Parallelism in Crystal - <AUTHOR> https://crystal-lang.org/2019/09/06/parallelism-in-crystal.html <comment><USER3> I've been using Crystal on-and-off for a couple of years and have started to use it as my primary language for most non-enterprise work. The current web- app I'm building is primarily written in Crystal and it has been an absolute joy to use, and even if I don't strictly need parallelism in this project I'm glad they're pushing though with the big language changes.

It's been so successful at everything I've needed it for, I wouldn't consider going back to either Ruby or similar interpreted languages, regardless whether it's a little CLI helper or a larger monolith server app. I've found my ability to allow the compiler to catch bugs incredibly reliable without feeling bogged down with types. I hadn't worked much with typed languages previously and as a Ruby developer it allowed me to 'learn' types without even feeling like I was doing any learning.

It's still somewhat of an obscure language so I thought it would be helpful to describe my experiences with it.

<comment><USER4> Do you use much external libraries because ecosystem I'd pretty much what makes a language useful after the language being solid by itself.

Also, I assume Googleability is pretty much close to zero, you'd have to go to the primary sites (their forum?) to ask questions when stuck?

<comment><USER3> There's actually a surprising amount available in the stdlib for your typical web project. By way of example, I'd always hated how in Ruby each API wrapper gem would make their own decision on which HTTP client they used, so you could end up pulling in 3 or 4 separate libraries just to make HTTP calls to a 3rd party API. People may disagree but I think this is (was?) largely due to Ruby's Net:HTTP feeling janky to use, at least compared to Faraday and the like. Here, the HTTP modules within the standard library feel right, and I've not needed to reach out for all that much from the ecosystem.

But as a simple example I accept that API calls to third party services is low hanging fruit so in terms of finding drivers for lower level protocols I've not had an issue that I'd class as a blocker. There are times where I've had to extend libraries or write a parser for this-and-that (e.g. PostGIS and Paseto, both of which were unused this time round) but I find I need to do this less and less as time goes on.

You do need to reach into the forums or gitter on rare occasions but I can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to, and it's typically because I was trying to do something unusual and quite low-level on the HTTP stack - as in something I've never had to do in a non-Crystal project, such as sending a specific packet. I've always found help there too and people are happy to engage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have been using crystal+ vanilla js for my pet project and the sheer joy i get from using this language is something else.

2019 has been a good year for crystal. Basic multithreading is in. Windows support is making good headway. I am optimistic that a working windows compiler would be out by end of year.

The last major dragon for crystal to slay would be the compilation time. It still feels unreasonably high. Hopefully that would be a major focus of 2020

<comment><USER6> I'm curious as to what your pet project is/if it's available to online to play with.

<comment><USER5> The Crystal underbelly is here [https://github.com/rishavs/noir](https://github.com/rishavs/noir)

the api is consumed by a vanilla js spa. I talk more about my VanillaJS spa's architecture here [https://dev.to/rishavs/making-a-single-page-app-in-ye- good-o...](https://dev.to/rishavs/making-a-single-page-app-in-ye-good-olde-js- es6-3eng)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Delighted with this. I've been working on and off on a shortest-path routing engine in Crystal. Parallelism means I can get performance on a par with C++ even on large graphs, but with the simplicity and readability of Ruby. Full marks to the Crystal devs for tackling the no 1 feature request.

</comment><comment><USER8> Aside, but is there a good class or resource for learning about parallelism in computing? I'm reading the blog post and vaguely recalling differences between threading and forking. I regularly encounter the same concepts over and over but they haven't been sticking. A hands-on project would be great.

</comment><comment><USER9> I just learned about Crystal a couple of weeks ago and it's completely subsumed every new personal project I have into its domain. I have long missed Ruby's syntax and human-friendly feel, but began to prefer the speed I could find in other languages like Go.

</comment><comment><USER10> Until crystal get a REPL I would stick to ruby / rails for POC and MVP, then scaling problem "could" arose, so translate it to amber or lucky (Web Framework in crystal) could solve the issue. About Type and Casting Nil, gem like sorbet should be a good replacement in ruby

</comment><comment><USER11> Waiting badly for an installable ARM port; small boards would benefit a lot from it. Is this planned in the future?

</comment><comment><USER12> I get why N=2 is slower than single-threaded, but why is N=4 more than twice as fast as N=2?

<comment><USER13> If you're looking at the first graph, the explanation is right above - <USER2> overhead of synchronization.

<comment><USER12> That's nonsensical. There is surely at least as much synchronization overhead with 4 threads as with 2.

<comment><USER14> If the overhead is X, and the amount of work that can be done ignoring it is Y, you have Y - X. If you double the amount of work that can be down, but overhead stays the same you have 2Y - X, which is more than 2(Y - X) = 2Y - 2X. You're over performing doubling by not having to double the synchronization cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why Crystal over C++?

<comment><USER16> Because it's a much saner, coherent, and easier to use language with less footguns...

Now, why not Crystal over C++? Because it's way less mature, with way less documentation, way less resources, way worse tooling, way less libraries, way more implementation bugs, and, if we're realistic, it might never go anywhere...

<comment><USER17> > and, if we're realistic, it might never go anywhere...

I don't see why this should be the case, unless we as a community decides it will not go anywhere.

<comment><USER16> Most languages never get anywhere.

Languages of the quality of Smalltalk, and Ada, and Dylan, and Self, and CL have vanquished in the margins, and e.g. even something as celebrated as Haskell does hardly better in the industry (some financial companies, this or that project, and so on), so the chances of a new language like Crystal are slim to begin with...

<comment><USER17> Oh yes, been there, done that, created proglangs, and they certainly did not get anywhere. But I feel Crystal has already gained such momentum that it indeed will get somewhere, it's beyond that phase "to begin with." After all, if any language can get anywhere, why not Crystal?

<comment><USER16> > _But I feel Crystal has already gained such momentum that it indeed will get > somewhere, it's beyond that phase "to begin with."_

Let's hope so, but I fear that's wishful thinking. What proof do we have of that?

It's not used anywhere important ("killer app"), barely makes the rest of the TIOBE index, along with staples like NATURAL, Alice, BBC Basic, Euphoria, Factor, Forth, and Icon, and has no major force like Google or Mozilla backing it.

It's only us here in HN who keep hearing about it.

Julia has had tons more publicity (even from some major outlets), and it's still going nowhere fast.

<comment><USER17> > It's only us here in HN who keep hearing about it.

Don't you think us here at HN include quite a number of people standing centrally when it comes to "anywhere" in the tech industry? This is what I mean, when talking about "us as a community." Of course this does not go for everyone... but for a considerable amount, I'd say. (Myself am certainly not one of them.)

> Julia has had tons more publicity (even from some major outlets), and it's > still going nowhere fast.

Well, Julia being made for extensive numerical computations and the like, I think it is doing very well, esp. in academical use, which is somewhere it's right at home. If not yet very much in use yet, at least many academics in relevant fields--which frankly are quite a lot days--have heard of the language. If Julia holds enough of its' promises, I don't see why they wouldn't migrate eventually, given time.

I don't see how any lang could get anywhere "fast," no matter how superb it'd be, "anywhere" tends to be sceptical of change if they're fine with what they have.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Give Yourself More Playtime (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://martinrue.com/give-yourself-more-playtime/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if he really was afraid of the government, or if he was just tried to keep his brother from loading the games. The part where he actually cuts the physical tape is great. The funny thing is that, without cutting the tape, anybody can load the games any way, just like this: Rewind the tape. LOAD the first program (i.e. the password program). Note that the tape is positioned after the password program now. Reset the C64. Enter LOAD to load the actual game.

<comment><USER3> Or rewind, reset the counter, load the protection, write down the number in one of those math copy books and fast forward to the same number every time. I still have a box full of tapes and those books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great story. Also, a great learning experience. This is what I liked about the old times of the C64 and others, they invited so much for these learning experiences. Good old times :)

But even today, many years later and working as a software developer, my greatest source of innovation are the at the beginning goofy ideas and silly experiments.

</comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me when I wrote my first .COM infecting virus. It worked very well. It infected COMMAND.COM and then the rest of the hard drive. Unfortunately, it had a bug so programs wouldn't work anymore (except command.com).

And I did the test on the PC of a friend of my dad.

A very long moment of loneliness happened to 15 y.o. wannabe hacker when dad and his friend realized the mess :-)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting story, but probably a false memory as Commodore 64 did not auto run programs loaded from tape or disk by default.

Sinclair Spectrum did, but that was also easily be circumventable by using the MERGE command instead of LOAD.

<comment><USER7> It could auto-run from tape. Take a look: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UoF6_nXMSw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UoF6_nXMSw)

But from disk drive you needed to type LOAD"*",8,1 for it to load into something other than BASIC start address.

<comment><USER8> I think you could also autorun from disk as everything is memory mapped on the C64, but you couldn't make it reliable nor portable.

<comment><USER8> See for instance this page which explores some of the possibilities (and problems)

[https://www.pagetable.com/?p=568](https://www.pagetable.com/?p=568)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a legitimately awesome story---possibly the most delightful thing I've ever read from HN. That is all.

</comment><comment><USER10> > Eventually I learned that POKE allows you to change values at specific > memory addresses

I remember, with my first TI99/4A home computer, reading tons of program listings and trying to port Vic 20, C64, Spectrum, etc programs to it.

Many of the programs had hundreds of peeks and pokes, which the TI99 lacked. I thought it was an additional super power that I was missing. The envy.

