Naughty words: What makes swear words so offensive? - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/where-does-swearing-get-its-power-and-how-should-we-use-it <comment><USER2> It is funny how swearing offense differs quite dramatically in cultures. In NZ for instance being called a 'good cunt' is like a lower class way of giving a compliment - basically 'good person'. In other places e.g. the UK, the sight of the word 'cunt' gets them riled up - the word 'good' is lost in translation.

<comment><USER3> not in Scotland[1], England yes.

[1] [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cunt+(Scottis...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cunt+\(Scottish+Definition\))

<comment><USER4> Highlander here, now living in Aberdeen. The usage you linked to is prevalent only in the Central Belt; up here, it still carries a derogatory implication unless it's being used by close friends. Also worth noting that I've never, ever heard a woman from the Central Belt using it in the way UD describes, only men.

<comment><USER5> I moved from Glasgow to Aberdeen (and stayed there for a decade) and it was noticeable how differently they treat that word. Even in situations where swear words were flying, breaking out "cunt" would put pause to the conversation. It was strange, and amusing.

Women from Glasgow certainly use that word. Just as frequently as men. That's not to say all women, or all men, but in equal proportion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The 'fucking pleb' statement wasn't bad because of swearing it was for calling him a 'pleb'. For those that don't know, it's a derogatory term used by the upper class for the working class.

Also it turns out that the police officer lied about the whole thing.

<comment><USER7> > For those that don't know, it's a derogatory term used by the upper class > for the working class.

It means _commoner_. Most people first hear it in high school english class... for me it was Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

<comment><USER8> Fun fact: "pleb"/"plebian" has similarities to "Prolet"/"Proletarier" in German:

"Prolet" is a social slur with similar implications as "pleb" (when used as an insult): unsophisticated, unskilled, bottom feeder, likely unemployed living off welfare and drunk.

"Proletarier" OTOH simply means "proletarian", i.e. a worker. It's not used in colloquial language but historically occurred in politics (for obvious reasons) and still pops up in some contexts.

While "Prolet" is entirely derogatory, "Proletarier" is either neutral or positive.

While the English "plebian" seems to date back to Roman times, AFAICT the German "Proletarier" is relatively recent (i.e. early communist era).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A year or so ago while my Japanese in-laws were visiting, my brother asked them if they would like to try a new swearing card game he was kickstarting(1). I was hesitant to let this happen as although my wife's parents didn't really know the meaning of the words, they knew they were "swear" words, and that might be seen as inappropriate.

In the end this was just my predefined view of what a "swear" word was, clouding my judgement, and everyone had a good time. My in-laws later explained to me that although they knew "swear" words were meant to be offensive, they couldn't wrap their heads around why/how, and as such happily yelled "Cunt!" as easily as they would "Potato!".

(1) [http://www.f--kthegame.com/](http://www.f--kthegame.com/)

<comment><USER10> I am very new at japanese, so don't take my word for this, but there aren't a lot of "motherfucker" style insults in japanese. You mostly insult people by talking to them with the wrong politeness level. The meaning of the word is still something like "you".

[http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/insults.html](http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/insults.html)

<comment><USER9> Yep thats kind of my point, the idea that a word by itself, regardless of intent could be offensive, made absolutely no sense to them.

To put it into perspective, I've seen nearly every word on your list in different childrens cartoons/anime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Today's grammar challenge, should you choose to accept it: (1) use the word "lavatorial" in a sentance. (2) use the expression "How brilliant was it? Fucking." with enough gusto to convey the meaning. (The article claims it doesn't make any sense, but i think this could in fact work.)

<comment> qu4z-2 The article also says that you wouldn't say "Wash the dishes and fuck you."

I mean, yes, fuck you isn't imperative, but I can totally imagine someone saying that in certain situations.

<comment><USER12> I can imagine it happening on a TV sit com, perhaps the phrase would be:

"Wash the dishes!...And fuck you!"

so I can imagine it happening when theres more of a stop between the two imperatives

<comment><USER13> Bob: Wash the dishes! Fred: Fuck you! Bob: Wash the dishes _and_ fuck you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In Quebec a lot of our modern taboo words are religious themed. Unlike many other cultures however, it's not religion that made them taboo, but rather the fact that we had a heavier than most religious presence in our political and education systems up to the 1960s, and when we 'woke up' as it were, a lot of religious terms became swear words. Today the province is much less religious than say the US, on average, and most of our swear words remain that way.

<comment><USER15> In Finland the highest category swear word is "Perkele" which they call "the P word".

It translates as "devil"

<comment><USER16> Uhh, no. _Vittu_ , literally "cunt", is the Finnish equivalent of "fuck" and is used with similar disregard to its notional meaning (fucking cheeseburger = vitun juustohampurilainen).

Kind of like those Quebecois swears, _perkele_ manages to be both rude and formal: it's used in Finnish translations of the Bible for "Devil".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Korean phrase mentioned in the article doesn't make any sense. I can guess where it came from, but it looks like the author put the English version through Google Translate in an attempt to get the original. Not many swear words will survive that kind of abuse.

<comment><USER8> Similarly, "Mutterficker" while a literal translation to German, is not exactly common. I'm guessing if it exists at all it's likely a direct adaptation from English language media (like "verfickt" \-- "fucked"/"fucking" \-- which seems to be a literal translation merged with "verflixt" which in turn is a minced oath for "verflucht" \-- "damn").

I'm also not convinced exclamations like "Gottverdammt!" (similar to the Dutch phrase) and "Verfickte Scheiße!" (closest equivalent to "Fuck!" I can think of) are offensive in the same way. Outside of deeply religious groups the former would mostly be frowned at for being needlessly elaborate ("Verdammt!" would suffice) whereas the latter would be frowned at for simply being obscene -- quantity vs quality basically.

I also can't find anything in the article properly addressing the use of swear words for other things than intentional vulgarity or insult. The "escalation" theory doesn't work for exclamations in reaction to pain/mistakes/mishaps (e.g. dropping something heavy on your foot). It doesn't seem to address the existence of minced oaths either (which from the starting point of actual swearwords actually de-escalate by acknowledging the offensiveness of the unminced oaths).

<comment> david-given My German teacher once brought along a couple of photocopied pages from the infamous anarchist German textbook, _Deutsch für den Ausländer_.

It's a selection of bizarre stories about some even more bizarre characters. In one of them, the hero, who is a loser wannabe rapper, gets into a shouting match with a rival rapper. The dialogue goes, "Fick dein Mütter! Fick dein Hund! Fick dein ... etc, etc." Then he pisses himself, hides under a bus, and is eventually taken home by the bus driver.

So, anyway, that's how I remember imperative informal verbs in German.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, "Fick deine Mutter" is actually something you would hear in German, especially from a character like that. It would generally be considered one of the more unsophisticated insults, though -- it's associated with the German equivalent of British "chavs".

"Mutterficker" OTOH just doesn't sit right. If you're going to insult someone's mother, just call them "Hurensohn" (i.e. call their mother a prostitute).

Fun fact: "Hurenkind" is also a technical term (though these days the far less offensive "Witwe" translated from the English "widow" is often used) to describe a paragraph with its final line cut off from the page. The line itself on the next page is called "Schusterjunge" (or "Waise", from "orphan") -- "cobbler's boy".

<comment> david-given As a complete tangent, one of things I'm finding hardest about German is when a word in English will have more than one meaning --- like, as you say, widows and orphans do --- and then I'll find that the equivalent word in German, _even if entirely different_ , will have the same set of meanings. It's amazingly hard to remember.

Also, I'm totally going to have to find my own copy of _Deutsch für den Ausländer_.

<comment><USER8> I'd have thought that it's far more troublesome when the German equivalent merely has a subset of the same meanings but completely different meanings too (e.g. the English term for A has additional meanings B and C but not D while the German equivalent for A has additional meanings B and D but not C).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> tl;dr These words are offensive primarily because of the implicit cultural taboos associated with them.

I'd argue this is unfortunate, since many people are quick to take offense without first examining the specific intent or context behind a word's use in a particular situation.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't think this gets to the heart of how words can become taboo in the first place. It's because they evoke associations and imagery in the listener's mind which are gross (e.g. bad smells, STDs, jealousy).

Moreover, the listener is _complicit_ in this grossness because it's the listener's mind which generates the imagery. Gratuitous swearing isn't merely ugly: it actively lowers the tone of a conversation. Sometimes the tone _needs_ to be lowered. But now it's harder for sensitive listeners to think, so we risk losing the benefit of their wisdom.

<comment><USER8> Okay, but this only works for certain swearwords in certain cultures.

It also assumes vigorous sexual intercourse (i.e. "fuck") is gross, which is either extremely prude or childish.

I'd argue that some swearwords actually merely signify intensity and can be entirely neutral to the "tone of the conversation" (in terms of the subject matter and concepts the conversation can address). If you tell someone they did a "fucking great job" the only way that would affect the conversation negatively (sarcasm etc aside) would be if the phrasing offends the other person's sensibilities.

