Woman loses NASA internship after Twitter fight with member of space council - <AUTHOR> https://www.wric.com/news/weird-news/woman-loses-nasa-internship-after-twitter-fight-with-member-of-space-council/1388183987 <comment><USER3> ...and then the person she "fought" with said he was going to do everything in his power to get her a position as good as or better than the one she lost. [0]

0\. [https://mobile.twitter.com/realgamer07/status/10319975097853...](https://mobile.twitter.com/realgamer07/status/1031997509785346049)

Edit: p.s. I know this is in the article, but that headline is _a bit_ sensational.

<comment><USER4> The headline is accurate and concise. Not just in the chronology, but the likely cause and effect. Note that Hickam may not himself have caused the firing, but someone at NASA likely saw the controversy (because people started dogpiling both Hickam and Naomi H and tagging @NASA) and made a decision based on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This sends a horrible message to young people that are already over-entitled (I mean really, tweeting like that??).

Young people learn from this: You should be offensive, insulting, and disrespectful. Then when it blows up on you, reach out and apologize, and you'll end up with an even better position.

<comment><USER6> Another interpretation is that if you say something mildly offensive, you will lose your job. If you act like an adult and apologize, you may be benefit from being humbled and learning your lesson.

<comment><USER7> "suck my dick" is considered more than mildly offensive.

Go say it to a 20 year old girl at work and see what happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm having trouble following my _own_ thoughts on this one.

\- Posts about an exciting thing to online friends with the word Fuck - <USER2> is ok.

\- Random person inserts themselves into the conversation trying to be a moral compass - Good intentions, but not ok.

\- tells person to suck dick and balls - Not ok.

So, while the offer was rescinded due to the mob mentality of Twitter following up on this exchange, I would definitely have second thoughts on hiring someone if that's their go-to attitude.

In the end, I'm glad one stupid tweet didn't ruin this person's life, but I hope it's a wake up call that there is no wall between online and offline.

<comment><USER9> _Random person inserts themselves into the conversation trying to be a moral compass - Good intentions, but not ok._

He was not trying to be a moral compass and he was not some random person. He is on the National Space Council that oversees NASA. He recognized the fact that NASA wouldn't want it's name associated with such language, especially when used by a new hire. He was trying to politely give her the heads up. That's it.

If you publicly announce you work for such, then you need to be aware that you are now representing them in some sense.

What she did was both obnoxious and stupid. I don't really think she deserves Mr. Hickman's kindness here, though his actions have impressed me and I've now followed him on Twitter.

I'm also thinking I need to try harder to swear less online. Cuz (reasons). Though I already make some effort to clean up my language and I cannot imagine cussing someone out in the manner that happened here.

<comment><USER8> For you this is true since you're fully aware of the context, but if you're being flooded with thousands of notifications and someone just inserts themselves with a single word "Language" I would imagine many people would react in a similar manner.

If he had said, "I work with NASA and your language here is inappropriate" then we wouldn't have heard anything about the incident. He approached this poorly.

<comment><USER4> I agree that his terse reaction left itself open to interpreting it in bad faith. That said, maybe Mr. Hickam is someone who isn't inclined to declare his authority in a normal situation. As he said in his blog post, he has no power over hiring or firing and so even saying "your language here is inappropriate" may feel out of bounds for him.

In the end, I think the least that can be expected of anyone who chooses to attack a stranger is that they take the 5 seconds required to click that person's profile and skim their bio, and even Google it if that person uses their real name. To me, Naomi H's major screwup is not necessarily her profanity, but what appeared to be a total lack of discretion. If you have time to tell someone to fuck off, you have time to look up there info; there's no excuse in this age of Google and high-speed internet to do otherwise.

<comment><USER8> I don't disagree at all about the language used - really childish and shows a lack of discretion.

I do stand by my feelings on people saying one word and expecting anything besides annoyance or being ignored. Why should I take the energy to research a person if they can't be bothered to type something more clear.

<comment><USER4> You shouldn't be expected to acknowledge any stranger on the Internet. But if you have time to say something angry and rude at them, then you have time to do literally the few seconds it takes to do due diligence.

We don't know for sure why exactly NASA fired her, but it's understandable if they did it out of political fear, like a Goldman Sachs manager firing an intern for shitting on a member of the board of directors. But it's possible the intern was fired not out of fear, but concern that if she could be such an asshole to a legend at NASA who was not being explicitly rude, then imagine how less empathetic she might be toward someone with far less privilege and institutional standing.

Again, imagine if it were an intern at Goldman Sachs, or some other institution that's considered as elite in its industry as NASA is in science and engineering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I had several encounters at my time as an intern at Jet Propulsion Laboratory where I was alerted to my immaturity and the responsibilities that were in front of me. I'm tremendously thankful for each one of those lessons.

There are many different types of personality on lab and they all contribute the extremely unique innovation culture there but there is also always the north star about the responsibility of shepherding a successful space mission which needs to be internalized by all the members in order for these efforts to succeed. I'm ultimately very sensitive to the underlying ethos of both parties in the exchange documented in this article.

Towards the end of the article it becomes clear that both parties apologized for the encounter and Mr. Hickam apparently said "After talking to her, I am certain she deserves a position in the aerospace industry and I'm doing all I can to secure her one that will be better than she lost. I have also talked to the folks that had to do with her internship and made absolutely certain that there will be no black mark on her record."

I feel like this is ultimately a very good outcome. Everyone involved learned something and grew from the experience.

<comment><USER11> I don't believe Hickam apologized, he certainly didn't need to. He accepted her apology and chose to help make sure her life wasn't ruined due to this mistake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Genuinely surprised that someone applying for an internship at NASA does not know who Homer Hickam is.

<comment><USER13> She probably got a lot of responses, and wasn't really looking at the names anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sorry, NASA should not sacrifice its standards for this woman. Life is a bitch, next time don't act like one.</comment>


Original Apollo 11 codebase issues list (humor) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/issues/3 <comment><AUTHOR> The codebase is real and the nerd humor is on point. Here's the original article: [https://qz.com/726338/the-code-that-took-america-to-the- moon...](https://qz.com/726338/the-code-that-took-america-to-the-moon-was- just-published-to-github-and-its-like-a-1960s-time-capsule/)</comment>


How to Achieve Internet Connectivity in Basements and Other Dead Zones - <AUTHOR> https://blog.temboo.com/how-to-get-connected-in-dead-zones/ <comment><USER2> TL;DR — try WiFi first, then Ethernet, then cellular.</comment>


How the Ballpoint Pen Killed Cursive - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/ballpoint-pens-object-lesson-history-handwriting/402205/ <comment><USER2> I prefer Lamy, just wish they wrote on vertical surfaces better (paper on walls, etc).</comment>


Scientists found Zenkerella, one of the most ancient and mysterious mammals - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/16/scientists-finally-found-zenkerella-the-worlds-most-mysterious-mammal/ <comment><USER2> FTFA: _For context, they 're only about 15 million years younger than the dinosaurs, and some 35 million years older than the oldest great apes. When they first arose, Australia was still connected to Antarctica, and the Himalayas didn't even exist yet._

They've changed _very little over the past 49 million years_.

