Women in Computing: The Night I was the Belle of the Ball - <AUTHOR> http://groupthink.jezebel.com/the-night-i-was-the-belle-of-the-ball-1542539449/@burtreynoldsismyspiritguide1

<comment><USER2> Excerpt: _Instead, I get guys who deny that I can be smart or capable; guys who like how smart I am but try to get me fired if I won 't go out with them_

I think that is likely the essence of The Glass Ceiling. And it sucks.

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord [referring to Assembly] _I told him that couldn 't be true because it's not even human readable._

Not sure if this is meant to be a joke. If not, what? I mean, perhaps you could say that for your compiler output, but otherwise...?

Otherwise, I sympathized with her story, although the rather tired "Where did all the good men go?" ending wasn't particularly apt. Still, this _is_ a Jezebel story. For the penultimate postmodern feminist trash rag, it isn't that bad.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how to respond to the Assembly nitpick but if Jezebel wants to post this article, it's fine with me.

(Just because an online publication frequently publishes stuff I don't read does not imply that I should not read the one good one they publish.)

Further, what's wrong with feminism?

<comment><USER4> Claiming to be about equality while advocating for privileged treatment for years. Like NOW opposing default shared custody, pushing the lie that domestic violence is overwhelmingly men hitting women, denying men support and services, promoting the moral panic of "rape culture" at colleges, giving mothers choice while denying fathers any say (under the guise of "the child's interests"), ... It's a self contradictory ideology that claims women are equal and that's why they have no agency, cannot be held responsible for their actions and need hand outs.

"1 in 4 women is raped" was a fabrication by Mary Koss. "Only 2% of all rape accusations are false" was an anecdote from a Susan Brownmiller book.

<comment><USER5> On rape accusations: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies- and-so...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies-and-social- media-part-5-of-%E2%88%9E/)

TLDR: About 20% (with a wide margin of error) of rape accusations are false.

> "1 in 4 women is raped" was a fabrication by Mary Koss.

Not entirely. According to a CDC report ([http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a...](http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf)), 1 in 3 women have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. That said, some have criticized this report for taking too broad a definition, e.g. ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study- on-sexual-v...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual- violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html)).

<comment><USER6> > TLDR: About 20% (with a wide margin of error) of rape accusations are false.

That's not an accurate summary of the linked article's conclusions. It makes no _conclusion_ about the percentage of accusations that are false. Rather, it takes as a seemingly arbitrary _premise_ that 8% of accusations are false. From the article:

> Lisak lists seven studies he considers credible, which find false accusation > rates of 2.1%, 2.5%, 3.0%, 5.9%, 6.8%, 8.3%, 10.3%, 10.9%....We will stick > with the article's figure of 84,000 reported rapes per year and 8% false > accusation rate, for a total of 6,750 falsely accused.

The article's conclusion is actually about the chance that any particular man will be falsely accused in his lifetime. I can't say whether that particular conclusion is accurate. I can only observe that it is meaningless unless one accepts the 8% assumption. Which is rather suspect, considering it appears to have been cherry-picked from amongst the seven studies the author referenced.

<comment><USER5> Ah, thanks for the correction. I haven't read the article in a while and I just glanced back through it.

> Which is rather suspect, considering it appears to have been cherry-picked > from amongst the seven studies the author referenced.

It's near the middle of the range, though (a bit on the high end), so it seems like a reasonable assumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, to begin to explain how those sweet guys from the dance turned into the guys you're meeting now:

      Instead, I get guys who deny that I can be smart or capable

They probably have had no exposure to intelligent women, or women who code. They've built up a stereotype in their head and your mere existence is putting it into question, so they go into denial.

      guys who like how smart I am but try to get me fired if I won't go out with them

Manipulative and insecure? Psychological issues with women, probably preying on any women they meet.

      guys who refuse to interview me for jobs that I'm overqualified for and push me towards jobs that are more typical for women

I'm not sure what jobs are typical for women, but i've seen a lot of men pushed away from jobs if they're overqualified, for a number of reasons. Still, if this was just sexism at work, it points to more insecurity or lack of exposure to smart women who code.

      guys who dangle new language carrots in front of me until a guy comes along to give it to

I don't know what this means?

      guys who make it clear in my interviews that they felt that they needed to interview at least one woman

Oh, heh, that's a fun one. It works well on women because discriminating against women isn't as stigmatized as discriminating against black people.

      guys who test me on my video game knowledge in interviews

This could be just to tell how much of a nerd/geek you are. Could work in your favor if you show them how passionate you are about technology or having fun?

      guys who call me a fake geek girl

Back to the first example, probably had no exposure to women who were smart or coded, and react to their stereotypes coming into question by shielding themselves in denial.

      guys who tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to wear that shirt with that famous programmer who knows who I am

Again an example of the fake-geek-girl-denial. Or just someone who hates that famous programmer? (I would probably pay someone to burn their RMS or ESR t-shirt, unless they were being ironic)

      guys telling me that it's impossible for me to be a nerd because I didn't pay my dues by being friendless except for my D&D buddies

Oh, how the jaded lonely nerd doth protest too much! Male nerds that have style or lots of sexual partners or some other qualification of "a cool person with friends" get the same shit, but you probably get the extra burden of expectation of gender roles, in that women are expected to socialize more freely than men.

Honestly, I don't get the draw of the typical "nerdy guy". They're kind of a pile of social and emotional problems and focus too much on one kind of hobby versus expanding their horizons. And they look like slobs. Why not find yourself a nice surfer with tattoos who writes poetry?

<comment><USER5> > This could be just to tell how much of a nerd/geek you are. Could work in > your favor if you show them how passionate you are about technology or > having fun?

But I think this is the sort of thing on which a lot of men give women particularly harsh scrutiny. Like what you said before, a lot of men have a stereotype that women aren't interested in X, so if they meet a woman who is supposedly interested in X, they grill her extra hard on it; where as if it were a man, they would just accept that he's interested.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Most useful things you've learned that doesn't "expire"? - <AUTHOR> Much of what we learn will most likely only be relevant for a short period of time (ex. some new trendy Javascript framework) or not useful out of the immediate context (ex. internal libraries at a company). I've been looking for some useful things to learn more about that have/will have a more long term impact. For example, the popular "Learning how to Learn" course has been extremely useful for many people and teaches tips/tricks that they will use for the rest of their lives. <comment><USER2> 1\. Don't be afraid to say I don't know 2\. Don't immediately blame, but remember what has happened in order to not repeat it again 3\. Don't be afraid to ask questions 4\. Have a meeting agenda for every meeting you start, in order to stay on track and respect everyone's time 5\. If your email is more than 3 paragraphs, you probably need to have a meeting

</comment><comment><USER3> Great way to cook frozen green beans and frozen asparagus. Pour a 4" diameter circle of olive oil in a non-stick frying pan, add veggies. Now add water to a depth of about a quarter inch. Start cooking. Veggies start off being boiled/steamed and transition to sautéing as water evaporates. Add soy sauce and hot sauce if desired.

