"Let her speak please" - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/10155051385188961 <comment><USER3> Edit: I watched the video. The moderator goes on and on and the "let her speak please" sounds very polite.

This is a painfully frustrating reminder that women get talked over by men. It's one thing to have one panelist talk over another, but to have the moderator, who is explicitly in charge of facilitating a panel discussion, be the one to drown out a panelist is just unacceptable. Yes, "not all men" do this, but the fact that this continues to happen in such visible and public settings, where presumably people are on "their best behavior", would suggest that it happens even more in more private situations. Research has shown that groups where speaking is more distributed are more successful at solving problems, and explicitly teams with more women are more successful: [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/the- sec...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/the-secret-to- smart-groups-isnt-smart-people/384625/)

I will take this story as another reminder to be aware of situations where I might be dominating a conversation, and I hope you will too.

<comment><USER4> People get talked over by people. I see this all the time and it's generally sexless. As a consultant I've helped at least 100 teams have crucial conversations across tens of businesses. I don't get the constant refrain that this is a male vs. female thing.

<comment><USER5> Your anecdote of your fuzzy memory is not research.

When measurements are taken, there is a clear pattern:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2017/01/03/gal- inte...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2017/01/03/gal-interrupted- why-men-interrupt-women-and-how-to-avert-this-in-the-workplace/#32635baf17c3)

[https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are- in...](https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-interrupted- more-by-male-justices-and-advocates)

[http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google...](http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google- chief-blasted-for-repeatedly-interrupting-female-government-official/)

<comment><USER6> Your fuzzy memory is not research so I quote the three top scientific magazines: Forbes, HBR [1] & NYT.

(If you look in the articles, they quote studies with 20 participants. At university I would have been destroyed when making fundamental claims on a sample size of 20).

And yes my gut feeling tells me women get interrupted more often. And from this comment you may assume I'm guilty of this, though my bad social habits probably interrupt men as often.

[1] the magazine of business anecdotes.

<comment><USER7> Here's one with 216 participants, and a whole bunch of citations that might be interesting: [http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496404263728](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496404263728)

Another one from 1989 with 186 participants: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250069045_Interrupt...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250069045_Interruptions_in_Group_Discussions_The_Effects_of_Gender_and_Group_Composition)

<comment><USER8> Please quote the exact number in those papers. The summery of the first do not specify the levels of women interrupting women or men interrupting men, explicitly focusing only on interaction between men and women.

The other one only say that _" both men and women exhibiting higher levels of interruption behavior in male-dominated groups"_.

Citations is only as good as the ability it provide to verify a claim. Those do not do that as far as summery goes.

<comment><USER7> I'm not trying to prove anything, it just sounded like people were interested in relevant research with higher sample sizes. The first says "The participants for this study included 216 university students". The second says "We systematically varied the sex composition of the six-person groups, [...] Data on 31 groups in all were collected."

The second study directly addresses this discussion: "The odds of a male attempting to interrupt another male (.078) are less than one-half the odds of a male attempting to interrupt a female (.163). Females attempt to interrupt male and female speakers at essentially identical levels (odds of .146 and .141 respectively). In other words, men discriminate in their interruption attempts, interrupting women much more often than men. Women, on the other hand, do not discriminate; they attempt to interrupt men and women equally. Group composition does not appear to influence interruption attempts."

<comment><USER8> Interesting to see actually numbers. They imply that the one odd number here is the low rate of male attempting to interrupt another male, and that the natural base line should be around 0.1435 (assuming that the female variance of 0.0025 is the natural one for all humans).

That changes the tone of the issue. A 0.0195 difference from the norm is tiny on the negative discrimination of men interrupting women if we compare it to the norm difference of 0.0655 as positive discrimination for men interrupting men. As a social issue of 13.6% negative discrimination vs 45.7% positive discrimination, its a good time to ask what we want to fix. Is it the negative 13.6%, which mean we want men to interrupt women at the same rate as women interrupt women, or do we want men to treat other men worse by interrupting men as much as women do?

It also raises questions about moderators. Should we favor male moderators over female ones because they will in average interrupt 20% less (.241 vs .287) for a panel of 50% women and 50% men? The original post had a panel of 80% men and 50% men, which given the above numbers would have a male moderator interrupt a panelist at the rate of 0.095 while a female moderator would have interrupted a panelist with the rate of 0.145. A female moderator would be 52% worse than a male moderator in this specific case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ugh, I watched the video, jesus the host might be the least self-aware person who's ever been asked to host anything. I was unreasonably annoyed listening to him.

Anyway I want to share something, made this throwaway account specifically for this. I'm the only female at my company, and a developer to boot. I'm assertive in general, I make sure I'm heard. In fact, I try to be hyper-aware of how much I'm talking in a meeting setting, just to be respectful of others. I also feel that I am virtually unaware of my gender at work. I've been lucky in that respect -- trust me, sexism in the world and sexism in STEM is real, and it's not always easy being a female -- but I'm in agreeance with the author that intent matters, and generally that assumed sexist intent can get a bit dramatic. Whether my personality affects my perception, I can't say.

I work with a lot of very introverted and quiet males -- and a small handful of overpowering, extraverted males. I've found myself doing this exact thing quite often. Weekly even. "Let's let him finish his point", "I'm interested in hearing more from {quiet_guy}", "{quiet_guy}, is {contribution_of_loud_guy} what you meant by that?", et cetera.

I would like to believe that if the panel person was a male, it would have elicited the same building irritation from the audience. Although, I'm less sure that someone would have spoken up. I think someone would have needed to feel personally antagonized in order to speak up, which is exactly what happened here.

Bit of a ramble, sorry. My bottom line is that we should all be looking out for those who speak up less, if we sense that those people are being out- talked. My feeling is that people in that category might be more female than not... but I'm also saying that it doesn't matter either way.

<comment><USER10> I think your point about there being people who are out-talked is spot on. It seems to me that both quieter women and quieter men both get talked over by domineering men or women, but that due to men generally being more likely to be domineering, the whole situation skews by gender. I think it's one of those situations that seems sexist on the surface, but when you look into it it's more of a social dynamic that correlates with gender.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did > not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator's behavior. It seemed > more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time > tried answering it. It's true that this made the question a bit of a moving > target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don't > a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism. Maybe I'm too naive, > but I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the > newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn't resist, and that the same > might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me. So it didn't > bother me.

...

> Please understand that I'm not trying to say that sexism in science is a > myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to > say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and > that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might > think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore > feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise > abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something > you really enjoy.

[https://web.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...](https://web.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/10155051385188961?comment_id=10155053361413961&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D&_rdc=1&_rdr)

<comment><USER12> This might be the thing that is most problematic about 'call out' culture. We assume that we know the intention of people's behavior (sexism) and how it is received (offense). In many cases there may be neither. But I'm just cynical enough to suspect that this many not matter to people who 'call out.' They feel that they are on a mission to make society better regardless of whether there are problems in any individual case.

<comment><USER13> I don't see any "'call out' culture" here. Note that the person in the audience did not say "you are sexist". The words were "Let her speak please". Specific, and to the point.

 _(EDIT: The article itself uses the word "sexist", so it might indeed have been a call-out. However, that doesn't affect my point that we should not tolerate shitty behaviour, no matter which label is attached to it.)_

The moderator's behvaiour itself was inappropriate, no matter which gender the other person had, and no matter whether the other person is offended or cool with it.

Why? Because others might not be cool with that, and rightly so! If we publicly tolerate inappropriate behaviour, we are making it even harder for those who are not cool with it.

That's why we (the audience, the society) should not tolerate shitty behaviour, and speak out publicly against it. Not just to fix this individual case, where the affected person may or may not need our help, but to establish a culture where this shitty behaviour will occur less often in the first place.

<comment><USER14> >I don't see any "'call out' culture" here. Note that the person in the audience did not say "you are sexist". The words were "Let her speak please". Specific, and to the point.

The "call out" is the Facebook post and the subsequent social media firestorm that follows it.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. People have different levels of introversion and extroversion. Moderators sometimes over talk introverts when they feel they have to keep things moving. It may not have anything to do with sexism but because the the sexes of the participants it's turned into a conversation that may have no base in the reality of the situation.

It is arrogance to assume that we know the mind of another well enough to call this sexism.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly the point I wanted to make.

But also note that the moderator called the person from the audience "heckling" just because she made him aware of his inappropriate behaviour. If not sexism, this is at least a clear sign of ignorance.

<comment><USER15> That is exactly what a heckling is:

> interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.

When a member yells out something from the audience to someone on stage: That's a heckle. They forced a break in the 4th wall. (yes, the audience member was right, but so was the moderator in that small instance)

<comment><USER16> What was said ("let her speak, please") doesn't fit any of those categories. It was an interruption, but not derisive, aggressive, or abusive.

