Self-driving truck convoy completes its first major journey across Europe - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/7/11383392/self-driving-truck-platooning-europe <comment><USER2> It seems evident to me that once these machines prove their value in both safety and efficiency, the companies that insure trucking firms will compel/persuade them to switch from human to self-driven vehicles.

These machines can safely convoy closely in one lane leaving other lanes free, will obey traffic laws and courtesy rules, and never get sleepy.

The disruption of the trucking industry is one that we will have to watch closely for its likely economic and political effects.

<comment><USER3> Its one step of many imagine we have a fully automated supply chain from Producer -> Consumer without much human interaction. And it will happen in the foreseeable future as this is just cost efficient.

Many jobs will disappear without replacement and we have nearly no discussion in the general public on how to solve this problem.

<comment><USER4> An interesting point: our whole economy is based around the idea that each person specializes in one thing. Eg, making torches. Then he sells his torches to a farmer in exchange for some food so that the farmer can work after dark to make more food. And he sells his torch to a miner so that the miner can go in deeper tunnels. And so on. Simplified extensively, but at the heart of it, this is what we do.

So our whole economy is built around this concept of making one thing others want, and then getting them to give you things you need in exchange. What happens with automation where a single person can use automation to make everything he needs without having to barter his work for the work of others? The entire system - the entire economy - becomes unnecessary.

Is it possible that's where we're rapidly heading and maybe there isn't even a problem - just a movement to end 'economy' that we've relied on for a few thousand years?

<comment><USER5> None of the automation that we're seeing is making it possible for one person to make everything he needs. Automation is increasing the returns to capital and making it possible for corporations to produce things with fewer employees—none of that implies that you'll suddenly be able to make things yourself.

If anything, increasing automation _increases_ the returns to scale. You might conceivably build your own torch. But you're certainly not going to purchase a million dollar torch-making machine.

Automation poses a threat to the traditional economic model, but on the supply side not the demand side—you'll still be buying as much as before, you just probably won't have a job.

<comment><USER6> >>you'll still be buying as much as before, you just probably won't have a job.

how will one continue to buy at the same level with no income?

<comment><USER7> Maybe a universal basic income for the majority of the population which may become structurally unemployed caused by automation.

<comment><USER6> That would require a change to the current economic model, the comment I replied to seems to indicate that Automation was not a threat to demand at all, but if everyone is out of work, demand for non-essential goods will be 0, no one will want a iphone if they do not have food.

So Automation is a threat to both supply and demand...

<comment><USER5> Sorry, perhaps my comment was unclear.

Automation is not a threat to demand in the sense that people won't stop demanding products because they are making them at home (as OP ridiculously claimed). Rather, automation will drastically change the economics on the supply side.

You're absolutely correct that unless managed well this could lead to mass poverty (and hence decreasing demand). I'm optimistic we will eventually find some solutions, either in the form of basic income or higher-order work.

<comment><USER6> History would seem to indicate we will go the Way of Elysium not Star Trek....

Most of the world will live in poverty (just like today) and a increasingly smaller group of humans will live in extreme luxury.

While idea's like UBI would be nice, the point to implement them I believe is past... They should have been created decades ago. If we wait until 20% or more of the jobs are replaced by automation, it will be to late for most people... Poverty will be the future... Poverty is the future for most.

<comment><USER8> Poverty is actually the reality for many _today_.

<comment><USER4> Poverty is the reality for most people 100 years ago, and for all of history.

It's just in the last few hundred years where we've actually moved people out of poverty that we've come to the idea that people shouldn't be in poverty. Before that, it was just assumed that everyone besides the rulers were in poverty. And if you read stories from the time, there's never any idea that it could change or that peasants could all be royalty.

Stories from pre-1500 that involve wealth are all generally about an extremely lucky peasant being married up to royalty, and that was pretty much the only way to move up from poverty. Well, that or war.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The US trucking industry is ripe for disruption. The role of a driver is minimal as it is: s/he has to just steer the truck along the highway, with periodic fuel stops. There's nothing preventing an automated system from doing the same. Self-driving cars may be years away, but self-driving trucks which automatically attach themselves to trailers, drive 2500 miles and drop them off, only to do the same in return, 24x7 ? That'll be huge.

<comment><USER10> Keep in mind that the role of a modern truck driver covers far more than just hauling a trailer on the freeway. Drivers also have to navigate city/suburb streets to an actual end destination (usually a warehouse), work with the loading dock workers, sign paperwork, etc.

Personally, I think we will see a system where trucks like this do all the long-distance driving and stop at a drop-off location just outside cities. Then the role of truck drivers changes to that of delivering cargo the last mile to the final destination (the part that's much harder to automate). That, too, will eventually be automated, but not for a while.

<comment><USER11> You don't need to transport the driver for that, you can have workers residing in the cities to finish the work. But you still have to pay them, so you gain nothing at all. We already have quite a few more or less useful driving aids, I just don't get the obsession of making it fully autonomous. Legislations are lacking behind tech, ethics problems won't go away either, autonomous trucks could be prime target for hacking etc.

<comment><USER10> I don't understand how it doesn't save money. If the human drivers are only driving the last few miles and working with loading operations, they can handle many more trucks in a day than they can currently, so the number of drivers needed drops quite a bit. Salaries for those drivers might go up, but not enough to compensate, so the trucking companies stand to benefit.

Let's say a popular shipping route is 300 miles from dock to warehouse, of which 280 are "easy" open road perfect for automating. For the sake of example, let's also say it takes half an hour at the loading/unloading point on either side, the 20 "city miles" take an hour to drive, and the middle 280 miles take 4.5 hours to drive. The total time is then 6.5 hours for a single truck, all of which is currently human labor.

Now let's say the truck drives itself the middle 280 miles, and the human driver is handling the rest. Whereas before the human driver would have been able to handle a single truck in 6.5 hours, the end point operations now only require 2 hours of driver time per truck, so we've cut the need for 2/3 of our human driver hours because one driver could handle 3 trucks in the same time as before. With good scheduling and tracking, that means we've also cut the need for 2/3 of our human drivers.

Obviously it's more in favor of human drivers for shorter hauls, and more in favor of self-driving trucks for longer hauls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When you see how crowded European truck stops are you realize that parking a truck there is probably the ultimate challenge for an autonomous driving system.

This system might allow two drivers to drive a convoy of maybe six trucks across a long distance of highway, but it doesn't provide much benefit over the existing road-trains that they use in Australia - and they've never been used in Europe.

It's still exciting and amazing though.

</comment><comment><USER13> The thing that strikes me about this is less to do with highway safety and more "how many assets can a company put in the hands of one human to guard?". It seems like it would be none too difficult for hijackers to box off the tail end vehicle and slow it to a halt giving them ample time to loot it before the driver even got a chance to stop the rest of the convoy. The looters could be gone without even needing to confront the driver.

Worrying.

