Home is a small, engineless sailboat (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://towndock.net/shippingnews/sean-d-epagnier-and-alexandra <comment><USER3> Whoa, TownDock.net is on the front page of HN!

I love seeing any "Web 1.0" site still flourishing in 2019. TownDock's been around since 2002, and their design has barely changed since then [1]. It's run solely by a local couple who have updated it by hand, usually several times a day, for the past 17 years.

It's an awesome resource for folks who live in Oriental. (Plus, they still sell banner ads to local businesses the old-fashioned way :) )

As far as I know, the authors don't make a ton of money from the site and run it as a public service. They're clearly technical people with good hearts.

It's so cool to see this 17-year-old website still going strong!

[1]: [https://web.archive.org/web/20020904212400/http://www.towndo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20020904212400/http://www.towndock.net/)

<comment><USER4> +1000 for banner ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like a fine thread for a personal novella stirred by reading this:

After my grandfather sold his business and retired to Big Pine Key, Florida, he befriended a fellow who lived on No Name Key. No Name Key is connected to Big Pine by the "Old Wooden Bridge" (made of concrete).

No Name Key is known for a rock quarry, being the practice grounds for the Bay of Pigs invasion, and for complete lack of public utilities.

Now this is the early 90s, as my grandparents left the Keys after hurricane Andrew. In those days solar power was properly challenging. And yet the fellow in question had a fully solar powered house.

He was a physicist by education, rescued from deliquency by an insightful first mate on a Navy ship. Per my grandmother he worked "not one day longer than required to retire to a life of poverty."

In my grandfather he found a (mostly) willing source of free labor. And labor who was trained as an electronics technician during WW2. So the two worked on his solar house in the bad old days of solar on very little budget. His backup generator was the front third of an 80s something Honda Civic with a hotrodded alternator.

In addition to the solar house, he also had a 9 meter(ish) sailing catamaran of his own design and construction. The catamaran, like anything he cared about, was meticulous. I never did understand how one could be both so haphazard and so careful, depending on the task at hand.

He was a lazy sailor, but had traveled all over the East Coast and Carribean looking for his "soul mate." Indeed, he left the Keys to stay with a lady friend when hurricane Andrew hit. The problem with that plan? Said companion lived in Homestead. Oops. My grandmother suggested that perhaps he would have better romantic luck with a "smaller beer belly and fewer 'banana hammock' swim suits."

When he sailed on the open water, he used a small commercial autopilot that used a servo to move the tiller. It was based on a compass heading set on a dial. It only "worked" if you weren't that particular about where you saw the sun rise above the horizon. That was perfect for his adventures.

Grandpa died January 1, 2017, and I doubt his friend is in any condition to sail so many years later. But, if he is somehow still out there chasing soul mates, I guarantee the boat has solar power, and it's probably navigating with pypilot.

<comment><USER6> I could never describe the people who live in the Florida Keys properly, or the people that lived there besides Marathon.

Basically, all different degrees of this.

<comment><USER5> The keys were good to my grandparents. My grandfather met his closest friend there in the 1960s when their families both vacationed there. His friend was an economics professor at UIUC, and the two of them would never have met otherwise.

Another surreal Keys moment for me was seeing the MTV cribs episode with Aaron Carter. I'm virtually sure that compound previously belonged to another of my grandfather's friends. His business was helicoptering around financial documents in sort of the pre-networking version of HFT. I used to bike in that compound as a tween.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ah, the call of the sea...

In my late teens I took a course in French in the city of Royan, on France's Atlantic coast. A couple of my classmates were from the US, and they invited me over to where they were living.

It was a small sailboat moored in the harbor. The couple had essentially spent a decade working and saving, buying this boat, and having it shipped over to Europe. They'd spent some month sailing around, coastal seas and canals, and decided to learn French in Royan.

This was the first inkling that life could be more than a 9-5 grind, saving for retirement, before "life" began. This couple showed that you could alter that balance, that there are options, and your dreams are within reach if you are flexible.

I wish I had been more diligent in keeping in touch with these people.

</comment><comment><USER8> > Sean explained the setup: it was an autopilot he had built using a > windshield wiper motor, gyroscope, television remote, and a Raspberry Pi – a > palm sized computer costing less than $40.

Correction: from watching his videos, it looks like he's using a Raspberry Pi Zero, which costs $5, or $10 if you need Wifi.

This is damn impressive. I've always wondered what it would be like to live on a sailboat, and this guy has actually gone and done it successfully without dying.

Personally, I'd opt for a bigger boat though...

<comment><USER9> >> I've always wondered what it would be like to live on a sailboat..

Misery. It is not fun. There are forces out on the ocean that are truly terrifying. And there are people out there who want to hurt you. If you are going to be alone in a slow boat, you better look so poor as to not be worth their time. I'm a little surprised he displays those shiny solar panels so openly.

<comment><USER10> > there are people out there who want to hurt you

You mean want to steal from you? Who would hurt you just for the sake of it?

<comment><USER11> Piracy is still very much a thing in the 21st century.

I mean _actual_ piracy.

<comment><USER10> I'm perplexed. But I guess it makes sense. In the middle of the ocean there are no laws and nobody to protect you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 100rabbits[0] is a similar project. The same people, DeVine du Linvega/Rekka Bell, also created the Orca livecoding environment[1][2] a while ago. They also do a lot of general webdesign projects/music production (Linvega, as Aliceffekt)/worldbuilding[3]. A lot of it comes out of their living environment on a sailboat.

[0] [https://100r.co](https://100r.co) [1] [https://github.com/hundredrabbits/Orca](https://github.com/hundredrabbits/Orca) [2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19118951](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19118951) [3] [https://wiki.xxiivv.com](https://wiki.xxiivv.com)

</comment><comment><USER13> If you are interested in anarchic sailors check out Moxie Marlinspike's "Hold Fast" documentary: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8105879](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8105879)

</comment><comment><USER14> How do the electronics survive the harsh sea environment?

The autopilot looks like it could barely control the tiller in calm seas, much less any sort of storm. How useful is it?

How does he have Internet access?

How does he pay for food? Supplies? Donations and odd jobs?

I can't imagine how a ship with so much clutter, no head, no birth, can even be livable much less what it must be like in a storm.

<comment><USER15> It likely only works in rather light weather. Real autopilot systems use hydraulic rams.

There are about 100 other issues I'd fix on this boat first.

I applaud this mans effort, but taking this boat more than swimming distance from shore is something I would never do.

<comment><USER16> That's what I thought. But I'd be just as nervous on the HMS Discovery. And yet both made it to the Cook Islands and back.

And I have to say, someone who sinlgehands a more or less home made boat across the pacific and back pretty much knows what they're doing by definition.

<comment><USER17> Far from a homemade boat. The Bristol 27 is a seaworthy craft. But this sailor apparently doesn't know how to use a sponge and paint brush to maintain her. These are normally quite pretty boats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My possibly controversial hot-take:

While Sean's hacker spirit is truly admirable, I don't know how I feel about his lifestyle as a choice.

It is, of course, none of my business how he lives his life. If he's happy, great! Personally though, I no longer covet such nomadic lifestyles like I did back in my 20s. My main issue with them is lack of social opportunities and the inevitable loneliness it brings. I'm not a social butterfly by any means, but one thing I've learned about myself is that not having other people around me for extended periods has a noticeable negative effect on my mood. As such, living on a sailboat sounds like a total nightmare.

I have come to view solitude as a dessert: really nice to have after a regular meal, and maybe binge on every now and then even, but if it makes up the majority of your meals for extended periods, it'll make you sick.

<comment><USER19> Its not clear if he ever works but often forever travellers dont contribute their fair share to society. Everyone else is working to pay their own bills, pay taxes and help society. Some though are retiring early and living off investments or welfare. If he was disabled or old I wouldn't mind so much, but a healthy young educated person shouldn't be able to live off others.

<comment><USER20> >but a healthy young educated person shouldn't be able to live off others.

this is so petty. to what extent is he living off of others? he lives in a mangey boat that he paid for. once in a while maybe he gets some medical care (though i doubt it's much because he's young). does every single penny that a person's life costs need to be reckoned and reconciled? do you know how much falls through the cracks for all of us because of frictions? how much you sometimes overpay for your fair share but also how much you underpay? it's insane to begrudge someone this kind of asceticism based on some kind of weird puritanical collectivism - despite what Arthur Jensen would have you believe the world is not yet a business (and neither is life).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's some additional color on this remarkable character. But to circumnavigate the globe in that boat? I can't help but fret that this isn't going to end well.

[http://svcrystalblues.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-quiet- achiever-...](http://svcrystalblues.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-quiet-achiever- sailing-alone-around.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> If you find this interesting, you'd probably enjoy Paul Lutus' book about sailing around the world:

[https://arachnoid.com/lutusp/sailbook.html](https://arachnoid.com/lutusp/sailbook.html)

<comment><USER22> This is a good book, I'd also recommend the story of the first man to sail around the world alone, Joshua Slocum:

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

[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6317](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6317)

<comment><USER23> I've read both of those books. They're quite good.

Paul's is a tiny bit more accessible because of his programming background and the familiar perspective he has in his descriptions.

