Premarital sex: An economic model of its rise and de-stigmatisation - daniel-cussen http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4649 <comment><AUTHOR> sex being more freely available is negative for females hoping to trade their sexuality for financial security. when supply increases and demand stays the same price must decrease. in chaste victorian times a woman could expect to "buy" herself a decent husband with her virginity. (I realize its more complex than this)

<comment><USER2> Status and money can still be very important for a man, in terms of getting sex. It's just that these days, you're not necessarily buying marriage.

<comment><AUTHOR> which makes sense, because marriage was something of a guarantee in times when divorce was extremely stigmatized. it isn't really anything of the sort now, though I suppose there is alimony and child support.

<comment><USER3> You clearly aren't religious =p . In a very very large part of the world (a large amount of non-first-world-countries [if not all]) divorce is _not_ ever going to happen. Arranged marriages happen. If a woman is raped, she will have to marry that man because religion may dictate it.

These views aren't worldly at all. We should keep that in mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> daniel-cussen > For example, 69% of all criminal cases in New Haven between 1710 and 1750 > were for premarital sex.

Once upon a time, making love to a woman meant spinning the pregnancy wheel. In this metaphor, you get a 10% chance of a baby if you have sex with a maiden fair (it can go as high as 1 in 3 if both parties are very fertile, i.e. teenagers), times the 70% failure rate, times her chances of establishing you were the father (depends on her status, your status, and if your looks are distinctive; call it %50), times 50% because you are only giving it half of its genes. So, overall, you are getting a ~1.75% increase in presence _just by having sex._ You stood an equal chance of ruining her life, of course.

Right now we are probably going to see people like sex less and less as time goes on, because the payout in pleasure does not match the new equation, which takes abortions, contraceptives (but also DNA tests), into account. Now it looks more like this:

\- odds she can become pregnant (10%)

\- odds she can prove you're the dad (0-100%, 0 if she's married and in on the con, 100% if she has the means and determination for a DNA test. Depends on the situation, but can be determined beforehand.)

\- odds the pregnancy fails or is prevented (70-100%, again depends on whether protection is used, she is pro-life, or pro-choice, or whatever. Possible to determine beforehand.)

\- genetic contribution (50%)

We get to 0-5%, but the main difference is that now a lot of factors can be determined beforehand. An affair with a married woman gets you a %5 increase in presence a time, topping out at 50% per child who, again, you won't be responsible for. We're essentially talking free points here. On the other hand, a college student you met at an abortion rally is probably not going have that baby.

Over time, the first scenario is going to be more desirable than the second, but this will become harder with time as married men demand DNA tests of their children. Eventually, sex will become about cuddling and intimacy, rather than the sufficient condition for reproduction for men.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure I'm following the tortured logic here. Are you saying people will "like sex less and less as time goes on" because they're less likely to have an unintentional pregnancy? That makes no sense at all!

It seems to me that the article linked to in the post makes a fairly compelling economic case that sexual promiscuity will continue to _increase_ in the future. IMHO, that's a good thing. :-)

<comment> daniel-cussen _Are you saying people will "like sex less and less as time goes on" because they're less likely to have an unintentional pregnancy?_

Yes. It's the Red Queen effect here; your mind works with incentives that one must not be able to permanently conquer. If happiness is too easily attained with fake thrills, you end up with contented humans who don't reproduce as much as the ones who find it harder to be happy and therefore work harder to make more babies.

I agree the free love thing is great, and it will remain vestigially for a long time, but it isn't going to be driving reproduction like it was before the twentieth century.

I agree the logic is a little tortured, but that's evolutionary biology for you.

<comment><USER5> But evolution doesn't know its being cheated. There has to be some way for people who _like sex less_ to end up with _more children_.

<comment><USER6> _There has to be some way for people who like sex less to end up with more children._

It's somewhat plausible. Individuals and couples who like sex more than average may be more likely to forgo having children to avoid negatively impacting their sex lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reliable female birth control started in the 60s so the green graph should be normalize for that fact and you might get a better correlation.

</comment><comment><USER8> The article seems to ignore completely steady couples that have chosen not to get married for some reason, but still have babies.

<comment><USER9> Related to that (and I can't believe Marie Claire is the best citation I can quickly finding), the head of a British "relationship charity" claims: _"In a new analysis using census data, I found that 60% of families remain intact until their children are 15. Of these, 97% are married."_

Source: [http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/439351/marriage-holds- the-...](http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/439351/marriage-holds-the-key-to- keeping-families-together.html)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Anyone else find figure 2 shocking? the basic conclusion seems to be that availablity of somewhat effective contraceptives lulls people into a false sense of security.</comment>


Solar-powered UK schools face an 800% tax increase - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/09/solar-powered-uk-schools-face-an-800-percent-tax-increase/ <comment><USER2> The whole thing is bonkers. A more detailed briefing on _exactly_ what the change is: [http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/Sta...](http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/Stakeholder-briefing-business-rates-rooftop- solar-v0.8.pdf)

The UK does not have property tax per se, it has "business rates" which are collected by the local authority. State schools are considered to be "businesses" (WTF#1), while private schools which are nearly always structured as "charities" do not have to pay rates (WTF#2).

Business rates are calculated based on the value of the building + fixed equipment (plant). This change counts solar panels producing energy used predominantly on the premises as "plant" and imposes a requirement to pay tax based on their capital value. (WTF#3). This does not apply to sites generating primarily for export (WTF#4).

It's unnecessarily penalising schools who bought panels in the hope that they could use the future guaranteed subsidies as income. But that's about what you'd expect from a Conservative government.

(Definition of "plant": [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/540/pdfs/uksi_200005...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/540/pdfs/uksi_20000540_en.pdf) )

(The whole thing brings up an unforseen disadvantage of trying to do renewables through a "distorted free market" rather than just direct state action: people taking advantage of the subsidies are called "gaming the system", when the entire point of the subsidy policy was to pay them to do exactly that. Also, UK local government and schools funding is a collection of fudges to outdated systems, but nobody wants to go near that mess.)

</comment><comment><USER3> One of the further absurdities is that the tax applies to state schools but not private fee-paying schools.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't get the solar business in the UK.

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

$1000 worth of raw materials (photovoltaic cells) would be much better used in countries like Syria.

In Winter there is not much Sun / daylight hours, and the energy usage is higher due to heating and lightning so other electricity production methods need to provide 100% of the demand anyway.

      installation slowed by 85 percent

      caused by the end of subsidies for solar farms and and incentives for homeowners

It's even more outrageous after considering - homeowners are on richer than people who are renting. Giving taxpayers money to...

 _(I could never understood solar business in the the UK and rapid decline after subsidies has ended only proves the point)_

Next time similar opportunity arise - I'll raise the money and hop on the bandwagon... :)

<comment><USER5> globally the fossil fuel industry receives over four times as much in subsidies as the renewable energy industry.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil- fu...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels- with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables)

<comment><USER6> That's a bit misleading. Many emerging markets countries subsidize the cost of gasoline and diesel at the retail level so that their citizens can afford it. Effectively the governments import oil (or produce it) and then sell it domestically far below where it would trade on the open market. And most headline "subsidy" figures include things like R&D tax credits, benefits that every other industry receives as well. In reality, the actual number of bonafide subsidy is a small fraction of what you've suggested (on the order of $15B in the US, one of the largest fossil fuel markets).

So yes, in some sense the "fossil fuel industry" is being subsidized, but it's not like they're just receiving $550B in cash from world governments. Many of these countries sell oil domestically far below what the cost of production is. So if you don't subsidize it, their citizens simply wouldn't be able to drive cars or run generators. The oil companies simply can't produce as cheaply as these citizens would need to be able to afford it.

Of course, that would be a great force for incentivizing cheap renewable tech (or bicycles, etc) but the motivation behind said "subsidies" are quality of life and social unrest, and not corporate welfare.

<comment><USER7> > Many emerging markets countries subsidize the cost of gasoline and diesel at > the retail level so that their citizens can afford it.

Which is still a petroleum subsidy. They could just give the citizens the equivalent amount of cash and then it wouldn't be.

