A Minimalist Guide to SQLite - <AUTHOR> http://tech.marksblogg.com/sqlite3-tutorial-and-guide.html <comment><USER3> I love SQLite (and use it in a large number of places in our application stack!), but I feel that it suffers from a case of bad defaults. To name a few:

\- Foreign key checking (and cascading deletion for that matter) are turned off by default. You need to enable them using `PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON;`.

\- There are practically no downsides (and a number of upsides) to using the WAL journalling mode (at least for "use a local database and store it on the disk" use cases). The main one being that reads will conflict with writes if you don't enable it! (which is a problem in a multi-threaded environment) Unfortunately, that's another feature you must remember to enable: `PRAGMA journal_mode = WAL;` (for obvious reasons, this one "stays enabled" after you turn it on).

\- Full auto-vacuum cannot be enabled after you start writing to the database unless you enabled incremental auto-vacuum. If you're unsure, it's a good idea to enable incremental auto-vacuum to keep that option open. But, here again, that's not the default: you need `PRAGMA auto_vacuum = INCREMENTAL`.

This tends to be explicitly problematic if you have to perform one or more ad- hoc queries using the SQLite command line on an app's database, and forget to apply the relevant PRAGMAs! I wish there was a way to add "default" PRAGMAs on a sqlite database file to avoid this.

(note: some of these defaults are configurable when compiling sqlite from scratch, but if you're dynamically linking with an OS-provided instance of the library, you can't really do that).

<comment><USER4> The disadvantage of enabling WAL is that your database just turned into two files and you have to recover the database to read it. Recovery is fast but it requires write access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> SQLite is one of the best pieces of software I have used in my career as a developer. It is performant, reliable, simple and consistent. There is a reason sqlite3 is deployed in so many places.

<comment><USER6> I think it's not used widely enough yet. For example, 99% of websites could benefit from using SQLite instead of MySql or (god forbid) PostgreSQL.

I mean Postgres is a fine piece of software but if your website gets 500 visits a day, you don't need Postgres; just use SQLite.

<comment><USER7> Sqlite is great but it is a poor substitute for a "real" database where you need any serious constraint enforcement at the database level. Yes, you can enable RI, but it's off by default. There is no field length constraint on text values, no native datetime, boolean, or guid types. You can't structurally alter tables without building a new one and copying the old.

If you actually need any of these things you can enforce them in code, by convention, but you're better off installing Postgres.

Also writes are serialized. That one really can't be worked around.

<comment><USER8> > Sqlite is great but it is a poor substitute for a "real" database

This is true, and explicitly acknowledged by the author:

> SQLite does not compete with client/server databases. SQLite competes with > fopen().

[https://sqlite.org/whentouse.html](https://sqlite.org/whentouse.html)

If you're deciding between Postgres and SQLite, in most cases you're doing it wrong (there are a few exceptions, such as serving a low-traffic almost- entirely-read dynamic website can be accomplished easily with either). Usually you want to choose between SQLite and "anything else that involves writing directly to the local filesystem".

<comment><USER9> I would disagree. The proper question is: "do I need a structured RDBMS or not?" Then if yes, which should I use? Just saying "SQLite!" starts to sound like the Regex quote from 1997: [https://blog.codinghorror.com/regular- expressions-now-you-ha...](https://blog.codinghorror.com/regular-expressions- now-you-have-two-problems/) A SQL system can do many wonderous things, but there's a wide range of pain and benefit across the different systems.

Think about requirements first, then tech/implementation approach.

But yeah, like everyone else, I often just start with SQLite anyway!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sqlite is great as data store for storing JSON. We receive realtime data from different sources in JSON format. I dump the raw data into MongoDB, but it's still not very easy to query. This is where Sqlite comes in handy. I import the data straight into Sqlite from MongoDB which then enables me to run SQL queries using the JSON1 extension. Currently I'm using it to store data that drive feed simulators. We can extract the data using queries like:

      SELECT json_extract(RawData, '$.sourceId') SourceId
      , json_extract(RawData, '$.messageId') MessageId
      , json_extract(RawData, '$.message') Message
      , json_extract(RawData, '$.message.parties[0].name') Party
      , json_extract(RawData, '$.timestamp') Timestamp
      FROM RawFeed
      JOIN Source
        ON SourceId = Source.Id
      WHERE Source.Name = 'Foo Company'
      ORDER BY Timestamp

<comment><USER11> Don't get me wrong, I was hating mongo before it was cool to do so, but your example is one place which makes zero sense, just learn to write a mongo query already or use SQL straight up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One of my favorite sqlite features is the vtable mechanism: [https://sqlite.org/vtab.html](https://sqlite.org/vtab.html)

It makes it possible to expose a custom, application specific database format as a sqlite table, and suddenly you can run SQL queries on your data!

<comment><USER13> Postgres also has that concept, though calls it Foreign Data Wrappers: [https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Foreign_data_wrappers](https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Foreign_data_wrappers)

And it goes beyond single tables e.g. PG-Strom uses FDW to implement GPGPU scans, joins, aggregations & projections (and provides a pg/CUDA while at it)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I feel this article misses out on "why". I tend to store stuff as csv or json, then slurp it into python to operate on it. It's not clear what benefit putting your csv into sqlite gets you, from this article.

<comment><USER15> An sqlite db file is probably as light as your json or csv AND better formed/typed

<comment><USER16> It's easier to compare it to CSV than JSON, because the former is tabular while the latter can have deep imbrications that aren't well represented in SQL(ite).

<comment><USER8> I'd argue that the more large/complicated/nested the JSON structure, the more it would benefit from using a "real" database instead of a JSON file sitting on disk. If not SQLite due to document-relational mismatch, then LevelDB, RocksDB, or one of the other embedded key-value stores.

Of course, SQLite can also emulate a key-value store quite well, with a table with 'key' and 'value' columns.

<comment><USER17> Also the JSON1 extension.

[https://www.sqlite.org/json1.html](https://www.sqlite.org/json1.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> [https://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html](https://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html)

Once you're ready get yourself a cup of the SQLite koolaid

</comment><comment><USER19> Very nice! I'm in the middle of writing a book based on SQLite (the overall topic is data analysis with SQL, but SQLite is the medium) while I'm teaching it to students. I used to teach MySQL but it was just so goddamned hard to get it configured correctly on people's computers (I always hated when work had to be done on pre-configured computers lab rather than my own laptop), nevermind the server/client/daemon aspects of MySQL and other variants. While SQLite lacks polished (and free) GUIs, it's easier to explain on a sysops level (with sqlite files being similar to XLS files) without burying students in irrelevant tech details on the way to learning the power of SQL queries.

<comment><USER20> Have you tried sqlitebrowser? It's fantastic, I use it a lot.

[http://sqlitebrowser.org](http://sqlitebrowser.org)

<comment><USER19> Yep, that's what I use. Because it is open-source and cross-platform -- not to mention, pretty high quality -- it has significantly increased the attractiveness of teaching SQLite. Previously, me and other SQLite teachers I knew would point students to the SQLite Manager plugin for Firefox, which is also free and open source, but a bit clunkier: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/sqlite-manage...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/sqlite-manager/)

The DB Browser (they changed it from sqlitebrowser at the request of sqlite IIRC) also has in my experience, a very helpful and responsive dev team: [https://github.com/sqlitebrowser/sqlitebrowser/issues](https://github.com/sqlitebrowser/sqlitebrowser/issues)

<comment><USER21> > ... also has in my experience, a very helpful and responsive dev team.

