University Students are Afraid of Everything - <AUTHOR> https://jpminda.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/university-students-are-afraid-of-everything/ <comment><USER3> Are there actually any numbers for this supposed infantilization? It seems to me that the number of people complaining about unis being not PC enough is relatively equal to the number of people complaining about the first group. (edit: had a logical mistake here)

Sometimes very small, very loud groups can be perceived by outsiders to be more influential than they actually are.

There some to be some more mix-ups in this rant:

>According to some universities, these counsellors provide "customer support".

This is more an indictment of the sad state of student/university relationship - you pay so much, you're a customer, not a student.

>Final exam time at many large universities is when this infantilization really comes out. Students will literally walk around in public wearing their sleeping clothes and sweats. They nap in the library or in the hallway of academic buildings during normal work hours

That's not infantilization, that's just laziness and a short way to the dorm. Sleeping in a university during "normal work hours" (gasp!) has been normal for decades.

>Education is not trauma

Maybe it didn't use to be a trauma - but in the time of more and more focus on grades and GPAs, forced student competition, "career days", CV polishing courses, mandatory unpaid internships, i.e., ageneral shift from the university as a place that creates politically mature citizens to a place that churns out better trained cogs for companies, education may have become trauma.

<comment><USER4> > Are there actually any numbers for this supposed infantilization? It seems > to me that the number of people complaining about unis being not PC enough > is relatively equal to the number of people complaining about the first > group.

Isn't this the same response we hear every time someone else speaks out about this? "This is just the work of a few bad eggs. If this was a widespread problem, why aren't we hearing about more of it?" Which, yeah, the first few times people have made this complaint, I agreed with. But it has started to ring hollow.

> Sometimes very small, very loud groups can be perceived by outsiders

I don't think the author here is an outsider—they're a professor at a university where this is happening.

<comment><USER3> I can see your first point, but I still have to see yet any quantification (a shift in questionnaire answers towards more "PC" over the decades, for example), until then I remain unconvinced.

Most cases in the author's article have to do with other universities - <USER2> the author's university, he complains about "counselors" (again, I think that's a financial incentive for the university - "customer support", happy customers study longer therefore pay more, special customers for groups who normally don't study -> more students from that group -> more money), and people in pajamas, which isn't really a problem that I can understand.

Now that I've re-read it, it's a bit weird that a psychologist writes a sentence like this:

> It seems that Harvard students, for whom the average grade is A- need more > help.

If you're expected to have an average of A- by your peers, teachers and professors of other universities then I'd expect the pressure to be enormous, of course you'll see more problems with mental health!

>I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated.

The poor man!

<comment> matt-attack >I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated.

>> The poor man!

Did you not read the next sentence? The point was that most of the "disabilities" are bunk:

> Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and > are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and > an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.

<comment><USER3> He doesn't prove that they are bunk - there are just many disabilities out there where a separate room is helpful. (edit: in fact, an extra room + bit of extra time is the only available accommodation for disabled that unis tend to give out, so of course that's the "remedy")

For example, someone with a spine injury with a only partially functioning bladder may need to urinate a few times during a long exam. If he/she's not around students, he/she can do that using a bottle and doesn't need to waste any more time wheeling back and forth to the bathroom. (I have a friend in a wheelchair who used to do this during exams). Visually impaired may not be able to write or read on their own so they have someone read them the questions and dictate the answers, which disturbs other students if they'd be in the same room.

AFAIK if you need a different room then the disability has to be documented to the university with a medical letter, but I can't find that requirement at the author's uni page so maybe that uni doesn't.

<comment><USER5> > AFAIK if you need a different room then the disability has to be documented > to the university with a medical letter, but I can't find that requirement > at the author's uni page so maybe that uni doesn't.

Just to add to this:

I'm a TA and have been a lecturer a few times for courses at my uni. There is a whole registration process that the student and professor must go through. I'd estimate (in my limited experience) it's usually only 1 in 30-50 students who request extra accommodation. I suppose there are some that use it to take advantage. However, there are social implications of having special accommodations that naturally work to off set those who might take advantage these allowances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Calling some of this infantilization is kind of sad.

Walking around in slippers and napping wherever is a consequence of freedom from social conventions, or at least an environment where social conventions are anomalous and rapidly changing. So is promiscuity, once called free love. These are things that universities have always been havens for. Others things (puppy rooms) are experimental, also an artifact of a nonconformist and liberal environment.

Students and academics have more license to be quirky and eccentric than lawyers and soccer moms. That's a good thing.

I also cringe when I here about PC student audiences that can't tolerate stand up comedy. It all feels like a part of the recreational righteous rage, liking to be right and pointing at the kid that said the C-word.

OTOH, it's also a side effect of effective social movements that take place at universities. If I look back at social movements that universities played major roles in, I don't think they've been bad. Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime. Amazingly. There is tremendous support and solidarity from the public. It's a breathtaking rise in collective conscience. If I'm going to be yelled at by 19 year olds for saying "tranny" but we get to a point where transexuals can work and live normally, homosexuals can have families…. I'll take it.

Part of the way that is achieved intolerance towards "assholes," homophobes, xenophobes, sexists. Students, being young and insufferable spray that all around. Long term though, it sticks mostly where it should.

But yea, I agree. Young people are annoying.

<comment><USER7> > Attitudes towards queers and trannies have changed so much in my lifetime.

"Tranny" is a vicious slur against trans people, on par with "faggot" for a gay person or "nigger" for a black person. Please edit your post.

<comment><USER8> Seriously? Maybe you are trolling, to reinforce the point of the article. Otherwise, in context, I think using those words helped make the point of the attitude shift over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Might be a rare experience, but as a South American in an U.S university, I couldn't relate to many American Latinos for their neurotic concern with micro aggressions.

Jokes that would be seen as amusing in my country were taken as a personal insult and avoided at all costs. Many interesting non-latinos would gradually be excluded for no reason.

Ironically, I fostered relationships with apparently "racist white males" who were more concerned with the content of conversations than 'fighting the enemy'.

<comment><USER10> From my experiences the idea of microaggression is more common in people of more suburban-like American lifestyles. As an immigrant, and friend of many different immigrants in America, the idea of anybody being offended, or taking things as a personal insult is nearly unheard of. But, people who may not know many people of different backgrounds seem to think they should be offended, and take things personally.

<comment><USER11> I agree. I've generally been part of groups that were very mixed as far as culture, sexual preference, or skin color goes, and most of our interactions went well beyond 'micro-aggression' right into overt racism, misogyny, anti- semitism, and whatnot. I've found that the more mixed the group was, the more of this kind of stuff happened and the less sensitive people seemed to be about it.

And to be clear, that's just an observation. As a white, male, highly-educated person I try to avoid judgements or too many opinions on this issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love the part about students walking around in their pajamas at the library during finals week. The "puppy room" sounds utterly ridiculous.

It's been a long time, but this happened at my University too. It was just part of the relentless competition among students to make other students think THEY had it so much harder than anyone else. It was like a badge of honor to be taking a 300 level class as a freshmen, or have to study all night long, or to be starving because you had so little money.

I did the same thing.

And when you get out of college, it just transfers over to parenting.

New parents walking around in sweat pants and their hair a mess to show that they got no sleep due to the newborn. Then when you have 4 kids, you like to pack 300 lbs of kid crap around with you to show that you have WAY more kids than that new parent, or you talk about how many sports you are taking your kids to, how big your grocery bill is, or whatever. It's all so silly. I'm not sure why we seek this recognition.

I'm wondering what comes after parenting at this point... I'm assuming wealth and how we use our freedom among other empty-nesters???

EDIT:

I'd like to state that I actually don't find any problem with much of this, I just don't understand it.

When we are in college, we are facing the most challenging courses and living situations we have ever faced to this point. We are learning from books, and how to handle life's struggles.

As a new parent, having a newborn completely uproots your life, and it IS incredibly challenging. EVERYTHING has changed at this point.

Then with lots of kids, yes, it too is crazy.

From then on, I have no idea.

And the "puppy room", well, to each their own.

<comment><USER13> You are _interpreting_ behaviors in other people (hair a mess, sweat pants, lots of stuff) as a status signal. And it may be. But it's also possible that they are not trying to signal a particular kind of status, and are just trying to cope with challenges in their life.

<comment><USER14> I may be talking out of my ass here, but I think college educated people don't have lots of kids by accident.

The challenge is purely self-inflicted, so it's natural to assume they get something out of it, and status is the most obvious motivation.

Then again, they might be one of those weird mutants who actually like children.

<comment><USER15> If you dislike children, you're statistics that you're the weird mutant, not the other way around.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, the last part was bad sarcasm.

I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, but I imagine the only thing stronger than a social animal's desire for status would have to be their desire for children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Law Students at a proper Law School /= "University Students"

Law students are both sensitive and not. I remember many times students crying while we discussed cases of rape, child murder and domestic violence. As one prof pointed out: "We have over 100 people in the room. Statistically speaking we must have many rape victims, and more than a few perpetrators."