<comment><USER14> This would be an arms race between truck companies and looters, with companies leveling up in security on their trucks.

But in this case I am not sure the problem is so different than with a human driver. I can't imagine a employee risking to get beaten up/shot just to save the cargo from a group of robbers for instance.

<comment><USER13> I _think_ though that this makes a difference from the criminal's point of view. Performing the operation without threatening the driver makes it theft instead of robbery (?), which is significantly less serious from a legal point of view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've wondered why rail isn't automated. Trains have accidents but they have a (mostly) 1D, simple existence. Cars and trucks are mostly 2D, with many more variables and one-off situations. Fix rail accidents and you get a huge win.

<comment><USER16> A lot of trains are to various degrees. A lot of passenger services are entirely automatic with a conductor just shutting doors and checking tickets.

Freight trains probably aren't worth automating right now. Trains are huge, only one guy there, probably useful to have him there anyway if there is a mechanical fault (vs blocking the line for hours while the nearest person flys/drives to the train).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What if one car merges infront of one of the following trucks and slows down a bit? What do these trucks do at construction sites (we have quite A few of those on German autobahns)?

This technology looks hardly any better then Tesla's lane keeping assistant, the speed is set by the driver (it doesn't really matter if the speed is set by the driver in the very first vehicle IMO), and It only handles very simple roads

<comment><USER18> The lead trunk has indicators that the convoy is platooning, sure some people with interfere with it but for the most part when drivers start to recognise this on the road they are mostly going to stay out of the way.

>This technology looks hardly any better then Tesla's lane keeping assistant

So? It's the first step in removing a human driver. Are you assuming that this technology is not going to ever improve? The end game is a head office operator that controls a network of 50 trucks across a country remotely. It's just a matter of time until they get there.

<comment><USER19> In the year 2020 a 12 year old girl could operate a fleet of 50 trucks through an open source NPM package (orders, planning, monitoring). You'd never suspect when you see her in person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Each truck in the platoon needs to be able to drive competently on its own, right? I don't think one driver can change lanes for an entire platoon, and each truck will have to adjust its speed to allow for other cars merging in and out.

If that's the case, why plan to have a driver at all? Just for navigational purposes?

</comment><comment><USER21> That's a road train. Wait until Road Trains of Australia gets hold of this.

</comment><comment><USER22> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVtd33JEsN0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVtd33JEsN0)

</comment><comment><USER23> i was just wondering about the distance between these vehicles, and if that really would add up to some amount of finite-non-zero fuel savings as well ? for example, the lead vehicle just pushes the air away, and the rest following close by in the "slip-stream" experience less overall air resistance...

<comment><USER24> The first video explains that - yes it reduces drag.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Seems like glorified cruise control.

<comment><USER26> Agreed. Seems a bit much to call this 'self driving'. Its like calling power steering, self-driving steering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If they just put a human in the first truck, then you could just treat the convoy as a train on the road. Probably safer than a real train.

</comment><comment><USER28> Totally pointless. I like truck drivers driving trucks . Not out of work angry and with nothing to do . Ohh and on a sid driverless trucks sound a lot like a train . Why not just use freight trains ?

<comment><USER29> >Why not just use freight trains ?

How many kilometers road are there in there world versus kilometers rail?

<comment><USER28> For example if rail handles long range transport to distribution hubs and actual truck drivers transport last mile . What's wrong or bad about this idea ? again I don't see the point in wrecking the lives of truck drivers.</comment></comment></comment>


President Obama: Listen To Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/06/mitra-obama-entreprenuers-tech-enter-cx_sm_1107mitra.html

<comment><USER2> Forbes: Listen to entrepreneurs. Your pages are the most horribly cluttered on the web.</comment>


Earth Temperature Timeline - <AUTHOR> http://xkcd.com/1732/ <comment><USER2> As is common, Mr. Munroe put things into context. I sincerely hope this image is shared _thoroughly_. This "all in perspective" thing might help a _lot_ more than out of context quotes, and to kill the FuD.

However, I might be overly optimistic in light of the human condition.

</comment><comment><USER3> This does a great job of putting things in perspective.

</comment><comment><USER4> This picture is simply wrong.

First: Why is the temperature compared to the 1961-1990 average and not to the range of the timeline (20000 BCE - 2016)?

Second: The measurements/estimates were not made in the intervals marked with dots, they were not equally spaced and not exact as the chart suggests.

Third: It also doesn't take variance into account in the past estimates, yet it does so in the recent measurements (1900-).

Fourth: There is no explanation for the drop of average temperature between years 1000 and 1500, although the change was the same as between 1500 and 2000 and it clearly points out that this is (supposedly) due to human actions.

Fifth: It's funny how at 17500 BCE there's a note stating "Temperatures have been creeping upward" (no explanation why), 10500 BCE "warming resumes" (no explanation why), 7500 BCE "This warm stable period is called 'the holocene stable optimum'" (no explanation why) ... But when it comes to modern times we have explanation for everything (= we, the almighty narcissistic creatures).

And I could go on and on.

<comment><USER5> 1) because there's a steep change since then 2) He addresses this, there could have been faster fluctuation that canceled each other out in measurements longer ago, although unlikely.

<comment><USER4> 1) I think you misunderstood me. I think deviations should be compared to the average of the whole data-set (22016 years) not only a tiny (29 years) subset of it.

2) Exactly, but the point is that the recent data also contains normal fluctuations. It's simply wrong to change the representation of data mid- chart. How would you feel looking at a stock price chart where historical data is displayed as an annual average and it then suddenly continues as an hourly graph? Sure you would think some crazy stuff is going on with the stock price.

<comment><USER6> Re: 2) This is a semi-valid point. We don't have accurate yearly global temp data from 2,000BC or 20,000BC, so as the data gets older, it is necessarily a smoother and smoother average. Ancient yearly temperature variability is simple not something that we have a detailed view to.

Still, we do have decent variability data for the past 500 years, and the rate of change that we are seeing for the past 50 is _truly extraordinary_ compared to the past 500 years.

Based on the data that we do have, the likelihood that the hockey-stick temperature trend is "normal" variability can now be calculated pretty precisely... confidence levels are now in the 99%-99.9% range. ([http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural- wa...](http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming- hypothesis-percent.html))

In short, we can say with better than 99% certainty that...

 _Yes, this is happening. The globe is now growing hotter at a truly extraordinary rate_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My only problem with it is that i have no idea how coarse the dotted lines data is</comment>


The most copied StackOverflow snippet of all time is flawed - <AUTHOR> https://programming.guide/worlds-most-copied-so-snippet.html <comment><USER2> Anyone else want to feed StackOverflow into AWS' new ML code review tool?

</comment><comment><USER3> seems shallow to blame those copying SO when SO itself doesn't police input, and is actually blatantly in violation of copyright itself.

one example is the 2nd most popular question about inputstreams and strings. that #1 answer is itself lifted from an Oracle blog which, from what i can tell, has no license and so is basically unusable from a legal perspective. it could e.g. only be usable for educational purposes, non-financial, or only by Oracle employees. who knows without a license?

it's goofy and inappropriate to think that its license somehow "infects" the content and turns it into CC-by-SA or whatever it is.

