Iron Ring - DanI-S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring <comment><AUTHOR> Random trivia: the "iron version" picture is of my own ring, uploaded a few years back when I was messing around with my friend's new camera. Pleasant surprise not only to see this on HN, but to see that the picture is still there after all this time :)

As far as I know my year (2005) was one of the last years that U of T still offered an actual iron version, as opposed to stainless steel (most other schools no longer did at that time). I'm not sure if it's still possible to get one today. Another option was to get an old ring from retired engineers who were no longer practicing and returned their ring to be used by the next generation... something that I thought was pretty amazing and humbling.

<comment><USER2> You should put something in the picture for size reference (a ruler maybe). I couldn't tell if these were finger-sized rings or if these were more like bangles/bracelets. It doesn't say anything about size in the article.

<comment><USER3> The article states that the ring is to be worn on the pinky of the dominant hand.

<comment><USER4> The explanation I heard for this (from an engineer coworker) was that it's meant to be a reminder that whenever you sign off on a design or report, you are doing so as an Engineer, not merely as yourself, and that it's therefore a reminder to take things seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps we should have a silicon ring for software engineers. And in case you are thinking "that would break too easily", well that's part of the point: to remind you that software can also be very easily broken, sometimes without even trying :)

<comment><USER6> I'm a Software Engineer in Canada and I have an iron ring but that is because our Software Engineering programs (at least the ones that I know of) are accredited engineering programs - i.e. you must go through much of the same hell as other engineers.

<comment><USER7> Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board is the authoritative body as far as I'm aware and in order to title yourself an "Engineer" you need to be a member of your provincial regulatory body since the title "Engineer" is a protected title under law. It isn't really enforced in any way but to call yourself a "Software Engineer" without having P.Eng. in Canada is _technically_ illegal.

EDIT: Its pointed out in a different post that "Engineer" as a protected term is not concrete and varies province to province while "Professional Engineer" or "P.Eng." _is_ however protected.

<comment><USER8> Software Engineers in Canada can be P.Eng if they choose to. What makes you think she/he's not?

<comment><USER9> This is correct. I graduated from UBC as a Software Engineer and have applied as an EIT with APEGBC. I haven't followed through to apply for P. Eng. status though as the process is a little more difficult for software folks.

You are supposed to submit work experience under supervision of another P. Eng. which are not very common place in our industry. I believe you can apply for exceptions to this rule though.

I personally haven't bothered following through with my P. Eng. status as I am not yet convinced it buys much in our profession (vs. the other fields of Engineering).

<comment><USER7> My thoughts are that I'm going to be in this industry for another 30 years if not longer so I want the title to hold and have when I need it. I work directly alongside P.Eng. engineers so its much easier as my work is a lot closer to electronic engineers than most software.

For someone not requiring it there are often provisions on each regulatory body's to get it down the line by providing cases of past work experience validated by a P.Eng. no matter when it happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sort of relevant: In Canada the word "Engineer" is protected. While I am a Computer Scientist, I can not call myself a Software Engineer (or any form of Engineer), unlike in the US. In Canada you must have graduated from an Engineering College of a University to use the title.

<comment><USER11> I was at a networking event once, and handed a gentleman my business card. My title listed on the card was 'Software Architect'. He himself was an actual Architect (who designs physical structures), and he became upset and claimed I had absolutely no right to that title. I had never given it much thought until that point, but some folks are very protective over that sort of thing.

<comment><USER12> I dunno about software architects, but it's not terribly surprising that people are defensive over the engineering title.

The difference in difficulty between computer science courses and the engineering courses is like night and day, so it doesn't really surprise me when my EE/CE friends are frustrated when compsci majors try to call themselves engineers.

<comment><USER5> If a University's CS courses aren't hard, their CS grads will be worthless. Not only that, but if their CS program doesn't include at least the same freshman level classes that the other majors have to take (phys, chem, EE, etc), then their CS grads will be ill-equipped to work in the domains they need to.

The attitude you describe of your EE/CE friends very much reminded of a fortune file quote that's been floating around for quite some time:

"Yes, I am a real piece of work. One thing we learn at ULowell is how to flame useless hacking non-EE's like you. I am superior to you in every way by training and expertise in the technical field. Anyone can learn how to hack, but Engineering doesn't come nearly as easily. Actually, I'm not trying to offend all you CS majors out there, but I think EE is one of the hardest majors/grad majors to pass. Fortunately, I am making it." \-- "Warrior Diagnostics" (firstname.lastname@example.com)

"Being both an EE and an asshole at the same time must be a terrible burden for you. This isn't really a flame, just a casual observation. Makes me glad I was a CS major, life is really pleasant for me. Have fun with your chosen mode of existence!" \-- Jim Morrison (email@example.com)

<comment><USER13> I graduated with an ME degree and I now work as a software developer. I find that the traditional engineering coursework is more difficult than what I find with regards to CS. It's pretty easy to become a self-taught developer and even go through the online courses coming from MIT, etc. It's significantly more difficult to do the same for traditional engineering.

In addition, as someone mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the cost of failure in software doesn't often result in death.

<comment><USER5> _In addition, as someone mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the cost of failure in software doesn't often result in death._

That's nice; perhaps you should tell it to the victims of the Therac-25. Or maybe I'll remember it next time I'm writing some real-time software to control something silly like missile guidance. More and more software every day goes into controlling vital systems in our world . . .

And how often do certified professional engineers design something critical? Does every circuit that goes into a consumer electronics device need to be ultra-safe?

I'll grant you, there are a lot of shitty "software engineers" that have no business writing critical software. And many CS programs are severely lacking. But I picked up electronics in high school in my spare time, which makes me about as much an EE as your self-taught development skills make you a software engineer or architect.

What gets me is the arrogance, in particular since the Iron Ring is supposed to carry with it a reminder that everyone is fallible, and to have humility in the face of that. More often than not, things like the iron ring set people apart, for better or for worse. There are plenty of hard things that people's live depend upon that nobody gets accredited for. Having some humility, and empathy, would go a long ways towards making Professional Engineers not just better people, but better Engineers.

<comment><USER13> I agree that there is a lot of arrogance in engineering (I can't say I'm innocent either). I think the big difference is that the term "engineer" gets thrown around in software way more than it does in traditional engineering disciplines. The result is that the term "engineer" gets diluted for both software engineers and traditional engineers. That sort of dilution is not common in fields such as mechanical or biomedical engineering.

Having picked up electronics in your spare time, I doubt you'd go around calling yourself an electrical engineer. On the flip side, it happens all the time where self-taught programmers will call themselves software engineers.

Finally, I don't see how you can disagree that software failures don't often result in death. I never said they "never" result in death. It's just that software applications that have life-threatening consequences aren't nearly as common as in traditional engineering. See: cars, bridges, building structure, ropes, pulleys, levers, bolts etc. I'd argue these are more commonplace than missile guidance systems.

<comment><USER14> _cars, bridges, building structure_

Those three things right there commonly have embedded software monitoring or controlling them. As far as levers and bolts go, a lot of them have sensors monitored by software for stress.

I really don't think most people, even software developers, realize how pervasive software is in their lives.

<comment><USER13> "As far as levers and bolts go, a lot of them have sensors monitored by software for stress."

That's in the far minority of situations. As part of my ME curriculum, I've worked with these types of sensors. It's very rare you'll find them monitoring bolts and levers.

It's true that software is extremely pervasive, however I believe you're overestimating the critical nature of it in most applications. Cars, bridges, buildings: Most critical failure points are mechanical. There's certainly a lot of software the goes into regulating a car, but if there's a failure in either the software or mechanics of the car, mechanical failure will most often be the more serious issue.