What I find disturbing is that because we know so little about them, they merit the lowest categorization on the threat scale, least concern. Again FTFA, _their habitat is under threat from deforestation and development... scientists have never seen the animal alive in the wild, they 're not entirely sure where they live, or how many of them there are left_.

I would have hoped there would be a category that basically means "stop what you're doing, we're in danger of wiping this thing out in our ignorance".

<comment><USER3> I find it odd that this is the reason you would preserve these habitats. Humans have the technological capacity to wipe out all remaining forest habitats within a few decades, and probably will do so unless a wave of enlightenment comes over everybody. Wild animal populations stand at half what they were in 1975 and are headed for zero. Why would humanity stop the destruction for an obscure squirrel?

<comment><USER4> _" Why would humanity stop the destruction for an obscure squirrel?"_

Because we didn't filed it yet for extinct species archive. It's about respecting our bureaucratic procedure, you see?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> PeerJ paper on Zenkerella at [1]. I find it irritating that the article says "in a study published Tuesday in the journal PeerJ..." then never explicitly links to it.

[1] "Ancient phylogenetic divergence of the enigmatic African rodent Zenkerella and the origin of anomalurid gliding" [ [https://peerj.com/articles/2320/](https://peerj.com/articles/2320/) ]

</comment><comment><USER6> Why didn't they evolve?

<comment><USER7> People tend to think that constant evolution is the natural state of the world becoming "more advanced". But really, evolution will only happen when there's a reason. This species is related to a bunch of other species that did evolve, but apparently it represents a group that managed to stay in conditions that it was already adequately adapted for. Or there was no beneficial direction available in which it could evolve.

<comment><USER8> > People tend to think that constant evolution is the natural state of the > world becoming "more advanced". But really, evolution will only happen when > there's a reason.

This is fallacious. It's so wrong that it overlooks the term ("genetic drift") that _specifically describes_ evolution that happens "for no reason". All species constantly evolve, as noted in nn3's sibling comment to yours. This one has preserved its skeletal structure, which is an infinitesimal part of it.

From the heading of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil):

> The term living fossil is sometimes used in the popular literature, as if to > imply a lack of evolution, and has occasionally also been taken to imply > very low rates of molecular evolution, but scientific investigations have > repeatedly discredited claims that these species do not change at all, as > well as other misconceptions about living fossils.

> Living fossils are not expected to exhibit exceptionally low rates of > molecular evolution, and some studies have shown that they do not. For > example, on tadpole shrimp (Triops), one article notes, "Our work shows that > organisms with conservative body plans are constantly radiating, and > presumably, adapting to novel conditions.... I would favor retiring the term > 'living fossil' altogether, as it is generally misleading."</comment></comment></comment>


Using statecharts for JavaScript applications - <AUTHOR> http://zubairov.posterous.com/state-management-in-javascript-mvc-applicatio

<comment><USER2> Its not really a refactoring of the Ki framework. It is a completely different underlaying architecture (much simpler). That allows for better async handling and a smaller footprint.</comment>


Show HN: Fayde – Silverlight Everywhere - <AUTHOR> http://wsick.github.io/Fayde/?hn

<comment><USER2> This looks fantastic! I've been developing desktop-only in .net, and am now starting to get into Silverlight. I love that, unlike Silverlight, this looks like it doesn't need a plugin at all, and is just straight javascript at the end.

I'll be curious about what people who are more experienced have to say about its usefulness. Surprising that this post doesn't have any more comments.

</comment><comment><USER3> "However, the problem with all of these approaches is that they are all bound by the limitations and frustrations of HTML and CSS. Unfortunately, the problems with HTML aren't going to be solved anytime soon."

Nice work!</comment>


Credit card company rejects customers with too-good credit scores - <AUTHOR> http://www.startribune.com/business/97125744.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsl

<comment><USER2> My wife has incredible credit and pays her full bill every month. A few months ago her full payment was received 1 day after the due date, so she got pinged $15 for not paying the minimum. When she called to see if they would reverse the charge, the customer service rep rudely told her no and wouldn't budge. When my wife threatened to cancel the card, the rep happily obliged. She tearfully asked me why they would be so unforgiving to her after all her diligent payments. The truth is that by being one of their most responsible customers she became one of their least valuable customers. Very irritating.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like a rude customer service rep, not necessarily corporate policy. From all I've heard (including the OP article), most banks strongly prefer credit-worthy customers, because it's easier money. Amex, for example, makes 70% of its money off merchant fees.

<comment><USER4> Not all Cardholder issuing banks are also Merchant issuing banks. And when they are often times the Card issuing side is a separate division/department and their bonuses, etc. are based on their division's/department's profitability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Mid-tier universities do this all the time too by rejecting students they know won't matriculate (or will matriculate and transfer in 2 years).

<comment><USER6> Known as "yield protection" or "Tufts syndrome" ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_protection> )

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I understand how credit card companies would prefer people who rack up fees and interest. What I do not understand is why one of these companies would get in bed with a retail operation to offer a store card.

Logically people who finance items at a store like Gander Mountain are going to be a cross-section of American society. Not all of them will fit any one, perfect profile, not all will be particularly good or poor credit risks. Nevertheless, the store is going to want its credit partner to extend credit to as many of them as possible.

Conflict is inevitable if one party goes into the deal with the wrong idea.

</comment><comment><USER8> Am I accurate that the CC industry calls those who pay their bills off in full each month, "deadbeats"?

<comment><USER9> I've heard that as well.

[http://credit.about.com/od/usingcreditcards/a/deadbeatcredit...](http://credit.about.com/od/usingcreditcards/a/deadbeatcredit.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Good customers are the ones who pay the minimum

<comment><USER11> Yeah, gotta let them make some money off you.

<comment><USER12> They make money off of the discount rate, regardless of whether they make money off of your interest. Some credit card companies have become addicted to the much more lucrative trough of penalty fees and interest payments, but they make money regardless.