<comment><USER15> It was aggressive. The statement was a command (followed by a desperate request) deriding the behavior and speech of the moderator.

Why do you feel that calling the person who interjected a "heckler" is a bad thing?

<comment><USER13> First, "heckler" has negative connotation, while the interruption itself was helpful and to the point.

Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate, given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.

An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for pointing this out!"

<comment><USER15> The emotional attachment was added by the listener/reader of the word.

> Second, attaching such an attribute at all to that person was inappropriate, > given she pointed out an obvious misbehaviour of the moderator.

That is an assumption based on your emotional connection to the word. No one believes that the moderator's behavior was "bad" (different attributions have been made)

> An appropriate reaction would have been: "Oh, I didn't notice. Thanks for > pointing this out!"

I would strongly disagree with that. It's impressive that he recognized the heckle, and didn't respond negatively. From what I saw he acknowledged the event and made the correction. For someone to do that on stage is VERY impressive. That takes a lot of experience and a lot of skill. (Many performers respond very negative to a heckle).

The heckle broke the 4th wall, it was processed by the moderator, acknowledged (mentally and then verbally) without anger (which requires processing and understanding), the suggestion (I'm being generous in that) was taken, and the moderator returned back to the 4th wall with the context prior.

That's a freaking amazing job.

<comment><USER15> > No one believes that the moderator's behavior was "bad" (different > attributions have been made)

Err meant to say: No one believes that the heckler's behavior was "bad" (different attributions have been made)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you see this kind of behavior in the workplace, I highly recommend the technique of "echoing" as a means of overcoming it. In meetings I've seen it happen many times where an introvert makes a brilliant point, which gets completely lost when some manager who likes to hear themselves talk follows them. When this happens, I find it incredibly powerful to raise my hand and say, "I'd like to bring us back to [introvert's] point that..." The women in the Obama White House made this techique popular [1], and it's extremely effective in getting quieter more thoughtful ideas the attention they deserve.

As an introvert myself, I support a workplace that is encouraging and respectful of women because that is a workplace respectful of introverts as well.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/25/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/25/how- a-white-house-womens-office-strategy-went-viral/)

<comment><USER18> You need to keep in mind that the attribution of credit is important in echoing - simply bringing the subject back up will be seen as stealing the point.

<comment><USER19> "will be seen as stealing the point." \- no, it _is_ stealing the point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The exaggeration of this post is infuriating. I saw the video, and while I do agree that Jim Holt was especially rude in asking questions and then start talking as soon as she started answering, that is all it is. Rudeness. Not sexism. He did it with the men too.

<comment><USER21> What exaggeration!

> "Oh my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all > day. Thank you. Thank you."

> most important thing that was said

> most important

<comment><USER22> You watch the video?

<comment><USER21> I didn't watch the full discussion but I think it's fair to say that "let her speak please" was not the most important thing said that day.

How big headed is this person that she thinks her input was more important than that of the person she's claiming to uplift.

<comment><USER23> I can see your perspective, and it's pretty reflective of that of the author.

However, in reality, I don't think her words empowered the expert speaker at all but simply served as a check on the moderator's exuberance.

Those who actually benefitted were the audience---and we the public who get to see the video afterward. The moderator was handling the situation poorly and needed to allow the expert to speak which is what the audience _paid_ for, and everyone is more interested in hearing.

I think the best panels are where the experts talk amongst themselves, and moderators only serve to derail heated arguments that are consuming the allotted time.

<comment><USER22> Sets a good precedent doesn't it?

I hate what this PC culture has become. You have to watch yourself so carefully or you will get publicly shamed like this. And if someone over reacts there is no consequence. Its a race to the bottom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Everyone reading this please, please, please watch the video.

It is ridiculously not what it seems. I read the comments here, and the FB post and after watching it in full context you get such a different perspective.

And it is just as the lady on the panelist has said in her comment.

The moderator is trying to simplify things for the audience.

After introducing her he tries to create an analogy as to how to think about it and says:

"I'm giving a very garbled caricature of it, you're the expect, why don't you tell us."

Why would he use self-deprecating language if he was being sexist? He is openly saying that she could explain it better.

He talks over her a few times, but he is in know way talking down to her, rather just trying to place everything in his overarching analogy which is the role of the moderator. To maintain a common thread running through the discussion.

Then he reframes it again, and concedes: "I'm putting this in a provacative way. Please explain it to us properly."

Again, he is even acknowledging when he feels he is being provocative.

After the interruption:

"That always happens to me...do I talk too much?"

Which seems like he knows that he gets overly excited sometimes and talks to much.

Seriously people!

<comment><USER24> WHERE IS THE VIDEO?

<comment><USER25> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo#t=1h1m53s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7qPv8jsZo#t=1h1m53s)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The Observer has an article about this: [http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism- science-facebook-mansplai...](http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science- facebook-mansplaining/)

The video of the event is here: [http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe- bi...](http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/big-universe-bigger- questions/)

edit: Youtube version, at the 1:02 mark where people apparently were getting irritated: [https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s](https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s)

<comment><USER27> 1:05:39

Nerds do this a lot. It's annoying AF. I've had conversations about topics like zopfli or 'HTTPS in the 90s' where I was sure I was right (and I was) but the other person was so confident and loud I genuinely wondered if I was missing something.

<comment><USER28> "Nerds do this a lot."

Agreed but we can be less specific here...human males do this a lot.

<comment><USER29> We can be even less specific: humans do this a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Veronika Hubeny(the physicist who got interrupted) replied to the incident,

[https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/1015505138...](https://www.facebook.com/marilee.talkington/posts/10155051385188961?comment_id=10155053361413961&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D)

Very humble woman.

<comment><USER31> Could you possibly copy the comment here? I tried to find it in Facebook's "awesome" comment paging system, but I don't know how far through the 9000 comments I have to scroll back. (I assume the URL you posted is supposed to jump me to it, but it doesn't work for non-facebook users like me.)

ETA: From the Observer article: [http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science- facebook-mansplai...](http://observer.com/2017/06/sexism-science-facebook- mansplaining/)

"I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in!" she wrote. "I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring, and I'm glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you."

Hubeny also offered advice to help women deal with sexism at work, no matter their field.

"If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don't let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much," she wrote.

<comment><USER30> The comment in full:

Veronika Hubeny: I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in! I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated and heartwarmed contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring and I'm glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you.

I guess that, being the subject of the incident, it might be worthwhile to offer my perspective, which to my surprise is rather more atypical than I had hitherto realized, but which I hope might perhaps provide some encouragement to all those who feel put off by the present situation — especially to those who feel drawn to science yet dissuaded from following their hearts' calling. (For posterity I also feel compelled to correct a point about the physics — as a physicist I can't help myself wink emoticon;-) — but since I realize that that was entirely beside the point of the post, I'll only do so at the very end…)

You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator's behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It's true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don't a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism. Maybe I'm too naive, but I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn't resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me. So it didn't bother me.

In fact, even though in my entire academic career I was in an environment where women were in striking minority (and as a student often the only woman in the class), I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling. The feeling was rather one of camaraderie: the challenges to unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, the thrill in understanding another tiny bit of this grand puzzle, and the sheer wonder at how beautifully the physics hangs together, put us all in the same boat, so to speak. In retrospect I think I was fortunate in being amongst like-minded physicists who were not only great but gracious and earnest in their love of science. But when I eventually did start coming across others who were not of the same caliber, they somehow seemed insignificant.

I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I'd be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual "discomforts" not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting. I think the subjective severity of a lot of these issues can be greatly influenced by one's mindset, one's psychology. If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don't let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much.

Please understand that I'm not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.

OK, so now to the physics (sorry): First, what you refer to as the "two theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another" are actually two 'dual' descriptions of the same physics, which while curiously different in rather amazing ways, are completely consistent with each other (one using the language of string theory, the other of a field theory). Second, I cannot take credit for inventing this holographic (so-called AdS/CFT) correspondence — I have worked on understanding how it works at a deeper level, but the AdS/CFT was originated by Juan Maldacena in 1997.

Once again, let me stress my appreciation, Marilee, of how you bravely stood up for your principles and values! Well done!

<comment><USER32> >I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling

This just goes to prove my stance whenever the whole women in STEM fields debate is brought up. You have two kinds of women, those who are out there doing science, building things and being badasses (The likes of Veronika and Julia Evans, ones I consider as role-models) and then you have women that have questionable technical skills who keep whining about sexism and lack of women in tech. Veronica wasn't concerned with the perceived sexism and was interested in physics, Marilee, a specimen of the second category, gave herself a pat on the shoulder for standing up to Veronica.

