When tenure never comes - <AUTHOR> https://thewalrus.ca/when-tenure-never-comes/ <comment><USER2> Every student considering going to graduate school should read this article. Professors are very misinformed about how likely someone is to get tenure (most of them got it > 20 years ago, in a much better academic job market). This misinformation trickles down to students.

The simple fact is that right now the average professor is graduating more than 10 phd students, only 1 of which can become a tenured professor at a research university. The job options in academia other than tenured professor are horrible and exploitative. I know many post-docs who have gone into industry after slaving away at temporary and low paying jobs for over 6 years. These post-docs were very bright and dedicated people, but the tenure track position requires lots of luck in addition to skill.

<comment><USER3> Yes. The market is very narrow for academia. I live in NYC. there are a handful of universes and colleges. If the large institutions are not hiring, you are left with the small fish normally just looking for teachers not professors. Also, to grow your career a healthy environment is collaboration. If you end up being a Professor at a small pond, your bet is external collaboration. If you don't like the small ponds, you have to find jobs somewhere else, that means moving to another state. Since there are thousands of post doc actively looking to join a good research institutions, the job market is so competitive.

For engineers, say you got rejected by Google, there are still hundreds of engineering teams you can apply to.

Should there be a policy to force retirement? Is it fair?

<comment><USER4> > Should there be a policy to force retirement? Is it fair?

No, artificially creating jobs does not seem like the solution. We should be requiring all schools, for all degrees, publish relevant employment figures for that degree. And for doctorates, that should mean giving percentages that have tenure after X years and the percentage employed in jobs that required their doctorate.

Informing students lets them make the choice. If they are getting a PhD for the love of it, and don't care, power to them. But they should be given real data for their job prospects.

<comment><USER3> I agree we should publish the figure. But IMO this info is quite intuitive even without one. The market is small.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> UK University chair of a STEM dept graduate school chipping in here: Every September during induction I point out to the PhD students that there are (around) ten of them in the room and our department advertised (around) 1 job last year. We also tell them this when they are applying for the PhD in the first place. They seem unfazed. Our PhD course lasts no longer than 4 years (good students are out in 3) and they appear to be highly employable at the end of it - both as postdocs and in industry. Having seen the US system at first hand as well, I'd say that the lower opportunity cost (time to finish) makes the whole process fairer on the students - graduating with a PhD at 25 still seems like a great opportunity. Doing the same at 32 is a very different prospect. I have no idea what the situation in the humanities is like. Finally - UK research councils (who often fund PhD students) are very open about the fact that PhD students must now be taught a host of 'transferrable skills' to equip them for non-academic jobs.

<comment><USER6> The problem isn't with PhD positions. PhDs after all are training positions. But each postdoc position makes one less employable. There really is little justification (other than exploitation) in my mind for having postdoc positions that don't lead to permanent positions.

This is more of an issue in Germany (where I work now) than in the UK (where I did my PhD).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I consider myself fortunate that I realized most of what was talked about in this article was true while I was about halfway through grad school. The fundamental realization that given the size of my classes, where my peers were competition for any academic job, combined with the fact that I would literally have to wait for someone to die before I could get one of those jobs, was enough to knock me right off of the academic track.

I might've even put up with postdoc hell, and the "6 year job interview " that is the tenure process if I thought it would have come to something. But, when you have 50 people competing for the same three openings in a year, and only one chance per year to apply, the odds don't look very good.

<comment><USER8> Me too. Sort of. I think I realized this subconsciously before I was conscious of it. The result was two years of depression and anxiety before I got everything straight and quit.

I don't know if it was wasted time or not. It was a long time to not be in the workforce, but I learned a lot of skills while working on what turned out to be dead end research projects. I have a job now that requires merely a fraction of those skills. But maybe I wouldn't have gotten the job without my half phd. Or maybe I'd have a better job if I finished.

I'm still pretty frustrated by the fact that what was presented to me as a failsafe career path was anything but failsafe. This is pretty much the same problem with all of higher education and the current economy in miniature. Just as an undergrad degree no longer garuntees a good job a phd no longer garuntees a tenured job.

<comment><USER9> > I think I realized this subconsciously before I was conscious of it.

This is grad school in a nutshell, in a lot of fields. I've seen three common responses to this cognitive dissonance:

1\. Deny the brutal reality of the job market.

2\. "But I couldn't ever be happy doing anything else!"

3\. Leave.

One of the strangest things about my grad school experience was watching very intelligent people spend years of their lives, and sometimes borrowing money they could never pay back, to pursue a degree even though deep down, they understood that it was a really bad idea. The rationalizations they came up with were pretty transparent to anyone who wasn't also in the grad school bubble.

I suppose I sound harsh, but when people ask me if they should go to grad school in the field I did, my answer is always "not unless you are already independently wealthy and never need to work again."

<comment><USER10> For a long time I thought that "But I couldn't ever be happy doing anything else!" Now I'm not doing it but have a great job I'm way happier than I ever was in grad school. I wonder how I could have been so foolish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm just an adjunct and will likely never break into the tenure track (not having a master's degree being one of many factors against me), but I was sad to see that even this purportedly slow and deliberate process be affected to some degree by ageism. A good friend of mine entered grad school (in the humanities) around 2004, when most folks he knew were easily finding tenure- track jobs after their PhDs. He found himself the runner-up for highly- contested jobs, and family events took him out of the hunt for a bit, but as the years went on and he was content to be hired by not top-tier schools, he ran into the "We'd love to hire you but your resumé is _too_ prestigious for us and you might just use us as a stepping stone" and "If you haven't been snapped up despite such a great pedigree, then something must be wrong with you". He eventually got a tenure-track offer which he happily accepted, but he was close to giving up on his decade-long career path.

I think these struggles are endemic to nearly all professions but it seems to me that in academia, there's fewer opportunities to get tenure-track (or non- tenure, but decently-paying) positions once you've deviated from the usual path, even before you factor in the scarcity.

<comment><USER12> > (not having a master's degree being one of many factors against me)

I'm not sure that I understand this. In your field is having a PhD (but without a masters) considered a negative?

<comment><USER11> I don't have anything beyond a bachelor's degree. I was hired (I'm assuming) for my professional history. I haven't seriously considered going tenure-track and so have found it strange when other people find it strange that I'm not seeking tenure. In the same way a tech worker would find it strange to be asked if they hoped to stay at Google/FB/Apple for their entire liveas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Many people have pointed to an overpopulation being the root cause for this, but I believe that ignores the increasingly inflating administrative staff at universities. That is, it is also a budget problem. The budget for the increase in professor staff is being diverted into additional administrative positions that do... something, apparently. I'm not convinced that the administrative bloat is worth a fraction of what it costs.

<comment><USER14> You'd be appalled at how much overhead universities take out of research grants (from NSF, DARPA, NIH, etc.) to maintain these administrations (along with legitimate uses, like paying utility bills). 40-50% is not uncommon.

<comment><USER15> I won some student award at school funded through an industry sponsor. I think it was $1000. I was recommended by one of my professors. As part of the processing fee, they deducted 20% for school overhead!

<comment><USER16> Otherwise known as racketeering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The author of the article never mentions _what_ faculty or program they're in, or references any of their work. No doubt this is a real problem, but in this particular case they could just be a lousy researcher in a faculty that doesn't have a high demand for new professors.

IOW the "psychology" / "liberal arts" over population. I'm not trying to knock any of those studies, but there is a large excess where I'm from.

<comment><USER7> There's an overpopulation in virtually every field. Any graduate student can look to his or her left and right in class and realize that those people are his or her competition for a job that only one of them is going to get. The situation is only somewhat better in STEM fields, because there's more industry demand (where you can get paid more and have better mobility, but get looked down on by your academic brethren.)

<comment><USER10> > where you can get paid more and have better mobility, but get looked down on > by your academic brethren

And then 2 years later they will be asking you to find them a job. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's interesting to see this story on the front page at the same time with another one titled _" We Should Not Accept Scientific Results That Have Not Been Repeated"_. It's easy to solve both problems (killing two birds with one stone?) by implementing protocols of purging scientists with track records of non-repeatable results from "personal opinions" and fraudulent scholars gaming publishing systems, including titles, positions, degrees and/or grant money ever awarded. This should at least release _some_ vacancy in the academia (given a 11% repeatable rate from the Amgen study).

<comment><USER8> And while you're at it, hire some of those underemployed post-docs to reproduce new results full time.

<comment><USER18> I concur this with a proposition of a system named as _r_ epeatability _e_ valuation an _d_ _di_ gital _t_ racking, or r.e.d.d.i.t., with the crowd- sourcing efforts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> FWIW, this story parallels the reality that most professional artists have experienced for a long time: hyper competition, extremely limited grant opportunities, no direct commercial market, everything paid out-of-pocket. A "compulsory hobby" is a great phrase.

<comment><USER20> For STEM academes: The difference is that professional artists have long been aware of the "starving artist" stereotype aren't strongly sold a nationalism- backed narrative that "we need more scientists", followed by unsustainable, hierarchical organizational structures. Moreover, science typically holds itself to a different sort of accountability (empirical results and uncompromising honesty) as a professional ideal, whereas the actual nature of the beast, where funding is drawn to popular ideas and politically connected researchers instead of the most honest and productive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Being out of an academic job is a painful experience. I have a PhD in math and, entering grad school, was aiming only for an academic career.