I eventually got them with the Mini Memory module and the Extended Basic. Soon I discovered they were not "compatible".

</comment><comment><USER11> That's an awesome story. "Play around more. Discover things." indeed!

</comment><comment><USER12> The moral of the story is: Use a password manager.</comment>


Google pours the concrete for its exhibit in the LVCC parking lot at ces2020 - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.twitter.com/rh_brown/status/1214574902604288000 <comment><AUTHOR> Google's sustainability pledge appears not to apply to trade shows.

[https://sustainability.google/](https://sustainability.google/)

<comment><USER2> or the size of their websites. :(

<comment><USER3> or the size/bandwidth requirements of their apps :(</comment></comment></comment>


Little, black, different - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2010/10/ars-reviews-the-apple-tv-20.ars <comment><USER2> I'd really like to see the Airplay feature to be picked up by projector manufacturers and Keynote would start to support streaming via Airplay. Then I could finally do slideshow with iPhone!

<comment><USER3> Given how many TV manufacturers have been rumbling about including AirPlay support, that's not too unlikely.

Microsoft had some standard for wireless projectors that I've never seen in real life, but hopefully this will catch on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does this compare to a linux-backed roll-your-own media center? Obviously it supports netflix, and you can't install your own applications, but what else?

<comment><USER5> Kinda depends on who you are. There's a high ratio, say 1 to 20, of people who want to build their own media center versus people that just want to buy something cheap that works well. I've built my own media centers before, but honestly when the first Apple TV came out a few years ago it answered pretty much every problem I had. I was able to buy tv shows and rent movies right from my TV. The interface was pretty straightforward. I used to pirate movies and shows, but that was a lot more complicated than just spending a couple bucks to get something to watch _right now_. Didn't have to worry about poor quality anymore, etc.

I really like to reverse your question: why would anyone want to build their own media center now-a-days?

<comment><USER6> People who already have a lot of media they would like to be able to easily access on their TV screen, or people who are not interested in paying for content. I find Google TV more interesting since it adds an entire new layer over current television, apple TV isn't as exciting to me. I don't think people want to make a purchase decision every time they sit down to watch something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I read the headline, I assumed the article would be about a late actor. :/</comment>


Trump's data-hungry, invasive app - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/21/1004228/trumps-data-hungry-invasive-app-is-a-voter-surveillance-tool-of-extraordinary-scope/ <comment><USER2> This is an app that supporters choose to install on their own phones.

I'd be much more interested to read about how cellphone location tracking is used to geotarget campaign ads to unwilling recipients who have not opted in to receive messages from the campaign, or have their location data shared.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-political-groups-are- harves...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-political-groups-are-harvesting- data-from-protesters-11592156142)

<comment><USER3> These tactics might allow coordination in ways which are not allowed under federal campaign finance regulations. Definitely an area that deserves intense scrutiny.

<comment><USER4> But BLM through ActBlue (DNC) aren't skirting those same regulations?

<comment><USER5> Are you saying that BLM are coordinating with canidates for elected office without disclosing the contribution?

<comment><USER4> They wouldn't need to. Read ActBlue's own fine print: [https://secure.actblue.com/content/fineprint](https://secure.actblue.com/content/fineprint)

> In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a > check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes > repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are > cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through > ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to > ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly > not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used > generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to > charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will > go to ActBlue Charities.

<comment><USER5> Except neither ActBlue nor BLM are political candidates. The rules for PACs contributing to other PACs are much more lax. The problem arises when a PAC and a Candidate coordinate strategy and spending without disclosing it as a contribution (and being subject to contribution limits).

There is nothing unethical in what you posted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://archive.vn/QZH5K](https://archive.vn/QZH5K)

</comment><comment><USER7> Are they essentially doing contact tracing/tracking with the bluetooth functionality?

<comment><USER8> They're exploiting beacons for free location info.

 _" The use of Bluetooth is especially notable because it can capture data and target people with political messages as they travel through a physical space. This practice has jumped to politics from the advertising industry. In one recent example, Bluetooth beacons (the radio transmitters used to track cell- phone users via Bluetooth signals) were found in campaign yard signs [[https://mashable.com/article/beacons-location-tracking- repub...](https://mashable.com/article/beacons-location-tracking-republican- campaign/)]. In another, people were surveilled using these practices when they went to church. Our team has been exploring how this phenomenon—which we term geo-propaganda—has increased."_

<comment><USER7> The fixed points doesn't surprise me. However, I would suspect that they're using it to identify other devices nearby that aren't apart of the volunteered group.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The naive assumption about this is that it will be used to rally supporters with suspicious or specious "information", but it makes me wonder about the opposite. With enough user data and backend analysis, you could probably also use it as a platform to depress or discourage the activity or engagement of users determined not to support Trump. Like providing incorrect info about local voting times, regulations, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> This isn't novel, and may even be less invasive than tactics used in 2016 by the Trump campaign and in 2012 by the Obama campaign.

Both of those campaigns siphoned data from Facebook without consent of any of the users. Trump famously used Cambridge Analytica, while Obama for America's Director of Data Integration and Media Analytics built up a huge database of every American voter using data siphoned from the API used by Cambridge Analytica. [1]

At least now they're explicitly asking for permission (and you actually have to download an uber-partisan app in the first place).

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks- ru...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-rules-for- accessing-user-data-lured-more-than-just-cambridge- analytica/2018/03/19/31f6979c-658e-43d6-a71f-afdd8bf1308b_story.html)

<comment><USER11> Real-time location data, depending on the context, can be much more dangerous than Facebook data.

Specifically, it can be dangerous to your immediate health.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, the title needs to reflect that it's the Trump campaign's app.

</comment><comment><USER13> The real title of the article is "Trump's data-hungry, invasive app is a voter surveillance tool of extraordinary power".

<comment><USER14> The full article title doesn't fit HN's 80-char limit, so needs to be shortened. The submitted title was "Data-hungry, invasive app is a voter surveillance tool of extraordinary power", which would normally be fine, but popping Trump off the head of the list was probably too much of a change, so made the title above be a prefix of the original, instead of a suffix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Location info will allow identification of people who downloaded the app but are not showing location behavior typical of Trump's base. Those people become persons of interest and can be dealt with later.

<comment><USER16> >can be dealt with later

mob style?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As bad as the app is, as long as it is not illegal and the users knowingly install it, I don't see a problem with it . The Biden campaign is also free to develop such an app and target their supporters. The key to winning any election is getting your voter base excited to vote. If they targeted messaging keeps your voter base on their toes and makes them rush to the polls in November, what is the harm.

<comment><USER18> An issue is that if you target your messages you take the messages out of a general debate and leave them uncontested. The individual receiver however can't verify the message easily.

<comment><USER19> I'd actually pay to see a Trump/Biden debate. I doubt the DNC will allow it though, for fear of Biden forgetting where he is or what office he's running for, while on stage. Before you downvote, consider that this has already happened, several times.

<comment><USER20> > that this has already happened, several times.

I'm not following US politics close enough to know anything about it. But why should the democrats try to push an person into power which might have memory problems caused by age??

<comment><USER18> Why is GOP pushing a candidate who can't walk down a ramp or drink out of a glass with a single hand.

Or: short video snippets with little context tell little about anything

<comment><USER19> Trump drank a glass with a single hand specifically for you at a rally (which Biden is incapable of even drawing a crowd for, without busing people in), and said, I quote: "General, there's no way I'm going down down this ramp without falling on my ass. I have no railing." Anyone who has ever worn leather-soled dress shoes would immediately recognize who he was walking like this.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Startup dudes: Cut the sexist crap - <AUTHOR> http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2012/02/startup-dudes-cut-sexist-crap/ <comment><USER2> For context, here's the text of the audio of the guy introducing her:

"So Rebecca Lovell is the chief business officer of Geekwire, and I got to know– you can read the bio– what's written, but just for some personal color: So, Rebecca took over as executive director of the Northwest Entrepreneur network while I was on the board there and just blew us all away with her expertise, her knowledge, her connections, and her charm. And when we were putting together this program, we were looking for a real dynamite moderator who really knew the subject area, might know some of the potential panelists, and who could really add something– some substance to the program.

Rebecca's one of the smartest ladies ..."

<comment><USER3> Thanks for this. The sexy comments were obnoxious and almost certainly wouldn't have been made about a man, but this context paints a different picture than the one the author was trying to convey.

" _These would all be appropriate topics to use when introducing someone, man or woman. Here's what the man introducing Rebecca chose to say instead_ "

It seems pretty clear that the omitted portion of his introduction explicitly recognizes her merit. I favor the author's overall point, but by deliberately excluding this portion of the text, he opens himself up to straw-man arguments about the misleading lack of context.

<comment><USER4> _The sexy comments were obnoxious and almost certainly wouldn't have been made about a man_

Hmm. Perhaps not directly, but is it inconceivable that an announcer might say something about how sharply a man is dressed?

<comment><USER3> I think you make a reasonable point, but this particular comment was wrong because the comment was rooted in the speaker's sexual preferences. It is unlikely that the speaker would ever describe a man as sexy because heterosexual men generally do not view other men through the lens of sexuality. Calling someone sexy carries a pretty clear implication that they're "a valid candidate for sex", an implication which men do not have to process while interacting with 95% of their co-workers.

<comment> steve-howard I should hope that calling someone a "sexy married woman" would not intend to imply that she's a valid candidate for sex. Not that it's particularly tasteful either.

