How China Turned a City into a Prison - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/04/world/asia/xinjiang-china-surveillance-prison.html <comment><USER2> I live in China for 10+ years now, and I believe it is turning the whole country into a prison. Here are some of my observations from Shanghai:

\- while walking 1.1km from my home to the subway station, I counted 47 cameras, and probably missed 10 or so, not counting 20-25 cameras inside the subway station,

\- every few days in the morning the police will block the subway entrance and check documents, I get checked every time probably because I have a bit of a beard,

\- for the last month, I've been stopped in the street twice to check documents,

\- for the last 5-7 years every bag has to be scanned when entering subway, and Q3' 2019 full body scanners will be rolled out,

\- our neighbors complained that we receive "too much" delivery packages, so the police came to search our house (no warrant needed), they had a printout of all my online orders (no warrant needed) and my chats (no warrant needed), and they keep asking "where do we spend our money",

\- car horns are prohibited now within the 2nd Ring, and the offenders' plate numbers are displayed over the city — think about the technology of identifying car plates in a 30+ million city traffic by horn sound,

\- jaywalking is prohibited and offenders get penalties to their social credit,

\- a new app called "study the word of Xi Jinping" is almost compulsory, my wife's mom is calling us often to make sure we "study", her Party unit gets points for this, and if we don't "study", my wife will be kicked out of the Party with many consequences,

\- my wife's brother is on the blacklist for high-speed train and air travel because he bankrupted his company and couldn't pay back the loan, he lives in the West and has to travel for 3 days with a slow train to visit his family...

Not saying these things are black or white, but this is certainly a scary direction and it gets more and more oppressive day by day.

<comment><USER3> >>our neighbors complained that we receive "too much" delivery packages

That feels like straight out of 1984. I mean what are they driven by? I can only imagine the brainwashing that leads to things like _party loyalty_ and snitching on neighbors because they look like they order a lot of toys.

>>they had a printout of all my online orders (no warrant needed) and my chats (no warrant needed)

Given all this do you really want to be risking your own and your family's life by writing this on HN?

>>a new app called "study the word of Xi Jinping" is almost compulsory

This is laughable. Seriously. For starters. Forcing or demanding respect _never_ works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google's pursuit of Dragonfly is only going to exacerbate this situation and they will actively be complicate in the censorship of these human rights violations and further enable the Chinese government's ability to suppress dissent.

When Google left China they did so because they had "...evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists."[0]

Since then, by Google's own numbers, the Chinese government has become significantly more suppressive and demanding: [https://transparencyreport.google.com/government- removals/by...](https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/by- country/CN?hl=en)

Given the status quo, what message does it send to the Chinese government that Google is willing to backtrack on their statements and work with a government that is even more evil than the one they left? It's naïve to think that the Chinese government won't use Google's re-entry as a tool for suppression, and it's also naïve to think that Google doesn't understand this. Their greed will only further facilitate these human rights abuses.

[0]: [https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to- chin...](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html)

<comment><USER5> On the other hand, censorship isn't perfect, and giving more access to the internet means more access to west and censored ideas by the masses. I can't predict how it will play out, but I was hoping that Dragonfly, if launched, would result in better access to information for Chinese who currently are already censored AND have worse access to the treasure trove of info on the internet than us in the West.

<comment><USER4> That's the hope and the current justification for the project, but I don't find that argument very persuasive. Like I said, the situation in China has only gotten worse since Google said "enough is enough" and left. I find it hard to believe that Google's willingness to work with the Chinese government under current circumstances will somehow result in a more expanded internet than existed before.

No one can predict how it will play out, but censorship technology has only improved since Google left. Having another search engine to choose from doesn't necessarily mean Chinese citizens will have access to more information, it just means that the Chinese government will have more avenues to disseminate misinformation. I could easily see millions of Chinese citizens being lulled into a false sense of security by Google's presence and fall prey to government watchers.

<comment><USER5> My only strong opinion is that I'm completely unqualified to opine on this as a white american westerner. When the Dragonfly outrage was happening within the company, many people stood up and helped kill the project (by leaking, by complaining internally, by refusing to work on it, etc.). But the Chinese nationals I work with weren't particularly pleased with all the westerners speaking on their behalf. Obviously my sampling doesn't represent the population, but the general attitude was that Baidu is woefully subpar and denying access to information, censored or not, was against Google's stated mission.

Believe me, I'm greatly disturbed by China's censorship. Talking shit about my own government is a right I can't imagine losing, let alone access to the treasure troves of anti-US thought. I also know how terrified I would be if my own government had the ability to lock down information. Imagine Trump and the GOP having that power, even for 4 years, and what damage they could do. (And GOP voters would make the same argument, of course, the other way around, and already do fear that tech companies are censoring their freedom of thoughts).

So believe me, I'm not trying to defend China here, nor am I trying to shill for the project. But it's not my lane to opine on, and I had hopes that if the project _did_ launch, that some good could come out of it. But your concerns are absolutely valid too.

<comment><USER6> > But the Chinese nationals I work with weren't particularly pleased with all > the westerners speaking on their behalf.

Just because someone thinks their company shouldn't engage in a specific project due to ethical concerns, that doesn't mean they're speaking on behalf of the people affected by those ethical violations.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to stop the project due to the ethical principles alone.

<comment><USER7> > Just because someone thinks their company shouldn't engage in a specific > project due to ethical concerns, that doesn't mean they're speaking on > behalf of the people affected by those ethical violations.

It however presumes that they know enough about the situation to apply those ethical principles to decide what's best for the people affected.

It's hard to find an analogy for this, but consider milk powder. Due past scandals about contaminated milk powder, Chinese parents who can afford it prefer importing milk powder from overseas. Now suppose China bans halal products. Should a milk powder manufacturer who previously exported both halal and non-halal milk powder to China continue to export their non-halal powder, or should they stop exports of both product lines to avoid complying with what they believe to be an ethical violation, knowing full well that Chinese consumers will then be exposed to the hazardous milk powder manufactured domestically?

The alternative to Chinese people getting censored search results from Google isn't getting uncensored search results from Google, it's getting censored search results from Baidu.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I liked the graphics heavy style of the article. Also, it doesn't touch upon the brutality of the indoctrination camps. There are reports of them being forced to eat pork, forced marriages,etc. I wonder if this is the closest we can get to NK outside NK.

<comment><USER9> > I liked the graphics heavy style of the article

I'm glad you posted this because I felt the exact opposite (it's almost always good to have my assumptions questioned).

I wanted to read some info but I had to click, see a picture, and then see some small amount of text slowly appear. I closed the tab after seeing that on the first image -- to me it's basically as worthless as a video. I don't have the patience for that and feel that the NYT doesn't value my time. Clearly some people feel the opposite!

I would love to see some data on these experiments by the nyt: do they show greater revenue than ordinary articles?

<comment><USER10> I was on the fence until they used the video to highlight the actual minders and the videocameras. That sort of thing is hard to convey with text. Has more impact visually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't get why China is taking these extreme measures. I know there's a general feeling of anxiety towards Muslims (I'm Muslim) and I understand that China worries about these sorts of cultural issues. But this is really heavy- handed. Can someone explain this to me?

Of course, I should make clear that I completely condemn this type of behavior from _any_ country. And point out that letting China get away with this means many other countries will do the same.

<comment><USER12> Everyone seems to ignore the trouble China has with terrorists in this region. Plane hijackings, mass killings, suicide bombings. I think that you have to view what's happening in the context of the violent terrorist attacks that have occurred.

<comment><USER13> Probably because China has a problem with authoritarianism is every region.