<comment><USER6> What? Either way it's the same. Those people would just go use the cash to buy gasoline. It's the exact same thing.

<comment><USER7> It isn't. They could use cash to do something else where possible, like help pay for housing which is closer to where they work, or buy a computer so they can work from home, or buy a hybrid car etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Link does not provide much information, here are more details:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/solar- po...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/solar-powered- schools-bill-business-rates-rise-england-wales)

> _The Valuation Office Agency said last year that small non-domestic solar > installations would no longer be exempt from rates and bigger solar systems > already subjected to business rates would see a hike of 600-800%._

> _Solar-equipped private schools will duck the changes because of their > charitable status._

I think it is a sign that solar electricity has matured, does not need subsidies, and can stand on its own (and be taxed the same way as other industries).

<comment><USER9> The fossil fuel industries in most countries have an extremely complex set of tax breaks and subsidies of their own. So should solar also have that?

<comment><USER8> I do not want to go into this discussion, but I doubt school would get any subsidies for a coal plant.

By other industries I meant everything (manufacturing, IT, agriculture...), not just electricity.

<comment><USER10> But when evaluating whether to buy solar panels, they'd measure against the price of electricity sold by subsidiized coal plants, so thoses subsizidies would harm solar uptake.

I'm not sure this applies in the UK though, despite swinging rightward there's a reasonable range of regulations that are basically putting coal out of business anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh, it's £1.2m COMBINED in new taxes.

I thought it was a per school rate.

Nonetheless, not great and an odd move

<comment><USER12> The Tories are basically kooks.

I'm sorry I can't offer a more intelligent analysis, but there doesn't seem to be one to offer. Economically, politically, socially, and scientifically - they're a greed-driven kookocracy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Trick of the oil lobby. First you give subsidies, then take them away in one fell swoop. It's very bad for the industry. They pulled the same crap in Nevada.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wait a minute, schools pay tax??

</comment><comment><USER15> couldn't they say they no longer use them and disconnect them when someone comes to check? (this is how people get around paying their TV licence in the uk)

What I also don't get is that they are taxing state schools, it's like taking one's wallet from the right pocket and putting it in the left pocket.

<comment><USER16> Surely nobody really gets away with that tactic? It won't fool the detector vans?

<comment><USER17> Detector vans are mostly a hoax. It's thought that they worked by detecting electromagnetic radiation given off by CRTs, if they worked at all. Those are obsolete, so the point is moot anyway. But how should they be able to tell apart a TV and a computer monitor? Furthermore, you can use a TV and not connect it to an antenna—Smart TVs and Chromecast/Roku/Fire TV/Apple TV/... make that a perfectly viable use case. Such use isn't subject to TV licencing in the UK, only watching live broadcasts (including streaming) is.

<comment><USER18> >only watching live broadcasts (including streaming) is.

Also using BBC iPlayer even for non-live content now requires a TV licence.

<comment><USER17> Apparently this changed in September 2016. Previously, watching non-live content didn't require a TV licence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How can they tax sun collection, that is sickening.

<comment><USER20> Wouldn't be the first time: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> A loss of a subsidy is a tax hike? Seems like that terminology is misleading while technically correct. If solar is so efficient why would it need a subsidy; wouldn't the market make it more desirable? If it isn't so efficient, then why subsidize it? It seems like the people that want solar should pay what it costs.</comment>


"Summa de Arithmetica, Geometria, Proportioni Et Proportionalita" to be sold - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2019/06/04/a-revolutionary-treatise-goes-on-the-block <comment><USER2> [http://archive.is/6J5dp](http://archive.is/6J5dp)

[https://outline.com/ngkMLt](https://outline.com/ngkMLt)

</comment><comment><USER3> The guy certainly made his mark, and lived in interesting times. I enjoyed this book, reviewed here, on Pacioli and that era:

[https://davids-book-reviews.blogspot.com/2012/12/double- entr...](https://davids-book-reviews.blogspot.com/2012/12/double-entry-how- merchants-of-venice.html)

<comment><USER4> "The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society" by Alfred Crosby is another great book on this subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> FWIW, I recently scanned a translation of the double-entry ledger part: [https://www.gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/1963-brown- pacioloonaccou...](https://www.gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/1963-brown- pacioloonaccounting.pdf)</comment>


Robo-journalism: How a computer describes a sports match - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34204052 <comment><USER2> The last few years, the ability of software to generate convincing natural- language prose has become more and more impressive. I first recognized the technology in my life when there was an earthquake last year and the LA Times' website instantly posted a bare bones computer-generated article, far faster than any human could type.

At the time, I was not particularly impressed. It seemed like the software had been working from a prewritten template into which it plugged in details like the location, timing, and intensity of the quake.

The program in this article is more sophisticated, because it looks for patterns in the data in order to determine which facts should be included in the article. But it sounds like most of the pattern-matching involves simple, prewritten, domain-specific rules. Some person had to make a list of as many basketball concepts as possible and then write functions for identifying them in the box-score. The result is cool, but the program doesn't demonstrate that much more intelligence than the Derrida generator.

What would be _really_ cool is if someone figured out how to automate the creation of the robo-journalist's conceptual ontology. I don't think that would be an AI-complete problem, as long as the corpus was limited enough.

For sports, articles about baseball games would probably be the easiest place to start, because there are so many games, each of which involve a predictable, linear, number-oriented narrative.

<comment><USER3> It seems like quite a broad range of "exceptions" can also occur in the baseball game. For example, one side can protest the umpire's actions, or a player can be injured (the nature and consequences of the injury should be described -- the linked article gives an example of this!), or the game can be suspended as a result of weather or a natural disaster, or something else can interfere with the continuation of the game (like fans running onto the field, or a brawl).

Also, some very unusual events within the ordinary course of the game (like going into many, many extra innings) might call for a description of how people reacted to the situation. (And some sports journalism would try to describe players' presumed intent in doing something unusual, like a sacrifice play, or the manager's motivations for making a substitution.)</comment></comment>


The War Over Genome Editing - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/09/war-genome-editing-just-got-lot-interesting/?mbid=social_twitter <comment><USER2> > So revolutionary is this new genome editing technique that rival groups, who > each claim to have been first to the tech, are bitterly fighting over the > CRISPR/Cas9 patent. This new gene-editing protein called Cpf1—and maybe even > others yet to be discovered—means that one patent may not be so powerful > after all.

Just goes to show the silliness of patents. Even the lightbulb was invented by multiple people at the same time. Yet only one got to have a 20 year monopoly over it. Why should that be the case when multiple people invent it at the same time? Just let them compete. Competition is always good.

<comment><USER3> The standard argument for patents is that patents require that the method be disclosed. Otherwise discoveries are kept as trade secrets rather than being published for anyone to use after the patent expires.

<comment><USER4> But is that even needed anymore with so many people able to come up with the same discovery simultaneously?

Patents are no longer providing for pushing forward the sciences and humanity, merely rent seeking.

<comment><USER5> This patent allows the process to be used without cost for research purposes, but requires money be paid to the patent holder when used in a product for profit.

Is this a good way for a research organization - typically a university- to have a sort of "profit sharing" arrangement with private industry, while still allowing scientific progress to march forward?

For-profit companies would not donate a fraction of their proceeds back to the researchers that came up with the enabling discovery. Isn't this just a way to levy a tax on those profiting from standing on the shoulders of giants, which can then be used to find more scientific discoveries?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Even if you believe in patents in principle, I have a hard time seeing how this should be patentable. You're basically talking about a protein / enzyme that exists in nature already, not something new that somebody created. Personally I would stringently object to issuing patents for that sort of thing, IF i weren't already opposed to the whole idea of patents in general.

Like another commenter said... patents like this are just about supporting rent-seeking behavior, not advancing scientific progress.

<comment><USER5> Note that the protein is not patentable, but using it in a process is what's under the patent discussion.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this process is also available for free for academic use, but costs money if a company makes a product that's sold for money.

Penicillin was not patentable, but a process for making and harvesting it easily was. Whether that's a good thing or not is certainly up for debate, although some interesting facts and opinions are documented in this article about penicillin: [https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Alexander- Fleming-...](https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Alexander-Fleming-and- Penicillin-The-Wonder-Drug-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> From what I understand, the Broad patents are free to license for academic community and not free for industry.

