How To Analyze Data Using the Average - <AUTHOR> http://betterexplained.com/articles/how-to-analyze-data-using-the-average/ <comment><USER2> Poor title, but great descriptions and examples.

Bonus for harmonic mean.

<comment><USER3> Cool, glad you liked the article. Yeah, I'm still working on the zen of making catchy "click me now!" titles :).

<comment><USER4> I like the aim of your blog. I've noticed that in all subjects there are a few key ideas that everything revolves around, plus a few key results from these ideas. For some reason, the subjects are not organized around those points.

School would be so much easier and interesting if the subjects were organized better.

I think the bad organization is a consequence of school performance being measured by tests. It is much easier and quicker to merely memorize the formula and regurgitate than to really understand what is going on. Then the people who learned by parroting become teachers and are even less able to explain the crucial principles; resulting in a vicious cycle.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, glad you like the site. I completely agree -- many ideas can be boiled down to a few key concepts, yet most of the time we're taught to plug and chug (and inevitably forget).

It surprsies me how often "cram and forget" is the operating mode for education (I had my share of that). Yep, I think measuring performace with tests is a big part of it.

You hit the nail on the head about student interest as well. Many people end up hating math because it is often taught in that rote, formulaic manner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting discussion, but I think the average is more usefully thought of as the best unbiased predictor. In other words, given no other information about the process the mean is the best prediction one can make.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, there's lots of different interpretations for the average. The predictive one works well (expected value), another one is where the "balancing point" would be if you had physical weights at those coordinates.

If you had 1kg weights at distances 2 3 and 10 (sum of 15), you should put the fulcrum of a lever at 5 to keep the set balanced. (Torque on right: 10 - 5 = 5. Torque on left: 5 - 2 = 3, and 5 - 3 = 2, for a total of 5).

Different sized masses? You literally take the weighted average :).</comment></comment>


What caffeine does to your brain - <AUTHOR> http://fusion.net/story/166708/what-caffeine-does-to-your-brain/ <comment><USER2> My father, who is a cardiologist, has all these stories about how they keep trying to prove that caffeine and coffee in general are bad for you, bad for your heart specifically. But the more they try to prove it is bad, the more they keep finding that caffeine is actually good for you and reduces the risk of heart disease. I'll have to ask him for specific studies. Now the sugar they put in the coffee, that's a different story...

<comment><USER3> > caffeine and coffee in general

Why coffee specifically? Other things contain caffeine. Tea, for example.

<comment><USER4> Tea also contains L-theanine which modulates the effects of caffeine: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10737183](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10737183)

<comment><USER5> True, but in miniscule amounts. Significantly lower than the doses taken by the people who use L-theanine as a supplement. Also L-theanine to caffeine ratio is all wrong.

>Why pick pure l-theanine and caffeine over green or black tea?

>Most studies done on the l-theanine-caffeine combination have a l-theanine to caffeine ratio that isn't consistent with ratios you would expect from most teas. The studies used about twice as much l-theanine as caffeine by weight. The ratio found in most teas is reversed, with the possible exception of high quality green tea. [1]

[1]: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/wiki/faq](http://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/wiki/faq)

<comment><USER6> Which is why I drink high quality green tea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I stopped drinking coffe 6 months ago and I feel that I raised my average productivity allot as a programmer, my day is more "even" in lack of a better word. I also sleep better, even if I didnt think I had an issue with that while drinking coffe.

<comment><USER8> I believe it likely that all drugs have a net negative effect in the long run. If humans in general had a chemical imbalance so our brains did not function optimally, and caffeine would fix that so that we just functioned better overall, shouldn't evolution have taken care of that by now?

Messing with the signalling systems can be productive in the short run, and certain individuals have other needs, but it is unreasonable to assume it would be good for most people forever. I do drink coffee every day, because I like it, but I would never assume it makes me more alert or smarter in some way.

<comment><USER9> Evolution doesn't code for just __optimal __. During the time that we were actually evolving, there existed pressure, for example, to optimize our use of the small amount of food that we had access to, optimizing to be as incospicuous during the dark hours, etc. Signaling processes weren 't optimized for access to post-scarcity (in the first-world) availability of sugars, proteins, and fats; sleeping for as long as we do isn't optimal at all (some people have genetics that improve on this, though), and not to mention that the very nature of genetics will definitely produce humans that are sub- optimal in ways that that won't necessarily lead to sterility but will no longer be removed from the gene pool of the species.

I'm not claiming that caffeine will make you super-human but the use of substances like these that may have decreased survivability in pre-historic years (e.g., due to increased metabolism, induced bowel movements that decrease nutrient absorption) may augment several aspects of human cognition (and worsen others) in a way that __is __towards optimal, for say, coding but suboptimal for, say, creative writing (I don 't claim this is true, just provide this as a possible example). Many contemporary college students can definitely attest to both the positive and negative aspects for drugs such as amphetamines (e.g., Adderall) in a manner that one could describe (though misleadingly) as superhuman.

I do agree that use of many of these substances can have seriously deliterious effects with prolonged use, but all studies I have come across refute this possibility for caffeine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Different people have different caffeine metabolism. I can still feel it 12+ hours later.

<comment><USER11> i am about 800-1600mg caffeine a day (almost all pill form since brewing and drinking coffee takes too much time) and i do not feel these so called muscle tremors, or abnormal heart rhythms.

<comment><USER12> Don't. One of my friends went up to 1.5g/day (using crystalline caffeine). After he had to give it up, he spend at least 6 months without energy, lethargic, sluggish, possibly depressed.

After ceasing typical consumption brain goes back to normal in 1-2 weeks. But for huge doses it might be not the case.

(BTW: If anyone knows more info on the length of caffeine withdrawal as a function of does, I would be grateful!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As I see caffeine validated, I wonder about other "upper" substances. I write code a lot better with a lip full of Skoal... And I'm sure there are other beneficial chemical compounds that have been given a black-eye. Certainly seems like there must have been something to all of the people I knew in college doing lines of adderall, who have probably upgraded to another white powder now that they work for Bridgewater...

<comment><USER14> The combination of nicotine and an MAOI is very much more addictive than nicotine alone – unknown substances in cigarette smoke mimic MAOIs.

That is, many of the negative consequences of tobacco come from the delivery method instead of the desirable nicotine. That's not to say vaping doesn't have it's own (yet unknown) negative consequences.

[http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > Scientists think that up to 400 milligrams of caffeine–the equivalent of > roughly four cups of coffee–is probably safe for most healthy adults.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a lot? I don't want to argue against this. When I was doing my bachelor's I pulled all nighters with one or two 500ml Monster energy drinks which is ~320mg max. Of course all nighters are not healthy but I was mostly worried about the caffeine intake.

<comment><USER16> But it's only one venti at Starbucks ;)

<comment><USER15> I imagine 400mg is for daily intake. I don't now how it applies for the intake in one sitting. I had to look it up and Starbucks' venti Brewed Coffee really contains 415mg [1]. Seriously, this product looks dangerous. How come it's not regulated similarly as energy drinks? Maybe it's protected by "caffe culture", but I seriously doubt that drinking half a liter caffe was ever part of any culture.

[1] [http://www.caffeineinformer.com/the-complete-guide-to- starbu...](http://www.caffeineinformer.com/the-complete-guide-to-starbucks- caffeine)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I suffer from occasional SVT episodes and gave up caffeine as a result (it causes them to trigger more frequently). I'm not sure how it would be in other industries, but as a software engineer, telling colleagues that I don't consume any caffeine at all is almost always met with looks of disbelief and horror. I never realized how dependent on it so many people around me are to get through their day until I gave it up.

</comment><comment><USER18> I just found out a couple of weeks ago that a time-released caffeine formulation[1] works wonders for me. It gives me 8-10 solid of solid focus without all the jitter. This, plus my morning joe with coconut oil, that is. About 300mg total caffeine.

[1] [http://www.metrx.com/products/timed-release- caffeine/](http://www.metrx.com/products/timed-release-caffeine/)

<comment><USER5> What's the purpose of coconut oil?

<comment><USER19> I'm assuming he's talking about "Bulletproof" coffee, since Coconut oil contains medium chain triglycerides. Some claim it increases "clarity and alertness" and apparently boosts metabolism, lots of Paleo dieters use it. Never tried it personally, so can't attest for the benefits.

<comment><USER18> It may sound odd, but Bulletproof coffee does not work for me at all; maybe the fatty acid profile of butter vs coconut oil are too different, but for me, coconut oil works and butter doesn't.

Note that I have a primary mitochondrial defect, so my nutritional experiments results are always "weird", for the lack of a better word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is it possible to approximate the amount of caffeine based on the beans weight I use for brewing? Before I take any further steps I'd like to know how close to the danger zone I am.