<comment><USER4> Why is this reply downvoted? Is there some lie within it?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Engineers helping engineers ace every technical interview. - <AUTHOR> http://www.helloworldinterviews.com/ Technical interviews require a lot of preparation and hard work to ace them. We've had great personal success using mock practice interviews to prepare. We found that by simulating a real interview situation, we felt more comfortable, confident and clear during the actual interview.
We want to scale that through helloworldinterviews.com. Our vision is to have qualified engineers around the world helping and educating other engineers to land lucrative and challenging tech jobs.
To iron out the kinks, we are offering the Group sessions for FREE for a limited time.
ps - We're looking for highly qualified engineers to lend their time as coaches. If you're interested, please contact us through helloworldinterviews.com/contact-us. <comment><AUTHOR> Technical interviews require a lot of preparation and hard work to ace them. We've had great personal success using mock practice interviews to prepare. We found that by simulating a real interview situation, we felt more comfortable, confident and clear during the actual interview.

We want to scale that through helloworldinterviews.com. Our vision is to have qualified engineers around the world helping and educating other engineers to land lucrative and challenging tech jobs.

To iron out the kinks, we are offering the Group sessions for FREE for a limited time.

ps - We're looking for highly qualified engineers to coach promising engineers. If you're interested, please contact us through helloworldinterviews.com/contact-us.</comment>


The LoseThos 64-Bit Operating System - <AUTHOR> http://www.losethos.com/#l1 <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=losethos>

and

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=losethos>

you need to switch showdead on.

</comment><comment><USER3> Staying with C and its forty-year-old performance tradeoffs was a missed opportunity to make something more reliable. I admire the author's ambition, though.</comment>


The Great Onion Corner And The Futures Market (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2015/10/22/450769853/the-great-onion-corner-and-the-futures-market <comment><USER2> The solution to ban onion futures trading seems shortsighted. Couldn't this happen again with another type of future contract? Was there really nothing else that Kosuga did that was illegal or could be made illegal?

<comment><USER3> Yes it could happen again, it was an act of congress.

There are now two futures contracts explicitly banned in the US Code.

Onion Futures, and Box Office Futures.

The 2010 financial reform act banned box office futures are a rider. The CFTC, the regulator, had just approved them after a few years of review. It would have given studios the ability to hedge their movies flopping, and let speculators trade how much a movie might make.

The MPAA hated it, primarily because the overexcited CFTC was trying to burden movie studios with financial compliance regulations in order to launch the market.

The CFTC is the wildest regulator, other Federal financial regulators are extremely timid. But the MPAA flexed its muscle and got a ban on the second futures contract in history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I suppose today it would be impossible for something like this to unfold the same way that it did in 1955. Still, given how much larger the financial services industry is and how clever they have been at packaging and repackaging things, could a few well-financed traders accomplish the same outcome today?

<comment><USER5> I would not suppose that. Some commodity futures have very low trading volumes and periodically there are prosecutions for price manipulation. Even for high- volume contracts like crude oil, market manipulation happens (see OPEC) and quirks in the mechanics of the contract can trigger enormous price swings (see WTI last week).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The years in HN titles traditionally indicate when the article was written, not when it occurred. This one should probably read 2015 instead of 1955.

<comment><USER7> The Great Onion Corner of 1955 (2015)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [off-topic] Something may be unreliable with regard to HN submission timestamps at the moment.

When viewing the poster's submissions, the timestamp for this article displays as '1 day ago'.

Currently when viewing it as a thread, it appears to be posted '3 hours ago'.

Is there a HN database migration / update in progress?

<comment><USER9> Dang has explained this here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774614)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380)

<comment><USER8> Neat, thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Keep your Identity Small (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html <comment><USER2> I think when he talks about "identity" what he really means is unquestioning allegiances, preventing purely merit-based objective discussions on some issues. IOW when you have an angle in it, when you're in a discussion not to get to the truth of the matter, but to achieve certain goals you have, to influence others, to push them in a direction that is favorable to you (without being conscious of it, otherwise you're just a dishonest manipulator, and this is not about that).

Just wanted to be more precise about what this "identity" thing really means. I think though that you _can_ have a "wider identity" _and_ have "fruitful" i.e. truth-seeking merit-based discussions at the same time; you just have to be conscious - and honest - about it. So I'd dispute his implied drive that you mustn't "be" something (Communist, Christian, etc.). What is really called for is being cognizant and honest.

Taking being Communist as an example, this would mean that you're playing for the ultimate goal, not for the advancement of your party over others no matter what. Putting ideals over politicking.

Of course the core ideals is a much harder core. These core ideals are the true core of your being, there's no easy arguing about changing _them_.

I apologize if this all is trite and cliche.

<comment><USER3> I always find it interesting how some of the beliefs that form the core of our identity are actually ones we have investigated least rigorously (eg. political affiliation, religious denomination, etc.). We are much more likely to dissect and reject new ideas that do not benefit from this 'first-mover advantage' than question the ones with which we were endowed.

I write about this somewhat here: [https://alexpetralia.github.io/epistemology/2018/02/22/your-...](https://alexpetralia.github.io/epistemology/2018/02/22/your- beliefs-are-not-up-to-you.html)

<comment><USER2> thanks for the link. this is about protecting our 'investments', the fallacy of sunk costs. OTOH if we try to be honest and self-aware, what we're left with are the few core values and ideals, mostly about what _choices_ are acceptable to us, that form our moral _core_. Maybe that's what he meant by "narrow" identity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a > religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with > Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?

Javascript has aged up I think!

<comment><USER5> And for the reason described in the essay: more people have identified either with it or against it.

Once _being a JS programmer_ becomes a thing you _are_ or _aren 't_, people are arguing about themselves.

<comment><USER4> I guess we're all just Reactionaries right now.

<comment><USER6> At least we aren't Angularies, those apostates and heathens.

<comment><USER7> Apologies for not contributing anything meaningful to the overall discussion here... but this is one of the best things I've read all day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like to try on identities a bit like trying on clothes. If someone is making decisions based on identity, you'll find it hard to understand them, or empathize with their position if you can't imagine what their outlook is like. It's especially troubling if you think of people with different perspectives as being "other", alien in some way.

Most identities have positive things to commend them, as well as negatives. Frequently a set of identities mesh together into a consistent narrative of the world, such that you can't change people's mind on a single issue unless you can flip them on a whole bunch of related issues, or create a better narrative. These narratives are often backed by both ignorance and logical fallacies that cause evidence to be misinterpreted.

I think if you don't try out other identities, other world views, you're liable to get stuck in an identity by default, and just not be aware of how biased your perspective is.