However, it was very clear to everyone in my grad program (as well as to my friends doing physics PhDs across the street) that this requires 1-2 competitive postdocs (3-6 years at low salary) and a stiff competition to a tenure track. And you do not usually get a choice: i.e., if you get offered a position, you grab it, be it in Maine or Texas (I decided to avoid this race and went to the industry; there are pros and cons to both paths).

IMO, the tenure system, at least in the US, is highly inefficient. Things are pretty top-heavy (older, tenured professors who originally were expected to retire by ~60, often do not) and graduating PhDs with decent, but not stellar results have a very hard time on the academic research track.

<comment><USER22> For many years, universities had mandatory retirement ages:

>Until 1982, retirement of faculty members at many universities was mandatory at age 65. Because of amendments to the ADEA, in 1982 the minimum allowable mandatory retirement age was increased to age 70. In 1986 Congress made additional amendments to the ADEA, prohibiting any mandatory retirement ages for most workers in the United States. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737001/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737001/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone else see the contradiction: the amount students are spending on college keeps going up, but the budget for professors seems to keep going down. What accounts for the discrepancy?

<comment><USER4> The belief that everyone should go to college. What the government spends on public schools has actually gone _up_ over the decades, but a move to everyone going to college means that _funding per student_ has dropped.

Edit: Link to source: [https://trends.collegeboard.org/college- pricing/figures-tabl...](https://trends.collegeboard.org/college- pricing/figures-tables/total-and-student-state-funding-and-public-enrollment- over-time)

<comment><USER24> This is a more accurate response than most on this issue.

To take it further, the underlying issue is that it is now compulsory for people to have a college degree in america to keep up with their expectation of a normal middle class life style.

Decades ago, you didn't need to be college educated to live the American Dream.

The collapse of those jobs has left citizens to scramble for what's left. this leads to all sorts of secondary effects such as the reduction of extra curricular activities, teaching the test, rote memmorization to survive tests, and cram schools.

This pattern exsists already in many third world and developing world nations, and it is a shit show. Our worst scams when it comes to education are horrifying. (Search: vyapam for the most recent education related scam in india.)

The education problems in america are a jobs/employment problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Every time one of these articles is posted, there are a number of comments about how we need to tighten the number of students accepted into PhD programs, to line up with the number of academic jobs realistically available to them. Of course, I understand where these comments come from. But if so many people are so keen to become researchers in a field they love and are clearly highly qualified to work in, I would hope we could instead find a way to broaden the number of people supported in doing such work. Attacking the problem from the more troubling end.

</comment><comment><USER26> _I don't need to be dealing with signing religious codes of conduct or dealing with campuses where eighteen-year-olds can carry concealed guns_

Quelle horreur! So he wants tenure at a US university, but he won't go to the UK or Europe because...oh dear, that might involve sacrifice.

<comment><USER27> I understood this as a reference to US states in the midwest (maybe Texas?), not to Europe or the UK. In fact, in most of Europe an eighteen-year-old wouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, much less carry it around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can someone please explain to my why tenure is needed? I've had some professors attempt to do it to me in the past and I never got it.

I _maybe_ understand it for a humanities subject, but for STEM no chance for me.

I don't have tenure when it comes to working in the industry. If I'm a good enough employee I'll stay on, if I'm a bad enough employee I'll be replaced.

Tenure just seems to protect mediocrity. Can someone help paint this in a different light to me?

<comment><USER29> When you work in industry, your job is to do what you're told. When you do research, your job is to learn new things and tell others about them, no matter who doesn't like those results. If you're studying earthquakes in Oklahoma, the oil companies won't like it. If you're studying evolution, certain segments of the population won't like it.

Tenure is one way of protecting academic freedom. You seem to be thinking of it in terms of job security. As many tenured professors that have been fired over the years for reasons like the university having financial difficulties can tell you, tenure does not provide job security. Of course there is a correlation between the two.

<comment><USER28> This makes sense, but are we not at a time where you can simply do all of those things and people won't crucify you?

> When you work in industry, your job is to do what you're told.

You are told to publish, are you not? It's the same principle except your job has extra steps.

I'd also like to point out colleges aren't the end all be all of R&D. The industry does R&D as well and they do crazy R&D without tenure. I've met people who have started companies just so they could do what they want, moved to companies just so they could research one thing, or even convinced their current boss as to why a certain piece of research would be of value.

I think this is a much more complete answer then what I've been told before, but it's still quite fishy.

<comment><USER29> "are we not at a time where you can simply do all of those things and people won't crucify you?"

Are you in the US? I'd say it's pretty clear you can get crucified for stating an unpopular opinion.

"I'd also like to point out colleges aren't the end all be all of R&D."

And they shouldn't be. They should primarily do work that the private sector is not willing to fund.

"I think this is a much more complete answer then what I've been told before, but it's still quite fishy."

There are no doubt advantages and disadvantages of tenure. Whether tenure is a good system is definitely up for debate, but the tradeoff is that some research will not be done and some topics will not be addressed in the classroom. There's little incentive to risk your career by jumping into controversial situations. Perhaps we are willing to move to a different model.

<comment><USER28> Let me be clear for others who come across this because I'm completely sure that since you've been a student and now work in the system you know where I am coming from as a student. Surely there will be people who read this who have not had the 'pleasure' of being graced with the "bad kind" of tenured professor.

In my college experience, which has only been one year, I've met a few types of professors.

There is the kind who LOVES teaching and who is amazing at it. This is the only kind of teacher that I'll give a real life example of. If you're going to NJIT and need a math teacher you're going to want to look for these two names: Jimmy Hayes and Kenneth Horwitz.

Both don't only want you to learn but they also want to be the one who teaches you. If I could have every professor I meet conduct themselves like this I'd have no problem with tenure. And that's coming from someone who failed the class taught by Hayes. The reason I'm giving such praise to these professors is there is absolutely no way my failing grade was their Hayes fault, it was my own (I had some problems going on in my life at the time).

They spent all the time they could preparing us for the exams and also gave us points back if we did something that was incorrectly graded and we could prove it was right.

Next there is the kind who "believes in the system". They teach because they enjoy it, they are usually charismatic and good at teaching but that isn't their main focus. They either do this while engaging in research or other projects to help the school or further their field.

I have no problem with this second group. It is again someone who puts time and effort into their job. Someone who cares about their work. It's altogether someone who is furthering humanity while not harming others around them.

The last professor is someone you don't want. It's the professor who is tenured. That's how all of us students refer to them since these seem to be the only kind of people, in the eye of a student, who actually has it. They are the professor who comes in 15 minutes late to class, consistently, refuses to answer emails or questions, and leaves randomly through the semester.

I've actually had one of or physics professors come in on the first day 15 minutes late. He started the lecture (for the class that was meant to be taken along side of Calculus 1) by saying "So does everyone here know how to take the derivative." When everyone is confused, he does a 10-second-basic drawing of what it was. Asked if anyone had any questions. He scanned the room full of raised hands and said "Ok" then went on with the lecture.

This happened 10-15 times across the semester.

Another incident was that the physics department cobbles together a "sort of practice exam" for each test. I found this out from a friend as my teacher had never talked about nor handed this exam out.

The last story I'll share of this horrible professor took place around the time of the 3rd exam. I took the exam and went in the next class to get my scores only to find he had absconded with the only copies of our exam on a "business trip"; we had to wait 3 weeks to get our exam scores. (I had given up at that point and started randomly answering on the exams. For this test I got 17/20 placing me in the top 20% of the test takers.... that might tell you a bit about our exams)

So this is my problem with tenure. It's often the WORST of the worst you notice have it while the best of the best struggle to get it since it seems they aren't one to shut up and play ball with the stupid processes needed to get it.

<comment><USER30> The confusion here is that you seem to think tenure has something to do with teaching. For a research university, tenure mostly (but not entirely) is a reward for research (and grant-getting) excellence.

It's a quirk of our system that excellent world-class researchers are obligated to teach basic materials to undergraduates, and sadly not all of them are very good at it. Further, while poor grading reviews don't help someone seeking tenure, a poor publishing record and no grants will kill it. The incentive is to prioritize research at all costs. One of the best researchers I know is also one of the worst rated instructors in course evaluations I've seen.

This quirk is why coursework from non-research universities might on average be better in your standard topics. For 101 stuff, you're better off being taught the material from someone who is a great instructor but isn't on the research frontier than the other way around.

<comment><USER28> Well you'd say that, but coinicdently the teacher I'm talking about has no published research listed on his profile page for our school, only "research interests." It doesn't look like he's done much, just that he's friends with the type of people who are in charge.

This is mirrored in the CS department where I am. One full time professor was given an offer by the school, a "retirement package." It was rumored to be in the 250k range. He is unanimously refereed to as "the weed-out professor" by everyone of my peers since he is the only teacher for one of the mandatory CS classes.

Sadly he has not taken the retirement package and has one of the highest failure rate classes in the college.

He has not been fired due to his tenure.

This is the reason why I and many other students have this distaste for tenure: because whenever we are confronted with it, it is because our lives are made infinity more difficult because of it.

In the years to come as students who have been poorly treated by tenured professors seep into administration of colleges there will be problems because of this.

I can't fix it and I don't mind at all if professors loose tenure as an option. That being said, if the research community wants to keep it they are going to need to shift public opinion of it and that will only happen by hiring professors who are _good_ at teaching to replace the brilliant researchers in that regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Just an anecdote... a professor whose classes I've taken, which were fantastic, recently got tenured. In the liberal arts, too!

