The difference between 'good enough' and better  - <AUTHOR> http://next.dustincurtis.com/2011/10/05/the-difference-between-good-enough-and-better/

<comment><USER2> I'm sure it's not a trivial task, but I think the experience would be much better by treating Siri like a real person.

The thing that bothers me about the whole thing is just how awkward it still is in real life. Honestly, how many of you say "REPLY (monotone voice). Blah blah blah" in any conversation let alone in public.

It'd be much cooler if they allowed you to call Siri by a name.

"You have a text from Bob. It reads: are we still on for today?"

"Hey Siri, tell him we're still on. Thanks."

Alright, it's way too late.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm skeptical that it works as well as advertised. We'll see when this puppy gets released.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think those videos mostly show that Apple makes better ads than Google.

<comment><USER5> Look at how much Android Voice Actions use the screen as a vital part of the experience, and how Siri commands chain like a conversation. I'd say the latter is more like a revolution than the former.

<comment><USER6> The very first thing you see in the Apple video is someone hitting the button on his headset to activate Siri. I guess that means you need to hit a screen/hardware button when not using the headset.

In the Android video, most of the screens that echo back the text time out and activate without interaction.

Many of the interactions result in information on the screen (e.g. the detailed weather forecast, or navigating to a webpage) so there's no need to build an interface that works without a screen.

The difference (if there even is one, it's hard to tell from these videos alone) is less drastic than you seem to be claiming.

Apple's approach could well go the way of Applescript where they dress something that is fundamentally not natural language up as if it was, and while it initially seems neat in carefully controlled situations it only leads to problems in reality. Time will tell.

edit: just rewatched the ad, the non-screen responses are often useless e.g. Q: "Is it going to be chilly in Napa Valley this weekend" A: "doesn't seem like it", Q: "How many cups are in 12 ounces" A: "Let me think. Here you go" (displays answer as text on screen).

It's hidden by the editing but the woman who dictates her text clearly hits the "I'm going to talk my phone now" button, then says "send" instead of just hitting the send button that sits an inch higher (obviously this would actually make sense if you were using a headset to hit that button). Because of the editing I thought that the Apple way was smoother than the Android one which requires you to hit a button, then speak, but after a careful review it's clear the differences between the two systems regarding the need to consult/interact with the screen of the phone are mostly in the editing and/or the viewer's imagination.</comment></comment></comment>


Should Psychiatry Test for Lead More? - <AUTHOR> http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/should-psychiatry-test-for-lead-more/ <comment><USER2> It sounds like the whole field is contaminated with mind-body dualism. But there's a bigger problem; even once you accept that humans are fully physical, embodied minds in a sea of whatever chemicals can cross the blood-brain barrier, the scope is wider. Humans are part of a society that can harm them without effective means of redress.

Also, from the original paper, via the linked LJ: [https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1388220.html](https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1388220.html)

"I began taking blood samples from everybody who came to the clinic. At times it seemed like Transylvania Station. The state Department of Public Health's laboratory tested blood free for anyone under the age of 12 and provided plastic pipettes, finger puncture equipment, and even mailing envelopes at no cost. So, for a while, everyone in the clinic was declared to be under 12 years of age."

Both a nice public healthcare hack and a risky thing to admit in a journal article.

<comment><USER3> " once you accept that humans are fully physical, embodied minds in a sea of whatever chemicals can cross the blood-brain barrier"

I'm not disagreeing, but is this something that everyone reasonable would agree on without any sort of support?

"Humans are part of a society that can harm them without effective means of redress."

Indeed. I am sad every morning I walk my child to creche and her head (in a pram) is at the same height as the exhaust pipes next to her. Yet, there's nothing to be done, apparently.

<comment><USER4> "I'm not disagreeing, but is this something that everyone reasonable would agree on without any sort of support?"

We are lucky then that there is a ton of support to this claim. Some people may argue with the word "fully" but if you replace it by "in big part" I don't think one can disagree with that without throwing a century of medical research out of the window.

<comment><USER5> There is no consensus about how consciousness arises from the brain specifically, or how it works. We're pretty sure that if the brain breaks, the expression of consciousness will also break (occasionally in predictable ways). Further than that, you can make no definite statements about it and call yourself scientific. It's still mostly a philosophical problem with no clear solutions.

<comment><USER6> Careful. Much of the _consciousness is more than the brain_ argument arrises from pro-life religious groups. They argue that brain death, or lack of a physical brain, does not preclude consciousness. This is to support anti- abortion rules and prevent the removal of life support from the brain dead. These arguments are a minefield of religious dogma.

<comment><USER5> Maybe where you are, but not where I am from. Here, you are considered a religious extremist if you do not support abortion (and I think that this is the reasonable stance, but that is not relevant right now). I'm thus not very concerned with what secondary agenda you associate this argument, and I will definitely not be careful of having an uncertain stance just because this is the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cops should do the same test. There was an NPR story a while back about a school, mostly black, that did poorly on a standardized test. The school officials declared the test racist. The science teacher couldn't find that from the test. He wondered about lead. Low and behold the school was full of lead poisoned children. They started treatment and the scores improved by the end of the year ( the also abated the houses with grant money).

We know lead causes aggression issues. We know poor communities have higher incidence of lead in their homes. How many criminals could be prevented, or reformed with lead treatment?

<comment><USER8> The article was about why testing for lead in depression is probably not a good idea or at least not a better idea than a million other things.

<comment><USER7> I know. Lead testing is a soap box for me. Palatka has a high crime rate. I would love to know how much of it might be solved with cops testing.

<comment><USER9> If you're in Palatka, then I'm not far from you. If you want to meet up for coffee or a meal or something, my contact info is in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Surprised it hasnt been mentioned yet, but just in case there is a HN reader who hasn't read the lead article by Drum - it's good.

[https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead- exposur...](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure- gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/)

<comment><USER11> Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fair warning, this is a bit of a comment trap, insofar as the post is less about lead per se, and more about a class of decision-making problems involving the allocation of scarce resources and massive uncertainty.

But incidentally, public health and governing bodies should definitely work to reduce lead in communities, regardless of the duty of psychiatrists.

And maybe some researcher should improve chelation? But there are other things to work on, and that might be simply intractable, so maybe not.

<comment><USER13> Whenever I see a title that's posing a question, I like to immediately assume the answer is "no". It makes the headline seem pretty ridiculous.

<comment><USER14> Betteridge's law of headlines:

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist, although the principle is much older. As with similar "laws", it is intended to be humorous rather than the literal truth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If the patient is chronically not well, they will often show symptoms of depression. Diagnosis of exclusion that can't find the cause often ends with depression diagnosis.

In this sense depression is a trashcan diagnosis. It's the default end for short decision tree.

<comment><USER16> Depression is not a diagnosis. The diagnosis is "iatrogenic depression", "substance abuse related depression", "pervasive depressive disorser", "bipolar disorder related depression", "developmental disorder related depression", "adjustment disorder" and only very finally there is the "idiopathic major depressive disorder" and a few gradations thereof, which is the trashcan. And I've probably skipped a few. (E.g. genetic folate metabolism disorder, thyroid related) Treatments are different in each.

Lead, mercury and some other heavy metal exposure is one of iatrogenic. They are not commonly tested as they are rare causes and tests are not specific. (As opposed for thyroid panel and folate check which are highly specific.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why don't doctors give patients a choice? Some people may wish to pay for more extensive testing.