Students cried, but they certainly did not suggest that topics not be taught. Students at professional schools (law/medicine etc) have committed to a profession with a known body of knowledge developed over hundreds, arguably thousands of years. They would not want that very expensive education to be curtailed for the very modern concept that is political correctness.

<comment><USER17> I graduated lawschool only 2 years ago, has it really changed to the point where people would cry in class? I did go to a school that required work experience, so the class was mostly above 24, maybe that made it different.

<comment><USER16> I graduated 10+ years ago.

The first tears I remember appeared in the first couple crimlaw lectures. I won't go into the facts, but it was a discussion of Keeler (2 Cal.3d 619) that ramped up the emotions for some.

Take any law class. A hundred adults in their mid twenties in one room. That's fifty females. Chances are that at least one of them is pregnant, probably more than one. And there are plenty of parents of both genders. Nobody thinks less of them for being a little more emotional than the norm when forced to addresses certain cases. Nor would they expect the curriculum to be altered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The attitude I'm detecting here is this: A University is an institution, and how dare its constituents feel like they have the right to determine its culture and how it accommodates them. Students must bow to professors. They must accept the diseased puritan work ethic that infects American culture at all levels, whose main political forces are conservatism and other reactionary politics. If you are suffering, it's your fault and no one owes you any consideration. Crush the individual because the institution, the society, the culture owes them nothing.

This is an authoritarian reaction. People in power complaining that they are losing their power, their place in a hierarchy that places the student body as subordinate to them.

How about this as an alternative point of view: University Students demand respect and a supportive environment. Professors balk at the idea of treating them like there is any merit to their opinions on how they should be treated; reduce them to disparaging caricatures.

<comment><USER18> As a follow-up, there is a massive lack of empathy in the attitude expressed by the author.

How does anyone know what others are feeling, except when they tell us what they're feeling? This article isn't about how university students are acting like children. It's painting university students as children in order to dismiss their behavior. If you actually wanted to know what university students are doing and why, you'd talk to them. Instead, this article is condescending, patronizing, and (ironically) infantilizing.

To give no trust is to get no trust. If you don't trust university students to act as adults with their own autonomy who can make the best decisions for themselves, which includes effecting the environment and social structures that benefit them most, then, congratulations, you're an authoritarian and have just discarded the basic tenets of liberalism, right libertarianism, left libertarianism (i.e. anarchism), communism, and socialism. After eradicating most post-enlightenment ideas of how to treat people as human beings, what are you left with?

I reiterate: If you treat someone like a child, you're not engaging them. You are dismissing them. And if you treat someone like a child in order to justify a hierarchy and power structure above them, it is very, very clear what historical examples you are following.

<comment><USER19> " If you don't trust university students to act as adults with their own autonomy who can make the best decisions for themselves, which includes effecting the environment and social structures that benefit them most, then, congratulations, you're an authoritarian and have just discarded the basic tenets of liberalism, right libertarianism, left libertarianism (i.e. anarchism), communism, and socialism. After eradicating most post- enlightenment ideas of how to treat people as human beings, what are you left with?"

Not really, many horrible governments have been democratically elected, don't you think it's a good thing that the north told the south that they don't have the right to decide what's good for them? Do you not feel that it's good that the 'free world' told Russia & Germany what is good for them?

There are many example through history of one people telling another that they don't know what's good for them and it being regarded later as a good thing.

<comment><USER18> I think you can disagree with people and come into conflict with them, even violent conflict, while still treating them as fully autonomous advocates for themselves. The issue I took was with the mentality that you can ascribe childish, or sub-autonomous agency to another person in order to discredit them and justify dominating them. Slavery, actually, is an example of such pernicious ideas applied to the relation of slave and slave owner. This sort of reasoning is only legitimate in authoritarian philosophies that treat people as at best illegitimately autonomous, needing some sort of patriarchal figure to dictate their lives to them.

In your examples you are making the unspoken assumption, for example, that black slaves were part of the political body that kept them in slavery. Yes, if you look at it as an issue between North and South, it looks like the North telling the South what to do for itself, but that seems completely wrong because we are putting the lots of slaves and slave owners together as if they were one coherent entity.

In a world where freedom of association holds, I believe my statement would hold to the limit that many, many actions we take that seem only to affect us also affect others, and to the limit that freedom of association, like all freedoms, is incoherent in its absolute limit.

<comment><USER19> I would hardly characterize exposing people to opinions/facts they dislike / are made uncomfortable by as domination.

It's a simple fact that if you have to have an anxiety attack because you hear things you don't like that you are incapable of emotional self-regulation, hence behaving like a child, hence being referred to as childish. The only thing I would say is unfair about characterizing the behavior as childish is that it is an insult to those under 18 that are able to emotionally self- regulate.

It's a reasonable expectation of adults that they are able to regulate their own emotions and hear phrases like "America is the land of opportunity" without having an emotional breakdown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Maybe we have overcorrected but things were pretty shitty back in the author's day. In the 90's, awful comments against gays and Asian people appeared often as "jokes" in mainstream media. And media guides how people act.

I don't like the term micro-aggressions. It should just be called tactlessness or rudeness. For example, coworkers at my last job made jokes about cops pulling over and harassing in front of black employees. Best case that's insensitive. Worst case that's some dogwhistle bullshit.

On the flip side, people got reported to HR for saying the "s" word. Yes, shit. I think the line is somewhere in the middle. All of us need to be a little bit more aware and a little bit less touchy.

<comment><USER21> I've heard the word "gay" used as an insulting term at my job a few times now in the last 6 months. The last time I heard that was...online from 13 year olds playing Call of Duty. It's definitely nice to be in environments where all these racist, homophobic terms and insults and "jokes" are no longer around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The author of this post seems to be on another planet. For example, the "play, dog, music, and other therapy" that he is disapproves of comprises maybe 0.05% of the experience of final exams for students (that is, a student might stop to pet a puppy for 5 minutes at some point during finals). The rest of the experience is almost entirely unchanged. He paints it as if it comprises 50% of the experience, like students look forward to exams so they can pet puppies.

<comment><USER23> It's a growing trend though. Plus, based on news accounts, these are the vocal minority groups that affect a great deal of people's day-to-day campus life. For instance, they chase off speakers that don't care to hear nor want anyone else to hear.

<comment><USER22> The only trend that seems to really be growing to me is the willingness of people to sympathize with marginalized groups of people. This is not based on some out-there notions that all people should be comfortable all the time. An idea like that would never survive, except in the minds of a small number of extremeists. The overall trend, toward a society that is more willing to make accommodations for those who need them most, is actually positive. You won't see people who write these sorts of articles praising the big picture though. They are only interested in criticizing cases where it goes too far, but people taking an idea too far is not a new phenomenon. As people learn to grapple with changing social norms, I don't see any reason to think that cases like these will tend to go away, and we will be left with positive change.

<comment><USER24> Exactly. I'm 30, and I'm heartened by the idea of the next generation coming up with a culture that's more compassionate towards people who are different from them in various ways. For people in the HN demographic, behaving with compassion is clearly an inconvenience.

<comment><USER23> That's a mighty broad brush you have there. I, for one, do not know the many people on HN nor do I claim to know their thoughts and feelings on different matters. I guess I'll refer to you when a question like that comes up in the future.

Anyway, I too like the idea of younger generations growing up with more compassion towards people that are different. I raise my children with that in mind, believe it or not. But what much of what we're seeing coming out of college campuses in the US is not something I want my children to learn. I won't raise them as perpetual victims offended at anything and everything and I sure won't raise them to be unable to deal with an opposing viewpoint without falling back on a shut down the discussion mentality. Which is what the author is actually complaining about in the article.

<comment><USER24> Some opinions aren't worth having a discussion about. If someone says that "all fags should be rounded up and shot" there's nothing discussion worthy there. A rape survivor is under no obligation to have a discussion with someone who says "all rape victims deserve it, or are liars, or both."

These are extreme examples to be sure, but the principle remains.

And nobody is saying "you can't say 'all fags should be shot.'" They're saying 'You can't say it _here_." Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard.

<comment><USER23> Using extreme examples does not prove a point. Especially when one of them advocates criminal violence.

Saying I don't want to hear what you have to say and actively preventing speech are two completely different things. If a group of students don't want to hear a speaker, they have the right to not show up. They don't have the right to prevent the speech from happening. I don't know if you intended it, but your response is an effort to change the context of what I stated.

"Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard" is what people actively preventing free speech fall back on to justify their actions against the speaker. Not that I'm lumping you in with that way of thinking, just pointing it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If this is a real problem, addressing it at the college level seems far, far too late. Also, while the author hammers on their point that "education is not trauma", I am not inclined to agree without giving it more thought.