<comment><USER9> This reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's "Reality Tunnel" experiments. If you've not read him, I'd highly recommend his work - especially "Prometheus Rising".

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm reminded of "Strong Opinons, Weakly Held":

 _I've been pretty obsessed about the difference between smart people and wise people for years. I tried to write a book called "The Attitude of Wisdom" a couple times. And the virtues of wise people – those who have the courage to act on their knowledge, but the humility to doubt what they know – is one of the main themes in Hard Facts. We show how leaders including Xerox's Ann Mulcahy, Intel's Any Grove, Harrah's Gary Loveman, and IDEO's David Kelley turn this attitude into organizational action. Perhaps the best description I've ever seen of how wise people act comes from the amazing folks at Palo Alto's Institute for the Future. A couple years ago, I was talking the Institute's Bob Johansen about wisdom, and he explained that – to deal with an uncertain future and still move forward – they advise people to have "strong opinions, which are weakly held." They 've been giving this advice for years, and I understand that it was first developed by Instituite Director Paul Saffo. Bob explained that weak opinions are problematic because people aren't inspired to develop the best arguments possible for them, or to put forth the energy required to test them. Bob explained that it was just as important, however, to not be too attached to what you believe because, otherwise, it undermines your ability to "see" and "hear" evidence that clashes with your opinions. This is what psychologists sometimes call the problem of "confirmation bias."_

[http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinio...](http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html)

<comment><USER11> I've always been troubled by this because it seems to excuse poor behaviour i.e.

\- "strong opinion" \- the opinion is asserted aggressively and without tact

\- "weakly held" \- there is little justification for the opinion and it will be abandoned under pressure and on a whim

Sutton seems to want Strong to mean something about "attracting energy" as if Strong means "intentionally provocative" but it really isn't clear to me. I prefer "reasoned opinions presented thoughtfully" but then I'm British so... eh.

<comment><USER12> I think it's phrased that way to emphasize the -- perhaps unintuitive -- dichotomy, not to suggest that people be tactless or thoughtless. The way I (admittedly not British) read it is:

\- "strong opinion" \- I've thought about this a lot and it seems reasonable and justifiable enough to base my actions on it.

\- "weakly held" \- I recognize that I'm not a perfect being and can discard my opinions if I come across new, convincing evidence that contradicts them.

The main difference I think is avoiding equating "strong" with "brutish" and "weak" with "pushover". I think when those terms are applied to people that's how we think of them, but they just mean very different things in an academic/intellectual context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd argue for the opposite: growing your identity beyond a single thing. If someone sees themselves as a waiter and nothing else, they're more likely to feel injured by someone saying that a waiter is a dead-end job, because the majority of their identity just took a heavy blow. But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and a reader, they'll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.

<comment><USER14> > But if they instead see themselves as a waiter, a gardener, a musician, and > a reader, they'll be less affected when one of those things is attacked.

I think what you see in reality (at least these days) is that if ANY of the downsides to any of the identities are pointed out, you'll see people rush to have to defend it.

Also, I believe attaching your identity to being a waiter would be doing the opposite of what PG is suggesting here in the first place.

<comment><USER13> What is his suggestion, though, exactly? For a waiter to not consider 'being a waiter' as part of his identity? If we're talking about reality, that strikes me as a fairly unrealistic ask, especially if it's all the waiter does.

And I can only really speak from my personal experience. Having a diverse range of interests has given me a protective barrier that I didn't have when I was younger. When I was a teenager, for example, I didn't really have any skills except for "being good with computers". If someone (usually an older person) ever disparaged that, it destroyed me. I'd stew in anger and want to retaliate -- I can still remember. As I grew up, I diversified my interests. I got good at other things, too. Computers are now only a piece of my identity instead of the whole, and it's made me a lot less insecure.

<comment><USER15> The idea is about trying to keep seperate the things you do/feel/believe and what you _are_. For our waiter friend, is the fact that he's a waiter somehow the essence of his being? Or is it a job he does, because one needs a job and this is on balance a pretty good one?

In the latter case, if someone says that waiting is a dead end job, he can much easier say sure, yeah, not many places to go, but the hours are really convenient for my life situation. This is obviously a much more productive (or at least not destructive) outcome.

It's almost impossible to have a productive discussion with someone who _is_ a [ideology]ist, but quite possible to have one with a reasonable person who is of the belief that [ideology] offers some good answers to problems in society.

<comment><USER13> I agree that it would be more productive for the waiter to be able to detach his identity from his job. But to even be able to do that in the first place, he needs to have something else going on. He needs to be so sure of his identity that an insult to his line of work doesn't bother him. But if he's taken the writer's advice, and kept his identity very small, what if he one day realises that whatever he saw himself as was a lie? Now he's in trouble again. And I think that's the danger of the writer's approach: you're always going to have to see yourself as _something_.

The writer claims that you can't think clearly about any topic that's part of your identity, but I disagree with that. I think the thing that prevents you from thinking clearly is that the topic is tied to such a large part of your being. If you instead grow your identity beyond a single thing, your capacity for outrage becomes diluted.

<comment><USER15> > you're always going to have to see yourself as something.

I think this is indirectly a large part of the problem. The trend in society is that everybody must have totally unique and interesting identities, and since few people are in fact "special" enough to live up to that ridiculously high standard, they need to pile on everything and the kitchensink to get to some reasonable approximation. And you'll still wake up one day and dread that your identity is not, in fact, unique and interesting enough, which looks a lot like your "a lie" scenario. But in the meantime, you've set yourself up to spend a non-trivial amount of time fending off attacks, real and imagined, on any of the myriad of items that make up your identity.

In a past not too distant, our waiter-friend would be content to see himself as a good person, a good friend and a provider for his family.

<comment><USER13> I think we both agree that contentedness is the goal, but we disagree on how to get there.

To you, it might seem like 'fending off attacks, real or imagined', is a waste of time, when the waiter could just snap his fingers and suddenly be content with being a good person. But I don't think it's that easy. I think that mentally fending off attacks is a necessary component of becoming content. For the waiter to arrive there, he needs experience. He needs to have reasoned through his problems and put his answers to the test: what makes a good person? Is it living virtuously? Is it living according to one's values? What are my values? I value craftsmanship, yet I'm a waiter -- is that a conflict? In my opinion, the waiter needs to figure all of that out before he can become content. You might call it a waste of time, worrying about things that may or may not be consequential. I call it building up mental fortitude.

Becoming content, in my opinion, requires mental fortitude, and having a varied identity is one of the tools to help build that. I'm still struggling to see how limiting my identity to a single thing helps me be content in any way. Even if I limit it to something as simple as 'a provider for my family', what happens if I fall on hard times and can't do that anymore? It's going to hit me like a ton of bricks. I'd rather be able to weather that storm when it comes.

<comment><USER15> It seems to come down to a definition of what it means for something to be a part of your identity. All of those internal discussions the waiter has, he can have those productively, probably _more_ productively, without making waiterism his identity.