Tienanmen Square happened because the Chinese government claimed there was "unrest" and "crime" when there was just protests about human rights.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Have you wondered why Xinjiang is like this now? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party)

<comment><USER15> How can civil conflict of any kind possibly justify treatment of civilians by their own Goverment in this way? Regardless of your intentions that comment is insensitive and avoidant of the conversation.

<comment><USER14> It's not "civil conflict", it's terrorism led by a branch of Islamic State killing thousands of civilians. Have you wonder why all major media release articles about Xinjiang every week but ignore this important piece of information intentionally? What kind of consent are they manufacturing now?

Let's make the conversation a bit more constructive, can you offer a better, effective and peaceful way to prevent future terrorist attacks from happening?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As technology workers our influence on the world around us is outsized in many ways. At some point we have to get more heavily involved in building civil society in local and global ways. Live and let live is a great mantra but it is failing because we don't excercize the influence we have in ways that can prevent these things from happening. If Facebook is toxic it can and should be forced to change. If the Chinese state is complicit in such large scale crimes against humanity then it's ability to trade with us can be severely curtailed to influence behaviour. Consider California alone passing laws that prohibit investment or even trade with companies who have investment from such states. The change will be swift.

</comment><comment><USER16> Good lord, that place is unbelievably dystopian. If it wasn't real, I would have called it a bad Orwellian fiction.

Dozens of security cameras everywhere, inside shops, streets, and even the mosque. Mandatory government id, tied to a facial recognition regime. No shortage of well armed police, and plenty of fear.

From another article: " 120,000 Uighurs are being held in Chinese political reeducation camps in Kashgar prefecture alone, according to Radio Free Asia (RFA). Guards force detainees to sing patriotic songs, bombard them with propaganda, and require them to study "Xi Jinping Thought." Beijing does not publicly acknowledge the existence of these camps, yet Uighur activists estimate 1 million Uighurs have been detained since April 2017. "

Given this climate, I find it hard to believe that this is the only activities going on behind the camp doors.

If there was ever something the US should condemn China for, it's this.

<comment><USER17> Are you describing china or western europeia countries like portugal?

<comment><USER18> I believe England cities have more cameras

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> When will founders decide that accepting Chinese VC funding is unethical? The money feeds back into a system that gives human rights very little value.

</comment><comment><USER20> The UI is a bit funky and makes it hard to know when you can press the 'next' button when you are trying to do it as early as you should

</comment><comment><USER21> Although I personally find this pretty nightmarish yet I still can acknowledge it makes some sense and there probably is quite a number of people who would prefer to live in a surveillance-heavy police-state city (willing to trade privacy for guaranteed lack of criminals around). So I believe such a city should exist in every country just for them (in fact the more different kinds of places to choose from there are in a country - the better) as long as people outside don't get discriminated and as long as people who lived in the city before the surveillance system implementation are well-assisted and compensated in moving out.

</comment><comment><USER22> > The police sometimes take Uighurs' phones and check to make sure they have > the compulsory software that monitors calls and messages.

Wow, this is the definition of a modern police state. Sounds like a dystopian video game.

</comment><comment><USER23> This article looks like digital "rags" should, its editorial, but the rich media, subtle sound, really bring it to life. It could do with a bit more text and details, but the format in general is stellar.

</comment><comment><USER24> What bothers me about HN is how people here are afraid to criticize the Chinese government and their authoritarian regime. We should be fearlessly talking about it. What happens here is the "softening" of opinions either by A) Comparing with America B) Somehow justifying authoritarian governments by observing success and economic progress in Shanghai/Shenzhen.

I feel that Googlers inside of Google has the same type of environment but with combined strong business justification to oppose project DragonFly.

HN is one of the most intellectual communities in the internet, I love reading comments just about anything here. Except for this topic - I despise HN in this regard.

In the past, I was told by moderators to not post any inciting comments that are about China because it ends up being USA vs China. What a shame...While I agree that the conversation becomes toxic, what's the point of a community where I cannot freely express criticism of a government that takes a lot of risk by real journalists to put stories like this in front of the world.

<comment><USER25> As a Chinese, I dont really understand the utility it brings to the table of people here criticizing Chinese government on issues like this NYT article. I dont see that it will make China a better place or bring new knowledge to the HN community. So I agree with the moderator's approach.

The reason being we (me included) are not subject experts on the issues.

>what's the point of a community where I cannot freely express criticism of a government that takes a lot of risk by real journalists to put stories like this in front of the world.

The problem is you are probably not at a position to be able to differentiate whether this piece is by journalists taking risks and unveiling the truth or just a subtle propaganda to some degree. (And i'm very surprised by your confidence in Western media on issues related to China, yet most of HNers understand how inaccurate media are when dealing within their respective fields.)

I can go on and on about this topic. I also encourage you to talk to some Chinese around you who are first generation immigrants, rather than forming a China criticizing bubble here or somewhere else with other Westerners.

<comment><USER26> I'm not sure if I've misunderstood your position, but you seem to think that only subject matter experts should be able to criticize a government. This seems absolutely crazy to me, and I think you'll find that most Westerners share my view.

If this was how it worked, the government would be able to claim that _nobody_ is expert enough to criticize, and it would be able to do whatever it wanted to its citizens. Kind of like how the government works in China, and exactly like what's happening here.

"You're not an expert. You don't understand. You're not from here. We do things differently here." The entire international community has criticized China's treatment of their Uighur population. Yes, China does human rights differently. We know.

Western governments are accountable to their citizens, expert or not. If the people think that something is unacceptable, they are expected to express these thoughts through the Democratic process, and then the government is required to change its behavior, even if the people were "wrong" in some expertly measurable way.

The culture in the West sees anything less than this as immoral or corrupt, and we generally don't consider things like "social orderliness" to be worth sacrificing Democratic ideals for, as seems to happen in China.

It's not a matter of talking to more first generation Chinese to get a clearer perspective. I've spoken with ethnic Chinese people who still live and work in China, and I understand their perspective quite well. Most of them have understood my perspective too. The issue is not that we don't _understand_ each other, it's that our perspectives and expectations from other people and from government are different in some pretty significant ways.

<comment><USER25> It's very true as you said: >it's that our perspectives and expectations from other people and from government are different in some pretty significant ways.

But what I meant is really about whether HN is a good place to discuss this issue, where for most other discussions we expect to find some good comments from domain experts.

<comment><USER24> "it's that our perspectives and expectations from other people and from government are different in some pretty significant ways"

I think that should not give a license to stop discussion and criticism if you are from a different country. There is a pretty good understanding of political ideologies across the world about authoritarianism. We have seen the results of dictatorships and authoritarian governments and how they turned out. There is absolutely no reason to say that "It is different, it is a different perspective about governance". Absolutely, it is different and there is a universal understanding of what that difference is.

George Orwell accurately outlines what is going on in Kashgar and other regions in China. He outlined it decades ago.

If I were Chinese citizen, I would be the first one to question the government's actions. Except, that the Chinese people tried to protest in 1988 and it ended in a massacre.

I have been to China many times and I love the people there, culture, and how they live lives just like anyone else in the world. Criticism against the government and political ideology has nothing to do with "an attack against China". I know you're not saying that but I wanted to clarify.

<comment><USER25> >According to the World Bank, more than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6.5 percent in 2012, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China)

If this is not the biggest human right achievement during that 30 years I dont know what is. I also looked up data from world bank for India and Brazil and they albeit democracies seem less effective toward eliminating their proveties.

Do I want China becomes an even better place? yes. I emigrated but not my close relatives and friends and classmates. I miss them. Can China become a better place by pressure from western countries? I doubt it. It instead makes a great number of Chinese more anti-western.