</comment><comment><USER4> Studying physics taught me perseverance and frustration tolerance. Giving up on particularly hard exercise problems happened often at the beginning and this changed massively with time when we increasingly just tried another and another time until we eventually made it.

</comment><comment><USER5> SQL and relational databases; Yeah, they're dinosaurs but they are not dying anytime soon. Psychology; I am a fan of the OCEAN framework. Being able to determine someone's mental footprint helps me navigate office politics.</comment>


Welcome to Your Airbnb - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/welcome-to-your-airbnb.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I've only stayed with AirBnb twice. Both of my stays were great and I attribute that to atmosphere this article is poking at.

When toying with the idea of going on a vacation the idea of lying on a beach drinking beer for 7 seven days sounds fantastic. However, I've found that the real vacation is experiencing a new culture - and perhaps most importantly meeting new people.

That's what I like about AirBnb. You get to know and experience new people. An added bonus is that the hosts are often locals themselves and can help you avoid the usual tourist traps.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a nice short story, but I'm not sure what the intention is. Is this supposed to be a hyperbolic description of the typical Airbnb experience? If so, I must have been extremely lucky so far (but maybe it's a regional thing -- I've only used Airbnb in Germany and England).

</comment><comment><USER4> The Onion are in on it too:

[http://www.theonion.com/graphic/airbnb-vs- hotels-50934](http://www.theonion.com/graphic/airbnb-vs-hotels-50934)

<comment><USER5> _" Regulatory body : City Zoning Commission ; Comments section"_

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I missing something? The article has Airbnb ads above, below and on the side(with #mankind). I myself have not booked a service with them, but thrilled to read it (in good way).

*Edit: Explained "thrill".

</comment><comment><USER7> I joined AirBnB as a host when it transitioned from being an A to B crowd thing into a general mass public service with all the warts and inconsistencies with hosts and guests that brings.

There has to be some magic filter introduced (other than good judgment) to clean out the desperate or greedy hosts monetising their sub standard assets & another to filter the rude or plain vandal guests.

On the plus side, if you complain to AirBnB you're treated like a prince!

<comment><USER8> I'd like to hear your story about AirBnB customer support treating you like a prince. They once made a mistake billing my credit card and the customer support was atrocious. I had to file a chargeback with my bank to get any justice.

<comment><USER7> Wow, that's totally opposite to my exp.

I was in Krakow for unsound festival and i needed a place to stay super late minute, all that was left was this one plausible place south of the river, looked nice, okay reviews but in hindsight there were some mentions about about privacy etc. when i turned up late at night the room was not a private room but a couch in the kitchen and the actual tenant of this one bed flat was completely not cool with his landlord renting out the couch like this. so after one awkward night in krakow i rang up AirBnB, they refunded me the whole amount and gave me €50 credit.

My scenario was common i expect so it was very one-to-one with the rep, you must have gone from pillar to post.

Airbnb use Adyen for their payment processing which is a pile of shit when it comes to dev support imho.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm glad I had a better experience with AirBnB in NYC.</comment>


Ask HN: What would happen if Apple removed Uber from its App Store? - <AUTHOR> There is always a risk (no matter how small) of any app being deemed inappropriate by Apple and, hence removed from the App Store. I'm not particularly interested in why Apple would do that. If that were to happen, hypothetically, what would Uber, a $63 billion company, do without its primary way to generate revenue? <comment><USER2> If Apple arbitrarily removed Uber's app from their App Store:

1\. Uber would file a lawsuit for a huge amount of damages. (They have enough money to be able to afford lots of lawyers.)

2\. A large percentage of Apple's customers who are also Uber customers would be hugely pissed off and switch to Android phones.

3\. There would be huge amounts of negative publicity. There would be congressional inquiries into anti-competitive behavior, and demands for government regulation. Apple's board might even fire the CEO.

It's almost inconceivable that Apple would do something so harmful to its own self-interest.

<comment><USER3> >> congressional inquiries into anti-competitive behavior

Anti-trust law requires having a monopoly(which Apple doesn't have) or acting together with other companies. So in this case it's probably legal.

EDIT: that's basically the opinion of Keith Rabois, who litigated several anti-trust laws.

[https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for- violati...](https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating- antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished)

<comment><USER4> I think it requires having a dominant position, which in the in app purchase market is pretty much the case (by revenues).

Lots of android in the market but sold to people who couldn't tell the difference with iOS and wouldn't even know how to buy an app.

<comment><USER5> I think anti-trust also requires a non-privately administered market. In Apple's App Store, they own the servers serving the app market, giving them control.

I don't think the government could force them to keep an app on their server and continue to serve it to consumers running their software if they didn't want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just went to uber.com in Mobile Safari and it seemed willing to sign me up without even suggesting I use the app instead. I don't have or want an account, but did you check to see if the web app "just works".

I assume that would be a stop-gap while Uber tries to come into compliance with whatever AppStore rule is keeping them out.

I think it's impossible that there would be reason they could not comply, but to answer your question, I think they would mobilize their users by having them contact Apple support en-masse until Apple relented.

</comment><comment><USER7> I disagree with some other comments. I think it is totally possible that Apple removes Uber from their Store. That's the danger of all the "closed" and "restricted" app stores.

1- Uber has a web app that works on all platforms that can run a modern browser (pretty much all in fact). Right after the app is taken down, they would publicly push all iPhone users to use the web app.

2- People would buy other devices where it run natively (Android, smartwatches, etc.).

3- I bet Uber is already working on a plan B to mitigate that. Like building their own device, integrating with car manufacturers, etc. They could be even working on creating an alternative mobile OS. Having Uber natively integrated in a mobile OS could be a huge opportunity to grow with other features and become the next generation iPhone. It would also be a differentiator to the iPhone.

The mapping API they use could also be taken down or blocked. Same risks there and that's why they are working on their own mapping technology. They tried to buy HERE maps but it failed.

<comment><USER8> >> Like building their own device, integrating with car manufacturers, etc.

Integrating with car manufacturers only helps drivers. But drivers can just quickly buy a cheap Android phone to run the partner app.

Not very useful for the end user. Unless they have a car with Uber installed, and are drunk so get an Uber driver to pick them up at their car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been wondering about this short of thing, especially related to the App Store rules around APNS[1], numbers 5.5 and 5.6.

A little while ago, Yelp began spamming me with a "Yelp Weekly NYC" APNS message every Friday. I also believe Lyft has been doing this with promotions. Under these rules, both of those apps should be immediately removed from the App Store, and I'd support that.

[1]: [https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#pus...](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/#push-notifications)

</comment><comment><USER10> 1\. it would have a severe negative impact on their new customer rate, probably leading to a "fail" in whatever cities they opened that month.

