Ask HN: Why should my company use source control? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
I'm a programmer at a big company. Prior to working here, I have worked at several other organizations who all used Git as a version control system. As a result, I am very well versed in how to use git.
However, my department does not use version control at all. They simply do not see a need for it. So far, most of my reasons for using source control have been discarded due to another tool already doing that thing. For example:
* Git is a backup of your source code. If your code is on the server, and you lose your laptop, you're still relatively OK.
* Rebuttal: We store code on a network share, which is backed up automatically every night.
* Git allows people to easily collaborate on the same project (branches, pull requests, merges).
* Rebuttal: We rarely have multiple people working on the same system at the same time - the benefits will be negligible, and only add complexity to our daily work (this is true, work here is very silo'd).
* Git allows you to store a version history so you can see what changed and why.
* Rebuttal: We don't care for the past: we only care about the current state and what it's not doing correctly (or needs to do / enhancement).
So, HN, my question to you is: what other benefits of Git / source control exist that I can bring to management to hopefully swing our team into using it daily? <comment><USER2> Reading the post title, I think my brain hit a segfault.

I sometimes want to undo an hour of work. Git to the rescue.

I sometimes want to compare code now to code then. Git the the rescue.

Sometimes, I have to undo days of work. Git to the rescue.

Sometimes a really good git commit will help me understand why something changed (though, I contend this should be documented in the code with comments). Links to tickets, other files that were changed at the same time, etc. Git to the rescue.

I _want_ code reviews. It is how we learn from each other and get better. Git to the rescue.

I run automated tests against my code to make sure it works the way I want. Multiple layers. Especially at the black box layer (ie, does it do what the customer wants). Sometimes my new code breaks tests and I want to easily switch between the known stable version and my broken version as I fix my version. Git to the rescue.

Sometimes I want to share my code to help a colleague learn. Online source code viewer to the rescue! (cough, Github, cough). To leverage Github? Git to the rescue.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just get another job. Life is short and ain't nobody got time for this in 2020.

<comment><USER4> Yes, if you're in the position to find a job elsewhere, do it. This is an uphill battle that you don't need to fight. And there's no guarantee that you would win -- reason is of no use here. The most perfectly-constructed rebuttal will not be effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Daily backups help nothing if you accidentally delete a file you wrote today. It's far too slow.

Being able to review code by a coworker before it is merged into master is also a big one, as well as having different versions around for currently in use, currently being tested, currently being developed and so on.

But they sound like they have already made up their mind, and you will build negative work experience in your time there...

Anyway you can still use Git locally I guess.

</comment><comment><USER6> First let me say HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now that I have that out of the way...

don't sell them on version control, they obviously don't care. Sell them on oversite in project management tools that are coupled with the code versioning system. Then bate n' switch them.

</comment><comment><USER7> Yikes. The snarky answer: find a better place to work.

I mean... people have been using version control for decades. It's not controversial.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well tbh this is a really great place to work at and I really enjoy it. I just want to make some progress on the tech tools front. There's a lot of other really good things going on at this org, so I don't think this will be a hill I'm willing to die on.

<comment><USER8> Instead of preaching source control, why not try framing the problem you perceive as risks that others can empathize with. If you can't, then perhaps it's not truely needed in that workplace.

<comment><USER3> Where are you coming from here? You're all over this thread hating on DVCS. Did version control kill your dad or something?

Why _wouldn 't_ you use version control?

<comment><USER9> yes why would one _not_ use version control??, sounds like dogma to me (a bit little being anti-vaccine IMHO..).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Imagine if instead of having to go ask the author why they made a certain change to the code, or look it up in documentation, every developer on the team already knows the reason behind every change made to the system, and this is true going forward even if the entire team is replaced.

<comment><USER8> GIT does not make good commit comments. That's a practice that can happen without git.

<comment><USER10> The author's co-workers are objecting to using any version control at all. Here I am thinking, they must be database admins ;).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would push on the version history, having a history lets you understand decisions and codepaths that lead to it not working correctly. This is invaluable, and if anything breaks majorly: you can roll back.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yikes. I have had the misfortune of working in places where explaining the benefits of basic technologies lands on deaf ears. This happens a lot with regard to infosec (requiring 2FA, enforcing password manager use).

Quite honestly just do your best to move the company forward. There's really very little reason to not use best practice approaches, especially when doing so costs nothing other trekking the learning curve.

If you get too much resistance, find a better place to work.

If you are a dev, you don't want to be working anywhere that is failing to follow the most basic best practices.

<comment><USER8> You didn't offer a single compelling reason to use source control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Git allows people to easily collaborate on the same project

> Rebuttal: We rarely have multiple people working on the same system at the > same time - the benefits will be negligible, and only add complexity to our > daily work (this is true, work here is very silo'd).

Working for long stretches in this kind of culture is likely to stunt your personal growth. You can learn more in 6 months of direct collaboration with someone who really cares about development, than in 5 years at a silo'd place with little to no collaboration.

</comment><comment><USER14> Their last rebuttal is the problem. You could easily counter the others.

First rebuttal:

> We store code on a network share, which is backed up automatically every > night.

Git (and other version control systems) permit more frequent backups independent of policies established by the sysadmins.

Second rebuttal:

> We rarely have multiple people working on the same system at the same time - > the benefits will be negligible, and only add complexity to our daily work > (this is true, work here is very silo'd).

If most things are only touched by one person, then git (and most other version control systems) add negligible complexity. While not advisable, you could even have them work off of master (as they do now anyways). [This lets git be a gateway to process improvement. Once they see the fine-grained snapshots and realize they _could_ have people work on the same code at the same time, they may start using branches and other capabilities.]

That last one, though, indicates they don't actually care about anything. The past is not gone. Having these snapshots lets you do a _lot_ of useful things like _git bisect_. Or the ability to easily rollback to a known good state. If they really don't care about that, I'd run, not walk, to the nearest exit.

</comment><comment><USER15> Note that even if the _company_ doesn't use version control, you probably can do so _yourself_ (e.g., with a personal git repo) and get a lot of personal benefits. I've done this at a few shitty jobs.

Believe it or not, it's better for you that there is no version control than that they force a bad one. (Looking at you, Perforce.)

</comment><comment><USER16> What do your colleagues think? Or is every engineer in this big company also incompetent in addition to your management?

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually management has been supportive about using newer technologies. We have a BitBucket server and it's updated regularly.

The general consensus from colleagues is that it's complex and is overkill for the type of development this department does. Many of the benefits I cite are already being met by other systems, so they don't see why they should bother switching to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If there was flooding and all the hard drives failed would you lose all the code? I've heard multiple times about game studios suffering a flooding and losing lots of code.

Version control has lots of uses, it helps you branch out and test new ideas, it saves your code from local doomsday scenarios at the office. Helps you to ask the correct developer what the code is supposed to do due to version commit history.

You can always keep your own local git repo. A coworker had a git repo inside an SVN repo, just add each version controls contents to a git / svn ignore file.

<comment><USER8> Offsite backups should be in place for this scenario. It's also extremely rare, and any place not aware of this threat is probably failing in other areas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> ...I honestly kind of agree with your department regarding points 1 and 2. If programmers never collaborate, and they have a backup system in place, then you don't need git for those things.

But point 3 is a super big one, so I'd focus on that. Is there _really_ know time when your company took something out that they realized they wanted later? There's never been a regression they had to roll back? Really?

If not, you might tell them that it's helpful to you as a programmer to be able to refer to how something was done previously.

<comment><USER19> I disagree in that it sounds like the OP's organization is staffing to the limitations of their technology. It reminds me of working in subversion where people would never collaborate for fear of commit collisions. This super bad from a knowledge perspective in that people don't cross train and instead become reclusive experts that they use to justify their existence and continued value.

For me, personally, the biggest win of git is ease of branching allowing for rapid and easily disposable experimentation in the source code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a ridiculous question. If your current state doesn't work, then of course you want to go back to the last state available that works. Git gives you more control over this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right so (I think this is silly but this is how colleauges have been doing it for years) if a change to a production system is required, first people back up whatever artifacts are being changed to a folder on their computer or a network share. Think like stored procedures, report definitions, SSIS jobs, whatever the thing is. That all goes in a BACKUP folder, then you make your change, test it, then put it in prod. Then you hang on to that backup folder for 1 day to a month, depending on how often you clean house.

I think this is silly, of course. But the reality is this org doesn't have very many changes to production that go wrong, so maintaining a version history seems like added overhead to every change.

<comment><USER20> It's not even a lot of overhead though. They just make a feature branch, have that PR'd back into the master on github. That's it. Like 3 mins of work every medium feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you have a breaking change in a new version of the code with lots of changes, or don't discover the break until several revisions later, git can help find the responsible code with git bisect.

The idea is to manage and track change to your code base so that you can answer questions about the code base efficiently when there are problems.

</comment><comment><USER22> Tell them that you overwrote several hundred lines of code by mistake and now there is no way to get to the previous version. Do they have a backup for that previous instance ? If not, they have the answer.

