassandra was retarded, way back in '09: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=813967>

Calling the content of a submitted article 'crap': <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=772693>

I guess I might get away with negativity without being modded into oblivion, my secret is that my posts have some sort of information content.

</comment><comment><USER37>
it's just that the system discourages you to have your own opinion on anything

Please continue to bring your own opinion's to us, for the benefit of all.

Opinion's are cool, but intelligent ideas and lessons-learned are better.

</comment><comment><USER22> There is definitely style of negative comment that attracts downvotes on HN. If you care about karma, it is usually easy to avoid as many comments in this thread point out.

Unfortunately there is always a temptation with karma systems to use them for "social proof". Social proof is implemented by downvoting opinions you disagree with and vice versa. The only ego-preserving way of dealing with this is to view your minority opinions as "ahead of your time" and resolve to politely keep up the thought leadership.

EDIT: I bit and looked at your comments. Suggestions on the thought leadership appear in another message.

</comment><comment><USER38> Not for nothing, but nearly all of the comments I looked at on your first 2 pages are pretty negative. Not that negativity is always necessarily a bad thing (ironically), but really man, why so angry?

</comment><comment><USER39> For any recent applicants to YC, how much does your expectation of contributing to the forum affect the comments and tenor of your posting?

If I were to answer my own question, I would say that I probably focus more energy than I should on sounding more insightful than I normally am and I get frustrated with a lot of the inane types of discussions such as: "What does it mean to be a successful tycoon who conquers the world and what's wrong with people who aren't successful tycoons who take over the world?"

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't know about HN being only a place to say nice things, but I do wish people would explain their downvotes.

If people knew what was wrong with what they were saying, then they wouldn't say it.

</comment><comment><USER41> _It's very annoying that 100+ karma users could act as really good trolls, they could just go around and downvote everybody without ever loosing karma, but costing the commenter karma._

Really good trolls? does getting downvoted really get you all that riled up? As far as I can tell, once you are over 100 and can downvote, getting more carma does not alter your user experience.

I'd suggest you grow a thicker skin, especially if you want to say mean things on the internet.

</comment><comment><USER42> If you are getting downvoted continuesly, why don't you take it as a sign you are indeed say something wrong?

from your comments:

"I found the UI unappealing and the heavy use of rotation effects amateurish."

edit: that is mean, although because it was about Microsoft/Windows Phone 7 as a whole, there is almost zero direct effect on the people who worked on it, and therefore may reduce it's meaness factor by 0.001%, but amateurish and unnapealing? come on, that reveals negative energy.

<comment><USER43> It's not that it's mean, it's that it's content-free. If I wrote "I think the Windows Phone 7 UI looks cool and the rotation effects are awesome" then I hope you would downvote it, because that is a trashy comment. (The real comment in question had 4 more lines, but they were all equally vapid.)

You have a specific comment about some identifiable aspect of the rotation effects? OK. You have evidence that the new wave of Zune-ish Windows UI style is not popular? Neat. You want to compare some design decisions between the WP7 UI and the iPhone or Android UIs? Sure, go for it. But if you have nothing to say, why say it?

<comment><USER34> How is that a trashy comment? You're affirming that they did something right which is a plus. Not everyone has the means to fully explain why they like or dislike something. Sometimes its just a gut feeling. Or sometimes it doesn't need an explanation.

<comment><USER43> If it were in response to a person on HN (or a Microsoft employee!) who was looking for feedback, I might agree with you. There's a place for simple praise. But what's the use of affirming your love for the new huge product of a big corporation somewhere?

Anyone can say whether they like or dislike something, and if that's an acceptable contribution in itself, everyone will. Welcome to Gizmodo and Engadget. The end result is that more substantiative comments and comments from actual experts are covered in goop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> You could also decide you're going to say what you think on the topics where you feel you have something of value to add, say it as best you can, and not worry about the karma.