The point of limiting your identity to the core stuff, like providing for your family, is that those are the things are truly matter. If you can't provide for your family, that _will_ hit you like a ton of bricks, regardless of whether it's part of your identity or not. But if you let a nasty comment about your hairstyle, the viability of socialism or whether Jesus really existed bring you down, you can choose not to care because it doesn't really matter (in that isolated interaction, the questions may well matter in the grand scheme of things).

Also, nobody said this was supposed to be easy, something you just flip on and off. But it's something individuals can think about for themselves and decide whether their haircut or profession is really important enough to feel attacked if someone makes a nasty comment.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I think you're right about it coming down to a definition of what identity is.

When I talk about broadening my identity, I guess what I'm really talking about is exploring new interests and testing out new ideas. The thought of 'keeping your identity small', to me, seemed as if it was suggesting I should never invest myself into anything lest I open myself up to criticism (which struck me as a fearful way to live).

If I instead think of it as deciding between what matters and what doesn't, and only truly caring about things that matter, that makes a lot more sense, and is actually something I agree with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I like capturing this topic by making a distinction between nouns vs adjectives.

E.g. if someone is, say, "I am Polish" (or: "capitalist", "feminist", "Catholic", "socialist", "atheist", "gay" etc) and treats it an adjective describing their beliefs, tastes, etc it is up to an exploration and discussions (when evolution is accepted and does no harm to one's self- esteem). If someone else uses it to declare their identity, it makes it easy to make an entrenched view, with "us vs them", and in which change endangers one position (or, well, identity).

</comment><comment><USER17> Also related - the "backfire effect" \- where challenging a person's core beliefs only entrenches them further. Nicely explained and illustrated here by The Oatmeal: [http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe](http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe)

</comment><comment><USER18> I loved this essay when it came out, and I still think it's pretty great. But I'm forced to acknowledge that a big reason I was on board with it is that the identities I was given to choose from when I was young didn't appeal to me.

And I'm forced to acknowledge that for most people, their identities do _work_ and make them happy in ways I can only sort-of understand. And maybe they lower our society's level of epistemic virtue, but people may never let them go, and it's not obvious that we ought to try to convince them to beyond a certain point.

I like balioc's perspective here [https://balioc.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/responsa/](https://balioc.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/responsa/). The whole thing is good, but he responds to PG's essay specifically with:

"I could answer by saying that, in many circumstances, identity really is necessary for hedonic well-being. [...] the world isn't set up to provide us with constant sources of utility, so it's much better to have a constantly- accessible utility generator inside yourself, even if that generator requires some finicky maintenance."

</comment><comment><USER19> That's basically the reason why I've never joined any political party or any other group (as an identity). Labels restrict thinking, and you can get pulled into knee-jerk reactions even if you are conscious of how that works.

Changing identity has a high cost for the organism (social connections, access to institutions, cognitive dissonance, existential crisis), which is why I think some people have those knee-jerk reactions. It's evolution at work.

</comment><comment><USER20> I do my best to avoid _believing_ in anything. That is, I have working hypotheses, more or less well-tested, but always open to revision based on new data. I do have principles and values that are essentially freely chosen. But even those are subject to revision. I strive for what works.

That approach rather precludes religion. Because most religions are explicitly untestable.

<comment><USER21> I think the problem is that it's logistically impossible to empirically test all your working hypotheses. For example, my working hypothesis is that Darwinian evolution is a true theory about the development of life on this planet. But as I'm not a biologist, I don't really have the skills to empirically test my hypothesis; I just trust that other people have done this and are doing a good job. Similarly, I believe reports that there are as many as 10^22 stars in the universe, but I won't test that either because I'm not an astronomer and I generally trust astronomers...

In other words, I think there is an intermediate category that deserves attention:

1) Beliefs that you refuse to revise 2) Beliefs that you could revise in theory but probably never will in practice (for lack of expertise, resources, etc) 3) Beliefs that you actively try to develop

We are limited in our beliefs by our material capacities for inquiry, sadly.

<comment><USER20> Yes, of course. But none of that stuff that I'll never test is a belief. It's all provisional. I'm also prone to decline to have an opinion, admitting that I'm not qualified.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if it would be sufficient to restrict nouns that you use to assert your identity to those which can be 'verbified': I am a juggler because I juggle; I am a programmer because I program; I am a writer because I write.

Those particular nouns seem to be inherently less likely to cause partisan behaviour that nouns that can't be as easily 'verbified': I am British because I Brit; I am not Christian because I don't Christ.

I suppose a simpler way of saying this would be to restrict your sense of identity to things you do over things you believe. Although I'm not at all certain that this would actually serve to avoid the kind of 'dumbness' the author describes.

<comment><USER23> ...I think identity in this context is largely the "I am a" form.

I'm a giggler is identity. I juggle, or even I am _the juggler_ is not the same sort of a mark of Identity. So I'd say the advice is is avoid (or at.least recognize and minimize)) thinking in the "I am a" frame.

<comment><USER22> I agree the advice in the article is to avoid "I am a ..." but given that seems somewhat impossible and the advice is to avoid this construct in order to prevent a kind of 'dumbness' as described by the article, I was wondering if it would be sufficient to avoid 'non-verb-ifiable' nouns in order to achieve the desired outcome: prevention of dumbness. I should have made that aspect of my comment clearer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Good advice, albeit hard to accomplish. Identity is a core part of political party formation, at least in Europe (together with self-interest and ideology). No doubt it has an important role in marketing as well. I don't see these forces giving up on pulling the identity lever any time soon, it seems to gain importance if anything.

However, perceived identity coupled with a sense of oppression, exceptionalism and/or fear of extinction is what always gets us in trouble (i.e. war), so there are a number of good reasons to keep tight reins on identity.

<comment><USER25> Agreed. Humans tend to quickly self-sort into tribes. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes it's fun (sports), sometimes it's exploitable

<comment><USER26> Not just humans. Other hominids operate at a tribal level.

Obviously there is a survival adavantage to help ensure the genes of your tribe (genetically close relatives) survive.

I can't help but think that human political 'tribalism' is just atavism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know if I can quite express how wonderful it was to read this. I'm not so naive as to believe it's not because it lines up with my notions, and as said in the article (or implied) there's no sense in talking past your expertise. All I can say is that the Dunning-Kruger ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)) seems to be at play in most online discourse, and that certain subjects, especially in an environment of entitlement (i.e. everybody's opinion is "valid" \- whatever that means).

</comment><comment><USER25> Great points, echoes this:

"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions. They're objects in a box you carry with you, and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they're no good. If you think that the opinions in the box are 'who you are', then you'll cling to them despite evidence to the contrary.

Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind."

from [https://youtu.be/tlsU_YT9n_g?t=1m6s](https://youtu.be/tlsU_YT9n_g?t=1m6s)

</comment><comment><USER27> One major way that identity corrupts arguments is when people ignore or excuse the flaws and weaknesses their position. When you hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself and your allies, it destroys the trust that is essential to a fruitful exchange of ideas.

