An apology to our community, and next steps - <AUTHOR> https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334551/an-apology-to-our-community-and-next-steps <comment><USER2> From the comments.. for anyone that didn't scroll all the way:

 _Before "apologizing", you need to come clean: did you lie?_

 _Earlier, you (Stack Exchange) wrote:_

> _We removed a moderator for repeatedly violating our existing Code of > Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM's repeated requests to change > that behavior._

 _However, Monica disputed that she had received repeated requests to change her behavior._

 _Clearly one party here is lying, and much of the community believes that party is Stack Exchange._

 _So—did you lie, or not? Your "apology" is meaningless until you clean this up._

<comment><USER3> neither party may be lying. for example, Monica may not have received explicit official reprimands, however SO may feel that rejecting her position multiple times during communications meets this criteria.

<comment><USER4> That's a pretty low bar and if accepted will place a chilling effect on any debate in moderator lounges.

Note that the essence of the debate is: "you must always use the person's nominated pronouns" versus "you can write in such a way that pronouns aren't used at all."

To me there is a huge difference between, "you can write inclusively without talking about a person in the third or second person" and "I refuse to accept this attempt at inclusive regulation."

But we will see what SO dredges up in order to justify their position that debates in a moderator lounge are the equivalent to formal requests.

<comment><USER3> Oh I agree that it's a ridiculous reason and SO needs to clean up it's act.

I just don't think fixating on very small factual ambiguities helps anything except political ratholeing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From a comment by rolfl[0]:

> _This apology has come not a moment too soon.... for the past days, almost a > week, now, moderators from across most sites have collaborated on > communicating our concerns to the SE staff. We have been working "in plain > sight" of the SE staff (using the TL to collaborate). ... The timing of this > apology appears to have been in a race to beat our statements about the > issues._

The comment was updated to include a link to [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear- stack-e...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334575/dear-stack- exchange-a-statement-and-a-letter-from-your-moderators) , which in turn links to: [https://dearstackexchange.com](https://dearstackexchange.com) .

[0] [https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334570/346001)

<comment><USER6> Note that Fullerton's apology lacks any reference to Stack Exchange's turn towards the press during the controversy. As brought up in the Dear Stack Exchange letter (and in numerous Meta posts over the last week), it is concerning that SE would be willing to make a (potentially libelous) statement to the press, while refusing the same to the community.

This conspicuous absence makes me question the authenticity of the apology.

<comment><USER7> In this post, Mr Fullerton 'takes the brunt' of the blame, clearly defusing any more singular issues with the various individuals involved. This has the unfortunate side effect of highlighting how SE is _not_ a community run system, but is more of an oligarchy. One wonders how it could have been handled better, but still, all decisions went through one person and it wasn't a _community_ that did it.

<comment><USER8> My take on that decision is it's because SE is a business: They use the community to MAKE money.

Now, it's not entirely one-way as they need to be providing value to the community in order for it to continue but business decisions need to be made at some level and the community level isn't the place for it.

If SE perceived a loss in profits from community members' actions then they need to take steps to mitigate that loss and I suspect that's what they did(rightly or wrongly).

Not trying to defend SE's actions, or those of the community (I have no opinion on the matter and, not to make light of the issue, I don't really care either) but a mistake that I sometimes make is thinking businesses make decisions for reasons other than profit.

In saying that, if SE thought that putting it to a community vote (or whatever best decision making tool the community could use) would make them more money then they likely would have... makes good business sense.

Just my £0.02

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think these are the main previous threads, in reverse order:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173643)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21153224)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21149770)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113344)

<comment><USER10> For other folks who might have made the same misreading I did:

This thread is a new post from stack, not another link to 21153224 which has the similar title "update to our community and an apology"

The new post is @ 199 upvotes versus -1278, so the reception so far seems to be very different

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Codes of conduct tend to be driven by (and serve to protect) the group's intended purpose. Gender is a big part of our language for many reasons, some better than others. We should be aware of our goals when dictating what is and isn't acceptable, _especially_ on a technical Q&A forum like StackExchange.

Wanting to know someone's gender can be reasonable. But... on StackExchange? I can count on a single set of digits the number of times I've personally witnessed someone knowing someone else's gender leading to anything better than a neutral outcome. Doctors factor highly in that list. Then dates. Online people... well, only when it was extremely on-topic. Like a time I saw someone getting advice on 6-point racing harnesses vs. 5-point (re: strap geometry to protect the lower body).

As an example, let's take scicomp.stackexchange.com (computational science). Neither a participant's sex nor their gender is an appropriate topic there, with few exceptions. Is a reasonable policy there to avoid _all_ gendered pronouns when referring to other users, unless there's an on-topic reason? Is using "they" or the user's handle _worse_ than bringing gender into the conversation, when this is clearly off-topic? Monica seems to be negotiating for the _option_ to use gender-neutral language. What are the pitfalls if we mandate it? The language can be a little awkward at first but that's a small molehill to die on.

Personally, I've always found it strange that we collectively broadcast our gender so far and wide. We don't continually mention each other's race, hair color, handedness, or preferred sleeping position on every tenth word, yet we often know someone's gender even before we know their name. Why is it so?

Thoughts? Very curious to hear from others. To be clear I have no problem with someone expressing their sexuality, gender, or other aspects of their individuality. I'm a fairly odd cat myself (particulars are irrelevant) and I relish being able to express myself authentically when it's helpful to some goal. I guess I'm mostly challenging the central role gender plays in our language, and asking whether or not we should change this to allow people more flexibility in what they disclose.

<comment> yoz-y > technical Q&A forum like StackExchange.

I believe most of these issues have risen after SE has opened doors to topics beyond tech. As soon as you stop talking about things but about people, you will encounter people problems.

> We don't continually mention each other's race, hair color, handedness, or > preferred sleeping position on every tenth word,

In many written languages, and English in particular, you have gendered pronouns which you more or less have to use. Sentences that avoid referring to people with pronouns are awkward and forced.

> yet we often know someone's gender even before we know their name. Why is it > so?

In real world relations you often see a person first and "assume their gender" based on how they look, before knowing their name. In some cultures the greeting is different depending on the gender of the other person.

<comment><USER12> > Sentences that avoid referring to people with pronouns are awkward and > forced.

Your post avoided pronouns. Was it awkward and forced?

<comment> yoz-y This is how I write so no. But I did not actively choose to avoid using pronouns, only gendered ones. In this case it was easy because there was not much need for them anyways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > We made a decision to act quickly, which I personally approved, but in doing > so skipped several critical parts of the process.

Okay, got it. Acting in haste can lead you to make critical errors of judgment. Smart to slow down so you don't make the same mistake again.

> On Monday, October 7, we'll be sharing a second draft of an update to our > Code of Conduct with all moderators for feedback.

Good call. Get feedback on the revised plan from the moderators to whom it will apply. Smart move.

> On Thursday, October 10, the update to the Code of Conduct will be announced > publicly.

Wait, what?

You just said that you need to slow things down because you acted too quickly the last time and ended up screwing things up and causing a lot of pain, which is the reason you're apologizing in the first place.

And now the timeline between "solicit feedback" and "release document publicly" is three days?

How in the world are you going to be able to thoughtfully incorporate any feedback other than typo corrections and still meet this deadline?

There is no reason to solicit feedback unless you actually plan to listen to it and to be prepared for that feedback to say that the draft still needs work. But this timeline does not allow enough time for that to happen.

<comment><USER14> I suspect they've essentially decided on the new Code of Conduct and any solicitation of feedback will be perfunctory.

<comment><USER15> The CoC is almost certainly already written, but this quip is a cherry on top:

> We'll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, > privacy, and to discuss next steps. We'll keep those discussions completely > private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.

So they're going to demand she stays hush about what they say to her unless they approve? Seems extremely dishonest and scummy to try and control someone you've already wronged.

<comment><USER16> The We in "We'll keep those discussions completely private" is SE, not SE _and_ Monica.

<comment><USER17> The "unless we both agree" bit implies they reserve a veto on her releasing anything.

<comment><USER16> Literally speaking, sure. Absolutely it could mean that or half a dozen different things.

In the context of an apology about being heavy-handed, I highly doubt it means they intent to suppress speech from a third party that they have no power over, implied or otherwise.

<comment><USER18> She mentioned in her post that she did not think it would be legal to release some of the conversations she has had with SO employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can't follow what they're apologising for because I don't have the context on what happened. Understandably, they don't elaborate on their mistakes and instead focus on the apology.

Can anyone give a short summary of what happened?

<comment><USER20> A good summary and the timeline here: [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The answer by Squeamish Ossifrage is interesting because they try to call out SO on a variety of stuff that sounds like what any other large tech company tries to do, with the slow and steady tactics of trying to gain more control or power and encroaching on user rights. [0]

It's also interesting to ponder if the StackOverflow community format is subjecting them to more calls of transparency than other sites might get.