[https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office- strategic...](https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-strategic- alliances-and-partnering/information-about-licensing-crispr-cas9-syste)

"Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard University partners have made CRISPR-Cas9 technology broadly available to the research community. Broad Institute is working with AddGene, a non-profit plasmid repository, to offer Zhang lab CRISPR plasmids and reagents ... in addition we have non-exclusively licensed many industry partners for development of research tools and reagents and will continue to do so."

The reagent/CRISPR toolkit link here (can anyone just sign up and order the reagents?): [https://www.addgene.org/CRISPR/](https://www.addgene.org/CRISPR/)

I'm curious, for peeps in industry who have licensed the original CRISPR/Cas9 patent from the Broad, what is the fee structure that the Broad is charging(?)

Or alternatively do people choose to license patents from the companies established by the three major PI's who claim discovery for different parts of CRISPR (Zhang, Doudna et al?)

Lastly, I'm curious why two 501(c) academic institutions are even fighting for this patent. Both UC Berkeley molecular biology dept. and Broad Institute are funded significantly via federal research grants that are awarded to individual labs within the organizations. If it seems like the status quo is that CRISPR is free to license for the academic community, does it matter which place owns the patent?

<comment><USER8> > Lastly, I'm curious why two 501(c) academic institutions are even fighting > for this patent.

Their choice to freely license it to the academic community only increases the likelihood that, depending on licensing fees, the technology will generate huge revenue from industry.

<comment><USER5> That revenue will go back to the university for (hopefully) additional research, rather than to stockholders of a for-profit company.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a new algo preventing down voting comments more than 8 hrs old? - <AUTHOR> I noticed that the down vote arrow only seems to appear for comments that are less than 8 hrs old. Is this a new permanent or experimental feature? <comment><USER2> IIRC it changed one or two months ago, they reduced the downvote window from ¿24? hours to ¿8? hours. I guess it's permanent until they change it, or you can call it an experiment :). Don't get fooled by the constant plain look of the site, the mods change the little details constantly to try to improve the conversation and behavior.

If you want more information, you can try contacting the mods firstname.lastname@example.com . They usually answer in a few hours, but I'm not sure if they want to provide too much details because they may tweak this in the future without warning.</comment>


That Amanda Blum Article on Adria Richards is Not What It Seems - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-the-surface-that-amanda-blum-article-on-adria-richards-is-not-what-it-seems/

<comment><USER2> The author loses me right off the bat:

"I personally wouldn't really much care myself, but Adria's right. This is a direct porn reference and doesn't belong at a technical conference. Porn is deeply offensive to many groups of people on religious as well as gender grounds (and just I-think-it's-morally-wrong-and-vile grounds)"

As someone who cares deeply about getting women into traditionally male- dominated areas (starting from HS when I did robotics demos for elementary schoolers to now as the father of a daughter) I think it's unmitigated disaster for feminists to hitch their wagon to the broader "I'm easily offended by everything" movement. There is a crucial distinction between things that are offensive because they are sexist and things that are offensive because they are in bad taste--one perpetuates unfavorable gender- biased power dynamics and the other does not. Waging war on the whole panoply of things that might offend someone somewhere is dilutive and counter- productive.

Movements that are effective at building coalitions are ruthlessly focused on the things that tie members of the coalition together. By taking on battles that are outside the core focus of how women are treated in tech, you lose the support of many people, especially women, who should be part of that coalition.

PS. This rant is veering off onto "man telling women what to do" and for that I apologize. But my thoughts on the matter seem to be pretty consistent with, and are mostly informed by, the thinking of my wife and female friends, all professional women trying to make it in traditionally male-dominated fields.

<comment><USER3> In general, I think there's far too much policing of language and I wish everyone was more relaxed about it.

Having said that, "money shot" really is a clear reference to porn, and I was surprised to see it used in the way that it was. It's not inappropriate for every venue, but it seems pretty clear cut to say it's inappropriate for the title of a presentation at a tech conference.

<comment><USER4> Are you really sure about "money shot"? I know the porn reference, but I've heard it in multiple contexts over the years to refer to the photo (or in a more modern context video) that will sell it (whatever it is).

<comment><USER5> According to wikipedia [1], it was originally the scene in a film that took the most money to reproduce. And is used in journalism and many other fields.

The relation to porn is of course obvious due to the presentation's subtitle, referring to something as a 'money shot' should probably not be considered pornographic in intent, in my opinion.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_shot>

<comment><USER6> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V6vNEDMzgw>

"I'm co-opting the term money shot, because I think it's very valuable... we all know what it is, if you don't know you can google it because I'm not going to talk about it, but if you co-opt the concept what you come away with is the content people actually care about and that is what people pay for in porn..."

If you can't talk about the title it's probably not a very good one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Meh. I am not impressed by this teardown. There are many factors in this situation that one can argue about, but the one that to me is unarguably completely damning towards Adria's actions is this one:

She posted a picture of many men. One of them is smiling at the camera. It just so happens that his smile happens to have that naughty "heh heh heh, did you hear that sick joke I just made?" look. Almost everyone on the Internet, me included, thought that the guy smiling was the perp. Turns out that it wasn't actually him at all, and that the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture.

Regardless of what we may think of public shaming, or of what her role used to be at Sendgrid - Adria should've foreseen that everyone would think the smiling guy would be the suspect.

She publicly shamed the wrong guy!

She didn't deserve the rape and death threats, but to leave what she did without any consequences to her would be inappropriate, to say the least.

<comment><USER8> It wasn't him? The one, obvious, center of attention of the photograph? That makes it even worse!

<comment><USER7> See what I mean? No, it's the guy in the grey shirt staring off.

<comment><USER7> Apparently not. It's the _other_ guy wearing the PH shirt, on way far out in the picture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Two guys make fairly minor transgression at conference. In response, a woman makes fairly minor transgression as far as reporting it. Their companies appear to overreact, but who really knows since we don't know anything else about how these people did their jobs. Bloggers expend endless hours slicing and dicing the minute meanings of otherwise inconsequential things, hoping to peg blame where there simply might be none.

Have I summarized this who episode about right?

<comment><USER10> Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor, and posting said photograph to Twitter to enlist an army against someone is not minor at all. It's full scale bullying. The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd. Drowning people in death threats and DoS attacks over the internet is not minor either.

<comment><USER11> "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor"

It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent?

"posting said photograph to Twitter"

When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show)

"enlist an army against someone"

It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired.

" It's full scale bullying."

You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse.

"The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd."

It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.

<comment><USER7> The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo.

She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?

<comment><USER12> I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint?

It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed.

The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public?

However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate?

Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable.

Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.

<comment><USER7> WTF?

Do you have any context as to what is going on here?

The guy in the middle of the picture that's smiling at the camera is not the perp. Most people who just saw the picture, without reading everything that everyone else wrote, think that he is the perp.

Where did I write that I disagree with all forms of public shaming, and that they all need to be prohibited? However, posting up pictures of many men, with one of them clearly staring at the camera, and saying "he jokes about dongles" is wrong when the guy that is at the center of the photo and is staring at the camera is not the guy that joked about dongles. That's defamation. Case closed.

<comment><USER6> "However, posting up pictures of many men, with one of them clearly staring at the camera, and saying "he jokes about dongles" is wrong when the guy that is at the center of the photo and is staring at the camera is not the guy that joked about dongles."

The tweet said "right behind me", which is the right guy according to you.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5434005> <https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/313417655879102464>

Edit: I added "according to you" and link to comment since it was pointed out below that this might also be the wrong guy, which would make the comment even worse of course.

<comment><USER7> My statement came from this source:

[http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro- aggre...](http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggressor- revealed)

This source, much like the rest of the Internet, initially blamed Alex Reid, the man in the middle of the picture. Then this source decided that the guy to be blamed is the guy in the grey shirt. I made my comment following this source.