I'm guessing the falls in the same category as the "mock insults" theory (i.e. close friends casually insulting each other to signal their intimacy rather than actually causing offense).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Coincidentally, I listened to this yesterday: [http://philosophybites.com/2015/03/rebecca-roache-on- swearin...](http://philosophybites.com/2015/03/rebecca-roache-on- swearing.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> >Swearing, then, is as offensive as it is not because of some magic ingredient possessed by swear words but lacked by other words, but because when we swear, our audience knows that we do so in the knowledge that they will find it offensive.

Interestingly, While I was a kid, I used to think that since God created Darkness and Light, he must have created both Good and Bad.... But later as I grew up, I have realized that, its the purpose and end-results of something things we do, defines it either good or bad.

<comment><USER22> It _is_ a matter of the heart, which is why the final statement in the article that swearing is not immoral rings hollow. The author tries to deconstruct what swearing is, but fails to mention "cursing" which calls evil down on someone (hate speech indeed), or "oaths" whereby one binds the validity of their word to something or someone of more worth than themself (e.g., swearing in a court of law, or phrases like the Roman's "by Jove"). Today, other than cursing, what we call swearing now is more related to vulgarity and blasphemy. All of which are harmful (and immoral) speech given the right motives.

A much more edifying article about the morality of swearing is this one: [http://www.pement.org/docs/swearing.htm](http://www.pement.org/docs/swearing.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> George Carlin said this best I think:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik)

</comment><comment><USER24> From the article: _Etiquette dictates that we hold our fork in our left hand and our knife in our right_ \- This is interesting, because I was taught to hold my fork in my left hand, knife in my right _initially_ , but after cutting food, switch the fork to my right hand. A bit of googling shows this is not universal.

<comment><USER25> US and European rules are different there, because Americans emigrated before European elites had settled on a standard.

Yours seems to be the American standard.

Oh, and in parts of Asia they eat with fork and spoon.

Martin Luther famously complained about the then-new forks, since God had given every man hands after all, hadn't he?

<comment><USER26> Yes, although such a silly rule isn't staying still. [http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2013/06/fork_a...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2013/06/fork_and_knife_use_americans_need_to_stop_cutting_and_switching.single.html)

I remember a story how the Nazis in WW2 would identify American spies in Germany by observing how they held and used their cutlery in restaurants. Sadly, I was unable to find the story just now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Swearing basically is a personal approach and different words mean completely different to different people.</comment>


Sheriff's website showing PHP code, preferential treatment for county employees? - <AUTHOR> http://www.sarasotasheriff.org/icr.html?Inmate=

<comment><AUTHOR> Going through the code I found it interesting that there's a conditional in there that compares the inmate occupation to nearly half a dozen county positions (SHERIFF, JUDGE, PROSECUTOR, FIREMAN, etc.,), if the occupation matches any of those, then the script refuses to show the mugshot of the inmate. I wonder about the legality of that. You or I get arrested (not convicted, just arrested), our mugshots are posted for everyone to see. Doesn't seem fair.

<comment><USER2> I'm curious about that too actually- I suppose from their view it's a safety thing for the officers- which, IMO, is reasonable. Police probably aren't the most popular people in prison, and posting a picture of their face doesn't help.

<comment><USER3> Should your job make you immune from some of the prescribed legal degradations that go along with being in jail? I mean, I'm sure the corrections officers make sure that some of the inmates know exactly what new inmates are in there for. Why isn't turnabout fair play here? I can see "corrections officer" mugshot not shown for the "safety thing", but why "fireman"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great example of a political who most likely gave the contract for the web site to a company who would in return give him a cut of the profits.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know about that, but look what the company is charging for their hosting: [https://www.notiondesigngroup.com/notioncare.html](https://www.notiondesigngroup.com/notioncare.html) Nice work, if you can get it. I would bet they are on the "Deluxe" package with the way Sarasota throws money around. FWIW, it's just a Joomla website using a RocketTheme template. Custom Website Design, right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Mirror: [http://pastebin.com/R8HUAt5q](http://pastebin.com/R8HUAt5q)

<comment><USER6> I remember the days when most of the web was written like that.

Thanks god it is (for the most part) not the case anymore :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why shouldn't the code for all government websites be public? This sort of thing should not be revealed only through a bug.

Not a panacea as they could run different code, and nobody might look at the published code. But those don't seem like reasons to not default to public code for public agencies.</comment>


Apollo 11 in real time on its 50th anniversary - <AUTHOR> https://apolloinrealtime.org <comment><USER2> Bug report? First, though, let me say this is one of my absolute favorite sites on the internet that I can remember. Amazing work.

Bug? The audio is in the right time, its playing now what would be playing at 6am eastern, july 16th 1969, because the launch would be 3 hours from now

but in my time zone it says "10pm july 16 1969" because its 10pm here now.

Is that wrong or am I misunderstanding something?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I know this has been discussed previously about a month ago[0], but I hope allowed for discussion again so soon given that it is now exactly 50 years ago.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20193118](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20193118)</comment>


Twitter just began rolling out an updated design - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com

<comment><USER2> For those who haven't gotten the update yet, it looks to be purely cosmetic:

[http://i.imgur.com/pRed41l.png](http://i.imgur.com/pRed41l.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh, fuck.</comment>


DecorMyEyes Merchant Vitaly Borker Arrested After NYT Piece On Google Rankings - <AUTHOR> http://searchengineland.com/decormyeyes-merchant-vitaly-borker-arrested-after-nyt-piece-on-google-57921 <comment><USER2> This is great and all, but this guy flagrantly broke the law many times and no one did anything. Do I need to have the New York Times publish an article if someone does something like this to me?

<comment><USER3> There's a bigger deterrent value when an arrest is made in a high-profile case.

<comment><USER4> I don't know, it seems like the opposite effect is in place: "Just don't go overboard and you'll be OK. And don't brag about it to the times: apologize and say you're working to improve her experience, and you get even better coverage. But the odds are still that you won't get caught in the first place."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Moral: Don't do illegal shit

Criminal's Moral: Don't give out interviews

<comment><USER6> But think of all the traffic DecorMyEyes is seeing right now!

<comment><USER7> Not as good as these guys...

<http://www.heavensgate.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For those that don't recall, the NYT article was mentioned here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1945112>

and here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1946085>

I had a feeling it was going to come to this, and soon. He had the opposite strategy as Zappos and had the opposite "exit."

</comment><comment><USER9> The bad guy in me sees an opportunity to 'googlebomb' competitors using fake bad reviews adding one more layer of complexity to this sort of thing.

They'd then have to figure out a way to distinguish the real bad reviews from the real good reviews and the fake bad reviews and the fake good reviews.

This whole arms race isn't helping anybody. And I wished the arrest would have taken place even if the guy had not bragged about it, but I highly doubt it. Likely there are many more characters like this guy happily doing it to lots of others every day, using their own websites but also on Ebay and lots of other places on the web.

Before you give out your credit card numbers, don't look for just that 'secure' icon in your browser, realize that the bar for getting a certificate, a corporate identity and a website up and running is sufficiently low that a determined scammer will not see this as a significant barrier to entry.

Knowing who you do business with is not enough to avoid getting screwed over.

<comment><USER10> _The bad guy in me sees an opportunity to 'googlebomb' competitors using fake bad reviews_

In the spam world, it's very common. They call it _joe-jobbing_. Since spam websites typically have to be hosted on "bulletproof hosts"(hosts that won't shut you for complaints), "joe-jobbing" a site hosted with a regular host can have it shutdown temporarily with a very small amount of spam and the ensuing complaints. So you could hire a spammer for few hundred bucks to take your nice-guy competitor down by _joe-jobbing_ him. Pretty sad.

My knowledge is a bit outdated but I am curious how folks deal with this now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I read the article, I was a bit suprised by how he almost seemed proud of his tactics to rip people off and later bully them. Particularly, the part where he said "I've exploited this opportunity because it works. No matter where they post their negative comments, it helps my return on investment. So I decided, why not use that negativity to my advantage?"

This guy should be the dumbest criminal in modern times. He understood how powerful the internet was, and then decided to ignore it.

<comment><USER12> Alternately, he didn't count on his boasting leading to embarrassment for the NYPD. Not a good strategy with your house in their jurisdiction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> By going to jail, this guy will likely get even more inbound links. It's extreme SEO.

</comment><comment><USER14> He's an idiot for bragging on interviews. He's Russian but doesn't realize that this is not Russia and he can't go around threatening people.

<comment><USER15> He emigrated when he was a child and was raised in the US. I'm sure he's more familiar with the US legal system than whatever approximates one in Russia.

<comment><USER14> Obviously you've never been to Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn (where he lives). They call this part of Brooklyn, 'little Odessa' for a reason.

<comment><USER16> I used to live in that area, and I haven't heard a single person call it little Odessa. Granted we moved from the area when I turned 16, and we didn't live on Brighton Beach...but that just doesn't sound true.

