If you get a PhD, get an economics PhD - <AUTHOR> http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-get-economics-phd.html <comment><AUTHOR> I submitted this link because I fervently disagree with the blog post. I started a Econ PhD but left soon after as I realized that much of the economic theory which is taught is not realistic and not even a good proxy for how economic systems work. Computer Science has allowed researchers to build much more realistic models using agent-based modeling. When looking for econ PhD programs, make sure this is something they will allow you to research.

The best skills you can get out of most traditional Econ PhD programs are econometrics and programming skills. Outside of that it is pretty much a waste of time. Yes, you can probably get a job quickly, but you will spend a lot of the time learning none-applicable skills.

I want people to read it and hopefully we can start a discussion about it on HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> An extra note: An undergrad degree in econ can be very useful in getting familiar with the terminology and the sorts of facets that finance and economics professions are interested in. Beyond the BA/BS in Econ, there isn't much more to learn in post-graduate economics. My suggestion for anyone wanting to learn economics is to learn it in undergrad and mix it with another discipline.

I am surprised Abnormal Returns picked up this link.

<comment><USER2> I'd recommend instead learning this stuff through Coursera or CFA or actuarial exams instead. Way cheaper and there's no benefit to the classroom for this material.

<comment><USER3> Anyone even thinking about taking an actuarial exam brace for a world of hurt.

<comment><USER4> I looked at an actuarial textbook once, and almost all the material seemed so specialized that I don't see why anyone would recommend learning it unless they were actually going to be doing actuarial stuff.

<comment><USER3> A popular actuarial textbook like "Actuarial Mathematics" is extremely specialized (especially to life insurance) and would only relate to the 3rd exam (MLC) and beyond. However, the first two exams are much more generic to statistics and finance respectively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There are some truths in this article -- for example, it is generally true that economics PhDs don't have a hard time finding jobs. Don't want or can't get an academic job? No problem, there are plenty of consulting/industry/government jobs to go around for economics PhDs.

I'm an economics PhD dropout (after 2nd year) from a top ~40 program. Unlike the authors school, my former PhD program did not have the prestige of his top 10-20 school. I left my program because I didn't have a research match with my professors. Now I'm a computer programmer at a top ~1-5 ranked school and I'm infinitely happier than I was in graduate school. I may eventually go back for a PhD, but it will most likely be in a business school rather than an economics department because I enjoy applied work more than theory.

The main ridiculousness in the current coursework taught in most economics PhD programs is the macro course (e.g. freshwater/Minnesota macro). DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) is just stupid. For the uninitiated, here is why DSGE exists and what it means: A while back there was this thing called the Lucas critique, which was the observation that the models used in microeconomics and macroeconomics are very dissimilar -- that is, micro models say 1 agent will make a certain decision, so why isn't it that all agents will make that decision? Macro theorists took this criticism way too seriously and decided that their models needed to have micro foundations, hence giving rise to the macro modeling technique known as DSGE. How does the typical/introductory DSGE model work? It goes something like this: at the beginning of time, everyone in the world meets in a parking lot. At the meeting, they decide on the price of all K goods in the economy at all T periods of time by assigning a present value to each good at each period of time. Once all the prices have been decided, the world starts. That is the gist of this model, but if you want to read more about how silly it is, look up the idea of a representative agent DSGE model.

Anyways, my point here is that depending on what you want to do with an economics PhD, it may or may not be a waste of time. For example, if you study micro and econometrics and emphasize in industrial organization + game theory + experimental, you will make a great candidate for a cushy research scientist job at one of the big tech companies. If you study macro, well, you'll make a good candidate for a job.... doing macroeconomics?

TL;DR If you're going to do economics, don't do macro.

<comment><USER6> Isn't your criticism of DSGE a little too easy? I don't see the silliness.

Here's my understanding (I am not an expert): DSGE is designed to give an approximate response to exogenous shocks for NL models. For that, it needs to start from an equilibrium.

You seem to say that shocking from an equilibrium is silly. Can you explain me why? I wonder what alternative solution you have in mind that could improve DSGE.

<comment><USER5> The underlying reason I think most DSGE models are absolute hogwash is that they do economics backwards. Economics is supposed to test theories against data. Instead, in the world of calibration in macroeconomic models, the creator of the model is now testing data against theory by tuning parameters to values they think are good. It is completely backwards.

While I appreciate the attempt to make macroeconomics more computational, I believe DSGE goes about it in the wrong direction. In an ideal world, I'd like to see models like the Leontief Input/Output model come back to fruition. In Leontief's model (which is often given as an example in many undergrad linear algebra classes), the economy is divided into many sectors. Data is organized on each sector to estimate its influence on other sectors. In an age where data is so vast, I just don't understand how one can decide that building deeper macro theories is a good idea. We need better empirical models, not better theoretical models (we have enough of those).

<comment><USER7> >in the world of calibration in macroeconomic models, the creator of the model is now testing data against theory by tuning parameters to values they think are good. It is completely backwards.

This is a little inaccurate, the purpose of these macroeconomic models is either to make future predictions or run simulations to see what happens when exogenous shocks occur. They're not "testing data against theory", the data is used for parameter estimation and then verifying the accuracy of the models. It's actually very similar to the way certain AI models are developed and trained.

I do agree that these models are usually pretty inaccurate and somewhat useless though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1) I'm not sure what he means by PhDs that work?

2) I don't necessarily disagree with this. I know there used to tons of cushy analyst jobs and world bank/IMF/UN positions that hired Econ PhDs. Not sure if the world has changed in this regard.

3) One of the things that make life easy for Econ PhDs is the lack of a publishing treadmill. In CS, if you don't get 3 [magic number alert!] papers at a decent conference, few respectable advisors let you graduate. In Econ, my understanding is that exceedingly few people publish a journal paper by the time they graduate (please don't argue about Econ grads that write conference papers ... Econ Journal papers are equivalent to CS Conference paper when it comes to metrics like credit). Many people can write a hundred pages that their advisor+committee is happy with. It takes an order of magnitude more effort to get 100 pages that make your advisor+committee happy and also three random reviewers in your field.

An important, ending thought: the reason I didn't pursue a career in Economics was that I didn't get to build stuff. This is how I get my kicks in life. A CS PhD isn't designed to make you a better builder but it often does! Frankly, my biggest problem is that I need to stop building and get into the higher-level business of managing others to build, and higher value algorithmic stuff. The love of building is what holds me back I fear :(

<comment><USER9> I think you underestimate how long it takes to write a single Econ paper. I don't know enough about CS to make a comparison, though.

<comment><USER8> The key point I wanted to make is that writing a paper is easier than working on it until it is accepted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Former economic consultant here. Speaking as a lowly analyst with a BA, I got to work with many PhDs in Economics/Finance.

Companies are always looking for ways to back up their economic damages/projections with data provided by a third party aka an economic consulting firm. I got to work on some very cool projects like defending a pricing fixing case in the consumer electronics industry and calculating the number of jobs created if the company injected $35B in the US economy.

These reports were not cheap and PhDs could bill ranging from $600 to $1,200 per hour. A 15 min phone call costed $150 to $250 and we billed EVERYTHING. As long as you had a good reputation and played both sides of the fence (Plaintiff/Defense) you always had a job.

I could have gone on to get my PhD, but I wanted to dream bigger. It's still a salary job and the hours you put in is what you get out.

<comment><USER11> Do you have to stick with neoclassical macroeconomics, or can you go into heterodox approaches and still do well? (Like, say, dynamic modeling, or agent-based models.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think an econ PhD is inherently the right thing nor the wrong thing for people. But this post is just a mix of weak arguments and factual incorrect assertions.

Regarding point 1, one reason most econ PhD's get jobs is that many advisors won't sign off on someone until they have a job (because it looks bad for the advisor). This results in students sticking around for years when they would be better served by having graduated.

Reason 3: "Do it for intellectual fulfillment." If you want intellectual fulfillment, study something you personally enjoy. Maybe that's econ, maybe it isn't. A blogger you've never met is in no position to advise you about this.

Reason 4: Low risk of failure It's true that you get the consolation masters if you fail out of an econ PhD. That's worth something.

On the other hand, it's a field with an extremely high failure rate. Where I did my PhD, many people invested 4+ years before determining they'd never get their PhD. The completion rate was about 30%. If anything, the risk of failure is exceptionally high.

Not to agree or disagree with the conclusion. Just surprised to see the use of such flimsy arguments.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is inherently wrong in the sense that the models can either misdirect policymakers into doing things that are not helpful for economic growth or that are easy to manipulate, creating false proofs. If one desires to do so, they should study economics. It could be good, because they may discover what things are wrong with the discipline and how they might be changed.

<comment><USER12> There's a well known saying by statistician George Box that "All models are wrong, but some of them are useful."

Economic models are like maps, physical models, and every other type of models in that they are gross simplifications of reality.

Like every other type of model, those simplifications can be cause a decision maker to reach false conclusions. When that occurs, we should try to figure out how to improve the models so they are more useful.

The fact that economic models aren't perfect isn't news to the economics profession, but it isn't a realistic expectation either.

<comment><AUTHOR> But they aren't useful because they are very bad at predicting. There are other tools that are more suited to model the complex and emergent properties of individual actions leading a market place and what its conditions may be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _"Econ is one of the few places in our society where overtly racist and sexist ideas are not totally taboo"_

Maybe because economics doesn't care about taboo, but rather understanding and seing the payoff. Yes some ideas and concepts are overly simplified - but one has to make shortcuts to reason. Mainstream economics provides reasoning, and the means to test if it works against real life data (econometrics) - that's much more than most social sciences.