Thanks. We definitely try. :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > _It 's used in systems as important as the Airbus A350 so it comes as no > surprise the tests for SQLite 3 are aviation-grade_

I stumbled upon SQLite around 2001 and have been using and admiring this gem of a software since that time, but hearing that it is aviation-grade is definitely a surprise to me...

<comment><USER23> From what I've heard it has one of the most complete and comprehensive test suites of any database. There's tests that simulate sudden power loss as well which is pretty neat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Data locality can be greatly improved by storing a SQLite 3 database in > memory instead of on disk

My understanding (although I can no longer find the page in the sqlite3 docs) was that because of caching, using :memory: is unlikely to make much difference in practice.

<comment><USER25> For reading, for a small database, after the cache is warm, that's likely true. In all other cases, there is no avoiding disk access - which, on spinning rust, is slow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Only thing that I miss in a database software is some sort of spatial indexing implementation. I wish sqlite would have one by default.

<comment><USER27> The SpatiaLite extension ([https://www.gaia- gis.it/fossil/libspatialite/index](https://www.gaia- gis.it/fossil/libspatialite/index)) handles spatial data and includes indexing. It's solid and we've been using it in production for years. The only real downside I've experienced is that the SpatiaLite-gui browser is a bit flaky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> What does "aviation-grade" mean in a software context?

<comment><USER29> It means that software is robust enough to be safely deployed on airplanes or vehicles so that safety is not compromised. Imagine if there were some bugs in the software that could potentially endanger safety of plane full of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I wonder why the Firebird database is not mentioned more often in such threads. It is a somewhat lightweight RDBMS that still has many advanced features that SQLite may not (by design, of course). It may be positioned somewhere between SQLite and heavyweight databases like MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, DB2, etc. I've used Firebird, though only lightly, with Python. It also has different (lighter/heavier) versions for different needs.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebird_(database_server)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebird_\(database_server\))

[https://firebirdsql.org/](https://firebirdsql.org/)

A few excerpts from this page:

Get to know Firebird in 2 minutes:

[https://www.firebirdnews.org/docs/fb2min.html](https://www.firebirdnews.org/docs/fb2min.html)

[

Firebird is derived from Borland InterBase 6.0 source code. It is open source and has no dual license. Whether you need it for commercial or open source applications, it is totally FREE!

Firebird technology has been in use for 20 years, which makes it a very mature and stable product.

Don't be fooled by the installer size! Firebird is a fully featured and powerful RDBMS. It can handle databases from just a few KB to many Gigabytes with good performance and almost free of maintenance!

Below is a list of some of the Firebird's major features:

Full support of Stored Procedures and Triggers

Full ACID compliant transactions

Referential Integrity

Multi Generational Architecture

Very small footprint

Fully featured internal language for Stored Procedures and Triggers (PSQL) Support for External Functions (UDFs)

Little or no need for specialized DBAs

Almost no configuration needed - just install and start using!

Big community and lots of places where you can get free and good support

Optional single file embedded version - great to create CDROM catalogs, single user or evaluation versions of applications

Dozens of third party tools, including GUI administrative tools, replication tools, etc.

Careful writes - fast recovery, no need for transaction logs!

Many ways to access your database: native/API, dbExpress drivers, ODBC, OLEDB, .Net provider, JDBC native type 4 driver, Python module, PHP, Perl, etc.

Native support for all major operating systems, including Windows, Linux, Solaris, MacOS, HP-UX and FreeBSD.

Incremental Backups

64bits builds available

Full cursor implementation in PSQL

Monitoring tables

Connection and Transaction Triggers

Temporary Tables

TraceAPI - know what happens in your server

]

Disclaimer: I'm not associated with them in any way. Just have used the product a bit, and think it is somewhat good, based on that.

<comment><USER30> Also, from:

[https://www.firebirdsql.org/en/features/](https://www.firebirdsql.org/en/features/)

[

Firebird is free for commercial and educational usage: no license fees, installation or activation restrictions. No double licensing - <USER2> license is based on Mozilla Public License.

The mix of high performance, small footprint, supreme scalability, silent and simple installation and 100% royalty-free deployment make Firebird a highly attractive choice for all types of software developers and vendors.

It is used by approximately 1 million of software developers worldwide.

]</comment></comment>


Whiteboard paint recommendations? - <AUTHOR>

Surely I'm not the only one here geeky enough to want to buy a can of whiteboard paint, paint a wall of my house, and proceed to solve math problems there.
Looking online, the reviews are mixed and the prices are very high. Do any fellow HN readers have recommendations?
Thank you! <comment><USER2> I literally was looking into this last week. I ended up deciding against it. If your walls are like most common walls, you'll notice it's not a smooth surface. That kills it for me. I instead went to Craigslist and found a used whiteboard instead. There were some 4ft by 6ft going for as low as $15 to $30. I ended up picking up a 4ft by 8ft for $70. If you decide to go the paint route, just consider the surface issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3197280></comment>


Heathkit - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathkit <comment><USER2> It was a crisp fall Saturday when I first learned about the basement full of computers.

The previous night my dad's boss hosted a party at his house that my parents had attended. My dad was in the IS department of a medium-sized insurance company, and his department was full of chess players, assembly language programmers, ham radio operators, and computer tinkerers. My dad's boss was all of those rolled into one. "You would love it!" my mom told me, "his basement is full of computers!" My imagination ran wild.

Within a week or two my dad's boss invited us over. We pulled up to his house and I gazed up at a 50-foot tower with a beam antenna next to his garage. As I walked into the basement, I could hear strange sounds of beeping, static, and garbled voice. My first sight was of three walls covered with a custom-built set of cabinets that contained a dizzying array of electronic equipment. I would later learn that it was full of Heathkit radios and computers. I was awe-struck.

Later that fall my dad announced, "we're getting a computer." We proceeded to spend several evenings and weekends at my dad's boss' house where they built our family's Heathkit H-89 computer. As they soldered, I played on the Heathkit pinball machine. Our H-89, as I recall, had 16K of RAM and a 4 MHz Z-80 CPU. My first program was about twenty print statements that displayed a crude outline of a football helmet using asterisks.

That winter I studied for and received my amateur radio novice, and later, my general class license, and my dad's boss administered the novice test. I remember him sending morse code at 6 or 7 WPM and excitedly decoding it and reading it back to him. My first radio was a Heathkit purchased for $80 at a ham 'flea market'. I went on to build a Heathkit VTVM (vacuum tube voltmeter), a code practice oscillator, and a few other kits. There were several Christmas nights spent soldering into the wee hours of the morning.

Without my dad, his boss, and Heathkit, it's unlikely I'd be doing what I do today. Thanks for the memories, Heathkit.

</comment><comment><USER3> I had an electronics bench when I was 13, started out with a Heathkit power supply, then an early digital voltmeter (since I couldn't read resistor codes very well, being colorblind). My dad built a tube-based mono amplifier and radio. A few years later I built a kit computer (a very nice Digital Group Z-80 system).

I still build kits and am getting back into tinkering with electronics after 35+ years of software hacking. Hardware keeps you honest about your abilities, and the smoke keeps you humble about your mistakes. :-)

<comment><USER4> > Hardware keeps you honest about your abilities, and the smoke keeps you > humble about your mistakes.

I'll use that. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Building up a basement rec room stereo from a Heathkit kit is one of many electronics related memories I have of bonding with my dad. I was less than 10 years old, and I'm sure he did most of the work, but it certainly helped teach me -- as the article so wonderfully says -- that machines weren't magic, and that curiosity combined with a healthy dose of fearlessness was enough to understand just about anything. What a great thing these kits were.

<comment><USER6> Me too, my Dad and I bonded over building a SW radio together. Heathkit was the first in the Maker movement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> My parent's house still uses the Heathkit programmable doorbell I put together in 2nd grade (and the tune I made up for it).