<comment><USER13> Yeah but in this case the credit card company pays a $37 referal bonus, which makes it unprofitable especially if the card isnt used very often.

<comment><USER12> Quite so. But it kind of gives the game away in terms of predatory lending eh?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Companies have the right to pick whoever they want to lend money to, for any reason except legally rejected ones.

Part of the unexpected side effects of credit card reform is that when you reduce the profits of certain classes of customers, this causes the companies to not be able to carry the less profitable loss leaders, so companies start cherry picking the best customers.

It's like how 80-90% of a banks customers make it no money at all. They are all loss leaders. They make their money on a very small percentage of the customers.

</comment><comment><USER15> Do responsible customers actually cost the credit card companies money or do they just not bring in any revenue to speak of?

<comment><USER14> They are borrowing money each month, without paying interest on it, so it does cost the credit card companies money.

<comment><USER15> Losing money in its time-value. Gotcha.

Edit: I thought they still made money off of the vendor fees though?

<comment><USER14> They do yes. Between 0.5% and 3%.

It costs them some money to process an account though, send bills, handle payments etc. If someone is charging reasonably frequently then they are still profitable.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Hidden Life of an Amazon User - <AUTHOR> https://www.janavirgin.com/AMZ/ <comment><USER2> >The average amount of energy needed to load each of the twelve web interfaces, along with each one's endless fragments of code, was 30 watts.

What is that supposed to mean? A watt(= 1 J/s) is a measure power so energy per unit of time. Shouldn't this rather be given in joule?

<comment><USER3> The unit appears to have been fixed to "wh".

<comment><USER2> So now it says 30wh, which seems just wrong. If the transaction took 10 seconds or so, during that short time it would have had to consume over 10 kilowatts of energy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's presented too dramatically IMO, but the core argument is one we need to raise awareness of: you use energy and emit carbon so a company can run code that in part grooms you into being a better consumer of their products.

Brick and Mortar stores do this too. Some ways are fun and nice like air conditioning and wine while browsing. Others not so much: facial recognition at Target's nationwide, and companies like ShopperTrak and others.

No matter if it's online or in person it's getting increasingly creepy. Any awareness of it a net positive, even if it is a tad dramatic.

<comment><USER5> And those buttons sure look like amazon buttons

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Shouldn't there be figures in watts (a measure of power) rather than watt- hours (measure of energy) on the project page?

Right now it seems to me there's non-monotonically increasing energy expenditure when looking at the Wh figures.

</comment><comment><USER7> Life has to be pretty great when people have to go to such extraordinary contortions to find something to complain about.

<comment><USER8> Are you sure the subject is a complaint and not an exploration? It seemed more to be an exploration of the energetic and computational cost of serving an average Amazon user. I found it fascinating. 30 watts and 88MB to load a page of otherwise static content does seem a little ludicrous, and I've definitely thought the same thing about much of the content I see on the internet that loves loading a bunch of crap that slows my machine down to a halt.

<comment><USER7> Yes, it seems pretty clear that the author feels oppressed by Amazon: "To put it bluntly, the user is not just exploited by means of their free labor, but is also forced to assume the energy costs of such exploitation."

<comment><USER8> Leaving the author's admittedly sanctimonious tone aside (which I find a little grating), don't you think that the topic of energy costs of these "fat" applications is worthy of exploration?

<comment><USER7> Yes, I think that is interesting, but not enough for me to get over the oppression narrative. Furthermore, I am skeptical that there is anything there at all, I can't image that the energy I waste the few times a week I go to Amazon to be anything but a rounding error on my overall energy expenditure.

<comment><USER8> I get that, but hear me out. I think what's fascinating is not necessarily the rounding error on your overall energy expenditure, but the likely sheer overall cost of that on the whole. I think similar thoughts about bitcoin mining -- the truth us, if you add up a lot of this computation in aggregate, how much of it is wasteful as a whole to the organization or network paying for it? That number, while maybe not huge enough for many orgs to do anything about it, is still pretty large, and certainly interesting for me to think about.

<comment><USER7> Sure, but that applies to anything, does it not? If one multiplies anything one does by 7 billion there is a good chance a large number will come out. Maybe that is a little interesting at first glance but not in any larger sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Irritating color scheme.

</comment><comment><USER10> Great project! The energy footprint of the internet is huge and should be addressed.

For example: [https://webtest.app/?url=https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/](https://webtest.app/?url=https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/)

<comment><USER11> True. And you can address it yourself by blocking JS mainly, and ads, and be amazed at how snappily a web page renders (when it does, which is often but not always sans JS).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Never liked when Amazon increases the price a few days later after witnessing you researching something to buy. This is why I only purchase items 'on-the- spot' in a small window of time which allows me to escape such a practice.

<comment><USER13> > after witnessing you researching something to buy.

Amazon has never done that (different prices for different customers), their prices are the same for all users.

They didn't raise it because of anything you personally did.

Their prices just go up and down all the time randomly.

Leave the item in your shopping cart and check it daily (or more) and watch the price bounce around. You can use this to your advantage if you are not in a rush and wait for a good price. You can also use camelcamelcamel as a price tracker.

<comment><USER12> > Amazon has never done that

Well maybe they do? I know Amazon's algorithms are opaque to the user, but after several purchases on Amazon I noticed this trend of items I researched showing a small uptick in the price after a few days when I go to buy it. The price uptick is there for all users, but Amazon knows only one specific person will buy it, so the price is adjusted for that person and no-one else. After buying, the price goes back to its default in a few days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Thus, the 8,724 pages of code that track and personalize user behavior and experience and were involuntarily loaded by the customer (me) through the browser, are evidence of Amazon's core money-making strategy at work. Moreover, all the energy needed to load this relatively large amount of information was effectively unloaded on the customer (me), who ultimately assumed not just part of the economic cost of Amazon's hidden monetization processes, but also a portion of its environmental footprint._

Holy crap. Are you telling me, when I visit a website, that it uses electricity? That I'm downloading code onto my computer? That when I tell my browser to load a webpage, that page loads _against my will_?

Why aren't more people talking about this?

</comment><comment><USER15> 90% of the code is jQuery / third-party (also includes jquery / polyfills) / polyfills btw.

At some point, convenience wins.

<comment><USER16> It will come back to haunt Amazon as soon as they start to scale

<comment><USER17> I think they are waiting for FB and Netflix to show results of their scaling attempts before they truly go full scale

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> off topic, but I first read the domain as Java Virgin and had a good chuckle...only to realize that I misread

</comment><comment><USER19> pretty cool art project, thanks for sharing.</comment>


Report: Microsoft is scrapping Edge, switching to just another Chrome clone - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/report-microsoft-is-scrapping-edge-switching-to-just-another-chrome-clone/ <comment><USER2> Some developers might see this as a good move for them. I don't think it is.