All I have is anecdotes but they are troubling. A couple of weeks ago I spoke with a second grader who was brought to tears at the thought of upcoming testing (state required assessment). My immediate thought was something along the lines of "Just do the best you can", but the question remains: where was this anxiety coming from: parents, teachers, both? In this case, education was very clearly trauma for this individual.

Perhaps the "helicopter parents" are doing more harm than good, that seems likely. At the same time, perhaps round after round of assessment testing is hurting as well. And universities seeking to coddle their students, perhaps to keep them "happy customers" but also to keep them ignorant of their overall costs.

In any case, it's not entirely clear that "education is not trauma", this article itself seems to contradict that thesis.

<comment><USER18> Education absolutely is trauma in a hierarchical society. The whole point of education is to beat children into the mold that fits society's expectations and needs, not their own. You can't expect anything else out of institutions based on domination and authority.

> Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. > Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also > need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one > another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners > as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they > want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, > savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.

> In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important > thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, > prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But > beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like > prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like > prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.

\- Paul Graham, Why Nerds are Unpopular

<comment><USER26> > The whole point of education is to beat children into the mold that fits > society's expectations and needs, not their own.

I'm not sure I agree. I think I grew up as an emotionally mature, successful (so far), yet quite unusual person, despite having been schooled for a long time and acing most of the formal requirements of the institutions.

My parents always said, "trust us, you need to go to school" even though I didn't want to (I mean, obviously, I had a computer and games and a compiler!), but now I agree with them - back then, I couldn't imagine the perspective, breath, width, emotional maturity and social development that further years of schooling would give me, and I couldn't appreciate the extent to which schooling, vocation and other long-term choices that we make (or are guided towards) as completely inexperienced adolescents will shape the future 60-80 years of my life (I'm only about 10 years down the road so far, but the signs and directions are much more obvious now).

Sure, some amount of authority is necessary, but that's mainly because people, especially children, will otherwise go for short-term pleasure without thinking about the longer term. But saying that school _molds_ children in any way is quite a stretch in my opinion - a better way of putting it would be that it shows them different possibilities and enables them to be better informed before choosing which direction to take in life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> ""In my day" (I'm old now, my day was the late 80s early 90s), you visited the registrar's office. A financial aid office. The bursars office. I felt like an adult, making decisions and finding things out for myself… But now there are counsellors for everything. Counsellors. As if the very act of registering for a class is traumatic event for which the student needs counselling. According to some universities, these counsellors provide "customer support". That's Ohio State's term, not mine."

Wow, this feels really out of place. When I was in school from 2006-2011, there was definitively no feelings of being an adult permitted. The university encouraged parents to make any kind of financial aid / money related decisions, and encouraged leaving the students out of it. There were counselors for their use, if they were needed. Definitely agree with the gist of the author. On the other hand, people have been complaining about the weakness of the youth since Socrates, so I'm not sure that this article is signal rather than noise.

As far as exams being stressful, I'd say it's fine to give students a break and let them handle the stress however it helps. For most, it's their first exposure to "serious" evaluation of their work, and it is a bit daunting because their decisions are ineffable once made. Of course, the stress- mitigation strategies that the students learn during this time period are essential to their growth-- this isn't focused on enough, IMO. After being in the workforce for a while, exam time seems more like a vacation from stress rather than a stressful time to me. I wish that I had been able to pet a nice puppy during exam time.

I also wish that there were a "phase 2" of college to be taken after 5-10 years in the workforce. The education of having to provide for yourself imparts a lot of discipline and enthusiasm that I really could have used as a student. I could probably get eight bachelors' degrees in the time it took me to get two the first time around. College was a step in the maturation process for me-- a step that was a bit too small as a result of some of my mother institution's decisions.

In summary, colleges certainly coddle the students, and the students are eager to be coddled. But don't be too bitter: the students deserve their youth, too.

<comment><USER28> > The education of having to provide for yourself imparts a lot of discipline > and enthusiasm

I think you have it backwards. Higher learning should impart on you the discipline and enthusiasm you need for the workforce, and not the other way around.

<comment><USER27> I agree that it should, but it doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I was disillusioned with the college experience almost as soon as I began. I started college in 2007 after ~14 months deployed to Iraq, so it was a significant culture shock to be dropped into such a coddling environment.

Having to talk to three different people, and sit down for meetings, just to get the authorization to schedule my classes drove me crazy, while wasting time with mandatory "awareness" (alcohol, sex, whatever) classes made me question the point of it all.

In the end I chalked it all up to me being a bitter old 21 year old freshman, and took the opportunity to talk my way out of as many silly requirements as I could.

I do feel a bit vindicated seeing others take notice of how emotionally vulnerable college students have let themselves become, but I still hope there is a solution which fosters an environment of growth and challenge without going too far in either direction.

</comment><comment><USER30> "They nap in the library or in the hallway of academic buildings during normal work hours."

Wimps! In my day you sat in the back row of the classroom and slept while the lecture went on.

<comment><USER31> I was once voted class representative because I happened to fall asleep at the front while it was being decided.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As the author of the original post, I do want to say that I'm not opposed to accommodations and work hard to make sure students are able to master the content in my courses. I'm cool with puppy rooms even... I wrote this as a morning rant. These are just my observations as a mid career professional. There is just so much of this. The crux of the problem, if there is one, is the corporatization of the university experience. I wrote an earlier post about grade inflation that touched on this too...

</comment><comment><USER33> The university itself is a massive infantilization, evolved primarily to financially exploit young adults.

Does anybody really think that smart young adults could not maximize their potential out in the real world earning actual money, learning on the go.

The university rips young people out of reality for four more years to pamper them like babies and deprive them of reality in the name of "education"; as if listening to lectures from middle aged adults has some sort of magical revelatory power that living life does not.

<comment><USER34> It gives you a chance to develop your mind and opportunity to reach jobs that a regular high school education does not prepare you for.

<comment><USER9> The only jobs you need a college education are the ones that are highly technical, leaning towards Academia.

Most engineers and analysts could learn on the job or with specializations(no longer than a few months).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Or, we could take women and minority students at their word about the stuff they find offensive and hurtful and treat them with a little respect.

Oh, wait, that's too much work. They're just a bunch of whiners.

Edit: Not sure if the downvotes are because people don't get this was sarcastic, or if people do.

Either way: Try listening to the people complaining instead of just brushing them off as "whiners". I hope that clears things up.

<comment><USER35> Unfortunately, just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people. I can neither fix that for them nor take it seriously.

<comment><USER36> > just my being a "white NT cishet male" is offensive to some people

No, it isn't. They are offended by something else about you.

<comment> vezzy-fnord Yes, it is. There are people who are intrinsically offended by people of all races, and some rationalize it with various collective narratives about power structures. Whether one kvetches about the Zionist Jews or the born-with- original-sin white men, it isn't practically different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is not the first post by an actual professor pointing out this phenomenon. I've observed it myself as a professional mentoring college students during internship, but my sample is way smaller than what a professor can see.

It is indeed a real problem. Everyone feels like they are entitled to be not only safe, but also "comfortable" at all time. No matter what. Nobody should judge you, nobody should disagree with you, nobody should make you feel bad about anything. This is a recipe to create highly dysfunctional adults.

Accepting conflicting opinions, facing rejection, standing for yourself without calling a twitter mob to the rescue, not seeking constant validation is part of being a functioning human being.

I'm wondering what is the agenda behind this trend. The author seems to think that it is to make sure students remain babies and stay in college as long as possible to avoid facing the real world. Could it really be something that petty? I started thinking that it could be encouraged by politicians to create a generation of babies that would feel better about dealing with a nanny- state.

<comment><USER37> I guess downvoters took my post as a micro-aggression :) Sorry I made you feel uncomfortable...

<comment><USER38> If I had to guess, I'd say you're being downvoted for the completely unnecessary "nanny-state" remark at the end.

<comment><USER37> How is it unnecessary? This is a real theory ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state)). The term may seem pejorative, but it is a real agenda pushed by some parties/groups.

I'm not saying the US currently has a nanny-state (far from it compared to what is implemented in Europe for example), but this could be a real agenda.

<comment><USER39> >How is it unnecessary? This is a real theory

Well, the way you put it does sound like a conspiracy theory:

>I'm wondering what is the agenda behind this trend. The author seems to think that it is to make sure students remain babies and stay in college as long as possible to avoid facing the real world. Could it really be something that petty? I started thinking that it could be encouraged by politicians to create a generation of babies that would feel better about dealing with a nanny- state.

fwiw, I live in a country that probably would be classified as a nanny state, and the same dynamics are very well present here, too. My personal theory is that it's far more complicated.

<comment><USER37> It depends on what you mean by conspiracy theory. I don't believe there is some evil Blofeld patting the cat and pulling strings. I do however believe that the ruling class is trying to remain in control of the oligarchy, and I do believe that they have enough power today to drive major political decisions, including society changes.

