Is the shared economy racist? - <AUTHOR> http://www.2drew3.com/is-the-shared-economy-racist <comment><USER3> This is so depressing and even though sample size is small it rings 100% true. I think it's just a symptom of an inherently racist and unfair world and is not Uber or Airbnb's fault. The same thing happens with names at the resume level and on and on.

That said I think there's a new market here. If the average Airbnb listing is rejecting applicants of color maybe there could be a special "diversity friendly" designation on Airbnb or other sites. Perhaps users could add some flair, something similar to the LGBT pride flag that some business add to their windows, to their profiles to signify they sincerely welcome all applicants. Hopefully this doesn't sound too ignorant.

If mass rejection of specific groups is occurring, there's some money to be made here by sending out the right signals. Just think of the profit made by some gay/lesbian bars in the 1970s and 80s.

<comment><USER4> "...even though sample size is small it rings 100% true"

I just want to point attention to the (perhaps ironic) fact this sort of reasoning is _exactly the same_ one used by the (allegedly) racist hosts and drivers in the story, i.e. people are much more prone to accept what they are told (mostly in sample size = 1 cases or anecdotal generalizations) if it aligns well with their beliefs (e.g. "another BnB host told me a black guy thrashed his house", "we all know that girls can't code").

A (very) rough characterization of the process, I think, would be:

1\. _Creation_ : For this or that reason an a priori belief is formed, e.g. "world is inherently racist" or "blacks are much more probable to be criminals".

2\. _Filtering_ : The facts that are reported are filtered using a selection bias (usually, mostly subconsciously) so that facts that strongly agree with the belief are remembered more. (The fact that news items generally report on low-probability, high-standard deviation items, a la man biting the dog, makes this effect even stronger)

3\. _Update_ The belief is then updated by the facts with their relative weights determined in (2)

The above (well known and documented, e.g. _Blink_ EDIT: Sorry, wrong reference, see below) process is not a bad thing! AFAIK, it's default brain operation. It takes quite a bit of control and patience to push back the default process at all thee levels.

Note that I'm not arguing that racism, etc. does not exist; however, before jumping to conclusions, like the OP and his/her friend did ("AirBnB doesn't work for black people"), we need to be a bit more careful.

<comment><USER5> Speaking of irony...

Doesn't _Blink_ posit that a person's extensive experience in an area can lead them to a quick, gut reaction that is, in fact, correct, even before they are able to verify it?

It seems that Andrew's friend probably has had a fair amount of experience with being mistreated due to his skin color. His reaction to being denied a room 3 out of 3 times was perhaps hyperbolic, but certainly applicable to his experience with the service. (Andrew noted his friend's interactions with the driver, so it wasn't all his friend's imagination).

You could use the ideas noted in _Blink_ to look at this scenario from a variety of perspectives, not just confirmation bias.

<comment><USER6> Exactly correct. Additionally, his friend had previously stated that AirBnB didn't work for him, so this "small sample" we're looking at is just Andrew's experience with the issue at this point in time.

It's always disturbing to me how much commentary in threads of this type on HN is devoted to asserting that the individual who's actually experiencing the problem is misinterpreting it. I love data, but demands for data/citations in situations where the problem is experiential are too often used to dismiss people's real, upsetting experiences with privilege and prejudice.

<comment><USER4> "... asserting that the individual who's actually experiencing the problem is misinterpreting it"

Note that may main point was about the generalization of the top level comment in this thread, _based on this post only_ , this doesn't mean that the statement in that comment was not correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's a really simple explanatory mechanism, which is that even if an AirBnB host is bound by the same anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act as a Hyatt, which is probably true, holding individual service providers accountable at that level is basically impossible. And to the extent that the "sharing economy" involves more individuals rather than businesses that can be sued, you will see more discrimination.

This issue also strikes to the heart of some of the libertarian ethos around the sharing economy generally and Uber/AirBnB in particular. People are really racist.[1] Just getting the racism to the levels experienced by Andrew's friend experienced involved a century of the federal government beating the states over the head with troops, court orders, etc. The elimination of overt racial discrimination in private businesses is actually a wonderful example of concerted government action addressing a problem that according to free market theories shouldn't even have existed in the first place.

[1] I think Americans are much less racist than almost anyone else. I'm Bengali by ethnicity, and my observation is that people on the subcontinent are racist enough to make a south Georgia redneck blush. But even then sometimes I look around at maps like this: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Racial_Di...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Racial_Divide_Detroit_MI.png) (race map of Detroit with black areas in blue and white areas in red), and think we'd still have legal segregation if the courts hadn't forced it down peoples' throats.

<comment><USER8> "The elimination of overt racial discrimination in private businesses is actually a wonderful example of concerted government action addressing a problem that according to free market theories shouldn't even have existed in the first place."

Just to clarify Milton Friedman (A champion of free market economics) readily acknowledges racism. His argument is more along the lines of "in the long term racist businesses will lose business to more accepting and diverse ones."

<comment><USER7> I like Friedman, but this is one of his more hand-wavey arguments. It ignores the fact that discrimination might be a positive marketing characteristic for a business. If the customers are themselves racist, a business might lose a lot more revenue by serving minority customers than it gains from those customers. Indeed, even if all the business owners are not racist, as long as most of the customers are, they face a collective action problem. The first business to serve minority customers would quickly lose most of its customers to the competing businesses. And that seems to be precisely what was happening in the U.S. until Congress broke the cycle by making such discrimination illegal.

<comment><USER9> Do you think that many Americans (outside of the hardcore) are racist enough to literally boycott a business that doesn't refuse to do business with blacks?

<comment><USER7> I think in 1950, enough Americans were racist enough that many they'd simply head to a different neighborhood restaurant if a particular business had an appreciable number of black patrons. Maybe that's generous: in the 1950's the majority of Americans in many states were racist enough to try and ban interracial marriage...

Without the federal crackdown on discrimination in the 1950's and 1960's, housing, employment, public places, education, marriage, etc, would have remained segregated. In the background of that segregation, how long do you think it would have taken to get from "typical American circa 1950" to "typical American circa 2014?" Laws create social norms, and laws banning discrimination allowed a couple of generations of Americans to grow up in an at least somewhat integrated world, which led to the America of today where you can see people boycotting a business for serving blacks as something difficult to believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Very interesting however they could have easily provided some more conclusive proof. The author should have tried booking one of the places that turned Brandon down on the same dates. If he had been offered the place it would haave been more clear racism was in play. I'm not denying racism was in play (although the UberX example seems quite silly - personally I'd be happy to get a driver that didn't talk to me and the one time I've used Uber the driver wasn't very talkative) but I'd like to see the author try my suggestion and follow up the post.

<comment><AUTHOR> I should have done this. But I didn't have this experience to prove a point. Truthfully, I was mostly embarrassed that my suggestion wasn't working and immediately kicked into "find my friend an alternate place" mode. This entire post is not proof and completely anecdotal. I'm the first to admit that. But I hope this audience of entrepreneurs will think about issues like this.

<comment> k-mcgrady Totally understand and I'm glad you wrote it. I'd like to see someone take on the challenge and come back with some proof. It seems from your account that Brandon had just set up a new AirBnb account - is it possible he was rejected because he had no history?

<comment><AUTHOR> Possible. However, I recommended AirBnB to several Asian and Caucasian friends who never heard of it before (I'm from GA). Few just showed up in SF and booked same day with no problems. Not one bad experience, except this time. Fully acknowledge it's a limited sample. I'd like to see someone take the same challenge. I'd also like AirBnB data scientists to take a tough look.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This reminds me of a sad old joke.

In the south, whites don't mind if blacks are around, so long as they aren't uppity. In the north, whites don't mind if blacks are uppity, as long as they're not around.

