The anonymity I know - <AUTHOR> http://chrishateswriting.com/post/76431353368/the-anonymity-i-know <comment><USER2> Great article moot, and well said. What is particularly intriguing to me on this (hackernews) and 4chan has been how so many people conflate anonymity with "non-identity", which is absolutely not the same.

Karma systems attach value to a 'handle' which is its own form of identity. So I can create an account on a forum as xyz123 and say what ever I want, but if the speech is of low value to the community I'll get "down karma" (what ever the mechanism is) and that identity will become less valuable, if instead the speech is found to be of value I will get "up karma" and that identity will become more valuable. I might find at some point that my identify as xyz123 is more valuable to me than my "real" identity. So am I anonymous? Sure, but does that mean I don't have an identity? Absolutely not.

Of course this allows for sock puppetry, for whom Scott Adams will forever be the patron saint. And in that sense there is value in being able to isolate uniqueness. Which is to say these two names are the same human, versus these two handles are two different humans. And this is the point that rubs on the 'anti-anonymity' folks. As much of the conversation's interpretation can change when you know the relationship between the participants, it can completely flip one's perception of it. And not knowing the underlying relationships can make us susceptible to manipulation (which is used often enough to have its own name "astro-turfing")

I keep wondering if we'll ever get to a system which has both anonymity and structure, but I don't know if that is possible as identity is often discernible by the relationships.

<comment><USER3> > so many people conflate anonymity with "non-identity", which is absolutely > not the same.

Quite a few people have mentioned this in passing, but I think it's actually the central point.

What you're called has no relationship to meanness at all. Whether your actions can have consequences for you is what has a relationship to meanness.

This holds true in real life too. The Stanford Prison experiment degenerated because the prisoners had no meaningful way of creating consequences for the prison guards, not anything to do with names. Abu Ghraib abuses occured because the mechanisms to hold the guards to account were (perhaps even deliberately) not working. They used their real names.

The rule of nature is that groups of people who can suffer no consequences for their actions will tend towards worse and worse behavior.

This is obvious. Imagine a forum where you could call yourself whatever you wanted in conversations (and different names in different conversations), but you have to log into it with a password and passwords cost $50 to acquire and for sufficiently bad behaviour they can be revoked. The fact that you can call yourself whatever you like isn't going to change the fact that people will be careful not to do things that risk their $50.

Reddit and hackernews and stackoverflow tend not to degenerate because the identities on there have history and value. If you behave badly enough, your identity will suffer loss, and you yourself will lose some of the value you've built up.

One of the most wonderful things about the internet is that you can take part in communities where race and sex and family history and class and age are subordinated to achievements, ideas, and skill at expressing them.

<comment><USER4> > Imagine a forum [...] but you have to log into it with a password and > passwords cost $50 to acquire and for sufficiently bad behaviour they can be > revoked

You don't have to imagine it, take a look at the Something Awful forums. People still get banned but the discourse is better, from my limited experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think what both pieces miss is the behavior that _asymmetric_ anonymity seems to encourage. The ability to lambast public figures from behind a screen of anonymity seems to bring out the abusive worst in people, and the target has nowhere to run. Conversely, communities in which _everyone_ is anonymous seem to foster a degree of creativity and respect rarely found elsewhere. I think Altman was thinking about the former when he addressed the app, and this piece addresses the latter. But they're different kinds of anonymity.

Edit: Asymmetric, not asynchronous.

<comment><USER6> My only experience on 4chan was due to a Google Alert notifying me that I was the subject of a thread on /d/. That thread was the highest density collection of insults about me that I'd ever seen on the net, and sadly, I'm not yet thick-skinned enough to entirely ignore the "comments on the internet."

When I see things like that, or comments on youtube videos of my talks, I sometimes think "maybe I should retreat and make myself not such a visible target." But I stay because I feel like I'm meant to be a role model for my gender, and people seem to like to hear the things I say. Or at least, I stay for now.

I get the impression that communities like this feel that people put themselves out there purely for their own benefit, and therefore they have the right to attack them, because they are asking for it. I think many of us never asked for it, but given the pros/cons, we stick with it. There are definitely cons, though.

I don't see how to prevent anonymous communities from lambasting public figures, and don't think they should necessarily be prevented. But it sure would be nice if they realized that everyone's a person, and nobody likes to wake up to find they've arbitrarily been chosen as the subject of taunts for the day.

<comment><USER7> >it sure would be nice if they realized that everyone's a person

I hope you realize that anonymous comments are also (usually) written by people, and the points of view they express are also worthy of consideration and respect. Making comments which lack a connection to a person's real life identity enables the commenter to use an honest and direct tone, without resorting to passive-aggressive innuendo.

Also, people tend to forget that there is an implicit social contract involved in becoming a "public figure", namely, in return for having a platform for disseminating ideas, the people you are able to reach have a right to respond and criticize them (and you) in return. If your ideas are too weak to defend, perhaps they are not deserving of wider attention.

<comment><USER8> Are the ideas being attacked or the individual in this case?

Many people simply don't know how to respond to something they dislike or feel threatened by and anonymity means they don't even have to consider a valid argument in their aggression. Sometimes race or gender or other feeling of competition are enough to make people feel threatened - not much relating to social contract or "points of view worthy of consideration and respect" then.

<comment><USER7> >anonymity means they don't even have to consider a valid argument in their aggression

Is that just speculation, or did you have an example in mind when you said that? Not being a user of 4chan's /d/ board (believe it or not!), I am not familiar with the particular controversy referenced in GP's post. Not knowing what they were reacting to, and what the reactions were, I can't comment on whether there was any "aggression" without "valid arguments" (real or perceived), but I can not think of anything that could have been posted that would be genuinely worthy of concern (that was specifically enabled by anonymity).

>Sometimes race or gender or other feeling of competition are enough to make people feel threatened

Not sure if you're referring to the commenters or GP poster, but in either case, it's hard to see how any of those could be considered relevant to the question of anonymous commenting.

My guiding assumption here is that a free, open, unfettered exchange of ideas is a higher value than preventing feelings of offense or hurt egos.

<comment><USER9> Well if you don't know what you're talking about, not being "familiar with the particular controversy", maybe you should refrain from defending the participants. Sometimes people's views really don't deserve any respect. None. Use your imagination. Granted, they're often perfectly capable of saying such things under their own name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a great essay, and a great argument for anonymity and what it can offer.

Sam's essay went too quickly towards condemning anonymity, but it started by attacking a different kind of anonymity--that of small groups. Secret might have problems not simply because the messages are anonymous, but because they are anonymous between people who know each other and can act on that information. In 4chan participants likely will never meet--in Secret they already have.

<comment><USER11> Interesting perspective. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I agree with every word. Of course I am incredibly biased because this is the kind of internet interaction that I prefer. It is just a different kind of internet culture and is obviously not for some people.

If you want every possible opinion on something whether it be the most popular opinions or the least popular opinion and everything in-between then anonymity is the way to go. Preferably without internet aliases for a true representation of unfiltered opinions.

</comment><comment><USER13> > _I strongly disagree. What I've observed is the opposite—that anonymity > facilitates honest discourse, creates a level playing field for ideas to be > heard, and enables creativity like none other._

I think Chris makes a great counter-argument, however, isn't it possible that anonymity can breed both meanness _and_ creativity? I don't mean just creatively-cruel-pranks, but that what anonymity breeds is dependent on the community, and to an extent, how that community is moderated. HackerNews allows anonymity, but I think it'd be a much different place for discussion if it weren't for the mod policies in effect.

<comment><USER14> Yes. Healthy communities, real or virtual, self-regulate through social feedback loops. Requiring real names activates those social feedback loops in a way that is very handy from the perspective of people designing communities.

If you're going to have anonymity, you need to find a workable substitute. Early BBSes were often pseudonymous, but they were also gardens carefully tended by their operators. HN's self-moderation and karma tracking provide a similar effect here. Quora has a functional mix of mostly real names with optional anonymity on a per-post basis plus user voting and heavy moderation to enforce a "be nice, be respectful" tone.

Another good example is John Scalzi, who moderates his blog comments using the "Mallet of Loving Correction". His comment policy is a great example, but it clearly takes a lot of thoughtful gardening on his part to keep a pseudonymous comments section from descending into something pretty ugly: [http://whatever.scalzi.com/about/site-disclaimer-and- comment...](http://whatever.scalzi.com/about/site-disclaimer-and-comment- policy/)

<comment><USER15> Scalzi considers "ugly" anyone that is outside a very small neighborhood of idea space. It's fine for his own professional blog, but it's incredibly narrow as a general principle for discussions.

<comment><USER14> I don't think that's the case. He's pretty strict in enforcing _behavior_ , including the behavior of staying on topic.

Another good example in this regard is Quora. They cover an incredibly wide range of topics and viewpoints. But they're pretty insistent on respectful behavior.

I think that focus, respectful behavior, is exactly what makes for good real- world discussions. Because on-line fora break the sort of continuous, subtle social signals that help guide real-world discussions, I think we need to be especially disciplined in pursuing that respect.