So yes, I do believe that if it is true that student infantilization is trending and institutionalized it's because the ruling class can get some benefits out of it.

I'm perfectly ready to admit that I'm paranoid :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> You'll notice that this kind of thing only happens in groups where people can support each other's ideas, regardless of how ridiculous. Tea Partiers who scream about getting rid of immigrants. Green Peace activists who scream about getting rid of all uses of oil. Vegans who scream when someone cooks meat near them. Non-smokers who scream if they have to inhale cigarette smoke for 10 seconds.

There's always an in-group that validates perceived threats to the individual and amplifies the concern and the response until it reaches a fever pitch, and it remains there as long as the support base is there.

If it weren't for the fact that somebody has to pay their salaries, professors could ignore this behavior. Sadly, the academics are going to have to bend if they want to keep their jobs. It's the same in every other subculture; the mob gets their way as long as you are beholden to them for something.

<comment><USER41> Whenever someone makes a point by listing groups of people, they always have to sneak in a pet issue. Looks like for you it's smoking!

You say "non-smokers" but you mean "normal, default people." Smokers are the delusional in-group, slowly murdering themselves and those around them with a remarkably unfun drug. You're welcome to do whatever you want to your own body but keep it away from others. Imagine what you just said, applied to any other substance! Non-drinkers who have to drink my beer for 10 seconds? Celiac- diseasers who have to eat my bread for 10 seconds?

<comment><USER40> Well no, I don't have a "pet issue". And it's ridiculous to compare inhaling cigarette smoke to pouring beer down someone's throat or feeding gluten to a gluten-intolerant person. They're all wildly different examples with completely different consequences.

If you force beer down an alcoholic's throat they may relapse. If they're gluten-intolerant they could have a severe reaction. And obviously feeding bread to a gluten-intolerant person will have a serious negative reaction. Inhaling cigarette smoke isn't going to put you in the hospital or send you on a cigarette-smoking binge, nor affect your health any worse than walking around downtown LA would.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> " My university, like most, has offices for diversity, indigenous student support, sexual orientation, even a mental health office specifically for international students, etc. As a professor, I am frequently asked to make academic accommodations for every religion and every possible religious holiday that might conflict with assignment. I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated. Most disabilities that I am asked to accommodate seem to be unspecified and are remedied by providing the students with a separate, quiet location and an extra 30 minutes to take an exam.

"In my day" (I'm old now, my day was the late 80s early 90s), you visited the registrar's office. A financial aid office. The bursars office. I felt like an adult, making decisions and finding things out for myself… But now there are counsellors for everything."

I can only imagine how frustrating it is when minority, non-straight, disabled, non-dudes explain the challenges the face that maybe straight white dudes haven't experienced, only to have those straight white dudes write articles like this completely dismissing all of that after basically not listening. Yeah, I'm sure things were just swell for you back "in your day". But has it occurred to you that it was less swell for other people in ways that should be addressed? It certainly doesn't seem to have for this author.

Also, in the above quote, it seems like he resisted a pretty strong urge to put scare quotes around "disabilities". Because there's no way to tell when these people have not immediately-visible disabilities, except for when they're _literally fucking telling you_.

There might be kernels of legitimate concerns in this post. But, like in the many basically-identical blog posts and comments written by many, it's all rolled into an incoherent mash of "College kids today, they can't take a joke, with their trigger warnings and talk about microaggressions, their `disabilities' and whatnot. They need to toughen up, because back in my day we didn't need puppies."

</comment><comment><USER43> I think part of the problem is culture has changed. A joke that is racist or homophobic that would have been considered hilarious 30 - 40 years ago may simply not considered all that funny anymore. It may still be that PC culture is going too far, but I think it's not the whole story

</comment><comment><USER44> He repeats the phase that college is not trauma but ignores that during the college phase of young adult lives many mental health issues arise in an environment without the only support system a child usually knows, their family.

Suicide is the leading cause of death[1] for college students and this guy is going to criticize the addition of resources to help handle stress? It just reads like ignorance.

1: [http://news.virginia.edu/content/more-us-college-students- di...](http://news.virginia.edu/content/more-us-college-students-die-suicide- alcohol-related-causes-uva-researchers-find)

<comment><USER23> Funny, I didn't read anything in the article about him complaining over suicide prevention counseling. I believe you are taking what he's saying and pushing too far to prove some point that no one brought up.

<comment><USER45> Some of the measures the OP is railing against can help stop students from needing suicide prevention counseling, counseling which is not 100% successful. If we can help reduce the number of students who even contemplate suicide, I'd say that's a noble goal.

And I personally think the point is very relevant. OP says students are coddled and campus stress isn't a big deal. GP brings up statistics showing that campus stress IS a big deal because it can lead to suicide. Seem very relevant to me.

<comment><USER23> "Some of the measures?", which proves my point. Instead of hearing the message some people choose to just complain. Yes, college can be stressful. Life can be stressful. Previous generations of college students did not require counseling for nearly every single aspect of college life, which is what the author is actually railing against and not "some" of the measures. I fail to see the author calling for measures that will increase suicide in college students. You are debating a point no one made.

<comment><USER46> >Previous generations of college students did not require counseling for nearly every single aspect of college life

Well, actually they probably did. That's why we have all these statistics telling us how many kids in college kill themselves. Because they needed those things.

<comment><USER23> See, I like how far off track this discussion has gotten from the author's complaint. Let's needle one little aspect of the guy's message, that he didn't even bring up, so we can decide he's wrong overall. Right?

There are many reasons for one to go the route of suicide, and in many cases no degree of counseling would help. But, for counseling to help it needs to address the root causes of the problem for that person, which may be unique to that person. Almost all of the programs the author is complaining about will not address that in any way. Especially the programs that don't even involve much stress to begin with.

As for suicide rates, I'm curious as to how far off the statistics you are referring to are from the national average. Personally, right now, I'm more concerned over the suicide rates of soldiers.

<comment><USER44> I'm talking about mental health, with one of the most tragic outcomes being suicide.

> in many cases no degree of counseling would help

In many cases? Really?

> for counseling to help it needs to address the root causes of the problem > for that person,

That just isn't true. There are cognitive, behavioral and a combination of both that help people all the time. Therapy that focuses on changing behavior patterns (ie CBT) and not on your root causes are often most effective. Many therapists also use therapy dogs because they're so effective, something this guy railed against like it was turning students into children.

> I'm more concerned over the suicide rates of soldiers.

How is that related?

<comment><USER23> In many cases, yes. Otherwise it implies that no one in counseling ever commits suicide. It happens. Ignoring that helps nothing. Notice that I said many, not all nor most, but you put extra focus on it as if I did.

It is true, but I'll admit it's not true for everyone. People's reasons for suicide can be quite complex and often times no one but the person knows or understands the reasoning. To change behaviors without addressing the root causes of the behavior provides the possibility of the behavior returning. It's much the same with alcoholism and drug addiction.

How is this discussion related to the original article that didn't bring this subject matter up? It's related because suicide rates came up in the discussion and I stated that I'm personally more worried over soldiers returning from war who receive next to no help versus students who agonize getting counseling over what classes they should take next semester. If a student is depressed and considering suicide because they feel they are failing themselves, their parents, or whatever to the point of considering suicide, then I want help available for them. But then, no one here has said anything about being against that, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It is not something we really consider, but it is worth pointing out: Education IS Trauma. Pedagogy focuses on minimizing the trauma, but learning new things that violate preconceptions is both physically and mentally stressful.

When you challenge somebody's core beliefs, their bodies respond as if you are trying to kill them. Challenging less strongly held beliefs is less stressful.

I'm going into teaching a security class, and this is strongly in my mind. Most people have a lot of strongly held false beliefs about how secure they are, and what the information they do leak could be used for.

</comment><comment><USER48> The biggest error I see in the entire line of argument is that it assumes the author's experience to be generalizable. They might as well have said, "The system worked well for me. I didn't need any of these changes that are happening, so we should stop them. They're weakening our children because _reasons_." I can't take any of this seriously without any data to show there is a _problem_ and not just complaints that amount to "I don't like how PC students are today."

> _As if the very act of registering for a class is traumatic event for which > the student needs counselling._

Clearly the author didn't go to a high-demand program at an impacted state school. "If you don't register for 12 units, your financial aid package will be revoked and you'll have to reapply for admission next term." Field Sciences, here I come! (True story.)

</comment><comment> norea-armozel On the matter of microaggressions I think the author doesn't use good examples for them.

For example, telling someone they speak good English in a situation where you're both native speakers is a microaggression. Asking where they're from or where they grew up isn't a microaggression.

Another good example of a microaggression would be to ask someone if their hair is natural (as I've seen commonly asked of African American women). Or if you're transgender (like myself) the common microaggression is to ask for one's "real" name (as if the legally designated name isn't sufficient).

