Unintended consequences: What do a deaf woman and an endangered woodpecker have in common? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?ex=1358485200&en=0d05099c03c97375&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> I wish more people understood the ideas in this article. Opposing the minimum wage doesn't mean you hate the poor; opposing anti-discrimination laws doesn't mean you're racist; opposing generous maternity leave doesn't mean you're sexist. Incentives matter, and often---probably much more often than not---the most straightforward and intuitively appealing solutions introduce incentives pointing in exactly the opposite direction.

Economic law is almost as immutable as physical law: trying to fix poverty using a minimum wage is like building a bridge using the wrong tensile strength for steel. Intent is irrelevant, because you can't fool nature.

<comment><USER3> I agree that setting up straw men and other fallacies is a bad thing. There's two sides to every argument and they should be heard without reducing the argument down to insults or misrepresenting the other side's point of view.

On the other hand, I think you're yourself abusing the association fallacy by making a bold assumption that because the article points towards examples of laws with unintended consequences that they also automatically applies to the specific examples you've given. (i.e. opposing the minimum wage doesn't mean you hate the poor, but it equally doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to cause negative unintended consequences as implied)

<comment><USER4> In the case of minimum wage, it does. I thought it was a good example.

<http://blog.russnelson.com/economics/minimum-wage.html>

<comment><USER3> I disagree that it is that clear cut.

As a recent counter-example to the blog, view the UK's introduction of a relatively high minimum wage in 1998 which, despite above-inflation increases over several years, have caused little-to-no problems. Incidentally, the UK had it's highest employment rate in 2007 according to National Statistics Online (<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12>). By the blog's reasoning, the exact opposite should have happened. For the record, I was fairly indifferent when it was introduced, but now I see it as a positive thing.

The blog makes the rather bold statement that "anybody whose labor is not worth the minimum shall not be employed" based around the assumption that anyone who earns less than the minimum wage's job is redundant and can be replaced. This simply isn't true, thinking about the large amount of service industry workers (e.g. waiters, supermarket-workers, fast-food workers) who are typically paid a low wage but are unlikely to lose their jobs. It doesn't mention that many companies can afford to pay more for unskilled workers but choose not to in order to create bigger profits in the knowledge that the employees don't have the choice of getting a better paying job. It avoids mention of the effect of increased consumption in the local economy, or the likelihood that price increases which require more manual labour will effect premium goods and services the most. There's plenty more additional variables too - it's simply not a case of the situation being summarised as "Higher wages = less jobs".

<comment><USER5> It's not clear cut, mainly due to a lack of useful data. I don't know much about the labor market in the UK (your link only discusses employment/unemployment in 2007, not the effects of minimum wage in 1998), but I'll discuss the US.

In the US, only 1-2% of workers make minimum wage. If a minimum wage law drove 50% of them out of work over 2 years, it would increase unemployment by only 0.25-0.5%/year. And 50% is a huge; in reality, far fewer than 50% of minimum wage workers will be driven out of the market.

The effects on minimum wage also don't last much beyond a few years, since the minimum wage is not indexed to market wage for low skill jobs (or even to inflation, which is not the same thing). So in a few years, the minimum wage drops below market wage and becomes irrelevant.

This effect is sped up by companies raising prices (since costs rise across the industry, this doesn't cause a loss of market share). This drives up prices, causing inflation, which again reduces the effect of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is mainly just a a propaganda tool for politicians. That's why it's not indexed to inflation: if it were, they couldn't get on TV and say "I care about America's poorest workers" every few years. That's also why minimum wage is kept low; if they pushed it above market wage for the bottom 1-2%, the harmful effects might be large enough to be visible (even if they are questionable, this is not a risk a politician wants to take).

<comment><USER4> Well said. +1. I think Russ's point was that if minimum wage actually was raised high enough by the well-meaners that they thought it would institute social change, it would backfire in a most comical and epic way. Imagine if the minimum wage were set to 100/hour tomorrow...

Instead, politicians just wait till election season then realign the letter of the law to more or less match the current market value and then proclaim what a friend to the poor they've been from the doorway of their gulfstream.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We often take into account the most direct effects of a law without taking into account the indirect effects. Or, as Bastiat would put it, we look at the things seen but ignore the things not seen:

<http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> A minor meta comment; Good titles really do matter: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=103834>

<comment><USER8> Ah, and now I understand why there even can be multiple submissions: I guess because of the various random parameters some websites attach (session ids or whatever), the duplicate detection mechanism of news.yc doesn't work.

Makes me wonder if there could be a way to assign a unique id to every website. I guess at least for news feeds it already exists, but not every submission has a news feed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I enjoyed this piece, now whenever I find a loophole in a law that I can exploit for my own benefit I can blame the law! I'm not a bad person, it's a bad law! Along with the invisible hand of Adam Smith, I was basically bitchslapped into maximizing my profit at the cost of the needy, the disabled, and those damn woodpeckers. Won't someone feel bad for poor (rich) little (rotund) old me?

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a puff piece ("things have unintended consequences" is as pablum as it gets).

The anti-environmental slant implicit in the piece is intellectually offensive. If land is in the hands of developers with plans for real estate development, the wildlife is already screwed. That doesn't mean tanking environmental regulations is somehow "better" for wildlife.

Ceteris paribus, this article sucks.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think the article is any more anti-environmental than it is anti-deaf people. Isn't it a benefit to the environment to point out policies which damage it when intended to help it so that they can be replaced with policies which help it?</comment></comment>


WALL-E: Economic Ignorance and the War on Modernity - <AUTHOR> http://mises.org/story/3037 <comment><USER2> Idiocracy was outrageous (and funny) for the same reasons, and they're more enjoyable if they're recognized as absurd conclusions of widespread materialism and anti-intellectualism. Looking at them as serious science fiction only provokes the indignation and outrage that Gennady Stolyarov II is feeling.</comment>


Ways to Make NSA Spying Popular with Americans - <AUTHOR> http://jeffreifman.com/2013/10/20/ten-ways-to-make-nsa-spying-popular-with-americans/ <comment><USER2> #11. Ads selling - #NSAAdSense: based on the mobile meta data and past patterns to sell local ads to individual where he or she would be in half hour or 24 hours. Or, based on phone conversations to sell products or services. i.e. Mr. A on the phone: honey, i just got my bonus! we could afford that swimming pool you want. Next NSA could show ads of swim pools on his wife's tv.

</comment><comment><USER3> #14: Premium tailored identities. Tired of everyone's facebook feed showing you the life you could be living? NSA's new bond.me app will tag you in photos of beautiful people, in exotic locations, doing outrageous activities. Only you and the NSA will know the real truth!

</comment><comment><USER4> Funny post. But what would a world be like where everyone knew everything about everyone?

<comment><USER5> Like Protoss from Starcraft would be my guess...

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> #13. Dating app - BarBuddy or #NSAMatch: by showing you people who just broke up or divorced, based on phone / texts / emails data mining, in your local bar.

</comment><comment><USER6> Site is down; there is apparently no cache available. Could someone please post items 1-9?

<comment><USER6> The full text of the article, from Feedburner:

Ten Ways to Make NSA Spying Popular with Americans Posted:Sun, 20 Oct 2013 20:30:33 +0000

With a more entrepreneurial focus, the NSA could easily counteract the current unpopularity of its surveillance programs and eliminate concerns over the cost of its multi-billion dollar programs.

Here are ten services the NSA could offer to make its spying more popular with Americans and offset the costs of its massive data collection:

1\. Make flying easier. Since the NSA knows who the terrorists are, it can generate proceeds from "Not a Terrorist" badges which allow the wearer to bypass security screenings. For an additional fee, it will text you ahead of time if you're booked in the middle seat between two lumberjacks.

2\. Simplifying tax time. Since the NSA knows everything about our finances and credit card transactions, it will file your return with the IRS. Never be audited again.

3\. Data recovery. Lose your phone? The NSA will restore your contact list. Hard drive fail? No worries, the NSA will rebuild it from the cloud.

4\. Avoid annoying people. The NSA's new mobile app will help you identify and avoid specific people. Is that chatty coworker in the restroom? Know before you go. Never run into your ex again.