<comment><USER15> It's tempting to define "impoliteness" as disagreement with progressive beliefs about feminism or white racial guilt. Judging by what Scalzi has banned people for, he seems to fall victim to this. He uses the banhammer more than any other blogger I've followed. The others don't feel the need to curate the discussion so closely.

It's fine to be so closed off in your personal space, but the intellectual air can get a bit musty.

<comment><USER14> Do you have some examples of him banning people who were behaving well and discussing topics respectfully but were still banned? I actually don't see him banning many people; I think he's just frank about being willing to ban.

In particular, I think a lot of my fellow white males who charge into topics of sexism and racism do so without significant respect for the lived experience of participants or the large amount of existing discussion. It is easy for them to see a ban on that behavior as intolerance of their opinion.

One blogger I'm fond of recently quoted this bit: "The more foreign the idea, the more relational groundwork you need to do before you can broach that topic." [1] He was quoting a Christian pastor who is talking about how to introduce the notion of human evolution to Christians who are (incorrectly) hostile to it. But it applies anywhere: jumping in and expecting people to instantly listen to your views is in itself a behavior, and a lot of communities find it disrespectful. That it isn't intended that way doesn't really matter; part of being respectful to people is caring about whether your friendly intentions are matched by the impact they have on your audience.

[1] [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/02/10/why- youn...](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/02/10/why-young-earth- creationism-needs-to-be-killed-with-fire-part-1/)

<comment><USER15> I'm adding "disrespectful" to the list of euphemism that progressives use to silence dissent.

<comment><USER14> Well next I see a progressive, I'll let them know that some anonymous internet guy is keeping a list. I'm sure they'll be impressed.

In the meantime, you might think upon respect a little. It turns out it's not just a far-left thing. If a liberal walks into the middle of a conservative talk and starts shouting slogans, people in the audience aren't just going to say, "Hey, tell us more, stranger, about your novel views." They're going to shout him down and throw him out, because his behavior is disrespectful to the existing audience and dialog.

The difference between you and that liberal is that the liberal will know that he's protesting, not trying to participate in a discussion.

I understand you want it to be magically different for you online. Which, hey, it's nice to have unrealistic dreams sometimes: it adds some spice to life. But if you actually want to start influencing other people's views, rather than just have the satisfaction of vomiting your notions and upsetting people you didn't really like anyhow, then you're going to have to work on on demonstrating respect for the people and the existing discussion, something they were building before you turned up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> On the one hand, I was an early BBS user, and there was a fair bit of benefit in anonymity or pseudonymity there.

On the other, when somebody says that he strongly disagrees with the notion that anonymity breeds meanness and his positive example is _4chan_ , I'm gobsmacked. We must have such different standards for what qualifies as meanness that I'm not sure we're the same species.

<comment><USER16> Do keep in mind that 4chan is not /b/. There's a _huge_ discrepancy between people's interpretation of what 4chan is like, and what it really is. This is probably why the community has been able to stay so strong over the years. On the off-chance you visit one of the more aggressive boards and someone tries to say mean things to you, you can always reply in a friendly, careless fashion and make them feel really bad about what they said.

I was gonna go look for some lovey dovey thread to cite as evidence, but instead I found a thread full of guys trying to build a physical version of their imaginary chinese-cartoon girlfriends. [https://archive.foolz.us/a/thread/101944946/](https://archive.foolz.us/a/thread/101944946/)

I literally can't imagine this happening anywhere other than on 4chan.

<comment><USER17> /b/ seems to be a "honey pot" for the more negative behaviors on 4chan. By providing that outlet, the rest of the site's communities are that much more civil as a result.

<comment><USER18> > There's a _huge_ discrepancy between people's interpretation of what 4chan > is like, and what it really is.

> /b/ seems to be a "honey pot" for the more negative behaviors on 4chan.

Double bingo!

<comment><USER14> Ah. Thanks, that's helpful. Where should I look to see a sample of 4chan that you consider more representative?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I used to think that anonymous comments bred ugliness because it gave people a way to be (even temporarily) racist, hateful, etc. with no consequences for their "real" offline self. The most interesting effect of so much commenting going on using Facebook is my discovery that people are just as willing to be outright racist and hateful in a million ways when their real name, picture, and main online identity are involved.

<comment><USER20> Well, let's look at it from a historical perspective. In the past, before the Internet, the only place it was even _possible_ to be anonymous was in writing – anonymous pamphlets, books written under pseudonyms, etc. Now, did these contain horrible behavior? No, the horrible behavior (as judged by the standards of the times) was associated with lower _classes_ instead. The anonymous pamphlets and books written under pseudonyms were instead _challenges to the status quo and the powers that be_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I always appreciate what moot has to say, and I think he's absolutely correct about anonymity creating a stage in which it's fine to fail publically. There's almost no judgement based on past efforts, which means that you can frequently see new ideas pop up.

This is especially true of the boards with topics, which tend to have smaller communities than the random board, allowing for more effective meme propogation. For example, a recent tweet [1] by musician Lorde ended with the words "o i am laffin" which has since become a sort of alternative to "lol" on 4chan's music board (especially when a given thread is about Lorde herself). It became a meme not because karma reinforced its popularity and not because moot or any other admin endorsed it, but because enough anonymous people thought that it was funny that they ALL want to keep posting it for no good reason.

moot mentions snapchat in the article, which I think is related in a fundamental way to what has made 4chan successful. I've had snapchat since June, and the way I use it with my friends is to share small jokes and the tiny frustrations of modern life. This is stuff that is amusing enough that I want a few people to see what I've written once, but not so funny that I think it should exist for eternity online. But it's always been more about the jokes for my friends and me than about security.

Apparently I'm not alone. When news got out about the snapchat leaks[2], many people thought that this would be a damaging blow to Snapchat. These were people who I assume don't use snapchat very frequently. To me, it never mattered that the photos leaked, because there's so much noise in the snapchats that it'd be difficult, I am thinking, to use the data maliciously. The worst thing is that the database of snapchat ids leaked, so people can spam snaps to people they don't know. But this is not a problem that is difficult to deal with.

Point is, moot is right about nobody in silicon valley really understanding the value of anonymity. While the Mr. Altman was discussing the negative face of people shedding their identity (e.g. people with bones to pick doing so anonymously in public) he didn't see the positive benefits that moot describes. Perhaps a gossip app is not the best place to see creativity blossom on the internet.

I want to relay one last anecdote from my time on 4chan:

4chan has an advice board (/adv/[3]) that is as anonymous as the rest of 4chan[4]. On this board, people ask for advice. Often it's relationship problems, even more often it's the problems of sad men who like girls but have no idea how to transition from that point to a relationship with one of them. If Mr. Altman's hypothesis that "Anonymity breads meanness"[5] were true, one would expect this board to be full of people just trolling depressed neets. While that does happen from time to time, more often than not it's full of people genuinely trying to help these people that they don't know and have never met. They expect nothing in return, but they are a fully anonymous community that just tries to help people who feel they don't have anywhere better to ask for help.

Maybe anonymity isn't so bad.

[1] [https://twitter.com/lordemusic/status/430186358930292736](https://twitter.com/lordemusic/status/430186358930292736)

[2] [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/46-million-snapchat-usernames- ph...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/46-million-snapchat-usernames-phone- numbers-reportedly-leaked/)

[3] [http://boards.4chan.org/adv/](http://boards.4chan.org/adv/) (probably NSFW)

[4] there are actually different levels of anonymity on 4chan, but, for the most part, everybody is more or less completely anonymous with each post.

[5] [http://blog.samaltman.com/anonymity](http://blog.samaltman.com/anonymity)

<comment><USER22> Regarding your anecdote: IMO it works for 4chan because the entire system is _built_ around anonymity and a troll culture. If _every_ message on 4chan is a trolling opportunity but _every_ user is anonymous, trolling looses a lot of it's 'fun'. You get no notoriety, the target is primed for it already and is protected by their own anonymity.

Trolling on 4chan has been elevated to such an art-form that it takes more energy to successfully troll than basically anywhere else on the internet. And that's saying something.

The problem is that very few other platforms can keep that anonymous relationship equal in all cases, and that's where the real problems start. The power relationship becomes unbalanced and the equation tips in favour of bad behaviour.

Take twitter as the classic case. A lot of feminist writers will use semi- anonymous accounts because of the level of vitriol that is commonly thrown at them. Then some particularly nasty individual doxxes their account and the level of personally abusive and physically threatening messages increases dramatically.

<comment><USER23> Feminists and friends fling just as much shit as anybody else on Twitter. During the Piers Morgan Twitter flamefest, you should have seen some of the hatred thrown his way. In particular I remember the person who wished him to get "dick cancer." I posted a link one time to an article critical of the DailyKos response to a particular Ted Rall cartoon, and a social justice warrior flamed the shit out of me for _weeks_ after I stopped responding, because I didn't think a badly drawn caricature of Obama constituted racism.