It's not much to ask to figure out what is and isn't a microaggression, really. I hate the word since it doesn't best describe the behavior but the nature of it is very real.

</comment><comment><USER49> Having to change academic material that isn't overtly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/transphobic/etc because students feel uncomfortable about it seems silly, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a student bringing up (respectfully) why something makes them uncomfortable within the class, especially in a diverse environment with students from all over the world.

I don't think that's necessarily what the author is talking about. However, this part in particular was troubling:

"Then there are offices to help students with anything that could possibly upset them (I suppose to ensure that they remain enrolled snd thus paying fees and tuition). My university, like most, has offices for diversity, indigenous student support, sexual orientation, even a mental health office specifically for international students, etc. As a professor, I am frequently asked to make academic accommodations for every religion and every possible religious holiday that might conflict with assignment. I must ensure that every every disability is accommodated."

What's wrong with providing institutional support to students with different backgrounds and disabilities? Complaining about student support groups, accommodating disabilities or recognizing non-Christian religious holidays is a a bit over the top. It's anecdotal, but I had an indigenous friend living in the unofficial LGBT-targeted co-op that committed suicide during his last year of college. If having another support system in place that targeted his needs would have saved him, I don't care how "infantilizing" it would have been. If it can be managed, it's better to have too much support than tragedies like that.

I don't understand why the author feels the need to conflate political correctness with resources that, at least theoretically, make universities less stressful, less homogeneous, and more accessible. If it's something that interferes with academics, that's a completely different concern.

Plus, who wouldn't want a puppy room? I wish my workplace had one of those. :)

</comment><comment><USER50> sounds familiar

[http://www.theonion.com/article/parents-dedicate-new- college...](http://www.theonion.com/article/parents-dedicate-new-college-safe- space-honor-daug-50851)

<comment><USER51> "God forbid any of you, in your years at this institution, are ever confronted with an opinion you do not share. But if you are, you will have a refuge on this campus."

Being able to maintain a discussion and arguing in favor of your own point of view is no longer a remotely important skill?

<comment><USER52> Be advised that's an Onion article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> > _I know how it feels to have a death in family when there is an important > assignment._

Is he implying students should not be excused on the basis of such an event, merely so they can complete their assignment?

It's worth noting that in BUD/S, if there's a death in a trainee's family, they're usually excused and rolled back to a new class upon return, giving them the opportunity to complete their current phase of training.

If universities think they should be harsher in this regard than some of the toughest military training on the planet, then that's simply deplorable.

<comment><USER54> This is the case virtually military-wide, including infantry units in active combat. I received Red Cross notices twice while on orders (once in an army school, once in Iraq), and leadership scrambles to accommodate soldiers during these events. Army (and other military) leadership doesn't mess around with Red Cross messages or a soldier's mail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Is it really this way? My, this civilisation really is coming to an end :)

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands In the immortal words of Jason Ellis, "You need to harden the fuck up."

Why is it that we're removing so much responsibility from kids these days? Or is this the end result of helicopter parents?

<comment><USER24> Speaking up when someone hurts you, deliberately or otherwise, _is_ taking responsibility.

<comment><USER51> These measures doesn't encourage people to speak up, but to avoid hearing anything they don't like. That's not taking responsibility, it's avoiding even the decision of taking or not responsibility.

<comment><USER24> Telling someone to shut up because they're being abusive is still speaking up and taking responsibility. You have all the right to say what you want. Nobody has the right to listen to you, and they have as much right to tell you to shut your hole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I don't particularly like the sweatpants and the puppy rooms, etc. but I can live with it - they will grow out of it over time.

What I am much more worried about are two things:

1\. More students are joining the constantly-offended-by-everything, humorless killjoy crowd.

2\. They appear to be mostly uninterested in politics. But they should be interested in political change, given the bleak future that they face (with mountains of debt, etc). Quite a contrast to the politically-active 60s or 70s.

</comment><comment><USER57> Could someone be kind enough to edit away the shouty capitals?

<comment><AUTHOR> done---sorry!!! was a lazy cut-and-paste

<comment><USER57> Much appreciated!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I graduated a year ago and this whole entire article just pissed me off. At the very beginning I was with the author. As a student you don't get to decide what you learn. Either take the class or don't but you can't expect a teacher to not use certain terminology for fear of offending someone.

Where this went off the rails is well pretty much everything after that. The author admits to it but you really can't compare college today with college in the 80's and 90's. They are two completely different beasts. Students walk around in pajamas all day during finals week because they are fucking tired. Finals are hard, comprehensive, and exhausting. That's always been true, but the difference is now you have finals on top of the 8 million extracurriculars you have to be involved in to actually get a job after graduation. Oh and that job that you have to work in order to you know actually pay for that 40K/year piece of paper. No one is working at the bookstore anymore and paying tuition with that.

Are you really complaining about making religious exceptions? If college is supposed to prepare you for the real world, guess what there I'm probably not working on a day of religious observance if I can help it. How ironic is it that a teacher of psychology is complaining about welcome events, recommended by psychologist as helping students adjust to a new environment? School is not a warzone but it can be traumatic for the unprepared. The amount of pressure you have being placed on kids today is utterly incomparable to what you may have dealt with in the past. It's great that you have been teaching for 12 years. Personally I spent 4 of my 5 years in uni working in student life as an RA in the dorms watching group of freshman after group of freshman get absolutely clobbered by their first and often second (where you get the sleeping in the library group) set of finals. HS doesn't prepare kids for college anymore That's not their fault, that's the system. Yet college can be such a high pressure environment that one bad finals week can literally derail the rest of your college career. It is not unusual for a kid to be sat down and "asked" to change majors or leave altogether after bombing a final. Not even the class but just the final.

And as far as the counselors? Having ~75% more people in college than in the 80's tends to make the old system a bit unwieldy. Maybe you enjoyed going from department to department to get basic information but it was a stupid system then that unfortunately still exists now at most places. All counselors do is give you a single person to talk to when you're inevitable sent back to some place you've already been. Counselors suck but actually making sure you on track to get your degree on time is not the simple process it used to be. Is there really something wrong with someone 17-22 having a resource on hand to make sure they aren't making what could very well end up being a 40K mistake if they have to stay an extra year because they took Bio A instead of Bio I (yes that has happened). Most adults have accountants for that same reason.

There are so many things wrong with the system and the authors choice, because it's the in-vogue thing to do, is blame the spoiled kids. The Ivy Leagues are not representative of all college, or even most colleges. And if this is the authors attitude he's part of the reasons kids need the many services available to them. I wish more students would take advantage of the services he mentions so I could stop seeing news of kids killing themselves over college so often.

End Rant

<comment><USER32> As the original author of this post, I see your point. I don't mean to be blaming students...more so the admin in a sometimes desperate attempt to recruit and retain more and more (paying) customers. I worry that the whole system is unstable...I think things are more stressful compared to when I was an undergrad. I sometimes think we (faculty, admin, both) are making things worse in an attempt to make it better.

<comment><USER58> I understand where you're coming from, and even agree with some of your view. The system in unstable, and I don't know that every policy school administrations put in place help. But I don't think you used very good examples. School is way to PC, but a lot of that is for good reason, even it get's applied unreasonably sometimes.

Honestly though, it just touched a nerve with me. Millenials, as I'm sure every generation before us, has become the it thing to bash. And I feel as though most of the people doing the critiquing skim over the fact that the world we grew up in is fundamentally different than that of our parents, and their parents. The basic assumptions that older people make don't apply for us. We are the first generation pretty much since this country was founded who's job prospects are worst than our parents. Most of our parents will benefit at least something from Social Security. We will never see a dime. We are the largest, most educated generation ever but also the most in debt and most under-employed (people who want a job but can't get one).

Part of all this is just life. But what makes it worse is that people keep characterizing us as lazy, and entitled for wanting the things we've been told all our life we'll get, if we work hard. Due to no fault of our own, the American Dream or whatever that means if pretty much not an option for most of us, and yet people are surprised we started making a decisions without that goal in mind. If I have to work til the day I die, and most likely I will, shouldn't I try to work somewhere that is as fun as I can find. If that means swings, puppies, and playpits is that a bad thing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)

<comment><USER23> I think this older classic is far more relevant: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110759/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110759/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> "The article in The Atlantic that inspired my blog post/rant suggests that this may ultimately be damaging for education and mental health care."

No shit. It's the universities' responsibility to teach children and prepare them for the "real world." They're failing because they're afraid of liability when they're charging 40-60k a year per head? That's insane. How about they take responsibility for their actions and start teaching our children. How about the universities (the adults) stand up in this case and the the students (the children) to shut up and sit down and listen. Do these kids feel offended? Oh, boo hoo. They'll get over it.