I am saying that as someone who is deeply interested in the "logical" underpinnings for racism and sexism. I love complex things - mainly to understand how they works.

Here, if these behaviours were illogical and had a negative payoff in all cases, they may not have existed in the first place- or persisted. But they do. Why?

To the best of my current understanding, they are related to tribalism (as in parochialism). If you prefer, there is a nash equilibrium with cooperative and non cooperative behaviour.

The external characteristics of the agent are used by the other agents to guess whichever is more likely - being cooperative or not - and to play accordingly.

Basically, in both cases the external characteristic of an agent are used in a "best guess" function, which becomes self reinforcing, yet there seems to be more than self reinforcement, or these ideas would not be so prevalent. (So the interesting theories about say how agriculture helped the development of modern sexism are then developed, and tested in regressions)

I find that very cool - at a "theory of knowledge" coolness level. Different paradigm coexist (because there are more than one explanation) so you can pick up your "school" (Chicago, Austrian) and see how well it works, ie test it against new concepts in an experimental way - like bitcoin and check its predictive power. That's challenging, especially when it is counterintuitive in your personal biais (ex: I'm so surprised Keynesian theory works well)

Anyway, should you care about avoiding taboo (omg the n word! run!) or should you understand why and how it works?

EDIT: They are not mutually exclusive, but when you study a concept, the taboo associated with it quickly goes away. Yet it remains in other persons, which makes it funny and interesting

<comment><USER14> > Here, if these behaviours were illogical and had a negative payoff in all > cases, they may not have existed in the first place- or persisted. But they > do. Why?

In my opinion, that is not a meaningful question because the answer is simple: people are not always totally rational, they do not make all of their decisions based on logical analysis. In fact, many of the opinions they hold are not even based on conscious choices.

I agree that racism, sexism, and bigotry in general are probably rooted in the distant past and that, in some cases, they provided evolutionary advantages. But it is partially for this reason that their persistence needn't be logical or advantageous.

A child socialized by its parents to be racist doesn't usually face a conscious decision later on whether to become (or continue to be) a racist. This is, in my very humble opinion (MA in econ, take from that what you will) one of the weaknesses of the field: economists seem to think people and social dynamics are icky.

Why accept the obvious explanation that parents teach their kids racism and some of the kids, for various psychological or social reasons, continue to be racists? It is much more interesting to make a bunch of crazy assumptions about people so that you can plug the whole thing into a nice clean mathematical model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> PhD in economics here from a top 15 uni, completed a couple of years ago. No regrets, even though I realized, after a few years, that I would probably not enjoy a career as an economist (in academia or policy). I successfully 'converted' into data science. Most of my cohort found jobs they love. Some, though, had to settle for post-docs (sometimes for terrible pay) and are still in academic limbo.

There is always the question of the opportunity cost, of the road not taken. What would I have done of those 5/6 years? Perhaps I would have learned more, perhaps not. Many PhD students who end up outside of academia may have made better use of those years. I think the bottomline is, for every PhD, that you should only start it if you are passionate about the field and would like to work as a researcher (in academia or, say, IMF / World Bank). That may no longer be the case at the end of the PhD, but it probably should be at the start.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm finishing a PhD in Materials Science at a top 5 US institution with mostly experimental work. I don't do someone else project, I do my own project and I direct it, this is true for most of my peers.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's funny, because my advice is basically the opposite for getting an Econ PhD. You get paid very little during grad school; it seems to exacerbate depression, etc. and is bad for relationships (no formal data to back those up, just my experience and observations); you work an ungodly amount if you want a prestigious job, and peer pressure will probably convince you that you do no matter what you believe entering the program; most likely you're not as smart or as good as you believe; etc...; an MA/MS in econ is nearly worthless, since it's widely known to be a consolation prize for failing out of a PhD program (and most top programs don't even offer a terminal masters); etc.

And the only benefit is that you get to spend all of your time learning about economics (or, in my case, econometrics), and, if you're lucky, get a job where you're expected to do that _for the rest of your life_.

So, that had better be one big fucking cherry to compensate for what you're giving up. And my thought process is, if my discouragement is enough to stop someone from going to grad school, they probably shouldn't go. Which is why I tell everyone not to go to grad school, even though I'm very grateful that I had 6 years to learn about and think about econ and wouldn't trade it for any other job experience.

</comment><comment><USER17> I thought a long time about whether to do economics or a computer science PhD, eventually deciding on CS / machine learning. The usefulness of both is very appealing, and economics is full of interesting problems, a wonderful analytic method to approach thinking about society, and fascinating ideas and techniques you don't see much of in CS or statistics. The smartest economists are _really_ smart and great at just thinking about the world.

But economics is also saddled with crazy non-empirical theories they force everyone to learn in the first two years, and an anemic journal-centric research culture that requires years to get an article published. I mean, from the OP:

 _And after you pass the prelims, there is little risk of not finishing a dissertation; unlike in most fields, you do not have to publish to graduate._

That is insane. Talk about tyranny of low expectations.

I wonder if their centrally-planned job market hurts academic productivity. It lessens the risk to spending years with mediocre research -- everyone gets a job eventually.

</comment><comment><USER18> Those of you with an interest in economics and a programming background might find this amusing:

<https://github.com/juanre/econopy>

It's a python implementation of a bunch of classical economics models I wrote as a way to avoid actually doing the exercises in Caltech's Economics for Scientists at Coursera. I think having the models as functional code does indeed provide an interesting perspective and understanding, and it simplifies exploration. Haven't had time to publish the docs, though.

</comment><comment><USER19> Argued like a true economist...

</comment><comment><USER20> "Econ is not as intellectually deep as some fields, like physics, math, or literature."

I took 2 years of Econ in my undergraduate, along with courses in each of those other fields. My memories of economics was that do the work, you get an A, but its so incredibly boring (especially in contrast to the 3 fields mentioned) that the biggest challenge was staying awake in class.

<comment><USER9> Undergraduate econ is nothing like the PhD work. This is a little bit of a problem sometimes in graduate admissions...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There is some truth in this article. But, I know many physics PhDs, myself included, that had no real trouble getting jobs outside of academia or industry research. Of course, most of us are also programmers and now do R&D related to simulations, machine learning, etc, because our research prepared us for that.

</comment><comment><USER22> Don't get an economics PhD. As some have pointed out, a lot of the "status quo economics" is just hand-wavy nonsense, and there might not be much demand for that stuff five years from now.

<comment><USER23> I wish I could share your optimism when it comes to _hand-wavy nonsense_.

I am convinced that this is hard wired in human kind, and no matter if it was back then when were were sitting around the fireplace talking about out last animal hunt or today listening to talk radio/tv, humankind will always enjoy subjective perspectives and interpretations of reality.

<comment><USER22> > humankind will always enjoy subjective perspectives and interpretations of > reality

Sure, but that's a bit different from Keynesian economics being taught as gospel for decades.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So, if you are a M.S. CS graduate. Which PhD program would it be best? I guess somebody with good software skills should be useful in many places.

</comment><comment><USER25> Long-time readers of Noah's blog will remember that most of what he learned in grad school is bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER26> He didn't take into account the law of supply and demand...

</comment><comment><USER27> How do you greet a PhD in economics?

"Hey cabbie!"

(True story...)</comment>


WhatsApp - <AUTHOR> http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/02/whatsapp/

<comment><USER2> Something that resonates in the article for me is that I don't understand the utility of Facebook's big acquisitions. You see Google and Apple make acquisitions for talent and technology to build out products they want to launch and/or improve that ultimately drive their core business.

What does WhatsApp provide Facebook? People are talking about the value of the user base. How is the user base more valuable to Facebook than it would be to Wal-Mart? Is Facebook going to merge WhatsApp accounts into FB accounts and the WhatsApp platform into Facebook Messenger? Ditto for Instagram. I'm not sure what advantage that provided to Facebook. As far as I can tell it's an entirely separate products and platform and user base.

If anyone has insight on this, please enlighten me!

<comment><USER3> Here's pretty realistic article: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/02/20/5-key- rea...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/02/20/5-key-reasons- whatsapp-is-worth-19bn-to-facebook/)

I don't have an opinion on that topic, but probably just data mining on the set of WhatsApp users can be pretty useful.

What is more interesting for me is why WhatsApp is so popular? It's not unique, is it? Why is it so special?

<comment><USER4> I haven't used WhatsApp, but from what I can tell it runs on a lot of platforms, including feature phones. An iPhone app is of no use to someone who can't afford one.

Perhaps there are more affordable cheap Chinese Android phones these days, but WhatsApp started in 2009

It's also a network effect where people use it because their friends use it. I have the same questions about Craigslist. There were certainly a lot of free competitors at the time, but somehow they managed to attract users.

<comment><USER3> Oh, feature phones… Yeah, that must be it. I was thinking about smartphone apps. Skype has been around for years even before smartphones became popular. Last smartphone I had was way before Android was born, so I can't exactly name rivals of WhatsApp, but I'm sure I heard about many of them even before I heard about WhatsApp. There're many messengers (even completely free ones), there're bridges between them, there's Viber. But, yes, availability on feature phones explains a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I enjoy articles like these because I have a certain inborn hatred of social media and social networks, and I get schadenfreude from seeing them fail.

That said, I'd like to believe it - that Facebook and Twitter are happenstance lucky breaks, and not worth all that - but things are worth what we say they're worth, and you could have made the same arguments about Gates and Jobs twenty years ago.