I like to think that tenure isn't quite dead yet. Depends on the college, naturally. (I deliberately use the word "college" instead of "university"; I find that the liberal arts college at my university is more organized than the computer science department.)

Eventually the college loan bubble will burst, and universities will no longer be able to be run like businesses.

<comment><USER32> > Eventually the college loan bubble will burst, and universities will no > longer be able to be run like businesses.

Can you explain this sentence?

If you mean, "Students will be less likely to get crazy loans," I can only imagine that would _encourage_ universities to "be run like businesses.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > _I don't need to start building a life from scratch in my late thirties. I > definitely don't need to do it for a nine—or three-month contract without > benefits, or costs of moving._

Well, it's not like the academic world, even when it was much better itself, has done much to protest and assist with the same and much worse situation in blue collar (and even office) jobs.

First they came for the McDonalds burger flippers, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a McDonalds burger flipper...

et al

<comment><USER34> Does McDonald's lay off staff every 9 months?

<comment><USER2> McDonald's turnover is at least 44%, so basically yes. [http://fistfuloftalent.com/2008/05/can-this- turnov.html](http://fistfuloftalent.com/2008/05/can-this-turnov.html)

<comment><USER35> The comparison doesn't hold up when rates of voluntary job separation and involuntary laid offs are being discussed.

<comment><USER33> When you pay employees crap, and give them crap opportunities, "voluntary job separation" is mostly a euphemism.

<comment><USER35> I don't disagree with that, but there's a difference between someone walking off a job after they quit and when a company terminates someone's employment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Something doesn't add up. University education costs have been increasing over at least the last one or two decades. But universities keep reducing costs by hiring adjunct, sessional, or contract faculty who are presumably less well paid than full-time professors. So where is the universities' money going to? Are they losing it by mismanaging their endowment funds? Are they spending more in other areas?

<comment><USER37> For public (state-funded) universities, they receive a large percentage of their operating budget not from tuition or endowments, but directly from the state. In many cases, over the past 10+ years, this direct support has been slashed. So, for these institutions, even as tuition has been increasing, their total budget was likely dropping. Tuition hasn't been able to keep up with the loss of state funding, so the universities try to make the numbers work in a variety of ways... one of which is to limit the number of professors.

<comment><USER15> Then why do they keep increasing the administrative staffing?

<comment><USER16> Compliance. Massive amounts of federal regulations, plus empire building and things like deluxe dorms and insanely corrupt athletic programs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Saddening story. However, as an academic myself, some bits were misleading or odd:

> funding regulations meant the grant couldn't pay my salary as its lead > researcher

I've never, ever heard of anything like this occurring. The most I have seen are cost sharing pieces where a grant cannot more than a certain % of your salary. But these are often known upfront by the PI!

> The two disclosed who had submitted a grant proposal and whose book was near > publication—all of which are needed for tenure. I was the only one in the > room with books, articles, and a recently awarded grant.

This strikes me as a highly bitter position to take. There is far more to tenure than only the number of grants, books, articles, etc. Were the articles published in high impact journals? How much $$ was the grant for? A researcher 5 years younger might get a tenure-track position with no prior grants, but a hot research topic, a few good publications and an excellent pedigree.

> My financial reality still makes it hard to keep up with conferences. I > haven't had access to professional development funds since 2010

The author states he has funding grants but these did not explicitly cover several conferences? I'm very surprised by this, and this is not at all consistent with my experience. I had funding to attend conferences as a first year graduate student.

> There are jobs in the southern US and in the UK, which would take me away > from family and a new relationship that I cherish. I don't need to start > building a life from scratch in my late thirties. I definitely don't need to > do it for a nine—or three-month contract without benefits, or costs of > moving. And if we're talking about the US, I don't need to be dealing with > signing religious codes of conduct or dealing with campuses where eighteen- > year-olds can carry concealed guns.

The sad truth of the matter is: if you want to get a tenure track job, 99% of us will not truly have a choice in location where you live. Expect to move across the country (or across countries!). That is quite apparent when you sign up. You take what you can get. A friend took a position in upstate NY, and he hates the cold...

<comment><USER39> I suspect the author is from the humanities, which have starkly different funding realities than what you and I are used to. (Your profile says you are a computational scientist, and while I work in industry, I still publish in computer science academic conferences.)

<comment><USER40> > I still publish in computer science academic conferences

Having just recently attended an academic conference as a non-academic (but not submitted anything this time), I was wondering whether non-academics do, or should, feel guilty about publishing at these venues. It was _very_ apparent how other people there were looking for jobs and using their publications and presentations as a part of that process. If non-academics publish in journals and conferences, should we feel bad that we're potentially taking away spots from those these venues are "meant for"?

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi I don't think you should feel bad about that at all. The amount of jobs available is not going to decrease due to you publishing papers. If you "take away a spot" for someone's paper it might mean that that person doesn't get a job, but some other academic will get it instead (and none of them will know).

In fact I'd say non-academics publishing in conferences and journals can be good for academics even from an egoistic standpoint, as it can help break the popular perception of science/academia as an ivory tower of self-absorbing smartasses out of touch with reality. And better popular perception of science indirectly means more funding. So as an academic I would definitely see an increase of submissions by non-academics as good news for my interests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This article has been posted and discussed on HackerNews before. I mean, not this exact same article, but the same narrative written by different authors. That shows on the one hand that a lot of people are unfortunately affected by the same problem, but it also means that it's not a new problem.

Whether it's academia or industry, after working at the same place for some 8 years or so, I think it's only human that you get a feeling that your employer "owes you" for your commitment. And perhaps they really do? But people lose their jobs all the time, why would academia be any different to any other work place?

<comment><USER42> > why would academia be any different to any other work place?

If anything it should be worse. Companies realize a profit which the pay some of to their employees. Education, on the other hand, is a net loss operation.

<comment><USER35> At many institutions, but not all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> As somebody looking to go into research (in a STEM field), this is a rather chilling article... And it's by far not the first time I have heard about this problem of getting a long-term job in academia.

I'm just wondering: this guy was from Canada. What's the situation like in Europe? Especially Germany?

<comment><USER44> I'm not European, but I've heard the situation is hard there too, although not in the same way. The European academics I've met are, years after finishing the PhD, still quite dependent on their advisors for patronage. Those advisors likewise have to defer to _their_ advisors. For decades. Until somebody dies. It's very feudal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> My experience in finance was that 50% of quants (especially physics PhDs from the 90s, when all the Cold War-era funding dried up) were failed academics.

Most of the rest were PhDs jumping straight to industry to avoid chasing tenure for years.

<comment><USER46> It depends on how you define "failed". Even the best academics may think it rational to make millions of dollars as a quant over a more conventional salary as an academic.

I am not a "failed mcdonalds cashier" if I choose to quit and something that pays more, even if I started out in that particular field.

<comment><USER45> Maybe I'm being blunt, but my definition is that I spoke to them personally and they told me they would still be in academia if they had managed to land a job.

I asked, because at the time I was considering leaving to pursue a graduate degree myself.

Of course, I didn't literally speak to every quant in on the street, but I sampled from the ones who were around me. Most people were quite open about the situation but glad they had left; some were still very bitter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Does HN have any advice for those looking to get a PhD because they love the field (Computer Science)? And then follow up the PhD with a job at one of the tech companies' research arm?

<comment><USER48> If you really love it, there's no sense in talking about reason. "And yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays." \- Bottom, Midsummer Night's Dream

As for tech company research arms, look carefully at who recruits where you intend to go, and who your potential advisors publish with. If you land in a place with good connections, it increases your chances of landing a gig like that.

<comment><USER29> "If you really love it, there's no sense in talking about reason."

Not getting a PhD does not prevent you from working in the field or from reading the literature. IMO the only reason to get a PhD is that it will open jobs that otherwise wouldn't be available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> An academic career should never be your only option. Make sure you study something that is useful in the real economy.

<comment><USER50> I sincerely hope that people who are genuinely excited about research do not adopt this attitude. Our affluent society allows us to specialize in what we like; allowing the best of us to create art and mathematics and make discoveries in science is as important as being a "contributing member of society".

<comment><USER51> We all have to make choices between what we enjoy and have a passion for and what pays the bills. For many of us, there is a degree of overlap though likely not 100%.

Our society is not so affluent that, if what you are genuinely excited about is medieval German poetry, you can reasonably expect to be supported with that passion unless you win a very specific academic track lottery (or have other sources of income).

<comment><USER50> I was thinking more about scientific research, such as funding for pure mathematics, theoretical computer science and such. These are skills that require years of dedicated effort to master the basics and reach a level of understanding that is rigorous enough to start making original contributions and yet offer very little financial compensation in industry.

You are right in that a decision has to be made in what areas we consider important enough to allow a sustainable career from it. In your example, I would certainly not fund a person for studying Medieval German poetry only; but more funding for research into history? Sure thing.

<comment><USER52> Who decides where "funding for research into history" goes? In our STEM graduate program (a fairly prestigious one), it was pretty widely argued that you basically had to attach yourself to one of the big name grants to try and get funded.