<comment><USER18> Two important details:

1\. Doctors don't appear to even think about lead poisoning unless you give them big fat clues like "My job is scraping lead paint off a bridge." What they don't think about, they don't ask about, just like everyone else.

2\. The patients presenting with psychiatric symptoms that could be caused by lead poisoning are much more likely to be near the poverty line than a random sampling of people with stress and depression. Insurance companies are not likely to pay for lead blood tests unless they see a good reason to do so, and poor people are much less likely to have insurance in the first place.

<comment><USER17> True. But the article speaks of more than just lead poisoning.

> And when you've answered that, what about copper? Omega-3/omega-6 ratio? > Vitamin D levels? Cortisol? Magnesium balance? The methylation cycle? > Cortisol? Mitochondrial function? Inflammation? Covert viral infections? > Covert autoimmune disorders? Paraneoplastic syndromes? Allergies? Light > exposure? Circadian rhythm? Selenium? Lithium levels in your local water > supply? Insulin resistance? Gut microbiome? PANDAS? FODMAPs? Structural > brain abnormalities? And that's not even getting into the psychosocial > stuff!

I want my doctor to tell me what tests have what probability of being positive, and the cost, so I can make an informed decision.

<comment><USER16> Half of the things do not require tests at all. E.g. light exposure and circadian rhythm are answered in a questionnaire. (And sleep quality - clue to sleep apnea.) Likewise allergies and their medication or major gut diseases.

Water sample is less useful as many people use enough bottled water and diffuse sources (out of home) to make test at any one location pointless. Leave it to epidemiology. Just ask if the person is taking lithium.

Insulin resistance is done with the standard metabolic and blood panel. These are best done as screening regularly. (But nobody wants to pay for that.) Since you will be checking thyroid why not extend.

Gut microbiome is speculative. We do not even have tests. Brain abnormalities? Either it is in history (major surgeries, seizures) or we don't even know what they are.

Vitamins and microelements are also speculative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yes.

They should also look at environmental toxins. "Sick" houses, etc.

And physiological problems.

Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of mental health treatment that went after symptoms while ignoring root causes.

P.S. Over time, physically induced problems can lead to outright mental problems. PTSD, for example.

Also, IANAD.

</comment><comment><USER20> Heavy metal poisoning is a cause of mental illness that is reversible and does not require the patient to take drugs for the rest of their lives. We like selling drugs to people for the rest of their lives in this country.

<comment><USER21> I despise this sentiment. It's one of those tired cliches like "if you're not the customer you're the product", which at first pass seems like some cute insight, but is actually awful at predicting anything about reality.

This disagrees with literally everything I have ever heard or seen in the healthcare industry, whether that's from doctors (family), drug development (friends), or healthcare-focused finance (career).

Everyone I've ever known or worked with in healthcare has always been 100% about trying to make people better. Yes, even in finance, where I evaluated biotech stocks to make recommendations to buy or sell. The better the the drug worked, the more excited everyone was about it. It's so _hard_ to make a drug, that some sort of evil "let's help them but not cure them" approach isn't even possible, not that anyone I know would even want that.

Yes, there was that Goldman Sachs report floating around a couple months ago about the difficulties to businesses when finding cures, but even _that_ report's takeaway was about the need for finding companies that continue to innovate and come up with new therapies.

<comment><USER22> It's hard to believe that you've never heard or seen anything that was not 100% about trying to make people better. (pay-for-delay, Valeant, evergreening, Theranos, citizen's petitions, Shkreli, off-label promotion, Insys, medicare fraud, Paxil, kickbacks...)

<comment><USER21> You're right, of course, and those are good counterexamples. In fact, one of the stocks I helped cover collapsed overnight when fraud was uncovered.

But I see them as outliers who have been largely penalized (jail time, stock collapse, etc), not as indicative of the industry. The _reason_ there was such a backlash is because the vast majority of the industry are good people, and these sorts of behaviors are shocking.

I guess I meant literally everyone I've ever known personally has been like that. When you look at the news, yeah, you do see scandals. But I maintain that the idea that the industry would collude to not make cures is wrong. And similarly with doctors and their treatment of patients, which I've also seen argued.

<comment><USER23> > But I maintain that the idea that the industry would collude to not make > cures is wrong.

Why would you need to _collude_ to make a decision like that? Everyone in that industry makes the same sort of analysis, I imagine. "How many doses of this will we sell, how much will they cost to make, and how much will we be able to charge for them?"

If the equation indicates you'll lose money, exactly why _wouldn 't_ you just move on, assuming you're a for-profit business? You can always lobby for government or philanthropy or something to pay for the drug, but how many instances are there of a company just saying _we 're gonna lose at least a billion on this thing but it will be great and help a lot of people?_

(it's an honest question - maybe you've got an example that will make everybody a little happier)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Link should be: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/should-psychiatry- test-...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/should-psychiatry-test-for- lead-more/)</comment>


Poll that predicted Brexit shares raw data for UK elections - <AUTHOR> http://www.qriously.com/blog/raw-data-uk-election-poll/ <comment><USER2> Highly professional</comment>


Ask HN: Processing, the programming language. - <AUTHOR>

Have any of you learned/used it? Those of you that have: how often do you use it and for what? <comment><USER2> I used it in a computational-media class a few years ago, where it was the main language used for the examples and projects. Since I was a CS student and already comfortable in a bunch of languages (much of the class wasn't), I wasn't really the target audience, but I thought it was reasonably well done for what it is. You can get some graphical stuff happening on screen in only a few lines of code, and the IDE automates building a Java applet that you can ship just by copying a directory to a webserver, both of which, I think, increase the satisfaction to someone just starting out with programming, because you can immediately see the effect of relatively simple programs. It's actually a _lot_ nicer than Java for simple 2d graphics stuff, because it gets rid of a lot of the boilerplate, and includes some decent built-in primitives. And you can escape to Java if things get complex.

I've used it a few times since then as a rapid-prototyping tool for 2d graphics stuff, mostly interactive graphics toy type of stuff, and I think it's pretty good for that. HTML5 Canvas is getting to the point where it'll probably replace it for that purpose for me, but when Processing came out in the early 2000s, there wasn't much comparable when it came to getting some interactive graphics working in a web browser in <10 lines of code.

</comment><comment><USER3> I haven't used Processing explicitly but from what I can tell the Arduino's Wiring language is pretty much the same thing (it uses the Processing IDE and from what I've read it seems to be a superset of Processing). I use Wiring when playing around with my Arduino but generally rewrite things in assembly if I take a project further than just messing around.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have to say, the name put me off. It'd be like calling a car the Ford Driving. Or Starbucks launching a coffee beverage called Drinking. It reminds me of <http://paulgraham.com/javacover.html></comment>


Azure IoT Edge open for developers to build for the intelligent edge - <AUTHOR> https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-iot-edge-open-for-developers-to-build-for-the-intelligent-edge/ <comment><USER2> Can someone from Microsoft comment this and [https://azure.microsoft.com/en- us/blog/securing-the-intellig...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en- us/blog/securing-the-intelligent-edge/)?

Does this mean Windows IoT 64-bit on Arm edge gateways? Is SBSA and SBBR mandatory?

How does this contrast with Google IoT Core on the Marvell A8040-based Clearoud ([https://www.solid-run.com/clearcloud-cloud-iot- core/](https://www.solid-run.com/clearcloud-cloud-iot-core/))?</comment>


In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let's Not Sacrifice Even More Rights - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/wake-charlie-hebdo-attack-lets-not-sacrifice-even-more-rights <comment><USER3> Norway had a great response to their terror attack in 2011.

