Edward Snowden at IETF 93 - grey-area https://gist.github.com/mnot/382aca0b23b6bf082116 <comment><USER2> I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his actions legally. Stay on the run, Ed. Thank you for releasing this information so that the American public has some idea of the degree to which we are electronically surveilled on a daily basis.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, did you see [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward- snow...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden)

> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he > should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: > Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- > importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home > to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide > behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away > from the consequences of his actions.

Ridiculous. They literally don't know what "whistleblower" means.

"Go to prison because you deserve it in our clearly unjust system" ...the gall.

<comment><USER2> Exactly! I did see the response to the petition and thought the exact same thing. The government is pretty much saying, "We know what you did was just. But you broke the law, so come back to suffer in federal prison."

"In the land of the free and the home of the brave..." Haha. Ed Snowden is brave and we are freer as Americans knowing what the government is capable of when it comes to electronic surveillance.

<comment><USER4> Are we ? The mass Internet surveillance by the u.s. gov was known well before snowden [1], albeit the specific actors were not. Post snowden I've seen public outcry lead to a destabilization of NSA meanwhile private corporations are collecting more data than ever--is this really freer?

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

<comment><USER2> Awesome point. When I used the term "freer" I was suggesting that we were freer because even laypeople now KNOW about electronic surveillance practices. But I'm not sure we are actually "free" in any sense of the word, we just know we are constantly being watched. The reality is complicated and unfortunate. Words like "free" or "freedom" will sadly never be appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like Snowden's final conclusion:

 _> if the internet and technology does become a danger to us in the future, it's our own fault because we decided not to participate and we let other groups and other influences to decide for us rather than being part of it [...]_

Before that, he argues that more people should involve themselves more in the IETF and similar groups:

 _> [...] However, when you look at the IETF, they literally don't make a decision unless it's based on consensus. There are no requirements. There are no academic standards or qualifications that anybody has to meet before they can be involved in a working group. Literally, anyone can join, anyone can participate in the process, anyone can make themselves heard, anyone can influence the standards that we develop, put forth, and decide. [...] It's a more inclusive community than it ever has been before [...]_

<comment> at-fates-hands >>> if the internet and technology does become a danger.

Not sure what his context for this is, but one could easily argue we're already here.

<comment><USER5> The context is the last question, asked by journalist Monika Ermert:

 _> So hi-tech is likely always going to be a domain where a few experts will have the knowledge to understand and control the system. Could it be that the use of hi-tech fundamentally undermines democratic society or kind of – how can we do something to educate users or..._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When Snowden exposed facts about MAC addresses, it's very scary knowing that IoT is coming in our life. I'd like to have a firmware for wireless electronic devices that can use a random MAC address every thirty minutes without using actual spoofing tools that are easy to use only on desktop/laptop/smartphone. I want the same tools for my bluetooth headset, my car wireless devices and so on...

</comment><comment><USER7> This is the first time I've read his point of view first hand and actually listened to his presentation. He seems to be incredibly smart and well-versed in his subject domain.

<comment><USER8> You should take the time and watch the documentary. Its a good perspective of his intentions. You can walk away from it with your own opinions if he did the "right" thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm always struck by the strange cognitive dissonance US law has for corporate whistleblowers vs governmental whistleblowers. How can you recognize the value of one while dismissing the value of the other? It's not like a whistleblower defense is a get-out-of-jail-free card either, as you must prove that what you did was actually in the public interest. It's a shame that there's no movement for reform in this area, because ultimately it would be very interesting to see Snowden return to the US for a "fair trial" and see the public response (both within the US and globally) to the outcome.

<comment><USER10> This doesn't strike me as cognitive dissonance. From the government's perspective, Snowden didn't reveal illegal activity and so is not a whistleblower.

<comment><USER11> The bulk collection of phone metadata (which he exposed) was subsequently ruled unlawful: [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/07/nsa-phone- rec...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/07/nsa-phone-records- program-illegal-court)

<comment><USER12> That's great and all, but what about the other one million+ documents he absconded with _not_ related to the phone metadata record collection?

At what point does he cease being a whistle blower?

<comment><USER13> I feel like this isn't a bad point. Anyone have a response because the whistlerblower tag gets used a lot but he did release a lot that seemed to be normal spying.

<comment><USER14> His argument was that it should be not his decision whether releasing a document is in the public interest, but rather something journalists should take care of (although he did select those journalists himself, so it's not fair to say it's a completely independent process).

Still better than a full dump à la WkiLeaks, but the big question is whether the journalists have the OpSec skills to avoid leaking the documents to other governments.

<comment><USER15> That is an awful defense. You can't just dump all the documents on a journalist and then blame the journalist for what is being released.

It doesn't matter if it was directly or through an intermediary, everything that Snowden gave to journalists, Snowden leaked to the public.

<comment><USER14> I'm not saying that he shouldn't be held responsible if all of those documents were to leak. He did, however, specifically select journalists who already experienced heavy surveillance from state actors and had at least some knowledge of proper OpSec and encryption to mitigate this risk to some degree. He acknowledged that it could leak, but still thought it's a risk worth taking (I can't remember his exact words, I think it was brought up in an interview.)

<comment><USER12> Why should he be the one to decide if the leaking of over a million highly classified documents is a "risk worth taking" to inform Americans of the phone metadata program? Doesn't that seem just odd to you? If I wanted to blow the whistle on a program I thought was illegal, I'd gather supporting documents and evidence of that one program (to include supposed emails I had sent in an attempt to follow the proper "channels" for reporting illegal activity - <AUTHOR> in Snowden's case are conspicuously absent from the data he stole) so as to not discredit my work/sacrifice by leaking magnitudes more than I needed to.

Why not just leak documents related to that one issue? If he had, I would not hesitate in the least to call him a whistle blower, and in fact I think he'd be living as a free man right now if that were the case.

<comment><USER16> First, the reason is because this whistle blowing was /necessary/ due to a /lack of oversight/ and to a lack of eventual release for that oversight to the public.

Second, we don't know the number of potential documents, nor how they may have been divided among those to whom they were disseminated.

Addressing the first point, it should take work and review, on an ongoing basis, to re-affirm the classification of that material. By default there should be a /reasonable/ and /short/ expiration time. If it costs too much to keep those secrets than that in and of it's self is a reason for not HAVING so many secrets to keep!

The cost, otherwise, is to our freedoms; to the very liberty for which our government is supposed to be protecting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When asked about DNSSEC, which is a forklift upgrade of a core Internet protocol that has the deliberate effect of giving NSA and GCHQ control of TLS keys for hosts in .COM, .UK, .NET, .ORG, and .IO, this was Snowden's answer:

 _Edward Snowden: So, I agree with you and I mean this is what 's important about the IETF. Just because I say it, doesn't mean it's gospel. I can be wrong about an incredible amount of things. Nobody should trust me. Nobody should grant any sort of outsized weight to what I say._

 _When I talk about the NSA, I mentioned it in correlation with DANE and the DPRIVE initiative as well because the whole idea is that, yes, providing some mechanism for authentication of the responses between DNS queries is valuable. It 's not an end to itself._

 _We still have to be able to say, "Well, all right, the certificate that you're getting from it, for a server is also reliable," and then we have to actually do more armour the requests themselves to make sure that they don't become a new vector, they don't become manipulated._

 _Who knows like if eventually the DNS responses themselves that are provided through this become some sort of vulnerability because of the way they 're parsed or whatever, but the whole idea is that we gotta start somewhere and then we've got to iterate from that point._

 _We 've gotta begin building and when I think about things like DNSSEC, I don't think it's the golden age, we can solve all of the problems, but I do think that it's a start. It's better than the status quo. It's better than what we have today_

 _And by getting the community thinking, by coming together and trying to develop some kind of solution, some kind of standard, we can start developing things that will allow us to build a bridge to the next generation of what we need to protect us against the next generation of coming attacks, and there 's a lot of things that get in there. I mean cryptographic agility is one of the big hot things that we have to deal with as well._

I can barely follow this at all, but the part where he says DNSSEC is "better than the status quo" is pretty clear. The questioner responds, "so let's implement it".

Please be careful with what Snowden says. Whatever you think of his disclosures --- and most of my friends think they were brave and incredibly useful --- there is very little evidence that Snowden is qualified to advise anyone on cryptographic security, and some pretty significant evidence to the contrary.

<comment> vezzy-fnord _there is very little evidence that Snowden is qualified to advise anyone on cryptographic security_

I think you're poisoning the well here. I haven't seen _anyone_ suggest we should use Snowden as a technical advisor or anything of the sort.

<comment><USER17> This is a weird response to a comment that quotes Snowden at length providing technical advice to the IETF.

<comment> vezzy-fnord From the screening arranger's words:

[https://www.mnot.net/blog/2015/07/20/snowden_meets_the_ietf](https://www.mnot.net/blog/2015/07/20/snowden_meets_the_ietf)

       It's important to point out that this was NOT an official
       IETF event, and neither was it giving external advocacy
       organisations a stage (as some have intimated); rather,
       it was entirely an effort of individuals, working within
       the rules for requesting a room at IETF meetings.