I don't think you need anonymity to make trolling lose its flavor, I have used plenty of forums over the years where there were persistent identities but the sophisticated (compared to twitter users) forum members just didn't take the bait and trolling attempts usually just fell flat.

<comment><USER24> I can corroborate this. I follow a few SJWs on twitter and the vitriol they post is often very surprisingly potent. I actually think that pound for pound, threads on 4chan on topics like race or gender politics end up being better conversations because the anonymity takes away the need for people to demonstrate their status as provocateurs.

<comment><USER25> >I actually think that pound for pound, threads on 4chan on topics like race or gender politics end up being better conversations

I love anonymous conversation but this sentence makes me think you've not tried to debate these things on 4chan too often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Slight OT: I'm interested on people's thought on anonymity on HN.

\- Do you think we have better discussions because we don't have to use our real names?

\- How would using real names affect the discussion here?

\- Does the anonymity here go far enough? For example if someone manages to tie our real identity to our HN username their is no way of changing the HN username.

<comment><USER26> You know how we see "former" politicians, or "former" chairs at agencies, or "former" judges speaking on the war on drugs, and so on? Why are they always "former"? Because they know that what they say could impact their career and they could lose their jobs, at a time they may not be ready to lose their jobs.

Now, imagine if everything they can say after they become "former" that position (so I'm not necessarily talking about leaking classified information here), could be said anonymously much earlier while they still have that job and know everything what's going on at the time.

Anonymity is powerful, and not just in oppressive countries where the usefulness of anonymity should be obvious, but also in countries where you may want to tell a "truth" about something, without fearing for your financial situation or your career.

Let's imagine Tim Cook had an opinion about what is going on between Palestine and Israel, and let's imagine it's a damn good one, since he's a pretty smart guy, and that opinion could even provide a big insight into the debate, and it would be very useful for the debate. I don't need to tell you that he wouldn't want to give that opinion under his real name on HN. That would create a media-firestorm, and could potentially get Apple, the company, in trouble, too, over his personal opinions.

I think these are just a few of the reasons why anonymity is important, and more should be explored. Anonymity is important for humanity, and it should never be killed or banned, whether by NSA or by companies like Google and Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Anonymity increases the variance of behaviors that people will demonstrate online.

When you use your real identity, your actions carry risk with them, so you tend to bring your actions towards the population mean. If you choose to dress in an outlandish way in New York, you might wear a pink sweater and orange jeans. At Burning Man, where your real identity has been shed temporarily, you may wear a toga or nothing at all.

The dirty look you give someone in "real life" might become an unspeakably rude comment in an anonymous forum. But the funny dance you invented to go along with a Daft Punk song might be something you choose to share with the whole world under the veil of anonymity.

When something changes the variance of a human behavior without changing the mean, you'll never be able to come to agreement on whether it's "good" or "bad" \-- it's just different.

</comment><comment><USER28> Both of them are conflating anonymity with its consequences. This really needs to stop, because it's preventing us from actually understanding the mechanisms in play.

moot understands that identity is "prismatic", but he misses one of the consequences of this, which is that one of the fundamental components of identity is how we are related to by others. Who we share as is a function of who we are seen as. Anonymity strips away this latter part to provide a blank slate. That's what makes the experience "raw".

Because the filters on your speech are derived from who you care about hearing you speak. If my mother is in the room, I'm not going to talk about the crime in my neighborhood, because it would worry her unnecessarily. But that's also something I'd be willing to discuss publicly under my real name with a home address attached. It's not a function of "am I anonymous"; it's a function of expected consequences.

Talking about anonymity and ephemerality obfuscates the issue. It's a simplified model easily understood by a software hacker, making it so that FOAF networks don't need to be included into solutions. One of the simplest ways to understand Google+'s early advantage over Facebook was that, if you were about to comment on a post to a limited group, you were _explicitly_ told you who could see what you were about to say. It wasn't enough, but it was an order of magnitude better. (Yes, for the record, the real name thing was dumb.)

When we post on HN, we have certain expectations of our audience, and we often feel betrayed and indignant when commenters fail to meet them.

Anonymity and ephemerality aren't wrong. They're reasonable defaults for many situations. They're also good ways to sidestep harder questions, like how to accurately parse a name or portray an identity, when you _do_ want to do that.

(P.S. This comment turned out as a really shitty piece of writing. Sorry for the scattered incoherency.)

</comment><comment><USER29> I may be completely ignorant here but how is Snapchat anonymous? I thought you shared content with your contact list... but maybe I'm missing something. Is it because Snapchat has no "profile" page a la Facebook?

<comment><USER30> It's not anonymous, but to the user it's ephemeral. You can make a pic, send it through snapchat, and be confident that regardless of the outcome (people loved it or hated it) they would never be able to see it again.

Traditional internet forums are anonymous and static. Snapchat flips that around.

<comment><USER31> > You can make a pic, send it through snapchat, and be confident that > regardless of the outcome (people loved it or hated it) they would never be > able to see it again.

Yeah, not so much. If there weren't things like screenshots, perhaps. A browse through Reddit's seedier parts proves this ephemerality a lie.

<comment><USER30> True, and the app itself doesn't actually delete the pictures off your device either. Still, the intention of the app is to share impermanent pictures, which is an interesting twist on things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I say this with hesitation but I believe that Snapchat, with all of its idiotic flaws is an indication of how the future of social networking platforms will be. It demonstrates that you can have a service where your friends are known but the content is seemingly temporary, allowing for some semblance of control.

I don't think that Snapchat is the future, but it does make me think that the ideas around it are what will make Facebook lost to younger generations.

Being anonymous is not important to most people. If it were, news website comments would be more palatable where real identities are required--far from the case.

<comment><USER33> > I say this with hesitation but I believe that Snapchat, with all of its > idiotic flaws is an indication of how the future of social networking > platforms will be.

Snapchat only really delivers on its promise because of the kind of user- hostile DRM Stallman and his ilk have been screaming warnings about for years.

Its children and derivatives cannot reasonably exist in a future in which end users have real control over their computers.

<comment><USER34> It's interesting that this is a case where DRM transfers power from one user to another: from recipient to sender. The only other case I've come across where this kind of transfer is accepted as beneficial is anti-cheat systems in games.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady >> "What I've observed is the opposite—that anonymity facilitates honest discourse, creates a level playing field for ideas to be heard, and enables creativity like none other."

One big counterpoint to this I can see is ask.fm. People are given total anonymity and they use it to berate and bully others (I believe it's also lead to several suicides). Anonymity can work great if the community is good. Here on HN I think it works pretty well. On ask.fm it clearly worked horribly but only because the community using it used it that way.

In the end I think it's all down to the people using the service and anonymity or true identity plays only a very small role.

Edit: and the downsides of anonymity can been seen below in '784927489234's comment.

<comment><USER35> If someone commits suicide because of some bullshit on a random website, then the suicide was probably going to happen anyway.

This is the same tired "think-of-the-children" argument about reversed song lyrics played backwards, Ozzy Osbourne, foul language, and on and on, that the PMRC lobbied against, and used as a point to provoke the parental advisory album labeling in the 80's.

The term "cyber bullying" (which is new and different) is used incorrectly as a catch-all sometimes, but really, it should be reserved for a different form of pervasive harassment that follows the victim across many different scopes of internet and telecommunications access, where ignoring activity originating from one source (a single website, the victim's e-mail inbox, or the victim's telephone number) does not provide escape from disparaging remarks.

This is not the same as one website providing anonymity or even pseudonymity.

Yeah, children are inexperienced, and thin-skinned. They don't understand the risks of providing their real information on the internet, and and don't behave with the sophistication of those that do. There's lots of things on the internet that are not for kids. LOTS.

All the more reason to inform the inexperienced to AVOID revealing their honest real-life identity, rather than encouraging rubes to engage in promiscuous full-disclosure so that advertisers and ad-driven businesses can make a buck off of "unique" impressions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> _The conversation is "raw" to say the least—almost everyone checks their filter at the door. The resulting dialogue is about as honest as it gets. In lieu of traditional barriers to membership, the community uses cryptic and crude language to regulate who can and cannot participate. On the surface this may seem offensive, but it's often meant to do little more than keep newcomers on their toes and encourage they lurk and learn the house rules before participating._

How can you have honest, unfiltered dialogue when there are barriers to entry and membership is regulated?

Hey moot, why are YouTube comments so bad? Clearly it's not just anonymity.

<comment><USER16> youtube comments are bad because there's no barrier to entry.

with 4chan you have to get over the social impact of actually browsing 4chan. Just go look at the 4chan subreddit, it's filled to the brink with people who want to consume 4chan content but are too scared to actually visit the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> We have pseudoanonymity on hacker news, and everyone gets along just fine.

Perhaps anonymity is a red herring. Maybe the tone of discourse is a function of what kinds of people a community attracts, and how involved each user is with that community.