It might be a good move for developers in the short term but it's a bad move for developers and the web in the long term. We need to keep the web APIs vendor neutral so that one company cannot take control of the future of the web, and move it to benefit only themselves.

The number of barely-standardised APIs they're adding to Chrome is astounding. It's great to push the web forward, but the fact that product teams at Google have a direct connection to the Chrome team allows them to prioritise the features that benefit their web apps the most.

If the web is going to become Chrome (and sadly it looks like it might), then Chrome needs be moved to a foundation that's outside the control of one company.</comment>


Companies Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund finds unethical - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway#Excluded_companies

<comment><USER2> What surprises me is how short the list is. The banned companies seem to be banned for good reasons.</comment>


U.S. Beats Saudi Arabia to Become Top Oil Exporter on Shale Boom - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-12/u-s-beats-saudi-arabia-to-become-top-oil-exporter-on-shale-boom <comment><USER2> I bet that they didn't add the important fact that producing shale oil/gas is still not profitable. The cost is way too high still, they are constantly losing money. [https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/06/23/former-shale-gas- ceo-s...](https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/06/23/former-shale-gas-ceo-says- shale-revolution-has-been-disaster-drillers-investors)</comment>


Google Apps Premier - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/21/google-launches-apps-premier/ <comment><AUTHOR> so at a first glance, the list of features seems to mostly be about better support and gmail features.

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't underestimate the value of the gmail API and set of mailbox migration tools. That and a promise of three-nines uptime.

I'm guessing they're going to make it easy to tie GMail into existing enterprise systems.

All in all, I think it's a very compelling offering.</comment></comment>


OpenXcom 1.0 - <AUTHOR> http://openxcom.org/2014/06/openxcom-1-0/ <comment><USER2> Congrats to the team...I think my appetite for this has been whetted a little by the modern 2K Games remake...which, I know, is kind of heresy, but it really is a great example of how streamlining and simplifying an already decently-thought-out game (i.e. restricting soldiers to one special weapon and grenade, and base management to one base) can still be satisfying.

That said, in the remake, the AI is inexplicably "boxed" up. That is, the AI doesn't move until you stumble upon them...and so if you're patient and methodical, it's not terribly hard to win most fights, scratch-free. That ruined the tension that the original game had...The About page for Open-XCOM says the AI is improved...I'd love to see a writeup on what was changed.

<comment><USER3> I picked up the original XCOM on Steam again, last having played it on an old 486 box--I remembered my lessons, and the first mission I'd intercepted a little scout craft (2 crewman, one of whom died on impact).

So, naturally, I deploy 12 squaddies, leapfrog and encircle the crashed craft on a farm in broad daylight (never, ever, at night, ever), and proceed to fill it full of detpacks. Perfect, flawless run. I'm feeling cocky.

Next mission, terror mission, and within three turns I've lost like half my team to friendly fire (unfortunate incident with an incendiary rocket), a quarter to enemy fire, and the last few guys are either panicking or getting crushed in a pincer between alien tank units (cyberdiscs) and heavy infantry.

And that's when I realized that pretty much no modern games are as _hard_ and _unforgiving_ as that old DOS wonder. You start the game with a bunch of folks in T-shirts and M16s, and by the end you are literally space marines whose mere presence sends elite enemy units scurrying in terror--and more importantly, the game made you earn it, every step of the way.

EDIT:

Their Github!

[https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/](https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/)

<comment><USER4> Actually, it's hard to deny that X-Com did have a serious gameplay fault in its difficulty curve, as much as we loved the nostalgia.

At the easy difficulty modes (most new players) the curve is completely backwards. It stars out brutally difficult and becomes easier as you gain access to heavy plasma weapons.

If a total wipe of your early team was a forgiving event compared to late-game losses, that could be excused as setting tone, but it's not like that - players just save-scummed until the mission worked. That's not good gameplay.

I mean, the game's merits easily overshadowed its flaws, but the reverse- difficulty is a serious flaw.

<comment><USER3> So, the trick with the early game was to accept losses, right?

Once you realized "Hey, we're totally outgunned...we just need to flood the aliens until we get better gear", things changed. Missions became more about resource management: what is the bare minimum I can field to wipe these guys, what can I build and manufacture that has the highest profit margin, etc.?

Terror missions, for example, early on devolved into "Set fire to everything, because we need the light, and shoot the civilians, because they could be used to feed the Chrysalids and make more Chrysalids."

The enemies in the game stayed largely the same difficulty, but your equipment got better and better and tactics switched as you were able to field more expensive units--and unless you ran a really _tight_ resource game, you treated those expensive units much differently.

The thing that made the game feel unique was exactly that: the reverse- difficulty. If you started kicking ass, and then things got harder, it'd be annoying--instead, you had some early success, discovered just how outclassed you were, and after a few restarts learned how to fight a technologically- superior enemy until you had achieved force parity.

<comment><USER5> I remember it having a nice subtle balance - you couldn't afford to just let terror missions go unmolested because you would quickly lose funding. On the other hand, you couldn't just grind soldiers out because you needed them to progress with skills, etc. for the endgame... although there was a sort of plateu around when you got armor and psi-ops where things got boring between, say the 70% and 95% where you were just waiting to capture that one thing you missed in the earlier missions... from what I remember, that was the worst thing; There were like 2 or 3 things you needed for your tech tree that only appeared in early missions and they were really difficult to get after that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm so pumped for this, tried it about a year ago and decided to wait. The games I come back to in my life are Mega Man 2 (okay and a few other NES games), Final Fantasy III/VI, and XCOM. Others I dip into and remind myself of every once in a while, but these I actually regularly play through semi- regularly because they're just such a joy. Can't wait to dig in, maybe with a mod or two, and fret over my squad for a few hours. Thanks to the team.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice but... the iPad game completely took care of all my XCom cravings for quite some time. It was one of the most solid iPad games I've encountered. It's more a remake than an adaptation, and they really put in a lot of effort to bring the first XCom game into the 21st century, and it shows.

It cost £10 or so, and I never regretted a single penny of it. If you loved this game, I really recommend getting XCom on the iPad.