<comment><USER17> I do not recognize the significance of "official" versus "unofficial" IETF events. I don't think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between them. Anyone in the world can show up to an "official" event, or participate in the mailing lists. That's a good thing, but it also means that "unofficial" advocacy and advice is as important as the "official" kind.

<comment> vezzy-fnord The real point is that no advice or consultation was being made, it was purely opinion-based commentary. There is no reason to believe it will affect WG charter, and in fact The Tao of IETF explicitly notes that face-to-face WG meetings aren't of high significance to the actual WG's charter. Snowden recommending DNSSEC isn't going to suddenly suspend all rational judgment in those circles.

<comment><USER17> If you spend some quality time reading IETF mailing lists, you'll learn that it's all "opinion-based commentary". I'm a little confused as to what your argument here is. The IETF works by means of people persuading other people to support proposals. That's the entire mechanism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The interview would've probably been a lot more fruitful if questions centered around what he knows about the surveillance capabilities of the agencies he was involved with, in technical detail, than asking for his opinions on technology policy, an area where he is admittedly not an expert.

<comment><USER19> Other people came away with similar thoughts. Perhaps we'll hear more about that from him in other channels.

<comment><USER20> I thought that Snowden stated that he's not going to leak anything further? He handed it off to the journalists and he's done. I remember this being part of his conditions for asylum in Russia, but I could be mistaken.

I wouldn't expect him to leak anything or discuss government capabilities beyond what has already been leaked. That was never his stated intention. Involving journalists was deliberate on his part to remove himself from being final decision-maker about what to publish.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _The internet doesn 't belong to vendors. The internet doesn't belong to governments.

The internet belongs to the user, right?_

The thing is, this is literally false. The infrastructure of the internet is paid for by governments and vendors. A user wouldn't be called a user if it belonged to them...

The internet is a great decentralization when compared to traditional media like television, but it's not nearly as big a difference as people make it seem. With how most people use it it's not far from just having more channels on your existing cable box.

<comment><USER3> The internet != the infrastructure of the internet. The internet is not its wires, it's the content and the people who are part of a large _global_ community that comprises it. Vendors and governments use the internet, but they don't and shouldn't _own_ it.

> ...it's not nearly as big a difference as people make it seem. With how most > people use it it's not far from just having more channels on your existing > cable box.

You can't write emails on your TV, or do banking, or...well this is just a silly sentiment.

<comment><USER21> > Vendors and governments use the internet, but they don't and shouldn't own > it.

And yet they do: we may play in this sandbox, but we don't make decisions about the infrastructure, we don't make decisions about the law around it etc. This is congruent to the American political and legal system.

As you pointed out, it gets more confusing when you get international, but it's informative to look into how much control the US (and West in general) has over global internet infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Ed's views on Bitcoin are a little surprising. I'm not sure what he means by "nobody likes to talk about Bitcoin any more". It's not that old!

One of the problems Bitcoin solves is that you cannot have personas or unlinked identities in the traditional financial system. Governments, and therefore the banks they control, all view financial privacy or pseudonymity as only useful for criminals. That's a rather narrow viewpoint. Especially as the notion of "criminal" becomes more divergent between ordinary citizens and their rulers. There's some truth to it (anonymity does sometimes enable bad stuff), but it's excessively black and white.

Regardless, given that Snowden views payment methods and such as being very important, he even brought that up himself, I don't know how else he thinks it can be done, other than with Bitcoin. If you try and create a payment method that has privacy the banks won't give you the time of day. Being completely decentralised and independent is the only way to do money that exists outside of the status quo.

<comment><USER23> Bitcoin does _not_ solve this problem; you can follow the money from the exchange to the consumer's wallet to the merchant. It's only anonymous if you're using a tumbling service, and transferring your money to a tumbling service is an unambiguous broadcast to the entire world that you are committing the federal crime of money laundering. If they ever increase in popularity, you can bet that regulators will routinely trace transfers to tumbling services and prosecute their users for money laundering, because that is what they're doing.

<comment><USER24> I am not intimate with US law, but what about altcoin exchanges? I don't think that converting your bitcoins to say Litecoins is illegal.

<comment><USER25> TL;DR: IANAL but money laundering laws are usually designed to prosecute a wide range of methods and usually involve attempting to prove intent as opposed to whitelisting specific methods of laundering.

The long explanation:

It's complicated. US law tends to be specifically designed for one application in mind and then ends up being expanded as new applications rear their heads.

The IRS (tax collection entity for the US federal government) classified BitCoin as an investment a few years ago (as opposed to a currency). This suggests that other non-state created digital crypto-currencies are considered investments as well (IIRC Canada's mint was trying a digital currency, hence the "non-state created" phrase).

Money laundering statutes aren't new enough to know about [1] crypto- currencies, but they are effective with dealing with the conversion of money to products/services and back for the purpose of obscuring the original method of obtaining the currency. I don't know much about money laundering except what I see in movies+TV (specifically Breaking Bad).

I've heard that buying large value gift cards (plastic charge card versions of "gift certificates") are required to be reported to authorities by the retailers.

Recently a school sports coach was prosecuted for violating money laundering statute when he divided up one payment of $10,000+ into multiple smaller < $10,000 payments after his bank started to get suspicious about the nature of the transaction (which is required by US federal law of the bank). He violated the because he altered his payments "to avoid mandated financial institution reporting" of his transfers. Personally I think the mandatory threshold is stupid since people know what it is[2], but I feel no sympathy for the man in this case since the payments were suspected to be him paying off a student that he raped/molested. And yes, I realize that being accused of something is not the same thing as being guilty.

[1] [http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/aml_history.html](http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/aml_history.html) [2] although the US Patriot Act allows federal investigators to use _any_ change in financial habits to trigger an investigation, not just transactions above the $10k level

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Props to Mnot (or whoever did it) for providing links out of the transcript.

<comment><USER19> Thanks, it seemed like the right thing to do :)

I had the transcript done by a professional, and then went over it and corrected. That said, there are still some places where it may have errors, so if you find an odd statement, take it with a grain of salt and check the recording.

Corrections taken in comments, of course (don't think gist does pulls :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I pretty much agree with Marc Andreessen, on each point. Instead of attempting to paraphrase his points, just watch:

[http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/05/snowden-a-traitor- andreessen....](http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/05/snowden-a-traitor- andreessen.html)

</comment><comment><USER28> Wow, he's got me. Reddit, HN _and_ grandma's cookie site!

</comment><comment><USER29> Without blindly claiming that Snowden was a staged act by the NSA and done on purpose to shake things up and ruffle feathers, it certainly is an interesting thought experiment to run if you love conspiracy theories. Imagine that was the case! Possible explanations for a false flag:

1.) Public needed to know where there money was going 2.) Not enough to know we're being watched. We need tangible evidence of surveillance apparatus 3.) Leaks designed to bolster the web and privacy; look how many people suddenly care about security 4.) NSA got tired of working in a black box and wanted to flaunt its power 5.) Other reasons?

</comment><comment><USER30> If a republican is elected, ed might stay away from the US for a long time.

<comment><USER25> To be honest, it doesn't seem to have to do with political party affiliation.

President Obama's administration has been arguably more hawkish against national security disclosures (when they don't benefit the administration) than Bush's was[1], and his administration has set up quite a few cases that involved tapping the communications of journalists.

I liked Candidate Obama quite a bit and am fairly disappointed in President Obama's policies. " The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance "whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers," has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers."[2]

[1] [http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake- tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white- house...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses- espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Currently this story has 108 points and zero comments. Are people literally scared to comment on Snowden stories?

<comment><USER5> Give people some time to read. Also, what's the point in asking for HN comments? Just go read it and provide a good comment on your own!

<comment><USER32> Request for comments and the internet.</comment></comment></comment>


Google secretly logs users into Chrome whenever they log into a Google site - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-secretly-logs-users-into-chrome-whenever-they-log-into-a-google-site/ <comment><USER2> Highly duplicated post.</comment>


Google Chrome's plan to suspend background tabs completely by ~2018 - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18_sX-KGRaHcV3xe5Xk_l6NNwXoxm-23IOepgMx4OlE4 <comment><USER2> This won't cause any "reload" issues, like the ones we were experiencing on mobile browsers not too long ago, will it? Because that would be quite annoying. So Google needs to be careful about how aggressively it intends to implement this. I don't want to see every other "older" tab reload when I click on it. Perhaps reloading the oldest 10% or 20% of the tabs would be fine, but I wouldn't go any further, and they need to do user testing even for those percentages.

<comment><AUTHOR> It sounds like they're not unloading tabs, just suspending them. So the tab will still be loaded when it's in the background, it just won't be able to consume any CPU resources because it's suspended.</comment></comment>


The funniest baseball card ever made - <AUTHOR> https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/27425987/guy-ball-crotch-story-funniest-baseball-card-ever-made <comment><USER2> Articles like that are what the internet is for.

</comment><comment><USER3> Collective bargaining at it's finest.</comment>


Show HN: Photobak – Back up your content from Google Photos - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mholt/photobak <comment><USER2> Totally been looking for something like this. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks very cool! Can't wait to use it.</comment>


Org-mode reference card [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://orgmode.org/orgcard.pdf <comment><USER2> If you want to create your own reference card for any software with org-mode then you will find this useful:

[https://github.com/fniessen/refcard-org- mode](https://github.com/fniessen/refcard-org-mode)

</comment><comment><USER2> I was really hoping that [http://orgmode.org/orgcard.org](http://orgmode.org/orgcard.org) (replacing the .pdf with .org) existed so I didn't have to reinvent the wheel.