Having spent time among both southern rednecks and northern intellectuals, it rings painfully true.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't think any of this is specific to AirBnb or Uber. What is described here is just plain racism, something that's blatant all over America (some might say, it's what _defines_ America), especially in regards towards black people. The black friend in the story knew this and wasn't surprised. It's only surprising to people who think this is something of the past, as if somehow people have improved and this shouldn't exist. The idea that people as a whole change, improve, and become less racist, while romantically appealing, couldn't be further from the truth.

<comment><USER12> > racism, something that's blatant all over America (some might say, it's what > defines America)

A number of replies on this, but some have, I think, understated the issue.

In all honestly, I would say the U.S. is just about the least racist country on earth. If racism is not _seen to be a problem_ elsewhere, then it's largely because of ethnic homogeneity, not lack of racism.

EDIT: It looks like I'm being misinterpreted here. Obviously, there is racism in the U.S. It is a huge problem. We all know this.

But the reason it might seem to be a larger problem than elsewhere is because of our unusually ethnically diverse population, not because of unusually high levels of racism. Also things like our incarceration rate -- the highest in the world, by far.

To a large extent, the political boundaries of the world are drawn along ethnic lines. Where this doesn't happen: former colonies in Africa, much of Eastern Europe after the world wars, etc., etc., you often get people killing each other. Look at the Rwandan genocide, or the mess that Yugoslavia turned into when it stopped being just Yugoslavia, or the decades of troubles between India and Pakistan, or any number of other examples, to see the result.

And then note that these kinds of things are not happening in the U.S. -- not to that extent, anyway.

<comment><USER13> How can anyone possibly believe this? Not just attacking you but genuinely I find this incomprehensible.

America is a deeply racist society. It's built on the genocide of the Native Americans who are still largely kept in poverty in virtual prison camps we insultingly call reservations, by racist policies.

The legacy of racism against African Americans is still deep and real - <USER2> you any experience as a black person in the Southern states? If so then I'll respect your opinion on that topic, but as a White person who came to the US from a different country, and then lived in Texas for a few years, the levels of racism are disgraceful.

The entire hispanic ag-business-driven immigration problem hinges on institutionalized racism.

Then we don't even touch on disparities like over-concentration of poverty in minority communities, incarceration rates, under-representation in positions of power and seniority etc.

<comment><USER12> Yes, there is racism in America. No, I have largely not been on the receiving end of it.

But I can see that African Americans often have a tough time here.

I can also see the plight of Koreans in Japan, and Muslims in much of India, and Turks in Germany, and Kurds in Iraq, even though I am not part of any of those groups, either. Racism is everywhere. All of it is disgusting, some of it is horrifying, and much of it is significantly worse than what we see in the U.S.

<comment><USER13> Those examples are somewhat extreme and don't support the premise that the US is the least racist society anywhere. You also need to separate out complicated ethnic conflicts that are largely geopolitical in nature than racist in a conventional sense.

Also muslims in India isn't racism it's inter-religious conflict which is a fundamentally different thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm not saying the shared economy is racist by design. Nor am I accusing mentioned companies as being racist. But as companies build trust through profiles and links to social networks, they should be wary of the unintended consequence.

<comment><USER14> OK, but as dublinben points out, one must consider the businesses these services are meant to replace. He mentions taxicabs which are notoriously racist, do you suppose Bed and Breakfast owners might have different answers about vacancy depending on who asks?

If the goal is to observe racism as it functions in our society, cool. If the goal is guilt-driven self-flagellation about the distinction between startups' marketing copy and the reality of the situation, less cool.

<comment><USER9> I haven't used either of these services, but perhaps it is possible that these apps provide more information about the customer in advance than a traditional B&B or taxi driver would have access to. You can't necessarily tell somebody's race over the phone.

<comment><USER15> Uber certainly does this - it provides my photo to the driver, and provides me a photo of an African or Arab guy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This isn't limited to white hosts either. My brother stayed with a black couple during an internship in DC last summer (he's white).

They told him that after several bad experiences they no longer host black guests.

<comment><USER5> What do you suppose they hoped to convey to your brother with that statement?

It's quite possible that their experience with black guests was negative. But by telling your brother of those negative experiences (which he had no need to know), weren't they, at least in some sense, effectively differentiating themselves from another, negative category of blacks?

<comment><USER16> > which he had no need to know

They told him this after he was there for a while and got to know them, and he said it came up in normal conversation.

I suppose they could have been trying to differentiate themselves, or, they could have been attempting to bond with him over their (perceived on my brother's part) mutual dislike of lower class black people.

But given the situation, I think it's more likely that they had no ulterior motive. They had a few bad experiences with black guests, and decided to use race as a heuristic for determining suitability as a guest.

This is how nearly all racism starts, it's unfair and we should strive to eliminate it, but people are always going to make generalizations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What we are seeing here brings to light an inconvenient truth: you simply cannot legislate away obnoxious social behavior. As long as I remember, Craigslist has prohibited discriminatory _advertising_ to ensure listings comply with the fair housing act. Does this really stop a prejudiced landlord? When it gets down to the level of individuals dealing consensually with individuals, there isn't much that the state can do (unless it's a tyrannical state).

Black comedians have _always_ joked about being passed over by cabs, well before Uber, Lyft etc. In the long run, I think these services actually _improve_ things .. On the curb, all a racist cab driver sees is how someone looks .. but now everyone can develop a reputation that goes well beyond appearances. In addition, by taking care of payment, prejudiced drivers don't have to worry that some groups are less likely to pay at the end of the ride. Eventually, they will realize that the color of one's skin is a terrible predictor of character and (hopefully) become less racist.

So, the "sharing economy" is not itself racist, but due to its peer to peer nature it _exposes_ the lingering prejudices in our Society. But, since prejudice requires a lack of reason or evidence, the sharing economy also provides a _way forward_. Through AirBnB, for example, we can not only see what someone looks like, but we get information about the _content of their character_. Granted, it's not perfect (nothing ever will be), but it's a _start._

</comment><comment><USER18> This is pretty clearly an example of individual people being racist, not companies. Traditional taxi drivers are notoriously racist, I'm not surprised their app-summoned alternatives are any different.

<comment><USER19> Did you read the article? That's exactly what the author says. It's a short article, you can probably read it in 2 or 3 minutes...

<comment><USER20> Whenever there's an article about racism or sexism it's very important to jump in and start posting your opinions without reading any more than the headline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can say I've had similar experiences all across California with AirBnB.

<comment><USER22> That was probably just a case of hipsterphobia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> From my experience YES!

Before I start, I'd like to note that I am a young white, non-handicapped male.

Most of my participation in the shared economy comes from hitchhiking, and I've done a lot of it. Only once has a car stopped that had a black passenger in it. I don't think that black people are racist towards white hitchhikers, but I think there is a deep barrier of trust at issue. Black people _do_ experience racism at so many levels of society, that when it comes to shearing excess resource with some white opportunists.. HELL NO!, I wouldn't do it.

I'm not saying that black drivers are racist towards white hitchhikers. I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a huge racial gap in our societal battery. White people are privilege enough to be able to trust a fellow citizen. Normally, experience tells black people not to.

ps. The same can be said about women, handicapped, and the homeless. But definitely the case of black discrimination is one of the most severe there.

pps. The pattern I described seems to brake with anarchist and charity groups. I've done food-not-bombs, homes-not-jails, occupy, and there blacks, whites, women, etc. participate together in a shared ecosystem. I wonder why?

<comment><USER13> I think there's an alternative explanation to your anecdotal suggestion black drivers don't pick up white hitch-hikers. Picking up hitch-hikers is inherently risky. Given that in any altercation or conflict the establishment and authorities will pretty much always view the black participant with suspicion and the white participant with favor, as experienced on a regular basis in day-to-day life by said driver, I think caution in not putting themselves in such a situation is warranted.