I had a few friends who had some ideas but their professors weren't too happy with those. They found a way to incorporate some of the buzzwords for a giant grant our university had, pitched it to the professor, who submitted a grant application, and got them funded on the idea. Professor was happy (he had money), students were happy, but at the end of the day, the process was idiotic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I hate having to enable JavaScript just to read a website.

It was worth it for this one though, just one main thing; still I almost didn't click it, I often don't.

-

I see that same mentality reflected in far too many places, no one wants to hire for a career anymore; and that's what 'tenure' is at a college. The 'contract' in society between the working class and those who employee them is beyond broken.

<comment> fsck--off You can read the site with JavaScript disabled if you also disable CSS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The fun part of this article is where he never mentions his field...

<comment><USER55> Why? Isn't that highly irrelevant to his story?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> "I forked out over $2000 to attend two conferences [..] at the second I was cut off half-way into my paper."

I have never seen this happen at any conference. It makes the author sound like a crackpot.

<comment><USER57> "I have never seen this happen" =/= "This has never happened"

<comment><USER56> I'm not questioning whether it happened or not, I'm curious about the reasons their presentation was cut short.

"There's nothing quite like having an established academic decide that hearing eight minutes of the allotted twenty would be sufficient. As a self-funded under-employed contingent, I wasn't going to say anything useful anyway."

How would this established academic know they're self-funded and under- employed?

<comment><AUTHOR> The author's job title might have given this away. In Canada (assistant|associate|full) professors are tenured or tenure track, and hence higher status. Any other title could be assumed to mean non-tenure track and under-employed, hence lower status.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Blackjack game engine with CLI output - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blackjacktrainer/blackjackjs-engine <comment><USER2> Sweet project, looking forward to where it goes next man!</comment>


Git for Windows 2.5.1 - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/git-for-windows/hyZKOPOOxuY <comment><USER2> I don't remember there being a Windows 2.5.1.</comment>


A Man Who Tried to Redeem the World with Logic - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/the-man-who-tried-to-redeem-the-world-with-logic-rp <comment><USER2> I'm absolutely blown away by the fact that the possibility of recurrent neural networks encoding memory was discovered and published _before_ electronic computers existed, and that the construction was entirely theoretical, based on first principles alone.

<comment><USER3> The article seems to be describing something more like traditional computer memory (encoded in an electrically stable configuration of switches) than the memory of a recurrent neural network (encoded in the pattern of underlying connections). In biological terms that might be comparable to the distinction between short-term memory and long-term memory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Not only did Russell write back [about the proposed corrections to be made to Principia Mathematica], he was so impressed that he invited Pitts to study with him as a graduate student at Cambridge University in England. Pitts couldn't oblige him, though — he was only 12 years old."

</comment><comment><USER5> McCullough interview video: [https://youtu.be/MTmR6X2w8Tg](https://youtu.be/MTmR6X2w8Tg)

He seems quite the figure.

</comment><comment><USER6> Genius is often coupled with depression; sometimes in order to see the world is different light you need a different brain to see it with. I often wonder how a genius like Pitts can appear out of common people with no apparent genius in them - genetics is often a cruel process where amazing results are often coupled with not so amazing side effects.

</comment><comment><USER7> > In a way Pitts was still 12 years old. He was still beaten, still a runaway, > still hiding from the world in musty libraries. Only now his books took the > shape of a bottle.

In an otherwise fine article, this was a staggeringly insensitive statement about the man's struggle with depression. That too at an age where it was even more poorly understood than today.

</comment><comment><USER8> > The higher the probability, the higher the entropy and the lower the > information content.

Is this a known and/or understood statement? It seems to be saying a lot for so few words. Would love any other sources that could expand on it.

<comment><USER9> It is known if we fix it to read "the lower the entropy".

Information Theory equates entropy with with the (expected) negative logarithm of probability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I read that article at least a year ago before, but "past" doesn't show a previous mention here on HN. A bug?

<comment><USER11> >This article was originally published in our "Information" issue in February, 2015.

<comment><USER10> Ah, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Didn't this same thing happen between Wittgenstein and Russell two decades earlier?

</comment><comment><USER13> Thank you for sharing this article.

</comment><comment><USER14> How sad.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't know why I don't have nautil.us bookmarked.</comment>


The Yes Men take on Apple - <AUTHOR> http://apple-cf.com/ <comment><USER2> Apple requires all their suppliers to sign statements that the source materials (such as minerals) they're selling are 'conflict free'.

However, according to Steve Jobs, there's no way to be 100% sure that the materials aren't from the Congo or other war zones. Apple has no technique to inspect minerals and find out which mine they came from.

Source: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/jobs-no-way-to-be-sure- iphon...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/jobs-no-way-to-be-sure-iphone- minerals-are-conflict-free/7377)

<comment><USER3> "Yes. We require all of our suppliers to certify in writing that they use conflict few materials. "

That's quite an unfortunate typo!

<comment><USER2> I'd say that's definitive proof that Steve Jobs does indeed reply to customers' emails via iPhone.

Also: <http://damnyouautocorrect.com/>

<comment><USER4> I am just amazed that people do not turn this feature off. It is probably the first thing I do when I encounter software that tries to correct what I write.

<comment><USER5> > I am just amazed that people do not turn this feature off.

I'm just amazed that you'd be amazed: it generally get things right (90~95% for me, I'd say) and this means it's very good at avoiding phone-typos. It gives the writer the ability to be slightly less attentive (since the phone will catch and correct most small errors) and to type faster and with a lower cognitive burden.

<comment><USER6> One word: Swype. I find less typos than standard auto-correct and faster anyways.

<comment><USER5> And how well does it work with languages full of diacritics?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is amusing, more so because I could almost see Apple itself attempting to use this concept. But, it's less cutting than several of the past Yes Men campaigns, possibly because of the congruence between the satirized and the satirical premise. Apple is not particularly egregious in sourcing their materials, nor are they particularly hypocritical about their use of rare- earth elements.

</comment><comment><USER8> Umm.. Surely they meant 'hardware' here.. or else this is a double-troll..

 _As you probably know the minerals that are used in the production of various software products have largely been extracted from mines in Africa, especially the Congo. For the most part this mining has gone..._

</comment><comment><USER9> To me this just seems like a Greenpeace-style attention-grab by using Apple's name.

<comment><USER10> Yes this is totally unlike Yes Men at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm waiting for the Yes Men to take on airport security.

<comment><USER12> Me too. I'm waiting until someone invents a cavity searching robot and tries to sell it as mandatory given the fact that the TSA claims that the current machines _cannot_ detect items hidden in body cavities.

If I had more graphics skill, I would be tempted to draw out exactly what it would look like, but I'm envisioning a metal chair with straps and a hole in the bottom, through which a chrome tube emerges. The end of the tube then expands to make its passage wide enough, creating a loud, sharp, metallic noise. Finally, a camera comes out from the center of the tube and a red LED on it blinks.

"It wont hurt as much if you try to relax."

<comment><USER13> If you are going for effect, a chair is too dignified. Maybe somthing along the lines of a breeding stand that clamps you into a bent position "for your safety" prior to probe insertion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Conflict free iPhones made by Chinese slave labor. There is absolutely no way to get past the fact that someone may have died to bring you that shiny gadget. As disconnected as people are with their food supply, they're even more disconnected to everything else in their homes.</comment>


Ask HN: What would you do with $2.5M? - <AUTHOR> Let's say you were to earn $2.5 million net (after tax) tomorrow. What would you personally do with that money? How would you setup yourself? Where would you live? Would you buy a house? Would you invest in something specific? Curious to hear about everyone's thoughts. <comment><USER2> How old are you?

I'd try not to spend it.

I made good money when young and as a result did not appreciate how hard it is to get. So I spent it, assuming (reasonably, but incorrectly I think), more would come.

I wish I'd hung onto it.

</comment><comment><USER3> So you work at Dropbox huh?? :) sorry couldn't help myself lol.

Invest your money in a way that secures your financial freedom till the day you die at 4-7% yearly withdrawal rate. Assume you live till 100.

If anything is left build a school in a poor country and bring whoever you can out of abject poverty. Cos only people like you can help them. They can't solve these large problems when they are focused on just surviving day to day. You can be doing well while doing good.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nothing.

I hate working and would do nothing except read books, exercise, and watch tv until I died. I took 2 years off in my 20s to do this and it was heaven.

Now I have a chronic illness and have to work for the insurance. At some point I'll be fed up with it, take whatever money I've saved up and just live until it runs out.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would pay off our house and all of our debts, give my parents enough to pay off the little debt they had and for them to go on some nice trips.

Buy a house for my older son and set some aside for my younger son.

I would put the rest in diversified investments and keep working and keep putting money out of my paycheck aside for retirement.

I am a developer and like what I do for a living. My wife would probably still work for the health benefits but she already doesn't work during the summer, she might go half time.

We would probably take nicer vacations and have a little bit better cars but I don't see our lifestyle changing drastically.

And no, we are by no means "rich" but we earn a decent enough income that more money wouldn't affect our lifestyle too much.

</comment><comment><USER6> Without any doubt, I would buy a small house in the midwest, put the rest in index funds, and live comfortably for the rest of my days, working on exactly what I want to.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would pay someone to diversify and invest it for me. Assuming a 6% return rate (on average), the principal would generate approximately $150,000/year in interest. Obviously more if you reinvest some of it.

Eventually I would probably dip into the principal to afford a nice home with some land somewhere. I haven't settled on the details yet.