<comment><USER24> Have also read both; they're fascinating in different ways. Paul Lutus has a boat full of technology (diesel engine, laptop, radio, navigation tools, and more) but his book is an intensely - almost uncomfortably - personal voyage through his psyche, while he happens to be sailing around the world. A diary of reflections on life, struggles with people, views on science, observations on the stars and sky and waves, poignant writing on how being at sea affect people, while he happens to be sailing around the world. It's better for that, more relatable as a geek, sadder and more emotional; I consider it a good read, and I reflect on it a lot.

Captain Slocum's voyage of 1896(?) is so different; he took an old clock, and not much else, he lashes the tiller and goes down below for hours at a time to read or sleep without worrying about crashing into other boats, he tells stories of mouldy cheese induced nightmares during rough seas or chasing natives away from robbing him, or finding remote islands with communites of slightly odd people. Much of his writing is about the people he meets - <USER2> often know in advance he's making a historic voyage, so when he arrives anywhere, there's a big fuss, he's invited to dine with local dignitaries or captains of large ships, gifted interesting foods and boat parts, there's a lot of interesting things about the world of 1896. (There's also quite a bit of tedious place names and locations and passages where nothing much happens, I'm not that interested in the geography of it).

<comment><USER14> Let me add one more to your list:

[https://www.amazon.com/Freighter-Captain-Max- Hardberger/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Freighter-Captain-Max- Hardberger/dp/0964043378)

Max repos ships. The stories are amazing. You can find various pieces written about him by Googling his name such as:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/14/max- hardberger...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/14/max-hardberger- sea-captain-pirates-seized)

And a 50 minute interview with him while is where I first heard of him:

[http://www.thestory.org/stories/2008-09/out-pirating- pirates](http://www.thestory.org/stories/2008-09/out-pirating-pirates)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There's no excuse for keeping his boat in that state of disarray. I've lived aboard a sailboat with my family in the Bahamas and met a lot of full time liveaboards. The only boats I ever saw that were kept like that were the derelict vessels in Biscayne Bay, where destitute or mentally ill homeless lived in rotting anchored boats.

</comment><comment><USER25> Love this guy. I was a singlehand live-aboard sailor on a motorless boat for seven years. Most of them blended into one long endless sunset on the bay. If not for having met my wife...

</comment><comment><USER26> I was expecting the title to be a metaphor. It wasn't but I'm not disappointed.

I'm intrigued to know what self sufficient means in this context. I guess he buys vegetables, does he sell fish?

</comment><comment><USER27> This gets a lot romantic and appealing when you realize his bathroom and his shower are buckets — and hopefully not the same bucket.

Source: I've traveled maybe 7,000 miles on a pretty small sailboat.

<comment><USER28> I assume you meant a lot _less_ romantic with the buckets... and yeah it mentions in the article that he removed the head and sink to plug any holes in the hull in an effort to make it less sinkable. luxuries I myself would prefer greatly over a bucket, but I am also amazed at the cleanliness and state of repair of the boat. All the clutter seems so unsafe to me on vessel of any size or type. Keeping things clean and in good working condition I think would do a great deal to make it less sinkable. I am impressed with the use of the raspberry pi and the unusual/free lifestyle the guy seems to lead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Cool story. What's he do for water? Pack, plan, pray? Rain-water? Self-made RO watermaker?

<comment><USER30> 50l storage, rain collection, inflatable solar still, dehumidifier and forward osmosis [http://seandepagnier.users.sourceforge.net/AboutAlexandra.ht...](http://seandepagnier.users.sourceforge.net/AboutAlexandra.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This seems like the right thread to ask: so how does one go about learning to sail?

<comment><USER32> If you live somewhere where there are sailboats, there is likely US Sailing or American Sailing Association classes available, which are definitely worth it.

If there's a yacht club, they will usually have races where they need crew, and where they will teach you to be crew, and then go race with them on their boat. The costs there usually you bring beer/food to the boat and help clean up at the end.

That's a very affordable way to get into it if you're not sure how you'd like it or can't afford it. Boats are expensive and maintaining by them even more so, but in my opinion, absolutely worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> shit! he crossed pacific on the engineless boat! eternal respect!

</comment><comment><USER34> Uggg. This gives everyone that is trying to live on a boat a bad name. The boat's a mess both inside and outside. As someone that cruises around for fun, boats like his create problems. Florida, Georgia and South Carolina are all working / have passed restrictions on people anchoring out.

It's nice that he's trying to use tech and a cheap boat to stay debt free. But his boat looks like a floating safety hazard. There is an article about him from NZ where they cited him in 2013 for having an unsafe boat.

How hard is it to jump over the side and scrub stains off? How hard is it to package up electronics so they don't look like something off of [https://www.reddit.com/r/cablefail/](https://www.reddit.com/r/cablefail/) ?

Come on Sean, a little help here buddy, the cruising world is seen through the lens of boaters like you.

<comment><USER35> Yeah, that was my thought too: it looks like a floating shanty. It's a mess, and the article linked at the end of the story shows someone else who's doing a much better job of living at sea on the cheap without turning it into a hobo squat: [https://towndock.net/shippingnews/prinses- mia?pg=1](https://towndock.net/shippingnews/prinses-mia?pg=1)

<comment><USER34> Thanks for that link. Very pretty boat, well maintained, looks just wonderful. Love all the interior woodwork that's got a nice coat of varnish on it to keep it shiny and new.

That's the kind of boat that helps the cruising community.

<comment><USER36> To be fair the "shack" guy is younger, no previous career / savings, and lives off small donations for his open-source work, while the other presumably is living off savings or family money (no offense meant, it's a damn good use of it, but feel free to correct me here). What we see might be just a reflection of their priorities.

<comment><USER37> That was your takeway from an article mostly about how someone fixes up and runs a boat on a small budget?

<comment><USER36> This is my reply to the parent comments on how his boat looks bad and this other guy's is better.

The article on the Dutch sailor mentions a 12-year career, family history of sailing, flights, etc; plus even with the savings his boat costs a good decade or two of the other guy's income. As I said, feel free to correct me and I'll be happy to retract my comments.

<comment><USER37> The edited version of your comment comes across less negative, so fair point. The initial wording about "long vacation" seemed far more dismissive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I admire the man and his concerns about debt. But he is playing a young, healthy single man's game.

Family formation without debt slavery doesn't have the same appeal to our media class, but it's far more important in the long run.

<comment><USER39> I'm finding this to be true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> "Everyone is always in debt"

Assume this is true & that death erases all debt (the latter is true most places I think).

Is that a bad thing per se? I can see it being obviously bad if we're saying debt as in debtors prison. As if being in debt enslaved you and traps you - this was how things used to work in some places for sure.

But assuming it's debt that cannot enslave (big assumption, sure: see US student debt..)

Isn't debt the creditor extending leverage and (in the right circumstances, see above) sharing some of that leverage with the debtor?

In the OP's case - would it be very hard to envisage a scenario where this bloke could have a more efficient boat and computer? Where's that would give him leverage that in turn would create more value for himself and whatever he chose than the debt he owed?

I think sometimes people take instruments that sometimes encourage or enable very bad things and then blame the tool. I can think of knives, guns, cash, etc.

Debt is probably the same thing? Bad if wielded by powerful forces that essentially allow enslavement, but powerfully good if not?

Just a thought experiment for sure.

<comment><USER41> My simplistic approach to credit: it allows people to buy stuff they can't afford but it drives prices up artificially. Lots of things would be cheaper if people couldn't afford to "produce" money.

<comment><USER40> Yes but. If you take "cash" or "money" out of it, do you still agree with your own argument? What if you said "lots of things would be less valuable if nobody could cooperate to build anything"?

Again, arguing in good faith.

<comment><USER41> Well, maybe. But I've learned that you can't take money out of "it". Even in places that strive to do so. If we could we could actually reach some utopia. Communism would become highly desirable.

<comment><USER40> I think I probably disagree. Hear me out.

1\. "Money" = cash. (Hard to argue with that I think)

2\. Cash is simply a more efficient means of exchange or store of value than custom IOUs (checks basically) or barter (I need milk, you have C++ code. Durrrr?)

I don't think you want to take "money" out of anything if you agree that money is the above.

That would bar the ability of people to encode trust or information or relationships into pieces of paper (or gold or code or whatever).

(Don't freak out: relationships are encoded on paper and in gold every day; eg weddings)

So yeah. I think cash (and maybe debt - as per original comment) might be a very powerful tool. Which we should be very careful with.

<comment><USER42> "The Dispossessed" by Le Guin was helpful for me to think about these problems, which I found went deeper than I thought as a younger person. "IOU"...who is owed? Who owes? Who needs milk?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> 4ksb</comment>


I, Racist - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@johnmetta/i-racist-538512462265

<comment><USER2> Point is well argued and carries a lot of weight. It's uncomfortable reading.

As a white person coming from the UK to the US, I noticed a stark contrast in black participation in society between the two countries. While not claiming Britain is perfect, my metropolitan southern experience included a lot of black people on an equal or senior footing on various axes of professional, financial, social, etc. That experience simply didn't carry across to the major east coast city I moved to. It is unusual for me to interact with black people at client meetings, in my middle class neighborhood, when I need professional advice from a doctor or a lawyer, really anywhere other than public transport or as a customer of a service function.