<comment> jack-r-abbit It is kind of interesting to hear it explained in that way. Because it also sounds like a stereotype. Black driver has experienced, day-to-day, that white people have mistreated him and no longer trusts them and thus will not put himself into that situation by picking up white hitch-hikers. My step mother was a bit racist. It sickened me. But my dad would justify by explaining that she grew up in a bad area and she was often mistreated by her black peers. It still made no sense to me as a young teen. But that is almost exactly what you describe in the black driver not picking up white hitch-hikers. How many experiences like that does one need to have to make it socially acceptable to do that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> These are businesses built to operate outside established regulations and inevitablely have features of grey and black markets. In some ways this is like complaining about racism among chop shops or the guy selling electronics that fell off the back of a truck. The lack of full accountability is what makes it possible to provide a deal.

</comment><comment><USER25> This would have been far more convincing if he tried to book the same dates as his friend and was accepted after they said they didn't have anything available on that date. As it is, it's just one of many possible reasons his friend had trouble finding a reservation.

</comment><comment><USER26> This strikes me as naturally similar to many human marketplaces, such as craigslist roommates, hiring practices, where to go grab a drink -- which have long been reflective of similar biases. In my anecdotal experience, the scales on airbnb/couchsurf/craigslist roommates/similar are even further tipped in a sexist? manner, dramatically favoring females.

There is little surprising or special about the sharing economy resonating these patterns. However, It does provide an excellent venue for study and potentially creative mitigation.

</comment><comment><USER27> I can believe racism was a factor.

However, there's also a bias against _new_ guests (with no history).

And, there seems to have been a big increase in the percentage of marginal listings that are not-really-available. (Perhaps, far more people are casually listing places without real intent to rent or diligence in checking requests and updating calendar availability. Or perhaps with higher usage, those are the only kinds of listings that are left in the last few days.)

My experience: the first few times I used AirBnb, even as a last-minute booking, availability was accurate, most hosts got back to me right away, booking was quick and easy.

The last few times I've used AirBnb, in New York, Berlin, and Portland, I've had a positive feedback history and there are more listings showing as available than ever. _But,_ many hosts take over a day to respond if at all, and often then tell me the spot isn't available. I've had to send ~10+ inquiries, instead of ~2, to achieve one booking. So a few 'sorrys' in a row, on a booking a few days in advance, doesn't seem _that_ suspicious.

Because the host gets to perform a 'social/internet x-ray' on a prospective guest, you always wonder if the real reason for the 'sorry' is that you're just not to their liking: by race, gender, age, coolness, politics, career, whatever. You never know for sure. That's both a strength and weakness of the AirBnb system: people can meet and host others they're most comfortable or interested in... or express longstanding and unfair prejudicies.

</comment><comment><USER28> If anything, shouldn't apps that involve ratings and profiles reduce racism, because they allow you to judge the person by their behavior as opposed to just their appearance? Compare Lyft to taxis, for example.

In the case of taxis the driver only sees appearance-based characteristics when they choose whether to pick someone up. In the case of Lyft the user has a long history of ratings which indicate whether they're a good person to drive around.

</comment><comment><USER29> Doesn't the digital sharing economy actually make bigotry incredibly easy to detect and verify?

All you have to do is try booking the same place on a different dates (assuming you have an account in good standing/positive reviews/etc). If they keep rejecting you, then not only are you sure you have a bigot on your hand, you have a paper trail with enough proof to go after them with a lawyer.

This is something that isn't even possible in other environments (like say, cabs that just conveniently don't see you standing there hailing them). If anything, the digital sharing economy can be a huge help to fighting bigotry.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm not sure how these services operate, but I wonder if a difference to traditional hotels is that they get applications, rather than reservations on a first come, first served basis?

If AirBnB landlords receive applications, maybe they just wait for an attractive one (ie a single male landlord could prefer to rent to attractive women).

I'm not trying to defend racism, just wondering how to alleviate the problem. I suppose traditional hotels don't get to look at a profile of the people who book with them. At most they could infer something from their name.

<comment><USER31> No, at the hotels, you have to wait until you attempt to check in before they discriminate against you.

[http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_13302.php](http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_13302.php)

[http://www.queerty.com/gay-couple-told-theres-no-room-at- the...](http://www.queerty.com/gay-couple-told-theres-no-room-at-the-inn-at- london-hotel-20130226/)

[http://www.advocate.com/news/2007/03/30/gay-couple-turned- aw...](http://www.advocate.com/news/2007/03/30/gay-couple-turned-away-sc- hotel)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Black Utopia Fantasy Story: [http://sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4900](http://sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4900)

</comment><comment><USER22> I think the headline is a bit misleading.

Racist would mean that hosts don't want to rent their apartment to people of _other_ races (ie whites only wanting to rent to other whites). Here it seems that hosts are making a judgement call about the renter and using race as a parameter. They appear to have no problem renting to Asians or Indians, just have an issue with one particular ethnicity.

Wouldn't a more accurate headline be - 'Airbnb hosts don't want to rent to black customers' (even if it's highly anecdotal)?

<comment><USER33> Racial discrimination is when someone is discriminated on the basis of their race. It doesn't matter how friendly the perpetrator is to people of other races.

<comment><USER22> Right - but you appreciate the difference between someone

a) disliking all races different from one's own b) using one's life experience to form opinions about people and grouping them by - age / race / occupation / ethnicity / etc.

I think that using _same_ word is wrong - as they are completely different phenomena.

<comment> lhc- I dont think its really that different of a phenomenon. Item a) is a lot extrapolating item b) to everyone who doesn't share your race. Also, its completely possible to be racist against members of your own race, which still qualifies as racist behavior.

Basically, the general definition of racism is more about prejudice against one or more races, rather than about uplifting one specific race above everything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> White supremacy is an oppressive institution that reaches throughout all of society. Unless it is actively fought against, it will prevail.

<comment><USER35> >White Supremacy is an oppressive institution that reaches throughout all of society. Unless it is actively fought against, it will prevail.

Or, you know, we could just educate people and get rid of racism in a way that doesn't swap one bad thing for another (like racist policies intended to favor non-whites, which I assume you're referring to).

<comment><USER34> I'm referring to white supremacy (racism) as a societal institution, not merely the actions and beliefs of individuals.

I wouldn't call policies which _lessen_ the power of the white supremacy 'racist'.

 _Racism is an insidious cultural disease. It is so insidious that it doesn't care if you are a white person who likes black people; it's still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don't look like you. Yes, racism looks like hate, but hate is just one manifestation. Privilege is another. Access is another. Ignorance is another. Apathy is another. And so on. So while I agree with people who say no one is born racist, it remains a powerful system that we're immediately born into. It's like being born into air: you take it in as soon as you breathe. It's not a cold that you can get over. There is no anti-racist certification class. It's a set of socioeconomic traps and cultural values that are fired up every time we interact with the world. It is a thing you have to keep scooping out of the boat of your life to keep from drowning in it. I know it's hard work, but it's the price you pay for owning everything._

\- Scott Woods ([http://scottwoodsmakeslists.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/5-thing...](http://scottwoodsmakeslists.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/5-things- no-one-is-actually-saying-about-ani-difranco-or-plantations/))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> i've never used abnb, how would the host know that brandon was black? do renters have avatars/profile pics?

</comment><comment><USER37> So unfortunate, and also a reflection of the wider national context. Maybe time to add a few more to this list of "21 Things Black People Can't Do in America":

[http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/21-things-you- cant...](http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/21-things-you-cant-do- while-black)

<comment><USER35> Jesus, that article is so full of shit. It's literally a list of misleading headlines.

Equivalent:

"21 things white people can't do in Germany: Be the nation's leader while having a tootbrush mustache"

<comment><USER37> Quite right. Historical baggage and preconceptions make some things rather difficult in certain countries if you look a certain way. In your example, shaving would do the trick. In the well-documented and numerous examples of blacks being routinely harassed, arrested or killed for unfounded suspicions...?