<comment><USER23> If there is a piece of code that is uncovered by a backup, it's likely pretty new. For git to help you, you'd need to have committed that code at least once.

<comment><USER5> Yes, of course. But it's normal to commit many times per day, it takes hardly any time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you are otherwise happy with the job I'd say just let it go. You don't need to fight anyone or convince them.

</comment><comment><USER25> > _we only care about the current state and what it 's not doing correctly_

That's just too ignorant for words.

You're trying to teach bush people to boil water to kill germs.

</comment><comment><USER26> what about code review? And if the answer is that everyone at the company is a rock star and doesn't ever need code review, then I'll be at a loss of words.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually this is a great point and something we want to improve on. Code review / pull requests would be a great talking point. I'll be sure to bring it up.

<comment><USER26> Every single line of code at my company is subject to a peer reviewed pull request and isn't accepted unless at least 3 people approve it.

<comment><USER27> That seems wrong, but on the totally opposite end of the spectrum. 3 people seems like huge overkill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> You can use git locally to get some of the benefits for yourself. No one even has to know. Distributed git FTW.

</comment><comment><USER29> [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bisect](https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bisect)

</comment><comment><USER30> y, it's tough changing 'the way we've always done it'

I would just use git/github locally for what you work on, then you can enjoy the benefits.

Perhaps at some point they will need to see what something looked like 6 months ago and you can WOW them with the magic of GIT.

Good luck, it's tough trying to change culture.

</comment><comment><USER31> Which industry is this? Make a security / compliance case that mid-management cannot overlook.

<comment><AUTHOR> Education.

That's what I was hoping to build here - a list of reasons why git is a better tool we should take advantage of. However, the business reason for many of git's benefits are already being met. For example, all source code must be backed up. That's already being done, just not through git.

Are there other security / compliance requirements that I should consider?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How do you safely rollback changes?

<comment><AUTHOR> Make a copy of system artifacts and store it in a folder called backup on a network share. If things do go wrong just copy the backup folder artifacts to production. May need to also write some data cleanup scripts if data was altered or columns added and so forth.

<comment><USER8> Is there a possibility you just like GIT because you have skills in it? Totally ok to be that way, you're probably productive with it, but are you sure there won't be a non trivial learning curve for others?

<comment><USER33> to be fair, if you don't know any version control, and aren't willing to learn it (in 2020 of all things!) then why the ever-living christ should anyone put up with that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> branches. code review. obvi you can do both without SCM but boy does it help

</comment><comment><USER35> Here's an (extremely) short but useful explanation of 'why': [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/azure/devops/learn/git/what...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/azure/devops/learn/git/what-is-version-control)

TL;DR: source control is about so much more than 'backing up'.</comment>


Mathematicians find 'magic key' to drive Ramanujan's taxi-cab number - <AUTHOR> http://esciencecommons.blogspot.ca/2015/10/mathematicians-find-magic-key-to-drive.html <comment><USER2> Ramanujan was a genius, but he didn't just factor 1729 on the spot in the hospital bed. According to Wikipedia, he'd already known about it a few years before, so it was just coincidence that Hardy happened to present a number he already knew about, although to be honest, he probably knew interesting facts about most numbers below 1 million or so.

<comment><USER3> when you think about these sorts of things you come across many interesting numbers that posit unique problems to your theories

when you are looking to develop a theory you can sometimes look to markers for guidance

markers like: first, smallest, largest known, outliers;

ramanujan's language:

        the smallest number expressible as a sum of two cubes
        in two different ways.

certainly implies he once asked himself.. what is the smallest number i can express as the sum of two cubes in only two different ways

and its place as the smallest, with postive cubes, means it is elementary and essential to a number of extended applications that use products,cubes and sums

i wish the story went on to have ramanujan explain what he was seeking to uncover by examining which number could be the smallest expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways..

to what end was he using the two different ways, controlled in their only being two, to examine properties of sums of cubes

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whenever I need an arbitrary const int I use 1729. I've left a trail of 1729s in the codebases I've touched over the years, and I like the thought of other hackers recognising the number when they have to fix the bugs I've left behind.

<comment><USER5> Can I borrow your debit card for a minute?

<comment><USER4> LOL! No - 1729 is not my PIN ;)

<comment><USER6> Well... You have just been tricked into reducing the guessing space by 1/10000 !

<comment><USER7> or has he...? (SCNR)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ramanujan was an extraordinary mathematician who was able to intuit (and then prove) many really surprising formulas. I have no idea how a movie is going to work since most of these results are far too heavy for a movie screen and without it how can you understand the man ?

<comment><USER9> Ramanujan had such an extraordinary life that you don't even need to tell anything about mathematics to make it interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So, what's the deal with K3 surfaces?

<comment><USER11> They are improved K2 surfaces with less glare and more hype

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Url changed from [http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mathematicians-magic-key- ramanu...](http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mathematicians-magic-key-ramanujan- taxi-cab.html), which copies this without linking to it.

<comment><USER13> Out of curiosity, how did you know that the original URL copied the article from the current URL?

<comment><USER14> Just look at the other articles on that blog. Google the title and you'll know that he is copying from various reputed science news websites and journals. For example "Fungi at root of plant drugs that can help, or harm, sick monarch butterflies" is an article published in this blog as well as [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/ehs- far100815...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/ehs- far100815.php) . Unless the author of the blog can prove that he is a central source of information for all these sites, there is no doubt that he is blatantly plagiarizing.

<comment><USER15> I think you should read their About page[0]... they are partners of Emory University. Or so they say[1]...

[0] [http://phys.org/help/about-us/](http://phys.org/help/about-us/) [1] [http://phys.org/partners/emory-university/](http://phys.org/partners/emory- university/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What do you guys think about Dartlang? - <AUTHOR>

Dartlang had a rough start, but during its new update during the summer, it opened my eyes, and apparently MANY others as well according to http://www.i-programmer.info/news/98-languages/7857-the-astonishing-rise-of-dart.html
it also broke into the top 20 languages of 2014 in this source: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html So what do you guys think of Dart? Im hoping mainly to use it for server-side scripting and rewrite some of my nodejs apps in Dart. <comment><USER2> I am a 20+ year senior architect with a passion for anything that brings productivity to the area of application development and Dart ranks extremely high on the scale of both client and server side web application development. I have 14 years of .NET development experience and came to love C# and all the large eco-system that was developed to support implementation of any web application came to need. Thing was that when I adopted Silverlight I was spoiled with the richness of RIA based applications but as time rolled on it became very clear that JavaScript won the web war and so I researched many years to conclude that Dart has most of what I had and is a great place to camp out for a while, contribute to the every growing developer community and such. As for what it lacks, I'd agree with most other comments so far however I also feel that all concerns will be addressed especially the JS INTEROP concerns. One of my main concerns is that of resultant script size. I think (but I am not 100% sure) that the advent of lazy-loading support for Dart should mitigate some of these concerns along with continued updates from the Dart team. Otherwise, if you have not tried Dart, and you are a skilled Java or .NET developer, then you may want to test drive it as you will pick it up in an evening, and if your anything like me, you will never want to leave it!

</comment><comment><USER3> I evaluated Node, intrigued by the idea of event-driven, non-blocking client and server side code written in one language, but I found it to be a wild ecosystem with dozens of frameworks and not enough support and guidance for them.

I found Dart with its promise to bring some structure and sanity to that approach, including building a language from the ground up to do away with JS's quirks, and it has delivered. I built [http://woven.co](http://woven.co) with Dart and Polymer.

The biggest pain is when you'd like to use a JS lib that isn't wrapped for Dart yet. They're hard at work to make it much easier to interoperate. They're a kick ass team, great docs, first class support in WebStorm, and its future seems bright. There are issues with Polymer like SEO that are inherent in any SPA really, but there are experiments with React-like Virtual DOM diffing and others too.

On the server, the dart:io is powerful and Shelf looks like an awesome set of abstractions for http servers and more that I hope to play with soon.

Dart is treated with heavy skepticism I think often unduly, but judge it for yourself and I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

<comment><USER4> Would you like to see it replace JS? I think many would argue something should before we train an entire generation in the idiosyncrasies of JS.

<comment><USER5> I would love to see this happen; but I'm just not convinced it will. I just don't see MS/FF ever choosing to build/maintain a Dart VM for their browsers (even though I think it would be a massive step forward for web dev).

(Google should've spec'd a generic VM together with MS+Mozilla and built Dart on top of it; but that ship has sailed!)

<comment><USER3> I don't think anyone's banking on Dart unseating JS, and it doesn't need to. It compiles to JS to work across modern web browsers while smoothing a fair deal for you in the way of optimizations and cross-browser issues. But that's saying nothing of the real reason folks choose Dart, or JS or any transcompiler or framework for that matter: the ways in which it may benefit you and your projects, relative to your other choices.