5\. Find your teenager. Kid out past curfew? AT&T and Verizon won't help? Don't guess. The NSA's mobile app will pinpoint your teenager on a moment's notice.

6\. Private investigations. Is the guy you're dating married? Is your spouse having an affair? There's no need to hire a private investigator. The NSA will monitor the activities of those around you and email you if there's anything you should know.

7\. Improving relationships. Need to playback that conversation with your partner from 3 days ago where they'd agreed to cancel dinner reservations with your mom? No problem, the NSA audio cloud (built in to iOS and Android) will make it easy to retrieve.

8\. Unlimited remote access to data. Out of dropbox space? Need a file from home or from your ex-boyfriend's computer? No problem, the NSA's cloud file store has it.

9\. Access to medical records. Need to lookup an x-ray for your doctor? Want genetic testing reports on your date? The NSA mobile app has that too.

10\. Truly secure email services. Using email encryption is hard, a surveillance-free email service would be super popular right now.

If you have more ideas for the NSA, tweet them with the hashtag #NSAapps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> #12: Home Security: Worried about someone breaking into your house ? Leave it up to the NSA, to keep an eye and ear on your place, while you're both home and away. We'll even call the FBI, in case a "terrorist" comes into your house.

Small print: The definition of a "terrorist" is classified, in order to protect you from the said "terrorist".</comment>


CS520 Notes – Knowledge Graphs - <AUTHOR> https://raghothams.in/posts/knowledge-graph-notes/ <comment><USER2> If you follow the link to the course's page at Stanford, you can find videos and slides from all the sessions.</comment>


Show HN: "Uber" for rural areas and developing countries - <AUTHOR> http://www.libretaxi.org <comment><USER2> Big fan of the bitcoin integration. Thanks for your contribution.</comment>


JSONloops: real-time, multi-user audio sequencer for node.js and the browser - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Marak/JSONloops

<comment><USER2> Video demo of JSONloops from NYC Music Hack Day 2011: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZLLgel6Gs>

Every song or loop is stored as plain JSON, see the sample beat: [https://github.com/Marak/JSONloops/blob/master/loops/nyc.jso...](https://github.com/Marak/JSONloops/blob/master/loops/nyc.json)

Each node.js "server" acts as a hosting point for the loop. Any number of browsers can act as a control interface for a "server". Eventually, each node.js "server" will sync up peer to peer.

Audio playback currently occurs only on the "server", but as browser libraries such as <http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/> improve, the browsers will also have audio playback.

JSONloops isn't perfect right now by any means, but after checking the commit log from the weekend: <https://github.com/Marak/JSONloops/commits/master> ( and laughing at the drunken commit messages ), I was thoroughly impressed with how much they pulled off in a 24 hour hacking period

I'm excited to see where this goes.

<comment><USER3> love the comment on the end of the video "this will work in internet explorer 7, I mean I haven't tested it but I think it will"

<comment><USER4> This whole video will be hilarious in ten years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's cool that a song made with this is in structured text (json), you could share a song through github and people could fork it to remix!

</comment><comment><USER6> Is this online and setup to use?

general question: what's the best program to get into creating music, either browser-based or offline? Windows.</comment>


Ask HN: Please suggest a good humane template for introducing my product - <AUTHOR>

Very soon I will start sending (cold) emails to potential clients to introduce my product.
I was looking for templates, but they all sound very mechanical and business-ish.
I would have love to make this template myself, so it properly expresses my intention, but I feel like my ability of expression in writing is a bit limited.
Does anyone know of a good template (which speaks as one human to another) that I can use for email introductions of my product ?
It probably does not matter, but the product is a social/peer learning product for software organizations.
Thanks for your help. <comment> shane-armstrong You could just use blogs and websites like Hacker News, twitter, etc to advertise yourself, I personally ignore any emails which are sent to me advertising some kind of product.

Unfortunately after years of phising scams and other similar email based issues, I do not trust anyone online enough to "check out their cool new product".

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very valid point... thanks</comment></comment>


Headline: 6.0 earthquake hits eastern Turkey, kills 57 - <AUTHOR> http://bestgoogle-trends.blogspot.com/2010/03/headline-60-earthquake-hits-eastern.html <comment><USER2> Interesting news, but not Hacker News. It doesn't gratify one's intillectual curiosity, it's not about hacking, it's not about startups, it's not about technology.

It's news, on that we can agree.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting to compare the Chile earthquake with this. The ratio of the energy released in the two earthquakes is over 15,000. Yet the ratio of casualties is about 12.</comment>


Dear Google, in Defending Me as a Woman, You've Insulted Me as a STEM worker - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/dear-google-in-defending-me-as-a-woman-youve-insulted-me-as-someone-who-works-in-stem-b33975f792aa <comment><AUTHOR> The actual title was "Dear Google, in Defending Me as a Woman, You've Insulted Me as Someone Who Works in STEM", but it was 8 characters too long.

<comment><USER2> The limit can be hassle sometimes, can't it? Perhaps a better interpretation would be:

"Dear Google, in Defending Me as a Woman, You've Insulted Me as a STEM worker"

Not happy with that last phrasing, but I think the author is going for the contrast of woman and STEM, which the current rendering loses.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was what I initially thought of, but it sounded a bit off to me. But if there's a second person who thinks of the same thing, it can't be that off, so I'll edit the title to use this version. Thanks</comment></comment></comment>


How to Navigate Job Hunting During a Period of Layoffs and Extreme Unemployment - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhall/2020/04/05/job-hunting-during-unemployment/#1a6deaaa24d3 <comment><USER2> My piece of advice is this: if you are fortunate enough to keep your job during a recession, be ready to look for a new job quickly after the recovery.

I kept my job during the 2008 meltdown, and I suffered from a bad case of salary compression [1]. Although we didn't lose our jobs, our salary froze during the first 4 years. Our bonuses got cancelled, so effectively our income went down. On the fifth year we started getting meagre raises, and when I finally left after 7 years, my salary went up dramatically. I estimate that when I left I was getting paid easily half of market rate.

Moral of the story, I could have left after a couple of years in a recovering economy rather than keep the same grossly underpaid job for so long.

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?q=salary+compression&oq=salary...](https://www.google.com/search?q=salary+compression&oq=salary+compression&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.2523j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

</comment><comment><USER3> __Submitter MarkHall is also the article 's author. Looking at his user history, he submits articles he writes here, despite their irrelevance to this community __

I don 't see any value in this article posted here.

1\. It's general content

2\. It's not related to technology (or other STEM knowledge/innovations)

3\. Many tech companies are hiring

4\. covid is not effecting many software engineers as much as other occupations since we can work from home.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here: While I do share my articles here often, I think the content can be valuable to folks who recently lost their jobs or are looking for jobs. Regarding point 1, sometimes general advice is still practical. Regarding point 2, not all HN content is tech specific. 3: I included the links to tech companies hiring.

<comment><USER3> No worries, I just wanted to point out some things I felt were factual about my experience with A. happening upon at largely tech/stem-irrelevant news story and thinking "Gee, why is this here if it's not relevant? I want Tech/STEM -relevant news, which is the purpose of HN." and then B. clicking your HN username and seeing you've been doing this for a while. and then C. realizing "Hey, this is misuse, and I am going to point it out."

I think given that this is "Hacker" News, founded by YCombinator, an technology incubator ("seed accelerator"), that the spirit of this forum is to keep the discussion purely Tech, STEM & Tech/STEM-business related. Not articles which have no clear emphasis on these core topics.

In respect to Social Contract, I'd prefer that YCombinator isn't flooded by every blogger who thinks their non-tech or STEM article should be posted on a Tech/STEM related news forum. I'd prefer that you don't consider this a traffic outlet to boost your articles' views & visits, especially then they're not Tech/Stem relevant.

In terms of links to tech companies hiring-- If I were blogging and wanted views from a Tech/STEM news forums' visitors, I would make the clear, overarching focus of my article Tech/STEM related. I think this approach is would be more respectful to the purpose & visitors of this forum.