<comment><USER35> That's not what's happening in the article at all. They're saying "Black people can't even drink Arizona tea", when in reality it was some guy drinking canned tea and knowingly trespassing so he could get arrested and cash in on the whole "Trayvon Martin had an Arizona tea" thing.

<comment><USER37> Step 1: Take issue with the sensational language of the original article, which is actually a collection of links to other news stories

Step 2: Take one news story from said article and offer your own made-up explanation that's even more sensational.

Ok then.

<comment> jack-r-abbit _a collection of links to other news stories_

You seem to be focused a lot on _just_ the links and not the sensational language used as anchor text. Some of those stories _are_ tragic. Others not so much. But if the point of that article was to list 21 times a black person was done wrong, they just as well could have given the actual article headline and not editorialized them. (If MotherJones was HN, those titles would have been moderated back to the original.) But that wasn't the point of the article. The list isn't quite as emotional without things like "can't wear a hoodie" and "can't play music at a gas station"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is sickening, but more so because it shows you that African Americans still receive downright discrimination in the United States. If anything, these sharing apps reveal that crowd managed sharing apps cast spotlight on the problem.

To combat this, they would need to enforce a strict rule that highlights that you cannot refuse someone based on their color, gender, orientation. Of course this only works in an ideal world.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is so depressing to make AirBnb or Uber responsible for the image of Black people that the Black people worked so long and hard to achieve and maintain.

<comment><USER37> Right, because blacks are the ones responsible for how they're portrayed in the media.

<comment><USER39> Right, because if media portrayed Asians as living in slums, not working and dealing drugs, the public would just buy it in a second.

<comment><USER37> No not in a second, but certainly over time and with the help of confirmation bias. Absolutely.

<comment><USER39> And if the media portrayed Africa as rich, prosperous, democratic Continent and Asia as a corrupted war zone with 30yrs + longevity rates, we would believe it too, right?

<comment><USER37> I'm not sure what your point is, other than trolling. I'll leave you to it.

<comment><USER39> How convenient...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> So what? Asians and whites are discriminated by government agencies, universities and large corporations. Last time HR manager screamed at me because I insisted my race is 'slavic' not 'white'.</comment>


College, Calculus, and the Problem with the SAT - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/college-calculus-problem-with-the-sat/ <comment><USER2> This is all just leading to college becoming four more years of high school. Everyone needs to go. Everyone needs a degree to "get a job".

It all seems like a giant plan to prevent people from starting their adult lives.

If you need to just get some generic "good job", then the answer is to learn what you need in the first twelve years of school. I think that's enough time.

If you want to heavily specialize, research, or otherwise go deeper; then go to university.

Our policies should encourage following these practices. To start off, we need to fight grade inflation in high school so that it's a real signal for employers. Moving the problem of certification to college will just move the grade inflation problem there, not solve it. Then employers will want to see more credentials from a masters program or something.

Don't you see? If everyone has a degree, it offers no advantage. The lower performers just end up with more debt.

<comment><USER3> I feel like an entire generation's brains got broken on the subject of education because they were lucky enough to be young when a new industry (web software) got off the ground that was simple and lucrative. So they saw a ton of opportunities to apply high-school-level thinking to entrepreneurship and make a lot of money. And they came to believe was the way the world normally works.

It's not. The vast majority of worthwhile, well-paying jobs require significant education and/training after high school. Not because it's a credential game, but because society and work are complex. And it's getting more complex, not less.

\--

I'll also risk the opinion that there is more to life than work, and higher education has advantages for people far beyond their ability out-compete one another for corporate jobs. And I would argue, for society as a whole.

<comment><USER4> > jobs require significant education and/training after high school.

To the parent's point; Many college degrees are "just a credential" at this point; and college degree or not, training still has to happen on the job.

I see a trend of millennials (my generation) who go to school to go to school, get good grades to get good grades, not apply the education to the future. Then, there's no entry level jobs (because companies didn't have to train with a recession to get experience) and they jump between unskilled jobs they could have done with a GED or less.

We can also see this with the industry survey the other week of employers saying colleges aren't preparing software developers.

Higher education does have advantages for people beyond jobs; but only if they learn (not memorize) and apply it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The idea was, "hey, there are a lot of people whose lives are too hard, but college grads seem alright, so let's make everybody college grads." But the actual situation was that there were only so many good lives to go around, and college just sorted out who got them. The obvious thing to do is directly improve life for all people, not doing some kind of trick bank shot to indirectly improve lives. Instead we have baristas with $60,000 in college debt. We ran this giant experiment to see to what extent college was productivity enhancing or merely a sorting mechanism. The results are in.

<comment><USER6> Well the kind of obvious explanation for that is that success in life is probably strongly determined by intelligence. So when ~10% of the population went to college there was a high chance that those were also approximately the 10% smartest of a generation. If lots more people go to college now, that just means that it ceases to be a good predictor of success.

<comment><USER7> When you see people with stem Masters and PhDs working as highschool teachers you begin to wonder if the problem is intelligence. Or when people with PhDs in bio/Chem are working as programmers you wonder if it's a question of talent.

<comment><USER8> The problem is that we decided to inflate education prices while deflating labor prices. You can't do both at the same time and get sane results, because each individual needs to make their labor price correspond to their (former) education price.

So you wind up with Biochem PhDs working as programmers. Neither biochemistry nor programming is for stupid people, per se, but programming hires loads of people at salaries _actually commensurate_ with the monetized value of the time-investment spent getting a doctorate, while actual biochemistry, the field of the doctorate, has emphasized cheap labor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> These people are trying to create an American cultural revolution, like China's, in the 1960s.

My son went to the toughest high school in California. He didn't become a national merit commended student because "oh Californians are just simply smarter than Iowans so we have moved the goalposts for California kids". He scored 34 on the ACT = 1500 on the SAT because of hard work and sacrifice but he wasn't allowed into ANY "selective" schools because "oh your ZIP code indicates you are privileged and you must have crammed for the SAT. And hey did you hear the news? The SAT means nothing! ". He only did 4 hours of homework per night but was in a school district which educated kids from arguably the #1 University in the USA so the competition was stiff. He was embarrassed and shamed by his friends for having a B+ GPA.

He was forced to go to a state school 3000 miles away which accepts 70% of applicants - at huge tuition cost - because it was a backwards state school not implementing "The new cultural revolution!". He applied to 12 schools - none "most selective", none "extremely selective", 1 "highly selective", and 9 "moderately selective" and was admitted to 2 of the lowest schools on the "moderately selective" list. The next rank lower is "admits everyone".

Meanwhile I know parents who pulled their kids out of the toughest high school because class rank is THE ONLY THING that universities care about. They sent their kid to a low income school and their achievement test scores plummeted. Their strategy was to "win by slackibg," in the new cultural revolution! This is so they could get into Harvard and so that Harvard could feel good about itself and assuage its white guilt.

My son's dad is self made, losing his own dad at age 13. The dad took many financial risks and moved twice to be in better school districts, to challenge the son. His mom came from dirt in China (daughter of a hotel maid). Their hard work has been classified as "privileged background" by virtue of their zip code. The parents inherited $50k total and were both self made and lived like paupers until age 35 to advance their educations, then took high risk unstable jobs to catch up in life...

<comment><USER10> The national merit scholar thing is stupid on many axes. For one, its just a formula on your SAT score, we already have an SAT score, why is there some official entity awarding prizes based on a simple function of that score? Colleges can use whatever function they want. The whole thing should go away.

<comment><USER11> Despite the name, the National Merit Scholarship program is a private entity affiliated with Northwestern University.

It isn't official in any way; it is simply a scholarship for students with high scores on a particular test.