<comment><USER33> Veronika stated quite clearly that sexism in STEM is an issue. Julia Evans has wrote in bulk regarding issues she has experienced and ways she is trying to get more women in STEM.

<comment><USER32> I didn't say the two categories are mutually exclusive. But you can notice where the bulk of each person's efforts is directed.

<comment><USER33> Who is to say that those people who's bulk of effort is spent programming, designing, or doing other technical activities don't appreciate the work other's do on a more full time basis to improve issues they see?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > _he continued to talk over her and dominate the space for several minutes_

> _I 'm still upset by the incredible sexism that has been demonstrated this > afternoon_

Now I feel bad for missing out on labeling every instance of a man being rude to me as sexism! /s

<comment><USER34> My thoughts exactly. It is beyond all doubt that sexism exists in the world, there are countless examples of it, from Disney movies, toy advertisement, philharmonic orchestra, etc, etc.

I find it a bit strange to label the speaker as a sexist just because he didn't let someone speak. Maybe he is just a dick? Maybe she was rude to him back stage? Maybe he was having a bad day? Maybe the chemistry between them was off? You have no idea what is going on beyond him not letting someone speak.

I even find it offensive to label his behaviour as sexist. What, I now can't be rude to a woman without being called a sexist? People should stick to the facts, not fill in the underlying reasoning. Well... unless you want to spark heated debates of course, in which case it is a solid strategy.

<comment><USER35> People talking over other people is a problem of sexism because the people doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being talked over are mostly (but not always) women; but also because the consequences for challenging this behaviour are different for men and women.

If a man asserts himself he's seen as confident and assertive, and other positive labels

If a woman asserts herself she's seen as aggressive, shrill,

> What, I now can't be rude to a woman without being called a sexist?

If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result of sexism.

<comment><USER34> > ...because the people doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being > talked over are mostly (but not always) women;

I find _this_ sexist. I know cases where the opposite is true as well as where the interruptor does not care about the gender of the other person.

> If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result > of sexism.

If A=A then A=A, therefore we can conclude that A=A. How wise.

I am not saying sexism doesn't exist, I am just saying that the author of this article is very liberal with her accusations based on a single observation of the moderator. Moreover, ironically, it is very sexist of her and I find this unfair to the moderator and men in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I have a theory that women are less likely to be, I guess the word would be "assertive", than men. That is a stereotype, but sometimes there's truth in stereotypes. I mean I recall studies that women are less likely to ask for raises or are worse at haggling.

So if a person is speaking over you and rambling on, perhaps a man is more likely to speak up or butt in at the first opportunity. The quote in the top comment sort of hints at this. That she didn't feel as annoyed by his talking and so didn't speak up. I haven't watched the whole thing, but other comments mention he does this over male panelists as well.

<comment><USER37> > I have a theory that women are less likely to be, I guess the word would be > "assertive", than men.

If this has been your experience, I'd encourage you to consider why that might be the case.

Here's one possibility: Perhaps in our culture, assertive women are treated worse than assertive men.

<comment><USER38> Or that non-assertive women are treated well and non-assertive men are treated poorly. Men have to learn to be assertive to be treated as well as women.

You can see this dynamic in the dating world where non-assertive men are the losers of the game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> he doesn't interrupt just her. His role is host, his role is to move the conversation about and yes he does fuck up by saying some stuff he should leave to her. However to me the evocative language used in the Facebook post suggests there is an aspect of deliberately seeking out "injustice" and being overly sensitive to it and seeing the world as a gender battle. If you're looking at the world through such a frame you're gonna get false positives. Maybe this isn't one but I feel a detailed and objective analysis might make it more close than the OP _feels_ it is through their frame that they view the world.

Did the host just fuck up or was it sexism? Maybe the host really loves her work and is read-up on it and got carried away? There are lots of possibilities. I'm not disagreeing with OP, I like that they chipped in. Everyone has the right to push around on their local environment to change it. I'm just wary of people viewing the world as a gender battle because it might turn it into more of a gender battle than it actually was.

<comment><USER40> I tend to be sympathetic to the original poster of the story, it sounds like the woman was treated differently, and an expert being talked over like that by a host is ridiculous. It does indeed sound like an example of sexism.

This probably marks me as an ignorant oppressor, but I do find this style of telling a story to be a bit confusing and off-putting though. Why all the references to "with my hands shaking" and "I'm feeling light headed" and so on?

I guess it's a personal story that she can tell however she likes, but this idea of having a violent physical reaction to a relatively straightforward conversational faux-pas seems to be the hallmark of a certain genre of story.

<comment><USER41> Speaking up in public or confronting people has this effect on many, many people.

It is an indication of something that you think explaining a woman's own theories to her in public a "relatively straightforward conversational faux- pas". You should ponder that.

<comment><USER42> It clearly sounds like sexism (probably non-intentional, but is that better or worse?).

On the other hand, the woman who spoke up seems to be an actress working at a theatre, so public speaking is probably not a problem for her.

<comment><USER43> There's a distinction between scripted public speaking in a venue where all interaction is controlled and initiating real conflict in a public place with no such control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm not sure that this has to do with her being a woman, everyone else on the panel have wikipedia pages while she doesn't. In such a scenario there will obviously be a power differential irrespective of the genders involved.

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._R._Ellis)

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

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

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Veronika+Hubeny)

<comment><USER45> I think there is some differential. Judging by number of citations, looked by google scholar:

George F R Ellis: 30744

Andrei Linde: 56716

Veronika Hubeny: 4874

Barry Loewer: 3431

Alan Guth: >17,317(summed 2 pages in scholar, as he doesn't have a profile there)

David Albert: >5062(summed 3 pages in scholar, counting only papers related to quantum mechanics)

So there are 3 researchers there whose voice can potentially trump others by a margin, if citations are a good measure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I watched the video the other day and I did notice the Hubeny was not called a lot - part of the reason was that she was more introverted and soft-spoken then the other panelists and part of the reason was that the moderator monopolized the conversation - which is typical of the WCF where the moderator will try to contextualize and steer the discussion in a way that makes it broadly accessible (even to kids, who are the target audience as well).

I've seen panels moderated by Neil Degrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss and those guys are terrible because they really love to hear themselves speak and will monopolize the discussion.

</comment><comment><USER47> From [http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/jim-holt-why- does-...](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/07/jim-holt-why-does-the- world-exist)

> Q: Bone to pick: your list excludes women.

> Jim Holt: It wasn't meant to be that way! I was going to include a Harvard > physicist who's not only a woman but she's extremely attractive.

WTF?

<comment><USER48> Social awareness and "intelligence" often seem to have an inverse correlation in my experience.

Maybe he thinks the general public believes that the scientific community tends to discriminate against _attractive_ women the most, and he's trying to address that?

I don't know, but it seems like there may be a bit of a disconnect between him and the rest of society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> What's really interesting is that the author only became 'boiling' with rage when this socially-unaware moderator talked over the woman on the panel, not when he talked over the other men.

This kind of behavior is extremely common in STEM, and happens to everyone. If you don't talk with confidence, purpose, and animation, you're going to get talked over by the alpha nerd of the group. Man, woman, or purple elephant. Problem? Yes. Sexism? No.

<comment><USER50> What's really interesting is that every time sexism comes up there are volunteers eager to show it isn't sexism.

<comment><USER51> Alternatively, every time a a man is rude to a woman, there are volunteers eager to show it's sexism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Facebook posts are more or less unreadable to me without a Facebook login. This is what it looks like to me: [https://i.imgur.com/ZQNexgi.png](https://i.imgur.com/ZQNexgi.png)

Does anybody else outside Facebook space find it annoying?

<comment><USER53> Yup, and not because I don't have a Facebook, only because I'm not logged in on my work machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I dipped in an out of the video hunting for this "event" a bit harder to find than I expected. Initially I didn't realise who the moderator was, and eventually I realised this guy kept adding dumbed down clarifications to everything, unnecessarily annotating things, almost every time talking over someone who was in the middle of trying to make a point or explain something... Maybe deep inside he did have a sexist attitude, but when I found "the event" what I saw was just a worse versions of the same explanation hijacker in previous parts of the video, It was nowhere near as well defined exclusion as the post made out... It was fucking frustrating sure but memory is coloured with your feelings, and this video shows it.

<comment><USER31> 1:07:41 is the "end" of the event. Starting around the 1 hr mark is probably good if you've got 8 minutes to see the lead-up.

(This is for others "hunting" like you and I did.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> It is hard and subjective to assess if the moderator behavior was just indiscriminately rude or sexism by mansplaining. That's why I don't expect the comments here to be as interesting and enlightening as for other common topics at HN.