In Dart's case relative to JS, I think the language is more sane, debugging easier, the core libraries really powerful, the tooling more uniform, and the ecosystem more organized. I like the idea of one language on client and server, and yet the way it's done in JS-land with Node feels wilder and less approachable than I liked when I researched it some years back. That's just me, and admittedly I don't have all that much experience in the world of JS before I dove into Dart.

There are some tradeoffs of course, the biggest being that you sort of block yourself off from a world of JS libraries and even community to some extent. There's dart:js interop to wrap any JS library, and work being done to make that even easier with js:interop, but I think there'll always be some disconnect. Still, it's about costs versus benefits, and there are many benefits that I think ultimately outweigh the costs.

The point is there are a whole host of reasons to choose Dart, and I think it's foolish for any one of those reasons to be because you think it'll unseat JS. It won't, but there might be merit to it unseating JS in your own workflow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think Dart client side development cycle is unmatched. Develop fast with Dart VM and Dartium Browser and deploy as JavaScript anywhere. Kind of a better GWT.

Language is good. Also they provide a lot of tools. Package manager, nice SDK, Profiler, Debugger, Code Analyzer, Formatter, Tree-Shaker and several editors. VM speed is close to JVM.. Dart is a very good server language as well. they provide nice command line support. You need to give a try and see to decide.

But there are places language and tools has not yet matured and community adaptation is still weak.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use it and love it. I mainly use it for frontend stuff to replace most of the javascript. Writing code in Dart is easy, fun and PREDICTABLE.

It also force me to write frontend code in a more engineered way because that's how it works, which benefits myself down the road for the millions of times I revisit and update the code.

My only problem for Dart is that its doc is not complete and dart:js is lacking comprehensive example for complex library.

But all in all I enjoy Dart a lot for my frontend development.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice, nice, Im a 15 year old web designer that started working on node 2 weeks ago, but then I was introduced to Dart and it really intrigued me. I have basic knowledge of JS and Im taking an AP Java class in school, so its a win/win for me xP

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm developing with Dart full-time since about 1 1/2 years and I'm just glad that I don't have to use JS anymore. JS has still more libs ready to use but the quantity and quality of the packages available for Dart are raising fast. I enjoy that I can use the same language client- and server-side and share a lot of code. Upcoming features will make Dart even more appealing (Appengine support, DartVM in Chrome, async/await, ...) The Dart team is always busy improving the ecosystem :-)

<comment><USER9> Is DartVM in Chrome confirmed? I keep hearing it will happen, but haven't seen anything official.

<comment><USER5> I recently heard someone (Gilad?) say that it's still not "a done deal", but they're confident it will be agreed. Can't come soon enough for me; will make convincing others that Dart is here to stay much easier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The fun factor in Dart is super high. It's just a joyful experience with great tools.

And no need for a "Dart: the good parts" book. It's all good :-)

</comment><comment><USER5> We're not using Dart commercially currently; though we are prototyping in it as a candidate for vNext of some very large applications. To me, it seems incredibly promising. Every time I have to go back and write JS in our production apps; I seriously miss the static analysis Dart does; it's so clunky to find trivial errors at runtime in a browser that the editor should've been able to show you!

However; there are some frustrating holes in it though that have made our prototyping tricky; such as:

Serialisation; not even JSON support. Alan Knight is working on a Serialisation library; but even that is frustrating to use (it doesn't support DateTimes at all well for ex), so I'm generating having to generate serialisation code from C#.

No private pub server. If you want to host Dart packages internal to your company locally; you're out of luck. Although the source for pub.dartlang.org is open; it's written to only work on AppEngine; which kinda sucks.

We're also slightly nervous that the Dart VM _still_ isn't in Chrome. I don't know what's taking so long, but this would seriously help convince others that Google is really invested in Dart.

<comment><USER11> > No private pub server. If you want to host Dart packages internal to your > company locally; you're out of luck.

You can store packages on a private git server, see the pubspec.yaml docs here:

[https://www.dartlang.org/tools/pub/dependencies.html#git- pac...](https://www.dartlang.org/tools/pub/dependencies.html#git-packages)

It is also possible to run your own private pub server. But currently the only available implementation relies on AppEngine. According to the author it's possible to just implement the fetch protocol using static files served over HTTP. I.e. create some directories and put the json and tar.gz files in the correct places.

[https://www.dartlang.org/tools/pub/dependencies.html#hosted-...](https://www.dartlang.org/tools/pub/dependencies.html#hosted- packages)

[https://github.com/dart-lang/pub-dartlang/](https://github.com/dart-lang/pub- dartlang/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing that bothers me about Dart is that the Angular.js team decided to go with their own language AtScript, even though they were quite experienced with Dart in AngularDart.

Do they know something about the health of Dart that we don't?

<comment><USER12> They're planning to use AtScript to transpile to ES6 and Dart by extending the ES6 transpiler called Traceur (source: [https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/11YUzC-1d0V1...](https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/11YUzC-1d0V1-Q3V0fQ7KSit97HnZoKVygDxpWzEYW0U/edit)). The basic issue for Angular is they'd like to support users of ES5, ES6, and Dart with the same code base. That's currently a bit hard to do with a Dart code base (although a lot of us want to see that get better!)

disclaimer: I've worked on the Dart team and on the Traceur compiler in the past too. So I'm definitely not unbiased on these topics :)

<comment><USER3> John! And with the Dart team no longer? Where are you now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> You might be insterested in quire.io [1] team's article [2] about using dart to build a large application

[1] [http://quire.io](http://quire.io) [2] [http://simonpai.github.io/2014/09/03/quire-building-with- dar...](http://simonpai.github.io/2014/09/03/quire-building-with-dart/)

</comment><comment> os-store I like it,so great!from os-store</comment>


David Lynch on iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0

<comment><USER2> Umm. Are there actually people who watch movies on their iPhone?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Off-topic, but a little humor for us all.

<comment><USER3> I don't think he's joking. And for what it's worth, I agree with him. Watching a movie on an iPod is like listening to Mozart played on kazoos.

<comment><USER4> Why? An iPhone at ~0.5 meters from your eyes would take up around the same visual area as a full-size film projected all the way across the auditorium.

<comment><USER5> Film in combination with eyes creates an almost fractal viewing experience. You can look closely at portions of the screen and see greater detail. With an iphone, you get that meager resolution and that's it. I find myself pulling the thing ever closer until it may as well be a panorama but frustratingly, never seeing any more detail. The opposite actually, if I view it from anything but arms length, I become painfully aware of its deficiencies.

The rant was right on the money and funny as well.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to deal with an abusive co-worker? - <AUTHOR> Throwaway for obvious reasons.
In the last five months, a new engineer, we'll call them Jerry, joined the startup I work at in a critical position. We started out on great terms. However, recently incredibly high demands and time constraints were imposed, and combined with failure for the company to meet revenue goals, have created a very stressful place to work.
As part of my job, I have to make requests of Jerry. Randomly, the reply would be incredibly rude, and extremely unprofessional. Everything from swearing me out, to insisting that I only communicate with him indirectly via our boss, to Jerry threatening an immediate resignation if I persisted in making the request, despite it being a normal request.
Few days later, I would be given a curt apology, reassurance that this wouldn't happen again, and Jerry would ask me to forget all about the incident. Jerry would then treat me as if nothing had happened at all, and would back to being polite and professional. Later, the process would repeat itself.
I work with about 5 to 10 other engineers. It is only Jerry that treats me this way, and so far, it has only been towards me.
I am currently doing a significant amount of leadership work in this company, and as the company is simply too small, and Jerry's position too critical, to be able to avoid working with him. With the stresses of the job already so great, the additional of straight personal attacks to all of this has made my work output suffer and frankly makes me hate coming to work.
I've met and worked with all kinds of engineers, from the quiet to abrasive, but never have I worked with anyone who has ever treated like this, and I have no idea on how to handle this situation.
I'm currently on vacation, and have been debating with if I want to stay with the company at all because of this situation.
My boss already knows how Jerry acts and hasn't done anything. Please HN, help me decide what I should do about Jerry. <comment><USER2> > My boss already knows how Jerry acts and hasn't done anything.

If your boss knows how Jerry treats you (and that you're uncomfortable/unhappy about it) and he's unwilling to do _anything_ about it you might want to consider talking to your boss's boss. If neither is concerned with how Jerry treats his co-workers it might be time to update the resume.

<comment><AUTHOR>
      If neither is concerned with how Jerry treats his co-workers it might be time to update the resume.

Both are aware, and I've already spoken with them about it.

The response was, from my boss, that nothing can be done as if he leaves, it would set the, now struggling, company back months at least, and from my boss's boss (company is small, so they are both C level), that the problem will go away with the reduction of stress once there is eventually someone hired to help with Jerry's responsibilities.

I do not disagree with my boss, Jerry's position is critical and he's already doing the work meant for three. However, we've been hiring for that position for 8 months now, and we've had a net loss of employees there of 2. I also don't feel that an additional employee or more would solve the problem, as the position will always require some level of stress on Jerry.