I did find [http://orgmode.org/worg/orgcard.html](http://orgmode.org/worg/orgcard.html) though.

<comment><USER3> it does, you just typoed it

[http://orgmode.org/worg/orgcard.org](http://orgmode.org/worg/orgcard.org)

but the reference file is this:

[http://orgmode.org/orgcard.txt](http://orgmode.org/orgcard.txt)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I keep trying to get into org mode, and it never gets a hold of me. Would love to hear what amazing things folks are doing with org mode that can't be achieved, e.g., with markdown.

<comment><USER5> For me it's the editor tools. Keeping my projects/todos/etc in a text file that is organized outliner style is really good, the org specific editor commands makes changing that file easy.

Having the agenda view (calendar) generated, having sparse trees, having spreadsheet like tools, having precise and intuitive folding behaviour make it great.

I don't care at all about the whole org->html pipeline. Who cares. It's not very good and it isn't better than markdown. I get that if you are already in the org world it's nice, but it's not the reason to get into that world.

<comment><USER6> > I don't care at all about the whole org->html pipeline. Who cares. It's not > very good

Sure, you probably wouldn't use it to generate a large, professional website, but I've found it (HTML generation) to be surprisingly customisable and definitely very useful in many cases where one might otherwise write HTML by hand or even in markdown.

> and it isn't better than markdown.

What can markdown do that org cannot? Also, org mode exports to markdown (among many other formats) and its strong support in emacs means the text- editing experience is probably going to be much better than it would be in markdown (in any editor, I would bet).

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty fluent in org and I still just write it up in markdown or with a zen coding plugin or in hiccup. Although I do occasionally export my org stuff to html for one reason or another. It's really list focused obviously but I don't dislike it, it just doesn't solve any problems for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like this card, but orgmode is on 9.0.8 - would be great if it could be updated.

<comment><USER8> Do you have an example or two of changed since since 7.8.11? As someone who started using org-mode at the end of last week, I'd like to make an informed decision on whether or not to go ahead and tattoo this to my forearms, or whether I should wait for an updated version.

<comment><USER9> Org's interface is very stable. I've been using it since version 6 (Emacs 23, ca. 2009), and the next key binding that changes out from under me will be the first.

Go ahead and get the tattoo; you won't be needing to get it lasered off any time soon. :)

<comment><USER7> They could at least update the declared version if nothing has changed...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How do you get your information out of orgmode, e.g: for sharing/collaborating with other people? I find this to be very important as I do it often in Asana.

<comment><USER11> You can convert org-mode documents into LaTeX, html, txt files, etc. pretty easily from within Emacs. The org mode docs explains it. Takes all of 3 seconds when you know how to do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would pay actual dollars for an org-mode spacemacs reference

<comment><USER2> [https://ontologicalblog.com/spacemacs-cheat- sheet-1/](https://ontologicalblog.com/spacemacs-cheat-sheet-1/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> M-x describe-mode</comment>


You Have to Experience It  - <AUTHOR> http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2008/08/16/you-have-to-experience-it/

<comment><USER2> I can't say I'm entirely convinced. Why should people invest serious amounts of time or take a big risk on something they have a rational reason for rejecting?

You don't have to be a heroin addict to make a compelling case against its use.

<comment><USER3> I think the article is aimed at the vocal detractors of technologies they have never touched, not those who reject something based on others' sound analysis. Just make sure your opinion sources have gotten their hands dirty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another post along the lines of "Don't mistake your ignorance of X..."

A great collorary to this is chapter 14 of Huckleberry Finn. I forgot how many times the n-word was in there, however.

</comment><comment><USER5> When people are learning something new, they often go through an opinion- forming phase where they internally argue the merits (or not) of what they do. Hence, the need for vocalisation?

Once they know something well, or are happy with what they know and the decision they have come to for themselves, they do not feel the need to talk about it?

<comment><USER6> I'm thinking most detractors don't even want to try "it", whatever "it" is.</comment></comment>


Nevertheless, She Coded - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/thepracticaldev/nevertheless-she-coded <comment><USER2> The grandstanding is corny at best. Take the first example:

> Despite continued assaults on the credibility of her contributions to modern > computer science as the world's first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace > coded.

Yet in reality she was very much respected in her day, and despite her challenges received widespread support. The first "assaults" on her scope of her contributions came over 100 after her death, and not some sexism she had to fight and overcome.

<comment><USER3> She never attended University. Do you think she just wasn't interested in attending?

<comment><USER4> Women weren't exactly welcomed into universities in the 19th century, even the geniuses.

<comment><USER5> they where explicitly barred until relatively recently

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm frankly quite surprised by the initial wave of comments disparaging this message.

The facts are that women are poorly represented in the tech community[1], and do make less than men[2]. Any attempt to let women feel more accepted and bring about much needed change should be championed, not picked apart and belittled because you feel like you are personally being attacked when people are just asking for help.

1\. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/28/google- release...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/28/google-releases- employee-diversity-figures/9697049/)

2\. [https://www.cnet.com/news/biggest-pay-gap-in-america- compute...](https://www.cnet.com/news/biggest-pay-gap-in-america-computer- programmers/)

<comment><USER7> Perhaps there are disparaging comments because people love to quote misleading statistics... kind of just like you did.

From the glassdoor wage gap study you mentioned in [2]:

> After taking into account differences in education and experience, men > working at tech companies overall make 5.9 percent more than women do

From a brief scan of the study they didn't control for hours worked and they are already down to 5.9%

Since full-time men work 5% longer than full-time women[3] just adjusting for hours worked almost entirely eliminates the gap.

[3] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new- repo...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-report-men- work-longer-hours-than-women/#2f35760118b4)

Edit: Sorry I put the overall adjusted US pay gap of 5.4% when I meant to put the adjusted tech pay gap of 5.9% from the glassdoor study.

<comment><USER8> So... your response to finding an uncorrected variable in the study (which I don't see the value of, honestly, given that tech workers are near-uniformly salaried in this country) is to go out and cherry pick a "correction" from an _entirely unrelated_ study that confirms your worldview? Who's quoting misleading statistics now?

Yeah, I've gone through and scanned that BLS report you linked to (actually you didn't, you linked to Forbes, but this is what they were talking about): [https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf)

It doesn't say what you think it does at all. This isn't a study of men vs. women working identical jobs and doing less work, this is a finding that _across the entire workforce_ , a men's "work day" is somewhat longer than a woman's. Which is to say: Women are more likely to work part time jobs.

<comment><USER7> > which I don't see the value of, honestly, given that tech workers are near- > uniformly salaried in this country

You can't see how working extra hours can increase productivity enough to warrant a small increase in pay?

<comment><USER9> So, would you like me to link in the HUNDREDS of articles posted to HN over the past two years going over how working more does not equate to working better and how hours worked is a bad proxy for productivity. Should I? Or are you going to just concede the point right here and now and retract your statement?

<comment><USER7> Frankly, I don't understand how those hundreds of articles are relevant.

Could you distill the overall argument?

Comparing two individuals based on hours worked is different to looking at populations.

And we aren't talking about 60-80 hour weeks (burnout zone).

Unless you are arguing women as a group are significantly more efficient compared to men?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If ever I had a notion that an expression of solidarity for women in tech was unnecessary or quixotic, the response to this article on this very forum would be sufficient to dispel it.

<comment><USER11> From what I've seen, there are less African-American and non-white hispanic men in tech than there are white and Asian women, yet I never see this discussed. Is this not an important issue as well? Will skewed racial ratios only be handled after gender parity has been achieved? Or do they not matter at all?

<comment><USER12> The same people who call attention to gender diversity also speak out for racial diversity. This particular piece focuses on gender because of today's being International Women's Day.

[http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-cant- silicon-...](http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-cant-silicon- valley-solve-its-diversity-problem)

[http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/20/9179853/tech-diversity- sco...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/20/9179853/tech-diversity-scorecard- apple-google-microsoft-facebook-intel-twitter-amazon)

[https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/thought-on- diversity...](https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/thought-on-diversity- part-2-why-diversity-is-difficult-3dfd552fa1f7#.g7677qfr1)

<comment><USER11> >The same people who call attention to gender diversity also speak out for racial diversity

Why don't I ever see it being discussed on HN?

<comment><USER12> Uh, does it not seem logical that if there are fewer black/Hispanic minorities in tech, that there will be fewer blog posts from that perspective?

But just because you don't ever see it discussed on HN doesn't mean that it isn't. Try out the HN search engine:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=racism&sort=byPopularity&prefi...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=racism&sort=byPopularity&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=african%20american&sort=byPopu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=african%20american&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

Here's a discussion last year on the YC blog post that was titled, "YC Open Office Hours for Black and Hispanic Founders"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228326](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228326)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wish comments were scored in a way that was weighted by the degree of bravery it took to write them.