OP: "Doo daa doo... let me just go post my article on HackerNews just because I need some views"

<comment><USER4> > _I think given that this is "Hacker" News, founded by YCombinator, an > technology incubator ("seed accelerator"), that the spirit of this forum is > to keep the discussion purely Tech, STEM & Tech/STEM-business related. Not > articles which have no clear emphasis on these core topics._

Please re-read the site guidelines. This is not the case. (FWIW, I would personally agree that this article isn't a great fit, but not for that reason)

<comment><USER3> Ah gotcha. Hence I preceeded it with "I think..." Which part is not the case?

<comment><USER4> There is no restriction to "purely Tech, STEM & Tech/STEM-business related".

<comment><USER3> I would prefer if there was.

I can go anywhere any get junk news. I come to HN for STEM/Tech & similar/related business news

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Don't constantly listen to news or TV programs that repeatedly harp on the economic challenges - just take action and stay focused on your goals"

Perhaps the hardest of the suggested things to do, but the most productive.

<comment><USER6> This. I think at times there's a certain mind trick you have to play on yourself. You have to believe something is possible for your own reasons irrespective of popular opinion. The insight is that popular opinion is often wrong or exaggerated or less relevant to your personal situation than you realize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems kind of a sham to write this for a generic audience when specific job sectors are likely to be much worse hit. If you've built a career in management at a large retailer for instance, and all the large retailers are hurting the same, your resume probably doesn't matter at all in this downturn.

When will you get a chance to elevator pitch someone while on lockdown?

What do you do if you don't like data privacy practices or dark patterns of platforms like LinkedIn or social networks?

In reality this article is written only for white collar workers in industries likely not as strongly impacted by the recession who are looking at job options at other white collar positions also not heavily impacted. And in that case the advice basically boils down to "do what you would normally do."

In that sense it's kind of a frustrating article masquerading as though it's helpful to people hitting hard times.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here: While I appreciate the feedback and understand parts of it, I think writing general pieces that can help broader audiences still can be valuable. The piece wasn't designed to cover simply today's reality but tomorrow as well.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How far can you take a telecommute career? - <AUTHOR>

I've been doing telecommute and/or freelance for about 4 years now. When I think of the future, I feel like a career via telecommute has a ceiling. Do you think a career based on telecommuting can continue to grow like a typical in house career? <comment><USER2> Great question. I don't think social norm would allow it to grow in the same manner as a non-remote position. Given how a lot of promotions are based on office politics.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's sort of my line of reasoning, as well. Particularly when you move into any form of management or leadership position.

<comment><USER3> Can you imagine the flip-side of the anti-remote argument if the manager was remote and the team wasn't?

"What do you mean I got a bad performance review? My boss isn't even _here_."

<comment><USER4> There's some coworkers of mine like that. They report to someone remotely, or they're responsible for a team that is entirely remote from them. Your metrics for success have to be a lot more thought out, and there's always frequent interaction between you and your manager. It's not for everyone, but generally the people that are on these remote teams aren't new hires, but rather experienced people that have proven their ability to execute over time. They're normally on the teams investigating organizational pain points and doing strategic initiatives.

I'd like to think "pretty far" but it definitely depends on the organization. For freelancing, you might have to put in a bit of face time, but nothing's stopping you from charging very high rates and doing part of the work remotely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We by nature are social and while teleconferencing has improved exponentially over the last couple of years, you cannot beat in-person communication. If you eventually want to lead a team, you must be there in person. If you want to socialise with your teammates, you must be there in person.

<comment><USER6> I lead a team, and I work remotely. Actually I manage two teams. But I work in a mid-size company (400 people) that's completely remote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yes, I've been doing it since 1998, and that includes three major separate gigs including (1) a corporate job, (2) free-lance, and (3) a founder of our own firm. So that's 15 years and counting! Best wishes to you.</comment>


Shkreli's plea from prison: Free me and I'll cure Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/shkrelis-plea-from-prison-free-me-and-ill-cure-covid-19/ <comment><USER2> Urban dictionary:

"Sociopaths are people who have little to no conscience. They will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate others for their own benefit. They know exactly what they are doing, they just don't care because they don't think that way. If you are naive enough, they will brainwash you into doing exactly what they say and what they want..."

Does he want to get out of prison? Yes. Does he want to find a cure for Covid-19? Who knows, but it's beside the point.

</comment><comment><USER3> If Snotboogie always stole the money, why'd you let him play?

Got to. This America, man.

</comment><comment><USER4> I say it's worth a try.</comment>


Robinhood is down this morning - <AUTHOR> https://status.robinhood.com/incidents/2c2n5ml0ymm9 <comment><USER2> Really not a good look right before market open... Especially considering the conditions over the past week.

WSB has some hot takes [https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/fcczde/robi...](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/fcczde/robinhood_is_down/)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's been finicky for a while now, but now its been down for over 1.5hrs, and of course given the market conditions...

Lots of retail getting taken out this morning

</comment><comment><USER4> I bet 99% of the engineering team is half asleep at every open (9:30 AM EST). Probably reached enough size to start moving the HQ to NYC.

My wife's macbook becomes unresponsive whenever this site is accessed. Probably something to do with the aptly named "threads.js" file they load.</comment>


History of Symbolics Lisp Machines (2007) - <AUTHOR> https://danluu.com/symbolics-lisp-machines/ <comment><USER2> My uncle was one of the founders. My dad had a lisp machine in his home office for years. I never got to use it much, but I certainly spent a lot of time programming in LISP as a teenager.

I should see if my dad still has it, curious if it would still work?

</comment><comment><USER3> Correction to the date in the title: this is a concatenation of blog posts from 2007 (not 2017). Specifically, these three posts:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20120909104608/http://danweinreb...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120909104608/http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal- to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi) (Sunday, November 11th, 2007)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20120909104443/http://danweinreb...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120909104443/http://danweinreb.org/blog/why- did-symbolics-fail) (Friday, November 16th, 2007)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20120909110022/http://danweinreb....](http://web.archive.org/web/20120909110022/http://danweinreb.org/blog/15) (Friday, December 21st, 2007)

There is other interesting stuff on that blog and in the comments etc.

Dan Weinreb died in 2012: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Weinreb&ol...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Weinreb&oldid=838230506)

<comment><USER4> Thanks! We've updated the headline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most special purpose machines failed because it took 2-5 years to engineer and produce each new generation of hardware. In the meantime generation purpose machines like Intel or Motorola CPUs came out every 6-12 months. An early 10x price/performance od special over general lead would evaporate next special iteration cycle. I saw this happen in LISP machines, massively parallel processors, array processors, etc. throughout the 1980s. My university lab acquired a FPS, MassPar, Connection Machine, Silicon Graphics only to see general purpose catch up.

All the fancy hardware and firmware tricks to accelerate LISP could be emulated in faster in software after a few new CPU generations.

Eventually a nimble company like Nvidia found a good mix of generallity and specificity to succeed. The semi-standard ARM specifications are another way the mobile computing world stayed in the semi-custom game.

<comment><USER6> I don't think they failed. They had served well in a time window from early 70s to the end 80s or even 90. In the US much of the stuff was research and development, and a lot was paid by DARPA (the defense research agency). For example something like a LISP Machine was originally not developed as a fast Lisp system. It was in the mid 70s the dream of a computer for software development in Artificial Intelligence. The bottleneck was not so much processor speed, but memory and that computers were shared with people on time-sharing systems. 1 MB RAM and 50 users. The system speed was the problem - not the processor speed. The Lisp Machine was designed as a single-user workstation with GUI - in mid 70s. Since the researchers wanted them for Lisp and they mostly knew Lisp, they also wrote the OS and the design software (for example chip design) in Lisp.

A commercialized GUI computer like Mac from 1984 was a tiny machine without development tools: floppy drives, 128k memory and a tiny screen.

That stock hardware was eventually faster was no surprise, since a) Lisp processors were not particular fast and b) people did run simpler Lisp software on those - mostly applications, but not a Lisp OS, which was no longer needed. The Lisp processor made it faster to develop code.