        The country would "stand firm in defending our values" and the "open,
        tolerant and inclusive society", he said. "The Norwegian response
        to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political
        participation." -- Jens Stoltenberg, Norwegian Prime Minister [at the time]

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway- terror-a...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror- attacks-prime-minister)

<comment><USER4> > "open, tolerant and inclusive society"

This is what we need, not the usual approach of using tragic events to justify new surveillance, law enforcement powers, or military action. The only response that could offer a real long term solution is outreach and education, because fundamentalisms only flourishes in an environment of ignorance and poverty.

One of the few downsides of the technological revolution that we live in, is that everyday it lowers the barrier of entry develop nuclear or biological weapons. If we don't do something about extremest, they will be the cause of our civilization's demise. In the past decade, we have spent $3 trillion fighting wars in the Middle East.[1] That money and our presence there hasn't worked, it's only created a new generation that hate Western values.

I just watched on news footage of hangars and barracks being bulldozed in Afghanistan.[2] What I saw was potential schools and homes being bulldozed. Imaging what could have been accomplished after 911 with $3 trillion invested instead in Education, Science, and Technology. Imagine the good over $800 million each day for a decade could do. Let's stop dropping bombs and start teaching. That's the only way we're going to end this vicious cycle before it's too late for all of us.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/09...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html)

[2] [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-war-60-minutes- lara-...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-war-60-minutes-lara-logan/)

<comment><USER5> >"because fundamentalisms only flourishes in an environment of ignorance and poverty."

Do you mean ignorance as in poorly-educated? Nearly all the 19 hijackers of 911 were quite well-educated. Or are you referring to ignorance rooted in a belief in myth and superstition as manifested in religion? How kindly do you think people are going to take to being told, if even implicitly - <USER2> "infidels" no less - that they're belief system has rendered them ignorant? For that matter non-muslims playing _any_ role in the arab world is considered an abomination by fundamentalists.

I agree that change needs to happen but am not convinced it can come from the West. It needs to come from within Islam and the Muslim community. They need their own Reformation.

<comment><USER6> Reformation is unlikely to come from within the Islamic community.

In the clip below, from Norway, English-speaking Muslims ridicule and dismiss the Western concepts of moderate and extremist Islam. Their rationale is that the same beliefs are shared by the majority.

This should worry everyone.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZataEz_m73E](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZataEz_m73E)

<comment><USER7> > Reformation is unlikely to come from within the Islamic community.

I wrote a long response to this but I decided to delete it. Basically this is not very accurate, and familiarity with history of the Middle East and North Africa (including ideologies like Arab nationalism and Ba'athism, or figures like Gamal Abdel Naseer and Hafez al Assad) would show that it certainly can come from within the Islamic world-- primarily because the Islamic world are the prime targets and overwhelmingly the majority of the victims of these actions.

> Their rationale is that the same beliefs are shared by the majority.

Their rationale is also that the majority of Muslims are hypocrites and are not "real" Muslims (when compared to those who follow the extremists' perverse Wahabbi fiqh within the Sunni Hanbali maddhab) or else they would agree with them. Unless we haven't noticed, the prime victim of Islamic extremism is other Muslims, and the prime opposition towards Islamic extremism is other Muslims. To go even further, the primary enemy of ISIS is actually Al Qaeda (in the form of Jabhat al Nusra) and vice versa.

When they say there is no moderate or extremist Muslim, it is because the moderate Muslim does not recognize the extremist as a Muslim, and the extremist does not recognize the moderate as a Muslim. Even the Muslim extremists do not recognize other Muslim extremists as Muslim if they do not pledge allegiance.

There is a reason why these extremist folk are called "Takfiris"\-- it literally means "those who accuse others of disbelief." Here [1] is a video between the Western-backed terrorists in Syria and ISIS on a two-way radio call. Pay close attention from about 40s, especially when the Western-backed terrorists ask the ISIS fighters why they do not attack Israel

As an anecdote: In Iraq a fatwa was issued by Ayotallah Sistani to refer to ISIS as "Daesh al Murtad" ("ISIS who has left Islam") but it was eventually brought down to "Asa'ib daesh" ("the gangs of ISIS") so as to avoid the "moderates" receiving the takfiri labeling as it is considered inflammatory.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbY9uU3kQc0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbY9uU3kQc0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance?

If this is the exception rather than the rule, then we shouldn't sacrifice any rights.

However, if islamISTS or communISTS or nazISTS or anyone else decides to take advantage of a liberal society and attempt to overthrow it, systematically, shouldn't there be some way to prevent it?

I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas. Of course, the civil libertarian in me says that freedom of expression should be maximized. But I also realize that there are mind viruses out there that compete with liberalISM and despise it for one reason or another. The question is, how intolerant should we be of intolerance? In the United States, for instance, we have become very intolerant of racists and homophobes.

I am not talking about this particular incident.

<comment><USER9> As a communist, I'll give you my point of view. To reiterate: I am a communist, not a troll, and this is really what I think.

I think that "free speech" as meant by liberals is harmful. I don't believe that oppressive speech (i.e. homophobic, racist, fascist etc.) should come under the aegis of the liberal ideal of "free speech", at least not until a post-revolutionary society. People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. I'm sure if you look through the history of the Parisian murders you'd find a trail of exposure to extremist ideas.

<comment><USER10> >People take on the ideas to which they're exposed.

Children take on ideas to which they are exposed, adults evaluate ideas before accepting them. Suppressing opposing viewpoints is therefore treating me like a child.

<comment><USER9> I think you'd be surprised. I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks.

And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful. In my opinion, things like being against gay marriage, or being racist are objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate.

<comment><USER11> > _" I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary > as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before > these attacks."_

What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things? Or for that matter, if we assume for the moment that one _did_ cause the other, how can you be sure which caused which? Perhaps the FN has become more and more mainstream as a result of more and more French citizens drifting towards the right.

> _" And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely > harmful."_

I don't really understand why being an opposing viewpoint and being harmful are mutually exclusive to you. You _do_ oppose their viewpoint (very strongly it seems), so it surely _is_ an opposing viewpoint.

<comment><USER12> >What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things?

It's probably more that the growth of the FN is a result of people becoming "more and more reactionary".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hear. Hear. Let's make sure that life in a free society is preserved no matter what threat it is put under.

I see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is calling for individuals and news media organizations to respond to the Charlie Hebdo attack too, and I hope they follow her suggestions.[1]

A historical example I turn to about how to respond to grave national danger is that during the United States Civil War, the 1864 election occurred exactly on the expected schedule, and Abraham Lincoln was prepared to be voted out of office during the middle of the war. Of course in parliamentary systems elections do not occur at predictable intervals as they do in the United States constitutional system, but I've always thought that was a good example of how not to cave in to the temptation of self-benefit "for the sake of the country's stability" by delaying the election or something like that. Lincoln did invoke the power (a power granted by the Constitution from the beginning[2]) to suspend the right of habeas corpus during the War of Rebellion (as the Civil War was called by the Union at the time), but habeas corpus was restored as soon as the rebellion ceased.

We should cherish all of our freedoms all of the time and guard them zealously. We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that.

[1] [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan- hirsi...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi-ali- our-duty-is-to-keep-charlie-hebdo-alive.html)

[2] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus)

<comment><USER14> _We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that._

I greatly appreciate your comments on this site, and worry I'm being obtuse, but I'm not sure what you feel is the "thinking that leads to attacks like this". I read Hirsi Ali as saying that we must band together and deliberately offend conservative Muslim sensibilities to protect free speech. This seems greatly at odds with many of the tenets of modern multiculturalism. Are you suggesting that we need to move away from the form of multiculturalism that grants power to the violent fundamentalist?