While I can't discount that my ignorance of any racial tension around non white people in England was a simple function of youthful naivety, I'm absolutely more aware of 'difference' now I live in the US and I'm a lot less comfortable as a result.

In short, it's obvious to me on a superficial level that the black experience in the USA is pretty bad, but this article is a deeper look at something that's quite hard to confront.

<comment><USER3> I've noticed this in a few BBC shows vs. American shows. In a British TV show there will be characters that just happen to be black, but in an American show it's going to get talked about eventually. Admittedly they aren't the same genres, but the shows that immediately come to mind for me like this are Sherlock and Dr. Who vs. say 30 Rock or Community.

<comment><USER4> I really like how New Girl handled the issue. If my memory is correct, it didn't really mention anything about their relatively large black cast, until they was explicitly highlighted this fact in one of the final episodes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am black and I'm with him on this but, he loses me at this quote:

"Racism is our acceptance of an all white Lord of the Rings cast because of "historical accuracy," ignoring the fact that this is a world with an entirely fictionalized history."

What does Lord of The Rings written by a white author in a fantasy setting of his own imagination have to do with racism? Furthermore, how is this racist? Shoehorning a character into the story inauthentically without knowledge of that culture would be just as bad if not worse. It's like Hollywood trying to put "Hacker" characters into their storylines without having any idea of what programmers actually do or actually act.

The author makes so many more powerful arguments in piece, this small point just sticks as a thorn in my side. In the broad scope of things, an 11 year child playing with a toy gun being shot to death within seconds of being seen by the police (in a state with open carry laws, no less) is a much more clear, poignant and serious issue. Harping that there aren't black people in Lord of The Rings just waters down the argument and takes credence away from the other more worthy points.

<comment><USER6> Fantasy has disturbingly racist undertones if you examine it closely. For example, why is it "authentic" that all humans in Warcraft are lily-white Europeans, and all other ethnic counterparts are fantasy humanoid races.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What I have been noticing is that a large number of people seem to be redefining "racism" and "racist".

 _" Or even worse, we're told that we are being racist (Does any intelligent person actually believe a systematically oppressed demographic has the ability to oppress those in power?)"_

People are adding the requirement that to be racist or racism that an oppression element must coexist with the thought or behavior[1][2]. That's not completely true. An element of superiority or inferiority must exist. An oppressed person can still be racist is they believe they are superior to their oppressors.

The comment from the story above turns people off and away from hearing what is being said because it is offensive and a fallacy.

EDIT: formatting

EDIT: Clarification "(Does any intelligent person actually believe a systematically oppressed demographic has the ability to oppress those in power?)" No. But you're conflating two issues; thinking of oneself superior to another based on race and oppression. One can be racist without [directly] oppressing others. In fact, that's what the article is trying to point out.

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?q=racism](https://www.google.com/search?q=racism) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

[2] [http://archive.adl.org/hate- patrol/racism.html](http://archive.adl.org/hate-patrol/racism.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> > White people do not think in terms of we. White people have the privilege to > interact with the social and political structures of our society as > individuals. You are "you," I am "one of them." Whites are often not > directly affected by racial oppression even in their own community, so what > does not affect them locally has little chance of affecting them regionally > or nationally. They have no need, nor often any real desire, to think in > terms of a group. They are supported by the system, and so are mostly > unaffected by it.

This explains why some are moved deeply by things that occurred to strangers. The obvious solution would be to help all people view themselves more as individuals rather than belonging to this or that cultural identity. This includes less personal identification with any group as well as viewing others as individuals.

Unfortunately, the power players that make a living off racial tensions would prefer to keep it that way to maintain their influence.

<comment><USER9> It's not that the oppressed are unwilling to view themselves as individuals, it's that they are safer and better supported when they think as a collective. So saying they should just view themselves as individuals isn't so much a "solution" as it would be a sign that a solution was found. Also, is it an unchecked white default bias to believe it's better to view yourself as an individual?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My honor is all i care about. I want respect, i see insults in every lower task i have to fullfill. So they are not done, and society crumbles away.

Most insulting of all, is that any ideology can be put to test. One can make a colony, a island, a rapture and see how far it goes. Not far, by far.

The biggest insult though is that the web is annonym. There is no gender. There is no colour. There is no countrys. There is only mind. Thus, if one puts his mind and dedication into the web, one is equal. I ve seen to many excellent black speakers at conferences. The Wall has holes, and one can step through them. Of course there is racism. And its beeing fought by now. With cameras everywhere- beneath every gun, on every drone. This will not stand, this will end.

One is free to change what one can change, or to sit and sulk about the things one can not. Years of social paintjobs have archieved nothing.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm so sick and tired of the race card. My parents are immigrants. They didn't have the language privelage that [non-white] natives have. It's such a sorry excuse blaming your failure on others. There will always be inequality in the world. Somehow against the odds my parents worked their asses off and put our family in a favorable position. It took working two jobs, going to school for 8 years but somehow they did it. I can't stand hearing racial this or that. But to appease the racists out there, Morgan Freeman has many times been asked if it's impossible to be successful as a black person, to which his response was 'look at where I am now, that is evidence that you can be successful" [paraphrased]. You have to want it, not whine about something else.

<comment><USER11> Don't understand why the down vote.

<comment><USER12> > Don't understand why the down vote.

Because you're weighing in on a complicated subject without considering your inherent biases. You're conflating the success of individuals with equal opportunity. Having a black president doesn't mean we're in a post-racial society, being able to point to black athletes and movie stars doesn't mean there's no disaprites in educational funding or discrimination in employment.

But worst of all, you've decided that because your advantages of birth are invisble to you, they must not exist. This is like deciding you don't have a cornea because you can't see it directly.

Look in a mirror, and instead of dismissing the idea of privilige, see if you can actually see it in your life experience. Perhaps you can look here as a starting point. [https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/1662103.pdf](https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/1662103.pdf)

<comment><USER11> > There will always be inequality in the world.

I'm not dismissing inequality. I'm saying that b!tching about it gets you nowhere and even worse, is a sorry excuse. There will always be people with more and with less. If you want more, you go out and get it, for yourself, by yourself, against all odds.

And what advantages are you talking about? Because I was referring to my parents who grew up in communist Poland, where my mom as a kid dragged the entire stores worth of butter home after rations were lifted. As a kid, in complete innocence, bought all the butter in the store because she was afraid of there not being more butter in the future. Or my dad, who to this day, still has bread soaked in milk as his ingrained go to food when hungry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
      White people have the privilege to interact with the social
      and political structures of our society as individuals. You
      are "you," I am "one of them."

I had never thought of this relationship between individualism and privilege before. Thanks, OP.

</comment><comment><USER14> Uh, this is like a blatantly reverse-racist article.

<comment><USER15> Feel free to explain why please.

<comment><USER14> What is there to explain? The sun shines, water flows, and racists make prejudicial statements.

<comment><USER16> He is asking what about the article is racist, not why racism exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I can understand his anger and frustration, but come on.

[http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/images/InterracialMurder...](http://www.jamesmaystock.com/essays/images/InterracialMurders.jpg)

Source of image:

[https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in- the-u.s/2013/...](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in- the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law- enforcement/expanded- homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls)

<comment><USER18> What about the fact that there is a system of ghetto-ization that ensures that a huge chunk of the black population is marginalized and ostracized? What about the fact that the worst areas (where said crimes are committed) of the densely populated urban swaths are disproportionately inhabited by African- Americans?

What about institutionalized educational and police racism? What about the presence of drugs and the lack of social workers cause God forbid rich people pay higher taxes for the well-being of others?

What about the absence of fathers leaving innocent children to grow up without good role models because daddy is in jail for an egregiously long "drug offense" sentence (i.e. toking on a blunt)?

That stuff is systemic, showing out-of-context bar charts from the FBI doesn't make it right.

<comment><USER17> I am sadden that you are justifying black murderers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If whites were 1) running the country and 2) racist

then the immigration policies of this country would have kept the USA as a white majority country.

Instead, white people are becoming a minority in the USA and European countries.

"As Of Today, California No Longer Has A White Majority" [http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/07/01/2238421/cali...](http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/07/01/2238421/california- latinos-equal-white-population/)

<comment><USER20> Sure, but that's couched in racist ideology: you are black (or non-white) if you have any fraction of not-white blood. As the great melting pot processes along, its inevitable that 'pure white' folks will disappear.

And that's a problem, why?

<comment><USER19> You are just arbitrarily defining whites to mean nonsense and accusing me of being a racist which I am not, I am a Catholic and I believe racism is illogical, but I still get annoyed reading about how all us whites are supposedly racist or secretly racist, and couch everything in our secret racist ideology.

I didn't say it was a problem for a country to be non-white. I said that it simply proves that white racists are not running everything, which it does. The WASP elites are not running everything anymore - its not the 1920s.

<comment><USER20> Don't go overboard, there. The idea that 'white people' are disappearing is a racist notion. Because of an ancient notion that if you are 'polluted' by even 1% 'black blood' then you're not white. On the face of it, that's nonsense. Why not say that even 1% 'white blood' makes you white? Then the USA is almost entirely white.

And half a percent of the USA are running the whole country. I suspect they are all old white guys. We're more than halfway done proving the "they are in charge" accusation, right?