<comment><USER17> Actually I just googled it out of interest and the top links for "Little Odessa" ("Маленькая Одесса") point to the movie with that name (<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110365/>). Maybe that's how the nickname became widespread?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is like a little Christmas gift to all the hundreds of people this guy ripped off. Good riddance.

<comment><USER19> I've always found it funny that those who are innocent, or at least know they're going to be proved innocent, will generally walk into court with their heads held high. While the low down scumbags cover their faces and cower like people aren't going to know who they are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This guy was a swivel chair and a cat away from being a Bond villain. Frankly, I'm surprised it took the NYPD that long to arrest him.

<comment><USER21> "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to lose your Facebook account."

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So basically you can threaten the lives of your customers and not fear any repercussions from law enforcement as long as the New York Times doesn't write a profile on you using your real name and location.

Not to mention the fact that all the consumer empowerment brought upon by social media has now been flipped on its head.

Is this the direction online commerce is heading? Its great that they nabbed the guy but the fact that he used the failings of the system to prop himself up for years is worrying. There are plenty more Vitaly Borkers out there waiting

<comment><USER21> > _There are plenty more Vitaly Borkers out there waiting_

Are there really that many businesses threatening their customers' lives? I've never heard of it before this guy.

<comment><USER22> Actually there was another story somewhere on HN (i think) about a guy who did the same thing, only with data recovery. He would hijack a drive or a computer's components and tell the customers they needed to pay more money before he'd return them, often threatening them and telling them to go on yelp if they were angry

<comment><USER21> Oh, right, I did read that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> this guy didn't merely cheat, he _threatened_. had he not crossed those (very obvious) bounds, i'm afraid this practice could have been fostered and tuned.

i can't help but wonder if the internet (Google, more specifically) could still help malicious businesses achieve disproportionate conversion.

</comment><comment><USER24> Seems odd that Google had their big response, but it doesn't seem to be working in the case of his sites (see end of article).

<comment><USER25> Here's Google's incredibly vague blog post: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/being-bad-to-your- cus...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/being-bad-to-your-customers-is- bad-for.html) \- and HN thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959348>

Whatever they've done, it seems to reportedly be affecting some queries but not others. The author of the searchengineland piece may have had to try a few queries to find one that ranked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Proving once and for all that there is criminally bad customer service.

</comment><comment><USER27> See also: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1977247> (register.co.uk link)

</comment><comment><USER28> The borker borked.

</comment><comment><USER29> Finally, the government oozes into action.

Hopefully, this fine fellow will be DecorMyAss in his next residence.</comment>


A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - <AUTHOR> http://www.hn-books.com/Books/A-Guide-to-the-Good-Life-The-Ancient-Art-of-Stoic-Joy.htm

<comment><USER2> I can't seriously be the only one who read this review and was amazingly frustrated by the lack of detail. I have not read the book but, to the author's credit, this review made me want to read it because there is so little information about the book and so much attention to cheerleading for it.

        "One of the first things I learned was that ... [Stoicism is] just another way to lead one's life"

This doesn't tell me anything about it except that it's different. Give me some detail! Something to grab onto, to pique my interest! A few paragraphs later:

        "Several times while reading I was amazed at the insight the Stoics had.

Okay so if it happened a lot, just give me some tidbit. Anything. I don't mean to be intentionally negative but this is a book review and the author has included nothing but a buzz-wordy sounding definition of the purpose of Stoicism: "to have a joyous, happy, fun-filled life by better learning the art of living". I understand the "you have to read it man!" kind of attitude about books that lead to huge paradigm shifts but there's a middle ground where one or two ideas can be explained, an outline of content can be created, modern ideas and these ideas can be contrasted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment. I'm the author of the review.

I struggled with this as I wrote the review. How much of the material should I paraphrase? Not being a classicist, and only having a layman's view of things, I felt very uncomfortable trying to put words in the book author's mouth.

As you can see from another comment on this thread, from what I've said, I'm already being told that I seriously misrepresented Stoicism (I disagree with that commenter's point, but it's not important). So after some thought I felt that the more I tried to make the review into a tl;dr the more I'd probably screw it up. I put in as much detail as I was comfortable with.

If you read down to the bottom of the page, there's a product description from Amazon. It goes over things from a different angle. You can also click on the search box to see what hackers on other technical sites thought of the book. That's just below the review in the box titled "the buzz". As I was researching other reviews before I wrote mine, I found a heckuva lot of detail around exactly what you are asking about. I suggest you give it a couple of clicks and see if your questions aren't all answered.

I also didn't want the piece to sound too cheerleading-ish, but heck, I really liked the book. I read 30 or more books a year, and this is probably the best book I've read so far this year. While I have my doubts about lasting impact, what can I say? I really liked it. Not going to lie or exaggerate about that one way or the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Derek Sivers reviewed this book recently <http://sivers.org/book/StoicJoy>

</comment><comment><USER4> Reading this book right now, and loving it. It's weird, though, the more I read of it, the more I realized that I have always lived my life this way, I just haven't been conscious of it. The more aware I am of it though, the more I seem to get from life.

An excellent, excellent book.

<comment><USER5> I haven't read the book, but the more I learn about the Stoics (far beyond the simplistic modern definition of the word), the more I concur with you. I'm still a weekend Epicurean though :)

<comment><USER6> The interesting thing about stoicism is that most of the surviving texts (Letters from a Stoic, Meditations, The Handbook) are extremely readable. Letters from a Stoic particularly is fascinating. Making the connection between what Seneca talks about and issues in your own life is extremely rewarding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A series of three essays on the topic by the author of the book was recently published on boing boing:

[http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/27/twenty-first- century-2....](http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/27/twenty-first- century-2.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> It's undoubtedly an interesting book, but it's also beautifully written. Any reader would be hard pressed not to be interested simply because of the way in which the author engages the reader.

As well as the historical education, I took away some great techniques -- that I already use daily to my betterment -- and a philosophy of my own own that simply strives for tranquillity -- my preferred state.

This is absolutely not a religious book -- which would be wasted on me. It requires no belief in anything remotely metaphysical. It's wholly introspective in a very positive way. It's not explosive, more a series of gentle nudges, any of which you can ignore.

</comment><comment><USER9> CBC radio's Ideas program recently had an excellent hour long program that featured the author [http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2010/07/29/a-guide-to- the-g...](http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2010/07/29/a-guide-to-the-good- life-listen/)

</comment><comment><USER6> I've read the book and while I enjoyed it, there were a couple of things I wish had been included.

I wish the author had included more contemporary examples of stoicism in practice. He mentions Admiral Stockdale's experiences but does not get into any detail. It would have been nice to see how people in recent history have put Stoicism into practice, instead of just hypotheticals. It would have also been interesting to tie ancient stoicism to contemporary work done in psychology, neuroscience, and sociology.

<comment><USER10> Stockdale's "Stockdale on Stoicism II: Master of My Fate" is mostly about his time as a POW: <http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/Publications/Stoicism2.pdf>

<comment><USER6> Thanks, I will take a look. It's these sorts of stories that I think would have made the points in the book stronger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does it compare to reading Marcus Aurelius?

If I remember correctly, I could sum up his philosophy "the only slave is the one who thinks himself so." I've found that sort of thought very consoling when I've felt down about something.

<comment><AUTHOR> I struggled with Marcus -- he's been on my kindle for months and I still haven't plowed my way through. It always seemed so rambling, so disjointed. The book I found very accessible.

I _think_ that I could read another book or two on stoicism and then go back to Marcus and pick it up more easily. That's the plan, at least. I've got my eye on a couple of books on stoicism next, but the priority queue is getting bumped by some important technical material that needs reading.

The problem here -- and I didn't go into this in the review -- is that nobody really knows exactly what the stoics taught. Or rather, the things they taught at different times. Stoicism was both Greek and Roman, and there were schools that adapted (and stole from each other and competed for students). So the situation was very much in a state of flux. It also had a deep spiritual component, although it's definitely not religious. (The book author is an atheist)

What Irvine did was take later Roman Stoicism, used famous Romans as an example (including Aurelius) and pieced together his best version of a mish- mash of what stoicism can mean for us. So there's a bit of creative license going on, but the author is clear enough about what's happening for it not to be a problem. Because Irvine was so clear about how he put it all together, and the book so well-written, I didn't view the religious roots or the mish- mash nature of the presentation as an important detail. Others might be upset that I didn't mention it. Meh. Part of the pain in the ass of being a book reviewer, I guess. Whatever you put in or leave out, its important to somebody.

I found this to be a much more pre-digested and easily presented stoicism than reading Marcus Aurelius. A nice, light introduction.

<comment><USER11> There are some common themes off the top of my head: 1\. Pantheism: everything is one, evil is only apparent, so don't let stuff stress you out (ties into my previous quote). 2\. Eternal re-occurrence: everything has happened before in a cycle, so whatever bad stuff is happening will eventually pass.

It's essentially a bunch of thought patterns to keep people calm during bad times. Believable? Like I say it helps me, but I don't believe it that much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sounds interesting. I have been reading Aurelius's "Meditations", but something like this targeted at the modern reader might be easier to digest.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm about halfway through the book right now. It might as well be called "How to Be Derek Sivers", in a very, very good way.