</comment><comment><USER21> Pretty useless article. Nothing new

</comment><comment><USER22> 1\. The modal made me consider instantly closing the site. If that article didn't REALLY interest me, I would have insta-closed it.

2\. No offense, but this is pretty basic, high school biology class knowledge. Would be nice if we knew more than this in 2015.

</comment><comment><USER23> Putting a modal over the entire iphone screen is a great way to get me to hate your site. Article was decent, but mostly contained a semi-technical overview of well known info.

<comment><USER24> Mobile web browsing is a true nightmare on iOS. It's pretty shocking that it's taking Apple _nine_ OS releases to address what's clearly a defect in their platform.

<comment><USER23> maybe the fault you find with Apple is not without merit, but surely you can't be suggesting that a websites choice of UI could possibly come down to apple.

<comment><USER24> Taking away all control from the user in terms of how their device's browser is able to render websites is all on Apple. They could've fixed this a long time ago. I'm not a fan of Android at all, but I've been tempted to switch back purely because of the ability to run a spam filter in my browser.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mass psychosis in the US - <AUTHOR> http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117313948379987.html

<comment><USER2> The simple fact is that many people need drugs to deal with day to day living in US society. They are told constantly they should be happy, healthy, beautiful, hard working. The US has less holidays than other western nations. It also has less international news and arguably a more homogenous media culture. For many of these people, if they can take a pill and not worry, then they will do so. It's shocking to a non US citizen how much drug advertising is on American television. Ask any foreigner - they have all noticed. It's the sort of thing that would be outlawed in other countries. Particularly the wording - "ask your doctor for ...". On the other hand, natural drugs with proven benefits (I believe a recent magic mushroom study just strongly suggested that they keep people happy for a year after dosage) are outlawed. THX, anyone? _sigh_

<comment><AUTHOR> > Particularly the wording - "ask your doctor for ..."

This of course just adds to the stress and unhappiness as described by Barry Schwartz in this interesting TED talk [http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...](http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you get feedback from potential users? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN, Anyone recommend any service to get feedback on your site from a sample audience within a target demographic?
eg - to test a new product idea or messaging, before we develop it further
How do you do it? <comment><USER2> I look for places my target demographic congregates and ask the most thoughtful contributors to help me.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, will try that.. actually before wanted to use facebook paid polls, but found out they discontinued that recently..</comment></comment>


Ask HN: About the direction in life - <AUTHOR> Hi, everyone. This community consists of a huge number of educated, well established people who, I assume, has most things under control. I assume you have direction in life or know how to choose one. The following will come from the bottom of my heart, as I have no one to whom I could extress this in a meaningful manner.
I'm 27/M. For the pas year I've been living in Amsterdam, originally from Lithuania. I'm web developer by career, intraverted but open minded. I've jumped to the offer of working in Amsterdam as it fed my hunger for direction in life. I've been successful thus far, but that's part of thr problem. Even though I'm keen to depression and this transition to a new city, new coutry, new culture, language, new people had its difficulties but it wasn't really a hardship as I've reached my job goals fairly easily and made friends.
But that's the problem. It all seems meaningless. Recently I've broke up with my girlfriend after four years. It gave me time to think. I want to do something enriching, something meaningful, maybe impact somebody's lives for the better. But I'm clueless on what direction to take.
I do feel wanderlust. I hate material posessions. I have some money saved up which would help me for a while if I'd decide to quit my job. I've been wondering of going nomad, working remotely and travel the world but I don't want to live for myself anymore. I want to dedicate myself to something meaningful.
Have any of you been in such crossroad? If so, what was your decision and how did it turned out?
Thank you sincerely for your answers. <comment><USER2> One thing I can say is that it's possible to feel the way you feel even for someone in a situation where they seem like they "have things figured out".

Read Seneca's On the Shortness of Life. It and other works of Stoic philosophy help me at times when I feel this way.

Changing jobs/cities/partners can sometimes be the answer, but finding a source of value that is robust to changing circumstances is the only hope we have in life.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sure. I've been there plenty of times, and have managed to push through to become relatively successful in life in a few peoples eyes.

Look, there's a lot I could say on this, but the one piece of advice I would give is to simply avoid inaction.

Right, I know what you're thinking. That sounds vague as shit and completely impractical. But what I mean by is that, for me, when I was in similarly tight spots to where you are right now, I found that the worst thing I could do was stay in my head.

This is now of course amplified by the information age we all live in. While people argue the converse and say the internet is full of rubbish, you really don't have to travel too far online to purposely find and overturn stones of some seriously deep knowledge and wisdom. Take HN for example - there are so many smart people here that could offer you a smorgasbord of options for how you can elevate yourself from this rut.

But this is precisely what I warn you to be mindful of. Because in the time that you've half-chewed and entertained the plethora of life-changing ideas around here or other somewhat enlightened parts of the web, you've not only not implemented a single one, but you've become addicted to chasing the next life-changing idea that will one day set you on the course you desire.

That's why I say that the most important thing is to do SOME things. Whatever it is: improv, travel, meditation, stoicism, working out - there's so many great things you can do to start getting things moving. But the crucial thing I found was to not get caught up in what the "right" thing or the "best" thing was, but simply pick a few things and start enacting them. This is the way one changes their life.

Additionally. and perhaps this pertains to my genetic makeup and neuroses, but I found more I pushed myself socially and tried to connect with others, the faster things start getting better for me. Even if I'd fuck up and made an ass of myself back in the day, I found that simply the act of getting that social 'ping' from another person emboldened my sense of self - regardless if it was a fun or awkward interaction.

</comment><comment><USER4> There is a story where two bricklayers working side by side are asked what they are doing. One says "Building a wall." The other says "Building a cathedral!"

Maybe you need to make big changes in life. Or maybe you just need a different understanding of the role you are playing as a tiny cog in a very big machine with 7 billion people in it.

PS: We are all just dust in the wind. Ultimately, none of it really matters. But we each need to do what makes sense to us to the best of our ability.

</comment><comment><USER5> Develop a sense of self importance. It may seem antithetical to who you are but cultivate it a little. It creates drive and purpose via ego. Otherwise you will start and stop forever because 'nothing matters in the end', but your newself is about: you matter and what you do matters

</comment><comment><USER6> When single, you become a philosopher. When married with kids, you are happy if you get an hour of sleep.

Read Seneca's On the Shortness of Life.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't have a lot of experience here, but I'd recommend watching the movie _Lost in Translation_. It taught me how it was ok to be uncertain about life, and gave me a lot of comfort.</comment>


My Latest Project, the Treasure Hunt Blog - <AUTHOR> http://thetreasureblog.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> If you take a look, I'm giving away 5 copies of Godel, Escher, Bach in my first contest.

I'd really appreciate any thoughts about the advertising model. Thanks!</comment>


Show HN: Our weekend project - HN Showcase, browse "Show HN" posts - <AUTHOR>

http://www.hnshowcase.com
Moses (nnythm) and I browse Hacker News daily. Show HN posts are some of our favorite parts of HN. We wanted to create a way to browse Show HN articles, even those that might not quite make it to the front page. We created http://www.hnshowcase.com last weekend to make discovering projects posted on HN easier. It searches all "Show HN" posts and generates a thumbnail view for each of them. You can sort by submission date, points, and number of comments, and navigate with left/right or j/k keys.
We used the following technologies:
HN Search API, Pyramid web framework, jQuery, url2png and thumbalizr for thumbnail generation, and dotCloud for hosting.
Let us know what you think and how we can improve the user experience! <comment><AUTHOR> Direct link: <http://www.hnshowcase.com/>

</comment><comment> adam-_- I was tickled by the fact it included a link to itself, for endless browsing..

Nice work though!

</comment><comment><USER2> Nice!

Someone should make a website linking all the little improvements like this people have made to HN.

EDIT: When I'm on page 2 ordered by date, then click on order by points, it takes me to page to ordered by points. It should take me to the start.

<comment><USER3> I guess you haven't been on <http://www.hnsearch.com/apps>. It has not everything but is a good summary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh, wow..love the site! I frequently check out "Show HN" posts. I mostly view the feedback that was given. I like that you included a preview and link to the comments section.

EDIT: I tried it out more. It would be nice to have a search option too.

</comment><comment><USER5> Looks great! One suggestion, maybe have the links open in a new window. I know this annoys some people, but it makes it easier to get back to your site after looking at someone's project. I don't always remember to control click on the links.

</comment><comment><USER6> Definitely found some stuff to vote up.

Interactive JavaScript PID Demo: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2810771>

</comment><comment><USER7> Sweet, bookmarked. Thanks for sharing the services you used too, url2png looks awesome, can't wait to try it out

</comment><comment><USER8> Nothing much to add except that it's a great idea, and really nice-looking implementation.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just so you know, I just finished browsing all 82 pages. Thanks guys! :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Very slick! I like it a lot (: anything to improve HN is a + for me!