So "not responding from identity" requires more than just being even-keeled and emotionally detached from the argument. It requires acknowledging the weaknesses in your position with the same receptiveness as you see flaws in others.

<comment><USER28> I've found that taking some time away from the argument can help all parties involved come to terms with what you're describing. Its can be difficult to do, and some time away from the scrum gives you a chance to replay the argument in your mind without having to defend your position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

I argue the more labels you have for not only yourself _but_ for the world you experience, the dumber they make you.

<comment><USER30> If you believe your argument then you must find scientific study and discovery an exercise in making one dumber.

I'm afraid I find your argument to be a defense of ignorance.

<comment><USER29> The argument I made stems from a spiritual, non-dualistic perspective. While reading the blog post and writing the comment, I was thinking about how I think a lot about what is capital-t true. I usually find then if I would like to move towards what is capital-t true, dis-identifying and dropping labels is the start, individually and worldly. It's a lot like the pursuit of certainty by Descartes: What he did was lay everything down that he has known and throw away all which wasn't certain, which later translated into: "Cogito ergo sum." In similar form, I think ought to do the same: dis-identify with things, not have a reactive like or dislike with life, not mentally label every experience, etc. In other words, having labels and identifying with things is the opposite way towards where I would like to go, since that, I think, gets away from the core of what is capital-t true. If any of things I said above makes any sense.

Ultimately, I'm sorry, I should have gone into detail why I think my argument is the case. I'm also afraid I don't have a scientific study, it's really just what I have come to know at the moment, though I'm certain what I know at the moment will change, plus I do love counter-arguments since that's where we get somewhere really worth noting. I also should have not used the word 'dumber', but another, more compassionate word, I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a counterpoint, it's entirely possible that avoiding identifying with anything also cuts off a massive range of psychological states, meaning that you may not become as empathic as other people, and thus have fewer ideas, or at least ideas of a different sort.

The ultimate trick would be to identify with _everything_. Hopefully a brain- computer interface might make that sort of experience possible in the future.

</comment><comment><USER32> I was immediately reminded of a wiki page about enlightenment (Immanuel Kant) [0] after reading through the essay, which may an interesting additional reading to some. The English translation of the essay that the wiki page is based on can be found here [1].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answering_the_Question:_What_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answering_the_Question:_What_is_Enlightenment%3F)

[1] [http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html](http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html)

</comment><comment><USER33> I had thought politics and religion were controversial because they have to do with how you run your life. For example, if I own guns, and you propose banning them, then I imagine someone coming and taking my guns, and I can get mad.

</comment><comment><USER34> A useful Corollary being that identity politics, in another words convincing people to identify with increasingly smaller and more specific groups, and getting them to fight amongst themselves, in other words trying to increase their identities to include some more things, is the perfect way to keep people from thinking clearly about real issues. A useful way to keep the population on the back foot in a democracy keep them fighting about emotive issues rather than thinking clearly about substantial one, and divide the market into small sections to make it easier to direct messaging to appeal for votes.

</comment><comment><USER35> Politics are interesting. Perhaps politicking wouldn't be necessary if we could determine with accuracy the results of policies before implementing them. For example, maybe this could be done by complex computer simulation in the future. Furthermore, policy might be synthesized by the same processes if it can be simulated.

Which then raises another interesting point: would democracy be less efficient and necessary if we could determine optimal policy for society before implementing it? Would we just vote on the desires of society rather than policies to get us there?

<comment><USER36> I work at a think tank. I don't think any of the models used by any policy experts are at a level where such simulation is possible. We can't predict the weather more than about a week out, and that's just a physical system-- policies depend on quirky humans with lots of weird incentives and preferences that are difficult to predict. Modeling can let you make educated guesses at best.

Of course, plenty of partisans have an interest in producing models that spit out results that just so happen to show what they already believed (e.g., Tobacco Institute), and politicians will cite those results with the same regularity as more rigorous work. Without expertise in the matter, it can be hard to find any given model's weak points; and they all have weak points.

As for voting for desired outcomes rather than desired policies: I'm pretty sure this is what most people are doing already. Lots of political pressure all around have your cake and eat it too. Sadly, I've never seen any policy that could solve a problem like that--too many trade-offs in real life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I agree that tying one's convictions to identity and arguing on the basis of identity makes cooperation among individuals with different identities harder. However, I find the suggestion to reduce one's identity problematic. First, identity plays an important role in developing a sense of community and aides in-group cooperation. And second, it's worth keeping in mind that it's easy to underestimate the attachment to identity when one's own identity happens to be widely-accepted and/or relatively easy to discard.

</comment><comment><USER38> When in the history has this "boxing" of oneself started?

Maybe other cultures don't surround the consciusness with so much fluff, like "I'm a valedictorian from the Yale class of 2010 and I work at Goldman and play polo". Or "I'm a Lenin follower and everyone should bow to international marxism".

I think eg. the Chinese take on this is more about the family or something. Any pointers?

<comment><USER39> Plenty of cultures attach identities to their societies - Sunni/Shi'a, Hutu/Tutsi, etc. Other cultures don't focus as much on their "work identity" as you described, but they fill their identities with others.

Source: lived overseas and been to 25+ countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> How can you advocate for your own self-interest politically, if it is not connected to your identity?

How would you even decide what policies you want?

PG makes it seem like we could simply do politics by creating some ultimate utilitarian function. But then how do you decide what it counts as good?

In fact, there is no separating identity from politics, no matter how you try to obfuscate it.

<comment><USER41> I think you might have a good point, there is no "objectively good" in politics. For example when you consider highly unequal incomes as a problem in society then you will support different measures than when you don't find that problematic at all. For both there is no "real" basis, the measurement for "good" is only your image of how you want the world to be in 100 years and thus entirely subjective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Sadhguru a yogi, mystic, and visionary explains the problem of identity in a very profound way (for example in this google talks video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQn8X4FbpTM)) he says our identity should be the whole universe.

<comment><USER43> As a pantheist I agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> That's why when you argue with someone about one of these topics and you try to prove a certain point that does not fit ther line of thinking, you are effectively thwarting their identity. In their exes you make them less of a person. You take away a part of their identity. Nobody wants that.

</comment><comment><USER45> I make a distinction between positive/inclusive or negative/exclusive identity. While I certainly condone the statement "I'm not a murderer", I try to define myself in terms like "I value life". This gets tougher when certain positive constructs come with a lot of negative connotations. We can try to reclaim those words, emphasize that being a nerd is about devouring information and not about despising social contact, but sometimes its a lost cause and all we can do is come up with a new word. Another way of thinking of it is to be the union of identities, not the intersection. This heuristic can fail in many ways, but it's served me well so far.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is all very convenient if you happen to be of the dominant identity. Even if you don't consciously associate yourself with it, you benefit from it.