</comment><comment><USER14> I am sorry, but that is a pretty poor review.

Zeus (often translated as "God") features heavily in stoic writing. The stoic philosophies are compatible with Christianity, which is why it attracted a lot of attention from Christian scholars over the past 800 years.

It is also thought the stoics had a influence on early Christians.

</comment><comment><USER15> I am not sure if this is the same book/author that was featured on NPR some time ago, but the subject matter is the same.

What I found interesting was that I had already been using many of the stoic techniques throughout my entire life.

Ill have to pick this book up.

</comment><comment><USER16> +1</comment>


The New HondaJet - <AUTHOR> http://www.honda.com/hondajet/?ef_id=1097:3:c_913fcb9c9f966e0808dd4cf73d0aa205_841615408:Won2fUGvMUIAAA4EeR8AAAAP:20080409010932 It's a beautiful craft. <comment><USER2> I love the engine nacelle configuration. I've read some reports of how it causes some weird issues with the horizontal stabilizer at some attitudes.

But if it don't look cool, it won't fly cool.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pricing starts at $3.65M</comment>


Ask HN: Is it hard to compete at Google Apps Marketplace? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure if the competition between developers is the biggest problem in the Android Market. What makes it hard seems to be a combination of the number of people using the Market and how willing they are are spend money. From my limited experience, it seems about an order of magnitude harder to get Android users to open their wallets than iOS users.

<comment><USER3> I think he meant the business-oriented marketplace: <http://google.com/enterprise/marketplace/></comment></comment>


Google wants you. Amazon wants you. Apple wants you. - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/u/0/100899499494145896730/posts/KTvkyw4tNa4 <comment><USER2> That explains why Apple supports customers using iDevices however they want, while Google locks down Android and asserts that it should be a federal crime to run unapproved software. Wait. Maybe it's a bit more complex.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apple thinks (rightly or wrongly) that giving you that control will diminish the experience.

I used to hate it when people would install stupid stuff on Windows and then blame Microsoft for their bad Windows experience.

It's like buying an <insert generally reliable car make> and putting a bunch of crappy aftermarket parts in it and then getting angry with the dealership when you're stuck on the side of the road.

<comment><USER3> But then it is the fault of the user and not really the car dealership. Car dealership do not (cannot?) restrict you from using duplicate/fake/not-their parts, AFAIR. I do not think that anyone would hold the dealership responsible (legally and morally) for, say a mishap that happened because of a faulty fake tire.

<comment><AUTHOR> Windows as a brand suffered greatly at the hands of OEMs and their crappy software, regardless of whose fault it was.

<comment><USER3> Actually that is a different issue. Windows doesn't restrict the user in installing softwares that they want to. Hell, it even allows user to keep using their product and subsequent MS softwares with sufficient independence even after realizing that the OS is pirated. What you are pointing out is the behaviour of OEMs which is rightly called out as obnoxious and degrading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I might be on board with this if the author even began to discuss why what Google and Amazon are doing is less than ideal for the consumer, but the main point he's trying to make remains totally unexplained, and in addition I don't agree with his argument about Apple at all.

Why is a kindle fire less than ideal - because they sell books on it? You could make the same argument about every video game system - it's less than ideal because you have to buy video games for it. This isn't because nintendo is evil or lazy, it's just how the system works. A video game system is a device for consuming other peoples' video games (and nintendo's too, if they want), and the kindle fire is a device for consuming other peoples' books.

Why is android less than ideal, because it's ad supported? You could say the same thing about facebook, twitter, and every other company out there that provides a free service supported by ads. Some people don't like this, and this leads to developments like app.net - we'll see how paid services like this do over the next couple of years. But the fact remains that if you don't realize when you sign up for a free service that people are being paid to make that they need to make money somehow, you aren't even thinking.

Then let's move on to all of apple's major devices. You get a iphone, but this relies on a contract with a service provider, which is in fact how apple makes most of their money off iphones. Oh no - immoral!

Or you may buy an ipod, apple's other big product. But what's an ipod without music on it from a third party. Hold up - third party pollution, the ipod is no good as a product.

Or perhaps you buy the only other thing they sell, a computer. But you'd better not put any software on it from a third party, because then it's just a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Overall, I understand the general idea, but this was very poorly thought out and needs more thinking and explanation, not to mention that at least to me, the statement about Apple's products all being an "end" is definitely false.

<comment><AUTHOR> I buy a video game console to play games. Most of the people I know bought a Fire to get a tablet.

Look, everyone, naturally, caters to the one who's paying the bills. Advertisers are paying the bill. They make money on the ads/books/goods not the device. Therefore the device is secondary.

<comment><USER4> So you just look at the tablet and don't consume any content on it? I buy a tablet not to get a tablet, but to do things with it, just like you buy a console to play video games.

Of course everyone caters to who's paying the bills, if not you're out of business. I figure this is more or less common knowledge.

But you have to realize that deciding who pays the bills is hardly ever only your company. In Apple's case especially, there are often 3rd parties paying their bills. Like I mentioned, cell providers pay a huge chunk of their revenue to get the iphone, app developers pay them to create apps on their devices, etc. They do not pay all the bills without third parties.

And even though this is the case, I don't think there's anything wrong with 3rd parties being involved. And if you did (which it seems you do), you should have mentioned this in your post - not just that you generically think there's something wrong with it, but what _exactly is_ wrong with it. Then talk about how consumers would be totally ok with massive price increases on these products and what benefits that would be traded for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Captain Obvious here.

Amazon wants you (to buy through them, because they are like Walmart, getting a sliver of each transaction, but making an enormous amount of transactions). You get liberality with content.

Google wants you (to view their ads, because every time they display an ad/make a conversion, they get a sliver). You get liberality with hardware/software.

Apple wants you (to buy an iDevice, because every time you buy an iDevice, you just gave them a 30%-50% of the product price as straight profit, in addition to being locked into their marketplace, which they get a hunk of each sale, in addition to ads being run through free apps and them getting a sliver for the view/conversion). You get a well-done, end-to-end experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree it is obvious -- to you and I. how do you explain all the disagreement though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think there is a lot of truth to the argument that the customer is best served by a product that is created for the customer.

However, I think both Amazon and Google and Apple and Microsoft are in this for the long haul. They probably figure that they are best served by customers who love their products.

So while it might be true that in the end, Google wants to sell ads, Amazon wants to sell content and Apple wants to sell hardware, all of them can only do so by satisfying customers.

Actually, the difference is rather that since Amazon and Google only use the hardware as a means to another end, they need to exert less control over it and thus offer a wider range of different products.

</comment><comment><USER7> So in summary, there are different business models which benefit (and penalise) the consumer in different ways. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

The real issue here is whether people understand what they're buying in to when they buy the various products.

* Do they understand that Apple are going to restrict you in certain ways? Do you understand what those ways are and what the consequences are?

* Do they understand Google's (financial) interest in your personal data and what that means?

* Do they understand that Amazon are only selling you this stuff as cheaply as they are because it's a down payment on more stuff?

As technology changes, business models change and the nature of the deals you're entering into is becoming more complex with greater consequences than you might have understood.

There's nothing wrong with any of these models and I think the OP is wrong in implying that Apple are in some way "better". The issue is that I don't think that the typical consumer is keeping pace with the changes and, as a result, is potentially entering into deals they don't understand and making choices that don't reflect what they really want or need.

<comment><AUTHOR> So, is it fair to say that you agree with everything except that Apple's way is better for the consumer?

<comment><USER7> No.

My point is that the issue is that in many cases individuals don't understand the nature of the relationship that they're entering in to and therefore are restricted in their ability to make a good decision on their own behalf.

Contrast this with what you're saying which is that they don't understand and _therefore are making a mistake in choosing Goole or Amazon_.

With respect you don't know me and you have no idea what is ideal for me. You don't know my wife or what's ideal for her. You don't know my dad and what's ideal for him. It would be very, very odd if the same of many diverse and well made products was right for all of us.

Being an end in itself isn't better, it's just simpler to understand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This dude works at Yahoo and can't spell bait. I'm not really sure he deserves a respected opinion.

Also, note the last name. Is this a troll?

<comment><USER3> Troll or not, I would suggest him to not use '✓ Verified Authentic' as a tagline. I was confused if that was a Google+ verification for identities.

Edit: Reason for downvote? The person's infobox looks like [1]. For a person not so active on G+ to realize that the first line is a user defined string and not system generated tag, it is confusing. [1]: <http://i.imgur.com/zvaDq.png>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think Amazon is an end unto itself, I LOVE buying goods from Amazon, and anything that lets me do it easier is fantastic. Everyone understands Amazon is a marketplace, no deception here. Google is a slightly different story.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, Amazon's content is the ends. But if it is so obvious to you and I why not everyone here arguing against the idea?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> wow! Fanboys are getting desperate for attention. Google does just as much of a bait and switch as Apple does. Google does in the form of Ads; Apple does it in the form of "oh, you bought this device! Cool here it is... Oh you wanted MP4's and other media for it? That'll cost you!" You think you're getting a great device but you're just getting something to interact with the media they lease to you.