<comment><USER3> I take it you're suggesting that his acknowledgment of her marriage implies an obvious understanding that she is not _available_ as a sexual candidate, but his reference to her as sexy still reveals his _approval_ of her appearance with regard to her value as a sexual partner _for anyone_ (in this case, her new husband, who he points out is lucky to have her)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some of these comments baffle me.

Look, it doesn't matter what someone said before or after they sexualized someone in a professional context. Here's why: human beings are smart. They know that things people say matter. Thus, if you are commenting on someone's appearance or sexiness in a professional context, _that must matter to you._

Why is that important? It serves to undermine the person it's said about. Rather than being judged on their work, or their connections, or what not - they are now being judged for their appearance. And that steals credibility they may have had in other, legitimate arenas.

It says, I like you because you're attractive, not because you deserve it.

("Oh, Nancy's not a good lawyer - everyone just thinks she's pretty." "Well Bob got that promotion because he's so good-looking. He didn't really deserve it." Etc.)

And yes, in some contexts, we expect to be more casual and colloquial. But if you're in a professional setting, unprofessional remarks do insidious harm to the subject.

<comment><USER6> _Some of these comments baffle me._

You might be surprised to learn that 30 y/o virgins and other sexually frustrated nerds are resentful of women, and consequently, don't believe that sexism exists.

Let someone oppose this comment by asserting that the pristine, untouched nature of their junk is irrelevant to their point -- but the sexy attractiveness of a female speaker is fair game.

<comment><USER7> > 30 y/o virgins and other sexually frustrated nerds [...] the pristine, > untouched nature of their junk

For someone who is offering a critique against inappropriate comments, what makes this ok?

You've just ridiculed an entire group of people for what can be a very painful life circumstance, many of whom would never make or defend the kinds of comments you are criticizing.

<comment><USER8> Would they actually (out loud, audibly) object to those comments, or would they just "never make or defend" them?

I ask because letting these things slide, or worse letting the comments seem approved-of by mass silence, _is_ doing active harm.

<comment><USER7> It sounds like you're arguing that men have to "earn" not having their genitalia discussed or being mocked for their loneliness. Am I reading you right?

Fuck this. This situation is not a license to lash out at an entire group and say things that in any other circumstance would be offensive and inappropriate.

I would answer your question about objecting to those comments, but it seems pretty clear that there's an impossibly high standard for what a guy has to do to not be "guilty" for this crowd. Not even the guy who posted this blog entry objected "out loud, audibly" to this introduction at the time.

<comment><USER6> _...it seems pretty clear that there's an impossibly high standard for what a guy has to do to not be "guilty" for this crowd._

Are you kidding me? Have you read the other 100+ comments on this thread? My own comment went from +11 to +4, so you have plenty of company. By "this crowd" you must mean the handful of people who aren't scrambling to sustain their invulnerable self-image by cobbling together some half-assed theory from the little bits of pop-psych they've read.

What is your big upset about? If someone introduced you at a conference as the "guy who has never been laid" instead of "the guy who did brilliant thing X," you'd have no problem seeing why that would be hurtful. Shit, at least not being laid is the result of your own (in)action, and therefore something you've arguably earned; being "sexy" is an artifact of an organism's constitution. Perhaps by hurting you, I've sidestepped the intellectualizing process that prevents you, or someone like you, from understanding that there are fundamental emotional wounds involved, not abstract intellectual concepts.

Unsolicited advice to any man who still doesn't get it: when someone says "that hurts me" don't come back with "no it doesn't, here's why..."

<comment><USER9> Unsolicited advice to you: when countering hurtful statements, don't throw more onto the pile.

Your response to "that's not sexist!" is "yes it is you bunch 'o lonely virgins!"

Is this HN or high school?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't know the context here (full audio is not loading for me), but doesn't it seem reasonable that it was just his way of congratulating her for recently getting married? I could imagine a similar intro being used for a guy that was just married too.

EDIT: I got the full audio to work and the introduction is longer than the quote he pulled out. Judging from his tone and the earlier part of the introduction, I really don't think he was doing anything but trying to compliment/congratulate her (though admittedly he could have done a better job).

<comment><USER11> I'd encourage this for a thought experiment.

Take a step back. Bottle your immediate reaction to this article.

Starting asking yourself a few questions. Why did the author react this way to the introduction? Why do so many people in the comments seem to agree?

Avoid easy, dismissive answers. "Because they're illogical," "because they're too sensitive," "because they're not thinking this through," etc. are not good answers. They're easy answers.

If it helps pretend there's a woman upset by this sitting across the table from you. Have a conversation with her. The goal is to really understand why she's upset.

Or imagine what the husband in the audience felt -- if I were him, I'd be a little embarrassed and apologize to my wife afterwards. I'd also send a follow-up email to the moderator and the person who organized the conference voicing my displeasure (as the husband).

I'm not being flippant. Think deeply about why people are reacting this way, and avoid easy answers.

<comment><USER12> I think you have a very good point, and a great technique. In general, it works great when reacting to things.

In this case though, you have a third party journalist complaining that a racy joke is a cultural set back to an entire group of people ("startup guys"). It's pretty far out there. The commenters are mostly agreeing with a generalization of the headline, something along the lines of "there is too much sexism in tech", which is probably true.

<comment><USER11> All but the most blatant examples of sexism (and racism -- "food stamp President" anyone?) are like this. At worst they seem insensitive, at least in isolation. That's why it's so easy to talk about getting a thicker skin, etc.

I know this will seem like I'm dismissing you, but looking at your profile I see you're a current student at RIT.

There is a backdrop here and it's hard to see from the other side of the country. Heck, it's hard to see right here in Silicon Valley unless you're in the middle of it and sensitive to it.

Many people are the former, but not the latter.

You might accuse me of using weasel words -- "many people," "most instances," etc. -- and I won't blame you.

What I can say, though, is that there's a lot between the lines here. Anyone who spends time in Silicon Valley and isn't completely unaware sees it and knows it.

See my top-level comment on this thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3573674>

<comment><USER12> My profile is outdated, I've been working in the valley for 8 months. If anything, the sexism at RIT was far more widespread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's another side to this as well: it distracts from your message and makes you sound weird and creepy.

Don't introduce people as sexy unless you're trying to make a joke about being weird and creepy. In which case, make it a guy, and compliment the way their hair smells for extra weird and creepy.

<comment><USER14> > In which case, make it a guy, and compliment the way their hair smells for > extra weird and creepy.

In trying to be aware of gender issues, it seems you've (accidentally) stumbled into homophobia or mysandry. You're implying that sexualizing a man is "extra weird and creepy", something which many people would disagree with.

Simple rule: don't sexualize people in a professional setting, unless you are trying to market their sexuality.

<comment><USER15> I believe that you have misread the GP and the "for extra weird and creepy" refers only to the part after "make it a guy".

<comment><USER14> The implication is still there that making it a guy is okay because sexualizing males is somehow materially different / more acceptable than sexualizing females. Perhaps it is with respect to the minority population of women in tech, but it is not more acceptable when we consider the implicit judgement of homoeroticism that makes this sexualization less damaging than the sexualization of a female.

<comment><USER15> I took the GP to mean "make it a guy, because singling out a women because of her sex in a mostly male environment is not cool". I may be wrong, but principle of charity and all that.

I'm definitely not trying to defend homophobia, totally agree with you on that.

<comment><USER13> Hey there.

"make it a guy, because singling out a women because of her sex in a mostly male environment is not cool"

Yep, you got it right. Good comedy always aims upwards. Women put up with this shit a lot, so it's not funny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I see this shit all the time, and most men don't even realize they're doing it. Lots of startups quickly converge to a culture that's little better than a frat house.

If you think this is much ado about nothing, consider this: the subtle sexist parts of your company's culture will turn off any qualified woman from working there.

And we all know how _EASY_ it is to hire in Silicon Valley these days.

I'd also like to add, one of the most positive experiences in my startup life was working for Brian Sugar and Lisa Sugar at Sugar, Inc.. This was my first job at a proper startup and as a male I was in the minority.

I joined as #10 or so, and the first non-founding engineer. One third of the founding team were female. The second engineer we hired was Lydia Wagner.

From #10 to #30 or so I think I was one of only two or three male hires.

The stereotypical Silicon Valley startup is founded by N engineers, probably male, who graduated from college in the last 5 years.

Put those people in a tiny room for 10-14 hours a day, 6 days a week, for a year or two and it's kind of inevitable.

But it's also easy to stop if you're self-aware about it, and the founders make it a priority.

Also, guys (if I may be so bold), this thread is acting as an existence proof for the point the article is making.

</comment><comment><USER16> This exists in more than just the startup world. I was in a meeting today where a technology leader said, "Let's have X take the meeting notes, she's a woman." This person also had her administrative account set to a pathologically trivializing username.

I think the term "microaggression" gets overused, but the story referenced in the article says that what's important about the person is her gender, attractiveness, and marital status. To the point that her "lucky" spouse deserves special recognition. What?!

<comment><USER17> "Let's have X take the meeting notes, she's a woman." Definitely sounds sexist. "You are sexy." Does not sound sexist (to me). I think tech guys are afraid of sex. Now - "You are sexy" could be sexual harassment, I guess that really depends on tone, expectations, relationships. In general I think humans (mostly men) are so messed up about sex, I think everyone needs to take a chill pill.

<comment><USER18> Sex, politics and religion do not belong in a professional environment. You are there to work, save the other stuff for after hours.

<comment><USER19> Oh lol, how north American of you. On the last two i mean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is this necessarily sexist? He's not showing any belief in being superior to women, nor is he discriminating against her in any way. In fact, he complimented her at length on her professional success.