2\. It would however lead to a very important debate that has not happened yet - who "owns" the platforms of iOS and android and who can play gatekeeper? Because Apple has not yet abused its position, the problem has not arisen.

But there will be plenty of political and economic incentive to force Apple and Android / goggle play to open their gatekeeper roles to "some other bodies", possibly with public service remits.

Ultimately access to the platforms will always be a privilege, but the platforms are rapidly becoming a public good and as such will one day be regulated differently - just as the electricity industry did.

One day soon the Apple Car App will be directly competing with Uber - I would not like to be Uber then if I had not spent the intervening years quietly lobbying for a "open platform" reform.

</comment><comment><USER11> 1) Uber would offer an alternative web app immediately

2) Uber would sue Apple for damages and try to get back into the app store & using its monopoly to influence other businesses.

3) Uber would encourage users to use Android and possibly raise awareness of Android and begin supporting its development in OSS circles. It would also support OSS projects that improve the app experience of web apps.

4) Uber would also start offering incentives to its api developers to make their own Uber apps for the app store as an alternative. So none of that referrals crap, proper cash incentives. Maybe even invest in a couple of startups creating these apps.

5) Undoubtedly Uber will use its PR team to write negative articles about iOS and use it as an opportunity to 'fight back' and gain customers. It will ask users to also write to Apple or ask them to boycott Apple products.

<comment><USER12> They already have a web app [https://m.uber.com/](https://m.uber.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think if that were to happen Uber will tirelessly and ferociously push their API. They will probably finally start giving money for taxis booked from the API so other apps could be used to book Uber. I think they will heavily push their Messenger integration. I don't believe they will improve web app booking by a factor.

Following week, we would hear that Uber acquires Lyft. It will probably give option to Apple to either provide Uber app installed by default on all Apple devices, just like YoutTube and GMaps used to. If not, it will pull every single taxi booking app from Apple's platforms.

One may think there would be an expensive lawsuit. But I think with already too many legal strikes against them, Uber will muscle their way out of it. I know I would if, hypothetically, am put in that situation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Distribution channels:other distribution channels, be it the web, or other apps. Those might be harder to ban, maybe due to laws(net-neutrality), user expectations about the web or maybe to the power of said apps together.

Politics: pulling strings, getting people Angry and channeling that Anger , pressuring Apple. might have all kinds of side effects on politics, the stock market, people that use phones as a critical tool(work, etc).

Technical solutions: In paralel , they could also shift to a model of virtual bus-stations ,maybe they will put large public touch screens(like in china) , maybe they will create a very thin iphone case with embedded electronics and an eink screen , sell cheaply, just for UBER and some other stuff. Or they will build an automated voice/sms activated ordering system.

End result : Unless other distributions channels works for them, the rest will take too much time, and UBER will probably lose.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does Apple get a cut of Uber fares from in-app purchases? (I think the standard amount is 30%.) If that's the case, the money lost would be one more reason for Apply not to do this, or perhaps a reason to reject the Uber app if Uber refused to pay.

<comment><USER15> It doesn't, Uber processes their payments themselves. You don't have to pay the Apple tax for physical goods or services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> They'd be forced into using a web app and living with the limitations. Depending on Apple's hypothetical reasoning, they may hold out for money, or not be interested in a resolution.

I've been connected in the past in labor disputes where unlikely/impossible things suddenly become the new normal. Given Apple and Google's interests and upstream market position vs. Uber, I don't think this scenario is that difficult to envision.

</comment><comment><USER17> They wouldnt because that would be a poor decision for everyone involved. Huge lawsuit... mayors office calling... public outrage...

idk create a decentrilized service?

If you think that would be bad imagine if AWS stopped service all together.

Or the human race dying out from BIRD FLU

</comment><comment><USER18> I think this open question should lead many founders to overthink risks which comes by working with any app store, and always keeping an alternative option like Uber did with their web-app which all users can use.

</comment><comment><USER19> Users can request rides via Uber's website.

I believe users requesting (and getting) rides is Uber's primary revenue generator, so not having the App Store access would be inconvenient but not catastrophic.

</comment><comment><USER20> I removed UberX from my wife and my daughter iPhone. Not trust them. Using Flywheel for taxis only. Working perfectly in San Francisco. Recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER21> What if Uber started distributing free Uber-requesting devices to its customers?

<comment><USER22> I'm not in favor of bring back the Bat Belt. It wasn't too long ago, on one's belt you would find: cell phone, iPod, Palm Pilot, perhaps even a pager.</comment></comment>


Georgia defends voting system despite 243-percent turnout in one precinct - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/georgia-defends-voting-system-despite-243-percent-turnout-in-one-precinct/ <comment><USER2> I've lived in Georgia most of my life and we've used these voting machines as long as I can remember. I've never felt comfortable voting on these machines. You get the card from the poll worker, you put it into the machine, you make some choices, and then you hand the card to another poll worker on the way out the door.

Nothing about that process gives me confidence that the votes are actually counted after they are cast. I _believe_ they are counted because I still have some confidence in government. Unfortunately confidence in government is eroding and these poor processes are not helping.

<comment><USER3> There's a similar process in California, but you get a receipt. Does georgia offer a voting receipt?

<comment><USER4> Receipts are problematic as they enable compelled voting.

<comment><USER5> Which is?

<comment><USER6> Which is where someone pays you to vote a certain way. It follows that they want proof, so the receipt shows proof of your vote.

I think it's also likely to cause harassment outside of polling places with gangs on sidewalks asking to see the proof that people voted for their candidate. You DID get a receipt, didn't you?

<comment> _-david-_ Seems like someone could get a mail in ballet and sell it to somebody else?

<comment><USER7> Yes, this is why I also don't really like mail in voting despite it being so much more convenient.

I've heard lots of stories where the head of the household fills in the mail in ballots for the whole family.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting machines. (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.)

The headline is incorrect. The turnout was 18 percent.

<comment><USER9> This is the best comment on the reddit thread about this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_def...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_defends_voting_system_despite_243percent/e3u7lqg/?st=jklqd4h6&sh=b379e73f)

It's not exactly a "nothing to see here" issue just because the issue was fixed. Further, I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that the new numbers themselves are accurate. Why should I be?

<comment><USER10> That's kind of the issue. The suit is alleging that the system is prone to error. To say that there is no problem, and no need for a suit, because - um - we simply made a fairly common error and now we fixed it ???

I mean, that's what these people are alleging. That the system is prone to errors.

So whether you believe the original numbers are correct, or you believe the new numbers are correct, or you believe there are likely a different set of numbers altogether that better reflect the reality, the premise underlying your belief _has to be_ that numbers have been reported in error. Logical consistency for adherence to any of the possible positions demands a concession that either the first set of reported numbers were erroneous, or the second set of reported numbers were erroneous. Or, indeed, _both_ sets of reported numbers were erroneous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find the use of paperless voting machines extremely suspect. In the best case supporters of paperless are naive or have had their palms greased by the machines' suppliers. In the worst case they're actively being used to tamper with election results.