But I would like to just point out what, I believe, it's a strong signaling that it was sexism: the whole audience reaction to when the woman shouted: "Let her speak please". There is a genuine, spontaneous and loud ovation. Contrast that with the fact that through the rest of the video, the moderator doesn't act the same way to other panelists; and it makes clear to me that the whole audience was considering the moderator's behavior inappropriate and motivated by her being a woman. So, for subjective assessments, there is some wisdom of the crowd worth considering (especially as this was not a 'feminist' crowd or even a female-biased crowd, on the contrary, I believe).

Now, to give the moderator some credit, after some awkward moment where he does not know how to keep it cool, he does take the hint and shut up.

EDIT: I would like to give some more credit to the moderator. At the video moment that lorenzhs pointed out below ([https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s](https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=1h1m55s)), the moderator explicitly state that Veronika Hubeny was not given a chance to speak about her knowledge. This, I believe, is an indicator that the moderator is not a bad person and his sexism is not conscious or originated by strong believe that women are not as capable in the field as men. I still believe he is patronizing and is being sexist, but in a way that he can get the feedback and change his behavior, as he is not a sexist. He was being sexist, he is not one. My point is: he seems to be a nice person, not a villain, that is influenced by a sexist environment. And changing that environment should be our goal, not pointing fingers. As Marilee Talkington did, politely and publicly.

EDIT 2: After reading Hubeny's comment I'm more in doubt if it was sexism. Actually, I'm more inclined to believe it was not sexism. As I said, it is a subjective call, and her opinion matters most than others as she is the subject and used to being surrounded by men in her profession. Her comment is very kind and smart also in itself, worth reading.

<comment><USER56> > _I believe, it 's a strong signaling that it was sexism_

No idea where you get that from, if not the wave of social media outrage. There's no evidence of sexism here at all.

The audience applauded because of the injustice taking place at that moment which the moderator was unaware of. He was being rude by not letting her speak at that point. Everyone saw and applauded when balance was restored.

Nothing to do with sexism, it was just a clumsy moderator moment that could have happened to anyone.

He could have handled it better by saying "let me talk for a moment about your theories, if I may, and then I'll hand over to you". That would have been acceptable, but he didn't do that, and she felt unable to speak. Audience was with her, and applauded.

At 27:05 he asks her a question and does not interrupt, so it's not like there are no examples of him being polite and treating her with the same respect as other members.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Since for some reason (flagging) this has fallen of the first page, I posted the Observer article also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505232)

</comment><comment><USER58> This only seems sexist if you think that people only speak when _allowed to speak_. People speak when they speak, the rules of politeness are universal, and she had every right to speak up, and every right to pipe down. She could have just as easily been a bit uncomfortable, or just more interested in listening. The host was overbearing on the whole conversation from what I see. There could be any number of reasons why the host might interrupt the string theorist; and the argument that it _must_ be sexism is just _so_ just-so.

I don't see why people should be expected to all be equally sonorous, when clearly people are not equally interested in it.

</comment><comment><USER59> Why do activists like these always have to write that they "shake"? I usually stop reading and taking them seriously.

<comment><USER35> because normal human beings have a stress response that includes adrenaline being released.

they are literally shaking, and they are accurately describing their stress response.

<comment><USER59> Yes, but it makes it sound ridiculous. If I am going to include all my emotional responses to an event every time I write about something it will become ridiculous and annoying at one point.

Can you not be annoyed by something without starting to shake every time? Especially if you try to interpret rudeness as sexism...

<comment><USER35> The emotion is not _anger_ , it is _fear_.

<comment><USER60> From the text:

> I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to shake.

Outrage to me means anger and not fear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> If you want to know what happened by watching the video yourself, here it is: [https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3920](https://youtu.be/Er7qPv8jsZo?t=3920)

</comment><comment><USER62> I remember a sociologist once remarking that prejudice (racism in the case we were discussing) exists _quite_ apart from an individual's intentions.

Most of the comments here appear to assume that prejudice is determined solely (or mainly) by the moderator's intentions-- hence the endless quests to somehow prove what is or isn't lurking in the moderator's soul.

That _seems_ irrelevant in this case, but I haven't read the relevant sociological literature so that's all I can say.

Are there any sociologists here that can flesh this out (with citations)?

Edit: clarification

<comment><USER63> I''m not a sociologist. My phd minor was Anthro and I don't have any citations handy.

But basically you can never know someone's intention with 100% certainty. There is always the possibility that someone has different intentions than you think they are or that they say they have. Even if it is someone you know very well and trust there is the possibility that you are in some sort of Truman Show where everyone you know has been lying to you your whole life. Or, if we want to get into psychology, there is the possibility that a person could think their intentions are really one thing but subconsciously they might be something else.

So if we can't depend on knowing someone's intentions then we only have the act itself and its impact.

Of course, this opens up a deep rabbit hole in that we can't trust anyone's intentions, including the person that wrote this facebook post. Or mine for leaving this comment...

<comment><USER62> I shouldn't have put "citations" in parentheses. That's what I'm most interested in-- recommended readings from people who study this stuff for a living.

<comment><USER63> Off the top of my head I'm not thinking of anything specific but it is related to the intentional fallacy and thinking along the lines of The Death of the Author as well as more anthro/socio stuff by people like Erving Goffman. I'm thinking of his Presentation of Self in Everyday Life where he talks about things in terms of acting and live theater.

<comment><USER62> Thanks, jccalhoun.

I'm really looking for a citation of something much more fundamental.

If I wanted to assess the security of Firefox, it would be inane to try to do so by assessing each bug individually. Instead, I could ask on HN, "What books should I read to begin learning how to assess the security of Firefox?" And even though I'd probably get a lot of responses trying to clarify what I mean by "security", I'd certainly get some solid reference materials that outline current approaches to assessing security that are based on the best research available.

Now suppose I want to assess sexism in the sciences in academia. It would be inane to try to do so by assessing each alleged case of sexism individually. What books should I read to assess sexism in academia? I'd like to hear about reference books (or articles) that outline current approaches to assessing sexism in academia that are based on the best research available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> How is this sexism? As a quiet man that happens to me a lot too and I hate these kind of people.

<comment><USER35> Yes, it does also affect men and it always sucks when it happens and it's not acceptable behaviour.

But it happens more often to women. Also, if the person being interrupted asserts themselves they're seen in a positive light if they're male but a negative light if they're female.

And in this case there's a video, and he interrupts her far more often than he interrupts the other male guests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I don't know if Holt behaved the way he did out of sexism, enthusiasm for the subject, generally liking the sound of his voice or what. Regardless, I think the narrative of this exchange between him, Hubeny, and Talkington can function as a nice morality play that most of us can learn from.

But I think it only works if we don't jump demonize or defend Holt and try to simply use him to score points for our side. Instead, if I empathize for all of the characters, there's something to be gained from each.

When I imagine myself in Holt's shoes (which, to be honest, is unfortunately a little _too_ easy for me to do), it's a reminder to be more of a listener and less focused on filling silence or letting my own inner monologue take over. I'm overly sensitive to pauses in conversation and tend to rush to fill them. But some people are naturally quieter, more pensive, or have a different preferred cadence. It's important to cater to them. This is true regardless of their gender, but is particularly true for women where society has trained them to be the conceding person when two people — deliberately or accidentally — start talking at the same time.

Hubeny handled the whole thing with remarkable grace, both during and after. She didn't get irate on stage and tried to respond to Holt and go with the flow to keep things moving, even when she had every right to be frustrated. She certainly would have been justified in pushing back on him, but she demonstrated another important social skill, which is giving people some benefit of the doubt. Good engineers never forget about tolerances and safety factors and our social interactions need those too. We're humans. We make mistakes. When others around us handle those tactfully, it helps the whole machine run smoother.

It is, of course, totally unfair when women find themselves having to do a disproportionate amount of this social lubrication. But that's why it's useful for me (a man) to empathize with her in this interaction. It helps remind me to pick up that role more than I probably do now.

And, then, of course, Talkington's description is a perfect encapsulation of how frightening, but also important and rewarding it is to stand up for what you believe in. The applause she received afterwards shows that while most in the audience didn't have the courage she had, at least most of them did have their _hearts_ in the right place. That's a sign of progress to me.

</comment><comment><USER66> This reminds me an awful lot of Zimbardo's talk on how we should encourage children to learn to speak/act when the crowd does not.

[https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil/transcript)

</comment><comment><USER67> It seems like the other perspective has been lost here. The host has now been publicly branded as a sexist on "evidence" that at best is ambiguous. To the people upvoting this: Shouldn't claims like this that are extremely damaging to a persons reputation require more evidence?