PS: This is not meant to take away from what these guys are doing... but watching that ancient creaky interface after being treated to the modern touch interface in the iPad game was somewhat painful. Here's a video:

<comment><USER8> Which version? I'm only seeing Enemy Unknown and something called "Aliens versus Humans" which looks like a direct clone, but which the reviews say is sort of a shallow imitation of the original. Is there another I should be looking for? (XCOM is one of my top 5 of all time, would love a direct copy of the original with a graphical update)

<comment><USER9> Enemy Unknown is the Xcom game.

<comment><USER8> Damn, I was hoping he meant a real remake of the original. Enemy Unknown was good, but it isn't in my top 5.

<comment><USER10> I am confused as to what the original could be if not "X-COM: Enemy Unknown" (AKA "UFO: Enemy Unknown"/"X-COM: UFO Defense" released in 1994 on Amiga/CD32/DOS/PSx/Windows by MicroProse)?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM)

<comment><USER11> XCOM: Enemy Unknown is not a straight remake of UFO: Enemy Unknown / X-COM: UFO Defense, it's a "reimagination". RPS's XCOM review also serves as a comparison/diff to X-COM: [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/08/xcom- review/](http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/08/xcom-review/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's worth noting that there is another Open Source Xcom game clone, UFO Alien Invasion: [http://ufoai.org/wiki/News](http://ufoai.org/wiki/News) (has 3d graphics).

<comment><USER13> OpenXcom's not really a clone though, it's a repolishing of the original X-COM. [http://www.xenonauts.com/](http://www.xenonauts.com/) is another clone/spiritual successor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> That's the game (original) I played for years in my childhood, and opening theme was my favorite music video :) Thanks to the team behind OpenXcom.

</comment><comment><USER15> Interesting timing, since Xenonauts ([http://store.steampowered.com/app/223830/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/223830/)) came out of early release today!

<comment><USER16> Which is very fun and keeps the spirit of the original X-Com alive and well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hm, this needs the original game assets, which I just bought on Steam. Trouble is, I can't download them on Linux because it's listed as a 'windows' game. _< facepalm>_

<comment><USER18> Steam's Windows version is known to run under Wine. It doesn't run _great_ , but you can certainly use it enough to download game assets.

<comment><USER17> I've done that a few times, but I don't want to clutter my current system with the wine + winetricks packages _again_ for the upteenths time. I was hoping to find an accessible way now that Linux is first class citizen for Steam.

<comment><USER19> You can create a disposable chroot debootstrap and use "xhost +" on the host to let Steam run. This is what I do every time I need something that require Java on my desktop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is one of my all time favorite games. So I'm really happy someone is wishing to bring on its legacy. I think I'll play it very soon.

<comment><USER16> Have a look at Xenonauts ([http://store.steampowered.com/app/223830/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/223830/)) as well, it very much keeps the original x-com spirit alive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Note that the original X-Com always played on Beginner difficulty. The developers never found out about this bug, and so may the sequel extremely more difficult, thus making it not at all fun for all but the most hardcore strategy gamers.

<comment><USER22> That can't be right. I fondly remember playing it on impossible, and almost all of the aliens started with heavy plasmas, and aside from that even the smaller ufos had twice the number of regular units.

<comment><USER21> Gamespy mentions it here: [http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/x-com-ufo- defense/1216654p3.html](http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/x-com-ufo- defense/1216654p3.html)

Wikipedia claims that the difficulty didn't reset until after the first Battlescape mission, which might explain things.

Aha! [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Known_Bugs#Difficul...](http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Known_Bugs#Difficulty_Bug)

It was only on the DOS version, the windows version did not have the bug; perhaps you played the windows version?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I really like OpenXcom, but like the original Xcom i can't play it because of its rather stupid hit calculations. Range to the target isn't used for calculating the chance to hit a target. Because the troops can't hit something when it stands in front of them. Resulting in funny battles.

There is an build-in mod to reduce the chance to hit a target based on range. Since this doesn't solve the issue, the melee aliens become even more dangerous. And from all games around, Xcom do have the nastiest melee alien ever.

<comment><USER6> Is this true? I've definitely unloaded a few full auto shots into aliens nearby and the hit rate seemed drastically higher than if I were to do that at range.

<comment><USER23> Its also noted in the changelog:

        - Range based accuracy removed - UFO Extender accuracy added.

or in the ingame settings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Xcom fans should also check out x@com. [http://xcomrl.blogspot.fi/](http://xcomrl.blogspot.fi/)

</comment><comment><USER25> You say Xcom, I hear floppy disks :) what a memories! Thanks for sharing, will give it a go over the weekend.

</comment><comment><USER26> How's Xenonauts? Have they made enough changes to justify the price?

<comment><USER16> What do you mean by changes? It is a complete remake with the same theme, not a modification.

But yes, I am enjoying it and it is in the spirit of the original x-com.

the only downside I have noticed so far is that I seem to be seeing the same maps a lot (although with X-Com chopper and UFO location randomised)</comment></comment>


Inside AMD's Quest to Build Chips That Can Beat Intel - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/inside-amds-quest-to-build-chips-that-can-beat-intel-1824064984 <comment><USER2> i need to research this jim keller guy, sounds like it might yield some interesting stories. from the article it almost sounds like he was responsible for every successful amd architecture. so now that intel got him who knows how quickly things will turn around again ;)

<comment><USER3> Like a good arms dealer: selling weapons to both sides. :-)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Real-world programmer salary in Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR>

Hello, i recently applied to a programming job (Backed Java Developer) here in Germany. The annual salary with standard benefits was 48k Euro which equals about ~62k USD. Obviously salaries in Germany and the US are not 100% comparable, but lets just ignore that for now.
During the job interview, i was asked why i am not working in SV. I wasnt prepared for the question so i did not know what to say. The interviewer said that for my profile i would be making between 100-150k USD in SV. I was rather stunned.
So, to give you some information on my background: I am 100% self-taught. I do not have any academic degree but a decent amount of experience.
I have a total of 8 years programming experience (including work at Startups) with a strong focus on web application development. I consider myself very experienced in Java and Python, plus decent PHP and C skills. Needless to say i also have HTML, CSS and SQL on my resume. On top of that, Linux is my home. All the coreutils in general, administrating and deploying the most used services.... not a problem.
So tell me, what would someone like me be making in SV?
Searching for this info on Google brings numbers anywhere from 40k-250k USD, so i would like to hear some people with real-world numbers. <comment><USER2> Interesting question from the interviewer, who must have neither friends nor family ;)

One source of salary information, probably relevant to you, being a non-US type, might be the H1-B database: [http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm](http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm) (select Performance Data tab, download latest PERM spreadsheet)

See, for example, this blog post: [http://realtimecollisiondetection.net/blog/?p=107](http://realtimecollisiondetection.net/blog/?p=107)

</comment><comment><USER3> Take some time to look at the remote market. It's very good right now, and many companies pay standardized salaries not based on your local market. I would take a look at Careers.StackOverflow.com and weworkremotely.com.