What a shame that most of the top comments here are boring, stand-up-for-the- vulnerable types agreed with by the majority— "women face difficulties in tech, and we should help them whenever we can"—while the downvoted posts are the ones trying (not necessarily successfully) to arrive at politically incorrect truths.

<comment><USER14> It is incredibly hard to have a good discussion about this topic. I think it is getting better on Hacker News, but there is still a lot of work to do.

I sometimes write about such topics, but can't get much traction. A few of my pieces have gotten a few thousand page views, mostly on HN, but most of what I write is largely ignored. If you want something meatier, you might enjoy my personal blog.

Best.

<comment><USER13> I'll check it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just had a conversation with a friend of mine today about the issues she is facing as a "woman in tech". It was some stuff that really surprised me. On today of all days.

Treatment of women as full-fledged peers is definitely something that needs better attention in our industry.

<comment><USER16> I am always amazed by the stories I hear. It's a common yet toxic mentality where women are told they can't or shouldn't do something, or aren't cut out for STEM because they are female.

I recently saw this surface on HN in the basement of this thread, discussing the appointment of Jennifer Widom as the dean of Stanford Engineering. Many posters speculated, without knowledge of her credentials, that she was unqualified compared to her male peers and only selected because she's a woman.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13779165](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13779165)

I don't know how it escapes them that this attitude is the literal definition of sexism, and that women in tech have to fight this constantly.

I saw it happen all the time in engineering school. I even occasionally see it in workplace. So many of my female classmates and coworkers are talked down to, discouraged and have their skills written off by their male counterparts (nevertheless, they persist). No wonder the share of women in STEM fields dwindles, the culture can be absolutely toxic.

I don't doubt that many people are honestly being unintentionally sexist. But it's on everyone to constructively call out this behavior and support a healthier culture in the school and workplace. At the very least, why would one want to write off the ideas and talent of half the population?

<comment><USER17> There's this nerd fiction favorite called "Snow Crash". I read it early on, and this line always stuck with me:

> _It was, of course, nothing more than sexism, the especially virulent type > espoused by male techies who sincerely believe that they are too smart to be > sexists._

It's really very true.

<comment><USER18> Isn't the genre science fiction?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Loved this anecdote:

[https://dev.to/thepracticaldev/nevertheless-she- coded/commen...](https://dev.to/thepracticaldev/nevertheless-she- coded/comments/459)

> _The first thing I coded was an Everquest 7-page website in plain-old HTML. > I was 15 and I had figured out HTML from right-clicking and wondering if > 'View Source' was how it was made._

I went into computer engineering because I loved video games and wanted to write games. I believe my one of my first webpages was a Final Fantasy fanpage with Microsoft FrontPage, uploaded to my dad's Prodigy web space. I don't know what the actual stats are in terms of girls playing video games, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a correlation between that childhood activity and a later interest in programming.

</comment><comment><USER19> I really wish they would quit promulgating this because it's actually counterproductive:

"women face continued pay disparity"

Seeing this statement tells me _immediately_ that the author is grinding an ax.

In some fields of engineering (EE, for example), women actually get paid more (104% last I checked). And, when you control for experience, time off for family, etc., pay disparities in most tech fields almost disappear.

Complaining about discrimination or harassment? Sure, go for it. Lack of child care and having undue burden with family health issues? The stats back you up.

However, attempting to promulgate something which is not true hurts the overall movement when there is so much that is true and needs to be fixed.

<comment><USER20> > And, when you control for experience, time off for family, etc., pay > disparities in most tech fields almost disappear.

Okay, so spoiler alert, I'm grinding an axe right now.

It's completely ridiculous to imply that analysts are not normalizing for hours worked. That's one of the most basic things they do, and you really should provide proof in the form of a study that both published its methodology and has been done in the last 5 years that didn't account for this, setting aside that one clickbait publicity stunt from Glassdoor. People keep citing other studies that "don't do this" and it's not true, or point to the national average and say that extends to knowledge work and that's absurd.

"The pay gap" is not simply lockstep salary progression. It was just the most obviously unfair and lowest-hanging fruit. That's only the start of it. The fact that women are often passed over for promotion because industries frown on maternity leave, the fact that harassment leaves women with fewer mentorship opportunities, the fact that many environments treat interviews like hazing, all these things add up to create aforementioned gap.

Your quote up at the top _is_ the root of the pay gap. It's your belief that someone who works a reasonable sum of hours but then goes to have a child _should_ be paid less. You believe that someone who takes time off for a reasonable work-life balance or a family emergency _should_ be paid less. That attitude is bad for everyone, but it's especially bad for women in much of western society's current form.

And yes, there are still places where women DO get paid less for the same work. That is not done yet. And until it's so rare that it's unheard of, we're going to keep pointing it out.

<comment><USER21> Can you cite a study that controls for time off, degree type, experience that still shows a large disparity in pay?

 _It 's your belief that someone who works a reasonable sum of hours but then goes to have a child should be paid less._

The question isn't whether someone who takes time off to raise a child should be paid less, it is whether someone with more overall work experience should be paid more. My wife took 10 years off to raise kids. Is she entitled to the exact same salary as a co-worker who continuously worked for that time, increasing their skills? What about a 5 year gap? 1 year?

<comment><USER20> I think the question is, "Can the person do the work and contribute to the environment they're being paid to be a part of." It is not some sort of game where dollars = experience.

From that perspective, the answer should be, "Yes they do deserve equal pay for equal work, why is that so challenging?"

<comment><USER22> Paying people more for having more experience isn't some weird fetish that companies engage in. It's done that way because people with more relevant experience _generally_ get better at the thing they're experienced in (or have more breadth of knowledge, etc). If you try to pay someone with 10 years experience the salary of someone with 1 years' experience, you will either have a very hard time finding people to hire or you will end up hiring someone who is not very good at their job.

So yes, if someone takes 10 years off to raise children or to go yachting around the world or to help sick children, they will probably not command the same salary that their (otherwise identical) co-worker who stayed in the field for those 10 years would command, because they likely won't be capable of "equal work". Anyone doing anything else would be _systematically overpaying their workers_ , and are likely to be out-competed by companies paying market wages.

<comment><USER20> > So yes, if someone takes 10 years off to raise children or to go yachting > around the world or to help sick children, they will probably not command > the same salary that their (otherwise identical) co-worker who stayed in the > field for those 10 years would command, because they likely won't be capable > of "equal work". Anyone doing anything else would be systematically > overpaying their workers, and are likely to be out-competed by companies > paying market wages.

I'm confused by your patronizing tone. You seem to think I don't know that this is common practice.

See, the point of the prior post was: I disagree with this premise. The question should be, "How well does this person do the job" not "how well does this person match my preconceptions about how an expert in this job should look." This is especially the case in the world of software and software products, where we're notoriously bad at identifying talent and educating people.

Anyone who's designed tech interviews with a high technical standard can tell you that years worked is at best a weak signal.

<comment><USER23> > "How well does this person do the job"

And people use experience and continued employment as proxy. Sorry, companies have not figured out a better method in general.

If you only look at women who never married and never had children the pay gap is tiny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Warren violated the rules- it has _nothing_ to do with her gender.

Whether her points are validate or not, the rules were followed as they would have been with any man.

If she wants to get her opinion out, she can hold a press conference outside the Senate or simply call Maddow, like she did- a friendly audience that would allow her to speak as long as they had time for.

<comment><USER25> Said rules are not applied systematically, and there is clear bias in how they are applied.

<comment><USER26> I look forward to your evidence of sexism there then, since otherwise any inconsistency is entirely irrelevant to the "strong woman stood up to men" narrative (and please realize I say that as an enthusiastic Warren supporter).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The whole premise of this article as espoused in the first sentence, seems rather divorced from reality, to me.

<comment><USER28> How do you see that? What do you disagree with?

<comment> aaron-lebo It's the little things.

For example, the inclusion of Elizabeth Warren and McConnell's line. What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun (edit: yodon is right).

Nobody would have paid much attention to it if he'd said "nevertheless he persisted", but a partisan attack was made into something about gender when there's no reason to believe it was so.

What does it really have to do with coding, anyway? It's inclusion says more about the author's goals than it does about the topic.

<comment><USER29> "What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun"

If that were true, then why were the several men who spoke after her, and read the exact same letter, not disciplined?

<comment><USER30> They did not read the part that McConnell objected to as that was already read by Warren.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've handled the hiring of almost all Web developers within my company for the last half decade, and in that time I have hired absolutely zero women. Yet, this has nothing to do with discrimination and much more to do with the applicants themselves and the numbers by which they apply.

During this time, I've seen Web design positions attract females applicants by about a two-thirds majority, whereas Web development positions attract only one in twenty (if that). And yet, those who have applied seem to fit into two distinct categories of undesirables:

First, the designer, with a design degree, who learned to code from some two- week academy that now feels the need to apply for a position well beyond their skill level. Or second, the mathematics major (or similar) who feels their knowledge of topics only related to programming in general is satisfactory enough to hit the ground running as a Web developer of all things...

So I'll be happy to discuss the potential of a wage gap if I ever seem to hire a true female Web developer.

<comment><USER32> In truth, your real issue is you don't value an integrated workplace. Once you decide that it is a top priority to have a diverse workforce, you will find ways to attract, grow, and retain diverse talent.