One of the main purposes was to be technology accelerators in the cold war of the 70s/80s - up to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The link in one of the posts to the Eve Phillips Masters' thesis is now: [https://www.ifis.uni-luebeck.de/~moeller/symbolics- info/ai-b...](https://www.ifis.uni-luebeck.de/~moeller/symbolics-info/ai- business.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Here's the "Symbolics, Inc: A failure of heterogeneous engineering" paper: [https://www.ifis.uni-luebeck.de/~moeller/symbolics- info/Symb...](https://www.ifis.uni-luebeck.de/~moeller/symbolics- info/Symbolics.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This machine aged fast. I had one in 1986 [https://youtu.be/P96Lp3MAJJ4?t=9m](https://youtu.be/P96Lp3MAJJ4?t=9m) for personal use and I never really understood the purpose of this machine. It was not particularly fast compared to lisps in other machines.

<comment><USER6> If you compared the 3640 using low-level Lisp benchmarks, it was comparable to other similar expensive machines at that time.

The difference was mainly that it allowed you to write large Lisp programs inside a large Lisp IDE on top of a Lisp operating system. Unix-based Common Lisp IDEs were just appearing or about to appear in 1986 and large Lisps under Unix was still a challenge - for example when using GC and a large amount of virtual memory.

Your 3640 was basically second generation hardware. First were the CADR and then the initial 36 __range. Later generations were slightly faster, supported newer hardware (SCSI, NuBUS, VMEbus, ...) and could be embedded into other machines (like the UX boards for SUNs or the MacIvory boards for Macs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> For an interesting read from the MIT AI lab crowd check out this book:

[http://www.blurb.com/b/2172660-minskys-trinskys-3rd- edition](http://www.blurb.com/b/2172660-minskys-trinskys-3rd-edition)</comment>


It's Fine. Don't Fight It. Six Steps to Programmer's Zen - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lunarlogic.io/2016/six-steps-to-programmers-zen/1/ <comment><USER2> A helpful reminder of the negative patterns we programmers are prone to.

If I were more diligent in keeping a list of articles to review regularly, I would put this one on it.</comment>


In Defense of Amy Wax's Defense of Bourgeois Values - <AUTHOR> https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/09/02/in-defense-of-amy-waxs-defense-of-bourgeois-values/ <comment><USER2> If 'all cultures are not equal' is a false statement then we're stating 'all cultures are equal' which I interpret as saying there is no metric by which we can measure the 'goodness' or 'effectiveness' of a culture.

So let's accept the statement 'all cultures are equal' at face value: all cultures are equal and therefore there exists no metric for measuring 'goodness' or 'effectiveness.' If C(now) captures my current cultural state and C(future) captures my future cultural state and we're saying both of these states are equal - because all cultures are equal - then where's the impetus for any new legislation? Where's the drive for change?

In the United States our past culture included slavery, which we'll call C(slavery). Are we really saying C(slavery) == C(now)? I bet most people would claim C(now) > C(slavery) and if so should be suspect of any claim that all cultures are equal.

This isn't a rigorous proof, but I do think it calls into question the notion that all cultures are equal. But maybe that's not what the phrase actually means: maybe what they really intend to say is we've yet to identify unbiased metrics by which we can use to measure cultures and thus correlate them. Presumably most people would bias the metric in such a manner that their culture turned out to be the best. If that's what's actually meant by the phrase 'all cultures are equal' (and I've never heard of anyone presenting it that way) then it should be stated as such because then we can work toward identifying those metrics so we can objectively improve our own culture.

<comment><USER3> You have a good point, but the next sentence clearly states the metric: "Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy." It's not a statement about the artistic or spritual value of cultures, only their ability to create economically productive individuals, which is easy to measure.

<comment><USER4> >Which is easy to measure

I think this might be formally incomputable...

<comment><USER5> Well, it seems to me intuitively obvious that cultures that value education prepare children better for their economic future than cultures that don't value education.

I may not be able to compute it. I may not even be able to measure it. But I think that anyone who disagrees is making a far less reasonable claim than I am making, and therefore has the burden of proof.

<comment><USER4> The problem with the computation is over what length of time you define economic future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with the original author's thesis: not all cultures are created equal. But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value".

This is honestly the critical point: our culture defines how we value things. Some cultures are not bothered by things like social welfare or socialist policies because the base unit of society is considered to be the family rather than the individual. Cultures like this may value things like "familial harmony" more than "individual prosperity".

So it's obvious that someone like the original author -- who likely grew up in this "bourgeois culture" \-- would attribute everything bad in society to the decline in things she holds valuable. It's part of the definition.

As a counterpoint, American culture is much better for the individual than it was 30-40 years ago for anyone who isn't a straight white male. Those people have the viewpoint that things have improved. Bourgeois values aren't meaningful to these people because they never really applied.

So really, we're back to where we already knew we were: globalization had winners and losers. The losers were primarily located in the western middle class (i.e. the bourgeois class).

<comment><USER7> >Cultures like this may value things like "familial harmony" more than "individual prosperity".

In the article, it was stated that there is a relationship here. Children are much more likely to be successful in live if their parents were married.

>the author [..] would attribute everything bad in society to the decline in things she holds valuable. It's part of the definition.

No, that's just a strawman.

<comment><USER6> It's the definition of "successful" that I'm arguing against. It presupposes a lot about what the purpose of culture is/should be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let's not get bogged down by the all cultures are not equal strawman. That is not at all the key point here. Amy Wax/OP's argument is problematic because it conflates very different things using a subtly disingenuous argument. She starts off by saying something completely uncontroversial: kids from stable marriages do well in school. But she then plays on the audiences implicit biases to imply -- but not explicitly articulate -- a completely unsubstantiated racist claim: inner city blacks are incompatible with an advanced free market economy.

This sleight of hand where the speaker/writer stops just short of an explicitly racist implication that deliberately confuses causation and correlation in the presence of multiple confounding factors is a standard white supremacist parlor trick. That is why Amy Wax was roundly condemned. And the OP's claim that saying anything negative about the (lack of) black marriages is taboo in academia is quite blatantly false. Read for example this gushing review ([https://nyti.ms/2kbBHRP](https://nyti.ms/2kbBHRP)) of Ralph Richard Banks' book on the very same topic by Imani Perry.

<comment><USER9> > .... inner city blacks are incompatible with an advanced free market > economy.

We must have read different articles because that's not what I saw - I think you're so focused on detecting a dog whistle that you're missing the key point being raised.

Values are race, gender, and class neutral. A value or system of values can be adopted by a person regardless of their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. Values are the only way we can find common ground with others, they are the only way we can be unified as a society. Imagine a white supremacist. Certainly if his skin color was magically changed to black overnight he would no longer be a white supremacist. But that's not a possibility - a white supremacist cannot change his skin color. But he can change his values.

We all agree that a stable family life is very advantageous for children. Most often this stability is achieved via marriage. Examining it along this axis we can then say that bourgeois, pro-family, pro-marriage values are _measurably better_ than others.

We can also imagine an inner city black who has a choice between two value systems - a bourgeois value system or a hedonistic "gangster" value system. Which value system should he adopt? The bourgeois one, as this one will have better outcomes for him, for his family, and for his community.

Now there's a possible danger here: that we assume that all inner-city blacks have a gangster value system. That by dint of skin color and geographic location a person must necessarily have a certain value system. So let's not make that error.

Additionally, I would be very surprised if a majority of inner-city blacks held to some sort of gangster value system. While I don't have the data or surveys on hand, I would assume that most of this population already agrees with and holds most of the pro-family bourgeois values.

If these bourgeois values are already widespread yet poor outcomes remain then we can't pin these outcomes on a person lacking correct values. There's another factor in play. It may be that bourgeois values are hostage to other social, economic, and cultural factors. That they might yet bloom into something positive but are missing other essential ingredients. Wax fails insofar as she assigns too great a weight to the impact of bourgeois values.

<comment><USER8> "I think you're so focused on detecting a dog whistle that you're missing the key point being raised."

There is no need to detect a dogwhistle. We have an explicit statement from Wax ([http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/amy-wax-penn-law- cultur...](http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/amy-wax-penn-law-cultural- values)) where she says Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior. "I don't shrink from the word, 'superior,'" she said, adding, "Everyone wants to come to the countries that exemplify" these values. "Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans."