At one point he described her as a sexy single woman. He even mentioned her husband and asked for him to stand up. While I would consider that to be a very odd and uncomfortable way to end his introduction, it doesn't seem sexist. If somebody went on at length about how great I am professionally, and then threw in a statement about me being a sexy single man, I'm pretty sure I'd just consider it as an added complement.

I understand there is real sexism in the industry. I just don't think this is it. It's just an odd comment from a person who may be odd/uncomfortable around women.

<comment><USER21> Think of it like this: you are at a professional setting and being introduced in front of an audience. These points are made about you while you stand by and the audience watches you:

1\. grannyg00se is a great person to work with 2\. grannyg00se has a keen understanding and knowledge of the industry 3\. grannyg00se brings a lot to the table and is a valued member of their team

You stand there and maybe blush a little, proud. Then,

4\. grannyg00se was a really sexy single and just got married and is still sexy.

How is that relevant to the audience? If you are a guy and everyone in the audience is a guy, maybe that's some kind of frat behaviour that gets a laugh out of everyone. But if you are a women on that stage suddenly you are subject to intense pressure: be good at your job _and_ be sexy because your female and the being good at your job isn't enough.

It's complex and it's hard to really explain how it feels but I've been in situations like this. It's just really uncomfortable even when you know it's not meant in bad faith, that maybe some guy in the audience is objectifying you and no longer paying attention to what you are contributing outside of being pretty to look at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Here's the male version:

John's one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John and he said yes, he was a handsome single man. And since that time, he's become a handsome married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up. So we've got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator.

Would someone saying that get to the top of hacker news? I do agree that this is far from a good introduction thought.

<comment><USER23> Do you actually think that the appropriate "male version" of sexy is handsome? Sexy is a non gender-specific adjective.

The male version is this:

 _John's one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John and he said yes, he was a sexy single man. And since that time, he's become a sexy married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up. So we've got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator._

... and noone would get up and say this as an introduction. Which is why this is at the top of Hacker News.

<comment><USER24> Exactly. I'd be a lot less creeped out if the presenter said 'beautiful' instead of 'sexy', but it would still be a strange way to do an intro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What the hell?! Someone has really stretched the definition of sexism here or the alleged problem exists in some alternate universe only.

I took the time and listened the audio recording. What happened is:

\- The guy spends minutes talking about how good and smart Ms Lovell is and how she suits the role perfectly

\- And in the end makes the short remark about that a sexy single lady who is now a sexy married woman, obviously to celebrate the recent happy event.

\- He even pointed out how lucky her new husband was instead of, say, drooling at her sexiness himself.

\- Everybody laughed.

\- Ms Lovell laughed, and made some witty comments before starting with the real business.

And _then some third party guy gets upset_ because he thinks there's a problem somewhere. Excuse me but this reeks of steep hypersensitivism.

It might certainly be sexist to say somewhat that would expand to "she's so smart that we picked her for this role eventhough she's only a woman" or "we chose her and that is because she was just too sexy to pass". That would be somehow implying that women are lesser but at least they can look good.

But this was clearly not the case in this event. What happened was a compliment, both on her recent marriage and related to that, her good looks.

Emphasis on the word "good". It was a compliment: the man stated what he thought were positive facts about her, and especially not pointed to anything negative nor exhibited, say, disturbing personal interest in her.

The strange thing is that it's not only that as if women couldn't take compliments anymore—I think most of them can—but, rather, it seems that some _men_ can't take it anymore to observe women being complimented. This is just crazy.

We're all men and women and men do pay attention to good looking women and women do pay attention to good looking men (at least if only they let themselves). That is perfectly normal and there's generally nothing wrong in making a compliment about one's good looks. While there are subtle but complex rules about social interaction, flirting, including making comments about good looks or of even sexual nature, most of all that used to be the norm, and generally well received and lavishly given, without the slightest hint of sexist nature.

<comment><USER26> Something can be both a compliment and sexist. Especially if it's a compliment that has a lot of baggage and assumptions.

There is a history women only being viewed as good for marriage and babies. It used to be seen as unusual & unnatural for a woman to not want babies and marriage. It was seen as weird for a woman to want to focus on carrer rather than marriage. Also they were viewed as "nice to look at, but unable to do any real work". Things have gotten a lot better, but there are still bits of this attitude around.

If you compliment a woman based on (a) getting married and (b) physical attractiveness, you are slightly re-inforcing that meme. You are also signaling that you might be the sort of person who thinks the above, or that you support the above attitudes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'll be the first to admit that before I had my daughter, this type of stuff never really bothered me (shame on me). Now that I have a little girl, I'm much more sensitive to it and really, really don't want her to grow up in a world where she gets introduced to a professional audience as "sexy".

<comment><USER28> As an early 20's woman in software engineering I've actually noticed differences in how older men with daughters treat me vs. my new-grad peers, and I prefer working with the former.

<comment><USER29> Interesting, but we have 2 variables here. How do older men with only sons, and older childless men stack up? To what do you attribute the difference - maturity, or having a daughter?

<comment><USER28> Actually, it seems to be both age and having a daughter, compounded. Older men seem generally more agreeable/less-fratboy, but men with daughters seem to be actively conscious of the environment and actively try to be respectful, even if it's counter to the culture.

Of course, this is all just anecdotal, and my sample size is still small right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Argh. This continues to happen. Was in a boardroom meeting with a company recently with my female cofounder, and she was all but ignored by the CEO (others were fine). On the surface, nothing will come of it. In actual fact though, the behavior spoke volumes about what kind of environment they offer in terms of a deeper integration/commitment, and who knows what opportunities were lost for them (and, in theory, for us).

</comment><comment><USER31> How about this: Cut the unprofessional crap!

The programming world is so used to breaking the norms, revolutionizing industries, and wearing T-shirts and sneakers to work that we forget, sometimes, that some aspects of "professionalism" actually do serve a purpose. There's a reason that senators don't call each other by name (hint: how vitriolic can you sound when yelling "I respectfully disagree with the senator from Kentucky"). Respect is a currency in the world of intellectual pursuits. At one time, we showed that respect in the way we dressed. At the very least, shouldn't we show that respect in the way we speak? You might be surprised how far a little respect can go.

</comment><comment><USER32> "And if you see someone doing this, call them on it. I didn't… that was my nervous laughter in the background of the recording."

"Here's what the man introducing Rebecca chose to say"

So, who is this "man"?

Easy to say but hard to do depending on your relationship to the "someone".

Let's say the person doing this is of the stature of PG and you are looking to get into YC.

Is it safe to stand up to him?

Sure that might get you points for taking a stand, he might actually like that.

Or maybe not. It's double or nothing.

It's easy to take a stand when the person being sexist is of no significance to you. Much harder if you have something to loose.

This is why things like this happen many times. And important to keep in mind. Power.

<comment><USER11> Nice!

Yes, when other people in this thread -- and let's be honest, men -- play the thought experiment where the roles are reverse and it's the wife sitting in the audience, they don't see what's so offensive. "I wouldn't be offended!" they think.

They see a formal symmetry in the situation, but miss the fact that there's a huge asymmetry when it comes to power and gender.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Being sexist, racist, or anything else really distracts from the mission of the startup.

That being said we take the same approach that south park does. Everything is on the table or nothing is on the table. Everyone in my group constantly rags on each other for everything including some off color jokes. However we've been friends for years, and when we work with other people we cut that stuff out immediately. The comments he made were fairly demeaning, and I guess a strong lesson here is know your audience or if you can't figure that out then don't do it at all.

To clarify I judge a person based on their ability and how they treat others. It's really the only way to go about things.

<comment><USER26> That's a good point, but it's important to remember that a lot of insults can carry baggage. Especially if you're a straight, white, cisgendered, upper/middle class male. (or whatever the formerly priviliged group in your area). So you might think "Oh I insulted Joe about his looks and Wendy about her looks, so it's all equal", but Joe might have never been judged as much on his looks as Wendy, so one joke might sting more.

I suppose it's like all jokes. You have to make sure not to say something too cutting to the audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm a girl in tech, and I think nothing in that introduction is offensive.

I feel that there are five points here that need addressing.

1\. Women rarely become attractive by doing nothing. We have to work at it. You have to take care of yourself, go to the gym, eat right, choose appropriate clothing, and etc. I have never laid eyes on Rebecca Lovell, but if she's attractive then I think it is a safe assumption that she is _trying_ to be attractive. If I were Rebecca, I would be pleased that my efforts had been noted and approved of.

2\. If the fellow who introduced Rebecca had implied that her attractiveness was her _only_ useful quality, I would be more sympathetic to Dan's complaint. But the introduction didn't do that. In fact, he led off by saying how smart Rebecca was, and then he went on to describe her as "perfect" (for the position) and "talented." At no point did he imply that Rebecca was chosen for her looks or that her looks were her claim to fame. On the contrary, his introduction seems genuinely kind, respectful, and affectionate.

3\. Even if this introduction _had_ been offensive -- if the introducer had said "Rebecca is hot and stupid and we will enjoy looking at her while she moderates" -- is it really that big a deal? Men insult each other all the time in similar contexts, and it's very rare that they get criticized for it as when women are insulted. If we women are worth a damn, surely our egos should be sturdy enough to handle this sort of thing like adults.