Honestly, the most valuable part of this would be that my time is freed up to work on things I'm passionate about.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think I would do the following:

1\. If you have debt (aside from mortgage) -- pay it off, this includes student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc.

2\. Do you own a home? If yes, consider if paying off the loan makes sense, note that it is better to own your home outright. If no, set aside money for a down payment on a house. Rule of thumb for rent vs. buy -- you are thinking of living in the house for 5+ years. Rent otherwise (see #5).

3\. Do you have a will or an irrevocable trust? Consider setting one up.

4\. Are you ready to retire or not? Create a diversified portfolio to ensure you keep the money you have based on your retirement goals.

5\. Continue with the same comfortable standard of living you always have. Don't upgrade your lifestyle too much and don't accumulate liabilities/debt. Invest your money in assets.

6\. Do not advertise your wealth. Practice stealth wealth (wrote about this on my blog).

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd consider it a head start on my retirement fund - a chance to retire a few years early - and invest at least 90% of it accordingly.

I'd use the rule of thumb for windfalls: allow yourself to spend 5-10% of it to celebrate. That said, there isn't much right now that I'm interested in spending money on all at once. Buy that laptop I've been holding out on. Maybe take nicer vacations than usual for a few years. Maybe help my parents pay for some renovations they weren't sure how they'd afford.

I wouldn't change anything else about my life. Increasing ongoing expenses defeats the point of investing it towards retirement; and there aren't many areas in which a modest increase in expenditures would create a corresponding increase in happiness.

Whereas retiring at 60 instead of 65; having more of my life in good health without having to work... that's the best thing I can imagine.

<comment><USER10> I seriously hope you're joking and you're just being provocative right? In what world or lifestyle $2.5M after-tax is just a "head start" or "a chance to retire at 60 vs 65"? By investing it in traditional index funds, at a relatively safe withdrawal rate of 4% it would allow you to pull $100k a year in perpetuity (adjusting from inflation each onward year), most of which taxed at a ridiculously low rate, or none at all.

<comment><USER9> Expecting reliable 7% returns seems extremely optimistic to me (I'm fairly certain our 100-year growth rate cannot and will not be sustained). Certainly the market hasn't returned that much during my lifetime.

If the stock market returns 4% instead of 7%, you'd need $10M in the bank to keep up with 3% inflation and return $100K/yr. $5M for $50K/yr. And one typically moves one's assets into lower-risk/lower-return investments as one approaches retirement.

Given my family's longevity, I need to plan for survival till about 100 y/o. With increasing costs over time due to aging-related costs (even if I spend $50K/yr now, paying for assisted living or home aides plus of course medical care could easily bring that up past $100K). And an assumption that social security will not exist in any meaningful form by the time I reach retirement age.

Yes, 60 vs. 65 was an enormous exaggeration, but right now I intend to save nearly $100K for every year of planned retirement. $2.5M would cover 25 years of retirement. At $50k/yr in savings, that leaves me with 2 years of work for every year before 75 I want to retire. So: I still need to work another (2/3 * (75 - $current_age)) years (minus savings too date, of course). Without the $2.5M, the equation would be (2/3 * (100 - $current_age)). So it allows for retirement ~17 years earlier than originally planned.

And yes, saving that much is unrealistic for the vast majority of Americans. I suspect we're headed for an enormous retirement-related social/economic crisis in the next few decades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd buy more property with a nice ranch house on 20-30 acres in the California desert (max $300k), invest the rest and pull out small amounts to fund my startups as needed.

Basically I'd be doing the same thing, but nicer.

</comment><comment><USER12> What you do with $2.5M. The position of FU (John Goodman, The Gambler).

[https://youtu.be/xdfeXqHFmPI](https://youtu.be/xdfeXqHFmPI)

<comment><AUTHOR> haha! good one

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> ( hire a finance advisory firm )

but, in broad strokes: 1/3 on fixed interest rates investments ( bonds, probably ) 1/3 on real state ( preferably on low income areas, small condos, easy to rent ) 1/6 on high risk ( crypto currency, penny stocks ) 1/6 on high liquidity ( savings account on variable but low interest rate ) for some quick opportunity that might arise.

don´t touch the principal, EVER ! live out of interest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like I'd need a few down payments to invest in rental properties as well as raising my debts. Unless I'd pay these rental properties cash. Which means I have to touch the principal in that scenario. I'd pay income tax on those gains so I better nail that one down.

Investing in crypto means converting some of that principal into money I could afford to lose. So 'technically' speaking there would be no income from that.

Savings account don't give much, we're talking pennies here.

Seems that bonds is the most stable, reliable source of lazy/passive income, but it's very small compared to the average cost of living in the US. So, ultimately I'd go back to my principal to cover some expenses...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would invest half of it in low risk mutual funds and then take the other half over to my friend Asadullah who works in securities...

</comment><comment><USER15> I would invest it in growing my startup. I have got a sales pipeline of > 750K USD in the works that I am having trouble servicing, having self funded so far it's difficult to do an exponential jump without funding, even with an exceptionally high amount of automation. I might need to make some phone calls soon to investors, but 2.5M tomorrow would help a lot!

</comment><comment><USER16> I would invest in real estate.

I would become a (for profit) provider of affordable housing and get my name dragged through the mud as a _slumlord_ instead of being lauded as a friend to the poor and someone reducing homelessness. Cuz that's the lovely way the world works.

I would also pay cash for a small house for myself.

</comment><comment><USER17> Step 1: Put it into diversified investments designed to beat inflation + a good yearly income. Technically I'd only actually need 40-50k/y for everything I want, so 2.5M is on the high side.

Step 2: Work full time on my open source projects that I haven't been able to devote enough brain power to.

</comment><comment><USER18> Send it all to me ;)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'd assume I'm going to live another 35 years. That means I'd dump most of it into a variety of savings, and live off $70k a year.

</comment><comment><USER20> Pay off my debts. Rent. Work on my own projects. Sell off as many as my things as I can. Travel.

</comment><comment> ha-shine I would buy a cheap condo here in Singapore. Rent it out and become a digital nomad.

</comment><comment><USER21> Clear debts and travel.

</comment><comment><USER22> stock trading robots and turn the money into billions :-)</comment>


The Making of Dwarf Fortress (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131954/interview_the_making_of_dwarf_.php?print=1

<comment><USER2> A (somewhat surprisingly) awesome article on Dwarf Fortress: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance- of...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance-of-dwarf- fortress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

 _At about 1:30 a.m., a family of hippos, represented by light gray H's, swam into the tunnels from a nearby river. Their arrival was an unintended development born entirely of the game's internal logic. Tarn was pleased. "The hippos like the sewers!" he said. He took a celebratory swig of Dr. Pepper and rocked back and forth._

Among my friends, the phrase "The hippos like the sewers!" is used to convey (usually unexpected) joy caused by programming, particularly when it would be difficult to explain to outsiders.

I've yet to get into Dwarf Fortress but it makes me happy to think about and to read about :)

<comment><USER3> You really should give it a shot.

What surprised me was this.

After using a quickstart toturial or two and diving right in, I was all happy that my dwarves had started doing, well, something, and I was getting used to it. I started collecting some materials, as the tutorial said, and I dug some stuff, as the tutorial said. Then I noticed the water in the map seemed ot have changed colour, and the ground, in all it's pixellated ascii glory, appeared whiter than it used to. "could it be winter, are there seasons?" I googled, letting the dwarves work. Yes, there was winter. Water froze. When I eventually got back to my game, there was a food shortage, and much worse, we ran out of liqour. We also had no water. The dwarves stopped working. Investigating their stats, they were rather angry about the situation. Eventually one, then two, went berzerk and killed their fellow dwarves in a rampage. I tried my best to guide them to gather some foliage so we could make some booze and get things back on track.. but I was too late. By spring, everyone was dead.

The next time.. I made it through winter, but not the next... overpopulation got me. With the immigrants that keep showing up, I had more and more dwarves, and I didn't know how to manage it. Hilarity ensued.. from a kobold thief stealing babies to animals mating in the bedroom to checking on the dining area to find a horse sitting at the table with a bunch of partying dwarves.

Eventually I made it a few seasons... only to be raided by goblins. I had no militia, I hadn't figured that part out yet. I hadn't needed it. Everyone died.

And so it goes...

The awesome part, and I think a critical thing most players who like the game clue in to, is that it's always like this. You won't get to a feeling of mastery where you can just hone your skills like most games. You'll always be analyzing what you see, looking stuff up, talking with others, and resolving yourself to try a new strategy next time - imagination really pays off here. There are always hippos in the sewers, or cats breeding out of control, or ant-people that want to eat you, or a berzerk dwarf baby killing his family, or some monster from down deep getting up your stairwell and terrorizing your fortress, or a magma accident, or a dwarf who decides to lock himself in a workshop, depriving you of that shop abilities while he spends his sweet time making stuff. There's dwarves that promte themselves to nobles and demand stuff, and they generally need to be dealt with. Usually by death. Dwarves must be sacrificed on on occasion for the good of the fortress.

My point, I guess, is that the funny/sad/epic stories you read about aren't really embellished much - the game actually provides you with that level of detail... even early-on. Your imagination fills in the blanks.. but there aren't many blanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" This time, it was called Slaves to Armok: God of Blood, named after Armok, the god from dragslay. Armok himself was named after "arm_ok", a variable that counts the number of arms you have left, for inventory purposes."_

Um, sold.