Otherwise, to put it bluntly, we're going to end up with a whole lot of useless pussies ruining our economy and way of life because they're too scared of some words to do anything even remotely useful.

<comment><USER19> To be fair universities generally teach adults, not children.

<comment><USER60> Exactly. Now they're bowing down to the demands of children (who are likely to be over 18, but still children) and that's the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Money Quote:

"professional comedians face increasing difficulty in playing colleges and universities because they cannot do offensive jokes"

The more I learned about sexism, racism etc. I the less I liked the currently famous comedians.

</comment><comment><USER62> Much of this is the natural outcome of near-complete deference to expressions of offense, and declarations of identity. It was a totally predictable outcome, it was warned about way ahead of time, it happened.

</comment><comment><USER63> perhaps if students had more viable career paths besides college there would be less pressure to succeed in college. as-is, dropping out of college is practically a career death sentence.

</comment><comment><USER64> College didn't used to be terrifying - the middle class existed and the cost was much lower.

I'd need a puppy break too with what the kids have on the line today.

</comment><comment><USER65> It's so hard being an asshole these days.

</comment><comment><USER66> This thread probably has one of the longest and least valuable comments in this site

</comment><comment><USER67> This guy seems awfully offended by sweatpants. Practice what you preach.

</comment><comment><USER68> Micro-aggressions? Sounds like twitter for insults.

<comment><USER69> Not really. Insults would fall under the category of aggression. A micro- aggression would be anything that isn't inherently insulting. Like the author's example of an American student who asks someone where they are from with the intention of implying that the person being asked is not a "true American." The author's intention was to show that sometimes people will turn something intended to be innocent into an act of aggression.</comment></comment>


Gamerize – Marketplace for Gamers and Fans - <AUTHOR> I started a company called Gamerize. We're a marketplace where users can pay to play video games with their favorite youtubers/streamers/celebrities/etc. We're basically a management system where you can schedule game play time with your audience easier. We will also eventually be providing analytics so you can find collaborative opportunities with other youtubers/streamers to help grow your channel, as well as plenty of other things. If you're worried people won't pay for it, we also have the option of allowing free sessions so you can just use it as a way to grow your channel, until you believe you can start monetizing it. We're looking for alpha gamers to test it out to make sure you actually enjoy using the product. We have data to indicate users want this, so we really want data to show that the other side of our marketplace wants this. The alpha itself will be completely free so we can just get as much feedback as possible. If this sounds like something you're interested in, feel free to email me at email@example.com <comment><USER2> I wonder what you offer that existing platforms don't, considering that people have tiers on patreon where you can get to play with the streamer or donation tiers on other platforms for a similar reward/benefit

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah so if you have like... 5 people who want to play with you, I'm not sure if we would as of the current product (maybe once we had analytics, a huge platform to help you grow your audience, whatever else, sure it's still valuable). However once you start to get more people, scheduling that effectively would basically be impossible. I've never used Patreon, but I'm fairly confident they don't do that at all for you, they just help with the payment, correct?

<comment><AUTHOR> We do minute to minute scheduling (which is really hard, especially since the game time is dynamic) for you so you can maximize the money you get/the people you can play with as well as making it much easier for your audience to actually set that up, which they would have no control over using something like Patreon.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Is That Thing Beeping? A Sound Design Primer - <AUTHOR> http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/why_is_that_thing_beeping_a_sound_design_primer <comment><AUTHOR> Few web apps appear to consider sound design at all, the only one I've noticed is I'm in like with you. Sound design will become increasingly important for mobile apps.

<comment><USER2> Is there a way to include sound without resorting to Java or Flash?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wall. Of. Text.

<comment><AUTHOR> huh?

<comment><USER3> It's a huge wall of text. The author could have said what he needed to say more succinctly. Few people are going to devote the time to read that entire thing, and with good reason; even though there are a lot of words there, you can get all the information from reading a small portion of it.

With that said, it was a good, informative article. Just lengthy.</comment></comment></comment>


Kanye West Files Lawsuit Against "Coinye" Digital Currency - <AUTHOR> http://podd.io/blog/kanye-west-files-lawsuit-against-coinye-digital-currency/

<comment><USER2> So, it looks like the South Park episode where they explained how Kanye had no sense of humor and was a gay fish was right.

</comment><comment><USER3> Coinye already launched "due to legal pressure"? Didn't see mention of it in the article.

[http://coinyeco.in/](http://coinyeco.in/)

</comment><comment><USER4> All this press is going to do wonders for the 21 million Coinye's I mined last night. (Hopefully...)</comment>


Ask HN: Can you share some non biz, non tech podcasts that you love? - <AUTHOR> Looking through my list, most are biz or tech related. Looking for a change in scenery. <comment><USER2> Writing Excuses - podcast by a bunch of famous authors about writing

Barside Chats - a podcast by two Wheel of Time fans about the books and the upcoming TV series from Amazon Prime

The Moth - Storytellers telling short 5-15 minute stories. Very good!

Our Opinions Are Correct - two Hugo-nominated/winning authors (Charlie Jane Anders and Annalee Newitz) talking about sci-fi themes

99% Invisible - about the invisible parts of life... This week's episode is about the increasing number of police on the roads

LeVar Burton Reads - LeVar reads short stories!

</comment><comment><USER3> Behind The Bastards - Takes a look at terrible people throughout history and what made them terrible. It doesn't typically focus on well known individuals, which makes it interesting - [https://behindthebastards.com](https://behindthebastards.com)

Behind The Police - Hosted by Robert Evans, the same guy behind Behind the Bastards. This is a mini series of sorts that deals with the history of policing in the US

</comment><comment><USER4> Political

GoodFellows: Conversations from the Hoover Institution

A panel of fellows from a conservative US think tank interview important people about very macro issues, panel usually includes economists, military generals, high ranking scientists/political leaders

Conversations with Bill Kristol

A well respected former republican politician discusses many American centric issues/historical issues still relevant today with authors/experts

<comment><USER5> I enjoyed the Hoover Institution interviews with Thomas Sowell. Do you have some other favorites from that series?

If you ever want something a little lighter, I'd recommend "The Fifth Column Podcast". They discuss current events and the media, usually with a few cocktails and lots of obscure references, and much of it is pretty hilarious.

<comment><USER4> I also enjoy Sowell's interviews on Hoover,

Peter Robinson is a great interviewer in my opinion and Sowell and him seem to have great chemistry. (The online/Zoom episodes coming out in recent months definitely lack this fluidity).

I would recommend the "Good Fellows" podcast series which i briefly described. I like most of them sorry I don't have specific episodes in mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Pen Addict- one of my longest running must listens. I get an hour a week of people I've known online talking pens and to some extent many things analog. I spent a lot of time writing on paper and with fountain pens. It's very cathartic.

Small Town Murder- a couple of comedians from Phoenix prove that they know nothing about small towns, agriculture, or geography. What they do have is a couple hours of ripping good time making fun of small town and historical missteps. It's one of our favorite driving podcasts. We've been nomads for the past 3+ years. We do a lot of driving, especially post pandemic.

</comment><comment><USER7> The Anthropocene Reviewed [https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/anthropocene- reviewed](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/anthropocene-reviewed)

</comment><comment><USER8> Natural Science : \- herpetological insights \- titanium physicists \- common descent \- in defense of plants \- Daniel and Jorge explain the universe \- The field guides

Politics/Ethics : \- The foreign American \- women in foreign policy \- everyday ethics \- the lawfare podcast

Utopianism/Revolution : \- zero books \- Srsly Wrong \- Nice try!

Single Story : \- Bundyville \- The women's war \- bellingcat \- it could happen here

Pedagogy : \- teaching python \- interchangeable white ladies \- Ben Ben blue

News (America): \- native American calling \- worst year ever

Other : \- Saturday morning Tuesdays \- private parts unknown \- behind the bastards \- ologies \- art curious \- sexplanations

</comment><comment><USER9> Imaginary Advice with Ross Sutherland is like a weekly audio experiment. Sometimes in storytelling, sometimes philosophy, sometimes criticism, but always extraordinarily creative.

[https://www.imaginaryadvice.com/](https://www.imaginaryadvice.com/)

This is the episode where I fell in love with it: [https://soundcloud.com/ross-sutherland/64-dream-your-way- to-...](https://soundcloud.com/ross-sutherland/64-dream-your-way-to-a-happier- you)

</comment><comment><USER10> We have ways of making you talk podcast - Al Murray and James Holland WW2 podcast. Very interesting

Talking Sopranos - Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirripa - [https://talkingsopranos.simplecast.com/](https://talkingsopranos.simplecast.com/)

Dan Snow History Hit

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't know about that - [https://jimjefferies.com/podcast](https://jimjefferies.com/podcast)

</comment><comment><USER12> Philosophize This - A pretty sweet overview of development in philosophy over the years (mostly focussing on last 150-100 years though).