The longer officials hem and haw over replacing them the more I fear the worst.

<comment><USER12> I want a paper trail and an id. I don't see why we cannot have both as each camp has reasons for it piece of the puzzle. proof of residence is just as important as the paper trail.

but what good is a paper trail that does not include a code that can be scanned to verify it was actually accounted for?

<comment><USER13> It might be possible to have a system that allows you to prove that your vote was counted, but if you want to prove it was counted _correctly_ , then you open the door to vote buying and coercion.

Edit: It seems that technologies now exist to fix this problem. Link below courtesy of tzs.

<comment><USER14> That's not quite correct: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity)

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the link. I hope that catches on in more places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love that they wiped and degaused the servers holding key evidence. Cause why would you do that if you had anything to hide?

<comment><USER16> It doesn't look good, but isn't proof of guilt. Did they say why they did it? I'm wondering if they're required to reformat the machines X days after an election result has been certified. I can't think of other legitimate reasons though.

<comment><USER17> It's not good.

"On July 3, Marks' organization and state voters filed their lawsuit, and on July 7, technicians at KSU wiped the server. When the case later moved to federal court in August, technicians wiped at least one additional server one day after a federal judge was assigned to the case."

[https://fcw.com/articles/2017/12/08/wray-fbi-georgia- electio...](https://fcw.com/articles/2017/12/08/wray-fbi-georgia-election- johnson.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Independent of whether paperless electronic voting systems are _specifically_ banned by law, buying and using them creates the appearance of deliberately enabling fraud; the consensus among professionals in the relevant fields is that they're unacceptably insecure.

So why don't we prosecute the voting officials who did this? Or at the very least get them out of sensitive positions?

<comment><USER19> They should be voted out of office immediately! Oh, wait...

<comment><USER20> "Despite some early hiccups, polls show that 417% of voters support using these voting machines."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In the form of a press release, but Senator Wyden gets it:

[https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden- paper...](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-paper- ballots-and-audits-are-essential-to-secure-american-elections-against-foreign- hackers)

</comment><comment><USER22> I spoke with a voting reform activist in San Francisco about a year ago. I expressed my opinion that one's vote should be securely auditable. He was horrified. Such a system could be used to buy and sell votes. (In other words you could prove who you voted for to someone else, if you were so inclined.)

I can't help but think both _sides_ intentionally talk past each other in order to maintain the status quo.

<comment><USER23> What would be so horrifying about buying selling votes? (other than the fact that it is punishable by up to 5 years in prison :-)

Political campaigns could be run more efficiently (directly paying voters instead of a barrage of ads on radio, tv, youtube, billboard, every yard sign). Citizens may even pay more attention to important issues as they decide from whom they wish the accept payment. There would be a strong economic incentive to ensure that all votes are reliably cast and accurately counted. Depending on how voter incentives are taxed, local jurisdictions may even have an economic incentive to discourage (or encourage) gerrymandering.

<comment><USER24> Tragedy of the commons. _Everyone_ would just sell to the highest bidder, except a couple idealists.

<comment><USER23> The USA economy runs this way and it has grown to be one of the largest economies in the World and had provided it's citizens with one of the highest standards of living in the World.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is part of a trend—Georgia deleted election data from 2016 when a lawsuit was filed: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/26/computer- file...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/26/computer-files-heart- georgia-election-security-case-deleted-day-after-suit-filed/803579001/)

How is that not destruction of evidence? Seems clear Georgia has a lot to hide.

</comment><comment><USER26> Current KS Republican primary spread for governor is 197 out of > 300k votes. This system needs to be accurate and verifiable.

<comment><USER27> And one of the candidates is the Kansas Secretary of State, overseer of the process.

<comment><USER26> Which is good, as he is one of the few concerned about vote fraud.

<comment><USER28> Kobach has only ever been concerned about forms of vote fraud that don't show any signs of actually existing, and only then as a pretext for policies that make legitimate voting more difficult as a tool to disenfranchise populations likely to vote against him and his party.

Thinking he is actually concerned about vote fraud is like thinking Donald Trump's cries of "fake news" are signs of a deep and abiding concern for journalistic integrity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> ... wasn't the election integrity commission was mothballed by blue states?

<comment><USER30> That "integrity" commission was largely tasked with voter fraud, not overall integrity. See which states are doing the most egregious voter-list purging (i.e. using first name, last name comparison to determine if two database entries are the same; ignoring: middle initial, race, DoB, etc.)</comment></comment>


Liquid assets: how the business of bottled water went mad - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/06/liquid-assets-how--business-bottled-water-went-mad <comment><USER2> The World Health Organization has a report titled "Health risks from drinking demineralised water". The main problem is that water without minerals upsets the osmotic balance and leads to lysing (rupture) of the cells lining the stomach.

The WHO has moved stuff on their site, but I think this document is one source:

[http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap...](http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutrientschap12.pdf)

Coffee grounds are a good filter for removing heavy metal contaminants from water:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/science/coffee-grounds- fil...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/science/coffee-grounds-filter-heavy- metals-water.html)

<comment><USER3> It just gets more and more complex, doesn't it. Now we have to worry about remineralizing RO water.

        [Tap Water]
             |
             V
        [Water Softener]</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>+
             |                      |
             V                      V
        [Reverse Osmosis System]  [Showering & Washing]
             |
             V
        [Remineralizer]
             |
             V
        [RO storage tank]
             |
             V
        [Drinking]

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I always wondered why there isn't simply one line running to the bathrooms + laundry room with softened water, and a separate line which goes through RO for everything else. Putting a RO + tank under the sink but the softener in the garage / basement seems backwards to me; I know nothing about plumbing but it would seem to make more sense to have a small softener under the bathroom sink just for the shower.

<comment><USER5> You put the softener at the inlet to the house because you don't want to have hard water flowing through the pipes in your house. Hard water precipitates minerals that ruin the piping, hence you put the softener at the main inlet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > He liked the can, too – more environmentally friendly than a plastic bottle

Say what? Plastic bottles are much more environmentally friendly.

Sigh, if people can't even agree on what is and isn't good for the environment there is zero chance of actually improving it. (Or maybe we've reached the max and the only things left to argue about is little irrelevant things.)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I'm kind of wondering where that comes from... I guess because PET is a petroleum product? There's so much more to it than that though, it's silly to simplify things that far.