I'll wait to proclaim Facebook's imminent demise until there's actually some "next big thing" out there.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't know the actual reasons, but people are looking at the question from the perspective of "what does Facebook get out of this" when the opposite might actually be true. They may have seen that someone else could buy up WhatsApp and pose a real threat to Facebook's market share. So it might be entirely possible that this was a defensive buy. If spending $16 billion now meant that you didn't have to spend $50 billion later on it would make sense.

One does not simply spend $16 billion without giving it a good deal of forethought why.

</comment><comment><USER7> This article is terrible.

> Amazon has stayed ahead by creating the Kindle, in-house.

Is he suggesting that the only way to be innovative is through hardware? Facebook has gone through many changes over the years, adding the wall, adding photo sharing, and a host of other things. To say

> Facebook innovation is centered on changing privacy and advertising policies

is just plain wrong. Also

> One can even argue he stole his original idea from the Winklevosses.

sounds like he watched The social network to many times.

</comment><comment><USER8> "Not Innovative" is a rather weak criticism to lay on someone. I'd be impressed if he actually produced some examples of "creativity" of his own as to what should be done by FB. But the moment a tech writer opines on the specifics, rather than generalities (as many often stick to), they're going to run into a wall of hurt with comments calling them out for being idiots themselves :P.

</comment><comment><USER9> This article is nothing but a sensationalist headline that makes little sense and has even less substance. The following quote sums this up:

>Recent studies show that few post and no one clicks through on likes, what's a poor boy to do?

</comment><comment><USER10> This was written by Bob Lefsetz, who is a music business blogger.

<comment><USER11> Yep. His main blog is here:

[http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/](http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> He seems more into politics than anything else these days.

</comment><comment><USER13> That's the best kind of bankrupt.

</comment><comment><USER14> He is a business man.

</comment><comment><USER15> Flagged. This is almost a hit piece.

 _One can even argue he stole his original idea from the Winklevosses._

I can believe that someone would say something that stupid, but not under his real name.

We're done here.</comment>


Ask HN: Any startups here that moved off of BaaS (ex. Parse, Kinvey, Kii)? Why? - <AUTHOR>

If you were part of a startup that was initially built on a Backend-as-a-Service, but later moved off-- why did you move off? What exactly prompted the decision? Was it cost, inflexibility, something else?
I would love to talk to you about this (no more than 15 min) to find out why-- in exchange, you will get a box of your favorite snacks or chocolate and a young startup's undying gratitude. (If you know someone from a startup that moved off BaaS, please connect me; same snacks/choco/gratitude apply.)
Please comment below or email email@example.com
Context: I'm cofounder of a startup that is adding a new spin on BaaS, and we want to make sure our new spin adds enough value. <comment><USER2> I used Parse in South Korea to build mobile apps quickly, and the entire experience has been great.

However...

The latency from Parse data centers to South Korean consumers became an issue, and our users were complaining slow response time.

The executive decision came when Parse was having scheduled maintenance, which took place somewhere between 11pm~5am in PST, which turned out to be our busiest time during a business day, in KST (Korea Standard Time).

I had to re-build the entire infrastructure from scratch, import data from Parse, but overall it wasn't a pleasant experience.

The biggest problems for me when using BaaS, was that I had no control over their business decisions, and sometimes you get screwed over and at best they can say is, "Sorry."

BaaS is like the backbone to your application, if it goes down, it could mean the end for a fragile startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for your response!

This is _really_ helpful-- the way we're building our system gives ours customers their own instance (so update at your convenience). So this feedback makes us feel good!

And sorry to hear about your experience with Parse. Building a startup is hard enough.

If you consider using a BaaS in the future but want a different / more flexible experience, please get in touch: firstname.lastname@example.com (or drop me your contact info and I'll get in touch).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> We gave Parse a spin, a few times actually. Mostly just for hobby projects. It was proposed for a production build but the general consensus on our team was "externalize anything you want _except_ the core product...because we can't afford the implications of vendor lock-in there".

</comment><comment><USER4> I can tell you why we're going with a Baas (Firebase).

<comment><AUTHOR> Please do! Why Firebase specifically? And (more importantly to me) do you anticipate moving off later?

(If you'd prefer to move this off HN, can I email or call you? That way I'll also get to send you a thank-you package!)

<comment><USER4> "jtfairbank+hn" /at/ gmail /dot/ com</comment></comment></comment>


Lawmakers Prod FCC to Act on SIM Swapping - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/01/senators-prod-fcc-to-act-on-sim-swapping/ <comment><USER2> This seems like it's already a serious and growing problem. It might be best to take a two-pronged approach of quickly implementing process requirements that make such swaps harder for crooks while working to come up with a longer- term technological solution.

It's crazy that a minimum-wage retail mobile store employee is the weak link in a system that protects almost everyone's financial assets from banking and investment accounts to credit cards and crypto-currencies.

<comment><USER3> I purchased an unlocked iPhone recently from Apple and decided to swap my AT&T SIM to the built in eSIM so that I could free the physical slot while traveling. I walked into an official AT&T store, told the guy what I wanted and within 10min or so I was on my way out. At no point did he ask me to verify any info on the account, he didn't ask for an ID, my name, send a verification text, or even ask for the old SIM. All I gave him was the phone number I wanted ported to the eSIM, and the corresponding IMEI from my phone.

<comment><USER4> You might want to rethink being an AT&T customer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's a lot of opportunity to tighten up controls around sim swapping. But I'd be cautious about this idea being used to introduce phone number registration legislation (outlawing burner phones). Legislators have tried and failed to do this at least two times that I know about. Legislatively, this could even be achieved indirectly, by creating the correct liability regulations for service providers.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't _creating liability_ typically cause a lot of undesired side effects? Like poor and marginalized people being unable to swap since they everyone knows people like that are up to no good.

Seems better to mandate a reasonable process. Like if you have connected your sim to your identity you prove your identity to swap. And if you have not, then you can swap by physically presenting the old sim.

<comment><USER5> Regulating in general causes a lot of unintended side effects, but creating new liability is certainly one of the more effective ways of generating them.

In this specific case (depending on how cynical you are), you might see such a side effect as simply a potential unintended consequence, or you might see it as a potential opportunity for law makers to stealthily pass legislation/regulation they have previously failed to pass.

There's no way to say that any changes will even come from this letter at the moment. But if you think compulsory phone number registration is a bad thing (and there's plenty of reasons to be against it), then I'd suggest you pay attention to how this issue develops, as it would be the perfect opportunity to sneak it in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Instead of trying to shoehorn security into systems that were never meant for authentication (PSTN, social security), how about building one that's actually fit for purpose?

<comment><USER8> It will likely go too far, if something like that ever comes to fruition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As others have pointed out, regulating SIM swapping might have unintended side effects. A better approach may be to pressure internet companies, and especially email providers, to drop SMS as a method of authentication.

<comment><USER3> SMS is less a means of authentication and more a means of fingerprinting/data harvesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This isn't actually a tech problem. It is a business process problem. Likely don't even need to replace much SIM related tech (encryption, authentication) to do so. Most of it is better procedures and protection from social engineering and fraud.

Faulty procedures and just plain bad basic security practices. The bar is so low that if you wrote up and suggested the current system as a plan for some homework assignment you'd likely fail. Probably get told to rework it and you might scrape by with a pass.

So there are two aspects: 1) Basic confirmation steps are seen as weakly performed. 2) Obvious steps are left out. The fact that its a revelation for them for the need to notify banks that a sim swap occurred is just one example. Really? No one thought that banks would be interested _at all_? Just how inexperienced are the people designing these processes? And the swap itself. Please tell me that mother's maiden[0] name is not used or that they don't put a lot of faith in using a birthdate as a secret. Details you might find on Facebook/Google etc should only be used to confirm which Fred Smith's account is being modified. Not whether it is Fred authorising the change.

This is a great way to see into the underlying technical debt that likely exists elsewhere in their systems. If they are this sloppy here then other aspects are likely just as bad.

[0] "Maiden", really, it is the 21st century!

<comment><USER7> >The fact that its a revelation for them for the need to notify banks that a sim swap occurred is just one example. Really? No one thought that banks would be interested at all?

If I lose my phone, I call Verizon to move service over to last year's model sitting in a drawer somewhere. It'd be _very_ surprising and creepy if Chase somehow knew about or acted on this change.

> Please tell me that mother's maiden[0] name is not used or that they don't > put a lot of faith in using a birthdate as a secret.

On that customer service call, I have to give an account PIN. According to them, if I don't know it I have to come into a retail store with photo ID. That seems pretty sensible.

But it's not bulletproof. Probably at least one retail store employee would take a sufficiently large bribe to skip the ID verification step.

<comment><USER10> Each their own. In general, I'd also like a away of knowing when a SIM swap attempt occurred. An SMS would be fine.

And I'd like my bank to know when a swap occurred for basic fraud detection. Don't need them to know necessarily which mobile provider, but I'd appreciate a way to prevent all my accounts being cleared out the same or next day as a SIM swap. Even the simple act of the bank being able to know so they can temporarily raise security requirements for a few days. A way of registering who to notify on SIM swap would actually be useful.

SIM swaps are only part of the picture. Still have PINs, authenticators, photo ID etc.