What can make China a better place in my mind, is western countries showing what real democracy can do to make their own countries better. You bet all the Trump/Brexit/US healthcare/wars/drugs are not making ordinary Chinese more exciting embracing democracy.

Or maybe I'm wrong from the beginning that you are not interested in making China better with those discussions or criticisms.

<comment><USER27> Doesn't China already have democracy? It appears to, despite two unusual attributes:

1\. Only one party is permitted, effectively making that party a part of the government and thus being equivalent to banning parties.

2\. You have to be a party member to vote. This is available to those with a good reputation.

Those oddities don't seem to be disqualifying. The USA didn't begin with parties or universal suffrage.

<comment><USER25> I guess so, I'm not arguing against that.

Furthermore, I'd encourage spectramax or anyone this video if not seen: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs) (Basically under a dictatorship you still need to represent the citizens in some degree.)

At this point I don't remember what I'm arguing and again I'm not an expert in social science who can contribute to a conversation on solving China's problem or the issue reported by NYT. I hope HN remains as a place where I can always see insights from people who truly understand the domain and can give constructive comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Today, on 'Real-Life Dystopias'..."</comment>


The Very Rich Indie Writer (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.novelr.com/2011/02/27/rich-indie-writer <comment><USER2> It's absolutely astonishing to me how bad these books are. Not simply the weak plot, two-dimensional characters, and cliched writing, but grammatical and punctuation errors, continuity errors and logical mistakes.

I really don't think I'm a snob or a pedant. I happily read cliche-drenched hard science fiction and horror. I don't think it's too much to ask for subject-verb agreement and proper punctuation. I don't think it's to much to remember what kind of vehicle the characters are traveling in _within the same paragraph_.

I suppose it bothers me because when a writer has that little respect for their own work, I feel like I've been scammed. I've been sold a product the manufacturer knows is defective and can't be bothered to fix.

<comment><USER3> > I don't think it's to much to remember what kind of vehicle the characters > are traveling in within the same paragraph.

I'm reading this and all I can think of is metadata. What kind of books could people write with the right tools?

I cannot imagine G. R. R. Martin holding all the knowledge of the universe he designed on his head. I imagine he built a whole on-paper encyclopedia of the world of GoT. I suspect even with all his notes he sometimes makes mistakes and introduces inconsistencies.

Are there any world-building tools for writers? (CAW? -- computer-aided- writing... :-p)

<comment><USER4> World Anvil is what you're looking for.

[https://www.worldanvil.com](https://www.worldanvil.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm the indie developer of a marketing tool/community ([https://storyoriginapp.com/](https://storyoriginapp.com/)) for self- published authors like the ones mentioned in this article.

Not necessarily related to the article, but for other interested in the learning more about the self-publishing world.

Courses and training for authors on how to use Amazon ads, Facebook ads, build an email list, etc. has become incredibly easy to find. Some of the bigger names in the space are Mark Dawson, Nick Stephenson, Joanna Penn, Derek Murphy, and the 20BookTo50K community.

Authors are now essentially internet marketers who also happen to write books.

<comment><USER6> _> Authors are now essentially internet marketers who also happen to write books._

For better (anyone can get started from their bedroom with just a laptop and an internet connection) and worse (less time spent on actual writing, likely no correlation between being a good marketer and a good artist), isn't that true of all creative endeavors nowadays?

<comment><USER7> Absolutely not! What an appalling and ridiculous thing to say. Even just to say it of writers. Let alone "all creative endeavors" (Maybe you didn't mean to cast such a wide net there. Maybe you just meant to include...the people who market themselves on the internet.)

That word 'essentially' is vague to the point of unfalsifiability - whatever I could say against that, you could say, "Yeah, but _essentially_.." \- the word sounds objective but means 'whatever I think is the most important/central/defining feature'.

The artists/musicians/writers/etc who are good at getting work for themselves has always been very different from those who are good at the art. And the people at the top of whatever charts (pop music etc) would be the first to admit they're not the greatest.

<comment><USER8> Are you not saying a similar thing? Those are the top of whatever charts are simply good marketers who happen to create whatever media the chart is about.

I think you're primarily appalled at the user of the word "authors" to only refer to those people. Which I can understand, but in the context of the point being made I'd argue that's mostly just semantics.

<comment><USER7> Sorry for not being clearer, I was just responding to the parent and GP saying "Authors are now essentially internet marketers who also happen to write books."

I'm appalled at the use of the word 'authors' to only refer to those people? um. I didn't realize anyone used 'authors' only meaning that, so, no, it wasn't that. Or maybe I don't know what they were talking about, who knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> She signed a deal with a traditional publisher in 2015, reputedly for several million dollars. She has the delightfully named website hockingbooks.com

</comment><comment><USER10> 7 year old article. You can't say the market is the same at all.

Quick search says indie authors make up 40% of kindle sales.

Couldn't find how many share those numbers but I would assume it's definitely way more than what it was in 2011!

</comment><comment><USER11> How has the market changed since 2011? Is there a current list of top trending authors with a way to calculate revenue? Is kindle still a strong ebook platform to publish on?

<comment><USER12> It is still _the_ ebook platform. Unless you publish directly in the web like Worm author Wildbow, but then you'll make money from Patreon (Wildbow makes $70k a year).

<comment> pure-awesome As a side-note, I can highly recommend Wildbow's books. I've read both Worm and Pact. The books are available to read online in full.

E.g. Worm: [https://parahumans.wordpress.com/](https://parahumans.wordpress.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article was written and published a while ago.

I've heard stories that the ebook goldrush has ended. Does anybody have firsthand knowledge?

I know that romance novels always do well generally, or I've read that. Thoughts?

<comment><USER5> You could probably say that the "goldrush" has ended. To keep the metaphor going, this is like saying you can't just walk into a river, pan for gold, and make it rich anymore. Now, it takes serious a serious amount of time and investment to do well in the self-publishing world. Is there money to be made? Heck yes! But now, it's also more costly to get it.

<comment><USER13> > Now, it takes serious a serious amount of time and investment to do well in > the self-publishing world.

Well, that's what I was curious about. Has the investment/profit ration gone way up? If so, that sucks for Amazon ebook publishers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Indie writers are pretty big business in China, a lot of their works turn into shows. Also when I mean indie, I mean really indie as in they're known occasionally by internet pen names which resemble your normal Hacker News pen names.

</comment><comment><USER15> I would have believed it if she sold her books in her own webstore.

But now I think it could just as well be a way for Amazon to trick more people into contributing to their platform, of course until they find out that they can hardly make a living that way.</comment>


BlackBerry Phones Are Back - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/blackberry-onwardmobility-5g-smartphone-2021-133919589.html <comment><AUTHOR> does this run a version of android? or is it still java but blackberry's own system? like how do I author an app for it?

</comment><comment><USER2> for the no-js and accessibility crowd: [http://archive.is/dBfG8](http://archive.is/dBfG8)

BlackBerry branded phones by phone builder called TCL</comment>


Chroma Club, monthly coloring book subscription - <AUTHOR> http://chroma.club <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

I just launched this little side project, it's not entirely on typical HN topics since it's coloring books, but I thought there might be some interest.

I'm exploring a few idea around augmented reality to enhance the coloring experience and be a proof of concept of augmented print content (I haven't seen much else on that field besides some advertising)

Would love to field any questions or garner some feedback. Thanks

<comment><USER2> Why do you seem to be targeting adult colorers instead of the parents of child colorers?</comment></comment>


We Cannot Avoid the Ugly Tradeoffs of Bail Reform - <AUTHOR> https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/10/happens-bail-reform-meets-reality.html <comment><USER2> I agree that there are trade-offs, but I don't find this argument persuasive.