<comment><USER38> Yeah that's pretty obvious if you've ever seen a news article with Facebook comments that the Drudge Report has linked to, particularly one involving a black person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Having been "online" since the '80s, I respectfully disagree. Relative anonymity in "real" life leads to antisocial activity and rudeness since there's little chance of identity or recourse. Consider the behavior of automobile drivers.

Anonymity online can't fully be achieved except by a small few, but the positive benefits can be simulated for many by careful operators of BBS or internet forums.

</comment><comment><USER40> I just discovered that 4chan works great on mobile phones.

The great barrier to entry, for me, was the high risk of not only NSFW, but very weird NSFW stuff randomly popping up (even if I stay in /mu/ and /pol/) at work. Now I have a tiny screen for it.

</comment><comment><USER41> reddit has some of the most helpful, positive and encouraging communities on the Internet. It really depends on the tone that each particular app/forum cultivates. Sure, there are assholes but for the most part, the communities created in some subreddits are simply fantastic. And their upvoting/downvoting system is far superior to anything, including HN and slashdot, and really helps clean up the noise. Had I never used reddit, I probably would have thought the same thing of Sam Altman, but reddit has such positivity in some of the subreddits that it is really great to see.

<comment><USER42> I have recently quit using reddit because I got tired of the bickering, particularly in the more mainstream subreddits. The smaller subreddits seem fine. While there is also some bickering in HN, it seems to me to be much more moderated.

It seems like once a community grows large enough, so do its number of assholes, but the asshole count must be absolute, not relative, since it just takes a few to ruin the fun for everyone. This is why HN seems to me less bickery than reddit right now, because it's more focussed on just one niche.

What really did it for me was the pack rape mentality that parts of reddit exhibit. I want nothing to do with a website that allows this:

[http://betabeat.com/2012/08/reddit-watches-with-glee-as- camg...](http://betabeat.com/2012/08/reddit-watches-with-glee-as-camgirl-has- heartbreaking-meltdown/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> > What I've observed is the opposite—that anonymity facilitates honest > discourse, creates a level playing field for ideas to be heard, and enables > creativity like none other.

Clearly moot hasn't ever been to /pol/.

</comment><comment><USER44> I made this account anonymous to see if my comments improved. They're certainly shorter. I suspect it's because I'm not as worried about being misunderstood.

</comment><comment><USER45> As I said before, I am not for real name policies, but I do want the problems with posting under real names to be fixed if possible.

</comment><comment><USER46> I don't know about these days, but I personally had to deal with 4chan/Anonymous several years ago (before Anonymous became known for taking on public causes) and what they were doing was downright evil (and immature) with real-world consequences. "For the lolz." I wonder what moot was doing when he presided over this disgusting behavior.

</comment><comment><USER47> Here's an idea: to reap the benefit of anonymity but also to discourage the trolling that comes with it how about an anonymous BBS where you pay (anonymously and in some currency that people don't particularly mind parting with -- e.g., Dogecoin) to post?

<comment><USER48> Then the rich enough are free to continue posting whatever they want, the poor are discouraged from posting anything at all and everyone else has to justify paying money to communicate with strangers on the internet that don't care what they have to say anyway.

<comment><USER47> >everyone else has to justify paying money to communicate with strangers on the internet that don't care what they have to say anyway

I think many people would pay to post on an anonymous equivalent of Hacker News. Of course, the question is how you bootstrap such a community.

A more straightforward alternative (which would benefit the poor posters the most) is to offer compensation to the posters through, say, the encouragement of tipping for good posts or some sort of a redistribution mechanism [1]. I wonder how this would affect the natural self-regulation of an anonymous community in what people choose to post. One could say that it would encourage the posting of popular opinions but I think that in most anonymous communities that already happens through other means.

Another, more out-there, idea would be to algorithmically grade the posts and assign a price to each. A long, thought-post post would cost you nothing while a post consisting of just "lol" would cost a lot.

[1] E.g., a voting-based system where everyone pays to post and then whoever paid can upvote other posts in the thread. The money is redistributed among the posters in proportion to the number of votes they got once the thread no longer accepts new posts. Try to come up with exploits for this system and ways of mitigating them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> >The conversation is "raw" to say the least—almost everyone checks their filter at the door.

Their filter? You mean privilege and doubles.

</comment><comment><USER15> These days, there are social justice warriors combing your twitter feed looking for a way to get you fired if you "offend" someone. Anonymity is vital for the diversity of ideas. I'm sure some people are slavering for a world without anonymity, where they can enforce ideological conformity. I prefer this way, thanks.</comment>


Amazon Cloud Drive Desktop Apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=pe_234810_23733300_pe_button/?ie=UTF8&docId=1000796781

<comment><USER2> Well, at least they stopped insulting our intelligence by pretending that Linux was a supported platform but really only offering packages that were so outdated as to not install on any distribution newer than 2-3 years old even with extensive hacking. Like this: <http://www.amazon.com/gp/dmusic/help/amd.html></comment>


Show HN: Himawari 8 Satellite Imagery New Tab Page in Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/domoritz/himawari-8-chrome/ <comment><USER2> I'm so happy with this thing that you've made!

It's displaced my todo-list as my chrome new-tab.

I live on the east coast of Australia - pretty much on the centreline of the field of view, and it's so cool to see our planet from my point of view in real time - really makes me feel like I'm living on a rock flying through space at great speed!

It's late in the evening here - this is the image right now: [https://www.evernote.com/l/AJwr2IhgBtlHJrQS_ksivwvaYtahS01IO...](https://www.evernote.com/l/AJwr2IhgBtlHJrQS_ksivwvaYtahS01IOrU)

thanks :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, nice! You are very welcome. I live in Seattle so I get to see the whole plant illuminated in the afternoon/evening. Not quite the same experience as for you but it still makes me happy every time I open a new tab.</comment></comment>


Everyone Who Knows What They're Talking About Agrees with Me - <AUTHOR> http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/23/everyone-who-knows-what-they-a <comment><USER2> They forgot to say which group more educated people belong to. I am almost sure more educated are egalitarians/communaries. The opinion of more educated people is more important, obviously.</comment>


Path like navigation controller for iOS - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gotosleep/JASidePanels/

<comment><USER2> Is there anything like this in javascript?</comment>


A programming language based on NAND completeness - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Jellonator/Nandlang/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> Looks like an interesting idea to implement as a modification of a standard language instead of an new isolated language, so someone else can play with it without learning all the new syntax quirks (only use the old well known syntax quirks :)).

For example in Racket you can create a new language where the constants are restricted to 0 and 1 and only nand is defined, and use the standard Racket syntax with it. I've also seen some blogpost that modify Python in strange ways. But I think you would prefer to use a C like language as initial language.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For tldr, skip straight to the example. It illustrates the idea very well.

It could be neat to make something like this compile to a Minecraft world with a redstone circuit.</comment>


The Next Frontier in AI: Unsupervised Learning [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbjF5VjniVE <comment><USER2> I find unsupervised learning the most interesting when the system finds a pattern that humans can't even comprehend - being able to feel there is some sort of distinction, but being unsure what it is.

<comment><USER3> Me too. I think this is generally called "discovery" \-- when a new concept arises because known concepts can't adequately explain an observation; established models can't capture it. IMO, it's easily the most interesting kind of learning.

But frankly, I have no idea how a computational approach like machine learning could discover something new that's not just a combinatoric variation on known features. If you must invent a new dimension to model the unknown feature, how do you go about proposing one that's plausible and not absurd (like 4-dimensional space or 2-dimensional time)?</comment></comment>


Solving the Wrong Problem (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/the-wrong-problem <comment><USER2> > The problem was the process itself, and along with it the blind pursuit of a > goal without a deeper understanding how to tackle deeply difficult > challenges.

And _that_ is the wrong problem that too many software engineering teams solve. Let's not solve a customer problem, let's solve the problem of solving customer problems and hopefully in year or so we'll get to that.

Iteration speed is an issue for hardware. It becomes an issue for software teams when too much time is spent tooling, generalizing and reinventing wheels.

I point that out because this sort of example pushes the wrong buttons for many software engineers, including myself. We _don 't_ need more time spent on meta-problem solving. Much less, in fact.

<comment><USER3> That depends on whether you see technical debt accrual as a 'meta problem'.

The faster you iterate without thinking long-term - the faster it accrues.

20/20 hindsight and all that.

<comment><USER4> Technical debt is not any sort of problem in and of itself.

It can be accrued _naively_ , which is an antipattern, but when that isn't the case technical debt is a vehicle for leverage. You get more value from less work.

With all development efforts having a finite lifetime, and many having a particularly short one, wise exercise of technical debt becomes an essential skill for both project managers and developers.

Vilifying technical debt, and even prematurely mitigating it, are just as naive as inadvertently introducing it.

<comment><USER3> Nothing ever is a problem 'in and of it self'. This kind of vacuous 'thinking' is not what I am talking about.

Holistically, if your system is meant to endure the test of time (think Google-scale), more technical debt is worse than less technical debt.