Then someone else, somewhere (no clue what the original source of that statement is anymore, but you are right, there are certainly comments to that extent floating around, and your post had that comment as well until it was deleted), stated that the reason why the guy at fault was fired from PlayHaven was because he was wearing his company's t-shirt, and thus was publicly representing the company, which in some way makes sense. The only guy in that shirt that was wearing a PlayHaven t-shirt and not the guy in the middle is sitting way far out, and not "right behind her" by any definition of that phrase.

My point is that someone who just saw that photo, without reading the extensive commentary around it, still thinks it's the man grinning at the camera - "right behind me" or not. Who is the right guy? I really thought it was the guy in the grey shirt, but even that is now under doubt.

<comment><USER12> "This source, much like the rest of the Internet, initially blamed Alex Reid, the man in the middle of the picture."

Are the statements of this source more or less defamatory than the original source? That is, in the original image+text it was (and remains) ambiguous about who made the sexual jokes. While this source specifically named one person, and then named another.

If defamation is a relevant concept to this discussion, then you should be complaining most strongly about the defamation done by this source, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _Second, whereas the original XKCD comic painted one woman to be smart and the other one to be neutral intelligence-wise, this t-shirt comic paints both women to be stupid. Again, not something I would be especially bothered by, but I can see Adria's point here. You have a technical(ish) conference where the t-shirt graphic portrays dumb women. This is probably not a good idea._

Comic link: [http://jenmylo.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen- shot-2011-...](http://jenmylo.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen- shot-2011-08-03-at-12-36-47-pm.png)

I don't find either of these presenters stupid. They're just interested in different things, and focused on different audiences. My takeaway was that this conference had something for everyone, as opposed to being of interest only to all-rounders who are already power users.

If your blogging skill is writing or photography or suchlike, you shouldn't _need_ to be expert in SEO to get something out of a Wordpress conference, should you? Likewise, if crafting plugins is your thing, it shouldn't mater that your visual aesthetic starts and ends at a shell prompt. If I were ever to attend a Wordpress conference it would definitely be for the blogger track, and I wouldn't feel stupid for my _complete lack of interest_ in the underlying framework.

</comment><comment><USER14> Porn is a thorny issue—there's really no need for a slide with softcore porn in a tech presentation unless it's a conference for developers of porn websites ;) However, the specific example Adria objected to ("Getting the Money Shot") is simply a pop culture reference. If I am a wireless network specialist and I name my presentation on wardriving "The Fog of Wardriving", it does not mean I endorse the military-industrial complex, imperialism, or the actions of the U.S. government. I'm just referencing something vaguely related, or making a dumb pun. It doesn't indicate that Danielle Morrill loves porn and wants everyone in the audience to start an orgy mid-conference, with live streaming. It's just a cultural reference. Also, while Adria has the right to not attend an event which does not follow her personal values, other people don't have any obligation to share her values. Danielle, or any other presenter, male or female, is free to not feel so strongly about porn.

What I don't understand at all is Adria's questioning of the WordPress t-shirt.

T-shirt: "Hey, as a developer, you don't have to care about content to love WordPress! And if you're a content creator, you don't have to care about software development to love WordPress."

How is this misogynist, and how would this stop being misogynist if the comic had men instead of women?

<comment><USER15> It's more than just a pop culture reference. The fairly short abstract stated "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the 'money shot."

And, yes, obviously, Adria has the right to not attend. She ALSO has the right to say that you shouldn't have a talk that celebrates something that many people find utterly vile is not appropriate. I don't think Adria was ever alleging that what they were doing was illegal.

We would all hopefully object to someone having a talk called "Taking Naked Kiddie Pics" with a line about "how thinking like a pedophile can capture people's imagination". I would _hope_ that people wouldn't think it was inappropriate to speak up -- even petition -- against such a talk, right?

That's my point.

[NOTE: I am NOT saying that porn is as bad as kiddie porn. Of course it's not. The analogy I'm drawing is simply that we DO think it's okay to speak up about things that we think are vile or morally wrong. Many people (religious conservatives, etc) see porn that way.]

<comment><USER14> I didn't know about the abstract, but I can see what they meant for "thinking like a porn director": titillation. It's a strange metaphor, but I think it was about not dragging on for too long and cleaning showing what's amazing about your product. Still, I'm not sure. I don't see how this is celebration: stretching my military example, I've mentioned military discipline in a blog post once. I don't celebrate and personally repudiate most of their actions, but military discipline is a cultural reference that helped explain my point (the blog is long gone so I can't quote it).

I understand why feminists would hate the porn industry—exploitation of women at a young age, pressure on people to conform to unrealistic expectations, etc. But the feminist argument against porn as a thing, the porn industry notwithstanding, is based on some assumptions—that sexuality is always a tool of exploitation, that male sexuality is abusive, and that sexual attraction without affective relationships is inherently exploitive.

Feminists are right to call out the use of sexuality as a tool for oppression, but to see all sexuality as oppression is absurd.

<comment><USER5> Well, ironically they are using 'all sexuality is oppression' as a tool of oppression. From another article on HN right now [1]

"Judging a book by its cover is the new tolerance. We throw people into the stocks based on feelings while ignoring intent and assuming victimhood. This is why I fundamentally disagree with equating offense with harassment: it provides unlimited ammo and shuts down discussion rather than giving people the benefit of doubt. It elevates the exception to the norm, by presuming the worst."

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433390>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Jesus Christ already!

The price of living in a free society is that you develop a hardened exterior. You don't get to hold a monopoly on being offended. Taking these little offenses and making them 'taboo' or even worse illegal belongs in the realm of dictatorships and theocracies.

If putting 2 words together to form "Money Shot" is so powerful that it hurts your soul and torments your mind then you really may have a problem. Learn some self discipline and control and stop trying to bend the world to your will.

<comment><USER15> Did it hurt her soul and torment her mind? No.

The talk was not only called "Getting the Money Shot" but suggested in the abstract "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the "'money shot.'"

Many people (I am not one of them, to be clear) find porn very morally wrong. This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people).

It's not appropriate for a talk, and it is okay to speak up about it.

No one is talking about making it illegal.

<comment><USER16> > This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people).

Religious people are also deeply offended by homosexuality, abortion and evolution theory. Should we cater to those "offenses" as well?

<comment><USER17> Exactly, completely nailed it. Once you start catering to everyone who might be offended, where does it end... that is the real slippery slope.

"It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so fucking what?" -- Stephen Fry

<comment><USER15> You're using the "where does it end" logic to - what? - suggest that she shouldn't speak up about something? I don't get it.

Here, I'll play your "where does it end" game. What if someone was giving a talk about how to distribute kiddie porn. No speaking up if you find this offensive! Because, I mean, where does it end?

<comment><USER17> When you go to "kiddie porn" to try to win an argument about community censorship, I think you should automatically lose, a new version of Godwin's law. Seriously, it is like listening to the US Congress talked about CISPA (to protect from child porn and terrorists), it is a pathetic ploy... but I will play along.

You always have a right to be offended, but I have a right to not give a crap. Vote with your wallet (don't go to conference), vote with your feet (don't go to that talk), but don't try to get material banned from everyone because it offends YOU, let me decide for myself... I have the same options you do, to not go to the conference, to not go to the talk.

I will even lean into your example. Obviously, having or distributing child porn is a felony, so it is assumed the talk author wouldn't really bring any (if (s)he did, just call police, they go to jail)... so maybe his talk would be about how to hide your identity online... maybe how to hide it from oppressive governments? Maybe how to use the TOR network? Maybe how to safely help women get online and protest in countries where they aren't allowed to go outside alone? Maybe the title was intended to drum up some media attention and get a packed hall for a talk about people being stalked online, and how to be invisible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The clearest lesson I take from this article (and from this week's reaction on HN) is that it's _very_ easy to feel defensive when someone accuses you of sexist behavior (or even someone you merely identify with). When that happens, a lot of folks lash out at the person who raised the issue, often more intensely than they deserve.

I rather expect this is one of the factors that leads women _not_ to speak up when they feel uncomfortable. That's bad, right?

<comment><USER5> a lot of my female friends are terrified of speaking up at conferences because they don't want to run afoul of people like adria richards. There are several recent, documented, cases where groups like the ada initiative are rather viciously attacking other women because they don't agree with them.