Why is setting a high bail amount better than not releasing people? They're meant to be functionally equivalent except when someone can somehow manage to scrounge a lot of cash together.

I am very curious what motivations judges have for returning to this system of unaffordable bonds though.

He doesn't really spell it out, but I could imagine non-cash release having issues with reappearance or reoffence, but if that's the case you want to dig into the details, not just hand wave about it.

<comment> village-idiot I think the argument is largely: more of the people who can't afford bail are stuck in that situation because the judge believes the accused is a danger to the public than because they're poor, so no reform will convince those judges to release said accused prior to their trial.

I agree that it's extremely weird that we do this song and dance where we misuse the bail system to lock up those judged to be a danger to society. We should just deny those people bail, and offer the rest a fair bail amount to encourage their return.

FWIW: I think the fact that bail reform is forcing judges to merely deny bail for dangerous cases is a good thing. Being more clear about what's happening and why is a good thing, especially in the legal system.

<comment><USER3> part of the problem is people get overcharged. my gf fucked up and did some heavy shit, but when they interrogated me and I didn't rat her out, they responded by charging me with every bullshit thing they could think of. and ... every one of those charges that lands helps advance the career of the DA, it's perverse. even if some of the bullshit charges are dropped by arraignment, you're still likely to have others you're fighting. on top of that there's extreme pressure to waive your right to a speedy trial so that your lawyer has a chance to review evidence.

<comment> village-idiot Yeah, the criminal justice system in the US is in need of a deep overhaul. The fact that trials take months to start is a large part of the issue.

I just don't see evidence that cash bail is really the most pressing issue in the system atm. DA's tipping off the media for perp walks, crooked cops, racist juries, and a slow and expensive system all take higher priority in my book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm considered a violent felon by the state of CA because I handed a bank teller a note politely asking them to follow their training and hand over their cash. after my last arrest the DA asked to raise my bail from 100k to 150k because they hadn't considered my strike when they initially set the bail amount.

not being able to bail out is more than a minor inconvenience.... people lose jobs, miss rent, get evicted and lose _everything_ while being presumed innocent.</comment>


Gmail Strips Email Marketers of Data with Image Caching - <AUTHOR> http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2317773/Gmail-Strips-Email-Marketers-of-Data-with-Image-Caching

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought this was an interesting development after the three tabs Gmail implemented. It should be noted that marketers have already found a 'trick' to get Google to keep reloading a web pixel bug by serving no content so they can track open rates. But, IP addresses and, thus, geo-location of recipients is now invisible to marketers. And the images will load faster within Gmail for folks who choose to display them.

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't know why a tinfoil hat would be required to speculate here. As with the cookie proposal, this potentially puts Google into a position where they can profit by further intermediating between the marketer and their target. Or if you prefer, they can help safeguard the privacy of their email users.</comment>


Ask HN: Freelance web developers, what do your contracts typically look like? - <AUTHOR>

When you agree to make a website for a new client do you hash out the details then agree to exactly what you are going to make? Do you let them modify things along the way? And do you support the website after it has been developed?<p>Any and all answers are welcome thanks! <comment><USER2> Contracts are secondary to clear communication. Your first task it to understand and shape client expectations and to clearly communicate your abilities and project deadlines. Figure that out and spell it out clearly in your original estimate and contract. I don't usually write up a contract for projects <$5,000 - anything under $5k can be resolved in small claims court without getting lawyers involved. But I always write up an estimate and walk the client through it.

Remember, a contract may help you during a legal proceeding. But that's the worst case scenario - the best case is to preempt any legal action in the first place by clearly communicating and by providing great service. A contract is an instrument used to resolve disputes - it's best not to get into a dispute in the fist place. To truly protect and your business, consider purchasing general/professional liability insurance.

Invariably, clients are going to want changes. And that's a good thing. It can mean more business and more profit. You need to determine if these changes are in scope or not. Don't be afraid to ask for more money and revise your original estimate when you encounter feature creep. But you have to be able to clearly explain and justify any price expansion.

Building on that - don't be afraid to walk away. If a client isn't willing to pay more for more features, find a way to make a graceful exit.

Long-term support can be another revenue stream. And as the creator of the original product you are in the best position to provide quality, knowledgeable support. That's valuable and worth money. Make sure to communicate the long-term support strategy at the beginning of the project, be it hourly billing for bugfixes & patches, or a monthly/quarterly/annual payment for ongoing maintenance. Your original estimate should also budget for initial bugfixes and tweaks near or after launch.

</comment><comment><USER3> Contracts - for small projects, nothing substantial, just something basic in the initial proposal like "I will work for you and you will pay me to do so".

New site - a basic proposal, usually about a page or so in length. A sitemap, maybe basic user stories to describe interactive functionality. If it's a complex site, charge for discovery/planning as part of the project and document enough to create a reasonable scope.

Modifications - Clients will always, always have suggestions and changes along the way. Buffer your bids to expect this (~20%) and don't be afraid to issue change orders (short written descriptions of new functionality) with appropriate charges for major scope creep. Managing expectations is key.

Post-launch support - Yes, you'll often make more money this way. Hosting can be one way, for clients with lots of regular changes try to get them onto a retainer where they buy a block of hours at a reduced rate each month, provides cashflow and steady income for you.</comment>


Show HN: A fun political personality test to inspire voters by matching values - <AUTHOR> https://www.politicalpersonality.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> We wanted to build a simple and fun political personality test to help people find their identity and feel empowered outside of the traditional political arena. We are 100% self-funded, non-profit, and are not directly affiliated with any party.

This is a project for the greater good. A simple personality match that can give people a new perspective on politics and hopefully inspire them to make their voices heard. In the future, we'll try to add new features and articles to help people vote by mail, campaign for office, and get more involved in the causes they care about.

We'd love for anyone to help share the project and help us make a positive difference. Thank you and take care!</comment>


Google Announces Global Campaign To Legalize Gay Marriage - <AUTHOR> http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Category=24# <comment><USER3> This opinion is not going to make me popular here, but if I were a Google shareholder (and I probably am through an ETF) I'd be a little upset by this. And I say this as someone who has been for gay marriage since before it was cool. I'm a gay marriage hipster. But this still irks me.

I want companies to lobby only for the issues that are their immediate business (and I say that only because I know we'll never get laws banning lobbying at all) and let their shareholders privately endorse their beliefs. I see this as another example of corporate personhood.

Even though I have no sympathy for people who are opposed to gay marriage as private citizens, as Google shareholders I don't feel they should be forced with a choice between supporting their beliefs (however wrongheaded they may seem to me) and being a Google shareholder.

I also feel a little gross thinking about an American company preaching tolerance to Singapore. How about we get it fixed here before we start pressuring everyone else?

<comment><USER4> Some significant percentage of Google's employees are gay. Helping those employees achieve equal rights to everyone else improves those employee's lives not just in the feel good sense but it also makes a lot of practical things like health insurance benefit sharing much more straight-forward.

By lobbying to improve the lives of its employees, Google is improving Google. So as another heterosexual gay marriage hipster I disagree with you.

I also disagree with you that Google shareholders opposed to gay marriage shouldn't be forced to choose. They are just as wrong in their beliefs as those who supported segregation were or those who were against women's suffrage were. Marginalizing these people for their ridiculously antiquated beliefs is fair game, IMO.

<comment><USER5> Does Google regularly hold campaigns to help other kinds of employees to improve their lives? E.g., I imagine (random example), Google has a number of Jewish employees. Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism, which is a real problem in some countries? Are there public Google campaigns for other equality issues, such as woman rights, religious minority rights, dissident rights, etc.?