<comment><USER19> What's the point of talking if you are going to just make up stuff I supposedly said, you're arguing with things you imagined I said.

Did I say "white people are disappearing" No.

I don't know where this 'ancient notion' stuff you are arguing with comes from either.

I can't argue on the internet with someone who can't read.

<comment><USER20> Ok, sorry, I didn't actually mean to attack you at all. I was injecting the comment that what it means to be white or black is a flawed notion, and any discussion around that is likewise flawed. I retract any impression you have that I was criticizing you personally, and retire from the discussion.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Richard P. Feynman - The Relation of Science and Religion - <AUTHOR> http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm <comment><USER3> A couple of minor notes on Feynman's claims.

First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure, atheists tend to be _more_ ethical than religious people as a whole. This shows up in under-representation in criminal activity, lower divorce rates, etc. (There are a number of sociological reasons for this, but those are the statistics.)

Secondly surveys that I saw a long time ago suggest that Feynman was wrong about most scientists in his day. At that time most scientists were religious. (Still at lower rates than the general public.) However most _elite_ scientists were atheists. Which supports the thesis that the more seriously you take science, the harder it is to subscribe to traditional religion.

But this has shifted over time. While looking for that old survey I ran across [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?_r=1) which says that today about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God that they pray to, etc. But if you look at members of the National Academy of Sciences (an elite group of scientists), about 10% believe in God.

So it seems that, in yet another way, Feynman was a man ahead of his time...

<comment><USER4> _First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure, atheists tend to be more ethical than religious people as a whole. This shows up in under-representation in criminal activity, lower divorce rates, etc. (There are a number of sociological reasons for this, but those are the statistics.)_

What about if you compare atheists and religious people of similar intelligence? I suspect atheists tend to be more ethical simply because they tend to be more intelligent.

<comment><USER3> The correlation between education and atheism is one of the sociological reasons I was referring to. Unfortunately I do not have access to any research that tries to control for this obviously correlated factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bertrand Russell's writings on the topic are classics on the dealings of science and religion. This essay reminded me a bit of _A Free Man's Worship_ :

[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans...](http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans%20Worship.htm)

I read this collection of his essays on religion about a decade ago and would recommend it to folks interested in the topic:

[http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections- Writings/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections- Writings/dp/0415180929)

I feel like Feynman (and Russell) are asking a much more interesting question than the typical interwebs atheists and jesus-ists debate that this is already turning into: not, "Is religion right?" But, "What is the future of religious experience, thought and practice in a scientific world?"

<comment><USER6> Nice link - thanks for that. (the link to the article is broken but easy to find)

Another interesting question is to look at the relationship of atheism and belief. Actually science does not approach real atheism - it never exceeds agnosticism (one of Feynman's points).

Real atheism is very close to deep religious belief. Look at the great mystics - St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Kabbalists - they reach a point of blackness, emptyness where there is nothing but a completely baseless faith to sustain them.

William Blake in the 4 Zoas discusses 'experience'. I won't quote it here as it is too long - but it is here: <http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-four- zoas-excerpt/>

a remarkable passage that begins:

What is the price of Experience do men buy it for a song Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No it is bought with the price Of all that a man hath his house his wife his children...

What I personally have always wondered (and I ask this as a half-assed, weak, too lazy to get up on Sundays, lapsed catholic) is if there is really a god, an omnipotent all-knowing, all powerful entity. Then how could we possibly know anyhting about this entity.

Somewhere is the Hebrew scriptures (part of the Moses story) is the phrase "no one who looks upon my face lives". If one really believes in such a god (and I am in no way looking down on this) - how far is that from atheism?

<comment><USER7> Atheism means without god

How that is close to deep religious belief?

As an atheist I live without god in my life. That's it. I don't think about god, I don't reason based on any bible, I don't extrapolate my morals or ethics from god or any religious scripture.

How on earth are you by any metrics going to claim that that is deep religious belief?

<comment><USER5> Uff, congrats on going for the standard internet atheist vs. christians blather.

Atheism makes a definitive statement for things which are outside the realm of the testable world. In that sense, it is like being religious. The term _agnosticism_ , or simply _not religious_ , as I more often use, is indicative of a lack of belief.

Second, morality and ethics are part of the same social evolution that has traditionally produced religions. Almost any citizen of a western country has ethics that are rooted in some vaguely judeo-christian notions, which themselves are rooted in socratic notions, and so on. The social fabric doesn't have clearly demarcated lines for "religious" and "areligious". Trying to imaging what western ethics would have been without the influence of religion is like trying to imagine the United States would have been without the influence of England. You just can't pull the two apart.

<comment><USER7> With regards to agnosticism.

We exactly don't know whether there is a god or not, but choosing to believe there is one despite there being no evidence for this is by no metrics the same as saying I don't believe in it cause there is no evidence.

You can't be an agnostic. You either "live with god" in your life or you don't.

You can have an agnostic point of view on whether the question is answerable or not.

You can't both live with a belief in god and without one.

You can't both follow the laws of a religion and not follow them.

With regards to the cultural heritage then again you are simply assuming the conclusion.

The reasons why we have morals and ethics are NOT because we have religion.

Human reality is the fundamental reason why we have rules. Religion sits on top of these rules and pretend to tell us WHY we should believe (gods wrath and vengange being one of them)

But you don't need religion to make rules for peaceful co-existence and that is what people fundamentally want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's why I am an agnostic - because you can never absolutely certain of the existence/or lack thereof of God ! But the main problem is, IF there is a god, and if he created us and left us all here to kill each other and try to survive by not getting oneself killed, that is a very cruel, sadistic and uncreative god, by the modern moral yardstick! So even if there is a god, I don't think I would respect him by my present morality !

<comment><USER8> I think there is far more to it than that. Take for example the question of creation. It could be possible that our Universe was created, but not designed (<http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/08/5027.ars>). Under those conditions, the creator would not be able to intervene in our actions (unless he/she/they destroy the Universe), so they couldn't really be classified as evil or immoral. Which also leads to some interesting questions: If this Universe was created by beings in a laboratory, and they somehow managed to convey this information to us and threatened to destroy the Universe unless we worshipped them, how many people would actually do it? Etc etc.

Either way, as far as "God" goes, colour me apathetically agnostic. Nothing meaningful can be said about the existence (or lack thereof) of undetectable entities, so I don't concern myself with them. But unlike many atheists, I don't care enough about the topic to proclaim this view.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As a sidebar to this speech, over the past few years I've been listening to various lectures about the existence of God, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion. What can I say? I find it interesting.

One of the interesting points that one of the professors made is that faith _is not knowing for certain_. So, in this guy's view, even religious people never "know", because if you really knew, really knew without a doubt, then there would be no faith involved. On the other hand, some scientists "know" what the results of their inquiries are going to bring. (I won't name names, but I hope we can agree on this simple point). So religious people can be very uncertain and scientists can be very certain.

This leads me to believe that there isn't necessarily a great gulf between religion and science. Some folks just have to know for sure, and some are comfortable with sliding scales of certainty. This seems to be true in both science and religion, although it may be that there are more of one type in each.

At the end of the day, instead of science and religion, the much more interesting questions might be about the _practice_ of science and religion. Referring to these things as some sort of Platonic ideals that either mesh or compete with each other probably does a great disservice to the actual practices by individuals.

So as much as I hate to critique Feynman, I believe he was off-base a bit in this case.

<comment><USER10> _So religious people can be very uncertain and scientists can be very certain._

Except this is not the case, at all. It's a false sense of certainty drawn from the solid roots of empirical science, _especially_ for the existential (or _unempirical_ ) topics of disagreement between science and religion.

I am a huge advocate and fan of empirical science and all that has brought us, but when people go clobbering religious believers with the science bat as if they're somehow "more certain" about that which _cannot be empirically experienced_ , nor _empirically reproduced_ , then that's when I call BS.

On existential issues (the only legitimate grounds of disagreement between science and religion), Science and Religion are equal. They are _equally_ uncertain, although many people can't understand that. Both have a mountain of faith-based assumptions about things we cannot _EVER_ determine empirically.

Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see.

I love robg around here not only because he finds great articles, but because he's a damn smart neuroscientist and backs me up entirely on this:

 _The problem of course is that naturalism has it's own limit or else it too becomes dogmaticism. There's stuff we just can't know from empirical observation. Indeed, I'd argue the question "why" has a genesis just beyond rational thought. Empiricism might help to explain away those urges but I don't see how it will ever address their origin._ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=396215>

To sum up, both Science and Religion will _never_ answer the question "Why?" with ANY logical degree of certainty greater than the other. It's not empirical and never will be, period. In that case, I choose to embrace only solid, logically grounded empirical science yet address the intuitive questions with a faith in God that never fails me.

<comment><USER3> _I am a huge advocate and fan of empirical science and all that has brought us, but when people go clobbering religious believers with the science bat as if they're somehow "more certain" about that which they cannot empirically experience, nor empirically reproduce, then that's when I call BS. On existential issues (the only legitimate grounds of disagreement between science and religion), Science and Religion are equal. They are equally uncertain, although many people can't understand that. Both have a mountain of faith-based assumptions about things we cannot EVER determine empirically.

Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see._

By your argument you should personally be equally uncertain about whether gravity works on the surface of Pluto and whether I am a giant octopus. After all you are unable to travel to Pluto, and you are unable to track me down and verify that it was not a giant octopus who wrote these words. In your words, both are claims about things that you " _cannot empirically experience_ nor _empirically reproduce_."

Yet despite your inability to empirically experience or empirically reproduce either gravity on Pluto or any data pertaining to my octopus-hood, I confidently assert that you do not find your uncertainty on those two issues to be even remotely equivalent.

Why not? Because you have established mental models of how the universe work that make it difficult to believe that gravity doesn't work on Pluto and make it difficult to believe that there are giant octopuses posting on HN. Yet this is exactly the type of certainty that you say you'd call BS on in others. And if you met someone who strongly believed that I am a giant octopus, and expected you to accept it, I'm sure you'd be rather flabbergasted.

Science is nothing less or more than the distillation of the successes of several centuries of work on producing and testing better mental models of how parts of the universe exist. Mental models exactly like the ones you used to tackle the data points I gave you. (In fact every part of the mental model you'd use on the Pluto question, including belief in the existence of Pluto, came out of that scientific process.)

Please think about this example carefully. Then try to apply modern mental models of the universe to questions such as whether people get possessed by demons, water can turn into wine, and people can come back from the dead. You should find that those questions all look far more like the giant octopus claim than gravity on Pluto.

Whether or not this list of dubious factual claims in the Bible changes your belief system any, I think it is sufficient to make concrete why it is not just BS for people with a strong science background to look at a concrete religious tradition (Christianity in this case) and dispute specific claims that religion makes. Even though it involves reasoning about events that you " _cannot empirically experience_ nor _empirically reproduce_ ".

And once someone has disputed the basic facts of the central story, what grounds are left to accept the other beliefs of the religion?

<comment><USER10> Where did I say that _I, personally_ had to empirically experience something to accept it as fact? I edited my post in case it caused confusion.

All I meant was that I will only accept science that is grounded in empiricism, because that is the only basis for concrete, logical, conclusions from science.

Where science and religion differ (the unempirical), I'm going with my own intuition and convictions, because science is no more correct or certain than religion.

Just in case though, can you get on Skype so I can make sure I'm not arguing with an octopus? =P

<comment><USER7> Huh?

Science is the only thing that can be correct if we follow your own interpretation.

To be correct about something it requires empirical evidence to measure up against lack of evidence.

By definition religious claims can't be verified so they can never be true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Quite interesting (would've been VERY interesting in the 50's).

Splitting the way of looking at the world into two sides -- religion and science -- is itself a 'perspective', if you will. But establishing that dichotomy is somewhat useful.

I find in coding that I need to be humble and 'doubting' in the scientific sense. But I also find that I need to have faith during e.g. long refactorings. I'm not even joking. It may seem trite to apply it directly to programming, but considering the difference of the world of 2010 and the world of 1956 -- it's nice to see some of his insights are quite relevant.

(The naive part in his understanding, imho, which anything written in the 50's would be a part of -- is that a lot of history, which wasn't exactly in the history books back then, has many examples of people screwing over other people in the name of 'religion'. So it's not all a box of roses this Christian 'ethics' that he's putting forth. Though I suppose he had to respect the YMCA audience where he spoke and the times were quite different then. I'm sure he himself, the son of Jewish immigrants, was quite aware of it. But there's a bit of the typical Feynman arrogance -- like his dismissal of the social sciences in some youtube video. Should've been a little more scientific. But, like always, he is somewhat original and sometimes connects the important dots that we overlook.)

haha, someone posted this just now in another forum.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk>

</comment><comment><USER12> "There seems to be a kind of independence in these ideas. In the end, it is possible to doubt the divinity of Christ, and yet to believe firmly that it is a good thing to do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you. It is possible to have both these views at the same time; and I would say that I hope you will find that my atheistic scientific colleagues often carry themselves well in society."

Yes, it is possible to have both those points of view at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER13> There's a popular misconception that science answers questions like "Why?" or "How?"

But that's not the heart of it. Strip away the math and jargon and theories-- all the messy details that make the engine of science turn--and it all comes down to answering "What next?".

Making up silly stories about why something happened is perhaps humanity's second-oldest pass-time. Science is the unprecedented art of making up silly stories about what _hasn't_ yet happened, then _throwing out_ stories that didn't come true. The astonishing part is that many times, when people started extending those stories to things they hadn't known of when the story was invented, or that they couldn't easily see happening--the stories kept working!

It may be the case that these flights of fancy, increasingly accurate in their predictions, describe reality, or answer questions like "Why" and "How"--but if they don't, it doesn't really matter.

So when you tell yourself a story about things that happen, and use that to form expectations of what will happen next, and most importantly get rid of stories that led you astray--that's Doing Science. And if you tell your friends about that story, and it helps them form expectations that work-- that's where scientific knowledge comes from. It's not about truth, or certainty, or very formal and proper double-blind experiments, or answering Great Questions, or any of that stuff. It's about "What's next?", nothing more, nothing less.

So, what's left? What is it that science _isn't_? I suppose--stories that aren't expected to predict anything, perhaps; ideas without implication, freed from the burden to inform today your anticipations for tomorrow, to guide your actions with the knowledge of expected consequence. So the question is: What is the purpose of an idea that impacts not at all what one thinks will happen in the future? Answer that, and you have found what science will never touch.

<comment><USER14> Well there's nothing really special about the "next" part. It's just that you can't check the _accuracy_ ("truth" is a dirty word, apparently) of your model against the data you used to construct it. It's why there's stuff like cross validation in machine learning.

Anyway a model is not really useful either when there's only a finite amount of data. I hear astronomy's starting to hit against this problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This part in particular really stuck out for me as it's a point I've been making (in lesser words) for quite some time when it comes to why I am an atheist:

"For instance, the size of the universe is very impressive, with us on a tiny particle whirling around the sun, among a hundred thousand million suns in this galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies.

Again, there is the close relation of biological man to the animals, and of one form of life to another. Man is a latecomer in a vast evolving drama; can the rest be but a scaffolding for his creation?

Yet again, there are the atoms of which all appears to be constructed, following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it; the stars are made of the same stuff, and the animals are made of the same stuff, but in such complexity as to mysteriously appear alive – like man himself.

It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe beyond man, to think of what it means without man – as it was for the great part of its long history, and as it is in the great majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to see life as part of the universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is rarely described. It usually ends in laughter, delight in the futility of trying to understand. These scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged simply as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems to be inadequate."

What he doesn't say is the point I attempt to make after explaining my version of Feynman's quoted text: If we are such a small speck in the vastness of the universe, what right do we have as human beings to claim we KNOW what created us and everything else? Why do we assume the universe is merely something for us to look at in the sky?

In my opinion religion and certain belief in deities is simply arrogance and a great crime by humanity as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER16> "I don't know the answer to this central problem -- the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects."

I feel that's the core of the conflict. Whatever aspects religion has, they are thoroughly dependent on an unquestioning acceptance of some metaphysical model, whether a minimalist one such as in Deism or one as expansive and involved as in Animism. This is the aspect that is antithetical to science, not just in science's conclusions (it's hard to falsify a deistic model, unlikely that will occur any time soon) but fundamentally in its approach.

<comment><USER17> "Whatever aspects religion has, they are thoroughly dependent on an unquestioning acceptance of some metaphysical model."

I would be careful with such a sweeping statement. My personal experience as a Catholic is that through some pretty intense questioning, I have come to a better understanding of _why_ I believe what I believe. I look at this questioning as a lifelong pursuit that is never finished. I'm constantly checking myself: "Do I believe this still? Why do I believe this to be true. Is that consistent with _other_ things I believe. If not, why?" My personal religious experience would be quite shallow if I wasn't doing that.

<comment><USER16> I think I didn't so much mean that the full metaphysical model must be accepted without question. Rather there are certain core facets that are necessitated. If certain aspects of your Catholic belief went away your belief in that particular religion would change (e.g. if you couldn't believe in the Trinity, you wouldn't quite be able to consider yourself a Catholic, I think). As I should have qualified my original statements more, I'll qualify I don't think any religion is a monolithic set of beliefs, I'm quite aware it's rather fluid and flexible as you describe.

I'm also not discounting someone discovering new tenets via that same type of self-investigation.

I'd be quite interested to learn more about such self-questioning, as well as what limitations if any you impose on yourself.

<comment><USER17> You are quite correct that certain aspects need to be accepted. I'll use your example to describe a little about how I go through the process of self- investigation.

The Trinity is an excellent example of something I have questioned at various points in my life. There isn't the space here to fully detail my whole exploration of the topic, but I have asked questions like, "Assuming there is an all powerful God, how is it possible for this being to be simultaneously in human form? What if this is all just a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally? Given what I know about physics and biology, isn't it possible this Holy Spirit thing is not real?"

Obviously, one can't arrive at conclusive "proof" in the scientific sense for any of the answers to these questions. But as a professional scientist, I find the process of asking them gives me a way to go and look into these specific topics more fully. It satisfies the analytical part of me that is always asking "why?" about everything. For this reason, I don't really put many limits on my line of questioning, since it's important to ferret out the things that are causing me trouble.