The only effect that it 'going away' would have, would be to discourage intelligent students from attending colleges they otherwise could not afford.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vincent-toups My view is that everyone should study calculus more or less for the same reason we almost all study Shakespeare or The Bill of Rights or whatever. Its an enormous human accomplishment whose cultural impact virtually cannot be overstated and a basic understanding of these sorts of things is the birthright of every human being alive.

<comment><USER12> Sure, but calculus is even less tangible than Shakespeare and the Bill of Rights. Good luck getting the folks who don't care or struggled through algebra to stay engaged.

<comment><USER13> Scratching my head...that just isn't true. For example go throw a rock into the sky and watch its path. Calculus. Very tangible.

<comment><USER14> I'm curious how you envision a calculus class that would make the topic more tangible. I think we can agree that typical calculus classes are more abstract (for lack of a better term) than typical english, history, or science classes.

<comment><USER15> Physics and calculus should be taught as a single class, it's a mistake when they are separated.

<comment> vincent-toups I'm a physicist and it happens to be the case for me that I didn't really _get_ math until I understood I could do physics with it. So you'd think I'd agree.

But after I was sensitized to it by physics, I've come to see pure mathematics as just as interesting and worthy of being taught standalone. In fact, one does mathematics an enormous disservice by suggesting that its tightly coupled with physics. Roger Penrose himself points this out in The Road to Reality: mathematics is actually substantially larger than that part of it which we require for physics. That fact alone is fascinating.

The pitch I'd give for pure mathematics is that its really the study of precisely what we all do on a daily basis when we "reason" about things. Our daily experience suggests reasoning is useful and in many ways concrete, but a detailed study of the process almost immediately produces challenges and paradoxes and great landscapes of mystery.

<comment><USER15> I agree that mathematics is much bigger than applied mathematics. However, for precisely this reason, pure mathematics, like philosophy, isn't for everyone.

The main argument for teaching it this way is a pedagogical one. If it took physics to prompt the geniuses of the day to discover calculus, then following in their footsteps is probably the easiest way for us to get there as well.

<comment> vincent-toups I think philosophy is much more for everyone than physics or mathematics. I can't conceive of a model of the human condition which I would want to adhere to that said philosophy wasn't for everyone.

We _all_ think about value and about the relationship between what we think and what happens in the world and these are the fundamental elements of philosophy. If people feel that philosophy isn't for them, its a failure of the teachers rather than the people.

Its my opinion, anyway, that children don't always know or appreciate what they ought to learn and that adults do them a disservice when they fail to teach them that which is not immediately interesting just because they don't want to learn it.

<comment><USER15> Some amount of practical philosophy or received wisdom is necessary for everyone, just like some amount of mathematical awareness. The formal study of philosophy as a discipline, like that of pure mathematics, is not for everyone. For most people it would be deeply unpleasant for almost no benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >And over the last couple of decades, there's been a rapid but uneven growth of students taking AP Calculus in high school. Low-income students are much less likely to attend schools that offer AP Calculus—and then they often end up in freshman calculus at college sitting next to lots of well-off students who have already taken the equivalent of freshman calculus in high school.

Complete anecdote here, but I did not take AP Calculus in high school. Many of my Calculus I classmates had taken AP Calculus in high school. However, taking AP Calculus in high school did not seem to provide them any advantages, in fact it seemed to disadvantage them. The issue was that they had learned the various formulas for derivatives, etc but had not gotten a deep appreciation for limits. At the college level, understanding and appreciating the concept of limits was much more important than memorizing formulas ( IIRC they actually provided the formulas for you during the test). Many of the students who had taken AP were frustrated when the problems were not amenable to a blind application of formulas, and required deeper understanding of limits.

<comment><USER17> If they were in Cal 1 and had taken AP Calc, they probably didn't do particularly well on the AP test or they would have tested out.

<comment><USER18> Not necessarily...

my son started a mechanical engineering program about 2 weeks ago, and the recommendation from the school was to take Calc at the college even if the student had passed the AP test.

I understand their interests in that, but I also feel like even if my son had done better on the AP test I'd have encouraged him to follow that advice, given how much of the following curriculum relied on that base.

<comment><USER19> I got the same advice when I got to college with my heaping pile of AP and IB test credits. In retrospect, I should have focused solely on my major, eschewed the double minor and "honors" classes, and graduated in six semesters of very light study.

Instead, I took some chemistry classes that I already technically had a double-cover of test credits for.

If the kid got a 5 on the AP test, no college should ever be telling them to take the course anyway. If they got a 4, that advice should be rare, and confined to classes on the degree track. Maybe if they squeaked by with a 3, and somewhat important to the major, that might be good advice, depending on the student. Otherwise, if the institution does not have confidence in the test, it shouldn't be granting credit for it!

<comment><USER18> " Otherwise, if the institution does not have confidence in the test, it shouldn't be granting credit for it! "

Having taught at the expensive and prestigious institution in question, I can say that there may be a gap between what the institution has faith in and what the instructors experience.

I mean, yeah, if it's a class outside of your major then sure. My son (and I, when I went) skipped freshman comp. I encourage my son to get through via whatever means is easiest, and in his case, I believe it's getting some extra time in the seat in a calc class.

<comment><USER19> If there is a gap between "the institution" and "the instructors", that is a problem large enough to overwhelm any problems that may exist in standardized testing.

The motive of an instructor is presumably to ensure that, by the end of a course, every student will be adequately prepared to meet a minimum standard of knowledge, regardless of their preparedness prior to the beginning of the course (subject to prerequisites). At a wider scope, the instructor, as a member of an instructional department, is also motivated to progress students towards possession of a total body of knowledge deemed adequate by their peers to either practice in the field, or continue on to a more intense program of academic study.

The institution is motivated to collect tuition, receive grants, accumulate prestige, and pester alumni to support goals that are not necessarily academic in nature. The only instructional goal is to produce graduates that will not embarrass the institution.

The student is motivated primarily to get a degree that is their admission ticket to a broad swath of jobs otherwise unavailable to anyone without a degree. They are motivated secondarily to actually learn about subjects that interest them personally. The student's sole reason to take SAT, ACT, AP, IB, CLEP, &cetera is because the academic institutions reward those passing test scores.

The principle in play is that it should not be necessary to instruct any person that already has the knowledge. If the standardized tests are insufficient to establish that, the instructors should then be applying the same methods they use on students that have taken their courses, on prospective students that have not, and only recommend taking a course that would otherwise not be required by the institution, when it can be shown that the standardized test signaled a false positive.

That is, a passing score on the test should not automatically grant credit, but should allow a brief interview with a professor that teaches the relevant course, who can then determine by any means they care to use whether or not the student already possesses the knowledge to pass. If too many false positives are found, the institution can then revise its treatment of the test scores.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I really wish I hadn't taken AP Calculus in high school. I sort of got it, but it wasn't intense enough to really grab me and my study habits were non- existent. I took multi-variable calculus as a freshman and was mostly in over my head despite my B+/A- (thanks curve!), and that was it for me and math. Definitely contributes to my impostor syndrome when doing anything more computer sciencey than a CRUD app.

<comment><USER21> I do a whole lot of stuff "more computer sciencey than a CRUD app", and I took a whole lot of calclus thanks to my computer engineering degree. I absolutely never use it. You need calculus to design a transistor. So far, I've yet to run into a situation where I need calculus to write code unless the code is literally solving a calc problem, which comes up incredible infrequently.