</comment><comment><USER68> Like half of this was talking about how the male was not letting the female asking the question (the male sounds like a bad interviewer for sure), and the other half was about how everyone 'literally applauded' what the author did. Sadly none of it was about the woman who was not allowed to speak or what she said... I get the point, the rest of the audience didn't say anything, but on the other hand 'literally shaking' is maybe not a reasonable response to someone being (probably inadvertently) rude, really no matter why the person is being rude.

I don't know how to write this without sounding like I in any way would defend sexism in any form, I mean maybe I should show I'm not sexist by piling on the male on stage and breaking out the pitch-fork or something.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is written straight out of Buzzfeed, why did it not stay flagged?

I wish people could stop supporting these articles about serious issues that are so emotive build purely to play on/abuse human emotions? It just hurts every cause.

Veronika Hubeny on the other hand wrote a response very worthy of HN.

</comment><comment><USER70> Good on her for speaking up but I would postulate that minority groups gets talked over by the majority group and that this is not sexism. Should people try to be more mindful of the people around them? Absolutely, but jumping to the conclusion that it is sexism is just counter productive.

Anecdotally as a man any time I am in a group that has a majority of woman the men get talked over by the woman all the time. I grew up in a family that was a majority woman and the same thing happened all the time, I would say generally in social settings where one sex has the majority they tend to talk over the opposite sex and control the conversation. It is human nature. However we can and should be better then that but it is hard.

</comment><comment><USER71> This video is great. I'm glad I watched it and as soon as I finish writing this I'll be looking for more like it.

"Let her speak please", there are some many things wrong with this, starting with live tweeting this panel's discussion.

Just watch the video! There are so many more interesting and inspiring things to discuss. Listen to what they are saying. They are talking about the nature of reality and if it's possible for us to understand it.

Edit: I just got to the point where the audience member yelled out. What a disgusting display, who do they think they are, they should "check their privilege". This type of forum is not the place for aggressive behaviour like that. It's not good enough.

</comment><comment><USER72> Having watched other parts of the video, I would say this was sexism.

While the moderator had a bad habit of talking too much and answering his own questions to all panelists, he didn't talk over the other (male) panelists, he only seemed to do that to Veronika Hubeny.

</comment><comment><USER73> I was at this event. Marilee was seated directly in front of my girlfriend and I (the stage / panel and the back of Marilee's head pictured: [https://imgur.com/a/GEapw](https://imgur.com/a/GEapw)). The interruptions were real. I was one of the men in Marilee's facebook post making comments about the sexism. Immediately following Marilee's comment, the entire place erupted with applause. On the way out, several people asked my GF if she was the one who made the comment, with one person saying "That was the most important thing to happen here today".

</comment><comment><USER74> This guy seems like quite the blowhard. I do, however, need to know if he also does this to men. I've had a few co-workers that just talk on and on without letting other people get a word in. They do this to everyone.

</comment><comment><USER75> Throwing in my two cents: a) the intent of the moderator is less important, in this specific instance, than the systematic and structural sexism which we know to be present. Who knows, perhaps the moderator was secretly grateful because they were unconscious of the impact of their behavior? Perhaps not. Outcome is a more useful measure than intent here.

b) In a perfect world, if the same thing was happening to a man, I would hope someone would speak up for him as well. Not only was the authors behavior an example of feminism in action, we could also say it was an act of human decency.

</comment><comment><USER76> Knowledge of this social construct (that women are socially expected to be "seen and not heard") is one of the simplest life-hacks for small-group interactions, because once you're mindful of the dynamic it's fairly obvious when someone is getting talked over.

It also applies equally well to other introverts, it's just a good social rule in general. Let people finish their thoughts.

Most times people aren't doing it to be an asshole, they just are focused on a point or are extroverted and are unintentionally dominating the conversation.

</comment><comment><USER77> I was at the world science festival though not at this talk. If it's like the others it's a panel discussion but a lot pre planned. For the Brian Greene quantum physics panel discussion he went from person to person to discuss the double slit experiment. The fact that videos were involved indicated that it wasn't just a random discussion.

There was the Alan Alda / Tina Feye talk about communicating that was quite good. If your waiting to say your thing instead of listening..

</comment><comment><USER78> This facebook post sounds like a murder.

I do understand that it isn't nice or anything but that post blows it up to much which leads to disliking it.

</comment><comment><USER79> I'm suprised no one has brought up that men talking over women is a well- studied phenomenon in childhood and adolescence. Girls tend to contribute less to discussions or conversations in mixed gender settings than they do in single-gender settings. My parents even noticed it when my brother and I moved out of the house, and suddenly my little sister was a lot more talkative at the dinner table. The exact mechanism or reason for this is not well understood.

I'm not sure if this phenomenon has been studied in adulthood, but I wouldn't be surprised if some remnant of it remains. Could this simply be an example of that phenomenon in action? Which isn't to say this isn't sexism, I wouldn't consider those two things mutually exclusive.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not absolving the moderator of blame, or placing any fault on the woman. I'm simply linking this behavior to a broader social phenomenon that is fairly well studied. I personally think what he did was sexist, whether or not that was his intent.

<comment><USER80> > The exact mechanism or reason for this is not well understood.

I have nothing to back this up, but my personal opinion is that the reason is our patriarchal society.

It permeates our shared culture to such an extent, that most people don't see it. Women and girls even participate in it, and use it to perpetuate it. It is everywhere. Literally everywhere. From the moment of birth to the moment of death, you are immersed in it. It's not really a wonder that children would pick it up quickly and act accordingly.

If you ever are able to glimpse it - you likely won't be able to unsee it. It becomes blindingly obvious.

You and others may or may not agree with me, so I'll just leave this here:

[https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*yiv4glZWr2rzS2BMOo...](https://cdn- images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*yiv4glZWr2rzS2BMOodT6A.gif)

<comment><USER79> I completely agree, this is a consequence of the patriarchy pretty much by definition. The smoking gun is that girls become more talkative specifically when men are absent, so girls aren't just less talkative in general, it's specifically a reaction to the presence of boys. By "exact mechanism" I meant more specifically why the phenomenon happens. Are women encouraged to be quiet when men are talking, or are men encouraged to interrupt women, or both? In a truly egalitarian society, would men interrupt less or would women interrupt more?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Started reading her post, got to "The panel was made up of 5 men and 1 woman." and the agenda instantly became clear. Finished reading, in a masochistic attempt to confirm my suspicion and indeed, I was right. Give. Me. A. Break.

</comment><comment><USER82> Has Jim Holt or World Science Festival commented officially after the fact? I would have thought this would be a priority by both parties. I don't see anything, but perhaps i'm just missing it.

</comment><comment><USER83> I'm sure the moderator wasn't even remotely conscious of what he was doing because this is so endemic in our society. The only way this will change is for more people to speak up like this.

</comment><comment><USER84> I am a male and when I am talked over I have to say something like "hold on let me finish" and that fixes it :D It's not a male vs female thing, it's just that everyone gets too excited, it happens to me too sometimes :D

The moderator talks too much along the whole video. Not a sexist thing though.

A link on how to handle interrupts: [http://www.marionspeaks.com/_blog/Marions_Communication_Tips...](http://www.marionspeaks.com/_blog/Marions_Communication_Tips/post/WHY_PEOPLE_INTERRUPT/)

</comment><comment><USER85> Noticed that too, also on other WSF videos. These is pretty common in the academics world as a rule, even between males (visible on this video)

</comment><comment><USER86> ITT: Sexism _must_ be intentional to be true!

If someone's implicit biases (or given the circumstances, like having ten or hundred men in the room versus one woman) cause them to act differently toward women than men, it's still sexism - intentional or not. I'd encourage the men in this thread to exercise a bit of empathy and imagine what it'd be like to be the only man in a room full of 100 women (eg. Miley Cyrus concert) - <USER2> particularly comfortable!

<comment><USER87> There's a further characteristic to consider when thinking about intent.

I'm often the only man in a room of 10-40 women, eg "Mums & Toddlers" groups and at work. There's usually a degree of overt sexism and exclusion; however acting differently toward me is human nature, we have two different sexes.

Sexism that's not negative discrimination seems like something we should just live with. Some intentional (or at least easily avoided) sexism falls in that class IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Thanks! - to the vast number of commentators who have taken the time to explain to me what Jim Holt was probably thinking.

</comment><comment><USER89> By making everything so dramatic you will end up scaring all women away from science.

</comment><comment><USER53> I feel like the details in the post make it fodder for alt right cannons. "I was literally shaking" and "everyone went silent and then burst into applause" are dirt-common memes on alt-right discussion boards. Until I saw the video I thought this was an elaborate alt-right prank.

</comment><comment><USER90> Looks like she missed John Gruber's post on Facebook last week. :(

</comment><comment><USER5> Talkington, quite the aptonym for this article.