Frankly, this is the first such campaign I hear about, and if indeed it is the only one - I tend to view it as cynical marketing exploitation of the political hot topic of the day rather than genuine attempt to improve lives of Google employees. However, if I am wrong and Google is regularly engaging in public political campaigns for the human rights causes and this is just another example - all power to them. However, it would be interesting to see the list of such campaigns - anybody knows one?

<comment><USER6> > Does Google engage in public campaign agains antisemitism, which is a real > problem in some countries?

Hmmm, anti-semetism is one thing, but it isn't illegal to be Jewish in Singapore.

<comment><USER7> Why the difference? Jews can't get legally married in Indonesia. Marriage in Indonesia is effectively limited to Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, and Hindus. If you are Jewish, or Orthodox Christian, or pagan, or atheist, tough luck....

Also it may be practically illegal to be Jewish in Saudi Arabia (I don't know about Sabbateans, which is a sort of weird crypto-Jewish Islamic hybrid that resulted after some forced conversions).

<comment><USER8> Who says that they won't run a campaign for that? That line of reasoning seems really strange to me. How do you ever manage to do anything, if all the time you think "but why not do x instead"? You have to start with something.

Were they to run a campaign against antisemitism, you would be the first to cry out "why don't they run a campaign for gay marriage instead".

<comment><USER7> Sure, why not. I am sure they could campaign for acceptance for eating cheeseburgers among the Jews too while they are at it. But that wasn't the point I was replying to.

Also in Indonesia, allowing same-sex marriage by law but keeping all the other marriage laws would change... exactly nothing. All marriages in Indonesia are required to be officiated by clergy of approved religions, and the approved religions are, iirc, fixed in the Constitution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For a probably-different point of view on this -

I'm a person of faith, who takes his faith seriously, and who's faith teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. I think this puts me in a distinct minority among the HN community, but in a possible-majority among the American population (with the mainstream orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teaching the same; and ~80+% of the U.S. self identifying as holding one of these faiths).

Given my faith, advocacy like this from Google, Apple, and other prominent tech companies really put me in a bind.

Their products have become such fixtures in my day to day life that I'm not sure how to get by without them, but by using their products and providing these companies with revenue, I feel like I'm contributing to a fund for someone to publicly proclaim: "You're faith is a sham; your God irrelevant; and, by the way, we think you are a vile, hateful, homophobic bigot _".

I wish Apple, Google, etc. would all just focus on making insanely great products and not jump into the fray of divisive-by-definition social issues.

_ And, no, I'm not a "homophobe" or "bigot". I have friends who are gay; I don't hate them. I just think they engage in behavior that's immoral, just like others of my friends who sleep with each other outside of marriage, etc. I recognize my faith condemns such behavior - but I'd equally condemn anyone who insults, harasses, or otherwise harms someone just because that someone is gay.

<comment><USER10> If your view is that homosexuality is immoral, and you don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals, then I'm afraid you are homophobic. You may be the best kind of homophobic, but homophobic none the less.

<comment><USER11> If homossexuals had the rights without calling it marriage, I think he (parent poster) would be all right with it.

<comment><USER10> You can be homophobic without opposing gay marriage (regardless of if you use "marriage" as the word), just like you can be racist without thinking black people shouldn't be allowed to get married. It's about attitude, not actions - the fact that he isn't trying to force his homophobia on others is what makes him the better kind of homophobe.

<comment><USER11> Well, perhaps the word doesn't carry the same negative weight that it does in portuguese. Here if you tell me someone is an homophobe, I imagine people that want to beat all homossexuals passing in the streets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a pretty surprising move, at least to me. In Singapore it's not even legal to engage in homosexual sex, and there's no recognition of same-sex unions:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same- sex_unions_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same- sex_unions_in_Singapore)

Pushing for gay marriage in a place where gays aren't even legally allowed to have sex is jumping right into the deep end. (I should clarify that the gay community here is nonetheless pretty active anyway, and there haven't been crackdowns in a long while. Homosexuality is pretty much tolerated as long as the sexual acts are kept private.)

All in all it's a strange move for a multinational corporation to make, considering how sociopolitical the issue is. Our government is very keen on having dynamic foreign firms set up shop here, but maybe not so keen once they take stances opposed to legislative policy. Google has established a big enough office (and datacenters) here to possibly not want to risk hurting relations (in my uninformed view).

I'd guess it's a hoax, taking all these factors into account, and the lack of an official press release.

<comment><USER13> Homosexual sex was illegal in some states as recently as 2003. Consodering the transformation in the USA since then, I don't think it's premature to start campaigning for marriage rights.

<comment><USER7> If Justice O'Connor had her way it might still be ;-)

Her concurrence with the judgement of Lawrence v. Texas was only on the basis that Texas singled out homosexual sex specifically. In her view, states could ban blow jobs and anal sex for everybody, but not allow it for straight couples and ban it for gays.

I must say the logic has a certain appeal to it. If sex truly is a private matter between two people then cohabiting with multiple partners as if they were spouses should be legally protected too under the same logic. But if we say equal protection is what matters and you can't specifically single out gays, then that problem goes away.

As it is, Lawrence has opened up a fair bit of uncertainty what the Supreme Court will do to Lawrence and de facto bigamy laws (enacted in really only a minority of states) if and when they review a case on appeal. (Most states do not recognize informal arrangements as potentially bigamous.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm in favor of gay marriage, pet marriage, sibling marriage, and all sorts of other kinds of marriage that people tend to feel the need to ban.

However, I think it's absurd that the state is involved in marriage. Google's move, while perhaps pragmatic in nature, reveals a very strong sentiment legitimizing the state role in marriage, which is the basis for all the backwardness.

Only when the state becomes involves in things can politicians attempt to control what others do via the power of the state. I'd rather see Google encourage people to just "marry" each other with private vows and no license or other nonsense.

<comment><USER15> Private vows don't work so well when your bigoted inlaws decide you can't see your lover at the hospital. People have compiled lists of _hundreds_ of privileges granted through marriage that are difficult-to-impossible to arrange any other enforceable way. We'd have to rewrite family law from scratch.

That said, I don't know that they are better at lobbying than anyone else their stockholders could give the money to, which would be the only reason they ought to involve the corporation.

<comment><USER16> What privileges are difficult-to-impossible to arrange without a legal concept of marriage? Just curious. I also believe that the root of the issue is coming from the government being involved in the marriage conversation at all and I'm curious why that would be hard to change.

<comment><USER17> Off the first hit for "marriage equality" (<http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts>), here are some choice ones:

* Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed. * The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists. * With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.

<comment><USER16> OK. Thanks for the list.

I think there are two issues in this "same sex marriage" debate that are being confused by people on both sides. One is the special rights and privileges given to married couples, and the other is the actual word "marriage". What I was suggesting is that the government should drop the term "marriage" from their vocabulary and change it to something else, like "domestic partnership". I highly doubt that anyone employing rational thought would suggest we can do away with the concept of mutually exclusive partnership between two people in the legal realm. Part of what the people on the right are arguing for is to not have the actual term "marriage" redefined by the government. That word has a lot of tradition and meaning. If we turn the conversation towards removing that word from the government's laws and replacing it with something that has less specific meaning to people, then the conversation is purely about equal rights and not a fight over a word and the tradition behind it. I think that's more what people are getting at when they suggest that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

<comment><USER18> Oh, separate but equal?

No.

<comment><USER16> How is that separate but equal? Who is making anyone separate? I'm suggesting the government should treat everyone the same.

My understanding of "separate but equal" historically had to do with separating students based on race into separate schools. If the government were to say, "OK, call it a marriage, call it whatever you want, but 2 people can form what we call a 'domestic partnership' that creates certain legal rights by filling out this form." How is that separate but equal?