<comment><USER4> > if your system is meant to endure the test of time (think Google-scale)

While some exceedingly few _products_ have that destiny, it's precisely the naive bias towards thinking that your _project_ does that leads to wasteful over-engineering.

Products and projects are not the same thing. Most of the Google-scale _products_ that you see leveraged tons of technical debt on projects along the way, some critically valuable and some certainly wasteful.

If you're adding a feature to one of these products that are already at that scale, then your attitude toward technical debt will be different.

But effectively nobody reading this thread is doing that, and the few that are know who they are.

Most readers here are working on projects with near-term deadlines and development lifetimes measured in a few months or years. As much as judicious exercise of technical debt enables those projects to deliver on their requirements more quickly and for less cost, more is better.

Many of us come into the industry thinking otherwise because we're drawn to the intellectual purity of clean systems, but that purity just isn't what actually matters most of the time. It can take a while to accept and internalize that.

<comment><USER3> >Nobody reading this thread is doing that, and the few that are know who they are.

That's the false dichotomy which earned me my stripes.

I used to think I am the former guy, then I realised I am the latter guy. The only thing that changed is that some time passed.

The hind-sight of my mistaken identity is that the systems I have been working on for 15 years became less, not more maintainable as a result of tolerating technical debt.

They also became Google-scale (which is what we were hoping for, but didn't believe at first).

I am the furthest thing from a purist. I am a filthy rich pragmatist who regrets having low-quality standards.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps it's the fact that you tolerated the technical debt that got you to google scale. I've seen a few projects where developers aim for (as swatcoder so eloquently put it above) the intellectual purity of clean systems and then watch these projects fail to be delivered.

We'd all like to be a filthy rich pragmatist but I wonder just how much the 'low-quality standards' enabled you to achieve that. Seriously, I would love to be a millionaire with regrets about low quality code instead of being broke with junior developers pointing out my code smells and technical debt.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps, but you can't determine whether a system is over or under-engineered a priori. Certainly not when you are racing a clock.

These kind of assertions are always after the fact. And in hind-sight I think we could've done a tad better.

I might be less-rich, but that's not even close to being broke. And the people I hire to clean up my technical debt would hate working here less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > MacCready, decided to get involved. He looked at the problem, how the > existing solutions failed, and how people iterated their airplanes. He came > to the startling realization that people were solving the wrong problem.

Being able to analyse existing solutions and previous attempts (successful or not) is a luxury that the first people to attempt a solution don't enjoy.

It's much, much easier taking an existing solution and improving it than it is to develop the existing solution.

<comment><USER7> The Everyday Astronaut had a great interview with Elon Musk after the Starship presentation a few days ago. They spent a bit of time talking about how much progress the team had made in very little time, and Musk's take was that it took them an awful long time to finally ask the right questions - years. Once they had formulated exactly what they were trying to do and what the actual relevant constraints were, finding the right solutions and making very rapid progress was actually not all that complicated.

He talked about the tendency really good engineers have to spend a lot of effort optimising the design of things that shouldn't be there at all.

Finally he banged on hard about always questioning your design constraints. He pointed out that if you get given some design constraints by another team, you should always consider their validity since it;s very unlikely they are optimal. The converse assumption would be that they are always perfect, so looking at it that way there's no reason you should assume they are right from the start.

For anyone who worries about the sunk cost fallacy, bear in mind it was only about a year ago they decided to throw away all the investment they'd put into building a composite body, including a huge main body tool.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ36Kt7UVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ36Kt7UVg)

<comment><USER8> I came here to write this same comment as well. I think Elon has great insight how to very quickly build from conception to reality, pruning off undesirable paths before they consume resources.

In that one interview with Tim, he explored very deep concepts about cross team collaboration, engineering process and project management that extend well beyond the rocket science I was expecting to hear about

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Identifying the right problem is indeed the golden nugget.

Teams chasing after arbitrarily defined KPI, with no feedback loop in place, or the feedback is 1 year later.

Implementing features based on feedback from 1 customer, then find out the customer wasn't articulating the problem at all.

Projects eager to adopt the latest technology, using every bit of service AWS provide, jumping onto the jargon bandwagon (e.g. blockchain) to solve non- existent problem.

To name a few

<comment><USER10> > _Implementing features based on feedback from 1 customer, then find out the > customer wasn 't articulating the problem at all._

What about, ahem, Google Self-Driving Cars :)?

Unpopular opinion around here but here goes:

I feel the dimensions on which actual people (i.e. customers) will evaluate Google's SDCs, when they become generally available, is very different from the dimensions Google is optimizing for, based on what they _think_ people will need in the _future_ once the technology is ready§.

How a person determines the utility of a product or service can be markedly different from how the same person evaluates the utility of that product or service when s/he is confronted with what all potential customers must confront before making a purchase decision: a price tag.

As subtle as the distinction between a person and a customer is, it is an important dose of reality that I think is missing from a lot of arguments that happen here on HN where the title of market leader is undisputedly ceded to Google Waymo when compared to a competitor like Tesla with far far lower-tech (but cheaper) autonomous capabilities.

§ IMHO, I don't think their current approach to SDC technology using expensive LIDARs fits the problem at hand. Use of high fidelity tech like LIDAR also causes another tendency, it lures engineers into thinking that it will somehow make tractable, a hard problem like the trolley problem [0].

An additional issue is that the designations: L0-L5 are arbitrary constraints themselves, they are not based on problems _customers_ are confronted with.

0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A favorite quote:

> Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often > vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made > precise.

John Tukey

<comment><USER12> Maynard Keyes might have been a Carveth Read fan:

"It is better to be vaguely right, than precisely wrong."

\- Carveth Read, _" Logic: Deductive & Inductive"_ 1898 (1920 4th Ed.)

[1] [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18440/18440-h/18440-h.htm#Pag...](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18440/18440-h/18440-h.htm#Page_351)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This was not the only problem-framing aspect of MacCready's success: while previous attempts built complex airframes intended to have a low drag coefficient, he recognized that the issue was power dissipation - if the speed was low enough, the drag coefficient was not so critical, and things like wire bracing were acceptable. His initial insight was that "if you triple the size of a hang-glider-size plane and triple its wingspan to 90 ft. while keeping its weight the same, the power needed to fly it goes down by a factor of 3, to about 0.4 horsepower." And that, he knew, was what a trained cyclist could pump out for several minutes at a stretch.

[http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,90512,0...](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,90512,00.html)

<comment><USER14> Did he find that out before or after the fast iteration conclusion?

<comment><USER13> I am not privy to Dr. MacCready's thoughts, but I think it is worth considering how the two inspirations differ. Anyone who has worked on developing something novel has probably realized that there are benefits in fast iteration, and I would guess that the other plane-builders realized how time-consuming their approach was, but could not see a way to achieve fast iteration, because they were locked into a particular notion of what the solution would require.

MacCready's engineering insight, on the other hand, arose from an understanding of the practical implications of aerodynamics so thorough that it was almost instinctive (the same could be said for his invention of the glider speed ring; it is not that he knew something others did not, but he saw how that knowledge could be put to use. Also, in both cases, there's some significant engineering to be done between the idea and the implementation.)

This aerodynamic insight happened to open the door to fast iteration, but, perhaps more importantly, it showed what sort of airplane to build (in fact, the latter was the key to the former, as well as the key to actually achieving the goal.) It is all very well to say that we're going to solve a problem through fast iteration, but that does not tell you what to do next. On the other hand, I imagine that as soon as Dr. MacCready had his aerodynamic insight, his mind was filled with ideas about how to go about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nitpicking: the image of the guy is labled wrong. He's not holding a speed ring, but a crossection of a wing spar

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_MacCready#/media/File:Pau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_MacCready#/media/File:Paul_maccready.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER16> "A $500 a week cocaine habit is not a money problem" \- a favourite quote I heard from somewhere, which I unfortunately cannot credit

</comment><comment><USER17> I think the "Richard Feynman" algorithm is figuring out a way to get to the desired result for a specific challenge without having to past through all steps needed to solve the general problem.

The example of Feynman cracking safes is perfect - he just used a bunch of special tricks rather than any general method - similarly with quick numeric calculations in his head.[1]

That said, while most hard problems need to framed in a different way not all hard problems yield to the "clever detour into something simple" approach. A lot of math problems are solved by a detour into a bunch, difficult things and then a return to your original "seemingly simple" problem (see Fermat's Last Theorem etc).

[1] See: Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You're_Joking%2C_Mr._Fe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You're_Joking%2C_Mr._Feynman)!

</comment><comment><USER18> Similarly, startups are in the business of iteratively failing and learning about their problem. By reframing the problem, he effectively "startupify'd" the problem.

</comment><comment><USER19> A bit in 2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10830690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10830690)

A bit more in 2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8524988](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8524988)

Quite a bit in 2012: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3561397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3561397)

Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2591367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2591367)

</comment><comment><USER20> Solving the wrong problem is a very common thing in software development. That is why I always take time to think (sometimes during three days) before starting a development.