<comment><USER15> The idea of having to worry about offending people at all costs is silly.

If there was a group that murdered people for using the color purple, I'm sure tons of people and companies would proudly display people. Why should it be any different here? Why cower because someone might be offended over some arbitrary rule?

<comment><USER16> Because unlike the color purple, the Islamic community of France is an oppressed underclass. If this was a bunch of racist stereotypes of blacks, would our answer be to continue to publish racist trash?

These things can offend more than just extremists. Obviously this massacre is absolutely terrible, but the content of Charlie Hebdo regarding Islam was extremely offensive, and served mainly to increase the isolation of the French Muslim community

<comment><USER17> Please dont equate mockery of a set of beliefs with mockery and oppression of a set of people based on genetic traits. I guarantee the French Muslims have not gone through a fraction of what blacks have gone through in terms of outright physical violence and state-sanctioned oppression.

If anything France, and Europe as a whole, seem more than welcoming to muslims, at least from an immigration and social safety net perspective.

Belief systems from Christian to Muslim to atheism must be subject to public criticism and mockery in a free society without threat of violence. People who dont feel this way should be free to leave.

<comment><USER18> France is not a free society in the same way America is. French people are happy to live under many more restrictive laws but we don't often see it. For instance, Charlie Hebdo's staff could have gone to prison if they had published a cartoon mocking the holocaust. Some people's offense is treated as more valuable than others in France.

<comment><USER19> In "America", laws forbid people drink beer in public. Not old, forgotten laws: policemen use these everyday as reason to arrest and search people in the street.

In fact, in recent weeks, did US courts not repeatedly find nothing illegal had happened when the police executed someone who was standing in the street not being a danger?

France is not perfect but you need to get out more if you think "America", as you call it, is better.

<comment><USER18> I was just thinking about freedom of speech. I don't deny America has a problem with police violence. It has a bigger problem with violence in general too.

It is still quite bizarre that not being in France, I can safely say "The holocaust didn't happen" But a French person is at risk of having their online identity discovered, then imprisoned just for making a political claim like that. This is really quite scary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> My (hastily written) email to the EFF on this issue:

=====

"Even as we mourn the losses at Charlie Hebdo, we must be wary of any attempt to rush through new surveillance and law enforcement powers, which are likely to disproportionately affect Muslims ..."

May I suggest the following thought experiment?

Imagine if Hebdo staff had been murdered by Neo-NAZIs (it's certainly within the realm of possibility; the publication skewered the political right as much as it did other groups like Muslims, and fascist groups are known for their love of violence).

Would you be decrying the possibility that new laws might disproportionately effect Neo-NAZIs?

There are many parallels between the politics of Islam and the politics of National Socialism: the rejection of individualism, the anti-semitism, the subordination of all aspects of life to the philosophy, the hero-worship of the leader, etc. etc.

The fact that most Muslims are not actively engaged in Jihad has parallels with the observation that most Germans during WWII weren't actively fighting for the NAZI party. To support an evil philosophy is morally wrong, regardless of whether that philosophy is or is not religious in nature.

I'm particularly saddened to see the EFF join in the pretence that Islam, in and of itself, is worthy of respect. The philosophy, and the mainstream religious movement itself, is inimically opposed to the freedoms you seek to protect.

=====

<comment><USER21> I agree that the phrasing was debatable. Replacing the words: "affect muslims" with "affect everyone" would have been more precise and less biased.

But the comparison you just made, equaling todays regular law abiding muslings with passive nazi onlookers in the third-reich, is delusional from a historical standpoint, and despicable from a diplomatic one.

The state fuelled propaganda targeting the jew population after the German economic struggles was a majority culture fuelled by state propaganda that created a scapegoat with racial overtones.

Most muslim "anti-semitism" in the west today stems from a frustration with israels war policy. Not an inherent racial doctrine.

Comparing Jihad to State sponsored activities like SS or Hitler Jugend makes no sense.

Jihad in western countries is created mostly with foreign training, money and initiative springing from international social media.

Being active in the the Nazi army was for most people forced conscription, completely outside of personal volition, e.g. Hitler Jugend, SS etc.

Nazism and Radical Islam are of course both extremely right-wing, conservative and fascistic in their nature. They share a lot of common traits, but their roots and causes doesn't compare.

Lets be careful before we compare all of our fellow muslim citizens with Nazi sympathizers shall we?

<comment><USER20> Re. anti-semitism in Islam: to claim that it's a response to Israeli politics is utterly false. It has existed in the religion for centuries, in a similar fashion to anti-semitism in Catholicism.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism)

Re. conscription: participation in Jihad is mandatory in Islamic states. Currently, volunteer Mujahideen are fighting an asymmetric war against Western countries on their own soil. Those who volunteer to fight are in fact more morally culpable than those conscripted into service.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)

Re. sympathy for Sharia:

[http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims- religi...](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion- politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/)

<comment><USER21> "Utterly false". How do you know that? Yes i to can link to a long wikipedia article about Christianity and Antisemitism. Long wiki lists doesn't count as arguments.

I don't believe most modern anger against jews stems from religious doctrine, i really do believe it stems from a more general sense of frustration with western foreign policy.

All religions hate on each other. I know you want to pick out islam as the root of much evil but i just do not agree with how the whole debate is being framed.

I myself am not religious and probably share a good deal of opinions with you. But i have come to despise the way the "new-atheism" conducts itself. It creates tensions and stops conversation. It focuses a beam so narrow, the public discourse has become one dimensional.

The current discourse in atheistic communities, and lately also the general consensus in the media - of deriving some sorts of inherent psychological constants from islam, is detrimental from an academic perspective. It disregards so many other factors at play other than the religion itself e.g. geography, local culture, economics, foreign policies, geopolitics, history etc. People and cultures are different, everywhere.

Do you think most muslims practice their faith based on intense historical investigation and religious reading? And do you think that they come to the same conclusions? They don't.

Most muslims get cherry picked info. They read a little, some don't, many gets lots of info from moderate imams, few get loads of material from radical imams. Some are Sunni, some are Shia, some left-wing like parts of the kurds, some are progressive like much of the youth in Iran. Many people have daily battles with the radical parts of islam all over the middle east. The Arab Spring was a strong testament to this. I have met many progressive muslims from all over the middle east over the years. Highly educated, well spoken. Many of them still cultural muslims whoms most fundamental problems with the west stems from the incessant and extremely detrimental foreign meddling in the middle east.

Several countries in the middle east were pretty progressive before war tore them apart in the mid to late twentieth century. Proxy warfare between the US and Russia. CIA funding of assorted radicals up through the decades, coups that lead to theocracies. Israels wars that lead to a radicalisation of large parts of the muslim youth. And western alliance with the largest promoter of radical islam, Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore the incredibly incompetent way the US war machine played out Shia against Sunnis, and therefore directly aided the creation of ISIS today.

the list goes on. Watch the frontline documentaries on Iraq or Isis to get a gist of how catastrophic the western countries still act to this day.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing- iraq/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/)

All of these factors and more, have now created this radical, angry and war- damaged version of Islam, that now clashes increasingly with western values.