<comment><USER15> > Most critical failure points are mechanical.

Given that many mechanical and structural components are designed with the assistance of software that analyzes the stresses they are subjected to (and sometimes little or no analysis is performed beyond software simulation), one might question if it's even possible to underestimate the role of software.

<comment><USER13> You make an excellent point. Though I think that the 'responsibility of an engineer' that is discussed in regards to the Iron Ring relates to it. It's up to the engineer to ensure that his design is sound regardless of any other factors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So strange to see this popping up on Hacker News. I always thought of it as a sort of obscure Canadian tradition (even many people within Canada have no idea what my ring represents, and ask me about it occasionally).

The ring is a great tradition, it brings engineers together with a sense of obligation and identity; however, in the effort of full disclosure, non- Canadian HNers should be aware that some people decide not to be ringed on ethical grounds, citing possible sexist and elitist connotations in the traditional and the ritual itself.

</comment><comment><USER17> Upon reading this, I wanted one. With inscriptions reminding me of the theoretical and the practical aspects of my craft. Maybe "λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x))" and "10 PRINT "Hello World" 20 GOTO 10".

But is that really the point? To proclaim how clever (I imagine) I am.

I think the ring is meant to be a reminder that I'm part of something bigger, something important. And that I have a responsibility to other engineers, and also to everyone else. That's why I try to make my code comprehensible to the engineer 5 years down the road. That's the "why" of open-source.

So that's why I think the ring is simple. Because individually I'm fallible and often wrong, and I need reminding.

<comment><USER18> I think having the ring is one thing, but earning it is another.

<comment><USER19> It's actually _not_ about having "earned" it; it's not meant to be a token of having completed the degree, or having been stupendously good at some technical piece of work.

It's meant as a reminder to the obligation you have to society not to cut corners on safety, and that your responsibilities to your employer do not outweigh those you have to Canadians generally.

<comment><USER20> and an engineer needs a ring to remind him of the above?

<comment><USER21> The Order has been coming up on HN recently because a number of err... unethical practices are being implemented by engineers who are theoretically "just doing their job". There was a request that engineers refuse to do such jobs on ethical grounds, and this was one of the traditions pointed out as doing exactly that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My Iron Ring has been a conversation starter wherever I travel, and I've only had it for 5 years.

Any time I'm in the Valley, people recognize the ring and ask if I went to Waterloo. Funny thing is that I did, but I usually try to explain to them that all Canadian engineering graduates wear it, not just Waterloo.

I was even in Italy with my then-girlfriend-now-fiancee, and I had someone strike up a conversation with me because of the ring; they realized that we were likely Canadian, and started telling us about their son.

The Iron Ring really does establish a type of brother/sister-hood amongst us Canadian engineers. It's a nice feeling.

<comment><USER23> I was at the grocery store and the cashier motioned to my hand and showed me her ring and we had a short discussion. I felt happy that I had this bond with a person I had never met and then immediately very sad that she was working as a cashier in a grocery store.

<comment><USER24> I've also had a few interesting discussions. One was also with a cashier, who I discovered had graduated from my alma mater with a degree in geological engineering. She was now working on poetry and other writing and she seemed genuinely happy with what she was doing. More power to her.

Another was when I visited New York for the marathon. Ran into another fellow at the airport who recognized I was from Canada because of my MEC backpack. I then noticed he had on a ring and turned out he was a professor who had once taught at my alma mater.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Non-Engineers notice my iron ring surprisingly often (ie. "oh my old roommate was an engineer"). It's a great conversation starter.

<comment><USER24> Agreed. It's quite easy to notice someone wearing one and that easily segues into questions about which discipline they chose, what school they went to and inevitably, how they use relatively little of their engineering/school knowledge in their day-to-day job. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is an American equivalent to the iron ring, but the organization behind it expressly prohibits membership to CS and Software Engineering graduates last time I checked.

Screw them. I got one on my own. I had a custom jewelist take the cladding off a simple band of white gold. I wear it for the same reason mentioned by others: to remind me of my obligations to my profession, my customers and clients, and to the public at large.

</comment><comment><USER27> Instead of an iron ring, should software Engineers be awarded an infinite loop, possibly in the form of a Moebius strip?

<comment><USER28> The science writer Simon Singh wears a Mobius scarf (a neck scarf sewed together as a Mobius strip). Pretty easy to do if you wanted to.

I'm guessing he's not the only one but he's the one I've come across.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Is there something like this for Software developers? We make the world go round and round; shouldn't we also have something this beautiful?

<comment><USER30> For most of us, people don't die when we fuck up.

<comment><USER31> To waste someone's time is to deprive them of a little bit of life.

<comment><USER32> Only if they're not enjoying it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Curiously, NTNU/NTH got a similar tradition which officially started in 1914, 8-11 years earlier[1, 2]. I wonder if these rings or the "identity crises" (the NTH-ring was designed to give former NTH (now engineering) students an identity, whereas this iron ring represents the obligations and ethics) have some correlation or not.

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

[2]: <http://www.ntnu.no/ntnu/old/glos/glos_nr.5_1995/ringen.html>

</comment><comment><USER34> I know a handful of electrical engineers with scars on their fingers from getting these things too close to a hot board.

It's a beautiful idea, but sometimes you don't want a high wattage resistor on your dominant hand...

</comment><comment><USER35> I never wore mine. Got one mostly to be able to go through the ritual with friends.

OT: Funny to see that the term 'engineer' is held in high regard in Canada but here in UK there's no such connotation.

<comment><USER36> Well the Chartered Engineer title awarded by the IET was always held high in regard at my uni (which, in theory at least, is focused on Engineering). Unfortunately for me though, there is little point spending time, energy and money to acquire one as a Software Engineer, as it applies to Mech/Civil etc schools more.

<comment><USER37> I believe it is possible to qualify as a CEng through the BCS - though not sure why anyone would do this.

<comment><USER36> True but in my case I'm actually a Software Engineer with a BEng

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> While this will like devolve into a trite discussion about why programming computers is just the same as building a bridge, it's offensive that the software industry takes for granted just how much work goes into earning something like this ring versus coding JavaScript.

I worked my way through college doing web development while studying 80 hours per week on top of that for years to get my engineering degrees. Having systematic devaluation of that is deflating, if not wrong.

<comment><USER28> This is because the industry, like most groups, values outputs, not inputs.

The skills you have, how you use them and where you learned them are inputs which means that on their own they are largely irrelevant.

It's entirely possible to make a good career, delivering genuine value to organisations and individuals, doing work you can be proud of without having any understanding of CS beyond that you'll pick up during your day to day work and a little reading around the subject. I've worked with great programmers who graduated in science, history, psychology, electronic engineering and so on. These were people who could go toe to toe technically with CS graduates and in some cases they bought things to the table that added significant value which were relatively rare in people with a more conventional computing background. Why does the fact of having not studied computer science formally make them any less valuable?

Bottom line: yes you worked very hard to get your degree and made a significant financial investment in it, but what's important now is what you do with it and that's what you'll be judged on. If you can't translate that knowledge into results why should it be significant?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Game developers carry rings too... two around their eyes due to crunching :)

<comment><USER21> Sure that's not the red ring of death?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> In looking into the United States' adoption of this[1], I noticed that there is actually a fledgling organization aimed at computer scientists, 'The Pledge of the Computing Professional'.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer>

</comment><comment><USER41> The US version of this group is the Order of the Engineer:

<http://www.order-of-the-engineer.org/>

</comment><comment><USER42> Even though I'm currently living in Silicon Valley, I still where my Canadian engineering ring. Many people ask me what it's for. Usually, people are surprised to learn about it. In contrast, it feels good that in Canada I don't have answer similar questions: most know what it's for.