</comment><comment><USER11> Very cool, and very Meta.

</comment><comment><USER12> Neat! Definitely bookmarked, I love Show HN posts the most!

</comment><comment><USER13> Cool! Would love to see endless scrolling in there though.

</comment><comment><USER14> Awesome, thank you guys!

</comment><comment><USER15> why is this better than searching "show hn" on hnsearch?

<comment><AUTHOR> hnsearch is certainly a great way to find the same information, and in fact we use it underneath to get our data. However, going through hnsearch requires a few steps and many casual readers might not bother to go there. Since most "Show HN" posts link to the project homepage, we hope that displaying a thumbnail of each page in a visual gallery can help views discover interesting content faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice!</comment>


MoonMail by Astrobotic - <AUTHOR> https://www.astrobotic.com/moon-mail/

<comment><USER2> I can't believe this is a business.</comment>


A fistful of Bitcoins: Characterizing payments among men with no names - <AUTHOR> https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/02/20/a-fistful-of-bitcoins-characterizing-payments-among-men-with-no-names/ <comment><AUTHOR> Original paper [pdf]: [https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/03_meikle...](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/03_meiklejohn- online.pdf)</comment>


The Cord-Cutting Fantasy - <AUTHOR> http://stratechery.com/2013/the-cord-cutting-fantasy/

<comment><USER3> "The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone."

No, it isn't. I cut the cord, and watch media on Netflix & Hulu and buy 2-3 shows on iTunes. To get the same number of movies and series on TV I was paying for a $100+ per month cable bill. Now I'm paying $40 for internet and $8 for Netflix and about $6 per month from iTunes TV shows. So I get a better experience, can watch what I want when I want it, and pay about half of what I used to.

<comment><USER4> I get cable AND Internet for $55/month (including espn and amc). People who claim cable is expensive seem to be unwilling to lessen their bill.

<comment><USER5> Where do you live? Cable Internet _alone_ would run me a minimum of $50/mo. at the slowest speed, ignoring the introductory rate. The cheapest package with TV runs almost $100/mo after the introductory rate expires.

<comment><USER4> Comcast San Francisco, outside intro rate. Tv + 20+ Mbps Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's something odd about those numbers - if really _all_ of those channels, including ESPN, are too expensive to be financed by just their viewers at the current cost level, and each household would pay more for just the things they want... Where exactly does the money for those channels come from?

The logical conclusion would be that large numbers of people never watch their cable TV at all and just subsidize entertainment for the rest of us. I don't think I believe that, given U.S. entertainment consumption habits.

<comment><USER7> My hunch is OP's calculations are right, but his numbers are just wrong. I have a tough time believing ESPN only penetrates 4% of American Households.

Looking at his sources I think OP's error comes from the fact that he is using Primetime viewership as a metric. I'm going off assumptions here, but I would think that ESPN's major value add is huge number of people watch ESPN at all times of the day. SportCenter, for example, doesn't air during primetime, but airs continually throughout day.

Looking at the Primetime numbers, The History Channel scored higher than ESPN. However I would guess at all other times in the day, ESPN has a much, much higher viewing audience at other times of the day.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I should have been clearer. It would lower the a la carte price, but it would still be a pretty unsustainable number.

<comment><USER6> At the very least, you also need to look at how much of the programming is original vs. reruns of already existing content.

I have a strong hunch that if we actually did these numbers, we'd see that there are a few programs that are way more expensive to produce than others. (ESPN and sports licensing fees come to mind).

Which means bundling artificially props up overpriced content - I'm really not sure how you can come to the conclusion that that is good for everybody.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A la cart distribution is _good for consumers and content creators_ , and is _bad for networks and cable providers_

Consumers - Cheaper for _most_ consumption patterns.

Content creators - Flexible release schedules, deep viewer analytics, more power over networks.

Networks - Only remain relevant as publishers and speculative content investors.

Cable providers - Each hour of TV viewed will earn more money, but less hours will be viewed. Quickly are turned into dumb pipes.

So what happens? Networks and cable providers are going to hold on for dear life, while consumers and creators are going to route around them.

</comment><comment><USER10> The author's claim is that, if we split the price of our meal evenly, we'll all be better off than if we each pay for our own portion.

It may be true that splitting the price encourages us all to eat more, and pay less attention to price. That increases the demand for everything, and expensive options in particular (the lobster and filet mignon).

It's entirely possible that switching to a "pay-for-your-own-meal" model would reduce the amount of food people buy, and possibly even end with the expensive options being removed from the menu.

But our current situation isn't better for everyone--it's just better if you really like to eat, and especially if you really like to eat expensive things, because you'll be subsidized by the people who just get a salad.

<comment><USER4> Except there's a huge difference: cable tv is a zero marginal cost business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Last week, ESPN averaged 1.36 million viewers a day, which is 9.52 million for the week, or about 40.8 million for the month."

No, this is wrong. The linked article where this stat is pulled showed an average of 1.36MM viewers during prime time. That's only 3 hours of the day.

I'm not familiar enough with TV metrics to speak to this, but I don't think standard metrics that are public are going to give you the kind of data you're looking for here.

Just from anecdotal evidence, I don't see anyway that only 4.8% of cable/sat households tune in to ESPN at least once a month. I'd have a harder time finding a family I know where no one in the house watches ESPN than a family where someone in the house does.

<comment><USER4> My family, my wife's 4 sisters' families, her mom, my mom = zero ESPN viewing. Moving on to friends...

<comment><USER11> Are all these families cable subscribers?

And the number essentially means 19 of 20 "cable families" have zero ESPN viewing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see that being a realistic number the methodology that created the 95% statistic wasn't exactly solid.

<comment><USER4> Yes, all cable subscribers.

I suspect people tune into ESPN occasionally (a "luxury" made possible by bundling) but would not choose to subscribe to it separately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If ESPN really is "the sole reason many people have cable", then why do only "4.8% of households" watch the network? There's something odd about this article.

<comment><USER13> Only 4.8% watch in any given week. More watch at some point over the course of the year (perhaps when different sports are in season), and most people who exhibit that behavior probably can't be bothered to unsubscribe for the part of the year when the events they want to watch aren't on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Article is actually about unbundling, not cord-cutting. Author does not know what cord-cutting is.

<comment><USER15> You are correct. You can also look at it as if I am going to unbundle, why would I need a cord? We (essentially) have a pipe from the internet to our TVs now, so just use that cord for the individual things you want. Maybe the author has that perspective, even if the terminology is incorrect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Except for one little problem: the economics of cord-cutting simply don't make sense, for neither networks nor viewers."

I think he doth protest to much.

Cord cutting makes PERFECT SENSE for the viewer.

We haven't had Cable/Sat in our house for over 5 years. Don't miss it (or it's outrageous cost) a bit.

<comment><USER11> Cord cutting sucks for people who like to watch live sports in the US.

We've been cable free for a little over a year now and I've missed two sets of NBA playoffs. I chomp at the bit to watch playoff basketball for two months and finally get my fill when the Finals come and are put on a broadcast network (ABC).

If I want to pay to watch the NBA playoffs without cable I can, I just have buy an NBA League Pass (which I'm cool with) and then pay for a VPN service and route all my traffic to another country (which I'm not cool with).

<comment><USER17> Sports is how cable (and satellite) empires are built. Take, for example, the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV. The NFL has sold exclusive rights, in the US at least, to DirecTV. Hardcore NFL fans, and there are a lot of us, wouldn't even consider cable, let alone cord cutting, until NFL Sunday Ticket is available through some other distribution network.

The same is true in the UK for Premiership Soccer, and I'm sure it's true for other sports in other countries.

<comment><USER18> If Netflix had live soccer here in Uruguay, it would put all cable providers out of business - it MASSIVELY underprices them and has a vastly better service.

It's currently about U$ 40 for the cable tv basic package, as there's a flaunted "oligo"(mono)poly here, which even managed to outlaw Carlos Slim's company - he doesn't care because Uruguay is not a relevant market.

Local football matches and European football drive a lot of cable packages, along with HBO and kids' shows and series (which are mostly available on Netflix).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've recently I stopped subscribing to cable services about a year ago for several reasons:

1) Poor User Experience 2) Too much mind numbing content 3) Price 4) Ad(s)

Poor User Experience

While this isn't true across the entire industry the few places I've lived have had terrible set-top-boxes. It has never made since to me that I am forced to use an interface that looks like it was designed in the late 90s. The guide is slow and has very few customization options. Direct TV did have a pretty good guide when I briefly had satellite which isn't available in my apartment. Past Cable Companies: Longview Cable TV, Suddenlink, Grande Communications Link to horrid cable box that most of the providers I've subscribed to use. [http://telecomlead.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/motorola-s...](http://telecomlead.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/motorola-settop-box.jpg)

Mind Numbing Content

I really don't need to catch up on "Storage Wars: Texas". After a long day, I found myself mindlessly scrolling through the guide and selecting some mindless show. I realize this there is other content available and I made the choice to watch the show. The point I am trying to make is that TV wasn't contributing anything to my wellbeing. I'd much rather fire up a PC game and at least engage my brain while blowing off some steam. It feels wasteful to me to pay for 200+ channels and only utilize 3-5 I found myself watching less and less TV. I thought I would miss sports(ESPN) but I've found that I really don't. It turns out that was just something I did to kill time. When I turn ESPN news is on @ a coffee shop, I realize how similar it is to CNN headline news. The newscaster regurgitates the same information in a new wrapper and explains why this is supposed to be "important".