</comment><comment><USER13> Conan Needs a Friend - interviews with Martin Short, Eric Idle, Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy

</comment><comment><USER14> Snap judgement - I have heard amazing stories on this.

This American Life - doesn't need introduction

Wait wait don't tell me - pretty funny

Planet Money

Hidden Brain

</comment><comment><USER15> Hardcore History is amazing

</comment><comment><USER16> This American Life

</comment><comment><USER17> Here are some of my current subscriptions:

Making Sense (Sam Harris)

After On (Rob Reid - this is on a hiatus)

Revisionist History (Malcom Gladwell)

Against the Rules (Michael Lewis of Moneybal etc.)

Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend

Case File (True crime)

Last Podcast on the Left(True Crime/Comedy)

Deep Cover: The Drug Wars (Series)

In Our Time (BBC)

Great Lives (BBC)

Desert Island Disks (BBC)

<comment><USER18> Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend is awesome

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> TrueAnon</comment>


Joyent Public Cloud EOL - <AUTHOR> https://docs.joyent.com/joyent-public-cloud-eol <comment><USER2> Can anyone explain Joyent to me? My understanding always was that they're some special kind of hosting provider. But I never really got it. They sponsor Node.js, they sponsor all kinds of ex-Sun Solaris-related stuff, employing high profile people from both communities. What does supporting (and, at a time in the past, basically running) Node.js get a hosting provider? What about Joyent's products is related to Node at all?

But oh, they're cancelling the public cloud, which I assume was the hosting service? Then what are they now? I went to their site but I totally didn't get it, I'm obviously not the target audience.

So, what does Joyent really do, how to they make money, and how does it make business sense for them to do all that illumos/zfs/node etc etc stuff? Are they an AWS competitor? A Heroku competitor? An Oracle/ex-Sun competitor? I really can't place them.

<comment><USER3> Technically speaking, they were quite far ahead of the curve. While VMs were all the rage, they were shipping container-based products (their Sun refugees kept developing Solaris Zones and ZFS in this context). The technical abilities of the Joyent folks were well beyond just about anybody else for a _long_ time.

One could argue they were too early. For several years they had the technology to beat Amazon, until Amazon's massive scale washed over the whole market. The founders did well, so it's not like they "lost", but it's kinda sad to see a technically visionary set of products reach a dead end (one could maybe even view this as the final commercial death of what Sun built).

Also worth noting, their stack is open source in ways that nobody else is, I think. Maybe Google is doing right with Kubernetes, but everybody else is consuming OSS software to build proprietary clouds and giving basically nothing back. Joyent were doing most of the work, and giving most of the tech away.

<comment><USER4> I don't know if it was the immediate cause of their lack of success, but they had also brought with them from Sun the Sun attitude of doing stuff that their engineers thought was cool (and it probably was) without paying attention to how much people are willing to pay for it and whether their focus is correct from a market perspective. For example, Bryan Cantrill, Joyent's CTO, liked blaming Oracle's Larry Ellison for the demise of Solaris, on which Cantrill had worked, but by the time Ellison acquired the failing Sun, Solaris, cool technology and all, had been pretty much dead or dying for a while -- at the hands of Linux, and not much helped by the Sun attitude. Cantrill was furious and blamed Ellison of being monomaniacal about making money ("don't anthropomorphize Larry Ellison," he said) but perhaps it was Cantrill who was monomaniacal all along, not keeping his eyes on the market. Then again, luck plays such an important role in these things that nice narratives rarely give the whole picture.

<comment><USER5> Solaris's death at the hands of Linux can be attributed in part not just to "the Sun attitude" but specifically to the attitude of Bryan Cantrill personally. In response to Dave Miller explaining how Linux's networking was technically superior (at that moment) due to more care for things like TLB footprints and system call overhead, and also had more accessible technical support, Cantrill famously decided to respond by _making fun of Miller for being a nerd_ : "Have you ever kissed a girl?"

[https://www.osnews.com/story/28261/have-you-ever-kissed-a- gi...](https://www.osnews.com/story/28261/have-you-ever-kissed-a-girl/)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20110721130404/https://cryptnet....](https://web.archive.org/web/20110721130404/https://cryptnet.net/mirrors/texts/kissedagirl.html)

Admittedly, this was in 1996, and it's possible Cantrill regretted this remark, or the nerd-hating attitude behind it, at some point in the intervening 23 years. But I've never seen him admit it. I see he's participating in this thread, so if you see him not replying to this message, that's him doubling down.

<comment><USER6> Ha ha -- wow! I had no idea that I possessed such power over time and space! As has already been pointed out to you (and has been pointed out repeatedly on HN over the years), I _do_ regret the remark. So, there's that.

I would also note that the rise of Linux in the late 1990s and early 2000s corresponds with the performance of x86 surpassing the performance of the RISC microprocessors during that same period -- a time when the only other open source Unix was operating under a legal cloud from AT&T. It seems likely that these forces played a greater role than a twentysomething engineer shooting his mouth off on Usenet...

<comment><USER2> FWIW when I asked the "what's Joyent all about" question I never expected or hoped this would become a "let's blame Bryan Cantrill for random shit" flamefest. I'm not sure where all of that is coming from and I'm sorry if somehow I triggered all that.

You've been a great example to me and many others, in doing open source, in taking a principled stance (even if I subtly disagree with some of your principles) and also in showing that yes, it's totally possible to found a company with an incomprehensible business model, grow it, have it contribute lots and lots to awesome open source, and somehow despite all the free work and the incomprehensibilities, flip it for a profit. One day I hope to do the same and all of HN will be like "huh?"

<comment><USER6> Hey, thanks for that! The HN comments here today have been full of surprises, not least the intense personalization of it all! I believe that our impact in the world is much more in the people we inspire than in those we rankle -- so in that regard, it's deeply gratifying to know that I have been of service; thank you!

<comment><USER4> > full of surprises, not least the intense personalization of it all!

I'm surprised you're surprised by this, considering that you have contributed much to the personalization of such matters. The personal "psychologization" of complex social dynamics is pretty much the trademark of many of your talks. If you find psychological explanations attractive, why are you surprised when others do, too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can say without a doubt, if it weren't for Joyent, my fantastic coworkers, and the experience and opportunity they granted me I wouldn't be where I am today. I fondly remember debugging issues and learning so much with my talented coworkers. Congratulations Joyeurs on everything you've done to forward the Public Cloud and Systems Engineering.

<comment><USER8> The people at and the community around textdrive & joyent was a key part for me being able to learn a ton of stuff online about servers, writing software, good design etc.

Random kind inspiring people on the interwebs (most of whom I never met in person!). Incredible.

edit: also had one of their early "VC" deals for lifetime hosting. Very interesting feeling to have something you don't have to pay for anymore on a monthly basis, inspires to make the most of it. Got a ton of mileage out of it and wasn't upset about it being sunset, by that time hosting was quite cheap already.

edit2: When they started to adopt OpenSolaris I took a closer look and eventually ended up with it as my main desktop system back then & learned about ZFS and dtrace. Magical, fascinating times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> TextDrive (bought by Joyent) was one of the first hosting services to support Ruby On Rails as a first-class service -- in the days when static hosting, PHP, Perl, and Java/Tomcat were the only options on Linux infrastructure. They were well-noted for their "lifetime hosting" membership deal, which was incredibly exciting at the time (this was in a day where flat-fee and free hosting outside the likes of MySpace and Geocities was unheard-of). TextDrive was where all the cool kids hosted their projects.

RIP Joyent public cloud (and the last remnant of TextDrive's legacy).

<comment><USER8> Also I just remembered Strongspace (which was one of their products back then), very compelling and well designed online storage (e.g. for backup) back then. In a way this could have grown into Dropbox or Box when you think of it.

The Joyent email + calendar + notes web app was also quite impressive at the time. So many memories.

<comment><USER10> Good memories! [https://davidpaulyoung.com/2016/06/17/a-brief-history-of- joy...](https://davidpaulyoung.com/2016/06/17/a-brief-history-of-joyent/)

<comment><USER11> Hey David! Good memories. David glad to hear you've sorted your demons out! If you are ever in Cape Town, drop by to say hi.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sad to hear. I selfishly hope the company does well for the sole purpose of keeping Bryan Cantrill employed so he can continue to give fantastic talks that I watch on YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wow, 5 months is an insanely short timetable to ask people to migrate entire systems to another vendor. I'm surprised their contracts don't have better terms.

<comment><USER14> Joyent really doesn't have a great track record on shutting down services... That said my view on the company is very much tainted by what happened many years ago when they where a different type of company all together. I personally purchased a few of their 'VC' plans before they when all enterprise.