<comment><USER21> >Solving the wrong problem is a very common thing in software development.

there aren't much right problems in software development to go around, while there are so many people and money that can and have to be put to work, and as result we live in a kind of a golden age where instead of subsistence and survival of a typical stressed&oppressed office drone most of the people in the industry are in a position to work on wrong problems, and to try and to develop more and more of new tech, and the high failure rate of the projects isn't an issue. Which other engineering discipline can allow itself to have such a luxury?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of something I read many years ago:

There are two ways of doing a Ph.D. thesis: (1) Finding a problem and solving it; (2) finding a method and then finding a problem it solves. The second is much more likely to be successful.

<comment><USER14> Isn't a startup closer to the former. Potential customers have a problem and you can try to solve it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> [https://dpc.pw/iteration-time-trumps-everything](https://dpc.pw/iteration- time-trumps-everything)

</comment><comment><USER24> Needs a (2011) tag

<comment><USER19> Added now. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I haven't read your link bc your title is incredibly presumptuous. You don't know who I am or what problem I'm solving.

<comment><USER19> Yes, linkbait 'you' is a perennial annoyance. At least this one has the good manners to leave a pretty nice title if we simply delete the offending pronoun.</comment></comment>


What happen to your source code and database when you die prematurely? - <AUTHOR> I'm a solo developer developing custom web applications for organisations the size of 100 - 2000 employees. Recently they ask me for my backup plan if I die prematurely. I'm thinking of a dead man switch using aws lambda. If I don't respond to the email within 45 days, it will then send an email to the point of contact on how to access the servers and database. Is there any better way to do this? <comment><USER2> Random advice from the internet.

0\. Talk to the people asking the question and ask them what they are comfortable with. Relying on AWS lambda is great so long as your credit card still works, the code contains no bugs, there isn't a problem with the email, and somebody at the client's office understands what the email means and can _quickly_ do what it takes to keep everything working...and there are no other problems or circumstances.

1\. Consider the business value derived from continuing to be an information bottleneck. An alternative is to set up servers and databases on accounts controlled by your clients.

2\. To me, the conversation suggests at a minimum the client has done a risk assessment. Though the questions may have been prompted by conversations with a larger competitor (a competitor only needs two programmers to provide a more robust bus factor).

3\. This is a business problem not a technical problem. It is also a business opportunity. Maintaining servers and databases is commodity work. Expertise in solving the businesses problems and an ongoing relationship is value added work and can lead to better contracts and better clients.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> The best solution will depend on your needs and the specifics of the situation, but one alternative to a dead man switch is to have instructions or credentials that require multiple trusted people to access. If you are paranoid you can choose people who don't even know each other, or give yourself the option to cancel the release of the information with a dead man switch with a shorter duration. It'd be a shame if such a complicated system that isn't tested much were to fail, though...

</comment><comment><USER4> An easy solution is to deliver your software with the sources to your customers, along with a license allowing them to use them in case of disparition without any entity inheriting the rights on your software.

An alternative, but similar thing, is to put your sources in escrow, so that they become available to the customers only in such an occurence.

Of course, you may also merely distribute it as free software, with the sources stored on multiple public git repositories.</comment>


Tell HN: ggventurini, author of python-deltasigma and akhab, has died - <AUTHOR> It is with great sadness that I announce to you that Giuseppe Venturini (@ggventurini), open source developer and hobbyist, has passed away on the 21st of September 2015.
Giuseppe worked for many years at CERN, as an electronics engineer. He was a passionate hobbyist and an open source enthusiast. He has started many open source projects over the years, more remarkably python-deltasigma and akhab. I had the pleasure to meet him and, although we were not close friends, I know he was appreciated by everyone as a kind person.
I didn't have any contact with Giuseppe over the last months, so, it's hard to know how he would like us to remember him. However, I am sure he would appreciate some form of contribution to cancer research:
https://github.com/ggventurini/python-deltasigma#support-python-deltasigma-with-a-donation
Giuseppe's web site:
http://ggventurini.io/
Giuseppe's Projects:
http://ahkab.github.io/ahkab/
http://www.pythondeltasigma.io/ <comment><USER2> This is very sad :( I looked into ahkab (PSpice like software but in python) project few months ago and it was very nicely done.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thirty-two years old...

</comment><comment><USER4> Fuck cancer</comment>


Maxing out your love-growth-cash triangle - <AUTHOR> http://www.jackcheng.com/maxing-out-your-triangle

<comment><USER2> "Get it all" is a nice/noble/useful/cool sentiment, but I think this usage overloads an established metaphor.

The whole point of the triangular metaphor (as a visualisation) is to communicate a compromise situation - e.g. I'm working on a project, you can have Quality, Cost, Time as dimensions - you can't max out one without compromising another.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's more important to do what is right then what you love. Sometimes they're one in the same.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a brilliant way to visualise how much you're getting out of a job vs. another.

Which begs the question... what else can be brilliantly visualised using radar charts like this?

</comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of the TOP model: Talent - Organizational Needs - Passion.

While growth - cash - love model helps decide self picked projects, TOP advises employer - employee equilibrium in assigning resources to projects.

At any point of time an employer has to ensure that at least 2 of these are valid in a resource assignment for any task/project.

</comment><comment><USER6> is this only newsworthy because of the pretty charts?

<comment><USER7> Abuse of geometry is popular these days.

But hey, pseudoscience sells. Makes the reader feel smart when he "figures it out".

<comment><USER8> Don't forget the obligatory anecdotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was just thinking about the same thing, although my attributes were: Time, Money, Passion (the things which a job should reward you with / what you will invest in a job).

2 out of 3 is what you should be aiming for.

</comment><comment><USER10> Really like that guy's blog design. The yellow up at the top is slick.

</comment><comment><USER11> nice post - deep thoughts, but presented in a simple format</comment>


Show HN: TeXMe Demo – Self-Rendering Markdown and LaTeX Documents - <AUTHOR> https://opendocs.github.io/texme/examples/demo.html <comment><USER3> Pretty nice, although these days if when I need Markdown + LaTeX, most often I just create an .ipynb, put it on GitHub (which could render Jupyter notebooks, including LaTeX-splintered Markdown, since a while ago) and call it a day.

Btw, VSCode added native support for Jupyter notebooks recently.

<comment><USER4> There's been some form of notebook support in VSCode for a while, but nothing that I liked enough to start using vscode over a notebook server. But I'd love to be able to double click a .ipynb file and start editing and exploring.

Can you link the the recent support you talk about so I can compare it to what I've already tried in vscode?

<comment><USER5> [https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/python/jupyter- support](https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/python/jupyter-support)

It is exactly as you mentioned, you click the notebook, it renders and opens a Kernel on the background.

The plots have a default dark theme, but can be changed in the same way as if it was inside a normal Jupyter instance.

It's pretty convenient, but a bit buggy still for larger notebooks (I have to constantly save or some actions cause the cells to rollback in time).

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I noticed that down arrow from the end of a markdown cell would leave the cell and lose typed content. Fortunately I use Emacs keybindings (C-f, C-b, C-p, C-n) to navigate for the most part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Markdeep [1] does something very similar.

(Disclaimer: Not my project, but I've developed several Markdeep-adjacent tools [2][3].)

[1]: [https://casual-effects.com/markdeep/](https://casual- effects.com/markdeep/)

[2]: [https://github.com/doersino/markdeep- slides](https://github.com/doersino/markdeep-slides)

[3]: [https://github.com/doersino/markdeep-diagram-drafting- board](https://github.com/doersino/markdeep-diagram-drafting-board)

<comment><USER7> This looks cool, even cooler than TexMe! Was going to start writing a Project brief today, looks like I'm using Markdeep!

<comment><AUTHOR> Markdeep is a great project and supports a lot of impressive features. TeXMe on the other hand takes a minimalist approach.

There are some fundamental differences between the two tools. For example, in Markdeep, the user input goes into the <body> element whereas in TeXMe the user input goes into the <textarea> element. The choice of <textarea> element was made in TeXMe to make Markdown rendering more robust. Copy-pasting a valid Markdown code into Markdeep may not always render correctly without further editing. By the way, TeXMe also supports content in <body> as an optional feature.

Further, Markdeep does not care about conforming to the CommonMark spec whereas TeXMe does. If you care about CommonMark spec, TeXMe is a good choice. However, if you need additional features like tables, diagrams, etc., Markdeep is a good choice.

For a detailed comparison of the two tools, please see this thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18314175](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18314175).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I prefer katex [0] over mathjax these days. Seems to render a lot faster. I wonder how this compares to Pandoc in terms of features. I really would like a complete solution to take .tex files (theorems, references, figures) and turn it into a html page, instead of a pdf. Pandoc is not quite there for me (theorem environments!).

The main issue is that things like LaTeX theorem environments don't translate exactly markdown (plus the theorem numbering/referencing), but there should be some choice of convention. Seems like there was a focus on features that map directly between different formats.