Price - <USER2>

Advertising was really the kicker. Commercials are so terrible. At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hippie, I got tired of having the messages massaged into my head about why I need X new product to be a real man. Ford, lay off, I don't care it is "Truck Month" again.

The experience of sitting down and watching TV has really gone downhill. I pay to use a poorly designed user interface which has the audacity to display Advertising on the guide. For me, I've never felt valued as a cable TV subscriber. So, I decided to cut it. Ad on the guide: <http://imgur.com/wIctmj1>

I still watch Comedy's like New Girl, Mindy Project and The Big Bang Theory. I've purchased all three seasons of "The Walking Dead". I purchase season passes via iTunes. Who cares if I don't see it the day it comes out? The great thing is, I get to keep these shows and I watch them Ad free. That is a BIG plus in my book. I haven't done the math to see if I am saving money but I feel that I am getting what I want with the money I do spend. I can take my apple TV to any house with internet an instantly access all of the media I've purchased. That is awesome. To me, it is worth it to pay a bit more to strip out all the ads and have the convenience of watching it on a ton of devices.

My point is I want to "reward" a company with money if they provide the features I am looking for, in this case Apple + the Studios. I want the cable industry to change into something that belongs in this decade, so I give them less money. (I say less because they do provide me cable internet which isn't bad.)

The end of the ramblings

I am not sure if there is "theme" or point I was trying to make here. I am an ex-unhappy cable customer. I love consuming media, the distribution methods just need to be tweaked to something that makes more sense in this day and age. I understand the author is trying to say it isn't economically viable to cut the cord because the current system is the best for everyone but I just don't buy that. I refuse to believe that.

At any rate, thanks for writing the article, I enjoyed reading it but I hope you are wrong.

</comment><comment><USER20> AMC is a terrible example for this, because their shows are available on iTunes a la carte right now. I have 'cut the cord' and still get new Mad Men episodes thanks to iTunes. I can directly support the show--not even the network--that I like. That is the cord-cutting ideal. Consumers don't give a shit about networks and their profits, we want the content we like at a reasonable price in a timely fashion.

<comment><USER11> One thing I hate about buying shows on iTunes/Vudu/etc. is that I don't want to OWN them, I just want to watch them. The $2.99 price may be fair for ownership, but for a show I probably only want to watch once before it's available on Netflix, $2.99 seems like a lot.

<comment><USER20> True, especially since Mad Men ends up on Netflix a few months later.

It's even worse with movies; most you can't rent, and buying them costs as much or more than buying DVD's or Blurays (if you impulse buy on sale, which I always did).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The numbers here don't make sense. Most people are paying $50 per month for cable, which supports the current industry. If they all switch to paying ~$50 per month in a different model (whatever it is), an industry of the same size will be supported.

The subscription "all you can eat" model is great. The thing that needs to change from current cable is that I should be able to watch it wherever and whenever I want (and pay not to have ads). The issue right now is that the contractual relationships are so complex that no one is able to cut through the mess to put together the right offering.

<comment><USER22> I really don't think it's a cost issue. It's a lack of choice issue. I pay about $65 a month for IPTV service (plus another $15 - $20 a month for the privilege of having HD channels and to rent a few set-top boxes) and I still don't get at least a few "premium" channels that I would really like to have, just because I am at the upper limit of what I'm willing to spend. I don't want to be force fed a bunch of channels I will never watch. The model is broken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Except for one little problem: the economics of cord-cutting simply don't make sense, for neither networks nor viewers."

Actually, it makes perfect sense for the viewers - the networks are the ones that it inconveniences. People simply won't pay the increasingly high rates which are borderline ridiculous. You could get a nice used car for the same monthly payment of some of these internet/cable bundles.

</comment><comment><USER24> The missing variable is the cost of providing content 24/7. In an on demand setting, I imagine total revenue may drop, but production costs would also drop.

I may be way off base though. Does anyone with more experience wish to correct me?

<comment><USER25> When you look at the costs of television, the marginal costs to keep on transmitting a bundle of channels to everyone in the neighborhood is a rounding error.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The economics remind me of trying to cut government spending:

> Only 4.8 percent of households watch ESPN. If ESPN were only available a la > carte, each of those households would have to pay $101.60/month for ESPN to > achieve the same revenue numbers they do currently > The 95.2 percent of > households who don't watch ESPN would only see their cable bills decrease by > $5.13 were they able to exclude it

Is like: Cutting XYZ program would significantly hurt a small group, who understandably protest. It would save each taxpayer only $1 a year. So it probably doesn't get cut.

</comment><comment><USER26> Aereo.com just launched in Boston last week. I was excited thinking, _this_ is how I can cut the cord and still watch sports. Then I realized how little sports is on broadcast anymore. Try watching hockey playoffs.

</comment><comment><USER4> People who think they want a la carte pricing have no idea what they are talking about. This post makes he case nicely.

</comment><comment><USER27> Even assuming the numbers here are correct (and I'm rather skeptical) it means that channels like ESPN are getting heavily subsidized by cable subscribers who aren't interested in that content. That's not a win to me. That's my money going to produce shows that I don't like and don't want to watch.

If ESPN is unable to sustain the level of content/quality they currently show without huge subsidies, they shouldn't be making it. The subsidy to ESPN implies that channels and shows that I DO WATCH are not receiving a fair amount of my bill for the time I spend watching them.

This is not a "better for all" type of socialism. It's a "better for the entrenched" type of taxation.

To reiterate a common theme in the comments: "A la cart distribution is good for consumers and content creators, and is bad for networks and cable providers"</comment>


Coding Like a Girl - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sailorhg/coding-like-a-girl-595b90791cce?source=email-2bdd02cf5da2-1425730391921-daily_digest <comment><USER5> A few random thoughts...

"Who are you here with?" _might_ be indicating... what company are you here with? Are you with Google, or MS, or... whatever. "Who do you work for?" might be more appropriately direct.

I have a pink macbook. I wear pink headphones. You wouldn't believe the number of weird/sexist comments I get from time to time. Or maybe you would.

There was a piece floating around a couple weeks ago about women in tech leaving because they felt bullied out because they were women. While I don't doubt that can happen, the 'bullying' that was described in that article has happened to me - a male - at companies as well. It's more cliquish asshole group/hivemind behavior than it is sexist. I had multiple people chastise me that I was part of the problem because I was too blind to see it as sexism, and of course a male would simply ascribe this to asshole/politics in a company, vs sexism. Even though the _exact_ same behavior (and outcomes) had been leveled at me, a male, apparently if the same behavior happens to a female, the motivation/intention _must_ be sexism and dealt with through that filter.

<comment><USER6> I'm sure the asshat behaviour you describe affected you as much as any individual woman is affected by similar behaviour. I know (in the abstract sense) the people you're describing and they make me mad.

That said, if the kind of behaviour you're describing affects women much more than men, can we still say there's sexism at work? Say I pull some statistics out of thin air: say 1 of 20 men get harassed like you describe, but 1 of 3 women experience it. Can we say there's sexism? If there is, can we address it or try?

You can say that women don't experience it more than men (that would be a surprising claim that would contradict a lot of evidence to the contrary, but it would be a valid criticism). Or you could say that they don't experience it to such a greater degree that justifies special attention. But I don't think it's a strong argument to say that men experience ass-hattery, therefore none of the ass-hattery directed at women is based on sexism.

(Edit: I don't mean to say the above arguments are _your_ arguments - <USER2> that they would be legitimate arguments.)

<comment><USER5> How do you define "affects women more than men"? More women are affected by it? Women are affected by is disproportionately, as a percentage of their office population? Some other measure?

Ahhh - you're talking about proportionality.

I'm still not sure, but would need to see concrete examples. The particular article I'd read, the 'examples' were "I wasn't promoted", "I felt bullied" and "my ideas weren't taken seriously". How about we just root out that sort of workplace psychopathy altogether, vs trying to have it affect fewer women?