<comment><USER7> For the cost of that integration, the bank could also just implement 2FA correctly. U2F, TOTP, even proprietary crap like Symantec VIP are all inherently resistant to SIM swaps because they keep a secret key on the actual device; PSTN routing doesn't matter.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Shuttleworth steps down as Ubuntu CEO - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworld.com/15275/shuttleworth_steps_down_as_ubuntu_ceo

<comment><USER2> This could be a good thing for both Ubuntu and Canonical. From what I've seen/read/heard Shuttleworth never showed much interest in Canonical the company and spent all his time evangelizing Ubuntu the distribution. By getting someone with more interest in the business side of things running the business side things hopefully Canonical can grow into whatever it was hoping to grow into.

This will also leave Mark with more free time to focus on what he seems to be passionate about. All in all this could turn out to be exactly what Canonical and Ubuntu needs.

<comment><USER3> Or Canonical will do to Ubuntu what Novel did to SuSE. Ever hear of SuSE anymore? Neither has anyone else...

<comment><USER2> I actually use OpenSuSE as my main distro of choice, but I get your point. The problem was that once Novell swallowed SuSE there was no one around to really push or advocate SuSE. Novell took the bits they needed and spat out the rest for the "community" do to what they want with. No one at Novell really had any interest in SuSE Hopefully Mark continuously advocating and fighting for Ubuntu and still being closely involved with (and, for that matter, owning) the company will prevent Canonical from cannibalizing it for a quick buck.

<comment><USER4> I too use OpenSuSE, though lately I upgraded to a mbp. I might switch back to Ubuntu (I used it for 3 years). Everywhere I go, whenever I say I am a linux user, the first thing people say is, "Oh, Ubuntu?" When I tell them I use SuSE a lot of them are like "what's that?"

Which is surprising given that SuSE used to be big...and I thought it still was, sort of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a Linux user since 1992, Ubuntu is my favorite distro, out of many great distros. Mark Shuttleworth has really done the whole world a great service, definitely someone who has given something back to the world. I use Ubuntu on all of my servers, most of my customers' deployments, and boot it on my MacBook. I hope that Shuttleworth keeps putting a lot of energy into promoting Ubuntu.

</comment><comment><USER6> For me this move makes sense. I'always saw Shuttleworth as the head of the Ubuntu Community and not as the CEO of a company. I'really believe that doing what he will be doing in the future suits him better.

</comment><comment><USER7> Also see <http://blog.canonical.com/?p=307>

</comment><comment><USER8> Too bad, his vision has really dramatically changed the desktop linux landscape. For many users, Desktop Linux _is_ Ubuntu.

<comment><USER9> FTA:

> Shuttleworth added that he will not, in any way, shape, or form be leaving > Ubuntu. In an interview, Shuttleworth said that he's will stay head of the > Ubuntu Community Council and the Ubuntu Technical Board. [...] "I will be > spending more time on the areas that interest me the most and where I feel I > can do the most good." [...] Neither Ubuntu nor Canonical will be changing > its direction. Looking ahead Shuttleworth will still set the overall goals, > but Silver will be in charge of implementing the strategy to reach these > goals and day-to-day business management.

<comment><USER8> Well, we'll see.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Damn shame because 2011 is going to be the year of linux on the desktop for sure.

<comment><USER11> I'm pretty sure Shuttleworth has clearly stated he never sees a profitable business model around Desktop linux.

<comment><USER12> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Linux#Year_of_Desktop_L...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Linux#Year_of_Desktop_Linux)</comment></comment></comment>


A Facebook Ad by a Lyft employee to refer 'internally' - <AUTHOR> http://www.referraltechhire.com/contactjon/

<comment><USER2> Smart. An engineering referral could be anywhere from $1k to $15k in commission.</comment>


Surveillance app CEO's KKK past - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2020/04/28/banjo-app-ceo-damien-patton-reportedly-has-hidden-kkk-past/ <comment><USER2> > The revelations prompted Utah's attorney general to suspend a $20.7 million > contract Banjo had held with the state

Sad. The guy is not the same guy who did these things 32 years ago. Instead of embracing and supporting this positive change, we punish it.</comment>


Why do people keep throwing electric scooters into rivers and lakes? - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/electric-scooter-bird-lime-lakes-rivers-environment-vandalism.html <comment><USER2> Please don't dump scooters into our vulnerable watersheds. Despite their names, neither Birds nor Limes float. Instead, break them down for metal recycling and battery repurposing.

</comment><comment><USER3> _One company, Scoot, which was permitted to operate scooters in San Francisco in October, told the Wall Street Journal that within two weeks of launching, more than 200 of the 650 scooters they introduced had been stolen or irreparably destroyed._

Reading stuff like this is what makes me want to just give up on humanity, sell or give away all my stuff, abandon "society" and move into the wilderness somewhere and live off the land, as far away from other human beings as possible. Maybe pick a state off this list and just go there: [https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/least-densely- populated-...](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/least-densely-populated-u- s-states.html)</comment>


Why Snapchat is unstoppable - <AUTHOR> http://datodaily.tumblr.com/post/63562017780/the-brilliance-of-snapchat

<comment><USER2> I honestly have never gotten into it - but reading this has made me want to install the app and have a play... I shared the same sentiments: "frivolous sexting tool I wish I'd had when I was 17."</comment>


New iPhone dock/alarm doesn't brew coffee but does "wake intelligently" - <AUTHOR> http://www.quintessentialcool.com/home/idreamsaver-on-kickstarter/

<comment><USER2> I think this alarm clock was intelligently made. However, I have a question in my mind how would this be really affected. For example, if I set the alarm to 6AM but during that time, my body movement still says that I am deep sleep, how would that alarm works? Then at 10AM, it was the time the clock detected that I am light asleep, is it the time it would alarm? I hope someone can share me how effective this iDreamSaver to stop my wondering.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi mitchie_luna, The video explaining it on the Kickstarter site shows that you select a window of time in which you'd like to be woken. e.g. anytime between 6AM-6:30AM, then if it detects movement anytime in that window, the alarm will sound. Then although not explicitly stated in the video I'd assume it would go off at the end of the window even if you haven't moved.</comment>


Managing progress to profitability: Dashboards for startups - <AUTHOR> http://hypernumbers.com/howto/dashboards-for-startups/

<comment><USER2> It's a great start, but for some reason the page won't load past the metrics diagram on my iPhone.

Maybe it's just my phone being stupid, but you might wanna check for a fixed height CSS bug or something?

<comment><AUTHOR> OK will have a look at that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> On first glance Gordon - this looks like a great or even an amazing piece of work!

Looking forward to spending a bit more time on it later on. Colin</comment>


OpenID for Google Accounts - use Google Account to log into any site that supports OpenID - <AUTHOR> http://openid-provider.appspot.com/

<comment><USER2> Excellent use of App Engine.

But it makes me wonder why Google hasn't done this on their own yet. Maybe because they're trying to re-create every possible web app so you don't need to login to anything but Google?

</comment><comment><USER3> _scratches head_ Couldn't you have done this before using AuthSub and a registered application?

The only thing that seems different is that Google returns an email address to you with App Engine, so you can skip that step in the registartion process.

</comment><comment><USER4> Very nice! An indeed, why hasn't Google done this on their own yet?</comment>


When Nerds Collide (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c <comment><USER3> This article is so spot on and covers many of the things that have bothered me for years about people who try to join nerd communities and then immediately start complaining about "inappropriate behavior" (eg the dongle thing). Yes, there are cases where there is real inappropriate behavior surrounding positions of power in corporate or workplace settings, but in the community at large and in the communal and public spaces that we now interact no one individual should ever be allowed to determine what is appropriate (much less attack people for their supposed transgressions). We all left the world of "appropriate" because we found it a) useless and b) oppressive. The fact that our conversations are now public means that, if someone goes looking for something to be offended by they are going to find it, and then they play the primate power game and we're back to Cardinal Richelieu: "Give me 6 lines written in the hand of the most honest man and I will see him hanged."

That said, this does paint reality for those who do honestly want to see more women involved in tech etc. My take home is that if you keep trying to push on people who intentionally leave "appropriate" communities behind because they don't care about those things and find them oppressive, then you are simply going to drive them to leave again and you will have to start all over again.

edit: Actual take home. The only way forward is REAL tolerance for all kinds of behavior and a good faith attempt to see people in context.

<comment><USER4> It's definitely spot-on. I think it has a great example of anti-feminist/male- privileged mindset:

> Desire for civility and freedom from objectification is "censorship"

> Wanting to not support misogynists/rape apologists/rape denialists/sexual > predators is worse than the soviets

> My fear of social ostracism is as or more valid than your fear of being > raped

> My chosen "identities" are as important as the assigned social castes you've > been placed in and are violently oppressed into staying in

> Not having friends in high school is the same as being a woman, or black

Eventually feminism _will_ win; anti-racism _will_ win; these are inevitabilities we can trace from the first slave revolts in Sumeria to John Brown to the Black Panther Party to even Barack Obama, in his own way. The ratchet of history turns only ever in one direction. Reactionaries howl over lost ground, but they'll never reclaim it.

I eagerly await this world, where finally we will have real hackers, hackers that bring their skill to bear against _real_ enemies, fight _real_ battles, and are strong, rather than weak, building on a foundation of just conflict between the oppressors and the oppressed, rather than being mentally locked in the 3rd grade in the moment of shame when their lunch money was taken.

One day the creeps will be gone. Only the strong will survive. Choose your side wisely, for you can only be on one side of history, and one it has left you behind you will be behind it forever.

>Trying to convince hacker culture to change its norms by appealing to progressive values alone won't work. You're going to have to appeal to hacker values, and nobody's done that yet.