You're right in that I should prepare for a job change, and I've already started, I'm just hoping there's something I can do or try, since it used to be an amazing company to work for, and with the exception of this major issue, otherwise still is.

<comment><USER3> I'm reminded of the statement from the Netflix culture slides circulating around the net (paraphrasing): a company's culture is evident in who gets promotions and praise, not what is in a values statement.

Your management is willing to ignore childish behavior because it helps their bottom line. The path is clear - decide if you want to work in an organization that exhibits those values. If not, move on.

<comment><USER4> If <two> c-level execs are fully aware of this and making excuses for it, you're facing a serious problem. They are either scared (ie, not confident) that their own positions are at stake (ie, BOD will fire them), or they are displaying their true selves in a way which is unflattering (to say the least). I agree with mode0, you have to make a decision and develop a strategy in light of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> First you have my condolences and sympathy. Many times I have been in that same position, coworker is a jerk, bully, harassing me, being abusive and violating company policy.

I really don't know what the right solution to that is, because every case I had they kept the abusive employee but fired me.

I was nice, professional, and asked the abusive employee to please stop that behavior as it had made me feel bad, and asked management to look into it when he or many others refused to treat me like a human being.

In 2001 the stress from that hostile environment was so much, I got stressed out and developed a mental illness and then went on short-term disability and as soon as I returned I was fired.

Ever since I could not hold a job, because if an employee noticed I was mentally ill, they would abuse me, and if I complained about it I would be fired.

Sadly most managers feel that the employee who is picked on should be fired just because they are complaining about other employees. In fact in some cases the abusive behavior is rewarded by promoting the abusive employee or giving them a pay raise and telling them in front of the other employees what a great job they are doing.

Sometimes this abusive behavior is done on purpose to get rid of a coworker they don't like, so they 'skirt' the rules and policies and do whatever it takes to make you quit or be fired. It is called office politics for a reason.

<comment><USER6> I second the idea that this is all deliberate in order to get rid of you; that was the first thing I thought of. It sounds like you've tried to handle the situation the right way and your boundaries keep getting stepped on. I myself have gotten snippy due to stress, but I certainly felt guilty and made an effort to double check my behavior. Either Jerry is immature or this is all deliberate. If the chain of command has been informed, yet do nothing, and you're easier to replace... then it sounds like they want you gone.

In any case, staying there out of some sense of loyalty is noble, but the world doesn't care about such things. Life is too short to work with people who treat you badly, no matter what the situation. Your stress is only going to keep increasing. Finding another job is a PITA, but as long as you go about it consciously, it shouldn't be too bad. I myself got forced out / forced to quit - my stress levels were deliberately ratcheted up, my emotions took over and I made bad decisions. That is how people get manipulated - keep putting them under stress till they make short sighted emotionally based decisions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You have been put into a very difficult situation (by other people). As you say, if things come to a head you will be the one forced to leave. Stress is not an excuse; OK maybe the odd outburst but not what you describe. Clearly, you are stuck in a cycle and I doubt the apology is sincere.

I like to think I am thick skinned, open minded and easy to get along with. No one is perfect though. I've never complained to a boss about eccentric or awkward coworkers. However, no company could ever pay me enough to be sworn at or threatened.

I was going to suggest to you that you switch to all communications via email as you mentioned but given that you have to work closely with him it's not really viable.

That leaves you 3 choices: 1. switch to another role where you don't have to deal with his shit. 2. get another job. 3. stand up to him, give it back to him 3x what he gives you. I'm guessing option 1 is unlikely in a startup, option 3 is only going to get your colleagues annoyed with you.

Anyway, polish that resume and next time he blows up tell him to get lost. If your managers are too weak to deal with the situation then you're better off out of there. A good manager would realise that Jerry is having a corrosive affect and for everything that he brings to the company, there is a cost.

</comment><comment><USER8> Sympathies, my dear hacker.

> _Few days later, I would be given a curt apology, reassurance that this > wouldn 't happen again, and Jerry would ask me to forget all about the > incident. Jerry would then treat me as if nothing had happened at all, and > would back to being polite and professional. Later, the process would repeat > itself._

This indicates he is aware of his poor behaviour, but it seems he hasn't given any reasons. You haven't stated whether you have talked to Jerry directly about this, if you haven't I suggest this would be a first step. Whether or not this is successful, analyse what his response was. It will give you a deeper idea of what kind of sociopath you are dealing with.

HNer grumps said below to _weigh the risks_. This is a very difficult problem that I have dealt with myself, so I would say from my experience to tread carefully. Before doing something, you need to second guess how other people will react, and prepare accordingly.

You mentioned that he makes over the top requests, such as indirect communication via your boss. One idea I would suggest is to bow down to all his requests, no matter how silly (unless it is dangerous or illegal). It sounds like your job is very fast paced and results are demanded on time. Eventually his behaviour will have an effect on the system, especially if he holds a critical position, and it will be noticed.

Shitty behaviour in the workplace seems to be a growing problem (I've seen several articles regarding this trend in the last year or so). Would anybody know of any forums or websites that deal with this? Has anyone come up with a hack to solve this problem?

<comment><AUTHOR> _> You haven't stated whether you have talked to Jerry directly about this, if you haven't I suggest this would be a first step._

The only time we've discussed these things is during the post-mortem/apology phase, and it has always been the same reason, stress. I could inquire about it after during a time when Jerry is more professional, I have not tried that.

 _> One idea I would suggest is to bow down to all his requests, no matter how silly_

I have considered this, but since I have learned attempts to resolve this on my own are at best futile or at worst provoke further attacks, I now immediately raise this to my boss's attention, who spends time to calm him down, and at the same time repeals the demands.

I honestly think right now, my best course of action is to prepare for interviews and spend some time lining up something to switch over to. If it happens again between then and now, that will just accelerate my plans.

<comment><USER8> > _... but since I have learned attempts to resolve this on my own are at best > futile or at worst provoke further attacks ..._

He sounds like a nutter, getting a new job sounds like a good idea.

I was just thinking, he said sorry, which I find surprising (although whether or not he is sincere is another matter). At my last job I never got an apology for bad behaviour. A young girl who I worked was fucking horrible, when I demanded an apology for her threatening to punch me in the face, she just denied it like a cunt.

<comment><AUTHOR> _> he said sorry_

Since every time there has been intervention by my boss prior to an apology, I have no idea if that was requested by my boss or not.

 _> I demanded an apology for her threatening to punch me in the face, she just denied it_

That's really depressing, it sucks that you had to deal with that. May I ask what the conclusion was? Did you end up changing jobs?

<comment><USER8> > _Since every time there has been intervention by my boss prior to an > apology, I have no idea if that was requested by my boss or not._

Now that is interesting, I'm guessing that your boss was responsible for those "sorries".

> _May I ask what the conclusion was? Did you end up changing jobs?_

The conclusion was I got into a lot of trouble for shouting at her, the 2IC was warning me that I could be put on an employment blacklist (he was lying through his teeth), and everyone else just believed her side of the story. I was released from that job a month later. The boss was almost an alcoholic, so I'm not surprised that it was a horror house. I was told that I was "hired by mistake", have you ever come across this situation?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > a new engineer, we'll call them Jerry, joined the startup I work at in a > critical position.

No matter if he's the CEO, he should not be an asshole with their team.

> recently incredibly high demands and time constraints were imposed, and > combined with failure for the company to meet revenue goals, have created a > very stressful place to work.

So stress comes from not being able to make money. If you are just doing what your boss says, Jerry should not make it personal.

> My boss already knows how Jerry acts and hasn't done anything.

He's responsible of solve this issues, if he's doing nothing, you should leave ASAP.

Please, drop me a line at my personal email (look at my profile), I'd love to help you find a new job.

</comment><comment><USER10> You are not in high school anymore, you don't need to accept the bullying of this guy. Tell him to act like adult, and tell your boss that he needs to follow proper HR practices and control this guy. Your sanity and peace of mind depends on a healthy work environment. If your boss can't control this guy tell him that you will seek legal advice on how to deal with this situation.

You boss will hear this and make sure things get under control. the last thing he needs is a lawsuit

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure anything illegal has occurred here? Or that I would have a case?

<comment><USER11> That's why you've been advised to talk to a lawyer. If you do that, your lawyer might start throwing around terms like "hostile work environment," and such, which will get attention, but not necessarily the kind of attention your're after. If you're not careful, you could end up fired (possibly illegally, but suing for this opens up another can of worms -- who wants to be the guy who sued his last employer?).

If you've gone all the way up the chain in management and nobody is willing or able to do anything for you, your only choice is to either suck it up or do something about it yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is simple, you can turn in your letter of resignation. While you do that, explain that the situation has just gotten out of hand. Thing is, a company can't just fire someone unless they have a reason to, if they feel they are losing employees they get that reason. It is a gamble though, so stay cool and think it through.