People weren't lashing out at her because she raised an issue about perceived sexist behaviour, they lashed out at her because she was seen as being a bully.

As a gay man, if I had a militant online following that I sic'ed on some random person because I heard them make a joke about Lisp at a conference.. I would hope that people would stand up to me about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The XKCD comic is about herpetology and ornithology. The revised one is about the difference between wordpress users and developers. Where on earth does either mention the intelligence or status of women?

</comment><comment><USER2> Mirror: [http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria- Ric...](http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is- Not-What-It-Seems)

</comment><comment><USER15> MIRROR: [http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria- Ric...](http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is- Not-What-It-Seems)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is a blog post about a blog post about a blog post about original events. The original events have been eclipsed a long time ago

</comment><comment><USER7> ::sigh:: this article got shadowed off the front-page. And we were just getting started.

<comment><USER21> Shadow? New to HN, and had noticed that it had dissipeared since I saw it. Some terminology I don't understand?

<comment><USER7> It means it doesn't have a [dead] thingie on top, and the link out to the original article still works so that all of us can still argue with each other, but as far as the rest of HN is concerned, this thing is unfindable.

<comment><USER11> It's sad to see this shadowed, since even after a week we as a community haven't fully come to terms with what happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I personally agree with the point about porn not belonging in a professional conference, but I would have cast my vote by skipping that presentation.

</comment><comment><USER11> "error establishing a database connection"

<comment><USER18> This is plausibly a duplicate: [http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum- Article-on-Adria-Ric...](http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on- Adria-Richards-is-Not-What-It-Seems)

<comment><USER15> It is (or close enough)</comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: Will answer your javascript questions for the next few hours - <AUTHOR>

Need help with a javascript problem? I'm open for the next few hours to answer questions or help with your code.<p>Leave a comment here, hit me on twitter @geuis, or email email@example.com <comment><USER2> What are good ways to organize files to avoid having a big "chorizo" all the way down.

<comment><AUTHOR> I like the way the jQuery build system works. Basically you order your js files from the base up. So functionality that is used more commonly by other files is lower in the stack (i.e. loaded first). If you organize your code so that dependencies are contained, this also has the benefit that if your app doesn't need particular sections of code, you can remove the ones highest in the chain without adverse side effects.

<comment><USER2> Having the files contained from bottom up sounds smart do you have any links you can share that show this technique

<comment><AUTHOR> Take a look at this. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_qE1iAmjFg>

This is Paul Irish giving a breakdown of interesting bits about jQuery. He talks about this technique roughly 50 minutes in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What's the best way to handle variable scoping when using closures?

How about when calling object methods from DOM events?

<comment><AUTHOR> var x = (function(){

var inner_foo = 1; //internal to closure

return function(){

    		var foo = 'foo';
    		var bar = foo + inner_foo;

    		//this function has access to variables from the outer scope.
    		//inner_foo is still accessible

    		console.log( inner_foo, foo, bar ); //1, 'foo', 'foo1'

    	}

})();

//Edit a couple minutes later: I'm realizing I may not be understanding exactly what you're asking for in the 2nd question. If you elaborate a bit...

Since an event will execute either an assigned or anonymous function, the same rules towards variable scope in your closures still applies when the events execute. Having a function executed by a click event isn't fundamentally different than executing a function directly.

<comment><USER4> It is when it's a function of an object.</comment></comment></comment>


'More scary than coronavirus': South Korea's health alerts expose private lives - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/06/more-scary-than-coronavirus-south-koreas-health-alerts-expose-private-lives <comment><USER2> > the man, known only by his case number,

In other words, this is inaccurate and a clickbait. I would not have expected that from the Guardian.

<comment><USER3> The data released includes your age range, gender, and places you've been to. Which was already enough for the press to fully de-anonymize some individuals and confront them on camera. Seems like a reasonable title to me.</comment></comment>


On Testing the Simulation Theory (2017) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://philpapers.org/archive/CAMOTT-5.pdf <comment><USER2> _The many worlds theory is incredibly inefficient from a computational complexity perspective._

The theory that human brains perform arithmetic at less than one FLOPS while dissipating 20 watts is incredibly inefficient from a computational complexity perspective. The theory that sugar dissolves into tea by interactions of more than 10^23 sub-nanometer structures is incredibly inefficient from a computational complexity perspective...

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the craziest thing I've ever read. Well worth the relatively short read.</comment>


Oculus Stops Selling Headsets in Germany - <AUTHOR> https://uploadvr.com/oculus-germany-sales-pause-regulators/ <comment><USER2> I hope the other European countries' regulators act on Facebook as well.

Their unlawful bundling of VR hardware with Facebook accounts must be stopped.</comment>


Brain Activity Can Predict Increased Fat Intake Following Sleep Deprivation - <AUTHOR> http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2015/02/rao/

<comment><USER2> I've noticed I care less about what I eat when I'm sleep deprived.</comment>


The Code Coverage Paradox - <AUTHOR> https://blog.decaresystems.ie/2016/09/22/the-code-coverage-paradox/ <comment><USER2> Good article and it's saying something that I've also been saying for years. tl;dr: A code coverage measurement only says where you did -not- check for bugs (since code that was not exercised can't possibly have been checked for bugs); moreover it also does -not- say whether the code that was covered (i.e. exercised) was tested to any meaningful degree (it's perfectly possible to get a code coverage number without checking any results at all).

I do disagree with one statement in the article: " _In fact I would argue, it's hard to imagine a code coverage value of over 70% to be of any value whatsoever._ ". Having seen it done for a mission-critical system, if one uses extremely strict TDD (i.e. no line of code is written without a corresponding unit test that verifies its effects) then the high code coverage number does provide useful direct guidance as to what areas of the code haven't been fully scrutinized. In our case, the efforts paid off: there were no significant bugs found after release.</comment>


Sugar, acid and teeth (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/05/sugar-acid-and-teeth/ <comment><USER2> I wish he would have provided more explanation behind the dentist's algorithm. Here's an actual study measuring enamel loss, which seems much more definitive:

[http://faculty.philau.edu/ashleyj/General%20Dentistry%20Arti...](http://faculty.philau.edu/ashleyj/General%20Dentistry%20Article.pdf)

Perhaps the most important snippet:

 _Regression analysis indicated no correlation between enamel dissolution and beverage pH (r = 0.477, p > 0.05); in addition, the enamel dissolution showed no difference (p > 0.05) between the regular and diet versions of cola and non-cola beverages from the same manufacturer (Fig. 2 and 3). It was noted that the enamel dissolution was similar for all cola drinks over the 14-day test period (approximately 3.0 mg/cm2)._

And again:

 _The data suggest that enamel aggressivity is determined by beverage composition rather than by beverage pH._

<comment><USER3> Or how about experimental science? Get some human teeth (probably not difficult or expensive for a dentist), weigh them, plunk them in each liquid, let them sit for a week, see which ones lost the most mass.

Obviously scientific rigor would require several experiments to smooth out the variances in individual tooth quality and original composition, but it seems like that would come to a more definitive conclusion.

<comment><USER4> I think the presence of saliva has a major effect on inhibiting tooth decay. I'm not sure how applicable in vitro experiments would be.

<comment><USER5> Exactly, hence the problem with allowing babies to sleep with a bottle. It's not the milk in the bottle that does the harm, it's the uneven saliva exposure in the mouth.

In general, people with good salivary coverage get less tooth decay. People with dry mouths, for whatever reason, get more. This isn't exactly an avant garde research topic.

While the dentist has impeccable credentials, she seems too reliant on anecdotes and personal observations, and insufficiently rigorous (to put it mildly) in justifying the mathematical model she proposes. The reasoning in this article is a _little_ better than the old science-fair standby of dropping a tooth in a glass of Coke and gasping with horror when it's gone a week later, but not much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where "worst" is defined by a function of pH and sugar content pulled out of the air by a dentist.

<comment><USER7> Their function 10^(5.5-pH) * (mg/cl sugar + 1) does seem to imply that sugar and acidity have a synergistic effect, where the +1 in the sugar term is a hack to keep the result from being 0 if the sugar is 0. This doesn't make sense, as a modest increase in sugar, say from 0 to 1 would double the result regardless of the pH.