[0] [https://katex.org/](https://katex.org/)

<comment><USER9> Have you tried Jupyter notebooks? I do not know if they handle references, but it does the rest you want. The markdown cella support latex math and you can include figures or even videos.

<comment><USER10> Isn't the TeX support in Jupyter based on MathJax?

<comment><USER9> Yes.

[https://jupyter- notebook.readthedocs.io/en/stable/examples/N...](https://jupyter- notebook.readthedocs.io/en/stable/examples/Notebook/Working%20With%20Markdown%20Cells.html#LaTeX- equations)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm not sure I understand what "self-rendering" means in this context? You have some javascript that is taking markdown and spitting out HTML, right?

How is that different from any of the existing JS libs? The fact that it is one line of code vs. a couple extra?

<comment><USER12> Probably because it's supposed to be "introspective", in the sense that you just add a single HTML line to your otherwise usual markdown/tex files, and the javascript recognizes this patterns ie. it ignores the <script> tag and renders everything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This project is awesome, but by relying on Commonmark, you can't use this together with code blocks containing $ (meaning it doesn't work for languages like PHP and R). It's unfortunate that the Commonmark creators ignored requests to handle cases like this.

<comment><USER3> > It's unfortunate that the Commonmark creators ignored requests to handle > cases like this.

What's your proposed solution?

FWIW the main goal of CommonMark is to fix the ambiguity of Markdown.pl and provide a common subset of features for all parsers to target, instead of trying to include everyone's pet feature.

<comment><USER13> > provide a common subset of features for all parsers to target, instead of > trying to include everyone's pet feature

I'm aware. Equations aren't exactly a "pet feature" though, unless things like code blocks are also pet features.

There's an easy solution - have syntax that turns off parsing (a nowiki type syntax).

Commonmark accomplishes very little if it can't be used to produce the documents people are creating. If you want to add equations, you need an extension. And if you use two extensions, you need to make sure they interact correctly. And you have to be sure that all the extensions that might possibly be used interact nicely together. At that point, you have your own version of markdown, and you need to preprocess all your commonmark documents.

But yeah, it's nice that all commonmark implementations use the same syntax for bold and italics. Unfortunately writing involves a lot more than that.

<comment><USER3> > There's an easy solution - have syntax that turns off parsing (a nowiki type > syntax).

Okay, that's fair, but CommonMark standardized de facto standards -- it was born as Standard Markdown after all -- and AFAIK there's no de facto standard here, so it would be pretty dangerous for jgm to pull something out of thin air. I can see why there's reluctance here.

(IIRC fenced code blocks were pretty widespread before CommonMark, and even if not, being part of GFM would almost make it a de facto standard. Note that CommonMark was a joint effort among GitHub, Stack Exchange, Reddit, etc.; SE's <!-- lang --> solution was atrocious, so GFM fenced code block was an obvious win.)

Also, code blocks with language specification is apparently of way higher importance to programmers than typeset math, so comparing the two isn't that useful. (I say this as a physicist who breathe typeset math.)

Now, going back to

> you can't use this together with code blocks containing $ (meaning it > doesn't work for languages like PHP and R).

Why do you need to typeset math _within code blocks or code spans_? Code blocks and code spans are verbatim by definition. Interpret $ inside code blocks and code spans as verbatim; interpret $ outside as LaTeX delimiters. Problem solved. Maybe I'm missing something.

<comment><USER13> > Why do you need to typeset math within code blocks or code spans?

The problem is that commonmark doesn't recognize math at all. If you want to use texme, you can't have code blocks that containing $. For it to work properly, you'd need a preprocessor to parse the whole file, convert equations in the text as needed but ignore text in code, output to a format that doesn't cause problems with commonmark (for instance, protecting underscores outside code blocks). At that point you are way beyond just "using commonmark". It's simply not suited for even moderately complicated documents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From a look at the github, there is a sudden "surge" or commits, likely to prepare to present it to hackernews. But overall this github doesn't seem to be maintained and users issues are sitting there unanswered.

[https://github.com/susam/texme/commits/master](https://github.com/susam/texme/commits/master)

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. When I was about to share the project demo page today, I realized that it should have a link to the project README, so that visitors can read how to use this project. That's when I pushed a commit today. So while I was at it, it made sense to do a few other minor cleanups.

The tool, as is, works for me and my friends. I don't intend to make any major changes to this tool except for occasional bug fixes, so the number of commits is going to be less in future.

I know there are a few outstanding bugs. I have a full-time job and I am contributing to a few other open source projects too, so I don't have a lot of spare time to investigate and fix these issues right now but I may get to it later.

If there are others who might want to help the project by investigating the bugs and/or fixing them, they are very welcome. For any fixes merged to the project, I will be grateful to the contributors and as a token of gratitude, I will mention their names in the README and thank them.

<comment><USER15> > If there are others who might want to help the project by investigating the > bugs and/or fixing them, they are very welcome. For any fixes merged to the > project, I will be grateful to the contributors and as a token of gratitude, > I will mention their names in the README and thank them.

Your claim doesn't match your intent really. Some of your repos have long(many months) old issues with zero interaction from you yet I see activity in commit history.

For small projects like yours, there might be first-time contributors who look up to an author. If you don't interact, they'll get demotivated. If you don't want to interact, leave a comment on your README that "hey am super busy, send a PR with proper tests and may be I'll look when am free, no promises!". :) A little kindness goes a long way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback. I usually do not prefer commenting on an issue when I know I cannot add something new about the issue. At the same time, I understand your point about the need to interact. I will keep it in mind for future. I will also begin responding to the old issues in the next few days. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> FINALLY!

Thank you for this!

Edit: If any @Amazon Kindle devs read this, can you please reskin your technical texts to adopt this?

</comment><comment><USER17> Previous discussion (2018-10): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18307747](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18307747)

</comment><comment><USER18> This is brilliant.

All we need now is a way for it to fall back to pre-rendered static html for cases where there is no JS, and to be indexed.

<comment><USER19> Wouldn't that entirely defeat the purpose? If you're already pre-generating the HTML anyway, it's a waste not to just always serve it, making the self- rendering part redundant.

<comment><USER18> Bingo. But it is still brilliant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> (Shameless self promotion) I created something equivalent that has an editor too: [http://mathdown.novidee.com/14db95afe202f4c1adfc3214aa57af01](http://mathdown.novidee.com/14db95afe202f4c1adfc3214aa57af01)

</comment><comment><USER21> Given that it's parsing from a textarea, can TeXMe be used as an editor? I think some contenteditable editors have the rendering from markdown as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you mean something like this: [https://opendocs.github.io/texme/examples/interactive- demo.h...](https://opendocs.github.io/texme/examples/interactive-demo.html)? TeXMe can be used in this manner but not out of the box. If you see the source code of this interactive demo page, it uses the texme.render() function call from the TeXMe API to take input from the textarea element and render it in a div element.

Providing an interactive editor was not the goal of this project. The goal of this project was to write a text file using a mix of LaTeX and Markdown (while conforming to CommonMark specification as much as possible) and then share this file with my friends in such a way that they can render it easily by just opening it in a web browser. As a result, it completely replaces the textarea element with the rendered HTML.

If someone wants to take this project and create an interactive editor with it, please feel free to fork this project and do so. If you face any problems, please let me know by filing issues on the GitHub project: [https://github.com/susam/texme](https://github.com/susam/texme).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Would this work offline, by <script> referring to your local copy of texme.min.js [https://github.com/susam/texme/blob/master/texme.min.js](https://github.com/susam/texme/blob/master/texme.min.js) ?

Or is there much more to it?

<comment><USER3> Apparently TeXMe needs to load MathJax which in turn needs to load a bunch of fonts, so no, that script alone won't work offline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Consider pre-rendering formulas instead of doing it client-side (KateX supports this, dunno about MathJax). In my experience, rendering a lot of equations on screen via MathJax can be quite taxing.

</comment><comment><USER24> As cool as this is, I just don't really see the use for this, when static site generators like Hugo and Jekyll exist, and produce pages that will load measurably faster...

</comment><comment><USER25> I use org mode + pandoc to achieve the same thing. Jekyll than converts the markdown to html and with a mathjax header, makes a really nice blogging system.

</comment><comment><USER26> What are the pros and cons of rendering content like this?

<comment><USER27> Debatable, but it might

\+ save some network bandwidth in case of a sufficiently large/complex document

\- burn some extra energy client-side in case of a sufficiently large/complex document

\+ allow some kind of interactive manipulation/modification by the reader

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I would like this for Asciidoc which is the better Markdown

</comment><comment><USER29> is this just latex math or the full latex?

</comment><comment><USER30> Rendering quality is really good. Looks just like PDF.

<comment><USER31> > Looks just like PDF.

It's better than PDF. Text in PDF is not reflowable. This demo is by virtue of being HTML under the hood. Looks good even after resizing the browser.

I wish PDFs had a reflowable mode. What would it take to add such a mode to the PDF spec without breaking backward compatibility?