4\. I have often heard men say "No wonder there aren't more women in tech; they get treated like sex objects!" It should be news to no one that men like sex -- least of all to women. People in all industries and with all interests are insulted all the time. Can it really be true that womens' interest in tech is so fragile and tenuous that vague insults and sexual innuendo are enough to discourage them from it entirely? I don't believe that, and I'd further venture to say that women who _do_ say that are just making excuses because they're interested in something else. I got my CS degree from Georgia Tech, and in the College of Computing men outnumbered women 9 to 1. I was often the only girl in my classes, and sometimes I was exposed to immature male freshmen being immature male freshmen. This wasn't a trial for me; it wasn't difficult. I wasn't alienated. It sounds crazy to even _consider_ that references to breasts or sex (gasp!) would make me leave my chosen field of study. Who cares if I know that someone wants to have sex with me?

5\. Dan Shapiro is clearly trying to do right by women and be a good man, and I respect and appreciate that. But I think he is selling Rebecca (and all women) short by suggesting that that introduction should hurt her feelings.

<comment><USER35> It doesn't matter if you took personal offense or not, or even if Rebecca took offense. And i don't think anyone's personally attacking the guy that gave the introduction, because chances are extremely slim he meant to make any objectifying remarks.

But it's something that deserves to be called attention to. It makes some people uncomfortable, maybe not everyone, and does not belong in a professional setting.

Lets say instead the speaker was overweight, and now the person giving the intro, after plenty of appropriate compliments, makes a diet joke, or comments on their weight even in a non-judgmental respect. It is belittling and inappropriate. Commenting on people's physical appearance in a professional setting, not a casual social setting, is objectifying and inappropriate, regardless of if that person is good-natured enough to just laugh it off or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> A lot of the comments here compare this to saying a man is sexy and conclude "it sounds a little weird, it's out of place in a professional setting."

This completely misses the point that in our culture women are frequently (practically _always_) objectified sexually in some way. There's a gulf between what it means to call a man sexy and what it means to call a woman sexy.

I think this is what men so often completely miss. The male equivalent of this is not "John's one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John and he said yes, he was a handsome single man. And since that time, he's become a handsome married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up"

it's something closer to: John's one of the smartest guy I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected John and he said yes, he's a single man with just has a gigantic penis. And since that time, he's become a married man with a gigantic penis, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse, who gets all that in bed, to stand up"

It's not 'out of place' it's appalling that something like this is acceptable _anywhere_.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's staggering that in 2012 we still have to remind people about this.

</comment><comment><USER38> I look at remarks like this as a result of not practicing in advance. As programmer types, we don't typically get up in front of people and make personable comments. If we are up in front of people, it's discussing something technical, which is something we are qualified to talk about. But introducing panel moderators -- when have you ever done that before? All you have to go on is cliches you've picked up from TV or movies, and you saying something that sounded funny when a comedian said it might not sound as funny. You don't know until you try. You don't know until you practice.

(Personally, I think the best way to navigate uncharted waters like this is to stick to the facts. "Here's our panelist, she has a PhD from Harvard and likes skiing." I'm not going to get any laughs or win any awards for that sentence, but I'm also not going to make anyone feel bad. And that's more important to me.

</comment><comment><USER39> I guess part of the problem is how women are presented in the tech industry. Whenever you see women on a tech event they tend to be booth babes, or they have been send to the event to attract men.

I was at a career event last week. None of the women representing a company could give a clear story of what the company does from day to day. They where just there to be pretty.

If we want to stop sexism we have to stop this, but i don't think this will happen any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER40> So someone explain this to me.. how is this "sexist"? That to me takes on an air of discrimination. I didn't see any undertones, nor would those (assumed by the author) undertones exist if the gender roles were reversed.

This "controversy" seems like a lot of bunkola, to me.

<comment><USER26> Something can be both a compliment and sexist. Especially if it's a compliment that has a lot of baggage and assumptions.

There is a history women only being viewed as good for marriage and babies. It used to be seen as unusual & unnatural for a woman to not want babies and marriage. It was seen as weird for a woman to want to focus on carrer rather than marriage. Also they were viewed as "nice to look at, but unable to do any real work". Things have gotten a lot better, but there are still bits of this attitude around.

If you compliment a woman based on (a) getting married and (b) physical attractiveness, you are slightly re-inforcing that meme. You are also signaling that you might be the sort of person who thinks the above, or that you support the above attitudes.

After all, would you compliment a Jewish speaker about how much money they had? Or compliment an older man about how they haven't needed to go to the toilet in a while?

<comment><USER40> >If you compliment a woman based on (a) getting married and (b) physical attractiveness, you are slightly re-inforcing that meme. You are also signaling that you might be the sort of person who thinks the above, or that you support the above attitudes.

What utter rubbish. So getting married isn't something compliment worthy? A compliment based on physical attractiveness is always sexist?

Absurd.

<comment><USER41> > What utter rubbish. So getting married isn't something compliment worthy? A > compliment based on physical attractiveness is always sexist?

Nice strawmen.

In this context, the personal life of the person being introduced and their physical attractiveness has nothing to do with why they are here. At best it's completely off-topic.

Consider if it was a male presented being introduced with: "...he was an alcoholic when I met him, but now he's been 3 years sober". Completely irrelevant personal details that undermine the credibility of the person for at least some of the audience (not to mention making the person feel awkward).

<comment><USER40> >In this context, the personal life of the person being introduced and their physical attractiveness has nothing to do with why they are here. At best it's completely off-topic.

It's a bloody startup presentation, not a congressional hearing. Making a nod at the person's personal life, on a subject that's typically cause for celebration (are you going to tell me "Congratulations on your new son/daughter" is sexist and eebil now) is somehow uncalled for?

>Consider if it was a male presented being introduced with: "...he was an alcoholic when I met him, but now he's been 3 years sober"

That's a really crappy example. The things we're talking about here are ostensibly positive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would be very complimented if an introducer said these things about me, replacing 'woman' with 'man'. Maybe I'm sexist - I think (those who are upset) are a little too uptight. It feels like (they) would like to take sexuality out of the workplace entirely.

<comment><USER42> My go-to response to this is actually a comic, which says things better than I could: [http://ms-marx.blogspot.com/2010/09/street-harassment- comic....](http://ms-marx.blogspot.com/2010/09/street-harassment-comic.html)

If being called out on my looks was an exceptional thing, it would be less annoying. Heck, I was harassed on my way into this Mountain View coffee shop just now. I just want to study data mining...

<comment><USER17> That comic (and accompanying article) make a good point. It's easy to see how annoying (or scary) that would be. Though I would say the men depicted are total douche bags. I won't defend them. I will defend the guy who likes to say hi to you in the cafe every morning, or the co-worker who buys you snacks when you work late, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I apologize for this (my) post because it adds no real value to this topic. But I just have to say, as a male, I am disgusted when guys talk like this in a professional environment.

I do not know anything about the person who said it or the companies involved, but I associate this kind of talk to a particular type of person, which may or may not be an accurate portrayal of "guys who talk like this", and I guess it is this very archetypal man that rubs me the wrong way. Here I am no longer talking about the person who said this sexist comment, but the image of a guy in my own head: a yuppie, clean-cut, trendy, smooth-talker, that thinks (and certainly can be) cutting edge in the IT or business sector, that also thinks he's got it all figured out and knows exactly what each person (not just women) is worth. He's got us all "figured out", but is really just full of himself. I've met a couple, and again, I'm not saying this person is that type, but having gathered extremely little information on him, he reminded me of this "theoretical" person, and I just have no tolerance for these "slick" smooth-talking men.

If my post is inappropriate because you deem it to be an overreaction, please delete it or advise me to, and I will follow through. I just feel very strongly about this.

I can write a whole essay on how calling anybody "sexy" sends the wrong message. Good on him for going for the un-PC, hip talk, but it absolutely fuels the image of what our society deems to be a standard/pre-defined sense of beauty or a definitive definition of "success". And the problem is that many people point out what "sexy" is to the point that we start seeing a pattern and assume "Oh, this is what sexy is", or "Oh, this is what beauty is". It takes all types to make the world go 'round.

And just to add a point that is not contentious: Calling anybody sexy in a business environment is disrespectful, regardless of gender, or how in- tune/hip with the kids you may feel you are. I feel women in power tend to downplay it or act like they don't mind for the very reason that they may be blamed for falling into the "typical sensitive, overreacting" woman role. It's like they can't escape it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. A catch-22. So might as well make the best of it and put on a smile. (Or talk about it privately with your bestfriends.)

I'm new here, so if this rant is inappropriate, please let me know and I'll remove it or edit it, instead of getting a flood of down-votes.

</comment><comment><USER44> Taking the focus away from intellectual and professional capacity with something else is just that, indirectly downplaying and trivializing the person.

The interesting thing is many guys probably wouldn't say something like this about a close female they knew themselves, be it their own wives, girlfriends, sisters.

Nor would we want anyone speaking like that about our wives, girlfriends, or sisters.

0.02

</comment><comment><USER45> Typical men, all sexists ...

Shouldn't the title be "startup people" if we're "cut[ting] the sexist crap" - unless of course it's a documented fact that no female involved in a startup has ever made a sexist comment.

<comment><USER26> The majority of sexism is suffered by women at the hands of men.

There's no point in arguing false dichotomies where everyone agrees or not.

<comment><USER45> Yes but condemning sexism in a subgroup chosen only by sex is itself sexist, and rather ironic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Regardless of the merits of this blog post, we seem to have to discuss this at least once a week on Hacker News. At this point I'd classify it as a "classic flamewar topic". Flagged.