[edit] (I can't get over how fun that is to think about. Now I really want someone to take this recursive idea to the absurdly extreme and build a game whose design is almost completely inspired by it's own source code.)

</comment><comment><USER5> Dwarf Fortress is fantastic but really requires patience with learning its difficult and inconsistent UI.

Get started with this guide: [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Quickstart_guid...](http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Quickstart_guide)

If you're on OSX, Dwarf Builder is the best way to get a copy of the game running well: [http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=106974.0](http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=106974.0)

If neither of these are for you, perhaps you'd enjoy reading some insane stories about DF games. Here's a few of the best:

Boatmurdered: [http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress- Boatmurdered](http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress-Boatmurdered)

Oilfurnace: [http://oilfurnace.timdenee.com/](http://oilfurnace.timdenee.com/)

Bronzemurder: [http://bronzemurder.timdenee.com/](http://bronzemurder.timdenee.com/)

<comment><USER6> > really requires patience with learning its difficult and inconsistent UI.

Definitely an understatement. I tried, and I failed. I desperately wanted to play the game, and I don't care if it's all extended ASCII characters, but when building similar-purpose buildings have entirely different key bindings, and when the steps required to place items varies widely on their purpose...

DF isn't a single-player game. It's a two-player game, and the game itself is an antagonist.

<comment><USER7> Appropriate comic: [http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110522180205/vsrecom...](http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110522180205/vsrecommendedgames/images/a/a5/Dwarf_Fortress_fun.png)

Not XKCD though.

<comment><USER6> That comic assumes that you know how to enter the restaurant, understand how to open a menu, and can read the dishes offered.

In Dwarf Fortress, you have to walk down an alley, turn around thrice widdershins, wait for a figure to appear as if from nowhere, and translate their strange and inconsistent language.

Then you can get around to being disemboweled horribly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is actually from 2008 if anyone wants to correct the title.

Original: [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131954/interview_the_m...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131954/interview_the_making_of_dwarf_.php)

I was tipped off by the mention of the z-index being new, that was introduced ages ago.

Still one of my favourite games, even if the development seems to have lost its way a bit the last couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER9> Spending a gaming week or two deep diving into this is a worthwhile pursuit (I agree about the O'Reilly book as well). In the end, I came to the conclusion that the ASCII graphics were, in fact, incredibly good and info-dense, but the UI wrapped around the whole game was just infuriatingly bad. I'll look again in 2-3 years.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. The fact that (depending on what action you're undertaking) there are three different independent ways, each with it's own set of keyboard commands, to specify a selection area should say something.

Or that 99% of the community relies on external applications which to manage dwarf assigned jobs, since doing it manually rapidly approaches impossible as you acquire more than a dozen dwarves.

I almost feel that Toady should hire somebody to design an ASCII-based UI for the game that actually works.

<comment><USER11> Sadly, I doubt it will happen based upon his reluctance to address the UI shortcomings in this recent thread:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1avszc/im_tarn_adams_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1avszc/im_tarn_adams_of_bay_12_games_cocreator_of_dwarf/c916s5z?context=5)

<comment><USER12> Most enlightening quote from Tarn:

> I feel like I'm still working on basic features

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recommend this O'Reilly book [http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920022565.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920022565.do)

Awesome reading even if you don't like video games or Dwarf Fortress at all.

<comment><USER14> Also cute is the author's bio, in the characteristic style of a Dwarf Fortress dwarf's textual description: [http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/5119](http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/5119)

> "Peter Tyson is a human born in 1975 in New Zealand. He is the oldest son of > Ron Tyson and Ann Tyson. In the Summer of 1996 Peter became a student at > Auckland University. In the Summer of 1999 Peter became a student at > Victoria University. In the Spring of 2000 Peter became an Analyst at > Datamonitor. In the Spring of 2002 Peter became a Community Manager at > Codemasters. In the Autumn of 2005 Peter became an Administrator in the New > Zealand Government. In the Summer of 2008 Peter married Laura. In the Winter > of 2009 Peter wrote popular tutorials for Dwarf Fortress on his blog, > afteractionreporter.com. In the Winter of 2011 Peter was struck by a Strange > Mood.

> In the Summer of 2012 Peter wrote "Pasubabo Thrathdad Teme", "Getting > Started with Dwarf Fortress", a legendary wood-pulp paper bound book. The > written portion consists of 180 page guide to the game Dwarf Fortress > entitled "Getting Started with Dwarf Fortress". The writing is lighthearted > with moments of humor.

> In Summer 2012 "Getting Started with Dwarf Fortress" was stored in O'Reilly > by the human administrator, Peter Tyson."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ars Technica wrote an interesting article about Dwarf Fortress a few months ago: Ten hours with the most inscrutable video game of all time

[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/dwarf-fortress-ten- hou...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/dwarf-fortress-ten-hours-with- the-most-inscrutable-video-game-of-all-time/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I haven't played DF for a long time but would happily give money to the creators, just as an act of acknowledging such great passion and creativity (I paid for Minecraft too yet haven't played it fore more than an hour). From what I remember in the NYT profile, they don't want to "sell out", but I wonder if they'd be amenable to a kickstarter that was focused on creating either a revamped interface or building an API that would make such improved interfaces possible?

<comment><USER17> "I've thought about it. It seems like it would take a lot of work to maintain. I ditched the crappy 3D graphics of Armok 1, and adding features is so much faster now. This seems similar. There are lots and lots and lots of data structures, and the API would not be a simple thing, and it wouldn't be something I could just do once and then forget about."

From [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1avszc/im_tarn_adams_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1avszc/im_tarn_adams_of_bay_12_games_cocreator_of_dwarf/c919tmo)</comment></comment>


This Comment Was Censored by Y Combinator's Hacker News - <AUTHOR> http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/this-comment-was-censored-by-y-combinators-hacker-news/

<comment><USER2> This post was killed by user flags. I've unkilled it so as to reply.

The comment in question was killed by the software after getting massively downvoted (I think the threshold was -10 at the time.) This software change is part of an experiment we're running. We haven't decided yet what to do with it.

<comment><USER3> This is sorta off topic, but I noticed that older posts which are dead now occasionally say they are [flagkilled].

What's the difference between those posts and this kind of post?

<comment><USER2> [flagkilled] means killed by HN users, as opposed to by the software or by moderators. Moderators basically never kill comments though (except spam).

Displaying [flagkilled] is another experiment we've been running. That one seems pretty likely to stick. The votekill experiment seems harder to call.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is the comment - I see it as an opinion not an attack:

"...Maybe this is cynical but I dislike stories like this. I'm glad he got back safely, but it sounds a bit Everest-y. Felix Baumgartner was an experienced jumper. Every time a corporate executive pulls the "throw money at something hard for mere mortals" card I cringe. Again, Everest. The number of rich businessmen who die because Mother Nature does not give a fuck about job titles is immense. ..."</comment>


We do not have 12 years to stop catastrophic climate change - <AUTHOR> https://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-we-do-not-have-only-12-years-to-stop-climate-change.html <comment><USER2> There are some brick walls out there, we're just not sure how or when they'll arrive. Nonlinear, sudden events like ice shelf destruction, clathrate evolution or thermohaline current disruption are unpredictable and potentially catastrophic.

<comment><USER3> > _unpredictable and potentially catastrophic_

One thing climate scientists have done a poor job around is messaging how, specifically, climate change will cause harm. There was a lot of hyperbole over the past decades which approximated "everyone dies." That's obviously untrue. In an age where we're training to filter out B.S., that might have led to the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

<comment><USER4> Also global warming advocates mixed genuine scientific considerations with all sorts of anti-capitalism, anti-growth arguments which is the best way to lose trust from the conservative/republican opinion.

<comment><USER5> Anti Growth is not necessarily a bad argument, just a long term view argument. Growth requires work and that requires energy. There is a limit of energy we can use. At certain point we will use more energy than earth can cool off.

An economic growth of 2% every year is unsustainable long term.

There is a parable story called "Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist" that tries to go into this further. [https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets- physicist...](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/)

<comment><USER3> > _Growth requires work and that requires energy_

No it doesn't. "Energy intensity...is calculated as units of energy per unit of GDP" [1]. It fell nearly 1/3 from 1990 to 2015 [2].

Growth is a measure on value. Value is subjective. It is not intrinsically linked to material or energy use. (For example, modern computers use far less energy and material than older computers while delivering far more value. More extremely, consider many purely-digital goods.)

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

[2] [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032)

<comment><USER5> I am not sure which part of the statement you highlighted you asserted is wrong? That:

a) Growth doesn't require work?

b) Work doesn't require energy?

From what you included, since 1980 to 2016, energy usage has doubled, from 281btu to 572btu [1].

Yes, we can become more efficient with the energy we use, but we still use energy, and we still use more of it. If we can use energy without generating heat, then we are good.

Additionally, dangerous part is that, as we are more efficient, we find new use of resource that gobbles up the efficiency gains. [2]

[1] [https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=410...](https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&ug=4&vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC- QBTU.A&vo=0&v=H&end=2016) (scroll down to chart to see world consumption)

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> man-and-laptop There's an argument that models of the Earth's climate can _not_ be made especially accurate. This is because of chaotic behaviour in the underlying differential equations, and the likely presence of unknown factors that influence the Earth's climate but are not present in these models.