I'm not being snarky. It's a perfectly legitimate way to operate if you're clear that being able to dictate your own header color isn't why you're here. It's OK to opt out of the parts of the system that are not working for you.

</comment><comment><USER45> I mostly agree.

I think we need to accept some false positives [such as foul language] in order to preserve a reasonable level of freedom of speech on HN.

Here I mean freedom of speech in the weak form, ie. that you stop posting something you truly believe, because of fear it will attract down-votes.

Useful ideas/opinions that occur in the long tail may offend some people - <USER5> I think HN is too uniform and PC without them.

<comment><USER46> People use foul language all the time, and get upoted: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1636262>

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Nah, you can say all the bad things you want. They just have to be about Microsoft, government, or intellectual property.

Seriously though, nobody likes a negative Nancy. From looking at your comments it isn't that they aren't positive, it's that they are just ranting.

</comment><comment><USER48> I am constantly negative and I have 22,000 karma points. It must be something else.

</comment><comment><USER49> critics is easy. seriously. give me any topic and i will explain you why its shitty. seriously i can do that, and not just me.

constructive critics is very hard. By cc i mean comments that will not make feel poster like complete idiot, but rather gently stimulate him to rethink something about his idea, and went away with feeling of appreciation of your insightful efforts to help him.

one of my teachers told me: its easy to punch your opponent in the face. its much harder to kindly explain him why is he wrong in his intents, so that after that conversation he would ask you to become his sensei.

</comment><comment><USER50> I received 3 downvotes for a link to XKCD suggesting that readers lack a sense of humour. No one felt like leaving a comment stating why they downvoted.

<comment><USER51> I think it suggests readers don't want HN to be a place where links to cartoons and lolcats are overvalued. Perhaps they go too far in the other direction.

<comment><USER50> If readers in general don't want that, I should really have gotten many more downvotes. 3 downvotes suggests that a few people just didn't like my comment while everyone else was indifferent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Good way to get KARMA points Mr. DjDarkman, before this discussion his KARMA was ~20-30, now 74 elevated by 55 points. Nice way to get KARMA points :).

</comment><comment><USER53> Entrepreneurs have to be optimistic and positive or else they wouldn't even try. HN is a place for entrepreneurs, voilà.

</comment><comment><USER54> I don't think it would be a good sign either if you never get downvoted. And who cares about karma, I mean, really?

</comment><comment><USER55> Take it as a life-lesson. People are more responsive to criticism and opposing opinions when it's expressed in a positive way, even if the core of the message is the same. While it's more satisfying to make clever remarks (believe me, I know), I've literally learned via HN how to craft negative statements in a positive way to get people to listen to me, and I'm sure you can learn the same.

(See what I did there?)

</comment><comment><USER56> Judging by every article about Facebook recently, I disagree with you.

</comment><comment><USER57> I write negative comments all the time and they seem to do fine.

</comment><comment><USER58> There is no cost in a system that has no meaningful value.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm sure you will get maximum up votes for this post. :)

</comment><comment><USER11> I agree with what you're saying, and it's been severe enough that I've taken to either not bothering to comment, or simply deleting my comment because HN had apparently deemed it that bereft of value.

The circle-jerk behavior is what is damaging the credibility of the startup scene and it's making it harder for me to convince my fellow programmers that it's the place to be.

I don't think just low karma users are guilty of down-voting in inappropriate situations. I had a discussion with Justin Kan awhile back and he was demonstrating the viewpoint that you're finding problematic.

<comment><USER60> I second that! HN has become a bit of a echo chamber; more or less as a direct result of the decision to have down-vote privileges scale with the number of HN commenters, thus disproportionally weighting down-votes in the direction of those who have been properly cloned. Although, I must say, the echo chamber effect is not as bad here as it is on (for example) the Derek Sivers blog [[ <http://sivers.org/blog> ]].

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I downvote people that I disagree with. It's never because it's too honest or too negative or too rude, I don't care about that. I downvote if I think it's wrong or misinformed.

This applies to nearly every one of your comments on Microsoft.