</comment><comment><USER11> Upvoted for comedy value?

</comment><comment><USER12> Facebook already has you..</comment>


Ask HN: Empty Delaware C Corp, dissolve, hand-over, or? - <AUTHOR> I had a profitable product, a company in the UK running it, and things were looking great. When Stripe's Atlas program launched, I was one of the first to incorporate in Delaware, hoping to take my product and all my future business there (making things potentially easier for handing over the product, or seeking a potential growth-investment).
Once everything was ready, the environment my product operates in started changing dramatically, and things became sour. I decided to hold off transferring everything to the US company, and keep it fresh and clean while I see if things would improve on the product side.
Two years in, they didn't.
I'm basically paying the yearly franchise tax ($450) plus registered agent, plus TaxAct 1120 filing fees ($97 for federal/state taxes) and will soon have spent a couple thousand dollars to keep the empty shell alive.
I looked into closing it down, which, again, involves fees and more fees, but will probably be my next step.
Are there any other venues some of you have taken, or can suggest? Is it worth considering to hand-over (for a modest fee) the company as a starting point for someone else?
Part of me thinks it may be useful to keep the US company around, but the "useful" part hasn't really come up in the past two years. I know there's potential to use it as a legal and proper way of entering the US with a work permit, but I'm not sure if that's really worth considering.
Still in the UK at the moment. <comment><AUTHOR> Just to add a side note to my original post: I could move all of my remaining UK business to the US company, just to make use of it, and continue billing through it, but that would make things tremendously more complicated for tax- reasons, I think. The original plan was to stop everything UK, and then move everything (possibly including myself) back to the US.

<comment><USER2> Are you a US national or permanent resident? Do you plan on having us customers or investors?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have lots of US customers across products, but not exclusively. They're currently all charged via Stripe on behalf of my UK company.

Not a US national, still in the UK. Lived/worked in the US for several years in the past though.

US investors — that was the plan, but the product fell flat, and the other things I currently run aren't investor-worthy at this scale I think. If a new product comes up and takes off, sure, that'd be an option. But nothing's come up in the past two years, so I am not entirely sure it'll make sense to wait for this.

<comment><USER2> Other than potential us investors, why create a us company? For future endeavors, You can always incorporate at the time of raising money

<comment><USER3> The issue with that is that he would need to transfer the IP from the UK entity to the US entity, right? And, at that point, that would be a taxable transaction for sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Re: Closing - I can't speak for Delaware but I had an LLC in IL and just let it expire. I didn't pay the fees and it just had an administrative closure. I talked to a Sec. of State clerk and they suggested I just leave it alone. I was cash-strapped at the time.</comment>


A Data Structure and algorithm zoo for Java, Scala, Python - <AUTHOR> https://g1thubhub.github.io/data-structure-zoo.html <comment><AUTHOR> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17427190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17427190)</comment>


The Apollo Guidance Computer [audio] - <AUTHOR> http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/03/167-the-apollo-guidance-computer/

<comment><USER2> I love omega tau - they go in-depth into some of the most intriguing engineering projects of the recent past. I personally love the space-themed shows however I'd encourage anyone to look through their back catalog, even if they detest space history.

</comment><comment><USER3> About my favourite podcast show</comment>


What's a Free, Shared, Coderpad? - <AUTHOR> I can't seem to find a free, collaborative, coderpad to do interviews on. Doesn't seem like too big an ask... <comment><USER2> The free version of Repl.it allows two simultaneous coders. [https://repl.it/site/multiplayer](https://repl.it/site/multiplayer)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you are using it in a commercial setting why not just pay for it?</comment>


How long employees are staying at the 10 biggest companies in tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/employee-retention-rate-top-tech-companies-2017-8 <comment><USER2> There are a few problems with the very simplistic statistics in this article:

1) These stats don't account for growth in employee base. If a company is growing their employee base by hiring new employees they could have 0% attrition and the average duration of employment would still be low simply because of all the new employees that just started.

2) Most of these companies have a lot of different roles. For Amazon they obviously have fulfillment center employees working in the warehouses, folks working in the data centers, and folks doing engineering. I suspect these roles have very different attrition rates. The same goes for Apple, Facebook, etc. You could have 0% attrition rate on your core engineering team but still have a low average average employee "age" because there is high turnover in your customer support call center.

Basically the simplistic stats in this article are absolutely worthless and not newsworthy, which unfortunately is pretty par for the course with Business Insider.

</comment><comment><USER3> I avg about 2 years per company. I planned on staying in my current situation for 5 yrs but the project has already changed drastically in my 2 yrs here. As a result I'll probably be leaving soon. I assumed the avg Googler would stay longer than my average duration due to the variety of things you could work on in addition to the above avg pay

</comment><comment><USER4> For some reason they felt it was relevant to cram in a comparison of the founder's amount of time at Uber with an average employee's. Bang up job business insider.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't see a source for these claims. Does anyone know where Business Insider is getting this information?

EDIT: Literally all of the information is coming from the infographic here: [https://www.paysa.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/Disrup...](https://www.paysa.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/DisruptorsA8.png)

</comment><comment><USER6> Business Insider loves posting articles with out of context stats copied directly from glassdoor.

</comment><comment><USER7> Summary:

Facebook: 2.02 years

Google: 1.90 years

Oracle: 1.89 years

Apple: 1.85 years

Amazon: 1.84 years

Twitter: 1.83 years

Microsoft: 1.81 years

Airbnb: 1.64 years

Snap Inc.: 1.62 years

Uber: 1.23 years

<comment><USER8> Oh OK, so they're burnout factories.

<comment><USER9> No it's just the only meaningful way to get a raise is to switch jobs</comment></comment></comment>


My DNS queries are being intercepted and altered in-flight - <AUTHOR> http://paste.debian.net/plainh/9140c83e

<comment><USER3> You are hitting Virgin's GGC (Google Global Cache) servers, which return a different IP than the Google or GGC servers where your IPv6 tunnel is located. Google is messing with your DNS, not Virgin Media (and they are doing it to improve your performance).

<comment><AUTHOR> I did not know about GGC, and that seems cool (and similar to the Netflix approach of putting content servers inside ISP networks). However, this does not explain why I get an address pointing to my ISP network when I query via OpenDNS, which is definitely outside of my ISP network and is an intermediate recursor (so, from the perspective of the nameservers for google.com, the query is not coming from a Virgin Media address range).

EDIT: And from the GGC documentation, it does not seem as if the ISPs are required to serve content from the in-ISP nodes to customers outside the ISP, which is what this would look like.

<comment><USER3> OpenDNS uses edns-client-subnet, which passes the DNS client IP subnet (/24) with the recursion request. Google still knows you are on Virgin Media from behind OpenDNS.

[http://www.afasterinternet.com/howitworks.htm](http://www.afasterinternet.com/howitworks.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> Now THAT, is amazing - and perfectly explains what's going on. I operate several nameservers of my own for various domains, some owned by me, some not, and I'd not heard of that. I am happy with your answer, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google has a POP (point-of-presence) at most ISPs, even small ones.

There was a whole time, when pinging google.com would return xxx.static.my- isp.tld as rDNS.

# dig @2001:4860:4860::8888 +short A google.com. | head -n1

220.127.116.11

# dig @22.214.171.124 +short A google.com. | head -n1

22.214.171.124

The first IP, if you whois it, belongs to my ISP, the 2nd IP belongs to Google.

These POP servers are one to several Dell servers located in your ISPs network, who then redirect traffic to other Google servers. These servers usually also have some caching (ie popular YouTube videos are cached there).

</comment><comment><USER5> I would suggest running your tests against a non-geobalanced and/or non-cdn enabled hostname (you can use the same resolvers, it doesn't matter here).

Google most likely has a cache cluster within VM's core and their DNS send you there when you're resolving from VM's network (ipv4 case). When attempting to resolve over ipv6, you're not using VM's ip space but that of your tunnel provider. In this case, google's geo dns are likely to send you to another cluster closer to that provider.

</comment><comment><USER6> It could just be that they are hosting their local mirror on Virgin Media?

Does this happen to other sites?

I know here various ISPs have local caching setup for Google / Facebook / etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> As others have mentioned this seems entirely expected based on how Google uses DNS for load balancing and serving your query from a datacenter as close to you as possible.

If you want to see some details of how it works have a look at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWpBNm6lBU4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWpBNm6lBU4) .

Disclaimer: I work for Google. I speak for myself etc. blah.

</comment><comment><USER8> Have you tried hitting an alternative DNS resolver than Google's? You might find Google are tailoring results for VM which other providers aren't willing to do.

I get the same results on a BT Infinity connection, querying 126.96.36.199 or 220.127.116.11 return a 184.108.40.206 address or similar and querying my local router which uses BT's DNS returns a Google IP 188.8.131.52

<comment><AUTHOR> I get the same addresses from 22.214.171.124 as I do from 126.96.36.199 - <USER2> belonging to my ISP. If I'm using OpenDNS's recursor to look Google up, that would put the query (from Google's perspective) firmly outside of my ISP network, so why am I getting addresses pointing to my ISP in that case?