<comment><USER7> Literally made from carbon!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I on average drink 120-150 oz of water a day (sometimes a portion of this is unsweet iced tea, or diet soda), since I started doing this, I've lost weight and generally feel healthier. So several years ago, I got in the habit of lugging around a large beverage container ([http://www.whirleydrinkworks.com/productinfo.php?prod- code=X...](http://www.whirleydrinkworks.com/productinfo.php?prod- code=XM-64&cat=cw&sub=i)) 9 times out of 10 its just tap water I put in the thing. I only drink bottled water when I'm in a position where I can't get access to fill my beverage container from the tap - or when due to security or other factors I'm unable to bring my large beverage cup, but bottled water is allowed.

Bottled water (usually purchased in a 1.5l, 2l or 1gal container) is something I purchase only for convenience when I simply don't have access to any tap water at all.

<comment><USER9> Pretty much same as you, although sadly a lot more of my fluid intake is in the form of coke zero which I'm trying to break. I only keep bottled water around in case of emergency. I've found that after I bought a large Nalgene bottle I drink a lot more water.

<comment><USER10> Try switching to green tea + l-theanine. I went from coke -> coffee -> tea without a problem. The main addiction is to the caffeine.

<comment><USER11> > The main addiction is to the caffeine.

I'm not so sure. I think there is something else about it that makes it habit forming. When dieting I sometimes get into a 10 can a day habit with fairly strong cravings despite a high caffeine intake from coffee.

The cravings are not too hard to overcome - a few days of abstinence and they go away. I don't notice health/well-being differences with or without it. The main motivation to quit is because lugging crates of the stuff home is a damn nuisance!

<comment><USER9> For me I think it's the carbonation which makes me wonder how carbonated tea would fare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I stayed at a hotel that offered complimentary bottle of water in the room, I think this was in Dallas. I read the label and they stated that the water source was the municipal water supply - so it was the same as tap water...

<comment><USER13> Coca Cola's brand "Dasani" is bottled tap water.

I'm from Britain, where the product was withdrawn after terrible publicity, and following that it was never launched in the rest of Europe. I hadn't realised it still existed in the USA: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasani](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasani)

("Can't live without spunk" is unbelievably bad advertising too. Spunk is slang for semen...)

<comment><USER14> Time to point out what Evian spells when read backwards...

<comment><USER15> Time to point out that Evian is a place in France where the company originated

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian-les- Bains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian-les-Bains)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Capitalism metastasized when bottled water replaced public drinking fountains in the 90s and 00s.

</comment><comment><USER12> My family owns a water company in Lake Tahoe, I've been wanting to bottle it for years, but there is a law that won't allow us to do so.

I live in alameda, and I drink the tap water - I love it. I have kleen canteen I keep with me almost always with water in it, and I try to avoid bottled water as much as possible mostly because I don't like the plastic waste

</comment><comment><USER17> I live in the countryside in Ohio. We have a well and a water softener. But my kitchen sink has a second faucet that goes directly to the well, bypassing the softener - I always drink from that one because it tastes better.

I fill up my Nalgene before I leave and only buy bottled water on rare occasions.

I used to live in San Mateo, they had pretty good tap water to.

<comment><USER18> Interesting -- most water softener setups I have seen are only plumbed into the hot water, I've been told that this is because drinking softened water is not recommended.

<comment><USER17> Hum. This is the first house I've ever owned, and this is the 3rd or 4th thing I've been told wasn't "normal" about it. The previous owner also ran a construction company, and I'm pretty sure he did a lot of work on this house himself, so it wouldn't surprise me if this is another instance of that.

For the most part, though, everything works well enough. So I'm happy overall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What I don't get: why is a bottle of Coca-Cola better than a bottle of water?

And, well... what else are you supposed to do if you aren't going to be near a faucet for a while?

<comment><USER20> Uh. You fill a purpose-made reusable container with water and take it with you. What do you think people did before bottled water became a thing?

<comment><USER21> Or, y'know, just wait, also like people used to do. One won't die without frequent sips of water.

I remember once seeing a women in a church service with her mandatory stylish bottle of water. Now, it's certainly possible that she had an actual medical issue requiring frequent hydration, and it's certainly possible that she was also of a social class such that the stylish water bottle was the reasonable way to address her medical issue — but Ockham's Razor suggests not.

Water's great. Honestly, I like the idea of a water sommelier: having the opportunity to taste different waters sounds cool. I _love_ the idea of drinking water thousands of years old (although I wonder how trustworthy the supplier are: it'd be a lot cheaper just to distil tapwater than to net chunks of iceberg). But the social signalling aspect is just _weird_.

We pay millions of dollars for good, clean drinking water. And it is — outside of hellholes like Flint, MI — pretty damned good stuff. Why buy it as a matter of course?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Tap water is awesome when you are home and it doesn't taste like crap. Bottled water is awesome when I am at the gym, or out and about.

I really don't get why the left hate water bottles so fucking much, it has become quite tiresome.

<comment><USER23> Because they are an environmental disaster with no need for them. Get a refillable water bottle and take that to the gym.

<comment><USER4> Why does the US continue to let plastic bottles of water (or anything) be sold? I agree that it's terrible for the environment. I'm guessing that the reason is "lobbyists" :(

<comment><USER7> Is the US somehow unique in selling plastic bottles? Why don't those environmentally conscious countries ban plastic?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think part of this is to do with the 'hydrate' word. Years ago, before water was advertised on television there was this word 'thirsty'. Sometimes, on a hot day or after some strenuous activity you might be 'thirsty' and need to have a drink of tea or maybe just plain water for instant refreshment. The water came from the tap, where else?

But then times changed. Nowadays people don't listen to their bodies and drink accordingly. The advertisers have told people that they need to buy water and drink it to avoid getting dehydrated - 'mustn't get dehydrated'... Tapwater is inconceivable to this demographic, it has to be the stuff in plastic bottles (water cooler included).

I also like the way old-fashioned drinks are a slightly sociable thing. If I make tea I do it for everyone, we take turns. Meanwhile the 'hydrationists' sort their own bottled water arrangements out, it is not a shared thing.

I also like the way that tap water gets to your door. There are pumping stations, pipes and this thing called gravity!!! Meanwhile, the 'hydrationists' need little men driving big lorries full of water across continents, more little people in shops stacking shelves with this stuff, time out of their day to go to the shops to buy this stuff and the money to pay for it. I don't see myself as that special, tap water is more me (60% or so...), you are what you drink.

<comment><USER25> Many people don't drink from the tap because they are convinced it's bad water (which is true in corner cases at least in the US). Everyone I know who drinks bottled does it because of this and it has nothing to do with this 'hydration' ritual you are theorizing.

<comment> david-given I live in Zürich.

The water company here says that it's unfair to compare the tap water with bottled mineral water; the tap water is substantially better.

(I had a tour of the plant. They are a serious group of overachievers. The source of the water is mostly the local lake, and is purified by, two grades of sand filter, activated charcoal, ozone purification, and a bacterial bed. They actively manage the biofilms in the water pipes; the water itself is so clean that chlorination is unnecessary. They also actively manage the local aquifers so that the underground water flow near any industrial site flows away from their collection wells. There are two separate distribution networks, one for emergencies, plus a warehouse full of bagged water ready for distribution. And, best of all, it tastes great.)