If progressive values are not hacker values, the hacker values will be, should be, and must be destroyed.

<comment><USER5> I agree with you 100%, but I feel the need to point out that you can still be a "weird nerd" and have progressive values. I do not think hacker values and progressive values are mutually exclusive, but I think they are orthogonal.

<comment><USER4> I agree completely. In fact, I think that the only hacker values that are true hacker values are progressive, and that the people invoking "hacker values" to justify misogyny, objectification and sexualization of women, etc., are going against hacker values in a truly insidious way.

But if anyone thinks otherwise, they should know they are on the losing side of history in every regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the biggest frustrations to me, and I do believe this is a new thing, is people with evangelistic universalist worldviews joining these groups and expecting everybody to conform to it. I feel like "nerd culture" was partially defined by being made up of the parts left out of mainstream, inherent heterogeneity, rather than a positive set of things, so arguing you're right and I'm wrong and that's that, is highly alien. There is a lot of talk about how as nerd interests have become mainstream, the disdain many nerds have for this is a sign of their elitism or desire to just be different. But I think also it is because before it was mainstream, you only got viciously judged by the outgroup, so you could at least go "fuck them, they didn't like me anyway" and keep doing your own thing. Now you have people who consider themselves part of that ingroup telling you you're doing it wrong and bringing all their social jostling into the group with them trying to make it act the way they want. I don't think people are exaggerating when they feel like their groups are being "taken over."

<comment><USER7> My disdain has always been for social rules that never made sense - i.e. in order to be liked, you have to look good, dress in a certain way, talk in a certain way, _belong to certain groups_. I don't want to be different, it isn't my desire to be seen as a geek, however it pisses me off that people judge books by their covers and in order for me to follow rules, well, those rules have to make sense.

For the project I'm working on, I often go in dressed with jeans and teeshirts or hoodies in rooms filled with black suits and ties. I do not have fashion preferences, all that I desire is for the clothes I wear to be comfortable. And I don't give a fuck about the company's dress code, because in the grand scheme of things, they hired me to produce value and not to look good.

To me your comment, the article and these trends with cool/weird geeks, nerds, hipsters or what have you, do not make sense. It's because if there are two things that define me is (1) that I have an obsession with building software and (2) that I don't really give a fuck about anything else, to the point that it actively hurts my personal life. Am I a cool geek, a weirdo, a nerd? Point is, I don't really care, never did.

<comment><USER8> > I do not have fashion preferences, all that I desire is for the clothes I > wear to be comfortable. And I don't give a fuck about the company's dress > code, because in the grand scheme of things, they hired me to produce value > and not to look good.

I grew up with the same thoughts and just didn't care about dress. Only when studying psychology did I realize why we judge a book by its cover, and have begun trying to incorporate this into my daily life enough to be a better fit in normal society. The problem is that now, since I had to view this from such a technical point of view, as this is something that I don't just 'get' like most people, I am viewed as manipulative by others. Of course, pointing out that they dress to manipulate the opinions of others, just without needing to put as much thought into it because it is something they 'get' doesn't help.

<comment><USER9> I just don't like the symbolism of wearing a noose around my neck. Suits are OK, choking hazards not so much (and yes, the normal necktie knot can choke you).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I hate to post the "I agree" comment, but this article is too valuable in my opinion to just leave with no comment so here are a couple of quotes that put some of my feelings into words very accurately:

 _Both groups [geek feminists and brogrammers] are latecomers barging in on a cultural space that was once a respite for us, and we don't appreciate either group bringing its cultural conflicts into our space in a way that demands we choose one side or the other. That's a false dichotomy, and false dichotomies make us want to tear our hair out._

 _I'm not claiming that's entirely rational, because fear isn't rational, but it sure does explain the response to being told that our culture is broken and must be adapted to accommodate the very people who rallied it into being by shunning us from theirs._

 _Trying to convince hacker culture to change its norms by appealing to progressive values alone won't work. You're going to have to appeal to hacker values, and nobody's done that yet._

 _leading with "there are more of us than there are of you, so you have to change to accommodate us" is, hands down, the best way to ensure that your carefully constructed appeal will fall on deaf ears._

We made these communities to escape the people that tried to force their norms and values on us, who tried to pass judgement on us and ostracise us because of our differences. So it should be obvious why we circle the wagons when someone comes with accusations, demanding access to our group and insinuating that our reluctance to accept them is due to something wrong with us, something bad that we have done. They are acting exactly like the kind of people we're trying to keep out. I'm not saying we're perfect and have no biases of our own, but trying to force your way via moral or social might is not going to work.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately, it seems that respecting other subcultures and believing you have the one true just culture are incompatible beliefs.

<comment><USER10> I don't think most hackers believe they have the one true culture. I think it's more like, this is the culture we chose. Other cultures are great. They aren't for me, but more power to them. Just please don't come and try and change hacker culture just because we're popular now.

<comment><USER11> I wasn't referring to hackers as believing we have the one true just culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > When weird nerds watch the cool kids jockeying for social position on > Twitter, we see no difference between these status games and the ones we > opted out of in high school. [...] "corporate culture" that's as loudly > promoted and roughly as genuine as the "school spirit"

These bits resonated with me more than I had expected. The declaration "life is not like high school" is only partially true. College offers a temporary respite since are significantly more likely to be around people with a distinct interest in building things and learning things, in an environment where the "politics" are somewhat restrained.

... But afterwards, back in the "Real World", some of the same high-school factors return, as you see an increase in the social and financial predators, parasites, and empire-builders.

> We don't always live up to this value as well as we should[...] In our ideal > world, though, your identity and personal history are orthogonal to your > commit history.

To use an analogy, this is like the ideals of "rule of law" or "freedom of speech" in various countries. Even when there are chronic violations in practice, it's still hugely important and valuable that the _culture_ still holds it up as a goal. Even among two nations equally authoritarian in practice, the one where the population all knows and recites the social-mores of democracy is much _much_ better-off and more likely to achieve them.

The creation and maintenance of a widely-believed idea (especially one which is sometimes inconvenient to individuals and institutions) represents an enormous and ongoing investment in collective effort and willpower.

The fact that we _even have_ a collective shared-ideal of "we judge you by your work" is an achievement worth celebrating and continuing, even if we individually fail at it, or even fail at it a lot.

<comment><USER13> _The fact that we even have a collective shared-ideal of "we judge you by your work" is an achievement worth celebrating and continuing, even if we individually fail at it, or even fail at it a lot._

And that's the problem I've got with a bunch of the attacks I'll commonly see that are based on privilege: the entire idea is that "well, no, that cool hack doesn't count somehow, because you're a member of $MALIGNED_GROUP". We've finally found a group of people that will actually base how awesome we are based on our code, and suddenly these newcomers want to butt in and tell us that isn't a valid idea? It's like these folks never read _The Conscience of a Hacker_.

You know why Sandi Metz is awesome? It's because she writes awesome code.

You know why Alan Turing was awesome? It's because he wrote awesome code.

You know why James Mickens is awesome? It's because he has amazing satire of hard problems in computer science.

The fact that we don't celebrate those people because of their biological traits or social status, and instead do so because of their accomplishments, is a _feature_ , not a _bug_.

I think that that's kind of the key issue a lot of these folks are running into, and because they tend to come from very communication-privileged backgrounds (e.g., dedicated social-media mouthpieces, very organized mass- media representation, etc.) hackers tend to fare poorly when they misinterpret why they aren't welcomed. They easily get to portray us as creeps and bigots because they get to choose from patterns of representation that (taken out of context) look very much like bigotry and because they get to pick from people whose social skills and identity are not always attuned or even aware of the prevailing social conventions.

No reasonable hacker, I believe, _wants_ there to be fewer people of $MINORITY in developer positions--at the same time, you'll never get that hacker to suggest we censor the existing culture or forcibly inject more $MINORITY into the space. "They should make their bones, same as we did", the hacker will hold. They'll then be decried as $MINORITY_PERSECUTOR.

It's a problem, but only insofar as we're willing to let them continue framing the discussion. Maybe if we can make them understand that we aren't against diversity, but that we are against cultural manipulation, we can get somewhere.

<comment><USER14> "we aren't against diversity"..."they should make their bones, same as we did" sounds like it could come from any all white male institution. The problem is, we as humans prefer to surround ourselves with people just like us, sometimes that means same race, sometimes same religion, or gender, or political views, and often it happens subconsciously, choosing the person closer to our ideal without us even realizing we're penalising the "other" in ways that we don't penalise those like us. This is what diversity is (or should be) fighting against, it really is trying to make it merit based which goes against our survival instincts, even those of the "nerds".

<comment><USER15> No, and this distinction is essential: You're welcomed based on _what you can do_ and not on _what you are_. "white male" is un-meritocratic, is something you "are", and not something you can "make" by talent and effort. "code" is cold, hard, unforgiving ("you can't argue with a root shell"), and meritocratic. She's saying: Nevermind who you "ARE", you're welcomed if you can "PRODUCE" (great code). That's exactly the antithesis of what you're implying with "white male" or "black female" or "$X $Y". The mere fact of using "$X $Y" or $MINORITY should give you a hint of how much this concepts are considered. If something fits in a variable, is waaay less important than the algorithm, it is just content, a parameter, "Lorem ipsum" if you like it.

<comment><USER16> Meritocracy is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It's an illusion, a joke.

<comment><USER13> Diversity is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It's an illusion, a joke.

Equality is a bullshit term. It does not exist in reality. It's an illusion, a joke.