</comment><comment><USER47> Way too many conflicting messages in this American culture of ours. I can understand the frustration felt by those who feel that their qualities are not recognized because of one reason or another, but honestly, I don't think it was the speaker's INTENT to sexualize the woman. It is an important topic but poor guy!! Why not focus on more subtle messages like the fact that CNN or your local news hires women to be on camera that do not look like the average woman you may see on the street?

<comment><USER48> Why not do both instead of trying to distract?

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> How to do introductions 101:

1\. Say something about why the person is here. Speak to their credentials and establish credibility. 2\. Know your audience. Let them know why the person being introduced is important to them. 3\. It's okay to make a small personal comment. It establishes rapport.

If the entire intro is #3 you've screwed up. This intro was clearly out of line. My guess is that the moderator didn't even realize it which is twice as bad.

<comment><USER50> If you look at the whole introduction instead of merely the snippet presented, it appears as though the introducer followed your guidelines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I think he chose a pretty bad example to lead in with. Yeah, the comment to Lovell lacked taste, but it was hardly the worst thing that could have been said.

That said, there was a good point here:

 _Think before you open your mouth._

Couldn't agree more. Far too many faux pas (including some that I've made) could be avoided just by thinking about what you're about to say before you say it.

<comment><USER52> Reversing the genders in the introduction yields, "Robert's one of the smartest men[1] I know, and I thought that he was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected Robert and he said yes, he was a sexy single man. And since that time, he's become a sexy married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up. So we've got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator.", which is only slightly weird.

Removing the obvious weird part -- "sexy" -- yields, "... When we selected Robert and he said yes, he was a single man. And since that time, he's become a married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up ...", which isn't weird anymore, but somewhat of an awkward construction; you don't say "he has become a married man" in normal conversation.

If I had to rephrase that less awkwardly, I'd go with "... since we selected Robert and he said yes, he's gone and got himself married, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up ...". Maybe throw in the classic, "Let's have a round of applause for the happy couple."

Putting this all back together:

"Rebecca's one of the smartest ladies I know, and I thought that she was a perfect pick for the role of moderator. Since we selected Rebecca and she said yes, she's gone and got herself married, and so I wanted her lucky new spouse to stand up. (Let's have a round of applause for the happy couple.) So we've got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator."

[1] "ladies" might be slightly off in this context, but I think it's less egregious than twisting a marriage announcement into an opportunity to call a woman sexy twice.

<comment><USER53> I really don't see how this is such a big issue, it's slightly out of place to call someone sexy, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is partially just a matter of gender associated terms. Imagine this:

> "Robert's one of the smartest men[1] I know, and I thought that he was a > perfect pick for the role of moderator. When we selected Robert and he said > yes, he was a handsome single man. And since that time, he's become a > handsome married man, and so I wanted his lucky new spouse to stand up. So > we've got not only a very talented, but a happy moderator."

That doesn't seem even remotely odd or out of place to me (perhaps it would be as the entirety of an introduction, but that isn't the case here). So yes, he maybe should have said "beautiful" instead of "sexy", but if people think this is an example of how the tech community is sexist then they are seriously deluding themselves with how non-sexist it really is.

<comment><USER54> If I was introduced as a "handsome single man," I would find it very, very strange. To the point that before I said anything, I would just look at the person introducing me with a bewildered look for a few seconds before speaking. So, yes, I find it quite out of place.

<comment><USER55> Isn't the implication here that these folks know each other?

<comment><USER54> Also not relevant. In a professional setting, I don't care if you're introducing your spouse, calling the person "sexy" is not appropriate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Somebody was (reportedly) rude. This is only news when the person being rude is male and the person on the receiving end is female. THEN it's proof of how horrible men are.

Kind of like the reverse of: <http://xkcd.com/385>

<comment><USER57> It's really funny that you would pick an XKCD that is about how sexism works as part of your argument that it wasn't sexism, merely rudeness.

The whole point is that a man being rude about another man in this particular way -- by superfluously mentioning his attractiveness -- is exceedingly rare, while for women it is all too common. One would be an aberration, the other is pattern, and the pattern is why it's at the top of HN.

<comment><USER56> "it wasn't sexism, merely rudeness"

ugh. Sexism is an attitude, the rude introduction was the action. Who cares _why_ it was rude? It shouldn't be more offensive because you can (correctly or not) ascribe a motive to it that you find distasteful.

Trying to decry this sort of thing and speak up in "defense of women" or any of that garbage infantilizes women and perpetuates a much more serious problem than men noticing how we look.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Terrible introduction. Gives insight into how that man's brain works around women, causing him to trip over his tongue and mention what he saw - "sexy" - vs. what qualifications she had for moderating.

</comment><comment><USER59> low cut shirts, mini-skirts, hose, lipstick, eye-liner, perfume...

seems like being sexy matters a lot to women. you just better not acknowledge it out loud.

</comment><comment><USER60> I agree, but I flagged for the headline.

</comment><comment><USER61> I am not sure I understood this post correctly: is it the phrase " _a sexy married woman_ " that is a crime against humanity?

<comment><USER62> Um, no. The "crimes against humanity" thread is over ----> there. This one is about how smart and otherwise insightful men thoughtlessly contribute to the sexist atmosphere that is pervasive in the tech world, as any technical woman can attest to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Flagged; flamebait.

<comment><USER48> You'll be amazed to find out that the flag button works just as well (maybe even better?) without an accompanying post to that effect!

<comment><USER63> Just making the point that arguing with this kind of article is pointless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I'm disgusted at the amount of sexist crap everywhere and I'm horrified when I see it here on HN and am still surprised at its persistence on reddit (ie the trainwreck #1 post this morning). It's been a while but here on HN there was a series of posts and discussion about women's pay and negotiations that left a bad taste in my mouth from the dripping sense of entitlement and ignorance that resulted from posters arrogantly asserting that "women should just ask for more", revealing their ignorance of the complications of sexism in various tech industries.

Sadly this reaction is typical when confronting a majority about their taking advantage of minority groups. "It's just a joke". (Hint, this response has already been offered up more than once _in this thread_ ). It doesn't affect males and it's a male dominated industry, thus the issue has low visibility and personal impact to those who are causing the problem or have the influence to fix it. This all compounds to make this issue hard to solve unless people are willing to vocally confront these incidents _as they happen_ , _when they happen_ , and take responsibility for treating people with respect and equality.

<comment><USER65> > posters arrogantly asserting that "women should just ask for more"

I believe I remember the posts to which you're referring, which centered IIRC around posts of "what you as a woman can do to improve your salary", by at least one feminist and one recruiter. The thesis of both posts - and many of the comments - was that a heavy contributing factor to the lower average salary for women, at least in "higher" professions (C.S., engineering in general), was that the system was biased towards giving higher salaries to those who were bolder and greedier, traits which women seemed less likely to display at the negotiating table. I suppose one could argue that emphasizing the "what women could do" rather than "fix the damn system" aspect was sexist, but it's a stretch, especially given the authors.

Re: jokes. Whenever someone complains about a joke, or about an aspect of language, I always feel like we're attacking the tip of the iceberg in a way that won't really affect the rest of the problem at all. I'd rather people spent their time dealing with the roots of these sorts of problems than arguing over words and jokes.

<comment><USER64> Not to attack, but you're missing the point too. Saying someone "could do X, Y" especially where X, Y are "bolder" and "greedier" has very different implications for a woman than a man. And the resulting discussion revealed just that. Both anecdotes and studies were posted that revealed that not only were those tactics NOT very successful for women's advancement in the workplace, but that it actually caused resentment towards them as male collegaues took that behavior to, well, were it normally goes. Look at most bold women and the jokes that people make about them being "bitches" or "cold" or what not. It's undermining and it's why women are often conditioned to NOT be bold and ask for more, etc. (Why don't people ever ask, how did we get to this level of inequality and disrespect in the first place?)

As for the jokes, I agree. As I commented elsewhere, it takes a sexist culture to excuse and allow sexist jokes. I think that being less tolerant of such jokes is a good first step towards reforming the broken aspects of such a culture though.

<comment><USER55> Do you have a link to said discussion?

 _Look at most bold women and the jokes that people make about them being "bitches" or "cold" or what not._

I would respond "bold" men are often called "predators" and "douchebags" by the very same people. I find that there are always people who dislike those who put their necks out, no matter their sex.

<comment><USER66> I'd say that there are fewer women that are both bold and well-liked than men. Admittedly this is just my opinion, and I don't have any numbers to back it up.

<comment><USER67> The relevant question, however, is whether (# well liked && bold) / (# bold) is larger for men than for women. You may observe very few bold and well liked women merely because # bold women is low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> If someone called me a sexy single man, I would be flattered.

I don't see a problem.

</comment><comment><USER69> Really? Women do not start or get involved with tech companies because the male programmers make sexist jokes?! Get real. Women are just as competitive as men, and the reason they stay out of tech has not much to do with sexism. I am all for women and men being equal, but putting men on the burning stake for something like this seems unfair to me.

<comment><USER70> _Really? Women do not start or get involved with tech companies because the male programmers make sexist jokes?! Get real._

This wasn't a sexist joke. This was a sign of a sexist culture, which is much more pervasive and damaging.

 _Women are just as competitive as men_

Men don't have to take this crap. Well, usually.

 _he reason they stay out of tech has not much to do with sexism_

So, what is it?

<comment><USER69> Lack of role models. Thats probably the biggest reason there are not enough women in technology.

Also, your mention of sexist culture makes it sound like that's the culture in technology startups, this is not true. Sexism, where it exists, does not depend on the domain. Its pervasive.