</comment><comment><USER43> They need something like this for auto mechanics - they don't feel obligated for any responsibility...

<comment><USER44> You deal with the wrong auto mechanics. The local one replaced a plastic part in the door with one he cut out of aluminum and charged 1/4th the cost of a replacement plastic one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I really like the simplicity. Finnish versions are kind a lame. ( [http://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/multimedia/archive/00059/sormu...](http://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/multimedia/archive/00059/sormus_59700a.jpg) )

</comment><comment><USER46> I got mine in 2003 for a B. Sc in Mechanical Engineering, but since I ended up going to work at a software development company, I decided not to wear it - just felt wrong. This was a personal choice, YMMV :)

<comment><USER47> I also got a BS in MechE, then got a job as a software engineer, so now my girlfriend wears my ethics ring. I guess we're exempt from programming morally!

<comment><USER48> It is illegal to wear the ring in any fashion if you are not a practicing engineer (as you should have been told when you were obligated).

<comment><USER49> "Illegal" is probably the wrong word to use here, since the iron ring is not governed by any municipal, provincial, or federal law.

I have a B.Sc. EE and yet work mostly in web/mobile software. I don't consider or present myself as a "practicing engineer" but I still wear the ring as a reminder of the obligation I have towards anything I create for other people to use. I probably wouldn't give it to my girlfriend to wear, but to each their own.

<comment><USER48> Actually it is the right word. The ring is a registered symbol of the Corporation of the Seven Wardens, and wearing or displaying one without their permission (via having been obligated) or attempting to sell one is illegal in exactly the same way that using any other entity's trademark without their permission is illegal.

That said, if you've been obligated and are working in a technical field, but don't really consider yourself an 'engineer' you can still wear it, so long as you hold yourself to the values it represents.

<comment><USER49> Touché--I mistook your use of the term "illegal" to mean "criminal" but obviously overlooked the civil implications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> UCLA '12, stainless was our only option if I recall. Even amongst my engineering buddies, few actually knew of the ritual/ring and that they could obtain one! I have to say I like mine =)

<comment><USER51> This is pretty neat. I'm a 2005 engineering graduate (CSE) and never knew about this. I wonder if I can get one ex post facto.

<comment><USER50> You might, given that graduation is coming up they usually have some booth in between Boelter and math&sciences to get your ring size and order in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> (Facet)nating.. The things you learn from just casually browsing HN

</comment><comment><USER53> I wish our school did this, I feel I missed out on a cool ritual.

Can't wear rings on grounds of you don't wear jewelry in a workshop :)

Me and my significant other cast and etched pendants for each other though. :)

</comment><comment><USER54> "Early attempts to extend The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer to the United States were unsuccessful due to complications including copyright issues."

</comment><comment><USER55> My father has one, I saw it many years ago and never knew what it meant, if anything. Thanks man!

</comment><comment><USER56> So, who has the one ring to rule them all?

</comment><comment><USER57> After introducing the ring, still bridges collapsed in Quebec while in service not at construction and people died. I am not sure how effective is this ring.

<comment><USER58> What the hell did I just read ? It was not bridges, but a single overpass that fell and it is unrelated to the ring or engineers. The main problem was that two governements failed to identify the weaknesses because they wanted to save money. I despise people like you who try to link two totally unrelated facts to sound smart.

<http://www.cevc.gouv.qc.ca/>

<comment><USER57> Ooops, I apologize pal, I guess I hurt your feelings, I didn't mean that. But here is another example:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/30/montreal-tunnel- coll...](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/30/montreal-tunnel-collapse- viger-tunnel_n_1721175.html)

BTW, I don't need to sound smart and still I like you.

<comment><USER59> My friend, this is just politics. This is a case of poor leadership trying to blame someone else for their own error (lack of investment in infrastructure). This as nothing to do with the iron ring.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/ <comment><USER2> A contrary take:

> Taken all together, the greening of the planet over the last two decades > represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the > area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two > million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the > early 2000s – a 5% increase.

The article links to a nature.com study that says about about 1/3 of this greening is due to direct human activity, particularly in India and China.

[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china- an...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india- dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows)

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought climate change was supposed to increase moisture in the air, since a warmer atmosphere can hold more water.</comment>


German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account - mh-cx https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-hatecrime/german-hate-speech-law-tested-as-twitter-blocks-satire-account-idUSKBN1ES1AT <comment><USER2> The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race.

And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I can't correct them when they're wrong if they don't expose their opinions.

And what about having an argument? Someone could accuse you of a crime if they misinterpret what you say. That's the real problem here. You can say something with no hateful intent, but people can interpret it with vigorous hate. It's a really stupid law.

<comment> King-Aaron > If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a > bunch of time being their friends

I have several friends who I know hold some less-than-sociable opinions, and they do tend to keep them to themselves.

I don't quite know how to frame what I'm about to say, but I feel it's equally dickish to think that becoming someone's friend is a "waste of time" just because you don't agree with their opinion.

<comment><USER3> To be fair being racist is more than an opinion, it demonstrates your character. It reveals part of who you are and the framework with which you deal with the world. I agree that it is valuable knowledge in determining who you want to create lasting bonds with.

<comment><USER4> I'll agree with the latter assertion (framework), but not with the former (character). People tend to default to conformism when they don't know any better.

By that standard the older the man, the worse he is and you'll arrive at the conclusion that nearly everyone flawed character in the olden days when racism was mainstream.

But we need not even go any further than Charles Darwin:

"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said."

"Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakspeare. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest graduations."

[http://heretical.com/darwin/darwin4.html](http://heretical.com/darwin/darwin4.html)

Sources cited at the bottom of that page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That term 'hate speech' \- what does it actually mean?

This seems like another assault on free speech to me and there is a danger in limiting the online Overton Window to a massive bland snooze fest.

The current joy of the internet is being able to read all sorts of perspectives from 'sensible' to radical and I really hope that continues...I worry for all the citizen journalists and investigators who have been so magnificent in the current western 'glasnost' era online...

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

<comment><USER6> 'hate speech' is an oversimplification chosen by the media. The law acually forces large social media companies in germany to remove illegal* content from their site within one week.

Context is that Facebook has been ignoring illegal* content on their site and generally made an ass out of german law enforcement, so they got a law to rein them in.

*illegal: libel, Volksverhetzung ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung)), supporting illegal organizations (eg. advertising IS beheading videos), calls on people to commit crimes, child porn, porn without consent

<comment><USER7> Are you saying facebook is ignoring court orders from the German authorities to have content removed?

<comment><USER8> No, they ignored a law the government made generally without stating penalties. Now the govt was forced to spell out penalties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech.

Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold?

The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.

<comment><USER10> There's no dilema. It's just an excuse for control. Letting Nazis speak will not actually convert modern society into Nazis.

<comment><USER9> It happened 70 years ago. Obama has a good line, something similar to:

If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're dying on a continent engulfed in war.

When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions.

<comment><USER11> It would be naive to ascribe Nazi propaganda _alone_ the role of the fire starter in WWII. The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that eagerly wanted to believe it, so the Nazi leader was _democratically elected_ before he seized the absolute power.

If Nazi propaganda might have any noticeable success in today's Germany (or US, or wherever), it's not because of some crackpots from stormfront; they are a consequence, not the cause. The cause should be addressed instead, first by assuming its existence. (No, I'm not going to discuss any probable causes here; I'm trying to show the logic, not to make a political case.)

<comment><USER12> > The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that eagerly wanted to > believe it, so the Nazi leader was democratically elected before he seized > the absolute power.