<comment><USER22> > I've yet to run into a situation where I need calculus

Actually, gradient descent and Lagrange multipliers come up quite a bit in machine learning. Of course, you can just apply them without understanding them just like you can apply the graphics formulas for rotational motion without understanding them, but when something does go wrong, it sure helps to understand the principles behind them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is such an important topic. During my years in law school, I oversaw a volunteer mentoring program that brought 5th grade kids from a local Title 1 school into the law building and paired them with law student mentors who helped with homework for 1 hour a week. The year ended with the law students assisting the kids in a mock trial presentation. One of the aims of the program was to help these kids feel comfortable in a setting of Higher Education, and to give them the opportunity to associate with/ask questions of graduate students. Many of the kids had never been on a college campus, or came from homes where no other family member had attended college. The law professor who founded the program, Brett Scharffs, has written more extensively regarding the program, and his findings are much more than simply anecdotal regarding how programs such as these can give kids a leg up, or at least give them a vision of what "can be". I agree whole-heartedly with Paul Tough's statement that higher education and social mobility have become very intertwined.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Their high school grades had turned out to be much better predictors of their academic ability and college potential than their SAT scores."

I have to admit I'm surprised by this, but it seems to be backed up by research: "As SAT scores are a more consistent indicator of aptitude, one might expect them to better predict a student's chances of graduating college than high school GPA. But Chingos' research shows exactly the opposite." [0]

By the way, I enjoyed reading Paul Tough's previous book "How Children Succeed" \- if you are curious, here is a great excerpt from that book: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5721868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5721868)

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/06/11/what-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/06/11/what- predicts-college-completion-high-school-gpa-beats-sat-score/#cff67ba4b09f)

<comment><USER25> The SAT score buckets in the analysis max out at >1100 so not very useful. The grade buckets are also not very useful as the top range 3.67 - 4.00 probably includes > 50% of students at most schools (thanks, grade inflation). It also fails to adjust for college difficulty. Students in the >1100 bucket are obviously going to more difficult schools than the <800 bucket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > dominated by students from wealthy families.

SAT prep might be correlated, but I suspect there's more to it than that. I grew up in the poor suburbs of Detroit, and nobody was talking about college when I was a kid. I'd say 3/4 of the kids I went to primary school with didn't even apply to college. Now that I'm in the "wealthy" suburbs of Dallas, though, the kids that my kids go to school (and my kids) have been talking about college admissions since they were in elementary. If you grow up with parents who went to college and who can probably afford to send you to one, it's just part of the atmosphere.

<comment><USER26> Rich kids are connected. How many poor kids get personally tutored by someone gifted in math? Rich parents can not only afford it, but have the network to convey the demand in the first place.

It's not just a test score thing, parents legitimately want their kids to be better than them, to not be an embarrassment, to live a good life, take your pick. A rich person knows this means education as much as it means test scores.

<comment><USER27> Rich kids get fancy tutoring for _free_ from highly educated family and friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why not skip college and just have a standardized test to get a degree?

<comment><USER29> I very much support achievement based credentialing. Like earning an Eagle Scout. With two caveats.

There still needs to be minimum hours invested. Skin in the game. Even someone with mastery over a topic must still do something constructive, useful, formative. Work on a project. Mentor, tutor others. Teachers assistant. Whatever.

For undergraduate degrees, there still needs to be off topic study. Ethics, humanities, finger painting, banging the rocks together, study abroad, whatever. Anything to expose young minds to stuff outside of their own bubble.

<comment><USER25> So you set an hour limit that is appropriate for the average person and ensure that 50% of people are not ready and the other half are wasting their time.

<comment><USER29> Are you criticizing the current system? Or my proposal?

<comment><USER25> Criticizing the part of your proposal that would require a minimum time investment.

<comment><USER29> Because everything worth knowing is in a book or on a test? Because experience doesn't matter?

No matter. What's your plan?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "In his new book, The Years That Matter Most: How College Makes or Breaks Us, Paul Tough explores this divide, and interrogates whether going to college has become a privilege of wealth and whether it can still lift people out of economic insecurity."

How the hell do you "interrogate" an abstract proposition? We may as well not even have words if we're going to use them this thoughtlessly.

</comment><comment><USER31> This article also illustrates what is _clearly_ the biggest problem with standardized testing... those stupid tiny desks!

Does anyone in the photo from the article look remotely comfortable? How are you supposed to focus on the material in a potentially-life-altering test when your adult sized body is crammed into a chair arguably sized for someone in middle-school, with your writing work-space only slightly larger (or possibly even smaller) then your papers and shoved directly against your body?

</comment><comment><USER32> > "The most selective institutions, she found, spend a lot more on each > undergraduate than other colleges do, and they give a significant boost in > lifetime earnings, on average, to the students they enroll."

OR rich kids tend to go to rich colleges (Harvard, Yale, Stanford) and were predisposed to high incomes anyway -- one study showed that rich kids WITHOUT college degrees earn more than poor kids WITH them [1].

> "It has more or less always been true that the SAT, on balance, benefits > college applicants who already enjoy lots of financial and social > advantages."

Here's the problem with this analysis: what's the alternative? 50 years of education research no one's come up with a more meritocratic method than GPA + test scores. What, you going to rely on personal essays? And you think that's a fair, objective standard??

If not that, then what? Mandatory racial quotas like Carranza is trying to implement in NYC high schools?

> "Their high school grades had turned out to be much better predictors of > their academic ability and college potential than their SAT scores."

What was the sample size he interviewed? A cohort of ~3.3 mil students graduate high school every year and ~66% apply to college, so it's a total population of around 2.2 million students going to college every year. Did he get a representative sample size? I doubt it.

Research has consistently shown the data with the highest correlation coefficient of first-year GPA (FGPA) in college are standardized test scores + GPA [2]. This should be common sense, there's obviously wildly different standards in high schools across America, GPA by itself is a noisy signal.

> "If they lived in Michigan or Virginia or North Carolina, they would be > unlikely to be admitted to their state's flagship university. But in Texas, > their hard work in high school earns them admission to the finest university > in the state."

Yes, but how many qualified out-of-state students were excluded from admission because of this system? If the goal was to admit a cohort of the most academically qualified student body then this system is, by definition, unfair and not meritocratic.

Let me say I am very much pro-diversity. But a lot of what Paul Tough is selling here is wishful thinking -- essentially throwing out standardized testing in favor of high school curricula, which the research shows is uneven and not a meritocratic standard.

[1] [https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility- memos/2016/02...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility- memos/2016/02/19/a-college-degree-is-worth-less-if-you-are-raised-poor/)

[2] [https://facultysenate.umich.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/22/...](https://facultysenate.umich.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/22/2015/03/08-28-08_Academic-Success.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER33> The article mentions Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg as examples of people who succeeded without college, but I find that to be absurd. Being accepted into Harvard and then intentionally dropping out after 2 years is all the difference in the world from never applying to college.

<comment><USER34> Not to mentioned that they could afford to try and fail.

It's been discussed to death, but the sad fact of life is that a lot of elite students from unresourceful simply can't take the chance on playing the startup game. They don't have the money, and can't risk potentially throwing away 5-10 years on a pipe dream (statistically speaking).

Rich kids with money and connections can afford that. They can graduate from HYPS, try to startup route, and if all fails - no worries, they can always go back to the traditional career route, albeit a bit delayed.

Ask a first gen HYPS student from low or lower middle-class what their plans are; Probably not a 12-month "ideating" leisure trip to SV on their family money.

<comment><USER35> I'm afraid I have to disagree. The key ingredient is unusually high IQ, not money. If I had a choice between being born with a very high IQ or in a moderately wealthy family (10s of millions), I'd choose the 1st without thinking. The family money rather reduce chances of striking success because they make people lazy from childhood. A 12 month trip to SV gives exactly nothing by itself. We could randomly select 1000 college grads, give them 100k and send them to SV for 1 year. The success rate will be 0.0%. What really helps on the SV path is (1) very high intelligence and (2) real industry experience. If you have the former, you can get the latter by joining one of the few known firms and spend there a decade. Then use your savings and connections to try your own idea. I don't see how family money help to skip that decade of experience or how they help to become smart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> In which the author, who dropped out of college, describes how Calculus is designed to be a "gatekeeper to college success for students", says that this is "good for student confidence", but also that he personally "wouldn't re- enroll and finish his BA".