</comment><comment><USER24> link?

</comment><comment><USER91> It baffles me that moderators keep blocking the community and remove flags form these kind of totally non factual and opinionated posts, and then go and themselves flag highly voted fact based posts that make it to the first page of HN - like they did some weeks ago about the code capabilities of IT grads in India.

It is almost like the moderators in HN have a clearly defined and very limited political range of ideological opinions they believe in and that they only allow anyone else to express - or even discuss about - their personal opinions if they mirror those of the moderators.

<comment><USER92> I would like to echo this a million times over. Flags are the community's way of saying that things aren't appropriate for HN, and the moderators removing flags to editorialize the front page, then in other threads throwing up their proverbial hands and going "well, the community voted for it" when someone comments about why something made the front page, as if there is nothing that can be done, is intellectually dishonest.

Either the community has control, or the moderators do and we should just remove voting altogether.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Can someone paste the contents here?

<comment><USER27> Marilee Talkington

4 June at 17:40 ·

So, after thinking about this over night, I've decided to share something that happened at the WORLD SCIENCE FESTIVAL yesterday afternoon in NYC that changed me. Or rather made me step into who I am in a larger way.

As some on my feed have seen, I was live-feeding the beginning of the panel discussion on FB. That panel was made up of some of the greatest and most famous minds in the world in Inflationary Cosmology, String Theory, Cosmology and Physics based Philosophy. The panel was made up of 5 men and 1 woman. And the moderator was a science writer and journalist for The New Yorker.

In the first hour of the panel discussion you can see clearly, if watching the video, that Veronika Hubeny, the only woman on the panel is barely given any opportunity to speak. And the Moderator, Jim Holt even acknowledges this.

In the last 20-30 minutes of the 90 minute discussion Jim Holt finally pushes the conversation to Hubeny's field of expertise, string theory, and this is what ensued:

He asked her to describe her two theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another.

And THEN, without letting her answer, proceeded to answer for her and describe HER theories in detail without letting her speak for herself.

We could clearly see that she was trying to speak up. But he continued to talk over her and dominate the space for several minutes.

I should say that this panel was taking place in a large auditorium as it is an extremely high-profile and always sold-out event. And the panel discussion was being live-streamed across the world and they say that millions of people watch these videos after they are made public. (Which they already are).

So at this point, after seeing very clearly that she was not going to be given space to speak and in fact having her own theories described to the audience by the moderator, I am in full outrage. My body is actually beginning to shake. The sexism is beyond blatant. It is happening on stage and NO ONE, not a single other physicist or panelist is stepping in to say anything about it. And I can hear other audience members around me, both men and women becoming more and more agitated with what is happening. Jim Holt, even at one point, asks Veronica a question and she laughs because he has been answering his own questions about her work...and he makes fun of her for 'giggling'.

So at some point while he is Still talking about Her theories, I just can't handle it any longer.

With my hands shaking,

I finally say from my seat in the 2nd row of the audience, as clearly, directly and loudly as possible;

"Let. Her. Speak. Please!"

The moderator stops.

They all stop.

The auditorium drops into silence.

You could hear a pin drop.

And then the audience explodes with applause and screams.

Jim Holt eventually sat back, only after saying I was heckling him

And he let her speak.

And of course, she was brilliant.

\</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

So, the panel discussion ends.

My hands are still shaking. I'm still upset by the incredible sexism that has been demonstrated this afternoon. But I also realize that I just spoke up in an auditorium full of people that are listening to people that are considered gods in the international science world. I was just overwhelmed by it all

We get up to leave.

And then it happens.

Person after person come up to me. Both men and women.

The first woman, right behind me, reaches over and embraces me and says, "Oh my god. what you said was the most important thing that was said all day. Thank you. Thank you."

And then people start filing out of their aisles and wind their way over to me:

"Was that you? Thank you so much for speaking up. Thank you."

"Was that you? Oh god, what he was doing was horrific. Thank you. I wanted to do something but didn't know how"

"Was that you? I wish I had the courage to say something, thank you! Thank you so much"

"Was that you? You said what everyone here was thinking. Look I had even been writing in my notebook what you eventually said (shows me his notebook with 'let her speak' written over and over.) But you said it. You said it. Thank you."

"Was that you? Thank you! I felt so powerless to do anything."

And on.

So we were all thinking this.

\----

So I walked out. And my friend who was sitting about 8 rows behind me, came up to me with a huge grin and said

"That was you, wasn't it? Of course it was. YES!!!!! I will be telling this story for years."

And the whole time, my hands are still shaking. And I'm felling light-headed. And I just want to scream out into the lobby "WHY IS THIS SEXISM STILL HAPPENING? WHY, does someone like me, with No status in that room, have to be so extraordinarily bold and speak up? And why was it so frightening to do so?"

And I'm thinking. "God, please god let this be an opening for those that were here today and the tens of thousands that watched the live-streaming of the panel yesterday and the hundreds of thousands that will watch the video this year- to speak up when we see this happening. And please let me not be afraid to do this again

...and again

...and again"

Because it was scary.

Please keep giving me courage.

<comment><USER94> Thanks for the FBpaste.

> WHY, does someone like me, with No status in that room, have to be so > extraordinarily bold and speak up? And why was it so frightening to do so?

Audience members do have some status, she actually exercised the precise limit of that status. Audience members aren't meant to have equal status, because that's just called a bunch of people in a studio / anarchy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> Aaaaaand it's flagged. No surprises there. I was refreshing every five minutes to see how long it would take.

[Edit: Thanks to the mods for taking responsibility for allowing this discussion].

</comment><comment><USER96> I'm literally in tears and shaking with anger.

How could he?!

<comment><USER97> We've banned this account for trolling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> Not contributing, am I? But that kind of voting is contributing, so much so that you have to get a bunch of karma to be allowed the privilege, right? Dear god. Yeah, I'm not allowed to talk about votes, but if you're going to give random people the ability to grey out comments of others anonymously, that's just tough luck. I don't care about the POINTS, I care what they're trying to say, and to that I will respond without fail.

In case of someone getting confused by my handle, I was going to reply "Not on the first date though" in response to the sentence "Most people would prefer to hear something along the lines of 'I love you and want to marry you.'" in this comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14499533](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14499533) earlier today, but then thought better after I had already made the account, but didn't bother to log out either. If you don't understand something, assume there's a super cool reason that's not for you to know.

<comment><USER97> This comment breaks the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes. Please read [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) (and [https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)) and follow them when commenting here.

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507266](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14507266) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Outrage culture front and center. Time to pull out our morality antennas and virtue signal how pious we are in support.

<comment><USER35> > virtue signal

Your use of this vapid phrase is itself a form of virtue signalling.

<comment><USER100> Someone who unironically uses "virtue signalling" very conveniently signals that they're not worth listening to. It's kinda nice, actually.

<comment><USER101> I disagree, it's a very apt description of an increasingly common phenomena online. When one's need to signal group membership outweighs their personal feelings regarding the issue at hand, that's virtue signalling. With the balkanization of online communities to being hyper-focused, and actively exclusionary of those with slightly different beliefs, virtue signalling becomes an important component of becoming and staying a member in good standing. Online political forums are stark examples of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Can someone please pass that note to Joe Scarborough also? He was interviewed by Colbert, and not once was this raised. Seriously, watch Morning Joe and he just will not let Mika Brzezinski speak, and you can see her suppressing her frustration.

Scarborough doesn't even appear to know he's doing it, and Brzezinski seems to be powerless to stop him.

<comment><USER103> It can't bother her too much. They just announced their engagement.

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/business/media/morning...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/business/media/morning- joe-engaged.html)

<comment><USER102> That doesn't mean it doesn't bother her!

<comment><USER103> I'm assuming she isn't interested in marrying a sexist jerk. But, yes, there's plenty of room to be annoyed with ones' significant other. It's to be expected, really.

<comment><USER102> I don't think he's being intentionally sexist. In fact, I don't think he realises what he's doing at all!

I was actually making a general comment. In fact, I'm actually pretty interested in what Mika has to say, and frankly it's very rare she gets a word in edgeways...

It appears I've offended others with my observation. That's a pity, because I actually really like Joe Scarborough, one of the few pro-Republican commentators on air who makes reasonable sense and is able to put forward conservative stances in ways I can grapple with. Just my 2c

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> This thread is basically people stumbling over themselves trying to defend how this is NOT sexist or justify the varying degrees of sexism.

Some of the fun examples: \- men get talked over too! (doesn't mean this isn't sexist) \- he's just an asshole (doesn't mean he's not a sexist asshole) \- that woman is just looking for a social justice moment (how about the rest of the audience?)