<comment><USER26> Well it's just plain unfair to compare German efficiency and thoroughness with... anywhere else in the world.

<comment><USER27> Zürich is in Switzerland.

I wouldn't recommend calling them German. :)

<comment><USER28> Culturally/linguistically German/Germanic?

'The official language of Zürich is (the Swiss variety of Standard) German...' [1]

Northern Switzerland was founded by Germanic tribes, after all.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland#Germa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland#German)

<comment><USER29> We have multiple official languages, including an Italian derivative and French. Our history is as independently rich, tracing to the Holy Roman Empire, as that of the Germanic tribes.

<comment><USER28> Yes, but 'German' or 'Germanic' is still the accepted English word to refer to the shared culture and history of all German-speaking areas, of which northern Switzerland and Zurich are definitely part.

The term is not restricted to only refer to modern Germany (which didn't even exist as a unified state until the late 19th century).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Architecture for a smart home - <AUTHOR> http://madrossan.github.io/smart_home_arch/ <comment><USER2> thank you. Huge market for this.</comment>


Senate Passes Small-Business Aid Bill - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09/16/business/AP-US-SmallBusinessLend.html?_r=1&hp <comment><USER2> "Amendments earlier in the week sought to lift a much-criticized healthcare tax reporting requirement that both Democrats and Republicans agree needs to be fixed. But the amendments failed as senators could not agree on a way to recoup the $17 billion in revenue that would be lost by doing away with the provision." - [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn- small-b...](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn-small- business-bill-20100917,0,2992847.story)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, congress seems to have their eyes on the prize. They've given businesses some help with what appears to be the _smallest_ problem [1] they face.

[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/whats- holding-b...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/whats-holding-back- small-businesses/)

Way to go guys.

[1] A rough guesstimate since it's hard to read that stupid graph. Inflation might be smaller.</comment>


Ten lessons in bootstrapping from the founders of Urbanspoon - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/Ten_lessons_in_bootstrapping_from_the_founders_of_Urbanspoon_44968952.html <comment><USER2> 11\. Be featured on an iPhone commercial, because if that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be reading this.</comment>


NIIT Tech Training - Continuous and Effective Training for Corporate - <AUTHOR> http://niittechtraining.com/?smo= news.ycombinator The training programs of NIIT Tech training encompass a wide range of skills and are very competent and tailor made to individual's need keeping mind the recent market condition <comment><USER2> SPAM.</comment>


How to start a lab when funds are tight - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05655-3 <comment><USER2> A major problem is that it is time consuming for researchers to comparison shop and contact sales reps. We built Lab Spend ([https://labspend.com](https://labspend.com)) which has a pricing search engine for supplies and chemicals to give people an idea if their quote is fair.

"On Amazon, a $100 roll of paraffin film sells for around $25." Seems reasonable

Price Distribution: [https://imgur.com/a/YobZnm2](https://imgur.com/a/YobZnm2)

List Price: $71.27 USD

"Can$20,000 ultra-low-temperature freezer" depends on model, but likely overpaid

Price Distribution: [https://imgur.com/a/jZer27n](https://imgur.com/a/jZer27n)

List Price: $20,663.90 USD

<comment><USER3> This is really cool! I hadn't heard of you guys before but will definitely be using your service. I can attest to the fact that comparison shopping is a huge time suck in science.

The one exception to the importance of comparison shopping is probably at the very start of a lab. Oftentimes, PIs will negotiate with large suppliers for massive start-up discounts in exchange for buying lots of equipment from a single supplier. (Not relevant to me, but just thought people should know that that is a thing that happens).

<comment><USER2> Great point that there are new lab and volume discounts. Our data is showing that you should always be negotiating and that pricing is still independent of volume. We've seen cases of companies with 1/10th the spend of others getting better prices by product and overall.

This line from the article made me smile...

"Besides, there's often no need for aggressive negotiation tactics; most suppliers will accommodate reasonable requests to secure the business of a newly hired faculty member, notes Lisa Witte, president of Fisher Scientific, a lab-supply company in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."

Of course a person in sales is going to tell you not to negotiate aggressively with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> i'm glad there was an article written about this sociological phenomenon in the sciences.

begging, sharing, bidding, _stealing_, fixing, and making do were the standard in every "poorly funded" (read: extremely well funded in comparison to many others) academic lab and every "poorly funded" (read: fairly well funded) private biotech company that i have worked with. i can only imagine what it is like to work in a place that isn't very well funded, given the level of stuff that was happening where i have been.

you can tell when grants are approved and when new rounds of funding are raised because there's a new round of fresh equipment that shows up in the lab -- then, later, the hand-me-downs and salvaged gear shows up between funding rounds.

it isn't uncommon to see equipment in action that is 20 years old. one place even had an analysis instrument from 1968, but i would say that is an outlier. there are also a few places who pride themselves on over-spending on all-new top of the line equipment, but in my experience these are the massive pharma companies where money is not as much of a concern as equipment uniformity and supply chain.

the result of all the old/salvaged equipment, of course, is that all of these old things need maintenance and break down, typically at the worst possible moment. tensions over resources are also the norm within organizations, in my experience. there isn't always enough to go around, yet people are obligated to share with their neighbors when they're in a pinch... and, on aggregate, scientists have a habit of always being in a pinch.

interestingly, there was also a group that i worked with local to boston ([https://www.boslab.org/](https://www.boslab.org/)) which made a small educational lab exclusively with auctioned/salvaged/fixed gear, and did so extremely cheaply. they had sufficient means to do basic molecular bio experiments, which was really cool. the trouble is that consumables are going to be extremely expensive no matter what, so savings on capital are not as significant as they may seem.

honestly, at this point the culture of austerity and recycling in the sciences seems ingrained in a lot of people, particularly PIs from the US. giving them more money isn't going to make the problem go away because they are accustomed to hoarding their cash as much as possible. they don't know if or when the next grant will be approved, or if it is going to be for as much money as they really need. this habit works very well in certain biotech companies, too -- often, VCs don't understand that the cost savings might have consequences.

as someone who has been involved with founding several, starting a lab is time consuming, but not particularly difficult. there's probably a business opportunity somewhere in there. maybe something like assembling sets of second-hand / repaired equipment and selling them as a package to new labs.

</comment><comment><USER5> While only briefly mentioned in the article, theory and analysis of existing data are a lot cheaper than new experiments.

I am a PhD student in engineering right now. I've found that most of what I would have liked to measure was already available in the literature, but the papers of interest took some digging to find. I will be doing some experiments, but they will be very targeted at filling in gaps. Most researchers seem to think they are targeting gaps, but (in my field at least) literature reviews are typically not detailed enough to truly know where the cutting edge is. Researchers often end up reinventing the wheel.