Note that I'm also not constantly questioning _everything_ all at once. This is counter-productive since you basically end up at the extreme wondering if everything you observe in the real world is fake and not being able to believe anything, metaphysical or otherwise (it has been a few years since my philosophy courses in college, but I know this is well-traveled ground in philosophy). To put it another way, at several points in my life, I have explored the idea that God may not exist (or that maybe I'm dealing with the "wrong one"). Ultimately, I have made the decision that I believe there is a God. So I don't go back and re-hash that concept every time I want to explore another facet of my faith.

One of the things I have come to appreciate about Catholicism as an adult is that it's internally consistent from a philosophical point of view. There is a rich history of writings by various Catholic philosophers (such as St. Augustine: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo>) on why we believe the things we believe. Furthermore, the Church publishes the Catechism which has extensive citations for the source texts for every facet of the Catholic faith. From the outside, many of the teachings of the Church can seem proscriptive and arbitrary. But when you dig into the details, you find there is a structure to how it all fits together into a coherent and consistent picture. You may have to do a lot of digging and reading to get to all the details, but it's all there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "After all, the earth moves around the sun – isn't it best to torn [sic] the other cheek? "

It is never a disappointment to read Feynman - an interesting piece from the opening claim:

"In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another...When we look at the past great debates on these subjects we feel jealous of those times..."

He then goes on to excuse himself from the debate as he is not an expert on religion but sets up an interesting hypothetical of a young scientist who becomes disenchanted with 'his father's god' - which is a wonderful way to setup the discussion because as it follows he doesnt really pit religion vs science. He discusses a crisis of faith which is really at the heart of any faith based system.

Discomfort with one's father's god - Cronos and Uranus, Abraham and Issac, God-the-Father and Jesus - there is something corrosive, some conflict which moves religion forward in an analogous way to how great discoveries unseat accepted truths in science. In a very elegant way Feynman touches on this and moves to a discusson of how science and religion are on different tracks.

I find it noteworthy here that he does not equate scientists with atheists but says that scientists if they believe in god do so differently. This is Issac coming down from the mountain, Jesus' last words, Buddha's fire sermon - <USER2> deep realization that we are alone in the cosmos. The scientist may worship the same god as before - but it is not longer his father's god.

The reason (for Feynman) the Science can never truly supplant religion is that it cannot entertain metaphysical questions - which is consistent with the Kantian tradition of separating reason into realms (pure, instrumental, speculative). Science is pure or instrumental - but not speculative.

(As an aside there are good examples of why science should not attempt to be speculative in recent news - Dr in UK who falsified data to support the mercury-autism link; the recent climate science scandals. And even better examples of the perversion of religion in science: "intellegent design")

This piece is great - it is not meant as a Bertrand Russell type of exegesis but is a luncheon talk intended to spur debate. As such just churns up questions and seeks productive argument.

Most throw up their hands at this debate - pick one side or another and the discussion stops. He sets the problem up beautifully - I wonder if the following discussion was saved.

What a wonderful man, beautiful soul he was.

<comment><USER3> _The reason (for Feynman) the Science can never truly supplant religion is that it cannot entertain metaphysical questions..._

FYI Feynman was an atheist in his later years. Also his hostility to philosophy and metaphysical questions has become legendary.

I don't know what his status on either trait was in the early 50s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I feel that conducting yourself in an ethical manner if you are not religious has more value than similar behavior by believers, due to the fact that the decision is made without the coercion of a punishment by God. That said some of the best people I know are quite religious. I personally see religion as a deferment of curiosity, but I don't look down on people that use computers but don't want to know how they work.

<comment><USER10> _due to the fact that the decision is made without the coercion of a punishment by God_

Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption. The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear.

 _religion as a deferment of curiosity_

Religion, in fact, holds science to a higher degree of authenticity, because it demands logical, _empirically validated_ reproducible processes for someone to believe it. The entire basis of quality science is empiricism.

At least religion calls certainty in the unempirical "faith".

In science, that f-word is a big no-no. It would be heresy to admit that science has no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than religion.

<comment><USER19> "Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption. The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear."

Isn't true _at all_? Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I was doing many things out fear of a particularly nasty and vengeful super-being. And I know I was not alone in this among my fellow believers.

Anecdotal to be sure, but it's interesting how often the pain and punishment awaiting those who step astray gets mentioned in some religious texts.

Seems pretty clear that the authors themselves did not expect love of the almighty to be sufficient to keep the flocks in line.

'At least religion calls our certainty in the unempirical "faith". In science, that f-word is a big no-no, it would be heresy to admit they have no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than does religion.'

Again, YMMV, but my experience with the Catholic Church is that very few members spoke about god, hell, limbo, miracles, etc. as if they were interesting conjectures, speculations born from an absence of empirical evidence.

No, these things were put forth as being no less factual than the presence of the sun and the rain and the snow; you were to accept them as fact; this was your act of faith.

The most striking difference I've seen between science and religion is the degree to which people readily admit that what they are saying could very well be wrong, and the extent to which doubt and skepticism is actively encouraged.

<comment><USER10> _Speaking as an ex-Catholic_

I can understand where you're coming from. The majority of my friends are Catholic (well, ex-Catholics), and to hear them talk about church almost pains me. I could not believe when they said people would show up at their door demanding tithes/money, some of the requirements for attending church, etc. To be honest, hearing all about how Catholicism operates, I'd probably have been an ex-Catholic myself.

I'm a protestant Christian though, and the root of my belief has always been that we are "justified by faith" in the midst of our depraved, imperfect nature (see Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 2:16). My faith is not a set of demands that I am obligated to perform to get into Heaven, nor does it operate out of fear of Hell and punishment. It's a faith that is rooted in a love for Christ, knowing that I can _never_ do enough good deeds to justify myself before a perfect God.

When you know that by faith - simply believing - you are justified, clean, and in God's grace, there is no basis for fear.

It's an awesome concept, but if you were to examine the New Testament, you'd conclude that Christ didn't come to instill fear (or condemn) the world, but to save the world (John 3:17).

If you're really curious, check out "Classic Christianity" by Bob George or the latter parts of "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. Both books do away with the needless junk that is the basis for many sects of Christianity and get to the core of what Christianity and the Bible really means.

<comment><USER20> This is pretty interesting. I am also a protestant Christian though my belief is sort of er... iono. Different?

Faith is "Being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Now, how can you be sure of what you hope for if there is not due evidence to have that kind of certainty? Also, you can't be certain of what you do not see without other evidence (e.g we can't see air but we know it exists from a plethora of reasons).

I'm not sure that Christianity is about "simply believing" -- I mean yes that describes the effect of Christ's _grace_ (all you need is belief/acceptance to receive it)... but that's not _why_ I choose to believe in a God.

The rational / irrational (who cares) reason for my belief in God has to do with the things that are historical texts and events, key elements include the existence of Jesus / his effect on the world, as well as the written word recorded close to after his death. Is the old testament just a silly mythology, or a long way to prove a single point (that humans could never achieve the nature of this thing we call God)? Maybe, I don't claim to know. But I feel that the new testament and its claims as well as the testaments of some people who died refusing to renounce what they saw as truth are very compelling in terms of conveying something important that happened. Do I believe that some really crazy, amazing things happened back then? I think I have due reason to believe it. I mean, I just find it so hard to believe that all those people who wrote the letters and books that make up the bible are crazy. They were crazy enough to die gruesomely and still refuse to renounce their belief, and the thing that separates them from suicide bombers is their apparent sanity in the writing as well as their message of love. _Personally_ speaking I think the evidence is enough for me to put my faith in it, to be sure of what I'm hoping for (that there is a loving God out there). Hey, worst case scenario I was wrong and I loved more people and used my life to help others, right?

In addition, it's not like the dude Jesus was preaching "thank god for dead soldiers" or "kill the infidels" or "scare them straight" or anything moronic like that. He preached humility, love, forgiveness and a bunch of things (personally, I feel) the world actually needs. I don't know how anyone can be mad at me for choosing to believe in something like that.

Now, I can similarly understand that what I see as evidence may not be evidence enough for another person, and so they may not believe the same thing as me, and that's fine. But for me to tell them that they are dumb for not seeing it, or for them to tell me that I am dumb because I choose to believe something, iono if that's a good thing. We all get the same data and we draw our own conclusions.

Am I evangelical? Yeah, I have to say yes. If you want to know more about what I believe, I am happy to spend time talking or do a bible study. Do I shove religion down other peoples' throats or get all political about crap? Not really my cup of tea. I think chill is the best demeanor for life ;D and love is all you need.

<comment><USER10> _I'm not sure that Christianity is about "simply believing" -- I mean yes that describes the effect of Christ's grace (all you need is belief/acceptance to receive it)... but that's not why I choose to believe in a God._

I completely agree with you.

Belief for the sake of belief is not _why_ I choose to believe in God, either. However, you must at least admit that justification by faith (simply believing) is at the core of the protestant Christian tenets.

If you trace the original conversation though, I was just trying to point out that fear was _not a motivator_ for my belief, and tried to show why. I could have expounded on the core of _why_ I do believe, but that would have resulted in a full dissertation.

As you pointed out, there are hundreds of historical texts and reasons that form the foundation for belief (see also Josh McDowell - Evidence that Demands a Verdict).