<comment><USER62> Too many people downvote people that they disagree with which is the downfall of a karma based system. What if you disagree, but they are right? Why do you dislike the fact that someone may have an opinion that differs from yours?

Downvoting people you disagree with implies that you are always right. I bow down to your perfection.

<comment><USER63> You forgot to read the part where he mentioned downvoting because the information was wrong or misinformed. The same way I'll get downvoted if I furiously debated that an apple's color is always blue.

<comment><USER62> No, because he THOUGHT it was wrong or misinformed. Large difference between something being wrong and him thinking it is wrong -- unless he is always right.

If something is factually correct, and he disagrees with it and thinks it is wrong, it gets a downvote. I was actually more amused that he got upvotes as it sort of reinforces the point I was trying to make.

By his logic, if we disagree with his point, we should downvote him, whether his opinion has merit or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Yes, you simpering vole.

</comment><comment><USER65> y'know a few downvotes are not the end of the world either. The most downvotes I've ever seen anyone get never exceeds 4. I've seen hundreds of upvotes for some submissions. So if you're worried about the karma, just post something interesting. Guaranteed you'll get your karma back AND still have the freedom to criticize something if you feel the need.

<comment><USER23> That's because the publicly displayed score for any comment bottoms out at -4 in order to prevent a "dogpile" effect. Every downvote still deducts karma, though it may not be publicized in the comment's score.

<comment><USER35> Makes me wonder what the effect would be of doing the same sort of thing for upvotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I support this thread completely.

</comment><comment><USER67> I don't wanna read your posts no more, you empty-headed animal food-trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Would you prefer that?

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!</comment>


Show HN: A multi-syntax programming language with bidirectional grammars - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alehander42/hivemind <comment><USER2> There has been some interesting work published recently on "resugaring" that you might be interested in:

[http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/pk- res...](http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/pk-resuarging/)

and more recently:

[http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/pk- hyg...](http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/pk-hyg- resugaring-comp-desugaring/)

<comment><USER3> Also related in a bit different vein, there's work on unifying parsing and pretty-printing (sometimes called "unparsing"): [http://www.informatik.uni- marburg.de/~rendel/unparse/](http://www.informatik.uni- marburg.de/~rendel/unparse/)

<comment> j-pb I'm always dreaming of an invertible compiler that automatically provides a decompiler for the language it implements.

Then we could transpile every language into every other language, as long as it compiles to a common platform.

Using a logic language for implementation might help, but a compiler is probably not surjective in general which makes this very hard :(

<comment><USER4> This is nearly impossible. Just imagine decompiling the result of lowering some deeply nested pattern matching.

<comment> j-pb Of course you won't get out what you put in, but you might get something.

What I found most impressive was this scheme interpreter written in minikanren (schemes prolog) that can produce quine simply be expressing them as logic constraints over multiple programs.

[http://www.infoq.com/presentations/miniKanren](http://www.infoq.com/presentations/miniKanren)

[https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~eholk/papers/sfp2012.pdf](https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~eholk/papers/sfp2012.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Interesting. Yes, in some cases decompilation can return a higher level code than the original, which is quite an interesting an yet very much unexplored area. I only scratched that while I was working on a static code analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Somewhat related, hy (aka hylang) is a lisp that compiles to the python abstract syntax tree which technically makes python a multi-syntax language already. Plus you get all the python libraries.

[https://github.com/hylang/hy](https://github.com/hylang/hy)

It's been posted a bunch of times on HN

[https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+h...](https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+hy)

<comment><AUTHOR> I love hy !

Actually I've done a prototype of a lisp compiling to python bytecode, so that's why when I found hy, I was pretty excited about it.

[https://github.com/alehander42/bach](https://github.com/alehander42/bach)

However it's not making it multi-syntax in the same way, because you don't get 1-to-1 python-hy inter-translation.