<comment><USER10> An aside, I grew up in a small Midwest town. There was one black family in town. One of the sons was in the grade above me in school and people would joke that he wasn't really "black". This was because he had been raise in a small Midwest town and had small-town values and habits. He and his family were an accepted part of the community because they had the same values.

If a member of the Bloods had moved in town, they would very much have been rejected because they would have been acting with very different values. Further more, they probably would have starting acting in ways that were contrary to cultural norms.

Is it racist to say that I think small-town Midwest values are superior to inner-city black values?

Is it racist to say that I think that the lives of inner-city blacks would be improved if they adopted small-town Midwest values?

What if I switch the statement and say that I think small-town Midwest values could improve the lives of all poor people in the inner city. Is that "dog whistling"?

<comment><USER11> You're assuming that "inner-city black values" is a thing, and that black people living in inner cities all have the same values. _That 's_ the part that's racist.

<comment><USER10> My sister taught in Memphis for 3 years. The kids she taught were of raise significantly differently than we were raised.

I will grant you that not all black people living in the inner city have the same values but I think it is factually incorrect to say that low income African Americans living in the inner-city do not have a common culture and common values.

My phrasing might be racist, if that is the case, can you point out how to express the same idea in a more neutral way so that I don't make the same mistake in the future?

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure how to answer that, because I still don't believe what you're saying is correct. Living and teaching in Memphis for three years certainly gives one more perspective than _not_ doing so, but a school-district-sized parcel of Memphis likely doesn't even speak for Memphis as a whole, let alone all US cities.

I do expect that all low-income black people living in cities share some values, but that can be applied to any group. I wouldn't claim that low-income white people living in cities all have the same culture, either, despite the fact that they almost certainly share at least some of the same values.

Look, I'm not trying to say you're an evil racist. You just have biases (unconscious and conscious), just like all of us do. I just worry when people try to label a group of people so narrowly and homogeneously when there's more to it than that.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for the kind reply, it was kinder than I deserved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >"Does that make Wax a white supremacist for saying that culture matters for poverty-related outcomes, that not all cultures are equally good for escaping poverty, and that the 1950s American "bourgeois cultural script" was particularly good for that purpose?"

This is the core premise of the article, the conclusion, of course, being 'no'. Unfortunately, it does not accurately deal with the fairly clear subtext being delivered by Ms. Wax.

> "In an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian about the op-ed, Wax was > quoted as saying that "Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white > Europeans," because, in the phrasing of the DP article's author, "Anglo- > Protestant cultural norms are superior." … [they then affirm Wax's right to > express her opinions, then say:] We categorically reject Wax's claims."

This, in particular, is striking. Why is 'being ruled by white Europeans' the draw to migrants over, say, the relative wealth of the west in the aggregate? France and Germany certainly offer troves of opportunity, but is Greece really more of a destination for economic migrants than, say, Singapore? Would India's quasi-british culture provide a counter-example when compared with China's?

The lack of any of these comparative examinations leads us immediately to question the argument provided. Ms. Wax doesn't even make case compelling to show that it was the 1950s script itself, rather than other causes before she jumps into discussing the superiority of the white european ruling establishment. Could it be that America's economic rivals had just been bombed to ash which led to an influx of capital to the country during an era where unions had clout? Nah, its just the fact that it was ruled by white europeans (/s).

Give me a break.

<comment><USER13> I think the evidence of mass emigration from White European countries in the recent past does enough to prove her point wrong.

<comment><USER14> This is clearly an aside from TFA, but what are you talking about? Europe has had mass _immigration_ recently, not emigration.

<comment><USER15> Pretty sure GP means the mass emigration of Europeans to North America in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

<comment><USER16> What does this have to do with the article? People (all people) fled violence, hunger and death that came from a series of conflicts so dire that some populations haven't fully recovered still.

Add to that incredible amounts of political violence at the dawn of the 20th century, and you have the immigration flows. Similar thing happened when the Soviet block collapsed and economic/political strife spilled out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A lot of the people who hold these sort of viewpoints in the US would benefit immensely from visiting and even living for a while in literally any other western democracy, or even just the English-speaking ones.

I can't think of any country in the western world who has a social welfare system on the same low level as the US - and yet we don't have such a 'decline in social indicators'. Quite the opposite. And we are not perfect: the upcoming NZ election is pointing out all the remaining flaws in our society, along with futile attempts to fix them by empty-promising politicians. But no one would ever say we are not vastly better off than the average US citizen, so clearly 'social welfare' is not the problem.

Maybe having a society where a random illness or infection doesn't destroy you economically - unless you are slaved to your employer with health insurance - might help fix things? Or maybe endless foreign wars and an influx of PTSD veterans along with an outflow of patriotically brain washed kids is not healthy? Maybe a political system where a egotistical demagogue can hijack the government is a flaw to correct?

<comment><USER18> It's hard to compare a country like NZ to the US in a fair and meaningful way. NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country. Now, it's not completely homogenous, but it is _much_ more so than the US.

Being a democracy, the policies of the country are inseparable from its culture and demographics. You say universal healthcare might stem the tide of cultural breakdown. But we cannot be sure the causality doesn't flow the other way. Unfortunately, it's likely a feedback loop. We have bad policy in part due to the cultural and social decline the author describes, and we have cultural and social decline in part due to bad policy. Simply proposing policy changes neglects the complex interdependencies of these things, and is why national demographics are so important in a democracy.

Part of the reason NZ is able to cohere around its policy more than the US is because everyone in NZ (to a greater degree than in the US) shares the same values and cultural identity. This is why you see similarly idyllic societies in the Scandinavian countries. High social cohesion due to shared cultural and ethnic identity. Same in Korea and Japan - although Japanese culture is a good example of some of the downsides of ethnic and cultural homogeneity as well.

<comment><USER19> >> NZ is a small, ethnically (and therefore more importantly culturally) homogenous country

Not according to the CIA Factbook it isn't:

NZ: European 71.2%, Maori 14.1%, Asian 11.3%, Pacific peoples 7.6%, Middle Eastern, Latin American, African 1.1%, other 1.6%, not stated or unidentified 5.4%

USA: white 72.4%, black 12.6%, Asian 4.8%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.9%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2%, other 6.2%, two or more races 2.9% (2010 estimate)

I would say almost quite comparable.

<comment><USER20> Moreover, the Maori population was just as downtrodden and oppressed as the blacks of the USA, 50 or 100 years ago, and is still on the whole poorer and less educated than the white majority.

<comment><USER21> Well sure, but they were natives that weren't part of the "culture" one pictures when one imagines an average New Zeala---ohhhhh

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think underlying many of these discussions is a fundamental question:

"If not all cultures and values are equally successful in modern society, should we (as a society) encourage people to adopt a more successful values, or should we adapt society to make all cultures and values equally successful?"

(edit: obviously I have biases, but I tried to phase this in a way that masked my biases. If there's a more neutral way to phrase this, I'd be interested in hearing it)

<comment><USER23> The only way to accomplish the latter is to pull the excellent down to the level of mediocrity or worse. How do you propose to raise up a culture that doesn't value creativity and hard work, for example, to the level of success of one that does. Culture is much more than what food you eat and music you listen to.

This reminds me of a famous Tocqueville quote:

 _There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that spurs all men to wish to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the lesser to the rank of the greater._

 _But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom._

<comment><USER24> Not attributing this to you, but you could deploy your argument against abolishing slavery.

> How do you propose to raise up a culture that doesn't value diligent hard > work

Which culture? Don't be abstract. Name what culture you think doesn't value hard work and I will and we'll see if I can't find a counterexample.

<comment><USER23> I prefer positive examples. It's no secret that the Jewish people have done so phenomenally well, despite two millennia of persecution, because of their strong values of hard work, family, and creativity.

<comment><USER24> > It's no secret that the Jewish people have done so phenomenally well, > despite two millennia of persecution, because of their strong values of hard > work, family, and creativity

This is a commonly held hypothesis but the question of "why are the Jews successful despite being outsiders" is complicated and not in any way settled. What I know of it comes from reading some of "the origins of totalitarianism" Hannah Arendt. "The Jews are really hardworking" is a lazy and easy explanation for the question of how some Jews have flourished despite persecution.