And I still have my "atomic" clock that reads the NIST radio—same tech as the self-setting wall clocks you can get nowadays, except completely discrete, with 4 or 5 daughter cards, and a speaker so you can actually listen to the beepy radio transmission.

I loved Heathkit. I so wish they were still around...

</comment><comment><USER8> My dad worked at a heathkit dealer in Houston back in the 70s. Growing up he assembled both of our tvs, complete with a high frequency remote control that worked somewhere between 14 and 20khz that I could hear when I put up to my ear. We had a heathkit receiver that had an astounding 70watts per channel back in the late 70s/early 80s. I remember being able to look at the thin elastic cords that would allow you to tune into your station. Turn it fast and it had that rubber band effect like the iOS browser. I remember thinking there is nothing my dad can't make or fix back then. I hope the kits come back and are as comprehensive and cost effective as previous times.

</comment><comment><USER9> My AM/FM Heathkit radio worked the first time I powered it up. One of my proudest moments in junior high.

</comment><comment> X-Istence I found an old Heathkit at a garage sale: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/xistence/sets/7215762293061906...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/xistence/sets/72157622930619063/)

</comment><comment><USER10> There is a company trying to bring Heathkit back. A member of their board did an AMA At the end of 2013: [http://www.reddit.com/r/tabled/comments/1tdf45/table_iama_me...](http://www.reddit.com/r/tabled/comments/1tdf45/table_iama_member_of_the_heath_company_heathkit/)

<comment><AUTHOR> >We hope to introduce a few kits in the first half of 2014. However, their website [1] and facebook page [2] haven't been updated for 7 months.

[1] [https://www.heathkit.com/](https://www.heathkit.com/) [2] [https://www.facebook.com/heathcompany](https://www.facebook.com/heathcompany)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a pair of Heathkit robots and robot arms in the garage in mint condition, new, in the box, unassembled. Waiting for the right time to bring them out and use them to inspire the kids.

</comment><comment><USER12> I used to stare longily at the Hero-1 ads at the back of magazines.

<comment><USER4> It was because of the Hero-1 that I bought (actually, made my mom buy) a my firat Computers and Electronics magazine. Then Creative Computing, then BYTE and so on...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> My grandfather, a retired Milk Truck driver, really got into Heathkit and built several things, including a large TV. It made a strong impression on me when I was in elementary school. I was rather disappointed when I got old enough to do Heathkit projects myself that they had pretty much disappeared.

</comment><comment><USER14> If Heathkit got their act together, I'm sure they could become successful again. The Maker/DIY movement is big, and they do have that brand name. They could even use the classic designs, retro is super big at moment. Yes, tubes are back! :-)

<comment><USER15> That's the goal. There is now a lot more competition though.</comment></comment>


Memory in the Flesh: Can memories survive outside the brain? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/18/8225321/memory-research-flatworm-cannibalism-james-mcconnell-michael-levin

<comment><USER2> Somewhat related to this topic: doing 10 sessions of intensive rolfing therapy years ago not only helped correct some musculoskeletal issues I had; it also coincided with a significant dropoff in recurring Iraq-related dreams (I had previously served in OIF).

Most of my musculoskeletal stuff was directly attributable to carrying 100+ lbs of kit up and down the street, up and down stairs, and over 2-meter walls, 4-12 hours a day.

Maybe there's no correlation and it was just a placebo-type thing and/or my mind playing tricks on me, but I'm inclined to think that the improvement in longstanding tissue-related issues that were caused by deploying also ameliorated some of the psychological residue of that experience.

<comment><USER3> I had never heard of this.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolfing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolfing)

<comment><USER4> "There is no evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition"

<comment><USER5> Now I want to do a comparative study between that and joke-induced ROFLing. Then, a follow-up study on the gluteal benefits of ROFLMAOing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is it Woo Wednesday on Hacker News?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory)

Come on.

<comment><USER7> "Hey, I wonder if this is about the guy who ground up flatworms. Wow, he's still doing bad science??" We learned about him in our psychology research methods courses. So we were literally taught something is incorrect that is apparently still practiced in the field.

<comment><USER8> Probably missed the whole content of TFA, which is that his experiments were redone now, with possitive results...

It's not like it's impossible to be taught BS (e.g. that "something us incorrect") and it later to be proven true after all...

<comment><USER6> Looks like you missed the contents of the Wikipedia article, which explains that unless hormones count as "memories", the flatworm experiments did not mean what McConnell thought they meant.

<comment><USER8> Probably missed TFA entirely. This is not about what McConnell thought, nor is the Wikipedia version the state of the art of that research.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From a religious perspective, Muslims believe in parts other than the brain also retaining a memory of their deeds and bearing independent witness on the day of judgement. Quran Sura 41, v18-20

</comment><comment><USER10> Man, science journalism is so hit or miss. While I appreciate the exposure that articles like this give interesting ideas, there's something so hilariously unscientific about the presentation.

For my money, I'd question whether it's worth comparing an organism that can _regenerate it 's brain_ against any vertebrate that cannot.</comment>


Flatte for MySQL-like transaction and auto denormalization at Firebase.#NoSQL - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Flatte/Flatte-Web <comment><AUTHOR> Benefits: * Flatte provides to create a NOSql database model. * MySQL like transaction for Firebase. (If all conditions are passed, flatte sends the whole data to firebase.) * Client side processing. * Flatte handles copy records and external effects for you. No need to write everything in your application. (Denormalization) * Flatte allows you to create field based functions. * You can create your constants with predefined templates. (also with functions) * You can apply filters to incoming values. (Such as uppercase, date format..) * With Flatte Manifesto Builder, you can easily create and visualize your manifest.

Github: [https://github.com/Flatte/Flatte- Web](https://github.com/Flatte/Flatte-Web) Flatte Manifesto Builder : [https://flatte.maxabab.com/#/app/welcome](https://flatte.maxabab.com/#/app/welcome)</comment>


Ask HN: Web apps listed by price - <AUTHOR>

I never realized it would be difficult until I started looking: Where can I get a list of online web-apps (any market), hopefully listed by price? <comment><USER2> Thats a pretty broad topic :) Here are a few lists, not sure if they have pricing?

Maybe start with Google Web Store as most of them are web apps: <https://chrome.google.com/>

This is a great list: <http://startuptools.pbworks.com/>

And this Hacker News thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1769910></comment>


Hacking Startups, A Declaration of Institutional Independence - <AUTHOR> http://www.victusspiritus.com/2009/06/06/hacking-startups-a-declaration-of-institutional-independence/

<comment><USER2> There's been a lot of hating on higher education around here lately, so I'll take the contrarian position. Before I get started, I will say that higher education costs way too much. Our students should _not_ be $100,000 in debt when they graduate.

However, I do believe education has a value. I have been a coder for a long time now and I've seen lots of coders. I survived the dotbomb in '00 and never got laid off. Meanwhile, I saw biz school grads and history majors and other nontechnical degree holders lose job after job. They failed certification exams and wrote really bad code.

These individuals would say things like, "You don't need computer science training, it's easy to learn on the job -- everyone should get a business degree." I had to maintain their code, so I know the truth in their words, or lack there of.

When I got my degree, we learned assembly language on sparcs. We learned verilog and built virtual CPUs. We built digital circuits out of AND and OR gates. We had labs and projects and very hard problems to solve. We gained an intimate understanding of the machine you won't get learning PHP on your own or Ruby on Rails from blogs on the net.

Most importantly, we were taught how to think. I've seen the kids coming out of college today. I see their code. I see what they admire in an app. I talk to their professors and hear their dismay that maybe one kid in their class "gets code."