Might take a few months -- but there are gems in there. I live in a rural area in the US, and the best devs I know in the area get SV salaries for remote work (or own their own companies).

</comment><comment><USER4> That sounds right, and if you're good at self-promotion, interviewing, and negotiation, I don't think 200k within a year is unachievable.

I've heard of fresh college grads getting 200k all-in compensation (base + stock + bonus) at Google/Facebook.

As for cost of living, it's really up to you. You don't have to live in SF. The only reason prices in SF are high is because you have swarms of engineers with 6-figure salaries and startups with millions raised bidding up the prices in a few highly desirable areas of SF. If you're willing to 1) have a roommate, 2) live in a less desirable (specifically, a much higher crime area), or 3) give up being able to walk to work / bike to work in 10 minutes and live with a 30 minute commute from other cities in the SF area (East Bay, some parts of South Bay, etc., then you can lower your costs a lot.

</comment><comment><USER5> 90k-140k sounds about right, depending on how well you can negotiate and sell yourself. You also need to take into account taxes and considerably higher costs of living compared to Germany.

The biggest problem for you will be getting a visa. There are relatively few startups who would go through the trouble of sponsoring you a visa, unless you bring something really exceptional to the table. Your profile doesn't strike me as something that would be considered by "big" companies who typically sponsor H1B's since they often filter by college degree.

That is assuming you are eligible for a visa. An H-1B visa requires a Bachelor's degree or equivalent experience. Your experience may be sufficient, but proving that is easier said than done. As far as I remember 3 years of experience are generally considered equivalent to one year of college, which would mean that you need 12 years. But you shouldn't trust me on this and look it up instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> > The biggest problem for you will be getting a visa.

I have US citizenship, just never lived there for longer than a few weeks. So, considering all this. Is there any reason not to move down there and pile up some cash for a few years?

<comment><USER6> Don't just look at salary comparison. You have to consider cost of living and this area is one of the most expensive to live. The salary high in part because of this. Ultimately it might be a wash compared to what you make in Germany relative to what your expenses are there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Actually, you can get a job in Germany, or you could get one in Silicon Valley, or in London, etc. The real question is what do you want? Silicon Valley is far from Europe: moving there, you'd lose your friends and family. Some people do it (the pioneers), most don't and that's fine.

Yes, the salaries are as "good" as the interviewer said. Yes, you'll have major visa issues since you don't have a degree. Not everyone needs to move to Silicon Valley to be happy.

And frankly, don't move for the money. A good analogy I heard is: if you want to try to play in the big leaves, come to Silicon Valley. Failure rates are higher, but at least you'll find out how good you are. Would you take a shot at playing in the Bundesliga or keep being the best player in your local club?

</comment><comment><USER8> Yeah, 100k to 150k USD for the experience you describe sounds typical. The Java/Python combo in particular would be helpful for getting into companies like Google where total compensation can exceed 150k.

Cost of living in the Bay Area is high but misunderstood. When I decided to move to San Francisco, I estimated that I would pay 25% more rent, earn a 50% higher salary, and not need a car. I told people I was moving and they said, "But it's so expensive! How can you afford that?" Because math. [1]

[1]: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/28/cost_of_livin...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/28/cost_of_living_in_major_cities_why_new_york_and_san_francisco_are_actually.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> You might make more in SV but would you make more after accounting for cost of living differences? It's a very expensive area to live in. A quick Google search tells me that your 48k Euros is equivalent to over 100k USD in SV. I used Berlin and San Francisco as the locations for comparison.

[http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?coun...](http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&city1=Berlin&country2=United+States&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA)

<comment><USER10> Berlin is _not_ Germany. I don't know where the OP is from, but if he's from Muenchen or Frankfurt, my rough estimation (I am not German) is that the cost of life in those cities are 20-30% higher than in Berlin.

<comment><USER9> I'm also not German and don't know where in Germany the OP is from. I've heard about the tech startup scene in Berlin but I can't recall hearing about a started community in other cities in Germeny. That's why I chose Berlin as a proxy for Germany and clearly stated it as an assumption. San Francisco isn't the same as all of Silicon Valley either. The OP knows what city he's in and can find the appropriate cost of living difference on his own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just one thing, last time I calculated: from 150K gross salary, you get 90-100K net after taxes. Also consider housing prices in SV and that 150K doesn't sound that good anymore ;)

That said, you should aim for 150K+ _base_ salary, plus a lot of bonuses and stocks on top of it, so in the end, 250K+ should be achievable. This probably rules out most of startups for you, unless you're for the equity.

48K EUR - sounds like Berlin, right? ;) But I think you can negotiate up to 65-70K EUR if you really try.

</comment><comment><USER12> That range is about right for someone with no professional experience. At a medium-sized company in SV you should be offered a minimum of 100-110k base salary, 10-15% yearly bonus, plus stock options.

</comment><comment><USER13> The interviewer was right.</comment>


GoAccess - An open source real-time Apache log analyzer - <AUTHOR> http://goaccess.prosoftcorp.com/

<comment><USER2> this tools is awesome!</comment>


Show HN: List of upcoming bay area hackathons - <AUTHOR> https://sfhacks.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I have a friend who is into hackathons, and have been going to a few lately, but it's hard to find a good comprehensive list. I build the list for this site by scraping from a bunch of different APIs (eventbrite, meetup, etc...) and a couple of websites (devpost, MLH.io) to create potential listings. Then I manually curate, review, and post them. Hopefully someone else will also find this helpful, even though it's only focused on SF and the bay area for now.</comment>


Optimisation lessons learned (part 2) - <AUTHOR> http://joostdevblog.blogspot.nl/2012/07/optimisation-lessons-learned-part-2.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Follow up on part 1: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4209642></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to get search engine traffic? - <AUTHOR>

I don't want to become a spammer. <comment><USER2> easiest but most expensive: buy tons of banner ads that get people to search to find out more about your product.

hardest but least expensive: get people talking about your product so that others start searching to get more info about it.</comment>


Variable Fonts: The Future of Web Type (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://typographica.org/on-typography/variable-fonts/ <comment><USER2> The future of web type since 2016 has been sad. I still disable web fonts due to their average lower quality compared to system fonts. Private websites tend to fare much better to big media outlets here: it's rare to find good readable fonts that don't just scream "loud type"...