<comment><USER8> Their function also improves the results if the drink is more basic. A drink with a pH of 13 would have an amazing score on here.

If you normalize the pH above 5.5 since it has "little to no effect" things on the lower end of the results are better, with milk being worse than water, and chocolate milk being worse than milk.

<comment><USER9> This shows how bogus it is - you can put lots of sugar in a basic drink and it would score well.

The key point for me is why is concentration of sugar in mg/cl? Why not mg/l, or g/l, or oz/gallon? Each one would give a different answer, and all are equally justifiable. (There is also the weird idea that a decrease in pH of 1, which is 10 times the concentration of H+, would therefore be 10 times as bad.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting, but their choice of weighting of sugar and pH is not based on any evidence.

Also, would the amount of time that the drink is in contact with your teeth not have an impact? Perhaps wine would have more of an impact because you might keep it in your mouth longer, offset by the small likelihood you you drinking as much of it?

<comment><USER11> Similarly, I read something recently (no link, sorry) that stated something like the following (poorly paraphrased):

      Juice is fine to drink as it's generally healthy,
      but if you're going to drink it, do so quickly
      instead of sipping on it for long periods.

The premise being exactly what you surmised, that chugging a small glass of OJ is much better for your teeth than sipping it and putting your teeth into contact with it for so much longer.

<comment><USER12> Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda. It's mostly sugar and acid. The fact that said sugar and acid used to reside in a piece of fruit makes no difference at all.

If you want the health benefits of fruit, eat a piece of fruit.

<comment><USER13> I love the conviction with which you say that.

So, there is no difference between compounds that we've evolved to consume over millions of years, and ones which were designed in the last 30 to be as addictive and as cheap to make as possible?

While I do not claim that there is evidence of difference (I cannot provide any), it is unfounded to claim that there is none, whether based on some (inherently) limited study of effects, or just based on lack of knowledge otherwise.

To be clear, I'm NOT talking about "Honest to god freshly squeezed tropicana juice", which is stretching the definition of what "squeezed orange juice" means (In case you are not aware - they boil it in vacuum, which gives it a much longer storage and shelf life, but kills taste and probably also any nutritional value; flavor is later added with a market-specific artificial "flavor kit" before packaging to consumers).

I'm talking about actually taking an orange, squeezing that, and drinking it. Which should be the only acceptable definition for "orange juice", I think.

<comment><USER14> It may be what you consider the "acceptable definition" of fruit juice, but it is not the definition in common use.

Also, you are not evolutionarily adapted to eat compounds. You are evolutionarily adapted to eat foods. And fruit juice is not a food you are evolutionarily adapted to eat. It is very different, biologically, from eating an actual fruit.

<comment><USER15> For those who might be wondering, one such difference is the presence of fiber in fruit, but the lack of fiber in fruit juices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "To mitigate the effects of pop consumption, only consume it with meals. Brush soon after eating or drinking anything besides water (including milk or juices)."

Brushing soon after drinking or eating something sugary is not a good idea. Best to wait around 30 minutes and let your body clean your teeth during that time, after the 30 minutes manually clean!

[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/really-never- brush-...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/really-never-brush-your- teeth-immediately-after-a-meal/)

[http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Wellness/Brushin...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Wellness/Brushing- within-30-minutes-after-meal-can-damage-teeth/Article1-866236.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER17> I have deep grooves in my teeth right above my gums on both sides of my mouth from drinking 3-6 cokes a day for 10+ years. For some reason, I have a habit of swishing the drinks on the bottom of my mouth and I think this is the reason why my teeth are so jacked up. In the past year, I've largely stopped drinking Coke, partly because of this, and because of the other health problems associated with drinking so much soft drinks. I've switched to water and have a sugary drink maybe once or twice a week.

<comment><USER18> Besides being bad for your teeth it's a nightmare on your body. That insulin dump from the onslaught of sugar will make you much more likely to develop diabetes, and some studies have shown a long-term metabolic effect where your body prefers sugars for energy instead of fats. That and the empty calories will lop-side your diet and make it harder to lose weight or gain muscle.

There are lots of ways you can drink something tasty and not have such a huge impact on your body. Sometimes i'll buy a two-liter of green tea ginger ale or cranberry juice, and make a 50/50 or 25/75 mix of the drink and tap water.

You can also just cold-brew tea or coffee and mix in a little sweetener or other flavor to change it up. It's cheaper than soda and (after you stop drinking soda every day) tastes much better because you're not getting hit over the head with truckloads of sugars. Ask a European about how sweet all our foods and drinks are.

<comment><USER17> I 100% agree. Actually I have done almost exactly that, switched to tea, or ice tea. I'm not completely off the sugary drinks, but I'll drink things like Honest Tea with a lot less sugar than Coke, or just plain Tea.

The thing I'm actually most worried about is pancreatic cancer. I'm not even sure if there's a link between that and soft drinks, but I read one study where having 2-3 soft drinks a week doubled your risk of getting it. Well I was having 20 a week, which scared the crap out of me. And more and more people appear to be contracting and dying of it, so it's my secret fear.

<comment><USER19> For sweetness, try rotating between non-fructuse sweeteners. like saccharin, aspartame, stevia, etc. I also find that Coke Zero is a nice way to cut down on sugar but still keep the Coke taste, and it's a lot less acidic than Diet Coke. However I don't find vending machines stocking it as often as I'd like. That's assuming you are not buying into the aspartame myths. I've got diabetes in my family, so to me the risks of sugar far outweighs the less than slight risk of aspartame.

<comment><USER18> Or, you know, stop drinking sweet things =) I know that's heretical in our society, but once you cut out sweet things your palate will change and you'll find things like unsweetened teas (cold Oolong is fucking amazing) and juice/water mixes are cheap, simple, tasty and healthy.

<comment><USER20> I love unsweetened iced tea and drink it as often as I can get it when I'm visiting home in the States, but it's so hard to get good iced tea in Europe, and since it's hard to keep enough ice on hand, it's a pain to try and make it here as well. So I end up drinking stuff like Pepsi Max (Can't get Diet Pepsi in Norway) or other diet sodas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This should not be so much surprise to anyone really. It's pretty widely known that sugar and acids are bad for your teeth. The degree to which any drink with these contributes to dental damage is probably more complicated but everyone knows that its best to drink water. Not only will it not ruin your teeth but it will also not make you fat, like sodas and juice boxes.

</comment><comment><USER22> With "skeptic" in the name, I was expecting much, much better. It's a pretty bland application of some rule-of-thumb (perhaps, dogmatic) beliefs about tooth decay, which doesn't hold up to reality.

One of the problems which comes to mind is that mouth wash has NEVER proven effective in preventing tooth decay (and companies that make Scope, Listerene and others would really LOVE to be able to say that it does). Meanwhile, this article blindly asserts that they will work quite well.

This issue throws every other claim into doubt, too, since the bacteria is claimed be be the sole cause of decay, and a mouth wash certainly _could_ kill-off bacteria in the mouth. It seems tooth decay is a far more complex activity than the model used in this discussion.

</comment><comment><USER23> I never drink any sugary juices or candy. Eat lots of fruits and veggies, also bread, milk and nuts.

And I have terrible tooth decay.

Seems a bit silly to compare pHs of various junk foods. Drinking a better pH won't make much difference. The problem is a tad more complicated.

<comment><USER13> I had terrible tooth decay when I was younger (I have 16 fillings from ages 10-20). And then, all of a sudden - nothing. I haven't had a hole or a problem since (except for a filling that broke and had to be replaced). There was nothing that I'm aware of that I changed around that time -- I stopped drinking sodas and eating junk food around age 30.