<comment><USER71> I wonder how much role models actually play a role. I got into programming because I loved programming, it was something I could do at home with minimal ramp up time or gear.

<comment><USER69> There is a lack of role models because there is a perception among the younger generation of women that programming is not a creative endeavor, which makes a lot of women away from learning programming. The society's portrayal of programmers as geeks or beta males does not help either. People are the sum total of the 5-10 people they closely associate with, and most girls do not find their friends wanting to be programmers when they grow up. Peer support, role models, are key. When women like Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook start showing up on TV and the idea of successful women in technology is portrayed to be appealing, you will slowly find women taking more to technology jobs.

<comment><USER72> Programming is also a solitary endeavor so close to impossible that it seems to require obsession just to reach a minimal level of competence. If anyone is dependent on peer validation and role models (which basically didn't exist for any of us until the first dotcom bubble in the mid-90s), if they care more about _what other people think_ than the Platonic ideals of computation, I don't think they're equipped to thrive and do noteworthy work. Even if we did have some way to make a kid more asocial and hyperfocused while growing up, we'd have to think hard about whether it's ethical to do it to them in this extrovert-oriented society.

<comment><USER41> Honestly, there's no easy way to tell if programming is solitary because it has to be or because the culture that grew up around it prefers it to be. Consider pair-programming for a counter-example.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Here's a Simple Explanation of How Self-Driving Cars Could Eliminate Traffic - <AUTHOR> http://jalopnik.com/here-s-a-simple-explanation-of-how-self-driving-cars-co-1785996633 <comment><USER2> +1

I had seen this video of cars in a circle without any bottleneck, it was quite an eureka moment - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm- pZp_mi0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-pZp_mi0)</comment>


Ask HN: How can I find non profits to contribute software effort to? - <AUTHOR> I work remotely and live in a third world country. And it's a bit hard for me to help on the local scene. I would love to help non profits with their software.
I am a devops engineer and have a master degree in artificial intelligence. So a bit of experience on both sides. If you have a non profit that I can help with please email me: my username @gmail.com<p>I would appreciate any tips from people who already do that. <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations](https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations) is looking for help. [https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/owg- membership...](https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/owg-membership/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd recommend something like this:

[http://www.npower.org/Our-Programs/Community- Corps.aspx](http://www.npower.org/Our-Programs/Community-Corps.aspx)

<comment><USER4> Can people from outside of the US contribute/help? I tried to sign up but failed...</comment></comment>


What If The Google Reader Readers Just Don't Come Back? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/24/bees/

<comment><USER2> It's almost as if Google has offended one of its most influential constituencies, with little conception of the possible backlash that might result from such "bait and switch" tactics.

Oh wait, it's exactly like that.

</comment><comment><USER3> What really pisses me off in discussions abour Google Reader and RSS in general is people suggesting some kind of 'social news'. I don't want to rely on anybody's taste and judgements, I just want to read what I want to read and this is something social news will never be able to fulfill.</comment>


Show HN: Space-themed roguelike made in 7 days - <AUTHOR> https://danbolt.itch.io/nayr-odyssey <comment><USER2> Awesome :) . Found interface rather discoverable - at least managed to orbit and repair a bit before got killed. Quite fresh look on a rogue-like!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for giving it a go! I think the lack of a tutorial really makes learning the game tricky, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The website is down. Maybe HN hug of death?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, I cleared my browser cache and was still able to access it. I also didn't see anything on itch.io's Twitter feed. Are you able to try again?</comment></comment>


Cocoon Is Protecting Your Whole Home by Sensing Activity Through Walls and Doors - <AUTHOR> http://superbcrew.com/cocoon-is-protecting-your-whole-home-by-sensing-activity-through-walls-and-doors/

<comment><USER2> _Cocoon is single smart home security device which combines sensors like a HD Camera, Motion Detection and Subsound Technology to sense activity anywhere in your home and notify you via your smartphone if anything unusual happens, so you can take action and feel safe._

Including, presumably, whether your teenage son or daughter is getting busy in ways you don't approve of, in the dead of night.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, that's one way of using it :D</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What headphones are you using? - <AUTHOR> What headphones do you use when working? <comment><USER2> Given that my in-ear headphones normally last 6 weeks at most, and I'm no audiophile, I normally just buy what looks good at TK Maxx in the £5 price range.

However I have shelled out for some "Iron Buds" on KickStarter: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/legendary/earbuds- time-t...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/legendary/earbuds-time-to- change-the-status-quo)

and they are due to arrive any day. These are basically strengthened ear buds with interchangeable cords and ear pieces, making them less disposable and more rugged.

</comment><comment><USER3> My favorites are Etymotic ER-4s. The sound reproduction is incredible, to the point where it makes anything under 200kbps completely unlistenable.

They're so clear that I could even hear a metronome quietly ticking in the distance during a guitar solo on Meshuggah's Catch 33. I'd listened to that album many times before, but I'd never noticed it until I listened with my Etymotics.

That said, the frequency response is very realistic. You're not going to get scooped mids with huge, muddy bass out of them. If you're planning on listening to hip-hop or dubstep then you'll probably want to look elsewhere. Shure and UltimateEars have some stacked driver designs which offer most of the benefits of the Etymotics, but with more bass. I haven't heard the UltimateEars firsthand, and I've only listened on a $100-ish pair of Shures. The mid-price Shure's are okay, bet they don't hold a candle to my Etymotics. Then again, the they're 1/4 the price, so that's par for the course.

The ER-4s also have phenomenal sound isolation. They're almost as effective as a pair of earplugs, even when you're not listening to music.

My only complaint is that the pair I had was a bit flimsy. One of the ear pieces actually snapped off in my ear (though I was drumming at the time, so I may have been asking for it). Etymotic repaired them free of charge, but they still feel a bit plastic-y to me. For the price, I'd really like them to feel solidly built.

</comment><comment><USER4> This: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_MDR-V6>

Best headphones price-quality, hands down. Got them because a recomendation from a friend. Best recomendation ever made.

Even headphones in the multiple hundreds can´t compare to them at 60$. I actually bought a spare one ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> Beyer-Dynamic DT-770 Pro 80 ohm.

They are very comfortable, even with glasses on, for any period of time. They are very effective at blocking outside noise, regardless of whether they're being used as headphones or earmuffs. They've lasted about three years, while all other headphones I have used didn't make it past the two year mark. I bought them for non-DJ use, but now use them for everything. DJing, Pandora, White Noise, movies, gaming (with a $7 Zalman clip-on mic), you name it.

headfi.org is probably the best place for advice, if that's what you are looking for. Nothing beats trying on headphones for yourself though.

</comment><comment><USER6> AOsafety brand "worktunes" - nothing says "don't bother me, I'm working" quite like giant yellow hearing protectors.

Also, the noise dampening comes in handy in the data center. I mean, it's not so loud that short periods of time are going to kill your hearing, but over the years? yeah, I could see problems.

Also, I find I don't get fatigued as quickly in a data center with hearing protection.

But I use them for office work, too; it's not like I have 'golden ears' anyhow; these things are perfectly fine for listening to MP3 quality audio. I have clipped off the antenna; reception is shit most of the places I work.

</comment><comment><USER7> I used to wear headphones regularly. But now I only used them sometimes at work.

My favourite phones would have to be Brainwavz HM5

Very clean and unbiased. Avoid these if you like overly harsh, bright, flat or the patented Sennheiser 'heavy mud bass .' Don't have much of an opinion on earphones, though. Just that they make me feel like an 80 year old with how little they give in terms of clarity & depth .

Edit: I also used to use Alessandro MS1, basically the Grado 125. If you like metal/rock, get these. My favourite brights. Not for the faint of ears...

</comment><comment><USER8> Ultimate Ears SuperFi 10's.

I had issues with Shure's SE530s, and stumbled on a one-day special on Amazon for the SuperFi 10's for 20% of list price: never looked back. As in-ear phones go, they're the best I've ever had. I gather newer units have some manufacturing quality issues, but I've had mine for over two years and although I'm on the fourth cable (they're user-replaceable) and _n_ 'th set of foam tips, I'm very happy with them.

(Which is a good thing, because triple-driver in-ear phones generally cost an arm and a leg!)

</comment><comment><USER9> Currently some basic Philips for sports. They're nothing special but at least they don't fall off -- hurting my ear-skin a bit though.

I had a pair of cordless Philips with Bluetooth, again for sports, which were very handy; sound quality wasn't excellent though, they were bulky and would fall off too easily, so eventually I lost them.

My ideal headphones would be cordless, good for sports, noise-reducing, small and adjustable, fitting my ears without hurting.

</comment><comment><USER10> Sennheiser HD 202

I have had them since the end of 2003. These head phones are very good value for money. I have travelled with them and use them most days. Recently I replaced the leatherette ear pads but apart from that they are still going strong.

</comment><comment><USER11> Sennheiser HD 380 Pro.

I use them every day at the office to muffle out background noise/conversations. They're also great when traveling, I commute into Boston once a month and they muffle out the engine noise of the bus pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER12> Switch between Sansa buds, which are $10/3 pairs, and Bose QC15 noise cancelling over-ear, which save my nerves on all flights and anywhere I can't sleep.

</comment><comment><USER13> Good ol' factory Apple earbuds morning, noon and night.

<comment><USER14> This. Although I've gone through several pairs of headsets already. This is probably my fifth pair of Apple buds (just had a bunch of buying many Apple products) and I went through a couple Sennheiser branded ones too. I also owned a few over the ear headsets and realize I hate all of them (earbuds only moving forward). Will probably pick up another brand/set soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Standard ipod white earbuds for day to day use and abuse (I mostly listen to podcasts) and Shure 530's for when I care about what I'm listening to.