See what I did there? You've got to explain _why_ you think it's a bullshit term--because as an ideal, it's a damned sight more useful than whatever else people are pushing.

<comment><USER17> \- Because the criteria of "merit" usually "just happen" to be a description of the people who get to define them and evaluate others.

\- Because measuring only at the finishing line while ignoring how far people have had to come is in fact unequal, not equal treatment.

\- Because the concept victim-blames those who aren't allowed/enabled/supported to succeed according to it.

\- Because it's a really astounding statistical anomaly that all those "meritocratic" communities "who don't care about gender etc." are in practice ridiculously less diverse than the population in general.

<comment><USER13> Thought exercise: reconcile concept of victim blaming with objective criteria- based meritocracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was shocked, visibly, when I found out that no one at the first startup I worked at played tabletop RPGs. I was shocked again when they looked down on me because I did. In a city that prides itself on "weirdos", I was the wrong kind of weird.

In college I poured over Steven Levy's _Hackers_ , hoping one day I would be able to meet the tech elite. I jumped at the first chance I got to work out here, hoping I'd finally find "my people" (substitute whatever pithy phrase you like). Hasn't worked out so far.

I'm in SF now and have been for a while. Where are you guys? All the meetups I've been to were fun (hard to turn down free pizza) but it seemed like everyone was more interested in collecting business cards than talking hacker- speak. Maybe I'm going to the wrong ones?

<comment><USER19> Yeah, that's SF. It's 80% posers, especially at meetups. The minority that are doing interesting things are, of course, not so easy to find. Work hard on your passions and eventually you'll meet likeminded people. (that's true no matter where you're located)

Just be glad you're there now, and not being forced by management to go to glitzy web parties in 1999. Those were insufferable.

<comment><USER20> SF has been 80% posers for decades. That's why the art and music scenes in SF are so bad. In NYC, they tell you if you suck. In LA, if you suck they don't call you back. In SF, there's no judgment or criticism, and you can suck forever.

<comment><USER21> Nobody cares about the art scene in SF vs NYC and LA. Take that discussion elsewhere.

<comment><USER22> That's not even art. HN appreciates art.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > _" At a company the size of Google or even GitHub, you can expect to find as > many varieties of cliques…"_

> _" Some hackers even argue for greater exclusivity, and curiously enough, > many of those who do are also members of minority-by-birth groups. (I'd link > to examples, but being caught between a minority-by-choice group and a > minority-by-birth group means being extra careful about expressing unpopular > opinions where anyone unsympathetic can hear you.)"_

This reminded me recently when I was contacted by a Facebook engineering manager for some "Black Engineers in Tech" BS for some less than marginally interesting projects in the scheme of things. Do companies really have to resort to this type of pandering to attract "talent"?

I mean, after from C&D'ing a "hacker-esque" project I was working on (mining public urls on "open" graph and crowd-sourcing info about everyone, no log-in for engagement, public by default [opposite of facebook walled garden "connect the world" mantra]), suspending my account indefinitely, yet digging through their treasure trove of info to boost "Diversity" apparently so I can have the opportunity to become apart of the "Black" clique at FB NYC?

Yeah… fuck that.

</comment><comment><USER24> But the proof can't be made. If you're conditioned to feel like an outsider, you're going to believe the rejection is always lurking around the corner, and the acceptance is never real, never complete. You'll remain in sullen sureness that outside is where you've been _placed_ — or you'll keep _testing_ , poking and prodding for the thing you could do that's horrible enough to prove that you were never really welcome.

The word the author is looking for to distinguish "weird nerds" from "nerds" should never have been "weird" \- the word is "wounded." And the wound is real, crippling, and unjustly dealt. Time doesn't heal all wounds. We shouldn't be looking to prove something that can't be proven; we should be looking to heal the wound, actually heal it, in all the generations of children to come. Or even, heavens forfend, stop it from being inflicted at all.

<comment><USER25> It's not always about just being wounded. Many became "weird nerds" because they don't like the tons of bullshit, politics and signalling games mainstream society lives and breathes. You can't "fix" them without destroying who they really are.

I say them, but I myself am a part of this group.

<comment><USER24> If, by your own admission, you just _don 't like_ something, you can't claim that "who [you] really are" is being "destroyed" if you're taught how to avoid injury in dealing with it. Your pet peeves are not a part of you.

<comment><USER25> It's not really a pet peeve, it's a difference in thinking and perceiving the world.

<comment><USER24> The point is, how do you know the difference between something that's "who you really are" and something that you simply feel discomfort around being asked to change?

<comment><USER25> A good question.

I can't talk for all "weirdos", but let me tell you about my personal fears.

I fear that I will have to give up my intellectual honesty. I fear that I will have to start caring about politics (which I consider waste of time and something that shows the worst parts of our nature). I fear that I will have to start playing signalling games. I fear that I will have to censor my words and my thoughts, so that I don't express an opinion that is unpopular this week (winds on the Internet change fast). I fear that I will have to accept and participate in absurdity and irrationality I try so hard to stay away from.

I'm a very open, tolerant and accepting person. Just like every other "weird nerd" I know. But the crowd that tries to overwhelm us is not open, not tolerant, despite waving the banner of "diversity" and "equality". I fear I won't be allowed to be a nice, honest, decent person with interest in technology anymore.

<comment><USER24> What I hear you saying is you personally identify with what you perceive as intellectual honesty, what you perceive as rationality, and the freedom to say whatever you want without worrying whether listeners will like it.

The trouble with such identifications, though, is they can lead to logical errors that make your life a lot worse, by causing you to _feel_ as though a question about your intellectual honesty, rationality, or empathy is in fact a personal attack. This happens entirely unconsciously, and repairing it can seriously suck.

I could go into the ways in which I eventually learned that challenges to my own intellectual honesty and rationality ended up strengthening them both once I stopped reacting to those challenges emotionally and started choosing to believe in the good will of the people making them. But that might just be tedious; instead I will say that in my own life, waving the banner for diversity and equality has come along with being happier, feeling more decent, and being more energetically invested in technology than I was before.

<comment><USER25> > _The trouble with such identifications, though, is they can lead to logical > errors that make your life a lot worse, by causing you to feel as though a > question about your intellectual honesty, rationality, or empathy is in fact > a personal attack. This happens entirely unconsciously, and repairing it can > seriously suck._

I agree. Thanks for a reminder.

> _But that might just be tedious; instead I will say that in my own life, > waving the banner for diversity and equality has come along with being > happier, feeling more decent, and being more energetically invested in > technology than I was before._

I agree. I like diversity and equality. But diversity means allowing different groups to coexist, and to tolerate people with different opinions and outlooks on life. I don't see "weirdos" trying to impose their own worldview on everyone - on the contrary, it's them who are being forced to conform to the rest. That is not diversity.

<comment><USER24> What is the specific thing you feel you're being forced to do?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This article is delightfully thoughtful. Her other post is also worth reading: [https://medium.com/@maradydd/okay-feminism-its-time-we- had-a...](https://medium.com/@maradydd/okay-feminism-its-time-we-had-a-talk- about-empathy-bd6321c66b37)

It makes me wonder though how much nerd culture is driven by forms of autism. Those wishing to end oppression women should be careful that they are not instead perpetuating the oppression of autistic people.

<comment><USER27> I agree, her other post is also excellent.

I wonder if we could ever create a culture that doesn't oppress _anyone_ (with the obvious exception of murderers, rapists, cannibals, etc). I hope so. But in light of our vast differences and the ease with which we hurt one another, I suspect we'll have to settle for a culture that doesn't oppress anyone _too much_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I am loathe to post an "I agree" comment here... but damn. This is a very well-said article and one I have tried to express many times but have failed over and over.

The "invaders" who claim to be socially liberal are actually authoritarian in nature, completely hypocritical by pushing so-called "tolerance" on those who received none by society's "normal."

Just a powerful essay.

<comment><USER20> _The "invaders" who claim to be socially liberal are actually authoritarian in nature..._

That's been true from the days of the Third International[1] to the Mozilla Foundation.[2]

[1] [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/apr/15.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/apr/15.htm) [2] [https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension- signing...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing- safer-experience/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Once upon a time, in a very small part of the developed world, there were a set of activities which provided identity and sense of belonging for introverted people who didn't otherwise fit with mainstream society. That ended up being called "nerd culture".

That "culture" is now prevalent in fields (like computing) that have moved from the fringe to the mainstream in the past decades. Many seem to find it worth preserving, even if that means perpetuating an abrasive and hostile environment.

I've always thought that I had ticked all the checkboxes to be considered a nerd and a hacker. Yet I don't recognise myself at all in the picture that the article paints, and I would not want to live and work in the environment that many here are advocating for.

The author outlines a description of a "hacker" that, to be honest, sounds more like "mildly autistic" to me:

 _" That guy in the group who stares at you without saying anything? He could be undressing you with his eyes, but I'd lay better odds that he's paying attention, watching your actions and reactions to build a mental model of how it's safe to interact with you."_

The proportion of introverts (like myself) in the computing field is higher than in society as a whole. Some patience and understanding is therefore needed. But this does not justify treating people poorly because "those are our values and you are a foreigner". I fear that her arguments, well- intentioned as they may be, will do more harm than good.

</comment><comment><USER30> _I'm thrilled to bits that every day the power to translate pure thought into actions that ripple across the world merely by the virtue of being phrased correctly draws nearer and nearer to the hands of every person alive._

Whatever else this article brings, that was just beautiful. I'm shamelessly borrowing that for daily use.