You clearly have not decided this is important to you, which is your choice. However, because you choose not to pursue it, you are now concluding that you are entirely blameless for your objectively abysmal performance in hiring women. That is not a valid conclusion.

My experience is that once I chose to prioritize hiring women, a bunch of my own hidden biases, assumptions and yes, values, became clear. I realized that I had missed opportunities to hire women in the past. I realized that I had connected values I shared with people I hired as objectively "good" when in fact they just matched mine. I have a high opinion of my skills, so it's perhaps natural that I would do so, but in the end it actively hurt my abilities to recruit a diverse workforce. It was actually quite painful to realize I was the reason for not hiring women in many cases.

The other thing to realize is women, like all humans, have their own biases, and instinctively suss out those organizations that are seriously hiring women, and avoid those that don't. So until you decide that you want to recruit women, _and succeed in doing so_ , you will continue to have a terrible record for hiring women.

<comment><USER31> > Your real issue is you don't value an integrated workplace ...

> You decide that it is a top priority to have a diverse workforce ...

> You will find ways to attract, grow, and retain diverse talent ...

> You clearly have not decided this is important to you ...

> You choose not to pursue it ...

> You are now concluding that you are entirely blameless ...

> I chose to prioritize hiring women ...

> I realized that I had missed opportunities ...

> I realized that I had connected values I shared with people I hired as > objectively "good" ...

> I have a high opinion of my skills ...

> I was the reason for not hiring women ...

In truth, your real issue is that you project your own failures in an amazingly presumptuous manner.

Whereas I merely left a comment detailing my factual observations regarding hiring for a specific type of position advertised equally to both men and women on services like LinkedIn and Craigslist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I couldn't name a single programmer, man or woman who worked on any Apollo mission. The problem is not that women are under-recognized as coders, it's just that engineers as a class of workers are often under-recognized.

Humans just don't care enough about intelligence unfortunately. Everyone knows about Neil Armstrong though.

</comment><comment><USER34> These types of articles seem to always get the same mixture of responses. The biggest problem that I see is that everyone starts with completely different sets of assumptions and they are almost never up front about them.

The lack of cited sources in articles like these leads people to bolster or criticize particular studies that they have read or heard about, usually without referencing those. Many of these studies are either flawed or contain assumptions that some people don't agree with, so this ends up going nowhere also.

Are there any really good studies on this topic that we may discuss as a common point of reference? Once that take into account all the facts, and don't start with assumptions like the following:

1\. There should be equal numbers of men and women in tech (or there is some other ratio that is preferred or correct). 2\. Women and men in tech should - on average - be paid the same.

Some people have these assumptions as part of their personal belief systems, but they entail a whole bunch of other assumptions that are not prima facie true.

One other huge weakness in these kinds of studies is that they measure the things that are easy to measure; things like education and experience. If companies are hiring compensating employees rationally, they would use these only as heuristics, and have some measure of how much an individual employee would contribute to the company as the determining factor.

Measuring job skill, as well as all the other skills that go into being a good employee is really hard, but until a study tries to actually do this, they are coming up with conclusions that aren't at all useful in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER35> > Gender inequality has permeated the technology and computer science fields > since their earliest beginnings.

It's true. The earliest "computers" were overwhelmingly women.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer#Wartime_computi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer#Wartime_computing_and_the_invention_of_electronic_computing)

<comment><USER36> Those were secretarial jobs and not equivalent to today's computer programmers, like Ada Lovelace.

<comment><USER37> Those were secretarial jobs because the men designing the hardware thought that was the hard stuff, and that designing software was basically secretarial work. When they discovered that designing software was hard, they forced the women out. [http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/researcher-reveals- how-...](http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/researcher-reveals- how-%E2%80%9Ccomputer-geeks%E2%80%9D-replaced-%E2%80%9Ccomputergirls%E2%80%9D)

<comment><USER38> It's a common pattern throughout history and one that really annoys me. People argue that the pay gap isn't real because men choose more highly-valued positions, but the reality is that positions favoured by women are inherently considered low-value. If some type of "women's work" somehow starts to become respectable or starts to pay better, it stops being "women's work" and the women are pushed out. If women start entering a respectable field and the field becomes "women's work", it stops being respectable. You can see it with the salaries of doctors in Russia, and the narrowing definition of what is considered "hard science" or STEM as women enter these fields in the US. It has very little to do with how difficult or important the work is.

<comment><USER39> I'm curious, what used to be considered a "hard science" that is now no longer considered so due to (or corralated with) the influx of women into that field?

<comment><USER40> There might be confusion about causality here. Generally women find more success in a field that's not jammed full of highly competitive men who push anyone weaker out of the way. Where they move on to some other target, the playing field becomes more fair.

<comment><USER41> Your theory sounds more plausible to me. I'm male and find an all-male environment incredibly competitive, toxic and tiring to myself. It's very hard to get reasonable discussions and almost always degenerates into competition.

So I can imagine that you just bail if you aren't conditioned to put up with that kind of crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> There are disparities in pay and representation between men and women in the tech industry, favouring men. Are we then to work to create parity in pay and representation between men and women in the fastest possible way? Some people say yes. Some people say companies need to immediately go out of their way to hire more women, hire a more racially diverse staff and carefully calibrate their pay so that, ideally, your company diversity is a reflection of the diversity of the country you're in. But to me this seems really really wrong. Is it because I'm bigoted? Maybe. I don't think it's just that though, I honestly think its a really unfair approach, my own regrettable biases aside. To do that to tech would be unfair to many people, and also, would only be because tech is lucrative.

</comment><comment><USER43> "continued pay disparity"

here we go...

<comment><USER44> I studied economics in college, and worked with a professor who was researching the "pay gap".

We found that adjusting for a number of factors (profession, experience, education, etc.) the pay gap actually closes significantly.

That isn't to say some companies _don 't_ have pay gap, but it is largely overblown and often dissimilar pay is a result of other factors.

tl;dr 70 cents on the dollar is not a real thing when you use your data correctly (at least in USA).

<comment><USER45> If men become doctors and women become nurses, or if men become Software Engineers and women become Test Engineers, then there's still something wrong with the world.

"Adjusting for profession" ignores the cultural context of terms like "pay gap" \-- we come from a world where women couldn't work certain jobs at all.

<comment><USER46> > If men become doctors and women become nurses, or if men become Software > Engineers and women become Test Engineers, then there's still something > wrong with the world.

Imagine that doctors and nurses were paid the same. Would you still think that?

Other than salary, neither being a doctor or a nurse is "better". One is more technical, the other involves more personal contact, but neither of those is better, just different.

The same is true for Software Engineers and Test Engineers. It's snobbery to say one is better.

We should be lobbying to get nurses paid more.

<comment><USER47> This is sarcasm, right?

<comment><USER48> "Higher skill" would be a better description, although I'd say the gap is a lot smaller with test engineers than nurses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I personally don't find anything flag worthy in this. Can the mods please unflag this?

<comment><USER20> I concur. There is nothing flagworthy here. This is only controversial because people doing flagworthy things are trying to inject politics into a celebration of people who write code and build software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> > Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) had arrived on the Senate floor on Tuesday, > Feb. 8, 2017 to debate the confirmation of attorney general nominee Jeff > Sessions.

Feb 8, 2017 was a Wednesday, not a Tuesday.

</comment><comment><USER51> Why was this flagged?

</comment><comment><USER52> Don't recruiters keep stats on the offers and demographics that people get?

I had heard wage gap wasn't an accurate disparity in software engineering jobs. Like there isnt a cabal of people at every company conspiring against equally qualified candidates based on gender.

In HIRED's report it seemed more common that people underbid themselves, and more often than not the company still gave people higher offers if they had underbid but these were still lower offers than for people that bid higher or overbid.

Lets work on it but we have to get the discussion right first. I think villifying a sexist boogeyman isn't going to get us anywhere if a persistent reality is more nuanced.

<comment><USER53> I think we have to be really careful to avoid putting words in other people's mouths with these things.

> I think villifying a sexist boogeyman isn't going to get us anywhere

I don't think anyone is denying that sexist rhetoric exists, or that a pay gap exists. It could be "vilifying a sexist boogeyman" to say that one is primarily caused by the other, and it's fair to criticize articles that say that. But I don't think this article says anything like that. I think it addresses them separately.

<comment><USER52> The article is based on the circumstances that perpetuate a wage gap under the guise that the awareness of gender discrimination applies to wages for programmers.

I like the cause: awareness of gender discrimination, harassment and awareness of contributions in the workforce.

I think the wage gap is tangential to these circumstances, when there is evidence to the contrary for equally qualified individuals in software engineering roles. This isn't saying that gender based averages won't reveal the existence of a gap, it is saying that the current discussion misses the mark, as if this is a form of harassment that is either deliberate or unconscious bias that people simply aren't aware of, when there are other circumstances that are more nuanced and likely more prevalent, in the field of "coding".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I'm desperate to push the "women aren't victims" narrative.

If we tell them they're victims enough then they'll believe it. There is evidence of this in other things for instance refugees who are told that they're victims are less likely to integrate.

I'm more focused on pointing out that we're all equal. If you're a woman on my team, I'm incredibly sorry but I'm not going to celebrate your feminity any more than I'd celebrate my other colleagues manliness. You do your job and I'll reward everyone with good pay, a bonus and a cake or two.