It is not simply the case that culture is the proximal cause of (some) Jewish wealth than the particular material conditions of certain Jews throughout history that has lead to the affluence of and importance of some, mostly European Jews. For example, many Jews came to have a privileged position in European courts because of the rise of protestantism (a hardworking culture that doesn't value credit, something that Wax would probably say is "bad"). You're ignoring politics and history when you just chalk everything up to culture. It's survivorship bias at it's finest.

Edit: I butchered a sentence in the middle of my comment. Added a line break.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Here is a follow-up article written by one of the 33 members of the University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty to sign a letter criticizing Amy Wax:

Don't Care if Amy Wax Is Politically Incorrect; I Do Care that She's Empirically Incorrect

[https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/09/03/i-dont-care-if- amy-w...](https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/09/03/i-dont-care-if-amy-wax-is- politically-incorrect-i-do-care-that-shes-empirically-incorrect/)

<comment><USER26> What hypocrisy.

All they care is that she is "Politically Incorrect" \-- they could not care less about the facts.

Not to mention that when someone is wrong about facts you correct them, you don't fire them or ask for their condemnation. Professors are not supposed to be correct, just to probe for what's correct. In fact they should be encouraged to be boldly inquisitive and incorrect in that pursuit, and use dialog to sort out the ultimate answer.

And of course even "incorrect" ideas can be considered correct in an era -- in the 19th and up to the mid-20th century there were all kinds of facts and studies showing how some races were genetically inferior available to racists (that is: almost everybody).

Now we laugh at them, but how many similar (or even in the reverse direction) BS we take as fact because social "scientists" just put things under the rug and only give facts and statistics that are compatible with current cultural norms?

<comment><USER21> Professors are expected to have some self-awareness and avoid stating their opinions as facts.

<comment><USER26> Professors are supposed to present the conclusions they've come to from their studies and work with no "self-awareness" filtering to avoid hurting anybody's feelings. Doubly so in an article, which is not a scholarly paper, and is meant to represent a broader picture with broader strokes.

And being a professor is not about only presenting raw factoids. It's also about drawing conclusions from the data and pointing to the bigger picture the way you interpret them -- a bigger picture that no data are going to give you by themselves alone. Informing the public opinion is not about being a glorified statistician.

Of course nobody would have batted an eye if a processor had done exactly the same kind of "stating of facts" for opinions they like (and that goes for "righteous indignation" both sides, left and right).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think this is a key motivational paragraph from the article...

"The students are certainly correct that claims by a professor about the value of bourgeois culture could be misused by racists to say that one race is inherently superior to another. But does that make any discussion of cultural differences taboo? Does that make Wax a white supremacist for saying that culture matters for poverty-related outcomes, that not all cultures are equally good for escaping poverty, and that the 1950s American "bourgeois cultural script" was particularly good for that purpose? No, and here's why."

</comment><comment><USER28> Large, pluralistic societies create a new kind of natural-selective environment that pushes cultures towards greater fitness in their niches or rewards cultures that expand into or create new niches. You definitely can't expect all cultures to behave the same way and exist in all niches. See e.g. the enormous propensity of Mormons towards dentistry - "be a dentist" is not a valid universal cultural attribute, but can be adaptive for a small group. There are many routes to success.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have not read Amy Wax's original letter but my understand is that she made the claim that people in the lower social-economic classes have been rejecting the "Bourgeois" culture. She then went on to say that this rejection has and will have negative affects on those groups.

Would someone be willing to point out how that claim is offensive? Or is it how she made the claim that is the issue?

<comment><USER29> Some people translate "bourgeois culture" as "white culture" and thus interpret her conclusion as "if you don't act white your kids will be doomed". That's offensive to people who believe that diversity and multiculturalism are superior.

<comment><USER10> Ahh, your phrasing of "if you don't act white your kids will be doomed" puts it in a way I can understand it, thank you.

Part of me feels like the idea "white culture is harmful" is harmful. I think it would be much better if we could split it along economic lines "lower vs upper class" instead of racial lines "black vs white" that would help us draw parallels between the plight of rural Tennessee with inner city Detroit. But it feels like if I started talking about class people would accuse me of using class as a mask for being racist. Which just so happens to be the case here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> From the article:

"Of course we are always free to dispute each other; Wax's colleagues could certainly have written essays or a collective essay debating her claims and pointing out flaws in her reasoning, but when is it morally and professionally appropriate to issue a collective public condemnation of a colleague?

"I think such collective actions are only appropriate when colleagues have clearly and flagrantly violated their professional duties. I mean things like data fabrication or taking bribes to produce dishonest academic papers desired by a trade association."

Well, that's just your opinion man.

This is one of the key claims of this article, and it has no support. Why is a collective response inappropriate here? Why should those students and professors who disagree with Amy Wax not band together intellectually and through collective speech? Why is a collective response only appropriate when someone is clearly and vagrantly violating their professional duties? The author is making a very extreme assertion, but does it as an aside.

<comment><USER31> > Why is a collective response inappropriate here?

I think that the default should be to allow a discourse that is wide ranging and open, and to only censure in cases that are truly extreme (such as incitement). Institutional censure carries with it a huge weight, and potentially the ability to silence opinions. Though I strongly disagree with this person, I must also try to imagine a situation where the roles are reversed, where I am in the minority and having my opinion censured. I believe that to live in a society that is truly free, it guarantees you will come into contact with opinions and beliefs that you find repugnant. It troubles me that the left has so aggressively mobilized against speech, not just disagreeing with it, but demanding that it be institutionally silenced.

That said, this school (being a private institution) and these professors (being individuals entitled to their own opinions) are also within their rights. Free speech does not free you from criticism for your views.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "if understood within their sociocultural context" is akin to saying "if you agree with all of _our_ assumptions". It's a bullshit, vapid argument no matter how you use it, and the students should be embarrassed to be using such childish arguments. But of course they're aren't, because they're children.

</comment><comment><USER33> Looking at the Heterodox Academy's blog history, they seem mostly to be interested in advocating for a conservative viewpoint than anything else. To say that they're trying to 'break orthodoxy' comes across as ridiculous when they're based in a country where the current president and congress are the most right wing they've been for decades. The whole narrative of 'free speech' being under attack in academia has just been from right-wingers who really want nothing like free speech - they just want the ability to be racist and bigoted with impunity while shutting down speech in favour of equality.

</comment><comment><USER34> _Of course we are always free to dispute each other; Wax's colleagues could certainly have written essays or a collective essay debating her claims and pointing out flaws in her reasoning, but when is it morally and professionally appropriate to issue a collective public condemnation of a colleague?_

Whenever the signatories of such a communication agree upon the idea, surely? Political agency only exists to the degree that one is willing to exercise it.

I find it perplexing that conservatives on the one hand deplore restrictions on speech that seem to stifle the expression of conservative ideas and so forth, but then complain about improper forms of speech when they find their ideas rejected. If it's OK for Wax to co-author a lightweight op-ed that expresses support for bourgeois (capitalist) moral values and breezily dismisses the downsides thereof, why should her critics limit themselves to scholarly analysis but abstain from making moral arguments of their own? Why is it OK for Wax to claim that "things are likely to get worse for us all" thanks to "the academics, media, and Hollywood", but not OK for Wax's colleagues to say they consider her to be giant hypocrite?

 _I have gone to great lengths to show that Wax's central claim about culture is probably correct because the necessity of protecting dissent is clearest when the dissenter brings an important and neglected truth into the conversation._

In reality, Haidt takes one aspect of Wax's claim (about the value of marriage), shows some bipartisan/broad-spectrum support for the idea that promoting marriage can have social benefits, and treats this like an empirical result. I don't think that comes anywhere close to validating Wax's broad claim that the hegemonic post-war culture is the best cure for today's social ills, or that its shortcomings are incidental rather than inherent, or that its desiderata of modest obedience and productivity are the acme of human experience.

It's fine with me if he agrees with Wax, but this doesn't give him the right to dictate the terms of discourse. If Wax can write a "provocative essay" why must her critics restrict themselves to the language of theoretical discourse?