[0] [https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573)

<comment><USER22> Reddit goes through waves of the same kinds of issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded, and they still won't reinstate her. Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER24> > So they still won't say exactly what Monica did to deserve being de-modded

Direct from the apology:

> We'll be reaching out to her directly to apologize for the lack of process, > privacy, and to discuss next steps. We'll keep those discussions completely > private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community.

> ...and they still won't reinstate her.

Again, a direct quote from the apology:

> We'll be sharing with our moderators this week our proposed processes for > handling situations like this in the future. This includes a process for > handling moderator removals, and a process for reinstating moderators who > wish to be reinstated.

I don't want to provide too much additional input in this reply, because I believe David's words adequately speak for themselves. However, I do believe that taking those two points private and discussing them outside of the public view is the correct choice. Emotions are already running high on both sides of the argument, and it's not a bad idea to give everyone a moment to breathe, and come at the situation rationally. We should give them a chance to work it out.

<comment><USER25> That's kind of like punching someone in the stomach, then later apologizing for not following the correct punching procedure and for not respecting their privacy by punching them in public.

<comment><USER26> Except there's never a good reason to punch someone in the stomach, but mods do sometimes need to be removed.

<comment><USER25> True, the analogy doesn't really hold in that sense. The point of not apologizing for the 'what' but only the 'how' still stands I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > _We'll keep those discussions (with the erstwhile mod) completely private > unless we both agree to share any of it with the community._

Does this mean they're looking to prevent the mod from speaking out unless SE agrees to public release? Or is the first "we" (in "We'll") different from the second we ("unless we both")? Hopefully this is just sloppy/rushed drafting, not forced secrecy.

</comment><comment><USER28> > First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they > couldn't participate authentically and we didn't respond quickly or strongly > enough in supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we > made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express > themselves and be addressed according to how they identify.

So wait - what are they apologizing for?

If I understand this situation correctly there are basically two sides:

\- The people who put in place the new code of conduct, who think that they "hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn't participate authentically..." by not putting this code of conduct in place fast enough.

\- The moderator who fired/the people who resigned who think they "hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they couldn't participate authentically..." when they put in place the new poorly thought out policy

Is this intended to double (triple? quadruple?) down on the original position? Or apologize for it and move to the second?

<comment><USER29> They are apologising for 1) not implementing the new CoC fast enough and 2) not being clear enough when they did, which led to people arguing about what happened, whether a CoC is even a good idea, whether or not people should be forced to use other people's preferred pronouns, etc.

So yes, this is intended to strictly double down on the original position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I would encourage Monica to watch out for any "Let's keep this private" language. In situations like this one some organizations have tried to disempower people by barring them from discussion with advisors, family or others.

Another way they do this is by saying, as in the apology "keep those discussions completely private unless we both agree to share any of it with the community" but they will phrase it as a binding agreement.

</comment><comment><USER31> > Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made [members of the > LGBTQ+ community] a target for harassment as people debated their right to > express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify

I wonder how is that possible, the QA are as anonymous as each user wants to be and regarding QA, is there any question in which people cannot ask anything and should not be replied with a proper rationalized argumentation?

How does it help a bullied child to be the protected kid of the teacher? In the other hand the day we stop having open debates, QA and knowledge, we will be going backwards in scientific evolution, no matter what the topic is.

<comment><USER32> It really is absurd! Bullying anyone for anything will already get you kicked off of those sites. It is such an odd hill for them to want to die on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> My cynical self noticed that there are a lot of "apologize" and "sorry" in this update, yet I believe this is a first good step.

However, the update accumulated to the 'fix' being SO will release an updated CoC on Oct 7/10/11 with inputs from all mods, and an updated mod firing process. These are absolutely essential, no doubt, but incomplete.

What is missing, in my opinion, is the update still did not address how the original conflict came to the firing of a respected member. The most sincere way to apologize would be to use this failure of process as an example, to showcase how SO erred and how SO intends to change. Finally, a separate, public apology to the fired mod, with specific example of how SO mishandled each step, is crucial in regaining the trust.

EDIT: After giving some thoughts, I realize that SO is apologizing, not for wrongful termination, but for not privately firing the mod with due process. In SO's management eyes, the firing is still justified. Fine. Explain to us, with examples, how the firing is justified, and how pronoun usage would re- conciliate with moderators with religion restrictions.

<comment><USER34> > how pronoun usage would re-conciliate with moderators with religion > restrictions

It seems clear that, in their updated CoC, the requirement to be respectful trumps religious restrictions. And that's pretty much the standard here, isn't it? I can't imagine rudeness being OK here, even if it's required religiously.

<comment><USER35> You are writing as if there is a conflict here.

Rudeness never was OK.

Problem is she wasn't rude. She was communicating exemplary and no examples have been given of anything else. What is happening is she's been tried for thought crime in a secret court and it seems her professional[0] writing style _can be construed_ using the necessary mental gymnastics as her not wanting to please the wishes of certain people.

[0]: again, not only professional but also exemplary based on all we've heard.

<comment><USER34> I'm not saying that Monica was rude. I'm not even talking specifically about her, here.

I'm postulating the existence of a religious person who would (for example) refuse to use "he" for a biologically female person who identifies as male. But would instead use singular "they", or passive voice, to evade the issue. I'm not saying that they would insist on using "she". Just that they wouldn't use "he".

That might be her position, based on two meta threads.[0,1] But she doesn't actually say that. Others sort of say that, and she doesn't correct them. And certainly I may have missed her clear statement. But as I've said, I'm not claiming that to be her position.

So anyway, if someone actually did refuse to use declared gender, that would arguably be rude. Or at least, it would be perceived as rudeness, which is arguably what matters in communities.

0) [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing- mods-...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-and- forced-relicensing-is-stack-exchange-still-interested-in-cooper/334101)

1) [https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-...](https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack- overflow-inc-sinat-chinam-and-the-goat-for-azazel)

<comment><USER36> I don't know why religion gets involved. Requiring every else in the world to treat them with gloved hands _at risk of public shaming_ seems rude to me. Bullying, even.

Is there a thread I can follow so I can "woke" myself on pronouns? I definitely fear LGBT+ now in a practical way. I'm naturally anti authority and I don't like this authoritarianism -- but I don't want tar and feather.

<comment><USER34> Religion only gets involved when people cite it to justify their behavior.

As much as I intellectually and emotionally support people's right to self- determination, it is a little frightening how fast things are changing. It's even more frightening how polarized things are getting. My best bet is listening carefully, being polite, and avoiding offense. Not that I'm always successful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> On the plus side, this issue has taken the spotlight off of the advertising and tracker issues for them.

</comment><comment><USER38> Does anyone else find it ironic that Stack Exchange, a company which replaced a website that was often misnamed "ExpertSexchange", is now going through controversy related to the misnaming of sexchanged people?

</comment><comment> barry-cotter Mostly another non-apology. Not sorry for what they did, but for doing it arbitrarily, without following a procedure, and for not taking account of the Jewish holiday Monica was observing. Instead of just imposing the CoC they're going to rush it through three days of discussion, then impose it.

<comment><USER39> Disagree with the non-apology part. It's clearly very grovelling, although it's late and a response to the snowballing community reaction rather than because it's the right thing to do.

Of course, it's _possible_ that that reaction has prompted genuine reflection and contrition and the apology is sincere as well as a panic measure.

<comment><USER40> Groveling isn't an apology. If you ever have to make an apology of this type, always apologize to individuals before groups and before stating your mission. It reads better and gives the impression you care about the person. Also, undo what you did if you can, otherwise it's "sorry, not sorry".

<comment><USER39> A grovelling apology is _certainly_ an apology, even if sometimes unseemly and issued in desperation rather than (or in addition to) regret.

But sure, there might be better ways to do it.

<comment><USER40> _A grovelling apology is certainly an apology_

Well, yes by definition, but groveling is not, in and of itself, an apology. Generally in an apology you undo what damage you did to the maximum extent allowable or offer some sort of compensation.

<comment><USER41> That is not how any apology I've heard of has ever worked. Apologies are an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, or of pain caused, usually combined with an attempt to avoid the same wrongdoing in the future.

All of that is evident here. Actions to make right a prior wrong (of which there are some here too) are not normally a requirement, although they can apology.

<comment><USER40> I guess I was taught differently. Apologies without positive action are hollow. Repentance requires positive steps and attempts to fix and undo the harm you have caused. How can a person truly trust an apology has meaning when harm is left in place?

<comment><USER41> Positive action need not be to fix what has already happened. Steps to prevent a repetition are still positive action, and imo do more to instill confidence that a behavior won't be repeated than an attempt to fix the existing mess.

Not to say that one shouldn't do both, but often it isn't possible to fix something you're apologizing for. That doesn't make sincere apology impossible.