But I have recently read claims (and testimonials) that what you need for healthy teeth is Vitamin D (make sure you take it in the morning if you do!) and Vitamin K2, see e.g. [http://www.thedentalessentials.com/The_role_of_vitamin_k2_on...](http://www.thedentalessentials.com/The_role_of_vitamin_k2_on_tooth_decay_s/29.htm) ; If you find this interesting, you'll find a lot more similar stuff on the bulletproof executive forums.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There's some effort underway to develop a vaccine against dental caries: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine>

<comment><USER25> Indeed, there are some very exciting prospects here. The replacement therapy seems most promising. I developed a number of cavities out of the blue after I began aggressively using mouthwash - my theory is that I had a mostly benevolent strain of bacteria and accidentally killed them off, and they were eventually replaced with a nastier strain. If a harmless strain could be administered through vaccine or chewing gum, the societal effects would be enormous. Seems like the largest problem left (as usual, sadly) is getting it out of the lab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> My uncle who is a dentist told me i got loads of cavities from gatorade. His rationale aside from the high sugar content was that because I was exercising, my mouth was drying out w/the gatorade residue in it. So the sugars eat away at your teeth faster. So there is that factor to weigh in as well (how your mouth is reacting at the time of the liquid consumption, or post consumption residue).

</comment><comment><USER27> One hears that Bulimia and certain drug addictions (Crack, Meth) are very bad for your teeth. Bulimia because of the strong acid, and drugs because they interfere with the mouth's self-cleaning instinct.

I'd guess the best teeth live in a mouth with: 1\. Active high-volume saliva glands 2\. A population of healthy bacteria

How do you encourage that?

<comment><USER28> The reason why amphetamines are bad for your teeth is that they prevent your mouth from making saliva, which allows bacteria to multiply and causes other bad things to happen as well. Obviously it's probably not a good idea to be using meth in the first place, but if you're going to use any sort of drug that causes dry mouth then at the very least you should brush, floss, and use mouthwash and flouride rinse beforehand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hm, but what about the effect of the bacteria consuming said drinks; surely this will change the results ?

</comment><comment><USER30> Bacteria vs. Human body^1.

1\. Specifically, teeth and saliva, but you must always consider the whole organism.

Drink soda pop --> Advantage, Bacteria.

Don't drink soda pop. --> What do you think?

Bacteria need acidic conditions and they are happy to have plenty of sugar. Preserving your teeth means giving your body the best possible chance against bacteria, slowing the process of decay as much as you can. But in the end, on every front, bacteria will always win. It's just a matter of time. If they don't consume you while you're alive, they will after you're dead.

With respect to tooth decay, drinking soft drinks surely helps bacteria, not the human body. But then, maybe people derive other benefits from drinking these concoctions. (Jolt?) Maybe preserving their teeth is not their number one priority?

Factoid: George Washington had wooden teeth?

</comment><comment><USER31> Interested in hearing what people think of Xylitol and its positive effects on saliva pH.

<comment><USER13> Xylitol's major positive effects on teeth health come from a different path: The bacteria responsible for cavities will try to eat it (cause it's close enough to sugar) but fail to digest it (cause it isn't), which will interfere with their ability to prosper and even kill them.

(Unfortunately, that's also true for dogs: DO NOT feed your dog xylitol. It is toxic for them: two xylitol-swettened gums are potentially enough to kill a small dog, and cause irreversible damage to larger dogs!)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol> is a treasure trove

<comment><USER32> That sounds like something I don't want to be eating either, if it's so toxic to both bacteria and fairly similar mammals. Have there been any long term xylitol studies? It seems likely that it would screw with the bacteria in one's gut.

<comment><USER13> I don't know specifically about bacteria in one's gut, and hadn't thought of that. However, studies of xylitol in both humans and rats all show overwhelming positive (and mostly unexpected) results related to immunity to diseases like respiratory infections and ear infections.

> something I don't want to be eating either, if it's so toxic to both > bacteria and fairly similar mammals.

FYI: Chocolate is toxic to dogs as well; a 70% chocolate bar can kill a small dog. Are you going to abstain from chocolate and recommend everyone else does too?

Also: some humans are deathly allergic to nuts, and others to strawberries, and yet others to wheat gluten. These people are a lot closer to you genetically than a dog.

Enough research has been done on xylitol to deem it safe for human use -- much more so than e.g. sucralose (Splenda), acesulfame-K (SweetOne), Aspartame (NutraSweet) and High Fructose Corn Syrup. And while Xylitol does not form naturally, it is a sugar alochol like e.g. Sorbitol (also found in plums and apples), and shares the vast majority of its properties.

Really, do read the wikipedia entry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've never understood if sugar affects gum disease. Does anyone know? Does the gum disease bacteria eat sugar or directly eat your teeth and gums?

I tried looking it up once but I only found information about sugar and cavities.

<comment><USER34> Bacteria consume sugar, which produces acid as a waste-product, which erodes enamel. Gum disease is primarily an inflammatory response to the presence of external irritants like dental plaque (which contains bacteria as well).

<comment><USER33> So there's no specific gum disease bacteria? It's just the same bacteria that causes cavities?

<comment><USER34> According to Feng & Weinberg:

Approximately 500 bacterial species reside in the oral cavity. Of these, 415 species are estimated to be present in subgingival plaque. Specifically:

"A. actinomycetemcomitans has been strongly implicated in localized aggressive (juvenile) periodontitis Likewise, bacteria such as P. gingivalis, A. actinomycetemcomitans, Tannerella forsythia (formerly, Bacteroides forsythus), Treponema denticola, and Eikenella corrodens have been associated with chronic (adult) periodontitis."

Ref: [http://www.perioimplantelsalvador.com/Informacion/bibliograf...](http://www.perioimplantelsalvador.com/Informacion/bibliografia/periodontal_tissues_role_bact.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> To couple pH with 'badness', you need to couple it with volume. It takes less effort to neutralize 1L of pH3 stuff than 10L of pH4 stuff.

</comment><comment><USER19> From a very basic investigation by myself, I have found whiskey and water to be the alcoholic drink that's the least acidic.

</comment><comment><USER36> As a child, my dentist also warned me about Mountain Dew and gave a specific reason - the presence of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), used as a stabilizer.

His theory was that it would chelate the calcium out of your tooth enamel.

Sounds like a bit of dentist lore that gets passed around. Maybe because they use EDTA during root canals to prep the area.

</comment><comment><USER37> Have there been any studies on whether drinking with a straw is better than drinking from a cup/bottle?

</comment><comment><USER38> I can't see how second best sorbitol and the best being Xylitol are any better than sugar they're sugar alcohols which have the effects of a laxitive.

How about just not eating so much sugar, and if you're diabetic try stevia that's what my mother, a diabetic, chooses.

</comment><comment><USER39> So a cookie should be much worse than any sugary drink.

Basically, if you eat more than 0 sweets per day, it seems ridiculous to worry about sugary drinks.

If you get a raspberry seed stuck between your teeth, it should be much worse than a sugary drink.

Is there some coating effect I'm missing?

</comment><comment><USER33> Hmm, this makes me wonder; should a low carb diet help cure gum disease and prevent cavities since you're providing so little sugar to the bacteria?

In fact do you need to brush and floss when on a low carb diet?

Has this been studied?

</comment><comment><USER40> I didn't get the impression they looked at serving size. In other words, the Merlot's average serving size is smaller than that of the Guiness, even though the latter is "better".

<comment><USER41> I wonder how much serving size would even matter? I'm told the damage comes _after_ the drink really, when your teeth sit around covered in it.

I'm sure it'd make some difference, it takes longer to drink a pint than a shot there'll be a bigger concentration there during those initial minutes, but I doubt it'd be linearly proportional.

I'd guessed a red-wine. My dentist certainly goes on about my drinking booze more than me downing Ribena by the pint. I wonder if alcohol can have some unmeasured effect apart from sugar content and PH.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> If you must drinks harmful to teeth, It would make sense to me to use a straw, and put the straw deep in you mouth so that the liquid does not come in contact with the teeth.

</comment><comment><USER43> So where do coffee, espresso, & teas (black, green) fit into his Harm Matrix?

<comment><USER44> Depends how much sugar you put into them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Root beer is the best soda (pop) for your teeth because it isn't acidic.

</comment><comment><USER46> My dentist explained it this way: Bacteria eats sugar and pees acid.

</comment><comment><USER47> Wow, I never realized Diet Coke was less acidic than Diet Dr Pepper.