FWIW, when I've seen that sort of psychopathy in person, it's been rather indiscriminate. The only reason it might have affected more women disproportionately is that there were fewer women to affect in the first place. 50% of women being affected vs 10% of men affected is somewhat leading statistic, when you realize that there are only 8 women but 40 men - <USER3> number of people are affected.

<comment><USER7> The difference is between "what an asshat" and "I don't seem to belong".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I posted this on FB last night and had quite a discussion ensue. I really like what the author has to say about assumptions. As a user group and conference organizer, time and time again I have seen men approach feminine people in the crowd with these just terribly naïve prejudices. "Oh, you must be a junior dev." Or "Who are you here with?" We men should absolutely try to set these poor assumptions aside -- if not for better equality (although why not?), then because of the awkwardness that ensues when someone says "No, actually I'm giving the keynote" or "Yeah, I co-wrote that book." If you don't want to look like an idiot on the regular, don't go around the world thinking every competent person looks/acts/dresses/talks the way you do.

<comment><USER9> Reminds me of how when a female singer produces her own music and has limited assistance from a man, reviewers attribute the entire thing to the man:

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/01/21/bjork_pitchfo...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/01/21/bjork_pitchfork_interview_she_s_tired_of_not_getting_credit_for_her_music.html)

It's not even some malicious, deliberate assumption. People have been raised to expect that it is men who do the "real work", and pass over women without thinking about it.

<comment><USER10> Can someone explain to me why this is so horrific? When 95+% of music producers are male, of course men are going to assume that you're not a producer if you're female. When 90+% of developers are men, of course men are going to assume you're not a developer if you're a female. If I saw an extremely tall, handsome, well-dressed, and sociable man at a tech conference, I wouldn't take him to be a developer either. If you're a short white guy at an NBA event, people are going to assume you're not a pro basketball player. I'd imagine that the same thing holds true for men in female-dominated fields.

Whenever there's a tiny minority, people will make assumptions. As long as you're not overly zealous about your assumptions and willing to admit that you're wrong when told so, I don't see the problem. Realistically, there's nothing that will ever prevent people from making assumptions until the tiny minority stops being such a minority.

<comment><USER11> Forget the connotation 'horrific'.

Are you asking why we should work to stop this behavior?

Pardon me for assuming but here are my thoughts -

Because it's literally systematically oppressive. This behavior makes an entire gender less likely to participate in our field. That's bad for the gender and it's bad for the field.

Isn't that enough reason to work to fix it?

So what if there are non-malicious explanations for an individual to behave this way....that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop it.

<comment><USER10> I'm saying that it's impossible to fix. If you're a short white guy, people will always initially assume that you're not a pro basketball player.

Again, as long as you're not overly zealous about your assumptions and willing to accept when they're wrong, it's not discrimination or "systematic oppression". Feminists try to turn this into a gender war, but it's really not. It's the circumstance of any minority in any heavily majority-dominated field.

<comment><USER6> Being short is a natural impediment to playing professional basketball.

Being female is not a natural impediment to programming. So, even if you're correct that gender assumptions are valid (and apparently OK) because of the prevailing gender makeup, it is not impossible to fix - you fix it by changing the prevailing gender makeup. (I don't agree with that assumption, but let's grant it for the sake of exploring the other point.)

If part of the reason for the prevailing gender split is the attitudes that are caused by the prevailing gender split, then sure, you have a chicken-and- egg problem. But it's far from impossible. You can, for example, change one half of the equation by social expectation manipulation. Or change the other half by affirmative action measures. You may think the cost is greater than the benefit, but it's not impossible.

<comment><USER12> > Being short is a natural impediment to playing professional basketball.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues)

<comment><USER13> Impediment doesn't mean you can't work around it, it just means it's more difficult.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _A couple years ago she attended a technical conference and on the first day, she wore a dress...wore a nerdy t-shirt and jeans instead, and she had a better experience that day. People assumed she was technical and didn't dilute their explanations to her_

I'm not sure this really makes the case that its sexism at play. For example, if a guy wore a suit and tie to a conference, people might assume he's not a programmer.

Isn't this anecdote evidence that its the clothes, not the gender?

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I don't get it. She keeps saying she's "presenting" as feminine and then complaining that people are basing their assumptions on how she presents herself. If more programmers wear pretty dresses maybe that look will become stereotypical of programming, but it hasn't historically been the case. If I show up at a tech conference presenting as a wrestler I might be displaying all sorts of macho manly cues but I stil wouldn't expect to be taken seriously without extra effort.

<comment><USER16> "If more programmers wear pretty dresses maybe that look will become stereotypical of programming, but it hasn't historically been the case"

She makes the same claim, but instead of accepting that she has to conform to style norms set by the opposite gender, she's trying to encourage more programmers to wear dresses and such, which should be perfectly respectable for a programmer at a conference.

<comment><USER15> I think there are dresses that would not garner this response. Wearing lingerie would be another way to present oneself as feminine, but I think even the author would reject this as inappropriate attire for a tech conference.

<comment><USER16> Please tell us more about the dresses that would not garner this response and how they are different from what she wore.

<comment><USER15> Somewhere down in this thread bhayden posted this link:

[http://dressforweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Korean- ver...](http://dressforweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Korean-version-of- the-2013-summer-dress-with-belt-buckle-short-sleeved-plus-size-casual- dress.jpg)

I can't speak for everyone, but something like this seems totally appropriate for the occasion and would not cause me to make any knee jerk assumption.

Obviously neither of us know exactly what the author was wearing since it isn't mentioned in the article, but this quote leads me to believe she may not have been exercising the most restrained judgement in this area:

"Once an ex-partner told me "You look better in jeans and a tshirt. Why do you wear dresses? Why do you wear make up? You don't have to dress up to impress me." That moment led me to so many realizations. It made me realize that most people think femininity is an act to impress men. It was then that I was 100% sure my dressing up wasn't for him at all, I didn't at all care if a partner disliked my dresses, or makeup. I was wearing them for me. And it was then, that I realized that continuing to wearing dresses just for myself was a totally valid way to say a big FUCK YOU to the patriarchy."

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to deny that sexism exists in this industry or the world. I think people should be able to wear whatever they want wherever they like, but the pragmatist in me thinks some of the responsibility for these issues would be easier solved by the individual than by expecting everyone else to modify their behavior.

<comment><USER16> Here's the author speaking at a programming conference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6071MRIzCA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6071MRIzCA)

As you can see, she is appropriately attired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One thing I don't agree with, how is the following feedback gender-specific?:

"Why are your slides so pink? It's very distracting."

"Stop pushing your hair behind your ear when you present. It's very distracting."

"Your voice goes up after every sentence you say."

I feel like this is all valid feedback. Back in university we would also get feedback on our behaviour during our presentations or the look of our slides.

<comment><USER18> Especially with the vocal comment, many people get annoyed with female voices when they're in a supposedly serious context. But the thing is that it's not actually some fundamentally annoying or distracting quality of the voice- it's that it's different from what they expect: a male voice.

"This American Life" had a great segment about this, targeting "vocal fry" in particular: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/545/i...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/545/if-you-dont-have-anything-nice-to-say-say-it-in-all- caps?act=2#play)

<comment><USER5> Voices going up - as in, asking a question(?) - is annoying whether it's a female voice or male voice.

<comment><USER9> It's a feature heavily associated with female voices. So it is discrimination against female voices.

It's also not something people do consciously, it is a feature of dialect. And studies show that why people dislike a dialect has nothing to do with its actual aural qualities, and everything to do with its _social status_.

<comment><USER10> Are you serious? Just because it's more common with females doesn't make it discrimination. Just because poor black people are more likely to commit crimes doesn't mean that criticizing criminals makes you racist and classist. Come on now, this is basic logic.

<comment><USER19> I think the point is that it's something which tends to be more common with females for various non-accidental reasons. E.g. because they need to lower their voices to be perceived as less feminine and more masculine and authoritative. So it would be a bit like criticizing black guys for keeping their hair very short, when the reason for this might be that longer hair styles on black guys are usually perceived negatively. (That may not be a particularly realistic example; it's only intended hypothetically.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> grey-area _Assume people are as or more qualified than you._

I think this is a great rule to apply to your dealings with anyone of whatever appearance or gender - often our assumptions about people are wildly inaccurate (and we make hundreds before they've opened their mouth, and lots more after the first sentence). If they're not more qualified, they'll make it clear, and if they are more qualified/intelligent, maybe you'll learn something from them. You should always be prepared to learn from someone whoever they are, and never make assumptions about them based on gender, appearance, culture etc. it's not only rude, it's just ignorance. It is important to note though that just because this is a problem everyone faces in some small way on either side of interactions every day, it's one which women face to a radically different degree.