I graduated with a degree in history. I am now a front end developer.

STEM classed and SATs are a hazing experiment. They are a distraction from getting a job and delivering value and enjoying life

<comment><USER37> I highly doubt either of those are hazing experiments. STEM knowledge (and indirectly, classes) are extremely relevant for many very important professions. The SATs were supposed to be a standardized way to gauge college- preparedness by colleges because GPAs are subject to many per-school disturbances (inflation, etc.) I would actually the SATs are outdated, but neither they nor STEM courses are "hazing experiments".

<comment><USER38> I think the parent is maybe using hyperbolic language, but I think, at least from my direct experience and second hand accounts, it is fair to say that, especially entry level and foundational, courses in STEM in US universities are used to "thin the herd". At my state school O-Chem and Physics I contributed to high drop and repeat-take rates. These things sure feel like "hazing" especially when you are told and then experience that the upper division courses are nothing like that, and you are suddenly treated better, from an intellectual standpoint.

<comment><USER36> This is exactly what I was trying to convey. Additionally, how crazy is it that I am able to work in an analytical capacity as a Software Engineer despite never having taken such difficult courses.

The notion that I can't ever in my life do technical work because I didn't pay $3,000 each for a B- in Orgo or Calc I or Intro to Comp Sci? Laughable.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Input for a project. Do you like dogs? - <AUTHOR>

I am working on a pet related project. And because I know what it's like to build something no one wants, I'm focused on gathering input from as many people as possible before going down a similar path of frustration.
I am asking for responses to a very quick survey (< 2mins), and/or help in getting this to people that may have opinions or advice to share.
Are you a dog owner? Do you know a dog owner (friend, family or neighbor)? Or did you see a dog on the street once? If so, we'd love your input.
http://bit.ly/oNlpHV
Any and all help is greatly appreciated! <comment><USER2> Yup - I have no zip code, I'm not going to give you my email, and suddenly I don't care. Note - I actually went to see if I could help, but it's really badly designed.

I recommend you learn about progressive engagement.

You would be much more likely to get responses if you made a reasonable landing page where the project is outlined and pointed us at that. Also better to ask for area, city, zipcode or whatever at the end, when people are already invested.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, I sincerely appreciate critical feedback here. I took your advice into consideration & did move the personal details to the back, so as to capture that information only from those that are invested.

I understand the value of the landing page with details on the proposition, but to be honest, I am using this survey to better understand/ validate the problem, and to confirm that I am not the only one with the issue. Once I validate that the problem is real, I can objectively propose a solution - obviously I have ideas now, but I thought it premature to project those ideas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So half way through the second page I think I got what you are thinking of and I don't think I would be interested in doing it. If you are thinking of using my extended social network to somehow find me a free dogsitter or swap some kind of dogsitting favors no thanks. I wouldn't really even trust my dog with a friend of a friend (though I have a particularly tough breed to deal with). This is something I actively WANT to pay for because I WANT a strong, unambiguous contract here. I pay a huge amount for doggie daycare that I use roughly 3x a week, and I board my dog at the same place when I go out of town, and it's worth every penny. Would be happy to chat with you more if you'd like, contact info in profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input, will definitely be in touch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you really need all that personal info on the first page of the survey? You should at least say why you need it and what's coming on the next page. Why not explain your idea first?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I really appreciate your feedback. I agree - I did move the personal details to the back in order to make sure that we are only gathering from people that are vested at that stage.

Also, I understand the value in explaining the idea on a landing page or similar, but at this stage, I am trying to first validate that what I see as a problem is in fact a problem - then I can objectively propose a solution. Again, trying to make sure that other people want or at least show signs of wanting what I do before I build something. :)

<comment><USER4> I see this new notion of interviewing people before working on an idea is becoming quite popular. I know it's useful to know if people would find something useful, but I think there's the danger of never trying out really innovative ideas. Much like writing, building things is an exploratory process. Typically my own ideas evolve and improve only once I actually start building them. This is especially true for things that are useful to myself and not just other people.

There is the risk that you will waste your time. But doing something new and useful often involves risks. And seemingly silly or bad ideas are often the best - [http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/06/three-types-of- idea...](http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/06/three-types-of-ideas.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well said. Thanks for the link!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've watched my neighbor's dogs many times and they've watched mine a few times. I don't think I would use a service like this. I knew and trusted my neighbors quite a while beforehand. Meeting people over a web site, then entrusting my dogs lives to their care isn't something I would want to do.

I'd be more willing to take care of other people's dogs, but don't know why I'd volunteer to take on the work. Even in exchange for money I probably wouldn't do it.

That said, I do think there is a market for this. Plenty of people are not nearly as cautious (paranoid) about their dogs as I am. There are also probably a good number of people that would do it for small sums of money ($20-$30/day). The dog kennel industry seems way too expensive to me. It shouldn't be so expensive to take care of a dog.

Cracking this kind of market is _hard_ though. It's mostly a marketing/brand job and if that's not a strong suit of yours I'd stay clear away.

Actually I'd much rather you start a dog kennel that is cheap as possible while maintaining safety and quality. A simple safe place to drop off my dogs while I go on vacation. I don't see why that service can't be offered for $30/day or something.

I don't think anyone has managed to build a chain of well respected and affordable dog kennels in the US.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment on leaving your dog with someone that you've built a relationship with over time, rather than a stranger. Or even more pointedly, leaving your dog with someone you know, and someone that knows your dog, v. leaving them with a "professional."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't think of a single reason why you would need my email address other than to email me.

Also, I feel like most of the questions had all those choices for no reason. I don't know how much meaningful information you could discerne by a person chosing "immediate family" vs "friend". Any? You should be more selective when you're creating a favor for others to do for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I really appreciate your perspective. I have now moved the email/ personal detail capture to the rear, so you can enter if compelled.

And yes, emails are for emailing - but the thought here is only to email those individuals that seem (based on completion of all questions and/or responses) vested in what we are doing.

In terms of the information we are gathering, we offered multiple levels of familiarity (immediate family v. friend, etc.) to better understand the spread of trust relationships. As with kids, people do not trust their dog with just anyone, so we would like to understand how far that trust spreads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have no idea what you're going to do with a name such as overnight pets but to me it seems you're going to start shipping pets around, and I find this idea troubling.

<comment><USER8> From the questions they're asking, my guess is that it has more to do with boarding dogs overnight.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. Yes, definitely more along the lines of boarding dogs overnight. No shipping, whatsoever. :)</comment></comment></comment>


Irish Water to spend €69 million on consultants - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessworld.ie/livenews.htm?a=3131783;s=rollingnews.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> O.p. here. These are consultancy setup costs for a new state agency to administer water charges. The agency isn't operating yet.</comment>


Russia's Mysterious First Stealth Fighter Found on Bing Maps - <AUTHOR> http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/26/russias_mysterious_first_stealth_fighter_found_on_bing_maps

<comment><USER2> Funniest comment after the article:

Didn't Clint Eastwood steal that thing?

Hah, what a horrible movie that was.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Bing map link:

[http://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=t7w5h9m5bpv2&sty=b&lvl=18](http://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=t7w5h9m5bpv2&sty=b&lvl=18)</comment>


Tufts Ph.D. 'Punished' for Reporting Adviser's Fabricated Research: Lawsuit - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/kristy-meadows-tufts-university-graduate-punished-for-reporting-advisers-fabricated-research-lawsuit <comment><USER2> This sort of situation is something I suggest people think about ahead of time. If you decompose it into the basic

"I just discovered that some one, or my company/institution, on which my livelihood currently depends, is engaged in fraudulent/immoral/illegal/unethical activies."