<comment><USER42> In this case, it would be easy to give her the mod position back. So why wasn't that done?

Perhaps that is what is happening behind the scenes, but I think everybody would feel better about this apology if they said that right up front.

<comment><USER41> Note that no where did they apologize for removing her from her position.

Ultimately this was an apology for procedural failings, not their ultimate impacts. Reinstating the removed mod would be correcting something they aren't apologizing for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Darn I might have to peel the SO sticker off the back of my MacBook.

<comment><USER44> SO has been on the decline quite long already, drowning in a sea of homework question, fix my bugs beggars and editors running perfectly fine answers. finding relevant solutions is as hard as ever and asking moderately difficult questions just gets you nowhere. long standing issues, like a way to tag library versions to avoid people ending in stale answers or restrict your area of expertise properly as to be able to quickly network with other in the field working on the same problem were never addressed, meanwhile we got a disfunctional job board that did the opposite of attracting talent, resulting instead in a horde of resume padding desperados copy pasting answer off a script in all questions tagged java or xml

the moment to remove that sticker was c.a 2013

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is so dumb. Just disallow people to use real names and switch to aliases completely. Voila! Nobody needs to know or worry about anyone's genders or pronouns. It's a tech forum, nobody should give a shit about your gender or lack thereof.

<comment><USER46> It's not how it works. Some people will _volunteer_ this information anyway, and then either them or someone else on their behalf will raise a stink about how the information is being ignored.

<comment><USER45> Well, ban those people then. Problem solved. They're clearly on the site to cause trouble.

<comment><USER46> That would mean a pretty draconian anonymity policy. Haven't seen that anywhere yet. But beyond that, you start banning people for revealing gender pronouns, you risk finding yourself trending on Twitter for sexual discrimination and transphobia - after all, you've been banning people for revealing their gender pronouns, which will be shortened to "for their gender pronouns"...

<comment><USER45> I see what you're saying but don't quite get it's "discrimination" if the terms are the same for everyone and gender is not even visible if the site is used in accordance with the terms.

I go to SO to solve problems. I couldn't care less about pronouns one way or the other. I'd use the "anonymous" version of the site, no problem. In fact I'd prefer it that way.

And Twitter? Really? Who cares? It's not like people would stop using SO just because a few activists shit on it on Twitter.

<comment><USER46> > _I see what you 're saying but don't quite get it's "discrimination" if the > terms are the same for everyone and gender is not even visible if the site > is used in accordance with the terms._

It doesn't _have_ to be actual discrimination; half the time the mob is screaming "discrimination" there isn't any. There are issues you aren't supposed to touch unless you're willing to defend yourself from people who care about winning, and not at all about truth or accurate accusations.

> _I go to SO to solve problems. I couldn 't care less about pronouns one way > or the other. I'd use the "anonymous" version of the site, no problem. In > fact I'd prefer it that way._

You may not care, I may not care, but enough people at important enough places care enough for this to explode into a shitstorm, as you can see in front of you right now.

> _And Twitter? Really? Who cares? It 's not like people would stop using SO > just because a few activists shit on it on Twitter._

If you're the site _owner_ , you may care, because behind few activists on Twitter there comes a mob, and behind a Twitter mob come the journalists. This story has been repeating itself over and over for almost a decade now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Not sure if it's been covered, but I started getting spam emails from them for the first time too.

<comment><USER48> This response covers some additional issues people would like to see addressed, but does not mention that complaint.

[https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334573)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> > First of all, we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they > couldn't participate authentically

> thank you for acknowledging that. I will be able to sleep in peace tonight > knowing that I have still a place here

If users were genuinely unable to sleep because one random faceless person asked if they could continue their practice of only using gender neutral pronouns, then this seems to be a situation in which you shouldn't apologise to them, because they'll never be satisfied. It must be a nightmare being assigned to a CoC project now.

</comment><comment><USER50> In legal cases, it often happens that the first person to be accused of violating a new regulation often gets a slap on the wrist.

For example, if a brand new tax regulation is vague, the first person accused of violating that regulation has a drastically reduced penalty, or just a warning. Along with that, the judge writes a clarification so there can be no mistakes the next time. The clarification sends a clear message to the community that the next person accused will not get a break.

Perhaps, based on third or fourth party accounts, Monica was repeatedly asked to use specific pronouns in a moderators-only chat. If that is true, she may have driven one or more moderators away from participating there, and violated the existing CoC.

However, even if all those accusations against Monica are true, since there is no established procedure for removing a moderator, it would seem that the "judge(s)" in the new process to remove or re-instate Monica could walk a very fine line. The judge(s) could declare Monica guilty of those offenses, but give her a lenient sentence. Perhaps re-instated, but under probation or double-secret-probation.

I hope David Fullerton and his coworkers have the wisdom to consider this course of action.

</comment><comment><USER51> I am still not clear on whether or not avoidance of pronoun use is allowed on SE...

<comment><USER52> What do you mean by 'avoidance of pronoun use'...avoiding them entirely or ignoring some kind of signal about what pronoun a specific person associates with?

<comment><USER51> How would refusing to use requested pronouns be avoiding? In what way could what I said be interpreted to mean refusal?

It's not clear if speaking in passive voice will be acceptable on SE come October 10th.

<comment><USER52> Sorry I just don't know what your original comment meant and was trying to understand it better.

<comment><USER51> Honestly, I think you do.

<comment><USER52> Hey if you're on the front lines of all this i get not taking what i'm saying at face value, but for what it's worth i am just trying to understand.

I _think_ you're asking if submissions to SE will (or will not) be permitted to dodge the identity issue by writing in a way that avoids pronouns.

This just seems so over the top to me that it's hard to believe, which is why I also included another option. I wouldn't call it 'refusing' as much as 'not bothering to do the legwork for every party you refer to in your content'. Which is, of course, also onerous but possibly a bit less so.

<comment><USER51> What's over the top about writing in passive voice?

<comment><USER52> Hey I appreciate you hanging in there but i think we're on two different wavelengths and aren't communicating well. I don't know what passive voice has to do with avoiding pronouns, you can write active and passive with and without. But let's call it even its been a long day. Take care.

<comment><USER51> It's easier to write without pronouns in passive voice. "The ball was kicked" vs. "he kicked the ball".

And no, I'd rather not call it even, not after you slip in with a, "you're wrong but I don't want to talk about it, bye!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Not sure I understand what happened and who why people were offended. If there's wrongdoing by SO, what does this have to do with a holiday(jewish or other)?

Thanks for clarifications and filling in the gaps for me.

<comment><USER40> She is Jewish. They canned her at 6pm EST on a Friday then were a bit flippant about it using the no-class phrase _We learned (or were painfully reminded, rather) to never ship at 6 PM (EDT) on a Friday_ in a previous update. It was also before a Jewish holiday.

This is not the way to treat people, but, if you think cynically, is an excellent way to make sure you have time before the person fired can make a proper response depending on how they practice.

<comment><USER54> To clarify further, they removed her moderator privileges but didn't actually tell her.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I read this thread, read topvoted links to meta and still not sure if I get what's happening.

Is it that 'they' does not count as a neutral addressing anymore? If yes, what's the solution?

<comment><USER56> I feel like I've wasted my time reading into this controversy for how absurd it sounds unless I'm missing some other crucial information.

From what I've gathered from the various references, a mod questioned if the use of gender neutral pronouns such as "they" would be acceptable in response to new rules being announced to moderators that the persons specified pronouns should be used. Despite the fact these rules were not even implemented officially, the mod was terminated immediately.

Now what we see here is them backtracking, but I don't believe they have reinstated the mod. So I don't believe they think are truly remorseful and have realized they overstepped the mark.

<comment><USER57> It's kind of the reverse: The mod in question adamantly refused singular "they" in particular, not for religious or transphobic but rather stylistic reasons (from what I could find). But that's hours of chat and months of context boiled down into one third-hand sentence.

SE has not said whether this in particular was the cause for the firing, but it seems evident. Regardless, there is no indication that SE intends to undo the firing.

<comment><USER58> Thank you for summing up.

What I still don't quite get is: did the mod reject singular they a) when preference was unknown (ie: prefer to rewrite), b) reject singular they, when preferred (someone not identifying as male/female), c) Choose the conventional "he" over singular they when preference was unknown?k8s

From what I've read it's a) - and it's pretty hard for me to imagine a scenario in which that seems like a good reason to drop a moderator.

Also, is this a volunteer being kicked, or is it some kind of paid position?

Ed: from tfa: "Second, we hurt a longstanding member of the community and an important volunteer moderator." So I guess that answers my last question.

<comment><USER57> From what I can tell it's a) _and_ b). Side-stepping the issue by avoiding pronouns or disengaging altogether was suggested by the moderator but dismissed as not an option because similarly hurtful in (perceived?) intent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> will this be followed by an apology for being rushed and shallow or will the new CoCs take care of the nonsense known as nuanced thinking?