PDF's fixed layout is a real problem when we try to convert PDF books containing math to EPUB or MOBI with Calibre. It really messes up the beautifully typeset math in the PDF during the conversion. What's a good solution for this?

<comment><USER32> > I wish PDFs had a reflowable mode. What would it take to add such a mode to > the PDF spec without breaking backward compatibility?

PDF has everything including the kitchen sink. There's a fairly esoteric feature called "tagged PDFs" which contain extra markup commands within the page description that map it to a logical structure and alternative textual presentations (e.g. MathML). The problem is that nobody uses it as it's extremely hard to generate (most software which does text layout discards high level semantic details fairly early on, making it hard to retrofit - <USER2> for example only recently started inserting space characters between words!). Likewise PDF viewers don't bother to support it.

Reflowing a tagged pdf is fairly easy... once you have the pdf, which of course you don't.

It's a hard problem.

<comment><USER3> I heard tagged PDF is one of the goals of LaTeX3, and LaTeX3 work has thus far been available as packages on top of LaTeX2e, which means it should work on LaTeX2e too. I've never tried it though.

<comment><USER33> ConTeXt supports tagged pdf out of the box</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ajaxplorer better than Owncloud as personal storage - <AUTHOR> http://ajaxplorer.info/

<comment><USER2> no windows, linux or macos client? only web based? Then no, Owncloud has desktop apps. Therefor for many cases it's not just better but still the only contender. Dropbox's ubiquity sets a high bar.</comment>


Project Bubble: possible basecamp alternative? Please review. - <AUTHOR> http://projectbubble.com

<comment><USER3> Features don't sell software. Benefits sell software. If you have two minutes of my undivided attention, why are you telling me about dragging and dropping when you could be telling me much better my life is going to be if I use your software.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep - you are totally right. I will probably rework the video to talk about how the software can really save your time and hassle.

<comment><USER4> I read somewhere once that you need to sell people: sex, or making money, or saving money. I.e. You have to touch their hearts or their pocket.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hah. Well Project Bubble can't give the first thing (I don't think!) but it can do the other two. I'll make it clearer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The video doesn't start - I know it could be a line problem, but it should me blazingly fast everywhere, since that's what you're using to sell your product. And once started, it's tiny!

Also, excluding the video there aren't any screenshot around, and the "Tour" is just a list with tiny thumbnails.

Excluding those things, however, I think that everything else is well done: it clearly states the price (maybe, add a high-level offer with an high price tag) and explains pretty well some advantages. Also, the try button is everywhere so it's ok. :)

Why don't you offer a basic free-forever account with like: 1 user, 1 project, 1 invoice/month, etc. Something like this. I think it would be perceived really better than a 30-days test (that will still exists!).

<comment><AUTHOR> hey good feedback thanks.

\- I'll look in to the speed issue. \- the screenshots, i'll maybe make those lightboxes \- I'm not sure what you mean by high-level offer? \- the free forever is basically freemium and i'm trying to get away from that, but i'll consider it. I wondered about making a 7 day trial but like you say making the 'after 7 days you get put on your free account', or something like that.

<comment><USER5> High-level: I mean something with a steep price tag, with maybe high margins for you. Something like "1000 users, 24/7 assistance" with a really high price. Or something less. However, I think that you should be able to offer also something "high end". Think about restaurant menu design: the highest priced item isn't almost ever bought, but it raises the bar for everyone else. It's a matter of perception. Of course, you must be able to satisfy that high- end request, so if you can't do 24/7 assistance I don't mean you should still add it. :)

Freemium: I agree on your positions. Just maybe think of a small, really small solution that could be free forever. This one is also a matter of perceptions. If you hurry me with 30 days of testing, I think twice before subscribing, since I need to do that at a time when I'm going to have 30 days of test time. Otherwise, I'll just subscribe and I'll test it when I can. Some days of full trial and then put on free is a good solution imho.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The video shouldn't be on a lightbox. Never. OK, don't put it as SWF player from the beginning, but once I click that play button, I expect to see the video playing RIGHT THERE where it is, ASAP. I would never imagine to see a sudden lightbox appears in the middle of the page after a click.

I don't see the point in that UX decision, I'd really like to know why.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hiya, Well the video needs to enlarge so that's the only reason why really - so people can see the video more clearly. However the call to action has grown quite a lot in recent updates to the home page so it could be part of the home page now as it turns out. Be keen to get other people's opinion on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Couple of things.

1\. Readability - I find light fontcolor on light background color difficult to read.

2\. I was trying to look for pricing information. Even after 3 clicks or so, I was not able to find it. (It may be there on the website, just saying that It is not readily accessible.. or I might have missed to notice it :)).

<comment><USER8> It also took me some time to find the prices. They're on the lower right corner of the frontpage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> OK this will be a little harsh, just a few points about the homepage.

1\. Design and text are not very good. Both should be improved a lot. For example, this is just an awkward sentence: "We're so sure you'll find Project Bubble the easiest online project management software."

2\. Yes, you need plans for more users, or you are excluding exactly the types of companies that may use you.

3\. The music in the video is distracting.

Plus all the other comments here. Hope that helps a little. Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, it's not harsh. I take every comment on board. I've rewritten the sentence on home page. What do you mean we need plans for more users, we have 3 plans, one of which is unlimited users?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The demo is great in that you are dropped into it quickly and given a pointer on how to start (add a project). It would be cool to see this expanded - <USER2> that after a demo project is created it steps you through some other aspects of the system (adding tasks etc.) and shows off the features.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I recently had your feedback on my Invoicing app, well this one is for Project Management. I'd love your thoughts - particularly on the home page. Does it explain the product well enough and is it catch enough to make you want to sign up? We've got nearly 6000 users so far.

<comment><USER11> How many paying customers do you have?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's great but I wouldn't sign up - at least right away - because the homepage doesn't really says what it does best and why it's a better product.

Maybe I just don't desperately need yet another online project management tool... Sell it better!

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're happy with your current PM software I guess then no sales pitch in the world could convince you to move over to our software. However, for those that are hungry for a "simple online project management app" - this will be music to their ears hopefully. But I take your points on board.

Any marketing advice for how to word my text on the home page would be appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The blue background color. Maybe it's because I'm just tired but I could hear my eyes screaming while reading the text. Perhaps some sort of eye-friendly background in the middle below the text?

</comment><comment><USER14> When I created a project, it took me back to the dashboard, telling me "No account activity". Perhaps it should either say "New project created: [project name]" or take me to the projects tab.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hiya, It shouldn't do that it should redirect to the Projects tab when you add a Project. I've tested this and it works for me, so I'm trying to work out how you've done it. What page were you on before, and what had you done prior to clicking the add project button? Thanks.

<comment><USER14> Here's a video of it:

[http://www.folderboy.com/public?sid=1274782273670&tn=fal...](http://www.folderboy.com/public?sid=1274782273670&tn=false&file=project- bubble.wmv)

Using Chrome on a Vista machine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _will save you time, and money!_

unnecessary comma??

</comment><comment><USER16> Holy cow. I could look at the page for only 30 seconds before the blue started burning my eyes. Tone it down.</comment>


Leaked a16z data reveals how muchstartup execs get paid, from CEOs to Sales VP - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/a16z-data-startup-executives-salary-equity-bonus-pay-2018-9?IR=T <comment><USER2> Hard data on the elite and opague world of tech upper-management.

After taxes and living expenses, these professionals probably save up to 10k per month, plus house equity.

For the median American laborer, staying cash flow positive, of even just $1 a month, is a lofty goal.

<comment><USER3> yeah, but the median American laborer isn't taking the risk that the startup execs are. /s

<comment><USER2> Haha, this is the first time I didn't immediately detect sarcasm.

A series C vp of sales definitely has 0 risk in their career.

A seed-round founder has maybe a little risk, but their network is so strong that they'll probably land just fine :)

For the median worker, Mcdonald's is looking pretty good.</comment></comment></comment>


The Strange Ratio of Treasure Island - <AUTHOR> http://themapisnot.com/issue-v-adam-tipps-weinstein <comment><USER2> Seems like a lot of meaningless verbiage without much substance. Is it meant to be read as poetry?

<comment><USER3> That is super hard to understand. I _think_ that maybe the author is saying the artificially created island is devoid of the type of meanings a true place has, so that a map is not really needed. Everything on the island, _everything_ is listed on the map, with no single point going unexplained, no mysteries to explore, and nothing existing in-between places that you are going.

A real map helps you explore places, both get lost and find where you are going, but a map to an artificial place likes a world's fair expo on a man made island, is useless, because you can't help but be found at all times. Descriptions of places that are well known and famous (e.g. Yosemite Falls) are redundant, everyone knows what the place is. A description of "Museum of Science" does no more good than the name itself does.

But that is just a guess, the author uses a lot of phrases and never explains the meaning behind them. Which I guess is the exact opposite of the Treasure Island map. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is an oddly incoherent article. It fails to mention Borges' "On Exactitude in Science" or Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" despite re- hashing their ideas.</comment>