My point is that i think it is extremely detrimental to focus on Islam as some sort of absolute culprit of the atrocious acts, rather than create an explanatory model with the myriad of factors spanning a century, that has made certain groups of people come this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> People here live in a bubble. We're afraid of an orwelian society, but in the case of france, we're still unable to catch those guys eventhough they : \- killed people in the center of Paris, including cops protecting the area.

\- left their id card at the back of the car

\- had 2 car accident while running away inside Paris and changed the car twice

\- stopped at a gas station a few kilometers away from paris to get some gas,where the owner recognized them.

\- were already under monitoring by the counter terrorism, for having tried to go to war in iraq ten years ago.

\- have 8000 cops chasing them all over the country, and 24 hours later, they lost their tracks, for the second time.

We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't.

<comment><USER23> > We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't.

1\. This is _France,_ so it really only speaks to how things are happening in France. The majority of the people on this site are probably concentrated in Bay Area, which is not in France. Life in East Germany under the Stasi was pretty bad, but it also didn't describe conditions _everywhere_.

2\. You could almost view this in the same light as DRM on media. The criminals easily skirt it, but the normal people are left paying the price (a degraded experience in the case of DRM; a watchful government eye in the case of surveillance).

<comment><USER24> > The majority of the people on this site are probably concentrated in Bay > Area

Please, we're everywhere.

<comment><USER23> The majority only need be greater than 50%.

Note: I've never been to the Bay Area, so this isn't some "omg, we're all SanFran start-up bros" line of thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Also worth mentioning: The authorities already knew the subjects. The supposedly even had recent warnings regarding Charlie Hebdo. They have had police officers there for a long time, too. And for most cases of terrorism in the last decades it was the same.

Generally, the police usually knows about the suspects before. They just can't do much before they commit a crime. The unwarranted surveillance of everyone can't possibly prevent attacks by people who already were filtered anyway. Much better to invest the budget in classical targeted intelligence and police work and into improving the response _if_ something has happened.

<comment><USER11> > _" They have had police officers there for a long time, too."_

In fact, one of the police officers that was killed was present for the shooting because he was assigned as a police bodyguard for Charb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The general population has been sold a bill of goods by those in power that those in power cannot possible make good on. As long as there are small groups of armed individuals, highly motivated and unmoved by the fear of laws or death, a government cannot guarantee the general populations safety.

Only when the people finally come to understand this fact and decide to make good on the need to provide their own protection will you see a change in the reaction to these events.

This idea is what continues to drive the gun vs. anti-gun movement in the USA. Individuals still want to be able to provide for their own protection, while the other side wishes that we rely upon government to provide that protection.

Like it or not the unarmed police officers on bikes were just more sheep sent to the slaughter by a government that had convinced the people that it could provide for their safety. When it not only failed totally, but is still failing today as the people are no safer then they were yesterday.

<comment><USER27> It's far from proven that armed individuals can provide their own safety, whatever that means (or if that's even possible).

But, a day has passed, so it is surely time for every special interest to start using this tragedy as a shoehorn for their cause.

<comment><USER28> I read somewhere that most mass-shootings in the USA occur at schools and in shopping malls, where conceal-carry is prohibited. Is this true?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Congress is way ahead of you EFF:

[http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house- dem...](http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem-to- reintroduce-major-cyber-bill)

It's also interesting to see how American media is reacting to this attack, in a manner that's completely opposite of how the French media reacted, or other journalists in other countries.

Just like with the Sony threat, Americans seem ready to holds their hands up at any threat now:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik- wemple/wp/2015/01/0...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik- wemple/wp/2015/01/07/fox-news-has-no-plans-to-air-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/)

The best way to hurt the terrorists is not to kill them. They _want_ to die for their cause. It's to show that you are not afraid of them. Terrorist attacks are meant to create "terror" in populations, so the population or its government react a certain way.

The US gov/population is reacting exactly the wrong way to terror attacks. France or Norway (that massacre a couple of years back) reacted the _right_ way. Being "scared of offending the terrorists" is exactly what the terrorists are going for, and if it works once, why not try it again when something else offends them?

<comment><USER30> So the US is now "soft on terror"? This isn't what I recall happened after the attacks on the WTC on 9/11 or on the Murrah Building in OKC. In one of those cases, the US launched a "global war on teror" along with an invasion of a country thousands of miles from home.

The US can be blamed for making a lot of mistakes regarding terrorism, but I don't think being too gentle is one of them.

<comment><USER31> > along with an invasion of a country thousands of miles from home

The U.S. didn't invade Iraq as a response to terrorism. They invaded Iraq because of the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Many people just assumed Iraq was behind 9/11 simply because the government wanted to invade them after 9/11, and the government did little to dispel that mistaken notion. And we all found out that Iraq having "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in the first place was a mistaken notion as well.

<comment><USER32> > The U.S. didn't invade Iraq as a response to terrorism.

Fear of terrorism was one of the reasons for public support of the war and it was heavily pushed in the pro-war propaganda.

> They invaded Iraq because of the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

In the run-up to war, both supposed direct ties between the Iraqi regime an al-Qaeda (and direct ties between Iraq and one of the 9/11 attack specifically) and the threat that _if_ Iraq acquired WMDs it might transfer them to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups for use against the US were trumpeted. WMD and terrorism are not mutually exclusive motivations for war.

The supposed connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda (including a supposed link between Iraq and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta) was still be trumpeted months after the 2003 war began, even just before the 9/11 Commission issued its finding that no such connection existed. [0]

[0] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5223932/ns/us_news- security/t/pane...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5223932/ns/us_news- security/t/panel-sees-no-link-between-iraq-al-qaida/#.VK8R-VIXIeE)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _As free speech advocates, we mourn the use of violence against individuals who used creativity and free expression to engage in cultural and political criticism. Murder is the ultimate form of censorship_

It always amaze me why do world want to practice freedom of expressions against Islam only. Why not one is allowed to mock Holocaust like things by using same tool of freedom of expression?

<comment><USER34> You clearly have not seen all the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published, have you. That would have answered your very silly and uninformed question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Too soon. The main dudes are still out there, and now there's some warning about legislation? You can't warn about consequences when the wound is so fresh -- we're still in emotional-trying-to-process-land.

I saw this after 9/11... people protesting generically against war on 9/12 in SF. I normally am a big supporter of the EFF but this feels out of touch with reality.

<comment><USER36> The legislation that enabled the perpetual state of not-quite-war the US has been in since then[1] was passed after a memorial ceremony mere days after 9/11\. The text itself was drafted within less than a day after the events.

[1]: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's really just bullshit, all the way around.

The terrorists, the various governments, people killing each other, the EFF, the predictable media response, the endless commenting and discussing by everyone who has a keyboard--as if what they have to say really matters--and the fact that nothing will change. Absolutely nothing.

Bullshit. All of it.

</comment><comment><USER38> Lot of people getting mad about Charlie Hebdo and staying quiet about Brandon Duncan.

<comment><USER39> Interesting! I didn't follow the Tiny Doo story too closely but read more after you posted.

Except I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people SHOULD be mad that we're prosecuting Brandon Duncan because of his published work? I'm assuming that's what you mean, and if so, I suppose I agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Let's call a spade a spade here. Government's don't care even a little about protecting their people with the surveillance bills that come from events like this. They're just using events as an excuse to grab power from the people. We all know that. If they did care, they'd be pouring money into driver-less cars to reduce road fatalities. Let's stop even attributing decency and sense to government actions and just admit they're power grabs.

The EFF is already probably too aggressive/extreme in their messages for most of the public, so I see why they say it this way. But we don't have to be PC about it. This article should be titled "Governments, please mar the trajectory at Charlie Hebdo by claiming you care about it."