</comment><comment><USER60> Whatever else anyone thinks of this brouhaha, I'd say that this answer is extremely useful: [https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/334294)

</comment><comment><USER61> _Stack Overflow is just beginning this new stage in its growth_

Growth? Well that's optimistic.

</comment><comment><USER62> Poor Stache Overflow. I left Debian as a dev when it finally became apparent that gender and identity politics were dominating the community. I originally joined for the technical aspect, which felt like a byproduct at the time I left again. And I _am_ a member of a fringe group. But I would never ever behave like most SJWs seem to do these days. And now downvote me, for not agreeing with the underpriviledged.

<comment><USER63> The problem with focusing on the behavior of certain SJWs is it ignores — and lets stand —the actual underlying issues.

If you want to solve any problems you need to move past getting baited or triggered by each provocative statement and engage the underlying issues.

<comment><USER64> The problem (as I see it, and agree with gp's formulation) is of communities failing to police their own by using double-standards.

One set for "us", one set for "them."

It's okay for one of "us" to be rude, aggressive, or argue outside of good faith. Because it's in service of justice.

But heaven forbid "they" do the same thing. In which case they're terrible people, how dare they, etc.

This happens in both liberal-dominated and conservative-dominated forums.

And the solution is for each and every one of us, at all times, to call a duck a duck. If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole. Full stop.

They should be held to the same standards as anyone else, encouraged to modify their behavior and more closely adhere to general common decency towards other people, or kicked out of their role within the organization.

Because, ultimately, they're a cancer. It's just a question of how long before it metastasizes. And idealogical purity is no balm for failing to be a good person.

PS: Which isn't to say that one can't pursue just causes. Just make sure your own house is in order before throwing rocks.

<comment><USER57> This is really tricky, because sincere and respectful words by one party can still be perceived as hurtful by another. Especially in this issue, there is frequently no middle ground where both parties are happy.

I mean, it's kind of ironic: Calling someone an asshole is undoubtedly rude and aggressive (even when done in good faith). And you said that it's not only ok but necessary when you perceive someone as an asshole. But above you complained exactly about "being rude/aggressive in service of justice". So... which is it?

<comment><USER64> Forest, trees. You should call _both_ conservative and liberal assholes assholes.

<comment><USER57> I did not mean this in the sense of political parties but parties on different "sides" of the pronoun issue at hand.

<comment><USER64> I feel it extends the same way. Allegiance is not... politeness and decency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Summary:

* contrition

* the moderator dismissal was too hasty

* they will create a process for reinstating moderators

* new Code of Conduct announced Oct 11

</comment><comment><USER65> i mean... most people are already on the moderator side, but she might need to take it slow too. i might be reading all this wrong but she is coming off as the side that is slightly aggressive to me. she's been going at every single post they make or people on these post.

i mean, that wasn't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all this wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything.

<comment><USER46> > _i mean, that wasn 't like her job, was it? again i might be reading all > this wrong or maybe we aren't being shown everything._

From what I've gathered, there seems to be additional angle here in which SE talked to the press, apparently using her real name and telling falsehoods about her, and now her name is attached to a slanderous story. This means for her it's no longer about a volunteer position at a tech company, but about her entire life.

EDIT: here's the article in question: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_cont...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/01/stack_exchange_controversy/).

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Seems like now is the time for the new CEO to make themself public.

</comment><comment><USER67> Does anyone else remember the days before the tech community became filled with all these CoC writers?

<comment><USER68> Yes. Those were not good days. In those days, every tech savvy person somehow automatically got the privilege to be rude to the less knowledgeable people. If a user came for help without doing sufficient homework, a project author or community would rudely ask the user to go RTFM. There are more civil ways to send the same message. CoCs are a way to bring in that civility in discourse. Do you have a better idea?

<comment><USER69> >Yes. Those were not good days. In those days, every tech savvy person somehow automatically got the privilege to be rude to the less knowledgeable people. If a user came for help without doing sufficient homework, a project author or community would rudely ask the user to go RTFM.

Two things.

1) 'RTFM' isn't as rude as expecting to be hand-fed. That's the grace in the statement, it's meant to be used as a retort to the expectation that the person being asked the question even has the time to entertain the notion of training someone, given that the manual is available and ready for consumption.

It's (supposed) to speak to the laziness of the person asking the question.

Personally, I think a lot of 'RTFM's that got thrown around have historically lead to the person asking the original question to become a lot more knowledgable on the subject than had a simple answer. I know that I learned that way.

2) I don't have a lot of faith that the politeness that many CoCs enforce got rid of 'RTFM', it just shifted it to "Hi User! Have you tried scouring our extensive question-base for that frequently asked question?" , and that kind of unnecessary glad-handed wordiness irks me as an individual.

<comment><USER70> An effective CoC simply outlines a community definition for abuse. The use of "glad-handed wordiness" is unnecessary, a simple "please read the docs" would likely suffice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I feel without a head to roll this is a little too little too late.

<comment><USER72> This is the kind of attitude that got them into this mess in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I used to participate in SO but it is really turning into a hit n run site for me now. Overzealous duplicate and notconstructive flags combined with the dumbing everything down for new users policy made it frustrating and unrewarding experience. It still is to be frank when the "answer matches actual question in title" rate is about 10%, but what else is there?

<comment><USER32> > Overzealous duplicate

This one is really killing me lately.

In almost all cases it points to something only tangentially related and is of no help.

SO used to be a place that smart people could go to get other smart people to help them with a problem.

Now it mostly seems to be a place where people help students with their high- school CS homework and then bitch about not being there to help with homework!

Quora is even worse!

I am eagerly waiting for whoever comes up with the next reasonable knowledge- sharing site to leave these two POS sites where they belong!

<comment><USER74> With great fear of this, I opened a question on SO a while ago and at the bottom linked to several other SO questions under the heading "similar but different, because ...", and it went quite well, although moderation was quite angry that I didn't choose an accepted answer within a day.

<comment><USER75> > _although moderation was quite angry that I didn 't choose an accepted > answer within a day._

I don't know about Stack Overflow, which is the largest SE site, and may have some cultural differences.

But I'm pretty sure that accepting an answer within a day is _strongly discouraged_ on all Stack Exchange sites in general. You should wait, at least one day before accepting it - some users may still want to answer it. I only accept answers when nobody posts new answers. Also, a user doesn't have to accept an answer, if none of the answer is helpful for solving the question - it has been discussed on Meta before.

Personally, if I asked a question and none of the answer solves the question, I'll accept the most helpful one. If none is helpful, I don't accept any answer, and usually I will be able to answer my own question and accept myself in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Totally unrelated to the matter of hand, but I find it amazing that SE now have forums like "Christianity", "Judaism" etc. where people can upvote and downvote religious questions and answers, and select the "accepted" answer about what Gods opinion is about this and that.

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that the answers are actually Gods opinion! Just found it fascinating that a site specifically designed for technical questions have grown to encompass questions about what Jesus meant with a certain phrase.

<comment><USER77> > and select the "accepted" answer about what Gods opinion is about this and > that.

You're misrepresenting the idea behind those sites. The questions there don't ask about god's option. They (usually) ask about customs, about text interpretations, about rules of given church / denomination, about texts relating to a given situation, and many other things. (Of course there are some exceptions) You don't have to believe in them to respect people's choice to engage with religion and look for a way to live their life.

For example recent questions in christianity right now: "Does the Bible explain why God chose Israel?", "What kind of food is Jesus referring to at Luke 22:16?", "What does modern scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion?". Those aren't even questions about beliefs.

<comment><USER76> Current top question "Where does a baby's soul come from?". Actually I really want to know the answer to that now!

I also like this question: "Do angels possess 1) a body, soul and spirit, 2) a soul and spirit or 3) just a spirit?" \- it even have multiple answers. (Sadly none of them accepted.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> A bit late, but a good response, I'd say.

</comment><comment><USER78> from my limited understanding of the issue some dude/dude-et got thrown out of Stack Overflow Moderators. Big deal to me stack exchange operates like a party you both add value and get value and if you shit in puch bowl you get thrown out. Now please let me know who shat or didnt shit in the punchbowl the contents of the shit and does anyone even drink fruit punch !! fight !!

</comment><comment><USER79> You just have to look at the Twitter feeds of these two to see why things are going where they are going.

[https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps](https://twitter.com/SaraJChipps)

[https://twitter.com/df07](https://twitter.com/df07)

</comment><comment><USER80> << we hurt members of our LGBTQ+ community when they felt they couldn't participate authentically and we didn't respond quickly or strongly enough in supporting them. Worse, through our handling of this situation, we made them a target for harassment as people debated their right to express themselves and be addressed according to how they identify.