But this is actually an argument in _favour_ of reducing carbon emissions. If we're dealing with a system we can't understand, where messing with it could cause immense damage to humankind, then maybe that's enough of a reason to stop messing with it.

In general, whenever you're taking a risk with a potentially massive downside, where the outcome is hard to predict (because of chaos, "unknown unknowns"), then you should stop taking that risk.

_________________________________________

Regarding what to do about climate change, Taleb has a theory called "minority rule" that could help here. It says that an intransigent minority, maybe around ~1% of people, can force a passive majority to do the things they want. A good example of this is kosher / halal food in the US / Europe, where an intransigent minority of people have forced a large percentage of food to be certified kosher / halal, perhaps unintentionally. As such, the solution to reducing emissions might be to set up an environmental "beth din" which certifies whether a product is "environmentally kosher" or not. If an intransigent minority only consumes products that are certified environmentally kosher, the passive majority will fall in line.

<comment><USER6> You have to dig deeper to make the right analysis here, your view is very 1st world-centric.

To the poor people living right now, they are already living with their life at stake to them it's not an actual argument. They need access to cheap reliable energy right now and frankly, don't care about climate change.

Talebs minority rule is not a universal rule it's a contextual rule which is important to understand.

<comment><USER7> Poor people globally are consuming an order of magnitude less energy than rich people in rich counties.

Honestly, excluding them from this analysis makes sense because of this, and additionally because we have no way of affecting change outside of our own nations.

<comment><USER6> Thats not the point. The point is that they cant use our fancy solar grids for anything, they are trying to make it to the next day and ex coal and oil are more useful to them right now than any discussion about climate change, mother nature is already killing them

Excluding them is antihuman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Greenhouse output reduction is an approach that is very obviously failing. It requires too many conflicted parties to align and devote resources.

We have to start viewing climate change mitigation as an engineering problem. We need aggressive investment in carbon and methane capture. If it can't be a profitable endeavor then governments need to make the investment for the public good.

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately that still requires people to accept some facts that seem to be subject to aggressive misinformation campaigns.

People looking for real discussion about these issues online in places like this are met with a constant barrage of "climate change doesn't real"

<comment><USER3> > _People looking for real discussion about these issues online in places like > this are met with a constant barrage of "climate change doesn't real"_

France shows a different side to the problem. The French accept that climate change is happening [1]. Yet even simple measures are popularly opposed. That implies climate scepticism is a symptom, not a cause, of inaction.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-08/french- vo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-08/french-voters-worry- more-about-climate-change-than-eu-neighbors)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My opinion about why governments/corporations seem apathetic towards climate change can be summed up with this quote

> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends > upon his not understanding it.

<comment><USER11> It's basically this but multiplied by the number of countries on the planet - including rapidly developing countries which need the energy.

Complaining about climate change is a luxury for the rich, if you didn't have refrigeration at home your priorities would probably look much different.

Heck, just look at the French Yellow Jacket protests, it's clear the policies arguably needed to combat climate change are harmful to the lower and middle class even in western countries. Especially when those policies are often used to subsidize electric cars or energy efficient windows for those who can afford such things - effectively an inverse transfer payment.

I fear the only way we have a shot at solving this is with cheap, clean energy tech that doesn't yet exist.

<comment><USER12> That's exactly correct. And yet people talk about reducing growth. That is opposite of what we need. AGW is the worry of people with money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the whole point of putting a "wall" on it, is to create a sense of urgency. It's more effective psychologically to say, fix it by X date, than it is to say, well, you know, just do what you can.

<comment><USER14> The danger though is that people will remember that you said "we only have ten years" in ten years and say to themselves "doesn't seem so bad to me, why should I change anything now?"

<comment><USER15> > in ten years and say to themselves "doesn't seem so bad to me..."

except we don't have to wait 10 years, it is already bad. We are already seeing pretty drastic changes in weather patterns are we not?

<comment><USER14> "doesn't seem so bad to me..." can be thought in response to a very broad range of situations

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm pretty sure that if given the chance, the majority of the human population will continue to delay acting for as long as possible. I think basic psychology backs this up, as we all tend to value immediate gains over long term ones, and one example of procrastination is the delay of action due to fear.

Personally I expect the worst. I don't have faith that the body of humanity will seriously act to save itself. I think we should start planning on how to survive a very hot planet.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is the second post of this type that I posted that has been removed from the front page (I think, or below the point threshold but unlikely with 32 points and 27 comments at 1 hour).

Can someone shed some light on that?

<comment><USER17> HN doesn't exist in order to amplify your blog posts...

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I'm not the author and I don't know if any of the guidelines were breached, but good point anyway about not complaining stupidly, sorry for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "We" have much more than that. I find it borderline amoral that the IPCC do nothing to stop the catastrophist interpretations of the actual science.

<comment><USER18> _"We" have much more than that. I find it borderline amoral that the IPCC do nothing to stop the catastrophist interpretations of the actual science._

We don't though. Not really. Not because we have to act within 12 years, but because we have to act _at some point_. If we always say that the given deadline is wrong and we have more time then _eventually_ we'll be wrong. It makes a lot of sense to start now if only because that way we can spread the cost out over a longer period of time.

<comment><USER19> Also that "more time" means unbearable living conditions. People think that of humans can still live on the Earth that it means we have more time, but the fact is that we'll be living in a planet that can no longer support us comfortably due to crop limitations, mass plant die off, mass species die off on land and sea, wildfires droughts and other natural disasters, etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "We have ten years to save the world" \- a statement made repeatedly during the last 30 years.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, the world, most likely, isn't going to end in ten years. But in ten years, if we don't do anything, fifty years from now, it's all going to be way, way worse.

<comment><USER20> That is completely true. But it is also true that if someone says X will happen in time T and at time T+1 it hadn't happened then warning of X won't be taken seriously next time, even if they only meant to highlight the urgency of the situation by presenting a shorter timeframe. It will be difficult to communicate that "this time we really mean it". That's the fundamental problem right now.

<comment><USER21> > That is completely true. But it is also true that if someone says X will > happen in time T and at time T+1 it hadn't happened then warning of X won't > be taken seriously next time

I think we are confussing what scientist say with what media says

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The facts are irrelevant at this stage this is purely politics. The poor and middle class do not want to be penalized for climate change (French yellow jacket protests are most visible example of this). This is just bluffing between economic groups.

<comment><USER9> The facts are not irrelevant and it is extremely misleading to imply that large scale action intended to counteract climate change is somehow required to negatively impact poor or lower-middle-class groups.

<comment><USER23> The alternative claim that large scale action won't negatively impact poor or lower middle class groups is more bizarre. Let's assume that there is a cost to counteracting climate change. it is not some kind of free lunch.

Then this is only going to not negatively impact the poor or lower-middle class groups if they can push all the cost onto other groups. However, then you have to ask yourself why haven't the poor or lower middle class groups been able to carve out a larger slice of the pie by increasing transfers from other groups to themselves.

So suddenly these other groups are going to act more generously to the poor and lower middle class over climate change but not generally. That seems a bit of a leap.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Simple Micro-Survey Widgets - <AUTHOR> https://refiner.io/ <comment><USER2> I didn't expect to see so many integrations. Cool idea!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

To be honest, some of them are still in the making. Deployed and accessible are right now Zapier, Segment, Slack & Webhooks.

The other integrations are powered through Segment or Zapier for the moment, but they'll be native integrations pretty soon I hope.</comment></comment>


Sidechains and Lightning, the New New Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/13/down-the-blockchain-rabbit-hole/ <comment><USER2> The Lightning network solves the wrong problem. The whole idea behind the lightning network is to reduce the growth of the blockchain. The blockchain growing is not going to be a factor that effects the operation of the network.

Instead I'd rather see people try to fix the problem of it being expensive to spend bitcoin sourced from many small inputs. This is a problem that the lightning network does not address.

So if the lightning network does get build, we'll all be able to use microtransaction channels which will slow the growth of the blockchain, but will still cost $20 in fees to send $100 worth of bitcoin sent in tiny UTXOs.

<comment><USER3> >Instead I'd rather see people try to fix the problem of it being expensive to spend bitcoin sourced from many small inputs.

Lighting does this. With a single blockchain transaction, you can conduct as many micropayment transactions as you desire with anyone else this network. After the first funding transaction (which is broadcast on the blockchain), there are no more blockchain transactions until you wish to settle the channel. All micropayment transactions are deferred and net settled on channel closure. Your current balance is updated off-blockchain securely with real bitcoin transactions (which current state can be broadcast at time by either party).

>So if the lightning network does get build, we'll all be able to use microtransaction channels which will slow the growth of the blockchain, but will still cost $20 in fees to send $100 worth of bitcoin sent in tiny UTXOs.

It'll probably cost a lot to set up the channel and to close it out, but you'll only do that once and it can last for years. It's equivalent to setting up a bank account. The actual day-to-day payments are off-chain (without counterparty risk).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Honestly do people still care about Bitcoin? Is it still a thing?

<comment><USER5> I've never understood Hacker New's (majority) vitriol towards Bitcoin.

It's literally programmable money.

<comment><USER6> Money is "programmable money". It's like saying that a magic new protocol that inefficiently creates an emergent behavior that resembles the behavior of email is somehow better than just building a web service that does the job directly and efficiently.

It's not better, even if it is a nifty hack.

<comment><USER5> I suppose I wasn't clear - I meant programmable in the sense that permission from someone else is not required.