<comment><USER31> This is the sentiment that gets me out of bed and into work every day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> >Programming is an inherently constructivist discipline. A constructivist is like the archetypal Missourian: "Show me!"

Many "hackers" are unable to apply this principle to the field of business. They don't understand business, they aren't good at it, and therefore they see it as nothing more than empty headed self-promoters jockeying for social status, just like those "cool kids" who picked on them in high school. They do not understand that the prime directive of a business is to make money, and that doing so is _always_ more important than quality engineering. Given that most hackers work for businesses, I think this is a large blind spot that leads to a lot of bitterness and feelings of exclusion.

<comment><USER25> It isn't such a blind spot. They may understand the "prime directive" pretty well and see how bullshit it is. It's a system of redistribution of scarce resources that most people got confused about and now play it as a game of its own. It's not the profit that should matter, but the value that is produced, the improvement of human condition.

<comment><USER32> Let's face it, 90% of companies in this industry produce nothing but meaningless bullshit. If you work at one of the few companies that is making the world a better place and not just selling ads, social media, games, or other diversions for rich people then my advice may not apply to you. I don't work for one of those companies, and I prefer to dispense with the notion that anything I'm doing is for the improvement of the human condition. It's about money, period, full stop.

<comment><USER25> > _If you work at one of the few companies that is making the world a better > place and not just selling ads, social media, games, or other diversions for > rich people then my advice may not apply to you._

Unfortunately, I don't (and it depresses me). But then again, I treat my work as a neccessary evil, and I (try to) care about the product's face value, not underlying notion of it making money. That's for sales people to do; the best I can do is to make sure that what we build has at least _some_ value to the end-user. It's about the attitude - when tasked to design a widget, do you primarily care about building a good widget, or performing a ritual of work that will bring the cash in?

<comment><USER32> That's a good point. Being a craftsman means caring about the quality of your work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _" The idea of anathematising all of a person's good works because of something else they said or did is just as alien and repellent to us as our reaction is to someone who wishes Hacker News would die because Paul Graham is kind of a dick sometimes."_

Ha, love this bit, bit wordy though. If you squint while you read, it sort of reads like a pg essay.

</comment><comment><USER34> Where physically will weirdos live? The bay area was certainly a haven of which only a subset were technologist. And from that culture and thinking came many of the technical miracles of our age, many ideologically driven.

My concern is really painfully mundane: uncontrolled cost of living increase means there could never be a mass migration of free thinkers to the bay area today.

So individual programmers being gradually displaced in a technologist's social setting today is just a sliver of that larger displacement with its very basic cause.

</comment><comment><USER35> I found the part of the article where it talks about the what if situation about Japan getting rid of work visa to be really interesting. Honestly it shocked me, and has changed the way I think.

Also I never thought of it this way, but feminism/brogrammers are super similar in the way they try to colonize nerd culture.

A lot of unskilled people are trying to get a career in tech for its perks. They are not good at it or as good as they should be for the industry standard. When they get called on it, they hide behind something like feminism.

Essentially it's all about grabbing power in our community via subversion rather than skill. And This is a problem because computer programming is intensely logical problem. It requires a lot of skill.

I'm glad I read this article, I feel like I understand people like Linus Torvald a little bit more.

<comment><USER36> Before all those late-night commercials in the late '90's ("Make $70K a year!!!") only people that were interested in computers chose a career in them. We make, on average, twice the national average (for U.S.) salary of our peers: people that want the bucks will move in, whether they enjoy bits and bytes or not.

<comment><USER37> TBF, software development itself is only a relatively small part of the whole tech industry - marketing, communications, recruitment, even food supply and whatnot are all part of it. Just because there's more people that want to work for one of the cool companies, doesn't mean they're actually infringing on the domain of the weird nerd hacker/programmer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I didn't go to public school, is it really as 80's-teen-movie-tropes as pieces like this make it sound? It's just _really_ hard for me to take seriously.

<comment><USER39> To an outside observer, no. The tropes are exaggerations. But to someone in public school at the time, it can certainly feel that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Not everyone has had the same negative social experiences. I was very lucky to go to a school where being an outsider with nerdy interests was respected so long as you did it with passion, aspired to excellence, and were not afraid to show others what you found cool; and we were expected to have the same respect for the sportsmen, musicians, artists etc. In a sense we were all doing the same thing through different outlets. It's a culture I'm very proud to have been a part of and it produced some great people in many different fields. In contrast, in my programming niche, I frequently feel uncomfortable with the level of aggression and exclusion on display - every comment on a forum seems like you are exposing yourself to ridicule and judgement. Conversely, in pure maths forums, which I also participate in, the atmosphere is far more welcoming, open, patient and respectful of good work. I think the problem is that in computing it is far easier to be a dilettante and much harder to tell the difference. Yes, all communities will have their dicks, but responding with aggression and elitism pollutes the community for everyone and encourages hostile and collective responses from others: be sure that the dicks are a lot better at playing hardball and ganging up together than we are. Let's take some responsibility for creating communities we're proud to be a part of. Please.

</comment><comment><USER41> There will always be bullies, it does not end at high school. Only thing nerd can do is to keep his cool, and not feed any trolls :-)

<comment><USER9> Or, you know, quick, reflexive, and measured (no overkill) retribution.

Stick a kitten's nose in their pee a few times and they'll learn to use the litter box.

That doesn't mean you hate or disrespect the kitten, it means you're applying a bit of punishment now to avoid bigger problems later.

This is true regardless of who's in charge for the simple reason that the carpet doesn't care who's in charge, if something pees on it, it will smell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Am I misreading the Japan thing? Like, it's not hard to imagine that there would be candidates that would be immediately excluded based on surname alone without even getting into race or gender - is this "fair" or "unfair", or is it just the way things are? Is the latter(est) the analogy we're supposed to take from this?

<comment><USER37> The Japan analogy is more a reference to people of a completely different culture (like the US) going to Japan and making the Japanese adhere to their culture, instead of the other way around. It may not be a very accurate comparison though, and to extend on the analogy, if Japan was to open up its borders, they would have to adjust themselves.

Compare getting employees from India over to the US; there are some cultural differences that may be hard to work with / around, but both parties (employee/existing co-workers and the new foreign workers) will both have to adjust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The brogrammers and geek feminists won. There's no turning back.

<comment><USER44> ... and with that victory, they have given rise to generations of new weird- nerds that no longer feel as much as outsiders.

Ok, I went there for the sake of the quote, but as someone who spent most of high-school maintaining an online forum about nerd topics on a Hardened Gentoo[1] Pentium III[2] server in the floor of his own bedroom; I still find I cannot quite empathize with the fear of "insiders"/"normals" that the OP talks about and which other comments seem to echo. Not saying I can't imagine it, or that it's not real, but it wasn't like that for me. In my experience: video-games were utterly mainstream, MTG/D&D where "a bit weird, but hey, to each their own", computer programming was cool (not a super popular hobby to pursue, but people seemed either neutral or genuinely impressed if you did).

Many of those cherished "hacker values"? They are now mainstream ideals: Net neutrality! Wikileaks! "I prefer texting than talking on the phone"! ;) Everyone I know is now in an online forum or another (Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/Reddit). Not saying all of the values have been popularized, but many have. Our pop culture now a days makes more fun of jocks than of nerds. It has more nerd heroes (specially for middle-school/high- school aged kids) than "popular" heroes. Freaking LoTR is one of the biggest movie franchises of all times!

Besides, it's not like the groups have no intersection. Geek feminists often are or were at some point "weird-nerd" girls or "weird-nerd" guys that agreed that the world was, among all of its unfairnesses, biased to take male as the default. So we are not excluding just those "not from our tribe" (whatever that means), we are excluding "those from our tribe happen to be different from what we picture our tribe to _look_ like". Even for those genuinely not part of the culture you might naturally want to associate with? Well, we still need to interact with and do business with them in a civilized manner. That's all any diversity advocacy I have ever read demands: not that you be friends with anybody, but that you be willing to interact respectfully with everybody.

"Brogrammer" is less well defined. But the most gym-going and adventurous friend I have is also among the most nerdy, smartest and occasionally painfully awkward people I know. Also, the most social person in my circle is a gregarious, party going, business savvy, MIT engineering trained woman that in the right crowd can make jokes consisting entirely of function plots.

There are no three cliques against other! There are many ideas, associated with different stereotypes, let's try not to pit armies of stereotypes against each other, and be open to the ideas! If that's not a hacker value, then I don't what is.

[1] Why Hardened Gentoo just to host a small PHP forum? Because it was there...

[2] Gives the age away fairly precisely, doesn't it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, tech went mainstream and blockbuster movies are made out of cult classic books. That's one of the points in the post, those things _used to be_ signals of particular kind of person but are no longer.

 _There are no three cliques against other! There are many ideas, associated with different stereotypes, let 's try not to pit armies of stereotypes against each other, and be open to the ideas!_

In broad strokes I agree with you. For a few reasons, not the least of which because I don't exactly agree with the authors analysis. I differ from you in specific as there is a difference between being accepting of the ideas and people who live them, versus adopting it for myself. Being "open to" an idea means the former, yet often euphemistically implies the latter.

I see the author's point in the way people with more social power than myself ask for my conformity, to their benefit and my cost. It's framed so politely, everything is these days, but sometimes I don't want to adopt another persons standards. Only then do you see how serious they are about getting you to conform.

<comment><USER44> > Yeah, tech went mainstream and blockbuster movies are made out of cult > classic books. That's one of the points in the post, those things used to be > signals of particular kind of person but are no longer.