We're on the same page, I was just explaining something entirely different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I asked a question along those lines to HN a few days ago. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1108912></comment>


Introduction to Boosted Trees - <AUTHOR> https://xgboost.readthedocs.io/en/latest/model.html <comment><AUTHOR> I just came across this link, it is a very intuitive and well-written explanation about the subject.</comment>


The unusual politics of Silicon Valley, explained - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9411117/silicon-valley-politics-charts <comment><USER2> The unusual politics of the Republicans have a lot to do with why they get rejected by Silicon Valley founders. Look at the stupidity of shutting down the government and maybe defaulting on the national debt to shut down Planned Parenthood. I can understand how somebody would have the position they have on that issue, but how they could cause a train wreck like that over it is beyond me.

The real missing thing in this article is local politics, particularly the housing crisis in the bay area. I am in Palo Alto walking around today and I must say that it is the strangest post-urban environment I have ever seen and the only city I've visited where I regret not getting a car at the airport.

(That's coming from somebody who thinks it is a _lot_ of fun to walk in L.A. and who sees enough of the country to know Silvercar is a joke because SFO has the worst car rental center.)

Walk in any direction in Palo Alto and you end up in an endless grid of insanely expensive single family houses -- in any normal city with that demand, they'd tear down 1/8 of the houses and build 8 story apartment buildings on something and you'd get a pretty pleasant neighborhood, like the good parts of Sao Paulo.

You've got to go to local politics, not national politics, to see the pathology of the democrats. Back in my 'hood on the east coast, you get see a NYC councilwomen who looks like Oprah Winfrey argue that we need to subsidize Off Track Betting to save jobs... Now that is whack.</comment>


Bill to limit full-body scan use to be introduced - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/AP77ba434830724ac9a0187b1817308303.html <comment><USER2> The article's headline is a bit more specific: NY sen. seeks bill to deter body scan image misuse.

It's a bill from Schumer (D-NY) that would make it "illegal to distribute or record the revealing images produced by full-body scanners at airports."

In New York City, there's a much stronger law being proposed that would ban the scanners from the city (including the airports), so he has incentive to show his home base that he cares about the issue.</comment>


Laravel Forge – Servers For Artisans - <AUTHOR> https://forge.laravel.com/

<comment><USER2> This looks great! Laravel is such a joy to work with, having a nice way to get it deployed is a big win.

$10 / month for unlimited servers seems like a great deal. It would also be nice to have an option for $1 / month / server for those who only manage one (or a couple) of servers.

<comment><USER3> At $1/node/month you're looking at about 65 cents after transaction fees which doesn't keep the lights on or water running. And, if you only have one node, you're probably better suited on a shared host or VPS with cPanel installed and armed.

I find this to be similar to Cloud66[0] (at least that's what I'm picking up), and if that's the case, the pricing is very competitive (though Forge is strictly for PHP and Cloud66 covers a more broad spectrum of languages).

[0] [http://www.cloud66.com/pricing](http://www.cloud66.com/pricing)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm actually shocked this isn't getting upvoted, this is pretty awesome looking.

<comment><USER5> The post set off the voting ring detector. But since the page says "Launching Monday", it would be better posted on Monday anyway.</comment></comment>


Tracking Scroll Depth with jQuery and Google Analytics - <AUTHOR> http://www.ravelrumba.com/blog/tracking-scroll-depth-jquery-google-analytics/

<comment><USER2> Tracking scroll depth is interesting, but percentage isn't all that helpful. The number of comments on a blog post will mess with the data, for example (you won't be able to reliably compare Post A to Post B).

What might make more sense is tracking who scrolled down to the end of the .blog-post div, to the end of the .comments div, and to the end of the footer. Or whatever makes sense for the content on your page(s).

<comment><AUTHOR> All engagement metrics are pretty loose. Scroll depth percentage doesn't tell the whole story but to the degree that scroll tracking is useful, I think percentage provides a simple, document-independent metric.

Btw, tracking scroll points for specific DOM elements is one of the plugin options, so for instance you could track the end of the .comments div as you mentioned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> nice work. this has become a popular topic in GA circles with single page sites becoming popular and single page visitors increasingly entering directly on to a blog post and leaving and GA showing them as a bounced visitor.

Some other solutions I like [http://www.savio.no/blogg/a/114/tracking-content- scrollers-s...](http://www.savio.no/blogg/a/114/tracking-content-scrollers- scanners-og-readers-in-google-analytics)

[http://cutroni.com/blog/2012/02/21/advanced-content- tracking...](http://cutroni.com/blog/2012/02/21/advanced-content-tracking- with-google-analytics-part-1/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Or you can track Scroll Depth without jQuery. <https://github.com/CardinalPath/gas>

</comment><comment><USER5> The number of responses here talking about how cool this is disturbs me.

Yet another reason to use ScriptNo (Chrome).

<comment><AUTHOR> I think only one person said it was cool :) What is disturbing about it? Do you feel it's a privacy violation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very cool. Makes me wonder, what other valuable visitor metrics am I missing out on?

</comment><comment><USER7> What can be done about Noscript users in that regard? Image bugs?

<comment><USER3> you could try using server side GA. which try to mimic the js script using php. this is the most fleshed out version I know <http://code.google.com/p/php-ga/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How does this work with pages with infinite scroll?

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't tested it with infinite scroll but essentially it'll be a race. If the user can scroll to the bottom of the page before infinite scroll is able to load new content, the 100% event will fire. Otherwise it'll just register the previous scroll event (75% or a specified DOM element).</comment></comment>


130M-year-old nest of dinosaur eggs discovered in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/130-million-year-old-nest-perfectly-preserved-dinosaur-eggs-discovered-china-1653174 <comment><USER2> Makes you wonder how many fossils were destroyed if they didn't notice or just wanted to get on with Work.

<comment><USER3> If construction would stop every time you dig out something old there would be no construction at all. But it's not everyday you find perfectly preserved dinosaur eggs.

<comment><USER4> In the future, maybe there will be a more efficient mechanism to pre-scan a construction site for noteworthy finds. I'm imagining a non-invasive deployment of cyber-worms that go thru soil & nano-drillbots that go rock to survey a site. With sufficiently advanced sensors (which totally exist in my sci-fi future), you could pre-find all the cool stuff. When a construction site has been blessed as 100% uninteresting, you can blast away with your explosives with reckless abandon. You could even buy archaeology insurance to cover you in the event that construction efforts unveil something this survey missed.

Can anyone familiar with construction comment on how construction sites are blessed now, and what hedges are available to construction companies who have to halt construction because someone found dinosaur eggs?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've seen a lot of fossils-in-China articles this year, quite fantastic articles too. Can anyone answer why there are so many being discovered right now and in such remarkable condition?

</comment><comment><USER6> How confident should I be in the veracity of paleontological discoveries coming out of China?

<comment><USER7> More than in the confidence of climate research coming out of the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Are those scales on the egg itself?

<comment><USER9> Of course! Don't your eggs have scales?

Actually no it looks like that article has some other photo. Other news sites have more detailed pictures / videos without scales on eggs.

[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dinosaur-eggs- just-a...](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dinosaur-eggs-just-after- jurassic-11772182)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the link. I missed it, but you're right, the image of the egg with scales on it in the linked article says "representational image."

I do wonder about that picture, however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> sounds like this plot: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21535767-the- great-zoo-o...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21535767-the-great-zoo-of- china)

Are they dragon eggs.

</comment><comment><USER11> Ah well, time to restock the 'ol dinosaur-proof bunker.</comment>


Flattr - I want to give you my money - <AUTHOR> http://www.conceitedcode.com/2011/04/i-want-to-give-you-my-money/

<comment><USER3> Flattr is "failing" (failing as in, failing to gain substantial traction) because of lack of users. Notch (of Minecraft fame) used Flattr for a long time on his blog and he removed it because he made so very little off it, even though he has a very high traffic blog.

They shot themselves in the foot when they launched the service: a "private beta". It was the most ridiculous idea _ever_ , here is a service that NEEDS every user they can get vaguely interested to sign up and use it, and then when they have users interested (the initial launch "buzz") they say "nope sorry, it's a private beta, we'll send you an invite some time".

I used Flattr for a while and so little sites used it I just ended my subscription. I was lucky to get an invite too... they should have been trying to take everyone who WANTED to use the service, instead they pushed them away.

<comment><USER4> In their defense, artificial scarcity can drive buzz for the product a lot, if done well. Also, a service that's not yet done can't afford to launch to the public, especially when there's money involved.

Rather than think about launching in beta vs launching publicly, think about launching in beta vs launching much later. Which is the better choice?

<comment><USER3> In the case of Flattr? The latter would have been much more beneficial for them. I wanted to sign up to give them my money, to improve the value of their service (the value for content providers is the amount of users) and I had to "apply" and wait for it. Everything about that is wrong for Flattr.

<comment><USER4> So it would be better for flattr if you weren't even aware of their existence, rather than know about them and be unable to sign up? I don't believe that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Flattr could create a bookmarklet to flattr any webpage. Then if enough people have done so for a given domain they can contact the owner saying "Hey, you have 5$ to collect at flattr, why not sign-up?". This is basically what paypal does, allowing you to send money to anyone with an e-mail address even if they're not yet registered.