That's not really accurate; the Nazis got power not by outright winning a democratic election, but because the various other parties were more concerned about each other than the Nazis, and thus more willing to tolerate a Nazi- coalition government than to form a coalition against the Nazis; the Nazis never were elected to power on their own before seizing power; they actually _lost_ a large number of seats in the election preceding their coalition government from the preceding election (after which no government was formed), and even in that preceding election they had only around 1/3 of the seats.

Nazis didn't come to power because a receptive populace gave them a mandate, they came to power becausea large enough minority of the more numerous elected not-Nazis were more afraid of each other than the Nazis.

<comment><USER13> > more afraid of each other than the Nazis.

That wasn't exactly irrational, the Nazis were not the first or only party in Germany to be engaging in widespread violence. The Communists, for example, were a real and actual threat. Mass street violence and assassinations were common in Weimar Germany even when the Nazis were nobodies.

<comment><USER12> > That wasn't exactly irrational

Nor did I say that it was (at least, based on information available at the time; it may have been strictly irrational in rational choice terms, where rationality implies optimality based on the actual future consequences and not merely anticipated ones.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> shaki-dora That's obviously stupid. But it's day two, and Twitter is likely to get their procedures in order, just like they (and Facebook etc) have previously done when implementing their own content policies.

The law applies only to a narrowly defined class of hate speech. Statements that fall under the definition have always been illegal. People always ran the risk of prosecution when calling for genocide etc.

As such, nobody's freedom of speech is more limited today than it was a week ago. What the law tries to accomplish is similar to the DMCA, i. e. to force companies to take steps to address criminal activity on their platforms when such is reported.

I know there are many who disagree with laws limiting hate speech. But this is not that debate.

<comment><USER14> Twitter should not enforce ridiculous German laws. The tech companies need to call the bluff of countries that demand censorship.

<comment> shaki-dora That's such a juvenile reaction...

Germany is considering a stable, open, democratic, peaceful, constructive and successful country. There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc in which Germany scores better than the US.

These are laws passed by the national parliament, elected to represent its constituents. The law is subject to approval by not only the national courts, but the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.

To somehow consider it a grave injustice when Twitter is now required to act when they are informed of activity considered illegal in that jurisdiction is ridiculous. Because presumably you're doing so out of some understanding of "democracy". Yet you are ignoring quite a bit of the local democracy that lead to this.

<comment><USER13> > There are any number of rankings/scoring regarding freedom of the press and > of expression, resilience to corruption, democracy, economic opportunity etc > in which Germany scores better than the US.

One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical tweets.

More broadly, I think most people would agree that beyond the extremes (say, US vs North Korea), the precise rankings of countries on these metrics are based on questionable methodologies with vague priors and are generated largely by politically motivated organizations.

<comment><USER15> > One of the reasons people regard these rankings as a total joke is exactly > because of incidents like this - Twitter being forced to delete satirical > tweets.

I'm sorry but in the extensive travels of tons of people who've been around the world, those rankings are usually right on the money. It is obvious to most people who've been around that Germany or Norway have much greater levels of freedom of expression than Venezuela, as a rather trivial example.

<comment><USER13> That's what I said - at the extremes, it's obvious that Germany is more free than Venezuela, but when you start comparing first-world countries, or even whether one undeveloped country is worse than another, it gets a lot murkier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> LOL they managed to get reuters.

Banning messages via NetzDG is on message basis, that means single tweets get removed.

Here a whole account got banned which is twitter SOP when accounts violate their TOS.

Because the new NetzDG came into effect this month now every media in germany is confused. Seems like the international ones follow suit.

Also the Titanic account (the satire account) got - wrongly - banned some time before so it propably was some kind of repeat offender thing

<comment><USER16> I think the article is saying Twitter banned the account at least partly as a consequence of the legislation, because they were worried about being fined.

<comment><USER6> That does not make sense whatsoever. They should have just hidden the tweet then. They have built technology for that - I have seen some tweets that got banned because of the NetzDG. The law is very controversal and is making waves in germany. This article just chose a terribly example - but then again thats propably iconic for most of the fears about this law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Twitter's TOS cannot be taken seriously when it comes to abusive speech. They apply their rules arbitrarily.

While I think it's never inappropriate to punch a Nazi (self avowed variety anyway), I'm definitely on the side of letting Nazis have free speech. It's best when the cockroaches are scurrying around in public, rather than hiding in the wood work. And as it turns out, the U.S. has a long history of fascists engaged in crimes, theft and murder, and have plotted the overthrow of the government - same as Germany where these ideas are illegal.

So which method actually inhibits Nazis? Neither. But at least one is cheaper, and at least with one you've got an example that most every one else, not merely just the government, will point to as what not to be. Unless you wanna get punched.

</comment><comment><USER18> The NetzDG in its current form is a disgrace for the state of law. I think an improvement in this area would be needed, but the NetzDG law is mind-boggingly stupid and inaccurately formulated.

</comment><comment><USER19> Whether the satirical Twitter account should be shut down or not ... satire's not very effective per Malcolm Gladwell's "Revisionist History" podcast at [0] (automated lossy transcript at [1]) ... targets of the satire often find the satire humorous themselves, and can find enough "truth" in exaggerated viewpoints to reinforce those views rather than call them into question.

[0] [http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire- paradox](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/10-the-satire-paradox) [1] [https://blog.simonsays.ai/satire-paradox-with-malcolm- gladwe...](https://blog.simonsays.ai/satire-paradox-with-malcolm- gladwell-s2-e10-revisionist-history-podcast-transcript-37119b0bf8ae)

<comment><USER20> Whether or not speech is effective at achieving its ultimate goal is an entirely irrelevant issue here. "Hate Speech" is extremely ineffective at promoting hate, but here we are.

<comment><USER21> Hate speech does not refer to spreading hate, really. It's just a misnomer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Ha, great!

^ see what I did there? One will say I support censorship, other will say it was sarcasm, another will stay silent.

</comment><comment> yoz-y Wait but... isn't this journal considered "newsworthy" and thus able to publish whatever they want? There is at least one person out there publishing hate speech in a non-satirical way and getting away with it on an almost daily basis.

</comment><comment><USER23> Free speech doesn't mean the right to be on twitter

</comment><comment><USER24> Is there a social media in Germany that does not censor?

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm so very glad the USA founders made the first amendment. Other countries are not as lucky as we are.

<comment><USER25> You do understand that there is no 100% free speech in the US either, right? Or in any other country for that matter.

And that is a _good_ thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Heh, I still can't believe they have "outlawed racism". That's like outlawing any other political opinion. How is that possible?

<comment><USER27> Racism is not a political opinion. Political opinions are along the lines of "are my taxes too high" or "do we spend more on parks or on police".

A belief in the inferiority of another race isn't political, it's something else. I don't know what, but discriminatory and bigoted beliefs don't belong in political discussions or any discussions about how we govern ourselves or organize society.

<comment><USER26> Racism does not have to be about "the inferiority of another race". Racism can be "I don't think it's good for the economy that so many people from outside are coming" or "this culture is completely incompatible with ours and I don't want these people here". It's a pretty lax word. By outlawing "racism" you're outlawing discourse.

<comment><USER9> Anti-Immigration != Racism

Saying you don't want immigration isn't racist if it applies to more than just immigration from certain racial groups.

However, her tweet was not about that. She called out Muslims as having certain behaviors which is clearly racist.

<comment><USER28> the left are constantly calling out Christians for certain behaviors, is this racist?

<comment><USER9> If you try to define all Christians as X, you're probably mistaken.

If it's a negative definition designed to insult then it's probably discrimination.

The whole point of being anti racism, anti religious discrimination etc., is that race and religion are not good qualifiers for making assumptions or decisions.