For those not of the dominant identity, to "not even to consider yourself an x" is a problem if you are an x and the problem you want to address is systemic unfairness toward x.

Imagine yourself a slave in 1850 being advised to not consider yourself a slave, or black, because you'd avoid useless discussions.

Imagine yourself a woman today being advised by HR to not consider yourself a woman or your experiences as one when discussing workplace discrimination or harassment.

Imagine yourself a gay man being advised to forget you are one when discussing laws restricting gay marriage.

You get the picture.

<comment><USER47> Note the title is "Keep your identity small", not "Reduce your identity to zero". While I _think_ I can see what you're getting at, I'm not sure I follow the logic. Bear with me for a moment: In the case of slavery, I wouldn't want someone to consider themselves a slave, I'd want them to consider themselves a human being and expect to be treated as such. Similarly for anyone dealing with harassment or unjust marriage laws. These conditions aren't unjust because one is a slave or a woman or gay. They're unjust because you're a human, and the conditions are inhumane. A slave doesn't want to continue to be a slave; a woman doesn't want to have to put up with harassment because they're a woman; a gay man doesn't want to be treated differently because he's a gay man: they want to be treated fairly and justly because they're human.

I think one of the things Graham is pointing towards is finding what is common among people, rather than focussing on the differences. A couple of sentences that stood out to me when I read it were _" More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities."_ I read that as focussing on those topics in common.

None of this is guaranteed, of course. But I think it's a more constructive way forward than focussing on what divides people.

Would you expand on what aspects of the piece you took to supporting the conclusions and examples you provided above?

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think this is similar to "liking" vs "doing" something, in terms of defining yourself.

Anybody can like something, and build an identity based on taste and opinions. It requires no skill. But _doing_ something is a much deeper way of defining yourself.

</comment><comment><USER49> The book _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion_ by _Jonathan Haidt_ explores similar concepts.

It is an extremely interesting book on moral psychology. (YC 2017 Summer Reading List)

</comment><comment><USER50> > Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise > for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.

I like how in this context it sounds obviously flawed, and yet, funny enough, we still have no better political system than for everyone to express their opinion and then count them — no expertise required

</comment><comment><USER51> _Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant_

I'm fairly intolerant Paul, with the things I deem wrong.

And first thing is, why the fuck are listening to you about Politics and Religion. What is your experience on those area so you can enlighten us. In which forums (nowadays they are called chat groups) have you debated hard, holding your ground. And how many people have you convinced on 1 vs 1 ideological battles.

I'm tired of false prophets. And I get this Paul guy is someone related to the world of software. But someone should steal him the mic when he starts talking about topics he is not experienced enough.

People need to keep their Identity BIG. But they need to realize about the bad things in their cultural heritage, keeping only the good things and erasing or transforming the bad ones. It's simple.

But Paul, if you don't know about how to convince people that is opposing your views then please don't try to make magic 1 liner recipes for everyone. Cause people is dumb, and many of them will blindly follow your command without fully understanding it. The same thing as with Agile methodology and other abstractions (10 commandments for example) that come from many years expertise of one guy with much wisdom, but that at the end, people blindly follow without making them think or test it to see if it's right.

Identity=Ego

And here we have 2009 Paul Graham, with an ego as big as it gets, telling other people not to have an strong ego. So he is denying others the tool that makes individuals be certain about their ideas and possibilities. He is denying others their right to grow.

</comment><comment><USER52> The trouble here is that the more you know about something, the more it must necessarily form part of your identity. I could otherwise dispense the most dispassionate (and apparently therefore excellent) advice on topics ranging from Micronesian politics to string theory.

</comment><comment><USER53> Plenty of this going on right now in the world of cryptocurrency. And possibly for the same reason: who is to say what coin is good (will succeed) or not?

</comment><comment><USER54> I don't recall how it was back in 2009, but you definitely don't need to be a JavaScript expert to have passionately useless opinions about it.

</comment><comment><USER55> I came to a similar conclusion recently, and I believe that evolutionarily, the concept of identity originates from the biological drive to protect one's physical body. One then voluntarily expands or contracts one's sense of identity from there.

So I did some mental experiments. Temporarily reducing my identity to not include my physical body, bit by bit.

Then, what am I?

My consciousness.

What if I reduce it further?

I lose consciousness.

(But I get it back after I wake up.)

What if I try to lose the sense of identity while still remaining aware?

It wraps around and I become the universe. Am one with the universe.

It was an interesting journey.

</comment><comment><USER56> .

<comment><USER57> It sounds like what you're talking about is Pascals Wager[0]

The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false. Therefore, any logical person ought to be a Christian, since the consequences of belief are net positive either way. Or so the thought goes.

As a person of faith, I will say that this thought experiment is fairly flawed. For one, you must apply Pascals wager to all faith systems simultaneously if you want to be sure you get the best outcome. But of course, it's not equally likely that Pastafarianism is the one true way as is Buddhism as is Atheism. How do you weight the possibilities in such a way to do an honest analysis? These things are based on what you believe already - so then the question of what to believe becomes recursive, really.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager)

<comment><USER58> > The idea being that belief in God pays of well if true. And is alright if > false. Disbelief in God pays off poorly if true, and alright if false.

That makes lots of assumptions about what God is and how he behaves.

<comment><USER56> .

<comment><USER59> Not... really?

I mean, obviously atheism is a pretty broad thing (just like "religion", or even "Christianity" encompasses many views).

But for a lot of people, the essence of atheism isn't about anything to do with final judgement. It's just... not believe that God exists. For lots of atheists, it's not a rebellion of anything like that. We don't believe in God in pretty much the same way you probably don't believe in Shiva.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Interesting idea. If your political ideology is part of your identity like race or gender, should it become a protected class for anti-discrimination protection?</comment>


Linus Torvalds banishes masters, slaves and blacklists from the Linux kernel - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/13/linux_adopts_inclusive_language/ <comment><USER2> See the lively discussion from about a day ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23810780](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23810780)

<comment><USER3> Also discussed at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23819763](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23819763)

It's a pity there's no duplicate article button so that mods can be alerted to mark articles as such or merge the discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Blacklists are to become either "denylists" or "blocklists" and whitelists > will become "allowlists" or "passlists".

I'm glad they chose allow/denylist instead of another often proposed redlist/greenlist. From a language learning point of view it's much more clear than having to figure out the local customs on how colors map to concepts. (e.g. a red market in asia = stocks went up, green = stocks went down)

<comment><USER5> I'm fine with his choices, but the meaning of red and green as stop and go has become quite universal. Is there anywhere in the world that doesn't have traffic lights? (ok, anywhere in the world that you'd be likely to see a linux device)

I see it regularly extended to such things as "accept" vs "decline" on phone screens when a call comes in.

Applying those colors to stock market charts is not a particularly natural extension of the concept, though. Although I'd pick green as "up", still, it isn't as direct as something like allow/pass or deny/block. Those fall well into red light / green light territory to me.