I am responsible for that, and I am deeply sorry. We absolutely support the LGBTQ+ community. >>

GPT-2 could have written a better and more genuine apology.

First of all, you don't just use the new PR formula of naming the wrong, saying you take responsibility and then saying you're sorry. You need to dig deep and identify why you committed the wrong in the first place (homophobia, sexism, mean heartedness?) and commit to therapy and reforming.

Seriously.</comment>


How I'd Hack Your Weak Passwords - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5505400/how-id-hack-your-weak-passwords?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifehacker%2Ffull+%28Lifehacker%29

<comment><USER2> My password habits have been significantly improved after I started using 1Password. So much easier to have different passwords for each service, and still keep them in the 20 character range. So now I only need to remember a few passwords (My 1Password master password and the passwords I need when away from my iPod Touch or MacBook). Absolutely recommended!

<comment><USER3> There is a great alternative for people who don't want to waste money on overpriced hardware and software:

<http://keepass.info/> — Windows only

<http://keepassx.org/> — Linux/Windows/Mac

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like to add a simple hash value based on the URL onto my passwords. A simple hash that you can calculate in your head is best, such as the first four consonants of the URL, and then you can integrate that into a password by just concatenating them or splicing them together somehow.

That way, all your passwords are different in a manner that is not immediately obvious, but there is no significant additional burden on your memory.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wrote something a while back to generate passwords for myself. <http://trashb.in/pwgen/>

Everything is in unobfuscated javascript except for jquery and the usage counter, so feel free.

</comment><comment><USER6> Simple passwords are easy to crack, who saw this coming?

</comment><comment><USER7> yawn... does this apply to anybody on HN?

Also, security articles with a condescending or arrogant tone are a big turn- off.

<comment><USER8> upvote for truth</comment></comment>


Remote jobs board - <AUTHOR> https://remoteted.com <comment><USER2> Very first position I looked at: "CANDIDATES MUST LIVE IN THE UK."

Gotta love these "remote work" sites that allow this. I realise your site is simply aggregating a bunch of others, but if you could find a way to filter these liars you'd actually be adding a significant value.

Also: Please sort the tags (alphabetically? Anything that makes sense.)</comment>


Things I've Learned from Traveling Around the World for Three Years - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-arndt/20-thing-ive-learned-from_b_673264.html <comment><USER2> I've been long-term traveling and running my startup at the same time for the past few years (in fact just today I set up an incomplete map of my travels for the past few months at my site, turkeysandwichindustries.com), and I can attest that everything in this article is true.

What makes me sad sometimes is that traveling the world for a few months to a year doesn't even cross the minds of many of my fellow Americans. But doing just that is extremely common for almost any other wealthy country. The number of Americans I meet in a place can be counted on one hand; the number of English, Australians, Kiwis, Germans, etc. etc. are always huge. After some thought, I think it comes down to the fear that's being slowly baked in to our culture. People (and I mean Americans) are afraid of what happens if they don't work, of finding a new job when they come back, of insurance, of germs and war in foreign countries, of insanely improbable disaster striking, of getting lost, of running out of money, of bed bugs, of missing friends and family, of anything. Some of these are valid worries; most aren't.

Having grown up in just such a fear-based culture (and having a worrier gene run in the family), I struggle against those fears myself every day. It isn't easy. But the most important thing that traveling has taught me is this: that everything will be OK. You can be out of a job, get a terrible injury (I myself had an accident requiring surgery while in New Zealand), get lost, miss your flight, have your wallet stolen, lose your passport, or worse, and... everything will be OK. Your family will be there for you, your friends will be there for you, other travelers you've met will be there for you, the locals will be there for you. You'll find a job when you get back, and your old friends won't have forgotten you. As long as you've got the will and the spirit, everything will work out.

So get out there. See the world. It's a beautiful, fascinating, scary, wondrous place. Don't be afraid of taking a year off. Everything will be OK, and it will make you a smarter, more even-headed, tolerant, and curious person. And you'll make friends from all over the world that you can visit on your next big trip.

<comment><USER3> Not everyone can afford it, otherwise a lot more people would. Germans, Kiwis, the English, and Australians probably also generally have more secure employment and higher wages on average.

<comment><USER4> It's a farce to say you can't afford it. I backpacked through India for two months and spent a total of $1,534.00 (excluding airfare to and from the country). I was well fed, sheltered, and had a blast. Many occidental countries and developed countries in general, can be pricey if you resort to convenience.

What's really funny, is, a hippie german couple I befriended in India came to travel through the US a year later; they stopped in my city and we spent some time together reminiscing. They told me they were spending _less_ money in the US then they had in India, primarily because they adhered to little or no convenience and used what free resources are actually taken for granted here that aren't available in a developing or crowded country. Water was a big one, they said they got all of their drinking water from bathroom sinks instead of purchasing it (which you have to do in India because of sanitary issues, or you purify it).

The trick with going on a backpacking trip is to _leave_ your job and pick up some under-the-table jobs in the countries you are staying in (if you run out of money and have no recourse, or want to stay longer than you saved for). This is the point many cultured US citizens are trying to make about our fellow "home-locked" brethren: the excuses made are vapid - you either want to go or you don't. There is, obviously, nothing wrong if you're a person that doesn't want to travel; but if you do, all it takes is some clever thinking and embracement of the dynamism of life (you will find a job when you get back, it might even be better than the one you're leaving).

<comment><USER5> It's nice that you have an employer who will let you leave for two months. Most people don't.

<comment><USER6> I think you missed the part where he said to leave your job. I've done most of my longer-term (one month) vacations after getting laid off or quitting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Careful, this is one is true until it's not, and then you're fucked:

> 7) The rest of the world isn't full of germs. Many people travel with their > own supply of water and an industrial vat of hand sanitizer.

As a rule, yes, you'll be fine in other countries. But especially in third world countries, only eat food that is served in a sealed package from a trusted company or served _hot_ \- food that is served hot will be generally cleaner and safer to eat. The big danger is food that sits around all day half-warm: that's where you get sick from. Also, don't drink the tap water in places the locals don't drink the tap water. Don't worry about ice/teeth brushing/etc, it's incidental, but don't drink tap if the locals won't drink it.

/did research on this after getting violently ill in Cambodia, luckily the expired medicine I bought from the untrained pharmacist did the trick.

<comment><USER8> From my experience, you can not avoid getting ill. Sooner or later (probably sooner) it is going to hit you.

Therefore my advice is, to jump right into it. Eat what the locals eat. Do what the locals do. By this you have at least a bit fun until you have to spend your time sitting and sh __*ing.

The human body is great in adapting to those situation. On my first visit to an development country I took more pictures from the window of my toilet than anything else. But since my body got somehow got used to the new environment, I have not been ill on my last few trips.

Final advice for third world travel: Have toilet paper ready. Always!

<comment><USER9> Bad advice. The body doesn't adapt to hepatitis, salmonella, spoiled meat and the like.

Don't think the locals are not getting sick and dying either. They are. Diarrhea is one of the leading causes of death in the developing world.

<comment><USER8> Thought this would be obvious: I was not talking about stuff that makes everybody ill. The body does not adapt well to many other things, but still you can get used to many things that make people ill on first contact.

Why do so many travellers get sick first time they enter a country with different hygienic standard, where the local population has no problem?

btw: I lived 2 years in central Africa, just returned from a 'local meal' in Luanda/Angola.

<comment><USER9> The point is that you don't want to try to be like the locals. The locals in developing countries are not healthy and do suffer from poor sanitation (diarrhea alone is responsible for 8% of all deaths in Asia -- WHO stats). You need to be sensible and avoid certain things.

I just got back from a month in China and didn't get sick despite eating many things that'd make a typical westerner puke. I lived in China for several years previously and had learned the hard way about food safety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've had the good fortune to be able to travel quite a bit in both my professional and personal life. And I really have to echo everything the author says. But three points in particular:

"The media lies" is something everyone should take to heart. It's an astonishing thing to be in a place where the #1 story of the day is happening and not see anything even remotely representing the reporting on it at ground level.

Also, as an American, I can vouch for "people don't hate Americans". Individual people may be rude, or behave poorly, but they're likely rude and poorly behaved to everybody. It's amazing how that one simple act of understanding can completely change the lens you view the world with. There's an old American adage that the French (Parisians) are rude to Americans. Not so! Parisians are rude to everybody, it's just like New York! If you understand that, and get into the vibe, places with rough social interactions like Paris or New York actually become very navigable and pleasant.

And finally "Everyone should travel". I can't express this enough. There's absolutely no substitute for actually spending time in a place. Reading about the Urals is one thing, eating dill laced food from local farms everyday is another. Talking about how South Korea is modern but different than the West's version of modern is one thing, taking the Seoul Subway to a Korean bar and meeting up with a dozen friends for a night of laughter, drinking, eating and otherwise having a good time is simply a different kind of experience than doing the same in the states. All the broad brush strokes are the same, but the particulars...the texture of the event...are all different.