In a large part, college is a test of commitment. It is a filter for dedication. If you don't believe enough in your future to take advantage of an education... of an _opportunity to learn_ , then what good are you to a business that has to learn how to navigate these difficult economic waters?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback pj, the experiences you had in school were fundamental to your learning the basics of computers. I'd argue you could have learned much if not all of that on your own, or with some friends in less time than it took you to graduate. In addition things have changed so much in the past 20 years that the nand gates I used to play with in school don't aid me much in understanding modern digital circuitry, I have to keep reading and learning-> school was only the beginning.

My quick background: physics undergrad (then a MSEE). It shouldn't have taken 6 years of my life to learn what I needed. There were some incredible serendipitous finds, but the timeline is too long and the focus just wasn't there. By the end of my first year I was learning with friends in study groups and from books much more than I got out of class. I learned coding on the job. It was an engineering position so my school wasn't wasted per se. But any Basic (on the TI99) or pascal toy coding I did beforehand did little to prepare me. Real work experience was a powerful teacher.

Actually working with a group of software developers, following some standards, and working on my own small/easy sections of the code at first is what eventually cemented the process of coding. But then there was the matter of design.

The design of structures, data flow, processes came from working problems that demanded real time (or near real time) efficiency. I learned with C++, and veered away from java for the speed issue.

Would you agree there is room for alternative learning besides college educations in preparation for tomorrow's workforce?

<comment><USER2> Oh yeah, I absolutely think that there is room for alternative learning. I think alternative learning is much better than the mainstream stuff most kids get.

My personal bias, I came from a small rural community where education wasn't really valued much. I was "rescued" from this environment and given educational opportunities most never dream of. I am glad I had those opportunites.

I think much of it is just being around a group of peers who are similarly motivated to learn. Being around teachers who can help guide you or understand where you are in your learning. This kind of environment exists in higher education _for the most part_ , where it doesn't exist as much elsewhere.

This kind of group harmony is difficult to find. In my community it hardly exists, but institutions of education are focused, target rich environments for people who want to learn.

You also have to admit that these institutions aren't really designed for advanced learners. They are designed for the average learner. The average student. People with a lot of aptitude and potential to rise well above the average are going to find higher ed as stiffling as they find high school.

In my _opinion_ , I think higher ed is mostly about "getting your papers". Yes, the motivated individual can go out there and learn way more than the average A-level graduate, but how does the world know? How do I know where you fit within social structure? Are you a type A person or a type B person? What kind of aptitude do you have?

There are lots of problems yes. The valedictorian in the grade above me was well known to be a prolific cheater. Passing notes in class after the professor left. Discussing answers. I admired the guy, but I heard multiple stories from people in his classes who didn't know each other that he was dishonorable. I didn't know. The professors didn't know. Yet he ranked high in the list when he graduated. That's an unfortunate anecdote to illustrate the problems.

But I suppose we have to look at the system as a whole. I'm not sure the solution is to do away with higher education, but rather to focus on the right kinds of higher education. Even things like apprenticeships would be a good alternative to many.

To echo your thoughts, I don't use digital logic circuits to do my job either, but how can I measure the positive impact that education has on my work now? Would I write better or worse code had I not learned what I learned in school. I haven't coded a linked list from scratch in over a decade, but I know the concept.

Perhaps the greatest value of education is that it forces us to expand our usable neuronal footprint. It helps our brain recruit neurons to solve problems. A lot of our neurons just sit there waiting to be used for something. Higher education exercises those neurons and makes them easier to put to "productive" use later on.

Another of the motivators for higher ed, I think, are that, "Well... I got a degree, so because I want to keep them valuable, I have to select from those who agree with me." We spent a lot of money getting degrees, so we want to believe they are worth something. The dichotomy though, that higher education is worth something or it isn't, is a false one. How do you measure the value of education? ROI? Personal fulfillment? Opened _or closed_ doors?

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed on all counts pj, I'd sign up for your peer motivated/enthusiastic mentor program instead of a 100k education any day. I can't imagine what I would have done had I not finished school, but my gut feeling is that there's room for improvement, certainly in regards to entrepreneurs.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is Kickstarter Dead For Tech? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/19/iphone-connected-home-smart-dock-lumawake-regroups-after-kickstarter-rejection-begins-pre-orders-today/

<comment><USER2> Please don't edit the title of the post - "Is Kickstarer dead for tech?" was not the focus of the Techcrunch item - your title is just "bait".</comment>


Google's Game Developer Advocate Leaves After Less Than 6 Months - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_game_developer_advocate_leaves_after_less_t.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readwriteweb+%28ReadWriteWeb%29 <comment><USER2> Here's the original blog post by Mark DeLoura. <http://www.satori.org/2010/08/moving-on-from-google/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I've heard too little about Google 'games' to know if I even care. I don't need access to flash games (Kongregate/New Grounds is plenty and Facebook serves the rest), I don't need access to purchasable games (GameStop or Amazon fills this, depending on whether I want to get off my ass, Steam does the rest for me).

Unless Google is actually developing new games I see little use for Google 'games'. Even great implementation is worth shit. Kongregate has great implementation, well developed achievements system and a great chat system built in. How is google going to top that when Buzz failed? Right now all I see is Google Games being a failure by producing no new games and providing no innovation.

<comment><AUTHOR> From the outside, it seems that Google is trying to eat a piece from Facebook's lunch, not to innovate per se.

There are reports that say that a group of people joined Facebook just to play games (and they see everything else that FB offers as 'frivolous' extra, go figure). If Google can tap into that market, it could finally get Google Checkout to fly, which is a big step for Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's the draw for an engineer to work at Google these days? Seems like you'd be a small toad in a gigantic pond where your ripples make little impact. Kind of like working at Oracle or IBM or Microsoft or <Big Software Company>. Except there are those dumb bikes all around the campus. Yet still there seems to be this perception there is something 'special' about working at Google that sets it apart from any of the other places, isn't there? The emperor has no clothes? It's not like you're going to get any wealthier from options there than you would at any other relatively same sized company.

<comment><USER5> Google still has great perks. If you just need a job and having the best cafeteria outweighs working with dinks, it's the best choice next to Facebook, and the only choice of giant dot-conglomorates if you live in NYC.

<comment><USER4> IAC is in NYC. It's kind of a giant dot-conglomerate. I don't know about the cafeteria there though.

<comment><USER6> iac?

<comment><USER7> InterActive Corp, owns a ton of web properties such as Ask.com, CollegeHumor, Match.com, and Dictionary.com</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Adobe Security team posted their private key - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jupenur/status/911286403434246144 <comment><USER2> Even though I was against "GPG is too complicated" thing, in the last 20 min I corrected a couple of people, so just to be clear:

* This key was issued four days ago.

* No, anybody with that key can't read their messages. You still need a password for the key.

* The password for the key could be cracked (depends solely on how complicated the password is) with a copy of the key, but the key is already revoked.

* You would still need a copy of the email to read it. If you're trying to impersonate them, you still have to impersonate the email from that email address as well.

It is bad. It is a rookie mistake. It is not a catastrophic mistake though and there will probably be no consequences of it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Today I learned: Adobe has a security team.

</comment><comment><USER4> Looks like they've removed the compromised key and posted a new public key: [https://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/?page_id=1498](https://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/?page_id=1498)

</comment><comment><USER5> It's since been revoked.