<comment><USER13> This will require you to weigh the risks. While I like the approach, you'll have to trust your gut. You're gut is going to have to say that MGMT will believe the cost of replacing Jerry < the cost of replacing you irregardless of most personal relationships. Especially if the loss of Jerry could negatively impact revenue more then the loss of you as an employee. There's also a moral factor if you're gone and above is cold hearted logic.

<comment><AUTHOR> The moral factor hits home, as if I did this, then one of us would be out of a job, regardless. It feels like a failure regardless of the outcome.

I also know from prior conversations that it would result in me being the one walking, as while my position is important and my tenure at the company longer, I would be easier to replace vs Jerry.

<comment><USER14> It is a failure, but it's not your failure. Your boss failed to bring about a positive outcome, and the only thing in your power is to deprive them of an employee that they clearly don't deserve. Good luck!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Well, I don't know the full situation, but I'd like to echo part of what NAFV_P said, with a focus on the talk:

If it were me, I'd probably try grabbing a coffee/tea/beer with him outside of the office, if possible (or, if you have your own private office, then that'd work too), and just talking with him about the situation, peer to peer, and try and understand what's causing this behaviour.

Just try to be tactful about it. Even broaching the subject may be a bit awkward, but if you can figure out a way to discuss this with him in an amicable way, it may be worthwhile.

It kind of sounds as though he's in a very stressful position. Maybe it's just the stress?

It could be something simple. Maybe it's something you're doing or not doing that irks him somehow. It's also possible that it could be something completely outside of you and the company, and he's just taking it out on you inadvertently.

Consider empathizing with him and try to figure out what's going on. Odds are there's actually a reason. Once you figure out what the root of the problem is, you're more likely to be able to figure out how to make things better.

If it's something you can do to help, you can try and resolve the issue. If not, just try to come to an understanding that there's no hard feelings; that you'd like to at least remain cordial, and even friendly, if possible...

In my humble opinion, getting HR or your/his boss involved as mentioned below/above may work on the surface, but you'd likely just be forcing him to suppress whatever it is that's upsetting him... not sure how well that'd go in the long run. At this stage, I'd go for the "talk with him" route. But maybe that's just me.

If you talk with him and it doesn't help the situation, then at least you truly tried getting to the root of the matter.

I dunno, just a thought for your consideration. I hope this helps somehow.

 _Disclaimer: I 've never been in this situation before... this is just my two cents on the matter._

<comment><AUTHOR> _> If it were me, I'd probably try grabbing a coffee/tea/beer with him outside of the office_

That's exactly what I have done before. I mean, I work with Jerry every day, and we would regularly go out for a beer after work to talk.

In asking about it, the response with "stress, and let's keep it behind us."

Maybe it is stress, maybe it's not, and maybe I am doing something that provokes Jerry unknowingly, but in any of these cases, does it give him the right to respond like that? If I am doing something to provoke him, and he's put in a situation that allows for speaking freely, away from other coworkers, and he still can't tell me what it is, is there any way for me to stop doing it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Please just leave. If at the very least to send a message.

There are hundreds of places looking for developers. You can find a job if it really comes down to it! Update that resume and get going, this is your life :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Are you able to speak with him via email or chat instead of talking in person?

Maybe he's jealous, maybe he just doesn't like your face, whatever it is. Who cares, if you have to ask something of him in person just bring your smartphone and record the conversation and tell him beforehand this way if he does, you can give it to upper management so they can make a decision.</comment>


Ask HN: Any nicer alternatives to Mint for personal budgeting? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Any chance you could check out my side project, Financier?

[https://financier.io](https://financier.io)

I just recently launched, so there might be rough edges. It's almost feature complete, though. It's very similar to YNAB 4. It's $12/year with syncing. No signup is required and no internet connection is required -- it syncs when you have a connection. Mobile app to come!

I would really appreciate any feedback. :) For the next week, I'm giving out the first year for free (just email email@example.com or PM me on reddit).

I have a recent Reddit post with more info here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ynab/comments/527wiv/ynab_alternati...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ynab/comments/527wiv/ynab_alternatives/d7ich7q)

Thank you! Alex

<comment><USER3> That's an interesting subscription model. I'm curious how it'll turn out.

In the meantime, I wasn't sure what "sync" meant in the context of your app. I had to read a lot of your page before I understood (even after reading this post first).

I actually thought you meant syncing bank accounts or something similar.

<comment><USER4> +1 for not understanding sync. Was also looking for a way to sync transactions from bank account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What else have you used and what are you looking for? Specifically, can you list features (essentials and nice-to-haves).

Do you want it browser based? Standalone - mobile, desktop, both?

Does it need auto-import of transactions from your financial institutions?

Do you need budgeting or accounting or both?

EDIT:

I've used Mint for a long time, I like them for tracking my accounts but never quite got the hang of using it for budgeting.

I liked YNAB (standalone) for putting my inflow/outflow in terms of a monthly view, and their general financial philosophy is really good for people trying to get out from under debt (even small amounts) and move towards being more financially stable. It's useful if for nothing other than that. Their reports were also nice ways to view my money over time, to see where I could cutback on spending to make room for savings or other planned spending. It doesn't do auto-import, but does handle importing CSV files if you can download them from your bank/cc company. Other pros, it works on mobile and desktop using dropbox as the syncing mechanism. This is nice since that means syncing _isn 't_ tied to YNAB (though does require Dropbox to continue operating, safe for a few more years I imagine).

I tried their web version and was left dissatisfied. Lacked reporting, but gained auto-imports. So tradeoffs, also cost $5/month (discounted if you pay for the whole year).

I like ledger as an accounting tool, but I haven't got the hang of its budgeting mechanism. It's a CLI tool, but uses a plaintext file for managing your transactions. ledger-mode in emacs is solid, and it plays well with org- mode. I won't say this is "nicer" than Mint. It is, however, a good bit more powerful. It's a full-featured accounting system that's fairly approachable for programmers (IMO). There are some variants like hledger which are mostly compatible, but also offer some extra niceties like a self-hosted web interface.

I tried GnuCash, but found its interface on OS X particularly unpleasant and buggy so I didn't get far. More feature complete for accounting, I did setup budgets and thought I'd like it. But, again, the glitchy interface on OS X drove me away from it before I got far enough to really decide.

<comment><USER6>
        > I tried their web version and was left dissatisfied. Lacked reporting

It's a shame that there is still no official reporting (9 months since the release already!).

However, if you absolutely need it, there's a browser extension called Toolkit for YNAB: [https://github.com/toolkit-for-ynab/toolkit-for- ynab](https://github.com/toolkit-for-ynab/toolkit-for-ynab). Besides reports it adds some more essential features like search.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> We are working on building [https://claritymoney.com/](https://claritymoney.com/) . Any mint user out there should definitely check us out. We are funded by top investors and led by a experienced founders. We are taking a serious and strategic approach towards personal finance. We are accepting Beta sign ups currently but you can find some helpful screenshots on the website. Hope this helps !! Let me know if you have any more questions !!

</comment><comment><USER8> I like YNAB, and personally I like the SAAS version as I found having to sync via dropbox annoying and I'm a linux user so having to run it in wine was also annoying.

<comment><USER9> Echoing everything stated here.

YNAB recently got the ability to automatically pull your bank transactions, but I would actually recommend against this for a few reasons.

1\. This the same problem mint has, there's a delay on the order of DAYS a lot of the time. Makes it hard to tell how much of a given category you have left.

2\. Actively recording expenses the second you spend the money is easy, and a really good habit, because you'll be more in touch with where your money is going, with fewer surprises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've tried a few of them: GNUCash, YNAB, and BudgetSimple. Neither of them were useful to me. What was useful was just every other week taking a half hour with my wife and looking through our accounts and recent spending and medium-term plans and just talking.

I fail to see the value in sorting my personal spending into categories, especially when it means that I have to take a couple hours a week to either manually enter each item or to correct the mislabeling.

</comment><comment><USER11> I just posted my this weekend project here :-) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12490297](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12490297)

But it's not "nicer" by any means, but much more private. Also, caters to control freaks.

</comment><comment><USER12> Another vote for YNAB! I've been using it for a few years now without regrets. It works internationally as well :). I used mint for a while but found it limited and buggy - it served mostly as an aggregate feed of my various accounts in the U.S.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'll join in with recommending YNAB, with a caveat that it's really an opinionated methodology encoded into software, and the main benefit IMO is from the methodology. A comparison might be OmniFocus vs. GTD.

I haven't used the newer web-based version enough yet to know whether you can really roll your own system on top of it, but I suspect you'll find path of least resistance is to do it their way. The good news there is that they explain their way very well, with lots of supplementary material available.

</comment><comment><USER14> YNAB has been recommended as more pro-active rather than monitoring Mint- style.

They have transitioned to SaaS but it looks like you can still get v4 on Steam.

</comment><comment><USER15> Have you considered getting by without a budgeting app? I used to go through exactly this sort of mental exercise that evaluating and selecting the perfect personal finance app would bring. It's like I could solve my financial problems forever through the power of thought. That my ability to see where the money was being spent was somehow impeded because I lacked the right software.