They were more than signals, they were the culture that reflected the values we identified with: the wonder of discovery, the beauty of places that didn't exist, the value of smarts and imagination. Those values are nerd values and are also mainstream values. It is a point of agreement for which we can all start to talk. I think most nerds I know define nerdom by what they like and the acceptance of obsessive liking of an idea, not by any other "kind of person".

> I see the author's point in the way people with more social power than > myself ask for my conformity, to their benefit and my cost. It's framed so > politely, everything is these days, but sometimes I don't want to adopt > another persons standards.

That's usually fair. But what happens when what people are pointing out is that your standards are unjust and are harming them? It is one thing for people asking you to, say, dress in a suit and a tie (an arbitrary imposed standard that really couldn't matter less unless you want to impress the people who like suits). It is another when the standard they are asking you to adopt is "don't grope us, don't assault us, don't insult us, don't provide cover or plausible deniability to those who willfully grope us or assault us or insult us.". Taken to the hyperbolic extreme, if someone imposes on me from the outside the standard that I should not kill people (assuming it weren't already within my own personal standards), it is still an imposition, but one they are within their rights to make.

Social justice advocates really are as transparent as the name: they advocate for (social) justice. If your standards are unconventional but just, go ahead: you can be into D&D and feminist, you can be a furry and feminist, you can be an otaku and feminist[1], you can be into BSDM and feminist, you can be as weird as you wish to be and still treat people well even if awkwardly. You don't even need to be an advocate for gender equality, just do a good faith attempt at not perpetrating or upholding injustice. But if your standards are unjust or they facilitate injustice, why wouldn't people be allowed to point that out to you and request that you change them?

Keep in mind that often, nerd feminists are not insiders encroaching into the outsider's safe space, but outsiders within a larger group of outsiders, trying to avoid being harmed by manipulative people skilled in the culture of the larger outsider group. They are often those of us, that we are allowing to be bullied, by others "like us".

And, do people do unjust oppressive things in the name of justice and anti- oppression? Sure. Mob-mentality online shamming campaigns often are such injustice, at least when focused on individuals who are not powerful public figures (be it DongleGate or GamerGate, and I think there is still one of those that is far far worse). We should mention and call this out as well, but that doesn't mean that the points about there being injustice in nerd culture (as in pretty much any culture) are invalid.

[1] Do I even need to mention you can be a brony and feminist? ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> _And, do people do unjust oppressive things in the name of justice and anti- oppression? Sure._

So you're obviously aware why conversations about where the line between activism and asshole-ness is always turns to shit. You'll understand why I'm gonna bail on this conversation.

<comment><USER44> Ok, I don't need you to or expect you to reply. Just, consider this if you wish: when you are told that people are harmed by things other people in your community do, or things you might be doing without thinking, is it not worthwhile to listen?

Take this whole discussion, for example. My takeaways are that:

1) There is a group/generation/subset within nerd culture that has had "social norms" and "proper conduct" used as a weapon against them, in order to attack them over what they feel is unintentional social clumsiness or voluntary disregard of norms they don't agree with, without intent of harming anyone. I tend to trust what people tell me, so I now believe this is a significant grievance for a number of people. It was never quite as large a part of my own experience with nerdyness, but I acknowledge it has been for others.

2) Public shamming is an effective tactic (in pointing people to the existence of a problem), but also a terribly aggressive one towards the person being named. Specially if they are only been picked as an example of what is considered bad only because of how common the behavior is and the toll it exerts on people in aggregate, not just that particular instance. This is, by the way, a point I have seen made before, _within_ activist communities. I'd still argue naming and shamming is a valid response in cases of obvious ill intent _or_ physical harm (e.g. rape), but not for all types of "inappropriate behavior" (in which I am including unintentional or miss-measured psychological harm).

Could you, reciprocally, consider giving some though as to whether some of the things people label as unwelcoming, harmful or oppressive within a subset of nerd culture might be real grievances as well? How about considering whether the people exposing these grievances really come from outside the community, or from within? Or whether or not, if the grievances are real, they are right to demand that the culture addresses them?

And, while I stand by the point you quoted, I'd still wager more oppressive things happen in the name of "this is how we always have acted" and "you are not _really_ part of this group", than in the name of anti-oppression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Since when is there such a thing as "weird nerds" and "cool nerds" ? I've never heard people identify as such. Methinks it an arbitrary distinction invented by the author, to support his argument. I'm still not sure what the argument is.

Also, since when do you have to join a nerd subculture to be accepted as a programmer? Since when is being a nerd and being a feminist mutually exclusive?

I don't get this article. And I don't get nerds.

<comment><USER25> As a "weird nerd", let me explain.

"Weird nerds" are the people who not so long ago were ostracized by society for their interest in science and technology. They weren't "cool", they weren't doing things that "cool" people do, so they were bullied. Many of them indeed became programmers and laid foundation of what is now the IT industry.

Then, tech became mainstream and seen as a very good career path. It started being "cool", so it attracted the "cool" people. As the nerd-type interests, like sci-fi, became less shunned by society, the industry started to fill with "cool nerds" \- people who are nerdish, but not to the level of not being "cool".

You don't have to join a nerd subculture to be accepted as a programmer. On the contrary, majority of programmers employed today are _not_ nerds or hackers. What has once been mostly a hobby, became a profession.

\--

Or look at it in another way - "weird nerds" are usually the ones _in real love_ with science and technology. "Cool nerds" are usually the ones for whom science and technology is just an occupation, a job.

<comment><USER37> I don't agree that the "cool nerds" are impostors and only do it for the attention. I think the difference is more a personality one - extroverts vs introverts. The former in the 'nerd' subculture is the type that goes to ALL the meetups, that likes networking, is highly active on social networking, etc etc etc, while the latter prefers to be left alone with his (literal) devices.

<comment><USER25> I didn't mean to say that "cool nerds" are impostors - they have every right and reason to be interested in technology, but the kind of deep love for technical interests seem to correlate more with "weird nerd" character traits. I might be wrong about the actual causation though. Introvert/extrovert seem to be correlated too, but not perfectly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm happy to see somebody discuss this on a deeper level. When one underprivileged group meets another underprivileged group we should be able to discuss what oppression is, how to relate these experiences to each other and how to reduce oppression for everybody.

Current social trends allow and encourage women to raise their oppression above any other form of oppression, as if no man ever got beat up after school or ridiculed for "playing with computers". It's the same excuse that marginalizes male rape victims if the perpetrator was male - or even if the perpetrator was female because "men".

So it has turned into a war of privilege, rather than a discussion of oppression. It's become "Feminist privilege" versus "Nerd privilege" versus "Male privilege". The fact that most nerds are men is just a distraction from the real discussion. The problem isn't the privilege - we're privileged to be alive, and that's a good thing rather than a bad thing.

The problem is the oppression, and "donglegate" and "gamergate" have oppression on both sides. Until we stop trying to raise any particular type of oppression onto a pedestal we aren't going to make any real progress. Let's stop talking about "privilege" and start talking about barriers to personal fulfillment.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is a fascinating article! Fantastic

</comment><comment><USER48> It's an interesting and complex subject but ultimately defining what makes a "true" nerd is a never ending debate. My professor in college was incredulous when he found out that I, a CS major, never watched Star Trek. The nerve!

</comment><comment><USER49> I think this article is fantastic in its framework, but it's ultimately aimed at the wrong people.

The writer is assuming a powerful left-brain empathy that is characteristic of hackers ("I'd lay better odds that he's paying attention, watching your actions and reactions to build a mental model of how it's safe to interact with you."), yet is lacking in the invaders. The invaders are running a much simpler hardwired social strategy that assumes everyone is like them (even in response, there are plenty of comments insisting that hackers still unconsciously judge people by race _in spite of most of our judgments being formed before we ever see someone_. it's simple projection), and are not setup to understand those who are different. They _cannot_ change, and consequently we will lose the social game of chicken every time.

What I'd really like to see/find/create/sustain is a community of people that are able to resist being distracted by the narrow trap of the social hierarchy - VC money, PR articles from companies, status-quo politics, proprietary Appoogle product/tech announcements, mass media human interest stories, etc. More similar to the Internet I grew up with, where objective technical merit was the ideal to strive towards, and being told to RTFM resulted in someone learning how to self-learn and ask intelligent questions rather than getting attention from writing clickbait on how they were offended. Maybe this is impossible because we've gotten too big/connected, or I personally could just be pitifully stuck in the rut that is HN and myopic from falling out of more specific technical tribes.

Maybe this is impossible and any such community is ultimately doomed to entryism. But articles such as this that take a stab at reifying the qualities of true hackerdom are necessary for us to reflect and understand exactly what is being lost and perhaps come up with ways to defend it in the large, rather than it surviving solely in narrow highly-technical communities.

(PS - a point i wanted to make elsewhere in the thread about the general article, but I will do here instead because it applies to my comment as well:

It is easy to phrase this issue in in binary us-vs-them hacker or not-a-hacker terms but the reality is continuous. So while it is nice to think in simpler terms, the topic is actually graver because _any of us_ can be corrupted by social influences as well. The lure of wider acceptance, attention, fame, and/or money can lead us down the path of behavior that we despise - <USER2> fanning, user-disempowering platforms, working on surveillance tech, etc. The status quo's siren's song is becoming quite apparent right now as the (de)centralization pendulum starts to swing back and the trajectories of companies further diverge from those of free people.)</comment>