<comment><USER55> Your comments in this thread have broken the site guidelines which ask you not to do classic flamewars "unless you have something genuinely new to say". This isn't new—it's a tedious trope we've all heard a zillion times and nothing is to be gained by repeating it. Please don't do this here.

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

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13821991](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13821991) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER54> I'm geniuinely not trying to bait or flamewar, but what's the trope I'm parroting?

I haven't seen people using the same arguments as me before.

Unless you're referring to my refugee sentence which has, at least some, connections to reality[0]

[0]: [http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4fe039762.pdf](http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4fe039762.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> The only reason this garbage gets published is because it's trendy to discriminate against white males.

<comment><USER57> Can you quantify this discrimination?

<comment><USER56> [http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tax-incentives-using- minority...](http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tax-incentives-using- minorityowned-business-30659.html)

<comment><USER56> [http://abc7.com/education/race-based-school-budget-cuts- spar...](http://abc7.com/education/race-based-school-budget-cuts-spark- outrage-in-noho/1818792/)

<comment><USER56> [http://www.fox5dc.com/news/244420583-story](http://www.fox5dc.com/news/244420583-story)

<comment><USER56> [http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/black-lives-matter- philly-...](http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/black-lives-matter-philly-bans- white-people-from-its-meetings/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> This is the first thread of hn that I would label as cancer.

"Pay gap is fake" "Prove it" _Cites stuff_ "Unrelated/invalid" *Conversation derails

Scrollinf half way, i saw this easily 5 times.

It's as if people stick to their beliefs despite any arguments that are made.</comment>


Why are Google Search URLs so terrible? - <AUTHOR> http://steobrien.github.io/google-search-urls.html

<comment><USER2> Google perform a vast amount of tests for various groups of its users at any given time. These parameters are used to help them know what part of that group the user is, and probably other things.

Sure, there URLS aren't useful for us, but they are for them, sharing a Google search result isn't as easy anymore, but who tends to do that anyway? You'd probably end up with different results if you're logged in to a Google Account and the location you're from.</comment>


Bitcoin passes 10,000 USD - <AUTHOR> https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts <comment><USER2> In the beginning, there was this wonderful vision of making Bitcoin the currency of the future. I loved that. Now it's just all greed. Bitcoin will go the moon, that's all that matters now. Guess what, you can't create value out of thin air. Bitcoin is useless, you can't do anything with it, except buying and waiting that others buy after you so the price rises up: that's pretty much the definition of speculation.

<comment><USER3> > _Bitcoin is useless, you can 't do anything with it_

There's a cafe down the street from me that accepts Bitcoin. I could literally buy a meal with it right now.

It may not be rational, but it has actual utility.

<comment><USER4> Given that BTC transactions take time (and high fee), how does it work for cafes or any micro transactions of this kind?

<comment><USER5> How it (generally) works now: intermediaries pay the restaurant in fiat the equivalent price in BTC on the time/day of the transaction. They facilitate the trade without the restaurant needing to worry about price fluctuations or digital currency exchanges.

How it may work in the future: Off-blockchain processing solutions like the Lightning network (1) have been proposed to decentralize some degree of transactions.

However, this inevitably takes some of the power away from the miners/those who make money off every transaction fee. This has in essence been the struggle/division behind many of the most recent forks or proposed forks; a tradeoff between scale and economics for those that are generating coins or facilitating transactions.

The Bitcoin drama is far from over, and for it to be anything other than (primarily) a store of value in the longer term will require significant technical changes. In fact, at this point, no existing cryptocurrency can support the scale of, say, VISA. It's early days and the race to solve this problem (or fail) is a fascinating drama to watch.

1\. [https://cointelegraph.com/explained/lightning-network- explai...](https://cointelegraph.com/explained/lightning-network-explained)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A lot of "fear of missing out" discussion in this thread. Keep in mind that calling market tops is a tricky business. If bitcoin crashes (as it often does after meteoric rises), it will no longer look smart to have invested at many times/price points.

There's a mania to the current market, but that's not enough information on its own to predict the size or timing of a correction. The cryptocurrency markets can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent, just like normal markets.

<comment><USER7> I've struggled with the FOMO myself, mostly because I've watched it so long (or like to tell myself I knew about bitcoin earlier than the average person), but I came to the same realization that I think is critical:

Bitcoin is just like other stores of value that fluctuate in price based on some mix of speculation and "actual" value. If you're FOMOing about Bitcoin, why not fear missing out about bluechip stocks? or owning real estate? or futures? or bullion?

It is true that creation events for stores of value don't happen just happen every year/decade/century but I wonder why the FOMO around Bitcoin is so acute (for me at least)... it's like a penny stock that I feel like I should have known was going to pop

[EDIT] - bouillon -> bullion

<comment><USER8> what's FOMO

<comment><USER9> "fear of missing out" in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think a lot of negativity here towards bitcoin comes from not getting in earlier, I had the chance to get in 2016 but I didn't, I was an idiot, other than this we should support it, because f... the banks, money printing, corrupt governments... etc.

<comment><USER11> I once thought Bitcoin could be useful and be used as a currency. I loved that idea and even used it as such in its infant phase for meaningless fun.

What it is now is a disgrace.

<comment><USER12> Which coin can be used as a currency today? Ethereum, Stellar Lumen, Monero?

Bitcoin has become to slow and expensive (transactions) for that...

<comment><USER13> Ethereum isn't inherently better as a currency. It still has the same scaling limits as bitcoin, just lower utilization at this point.

<comment><USER14> It has much higher limits though.

Bitcoin is limited to a fixed blocksize and ASIC mining while Ethereum has a dynamically adjusting blocksize to fit the network usage and capabilities.

And IIRC Ethereum is atm handling more Transactions than Bitcoin and ETH TX are arguably more complex, yet the network hasn't broken apart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here is a list of some of the money-like assets the world needs to function everyday. People everywhere use these assets both for transacting with each other and for storing wealth.

      Current market capitalization in US dollars:

      Global money supply (broad)              over $90.0 trillion [a]
      US dollar money supply (M2)                   $13.8 trillion [b]
      Euro money supply (M2)                        $13.2 trillion [c]
      All coins and banknotes in circulation         $7.6 trillion [d]
      All gold ever mined                            $7.1 trillion [e]
      Bitcoin                                  under $0.2 trillion [f]

We could debate forever whether any of these assets is "fairly valued" or not, but surely everyone here agrees that if all of them suddenly disappeared, the global economy would ground to a halt and modern society would collapse. Together, these and other money-like assets provide immense value to humankind.

Compared to the other money-like assets on the list, Bitcoin is very different. Like gold, Bitcoin's continued existence doesn't depend on the good management of any national economy; however, it depends on the continued existence of the Internet. Unlike the other assets on the list, bitcoins are digital so they can be encrypted, backed up, emailed, etc. Finally, bitcoins will always be scarce -- no more than 21 million bitcoins will ever exist. Bitcoin is truly a new kind of money-like asset.

The trillion-dollar question is, to what extent does the world need, to function in the 21st century, a money-like asset with Bitcoin's unique characteristics?

Sources: [a] [http://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets- one-v...](http://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one- visualization-2017/) [b] [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2) [c] [http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000003501](http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000003501) [d] [http://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets- one-v...](http://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one- visualization-2017/) [e] [https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/08/17/how-does- bitcoins-...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/08/17/how-does-bitcoins- market-cap-stack-up-next-to-gold.aspx) [f] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/)

<comment><USER12> So in the absolute best case 1 Bitcoin will be worth the equivalent of $6.5 million of todays usd?

<comment><USER16> I don't think so, since you can just create a bitcoin-based security and voila - the supply is now unlimited.

<comment><USER17> Nah, there are still just 21 million bitcoin. Nice try though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> 13 days ago I said it was a good idea to buy in at $5800: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679776](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15679776)

72 days ago I said to buy in at $3k: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15259134](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15259134)

Both times people were skeptical. I'm not sure there's any moral to this, but it's been an interesting few months.

<comment><USER19> When is a good time to sell?

<comment><USER12> Shortterm, probably right now. It will fall down to at least $9700 in the next few hours/days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> My Dad was asking me about Bitcoin the other day, he's been receiving spam emails to the point where it's surfacing on his radar as something to be curious about.

Not sure if that means the ship has sailed now, or that BTC is hitting the mainstream.

</comment><comment><USER21> John McCafee on twitter: "It amazes me that human beings can deceive themselves. Bitcoin has been doubling every month for the past three months, yet an analyst suggests that it might grow, in the next 8 months, by 12%. They opened the door to the new world, but brought the rules from the old world."

<comment><USER22> He also said he would eat his own d*ck if it didn't get to $500k in 3 years, the guy's a bit crazy.

[https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/887024683379544065...](https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/887024683379544065?lang=en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> How does everyone here buy/exchange bitcoin without giving every little bit of detail about themselves (e.g. bank account, driver's license, etc) away? Every time I look into it to buy online, I'm amazed by the sheer amount of PII information I would have to expose.

</comment><comment><USER24> 2017 is the first year [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard) is implemented. The rich need somewhere new to store their offshore cash.