I recently had someone at work criticise a page as _too girly_ to our team including women. The same thing has happened to women I know who are doctors, architects and lawyers - competence is questioned or undervalued simply because they're a woman. It's hard to know where to start in responding to comments like that, and it's still happening in 2015, so I find this #likeagirl campaign justified and timely. It's time for people to speak out whenever they see this sort of prejudice masked as concern or advice, and stop making the workplace such a hostile environment for women. I'd love to think that by the time my daughter grows up we'll be over this sort of thing.

It is really disturbing the number of dismissive and hostile comments we see on posts about women on HN. Most stories on this topic devolve into flamewars or at best are littered with negative responses saying this is a problem everyone faces or it's not really a problem at all. Good articles like this reporting personal experience widely shared deserve better. How can we change that?

<comment><USER20> In my experience recently in medicine (as a man), I've never noticed other doctors assuming lack of competence in female doctors, but did have female colleagues describe constantly being described as 'the nurse' by patients, usually by the oldest patients (who of course spent most of their life in a world where doctor=man, nurse=woman). Women's experiences of sexism and bigotry from male doctors when trying to 'break into' medicine over the last 50 years were pretty miserable on all accounts, but it feels to me like once the numbers of women in senior positions was high enough, the sexism pretty much went away: it's pretty hard to assume 'women don't know anything' when you've gone from utter ignorance as a medical student and junior resident to actually being good at what you do based on training and supervision from awesome female and male doctors in roughly equal numbers.

With regards to 'Assume people are as or more qualified than you', I think this is just basic courtesy. If there is no way of 'knowing' someone's knowledge or status eg by rank insignia, it always safer and much better received if you make a conscious effort to be wrong..in the right direction ie in the direction of more knowledge / status /experience. People are happy to correct you, but are often flattered: 'Are you the founder?'..'No, I'm actually the intern' , or 'are you the attending physician?'..,'No, I'm a med student' ends up being a much nicer interaction for all concerned than if you ask it the other way around, while still fulfilling the need to exchange useful information.

<comment> grey-area Yes mostly assumptions would be made by patients or other professionals they interact with, not other doctors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Richard Hamming discusses clothing, presentation, and the cost of not conforming to expectations in _You and Your Research_.[1]. It's not exactly analogous to what's described in the article, but related:

 _John Tukey almost always dressed very casually. He would go into an important office and it would take a long time before the other fellow realized that this is a first-class man and he had better listen.For a long time John has had to overcome this kind of hostility. It 's wasted effort!_

There are several paragraphs in that section, all worth reading (as is the entire essay).

[1] [http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html](http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html)

<comment><USER22> "You should dress according to the expectations of the audience spoken to. If I am going to give an address at the MIT computer center, I dress with a bolo and an old corduroy jacket or something else. I know enough not to let my clothes, my appearance, my manners get in the way of what I care about. An enormous number of scientists feel they must assert their ego and do their thing their way. They have got to be able to do this, that, or the other thing, and they pay a steady price.

John Tukey almost always dressed very casually. He would go into an important office and it would take a long time before the other fellow realized that this is a first-class man and he had better listen. For a long time John has had to overcome this kind of hostility. It's wasted effort! I didn't say you should conform; I said ``The appearance of conforming gets you a long way.'' If you chose to assert your ego in any number of ways, ``I am going to do it my way,'' you pay a small steady price throughout the whole of your professional career. And this, over a whole lifetime, adds up to an enormous amount of needless trouble."

<comment><USER23> Gee, apparently it helps that I never saw Tukey, at least not in person! I heard about Tukey from (1) Tukey's lemma, equivalent to the axiom of choice, (2) convergence and uniformity in topology, (3) stepwise regression, (4) the statistics of power spectral estimation, (5) exploratory data analysis, and (6) the fast Fourier transform. So, with (1)-(6), I didn't pay attention to how he looked! But when I wanted to go for a Ph.D., I wrote him at Princeton, explained where my career had run into his work and asked if there was education for a career in such things. I got back a nice letter from G. S. Watson saying, "Yes" and claiming that Princeton was one of the best places for such work. I did apply to Princeton, and did get accepted, but I went to Johns Hopkins instead (my wife was already in her Ph.D. program there so that we wouldn't have to move!).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've been thinking about this problem some today - I have some girl friends who are talented and successful as developers, but their personas are drastically different from many men in the field. One is shy and soft-spoken, not aggressive at all, and she has been successful as a developer at Google for around 10 years. Another is very smart, but also someone who hates conflict. Both of these share a lot of interests in games & their music (one is in a video game music cover band that has performed at numerous conventions & concerts). They both are very much against brogrammer culture.

I think this article has some excellent advice - we should be considering what men & women say purely on merit, not who is most tireless in arguing a point, or emotional over a perspective - exploring the depths of what each person is suggesting is important. For those on the opposite end of a result, we need to show empathy towards them - they are still our co-workers. Otherwise, we are not putting them in the position to succeed, and are putting undue burden on other people's lives that often are not accounted for in performance reviews.

</comment><comment><USER25> > I have been a TA for weekend workshops that teach women to code. My male co- > TA's constantly asked me throughout the workshop how I was enjoying learning > to program.

This one confuses me. I would expect that at these workshops all the TAs are introduced to each other before teaching begins, and so if the male TAs are trying to be funny, this would stop after the second one does this and is dismissed from the event (I'm presuming that after the first one does it, she tells him that she does not find it funny, and so the second one constitutes harassment). This should not be happening constantly, and I'd expect word to spread so it no longer happens at future events.

If the TAs are not introduced to each other, and are not wearing prominent tags or something that identifies them as TAs (and the students are not wearing anything that prominently identifies them as students), then given that women are are very underrepresented among programmers and that women are massively overrepresented among the students (it's a workshop to teach women to code), then the male TAs are doing nothing wrong. TAs should be proactively asking students if they are enjoying themselves. Note that if they first asked if the person was a student, they would be kind of committing the "you don't look like a programmer" offense.

I find the second case hard to believe, because I doubt these workshops would be so huge that the TAs would not all learn who all the other TAs are when setting up before the students arrive, so what the heck is going on?

</comment><comment><USER26> Something is twisted in all these discussions of gender in tech, it really seems like we're just going around in circles over and over again. I've never read anything that felt like a particularly insightful explication of the cause here.

Is it possible there's something more fundamental in society that this phenomenon is merely a symptom of, and that the fix is not going to be something like "just challenge yourself to detect and resist unconscious bias"? Could there be something inherent in the structure of our framework of social interaction that incentivizes this kind of behavior?

<comment><USER27> This is actually the first gender in tech article I've really liked. A lot of them off no solutions or advice, this one did. As for detecting and resisting unconscious bias, I've worked hard to lessen the anger I feel day to day and know it is possible to correct subconscious reactions.

Humans are awesome at categorizing information and making assumptions. I'm sure the ability to recognize patterns helped us to survive up to this point, but this skill isn't needed when having a conversation with someone. For the majority of us, our decisions are not life and death ones, we can take the time to disregard assumptions and learn specifics. I don't think it's the framework of our social interactions more so than it is just us. It's something we need to work actively to overcome.

<comment><USER28> Your appearance is a form of communication. If you communicate message X to me I'm going to respond accordingly to X until you somehow communicate you'd prefer response Y. As soon as you do I'm happy to adapt and give you what you want, but it's unfair to chastise me for giving you a response appropriate to X first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> 90% of the complaints in the article have nothing to do with gender.

Putting obnoxious pastel colors in a powerpoint is bad regardless of your gender. Fidgeting while presenting is bad regardless of gender.

People tell me I don't look like a programmer all the time, mostly because I hardly ever wear branded t-shirts and shorts.

</comment><comment><USER30> I hear and feel the frustration, but it's misplaced.

If a man shows up to a tech conference dressed like the guys from Jersey Shore, he's going to be looked down on by everyone there. He'll be assumed to be part of the delivery people doing setup for the booths.

If he complains that he's a programmer and that he shouldn't be judged by his clothing, he will get mixed results.

It's true that if he turns out to be a nice guy, and a great programmer, then people will change their opinions of him.

But the one thing we cannot do is demand that the entire world see signals differently than they see them out on the street.

When someone dresses like the men on Jersey Shore, they do so because they are signaling certain things. They're signaling masculine power. Strength. Sexual prowess. Fighting ability. Etc.

Women who dress extremely femininely and girlishly are also sending signals that literally BILLIONS of people already know how to receive.

Don't be surprised when people interpret signals the way that is most beneficial to them in 99.9% of cases.

This is not a message that men from New Jersey or Women in general cannot be seen as programmers. It's a message that signaling matters, and we must be aware of what messages we're intentionally sending to others that we may need to overcome.

<comment><USER6> I agree with everything you said, except the conclusion (that you led with.)

The OP said she wore a dress. Not "extremely femininely and girlishly". She wore a dress.

"But the one thing we cannot do is demand that the entire world see signals differently than they see them out on the street."