<comment><USER41> Some of what you said carries merit but it overall smacks of rash overgeneralizations. Most government actions start with good intentions at heart, but they are often gamed and manipulated to personal benefit by those capable of doing so.

Also, we can agree that much less should be spent on intelligence activities, but pouring money into driverless cars is a terrible example of what they "should" be spending money on.

<comment><USER40> It's fair that I'm not providing enough evidence here. I think we'd both agree they good intentions when they outlawed unpasteurized milk or made a patent system. It's hard to get clear evidence on intentions, but recent laws about internet surveillance of Americans that are justified by saying the prevent terrorism are pretty clearly not about terrorism. Before terrorism, there was the cold war, before that there were countries that might invade us, etc. History is littered with lies from governments about why they spy on their own citizens and most of the time governments and government officials seem to do it for their own gain and protection. In this sense, it's fair to assume the people doing it now are also doing it for that reason.

Also, I'll admit I don't want them doing driverless cars either, but it would at least be clearly intended to reduce fatalities. Perhaps medical research is a better example? You tell me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The problem is, you actually need an all-seeing surveillance state if you're going to mass-import millions of Muslims in to a non-Muslim country. The violence will keep getting worse as their numbers in Western countries grow and the spineless dhimmis continue to apologise for them. Unfortunately beyond a certain point (which we seem to have already passed) it is simply impossible to stop, no matter how efficient the state is at foiling their plots.</comment>


SHA2017 is a non profit outdoor Hacker camp - <AUTHOR> https://sha2017.org/ <comment><USER2> Youtube has live streams and recordings, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrgR2AqH5cA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrgR2AqH5cA)

</comment><comment><USER3> Something is wrong with color pallets this days. Hurts my eyes :(</comment>


How to Charge $1,000 for Absolutely Nothing - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/how-to-charge-s1000-for-absolutely-nothing/ <comment><USER2> This is still the champion in dollars per byte: [http://peetm.com/blog/?p=55](http://peetm.com/blog/?p=55)

<comment><USER3> Awesome!

Compare: [http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html](http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of the classic Million Dollar Homepage from way back when: [http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/](http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/)

<comment><USER5> What is the actual background on this site and/or its creator?

<comment><USER4> > The Million Dollar Homepage is a website conceived in 2005 by Alex Tew, a > student from Wiltshire, England, to raise money for his university > education. The home page consists of a million pixels arranged in a 1000 × > 1000 pixel grid; the image-based links on it were sold for US$1 per pixel in > 10 × 10 blocks. The purchasers of these pixel blocks provided tiny images to > be displayed on them, a URL to which the images were linked, and a slogan to > be displayed when hovering a cursor over the link. The aim of the website > was to sell all of the pixels in the image, thus generating a million > dollars for the creator.

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

The sheer "internet"-ness of the idea at the time was brilliant. It also seems like the kind of thing you can only really pull off once. And it was funny watching it slowly fill up, discovering what kind of businesses turned out to spend on something like this, what colours they attempted to choose to stand out, and how the result was a chaotic mess with everyone fighting for attention. Subtle commentary and somewhat prophetic of the current situation with ads...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Huh, interesting to be in such blunt terms. Any product really is a testament to someone's bank account. That's pretty much the point of ~most~ of branding. The Ralph Lauren jacket is charging you an extra 1k for Absolutely Nothing, as well.

<comment><USER7> I disagree with this assertion at least as pertains to RL.

Some brands (like Apple) invest considerably more in doing things "properly" as opposed to "just enough", and a fairly large and wealthy market exists that is both less price-sensitive, and more quality-sensitive than those who purchase the "just enough".

Especially with the higher quality from RL (e.g. Purple Label), I would say the buyers are more concerned about being certain that the product will be of a good enough quality, and less concerned about the price tag and RL's profit margin.

RL also sells "taste", that is, it is a "safe" choice if you are trying to dress conservatively. This is also monetized.

(I personally would rather go to a tailor at that price point, and I do. This has a fairly heavy knowledge and time cost though.)

<comment><USER8> I would argue that Apple creates products with "just enough" functionality.

It took them decades to get around to letting users resize a window properly. Their maps product was steering people into lakes. They sell a computer that looks like a trash can. I mean, there are plenty of examples to show Apple doing things improperly.

Normal people buy Apple because it's a status symbol, hackers buy Apple because it's Unix and we all know the deal with graphics designers. If it weren't Unix though, nobody here would be using an Apple computer and they'd probably be making fun of how annoying OS X is (well, they still do that but hey, it's Unix!).

<comment><USER7> Apple today makes products which are the "whole package", a well built tool for power users that isn't the absolute top shelf most amazing product available but in its niche is a solid choice well worth the investment where nothing is broken (great battery life, solid metal shell that can take a bump, SSD, quiet and stays cool, components that don't break after 2 years, BSD- based OS with a wrapper that allows you never to reboot, brilliant screen...). It costs a lot of money to go from '95% of products don't break' to '99% of products don't break AND the 1% is replaced at the shop immediately, with the defective unit fixed, next day free shipping, etc.' Apple gets that no, it's not worth squeezing an extra $10 margin off the battery by halving its effective life or $2 by buying crappy hinges that will break after a while (since the warranty is over in a year anyway).

"Just enough" isn't a MacBook Pro or even an Air, it's a 3-4 year old machine you pick up for $150 on eBay or maybe that $200 netbook you picked up on a sale at your local supermarket. Could be the machine you got for free when your neighbour updated. This machine can go on the internet, display your emails, show you the occasional movie (and if you're a particularly sharp average user, allow you to download them illegally) without crashing too often. That's the world normal people live in, in the first world. In the third world, a crappy no name 4" Android that takes 30 seconds to load any web page over the local 3G is what you deal with and a branded phablet is "luxury" (and an iPhone is like a Ferrari Italia).

In clothing, "just enough" is Primark or H&M - cheap, replaceable stuff without much thinking behind it. Uniqlo is doing very well because it's offering (much) better quality in that range at the same price point, especially regarding "taste". In cars, it's the Camry or the Accord, which can last a good 20 years with little servicing, gets you from A to B with decent fuel economy, and can be had second hand for a few thousand dollars. Car guys will think that a 3-series is "normal", but it isn't - it's the 5% as seen by those in the 0.5%.

<comment><USER8> I agree that they make hardware that most people consider to be of a good quality. I agree that they do _some_ things really well. I do not agree that they do _everything_ well though.

You're conflating brand position and hardware build quality with functionality. Yes, Apple is considered the BMW of computers. But, it's not because the give the user _all_ of the features that they actually need.

Apple is known for skimping on features and options. They'd rather give you one button instead of two and then try and convince you that that choice is actually better somehow. They'd rather leave out a feature that everybody needs than do it in a way that they cannot capitalize on. They make all of their money by selling devices that are mechanically simple as possible because less moving parts cost less to make. Same thing with their software. Less features, less options, easier to maintain...but users are often left without actual features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I always thought it disappointing that Apple took the App down. It really was classic, and I disagreed that it wasn't functional, knowing someone had that App on their iPhone was very useful to _me_ in terms of understanding how little they valued money :-)

</comment><comment><USER10> The IPhone itself is somewhat like this "I am rich app"-app.

You could get the same or higher value for less money by buying a Samsung f.x.

</comment><comment><USER11> Honestly, I think that there are many direct marketers who vastly exceed this level of frivolity.