</comment><comment><USER48> Thats it. I am switching to Spartan Lower 1/2% milk

</comment><comment><USER49> Genetics.</comment>


US Wants to Use Facial Recognition on All Travelers Leaving the Country - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1598148/us-wants-to-use-facial-recognition-on-air-travelers-leaving-the-country/ <comment><USER2> The longer I live I'm more inclined to view countries very similar to prisons. I wonder if some day people will be free of the being born into one social/psychological experiment compared to another and that's just the result of a different coordinate on what we named earth. I was lucky enough to have dual citizenship and leave the horror show of the US. I'm doubtful I would have been able to do the same if it wasn't for being born elsewhere. Facial recognition of citizens show a decline in the values that made the country great.

<comment><USER3> "ANDRÉ: . . . And when I was at Findhorn I met this extraordinary English tree expert who had devoted himself to saving trees, and he'd just got back from Washington lobbying to save the Redwoods. And he was eighty-four years old, and he always travels with a backpack because he never knows where he's going to be tomorrow. And when I met him at Findhorn he said to me, "Where are you from?" And I said, "New York." And he said, "Ah, New York, yes, that's a very interesting place. Do you know a lot of New Yorkers who keep talking about the fact that they want to leave, but never do?" And I said, "Oh, yes." And he said, "Why do you think they don't leave?" And I gave him different banal theories. And he said, "Oh, I don't think it's that way at all." He said, "I think that New York is the new model for the new concentration camp, where the camp has been built by the inmates themselves, and the inmates are the guards, and they have this pride in this thing that they've built—they've built their own prison—and so they exist in a state of schizophrenia where they are both guards and prisoners. And as a result they no longer have—having been lobotomized—the capacity to leave the prison they've made or even to see it as a prison." And then he went into his pocket, and he took out a seed for a tree, and he said, "This is a pine tree." And he put it in my hand. And he said, "Escape before it's too late."

― Wallace Shawn, My Dinner With André

<comment><USER4> I suppose to some that NYC would seem like a prison but to others they find it invigorating. The important thing is not to project your own preferences onto others. People see the world in different ways and one man's prison is another man's paradise.

<comment><USER3> I can't imagine a more ignorant and ill-considered response to such a work of art.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://twitter.com/mackenzief/status/1118509708673998848](https://twitter.com/mackenzief/status/1118509708673998848)

Already happening. In the replies JetBlue says it's a DHS program. More information [http://mediaroom.jetblue.com/investor-relations/press- releas...](http://mediaroom.jetblue.com/investor-relations/press- releases/2018/11-15-2018-184045420)

</comment><comment><USER6> What's the difficulty in having outbound passport control as exists in Schengen area in the EU and in Australia, and much of Asia? What am I missing here?

<comment><USER7> EU has facial recognition at passport control in every airport, that's the whole point of only having biometric passports and legislating "smart border" laws.

[https://www.gemalto.com/govt/coesys/eborder/entry-exit- syste...](https://www.gemalto.com/govt/coesys/eborder/entry-exit-system)

<comment><USER6> Interesting link, but I think you misunderstand my question. There are both automated and manual queues at most EU airports (the airport where I live doesn't have automated queues which I must say is quite annoying) but when departing Shengen, you have to show your passport to verify your identity - either to a facial recognition machine or to a human.

That's not what happens at US airports presently, and from the article it doesn't read like they're going to start doing that. It reads like they're going to put cameras up and search a database of photos collected from passports on entry, which I must say makes zero sense. Why not check the person presented against the document they are carrying?

<comment><USER7> In many EU airports it's a mix of both, you have to give a passport to a human then you have a silly spot on the ground where you stand and have your picture taken. The human is there to verify non biometric passports but the picture is taken anyhow and is likely compared against a DB as well.

This is because the full effect of the legislation hasn't been implemented yet, IIRC all Schengen entry visas will require a biometric passport after 2020 or 2022. Once that happens there is little reason to keep humans in place other than for assistance.

<comment><USER8> That would in no way replace most humans. That's not how visas work in virtually every country. Humans are there not just to verify identity but to verify that a person should enter. For example, if they sound like they may work on a visitor visa, or may overstay their visa, they may not be granted entry.

Furthermore, for verifying entry, I fail to see how face detection biometric devices could ensure that the person walking through is the one being photographed, unless there are other humans in place or far more intelligent systems. Someone could hold up a sufficiently well-crafted picture, bring someone else to be photographed instead of them, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> UK already does it.. at least at Gatwick.

<comment><USER10> UK is an authoritarian state, though. The US, for the moment, is at least in theory supposed to have a different set of value judgements in regards to liberty.</comment></comment>


What is the best time for stand-up scrum meetings? - <AUTHOR> https://piechowski.io/post/what-is-the-best-time-for-standup-meetings/ <comment><USER2> Depends on the team. Try different times and evaluate in an agile fashion :-)

Personally I find start of businesses day Monday to be ideal since it provides an ideal time for both "we did this last week" retrospective review and "we will do this stuff this week" forward planning.

</comment><comment><USER3> When managing software engineers, 2-5pm local time is often a time of high productivity. I try never to book meetings or interrupt them during that time.

</comment><comment><USER4> One hour before I get to work.</comment>


What Not to Download - DB of targeted torrents - <AUTHOR> http://whatnottodownload.com

<comment><USER2> I don't think this is helpful at all, and it may give a false sense of security. By the time a movie shows up on the list, you've already been sued.

Given the rate at which these cases are being thrown out, if you receive a settlement letter you're probably better off ignoring it and waiting to be "severed" from the other defendants. Not legal advice, obviously.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've learned a lot already in creating this list. Definitely going to avoid NBC and HBO shows from now on. Also, knowing how many are targeted, I didn't realize how unsafe torrenting is. Going to look for alternatives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Either the movie industry is poisoning the well, or this is a well waiting to be exploited. A site that explains step by step how not to get caught might be more useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure I understand your comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Suspicious me thinks this seems like a great way for DMCA lawyers to harvest potentially lucrative ip addresses.

<comment><USER2> How?

<comment><USER4> I may be wrong, but I'd guess an ip address that regularly shows up in the webserver logs of this site which also shows up on one of your honeypot bittorrent files would have a much stronger case (either for normal "you should settle for $X,000 or we'll take you to court" standover letters, or an actual court case) than any randomly chosen bittorrenting ip address...</comment></comment></comment>


Odd Comments and Strange Doings in Unix - <AUTHOR> http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/odd.html

<comment><USER2> Page is down right now. cached page is here: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fcm.bell- labs.com%2Fwho%2Fdmr%2Fodd.html&hl=en&strip=1)</comment>


Kato.im Launches Kato Teams, a Free Chat Platform for Businesses - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/27/kato-im-launches-kato-teams-a-free-chat-platform-for-businesses/

<comment><USER2> I know Andrei and have been following him and the team since they started. Great service. Incidentally they're an Erlang shop that uses release upgrades to do seamless code deploys without losing a chat session. Impressive.

</comment><comment><USER3> Generally speaking it never ceases to amaze me how many of these chat platforms are but often they tend not to be compatible to XMPP protocol.

<comment><USER4> We built Kato from product down, trying to avoid protocol-driven pitfalls. We'll add an integration sooner than later.

<comment><USER3> Cool it would be nice to be able to connect your own XMPP server.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So the only differentiator is that you can tile multiple chat windows? Of course I haven't tried it yet, but that feels like it would be overwhelming.

<comment><USER4> That, and vim-like keyboard shortcuts ([https://kato.im/articles/keyboard- control/](https://kato.im/articles/keyboard-control/))

And ability to use the same account to __work with multiple teams at the same time __.

Also markdown support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Question: Why are there so many new chat platforms coming out? Isn't this problem pretty well figured out by now?

<comment><USER4> Nah. People still live in email.

<comment><USER7> IM and email are different things. People still use email because IM is not meant to replace it.

<comment><USER4> I think IM is a bit of a misnomer when applied to products like Kato. Persistence, sync across devices, and instant search make it a lot more like "multi-person, temporally-organized Evernote, with real-time feedback", which is closer to replacing email than IM.

For what it's worth, the Kato team so far hasn't sent a single internal email over the history of the company. (We're distributed across ~15 cities.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great job, Andrei and Peter!</comment>