In the end, there's only one rule that counts: spend less than you earn (or earn more than you spend - either way, you need to have control over at least one of these variables or you're totally fucked anyway).

Sorry to be so blunt. Of course, some people like the process of keeping on top of statement reconciliation - hell, I used to be one of them. And there's no doubt that watching your net worth increase will bring pleasure to your day.

But it's easy to become obsessed. It's only now that I've surrendered the "comfort" of knowing where my money went that I realise I was actually stressed out all the time. These days, I'm a little more relaxed about things - so long as we stick to normal spending patterns and don't splurge on spontaneous things, we'll probably be ok.

In my case, I can live with this level of uncertainty. Ignorance is bliss, and all that.

(I'll echo the other sentiments around here: YNAB was my favourite. I never tried Mint.)

</comment><comment><USER16> I recently found a new personal finance app named Geltbox Money that eliminates the need for third party aggregation services.

the user can aggregate his own data without exposing private data to any third parties /web site.

This new technology enables the user to download his financial information from any financial institution.

</comment><comment><USER17> Try Fentury [https://www.fentury.com/](https://www.fentury.com/) You can link your bank accounts, it has a browser version and a mobile app as well. I could link my bank accounts and I'm from Romania - I can't do that with Mint.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've used NeoBudget a virtual envelope budgeting system for years. You do have to manually upload your bank transactions but I really like the visual virtual envelope UI. [https://neobudget.com](https://neobudget.com)

</comment><comment><USER19> YNAB and I just heard of an app called moneylover

</comment><comment><USER20> GnuCash.

</comment><comment><USER21> I really like YNAB

</comment><comment><USER22> YNAB 4. Not the cloud version because it has no transaction import (!)

Once they desupport YNAB4 maybe time for me to create OSS version ;-)</comment>


Article on living with face blindness (prosopagnosia) - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/08/21/feature/my-life-with-face-blindness/ <comment><AUTHOR> I posted this link because I, too, have face blindness.</comment>


Can You Work in Netscape Time? (1995) - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/26443/can-you-work-netscape-time <comment><USER2> It would be interesting to do an experiment, and see if they would have gotten product out as fast, perhaps with higher quality, by just working 80 hour work weeks instead of 120+.

I have to believe, at some point, those extra hours started to reduce efficiency to the point at which there was a negative return on investment.

<comment><USER3> Think how much they could have accomplished if they just worked 40 hour weeks!

<comment><USER4> Conventional wisdom in 1995: "How does a predator avoid becoming prey? How does a company with 75% of its market increase share against well-funded rivals? It's simple: nobody ever stops working."

Workplace fashion in 2012: "Think how much they could have accomplished if they just worked 40 hour weeks!"

What do you think they'll think in 17 years?

<comment><USER5> We will live in a Utopia where no one has to work.

Hey, I can dream can't I?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is jwz so much more famous than the other engineers who worked at Netscape?

<comment><USER7> He is famous for some other things too, like xemacs, xscreensaver, and DNA Lounge.

<comment><USER8> He's also had an interesting and opinionated website since basically forever.

Also it was he who talked them into open sourcing mozilla

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you haven't seen it, the PBS documentary _Code Rush_ (1998) is a good (but sometimes cringeworthy) snapshot of that time:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Rush>

<comment><USER9> btw, you can download _Code Rush_ from archive.org:

<http://archive.org/details/CodeRush_616>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder what caused Netscape Time to slow down so much that just one version(6 after skipping 5) took three years to release and allowed IE to catch up and actually become a better browser than Netscape 4.

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>

<comment><USER11> <http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html>

<comment><USER12> Wow - reading this is highly suggested, especially given the article relevance in the still current browser-war history!</comment></comment></comment>


Twitter Engineering: How our photo filters came into focus - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.twitter.com/2012/12/how-our-photo-filters-came-into-focus.html <comment><USER2> It is starting to feel like Twitter is coming off the rails. They "challenged" themselves to duplicate Instagram's functionality.</comment>


Woman offers WaPo false tale about Roy Moore in effort to discredit the paper - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?tidr=a_breakingnews&hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar <comment><USER2> A lot of good laughs from this incident. I actually feel a bit sad for the woman who got hired to play the fake victim. She was recently laid off from from her mortgage job when she apparently accepted the job with Veritas, but she needed to start a GoFundMe just to move up there (and she only got 2 donors, one of which was her own daughter)

Veritas tasks her with the main role in busting the Washington Post with an undercover sting. But it doesn't look like she got any training or preparation at all. She used her real name when talking to the WaPo, had a phone number with the wrong area code (given her claimed state of residence), and Veritas didn't remind her to remove her GoFundMe page, which is how the WaPo ultimately confirmed that she was a fraud.

I'm definitely not a fan of Veritas or O'Keefe's bullshit, and this woman has to bear responsibility for her poor choices. But damn, if your mission was sincerely to expose the truth about the purportedly corrupt media, wouldn't you put more prep into it? It's not like Veritas is lacking in resources -- their latest 990 says they had an operating surplus of $1.3M and O'Keefe received $235,471 in salary [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3454912-Project- Veri...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3454912-Project- Veritas-2015-Form-990.html)

edit: the 2016 990 was just released today. O'Keefe's salary is $317K and the org's revenue increased from 3.7M to 4.8M. Not bad at all.

<comment><USER3> [https://web.archive.org/web/20171122195050/https:/www.gofund...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171122195050/https:/www.gofundme.com/JaimeToNewYork)

"I'm moving to New York! I've accepted a job to work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and _deceipt_ of the liberal MSM. I'll be using my skills as a researcher and fact-checker to help our movement."

She was fully aware that her job was to lie and deceive the Washington Post, yet she claimed she aspired to "combat the lies and _deceipt_ of the liberal MSM".

She claimed to have "skills as a researcher and fact-checker", yet she was blindsided and busted by skilled liberal MSM researchers and fact-checkers.

She should learn how to use a _spell-checker_ , too.

I don't feel bad at all for that mendacious hypocrite.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, my feelings are more muted than mixed. I'm having a hard time feeling anger toward her because of how comically and catastrophically she fucked up. OTOH, she did sign up to fake being a rape victim to try a scheme that if it had been successful, would have discredited rape victims everywhere. Not going to spend much time worrying if she ever recovers from her self-made disaster.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it makes sense to focus so strongly on the woman here. She was hired by a Republican operative known for deceptive practices who was a man, who is funded by at least two prominent Republicans who were men (Theil and Trump), being used to throw chaff against a male republican accused of preying on vulnerable young women. They needed a woman to play this part and they found (another) naive and vulnerable woman to take advantage of.

Particularly since this was a two pronged attack on the classic right-wing totems of a) the lying liberal media and b) lying woman who falsely accuse prominent men of sexual assault, I'm a bit disturbed at how many headlines seem to focus on the woman, and not the fascist machine that hired her and intended to profit from this scheme.

It's a fair bet this will be continually referenced in the right-wing media as "woman made false accusation about Roy Moore" (since they continued to cite every other Veritas sting operation even after they'd been debunked) so maybe we shouldn't help them out, since what they're doing is pretty blatantly evil?

<comment><USER3> Of course they'll omit important details like "woman who Jamie O'Keefe paid to make false accusation about Roy Moore".

But the fact that they're delusional liars who will always twist and deny the truth doesn't mean the Washington Post shouldn't report the news.

They are themselves precisely what they claim to be fighting against: lying partisan media, paying women to make false accusations against Roy Moore.

The most delicious thing about this whole affair is hearing Jamie O'Keefe so flustered to be confronted on the street that he makes the false equivalence of accusing the Washington Post reporters of pulling his own "tricks" on him, as if it was just fine for him to play all those deceptive rat-fucking tricks, just not OK for him to be on the receiving end of some fact-checking and old fashioned street pounding question asking journalism. "I think it's really cute that you guys are borrowing our techniques."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really interesting from a journalist standpoint to see how the Post investigates a story. The original Moore piece was incredibly meticulous in how it presented the information they had obtained, and was transparent about the process in a way that lets the reader form an opinion on the truthfulness of the story. This piece has a similar meticulousness in how it's laid out.

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow. Far from discrediting WaPo it actually strengthened the validity of the accusers.

I wonder if this sort of pen-testing could be done more regularly across the industry (by non-shady organizations).

<comment><USER7> Newspaper editors could arrange for their journalists to be approached with fake stories once in a while. If the story makes its way close to publishing, they'll know it's fake and can take it off. That way it stays an internal pentest. Sounds good to me.

<comment><USER8> Wouldn't be dissimilar from companies hiring "mystery shoppers" to sample-test customer service.

<comment><USER9> Or how the TSA has people sneak guns onto planes and fails to catch them 80% of the time.

<comment><USER10> Really?

<comment><USER11> Possibly worse than that: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/6/tsa- failed-de...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/6/tsa-failed- detect-95-percent-prohibited-items-minn/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Personally, WaPo is one, if not the top paper in the country. Their dedication to great journalism is why I subscribe. If you're an Amazon Prime member you get a big discount too.