I also have extended existing data by taking advantage of the properties of a special case to get some information most would consider very difficult to obtain. (Basically, I use a proxy which has a known strong correlation to the quantity of interest in the special case. It doesn't work outside of the special case.) Most avoid getting this information because either the researcher chooses a bad proxy, or knows how to get the information more directly but dislikes the method they know (because it would be a lot of work).

I supplement existing data with sanity checks on existing theories too. In fact, I will be presenting a paper at a conference in a few weeks where the entire motivation of the paper was to criticize an earlier theory which fails many sanity checks. (Wrong in the limits, wrong trend, lacks a necessary functional dependency, etc.)

The remainder of my time is spent developing mathematical models. Math is cheap and I think most researchers in the physical sciences would benefit from more of it.

<comment><USER6> If only NIH agreed.

"You know what we need? More funding for shitty underpowered studies in immunocompromised mice, and less funding for analysis & methods work. Besides, if they're any good, AmaGooFaceSoft will just steal them anyways."

Ha ha only serious. You are 1000% correct, and I can only hope that NIH will one day discover the same thing. Instead of destroying working APIs.

<comment><USER5> > Instead of destroying working APIs.

There's a reason I hoard data. Data becomes inaccessible too frequently.

<comment><USER7> Second this. I remember back when open access or reproducibility was not a thing, I used some little app written in Java to "steal" data from scanned figures of other's papers datum by datum, because they just wouldn't put the data in an online supplement or a repository. I do this less often nowadays because suddenly the community becomes more aware of data sharing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some relevant links for the 3D printed content, as they seem to be omitted from the article:

• [https://open-labware.net](https://open-labware.net)

• [https://3dprint.nih.gov/discover?field_model_category_tag_ti...](https://3dprint.nih.gov/discover?field_model_category_tag_tid\[\]=93)

• [http://www.appropedia.org/3D_printable_science_equipment](http://www.appropedia.org/3D_printable_science_equipment)

• [https://hackteria.org/wiki/Generic_Lab_Equipment](https://hackteria.org/wiki/Generic_Lab_Equipment)

• [https://www.thingiverse.com/jpearce/collections/open- source-...](https://www.thingiverse.com/jpearce/collections/open-source- scientific-tools)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a good article. However, in the US there is a flip side to hardware purchase optimization -- labor costs. It is sad (or infuriating, if I paid for it) to hear a lab worker boast how he saved $200 on wiring up some monster one-time contraption instead of buying off the shelf and it only took him two days; great, huh?

With all loads (and his $1 salary probably costs 2.5-4$ total) he just wasted at least $500. Just a data point, almost certainly not applicable to poorer countries.

<comment><USER4> agreed entirely. labor costs are nearly always discounted in the life sciences from my experience.

there's two origins of this phenomena. the first is that people are accustomed to having graduate students, or worse, being graduate students in the sciences. people abuse their time and treat it as though it is valueless, and that habit persists in them when they become leaders. then, the habit percolates downward to people who were never graduate students. viola, you now have an entire group of people with no conception of opportunity cost or labor costs.

the second origin is that scientists who are managers typically would rather have something "just work" (read: be jerry rigged and not work very well) than have to purchase a solution. this is another holdover from the graduate student days. buying solutions is expensive, and you still need to spend time to set it up and potentially troubleshoot. getting someone to make a one-time solution that is a totally incomprehensible mess is preferable if it is cheaper. besides, the manager scientist doesn't have to deal with the external time cost to their staff.

the sad thing is that all of these people involved are very smart and far-too- hard working. these are great traits to have. but they do not always result in the best solution. working hard is not always worth the economic cost to the group... nor is developing a one-shot ingenious solution. terrifyingly, few lab managers or leaders outside of big pharma seem to understand these problems.

<comment><USER10> It's not just the life sciences. Time is generally undervalued in physics, too.

The most-successful scientists, though, have an excellent perception of the value of time. They may not perceive it that way explicitly, but their choices of what is and is not worth working on amount to valuing time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not a plug, but here in miami we have a co-working type of shared wet lab space at UMiami [1]. It is open to anyone, they can rent bench space and use all the equipment. Happy to connect anyone to the team that runs it

[1] [https://cic.com/miami-lab-pricing/](https://cic.com/miami-lab-pricing/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Im about to start building a lab in my new engineering academic position after several years in pretty well funded industrial lab. While I'm posturing for a donation of some critical equipment starting from scratch is daunting but also exciting.

A part of what I want to achieve is the ability to replicate the types of measurement that require these extremely expensive pieces of equipment in a low cost facile manner. Students spend so much time building or setting up their rigs that there is often little time to take meaningful data as time runs out. I want my students to spend most of their time immersed in their data and how it fits with theory and not fine tuning some over-complicated proprietary tool.

As an aside I t's surprising how much you can now get on Amazon. Whereas previously you'd have to enquire after a quotation and wait days just for a reply now you can just order direct.

</comment><comment><USER13> One of the sites to buy from that is not listed in this article is govdeals.com You generally have to go pick up the item so a lot of it is regional but you will find lab equipment there from universities, k-12 schools, and other government programs.

</comment><comment><USER14> Cheap second hand lab equipment can be great, but a lot of the DIY bio stuff is garbage. It means to improve things by making it cheaper but often it trades off predictable results for ambiguous ones, or safety for unsafe ones.

</comment><comment><USER15> Have labs ever been started when funds were not tight?

<comment><USER16> I suppose HHMI investigators already have labs when they get picked by HHMI, but HHMI funds very nicely.

<comment><USER14> many HHMI investigators are selected in high school.

<comment><USER17> Really? Do you have any more information because I find that incredibly difficult to believe that HHMI is reviewing 16 year olds (on what basis?), waiting two decades for them to go through undergrad, grad school, postdoc(s), and open a lab.

<comment><USER14> Sure, I know about 10 HHMI investigators. Of that, 8 of them were contacted by HHMI after they won their (regional or national) science fair.

They all became early investigators with funding through college and grad school. Students with HHMI fellowships in grad school could generally join any lab they wanted, because their professor didn't have to pay their salary or support.

Doesn't this make sense? HHMI plays a long game (centuries) and they are competing with other people for the best candidates, so it makes sense that they're capturing hearts and minds as early as possible and investing in them long term.

<comment><USER17> To be clear, are we talking about these HHMI investigators? [https://www.hhmi.org/scientists/browse?kw=&&field_scientist_...](https://www.hhmi.org/scientists/browse?kw=&&field_scientist_classification%5B0%5D=17367)

I'm still having a hard time believing that someone "scouted" Richard Axel in 1960 and threw his name in a file with a note saying that he should be funded—-but only a quarter-century later.

I can imagine that they congratulate winners and perhaps invite them to apply for one of HHMI's early career programs, but I would be amazed and disappointed if people were "locking down" investigator status at 16. Success that early depends a lot on having access to the right opportunity and environment.