<comment><USER105> No this thread is a response to obvious and blatant grievance mongering about one anecdote.

If you don't want to be interrupted, keep talking. If the moderator is an ass, he's an ass.

If you expect to always be treated with respect by default, a) you're privileged and b) you're deluded. Those men probably learnt to assert themselves because if they didn't, they'd be invisible. The woman on the other hand learned that if she waits long enough, someone will stand up for her and everyone will applaud.

So the cycle continues, that those whose problems are automatically taken seriously by most are those who are the least self sufficient and the most coddled. Hacker culture and the internet doesn't apply this rule so much, most of all because physical attractiveness and charisma is usually out of the picture.

What's that line again, about how when you're used to privilege, equal treatment feels like oppression? Strange how nobody examines it in both directions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> I've seen a lot of people denying the moderator is exist. I don't care one way or another.

The real question is was this behavior sexist in this context?

That's much easier to answer: yes. How we know:

A woman said she was seeing a discrimination pattern.

But what if she's wrong?

Then we'll overcorrect for sexism, realize it, and ideally find a point of moderation. Guess what...we're probably going to do that anyway because no system is perfect so the likelihood of moderately correcting sexism without over-/under-correcting is low.

All we need to do is let the women speak and give their perspective equal footing.

This can more easily be resolved without attempting to force objective judgments. I know that can be a hard idea for science-minded people to swallow. Unfortunately, science has become too objective and still lacks solid frameworks for dealing with the subjective experience, which sexism is so clearly intertwined with.</comment>


Let's make static sites dynamic again –.sorta (With NextJS "preview-mode") - <AUTHOR> https://www.johalloran.dev/blog/nextjs-preview-mode <comment><USER2> This made me laugh, so I had to share -- when I go to that site, I get a page reading "An unexpected error has occurred."

I never get that from static sites.

<comment><AUTHOR> johalloran.dev? or tinacms.org? both are completely static! But tinacms.org can switch to SSR in edit-mode.

<comment><USER2> This link: [https://www.johalloran.dev/blog/nextjs-preview- mode](https://www.johalloran.dev/blog/nextjs-preview-mode)

It flashes the real content briefly, then immediately goes to a white screen with that error message centered on it.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Stricter Submission Guidelines?  - <AUTHOR> It seems like websites create accounts that then just keep posting their content (mostly kinda unrelated to what HN is about anyway, just to get some clicks). I am not trying to pick on anyone in particular at all, but here are some examples -
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=WealthyGorilla -> account created 1 day ago, posted 9 links (all very thin content, IMHO) all from the same website.
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=ventureblend -> account created 9 days ago, 6 links, all from same website (again, IMHO, thin content).
Is it possible to enforce stricter submission guidelines or am I completely imagining up a problem that doesn't exist? <comment><USER2> The other users who have replied to you have it right, but I'll add that in case of spam we go much further and start banning things. The line between "spam" and "thin content" isn't precisely defined, of course.

Some but not all of this is automated. We're working on automating more of it.

All: when you notice stuff like this, hn@ycombinator is your friend. We always look into it closely, if not immediately, and we will always get back to you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this information. Sorry I didn't know about hn@ycombinator, otherwise would have just emailed them. In any case, I hope at least one other person learned something new today!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sites that do that eventually get their submission privileges revoked. (i.e. all submissions are autokilled, respective of the destination url)

If you have showdead on, here's a blatant example: [https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=TheSurge](https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=TheSurge)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah thanks, that's what I wanted to know. It's nice to know there's a procedure for this, and I hope the workaround isn't too straightforward for anyone looking to abuse the system.

Do you know if the submission privilege revoking is done automatically or by a moderator?

<comment><USER4> Generally, when you see abuse on HN, the right thing to do is send an email to email@example.com rather than post it publicly.

I've recently been trying to work out simple but useful heuristics to just detect this kind of abuse without creating too much load. Since I don't have access to all of the data, it's mostly been observation and keeping notes.

Automating just detection of the most obvious abuses is feasible and fairly straight forward, but automating action is somewhere between difficult and nigh impossible.

The reason is simple; there are many great HN users who will regularly submit links to their own work, like blog posts. In fact, a few of the folks on the HN leader board [1] will share their own work fairly regularly (ColinWright, DanielBMarkham, jgrahamc, ..., and in years long past, also patio11, jacquesm, ...). Of course, when they submit their own stuff, it's usually really interesting, and they also submit other interesting stuff from other sites (not their own).

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders](https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Somewhat related... When making new submissions I use your search feature to check if somebody already submitted the same (and often find it is the case...). Could this be automated by warning users on the submit page after the enter the link into the text field?

It's kind of painful to do the search then sort by date manually. IMHO it is a simple way to avoid duplicates...

<comment><USER6> When you submit a site, HN should show you a list of the closest matches to that submission as a preview and give you the opportunity to just reply to one of the existing threads. Although for this to work, I think Hacker News' URL matching might have to be a bit stronger, and maybe include something like metadata collection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It would be nice to limit the number of JavaScript-related posts per day as well.

<comment><USER8> How is that a problem? OP was complaining about user promoting their own websites constantly.

Or is it that you're uninterested in JS-related posts?

I personally don't like anything Apple-related; be it WWDC, new products, changes in pricing or policies, daringfireball (especially), or even an app some enterprising fellow happen to release to the App Store.

My trick is to simply ignore the lot of them and move on to the next link. If you feel the front page is dominated by stuff you don't find interested, make sure you check out the new queue and vote in the things you are interested in.</comment></comment>


A Brief History of Drowning - <AUTHOR> https://psmag.com/a-brief-history-of-drowning-3ddf5836ea87 <comment><USER2> _> We were born to run on the savannah, not swim in the ocean, and to have done anything but run would have been to misallocate precious energy resources._

And yet the littoral zone and the shallows of lakes and coastal waters are very rich with protein and nutrient rich food, which easily provide a significant multiple of the energy used to procure them. And there are shell middens in places like Australia that go back tens of thousands of years that show that humans were fully cognisant of, and able to exploit these rich food resources. Not to mention that modern humans have a marked propensity for living near water bodies and just generally hanging out on beaches (where you see nearly no other large animal life that isn't aquatic).

Finally, that photo at the top of the article is quite weird. I don't think drowning women are terribly preoccupied with modestly preventing their dresses from floating up.</comment>


Oracle v. Google - A judge grounded in the real world - <AUTHOR> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110526082246873

<comment><USER2> This order represents a good kick in the rear to the parties.

Judge Alsup had suggested that Oracle cuts its claims from 142 to 3. Plainly, though, the law gives him no authority to force Oracle to do this (or to force Google to cut back its claims either).

What does he do? Well, he arm twists.

This order says to Oracle, in effect, "you want a quick trial, cut your claims back radically and keep it focused on the most serious of your claims; if you insist on your theoretical right to try everything that is legally cognizable, that is your right and I can't prevent that - _but_ , in that case, I just _might_ grant Google's motion to stay this entire case while it gets to take several years before the USPTO hacking away at your claims in re-examination proceedings."

The message to Oracle in particular: trim your case back radically and you get the carrot (a quick and expeditious trial focused on the most serious claims only); else, you just might get the stick (years of delay in getting your trial as your case gets progressively cut back in a side proceeding). This is a great illustration of how a strong judge keeps his docket under strict control. Oracle will not miss the message.

<comment><USER3> That's one amazing judge.

I wonder how Oracle will fight this? I can't imagine that they'll just meekly accept this.

<comment><USER4> Well, if the case hangs around for years, so does the uncertainty about Android's IP bona fide. What happens to the ecosystem if Oracle wins 5 years later? It's the judicial equivalent of FUD.

<comment><USER5> Somehow I don't think the uncertainty around this case is keeping too many people up at night.

If Google lose they will be forced to pay damages and license the infringing patents. But Google has plenty of money for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems terrible. Regardless of what I think of patents, if I ever need the legal system I don't want to only get as much justice as a judge thinks a jury has time for.

<comment><USER5> That's only one of the options available to Oracle. Oracle can trim the case to a size that is manageable, or can wait for the USPTO to reexamine the claims and perhaps trim it for them.

<comment><USER6> That's basically the definition of coercion (wikipedia says "forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, rewards, ..."). It doesn't strike me as justice.

<comment><USER5> Never said it wasn't coercion. But it seems to me that Oracle is attempting to coerce the court into behaving in a way that may be detrimental to its ability to provide justice for others. So there's coercion all around.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Looking for COBOL or EDI work - <AUTHOR> Hi, I'M a 60 year old COBOL/CICS programmer.  I coded for about 23 years.  I also taught myself the EDI x12 language & used it for the last 7 years of my career. I left the field in 2002. My question is this:  I worked a parttime bookkeeping job while my son was at home.  He started college in the fall 2017.  I would love to get back into the programming world & am not sure where to begin.   I know it would be a short matter of time until I got the rust out, but I know I can still write code.   I welcome any suggestions.  I live in the Philadelphia area. <comment><USER2> You might build on your EDI x12 experience. That protocol is not dominant but B2B e-commerce (say your doctor and insurance co) is a huge field -- there are many other protocols, but to attain the same ends they solve the same problems, sometimes in different ways.