[https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x86C00FC2AF...](https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x86C00FC2AF877616)

<comment><USER4> What we don't know is whether Adobe or someone else revoked it, since anyone with private key can revoke.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't matter as long as it's revoked, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's a paddlin'.</comment>


The next Target data leak - <AUTHOR> https://blog.avast.com/2015/12/15/retailers-apps-reveal-my-christmas-list-to-the-public/ <comment><USER2> I guess the most obvious question is: Did Target fix this yet?</comment>


You Can't Destroy the Village to Save It: W3C vs. DRM, Round Two - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/you-cant-destroy-village-save-it-w3c-vs-drm-round-two <comment><USER2> I argued this seemingly endlessly here and on the W3C mailing list. I lost, too.

The W3C has become convinced that if it doesn't adopt DRM into the 'open web' (thereby destroying it), it will become irrelevant because content producers will boycott the web. What they don't seem to understand is that DRM- encumbered content is not part of the open web _anyway_, by definition; there is no benefit to companies making it available on DRM-encumbered 'web sites' versus proprietary app-store apps.

It's very hard to talk about this in detail with those pushing for DRM, because they claim that the requirements incumbent upon _them_ to support DRM are secret, and can't be shared with the public.

[http://boingboing.net/2014/01/14/requirements-for-drm-in- htm...](http://boingboing.net/2014/01/14/requirements-for-drm-in-html5.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016)

I _think_ the reason for this is 'crisis of representation'; that is, those voices on the W3C pushing for DRM are very large, very well funded, and have good access to key decision-makers (like Berners-Lee and Jaffe).

The end result is something that _looks_ like a sensible, consultative approach to developing standards but is in fact not.

<comment><USER3> There are also legal and security risks created by the proposed TPP laws related to DRM and "technological protection measures", [https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/eff_tpp_tpm_analysis.pdf](https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/eff_tpp_tpm_analysis.pdf)</comment></comment>


Portugal's radical drugs policy is working (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it <comment><USER3> This story always comes back every year. With some ground knowledge on this, as I worked previously for Portugal Ministry of Health (Regional Subdivision). All this is price, and the programme works because drugs go where the money is, i.e. not Portugal, goes to the UK and Germany. On the other hand, Alcoholism is a massive issue in Portugal, and there is no Government action.

<comment><USER4> > because drugs go where the money is, i.e. not Portugal, goes to the UK and > Germany.

What do you mean? Russia is one of the main drug consumers, and that's not where money is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15857833](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15857833)

</comment><comment><USER6> From what I hear (as someone now living in rural Portugal), a turning point came when most of the electorate knew someone suffering from a drug addiction. Be it a family member, partner, or friend - there came a point when the majority of people could not only see the problems caused by the epidemic, but could also empathise with those with addictions.

As a result of this understanding/empathy, it was possible to pass this legislation.

I see parallels with the legalisation of same-sex marriage. I saw somewhere that there is a correlation between support of same-sex marriage and actually knowing that a family member or friend is LQBTQ.

It seems to me that once people can empathise on a personal level, new approaches become acceptable (/ enter the Overton Window).

How this relates to the opioid crisis in the USA I do not know. I'll leave someone else with more familiarity with the situation to pontificate on that.

<comment><USER7> For obvious reasons, I think many people would be against the suggestion that if more people were suffering from life-destroying drug addiction, a turning point would be reached and the problem would be solved faster. Surely there is a way to push back the spread of drugs and addiction, without letting it overtake society first.

<comment><USER8> People became more sympathetic to LGBTQ issues when people started coming out of the closet and they learned that their neighbours, cousins, nieces and nephews were being prevented from marrying their loved ones. We didn't need to "turn more people gay" to accomplish this.

Similarly, we need to raise the visibility and openness of dealing with drug addiction, to come out of the closet so to speak, not increase drug addicted people.

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately those in power are not nearly as badly affected by the drug epidemic as the poorer people. Even if they develop a habit or some complication related to it they will have access to the best care and treatment options.

So there is very little cost to being 'tough on drugs' until the effects are also felt at all layers of society. Portugal, a country that is a lot more relaxed about many things than the USA had a much easier time to acknowledge this. The 'war on drugs' will never be won, and the victims are predominantly poor. In the meantime, American jails are overflowing with people who should have been helped, not incarcerated.

<comment><USER10> Some of those in power benefit from keeping drugs criminalised. See for example the way that possession of crack cocaine - used on the street - carries much heavier sentences than powder cocaine, used by the middle classes.

And the way large parts of the US jail system are run as a for-profit work camp. This results in miscarriages of justice, unjustifiably long sentences for trivial possession, and outright corruption.

This is not an unfortunate accident. It's motivated partly by greed, partly by class violence, and partly by racism.

Most Western countries don't quite have the culture of political extremism needed to create these conditions.

Meanwhile the murky story of CIA links to drug smuggling is a different topic altogether.

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

<comment><USER11> > Most Western countries don't quite have the culture of political extremism > needed to create these conditions.

Only 26 years before decriminalizing drugs, Portugal was a right-wing dictatorship with concentration camps and which was waging war on Africa to keep its slave colonies. The '74 revolution brought on two years of heavy left-wing power, during which many feared (and others hoped) it could become a communist state attached to the USSR.

There's no lack of culture of political extremism in Portugal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "The world" is not just US and UK. Here in Switzerland, you can register as e.g. a heroin user, and be provided with cheap Swiss pharmaceutical quality heroin, for the nominal price, in specialized centers for drug users (you obviously can't take it away, consumption is only allowed on premises — where medical and psychological help is available, and counseling programs for quitting drugs are advertised).

The program is immense success, there are no drug dealers on our streets anymore (can't compete with cheap drugs from the government), drug-related crime has plummeted, and drug users numbers are falling down too (due to these counseling programs).

And yes, marijuana is now fully legalized (up to some percentages of THC) and you can buy it with grocery stores just like cigarettes. Nobody seems to be particularly interested, there were no significant changes in consumption culture, etc.

<comment><USER13> Up to 1% of THC which is useless, according to the total absense of peer reviewed clinical trials on CBD and also no fun.

Europe would be perfect if literally anywhere got this sorted out

Sure, the general lack of life ruining prison sentences is ok and a stark contrast from the US, Middle East and South East Asia. And further decriminalization is ok. But where are the gummies! The edibles! Recreational highs from a convenience store are totally absent.

Hanging out with "edgy" people in Europe feels like high school 20 years ago. I really like the West Coast US culture of working professionals having weed and edibles casually.

<comment><USER14> There's FDA approved CBD drugs like Epidiolex to treat seizures. There's also evidence it alleviates anxiety (it certainly has helped me manage mine at times). Yeah it's not fun like THC but that doesn't make it useless.

<comment><USER13> Thanks, it was hyperbole rooted in missing the latest information (Epidiolex being approved only in June 2018)

My main point is about whats available in Europe

<comment><USER14> I try to be skeptical about medical claims, especially around alternative medicine. But there's a good axiom: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Considering that doing "gold standard" FDA approved double blind tests has long been illegal for marijuana-based therapies I kind of had to trust myself and others (for example a cancer survivor who claimed CBD moderatated their headaches) that there were some therapeutic benefits. This was especially true as some people claimed that after using traditional therapies it just didn't work for them or the unintended side effects weren't acceptable.

<comment><USER13> > But there's a good axiom: the absence of evidence is not evidence of > absence.

Very true. Thats a good lesson for this site and the expectations of internet detectives. People think they can just say "source" and the lack of immediate response serving as an indictment to nullify whatever statement.

The reality is that a lot of information isnt digital or resolved at all.

With regard to CBD amongst other alternative medicine, I mainly look at WHY there werent conclusive studies. For CBD its the legality challenges and I can accept that. For many other alternative medicines it is the incompatibility to any scientific method and impossibility of having peer reviewed repeatable results, masqueraded as preventative treatment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think drug addiction is really misunderstood and this leads to bad policy. The two popular narratives that drug addiction is a moral failing or a disease are both wrong. In some ways it is more simple than that: drug addiction is a coping mechanism.