<comment><USER6> Hey, you're the guy you did hermetic! Looking at your project, along with Smallshire's Hindley-Milner blog post, have been a big help to me as I use Python to build a compiler/interpreter for an ML.

I was just planning to make a mini-ML to prepare for a larger project that requires type inference, but it's getting a bit addictive so I might just finish it off to match (most of) the Standard ML spec.

Anyway, well done on hermetic. It's a great start to my ideal Python, and where I'd like to see it move for 4.0 (although it will never happen).

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha, I didn't expect that people remember Hermetic, I am glad it helped :]

Actually I took in a different direction with Hermetic, and now I have a type- infered python with a more classical type system and a language-independent code generator, compiling to Go, C# and Ruby. It can translate parts of standard library to equivalents in targets standard libraries, so it's a bit more practical, but I hope I can extend that somehow to Haskell support too: [https://github.com/alehander42/pseudo- python](https://github.com/alehander42/pseudo-python)

Your work seems pretty interesting, I'd love to chat sometimes about it

<comment><USER6> > Your work seems pretty interesting, I'd love to chat sometimes about it

Your work does, too. Yes, we should talk. My email's in my HN profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Related: [https://github.com/cdglabs/ohm](https://github.com/cdglabs/ohm) and Alessadro Warth et als work on OMeta. See parsing/unparsing in [http://tinlizzie.org/ometa/](http://tinlizzie.org/ometa/)

<comment><USER8> I actually built a prototype multiparadigm programming language for a class Alex taught using Ohm: [http://chimera.kaseyc.com](http://chimera.kaseyc.com)

It's a great tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not entirely analogous but you can sort of do a lot of this today with the very programming platform that the HN implementation uses: Racket.

And yes with Racket you can mix and match languages and create them with out parenthesis ([https://docs.racket- lang.org/guide/languages.html](https://docs.racket- lang.org/guide/languages.html)).

BTW the "if" in Python is very different to the "if" in lisp as one is a statement and the other is an expression. I'm curious how the OP plans to deal with the expression != statement.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like these type of things but I don't believe they are practical because of the massive potential variation within a single syntax which is typically hidden by language specific culture, convention and idiom. When you transliterate from one language to another, the gulf is made visible and the resulting code is alien and unacceptable despite executing correctly.

The unavoidable problem is finding a language in which every one's solution to the same problem is the same but I think that goal is more likely provably false than possible. If it is possible then finding solutions in such a language might be like threading a tiny needle and too hard to use.

<comment><USER11> Well, you mean the Zen of Python's "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

In any case, even then, people think in different ways: you can model a problem via category theory, geometry, algebra, and those would never translate into the same syntactical constructions, since the abstractions are of fundamentally different natures.

Now I think mostly in a functional way, so my Python code is full of small functions to help write "pythonic functional code", e.g. the function iff(b,x,y) that returns x if b and else returns y. The resulting code could be translated algorithmically to a functional language in a very natural way; the internal def would be translated to where clauses, etc.

The point being, I want to be able to think in the way that is the most adapted to tackle a problem, even if the code seems to be written in two different languages. This is no different from mathematics where each "X theory" is essentially its own language and each implies its own set of natural theorems.

<comment><USER10> >> This is no different from mathematics where each "X theory" is essentially its own language

Nice connection between models and languages.

The maths/physics discoveries achieved by using a new representation of a problem don't change the problem, they just present the issue at hand simply enough to be tractable. Each representation moves complexity trade-offs to a different category of problem.

I guess that does say something in favour of automatic syntax conversions but it seems too low level. Maybe conversions between the mode of abstraction being used is where it gets interesting.

<comment><USER11> In mathematics, there are fairly few such 'meta-results', and each one is duly celebrated as impressive; the one that comes to mind is Curry-Howard correspondence... but in more 'traditional' maths, it's very hard to find general high-level translations.

There are many cases where automatic syntactic low-level constructions can bring huge improvements, in compiler design, etc, it's more that they are less susceptible to be directly useful to laymen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Awesome! This has long been a dream of mine, but I never solved the problem of creating a better syntax than BNF grammars etc.