<comment><USER35> You are a little disingenuous - no one would be complaining if someone on the law faculty wrote a counter opinion piece. What's happening isn't an expression of disagreement, which would be fine, but an attack on Wax to try and suppress her POV. Her critics made no "moral argument" they simply condemn her.

[http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/open-letter-penn-law- fa...](http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/open-letter-penn-law-faculty)

<comment><USER34> First, I am absolutely sure that someone would complain no matter what the response.

Second, the letter which you linked to is very clearly an expression of disagreement. In what way is it 'an attack on Wax to try and suppress her POV'? It explicitly acknowledges both her civil rights and the security of her academic tenure, and explicitly rejects her claims rather than demanding she be fired or refrain from public expression of her views.

Third, they absolutely make a moral argument: _We believe the ideal of equal opportunity to succeed in education is best achieved by a combination of academic freedom, open debate and a commitment by all participants to respect one another without bias or stereotype. To our students, we say the following: If your experience at Penn Law falls substantially short of this ideal, something has gone wrong, and we want to know about it._

I still fail to see why people who disagree with someone on a political issue should be required to express their disagreement in a particular form. It looks to me as if these academics consider Wax's arguments so specious as to be unworthy of discussion. Why should they feel obliged to respond in a forum or format of their opponents' choosing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing > people to be productive in an advanced economy.

So for which statement is the author providing evidence? The first or the second?

They are two completely different statements.

<comment><USER37> Decisions and choices have consequences. These are not made in a philosophical vacuum, they are made according to the values the individual holds - which are largely influenced by the culture from which the individual comes. Indeed the term "culture" arises from the Latin "cultus" which is a religion or value structure.

A culture that passes on default values of industriousness and a high regard for education will generate individuals that are more motivated and perhaps more resilient than one who does not. A culture that values consistent parenting of children will likely pass on more deliberate traits than a culture that does not value active parenting.

One should not be surprised to see different distributions of outcomes from different groups who hold different values. One of the advantages of living in a multicultural society where people live together peacefully and actually listen to one another is that we can learn which choices lead to the best outcomes and encourage our children to emulate those and to avoid choices that lead to dependency and addiction.

The Brookings Institute can hardly be considered a right wing think tank and yet they published a well reasoned piece on the behavioral aspects of poverty [1].

[1] [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-behavioral-aspects- of...](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-behavioral-aspects-of-poverty/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> From the original article:

 _These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period._ [1]

People attach happy ideas during this time because during good economic times, things just work on all cylinders. However, two major things were happening that actually led to the advancements and fruitfulness of the time mentioned from 40s to mid 60s.

1) World War II happened and ended, everyone was obliterated but the US. This led to massive gains in all areas of wealth and industry. It was a war that took us to a superpower, and at the time, everyone owed us money. Good economic times lead to more ability to have kids and a solid consumer base to support middle class housing/restaurants/retail etc.

2) Women started entering the workforce and diversity started to happen opening up the workforce that was previously built for 1 person to provide for multiple people and salary needed for that, to suddenly having sometimes 2 in the house that brought in double the money needed for a time.

You could say a move away from family focused housing and middle class retail/restaurants is a problem, but that is more to do with wage stagnation and the internet/productivity. People can't afford to get married and have multiple kids as they could before, wages have not truly kept up and been steadily dropping since the 70s as well as share of productivity/GDP gains[2].

People have more kids in good economic times and less kids in bad economic times[3][4], same reason there was a baby boom in the time they mentioned from the 40s to the mid 60s. The 90s are similar in terms of good economic times, people had more kids, people bought more homes, more products, people were getting wage increases, new technologies/innovation that gains advantage worldwide etc.

In the end it is economics and timing, whatever is popular during those times people will attribute it to their own confirmation biases.

[1] [http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying- the-p...](http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying-the-price- for-breakdown-of-the-countrys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html)

[2] [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa)

[3] [http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world- popula...](http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-population- data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx)

[4] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/12/in-a-down- economy-...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/12/in-a-down-economy- fewer-births/)

<comment><USER15> Thank you. I wondered if anyone else could see why the original essay is so ridiculous. It assumes that bad culture is the cause of poverty, and not the other way around. It's pretty obvious that the decision to get married and stay married is affected by material conditions. One consequence of the decline in manufacturing jobs is that less-educated men have pretty low employment rates. Since they can't hold down a stable job and be the primary breadwinner (as "bourgeois culture" expects them to), there's little reason for them to stick around (or for their partners to keep them around). This also explains the data Haidt and his group turned up on the correlation between parents' marriage status and children's future success. The couples that managed to stay together were the ones that had a better financial/employment situation. There's no reason to believe that a deadbeat dad would improve his child's future competitiveness that much just by staying married to the child's mother.

There's also the fact that single moms on welfare would lose their benefits if they married the father of their children. As one astute internet commenter on a similar article remarked, "Only an ivory tower egghead could think that poor people don't make rational economic decisions."

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> All cultures are not equal and few cultures are uniformally isolated. Civilization is a byproduct of cultures interacting and blending.

And human happiness and quality of life is most supported by improving our diets, our education, our expressions and our psychologies.

Enlightenment ideals built the modern world, not relativism. We should be criticizing all cultures and our everyday actions.

"Culture" in some ways is just a random repetition of behavior and ideas. It may conform to environmental pressures but there is nothing intrinsic about it in regards to any ethnicity or race. All humans are lazy, hardworking, intellectual, superficial, selfish and selfless. The difference is which ideas push us in the right directions of our better nature.

</comment><comment><USER40> "Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working- class whites; the anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants"

Already you lost me. There are plenty of single parents out of wedlock children in very white states like West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. How is rap culture or black people responsible for the actions of white people in these areas?

I live in a big city, my kids go to a bilingual school. Every parent there, hispanic or not, want their kids to do well, to get a good education, go to college, succeed professionally and personally. All of them have absorbed some American attitudes to one degree or another. The few parents who don't speak english well want their children to do so. None of these people are against assimilating.

There may be legitimate concerns of substance here, about having children out of wedlock, parents who are stretched thin. But this paragraph right here reads like thinly veiled racism targeted towards blacks and hispanics. All the sociological rhetoric does not hide this at all.

<comment><USER26> > _Already you lost me. There are plenty of single parents out of wedlock > children in very white states like West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. How is rap > culture or black people responsible for the actions of white people in these > areas?_

Where did the author said it is?

They said there are "single-parent, antisocial habits" that are prevalent among some working-class whites" AND an "anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks" AND " anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants".

Three kinds of issues -- not an issue and two explanations for it.

> _None of these people are against assimilating._

Hence the phrasing "anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among SOME" \-- the author did not write "prevalent in ALL".

<comment><USER40> Amy Wax said it, quoted by the author. It's in the article. 7th paragraph down.

<comment><USER35> You are misreading it, she is listing three distinct groups, note the semicolons in the list. She is in no way saying one group is affecting the other, just that they all share non-bourgeois values.

Regarding being "not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment." she adds: _Nor are:

the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites;

the anti-"acting white" rap culture of inner-city blacks;

the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants_</comment></comment></comment></comment>


$199 iPhone? Sure, with a 2-year contract - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/09/199-iphone-sure-with-a-2-year-contract/ <comment><USER2> That's not a surprise given that requirement already existed. So Apple loses revenue sharing but gets the subsidy paid from AT&T. Seems like an odd trade off.

I also wonder if this means you'll be able to buy one for more money without the contract.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand the surprised face.

Would you (post author) rather pay $599 with a 2-year contract or $199 with a 2-year contact? Do the math.

<comment><USER4> rather pay 399 for 24 months of cheaper service costs. that 399 equipment cost can easily be lowered. buy refurb, buy used, marketing promotions from retailers, etc. but not much will lower that monthly cost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> tc;dr</comment>


The Iraq Inquiry: Statement by Sir John Chilcot [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/247010/2016-09-06-sir-john-chilcots-public-statement.pdf <comment><USER2>
      On 28 July, Mr Blair wrote to President Bush with an
      assurance that he would be with him "whatever"
      [...]
      At the end of January, Mr Blair accepted the US timetable
      for military action by mid-March.
      [...]
      As late as 17 March, Mr Blair was being advised by the
      Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee that Iraq
      possessed chemical and biological weapons, the means to
      deliver them and the capacity to produce them.