Maybe even worse than that is that the font rendering I get out of newer Firefox releases (70+) or any Chromium version on linux is not on-par with system font rendering on linux.

I'm extremely picky when it comes down to font rendering. I read all day and I tweaked font rendering precisely to my desire. I can spot the difference between autohinting and native hinting on some fonts just by a cursory glance on a 200dpi display. Chrome/chromium completely ignores that and gives me a horrific view of pretty much any font. Firefox hasn't been that bad until 70+, but if you try to enable webrender it becomes just as bad as chrome.

You know what a web browser should do first and foremost _right_? Text rendering. I don't care about Web Type, Open Type or any other font feature until the font that looks perfect on my editor is rendered like shit on a browser. Browser performance is worthless if I cannot read text clearly.

</comment><comment><USER3> I look forward to when variable fonts work well on all systems. (I really like rsms.me/inter)

Meantime, rocking the system font.

[https://tachyons.io/docs/typography/font-family/system- sans-...](https://tachyons.io/docs/typography/font-family/system-sans-serif/)

[https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/system-font-stack](https://css- tricks.com/snippets/css/system-font-stack)

</comment><comment><USER4> So when, and how, can we start using this? Are there any examples or tutorials available? Or is it so new browsers don't support it yet?

</comment><comment> globular-toast This seems similar to Knuth's Metafont.</comment>


Uber's Board to Discuss Leave of Absence for Travis Kalanick - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/technology/uber-holder-report.html <comment><USER2> An article about a conversation that hasn't happened yet doesn't pass the "significant new information" test that we use to distinguish which instances of long-running stories count as dupes: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20significant%20new%20...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20significant%20new%20information&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment). When such submissions make HN's front page, all that happens is that the same discussion from the last N cycles gets repeated, since there's nothing new of significance to talk about. Of course, when something new does happen, the same discussion will mostly repeat then too—but at least there will be _some_ mutation to keep things from getting too generic.

For those who are curious, this test originated after the Snowden deluge of 2013 ([https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20significant%20new%20...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20significant%20new%20information%20snowden&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)) and has turned out to work pretty well.

<comment><USER3> What's the long-running article that this is a dupe of?

<comment><USER2> Not article; story. Uber.

Edit: Oops, forgot that this was a dupe in the strict sense (thanks detaro). My point was that a second test ("significant new information") applies during deluges.

<comment><USER3> The story is 'Uber'? I don't understand: were their a lot of submissions of this article? Was it marked as a dupe because we have a lot of submissions about Uber (on different topics)?

<comment><USER2> This article was a straight-up dupe of another submission of the same article.

Even if it hadn't been, though, the 'significant new information' test—i.e. the lack thereof—would have made it a dupe. Otherwise we end up with a front- page of Uber Uber Uber the same way we had Snowden Snowden Snowden, with the discussions always the same.

<comment><USER3> > _a straight-up dupe of another submission of the same article_

At work, when we have two or more tickets like this, we close one as a Duplicate and link them together with a 'duplicated by/duplicate of' relationship, so that people who end up on the ticket we're not going to work on can find the active one. Do you think this sort of system would work for dupes on HN?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Mr. Kalanick is also dealing with the death of his mother, Bonnie Kalanick, last month, in a boating accident that also left his father seriously injured. The board meeting on Sunday is being held in Los Angeles because in the weeks since his mother's death, Mr. Kalanick has been spending time with family there, where he grew up.

Completely independent of what's going on at Uber, I sympathize with Kalanick and his family. It's very hard to balance family tragedies with entrepreneurship.

</comment><comment><USER5> What specifically would a "leave of absence" accomplish?

Presumably this means he's coming back,

Given two things that as of today still seem very likely:

1) that he is coming back

2) he still owns a controlling interest wrt voting shares of the company

What is this really going to accomplish?

Does anyone think and serious decision that Travis disagrees with are gong to be made while he's gone? He's ll just reverse it when he returns so whats the point?

The only thing I can think of is that this allows a scape goat to come in, introduce some potentially unpopular rules at the company, clean house again if required and then let Travis come back as the good guy who didn't have to make the hard and unpopular decisions?

<comment><USER6> Damage control and placating the media. Having scandal after scandal while doing literally nothing is a really bad look. The board here gets the best of both worlds, publicly appearing to do something while also still doing basically nothing.

<comment><USER7> I think you might be a tad overly cynical, this is basically unheard of nowadays and a pretty major move by the board.

<comment><USER8> It is very unusual, but is it really accomplishing much? If he still effectively controls the company and will return from his leave, then what message is this supposed to send?

A pay cut or something would make a lot more sense, if they don't want to fire him outright.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Creaky Voice: Another Example of Young Women's Linguistic Ingenuity - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/creaky-voice-yet-another-example-of-young-womens-linguistic-ingenuity/267046/

<comment><USER2> Creaky voice? That's sooooo 2012. It's all about the creaky-voiced long alveolar glide with mid front unrounded vowel and glottal stop.

 _"A linguistic dissection of 7 annoying teenage sounds"_

[http://theweek.com/article/index/244460/a-linguistic- dissect...](http://theweek.com/article/index/244460/a-linguistic-dissection- of-7-annoying-teenage-sounds)

</comment><comment><USER3> '"I ne saugh nawiht" in Middle English; "I don't see anything" in Modern English. Today, one can find it in French, which negates verbs by affixing the particles ne and pas to either side of the verb, as well as in Afrikaans, Greek, and a number of Slavic languages. The point: There is nothing inherently "ignorant" or "stupid" about double negation; judgments about speech are judgments about the speakers themselves.'

There is nothing inherently English about Greek and a number of Slavic languages. There ain't nothing much that Afrikaans tells us about the practice of Modern English (is there, baas?) and only so much light that Middle English sheds.

<comment><USER4> Double negation is also a feature of modern English; the point is no one can claim speakers of Middle English, French, Afrikaans et cetera are ignorant or unintelligent.

<comment><USER3> Right--although the only speakers of Middle English that I've actually met were reading Chaucer out loud in a college class. So we've got it out of the way about them being ignorant or unintelligent.

I don't judge any particular speaker of French or Afrikaans to be ignorant or unintelligent. I do however judge that while they are speaking French or Afrikaans they are not speaking English.

<comment><USER4> I have a sore memory of a recent lengthy debate on the concept of dialects, so suffice it here to say: It is utterly uncontroversial among linguists that AAVE, among other dialects which use double negation for emphasis, is a real English that young black kids grow up and learn to speak properly. It is not Standard in the sense that it is not used in news or government, and its use in formal speech will leave one branded ignorant, but it is in all other respects the relative equal of the English you speak.