<comment><USER29> The parent asked you if disliking Christianity was racist, not if it was religious discrimination. Please answer them.

If, say PEW Research asks a statistically significant portion of people who identify themselves one way, and a large amount of them self declare they have awful views, is reporting this bad because it's 'negative'?

<comment><USER9> No, it's perfectly fine to have an opinion about an ideology, like: "I don't believe in the Bible/Christianity, etc.". A statement like that only makes a judgement about yourself which is of course your right.

If you dislike something, there's usually a fear underneath that. People who dislike Christianity on a deeper level are probably afraid that if everyone was Christian X would happen. Sometimes that's realistic, sometimes it's not, but expressing your fear is OK and usually helps people understand you better than if you simply say "I don't like X type of people".

When you switch your focus to a group of human beings and say "I don't believe Christians are...", you're judging others. When we judge others we're probably bias in some way because none of us have enough accurate information to uniformly judge the millions of unique people that identify with a race or religion.

Just saying "I" first doesn't mean you can then say whatever you want. If the target of your judgements is a person or group of people, you're probably not being honest with yourself about what you're uncomfortable with and projecting your fears onto a group of people. That's typically what racism is about.

Instead, it's usually more accurate to express your fears about a particular non-human target (like a law, behavior, etc.) and leave people out of it.

<comment><USER29> Addressing some weird off topic bits:

\- Not believing in the bible is different from saying Christianity is harmful.

\- I agree it sounds harsh to say one dislikes Scientologists or Muslims or Stuffed crust pizza lovers. However that doesn't address the fact that you implied doing one of these was racist, when none of these are races and all are beliefs.

And responding to the point you made:

> When we judge others we're probably bias in some way because none of us have > enough accurate information to uniformly judge the millions of unique people > that identify with a race or religion.

Many seperate, independent groups have surveyed significant portions of Muslims across the world and found consistent and disturbing results.

Do we mean every individual person? No, to measure things we need to paint broad brush strokes.

\- No sensible adult would think that a group has a hive mind.

\- Nearly all would (and should) be concerned if most members of a group wanted to make being gay illegal (amongst other issues).

<comment><USER9> You're right, discrimination against a religious group is not racism. I don't know the exact word, maybe bigoted?

To follow my own advice: I feel scared when a judgement is made about a group of people because I'm scared of examples in history where races, religions, genders, nationalities or sexual orientations were judged as a group with disturbing consequences. I feel scared when people project their fears onto other groups because I'm scared of how they might act on those fears against innocent people. I'm scared that I can't really know or trust someone who isn't honest with themselves about what they're afraid of. I feel sad when people have to deal with judgements against them based on how they were born or raised because it doesn't seem fair or kind to me. I feel angry when people focus on the behavior of one group when other groups also have that behavior because it feels hypocritical to me to not also stand up to the other groups. I feel sad when people make judgements about a group of people based on what other people have said or reported because I've gained friendships with people who I used to judge but who I've now learned to approach with curiosity. I feel scared when people make judgements about individuals based on polls because I've seen examples of inaccurate polling and how the phrasing of a question can significantly change the results of a poll and I feel scared because I've never been asked to participate in a poll and I wouldn't want to be judged based on assumptions people might have about attributes that I was born or raised with but don't fully define me like my nationality, gender, religion, etc. I feel scared when people assume that people who identify with a group agree with everything that group says or does because I know that's not true for me and I can't recall meeting anyone who always agrees with any other person or leader and I'm scared that they'll judge me not based on my beliefs but on what they assume my beliefs to be. I feel ignored when people paint me with broad brush strokes because I view myself as an individual and I'm scared that if you're ignoring my individuality by putting me in a box that you don't care about me as a person.

I agree that it's faster to make assumptions about people and statistically you might be right about some of those assumptions. But, my fear is that history is not kind when people start judging other races, religions, political affiliations, genders, etc.

So, in the sense that it sounds like you feel scared about safety for gays because of laws or cultural beliefs that being gay is a crime, I would agree with you and I share that same fear for their safety and freedom. And if you choose to promote gay tolerance in the Philippines because you think it's most needed there, great -- that's your personal way of acting on your fear. But that sounds a lot different to me than "An independent survey says that most Muslims have disturbing beliefs." or "Muslims believe in anti-gay policies." I feel more comfortable saying: "Gay equality is important to me and I'm willing to try to protect them against people who make threats against their safety, so I'm going to the Philippines to try to make the biggest impact I can there.".

So, I guess my question to you is if safety for gays is so important to you, why not promote standing up to anyone who discriminates gays and leave the door open to standing up to a non-Muslim anti-gay person as well?

As a US citizen it was unfortunately not that long ago when a group of men brutally murdered a young boy for being gay. And growing up in high school, "gay" or "faggot" was the most vicious insult against another male. For me, I see disturbing bias against gays right here at home, even today. So, unfortunately I see anti-gay behavior as a human problem that spans cultures and religions.

<comment><USER29> Hey there. I can see that we're going to disagree about this, but thanks for your reply and acknowledging my point re: disliking Islam not being racist. I see your point about history, but to me religion is separate because it's not an intrinsic value, whereas the others are. Re: the Philipines I think the people should give up conservative Catholicism much like people should give up Islam.

But it's cool, I think we have a pretty clear idea of where the other person stands.

Thanks for the polite response and have a lovely evening.

<comment><USER9> I used to think so too about religion.

But now I've met some people who believe their religion is bigger than them as an individual. Renouncing it is simply not something they believe they have the power or right to do. Other times, they're born into a religious community and renouncing a religion means losing their community, which can feel like dying or worse. In Muslim majority countries, I can imagine there is a powerful force of not wanting to feel ostracized.

<comment><USER29> Sure, and the threat of losing a community applies to many extreme groups. I don't see how it changes anything or means they're something we don't have to worry about.

The false idea that religion is intrinsic is used to silence and justify violently attacking people that criticise religion, particularly Islam.

But let's agree to stop messaging each other. This is a waste of time - it's a shit ideology and I honestly feel no need to justify disliking it. You feel that Islam being a religion makes it exempt. I get that, I just disagree.

Additionally, someone keeps angrily downvoting anything I write here - <AUTHOR> basic stuff like 'Islam isn't a race' \- and I fear for the health of my HN account!

<comment><USER9> Sorry, wasn't me down voting. I actually really appreciated the dialogue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Show me a committee you think qualified to determine what is hate speech, and I will show you a group fallen men, like the rest of us, who will ultimately abuse their power for political ends.

<comment><USER31> Of course, the same is true for any power that any group (or individual) might have. You need something more to distinguish this particular case.

<comment><USER30> Censorship attacks the very ability to question the actions of those with power.</comment></comment></comment>


Salsify – A New Architecture for Real-time Internet Video - <AUTHOR> https://snr.stanford.edu/salsify <comment><USER2> Hi everyone! I am one of the authors of Salsify. Ask me anything!

<comment><USER3> A practical issue I've seen with high-bandwith non-TCP transports (including video over RTP) is how they behave in the presence of multiple other streams on the line; when bandwidth becomes limited often you get one winner and a bunch of loser streams. Does salsify address this at all?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not a focus of this project, but in a different project we have set up some pretty careful measurements (running every few days) to test whether this happens to different congestion-control schemes, including ones like CUBIC (Linux's default for an Internet stream socket) and Sprout (which Salsify's transport protocol is based on).

The bottom line is that TCP CUBIC is actually pretty bad for reasonable-length flows, and Sprout is empirically better (at the cost of getting a lot less throughput!).