<comment><USER11> Parisians are rude in the spring and summer, when Paris is overrun by tourists. I can't say I blame them, I found the tourist situation in July insufferable. In the fall I've found Parisians as nice as anyone else in a huge city. I've never found New Yorkers particularly rude, especially nowadays.

<comment><USER12> I'll second that, as a New Yorker who works in midtown I see tourists all the time. Mostly people ignore them, often we give directions or advice (like don't stop in the middle of the sidewalk, don't leave your purse on the subway seat, this train doesn't go west 4th).

Most visitors aren't used to having so many people around them. Just be mindful of your surroundings. Probably good advice for any city.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have lived in 3 continents (Africa [Nigeria], Asia [India], and North America [US]) and vacationed a few times in Europe [mainly England and Switzerland]. This, IMO is good advice.

Contrary to popular belief, people around the world are good. They are willing to help you out and are less likely to take advantage of the fact that you are new there. There is also a sense of curiosity - about who you are, where you are from and what you think of their lands of origin. It often gets a little tiring answering all those questions. :)

On the other hand, governments and officials especially in third world countries tend to be corrupt and agenda-driven. It's amazing how much money changing hands can do, and this I believe is a big deterrent to foreigners in many lands. You need to be a little street smart and know how to work your way out of a potentially sticky situations.

I agree with other comments on HN that you need to be careful of germs. I spent a year in the US before heading back to India to visit family, and I had food off of a street-vendor. I was sick for the next 3 days (God help me now that I have been here for a decade :D). Living in a very sanitary environment like the US can (potentially) weaken your immune system [1]. Ensuring that the food is sealed, or at the very minimum hot is a good way to avoid some of the pitfalls. On the other hand, I have eaten at locals homes in Nigeria, and don't remember having any issues (it's been a while since I was there).

This article makes me want to drop everything and take off for a few months. Sadly, that won't be happening anytime soon. But if you were to take away one thing from this article - it is that you _should_ travel. Going to most countries in the world does not have to be expensive, and it will give you a good way to find out about other cultures, and potentially give you a new avenue into your own [2]

[1] - I am not a doctor, but this has been my experience. I tend to be susceptible to unclean water and food - even the pollution in big cities like Bombay affects me way more than it did when I lived there.

[2] I was raised in a western culture - watching NBA and CNN, listening to pop and rock music, and reading Archie and Mad magazine. But after coming to the US, I have come to realize that there is a lot of things the Indian and American cultures have in common - even more, that there is a lot they can learn from each other.

<comment><USER14> I got sick a few times from street-vendor food in 3rd world countries. It turned out that they often reuse oil for too long. I now avoid deep-fried food, dirty or tap water, and things like ice-cream. I've been fine on my travels since.

<comment><USER15> This is a mild suggestion. Could we stop using the term 3rd world to refer to relatively poor countries? I think in a modern, globalized, and rapidly developing world, '3rd world' is unnecessary and carries a derogatory connotation to it, IMO. I can't speak for others from a so-called third world country, but it offends me.

Plus, the true meaning of third world is something quite different, concocted during the cold war: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World>

<comment><USER16> How about 'developing world' instead? Any other suggestions?

<comment><USER17> It's not so simple as 'developed world' vs 'developing world'. There's an awesome Hans Rosling ted talk [1] about that. Here's an quote from it:

"I find my experience from 20 years of Africa is that the seemingly impossible is possible. Africa has not done bad. In 50 years they've gone from a pre- Medieval situation to a very decent 100-year-ago Europe, with a functioning nation and state. I would say that sub-Saharan Africa has done best in the world during the last 50 years. Because we don't consider where they came from. It's this stupid concept of developing countries which puts us, Argentina and Mozambique together 50 years ago, and says that Mozambique did worse. We have to know a little more about the world. I have a neighbor who knows 200 types of wine. He knows everything. He knows the name of the grape, the temperature and everything. I only know two types of wine -- red and white. (Laughter) But my neighbor only knows two types of countries -- industrialized and developing. And I know 200, I know about the small data. But you can do that."

[1] [http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o...](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html)

<comment><USER18> > _It's not so simple as 'developed world' vs 'developing world'_

Of course. These are just useful categories. Humans like to put things into categories so we can make statements about ideas. Saying it's "not so simple" is a strawman as I don't think anyone is claiming that a country is a data structure with the capacity of 1 bit (developed or developing).

Maybe if you said or quoted something about how the act of using this categorical construction in analysis when performed too often is the physical cause of some sort of injustice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My wife and I took 4 months off to travel around southeast asia (Indonesia, Cambodia, Singapore, Thailand), and had a great time. Managing to stay just connected enough to read and keep up with goings-on back home, and disconnected enough to not worry about our eMail gave us a great change of perspective and energy about coming back to San Francisco, ready to go build something.

Favourite travel tips: \- Kindle's International Roaming plan is $5/wk for subscriptions, so you can get your NYTimes, FT, Economist, etc. while on the go... even in places w/o paved roads and ATM's

\- The Kindle is also great generally because you can be less diligent about charging it, and read it anywhere from the beach to an airport lounge without any eyestrain... It also beats a stack of books (but an iPad would do so as well).

\- Taking Pepto Bismol prophylactically changes the PH of your stomach, making you much less likely to suffer from food-borne illnesses. That said, the effects become detrimental to your body as a whole after a few weeks, so we slowly weaned ourselves off of it, to give our immune system a chance to slowly adjust to the local flora/fauna.

\- An unlocked iPhone is your best friend... whether it's for maps to find your way, a travel guide for a city, downloading a podcast to teach you the local phrases you need, finding/booking a hotel, or making that Skype call back home.

<comment><USER4> _Taking Pepto Bismol prophylactically..._

Ick! That'll give you all sorts of unpleasant side-effects - it's much better to eat raw garlic or raw onions every morning. You'll adjust to the local organisms better and you won't get sick at all.

To each his own on taking electronics/phones/etc... When I go backpacking I prefer to take the "no itinerary" approach, leaving technology at home so I'm not in the Western Bubble wherever I go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Mentioned in the article, you can get free room and board in some amazing places in return for your labor. Check out <http://www.wwoof.org> if you're interested.

My folks have spent a month Italy each of the last 7 years, at virtually no expense beyond the airplane tickets. They work on an olive farm, and stay in buildings constructed in the 1300s.

<comment><USER21> First time I've heard about wwoof. Thanks for the tip. Any tips on how to make the most of it / find the best hosts / etc?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I used to travel. Africa, Australia, Japan, Europe, Mexico, etc. His point about Americans not traveling is valid. I wonder if part of the reason is that North America is so far away from everywhere else. It takes 11 hours to fly from Berlin to Thailand, but it takes 25 hours to fly from NYC to Thailand. Most Americans probably have to get to NYC or LA to get anywhere else in the world, which can be another 3-5 hours of flight time. The long distance is the main reason I don't travel as much as I once did.

However, in Mexico, the default foreigners are usually from the US.

<comment><USER22> Canadians travel, so you can't excuse the distance.

I think the problem is (I say this as a Canadian) that the US has a very insular streak to it's fabric that is manifested in ways such as this. This same streak that caused the US to join both world wars when they were half over.

My guess is that it stems from the individual nature of the founders, along with the split from England. This isn't as strong in Canada and Australia because those countries remained extensions of the Empire and thus were automatically and continuously connected to the larger world.

The US spent a better part of the 1800's focusing exclusively on North America.

<comment><USER23> Another alternative hypothesis for you to consider: there is already so much beauty, novelty, and interesting diversity in the US that it takes a slightly bigger push to get past this local maxima. No offense, but if you chopped out and stitched together all of the interesting bits of Canada you would have a land mass that was about the size of California and with a similar population; in the US we have 49 other states to tool around in as well that present a much greater diversity in terms of environment and inhabitants. We get all that without needing to use a passport, exchange currency, or try to learn to speak like a tourist in another language. It is not the same thing as real international travel, but it is a close-enough approximation for some people that it serves as a reasonable substitute.

<comment><USER22> _there is already so much beauty, novelty, and interesting diversity in the US that it takes a slightly bigger push to get past this local maxima_

That statement though is illustrative of my point, though. Canadians and/or Australians will either view their country as boring or too large, and so they head overseas. Americans don't.

I don't think this speaks so much to the actual fact than it does to the way one looks at the situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Everyone needs to do something like this at least once.

It's a lot harder to believe the bullshit peddled about other nationalities when you've toured through their country and experienced their hospitality.

Personally, traveling for a year changed me and the way I approach people...I was and still am an introvert, but I'm a lot more confident in social situations.