<comment><USER9> Try it with a DNS server you control, which does not support client-subnet, located on the other side of the world. If Virgin is MITMing your DNS traffic, the results will be the same as you have seen with OpenDNS. If the results are different, you're probably OK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It should be noted, I forgot to include in the paste, that the address beginning with 62 (returned over IPv4) belongs to my ISP, not Google.

<comment><USER10> Also on VM here.

'dig @188.8.131.52 +short A google.com' gives addresses in the 22.214.171.124-123 range. (actually appears in the 67-123 range)

This isn't indicative of VM fiddling with DNS, just that there's some Google servers in VM's infrastructure. It's a common. In fact the addresses google spits out for google.com varies on your location, ISP etc. This is to redirect you to their closest endpoints, content delivery networks work in a similar way.

Why does your IPV6 based query show differently? It's because of where your IPV6 tunnel is located.

Looking from elsewhere in the uk I get 22.214.171.124-137,142</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where should 5G be placed on this radiation dose chart? - <AUTHOR> https://xkcd.com/radiation <comment><USER2> It is easier to understand the problem with another question: Where should sunlight be?

The power of sunlight is approximately 120W/m^2. The surface of the skin of a person is approximately 2m^2. Let's assume that someone sunbath naked at noon for 1 hour. The energy s/he get is 120W/m^2 * 2m^2/2 * 3600s = 432000J.

Let's assume the weight of the person is 100kg=220pounds, then s/he gets 4320J/Kg ~= 5000 J/Kg.

Getting 5000 J/Kg of gamma radiation is lethal. Getting 5000 J/Kg of sunlight is safe [remember to use sunscreen to make it safer].

The graph is in Sv (Sievert) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert) . The conversion of J/Kg to Sv is not straightforward, but for gamma radiation (IIUC) the conversion coefficient is 1 (assuming an uniform distribution, some parts of the body are more sensitive to radiation than other).

Getting 5000 J/Kg of gamma radiation is equivalent to getting 5000 Sv/Kg. The highest level in the graph is "10 minutes next to Chernobyl reactor" = 50Sv. So 5000Sv is about 1000 minutes next to Chernobyl reactor, that is approximately 16 hours, that is approximately half day. You ded.

Transforming 5000 J/Kg of sunlight to Sv/Kg is more difficult. The problem is that different radiation frequencies have a different conversion coefficient to Sv/Kg. For gamma-rays and X-rays the coefficient is 1. I can't find the coefficient for UV but let's assume that it is close to 1. The coefficient for visible light is close to 0. Infrared is closer to 0 because the photons have less energy. Radio waves are closer to 0.

The idea is that the photons in gamma-rays, X-rays and UV chave a lot of energy and can kick an electron and f you are very unlucky create a mutation. The photons in infrared and radio waves have very little energy and they can't kick and electron, so they are safe. You can accumulate a lot of infrared and radio waves photons and heat you, but they don't produce mutations.

So the 5000 J/Kg of sunlight is probably very close to 0 Sv/Kg. I guess a less than 1 uSv (in the blue region), because 1 hour of sunbath is (probably) safer than an X ray in the arm. I'd like to see hard numbers, but 1 hour of sunbath per day is safer than 1 x-ray in the arm per day.

Just in case, remember to use sunscreen that blocks the UV so sunbathing is even more safe. You should use sunscreen to block the UV that is a very small part of the radiation of sunlight, but they have some chance or making a mutation. You don't have to block the infrared radiation that is much bigger but it can't produce mutations.

\---

Back to your question: Try to get the power of 5G in a nearby area (100 foot away from the tower?), multiply it by 24hours to get the daily dose. Is it more or less than 1 hour of sunlight. Now remember that sunlight have UV, so sunlight is more dangerous than 5G.

</comment><comment><USER3> As far as I understand things, 5G is non-ionizing so the answer would appear to be "nowhere".

<comment><USER4> This. There was an interesting thread a couple of days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20456152](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20456152)</comment></comment>


Consciousness, Dune and Abu Ghraib - <AUTHOR> http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=791

<comment><AUTHOR> If you liked this, his SF novel Blindsight digs deep into these questions too, and it's free at: <http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm>

</comment><comment><USER2> And what about qualia?

<comment><USER3> If you haven't read it, esr had an interesting take on qualia a while back <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1192#more-1192> . His take is that qualia is the internal feeling of having a particular sensation. That is that the qualia of redness is the feeling that is internally associated with seeing red.

<comment><USER2> What is the purpose of this feeling? There is no obvious evolutionary advantage in "feeling" the red.</comment></comment></comment>


Why scientists are redefining the kilogram - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/24/why-scientists-are-redefining-the-kilogram/ <comment><USER4> I have always had one question about defining measurements in terms of universal constants. Perhaps it is a silly one.

What if universal constants are, in the long run, variable? What if over the course of 500 years the speed of light, or the strength of gravity, changes?

If the measurements used to define these constants are defined in terms of the constants themselves, how would we see change? Perhaps this is a silly question in practice. If so, I would be interested in the 'theoretical' or hypothetical answer for a world where traditional measures of the kilogram and second have been forgotten.

<comment><USER5> If the universe was just a sequence of random arrangements of random phenomena, then no physics would be possible - there would be no reproducible experiments, and so no way to predict the future based on the present.

Specific things may be variables rather than constants, but we can only ever define that in relation to some other constant. If the hyperfine transition of the cesium-133 atom starts taking longer, how could we measure that, except in relation to some other periodic activity, e.g. the hyperfine transition of hydrogen atoms (or, if we go back to Galileo, human heartbeats)? So we could equally say that the hydrogen transition has got faster or the cesium transition has got slower. Now if 111 elements "agreed" on how fast time was passing and one other element differed, it would probably make sense to say that it was the one element whose transitions were slowing down rather than the 111 elements whose transitions were speeding up. But ultimately there is no single objective measure of time in the universe; rather there are a number of periodic patterns in the universe that are mostly consistent with each other, and most easily explained by there being a single, consensus concept of time passing. If one particular pattern starts going against that consensus, it makes sense to say that that particular pattern is changing, and since we want our definition of the passage of time to agree with the consensus, if the pattern that changed happened to be the "official" definition of time (hyperfine transitions of cesium-133) then we would almost certainly just switch to a different pattern in nature that followed the consensus. But if the consensus itself broke down, well, at that point it no longer makes sense to talk about a single concept of "time" \- rather we'd have to talk about the specific patterns we were talking about. And if the patterns went away entirely, physics itself would become impossible.

<comment><USER6> In relative terms I agree. However, what if some outside force were causing the 111 elements transitions to speed up, but that outside force had no effect on the 1 who was immune to that cause? How can we ever be sure of anything? If we go into things assuming that the 111 elements are correct and the 1 was incorrect, we could be tying ourselves to assumptions that may be invalid.

Think to Geordie's epiphany: "It never occurred to me that space was the thing that was moving."

<comment><USER5> > what if some outside force were causing the 111 elements transitions to > speed up, but that outside force had no effect on the 1 who was immune to > that cause? How can we ever be sure of anything?

If two models generate the same predictions, they are the same model, and the simpler (in the Kolgomorov complexity sense) is best understood as the truth (in so far as that concept is meaningful at all). A force acting on everything in the universe except one atom, or a (equal and opposite) force acting on that one atom, is the same thing[1], just as a universe where all distances are multiplied by two is indistinguishable from the current universe. Again, there's no way to make an observation from outside the universe; we can only make relative measurements, observe patterns, and use them to make predictions.

[1] ultimately, this comes down to: they generate the same sense-impressions that I subjectively experience - but for simplicity let's assume an objective universe exists, other humans exist, and we can observe the same things - <USER2> believe this assumption is justified as the most parsimonious explanation of the patterns I perceive in the sense-impressions I experience

<comment><USER7> > is best understood as the truth

No! It's _preferred as an explanation_ because it is more elegant and convenient, NOT because it is more true. It is the same true!

<comment><USER5> Elsewhere in the thread someone gave the example of heliocentrism versus geocentrism. You can form a heliocentric model that makes accurate predictions, you just have to add epicycles to everything. But I would say that heliocentrism is not merely more elegant and more convenient, but also more true. Wouldn't you? For a more extreme example, in the story from [http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/) I think we would say that it isn't true that there's a dragon in the garage.

<comment><USER8> In that case however we have other data than just the model to suggest that geocentrism is false, whereas the topic of this thread is models in physics mathematics that merely differ in complexity, with no apparent difference in "truth".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The most interesting takeaway from this article for me isn't the kilogram, which is obvious and makes sense, but that the _mole_ is being redefined.

A "mole" is a unitless quantity. Literally it's just a number. I'm just dumbfounded that when they defined it, they didn't just pick an actual number but referenced an experiment to define it. Now it's a number.