Most people who get addicted to drugs are using them to escape pain. This is occasionally physical but usually mental. It is memories of traumatic experiences or abuse, loss, stress, etc.

That is why incarceration is so counterproductive, you are just giving the addict more pain they need to escape. Also treating drug addiction itself without understanding and addressing the underlying reason for it will just lead to constant relapsing.

I recommend the book Chasing the Scream for people who want a better understanding of drug addiction.

<comment><USER7> >drug addiction is a coping mechanism.

That's reductionist. The bigger picture is: why do some people end up with drug addiction as their coping mechanism, but others don't. Why aren't all abuse victims drug addicts? What separates the ones who fall down that hole and the ones who don't? Opportunity? If not opportunity, then what is that X factor? That's why you get to the larger questions of disease, responsibility, and moral failing.

<comment><USER16> The answer to your question is that drugs are one of many possible coping mechanisms. One abuse victim copes with drugs, while another copes with Stockholm syndrome, and yet another with therapy. What separates the ones who fall down the hole from the ones who don't is a combination of opportunity, biology (people have different reactions to the same drugs), and choice. It's understandable that this leads people to questions of disease and moral failing. Questions of behavior and coping mechanisms require much more nuance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A lot of comments about why decriminalization of drug use is a no brainer. I'd like to point out that it's not that simple. From what I understand from different "experiments" like Portugal, it's a lot depending on context (eg culture) and how it's done. For example, easier access (lower taxes) on alcohol caused a rise in alcoholics and alcohol related deaths in Finland). Not everyone living in Colorado is happy about the outcome there either (sorry for no references, but please look it up if you'd like).

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but like a startup venture, an idea is worth very little and the environment/market + how it's realized makes all the difference!

<comment><USER18> Alcohol and nicotine are extremely addictive and damaging, and you know what happens during prohibition.

Same as cultures differ, so do the drugs. The effects of labeling sick people (I believe the rare fully healthy people don't get addicted easily.) as criminals are however the same everywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't have a strong opinion on Portugal's drug policy. But I do think there's a flaw in the premise of this article: the success of Portugal's policy here was dependent on Portugal's culture, history, population, and a host of other factors that can't be replicated in another country.

It's as though I think the United States Constitution is a great thing — as in fact I do — and say, "The radical US Constitution has worked. Why hasn't the world copied it?" You can't lift one feature of a culture out, apply it in isolation, and expect it to function as it did in context.

<comment><USER20> > Portugal's policy here was dependent on Portugal's culture, history, > population, and a host of other factors that can't be replicated in another > country.

What Portugal did was pretty straight forward. A lot of people were dying from drugs. They decided it might be because if you sought treatment you we hauled in front of a judge and from there usually went to jail. They didn't decriminalise it - you are still hauled before a judge. But from there the next step was treatment for the addiction.

Not surprisingly, the evidence directed treatments works better than the non- evidence directed treatment (jail) so a lot less people end up being severely harmed by them. As a bonus those treatments were a lot cheaper than incarcerating them.

The real difficulty is doing that is having a central government strong enough to get it done. Obviously having such a government is somehow related to "culture, history, or population", but only tangentially as I'm sure every parliament in OECD countries could do it equally well regardless of their history. The only difficulty they would be have is opposition from people who are presumably like you and think it would do more harm than good.

The only facet that could be surprising is it didn't change the level of drug usage overly. Roughly the same number of people use drugs in Portugal - <USER2> only differences are a lot less harms are caused and their habit costs society as a whole a lot less.

I don't know what percentage of people think that that way. It's a bit foreign to me, as I find the idea of trying to prevent people from injecting poisons into their blood stream by threatening to harm them in other ways to be downright odd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Deciminalisation first. Stop treating everybody like a criminal. It is so mf oppressive, to everybody.

"In many ways, the law was merely a reflection of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and around kitchen tables across the country. The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities."

</comment><comment><USER22> From the headline of the article alone, it seems that part of the reason the world hasn't copied it is that it's labeled as "radical", when it really isn't (or shouldn't be) radical at all.

</comment><comment><USER23> I recently read some something that had the following premise:

Immigrants leave their family and friends behind. People who are more empathetic have a harder time doing this.

Therefore, countries with net emigration will grow more empathetic. Countries with net immigration will grow less.

While just anecdotal, this is something that I've confirmed with my experiences.

I'll add in that countries which were founded on a genocide that happened not too long ago, probably will have echos of this continuing for a long time. Backwaters also tend to be less aggressively restrictive of freedom, as greedy, aggressive people naturally navigate out of them.

<comment><USER24> It does not seem right to me. My country is also a small Latin country like Portugal and we have significant emigration - people are not more empathetic, the hard life that makes people leave does not make the others empathetic.

<comment><USER23> You need a baseline of comfort to be empathetic. You can't be very empathetic when your kids are hungry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's a reasonable question, and I can't call the current US policy as sane in any way.

There is, though, some need to account for culture. I doubt, for example, that replicating gun control laws from the UK to the US would result in similar gun violence stats.

That said, at the very least, country wide decriminalized marijuana seems like a good start for the US. It's probably less overall harm than alcohol. The long window of employment THC tests probably holds this back.

</comment><comment><USER26> Portugals policy seems deeply flawed to me because it does not legalise the sale of drugs.

This keeps a strong criminal element and does not protect drug users from contaminated drugs.

<comment><USER24> It is solving some problems, not everything. It is much more than what the rest of the world is NOT doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Why hasn't the world copied it?

Because there's too much money* to be made in keeping the status quo.

* I use the terms "money" and "power" to mean the same here.

<comment><USER28> It's unfortunate that this sounds so tin foil hat because it is absolutely true.

There is no grand conspiracy to keep drugs illegal. There is a vast, semi well intentioned system built over a century that people adapted to over time to profit off of and now that they are profiting they are not going to give it up easily. Because of the governmental nature of the people who profit they are also very well positioned to lobby for themselves. The sheer number of small actors who benefit from this system has made it unbelievably entrenched.

<comment><USER29> >There is no grand conspiracy to keep drugs illegal

Many people working together to keep something illegal in order to profit is not a "conspiracy", it's lobbying.

>semi well intentioned system

How is valuing money and power over millions of lives "semi well intenioned"?

<comment><USER28> Very few of the millions of people are conspiring together in a single group. They conspire in small groups to achieve their individual goals which may directly contradict the goals of others within the system on a case by case basis.

It's not like some secret cabal where they sit around in black robes and vote on how to maximize false arrests for profit.

Do you think out of every one of the millions of people in that system that literally every person has absolutely no intention other than profit? Yes, some people within the legal and even prison system have good intentions. To think otherwise a pretty cartoonish world view.

<comment><USER30> I think the hangup people have is when they see apparent orchestration, groups of people making moves that seem coordinated, they assume that conspiracy must be the explanation.

But we know from nature that this needn't be the case. Look at a school of fish. There is no hierarchical command structure, nor any democratic council of the fishes, or anything like that. Their schooling behavior is emergent behavior from each individual fish following more or less the same rules as the other, coded in their DNA. They take cues from each other, go with the flow, but they're not actually conspiring with the other fish. There is no Fish Illuminati, just a bunch of fish doing normal fish things.

The failure to recognize the possibility of emergent (or convergent) behavior in humans is I think the root cause of many conspiracy theories. This is related to the concept of pareidolia, e.g. seeing patterns when there are none. In this case there are genuine patterns (fish clump up in schools) but the explanation offered up for this behavior is erroneous (fish Illuminati.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This only works if there are treatment options available which won't happen in the US. Otherwise prisons wouldn't be full of people with mental health problems.