Also, if you're a Bible belt type, prepare to come back a lot more liberal and tolerant in your outlook, not a bad thing.

If nothing else, you'll also discover what the author discovered, how little you actually need to achieve a base level of comfort, and how embarrassingly high your six figure salary actually is, comparatively speaking.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't get the point of traveling all at once (months at a time or more). It seems to me that most people that do so, visit dozens of countries back-to- back in a relatively short span of time.

I would think that everything ends up being rather similar.

I travel ten days at a time, with 6 months to a year in between international trips. Most trips only include one or two countries. Anything else would be a cognitive overload.

<comment><USER26> For the most part, the most expensive part of travel is the fare. It ends up being cheaper to start in one country, travel through the others, using cars, trains, or low-cost airlines, and then finish up going home.

And usually when you do these things you've broken free of all your commitments; sold the house, finished the lease, sold the car, etc. This leaves you with more money available down route.

Doing 2 trips a year still costs plenty. You're still paying for your house even if you aren't in it as well as paying for wherever you are. You're still paying for that car to sit in park, your still paying for cable, mobile phones, electricity, etc.

When I traveled I firesaled everything that wasn't going with me, sold the car, sublet the apartment, and cancelled my phone. I stayed with my parents 1 week and worked right up until the day I left. No more bills meant I had more disposable income.

And even when things are at their worst, everything still manages to work out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Pretty sensible article, except for the health concerns. Don't be afraid, just prepare like you are.

Glad the author is in robust health, but be prepared with antibiotics, anti- diarrhea medicine and remedies for whatever you are prone to getting, say, allergies. Worst case planning makes the trip more fun. For example, my friend got malaria in Kenya.

You just don't know what kind of medicine or care is going to be available.

</comment><comment><USER28> > Most people have a deep desire to travel around the world.

Not exactly. The author forgets that his data set is strongly biased toward travelers and people who dream about travel.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you liked this article and it got you wondering why you aren't traveling more, read Brave New Traveler and WorldHum for inspiration.

<http://bravenewtraveler.com>

<http://worldhum.com>

<comment><USER30> Thanks, I liked this article:

[http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2010/08/16/why-goal-based- li...](http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2010/08/16/why-goal-based-living-will- ruin-your-life/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If anything it's the other travellers that are anti-American (but not to their faces). The natives of countries don't seem to have a preference really except some country specific issues (Wars, long standing disputes etc.)

As for point #2, the media lies. The point is, really that you can't get a balanced point of view about anything from the news, since it only reports the unusual and abnormal otherwise it's not news and that's typically bad news too.

American culture seems to dominate the world particularly in that movies and T.V. seem to be everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER32> "You don't need a lot of stuff" really resonated with me. I'm currently taking this mindset and applying it to my startup lifestyle. That, and learning how to connect with many different kinds of people, were two of the biggest takeaways from my six months of traveling.

I personally wouldn't try to run a startup while abroad, since living in a foreign city takes up so much energy (both to enjoy my surroundings and to figure out how to do day-to-day things).

</comment><comment><USER33> As a Canadian living in the US, I have to take exception to his remark that Canadian and American cultures are the same. The differences might appear subtle, but I'd say the differences are huge. They just run deeper beneath the superficial similarity. I'm speaking of English Canadians BTW.

Vive la difference!

<comment><USER34> An American is proud of what he is: an American. A Canadian is proud of what he is not: an American.

<comment><USER35> Ah, a load of shit.

Canadians are proud to be Canadian. Traveling around has shown me that people often don't know much about Canada, but they recognize the people are nice. That alone is enough to be proud of.

The whole 'Canada identity crisis' is because Canadians are too concerned with their international appearance and place. We need to just embrace the core identity we already have instead of looking for a new one.

The Olympics was an example of Canada trying too hard on the international scene. The closing ceremonies had this horrid 'comedy' portion designed to show that we don't take ourselves too seriously. That in itself was just trying too hard - you don't need an intentionally lame comedy sketch to show that.

Anyways Daniel - I recommend you travel more. The further I get from Canada the more I realize it is only a few Canadians and Americans that see it as a US vs Canada issue - we already have our own distinct identity.

<comment><USER34> _it is only a few Canadians and Americans that see it as a US vs Canada issue_

No Americans see "it" as a "US vs Canada issue" because "it" is an exclusively Canadian concern. What Americans think of Canada is (a) nothing and (b) (when pressed) that big cold-but-friendly blank space at the top of the map. That doesn't stop them from being warm and fuzzy when they find out you're Canadian.

<comment><USER36> Could be worse - you could be the "cold-but- _un_ friendly blank space at the top of the map" which I suspect is how English people see Scotland ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> _Just because people use electricity and have running water doesn't mean they are abandoning their culture to embrace western values._

Is anyone actually surprised by this? That's some serious western arrogance.

<comment><USER38> Slow down now. Aren't (usable) electricity and running water _both_ Western inventions?! I think that it's not so arrogant to suggest that if people adopt those things that they have a bit of Western in their culture.

I would equally say that we have some Chinese culture in our fireworks displays. It goes both ways. We are abandoning our non-fireworks culture to embrace theirs, just as others abandon their non-electrical culture to embrace parts of Western culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> "Three and a half years and 70 countries later, I've gotten the equivalent of a Ph.D in general knowledge about the people and places of Planet Earth."

A contradiction in terms.

<comment><USER40> I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but possibly an explanation to the downvoters: a Ph.D. is a specialization; "specialization in general knowledge" doesn't compute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Traveling != Living</comment>


Show HN: Create a Digital Story - <AUTHOR> https://litehouse.press/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello Hacker News,

we had created tool, where you can create your next digital story or featured article. Just enter your story and upload media.

You can download created story as a full html code or html snippet, which you can enter into your popular CMS like Wordpress or Joomla or any other one.

Any feedback is welcomed.

thanks a lot</comment>


Experts awed by Anglo-Saxon treasure found by a bloke with a metal detector - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/world/europe/25treasure.html?em

<comment><USER2> There was a good NPR piece about this yesterday, which went into some detail about the disrepute the "detectorists" (hobbyists with metal detectors) are in, and how unfair that is given the close collaboration they've developed with museums over the last N years.

<comment><USER3> They aren't helpful if the dig into a new site disturbing the archeology to get at the 'treasure'. This was a ploughed field - it was about as disturbed as you can get.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If 1/2 goes to the farmer and 1/2 the guy with the metal detector, who is paying for the dig and what do they get out of it?

</comment><comment><USER5> Pretty good! I'm glad he gets half.</comment>


Anti-Viral: Facebook Partners with Security Vendors to Stop Malware - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/facebook-partners-security/ <comment><USER2> Worth clarifying: there's nothing about Facebook Credits involved, and we don't collect any financial information. (I work at Facebook with the team that set this up.)</comment>


Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 <comment><USER2> Why is virus transmission via aerosol such a controversial thing? When you cough, microscopic water drops get suspend in the air and studies have proven other strains of coronavirus can survive in these particles, especially in office conditions.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32226116](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32226116)

And there's at least one study that found healthcare workers are at higher risk of infection during medical procedures that create aerosols.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338532/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338532/)

Perhaps it's some human bias and we dread the idea that simply sharing the same atmosphere puts us at risk?

This could be something very positive actually, and lead to rapid non-invasive testing. Imagine virus testing as part of the air filters on planes and cruise ships, could be a very powerful tool for preventing outbreaks.

<comment><USER3> In the infectious disease world, droplets and aerosol aren't the same thing.

[https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/coronavirus-can- become-a...](https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/coronavirus-can-become- aerosol-doesnt-mean-doomed/)

> The reason the measles is so, well, viral, is that the microbe is so small > and hardy that it is able to stay suspended in the air where an infected > person coughed or sneezed for up to two hours, making it one of the only > viruses that can exist as a true aerosol.

> Now there are conflicting reports on whether the new coronavirus can. The > studies suggesting that it can be aerosolized are only preliminary, and > other research contradicts it, finding no aerosolized coronavirus particles > in the hospital rooms of Covid-19 patients.

<comment><USER4> When I read measles has an R0 of 18 that just blew my mind.

That thing just spreads like wildfire.

<comment><USER5> Now imagine a virus in future with R0 of 18, incubation (while contagious) of 14 days and a CFR of 50%. This would wipe out entire populations of humans.

<comment><USER4> Agreed, this is why after this, whatever the root cause, we should have international "discouragement" on disease research. This stuff is going to leak out. Not saying this one did.

<comment><USER3> Been in place since the 1970s.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is why people need to learn to listen to their intuition and their common sense instead of losing out to the tyranny of the experts during critical situations.