Apparently the entire world thinks wearing a dress is a signal that one cannot be a technical person. That's the point of the article.

<comment><USER30> You missed the other cues in the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> >One category of reactions that I receive all the time as a programmer that presents as feminine is: No one believes I am a programmer.

To be fair, I am a guy and no one believes I am a programmer either. Going through YC, it took maybe 3 or 4 times of pg telling me to talk to my technical co-founder followed by me reminding him that it was me before he caught on. In my opinion, it can be a real strength to be different. Some of the most intelligent programmers I have ever worked with have been girls and I have fought incredibly hard to hire them and others on to our tech team only to be beaten by a tech giant who offer big premiums or more security when securing a visa. I know I am not the only one in this boat.

<comment><USER5> I get that from some folks too - people say "oh, you don't look like a programmer-type". And I want to say "what does that sort of person look like?" but I also half-know what the stereotype is. None of the folks at our coworking spot who are in the software world fit that mold, but they all are programmers of some stripe. It's odd - I know _very few_ programmers who fit the traditional visual stereotype - like, fewer than 10% in my circles. Yet it's still alive and strong...

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Reminds me when I was an instructor for a grad course and showed up in a very trendy outfit to the first lecture (nothing weird or revealing, but nothing you would often see in a campus either -- full make up, high heels, ripped jeans etc.) and I can't forget the look in the student's faces. I was trying to explain an algorithm on the board, and all students had a look in their faces like "you can't possibly know about this". When the class is over and the professor of the next class showed up, he had a grin on his face like "you can't possibly teach a class". Fast forward to 2 weeks later, when I was overwhelmed with the exams and didn't give a single damn anymore, I just showed up with my sweatpants, a hoodie, and no makeup. Students were listening the class with full focus and I was well respected. Not sure what to make out of this..

The funny thing is: I am programming since I was 17, and spent most of my youth in full-geeky and nerdy outfits (aka, in "programmer" style). But after I come to my mid-20s I started to feel like "Oh, I didn't even wear a dress or a high-heel in my entire life!!!11". That's when I started to dress like a woman, and that's what happens :')

</comment><comment><USER33> The dress story vs jeans, would apply equally to a guy in a suit and tie vs a hoodie.

<comment><USER8> I don't think that's true. You _might_ get disregarded as a "business guy" if you show up to a meetup in a suit. But it's just as likely that people will just assume you're in financials. One of the better Python speakers I know of shows up everywhere in a suit. But women consistently report not being taken seriously when wearing dresses.

<comment><USER33> The key takeaway is, as soon as she dressed as a member of "the tribe" everything was fine. So that tells me it's something other than a gender issue.

<comment><USER34> Yeah, either that or "the tribe" _is_ the gender issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think some of this has to do with age, as well.

As the middle age father of two twenty-ish daughters, one of which is VERY bright, and somebody with decades of work experience, I have met a number of very bright women, and I don't think I would discriminate against female coworkers.

However, if your peer group is twenty-something men, good luck getting them not to think of you as a twenty-something woman as a potential mate, at least from time to time, rather than "just another coworker". They might want to complement your dress or appearance due to ulterior motives. Not that they shouldn't be polite.

Please be sure not to mistake desperation for discrimination :-)

Disclaimer: some people _are_ just assholes, sorry.

</comment><comment><USER36> i opened this tab and today's dilbert strip at the same time. [http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-03-07](http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-03-07)

<comment><USER37> The previous one fits much better here:

[http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-03-06](http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-03-06)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The more people emphasize the differences between men and women the less likely the bad stereotypes are to go away. People whine and repeat about gender differences.

I'd prefer we all just disagree when someone says something is girly. Man up and stand up for men and women's rights to be judged as people not gender without whining when someone fails to do so.

</comment><comment><USER39> May be this will be not very popular, but there are reasons males react this way to females in dresses in tech conferences. I agree that we all should have our mind more open, but by the age of ~25 we all got our stereotypes in our heads based on our family, sitcoms/movies, radios, school/friends, etc.

This is no different from assumptions based on race, age, or sexual preferences. Assumptions, wrong or right, are the way our mind optimize/systemize knowledge, and removing all assumptions whatsoever - <USER4> don't think it is good idea (if it would be possible.) I am afraid, there is no quick hack and culturally we as a whole should steer our perception. This is hard work which will take time.

</comment><comment><USER23> Three points that seem to say that the girls/women should do well in _information technology_ :

(1) Advantages.

As I recall from K-12, college, and more, in several respects of _talent_ , _interest_ , _diligence_ , _psychology_ , _socialization_ , etc., the girls/women ( _girls_ here and below) are, on average, significantly better than the boys/men ( _boys_ here and below). So, the girls have some significant advantages.

Of course, coding, information technology, computing, etc. consist of "clean indoor work, no heavy lifting".

With those advantages and the nature of the work, it would appear that any girls who want to do well in _coding_ , etc. have a good shot, often better than that of the boys.

(2) Evaluation.

How to evaluate the girls?

As in the OP, is it important for the girls to wear pretty, feminine clothes versus _nerd_ wear of worn jeans and T-shirts?

No. The main issue is getting the work done.

When I was a student, it seemed that the girls got graded on their work, not their clothes; when I was a professor giving grades, again the only issue for a grade was the work. Thus, it seems to me that, in the world of work in _information technology_ , the easy, natural, obvious approach is just to evaluate the work, ignoring clothing, gender, etc.

(3) Writing.

In computing, we need to build on the work of others, but to do so we need a good description of that work. That is, we need good documentation.

Thus, to me, currently the main bottleneck to progress in information technology is bad documentation from poor writing. Since in school on average the girls were better at writing than the boys, I have to believe that girls can be quite welcome and do well improving the quality of the writing and, thus, help alleviate the bottleneck.

If my startup works, then I will have to hire, and I will expect a person who does some work will also write the relevant documentation. Here the girls should have an advantage.

</comment><comment><USER40> This same article was posted on r/programming yesterday ([http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2y4294/coding_l...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2y4294/coding_like_a_girl/)). The discussion following was quite interesting, especially this one comment regarding the twitter exchange ([http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2y4294/coding_l...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2y4294/coding_like_a_girl/cp6g1dj)).

"I'm not trying to say the whole article is bad so stay with me here, but is it just me or does some of this just come off as negative thinking and negative assumptions? A few examples from the article.. I have been a TA for weekend workshops that teach women to code. My male co-TA's constantly asked me throughout the workshop how I was enjoying learning to program. ... ....Apparently, presenting as feminine makes you look like a beginner. You were at an event to teach women to code. I don't know the specifics because I wasn't there however maybe the assumption should be that they just didn't realise you weren't a student? I can understand how that must be frustrating but why attribute it to what you were wearing? I feel like the author didn't go into detail here. In another section the author links to a photo on twitter[1] that makes it appear as a commenter is telling Casey Johnston to read her own article. Casey Johnston: So many "solutions" to the lack of women in tech don't get at the actual problems… Tomas Sancio: @caseyjohnston read the full article. There's a chicken and egg problem w/ female tech role models. Men want to be the next Jobs/Gates/etc. When I first read this screenshot I took it for what it was. "read the article"... i.e. "I read the article" and that's exactly what it turned out to be when I found the tweets[2] . The author putting this screenshot of twitter in here I feel is simply misrepresenting the situation or hasn't researched into even looking at the full context? I have to admit i've only looked at this for 10 minutes, maybe I'm getting the wrong picture here, but from what i've seen it's a completely different story to the one shown on the author's page. I often read these gender inequality articles, however I am always constantly disappointed when things like the above are over dramatized, or I do additional research to only find out that the author is presenting an incredibly biased view of a situation. I don't want people to conclude that there is no gender inequality, however I feel that things like the above do not help get the point across. In fact I think they do the opposite."

</comment><comment><USER41> I remember the uproar about a guy was on the team that landed a spacecraft on a comet, but who then came out of his den with tattoos and a t-shirt that seemed to depict women clothed in lingerie engaging in BDSM. The accomplishments were brushed aside as the guy was reduced to a tearful apology.

I think both sexes should be able to wear whatever they would wear in real life. Depending on the job of course. But when programming, that seems reasonable. I would probably _prefer_ a woman who presents as feminine, as a developer. Maybe that is because I am comfortable with traditional gender dress and think it looks better. But maybe it's because I think the nerdy dress is actually downplaying the feminine qualities in order to fit in with men. Either way, it seems anything you say on the issue can always be spun as sexist, because your preferences can be explained by a lifetime if conditioning.