</comment><comment><USER32> Why is only sensible drugs policy called radical is the real question.

<comment><USER32> Ok, why downvotes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Drug use is seen as a moral failing that must be punished, not as an illness that should be treated.

<comment><USER34> Illegal drug use. People use alcohol, caffeine, nicotine all the time but most people don't even view those as "drugs".

<comment><USER35> The boundary between drugs and non-drugs is murky. Even refined salt, sugar, and flour could be classified as "drugs" \-- your brain gets affected by them, potentially permanently, and they are hardly natural -- and even less people consider them as drugs.

<comment><USER36> salt, sugar, and flour aren't natural?

<comment><USER37> They aren't typically found in nature in the form in which we consume them. They require human processing (even if it's much less processing than what goes into making a frozen pizza).

<comment><USER24> Salt is. In my grandma's village we have both natural salt rocks and also salt springs people use for cooking, conserving white cheese or preparing pickles. And that village is not an exception in my country, it is the rule in all mountain areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> A lot of this depends on how evenly people suffering are distributed through society.

One reason queer rights caught on so quickly is that LGBTQ people are evenly distributed across racial, ethnic and class boundaries. A rich white kid is exactly as likely to be trans, say, as a poor Brown or Black kid. People suffering from drug addictions in the US are more concentrated among certain communities.

<comment><USER39> Do you have a source on racial/class distribution for lgbt? Would be interested to see it

<comment><USER9> Are you trolling? It would seem obvious that such things are distributed exactly the same no matter what ones social status or ethnic background is. It would be very surprising if it wasn't.

<comment><USER40> It's not obvious AT ALL. If you're aware of the "cluster effect" of those with rapid-onset gender dysphoria, you're aware that being trans is highly influenced by ones social conditions.

You're making an argument that nature is everything when it comes to one's LGBT status and nurture means nothing, but there's mountains of evidence to show this is not the case.

If you want to tell me that it's JUST A COINKYDINK that so many female movie stars have male children that JUST SO HAPPEN to be gender dysphoric, your "nature means everything and nurture means nothing" philosophy on LGBT status seems incredibly far-fetched.

<comment><USER5> Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how bad the comment you're replying to is. That only makes this place worse.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER40> I don't understand this at all. Can "kindness" not be "snarky"?

Your labeling my substantive comments "unsubstantive" is really really weird to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Same-sex marriage never achieved enough support to be legalized [0][1]. It was voted against throughout the country including liberal states such as California. Same-sex marriage was legislated by a small number of judges.

I'm not making an argument for or against so please don't debate me on the merits of this issue. I am merely pointing out that the people did not decide this issue. A very small number of elites did.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same- sex_marriage_legislation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same- sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States#Efforts_to_ban_same- sex_unions_by_constitutional_amendment) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same- sex_unions_by_type)

<comment><USER5> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20434037](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20434037).

<comment><USER41> Can I ask why this comment was detached?

I feel it was relevant to the point the OP was making concerning legislation vs popularity among the citizenry.

<comment><USER5> It turned into a thread about same-sex marriage, which has nothing to do with the article. Whimsical tangents can be ok, but well-worn-political-debate tangents are off topic on HN.

Keep in mind that when we moderate something like that, it's never just about the root comment (i.e. the one you posted). It's always about the subthread as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> But thanks to Reaganomics, prison turned to profits

'Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics

'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison

You think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment

Involuntary servitude and slavery it prohibits

That's why they givin' drug offenders time in double digits

Killer Mike, "Reagan"

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU](https://youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU)

<comment><USER43> > _' Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics_

it isn't

> _' Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison; you think I am > bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment_

This is true, they didn't listen when _Kanye_ said it awkwardly, but it's been true the whole time.

> _That 's why they givin' drug offenders time in double digits_

Maaaaybe sometimes, but if you come at it from that perspective you aren't going to convince enough people to change their minds.

The way it's been sold to the public is not from the perspective of _benefitting prisons_ ; so you need to address the argument that the public is given: that illicit drugs are so dangerous that the enforcement is worth it.

There are lots of countries without "reaganomics" or any private prisons, which are extremely strict and punitive when it comes to illicit drugs.

It looks like the law is going in the right direction though, the recent sentencing reform has been great, decriminalization (or at least, sentencing/institutions that do more good than harm) should be the next step, but it's not at the top of _anyone 's_ platform as far as I can tell.

Added: another story on Hacker News today, related to prison labour in a country which isn't the U.S. (I see absolutely nobody crying foul): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427122)

<comment><USER23> > so you need to address the argument that the public is given: that illicit > drugs are so dangerous that the enforcement is worth it

Some people see the problem in the fact that Americans are and have historically been very comfortable benefiting from injustice and from things that are enforced 'on other people'.

Middle class young hippies were shocked when the system showed its teeth and banned a substance so that the movement could be targeted by the repression systems put in place... while that was the norm done toward people in bad neighborhoods.

Some people think the the answer is to get people to be more self aware of their position, especially hypocritical positions based on emotion that hurt others, and hopefully be more empathetic.

<comment><USER43> > _Some people see the problem in the fact that Americans are and have > historically been very comfortable benefiting from injustice and from things > that are enforced 'on other people'._

The vast majority of people do not have trouble generally abiding by the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act; and while that doesn't mean it's _just_ , but it does mean it's not crazy for ordinary people to think that others could abide by it as well.

Very few people are even _familiar_ with the concept of the prison industrial complex, let alone _explicitly motivated to vote by it_.

> _Middle class young hippies were shocked when the system showed its teeth > and banned a substance so that the movement could be targeted by the > repression systems put in place... while that was the norm done toward > people in bad neighborhoods._

Just as gun control is no longer typically motivated by racism, the war on drugs is not today typically motivated (to the ordinary person) by a prejudice against hippies or hispanics.

If you argue against a point nobody is defending, you'll change nothing.

<comment><USER23> The people who designed the war on drugs, did so with a target. It is to this day blatantly targeting certain communities, for example, sentencing guidelines between crack and cocaine.

Your logic is faulty: If you follow your line of thinking making the Kippah illegal would be fine since the 'vast majority of us' wouldn't have any trouble abiding by the new law. Oh, you did put in a condition: as long as enforcement is 'perceived by the ordinary person' to be non-prejudice. I'm not sure why you put that condition into the logic, or how that changes the reality of the injustice... but ok.

<comment><USER43> As I said, I'm not saying the law is just, I'm saying that most people don't support because they intend to perpetrate your perceived injustice.

The vast majority of people are not moustache-twirling villains who think that drug laws should be enforced in the way they are, for the particular purpose of punishing the downtrodden or profiting prisons at any cost; so when your argument revolves around that, the people who know they don't support it for that reason are not going to be convinced.

You're arguing against the cynical, bigoted schemers who influenced the law, not the people who've accepted it for the public messaging (which has been, beyond a certain point, not recognizable as racist); and those ordinary people are the voters who decide elections.

This is not the world of John Lennon's _Imagine_ ; where bad things only happen because people choose to be evil, and everything can be solved by choosing not to be evil.

Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they've been convinced by faulty or incomplete arguments, or they've ignored the arguments altogether. Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they are wrong.

<comment><USER23> I'm really not sure what your point it is. You seem to be saying 'don't say the drug war is discriminatory', even though it is. You then present logic that seems very unsound (as highlighted by the kippah example)

But to answer you:

> ordinary people are the voters who decide elections

Which is why it is so important that the war on drugs is painted for what it is.

Voters today might not grasp it. But those voters will die off. New generations will come in.