<comment><USER13> To be honest, the Amazon Prime thing makes me pause for a moment. What happens when Amazon is involved in a scandal, what will WaPo do?

<comment><USER14> I had a large argument about this on r/conspiracy with someone recently.

They were claiming since the CIA uses AWS to the tune of ~$900 million a year, the CIA has a direct line to WaPo.

Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue, but it does pose an interesting, all be it slight, conflict.

<comment><USER15> _> Any rational person (including the Post editor who commented on it) would agree this is a non-issue_

Guess I'm irrational then. $900M/yr is an insanely substantial chunk of change for even the largest companies in the world.

<comment><USER16> That's $900M/yr of _revenue_. At AWS. And the WashPo is entirely different company.

Nope.

<comment><USER17> They also built them AWS Secret.

<comment><USER16> Yes, but that's included in that $900M/yr of revenue. It isn't an extra revenue line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The guy behind this stunt, James O'Keefe, got his start with funding from Peter Thiel: [https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22/conservative- faceboo...](https://www.villagevoice.com/2009/09/22/conservative-facebook- investor-funded-anti-acorn-videographer/).

<comment><USER19> It's extremely weird reading his reactions on Twitter - either he's putting a very brave face on it, or he's completely unfazed by (yet another) awful self- own.

I never know if James O'keefe and his ilk are _really_ into this cause (not sure exactly what, something vaguely conservative?) or if they're just grifters trying to make a buck by whatever means necessary

<comment><USER20> It's probably both, but leaning much more towards the grifting side of things. There's something about conservative politics in the US which encourages grifters and cons.

When my very Republican stepfather fell into dementia, I helped my mom monitor his mail so he'd stop spending so much money on things he didn't understand. It was a deluge of stuff every day. Often from groups I had never heard of who wanted money to stop Sharia law or stop the "war on Christmas" or whatever the big conservative cause was that day. And even the mainstream GOP got into the act. More than once, a FedEx envelope would show up with a plea that everything was doomed unless a check was overnighted. Once the GOP FedEx solicitation contained a letter accusing my stepfather of no longer being a member of the Republican Party, but he could clear up this misunderstanding by writing a check.

<comment><USER21> And on the flip side it's Donate or get deported. Scare tactics work, both sides use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Except the stated policy of this executive _is_ to deport large numbers of people, whereas there is no danger of Christmas being outlawed, or of Sharia becoming the law of the land.

<comment><USER21> That's funny given that deportations are down 80% since the previous admin, also far less wall has been built than the previous admin was able to build on a yearly basis...

Wouldn't you characterize that as scaremongering given the facts?

<comment><AUTHOR> Certainly not. The only things keeping the official policy from progressing faster are the utter incompetence of the administration and the relative sanity of the court system. Both can change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is _not_ a political/off-topic submission. This is a story that would make an interesting movie. (Although I'm not sure if it would be a drama or comedy)

<comment><USER23> How is this not a political and off-topic submission ?

<comment><USER24> "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

This phenomenon is at least new to me. As bonus points, it's a nice example of an attempt at social "hacking".

<comment><USER25> A major news organization choosing to publish off-the-record comments is itself a pretty significant event that I'm glad to find out about. It's a sign of extreme confidence in their story (and a lot of irritation at Project Veritas), because that's the sort of decision that, if mistaken, can lastingly cripple a publication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm interested to see how this plays out - in some respects it's hard to come back at Project Veritas, they'll just say - hey nice work Washington Post you did your job.

<comment><USER27> > in some respects it's hard to come back at Project Veritas

outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit news organizations seems like it can come back on your no matter what happens.

In this case, Veritas has egg on its face, one of its employees is now outed, and everyone that they "may" have been able to expose that wasn't already on high alert for these frauds is. They've managed to not only prove WP follows proper journalist practices, but they've also given warning to those that don't to be extra careful of them.

WP on the other hand, appears to have done what it usually does, vets information and publishes what it finds. They come out a huge winner over doing nothing, which is exactly the opposite of what Veritas was trying to accomplish.

<comment><USER28> > outright lying and fabricating stories to try and discredit news > organizations seems like it can come back on your no matter what happens.

Why? News organizations should never accept fabricated stories. If they do, then something is wrong with their vetting process, and it means that non "pen-testing" fake stories can get through as well, where the intent is to have some effect in the world(say, getting a person out of an election) as opposed to just making the newspaper blush.

<comment><USER29> > _News organizations should never accept fabricated stories_

This is like running around committing fraud and then claiming "people should have never participated in my fraud!" No, they shouldn't. But no, you shouldn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> >"I'm moving to New York!" the May 29 appeal said. "I've accepted a job to work in the conservative media movement to combat the lies and deceipt of the liberal MSM. I'll be using my skills as a researcher and fact-checker to help our movement. I was laid off from my mortgage job a few months ago and came across the opportunity to change my career path."

The hypocrisy is... Well, there's a lot of nasty words for it.

<comment><USER31> This is a telling look at the intense self-righteousness felt by that segment. They knowingly engage in fraud and deception, believing that it is justified because their enemies do it more or first or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Providing her real name was quite the blunder. Gave WP what they needed to make sense of the unraveling story, and permanently attached her identity to clumsy deceit.

<comment><USER33> They believe she attempted to deceive her in bad faith, in order to affect the campaign of a public official. As they state, (and as US courts will stand behind) she entered into the agreement in bad faith and was caught, and they voided said agreement.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure who you're arguing with, like I said, Phillips blundered by giving them her real name. WP is definitely allowed to publish it.

<comment><USER33> I think I read OP as defending Ms Philips' mistaken expectations of privacy. My bad

<comment><USER32> [I] should be less ambiguous [in my comments] :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b It's incredible how mainstream these kinds of practice have become. We are more happy that WaPo didn't fall for the sting than angry that there was a sting in the first place!

I can't believe how much the media landscape changed in the past 2 years...

I feel such powerlessness against it. As long as deep pocketed people are ready to pay to spread lies, I don't see any way to stop them.

<comment><USER34> The uva scandal and other hoaxes has made people lose faith in the media.

The lack of faith is also a bipartisan issue. The alt left and alt right are growing and hate the msm.

<comment><USER3> Except the alt-left doesn't exist except in the alt-right's imagination.

<comment><USER35> Probably meant the hard-left, democrats call the alt-left the hard-left (ex. clinton, the mainstream media).

Republicans (trump, the republican media) are trying to rebrand the hard left as the alt-left.

And the hard left most definitely exists.

<comment><USER3> He specifically meant to use the term "alt-left", parroting Trump's and David Duke's own words, just the way right-wing Republicans love to use the incorrect term "Democrat Party" on purpose as an insult.

The alt-right pretending the alt-left exists is "thing", a talking point, a false equivalence, and a mendacious lie.

It's a dog-whistle attempting to normalize the alt-right and Nazis, and accuse the left of acting as extreme and irrational as alt-right Whit Supremacists are acting, which is total bullshit.

Being anti-Nazi and anti-racist and anti-misogynist isn't "alt-left", it's "patriotic" and "democratic" and "American" and "mainstream" and "sane" and "ethical".

It's not "hard left" to be anti-Nazi. Even hard right Republicans SHOULD be anti-Nazi too, but apparently now they're not any more. Don't blame it on the left that the right has gone off the deep end and now consider Nazis "very fine people". That doesn't make the left "hard".

The "alt-left" didn't invade Nazi Germany on D-Day, the Allied Forces did. And the Allied Forces never behaved anything like the way the alt-right is behaving.

[https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt- left/](https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-alt-left/)

There is no 'Alt-Left,' no matter what Trump says.

Hours after a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, organized by white nationalists, turned deadly, President Donald Trump blamed "many sides" for the violence that transpired. Three days later, at an impromptu press conference at Trump Tower, the president doubled down on this message, condemning groups "on both sides" of the fighting. "What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?" the president said.

[https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141108/no-thing-alt- left](https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141108/no-thing-alt-left)

There is no such thing as the "alt-left". But in a piece for Vanity Fair, James Wolcott pretends otherwise:

>Disillusionment with Obama's presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton, disgust with "identity politics," and a craving for a climactic reckoning that will clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created a kinship between the "alt- right" and an alt-left. They're not kissin' cousins, but they caterwaul some of the same tunes in different keys.

Wolcott admits the left "can't match" the alt-right "for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach"—then proceeds to make just such an argument. This is bad writing in service of a bad argument: "People say things I don't like" is not the same thing as "people advocate for a white ethnostate." This is precisely the false equivalency Wolcott makes by using the phrase "alt-left." It is a disingenuous characterization designed to undermine leftist claims.

<comment><USER35> You are arguing something I'm not talking about at all.

This is obviously a heated topic for you, and as a democrat myself I don't think you are doing us any favors. The hard-left isn't a good thing, they promote violence to achieve their agendas, and say things like "centrists get the bullet too". I really despise the normalization of political violence.