The next question is "Now what do I do?" It ranges from report it and leave immediately, to let the leadership know you are there to help. When I was at Intel I discovered that someone within Intel was selling memory chips that had 'binned out' (failed one of the edge cases tested post production) on the grey market. I took the path of reporting it, which ended up in this employee's dismissal. My manager at the time talked with me and said that while he admired my integrity he wondered if I understood the risk I had taken. We talked about it, and the number of people that had to be working together in order for this little scheme to work, and they only fired one guy. The implication was that there were still an unknown number of people at the company who knew (or suspected) that I had interrupted their gravy train. At least one of them had to be reasonably high up the management chain. So now I likely had 'enemies' where before I was just an unknown.

You might think, "Wow, are people really thinking like that?" and my experience suggests that yes, they really do.

So think about the consequences of being the "good guy" can be just as painful for you in a different way than they are for the "bad guy." It isn't an easy choice.

<comment><USER3> In academia it's slightly different: "I just discovered that _the brand_ on which my livelihood currently depends, is engaged in fraudulent/immoral/illegal/unethical activities."

If it transpires that your advisor has fabricated data your own achievements immediately become suspect and funding agencies, journal reviewers and future employers may treat you as collateral damage.

<comment><USER4> There's also the fact that new PhDs typically rely on recommendations from their advisors and dissertation committees. She's obviously not getting one from her advisor. And that in itself might be fatal.

I mean, what might another dissertation committee member say to counter lack of support from her advisor? And how likely is it that any of them would say it?

Also, it's not obvious why Tufts is at fault.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >When she approached Byrnes with this discovery, her adviser told her that "it was fine to publish this data, because if they had done the experiment, this data reflected the result they would have gotten," the lawsuit claims.

This seems pretty alarming.

<comment><USER6> No, you are wrong; it is not alarming, because according to my theory, this is not at all alarming.

<comment><USER7> I hear Tufts is looking for researchers like you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not surprising in the slightest. I work in machine learning and no longer trust most papers I read. A lot of papers have fabricated or dishonest results, and the people who publish these results are often the ones who get recognition, jobs at FB etc. It happens in all fields of so-called "science".

<comment><USER9> What are some signs an ML paper is untrustworthy?

<comment><USER10> Being advertised in mainstream media seems like a good initial assessment for shit science :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I was a graduate student I discovered some fabricated results and was told in no uncertain terms that if I pressed the matter that my career would be over before it began. So I kept my mouth shut.

<comment><USER12> And now you're the dean.

<comment><USER13> Sounds like management material! PROMOTE!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Having read the article I fail to see how she was "Punished" by Tufts. She made an accusation of alleged wrongdoing. Tufts investigated and while the investigation was ongoing they briefly delayed awarding her Ph.D. Seems appropriate under the circumstances and they did ultimately award her two Ph.D.'s. An accusation was leveled against her of wrongdoing. Tufts investigated and she was cleared by Tufts of the allegation.

The professor still works there but we have no idea if the professor was censored in some means other than firing or if the investigation failed to produce the hard proof the university felt was needed to fire the professor without facing a wrongful termination suit or other legal ramifications. If the university continued to employee the professor with proof that they had falsified data this would speak poorly of Tufts but isn't something the complainant should somehow be financial compensated for.

The article reveals no evidence that the complainant not getting a position following has been the result of any defamation or effort by either Tufts or the accused professor. Whether right or wrong knowing that you have previously filed such a complaint will make most employers avoid hiring you. Why take on the slightest risk when there other candidates which don't present such risk.

Maybe there is more that has not been revealed but what is int the article doesn't seem to support a financial payout to the complainant.

</comment><comment><USER15> My understanding is that fabricated results are so common that less than half of papers can be replicated. Nobody wants to go after the cheaters because it would embarrass the institution and the university would loose grant money.

<comment><USER16> That's not generally about outright fabrication, but instead due to invalid statistical procedures.

Many students are still taught, in 2019, that the appropriate way to conduct a multiple linear regression analysis is to:

1\. Fit univariate comparisons to all your explanatory variables of interest

2\. Take the significant variables and put them in a multiple regression analysis

3\. Report the p-values from the regression analysis as valid and meaningful.

This is incorrect for several reasons (type 1 error rate inflation, confusion about marginal and conditional effects etc.), but people still do it. That's before we even account for publication bias, in which null results are often "shelved" or not accepted for publication.

<comment><USER10> Indeed, I'm finishing a MSc degree in epidemiology and I was pretty surprised that they presented that as "the only correct way" (program rated 2nd worldwide for epidemiology).

However, I do not agree that this is the most common problem. Ten years as a professional have shown me that the real issue is that 95% of people using statistics don't have a _single clue_ about how the techniques they use daily really work.

It's especially alarming given the booming machine learning fad.

<comment><USER16> Yes, I was just picking out one example I've seen where even if people do what they're taught, they'll end up doing bad statistics. As you say the problems don't end there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > she reported her adviser, Dr. Elizabeth Byrnes, for allegedly fabricating > data

Is way too cautious of a wording.

She reported her advisor for fabricating data, not for allegedly fabricating data. You can't report someone for allegedly doing something.

<comment><USER18> She alleged her adviser fabricated data.

<comment><USER17> She reported that her adviser fabricated data.

Thereby she's alleging her adviser fabricated data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For anyone having trouble with the paywall, adding a '.' after the .com and before the '/' lets you close the popup. Otherwise, disabling javascript also works.

</comment><comment><USER10> Behold, the marvelous results of capitalist science!

The more you convert academic science to just another industry (i.e constrain PIs by way of funding), the more people you'll have who will behave just as in other industries.

Hardly surprising.

</comment><comment><USER20> [https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/13/inside-tufts- universitys-g...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/13/inside-tufts-universitys- grade-hacking-case/)

Tufts University seems to have some problems. Sounds like a pretty shitty university.

<comment><USER21> idk about the rest of the school, but the Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy alumni list is a who's-who of global politics and international trade. [1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fletcher_School_of_Law...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fletcher_School_of_Law_and_Diplomacy_alumni)

<comment><USER22> I'd be more impressed with the folks on that list if they managed global trade in such a way that it didn't give us Trump, Brexit, and resurgent nationalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Suing the university that gave her a PhD and publicly shaming her adviser: I guess she never wants an academic job ever. I'm actually surprised she got the degree after filing all of those complaints, usually they can figure out a way to make you go away.

<comment><USER24> You mean most potential academic employers would rather have their employees cover up scientific fraud? That's quite a low opinion on academia.

<comment><USER23> No I mean most large corporations would rather have employees that don't have a history of suing similar large corporations for damages incurred after whistleblowing. It's only a little worse in universities compared to other faceless corporations because the fields are so small and so much of an academic career is built on reputation.

You're starting from the assumption that the allegations are true. But if you're inside the field, you know the professor, go to conferences with him... At some point, the department has to decide if you want to hire a troublemaker, and then actually go to bat for them with the administration who will look at the hire as a business risk.

<comment><USER25> Hiring someone with a reputation of standing up for proper academic conduct would signal to the outside world that you have nothing to hide and that you also stand for those values.

This isn't a troublemaker, this is a proper academic who knows the importance of protocol and scientific process.

<comment><USER26> The choice between 1) maintaining status quo, and 2) losing one or more professors who are bringing money in, if we push through the charges, for potential reputation gain. I think most business administrator would choose former.

<comment><USER24> I see that can be so in the US where hiring decisions seem to be more business oriented. Not sure if it works like that in every country. In Germany, professors have great freedom in choosing who to hire. For example phd student applicants directly contact and interview with the prof. Probably there is some form of veto from above though, but rarely exercised.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Handyman – A Multiuser Puppeteering System for Motion Control (1991) - <AUTHOR> http://web.ncf.ca/au829/Handyman/Thesis.html <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting this! I was talking about this very idea just the other day with my daughter who is interested in animation. It will be cool to research this, great find!</comment>