<comment><USER6> But "permission" from other people is required, even on Bitcoin. Try spending more from an UXTO than the UXTO is actually worth and see how fast your suggested transaction is rejected by the rest of the nodes and miners in the Bitcoin network...

<comment><USER5> Can't tell if trolling... but I'll bite:

Permission required to participate in Bitcoin = none

Permission required to participate in any electronic-fiat-money-transfer- system™ = mucho

<comment><USER7> You don't need permission to use cash.

You need permission to use cash with someone's online infrastructure because the world is rife with bad actors.

A payment system isn't graded by "permissions", it is graded by how well it handles disputes. That is why in it's current state, the future-of-money- Bitcoin™ won't work for many, many people and isn't competitive. (even with multi-sig escrow)

<comment><USER8> So, if the world is rife with bad actors, why does cash work so well offline? You should consider that online systems are more risky, mostly due to their pull-based nature, which is why so many roadblocks exist in traditional Internet-based value routing systems. As for competitive, clearly you've never bought something with Bitcoin online.

<comment><USER7> What's clear is that you have a cognitive bias about bitcoin - I _have_ used it online, which is irrelevant because you can make statements critical to something without having ever used it.

You're canvassing this thread making vapid pro-bitcoin arguments, which is probably your attempt to reconcile reality with your constructed view of Bitcoin. It's okay to admit Bitcoin isn't competitive.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bit.ly Pro announced - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bit.ly/post/284009728/announcing-bit-ly-pro

<comment><USER2> _All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection_

I see two big features here: 1) Recognizable URLs, and 2) analytics.

Do all HTTP requests need to go through bit.ly to achieve these features? Nope. <http://nytimes.com> is a pretty recognizable URL, if you ask me. I'm sure their server logs provide all the analytics they need as well.

Someone should "cut out the middleman" and invent a world wide web that doesn't require URL shorteners. Oh wait, Tim Berners-Lee already did that.

<comment><USER3> Someone (or google) just create a google analytics plugin that has the detailed level of tracking of bit.ly with the social analytics+real time goodness. I think all the resources are there in the server logs, right?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How did you name your business - <AUTHOR> Depends on the product and inspiration, then I check current internet presence of the name using (http://launchaco.com/) and go from there. <comment><USER2> It's complicated and there are a lot of factors to consider in a good name for consumers, but for the entity itself, I say go boring.

At the end of the day, I settled for a generic name for my formal structure: "<My last name> Software, LLC" with consideration for filing a more interesting DBA down the road.

I think there's good reason to do this. Especially if your brand name is unusual. Your formal name is in a lot of places like contracts or legal documents, and you don't want a bad formal name to scare potential customers away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally, I agree. Out of curiosity: what software products do you make?

<comment><USER2> Mine is purely contracting -- engineering for other startups and building products for entrepreneurs. (But I would like to dedicate time to working on my own small utility web apps soon.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Accidently</comment>


The Mastermind, Episode 7: The Next Big Deal - <AUTHOR> https://mastermind.atavist.com/the-next-big-deal?src=longreads <comment><USER2> >Le Roux admitted that he had created the encryption software E4M but denied that he had developed TrueCrypt, its famous progeny.

To me the picture that is being painted is that Truecrypt was a project funded by criminals and maintained by people associated with organised crime.

Yet we still don't know what happened in 2014 that ended the project and the circumstances in how they 'gassed' their canary. Was it something to do with Le Roux's informing? Was it connected to the Snowden revelations?

<comment><USER3> It was ridiculous that the author even brought it up. The privacy-aware and technologist audiences will be smart enough to see that he in no way connected Le Roux to Truecrypt in the whole series. The others will mentally connect "mass murdering, drug lord" to "Truecrypt" due to repetition. This image will be the one they hear the likes of Comey say in public media where encryption is the tool of thugs and must be backdoored/squashed. The author is doing a disservice to both Truecrypt and encryption in general by constantly trying to tie it in.

It should've been mentioned in the beginning with his E4M work and then later in the follow-up question. That's it unless the author has more evidence with a solid or highly-probable tie-in to Truecrypt.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean? It was explained on part 2 that the code for TrueCrypt was built on top of E4M.

"I asked him what he meant, and Hafner told me that in the middle of the development work for DriveCrypt, he discovered that Le Roux was still working on E4M and had incorporated some of his work for SecurStar into his personal project. (...) In 2004, a group of anonymous developers did exactly what Hafner had feared: They released a new and powerful, free file-encryption program, called TrueCrypt, built on the code for E4M. "TrueCrypt is based on (and might be considered a sequel to)" E4M, a release announcement stated."

In: [https://mastermind.atavist.com/he-always-had-a-dark- side](https://mastermind.atavist.com/he-always-had-a-dark-side)

<comment><USER3> It was. It also has almost nothing to do with anything in the whole series. It should've been one fact in isolation about one part of Le Roux's history. Instead, the author keeps dropping lines about Truecrypt as if to tie Le Roux's name to it and imply he's been behind its funding or shutdown. Without evidence. Repeatedly.

He's better off just leaving it off except the E4M-Truecrypt beginning and the question in court. It wasn't relevant to anything else unless I'm overlooking something. THe rest of the article is about pharmacies, call centers, hitmen, and so on. Nothing to do with TrueCrypt.

<comment><USER4> I don't agree with your view. The author briefly mentioned the relation E4M-Truecrypt only 2 times as it found some kind of evidence or relation between those two projects. And it is valid as the involvement of Le Roux in the Somalia wars, for example.

I don't feel the author is milking any of it to make the article more interesting.

<comment><USER3> I get why you're saying it and all. It's just that this article really plays on the E4M-Truecrypt connection and jumps between Le Roux and its story. See here:

[https://mastermind.atavist.com/he-always-had-a-dark- side](https://mastermind.atavist.com/he-always-had-a-dark-side)

The Hacker News comments and title showed many were already thinking a grand reveal was forthcoming of how Le Roux was financing Truecrypt all this time. It keeps getting mentioned even though it has nothing to do with Le Roux's life or story post E4M. Here's an alternative that's more accurate for the significance of Truecrypt to the story:

The original paragraphs on E4M and Truecrypt spinoff stay. After sentence "...message boards for good," the author stops talking about Truecrypt entirely. He should mention PhoneCrypt offer in isolation as it was significant. Later on, might mention for the trial question the context that some people suspected Le Roux might have funded or worked on Truecrypt all this time. Then show he was asked, said yes for E4M, and no for Truecrypt. Then move on.

I mean, there's not much reason to talk so much about Truecrypt, Snowden's view of it, and so on if there's nothing tying Le Roux to Truecrypt. That someone built on his work and it turned into a solid tool would be enough to say. The only good thing I could think of is that the author is trying to encourage people to use Truecrypt and such strong, OSS encrypt by embedding it into his piece. That would be annoying but justifiable in a greater good sense. Still not relevant to Paul Le Roux, though, past fork of E4M without evidence he was behind Truecrypt.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure there's a need for the author to be trying to encourage the audience to do anything. A central theme of the story is building Le Roux up to seem as big/talented/accomplished as possible. Things like the fact that he has logging and mining concerns are brought up repeatedly despite them not being directly related to him getting busted for meth, but they serve to keep you thinking "this guy is achieving a lot". You can pick it even from the title of the series.

Truecrypt is very well known amongst tech literate people and Snowden at least is well known amongst the rest. By repeatedly driving home the fact that Le Roux was responsible for the foundation of this software, it makes him seem more impressive in the readers mind.

<comment><USER3> I could see that. Yet, Truecrypt and its successes were some other group's work. He just made essentially the prototype that had enough functionality to give them a head start. In its original form, it wouldn't have achieved all the stuff described for Truecrypt in the article.

So, saying he made E4M that others' turned into Truecrypt... then dropping Truecrypt... is more honest if we're talking _his_ accomplishments. Not Truecrypt developers' accomplishments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands This whole thing just seems off to me. LeRoux was the guy they wanted, he was the boss, the mastermind, the guy who ordered all the murders, set up the operations. It makes no sense why the Gov. would give him a deal to get all the guys _under_ him, when they already had the Kingpin in their custody! Normally cops work the lower level guys to get to the Kingpin. In this case they took a top down approach, which seems off to me.

Also, the sting operation on Hunter's crew is a classic example of entrapment. Lured by big money, and egged on by LeRoux, it looks like Hunter's crew was lead into this, and they went along with whatever LeRoux told them to do. It would be relatively easy to say these guys would not have ever done any of what their accused of without LeRoux's involvement.

Again, this seems completely backwards to me.

<comment><USER5> They turned a high volume illicit prescription drug seller case in to multiple arrests of hitmen. We also don't know what, if any, deal he has been offered. That seems like it was probably a great score for the DOJ.

Keep in mind, a lot of the crimes we've read about in this story are himself, a non-US citizen not in the US, doing things with/to non-US citizens not in the US. I imagine the prosecutors are fare less concerned about a South African living in The Philippines having a Filipino killed than they are with the fact that the killers were brought in from the US.</comment></comment>


Intel CEO Resigns Over Past Relationship with an Employee – Motherboard - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9k8jpp/intel-ceo-resigns-over-past-relationship-with-an-employee-brian-krzanich <comment><USER2> Current discussion (over 180 comments): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17364899](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17364899)</comment>