<comment><USER14> Oh look some of my previous advisors are on that list they're the people who told me that.

<comment><USER17> Let me explain where I'm confused.

When I was 20, I participated in a (funded) fairly prestigious summer workshop. This lead to a grant for a year of independent research from the same funders, after which I went to grad school. As a postdoc, the same sponsors funded one project of mine, then another, and a third is under review right now. However, there's no formal "pipeline" here, no midnight meeting in a spooky room where I was promised funding way down the line, long after I finally grew a beard and had it turn grey. Instead, this has continued for as long as it has because our interests have remained aligned and my collaborators and I have done pretty good work. If we have a few down years, the funding will probably dry up and someone, possibly even someone totally new to this ecosystem, will get it instead.

That said, there is an obvious Matthew Effect: once you get one award, you can list it on the next application. Now you have two awards, which is more impressive, and you list them both on your third application, and so on. There are other, less tangible benefits of being visible, getting face time with program managers, and so on. My impression of the HHMI Investigator program was that it was much more like this--early awards open doors and may make it more likely that someone eventually becomes an Investigator, but there's not a formal pipeline that reaches back to high school.

You seem to be suggesting that HHMI identifies high school science contest winners with the express intent of funding them later as independent investigators. _This_ is what I'm skeptical about. I can certainly believe HHMI can identify smart people and that (some) smart people continue to be smart throughout their career.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Step one: go to SciHub to ensure that you're not wasting a bunch of $ on something that should have been free in the first place.

Not that you'll read that in Nature.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure whether you are joking or not, but how to get paper is never a concern for a PI in academia.

<comment><USER18> Correction: in _rich country_ academia.

Go check up on how many people credit being able to finish their studies due to SciHub being available to them when the institutions they are affiliated with did not have the funds to be able to stay current.

There is a tendency to conflate 'I don't have this particular problem' to 'This particular problem does not exist'.

<comment><USER19> No, I don't mean in rich country.

First, I believe most papers already list coresspoding author' email, which one can send a request to for a reprint. And most people would be happy to send one, and because citation is one of the important metric for how successful and influential one's research is. Most people is happy to send one.

Second, PI is different from student for this. As a PI one basically already has some connections with people in the field. It's likely you already know some of the authors, or your friends in the field could help you get a copy.

I don't mean PIs would find scihub not useful, but PIs likely have other resources to help get a paper.

<comment><USER18> > First, I believe most papers already list coresspoding author' email, which > one can send a request to for a reprint.

Sure. If you have a couple of weeks to spare and you feel that disturbing the author of a paper from whatever they are working on to send you a pdf which you could just as easily fetch for yourself in a few seconds is a good way to spend _both_ your time.

PIs tend to find SciHub _very_ useful, even the ones in rich countries where plenty of universities are cutting costs (so sorry if that means cutting access to a critical journal for your field).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Not the kind of "lab" I was expecting. Being HN I assumed lab == server/network/computer playground/test environment (like a home ESXi lab).

<comment><USER21> Information technology is not the only thing that can be "hacked" on

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The title immediately made me think of Walt taking stuff from his department at school. "Jesse, we've got to cook."

</comment><comment><USER23> You should also consider whether you need to start another lab.

<comment><USER17> This is the million dollar question. If you want a long-term career in academic research, you pretty much have to strive towards running your own lab; you can't string together 2-3 year contracts, scattered all over the globe, for your entire life. Even if you were willing to, there are all sorts of stupid institutional barriers to doing this. In particular, there's a ridiculous bias towards funding recent PhDs and funding is very hard to find after ~4 years.

I would wager that one experienced researcher at $70k easily trumps 2-3 Masters students at $25k each. However, there are lots of mechanisms for funding studentships, but few for paying for experienced employees. The NCI had experimented with something like this, but there were maybe 100 positions total. This is a shame for many different reasons but seems depressingly unlikely to change any time soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Microbiologist Rebecca Shapiro faced a daunting task after starting a > tenure-track job at the University of Guelph in Canada: building a > laboratory from scratch, on a tight budget.

The absolute state of western higher education

<comment><USER25> > western

I didn't realized we're blessed with enormous science and education budgets outside of western world!

Seriously, it's the same old problem: when you hear about how bad things are in some first world country, please don't forget that it's still the best point in human history and one of the best places on Earth at the current moment.

<comment><USER6> Having discussed lab budgets etc with an Indian colleague just recently, I no longer feel justified to bitch about funding... possibly forever.

It was a necessary perspective check

<comment><USER26> ... and yet: it's a reasonable thing to ask how much of a GDP should be spent on research funding. That the US will spend more than India (for now) isn't surprising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Nature should publish less articles about how to do X on the cheap and more articles about how the government needs to increase funding for primary research.

As one of the most prestigious journals around, or at least most well known generally, they should be using their clout to go in and bat for researchers, not constantly being reactive and defensive.

<comment><USER28> Nature (and Science) are already constantly publishing pieces whining about government funding levels. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Honestly, I'd rather see most of the front matter of both journals disappear in favor of more room for scientific articles.

<comment><USER6> Alternately, there is some indication that little of value would be lost if the journals themselves disappeared.

I hear there's some sort of intertubes system to more efficiently disseminate papers for review & reading nowadays

<comment><USER29> Actually I find the high tier journals such as Nature do add value through editorials, keeping tabs on industry trends, and various programs. It's the low impact factor journals that are glorified FTPs that have to go.

<comment><USER6> Just FYI, as an author and reviewer for some of these journals, I would suggest that the value added by their news pieces can be compensated for (and not in a good way) by professional editors in pursuit of "impact". The review process becomes intensely political. As is well known, a suitably well-known senior author can get just about anything sexy enough accepted, and the referees can be easily overridden by an eager editor. Although the news divisions are editorially independent, they face a fundamental conflict of interest: biting the hand that feeds them is unlikely to lead to enhanced rations.

Nature and Science are less bad than, say, many Elsevier imprints. In most cases I feel like Nature or its daughter journal genuinely improved the manuscripts we sent them, at least the ones they published (and some they did not!). But this is also true of eLife and Genome Research. NEJM is wonderful to work with as an author, but in retrospect I sometimes wonder if they were too nice to us (Stockholm syndrome?) and have had this thought about some well-regarded specialty journals. In such cases, it is hard for the news staff to justify reporting on the underbelly.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I had a paper last year in a journal with an impact factor of 15* that was accepted in 15 minutes. It took longer to sign the copyright transfer agreements than to "review" the work. (I have the timestamps on the emails to prove it, although I'm not going to do that because one of my coauthors is an editor.) There's just no way that peer review was adding any value in that case. And yes, it has already been cited by other groups.

* Yes, IF is a silly metric. But the parallel is just too good to pass up. One minute per point of impact, I suppose.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>