<comment><USER12> Very interesting comment, can you give any other examples of this?</comment></comment>


The Paul Dacus collection - <AUTHOR> http://thepauldacuscollection.tumblr.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> How did this happen?

@PaulDacus99 is in the same hacking community I am. I have never met the guy IRL. I watched his hilarious tweets scroll across my screen for two solid days. You could tell he felt like he had been put through the wringer.

After I got done laughing, I realized that a lot of what was said resonated with me. There was value underneath the hilarity. And it made me wish I had a book of small sagely pieces of advice, that I could call upon when making tough choices.

So when @PaulDacus99 meme appeared, that really started to take on the look of what I was after. Internally, I started to compile his thoughts into a "How to: Not Get F*cked [Startup Edition]" type of book. And I really like that idea. Better yet, I wished I owned the book 10 years ago.

What can offer?

If you have anecdotes of value, whether a coder, business dev, or VC, feel free to share. Please obfuscate and anonymize them. Names really aren't important, just the lessons learned. Ideally these are rooted in the view point of how you personally failed or failed to know, this adds weight to the lesson.

If you have mentor's or blogs that you read or talk to that help in your education of making sound career and business decisions, feel free to also voice those. I'll try to build a list from which people can start learning from.

If they are concise enough, tweet them to @PaulDacus99, it looks like his meme is taking requests.

Hopefully this all makes sense, thanks for reading.

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't always spot things that look like memes on HN...

But when I do, I don't really understand what's going on.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've always thought the most powerful education is subversive! So here is the first edu-meme. Buzzworthy? Maybe. Smart? Arguable ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _"IF YOU HAVEN'T PUT OUT A MAJOR FEATURE (no, not MINOR) IN 6 MONTHS, YOU NEVER WILL. You are coding a mudball and MUDBALLS HAVE NO FEATURES"_

Outstanding :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Hm. This one: "CEO 101: When you say COME TO ME WITH PROBLEMS and no one shows, THERE ARE PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE."

I would rephrase it as: "CEO 101: When you say COME TO ME WITH PROBLEMS and no one shows, THE PROBLEMS ARE ALREADY WITH YOU."

</comment><comment><USER5> Here is a fact that will hold true no matter where you are working and whether it is the smallest, most promising little startup or the biggest governmental behemoth, whether you are just a low-level code grunt or the CxO:

Do not ever put yourself in a situation where you are blindly giving and bleeding into projects or the company because the chances are oh-so-incredibly promising and you blindly threw all caution and personal limits overboard. No matter how awesome the chances, you need to know where your limits are, whether they are financial or personal and you need to know what you are getting out of it right this moment. Not all "compensation" is exclusively monetary. There are a lot of other things you could be getting out of it. But think of it as investing your time, energy and resources and ask yourself what really are the things you are getting in return? This is not charity, this is work - no matter how much passion is involved. (And even people working in charity get some very real returns; they are by no means all altruistic.)

Yes, people WILL lie to you (for their own advantage) and they'll give you lots of brave talk to get you to hold on, so see it for what it is and do not let it affect or cloud your judgement. Whatever it is, you need to make the situation work FOR YOU in whatever situation you are currently in. Don't make it work for that one glorious point in the future and then keep holding and clinging on and totally forget about the path leading there and the very real possibility of failure. It has to be viable and sustainable (for YOU) now and each turn where it is not, each turn where you are giving more or too much: take that turn consciously and know exactly why you are still giving and bleeding into it, understand your motivations and accept them or otherwise do NOT do it.

These decisions won't be easy but be honest with yourself and realistic and understand all your time and energy as a very valuable resource you are giving away, so it is just fair you are getting something in return - whatever that something might be. And on the upside: there are a lot of other chances out there. There hardly are that many romantic "only one shot" situations in real life.

Do not ever put yourself blindly into those situations where later on you will end up being the one who got completely screwed over and all you have left is your rage.</comment>


Ask HN: Should Chrome support Android apps? - <AUTHOR> With all the new influx of native app IDEs and languages, shouldn't browser be able to run Android apps? or those IDEs should compile to a common Javascript rendering framework (webassembly)?<p>To clarify I mean they'll run like another website. <comment><USER2> It won't unless Google decides to write code to do so...or someone forks Chromium and writes that sort of code. I don't see a business case for the first option or anyone stepping up to do the second.

</comment><comment><USER3> Like with ARC?

[https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc](https://developer.chrome.com/apps/getstarted_arc)</comment>


Show HN: Offpeak.io – Know the best time to travel - <AUTHOR> http://offpeak.io/city/san-francisco?month=8&year=2017&length=6&class=345 <comment><USER2> Awesome UI, simple and intuitive. It would be nice to get data on other countries (Eastern Europe and the Middle East, which currently only has Dubai). The temperature gauge is really handy

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, pretty cool. Expedia has the forecasted data as well? Or is that built from past years

<comment><AUTHOR> The median rates displayed are based on what hotels are available right now (with some caching of course), i.e. what you would see if you did a search query for that date on Expedia.com.

<comment><USER3> Ah, so it is based on if you were to book right now. Is the intended use-case to avoid the event surges and get better prices for time-flexible trips?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's the idea. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hotel pricing data is from Expedia, and chart is made with AnyChart. Hope you enjoy, and we appreciate any feedback.</comment>


Even more evidence that we're eating all wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/high-fat-low-carb-heart-health <comment><USER2> I want to keep seeing more studies like this. I meet many people that say you need to eat a "balanced" diet, however, they can never backup any claim on what it means to be balanced. We have established the necessary conditions for a balanced diet: you must eat essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, minerals, and vitamins. Surprisingly carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient![1]

Our bodies can survive on vastly different allocations of the three macronutrients. What percentage of calories should come from each? Obtaining most of your calories from carbohydrates can lead to metabolic disorder/insulin resistance/diabetes in many people. Obtaining most of your calories from protein can be damaging to the kidneys.[2] The research on eating too much fat is all over the place and does not seem to have a solid conclusion. Studies like the one in this article indicate that the previously theorized risks of increased heart disease risk are overblown.

I'm sure the real answer may be much more complicated than macronutrient composition, however, it would be at least a starting place for judging if a diet is "balanced" at a high level.

[1] [http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.long](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.long) [2] [http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and- he...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy- eating/expert-answers/high-protein-diets/faq-20058207)

</comment><comment><USER3> There are so many incidental factors that it's very hard to form a practical conclusion from such studies. I find the only way to approach this is similar to a neural network with a very slow learning rate: each data point nudges my understanding at a weight determined by how credible, objective, and applicable to me (because everyone is different) the study seems.

I see no other way than to ultimately treat this as a soft science rather than a hard one, focusing on qualitative takeaways, and sometimes taking away a "consideration" rather than a conclusion, e.g. "there's a chance eggs might ultimately be bad, best not overdo it; rice contains arsenic, it's probably best to get rice produced in low-arsenic places, and follow a soaking/rinsing procedure before eating it..."

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product)

The goal of articles like these (in my opinion) is to cast doubt in your mind about eating or not eating certain foods. The article might be "sponsored" by a large food industry who wants you to think there is no right answer, so you might as well a bit of eat anything (meat, sugar, oils, fast food).

As a rule of thumb: the higher up the food chain you eat, the more likely you are eating pollutants. Fish have been found to have like levels of heavy metals and even plastics. Also avoid eating anything processed with ingredients you can't pronounce

<comment><USER5> Or stop eating processed foods stuffed with preservatives.

Also, stop dining out for the most part: such food is heavy in calories (ie unhealthy oils and cream), salt, sugar and carbs.