Seems to me the lesson here is: If you decide to invade first, then later you invite your intelligence agencies to "get with the program, jump on the team and come on in for the big win" when it's clear what you want them to tell you, they'll tell you that.

Trying to shift blame to them after things went badly seems like scapegoating to me.

I mean, that's like going to a car dealership and asking the salesman if his cars are reliable. There's no point in even asking, because you already know he'll say yes regardless of the truth.

<comment><USER3> Max Hastings makes the point in his book on intelligence in WW2 (The Secret War: Spies, Codes and Guerrillas 1939-1945) that intelligence agencies _always_ tell their political masters what they want to hear - this happens in democracies and totalitarian regimes.

It was presumably clear to those in MI6 that Blair had already decided to go to war, so what would have been in it for them to try and persuade him otherwise? Probably an early retirement at best.

<comment><USER4> If this is unavoidable, why bother with the thing at all and just have a skeleton staff of actors to roleplay the yes-men?

(A point I keep trying to make about the War on Terror is that trying to do it invisibly, with intelligence agencies, is tempting but ineffective. These agencies cannot be effectively reviewed, and produce _intelligence_ which cannot be used in court or presented to the public. So we end up with a long series of unaccountable murders by drone feeding into whatever the next Arab civil war is.

Whereas a policing approach would produce evidence for inspection in public, after which those convicted of terrorism could be imprisoned with our consciences clear.)

<comment><USER5> > If this is unavoidable, why bother with the thing at all and just have a > skeleton staff of actors to roleplay the yes-men?

Arguably it is the responsibility of leaders not to tilt their hands before the intelligence is available.

<comment><USER6> But it's the inclination of leaders, and everyone else, to lean toward their desires and preconceptions.

<comment><USER5> There's a difference between an inclination and obviously not wanting to hear something different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The full report is actually here, all 58 sections of it:

[http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/](http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the- report/)

The link above is just Chilcot's press statement which was read out on air this morning.

If you were to print it out the whole report, all twelve volumes, it looks like this:

[http://imgur.com/zRHDZyE](http://imgur.com/zRHDZyE)

edit: ok, for the avoidance of doubt, there are multiple copies of the same volume in each stack, this was the pile made available to journalists so they could grab a copy of each volume.

<comment><USER8> That image is misleading - the report is only 6417 pages which is only 12 books at (on average) 535 pages each. The image shows multiple copies of each volume.

<comment><USER7> Fairly certain anyone looking at that image would actually realise this.

<comment><USER8> Perhaps, but this is likely to be quite a hot topic, so using misleading imagery isn't helping anyone.

<comment><USER7> Oh, c'mon, I like to think that everyone who frequents this site is quick witted enough to know that's stacks of multiple copies of each volume.

<comment><USER9> They are labelled as such; it's not even slightly misleading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I merged the whole thing into a single PDF:

[http://ohuiginn.net/docs/chilcot/chilcot_report.pdf](http://ohuiginn.net/docs/chilcot/chilcot_report.pdf)

6417 pages -- enjoy!

<comment><USER11> The tldr itself would be a small book size

<comment><USER12> >The tldr itself would be a small book size

tl;dr: "From peace options, bad intel, to a bad war."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> @iocounu made a poem about it on Twitter: [https://mobile.twitter.com/iucounu/status/750456730472091648](https://mobile.twitter.com/iucounu/status/750456730472091648)

</comment><comment><USER14> The Guardian - Key points from the Iraq inquiry:

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq- inquiry...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key- points-from-the-chilcot-report)

</comment><comment><USER15> After killing a President, starting a new war and killing thousands in a decade, the report says, _Umm it was all wrong_. Earlier Blair had said sorry

I wonder whether West could give same options to the likes of Osama, Qaddafi, Aiman AlZaharvi or this _luxury_ only available for non-Muslims only?

<comment><USER16> It's available to those in power, whether at global level (the US/West), or local level (e.g. local government). Not really a Muslim/non-Muslim thing. And it's not something unique or new. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations)

<comment><USER15> Seems the definition of power is as relevant as terrorism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there anything to stop the UK government censoring this report? I pose the question after it was delayed for publication by the government last year for after the general election. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EJK8K0ypl4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EJK8K0ypl4)

It would take seven years to publish and would not seem conspiratory to suggest the delays have helped reduce public attention / demand for the report.

Would it be possible to gag order certain reports or use governmental powers to achieve this?

<comment><USER18> No, it's already been done and part of the reason the report took so long.

"But the main reason for the delay was the long tussle between the inquiry and the government over which classified material could be published alongside the report, or referred to in it." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- politics-36024725](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36024725)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> While I agree with the substance of conclusions in the report, the media's coverage of it -- as well as how it's been publicly discussed by current and former (non-Blair) members of the UK government -- seems to add up to an effort to take a pound of flesh off of Blair in some kind of weirdly tribalistic cathartic exercise for progressives.

<comment><USER20> I think its understandable that the media, especially the BBC, is a bit bitter. Here is an article from 2004 where the BBC chairman had to resign because of pressure from a government report over the evidence to go to war over Iraq:

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3434661.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3434661.stm)

Here is an excerpt:

 _BBC chairman Gavyn Davies has resigned in the wake of Lord Hutton 's criticisms of the corporation's reports._

 _He quit after Lord Hutton said the suggestion in BBC reports that the government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons with unreliable intelligence was "unfounded"._

Here is another quote from the story, this time from a BBC journalist:

 _" In the end what it comes down to is a judgement by Lord Hutton - who he believes, whose motives he trusts most and in that, again and again, he comes down on the side of politicians and officials."_

So, as you say, some of the reporting today is probably a carthartic exercise...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where's the OJ-like vow from Blair and Bush to not rest until the "real" WMDs are found?

</comment><comment><USER21> Why PDF? They should've published it as web pages so we could link to individual sections.

<comment><USER6> PDF is better for this kind of thing, because average people can easily download and keep the thing. Web pages disappear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Waste of money (£10million)!

Chaos in the Middle east is great for any country who wants to suck its resources cheaply without having to be hold ransom for it by a dictator. "interest of the country" has cost 160,000 lives in Iraq, none gives a shit because the future of black gold is secured until the next invasion

I'm a massive hypocrite, I'm about to fill up my car with the exact same oil and go for a pointless journey.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the legal implications of not accepting cookies? - <AUTHOR> Since GDPR there's a new paradigm reminiscent of "the old internet" where popups are everywhere, mostly about storing cookies. Some sites have a strict "accept cookies to enter"-policy, but there are some (mostly google products) where they simply inform me that "This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic." (taken from https://developers.google.com/speed/webp), and I can click "Ok", or simply continue browsing without actually accepting the terms.<p>What are the legal implications of not accepting the terms (not clicking OK), but still browse the website? If it's legal, why isn't every website using this approach? <comment><USER2> If they give you the choice and let you use the site, what would exactly be the problem? Who do you suppose would complain about it?

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is them using cookies without my implicit consent. They send cookies, then in hindsight assure that I'm okay with it, without even giving the option to decline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> IANAL caveat aside: the GDPR says sites need to ask for consent for cookies that are not needed for site functionality. These sites are not doing that, so they are violating the GDPR, but by providing a warning of what they are doing, I guess their liability might be somewhat less in the somewhat unlikely case of enforcement.</comment>


The Long, Painful History of Time   - <AUTHOR> http://naggum.no/lugm-time.html

<comment><USER2> "Short of coming to their senses and abolishing the whole thing, we might expect that the rules for daylight saving time will remain the same for some time to come, but there is no guarantee. (We can only be glad there is no daylight loan time, or we would face decades of too much daylight, only to be faced with a few years of total darkness to make up for it.)"

Made me laugh. The whole article is very interesting, I'll never look at a print time statement in the same way again.

</comment><comment><USER3> How amusing that the date at the top is 1999-10-11, itself ambiguous.

I like the "scientific time"/"political time" wording, snarf.

By the way, I've noticed that while 200x was used most places for a while, it's becoming increasingly common to see 2 digit years used again, even in forms belonging to major institutions.</comment>