> Ordinary people do the wrong thing because they are wrong

Absolutely! That is why it's important to highlight it is wrong. Even if THEY don't see it. Their children likely will. Some of them will.

The truth has strength.

It's like flat earthers. You don't highlight their inconsistencies to teach them. You highlight it because it is the truth. And the truth shines. People pick up on it... eventually. Slowly. Gradually. It's been happening for thousands of years.

<comment><USER43> I can't make you read what I had to say, but I think you are being very inflexible and I hope you'll go back and try.

If one isn't willing to read any argument from start to finish before comparing people to "flat earthers" and thinking that only "old people who are about to die" disagree with him, one will fail to convince anyone, young or old.

Many ordinary people are OK with the war on drugs because they believe that the enforcement is less dangerous than access to drugs. If you tell them it's racist or profit-driven, you get to be all smug to yourself; but they weren't in on it for racism or profit to begin with.

To a new Chinese immigrant who's just used to narcotics being extremely forbidden, because they consider them extremely dangerous (for good historical reason); your "enforcement of drug laws is racist and profit-driven" argument is immaterial, because even if they aren't racist or profiting from private prisons, they still think that narcotics prohibition is reasonable.

<comment><USER23> I'm happy you are arguing for drug law reform in the way you do.

I was just explaining a different way of arguing in favor of it. My way and the way of many people.

You do you. My post was very specific: 'some people see it this way'

P.S. I never said 'old people who are about to die'. I said a generation will die off (it could be mine), and new ones will come in. I was implying a long term view of things (as in, look at the difference in attitudes over 50 or even 100 years)

And I never compared you to a flat earth-er. I compared people who support the current drug legislation to flat earthers. Because both of them have mountains of evidence that point to the fact that they should change their perspective, yet don't do so in the face of such evidence.

How you argue in favor of reform is on you. How we do reform is open to debate. That we need it is a fact like the world is round. That I don't agree with arguing in the way you do does not mean I don't understand your perspective (appealing to people's self interest vs sense of right)

I respect it. My only intention was providing you with a different perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The CIA aren't going to give up their lucrative drug business that easily

<comment><USER5> Please don't do this here.

<comment><USER44> Why? My comment is based on fact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Because the world doesn't want it. The drug addict problem exists by design.

</comment><comment><USER46> Because half of the security industrial complex and the USA would go bankrupt.

<comment><USER47> It's illegal in Canada (everything besides weed) and most of the western and non western world too.

We don't have private prisons or even a separate agency like the DEA whose job is directly tied to drugs. It's very much still a cultural reality people haven't accepted. Although it doesn't help with the gov agencies constantly fear mongering or straight up lying.

<comment><USER46> Indigenous Canadians use ( not abuse ) drugs since forever. Traditionally, religion is the gateway to murderous drug policy almost everywhere; uphold by the highly profitable and rent seeking security industrial complex. It's a self reinforcing circle. One that's not likely to end anytime soon. Look at the downvotes i received on my previous post - one that is not only evident but can easily be proven to be true.

<comment><USER47> Sure but a lot of people still believe drugs should be illegal and it's still a big cultural taboo in many parts of the world. Only recently in the west has that started to shift over 50% for pot. Other ones are much farther behind.

That has a big effect on the system as a whole. I still think the agencies and policy directly influences people's opinion. They constantly hear about drug dealers getting arrested so they associate it immediately as bad people engaged in bad things.

So it does have a cyclical effect but not just for financial or rent-seeking reasons. Which exists but I suspect has a smaller role than you think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> In some US cities, San Francisco for example, possession and consumption of drugs is also basically decriminalized, just like in Portugal.

You can openly shot it up your veins in front of cops and nothing will happen to you.

I look forward to more cities adopting this policy of tacit decriminalization.

[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jimdalrympleii/public-d...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jimdalrympleii/public- drug-use-san-francisco)

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/San-F...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/San- Francisco-where-street-addicts-outnumber-13571702.php)

<comment><USER49> That's not the same than being decriminalized.

In Portugal, if you do that the police will ask you for your ID if it's a light drug like cannabis, or take you to the police center if it's an heavier drug. If you keep being caught by the police a judge can order you to take psychiatric help.

Being decriminalized means that you won't be arrested when you ask for help, and you have access to clean syringes to avoid diseases and infections.

Help being provided, it's not the same than being legal.

<comment><USER50> While what you're saying is true, I think that's why the world is afraid to adopt Portugal's policy. If getting halfway there is worse than doing nothing at all, it's a very dangerous thing to try.

<comment><USER49> Just my opinion:

In my experience, when people say drugs they think of cannabis, but cannabis was never the major problem in Portugal.

Our problem was heroin. I think no country will legalize heroin, at least not in the short/medium term.

This is clearly working, one of the major entrypoints of heavy drugs in Europe (Casal Ventoso in Lisbon) is almost clean of problems, there are still heavy drug users of course, but most of the associated violence disappeared.

Even portuguese people's mindset shifted from "junkies" to "people that need help".

So even if you consider a "halfway there" because you're thinking about legalization, this is still working and it's a good middle term to help society shift their mentality.

Disclaimer: I'm talking from my experience as a Portuguese person, not hard numbers. I remember walking in my hometown parks (which is a very small city) and see syringes and drug users everywhere when I was a kid. This doesn't happen anymore.

<comment><USER34> Heroin does seem to be a problematic drug.

I read that only 10% of users get addicted. But are there places where heroin is used where it doesn't become a problem?

(I am from the country where the film Trainspotting is set).

<comment><USER51> > In 1971, as the Vietnam War was heading into its sixteenth year, congressmen > Robert Steele from Connecticut and Morgan Murphy from Illinois made a > discovery that stunned the American public. While visiting the troops, they > had learned that over 15 percent of U.S. soldiers stationed there were > heroin addicts. Follow up research revealed that 35 percent of service > members in Vietnam had tried heroin and as many as 20 percent were > addicted—the problem was even worse than they had initially thought. [...]

> Lee Robins was one of the researchers in charge. In a finding that > completely upended the accepted beliefs about addiction, Robins found that > when soldiers who had been heroin users returned home, only 5 percent of > them became re-addicted within a year, and just 12 percent relapsed within > three years. In other words, approximately nine out of ten soldiers who used > heroin in Vietnam eliminated their addiction nearly overnight.

From [https://jamesclear.com/heroin-habits](https://jamesclear.com/heroin- habits)

<comment><USER34> True, I had heard that before, but its not really what I was asking. Your example still has 10% addicts (the same number that I mentioned). Did these people become problematic to their wider community? The 10% who become addicted have caused plenty of problems in my city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Because Portugal doesn't have countries like Mexico bordering it that will use the legal drug trade to further fund cartel violence and control over the country. Corruption is already so rampant, they need to fix their problems before we should ever think about legalizing all drugs.

We already have an Opioid crises in the US..and this is with legal drugs. Lawmakers are already starting to blame the legal drug dealers and creators for getting people addicted.

If drugs are legalized, a person shouldn't be able to sue the dealer or creator. In the US, it seems like the attitude is "my body, my choice". Until that choice has negative consequences and then the person with the biggest wallet is sued for damages.

I don't really see happening in Portugal.

<comment><USER53> Legalizing drugs is the best thing the US could do with respect to the cartels. Not only would it reduce profits, it would give producers an arbiter to go to when there are disputes rather than forcing them to rely on their own version of justice.

<comment><USER54> California's legalization has shown this to be untrue. Cartel grows in public lands have exploded as the legal market provides general cover for grow and transport activities. There is an estimated 16 times as much cannabis grown in CA than traverses the legal markets... and that excludes imports.</comment></comment></comment>