<comment><USER6> I went back and forth with someone at flattr like 8 times saying this. At the end of the day that person just broke down and told me that it was a deeply political issue and the sides were divided on it.

Sigh.

<comment><USER6> Oh and I should say that I was coming up with solutions left right and center for the "problems" associated with it. Each of the problems was more like a starting point to a great solution than a fundamental problem. (Eg. "what if 1m sites have less than 2 cents even after months?" "Auto lottery that shit" or "what if we can't contact the person?" "Same solution to someone signing up for flattr and getting hit by a bus. You can never rely on getting in touch with a person set reasonable limits and state them publically" etc, etc, etc)

<comment><USER7> There might be legal issues with collecting money on another entity's behalf (while saying you're collecting it for them) without their consent. I'm not a lawyer and it's probably not a show-stopper, but it might involve more hoops to jump through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Flattr is not rare on German sites and those who use it seem to be doing reasonably well if they are fairly well known.

Tim Pritlove, for example, (a podcaster) is making close to 2.000€ per month (chart and German blogpost: <http://tim.geekheim.de/2011/04/14/ein-jahr- flattr/>).

<comment><USER9> The european/american thousands separator always manages to confuse me for a second: "Two Euros a month? Who gives a crap?"

<comment><USER10> I hear a lot of people saying that. Interesting, however, is that I, as European, don't even think twice about it[1]. My brain must be wired to look at the context primarily.

Why that is, I can only take a stab at: I guess we see a lot more from you guys on the other side of the pond than you see from us. :)

[1] Comma overload -- my English teacher would kill me.

<comment><USER11> I think the difference is that most Americans simply aren't exposed to various ways of writing dates, times, currencies, numbers, etc. on a regular basis.

Even within Germany, there's no consensus about where to put the Euro sign (before or after). Americans don't write times like 20:00 and say "eight" aloud. After several years in Europe, I'm fairly adept at accepting all inputs.

<comment><USER12> Your comment inspired this thought: Imagine a Firefox extension or Greasemonkey script that localizes web pages: converts dates, times, currencies, separators to the user's preference. :)

Google Chrome will translate web page languages, which is a much more difficult problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here are two big reasons why not everyone has a Flattr button on ther website yet:

\- To put the button on your website you have to also be a paying Flattr user (pay a minimum of €2/month).

\- You are forced to pay a hefty 10% cut of everything you earn to Flattr. Also, you further have to pay all PayPal fees (those are not included in the 10% Flattr cut). And possibly taxes depending on where you live.

<comment><USER14> TipTheWeb ( <http://tiptheweb.org/> ) is a new (non-profit!) service that just came out of private beta a few months ago- it has no fees for tippers or publishers, and passes 100% of claimed tips to web publishers via monthly awards. And TipTheWeb doesn't require a subscription or any kind of ongoing commitment. Both flattr and Readability take big cuts of the money before it gets to publishers. In addition to working with popular publishing platforms and independent websites, TipTheWeb allows multi-contributor sites, like multi-author blogs, to add simple metadata to their pages so that tips can go directly to the authors of the content being tipped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't completely think that this is an execution issue. Do we really think there is a large market out there for "flattr-ing" blogs and other sites?

I don't know how many people would pay for/donate to something they're getting for free.

Something about not buying a cow when you're getting milk for free comes to mind...

<comment><USER16> Flattr would work better if it did more stuff. For example, if there was an API allowing any Flattr user to pay an amount into any other Flattr user's account. This would probably involve issues with banking regulations, however.

<comment><USER16> Can someone explain why this was downvoted? It seems a reasonable comment to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I love how immediately following:

"It is an incredibly simple process and there is no downside."

is:

"The minimum amount of money needed to continue use of Flattr is €2 (about $3) each month"

<comment><USER18> Another fun feature, from the FAQ:

        Can I disable/inactivate my account?
        - No. As long as there's money in your means
        account, these will be used each month. When they
        run out your account will be deactived until
        you add more funds.

I signed up thinking Flattr was a way for people to pay me who hate paypal. It turns out it's not anything like that, at all. But there's no way to immediately get off Flattr and close my account, and each month they've been emailing me garbage I don't want.

<comment><USER16> > I signed up thinking Flattr was a way for people to pay me who hate paypal.

Maybe Flattr should do that as well. For example they could extend the service so that you could put a button on your website which when someone presses it, it pays a fixed amount from their website to yours, which could be used as an easy-to-use micropayment scheme allowing people to pay for content.

<comment><USER18> Yes, that would be nice, instead of the current scheme, where you sign up, have to put money down, and then get reminded monthly that you should go spread that money around. I signed up to get paid, not pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I must admit I don't 'get' flattr - why would you ever signup if you weren't also trying to get paid? Surely Flattr's biggest problem is that they don't have users who want to freely donate, just users who want to get paid. It's a crap pyramid scheme. Or like a trade show, when the only people there are all salesmen, with no customers.

</comment><comment><USER20> Site owners have to sign up for the service before participating. That barrier should be removed.

For example, you should be able to flattr _any_ URL, not just web sites that have opted in. Here's how it would work: if you see a site that you wish to give money to, you would flattr the URL with a _promise_ of money, but not real money. You would do this on flattr.com. The owner of the URL will go to flattr.com and see that they have $89.13 in "flattry" waiting for them if they sign up. At that point, the site owner has incentive to sign up and collect the money. Once the site owner has signed up, the users are notified that they need to pay (or payment is taken automatically).

This way, users don't have to wait for a site to add the flattr button and site owners will have much more incentive to sign up once they see the money waiting for them.

</comment><comment><USER4> I will second this, I have a flattr account and will rather certainly flattr your site if I like it.

</comment><comment><USER21> TipTheWeb handles this chicken-egg problem: <http://tiptheweb.org/>

Tips identify content just by URL de-coupling content attribution from the authors claiming their tips. This also us to work for tipping content on YouTube, Flickr, and GitHub, etc. without requiring the site to be directly integrated with TipTheWeb.

<comment><USER9> > This also us to work for tipping content on YouTube, Flickr, and GitHub, > etc. without requiring the site to be directly integrated with TipTheWeb.

What happens if I tip someone whose video, photo, or code gets taken down?

<comment><USER21> Content attribution happens at the time the Tip is made, so it will be there even if the content is taken down after a user makes a Tip for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Handling money requires a stable and trusted service which is why it would have been a bad idea not having a closed beta to test it out properly before released. The problem with handling money is that there is a lot of legal issues around it.

@cabalamat there is already an API that community has used to create a lot of cool stuff with: <https://flattr.com/support/plugins> Hoping to see many more though so if you have good ideas feel free to hack away:) Donating specific sums can already be done to other Flattr users via their profile page.

We're actively working on getting Flattr more accessible and available to "flattr everything". Big changes happening in a few days! <http://blog.flattr.net/2011/04/flattr-reloads-the-cannons/>

/josef (@flattr_intern)

</comment><comment><USER23> HN could allow us to put a flattr link in our submissions. I've done it for my site, crickets so far...

There is a similar service for Bitcoin that I am thinking about adding. That might be more interesting.

<comment><USER24> To flattr the OP or HN? If it's the first one, that could be deeply controversial (see also: the squawk on Metafilter about the same thing).

<comment><USER23> I do it for the submitter on my site. I understand why some might think it is controversial, however. Actually, it might be best to keep it to comments only. -That's user created content. I'm going to consider that for my site. Thanks.

<comment><USER25> Not just controversial. Getting Flattr'd for things you didn't create can get you banned (1). Comments would be ok though.

[1] <http://flattr.com/support/faq>

<comment><USER23> Well that decides that then. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I will use Flattr when there are no service fees. After all, the developers/owners, who also just happen to run the pirate bay, feel that everything should be free and "shared, just like when we were children".

Why do they need to charge 10% service fees if they want a "free" society?

<comment><USER27> It seems like they should just allow you to flattr flattr. They believe in their model, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think that the Contenture/Readability model is probably the most likely to succeed. I'm biased, of course, having dreamt up the same basic model circa 2008.

When I learned about Kachingle (similar model with an opt-in step), I pretty much threw a wobbly and gave up on the idea. But I've taken from Facebook the idea that first to market doesn't always win, even if they have what seems like insurmountable network value. The race is not always to the swift ...

In any case, I've turned some of my design work into the basis of an honours project, so if all else fails I'll have an upgraded degree and something cool to talk about in interviews.

<comment><USER29> That's cool. My thesis was on a project very similar to flattr - <USER2> payments (not donations). This was in 2006/07, a few months before flattr opened for beta users, and was really existed to see it happen.

It didn't come up during an interview though :|

<comment><USER28> > voluntary payments (not donations)

What's the difference?

> It didn't come up during an interview though :|

They keep warning me this will be the case. Lies. Lies and slander!

<comment><USER29> The way I see it:

You donate blood and you donate to a charity. You pay for music and you pay for books. When you donate you don't expect to get something back in return. When you pay you expect something back.

Even though no one is forcing you to give in either case the mental model is a quite different. For example, as a musician I want people to pay me because they enjoy my music not because they feel that I need the money. As a listener I will pay someone if I enjoy their music - I don't really care about the financial status of the musician.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> bitcoin will make this irrelevant...</comment>