You need to take a step back.

<comment><USER3> The "hard left" is a tiny minority that isn't represented and is soundly rejected by the Democratic party, and it is not running the country like the alt-right is.

There are no "hard left" senators or representatives or supreme court justices or attorney generals or campaign chief executives or presidents, but there are many alt-right ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> 100% serious question: how long before Project Veritas or others on the far right start accusing the WaPo of fabricating the bungled sting story in order to embarrass them?

edit: changed "right" to "far right"

<comment><USER37> I imagine it's already happening. See one of my other comments in this story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Takeaway: WaPo vets their sources and stories a lot more than certain political figures claim they do.

</comment><comment><USER28> Funny that PV brings their undercover actors right in the front door of their offices. I'm guessing they aren't going to be doing that from now on, knowing that at the very least WaPo is watching who enters.

<comment><USER39> Cold-war era intelligence agents must be shaking their heads in disbelief.

It's not the ones you catch you should be worried about, it's the ones you don't...

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Ouch, I'm getting third-hand embarrassment just reading about it. What amateurs!

<comment><USER41> They aren't amateurs, they are literal professionals at this (in that, this is what the group does, repeatedly, for pay—well, donations from right-wing interests—over a period of many years.)

<comment><USER37> I assume they mean amateurs in that they are really really bad at it. This is not their first attempt to shamelessly blow up on their face.

Yes, this is what they do. But 'profrssional' just doesn't seem like a word that should apply.

<comment><USER41> Several of the other attempts that have "blown up in their face" have been propaganda successes that have driven government policy and lasting belief in the conservative base even after their fraud was revealed.

That is, they've been pretty much complete successes where the actual purpose for which they are done is concerned.

They are professionals that seem like amateurs if you don't consider their purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I am a huge news junkie. Probably why I am a Hacker News follower. With the Trump news cycle at a max burn setting lately, I ran out of mobile browsers to read WaPo articles for free. While I also have the same issue with the NYTimes, WaPo's journalism has been at Stand-by-Me-sic-balls level lately. Thoroughly enjoyable.

Also an Amazon Prime member, so I'm getting my 6 months free trial and a discounted rate thereafter.

</comment><comment><USER43> And they just posted a "rebuttal" video. [https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/935283210606477312](https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/935283210606477312)

<comment><USER44> Err, so I see a defense of the news arm and it's impartiality and acknowledgement that the editorial section has an ax to grind? Is that supposed to be some big expose? That's the _point_ of the editorial department, a chance for reporters to give opinions rather than be impartial.

The sad part is that people might assume it actually supports the position that WaPo can't be trusted. That seems to be the norm these days. Say something and throw out random video or audio as evidence when it isn't anything of the sort, since most people won't pay enough attention to really check and will just assume that if it was presented as evidence, it must be evidence. :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> All conservatives should speak out against Project Veritas and have it shut down.

<comment><USER46> Why, because WaPo did what they were supposed to? Good on the Washington Post. Project Veritas served its function.

<comment><USER47> Don't paint this as 'Veritas serving its function', their function is not to evaluate but to discredit. They take secret recordings, then create videos using completely out of context clips to push right-wing agendas. Just like the whole 'nothing-burger' video.

I'm sure if the reporters had responded to this fake woman's story with any soundbites about how it would effect Moore's election results, regardless of if they published anything or if they kicked her out the door the next minute they would put up a video about how "WaPo reporters are desperate to destroy the honorable Roy Moore!"; just look here is one saying this fake story would be bad for his campaign!

Disgusting.

<comment><USER48> They're activists, but sometimes activists stumble on the truth too.

<comment><USER47> Well, if you throw enough crap at the wall...

The question is if the truth they stumble upon outweighs the misinformation and lies they spread to come across it.

<comment><USER48> Okay, but the same can be said for Media Matters, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, and so on.

They're all doing shady shit, but sometimes one of them hits on something useful.

<comment><USER37> Have any of them broken a _real_ story? Ever?

I'm not talking about some partisan thing, I mean a story that gets picked up as teal by MSM outlets and a real issue.

I honestly don't know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Shutting "Project Veritas" down seems like the next step in all this. What a bunch of clowns.

</comment><comment><USER50> Why hasn't James O'Keefe been arrested yet? He he been caught committing fraud multiple times.

<comment><USER51> I don't think it is particularly illegal to lie to a reporter.

<comment><USER44> It may be illegal to trick someone else into publishing slander. WaPo might feel defrauded, and might have a case for that. IANAL though, so that's pure speculation on my part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Washington Post silent on AMAZON warehouse conditions? Of course! 'Journalism' ends at owner's paycheck... (link: [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk- news/timed-toilet-breaks-imp...](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/timed- toilet-breaks-impossible-targets-11587888))

</comment><comment><USER53> >But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups.

So they basically stalked her? Interesting to see how WP treats some (all?) whistleblowers that come their way.

</comment><comment><USER54> Is there a problem? Well played on both sides. WaPo won this round and brags about it, rightly. It's not too dissimilar from the adversarial justice system, but in a different domain, to be honest.

<comment><USER18> _It 's not too dissimilar from the adversarial justice system, but in a different domain, to be honest._

If this were analogous to a judicial proceeding, it would be one in which one side submitted fabricated evidence. How is that "well played on both sides"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> This is unfortunate but I support Veritas. I think, in general, they do good work in exposing corruption, and bias. Just because WaPo caught them this time doesn't mean they're wrong, or WaPo is wrong. The past few years have given me a deep distrust of all media.

<comment><USER51> What's your favorite example of their good work?

<comment><USER55> Acorn.

<comment><USER56> ...was proven to be completely innocent of the actions they were accused of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The cases involving intimate/sexual relations (consensual or not) are really difficult to address, and the general approach we have as the (at least nominally) secular and democratic part of the world is just crazy. Probably most allegations in most cases are true, but as it is now any male is quite open to the abuse of the general stance of the society and the law. Even being accused of something can easily ruin one's life, despite the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. If it's allowed to weaponise slander so easily, it actually hurts also whom suffer from sexual violence, reducing the credibility of their claims when they try to come out and pursue justice.

<comment><USER37> The problem is the bar has been way too high until now. "He's important/beloved/whatever, he wouldn't do that. It's just your word against his".

And a lot of men escaped a LOT of charges because of that.

I think we're still pretty far from the pendulum going too extreme. We'll have to figure out the balance.

But what's happening right now still seems pretty healthy. The fact that so many stories can be found so easily and corroborated shows what has been waiting in the wings.

<comment><USER57> It's not acceptable to punish today's men for what men of past got away with. That's vendetta, blood feud, primitive.

What I watch happening is lots of decisions happening based on nothing. That all or most the particular men accused at the moment are actually guilty is of no interest to me. But the way we decide on anecdotes and stories is. When we decide before the courts, we commit irreversible damage. If we say once Joe Person is a molester or a rapist or a paedophile, and then he's proven innocent, it's basically impossible to find every single person who has read the wrong accusations and convince them otherwise.

Also, it's not only the bar that is lowering, the definition of what's normal advances and what's molesting is changing. In not so distant past invasive behaviour of men were even expected in some circumstances. Good that we do away with these problematic behaviours and protect people from unwanted experiences, but that in no way legitimises leaving people defenceless in front of slander.

<comment><USER37> Were not punishing today's men for what yesterday's men did.

We're punishing today's men for what today's men were still doing. And what yesterday's men continued to do into today.

<comment><USER57> The punishment is happening before the punished is deemed guilty.

<comment><USER37> There is no LEGAL punishment happening. It's all social.

People can behave how they wish, rightly or wrongly. There isn't much of a way of stopping at. You could always try suing for libel/slander but even if you win everyone's going to remember the lie.

A big part of the problem is there are so many people with a lot of credibility making these accusations.

<comment><USER57> First of all I'm not questioning the present accusations. I don't even follow them that closely, to be honest.

And, I was talking about the social punishment anyways. People can behave how they wish, but that does not mean they should be pushed in a wrong direction by the media and by the accusations before there's a court decision or very strong evidence (like a cam recording, a photo, etc.).

It seems to me that you're trying to not understand me, so, my participation in this thread ends here.

<comment><USER37> I understand what you're saying. I simply don't see another way.

I get you're concerned that if someone were to be given an accusation they could lose their career and then we could find out later that it was all fake. Nothing legal went down, society simply decided to shun them.

Outside of making it illegal to publish any kind of accusation in less it has been proven in a court of law… I don't see how we could avoid people deciding to shun the accused.

And maybe that's fair given the number of women who have had their career is ruined because they chose not to work day in and day out with someone who harassed and/or raped them. Who had to leave the workforce instead, or take another job and start at the bottom of the ladder again.

There's no good solutions to ANY of this. It's a giant mess. We'll just have to see how it society sorts it out.

In the end the long victimized group has gotten some temporary power. That seems like a step forward even if it raises the possibility of false accusations a small amount.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>