<comment><USER19> I think it sounded like you were saying that the new rule would be only for same-sex couples, and that opposite-sex couples would continue to call it "marriage".

<comment><USER16> Ahh, I should have made that more clear the first time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The comments on the article are funny. People saying this is a reason people might switch to Google from Apple or from Google to Bing, then being reminded that all the tech companies support the LGBT community.

<comment><USER21> Especially since Apple and Microsoft has been supportive of this issue way before Google was.

Also you know Tim Cook being gay and all.

<comment><USER22> I guess it says a lot that I had no idea Tim Cook was gay. Since it seems society thinks it is not a big enough deal to warrant a mention.

<comment><USER10> It has actually been mentioned quite a bit - <https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Tim+Cook+Gay>

Maybe less than you'd expect, but quite a few people deemed it a big enough deal to mention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Call me cynical, but I wonder (A) what is the real motivation behind this, & (B) how seriously is this campaign going to be pursued in unfriendly terrain?

I suppose the Singapore test will be interesting as it is some homosexual acts are technically illegal but not generally enforced. Sounds like a good candidate for an easy win... but if it's ineffective there it will presumably be ineffective everywhere.

<comment><USER24> (A) It loses them edge if they can't employ the people they want in the locations where they want them.

(B) See (A)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There's only one and single source reporting this news and everyone seems to be linking them without adding anything else. I don't know about others, but this seems suspicious.

EDIT: I am no anti-LGBT but saying above on principle.

<comment><USER24> Here is the press page for the conference where this was announced by Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe. - <http://www.globallgbtworkplacesummit.org/press-- media.html>

Also, may I just say that as a I am a lover of smut, innuendo and really bad puns, I think that Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is a wonderful name for a man in his position.

<comment><USER25> Great, this makes sense now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well lobby for good stuff.

<comment><USER5> Did you ever see anybody lobbying for stuff they consider bad? Of course everybody lobbies for good stuff, just definitions of good stuff differ between people.

Or you meant "As long as companies are gonna be able to lobby, might as well lobby for stuff I agree with"?

<comment><USER27> Yup, all that lobbying to be able to carry on polluting air and waterways, to keep tobacco sales and advertising legal, the people doing those things thought they were good and pure too - right?

There's lobbying that's evil, and the people doing it know it's evil, but it affects their bottom line so they do it anyway.

<comment><USER5> Only way to not pollute air and waterways at all is to cease all industry and somehow dispose of the large percentage of the human population. Otherwise, they'd have some impact on the environment, it's inevitable. This impact can be bigger or lesser, and can be measured against they usefulness of what comes out of it. Of course, producers argue that their products are very useful and their impacts on the environment are minimal and well controlled. They may be wrong or misrepresenting how actually good is what they in fact do, but I never heard anybody arguing, for example "let's destroy the environment, to hell with it, who needs it anyway". Did you?

Same for tobacco sales and advertising - of course, many people - <USER2> those who enjoy smoking - think it is a good thing that it is legal. They also think it is a good thing that they, being sane adults, can choose how to behave and manage their own bodies and property. Some people think instead it is a good thing to deny certain people choice in what they can do with their bodies and their property, for their own good. There's obviously some disagreement on the topic, but again, I don't see how the former are more evil than the latter. If anything, I'd prefer a smoker over somebody that wants to control minute details of my behavior using government coercion any day of the week, but that's my opinion of what is good. But I'd really want to know why you not only claim it's evil but also claim everybody who disagrees with you on these topics knows they are evil. That's an ambitious statement, I'd like to see some substantiation of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A lot of people outside of Google don't take it's "Don't be evil" pledge seriously anymore but I know from talking to employees that it's still something Google cares deeply about. Most of the people in this thread seem to analyzing it from an amoral, self-interested business perspective and twisting facts and circumstances to justify that narrative. I think the far more parsimonious explanation is that Google felt like it couldn't sit on the sidelines of the gay marriage debate any longer and still uphold it's values.

</comment><comment><USER29> To the vocal minority who pop up on threads like this and argue that gay marriage is something that should be opposed, I offer the following: [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_t...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_the_gay_agenda.html)

If you find yourself thinking bad thoughts while watching this, stop yourself and try to empathise with those whom you so blithely speak against. It won't hurt and no-one has to know ;-)

</comment><comment><USER30> How about a campaign to end world hunger, government transparency, proper SEC accounting, banks accountability, or real-time online voting for current issues and abolish congress.

<comment><USER31> You should get right on those then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So, what does a political campaign / stance mean for a search company? Would they skew search results to support a position? If I am their competitor, it seems like an opportunity for FUD, even if they are doing the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm interested in the legal effects of this. Singapore, for all of its prosperity and advances, isn't a democratic country. And I'm wondering what the EU would think about a multinational lobbying in one of their member states.

</comment><comment><USER34> How about some fact checking prior to launching into an enflamed debate? This seems a rather unlikely event, and the source provided doesn't look like a tremendously trustworthy news source. Where's the Google PR statement?

</comment><comment><USER35> This might not relate, but I'd be interested to know how many of the people that think this is a good idea would also support Google were they to take a stance on something as charged as abortion?

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm waiting for the crowd that got all upset over the rainbow oreo picture to start their outcry about this, they vowed to boycott oreos but i doubt they'd do the same with Google.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'd much rather they campaigned to ban marriage for everyone. This is awful, it's bad enough as a government/legal institution without corporations weighing in.

<comment><USER22> Marriage isn't a bad insitution. It's easy to say it's unncessary, but then your partner dies, and now you have no legal rights or protections.

<comment><USER37> Ask someone whose been divorced! I forgot to add religion to that list. If it was gay civil union, there would be far less outcry or interest. Some gay marriage campaigners are for religious recognition, and that's a hard battle.

I don't think marriage in its current form as a relgious, legal and government institution is that great, and I don't think getting corporations involved is going to improve it.

Marriage is certainly not the only way to ensure legal rights or protections for people. That what's married people are, just people. As an institution, marriage interferes with that.

In fact where I live, marriage grants some legal rights, like cheaper taxes, but takes away others from married women, who don't receive our equivalent of 'social security' if their partner is still working and they are unemployed. That and social conventions around divorce, which has quite a high rate, can make Marriage a miserable institution for more than half of the people who have got involved in it.

In times past, Marriage was used as an enforcer of policies that kept women under the thumb of a male hierarchy, and that cannot be denied. In the present day, I think alternatives can and should be sought, where these external forces such as corporations, governments, relgions and corporations cannot interfere with people's private lives to push their institutional agendas. One way to achieve this would be to ban different treatment for married couples versus normal people, banning outright is too extreme, I was being flippant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if US 'conservatives', will erect an alternative, conservative search engine, like they have for wikipedia (<http://www.conservapedia.com>)?

<comment><USER39> If it's meant to appeal to old conservatives surely it will be called "The Google"

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> There is still no primary source on this, and the only citation I can find that Bob Amnnibale is gay is this article and those reposting it.

This might be a better source: [http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google- wants-the-world...](http://dot429.com/articles/2012/07/06/google-wants-the- world-to-legalize-love)

<comment><USER10> There's no press out there calling me gay, but if something like this happened in close enough proximity to me that I was asked for a quote they could still call me "an openly gay something something...", the lack of citation doesn't mean it's incorrect, it's more likely to mean he told them that.

<comment><USER40> I mostly meant that the initial information on this had been copy-pasted across several sites (I've seen it four different places before it was even posted here) and I was trying to spot check information. I didn't mean to doubt the actual facts or anything, just a mini-snopes.

<comment><USER41> Worth doing; there's no official/PR link for this "global campaign".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> How do you configure Firefox to make Duck Duck Go the default search engine?