Fix your own food from sources you trust, eliminating many problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev- publhe...](http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev- publhealth-032013-182351)

 _Diet is established among the most important influences on health in modern societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and amelioration of gene expression.

In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit overlap substantially.

There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for many reasons such studies are unlikely.

In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme.

A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches.

Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so._

</comment><comment><USER7> Here's an ad-infestation-free version of the article: [https://outline.com/DBMeyx](https://outline.com/DBMeyx)

</comment><comment><USER8> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15124906](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15124906)</comment>


Golden rules of internet startup - <AUTHOR> http://guruonrails.com/blog/golden-rules-of-internet-startup

<comment><USER2> One missing rule: Don't put unnecessary barriers in front of your users...like forcing them to register before they can comment on your blog.

Also, watch out for glaring spelling errors on your about page: <http://guruonrails.com/about>

I'm always on the lookout for Rails developers with lots of Experiense!

<comment><USER3> Another missing rule: Ignore self-appointed "experts" who make assertions but offer no evidence.</comment></comment>


A Chinese Casino company has set out to take over the U.S. island of Saipan - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-15/a-chinese-company-has-conquered-a-piece-of-america <comment><USER2> > Torres's office said that all changes to laws or policies were undertaken > "with the intent of achieving economic growth within the boundaries of the > law."

That's a great line. Of course they are changing the law to remain within the boundaries of the law.

<comment><USER3> States and territories still have to follow federal law and their own constitution, so it's valid to talk about modifying [state] laws within the boundaries of [federal] law.

<comment><USER4> Ya, but the FBI is really dropping the ball here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Glad to see Ed Propst in legislature with a bullshit flag raised over this madness. Saipan's post-Fitial government apparently still reeks of nepotism and corruption, and it's going to take a proverbial shit-ton of Ed and community leaders alike who exemplify genuine selflessness to get that busted rock where it ethically needs to be.

True story: Once upon a time, Ed was a public high school senior English teacher who acknowledged an academically troubled yet "out of place" student by allowing independent calculus study while others were lectured...of course, _iff_ all other assignments were satisfactorily completed ahead of time. Needless to say, the gesture left a meaningful impression, and--to this day-- remains the sole high school teacher whose name wasn't forgotten.

</comment><comment><USER6> I lived in Saipan for 3 years (2006-2009). Literally nothing goes on there - an extremely boring, run down place. No way this casino is generating any kind of real earnings. Locals don't have enough money to gamble, and total visitors to all of NMI(which also includes other islands like Tinian and Rota) per year is 500k - twice that many people visit Las Vegas every week.

<comment><USER7> The money might be actually be earned elsewhere, but declared to be earned here to avoid Chinese scrutiny / reporting / tax laws.

<comment><USER4> It is obvious from the article that this is merely a money laundering operation. The feds don't care because it is Chinese money being laundered into the USA and out. The Chinese don't care because it is the people in power (or close to people in power) whose money is usually being laundered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My guess is that this is not truly about "corruption" and that the US government is mostly happy about this arrangement.

Consider these possible upsides from the US perspective:

* The US can use the whole operation as a bargaining chip with China's governing party, which probably finds the operation irritating, given their policy of currency controls.

* US intelligence gatherers may be able to glean some info about who the wealthy are in China and what they want to do with their money.

* US intelligence gatherers may be able to strike up useful relationships with certain wealthy/elite/influential people in China.

* The operation itself may well be helping to pay the US costs for occupying such a remote island.

<comment><USER9> Also the trade deficit issue. If China's ultra-rich are exporting billions of dollars of capital a year out of China, then it helps balance the trade deficit and means more capital in the rest of the world and probably mostly the USA.

<comment><USER10> It doesn't balance the trade deficit at all. It does improve the current account balance but that's not necessarily a good thing for US exports.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Junklets as a means to convert a large amount of Yuan to USD just begs the question: How do Junklets convert the large amount of Yuan they pull to the USD they give as credit to their big spenders?

<comment><USER11> The credit is likely extended in the form of chips, and then the chips are cashed in at the casino for USD.

<comment><USER12> The question is, where does the junket - or the casino, since they work together - get the USD when its only income from this activity is the debts it collects in CNY.

That's a side of the story that isn't explained here. However it's not a mystery who would want to be on the other side of that transaction. After all, an enormous part of the Chinese economy is international businesses who sell Chinese goods for dollars but need to pay their Chinese suppliers or workers in renmimbi.

<comment><USER11> Banks, there's nothing unusual about a casino withdrawing large amounts of USD.

<comment><USER13> Exactly this. It seems likely this is a giant money laundering and exfiltration scheme that both the US and China would nominally like to stop. That they don't is problematic.

<comment><USER11> It's not that easy. Every step of it has a legitimate use and it's only when combined that problems are caused. Then, I don't see what reason the US would have to want it to stop, more USD in Chinese hands isn't a bad thing. China wouldn't like it, but as it's taking place in Macau or now Saipan there are jurisdictional issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wonder if the headline was meant to stoke the fires shortly after the Maldives find themselves with the Chinese Navy in their waters and I assume India freaking out. The timing is uncanny.

</comment><comment><USER15> Title is a little-clickbaity. "Conquering" seems a bit much and the part of America, in this case, is this remote island.

</comment><comment><USER16> You should read about how the US acquired its Pacific teritories. Interesting stuff. I love all those colonialist skeletons in the closet stories. This is nothing new, sadly.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm not sure what the point of this article is? Am I supposed to be enraged that there exists a job-site that is cutting every corner, a casino is being used for money laundering by the Chinese elite and politicians are probably making money in unethical ways as a result?

>several businesses offer Asian tourists access to American eccentricities, like assault rifles. "Experience the thrill of firing a real gun," reads an advertisement for a local shooting range. "In Saipan, it's legal and is guaranteed by the United States Constitutions 3rd Amendment."

Is the typo in the sign or from the author? I hope it's the sign but stuff like this[1] doesn't come from nowhere

[1] [https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/journalists- guide...](https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/journalists-guide- firearms-identification-charles-c-w-cooke/)

<comment><USER18> > Am I supposed to be enraged that there exists a job-site that is cutting > every corner, a casino is being used for money laundering by the Chinese > elite and politicians are probably making money in unethical ways as a > result?

Um... yes? Do you think killing workers, money laundering and corruption are OK?

<comment><USER19> > Do you think ... money laundering ... [is] OK?

Your other two items are clearly not okay, but doing what you want with money you earned is perfectly fine.

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument for why "money laundering" is wrong. Laws already exist to criminalize the illegal acts committed to acquire money - what, precisely, is the rationale for criminalizing the voluntary obfuscation of money, however earned?

<comment><USER20> > I have yet to hear a legitimate argument for why "money laundering" is > wrong.

Money laundering is wrong for the same reason that accessory after the fact, obstruction of justice, spoliation of evidence, misprision of felony, and related offenses relating to after-the-fact concealment of crime are wrong.

<comment><USER21> China restricts money flowing out so laundering that cash may not have been tied to an actual crime.

<comment><USER4> It usually is gray money though, earned by skimming huge capital works projects, bribes, or whatever. For non-party-nobles who earn money via our jobs, the $50k exchange limit is probably enough for anything you would need to do.

The whole point to get the money out of china is as insurance if Xi decides to crack down on that official for corruption (they are mostly all guilty of it, so all they have to do is fall out of favor), then all they have to do is get out of the country and lead the good life.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>