See, e.g., [http://pantheon.stanford.edu/result/1997/](http://pantheon.stanford.edu/result/1997/) and [https://s3.amazonaws.com/stanford-pantheon/real- world/Stanfo...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/stanford-pantheon/real- world/Stanford/reports/2018-03-20T09-24-AWS-California-1-to-Stanford- ppp0-3-runs-3-flows-pantheon-report.pdf)

I guess one key thing to note here is that Salsify is not a "high-bandwidth" transport -- one of the main goals is to wait until the network is ready for a frame (killing off encoder outputs if necessary) to avoid overloading the network and provoking packet loss or queueing delay.

Video over RTP can mean a lot of things, including totally unresponsive traffic that doesn't vary the sending rate in response to congestion signals at all. If an app does this, yeah, life can suck.

<comment><USER3> I just remember going through a log and seeing 3 RTP streams that had gotten into sort of a harmonic oscillation pattern where they each would observe congestion at different times and back off in turn, and then one stream would consume most of the bandwidth until it's backoff triggered, then another stream would do the same.

I have zero more detail on how they were managing backoff though as this was like 6 years ago with some random video-meeting software that probably doesn't exist anymore (I think there were 100s of video meeting companies that started and died from 2010-2013).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is great. I used to work on on both the traffic/network side of YT and the encoding side, and could see the value of this approach handled by distribution nodes at the edge of a network.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's implemented in C++, so I guess the authors are referring to pure functional style. I suppose they take and return encoder state as function arguments, rather than hiding it in a class and mutating it.

<comment><USER6> Yes.

> Salsify uses a purely functional video codec to achieve this. Our video > codec is 100% conformant with the Google VP8 format, but has one major > trick: the encode and decode functions are purely functional, with no side > effects, and represent the inter-frame "state" of the decoder explicitly. > This allows Salsify to make the encoder compress a frame relative to an > arbitrary decoder state, allowing the application to safely skip frames on > output from the encoder, not just on input.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> interesting idea, this is a topic i'm well acquainted with. curious if the authors have any thoughts on how this would extend to multiple encoding sources behind the same network interface

</comment><comment><USER8> At all related to Salsify the company? [1]

[1] [https://www.salsify.com/](https://www.salsify.com/)

<comment><USER9> Not at all, just a coincidence!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> We don;t have enough CATs . We need to make them breed fast for unique contents

<comment><USER11> Will crypto-kitties work?</comment></comment>


Giggle; Laughable Security - <AUTHOR> https://research.digitalinterruption.com/2020/09/10/giggle-laughable-security/ <comment><USER2> With vulnerabilities like these, there is a big problem in my opinion. Who actually ever reports these?

The thing with vulnerabilities like describes in the post is that they are SO EASY that you dont need any special infosec expertise. All you need is to be able to install a program and use a REST api

I would go as far as to say that this can almost be described as an open database. The API completely exposed anything.

But how would Giggle find out about this if not for the OP? Their own engineers were either oblivious to any security practices because they are beginners, or they were ignorant about them (or didnt get enough money to actually care).

A company like this will NEVER hire a pentesting company.

The kind of company that does actually pay for pentests however, are very unlikely to have vulnerabilities that trivially exploited.

Which leaves us with only two groups that will care about stuff like this: Cyber-Criminals and Hobby Hackers.

The former will gladly pick that low hanging fruit for them, while the latter has time and time again experienced abuse by the people they reported vulnerabilities to. (Free of Charge of course).

What do you do? Drop an anonymous hint at your CERT? Those will get ignored because they are anonymous are they not? Do you give your full name? Thats dangerous too. The case of Alberto Hill[0] highlights this.

[0]: [https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/25/](https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/25/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw this unfold on infosec twitter, the CEO really dropped the ball on handling this incident professionally.

The security researcher did nothing wrong here [IMHO], they tried to report a security flaw in the app. CEO got pissed, took it as a attack personally instead of thinking of the responsibility of users safety on the app. (All the while promoting her app as a safe place for users to share sensitive information.[i.e. photos, DOB, address, phone number, GPS location).

Sad to see this type of response; the CEO has a lot to learn from this situation about security for users and how to deal with security researchers.

Live n learn...

<comment><USER4> >Sad to see this type of response; the CEO has a lot to learn from this situation about security for users and how to deal with security researchers.

This happens when you use twitter and mix your company with your personal matters, you take it personal because your "baby" has a flaw, and not your product.

Also, to all the future CEO's, STOP using twitter for anything else then professional matters. You probably don't want to emulate Mr. Trump. Talk about your product, your visions and the cool stuff you achieve with your team. Not about you or the shit you read on others twitter accounts, don't politicize your product but put a vision behind it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "we know this can often be notorious for mischaracterising and therefore > excluding certain racial groups, some trans women"

If you have an app that's supposed to be only for women but you don't want to exclude any trans women, how do you exclude a man pretending to be a trans woman? Is there any objective difference between a real trans woman and a fake trans woman?

<comment><USER6> According to the CEO, trans women are actually men.</comment></comment>


How travel tech evolved over three decades during my three trips to Russia - <AUTHOR> http://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14431178/russia-technology-travel-kara-swisher-internet <comment><USER2> This is really interesting and brought back some memories for me. In 1992 I received my first internet account via a local public school initiative. I could dial-up to a county number and use gopher for something like 30 minutes a day. The first month I had this access, I went to a gopher site in Europe somewhere, and not understanding the tech at all shut it all down and waited for the enormous phone bill to arrive.

The phone bill was normal and I suddenly understood that the internet was something special.

In 1995 I became an exchange student to Russia, and the entire 3 month exchange, I saw approximately 1 computer. I made 2 phone calls to my family from Moscow, but where I was living in Russia was 1,000 miles East from there and there was 1 scratchy phone sitting outside in a phone booth for the entire 12 building multiblock of Stalinist apartment buildings. It could not dial outside of the city as far as I understood it.

Fast forward a few years, I'm now married and my wife and I are planning a road trip. We get printouts of mapquest routes, have a copy of the local road atlas (a huge book) and a copy of AAA tripticks for our trip. There was no mobile internet that was within the price range of mortals.

A few more years forward and we're in Ireland, mobile internet is available in some areas, but expensive, so I download offline maps to my mobile phone and get turn-by-turn that way.

Last year I got Google Fi, went to Europe, got off the plane and made calls, texted with friends, used the internet just like normal, booked AirBnB rooms, got train schedules and got turn-by-turn GPS directions for all of the countries we were road tripping in and it all worked flawlessly.

Absolutely insane.

<comment><USER3> > _It could not dial outside of the city as far as I understood it._

Because there were no support for collect calls and Soviet payphones weren't set up to accept charges for non-local calls. You just couldn't "feed" them coins.

PS. You could though call for free if you drill a small hole in a coin, tied a length of string to it and then yank it back from the phone in the right moment. Phreaking, the Soviet way :)

<comment><USER4> In 90s Ukraine you could make free calls using a the tab of canned soda drinks, I think it was the same size as the 2 piece coin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Funny, just last night I re-read my diary from a bus trip to St Petersburg and Moscow as a student in 2002.

Just before we left St Petersburg we heard rumours of the theatre siege which had just started in Moscow. A few people on the bus had studied Russian in high school so the news filtered around. Even so, we had basically no idea what was going on.

Being poor students we didn't want to waste money on phone calls home, but we did find an internet cafe and wrote a quick email to say we were ok. The people at home knew more about what was going on in Moscow than we did.

We navigated around by paper map (in Cyrillic) and often took wrong turns. If we split off from other groups there'd be no way to meet up again until the evening. (I don't remember anyone having a roaming mobile phone.)

These days I feel vulnerable navigating in my own town without a phone, and people get worried if you aren't reachable within 30 minutes.

Even though it was a very busy trip there was still time to write the diary. On later holidays with a phone and wi-fi there was a lot more to do back at the hotels and much less time was spent writing!