</comment><comment><USER25> Meanwhile Ethereum just broke 600K txs in one day. A much more useful metric IMO. Bitcoin's price rise has decoupled from its transaction volume growth:

[https://i.redd.it/dreefk5ggkzz.png](https://i.redd.it/dreefk5ggkzz.png)

<comment><USER17> Guess what has to happen to maintain or increase value transfer when you have reached a limit on blocksize.

Ding ding ding! You guessed it!

The price must rise. The utility has not degraded and just looking at 'number of transactions' is not useful. Just because I can move some arbitrary number of units in a given timeframe does not mean my unit is more valuable. Banks can move way more than 600k USD transfers in a day.

<comment><USER25> >>Guess what has to happen to maintain or increase value transfer when you have reached a limit on blocksize. Ding ding ding! You guessed it!

No, the price rise is not in any way conditioned on the block size being limited. Whether $1 billion worth of coins is being moved via 1 million or 1 thousand txs has no bearing on what the per coin price has to be. All that matters is the value moved and the number of coins doing the moving.

>>The utility has not degraded and just looking at 'number of transactions' is not useful.

Being limited to larger value transactions with higher fees hugely degrades utility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Anyone have any idea why it exploded like this recently?

<comment><USER27> From my perspective, nothing fundamental has changed about the Bitcoin situation since it was priced at about $1000. I suspect that some inevitable catastrophe is going to eventually cause a massive selloff. Per usual.

I have plenty of FOMO for not buying a couple years ago. But not trying to jump on the bandwagon now.

<comment><USER28> If you had bought in a couple years ago would you have been the type to sell out a year ago?

While I regret not grabbing a couple extra coins back in 2013 when I was playing with BTC I know for a fact I'd have cashed out in the hundreds. If not then definitely would have when it was worth $1000/1BTC

<comment><USER27> > If you had bought in a couple years ago would you have been the type to sell > out a year ago?

Probably so! Either that, or I'd be dollar cost averaging through the booms and busts and it wouldn't matter anyway. That's why I don't really kick myself over it.

I keep going back to my fundamental beliefs:

\- There's definitely _something_ to the underlying technology.

\- It has _not yet_ impacted the life of anyone I know, aside from its fluctuating price. So basically, it's had about the same impact as sports betting.

\- It's yet not clear to me whether trustlessness is worth it. (i.e. whither Bitcoin, Ethereum, or permissioned blockchains)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm hardly an expert on Bitcoin but was is glaringly obvious over the past month has been the highly speculative betting on Bitcoin. This run up seems like a musical chairs and when the music stops there will be a lot more standing counting their losses. #JustKeepinItReal

<comment><USER30> Its actually built into blockchain currencies, that no regulation is even possible. Until they come up with a feedback mechanism, I'm staying the hell away from them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Yesterday already on South Korea-based bitcoin exchanges: [https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-price-tops-10000-korean- exc...](https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-price-tops-10000-korean-exchanges/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Even if it's not > 10k on all markets it's gonna get there in the next hours

<comment><USER33> I said that confidently yesterday when it surged to 9800 but here we are 12 hours later, still at 9800 (at least on my exchange!)

The sell wall at 10k is pretty huge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What caused it to go to 10,000?

The news that it went to 9,000?

Hm.

<comment><USER35> This caused it - [http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=3MbYQMMmSkC3AgW...](http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=3MbYQMMmSkC3AgWkj9FMo5LsPTW1zBTwXL)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Seems like Bitcoin's main use cases are for 1) accepting payments online for businesses that might not otherwise be authorized to do so (illegal stuff), and 2) avoiding currency controls for moving money across borders.

<comment><USER37> Agreed. There's no other valid use case. For anything lawful, there's cheaper, more convenient, more stable alternatives and at the end of the day governments demand people pay taxes in their official currencies. If you want to have a house in the US, you need to pay USD to the government. The total land value of the US is conservatively in the tens of trillions, and the total amount of taxation in general, when adding up all the levels of government, is about 40% of GDP. You can talk all day about network effects, but guess which currency is going to get them... the one with trillions in compulsory demand, or the one that does not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The claim that bitcoin is useless is not valid. In fact, the anonymity of bitcoin might be of huge value to the "dark side": drug dealers, tax evaders, porn viewers, ... You name it.

These hidden markets, though usually under radar of the public, could contribute significantly the bitcoin's market cap.

Btw, this weekend I hacked together to chatbot to send me bitcoin-related news alert. Feel free to try it out:

[https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/1503071509774319](https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/1503071509774319)

<comment><USER39> Nowadays Bitcoin is much less anonymous than it once used to be - the nature of its blockchain is inherently transparent and I imagine every large law enforcement agency in the world has resources allocated towards blockchain analysis. All the cool kids are buying their drugs with Monero now, since its blockchain allows for a much greater degree of anonymity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Ah, will my kids ever believe me if in the future I will tell them that I once had a whole 50BTC block on my USB flash drive?

<comment><USER41> Is there any kind of utility to search for a Bitcoin wallet on a hard drive? I am fairly sure I gambled everything I had in Bitcoin from 2013/2014 and I have not used it since. But I just want to double check!

<comment><USER42> find wallet.dat

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> admins: imo this post should not be penalized because it includes bitcoin in the title. This is a pretty huge milestone and deserves some time on the front page.

</comment><comment><USER43> And everytime I see a new height beaten I think to myself - "too late to buy now, gonna pop any day now".

Still, I have high hopes for cryptos to overtake the current financial system and end the bubble-crash cycle

<comment><USER44> I always regret the first time that intended to buy years ago, it was $2, didn't like the broker site, looked too shady.

<comment><USER45> It was probably MtGox and it was indeed shady.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> when there's noone left to offer currency, will goods be offered and inflate the price further?

</comment><comment><USER47> Not yet. Whatever that crap site is.

<comment><USER48> That "crap site" is in the top 500 for traffic now lol

<comment><USER49> Tangentally related but, I once saw a Medium post on r/entrepreneur or r/smallbusiness and left a fairly derisive comment about the site in the comments. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was made by the co-founder of Twitter!

<comment><USER48> did not know that!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Navy powers model plane using fuel made from sea water - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iavz7AnKI8I

<comment><USER2> More details in: [http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale- model...](http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii- craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept)

At first I thought it was fake, but it's apparently legit, but perhaps they need still a few years to make it practical.

They use the CO2 and H2O to produce fuel. They don't explain this clearly, but this use a ton of electricity. My guess is that they expect to plug this to a nuclear reactor in the ship and the main problem in the middle of the sea is to get the atoms to produce the fuel.</comment>


Bedrock: a modern WordPress stack - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/roots/bedrock

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm one of the creators of this (we're the same people behind [http://roots.io](http://roots.io)) so I'm happy to answer any questions. We're just trying to make developing WordPress sites a little more bearable :)

<comment><USER2> Hi, I have not written a single of line of php. How hard would it be to get started with a Ruby/Node/.NET background?

<comment><USER3> You probably won't have too hard a time. With that background, your main challenge will be overcoming the wave of nausea that will sweep across you when you realize that WordPress is a gigantic mass of procedural code studded with inconsistently documented hooks and filters rather than something with a nice, clean, easily extensible OO architecture. But with liberal applications of patience and Pepto-Bismol, this feeling eventually passes.

<comment><USER4> I believe WordPress is moving forward. Here is just one of the many OO classes. You can also do OO in plugin development as well.

[https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp- includ...](https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp- includes/class-wp.php)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. It looks like this completely circumvents the normal user- configurable WordPress plugins and update architecture, such that the only way to change anything is to update it in the source tree and redeploy like you would with a normal monolithic app. I feel like this might be kinda impractical for a lot of the cases where you would normally want to use WordPress, but I suppose in the right situation it would be nifty.

<comment><AUTHOR> Correct. It's definitely targeted towards developers and WP sites that are controlled by them rather than front-end users.

It's usually not a great idea to let normal users install plugins and update WordPress. For an analogy, you definitely wouldn't have users installing Gems in a Rails app.

<comment><USER6> > It's usually not a great idea to let normal users install plugins and update > WordPress. For an analogy, you definitely wouldn't have users installing > Gems in a Rails app.

that's not the same thing, Installing a gem wont magically add a feature to your rails app. Non developpers cant do it either(let alone deploying any ruby app on a server).Installing Plugins on wordpress dont require any developper knowledge.

<comment><AUTHOR> Obviously it's not the exact same, but my argument is they should be _treated_ the same (when possible). First, a lot of WP plugins do require some dev work to integrate. Second, non-developers have no idea what a plugin might change. It could easily break your entire site.

Plugins should be installed on dev/staging and tested before just adding them in production. Plugins in WP are a double-edged sword.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not a big deal, but in case you weren't aware:

[http://bedrocklinux.org](http://bedrocklinux.org)

It was posted here a few months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6504878](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6504878)

<comment><USER8> I thought maybe paradigm got tired of Linux and picked up Wordpress when I saw this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks nice. Special kudos for managing much of the wp-config though the built in config constants.