Philly has banking, insurance, business headquarters, pharma, etc. There certainly are COBOL programmers your age in your town, your best bet could be to find one and look at where they are employed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi, I am 61, learned Cobol at college then forgot it. But I still think it is an interesting language. Here is my take:

* First try to learn a bit about different flavors of Cobol and incompatibilities to be able to discuss with potential employers.

* Then the obvious thing is work as a freelancer, but I am not optimistic for a Cobol coder.

* Try to mine Linkedin for head of IT in large companies. I am sure there are lot of people that have worries about code bases that nobody understand anymore.

* Charge a lot more than a Java coder. It will impress people, they may even expect it.

Good luck!

<comment><USER3> Another point: I know by first hand that large companies would prefer dealing with a small business than with a freelancer.</comment></comment>


Please Replace Credit Cards - <AUTHOR> http://seanmonstar.com/post/81400378235/please-replace-credit-cards

<comment><USER2> I have a better solution: keep everything exactly as it is now, but have credit card companies accept that the system is _slightly_ susceptible to fraud, and consequently have them take the hit if your card gets stolen. The customer (people who buy things and merchants who take cards) shouldn't ever lose out if they're victims of a crime.

Currently credit card companies charge (some) users to have a card, charge all merchants a fee and a percentage, and take none of the risk. That's the thing that ought to change.

<comment><USER3> They do take the hit. Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, your responsibility for unauthorized charges is $50, and if you report it before any unauthorized charges are made, then it's $0.

<comment><USER2> Things are not the same here in the UK. Since we got chip and pin cards the onus is on the cardholder - it is assumed that you didn't keep your pin secure.

<comment><AUTHOR> And what about online shopping, where you just typed in your card number into a site?

<comment><USER2> There an "online pin" system called 3DSecure (also known as Verified By Visa) that uses a system of tokens passed by JavaScript to present the user with a form that's held on their bank's servers. Implementing it is optional for the merchant, but if they choose not to then they're accountable for any fraud. If they do then liability is passed to the customer.

It's all very favourable to the credit card companies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Coursera / Stanford PGM Class is Open - <AUTHOR> https://www.coursera.org/pgm/auth/welcome

<comment><USER2> Game Theory class too: <http://www.game-theory-class.org/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, i watched the first video batch and think it's the best online course so far. Very in-depth, but at the same time incredibly well chosen examples. Initially I was sceptical because the videos seem to be taped lectures rather than the type of screencast I know from mlclass and aiclass, but it's really well done.

There is a notable difference of course between courses like PGM and ML, which go pretty much into details of actual things, while others like AI or crypto will probably naturally stay a bit at the surface, as they are more intended to give an overview. I think they shouldn't be compared therefore. I think the robotics class is a bit behind of it's possibilities compared to PGM or ML, considering that this is definitely not an overview anymore.

</comment><comment><USER4> PGM-class looks pretty hardcore. Well done Prof. Koller & Coursera team. Glad that Coursera and MITx are not watering down the material for any of their online courses.

<comment><USER5> This has been my main complaint with the Autonomous Vehicles class ran by Udacity I've done thus far. I don't think 30 minutes of video lecture per week can cover close to what an actual college class can. I ended up having to read ~2 hours on Kalman filters after completing the homework to get to a point where I actually felt like I understood the topic as well as I would in an actual class.

<comment><USER4> Exactly, Udacity courses have around 50 minutes of lectures per week and 6 weeks of lectures. In total just 5 hours of lectures for the whole duration of the course. I don't believe anything substantial can be taught in such a short duration. On the other hand, most of MITx, and Coursera courses run for 10-14 weeks with 2-3hrs of lectures per week with additional assigned readings for some courses.

I personally had pretty bad experience with Udacity's AI-class last year, IMHO their teaching material is mediocre at best. I don't plan to waste any of my time on their classes specially when there are so many other better options available.

<comment><USER6> While I agree with everything you said, I kind of liked the AI-class because it was so short and superficial. I felt it gave me a very high level overview of field without taking up too much of my time.

So while the Coursera courses are better in the sense that they cover the material in much more detail and require that you understand the material much better to do the assignments, they end up being much harder for me to squeeze into my already hectic schedule. So in the end I think there is space for both approaches.

<comment><USER4> That is precisely why udacity courses are gaining popularity. They give you a false sense of accomplishment when actually the learning is very superficial.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, but there is nothing inherently wrong with superficial knowledge (as long you realize it is superficial). Before the AI-course I knew absolutely nothing about the field, now I know enough to start matching problem domains to techniques. Obviously I learnt nothing useful about how to actually implement those techniques, but at least I know what words to start googling for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The CMU PGM course has slides and 'scribe notes' of each lecture if you find something from the Coursera modules confusing:

<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~epxing/Class/10708/lecture.html>

(note the navigation bar doesn't load properly in chrome)

</comment><comment><USER8> The last few weeks I have been reading the first few chapters of the optional text book to get ready for the class - it all looks good, except that the programming assignments are done in Matlab or Octave. I read over the first assignment, and it will be a stretch to "love" Octave.

The course material looks awesome.

<comment><USER9> Re Matlab/ Octave:

I am an R to Octave convert. R has some great stuff, especially multi-type tables and a decent OO system for packaging complex analyses, but .... Octave rocks R when you have to come up with complex matrix oriented algorithms -- much, much more straightforward.

Also -- cell arrays are funky and necessary for string manipulation. I suggest not dwelling on their weirdness -- you may grow to like them.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the encouragement. I have spent a few hours learning Octave this afternoon, and indeed the matrix operation support is nice.</comment></comment></comment>


Nouriel Roubini: Don't Believe The Optimists - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/depression-recession-green-shoots-housing-jobs-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini_print.html

<comment><USER2> This is dated May 21, 2009.

Is this here because it was prescient and we're seeing exactly what was described in the article? Or is it here to show how wrong this guy was?

These aren't smart-mouthed internet questions. I really don't know where we stand now compared to this guy's prognostications of doom.

Any ideas?

<comment><USER3> The article was and still is mostly right:

[http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_i...](http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14258893)

U shaped recovery still seems more likely.

<comment><USER4> The article is right for the same reason that horoscopes seem right, because it doesn't really say anything. To my knowledge, nobody intelligent was seriously suggesting that a sharp recovery was likely. His article then discounts that relatively absurd possibility and then states his belief that the market will either be U-shaped, flat, or decline with a double-dip recession.

Given that at that point a serious depression was pretty much ruled out as well, he basically said that all possible responses were, in his opinion, possible... and then people read it and thought "wow, that horoscope was totally correct."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A more sober article than the title might suggest, but let's not fall so in love with our problems that become apathetic about pursuing solutions. There's nothing actionable here, even for the cautious.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think reality is somewhere in between "V-shaped recovery" and his predictions of misery until the end of 2011.

<comment><USER3> He doesn't really predict "misery until the end of 2011", you can have a growing GDP and a rise of unemployment at the same time.

Unemployment is well known lagging indicator. Its rise until at least 2010 is something widely accepted by governments and economists.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Clj-kondo, a linter for Clojure code that sparks joy - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/borkdude/clj-kondo <comment><AUTHOR> This linter, written in Clojure, has fast startup time (milliseconds). This makes it suited for hooking up with your editor for getting fast feedback. It's compiled with GraalVM to a native binary.

It has seen steadily growing adoption since its inception. A list of companies that are using the linter: [https://github.com/borkdude/clj- kondo/issues/438](https://github.com/borkdude/clj-kondo/issues/438)

A presentation about clj-kondo at ClojuTRE: [https://youtu.be/MB3vVREkI7s](https://youtu.be/MB3vVREkI7s)

The main inspiration for clj-kondo comes from joker, a Clojure linter and scripting environment written in Go.</comment>


Tesla filing shows U.S. sales tumbled 39% in third quarter - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results/tesla-filing-shows-u-s-sales-tumbled-39-in-third-quarter-idUSKBN1X81NM <comment><USER2> There is a lot more competition in the EV space. 2020 promises a lot more.

</comment><comment><USER3> With rising Chinese sales makes you wonder if the trade war isn't doing more damage to the us than China. If it was about more competition that should also hurt overseas sales.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yesterday:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21391509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21391509) (49 points, 51 comments)</comment>