I don't care if the experts don't want a run on masks. Anyone of modest intelligence knows that paper with little holes in it impedes the movement of air and droplets. Even if a mask is poorly sealed, surely it does _something_ for both the infected and the uninfected, yet we've allowed the authorities, the experts, to gaslight us into accepting that the sky is blue so that they could augment their supply with masks intended to be sold to civilians. Under normal circumstances, individuals can afford to wait for evidence and listen to it. Now there are people who are going to die because they trusted the idea that they shouldn't wear a harmless piece of paper.

If they didn't want a run on masks, they should have chosen to say something other than an insult to our intelligence, and then backtrack. And if you don't believe that the CDC, WHO, journalism outlets, were begging people to not wear masks back in February, I have to wonder what rock you've been living under.

<comment><USER3> There are lots of places where common sense and intuition fail us. Experts are important. The issue here is they tried a hamfisted approach of _lying_ to prevent panic buying.

What _should_ have happened was "masks work, here's an approved pattern you can make at home with just some cloth, and we're nationalizing PPE production and distribution for the time being; please know that's so the healthcare workers who may save your lives can stay alive".

<comment><USER6> Exactly. There's no denying that. And that's the public statement that we all _deserved_. But we're all too used to accepting misinformation from the authorities because we trust that they know better and that the ends will justify the means, which is a highly dangerous mindset because it damages our ability and willingness to distinguish reality of fantasy. In the worst case, it means that we'll accept anything.

<comment><USER3> The issue is "common sense and intuition" is what gets us anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, etc. As the saying goes, common sense isn't common.

I'd like to see steps taken to increase the independence of organizations like the CDC from the political world.

<comment><USER6> > The issue is "common sense and intuition" is what gets us anti-vaxxers, > climate change denial, etc. As the saying goes, common sense isn't common.

I'm sorry, but yes it is.

First off, those are not common-sense issues. They're complex, and just because they make sense to the high IQ crowd on HN doesn't meant that they have any reflection on common sense. Just because anti-vaxxers say that vaccines are bad because "common sense" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with other than them being morons.

Common sense is that masks do something and aren't harmful to use. Common sense was right. Just because common sense and intuition are sometimes wrong doesn't mean that they're always wrong, which would be a fallacy. It doesn't even take common sense; an average joe can use basic cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to use a mask, if they are wondering whether a mask is a good idea. Trusting people(often pundits) with ulterior motives over a month after the fact would have turned out to be less advantageous.

This idea that we can't ever use our intuition because it's often wrong is dangerous. If we can't make any decision with intuition, including one as harmless as wearing a piece of paper over our faces, then we're slaves of the mind.

<comment><USER3> "Mercury is a deadly poison. It is common sense that having it in a vaccine is bad."

This makes perfect, intuitive, common sense to a significant portion of the population.

<comment><USER7> "...to a significant portion of the population."

Including health experts:

"...depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury. As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including FDA, National Institutes of Health [NIH], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA]) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Joint Statement, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible. The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines."

[https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood- biologics/vaccines/thimer...](https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood- biologics/vaccines/thimerosal-vaccines-questions-and-answers)

To this day thimerosal is not included in childhood vaccines, except for some flu shot formulations.

<comment><USER3> > Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of toxicity from doses > of thimerosal used in vaccines. In case reports of accidental high-dose > exposures in humans to thimerosal or ethyl mercury toxicity was demonstrated > only at exposures that were 100 or 1000 times that found in vaccines.

<comment><USER7> They could just as easily say, "Data reviewed did not demonstrate convincing evidence of safety from doses of thimerosal used in vaccines."

Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety.

If these trials had been done, and health authorities were convinced it was safe, they would allow thimerosal in vaccines because it is a huge cost saver. But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not worth the risk.

As an environmental engineer I've witnessed this tactic over and over. Authorities claim there is no evidence of danger, but remove the toxin anyways, because they know it's danger is plausible, and the funding and time isn't there to prove it one way or the other. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It's not like they are going to say, "we think we may have poisoned people, so we're removing this toxin." That's a great way to destroy your livelihood, reputation, and invite prosecution.

<comment><USER3> > Placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have never been completed > to evaluate the safety of thimerosal. Partly because it would be unethical > to inject a known toxin into people to determine it's safety.

The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference?

> But instead, through the actions they took, they made it clear it is not > worth the risk.

Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it.

<comment><USER7> "The safety of thimerosal is entirely possible to evaluate. It was in a bunch of childhood vaccines; it now is not. Has there been any demonstrable difference?"

If you don't believe that proper clinical trials are important to evaluate safety then there's not much more I can say. Epidemiological studies are rife with problems and the data can be manipulated to claim almost anything you want.

"Not necessarily. Could just not be worth the fight with the anti-vaxxers spreading bullshit about it. See also: Subway ditching azodicarbonamide because some blogger started a scaremongering movement around it."

Good point, but mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man, does not break down, and is scientifically proven to bio-accumulate in mammalian tissues and never leave. It was also injected directly into the body, bypassing all the normal biological defenses a compound must go through before entering tissues. Furthermore, people can chose to not eat Subway without consequence. If vaccines had thimerosal in them again, it would be unavoidable without major life changes and being forcibly removed from large swaths of civil society. A consequence so severe necessitates a more proof than just saying you think mercury is safe in small doses with zero supporting concrete evidence.

Thimerosal was removed around 2001, well before the anti-vaxxer movement had enough influence to matter.

Your feelings and weak suppositions about thimerosal in vaccines are not science, and rather just indicate that you want to believe what you want to believe without presenting any concrete evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This video was posted on /r/Coronavirus/ and was pretty interesting:

Micro droplets suspending in air [https://vimeo.com/402577241](https://vimeo.com/402577241)

</comment><comment><USER3> Another nail in the coffin for the "masks don't work" side of things.

<comment><USER9> nobody said masks don't work - the article doesn't contradict the fact that masks don't protect you very good against other infected people next to you. This article just repeats that it's known that masks help to prevent spreading of the disease if you have symptions and need to go outside. At least here in Germany nobody ever spoke out against that.

<comment><USER10> WHO said masks don't work

<comment><USER11> Here's what the WHO site[1] says:

• If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection.

• Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.

• Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand- cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.

• If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

Nowhere do I see: "Masks don't work".

[1] [https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel- coronavirus-2...](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel- coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks)

<comment><USER12> I think the first point is what most people are talking about when they're saying the WHO said "masks don't work".

"Masks don't work" being short hand for "masks will only help you in these very narrowly defined circumstances."

<comment><USER13> Even the third point is likely to discourage people from using masks. I find it difficult to believe that people with a mask, even if used poorly, see absolutely no benefit from the mask. The mask's presence on your face should already make you less likely to touch your face. Furthermore, the novel coronavirus is not the only thing to worry about. All of the other illnesses are still abound and will likely make you more susceptible to the novel coronavirus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just to be clear, they are talking about surgical-type masks, similar to the cloth masks people are making.

They are NOT talking about N95 "masks". There is constant confusion in the press and elsewhere between these two.

One protects others (surgical mask), and one protects others AND the wearer (N95).

Vox proposed that we call N95s by their technical term, "respirators", and other masks "masks", but then I suppose people will start confusing "respirators" and "ventilators"

<comment><USER15> I don't know that I entirely buy this. Okay, the masked I sewed myself out of an old shirt and some coffee filters isn't nearly as effective as an N95 mask, but is it really 0% effective? Surely it's better than nothing?

<comment><USER14> Boy you're quite the contrarian. Congratulations. Did I say 0% effective? Talking about primary use here. You're right, though, that cloth or coffee filter is better than nothing.

<comment><USER15> >One protects others (surgical mask), and one protects others AND the wearer (N95).

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that sure sounds pretty absolute to me.

<comment><USER14> From OSHA [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovSLAuY8ib8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovSLAuY8ib8)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One thing in this study I find totally surprising is this: how can aerosol from different virus classes be differently contagious when passing through a mask? They seemed to have measured that, but it would really be very interesting to get an explanation how this is possible. How does a mask filter the contagion from corona aerosol, but not from rhino aerosol. This is totally perplexing to me.

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinovirus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinovirus)

> They are lytic in nature and are among the smallest viruses, with diameters > of about 30 nanometers. By comparison, other viruses, such as smallpox and > vaccinia, are around ten times larger at about 300 nanometers; while flu > viruses are around 80–120 nm.

The smaller the virus, the easier it slips through a mask's fibers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> something that i don't fully understand - as a healthy person does wearing a mask has any effect? or the masks work only for reducing the chance of transmitting the virus if already infected?

<comment><USER18> > something that i don't fully understand - as a healthy person does wearing a > mask has any effect?

Yes, of course it has an effect. Why do you think health care workers wear them?

<comment><USER19> "Yes, of course it has an effect. Why do you think health care workers wear them?"

Because they will be closer than 6ft to infected people.

<comment><USER3> So, if they work at less than six feet, they probably work _at_ six feet or greater too, right?</comment></comment></comment></comment>