<comment><USER4> Maybe not directly related but some traffic lights in japan are more what we'd call blue than green [https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/515205/why-does- japan-ha...](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/515205/why-does-japan-have- blue-traffic-lights-instead-green)

At the end of the day why bother with another quirky cultural color-meaning- pair when there's something so literal available? I want to avoid re-learning terms when we meet aliens who happen to perceive colors in our visible spectrum ;)

<comment><USER5> Of course, for a Japanese person coding in English that's the least of their problems....

I'll admit the benefits of color-coding things are less if you are using words as opposed to actual colors, but I still think an argument could be made for using green and red, since deny/block and allow/pass seem a bit too closely tied to a specific expected action. I could imagine uses of the terms in the future (not necessarily in linux code) where those descriptors don't quite work, but where the colors names communicate the concept in a more general way.

It reminds me of the issue with the idea of calling black people "African Americans." It wasn't all that well thought through, because it is overly specific and doesn't work for, say, a black person who never lived in America.

<comment><USER4> I'm a native english speaker but trying to learn other languages (and speaking with english learners) has given me a new appreciation for simplicity for ease of learning. For something which wants to be the lingua franca of the world I think this is a desirable attribute. And given few things are universal across existing cultures, it doesn't leave much room for metaphor.

The whole term of African-American is indeed a confusing mess, for reasons you pointed out, but also that a straightforward interpretation might mean that Elon Musk (being South African) should fall under that umbrella, but to suggest so would land you in some hot water. I would hate to have to explain this nuance constantly to non-native speakers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe he said that those terms should be avoided, if possible, for new systems, but that they remain perfectly OK to use with old existing APIs.

So what a misleading clickbait title.

</comment><comment><USER7> Like in real life - slavery isn't really banished, it's transformed into a less brittle, and perhaps more insidious, social relationship: Former bound slaves are now employed as salaried servants, free to leave at any time. Except if they want to earn enough to feed their families, that is.

So now, we still have masters and servants in the kernels, but the names are changed:

> In their place coders will be expected to use alternatives

> such as "primary" and "secondary" relationships, or refer

> to "leaders" and "followers", or even "directors" and

> "performers".

If it's _actually_ primary foo's and secondary foo's, then fine; but I suspect these are just euphemisms. Now, in software, the effect is just a bit of obfuscation. What's annoying is the reflection of the real-life trade not to call a spade a spade.

PS - I'm fine with changes like "denylists" instead of "blacklists".

<comment><USER8> so what are your suggestions then?

<comment><USER7> Call things what they are. If one entity gives orders to other entities and they must carry them out, then don't call these the "primary" and the "secondary" entities, because then you've given them a vague and non- descriptive name. I'm not saying you _have_ to use "master" and "slave" when there are other reasonably descriptive names, just don't avoid it artificially because it reminds you of bad things.

<comment><USER8> again... what are your suggestions then? that whole response was not "calling things what they are", it deflecting from actually answering the question. if you don't have good idea of the terms to use, you can just say that you don't know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I liked the old linus better.

</comment><comment><USER10> An excerpt from the coding-style.rst:

> Exceptions for introducing new usage is to maintain a userspace ABI/API, or > when updating code for an existing (as of 2020) hardware or protocol > specification that mandates those terms.

You know that Linus is "drawing the line somewhere" and he is only banning this for new usages. The PC crowd may still question why not remove "all" usages including old code with these "offensive" terms. (It's really isn't realistic for the Linux Kernel.)

You're more than welcome to recommend to remove all usages including historical ones to Linus. /s

<comment><USER11> >The PC crowd may still question why not remove "all" usages

Wouldn't that be a valid question from any curious person?</comment></comment>


Chinese Phone Giant Chooses a Web-Based Mobile OS - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429279/chinese-phone-giant-chooses-a-web-based-mobile-os/ <comment><USER2> How ironic is it that a major phone company in a country that won't let its people browse the REAL web, or interact with people outside its borders without spying on and filtering them, chooses a WEB BASED OS for its phones.</comment>


NSA Spying Isn't About You - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/future-participle/3312bd0d2364

<comment><USER2> The original headline (on both HN and the source is 'NSA Spying So Isn't About You.' Mods, stop rewriting headlines that don't break the guidelines.</comment>


Archive.org is asking for donations - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/ <comment><USER2> Donated $100. Supposedly a donor will match your donations 3 to 1 so in a way I donated another $300 to them.

We can't know who we are unless we know where we came from. That goes for politicians, companies, and organizations as well. We appreciate them, but probably not enough given that this information would be lost or entirely inaccessible without them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Archive.org is one of the most important online services. This and Wikipedia will always get my donation, as they are near and dear to my own personal passion of us recording and sharing human knowledge across cultural and geographical boundaries. These simple services do more to make the world a better place than any new shiny mobile app. Donated obviously :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Question: what are the pros and cons of having this centralized site versus just having some kind of distributed archive (e.g. the whole site as a torrent or other format)? I feel like the latter allows people to contribute (e.g. "hosting" / seeding) while also providing many more points of failure resilience.

Also: I trust Archive.org (though only because I don't have a reason not to, and I'm generally pretty trusting), but a distributed version could also provide peer validation and probably historical changes over time, instead of having to trust just one (potentially hijacked at any point in time) source.

I have the same qualms about Wikipedia. I use both on occasion and have donated on an even rarer occasion, but I always wonder whether a high-traffic website is the best format for an archive of information that only loses money.

</comment><comment><USER5> Maybe if they hadn't retroactively applied robot.txt, I'd consider it. Losing decades of a website because they updated their current terms is annoying and has made the site worthless to me.

<comment><USER6> As I understand it they're in the process of changing this behaviour[1].

[1]: [https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for- sea...](https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/17/robots-txt-meant-for-search- engines-dont-work-well-for-web-archives/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't know why, there's just something extremely pleasing about archiving things. I have a 2TB external hard drive, and I find a lot of enjoyment out of downloading my favorite things. Archive.org is one of my favorite places to browse and download stuff.

<comment><USER8> What do you use for archiving web pages?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In his Christmas video this year, Donald Knuth says this is one of three sites that he always supports.

The other two are Wikipedia and the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

</comment><comment><USER10> Archive.org is one of those services that I don't use often but that I feel glad that they exist.

Thanks for letting us know how to contribute. Donated.

</comment><comment><USER11> The internet never forgets. More than one politician has found this out.

</comment><comment><USER12> Where is the guy who has $81M in bitcoin. I hope he sees this post soon.

<comment><USER13> Ehy not nominate?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Be sure to look up Brewster Kahle: [https://youtu.be/M6rsPgnA87Q](https://youtu.be/M6rsPgnA87Q)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm getting a stripe error message when I try to donate.

</comment><comment><USER16> Already donated. They're doing a great job!

</comment><comment><USER17> I appreciate them and donated.</comment>