<comment><USER43> Why on Earth are you asking that here, on a HN thread about Google and gay marriage, instead of just googling it?

Oh. Now I get it. You're a homophobe, and by the new account, a coward.

<comment><USER44> why would you start insulting random people because they happen to hold a different view from the mainstream? it's sound like dictature to me. Have you ever considered that you can be against gay mariage without wanting to harm gay people or resent any kind of hate toward them?

<comment><USER45> Yes, I've considered it, and no, it's not possible, since inequal marriage rights harms gays by definition. What scenario did you have in mind?

<comment><USER46> Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that.

Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/

<comment><USER29> > Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions > other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that.

How else would you categorise it? What other reason do you have to oppose the slight broadening of the definition of a word? "Loving union between a man and a women" into "Loving union between two people"?

> Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of > "men" to include women :/

That's a non sequitur and I hope you know it. Redefining marriage in this way is more akin to the last century's redefinition of the word 'citizen' in the US and the UK to include black people - it erases a distinction that was incorrectly made in the first place. "Men" and "Women" are biologically separable.

<comment><USER46> Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :)

We have words such as "waitress" and "waiter", because it adds useful information. It tells us their sex. It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful.

Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas.

To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.

<comment><USER29> > Having words for different things is useful. It makes language more > efficient and reduces the need for clarification :)

Well that's my point precisely - the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your reasoning. If you think you would feel awkward entering into a conversation with someone who may or may not be gay, may I suggest you refer to their 'partner' or their 'other half' until it becomes clear what gender the person is that you're talking about? Or just be direct and say 'your... wife? husband?'. Most reasonable people really won't mind.

But let's be honest - your delicately-phrased attempt to pour logic onto the question does not disguise the fact that your concerns run beyond linguistic convenience. It's a very weak argument.

> Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is > useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and > reduces the chances of faux pas.

It's really not that useful - if you need to know, ask, but the chances are that you don't - and as I'm sure you realise, 'mere' language is a powerful tool for enforcing segregation and bigotry. It makes a real difference to the people actually involved, and, if you're honest with yourself, not a jot of difference to you. If you think about it, carving the world up based on sexual preference would be hilarious in its stupidity if it didn't cause so much pain. I mean, honestly, how does anyone's choice of lover alter your life? Millions of people are in happy homosexual relationships RIGHT NOW and I bet you hadn't noticed.

> To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our > language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does > not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a > black waiter. It's irrelevant.

Actually, likening the redefinition of 'marriage' to the redefinition of 'man', as you did in the parent comment, is silly. The parallel I was drawing was between predjudice that existed (and in places still does) based on racial differences and the predjudice that you are demonstrating, whether you realise it or not, against homosexuality.

<comment><USER46> > the fact that you see gay marriage as being different to heterosexual > marriage simply because of who is involved illustrates the flaw in your > reasoning.

It _IS_ different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of who is involved.

Logic doesn't seem to be working... As someone else noted, it's like extreme feminists who consider 'waitress' to be sexist.

What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?

<comment><USER29> > It IS different. Just like "women" is different from "men" simply because of > who is involved.

No, marriage is a social construct whereas gender is based on biology - there's a big difference there. You can measure the gender of a person without them having to give you any information, but (as you have argued) not the gender of a person's spouse. Besides, you've already made this point earlier:

> > > Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific > words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.

So which is it? Are these things relevant or not? You don't need to say 'black waiter', but you do need to say 'civil partnership'? Why is one important but not the other?

Once again - your insistence upon this distinction and the value of it speaks volumes about your unconscious prejudices. Perhaps you like being able to say you're married and have everyone know you're not gay? But of course that would be outright homophobia and you're still apparently labouring under the misapprehension that you don't suffer from that. Perhaps you're actually a closet homosexual and trying hard to deflect people away from finding out? If that's the case then I'm genuinely sorry for you, as the need to hide from the world can take a terrible toll on a person. Fortunately our society is (generally) becoming more open.

If it's useful to keep a different word for same-sex marriages, perhaps you also advocate having different words for inter-racial marriages, marriages between people who are more than a certain number of years apart, who wear different types of clothes, etc.? After all, that's all equally "useful" information and one wouldn't want to make a faux-pas.

> What is so offensive about having two words, marriage and "union/civil > partnership", to describe things, and have completely equal rights for all?

It's very easy as a white, heterosexual male to insist that words are meaningless and ask 'who cares?', but the reality is that linguistic distinctions contribute significantly to prejudice. You can't have "completely equal rights for all" whilst making such distinctions between people - that's a sad fact of human psychology (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In- group%E2%80%93out-group_bias> for example). Additionally, let's not forget that the whole debate in the larger world isn't just about the definition of a word - it's exactly about creating a situation of equal rights for all that doesn't exist currently. It's not about being 'offended' and the fact that you trivialise the issue thus suggests that you really don't understand the issues at stake.

It's not only completely ridiculous to make a distinction about someone based on their sexual preference, it's harmful and often very unpleasant to be on the receiving end of - perhaps you read this article when it did the rounds on here? [http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist- hu...](http://intransigentia.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/why-sexist-humour-isnt- just-a-joke/) That's about sexism but the point is the same. "It's just a joke!" "It's just a word!" etc.

If you truly desire equal rights for all, then the 'redefinition' of marriage shouldn't matter to you. On the other hand if you want to keep tabs on who's gay and who's not - you're homophobic. You may insist you're not but that stubborn refusal to introspect or question yourself doesn't change the fact.

<comment><USER46> Quite a lot of personal attacks there...

We're all minorities, depending on how you cut the population. The question is whether you let it define you negatively and become a 'victim', or just get on with being happy. People who get offended by words are wasting their energy on silly things that don't matter, and often actually making racism/sexism/etc worse by drawing attention to things that aren't actually there in the first place. Judge people by their actions. Not by words.

If you really want to redefine the word 'marriage', then go ahead. I do not think it's the most pressing fight for those after equal rights though. If I was gay, I certainly wouldn't care, as long as I was free to love who I like.

I'm done here...

<comment><USER45> Being told that you

a) are possibly homophobic, or a closeted homosexual

and

b) enjoy certain privileges as a white, heterosexual, (cis) male

Is not meant to be a personal attack, IMO, but a wake-up call. Read it again, as if danparsonson were talking to a third person, and maybe you'll gain some new perspective.

If you feel like marriage has had an immutable definition since forever and just now, people are trying to change it for the first time, you should check your facts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture)

And words do matter. You can tell a lot about a person or culture based on the words they use.

<comment><USER29> Thank you - that's it exactly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Honest question, when will LGBT support incest? Having relatives covered by insurance would be great. We could abort if we conceive or adopt if we want children.

<comment><USER48> I'm not trying to convince you, I guess you are beyond that, but for other people who think "maybe this person has a point":

The issue for most homosexual couple is not a semantic issue: to be allowed to have their relationship legalised by calling it "marriage", but to a legal issue: to be allowed to legalise their relationship for the reason that they want to have the same legal rights.

Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835>).

An example to the rights that are in question is that health insurance in Germany is cheaper for couples who marry or who are civil partners than it is for two adults in a relationship not legally defined (i.e. two girlfriends, a girlfriend and a boyfriend, two boyfriends).

Finally, by linking homosexuality and incest, the poster tries to create a link between homosexuality which is now acceptable by most people to incest which is universally unaccepted and immoral. In western countries one is also legal and the other isn't.

<comment><USER49> _Here in Europe, in the countries which have the system, it is referred to as "civil partnership" and the LGBT community is happy with that despite it not being called "marriage". Actually, complaints about the system in the UK came from heterosexual couples who want want to have access to civil partnerships instead of marriage (ref:<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835>)._

Read that campaign again - it's as much about LGBT people having a right to marry as it is about civil partnerships for straight folk. It's about equal rights. Some of my gay friends would prefer to marry over a civil partnership. My partner and I would prefer a civil partnership - but can't coz we're straight.