</comment><comment><USER16> Sony MDR-V6 Studio Monitor. Rock solid, nice long extensible wire, less bass then it's related model. I think they look great too.

</comment><comment><USER17> A pair of Sennheiser in-ear headphones I got over 5 years ago. They are rock solid and have phenomenal sound.

</comment><comment><USER18> Bose IE2 for earbuds that I use with my phone and laptop. Roccat Kave headset for my desktop headset.

</comment><comment><USER19> AKG K-55, they are a closed-in design, good for masking external noise, comfortable and sound great.

</comment><comment><USER20> Have some Beats (Studio) that I got as a gift, but if its for working I would aim for comfort.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sennheiser HD 800's. Best headphones I've ever owned but cost a fortune: $1350.

</comment><comment><USER22> I recommend you just head over to head-fi.org for this discussion.

</comment><comment><USER23> Sennheiser HD595 with fiio e11 portable amplifier

</comment><comment><USER24> Goldring NS1000 noise cancelling headphones

</comment><comment><USER25> Plantronics wireless headphones

</comment><comment><USER26> Sony MDR-7506, for everything.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sennheiser HD25-1 II

</comment><comment><USER28> Grado Labs SR80

<comment><USER29> Great phones, on my second pair, but not open-workspace friendly.

My last Samsung in ears sounded good but the cords kicked it in no time. Picked up two pairs of Sennheiser CX 495s as replacements. Good phones, seem more rugged, only wish I'd gotten phones with a mic too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Klispch S4

</comment><comment><USER31> just a Sennheiser hd201</comment>


Chinese teens shying away from WeChat - <AUTHOR> https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/article/3024156/chinese-teens-are-shying-away-posting-about-their-lives-wechat <comment><USER2> so which apps do teens use?

<comment><USER3> From the article:

> China's so-called Generation Z are instead migrating to other social media > apps less popular with older adults, such as Douyin, the short-video app, or > ironically, QQ, the grandaddy of messaging apps that was conceived > originally for the personal computer era but has undergone a reincarnation > of sorts to become a popular messaging tool for adolescents.</comment></comment>


Moto X 2nd Gen review: Same same but different - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2834113/opensource-subnet/moto-x-2nd-gen-review-same-same-but-different.html#twitter

<comment><AUTHOR> Testing the new and improved Moto X brings to mind the Southeast Asian saying: same same but different. It means look for the subtle differences. Bigger, faster, with a denser brighter display, the new Moto X 2nd Gen is created from the same DNA as the Moto X 1st Gen introduced last year. Like its predecessor, a unique user interface UI and the consumer's choice of exterior colors, accents and materials with the company's online Moto Maker website set the new Moto X apart.</comment>


Ask HN: What would you do in case of a large Ebola outbreak? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> This blog post provides some good, straight-forward information about epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and infection control recommendations for Ebola: [http://haicontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/07/ebola- hemorrhag...](http://haicontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/07/ebola-hemorrhagic- fever-primer.html) (It's written by an infectious disease physician.)

"Contact and airborne precautions are indicated for suspected and confirmed cases" refers to:

\- Contact: wearing disposable gowns and gloves to interact with the patient

\- Airborne: putting the patient in a negative pressure room (to avoid spreading air from the room around the hospital), and wearing a N-95 respirator or PAPR ([http://www.3m.com/Product/information/Powered-Air- Purifying-...](http://www.3m.com/Product/information/Powered-Air-Purifying- Respirator-PAPR.html)) in addition to the contact precaution stuff.

Source: [http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/settings/outpatient/basic- infection-c...](http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/settings/outpatient/basic-infection- control-prevention-plan-2011/transmission-based-precautions.html)

That gives you a sense of what you'd need to do to safely interact/care for someone with Ebola. However, remember that several doctors treating Ebola have come down with the disease during the current epidemic. Hopefully (for the rest of us), there was some sort of infection control lapse that lead to their infection, rather than these infection control measures not being sufficient.

<comment><USER3> _" rather than these infection control measures not being sufficient."_

Per my understanding of things, that seems frighteningly unlikely[1]. As I understand it, there are a substantially greater portion of health workers getting sick than in previous outbreaks, and those health workers are not tied to a particular location. If that's the case (and mind you, this is all very much Nth hand what-I-got-from-the-radio stuff - either of those could certainly _not_ be the case) then it seems to follow that _probably_ this strain of ebola has some attribute that makes the recommended countermeasures inadequate (at least the countermeasures recommended for deployment in the field, which may or may not be _this_ set of countermeasures).

[1]: That isn't to say "tremendously unlikely", just "unlikely enough to be frightening."

<comment><USER4> I doubt that all, and maybe _any_ , of those recommendations can be followed by the medical staff currently responding to the outbreak in Africa. We're talking about an area of the world that struggles to provide any clean water to humans at all, and where many rural residents are actively hostile toward medical staff.

<comment><USER5> I found this comment to have an undertone of ignorance.

1) Implying a cluster of 54 countries are all homogeneous, have poor health standard, etc

2) "Struggles to provide any clean water to humans at all" \- this is much more heresy than fact. Please rely on statistics

African countries by no means are world superpowers, but this comment is pretty ignorant. Please think twice about such comments, they can be interpreted as offensive

<comment><USER3> Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone are all poor countries with limited access to health care.

Additionally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_in_Sierra_Leone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_in_Sierra_Leone) opens with "Water supply in Sierra Leone is characterized by limited access to safe drinking water."

The parent made no statement that all of Africa is so limited, only that _the outbreak_ was in Africa. The countries most affected _by_ the outbreak were correctly described.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, the infectiousness of Ebola specifically is questionable. In essence, there is good reason to believe the virus won't be able to spread far outside the areas where it already proved to be successful. So if you're in the EU or the US, even large parts of Asia, you're probably safe.

But that doesn't mean a mutated strain _could_ potentially befall the whole world. The same goes for the more terrifying types of the flu. There is always the potential for a deadly _and_ extremely contagious pathogen to develop.

So what to do in a pandemic situation? I'm hesitant to admit it, but basically the survivalists have it right: hole up somewhere off the beaten path and avoid all outside contact, that potentially includes all kinds of animals like birds and livestock. Then you'll have to wait until a vaccine is developed. If a vaccine is feasible.

<comment><USER7> >So if you're in the EU or the US, even large parts of Asia, you're probably safe.

Well, Germany announced that it accepted a patient with Ebola.[1] I guess it's not completely out of the question now?

Wouldn't it make more sense to go where the virus is and not bring it home?

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/109...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10998367/Ebola- Germany-accepts-infected-patient-for-treatment.html)

<comment><USER6> That's not what I mean. Researchers in all countries get infected with these things all the time, too. But it's questionable whether Ebola specifically can take hold in the northern countries at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wash my hands a lot, stay indoors, avoid people.

And if Ebola got loose around here, I guess I'd do that then, too.

<comment><USER9> >Wash my hands a lot, stay indoors, avoid people.

So just a normal day

<comment><USER10> >So just a normal day

That is unfortunate

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If an outbreak lasts longer than individual patients are sick (earlier patients have either died or recovered), then you could start recruiting survivors to help care for victims later in the outbreak. This will work better for diseases with lower mortality (e.g. the 1918 Spanish Flu) than one with a higher mortality like Ebola (Wikipedia says a 56% mortality rate, but maybe that includes people who are still sick and haven't died _yet_ ).

This assumes that surviving the disease confers serious immunity, which I believe is normally the case, but I don't really know. In the case of Ebola it also assumes a relatively fast recovery time if the disease doesn't kill you, but I don't know if that is true either.

</comment><comment><USER12> Buy a boat, load it up with non-perishables, and go chill off the coast for a few weeks until I can have a vaccine waiting for me when I come back to land.

</comment><comment><USER13> Read my favorite book (Richard Preston's _The Hot Zone_ ) while barricading myself in my apartment for awhile and waiting for things to blow over.

</comment><comment><USER14> Probably tweet about it, and hope that it happens in SF.

Watching Valleywag or TechCrunch scamper to provide coverage would be delightful.

"VCs suddenly interested in funding medical care"

"Marc Andresson calls out for single-payer healthcare"

"ebo.la: disrupting filoviruses"

<comment><USER15> $ rm hat.jpg

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I would probably die first.

</comment><comment><USER17> We probably should have nationwide "fire drills" for these sort of society- level threats.

This reminds me of Bruce Schneier's Security Theatre - that we should not try the preventative approach to terrorism (including spying on everyone) but should focus on detective work and emergency response.

As a society, at the society wide level, we have few if any accepted plans. Sure there is the usual martial law plus bits but that is bound to be resisted or ignored. The fact that HN (with a higher % of the population of people who actually ask themselves these sort of questions) has no single answer tells me we need a commonly understood response - most people instinctively know "stay inside, no travel" but the barest preparation would help exponentially if anything did happen.

</comment><comment><USER18> apply for a job at the CDC?</comment>


Twitter launches 'Twitter University', acquires OS training company Marakana. - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2013/08/13/twitter-launches-twitter-university-acquires-open-source-training-company-marakana/

<comment><USER2> ...and all Marakana's videos have disappeared from the net.

I have many links to videos from JAXConf2013, the SF Java User Group, the 2012 Northeast Scala Symposium, etc. and they now all redirect to [https://marakana.com/](https://marakana.com/) \- a single page announcing their acquisition by Twitter.

:-(</comment>