<comment><USER15> If anyone's curious, some of that history was documented here: [http://billturner.github.io/2014/02/28/whats-happened-to- tex...](http://billturner.github.io/2014/02/28/whats-happened-to-textdrive/)

<comment><USER16> I once had an idea to research and write something about the history of Textdrive. Seems like there's something in there about how the internet changed from the '00s to the '10s and it'd be neat to interview some of the players and see where they are now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's a blog explaining the decision : [https://www.joyent.com/blog/joyent- announces-strategic-chang...](https://www.joyent.com/blog/joyent-announces- strategic-change-to-their-public-cloud-business)

<comment><USER17> That doesn't explain anything really. What I want to know is what actually went on behind closed doors. Everything else is corporate public relations. In these cases hearsay is often far more accurate and reliable than these carefully worded statements.

The statement implies that Samsung's hunger for resources had grown so large that there is no more room for the public hosting side of the business, but considering how high performance SmartOS zones are (bare metal performance), I find that incredulous. How is that even possible?

But do let us, for the purpose of this mental exercise, presume that Samsung has indeed such great hunger for resources that public side of the business has to go: surely a chaebol as large and as financially powerful as Samsung has the funding to keep both its internal infrastructure hunger and the public side of the business sated, and easily at that?

Another option could be that the public side of the business was losing money, but considering just how trivially easy and fast SmartOS zones are to provision, and how little financial resources it costs to run them (it costs me literally peanuts and I run my entire datacenter at my own premise and expense), it is hard for me to fathom what could have possibly went wrong there: this technology is so advanced and ahead of its time that even a single customer running on it would be profitable, a bonus, and Joyent has more than one customer...

<comment><USER18> Perhaps this has more to do with goals and focus than cost/efficiency. In many tech companies the scarcest resource is man-hours for development/maintenance.

The order of complexity for public cloud/multi-tenant is much higher than for private/single-tenant, especially given the recent onslaught of CPU vulnerabilities.

Still a big loss. I imagine it must feel like a defeat, especially to Bryan, given the corporate culture at Joyent. Open sourcing triton is great, but it still needs hosting for people to use it. Amazon/Google/Microsoft could certainly cut costs if they leveraged bare metal so who knows.

<comment><USER6> I don't know that I had personalized it quite that deeply, but it's certainly an end of an era for us and for our public cloud customers. The technology is alive and well, and being used more broadly than ever for on-premises infrastructure. In that regard, the costs of the public cloud are less in the technology, and more in the surround of support, billing, etc. Certainly, the (significant) work that we had to do for CPU vulnerability mitigation needed to be done for our on-prem customers as well...

<comment><USER19> Will this affect Triton SmartOS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> End of an era. Lots of good stuff to come out of Joyent and I hope we don't see the end of their OSS contributions. Manatee (the state machine behind Manta PostgreSQL HA), the SmartOS KVM port, Triton itself - huge body of great stuff in addition to Illumos contributions that they are perhaps better known for.

<comment><USER21> Manta was one of the most exciting technologies I touched five years ago. Color me impressed when I inline `sed` replaced 3TB of logs (2.5 years worth) in 30 seconds on our manta storage.

<comment><USER11> Used it for the backing store for the npm's registry when tarballs were moved out of CouchDB. Managed to cope with us flushing the CDN cache (Fastly) and not fall over with users downloading packages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > For our existing public cloud and private data center customers, adding > scale, financial muscle, and Samsung as both a partner for innovation and as > a large anchor tenant customer for Triton and Manta, will pay big dividends.

The tenant is now too large, please move out.

<comment><USER23> Fun fact, in 2008 Joyent was Twitter's host and asked them to leave.

<comment><USER9> Interesting. TextDrive (which turned into Joyent) was one of the first Ruby on Rails hosting options, and Twitter was first built as a RoR app.

<comment><USER24> another fun fact: a lot of the early HackerNews posts were the daily drama of Twitter's RoR struggles.

<comment><USER25> I kind of miss seeing the Fail Whale.

<comment><USER26> same!

i also miss their xmpp bot for some weird reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Oh no! I was just researching them and about to buy services! I suppose that's the problem. Too many "about to buy" and not enough actual buying.

But I mean, in honesty it's long overdue. Technical superiority loses out again.

</comment><comment><USER28> One nice thing about having more cloud providers is having more options for where your computation was housed. I have had a machine at Joyent for a long time now (with the goal of building a service that I never got around to, so sadly for them only ever the one computer) because their US South West datacenter is located not just "in Vegas" but specifically at the SwitchNAP SuperNAP site, which co-located me with other resources I was using: I had a <1ms ping to my upstream telecom provider, and thereby could sit inside of real-time audio without adding noticeable latency (as well as have the option of getting extra-cheap bandwidth: I wasn't going to be costing Joyent anything for bandwidth but was still intending to use lots of CPU, so they had indicated a willingness to let me one-off this billing if I ever actually scaled up, though I was still quite happy to pay the full price for the epic latency). AWS is great (and I honestly used them for most of my less latency sensitive projects... hence the problem for Joyent, I appreciate), but their lack of a South West location means that the lowest ping I can get from them for this purpose is almost 20ms :(.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have been a fan of Joyent's tech for several years now. This change seems like a scary one. Wishing them luck.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sad day. I never used them but I always enjoyed Bryan Cantrill's postmortems and deep dives on Joyent all over the internet. Would love to see his take on this EOL announcement.

Bryan, are you around?

<comment><USER6> In terms of my take, much of it is in the blog entry: it was a difficult decision, especially because the public cloud is a big part of who we are. It's very important to us to do right by our customers, and the team has been very dedicated to doing everything we can to get affected customers onto new infrastructure. Beyond the EOL of the JPC, we continue to serve our on-prem customers -- and (to answer a question that came up elsewhere) our technologies are and remain entirely open source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> That sucks really badly... Sad customer here.

<comment><USER32> Luckily the tech is still going strong, joyent and other are still there to push forward. There are also EOL partners ([https://docs.joyent.com/joyent- public-cloud-eol](https://docs.joyent.com/joyent-public-cloud-eol)) that you can migrate to quite easily. (Hint; were one of them)

<comment><USER33> Do any of the EOL partners run a public Manta install? I haven't found one yet. To me that's one of the harder to replace parts of JPC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I fondly remember Joyent as one of the first companies to do Ruby on Rails hosting right. They were using a combo of FreeBSD, Virtualmin, Apache (proxying to mongrel etc).

Fun times!

<comment><USER3> They were probably our (Virtualmin) biggest user for a few years. They used the Open Source version so we didn't see much revenue from it (occasionally their users would upgrade to the commercial version), but they sponsored a few Solaris-related features in Virtualmin/Webmin and sent us patches now and then. The shared hosting stuff that used Virtualmin was TextDrive, and once they moved to container-based products they stopped including a control panel at some point (and they're container management stuff didn't use our tools for that), so we lost touch with them.

Edit: It's also how Twitter used Virtualmin in their early days, as they were hosted at Joyent. (I didn't know this until Evan Williams told me at a YC event. That was pretty cool.)

<comment><USER11> Evan was a lifetimer. Twitter's mail was routed via one.textdrive.com if memory serves me correctly using a truck load of aliases to redirect to offsite email accounts.

It was a pleasure dealing with the Virtualmin team on issues we had on Virtualmin on Joyent and TextDrive's shared hosting services.

Replying to the "Wins over GCE/AWS above that I can't reply to":

They had various:

* The ability to run workloads at near bare metal speeds (their using Solaris Containers).

* Manta (ability to perform compute operations on their storage service without having to download files and reupload files).

* Their work on getting a better user experience in zones with pkgsrc (thanks to all the hard work of Filip and Jonathan).

* Better performance and having the ability to spend less money on resources and reducing the instance count for folks moving off AWS to Joyent. I was involved in a number of these migrations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Oop. I know a former employer will now be scrambling to migrate their legacy servers...

</comment><comment><USER36> Did anyone actually even use that thing?

</comment><comment><USER37> Wow - brings back memories!

</comment><comment><USER36> not sure anyone really even used this thing.

</comment><comment><USER38> Could have been predicted seven years ago. Kudos for making it longer than expected.

<comment><USER39> Hindsight is 20/20.

Linode (founded 16 years ago), and Digital Ocean (founded 8 years ago), are still alive and kicking, not to mention more traditional hosting companies like HostGator.

<comment><USER40> DigitalOcean have no serverless product and just spent a bunch of engineering resources on a new customer-managed Kubernetes setup.

The amount of people who are unsatisfied with DO's VM product and would be satisfied with a k8s product is tiny. The amount of people who would like somewhere to run functions and not care at all about infrastructure is growing rapidly.

If they're not skating to where the puck is moving they won't be around much longer.

<comment><USER41> I won't neccisarily agree. There is space for "simple" hosting for some thing which is a bit more than just a (static/wordpreess) website, but not a large application, where cloud tooling setup is beneficial.

<comment><USER40> Sure but how much is that market growing?

<comment><USER41> As long as it is sustainable business it should be fine for companies in this domain.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>