Only thing I don't like is the renaming of the root `wp-config` folder to `app`. I'd much rather have the app reflect the underlying wordpress conventions than to change it to look like something else. Yeah, consistency, but boo for barrier of entry or having to remember that `app` == `wp-config` when not everything we get to work on will get to use the shiny fandangled tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Even Mark Jaquith's (WP core team member) WP Skeleton ([https://github.com/markjaquith/WordPress- Skeleton](https://github.com/markjaquith/WordPress-Skeleton)) renames it to `content`. If that's the only thing you don't like, then you can easily just fork it and rename app to wp-content and change the couple config settings :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been using a similar setup with Pomander and the Pomander-Wordpress plugin. It's got a similar setup, but is 100% PHP-based, so I don't need to have ruby on all my servers. Been using it in production on about 15 servers for well over a year, and I'm pretty happy with it.

[http://ripeworks.com/pomander/wordpress.html](http://ripeworks.com/pomander/wordpress.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I looked at Pomander briefly before. It would be nice to use a pure PHP solution and eliminate the Ruby dependency. So I'll have to give Pomander a better look and if it works well, I have no problem replacing Capistrano with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it possible to still use the Composer-goodness of this stack with your own deployment (or something like ftploy)?

How do you guys handle database syncing / deployment / rollback (if at all)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course! If you read down the README there's a section on every part about how to remove it if you don't want it. So you can either just not use Capistrano or remove the files it uses as well.

We don't do anything about DB syncing for now. That's next big thing once we get the Vagrant/server config work done. It's a popular topic but also complicated since everyone has different use cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Any thoughts on creating docker images as alternative to capistrano ? There's a couple of projects that can help on it (a Dockerfile could help on it) Good job :)

</comment><comment><USER13> wow, this is so nice, i don't like wordpress, but this changes everything

Thanks!!</comment>


Ecdsa vs. RSA - <AUTHOR> https://www.ssl.com/article/comparing-ecdsa-vs-rsa/ <comment><AUTHOR> This was posted a couple years ago, but there was no discussion. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17798495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17798495)

Is that article accurate? Which would you use in 2020?</comment>


Wolf Pups That Play Fetch - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/science/wolves-fetch-dogs-domestication.html <comment><USER3> I always figured that the "playing fetch" behavior was just the dog (or wolf, I suppose) figuring out that it gets to chase the thing again if it brings it back to the thrower. If you teach a dog to play fetch, it has no problem instinctively chasing the thing. It's the bringing it back that has to be trained. But once the dog gives it back, it suddenly learns that it gets to chase the thing again, which is fun and rewarding. Eventually you might be minding your own business but as soon as the dog finds the ball, it will bring it to you. The dog plays fetch because you're going to throw the ball, not because you already did throw it.

<comment><USER4> I did search and rescue training with dogs in the army and we always had to start things off with a toy to get the dogs "into it", even in "sharp" situations. But once they were started everything was like a game for them, they'd run ("play") until they couldn't anymore. You'd have to stop them.

If you're ever in a SAR situation and a dog finds you, you should be prepared for a little rough treatment from it. It'll likely jump all over you, be up in your face and all that. It's just looking for the toy, and when it find out you don't have it, it'll move on, calm down or go back to the owner. And it'll bark a lot. Like a lot. It's not out of anger or anything, it's just what it has been told to do when it thinks it has found what it was supposed to find. I've had a dog tear my entire goretex uniform to pieces looking for the toy when we were both trapped deep under snow. Good times!

<comment><USER5> What would happen if you coincidentally had a dog toy on you?

Maybe that'd be good for avoiding accidental mangling, but if it means it skips the barking and alerting step then maybe it's not the best idea

<comment><USER6> For the most part, SAR dogs (and similar working dogs) are trained to view specific toys as incredibly high-value. For whatever play they really enjoy - fetch, tug-of-war, etc - they'll have a particular toy which only comes out in connection with "work" and always heralds praise and a play session with their trainer. Since SAR breeds are smart, high energy, and a bit intense, their reaction to that toy/event can be startlingly strong.

The goal is essentially to avoid this issue: a dog toy is unlikely, but maybe the subject has a peanut butter bar in their pocket, and that shouldn't derail the rescue. So ideally the desire for the work reward will outweigh basically anything found _during_ work (squirrels, food, other toys, or even bad stimuli like loud noises), even if those things would be awesome to the dog when they're not "on the job".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's interesting that many cats, too, play fetch completely intuitively, no training required.

<comment><USER8> My cat is weirdly smart and he will play fetch. He's really good at figuring out whatever new "game" I'm trying to play with him. Some more examples of his social intelligence:

\- He will play tricks on me. He's learned to paw at the patio door to show that he wants to be let outside. If I'm standing outside and he's inside the patio door, he will paw at the door as if he wants to be let out, and then run away as soon as I open the door. He will do this over and over and turn it into a game.

\- He's VERY vocal and has some understanding of how a conversation works - <USER2> talk, then you talk. I only realized this because he hates car rides, and this is the only time he interrupts me.

\- He's really good at understanding tone and body language, so usually he can figure out what I'm trying to tell him to do, even if it's a new situation using new words. For example, I was outside while he was playing, and a neighbor walked up to say hello. I told him "it's ok, you can go say hi" and he walked up to her and sniffed her hand.

It's really weird, I knew cats were intelligent but I had no idea until I got this cat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interestingly, my cat started to bring pieces of her food to me so I can throw it and she can pretend it's live pray she is catching. This behavior emerged suddenly out of nowhere without prior training.

I bet many pet owners can share same anecdotal evidence of certain level of social intelligence which, I think, is not widely accepted in scientific community.

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe related to "Belyayev's Fox Experiment": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22143748](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22143748)

</comment><comment><USER11> Non-paywall: [http://archive.ph/5OBeO](http://archive.ph/5OBeO)

<comment><USER12> Interesting question here: I can resolve archive.ph just fine, but archive.today doesn't work due to the ongoing issus with Cloudflare DNS (18.104.22.168). Anyone know why?

<comment><USER13> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm going to guess that the "fetch" reflex may have its roots in wolves chasing after bones humans around a campfire may have tossed to sate the wolves' appetites and keep them at bay.

Maybe bringing the bones back was a way of "nicely" letting humans know that more bones would be appreciated/required to keep living.

You often see wolves circle around humans around a fire in movies and books.

Maybe it's a symbiotic relationship like a remora/shark, or even parasitic like an oxpicker/large mammal.

*edit - Some people are very liberal with downvotes, especially for lighthearted conjecture that is not obviously wrong or intellectually misleading. Got any better ideas?

<comment><USER15> You're probably being downvoted for telling a just so story: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just- so_story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story) . It's a particularly pernicious trap when trying to understand behavior and evolution!

<comment><USER16> I really hope "just-so story" isn't going to be the new thought-terminating cliché we see everywhere.

<comment><USER17> The just-so story is itself thought-terminating, insofar it presents a conjecture as _that 's just what it is_ (it's just so), without asking the right questions to connect to.

<comment><USER18> The story itself is not the thought-terminating cliche, labelling it as such (especially with no attempt to engage or correct the poster of it) is.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


McDonald's paper straws cannot be recycled - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49234054 <comment><USER2> For me as long as they are biodegradable, then that's ok. Recycling them isn't that much of issue. It's the plastic materials that are introduced to the ecology and do not biodegrade in the short term that is problematic.</comment>


Great picture of a tornado track near Sturbridge - <AUTHOR> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=50854 <comment><USER2> That is quite awesome.

And that seems to be an extraordinarily long track.</comment>


Ask HN: Why is Google so bad at UI Design? - <AUTHOR> Have you ever looked at a google product and thought.why thats a nicely designed product? I doubt many of you have. I just want to get an understanding, from a company that attracts the best talent. Why are they still producing such underwhelming designs? <comment><USER2> The Marissa Mayer effect still lingering? And a culture of data proofs over creative experimentation? So it's not that the UI is bad - is just stereotypically "Google" and has been homogenized to emphasize technical features over customer delight. A better question is why customer service capabilities have lagged so significantly.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why are you assuming that everyone agrees with you? Maybe we reject your premise.

</comment><comment><USER4> Simplicity

<comment><AUTHOR> Simplicity maybe...but elegant? no

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Troll harder

<comment><AUTHOR> Im not sure what you mean here?</comment></comment>


Code Questions Twitter Bot - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/CodeQBot <comment><AUTHOR> For all Devs! Meet other devs while learning and helping each other learn.</comment>


Nvidia is reportedly in 'advanced talks' to buy ARM for more than $32B - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2020/7/31/21349332/nvidia-talks-buy-arm-processor-mobile-deal-32-billion-softbank-purchase-rumor <comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure it's a super smart move by Nvidia, but it would certainly help them in the short term, particularly because a ton of analysts and hedge funds and the like would read this as "Nvidia becoming a leader in the CPU space".

Let's all remember that Apple has a perpetual license from ARM, and that ARM doesn't generate TONS of revenues in absolute terms, which is what most people would expect.

I think it's not a dumb move either, because there's a lot of pressure on Softbank to provide liquidity and de-risk certain positions, particularly because of the abysmal performance that Masa's Vision Fund is having now (WeWork, etc). Nvidia could probably get ARM for a good price, and I doubt there are many other suitors who would drive the price up. AWS, GCP? Nah, why would they?

Curious to see where this goes.</comment>