Unmarried women out-earn men now, but the situation switches when they have children. Is this bad or good? That would imply a goal. For my part I don't understand why or when the goal became for "all women" to start knocking themselves out for 10 hours a day at a corporation and be paid more than their husbands who would share child rearing duties just so women could move up a corporate ladder. Since when is this forcefed as "success" to women? I think, if anything, the agenda itself is sexist. If some women want to do it, they can - there are plenty of opportunities for women who want to work long hours and engage in corporate culture. But in this economy, I think it's actually an exploitative myth being sold to men and women alike, and I don't think many women actually want to maximize their "success" in this dimension, once they consider the trade offs.

</comment><comment><USER36> Any else reminded of PG's article on how showmanship is more important than logic in a talk?

[http://paulgraham.com/speak.html](http://paulgraham.com/speak.html)

</comment><comment><USER42> If you worked where I do (on Earth) you will be judged for your gender,age,race,education,social standing, where you grew up, hygiene, personality, religion, etc...

<comment><USER43> I absolutely don't understand this argument.

Person A says "X is happens and is bad". Person B responds "X happens, along with Y, Z, and W." What is the objective of the argument presented by person B?

It doesn't refute or disagree with Person A in any way. Is the point to minimize or trivialize X because Y, Z, and W also happen?

Does the presence of Y, Z, and W mean we shouldn't make progress on X?

<comment><USER9> To quote a tweet I read today:

      The only definition of Good vs Evil you really need:
      "Well that's just how the world is..."

      EVIL: "So there!"
      GOOD: "So let's change it"

[https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/574082344073629696](https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/574082344073629696)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Honestly? It sounds like she's asking for conflict.

> It was then that I was 100% sure my dressing up wasn't for him at all, I > didn't at all care if a partner disliked my dresses, or makeup. I was > wearing them for me. And it was then, that I realized that continuing to > wearing dresses just for myself was a totally valid way to say a big FUCK > YOU to the patriarchy.

If I wore a suit to work just to appear/feel "elite" (i.e. of higher social status) about myself, I would totally not be surprised if my behavior is met with animosity from my fellow developers who mostly dress down or just dress casually.

> But she did and wore a nerdy tshirt and jeans instead, and she had a better > experience that day. People assumed she was technical and didn't dilute > their explanations to her.

So it's not about being a female developer, it's about the image you're presenting of yourself.

<comment><USER33> If a person is walking about thinking "fuck you" all the time then that's going to show in their facial expression, body language, tone of voice, general attitude... That's true regardless of gender. And over time its going to affect how others treat them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I associate people who believe throwing or acting "like a girl" means doing it half-assed or terribly with people who are either uneducated, close-minded, or just plain assholes.

I understand there's a problem in our country, even in our whole world, but is forcing this down our throats the proper way to solve it? Is it solvable? Not to sound like an asshole myself, but with the route feminism is taking us, we're going to have people hand-feeding women who don't deserve to be in a specific role. I myself have specifically experienced such an event where my manager hired a woman because he said we need to hire one, not because she had experience that made her worthy. In fact she had far less experience compared to the other people interviewing. One of my best friends on the other hand is one of the most kickass programmers I have ever seen and everyone respects her for it. She works for her status, rather than feeding off of being a woman.

People shouldn't judge a book by its cover, as they say. That's what this is all about and I may have gone off-track. However, its also naive to forget or completely deny that people are inherently competitive. People like to boast about themselves, not others. Woman or man, work politics are something everyone has to deal with. It's wrong for someone to use a woman's gender against her competitively, but then again it's also wrong for a man to throw another man "under the bus" or take credit for someone else's work to get ahead. I hope that one day we can work towards being better to humans as a whole rather than better towards a specific gender or race. Maybe I'm an asshole, who knows. Maybe we are all assholes.

</comment><comment><USER46> "Why are your slides so pink? It's very distracting." "Stop pushing your hair behind your ear when you present. It's very distracting." "Your voice goes up after every sentence you say." and comments rating my appearance.

My Technical Communications professor told me to not add flashy colors to my slides, be careful about too much distracting movement especially hand movements, speak consistently and wear clothing that doesn't distract from the material.

Either she is sexist towards men or this article is desperate. I think it might be the former, but I could be wrong.</comment>


New Breed of Fuel Pump Skimmer Uses SMS and Bluetooth - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/02/new-breed-of-fuel-pump-skimmer-uses-sms-and-bluetooth/ <comment><USER2> Putting on my black hat for a minute, it seems that LoRaWAN would be a great way to further "improve" these little pests. GSM is going to leave records that are a subpoena away, with LoRa you control the base station, it claims miles of urban range, and it's spread spectrum so the signal source can't easily be traced. Uses next to no power when not transmitting.

Also, I wonder if there would be a way to enclose virtually all of the pump in metal so that the card reader would be RF shielded and removing the shielding would cause a noticeable change in appearance.

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't you buy a prepaid SIM for cash in a convenience store, and use its internet connection to send the data to some server in a jurisdiction that doesn't respond to such subpoenas?

<comment><USER2> Could still trace the point/time of sale and pull security footage. Additionally, the authorities and the telcom could work together with a bank to generate a honeypot card, send it by SMS, and then track usage to identify members of the network.

<comment><USER3> Maybe. IMHO much easier to give a homeless guy $20 to buy a SIM card for you than to get a homeless guy to mail order an obscure radio module on Digi-Key for you :)

<comment><USER4> How traceable is buying through Aliexpress? I bought a couple of LoRa modules there last year.

<comment><USER5> Probably depends on what bank you used. Western banks are generally very cooperative with LE. Offshore, much less so

<comment><USER6> The financial side isn't hard to hide - buy a prepaid card online with cryptocurrency.

The delivery address gives you away though. Either you or one of your associates is going to have to be in a specific place at a specific time to sign for the package.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article has been updated - turns out it was a GPS tracker that someone dumped at the gas station and not a skimmer.

<comment><USER8> With a little firmware hacking this thing could indeed be a remote bluetooth->SMS relay. Why build a custom solution when you can just repurpose one already produced?

Seems more likely than someone discovering a GPS tracker on their car and sticking it to a gas pump that just happened to also contain a skimmer device. I'd more likely attach the thing to a random landscaping vehicle so the "stalker" could see it going to all sorts of upscale houses.

\--edit--

Or, after a bit of googling and not being able to find the specs on that thing, it could be a canary device to tell the skimmers "the jig is up" as it has motion tracking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article has been updated (turns out it's a totally unrelated piece of tech someone left behind) but even if it was true, what's the big deal?

What's so groundbreaking about Bluetooth skimmers and a central hub with long- range comms (GSM, etc)?

This seems like a logical evolution, and frankly I'm surprised it hasn't been done already (or maybe it has, but those guys were good enough to not get caught yet).

In any case I was pretty disappointed by the alarmist tone of the article. Are the people who investigate these things that far out of touch with the state of technology nowadays ?

Anyone can buy a Raspberry Pi and a GSM module and get up and running with a bunch of tutorials from Google. It's not rocket science.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is there anyone else that always uses cash to pay for gas?

<comment><USER11> IIRC you can also pay with a CC inside (less likely to have a skimmer at register).

I had to a couple times when driving to California for an internship, because despite telling my CC company this I didn't specify exactly what days I would pass through which states, so even after entering my billing ZIP (and calling to confirm, yes, I assure you I'm traveling) I'd be forced to pay inside.

You had to specify a specific amount though and most interestingly, if you overshot (asked for 50, used 46) they refunded the difference in cash.

Personally, since I am not responsible for credit card fraud, I simply choose to have a separate card for re-occuring payments like my phone and internet. If someone skims my daily spending card, I'll just report it as fraud and not worry about it.

<comment><USER12> >if you overshot (asked for 50, used 46) they refunded the difference in cash.

I never seen that. What I always saw was they authorize for $50, then charge $46. If they're doing how you described it, they're paying interchange on the extra and not getting anything for it.

<comment><USER11> This was someplace very rural, maybe the cost to upgrade systems was more? This was also pre chip-and-signature, I haven't had the issue since the switch as long as I can enter my ZIP code on the pump.

<comment><USER13> The Authorise / Charge thing has been around for a long time - it's the same thing that hotels do when you check in. I'm reasonably sure that all terminals have the feature.

It does, however, require that the machine operator is aware of how to do those operations - it's probably easier for them to just charge the card for the set amount, and refund in cash.

Though this slightly increases their risk, as any chargebacks means not only do they lose the product, but the cash too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ajay-d The actual skimmers are still "traditional" in the sense. This thing just relays that stolen information.

</comment><comment><USER14> I used to keep fish and my brain wanted a fuel pump skimmer to be something like a protein skimmer in a salt water tank. Like fuel tanks need something to skim the scum so it doesn't ruin your car.

Why do I care if someone hacks that, can they blow up the gas station?

Ten seconds later: ooooh.</comment>


Astrophysicist Says He Knows How to Build a Time Machine - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/astrophysicist-build-time-machine-past <comment><USER2> He did it back in 2045...

</comment><comment><USER3> Your ear is bleeding.</comment>