So the big changes I've seen are in communicating home, navigating, and filling the time.

I suspect the next big thing will be usable real-time voice translation, which will make things easier but take some of the fun out of things like ordering a meal and playing "guess the mystery meat!"

<comment> tushar-r >These days I feel vulnerable navigating in my own town without a phone,

My wife and I were in Thailand in December with our cousins. My cousin sister refused to let me buy a local sim card for GPS and stuff - said it was a waste of money and preferred to use a guide map, brochures and asking people directions.

You know what - it was an enjoyable vacation, despite my constant itch to check google maps. Planning to try this again for our next vacation, wherever it may be. Or on my next business trip.

There is something very nice about paper maps and talking to people :-)

<comment> et-al Ever since I got a smartphone, I haven't had that feeling of uncertainty and foreignness when traveling anymore.

Maybe it's also due to having enough money to afford a smartphone, and being of a certain age, but I think knowing exactly where you are means you don't check your environmental cues as much anymore.

I'm inclined to go back to those never-enough-detail free tourist maps to see if that feeling of lost returns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is more like "travelblogging tech evolution for the sponsored American journalist" (and almost nothing to do with Russia).

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra It's possible that in 10 years Internet will be segregated into per-country segments and she'll have trouble communicating with hosts while outside and sharing photos when inside.

</comment><comment><USER7> It feels more like two decades than three, but it was still an interesting look back at technology history.

<comment><USER8> 1995, 2005, 2015. Literally, three decades. But, maybe the point you're making is that the story - like the technology - got shrunk.

<comment><USER9> A decade is 10 years. 1995 to 2015 is 20 years. So in terms of time elapsed it's 2 decades.

<comment><USER10> In the same way that noon yesterday, noon today, and noon tomorrow are two days.

<comment><USER9> Good point.

<comment><USER8> Yes, but these 3 visits occurred over 3 decades, at their mid-point. So, while 2 decades may have passed between them, its still three decades worth of samples..

<comment><USER9> That's why I said good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Timely article (albeit a bit loquacious for my liking). Here's my summary of how my travel has changed from "Then" (pre ubiquitous internet) to "Now".

 _Contact with home:_ Then: Highly sporadic. Occasional postcard, which may not arrive. Now: Continuous contact, every photo is uploaded on social media.

 _Planning ahead:_ Then: Big time. Now: Little.

 _Luggage:_ Then: Heavy, need to bring everything, be prepared for all eventualities. Now: Light, many things no longer needed, buy missing stuff locally (probably more a consequence of my being wealthier as an adult).

 _Accommodation:_ Then: Hotels are booked in advanced. Now: Ad-hoc on the spot after arrival through AirBnB and Booking.com.

 _Travel guides:_ Then: Important, read in advance, carried at all times. Now: Gone, everything on smart phone.

 _Maps:_ Then: Important, carried at all times. Now: Gone, replaced by Google Maps.

 _Dictionary:_ Then: Important, carried at all times. Now: Gone, replaced by Google Translate.

 _Taxis:_ Then: Flagged down, difficult to communicate intent due to language gaps, scary (who is the driver?) worried about getting ripped off and/or robbed. Now: Uber.

 _Money:_ Then: Carry cash, Traveller Checks, change at local banks and ATMs, worry big time about getting robbed. Now: Credit cards.

 _Flights:_ Then: Very expensive. Booked long ahead in travel agency, price comparison difficult, no low cost carriers. Now: Cheap. Book ad-hoc, online, price comparison easy, low cost carriers.

 _Meeting people:_ Then: Difficult, try and talk to locals when you chance to meet them in person. Now: Easy, Tinder, Meetup.com.

 _Photos, documenting the journey:_ Then: Lugging around heavy camera, always worrying about it being stolen, getting new film, each photo was expensive. Now: Take trillions of photos on phone.

 _Electricity:_ Then: Who cares? Now: Oh no, where can I charge my phone, I'm on 3% charge?

 _Biggest problem:_ Then: Will I get robbed? Now: Where can I charge my phone?

<comment><USER12> Good list. I want to note that much of this list applies only if the Western- centric Net services you listed are available. For example, much of the Google-dependent tech isn't available in China to the average non-tech tourist. I solve my phone charging concerns with a portable solar panel and battery pack. With very young children in the picture, luggage becomes heavy again, but this lightens again as they get into their teens.

<comment><USER11> True, but China has equivalents of all of them ... if you read Chinese.</comment></comment></comment>


Handle – A static site generator powered by PHP and the command line - <AUTHOR> https://handlecli.com <comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines and you're interested in feedback,this might make a good "Show HN".</comment>


Hello Singapore (CDN Experiment) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/815-hello-singapore-cdn-experiment <comment><USER2> Impressive they run that site off 6 front-end servers.

<comment><USER3> All frontend servers do are move bits from one place to another -- from backend to client or from disk to client. This does not require much horsepower.

(SSL is probably the biggest drain on resources, as it is the only part of the chain that is doing actual compute work. I have never run a big site with SSL, though, so I am not sure how this works out in reality.)

<comment><USER4> I think you might be mistaking our load balancers with our frontends.

Our frontend servers run the Rails application (as well as other applications like the Sinatra app running <http://jobs.github.com>). Additionally, they also run all of our background jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Heh, I appreciate the quote of my tweet.</comment>


Ask HN: Rewriting our back end. Which language? An opinated selection - <AUTHOR> In the last couple of years we have rewritten all our public interfaces to Openresty (nginx + lua) and we couldn't be happier.
Now we are doing the same for all our internal backend processes (old good java, written in 2004-2006). They are basically a bunch of standard daemons ingesting traffic from either plain TCP sockets (custom text-based protocol) or beanstalkd tubes. The logic is fairly standard: Some parsing, Mysql access, Memcached/Redis access, StatsD publishing, HTTP requests to external services, etc.
We could do this with OpenResty (using the timer API), but we are more inclined to implement stand-alone daemons.
We have narrowed our list to 2 languages: Dart(DartVM) and Swift(Kitura). We have written a couple of daemons in each language and in both cases it just feels right: Language concepts are easy to grasp, coding is easy enough, IDE support (visual studio code/atom) is good enough, available libraries fit our needs and performance is great in both cases.
Other than the language itself, we are more worried about language adoption, support and evolution.
Which one would you choose ?
For the record, we have discarded some other languages. As you can see, the arguments to discard them are highly opinionated. We are a bunch of old guys (45+) and I guess we are starting to be maniac. You have been warned.
- elixir. We really wanted to like it, but erlang feels alien to us.
- java. We have had enough of java already.
- lua (with luv or luvi). We don't like - as in we hate - nodejs :)
- golang: We have written some workers in the past and for some strange reason the language does not feel right to us.
- rust: too complex for us. Our workers are simple enough and we feel rust would not give us any additional benefit.
- dlang: Nice, but it seems more oriented towards numerical computing, low level system programming (OS, compilers) and embedded applications
Thanks.
[1] http://www.openresty.org <comment><USER2> When you say "erlang feels alien to us," do you mean the erlang language, the erlang semantics (OTP etc.), or functional styles in general (recursion over iteration, immutable state, lack of inheritance, etc.)?

Because Elixir was alien to me too (other than looking superfically Ruby- like)... at first... but after a while working with it, I started to see the advantage of the functional approach over OO, pattern matching was AWESOME (!!!), new processes in 1ms was AWESOME (as is process management in general), and the OTP semantics made sense after sitting on it for a while. And also, after learning some OTP, talking to Erlang wasn't weird either, and then reading Erlang code made a lot more sense (if still much uglier).