I don't know if we have the same goals, but my end-goal was to have some treelike serialization (JSON/XML) but a canonical editor which would display in whatever you were most familiar with (Lisp, Python, Haskell, C-ish). The limitation would be that you'd have to store metadata-ish stuff on the tree to handle custom indentations that don't follow some canonical style guide.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that was basically my goal too : )

I also imagined automated reordering of code in an editor, but I still have only a demo ([https://github.com/alehander42/rehab](https://github.com/alehander42/rehab))

<comment><USER11> Looks cool. This is really a great work, it has probably been the pipe-dream of many programmers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bidirectional parsing-pretty-printing is a nice thing, with the only potentially tricky issue in an _idiomatic_ rendering of the infix opetators with priority. Firstly, parser must be aware that they are special (I am using a dedicated Pratt parser for the binaries inside a Packrat for this reason). Secondly, it is often important to print parenthesis around an expression for readability, even if it is not dictated by the priority.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is very cool. People who want to create new languages usually have to write a lot of code even though most of the heavy lifting is done by a lexer and a parser generator.

This seems to me like a very high level way to specify a new language. _A much easier way,_ definitely. I assume the cost of this is that only a small subset of programming languages can be specified in _hivemind_. Nevertheless, it's still an incredible project. Target LLVM, and this could become a compiler generator ;-).

</comment><comment><USER14> Funny, this was one of the goals of Nim, I believe.

<comment><USER15> Nim has a powerful templating system that allows introducing new syntactic elements and semantics, but maybe you are thinking about generating _output_ code in multiple languages (C, C++, JS...)?

<comment><USER14> No, I meant having one ast but multiple 'skin' languages. Eventually I think they didn't pursue it all the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Awesome! I've often wondered about converting between OO/Infix and FP/prefix notations, which might be an extension of this.

<comment> nv-vn What is the connection between OO and infix vs. FP and prefix? Most FP languages use infix notation for operators, and Haskell even supports infix notation for all functions. Lisp does both OOP and FP in prefix notation.

<comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_order)

SVO/OO/Infix: subject.verb(object)

VSO/FP/Prefix: (verb subject object)

SOV/RPN/StackOriented/Suffix: subject object verb

<comment> nv-vn I think in that way it would make sense to say that procedural is also prefix, then, since even very procedural languages like C use VSO. Some OOP languages use VSO too (Perl's indirect object syntax, Common Lisp with CLOS, etc.) And someone could write all their Haskell as:

        1 `elem` [1, 2, 3]

is a common way of calling elem in Haskell, and many times functions are redefined as operators (such as <$> instead of fmap, that gets used a lot more often). I just think that any kind of split with syntax based on paradigm seems very artificial to make.

<comment><USER16> The same is true for natural languages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Also you can write Scheme like syntax in [Cirru](http:/cirru.org) and get a third syntax.

</comment><comment><USER18> Will this compile to web assembly?</comment>


Filmstro provides a new royalty-free music library - crypto-jeronimo https://filmstro.com/music <comment><AUTHOR> Early submission can be found here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17132462](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17132462)</comment>


Review our super duper Ruby SDK, find a bug win a prize - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/groupdocs/groupdocs-ruby

<comment><USER2> Looks to be pretty solid well designed SDK from the documentation, only gave one or 2 of the SDK calls a test drive mind you?

You need to register on groupdocs.com to get the client_id and private key...

btw, What prize are you offering?

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmmm... I'm intrigued by the possibility of a prize, now if only you had a Python SDK then maybe I would give it a go, not that I have any against Ruby lol</comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find an original and professional template for my CV? - <AUTHOR> I often have to modify and update my CV or change the style.
Which template do you usually use? Are there any free original and professional templates? Thanks, HN.
PS: Any format is ok (.doc, .docx, .pages, .psd) <comment><AUTHOR> Nobody knows where to find a good template?</comment>