<comment><USER10> I guess that the problem with Avogadro's number (and others such, like the Coulomb) is that they are approximations and not specific counts.

The difference between the Avogadro Number and the new Avogadro Constant is that they will define it as a concrete integer value: 6.02NNNN... x 10^23. When the digits are agreed upon, I think the idea is that all subsequent digits are going to be defined as zero, making it a precise integer.

So then if it is a precise integer, we can then try construct objects with exactly that many particles (silicon atoms) and then weigh them, and so forth: masses can be tied to precise counts.

It's kind of analogous to declaring that an inch is exactly 2.54 mm: 2.54000000... not 2.5400XXX for some unknown X that is somehow empirically measured.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> So if I understand correctly, this is saying that we would be formally redefining the kilogram, mole, ampere and Kelvin units (or prototypes?) as some quantifiable relation to immutable, measurable constants instead of the arbitrary and self-referential "this is a kg because it's how much this block of metal weighs and we decided that's what a kg is". Is that correct?

Not being a scientist myself, I'm struggling to understand the impact of these changes being made. Is it just a matter of increasing the precision of base units?

Say they redefine the mole to be based on that 1kg sphere of silicon-28. What is the real-world impact of doing so? Presumably one mole will still be one mole and not all of a sudden e.g. 6.03x10^23.

Does anyone have an example of where a change like this would be important?

<comment><USER5> The big issue is that the standard reference kilogram (the block of metal) is losing mass. If we take the SI standards literally, this means e.g. distant galaxies now mass more kilograms than they did last year. Which seems obviously undesirable.

The impact should ultimately be to make ultra-precise physics - <USER3> eventually, engineering - easier, because people reproducing an experiment in a different lab will have a closer consensus on exactly how much 1kg is.

<comment><USER12> > The big issue is that the standard reference kilogram (the block of metal) > is losing mass.

As per the article, there's several of them. Some are losing mass, others are gaining.

<comment><USER13> But only one of them, Big K, defines the kilogram. So the ones losing mass might just gain mass more slowly than Big K. Or they might even all be losing mass but some more slowly than Big K making them apparently gain mass. I don't know if we know how the masses actually changed.

<comment><USER14> We don't. And that's the problem. If it was a consistent loss, it would be much easier to work around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _" For the scale that's in your grocery store or bathroom, nothing's going to change," Dr. David Newell of NIST said._

Was _really_ hoping my Intent to Deliver charges would drop to simple possession, but I guess that's not going to happen...

</comment><comment><USER16> While this is a good thing, I can't help but be a little bit sad. I liked the idea that while meters and seconds were defined by some natural process or law, the Kilogram was something that physically existed, that you could see or even theoretically hold in your hand.

<comment><USER17> > even theoretically hold in your hand.

Yeah, if you were that strong.

<comment><USER18> So, if you aren't an infant and don't have a severe disability?

<comment><USER17> Somehow, I feel that the joke got lost.

<comment><USER18> Clearly

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting read I saw a similar post about this from July:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of- science/wp/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of- science/wp/2017/07/05/scientists-are-about-to-change-what-a-kilogram-is-thats- massive/?utm_term=.d8dff516db82)

Redefining mass based on an idea as opposed to a physical object took me some time to get my head around.

</comment><comment><USER20> IANAS... Is it possible that these adjustments could mean the difference between someones work needing a "magic number" to be correct and not? I've heard stories about physicists who needed to add some "correcting" variables to make their math totally correct, which is why I thought of this.

<comment><USER21> I think this is unrelated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> You know what's kinda funny: In order to make the changes to "define" these physical constants, we first make equipment using the old definitions. XD (Not that it changes the outcome, mind you.)</comment>


Ask HN: Quotes you re-read for motivation/inspiration? - <AUTHOR>

Just curious whether anyone has any favorite quotes that give them a boost of motivation/inspiration when creative energies are flagging? <comment><USER2> "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."

\--Antoine De Saint-Exupery</comment>


Apple MacBook vs. HP Spectre: How Thin Does Your Laptop Really Need to Be? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/article_email/apple-macbook-vs-hp-spectre-how-thin-does-your-laptop-really-need-to-be-1466531445-lMyQjAxMTA2NTIxMTkyMzE2Wj <comment><USER2> optimizing things that don't actually matter.

<comment><USER3> Maybe it's a problem on both sides (consumers too). If no one bought thin laptops Apple might stop making them.</comment></comment>


YSlow is now open source  - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/marcelduran/yslow

<comment><USER2> I'm confused, didn't they open source it almost five years ago? [http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2007/07/yslow_rel...](http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2007/07/yslow_release_o/) (though the license is now BSD.. but is this newer YSlow a different version that was not previously open source?)

(Update: Aha, there's a blog post at [http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2012/02/welcome-y...](http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2012/02/welcome- yslow-open-source/) \- it doesn't explain much to do with my question but it seems becoming BSD makes it more open source than under the Mozilla Public License? :-))

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh no... They forgot to add .svn to the .gitignore A kitten has just died...

</comment><comment><USER4> nice! I want more integration of this in everything.

</comment><comment><USER5> That's the only name of internal yahoo projects i really like the Y at the start.

They append Y to anything. So there's usually names like YCoolThing. And you go about "why you are questioning CoolThing?!"

but YSlow is just perfect.

<comment><USER6> > So there's usually names like YCoolThing. And you go about "why you are > questioning CoolThing?!"

How can you read _Y_ as _Why_? Is it _WhyCombinator_ for you?

<comment><USER7> Everybody says why-combinator, no? Certainly everyone I've ever heard, including interviewers, YC founders, pg...

<comment><USER6> Of course I _say_ why-combinator. He was talking about interpretation of names beginning with `Y`, rather than pronunciation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The project source is available at <https://github.com/marcelduran/yslow>

<comment><USER8> If you're not aware why you're being downvoted - the URL of your submission goes there anyway, so you didn't need to post this. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, initially I had posted the link to the Yahoo Developer blog page announcing the same. But then I thought it would be apt to provide the link to the github repo itself , since the readers would feel more interested in the actual stuff !! So I added the link as a comment without realizing that the source link was updated too.</comment></comment></comment>


We need more STEM majors with liberal arts training - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/18/we-dont-need-more-stem-majors-we-need-more-stem-majors-with-liberal-arts-training/ <comment><USER3> From the editorial: _In business and at every level of government, we hear how important it is to graduate more students majoring in science, technology, engineering and math, as our nation's competitiveness depends on it._

Very good! You've given a reason, but it's based on an argument from authority: BUSINESS and GOVERNMENT say the nation needs more STEM people. I find that entire type of argument unconvincing. Businesses usually say they need more people with some quality when they find the existing people with that quality are too expensive. As an employee, if I had a quality in demand, I'd seek to keep the supply of people with that quality as low as possible. Lawyers and doctors do that (in the USA) why can't STEM people?

That's to say: I'm unconvinced.

<comment><USER4> It's funny that you mention doctors and lawyers, because the way doctors and lawyers artificially keep their numbers small has earned them a very bad reputation among the general populace. They aren't doing it for quality either. They have their own interests in mind (just like businesses do in the STEM case) and they are willing to deny other people the same opportunities in order to get paid more.

My parents are actually doctors and we used to get in debates about this all the time. They of course follow the party line about how an influx into the medical field would lower quality of service. But of course they say that because they want their own earning potential to remain very high.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ironically, the main example is of a chemistry student who knows how to program.

I actually do agree with the article, I just think it is hopelessly vague. As a math major who frequently programs and has a great interest in chemistry in physics, it is not "liberal arts" that I find helpful, but philosophy, ethics, and things that were, until recently, considered sciences as well. (I _love_ the metaphysical ramifications of Godel because my favorite part of philosophy is epistemology)

Analyzing a poem or learning about diversity or whathaveyou won't help me - not necesarily because it can't but because liberal arts education at the undergraduate level is hopelessly useless. There are two extremes I see in it: hopeless rigidity (you can't end a sentence with a preposition or your interpretation of this piece is wrong because I disagree with it) and incompetent formlessness where every opinion is valid and has merit - <USER2> when it doesn't.

It is too rare that I see education that accepts diversity of opinion while maintaining rigour in anything.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, math was also once considered to be a liberal art.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have two minors in liberal arts fields in addition to a CS degree (a BS) and the main reaction they've ever engendered is curiosity at how the minors are totally unrelated to a CS major. (IE there's a subtext of "why aren't your minor minors in math or science?" Because I guess they should be, or something?)

Even more annoying is the frequent assumption that if a person works with computers it's inconceivable that they might have a clue about design, writing, or art.

<comment><USER8> I've gotten those same questions, but never felt a negative subtext. I've always considered the question an easy way to start a conversation about versatility.

<comment><USER9> It's negative when people start to pigeonhole you and tell you you can't do certain things because you're not suppose to know how.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Combinatorial creativity is a very real thing. So why limit yourself to one intellectual pursuit (whether that's liberal arts, STEM, teaching, etc)? This article could be reversed and still make sense - We need more liberal arts majors with STEM training.