If you have criticisms, that's fine, but again, this is the scientific consensus and not my area of expertise-- I'll have to direct you to Wikipedia.

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty ignorant about linguists, so, honest question: if AAVE is considered "equal" to Standard English, why is it called a vernacular?

<comment><USER4> It's a fuzzy line-- the old adage "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy" is more or less accurate. If you're the official language of a country or religion, or are used extensively in business or politics, you get to be "Standard". If you're only spoken by a sub-national cultural group, or appear only in "informal" media and popular culture, you're just a dialect. The distinction itself actually is controversial, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(linguistics)>

Not that there's anything wrong with having a standard language for business or politics, as long as you don't think that says something about people who grew up in the wrong place or class.

<comment><USER5> I think I get all that. So is there room for the idea of a vernacular that is not a "real English", to use your term? Or not the "relative equal" of Standard English? Can there be, or are there in the wild, vernaculars that are something other than these things?

<comment><USER4> Absolutely, and I would take jargons as an example. American Legal English is a kind of English, but it's not "real" in the sense that there are ideas in English that it can't properly express, and vice versa, and even skilled legal practitioners frequently make inconsistent mistakes. This is predicted by the fact that it is learned in adulthood; the language has no native speakers. Conversely, among languages spoken from birth, we expect and find that they are internally consistent and of roughly equivalent expressive value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I might be deaf to this. I watched the interview with some girl I never heard of and, although I found her very annoying for several reasons, I couldn't hear the "creaky voice" thing.

<comment><USER6> Here's another article, and a good voice example:

[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/12/vocal-fry- cree...](http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/12/vocal-fry-creeping- into-us-speec.html)

<http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/vocalfryshort.mp3>

<comment><USER7> I hear it in your example but I don't in the interview. Isn't that her normal voice?

Or is she singing a whole song with vocal fry? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ThRVUcmSa0> (Dream a Little Dream of Me)

<comment><USER8> When she first starts talking, it's in how she says "I did, yeah..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Also fun to try: justifying ones use of "innit" as a general purpose tag with reference to the french _"n'est-ce pas."_ This drives people up the wall, as there's no comeback to it, and it invokes the shallow europhilism which the kind of person who tells me off for saying "innit" typically indulges in constantly.

<comment><USER10> Don't disagree with you, but I imagine those people would have less problem with "isn't it?" vs "innit?"

<comment><USER9> True, but that would overlook the other purpose of linguistic tags like that, which is to improve the rhythm of speech. The french know all about this.

Plus I just like saying it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The author never makes a case for why vocal fry might be warranted.

I personally find vocal fry to be annoying because it's the linguistic version of slouching. Support your voice properly and clearly speak so the other person can hear you. Vocal fry is just another manifestation of "I'm cool because I don't care."

<comment><USER4> Excuse me, who "warrants" the way _you_ talk?

<comment><USER12> If we assume that speakers have conscious control over both their words and manner of delivery, then the sentence can be read as "what is the _intent_ of the speaker who uses vocal fry", and not "what external authority has approved the use of this manner of speech." Your response reads like you were looking to get offended / pick a fight.

<comment><USER4> > If we assume that speakers have conscious control over both their words and > manner of delivery

Whoa, whoa, back up. Why should we assume that? Some level of control, sure. Nowhere near absolute.

And yeah, I'm offended by anyone who tries to critique the way other people talk while at the same time going around talking the way _they_ talk all willy-nilly without concern for who they might be annoying.

It's speech. Everyone has inner thoughts and feelings they want to express. If they're trying to communicate in good faith, just let it go.

<comment><USER12> I can't speak for OP, but you insist on reading it as a criticism, when it seems to me more of a question in the spirit of scientific inquiry - at what times does a user of the "vocal fry" consider it appropriate? In the linked interview with Zooey Deschanel, she's not using it with every word she speaks. So I think it's natural for someone unfamiliar with this speech pattern to wonder why it's used in some places and not others. Is that a verboten question?

<comment><USER4> If this:

> Vocal fry is just another manifestation of "I'm cool because I don't care."

is in the spirit of scientific inquiry and not a value judgment, then I probably need to get some fresh air.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Had [old white dudes] been the ones to pioneer these tics, we'd be praising > them as enriching expansions of the language. We'd be reading The, Like, New > Yorker

I wasn't aware (and still don't care) which social group started adding "like" to everything; the reason it bothers me is that it adds noise without adding signal...

(Though I'm not a linguist; maybe there is some signal there that I'm just not consciously aware of?)

<comment><USER4> Personally I've observed many meanings in use. As an adverb it means "figuratively" or "approximately". As a hedge word it more generally disclaims that what follows may be inaccurate or metaphorical. It's used in the place of "to say" or "to impart", filling in for the lack of a word which applies equally to text messages as to speech, with the implication (since it's a hedge) that the quoted speech is likely re- or paraphrased. It can be used as a mild intensifier, as in, "Okay, but, like..."; despite what you may think, simply adding weight to a phrase can and does alter it semantically. So it's a very versatile word, and there are other uses I've missed. And of course, it is used purely as a stall (er, a disfluency), though not heavily outside of a few dialects.

All of this falls under the linguistic study of "discourse", the way humans talk in real-world communication with each other. In linguistics, rules of discourse are real and as important as rules of grammar. Nobody uses only "approved" words or meanings of words or interactions of words; the ideas human beings communicate are more complex than that.

Having laid all that out, I'll say something you'll probably find challenging: the real reason you don't like it is because _you don't know what it means_. Which is of course the point of it, and the reason to label it as innovation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you can't hear it in Zooey Deschanel's voice, a desk clerk with extravagant vocal fry was a gag in the movie Young Adult. Here's just a part of the scene (2nd clip on the page)

<http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/young-adult-clips/>

</comment><comment><USER15> Clever, clever article. Anything you say in criticism of it will get you labelled an Old White Dude.

</comment><comment><USER16> I sure hope next generation's NORMs won't speak in creaky voices. This looks a lot more like another cycle of fashion than true "ingenious" "innovation". What society-wide improvements in communication does it effect?

</comment><comment><USER17> There was a good discussion about this on Language Hat a few months ago:

<http://www.languagehat.com/archives/004914.php>

</comment><comment><USER18> > judgments about speech are judgments about the speakers themselves.

And so is "old white dudes".

> When it comes to language, the rules of natural selection apply: Evolve or > perish.

I demand strong affirmative action for the less privileged languages.</comment>