> Language concepts are easy to grasp

Sure, because everyone knows how to read procedural OO code. But, line for line, you'll get a lot further (and have fewer bugs) with a functional approach IMHO, even if you have to master concepts like triggering TCO (tail- call optimization).</comment>


Twitter to Face Claims by 'White Advocate' Over Banned Accounts - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/twitter-to-face-claims-by-white-advocate-over-banned-accounts <comment><USER2> Didn't they just win a very similar law suit about this?

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180606/01224439979/court...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180606/01224439979/court- not-all-impressed-chuck-johnsons-silly-lawsuit-against-twitter-plans-to-grant- anti-slapp-win-to-twitter.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER3> >But he said Taylor properly supported his allegations that Twitter's policy of suspending accounts, in the judge's words, "at any time, for any reason or for no reason" may be unconscionable and that the company calling itself a platform devoted to free speech may be misleading and therefore fraudulent.

Does Twitter call itself a platform devoted to free speech?

<comment><USER4> It used to.

> Generally, we remain neutral as to the content because our general council > and CEO like to say that we are the free speech wing of the free speech > party.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter- tony-w...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang- free-speech)</comment></comment>


Peter Thiel Announces Inaugural Class of 20 Under 20 Thiel Fellows - <AUTHOR> http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=19

<comment><USER2> I know a few of these talented individuals and they are cranking!</comment>


American with No Medical Training Ran Center for Malnourished Kids. 105 Died - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/09/749005287/american-with-no-medical-training-ran-center-for-malnourished-ugandan-kids-105-d <comment><USER2> >> _She needed a blood transfusion. And fast._

The part about the blood transfusion confuses me. How common is that a small "health center" without a doctor makes transfusions? Here in Argentina the nurses only do the invasive procedures after a medical doctor has prescribe it. [1]

In particular, think it's very strange that a small "health center" has stock of blood for an immediate transfusion.[2] Did they make blood transfusion often?

[1] The nurses are usually much better finding the vein an the practical part of the procedure than the doctors.

[2] I hope they did a blood group test before the transfusion. I guess they didn't mention this to keep the article short. The test is fast and cheap but IANAMD.

</comment><comment><USER3> She got children killed by performing random medical procedures on them. She literally had to Google symptoms because she had no clue what she was doing.

<comment><USER4> Dunning-Krueger is a hell of a drug...

<comment><USER5> .

<comment><USER6> Is there a long held tradition as well as laws requiring 7 years of specialized education before treating RO filters? Does your RO filter have central nervous system?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1 in 9 severely malnourished children died. I am genuinely curious how that would actually compare to a hospitals efforts? I've no idea the odds of survival for these poor children.

<comment><USER8> That's what journalists are for - to give numbers without context. But unlike the woman in the article, they _do_ have education on what they're doing, so they can't blame ignorance.

<comment><USER9> The article explains that the death rate went down when they hired appropriate medical staff. The stats are there to see.

<comment><USER8> Fair enough - though from my experience (not counting articles on economics), this makes this article an exception.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This

Imagine, says Kwagala, if a 20-something Ugandan woman had gone to the U.S. and set up an equivalent arrangement to treat impoverished American children.

"She would have been prosecuted. She would have been behind bars,"

</comment><comment><USER11> #weaponizedstupidity, exported. Using the ignorance defense, no doubt

</comment><comment><USER12> > "The American cultural narrative is that these countries are basket cases." > And so, says Gostin, Americans assume that whatever their qualifications, > they're sure to be of help.

I didn't grow up with this narrative at home, but I sure did and do see it a lot.

<comment><USER13> It's upsetting to see how prevalent it is even in this thread. More than a few people are jumping in without having read the article to simply support that same narrative - better a random white lady than nothing!

For what it's worth, for every ridiculous naive fool out to pat themselves on the back, there are people out there actually working -with- local communities to try and build up sustainable improvements to local infrastructure so people can help themselves. Project Alianza is one of my favorite programs in this space.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccJfzS13ZtA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccJfzS13ZtA)

<comment><USER14> > More than a few people are jumping in without having read the article to > simply support that same narrative - better a random white lady than > nothing!

There's actually only two people making this sort of argument in this thread. One person claims it outright. The other person is me.

I have read the article. I'm saying it's _possible_ that more children would have died without her care, than with her care. That's just a fact. The article mentions that other local facilities also had death rates of up to 20%. Why would people keep visiting her if there was a better alternative?

> For what it's worth, for every ridiculous naive fool out to pat themselves > on the back, there are people out there actually working -with- local > communities to try and build up sustainable improvements to local > infrastructure so people can help themselves. Project Alianza is one of my > favorite programs in this space.

How do you know that? What do you actually know about Uganda and who works there? Project Alianza doesn't work there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If she wouldn't have taken care of the 940 severely malnourished children, more than 105 of them would have died.

<comment><USER16> I don't know if you read the article, but she was performing medical procedures with absolutely no training.

The care part may have been ok to good. But stuff like performing a blood transfusion on a 9 month old and then not being sure whether the baby was having a reaction because "google says there should be a rash if there is a reaction, but I see no rash" isn't just insane, it may be torture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hospital with many fully trained staff accepted patients who were terminally ill. Thousands died.

<comment><USER17> Note: This is a reaction to the headline, which has an obvious statistical problem and therefore smells dishonest. It's not a reaction to the story, which has value in it's own right.

<comment><USER18> The internet doesn't need more hot take reactions to headlines. The internet needs more people who read articles and comment on their actual content.

What's more, simply by reacting to the headline as you've done, you've validated their choice of headlines. Journalists are more worried about apathy to an article than anything else. Any engagement is preferable to no engagement.

Finally, complaining about headlines on HN is not effective. It is essentially preaching to the choir and little more than virtue & identity signalling on HN at this point, since it happens on every single mainstream article that HN discusses. If you believe that headlines of this type are pernicious then your time & energy will do far more good talking about them in other contexts. For instance, with your family over dinner or with friends while pursuing a mutual hobby together.

<comment><USER17> Agreed. However, it also needs fewer headlines designed to invoke visceral reactions based on bad statistics.

<comment><USER2> As a general recommendation, try to avoid oneliners in HN. It's better to explain why the headline is wrong and why the article is interesting anyway. Sometimes you can pick the subtitle or a sentence of the article and propose it as an alternative title, and the mods may change it. Sometimes the only sensible title can create be made out of thin air, but the chance that the change is accepted is minimal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not to be a killjoy but how is this relevant to HackerNews? HN isn't reddit.

<comment><USER20> If it makes it to the front page, people find it interesting. HackerNews is self-regulating enough with the voting system, so clearly it is of interest.

Does not seem off-topic to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article does a poor job of describing the actual situation that these parents face. What would have been the alternative when the local hospitals regularly refuse treatment? If these malnourished children could just get proper care at a real medical facility, why would they be malnourished in the first place? It's much cheaper to just feed a child instead of giving _intensive care_.

Ironically, in that one instance where this woman put a child in a critical condition, she might have saved it, because now the hospital would take it in, where it would have been refused before.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this woman could've done more good by just working an ordinary job in the US and donating a fraction of her income to trustworthy charities. Still, I'm not convinced she did more harm than good by performing this job.

<comment><USER21> There are quite some parallels here with the Theranos story. Both seem to come from a place of ignorance mixed with unearned self belief and exceptionalism.

Your suggestion that surely this person did some good is, it seems to me, a smaller example of the attitude referred to in the story.

<comment><USER14> This person did some harm, she also did some good. It wasn't _all_ harm. Could she have done _better_? Of course.

Still, you have to put it into perspective. Remember, Uganda is in the bottom 10 countries in terms of human development. Your options are limited.</comment></comment></comment>