<comment><USER11> We need more people with a broad, diverse education. Because those people make better people.

</comment></comment><comment> dj-wonk I'd like to mention that my alma mater (The University of Texas at Austin) has an honors program (called Plan II) that allows (and encourages) students to major in both liberal arts and other, often technical fields: [http://www.utexas.edu/cola/progs/plan2/admission/application...](http://www.utexas.edu/cola/progs/plan2/admission/application/other- honors.php)

My particular program combined liberal arts and engineering _and_ had institutional support and a student group to help.

Of course, many other students still thought we were crazy to do both. I'm glad I did. Many of my Plan II instructors did a better job of teaching critical thinking and scholarship than most of my engineering professors.

</comment><comment><USER12> None of these arguments are very moving. The best argument of the article is that it's good to learn programming even if your interests are in the hard sciences. But computer science is a STEM field. STEM majors already cross- train in other STEM disciplines because it's useful and helps give them a well-rounded education.

Why not make liberal arts students, who are the ones who can't get jobs and whose educations aren't doing much for society, take science classes? They're the ones who end up working at Starbucks. That's the part of the education system that's _broken_, but we're supposed to ask the most productive part of education to follow suit?

<comment><USER13> "Why not make liberal arts students, who are the ones who can't get jobs..."

It's not really that simple. Recent liberal arts graduates have about the same unemployment rate as recent computer science and maths graduates. Physical science graduates have a much better chance of finding a job, but so do education majors.[1] And there isn't a big glut of unfilled STEM jobs which would be available to these liberal arts students if they just took STEM courses.[2] The idea that the liberal arts are "broken" and STEM is "productive" isn't supported by the evidence.

[1]: [https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp- content/uploads/HardTimes2015-...](https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp- content/uploads/HardTimes2015-Report.pdf) [2]: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/at- work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/at- work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth)

<comment><USER12> Your "evidence" is underwhelming, I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. My argument wasn't based on the "STEM crisis" so debunking it is irrelevant. If you look at figure 1 of your Georgetown link it seems clear that STEM degrees correlate with lower unemployment, liberal arts with higher unemployment.

You don't get to just cherry-pick the easy comparisons. Your link suggests technical educations have, as a whole, lower unemployment. In addition to that, average salaries for recent STEM grads are 25-50% higher than their liberal arts counterparts.

Maybe it's not fair of me to say that one is awesome and the other is horrible, but if we're going to make one of them more like the other it seems clear which one is falling behind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, credits her degree in philosophy and medieval history in helping her be the first woman to lead a high-tech Fortune 20 corporation."

Yeah, allot of good she did to HP. Hewlett & Packard were engineers.

<comment><USER4> I'm not too familiar with her case. Was her subpar performance caused by her lack of technical education?

<comment><USER14> Not nessicerily, but she turned a respected test and measurement company into a purveyor of garbage PCs and printers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Though I never got a degree, I did take a LOT of history on the opposite side of the campus from the CS building. (There were a lot more women on that side of the campus as well, which was nice).

History was tons of fun, and remains one of my favorite types of reading to this day.

More practically, I highly recommend taking a number of courses on writing, because one of the things you'll need to do in your great CS career is communicate effectively to people, up and down your management chain, and to customers. Hell, good writing skills come into play when you're filling-in bug reports.

<comment><USER16> Coding is just a really specialized type of writing. A lot of the principles of writing and editing prose well equally apply to code.

<comment><USER17> > Coding is just a really specialized type of writing

.. for the attention of a single audience, the compiler. The compiler demands accuracy and completeness yet also provides patient, useful and virtually infinite feedback to guide the writer. That's not typical of human audiences!

Creating prose for human audiences is challenging and yet is an essential skill in the corporate world.

A two-minute elevator pitch to a C-level officer is going to be a lot different than notes on a bug report. But I've worked with many people who can't make that context-switch and just overwhelm their audience with irrelevant details.

That's one of the interesting aspects of an education in history: analyse inputs, synthesise, evaluate and only output what is relevant to the argument.

<comment><USER15> Good code has to be good on a number of different axis:

\- Understandability and maintainability. People are going to toss your code if it's bad. If the stuff you write is consistently bad, they're going to toss _you_.

\- Syntax, as enforced by the compiler.

\- Functional. Many sub-axis here, including efficiency, usability, resilience to failure, number of bugs, and so on.

... and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's called STEAM. There's a movement in education - [http://www.risd.edu/About/STEM_to_STEAM/](http://www.risd.edu/About/STEM_to_STEAM/)

<comment><USER19> Is anything left out of this movement? What separates STEAM from just... education?

<comment><USER18> It's project based, something you don't normally see in public education. It focuses on integrating the disciplines. Students don't have a science course, then a math course, then a writing course. Students are given a problem to solve that cuts across disciplines and have to use different disciplines to solve the problem.

The concept has been around forever, but modern education has put disciplines into silos. STEAM is trying to reintegrate things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> While I certainly agree that STEM students with a background in humanities would be valuable, we still need to ask if this is a rational career path for someone with this kind of ability.

Medicine is also a good career choice for academically talented students with strength in both humanities and science. To get these students over to STEM you'll need to offer career prospects, pay, stability, and prestige comparable to dermatology or radiology.

In short, I can see why STEM employers would want these students, but the students have better options than STEM.

</comment><comment><USER21> For what it's worth, I did a Liberal Arts degree, a Business degree and ended up working in IT. Liberal arts came first and Business came second.

Liberal arts thoroughly enriched my understanding of the world when coupled with business (particularly the economics aspects of it). I use both when managing clients and projects in my IT job. I encourage all students to become multi-disciplinary even if you think your future focus will be only in one area.

</comment><comment><USER22> What we need to do is to discern between education and training. Once we do that, we can begin to elevate the vocational back to a place where it's valued, and institutions dedicated to education can get back to it and not have it's resources diverted to a task outside the charter of education. I look forward to engaging in the debate of the line between the two.

<comment><USER23> Could you elaborate on the distinction between education and training and why you think a single institution should not do both? I think colleges should teach things that are things that are directly applicable to a job as well as things that are not.

<comment><USER22> First, when I say education, I mean Liberal Arts education. In this, I would include the humanities, and pure maths. The difference could be found in the approach to technical skills. For example, when I was a student of Attic Greek, our teacher liked to point out that our technical mastery of English grammar would serve us well if we chose a career in publishing. The acquiring of this technical skill was a side-effect of our pursuit, the study of Attic Greek, not the point of it. In vocational training, the entire point is in the acquiring of technical skill. I believe this is as important, and must be a separate pursuit so that it gets the resources it needs. A STEM example would be the difference between how engineering is treated in Canada, versus the U.S. After an education of engineering theory, a student in Canada is then qualified to enter into an apprenticeship where they then have the opportunity to become a qualified engineer, after their vocational training is completed. In the U.S., there's not as much discernment between theory and praxis, and one may not be entirely sure of receiving the right amount of each. The official certification one receives in Canada seems to signal the valuing of vocational training. Receiving an education in theory as a pre-requisite signals the value of theory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Lenders need to start charging hire interest rate for loans made to non-STEM majors. Those loans are more risky. I know I will get flack for this but I believe it will be good policy.

</comment><comment><USER25> What exactly is she suggesting we do about it?

</comment><comment><USER26> I myself have a Bachelor of Arts in Physics, from UC Santa Cruz. I regard the courses I took in history, anthropology and social psychology to be invaluable to my work as a coder.

<comment><USER27> I would love to hear any concrete examples you might have.

<comment><USER26> I can produce some but not just now as I have not been feeling well.

But consider that software may be executed by machines, but it is written by humans. I once read a fascinating UCSC doctoral dissertation by an anthropologist who studied High Energy Physicists at SLAC.

Working at Apple was just like that for me. I didn't just write code, I studied my fellow employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >>thinkers who know to consider chemistry's impact on society and the environment.

I would rather we had chemistry that could impact the environment instead of thinkers who philosophized over its impact.

There might be an interesting argument about how liberal arts eduction contributes to STEM, or perhaps that STEM has low standards and anybody can decide to be a biologists on a whim, but the more interesting arguments are not made by the article. Perhaps the author could use an extra English class.

<comment><USER29> How about:

 _A scientist trained in the liberal arts has another huge advantage: writing ability._

It might not be an "interesting" argument, but I remember my best college professor expressly lamenting that engineering students no longer knew how to write.

I also remember discovering the steady decline in the quality of datasheet & manual technical writing, starting somewhere in the late 80's.

<comment><USER30> Writing is quite important in software development, especially on open-source projects where much communication occurs via email and bug tracker. With the glut of projects competing for attention, copywriting ability can be important in attracting other developers to a project.</comment></comment></comment>


Adobe debuts Muse, a no-code-required site builder - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20091941-93/adobe-debuts-muse-a-no-code-required-site-builder/ <comment><AUTHOR> Can imagine that the auto generated code is pretty ugly. But I guess this is where the market for them is heading.</comment>