Indeed - in the UK anyway - LGBT are likely to have the right to marry soon (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222>). I don't think we'd be changing the legislation if folk weren't unhappy with the current status quo.

<comment><USER48> Just to clarify: 1\. I did read the campaign but I didn't refer directly to this particular campaign but rather to the general situation in response to equating support for gay rights to support for other illegal activities (in this case incest, but sometimes it paedophilia or bestiality). 2\. I am gay myself in a long-term relationship (10 years now) and I'm not interested in getting married myself, and neither do some of my gay friends who are also in long-term relationships. That's why I wrote "most homosexual couples" which I admit is not accurate either since I haven't taken a survey. Maybe it should have read "many" or maybe "in my experience, most", but the main point of my post remains the same and is that while for some (however many) gay couple the issue is also semantical, it's first and foremost an issue of equal rights. 3\. I don't really want to comment about this campaign because I find it confusing. I don't understand why they don't start at home (USA, where Microsoft are already active promoting same-sex legalised partnerships) and in countries where the attitude towards homosexuality is generally positive, but which have not yet legalised same-sex partnerships (e.g. Israel). This is not criticism for the campaign, just an explanation why I my comments weren't about it. 4\. I do support your and your partner's right to be civilly- partnered as opposed to getting married. I hope that you will be able to do that very soon.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


"Journalism is built on a foundation of trust and truth. While I have friends w - <AUTHOR> https://hunterwalk.com/2020/03/06/journalism-is-built-on-a-foundation-of-trust-and-truth-while-i-have-friends-who-are-also-sources-those-friends-know-i-wear-two-hats-five-questions-w-axios-kia-kokalitcheva/ <comment><USER2> She's a great writer. Axioms is one of the few things I read every morning.</comment>


Autopilot supplier disowns Tesla for 'pushing the envelope on safety' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/15/autopilot-supplier-disowns-tesla-for-pushing-the-envelope-on-safety <comment><USER2> > A Tesla spokeswoman said on Wednesday the company had never described > Autopilot as an autonomous technology or self-driving car.

Other than the name itself.

What does "put it on autopilot" mean to most people?

<comment><USER3> Looks to me as though everyone involved has been at least too optimistic. And MobileEye should not call it Autopilot if it cannot act like one.</comment></comment>


Parents can't delete what kids tell Amazon voice assistant - <AUTHOR> https://apnews.com/f062c28ae72144b3b22146d9d4c6fab3 <comment><USER2> Amazon is turning itself into a surveillance company with Echo and Ring. This is a disturbing trend that seems unnecessary. Will this make them more money than retail or just get them deeper in bed with the government cheese?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Same story from the New York Times: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/technology/amazon- childre...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/technology/amazon-childrens- privacy-echo-dot-kids.html)</comment>


Wealth Disparity in Tech Companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/What-problems-are-created-by-wealth-disparity-among-employees-when-a-tech-companys-stock-becomes-liquid-How-can-you-minimize-the-negative-impact

<comment><AUTHOR> I found this question to be very relevant to me. I am joining Facebook (presumably about a year before its IPO), and I feel a little of what the top answerer mentioned. I know it's flawed reasoning, but I could have graduated a year early from my university... so I sort of beat myself for it. I'm wondering if others have similar experiences and may want to share?

<comment><USER2> A friend of mine turned down a job offer from Google in 2000. He later joined Google in early 2004. He regrets not having joined Google in 2000, but he's happy that he did join in 2004 because it worked out better for him financially than the other jobs he considered at the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> :( That's really unfortunate, but I guess it's hard to know in 2000 what you're getting into.</comment></comment></comment>


Needle-less Vaccines which can be self-administred - <AUTHOR> http://www.news.gatech.edu/2017/06/26/microneedle-patches-flu-vaccination-successful-first-human-clinical-trial <comment><USER2> Flagged for changing the title so much. This title doesn't really make sense. The original is:

"Microneedle Patches for Flu Vaccination Successful in First Human Clinical Trial"

</comment><comment><USER3> Needle-less? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops -- Updated it to needle-less. Excited about technology but my autocorrect still does not understand me :)</comment></comment>


Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL - <AUTHOR> http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/hack/realmen.html <comment><USER2> >It's like having the best parts of FORTRAN and assembly language in one place.

That killed me.</comment>


Warmer, Fuzzier: The Refreshed Logo - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/weekinreview/31marsh.html?_r=1&hp

<comment><USER2> Companies rebrand/change their logo all the time, where in the article does it provide data comparing the rate of change of company names in down times vs the good times?

This is just fitting a convenient 'depression 2.0' story to some logo redesigns; if this happened two years ago, the same redesigns would be interpreted entirely differently, perhaps it would be about 'increasing market share in a more globalized world'.

</comment><comment><USER3> Lipstick on pigs. The most interesting one is the last one in the slideshow, Blackwater changed their name to Xe. It doesn't change the fact that they are mercenary soldiers.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you liked this article, the Brand New blog at

       http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/

is more insightful on a typical day, and tries less hard to fit into the NYT's trend stories about the economy and the environment.

</comment><comment><USER5> Given the title, I was almost certain that this would be an article about Haskell!

</comment><comment><USER6> They can spend millions of dollars making Wal-Mart's logo look friendlier, but when you walk in the store, it's plain to see that the actual company is just the same. This reminds me of Joel's "how many lies can you find a direct mail piece?"

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000019.html>

The logo might claim Wal-Mart is friendly and likable but unless Wal-Mart actually becomes friendly and likable it's just wasted money.

<comment><USER7> The redesigned Walmarts are actually far more pleasant to shop in. It's been a while since I've been in one, so I forgot exactly what they changed. It was definitely less suffocating and the signs were prettier. Who needs good business practices when you have good _typography_?

In any case, I don't really buy into the whole "Walmart is pure evil" thing. It's cute how some enlightened cities do everything they can to prevent them from moving in so small businesses aren't hurt, then they wonder why their lower income residents are doing so poorly. I think independent retailers are great and I support them whenever I can, but they're clearly more expensive, and it's silly for the people who can afford to have a conscience to force that choice on those who can't.

<comment><USER8> Anyone who is interested in the debate surrounding Walmart and how it impacts local and global economies should check out this PBS documentary.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/>

Of particular interest is the section called "Muscling Manufacturers", which shows how the sheer scale of their operation gives them the power to force local manufacturing jobs overseas, effectively creating these "lower income residents" that natrius mentions above.

Scale is often a topic of discussion for hackers; to see how some of the same principles apply to a huge retail corporation is mind-blowing. Definitely worth a watch, imo.

<comment><USER7> I don't believe that the imaginary lines that humans tend to draw in the sand to separate people make a Chinese person less worthy of a job than an American.

It _is_ in my best interest to keep jobs from leaving the country. Money tends to circulate locally, so we're decreasing the amount of wealth available here when we buy foreign goods. Losing American jobs also increases the costs of our social welfare programs.

However, since our social welfare programs are presumably better than China's, creating a Chinese job at the cost of an American job likely leaves the world better off if we assume that the increased taxes and decreased American income would result in a negligible decrease in well-being in comparison. I think that's a fair assumption.

Shop at Walmart, save the world.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Can anyone do better than Deepmind's wavenet? contact us - <AUTHOR> We want to if anyone here has been working on text to speech technology, and who might have an idea on how to improve or do better than google's current wavenet. Cheers Heck you might want to join us. lol <comment><USER2> I want to join you!</comment>