XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/111588569124648292310/posts/SeBqgN9Zoiu <comment><USER2> I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them"

Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with women, and he will get noticed, but did anyone bother to look at the VAST majority of men who do not engage in that behavior. These are also the same idiots who are getting into bar fights with other men. This doesn't make it acceptable but it's hardly a hallmark of my "culture". There are people who just don't respect other people in every culture.

As to being bigger and stronger, perhaps we should look to the nation of Japan and the feats its military was able to achieve with men roughly the size of north american women. Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves, not that they should have to, just like smaller men are perfectly capable of defending themselves, not that they should have to. These are again averages and if you look at the deviances you'll see that there are a lot of women who are larger than a lot of men.

Also, keep in mind that a man is twice as likely to be assaulted as a woman so from a statistical perspective it is men who should be fearing for their safety as they post their gender online.

I personally think it's a good idea for Google to make the settings private but it doesn't need the invocation of chivalric myths and the slander of an entire culture for it to happen. Frankly, the idea that women can't defend themselves and we need to add privacy settings to protect them seems more to perpetuate the ideals of chivalry than feminism.

<comment><USER3> "but VERY few" I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. You know, if it's only 1% of men that act in a sexually predatory manner (workplace sexual harrassement, groping on public transport, all the way through to rape), how am I as a woman supposed to react? Online it's even worse, I can expect sexually explicit comments to be made to me with a probability approaching 1.0 if I reveal my gender (HN is a pleasant exception to the rule, and here's hoping it stays that way!)

Online there are many forums where I choose to hide my gender, and in the real world I am always conscious that I am being objectified sexually (an experience you probably can't appreciate until you've been in a bar and had a fat, bald guy 20 years older than you grinding his crotch up against your leg even when you've physically tried to push him away).

So yeah, take all the offense you like, it is an offense that is rooted in a deep ignorance of what it's like to be a woman in our culture.

<comment><USER4> There seems to be deep ignorance of what it's like to be an old fat bald guy in our culture. Who do you think had the worse night? My guess is that it's the old fat bald guy who had to go home with his right hand, got publicly humiliated in front of all of his friends by getting rejected and physically pushed by a girl half his size. Not to forget his wallet is probably much lighter after paying all those drinks to women he won't ever have a chance with.

<comment><USER5> There is a lot more to it than "old fat bald guy". I don't know why so many people keep missing the extra clues, including in this past weekend's skeptic/atheist brouhaha over Richard Dawkins being ignorant. In short, it's the same damn situation. "Nice guy" (which is an unknown to the woman) approaches woman, gets rejected, is pissed off. Nice guy forgot to look at the situation, which was woman alone with man hitting on her in elevator at 3am.

> fat, bald guy 20 years older than you grinding his crotch up against your > leg even when you've physically tried to push him away

When you're a fat, bald guy that does exactly that, you don't get to be treated like it's all okay and the girl is obligated to spend time with you because you bought her a drink or ten. It's the attitude that is the problem, not the fat or the bald.

If you are a considerate, nice, polite, friendly old fat bald guy that can respect boundaries and that people just have differing ideas of attractiveness (it goes both ways, and I know this as an overweight girl), you shouldn't be treated like a dirtbag, ever. Anyone that does treat you as such is a dirtbag in their own way.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you on most point except this one.

> When you're a fat, bald guy that does exactly that, you don't get to be > treated like it's all okay and the girl is obligated to spend time with you > because you bought her a drink or ten.

Where I live right now, women (and some men) surprisingly often offer me drinks in bars. Most of the time I'm not attracted to them but yet, I find it only fair and nice to spend some time with them. I even sometimes dance with old and fat women. I don't see anything wrong with this and if I don't feel like spending time with a stranger, I respectfully decline the offer and pay for my own drinks.

<comment><USER5> I feel like we're on the same page yet not.

I believe the key to the situation is will and interest. It is not drinks or attractiveness or grinding. All of that is awesome if everyone is okay with it. I too will also regularly talk to, dance with, and spend time with people that I may not want to sleep with but that I find interesting and comfortable to talk to. I will let them know this in advance, and most of the time they're completely fine with just the brief companionship and otherwise accept my declining their offer. This is basically the old bald guy chatting away with a woman and maybe even having a dance together, with no expectation of sex. Or the old bald guy that walks away from a woman that just said "thanks, but no thanks" to him.

What I am _never_ okay with and what I believe is wrong and worthy of public shaming is the old bald guy that tries to grind up against and buy drinks despite the woman pushing him away. It doesn't even have to be the old bald guy. It could even be a ripped young guy with a nice suntan, a significant other or a friend or _anybody_ to anybody else. You're not showing that person any respect by ignoring their boundaries.

I don't know if I'm doing a good job explaining this, but thanks to said skeptic brouhaha someone else has a very eloquent piece on this subject: [http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling- sch...](http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling- schrodinger's-rapist-or-a-guy's-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without- being-maced/)

While I don't care much for the statistics, the situations created to illustrate the third and fourth points is of particular interest to this conversation.

Lastly about drinks, I think that declining the offer and buying your own drinks is the right thing to do. Some people don't understand that and like to freeload, which is rude but what can you do. The person buying drinks needs to understand that there is no obligation attached to buying someone else a drink.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm just glad Google+ has an "other" option to begin with. Facebook lets you hide gender (which would be nice to have in google+), but they only offer male/female.

Really, I'm more disgruntled that Google+ lets you put down your relationship status and types of relationships you're looking for, but no way to specify which genders if any you are interested in talking to. I've been mulling over removing that part from my google profile because I can't mark that I'm only interested in women for relationships and dating. I have some female friends that would prefer to talk only to other females as well, it doesn't even have to go as far as preferences for dating.

Human sexuality and gender is so complicated that I'm willing to give a pass to any company that at least tries to make an effort to be more inclusive. They sure fall short here and there, but maybe with better education and awareness and bug reports, that will change.

<comment><USER6> I used to work for a gay dating site where instead of presenting a table of data about each person, we generated a natural language text that described the person's age, location and sexuality. At the beginning you had a radio- button to select your own gender (male/female/other/none) and checkboxes to select which genders you were interested in.

With those limited options, it was fairly easy to construct this profile text, even though we were using VBSCript. (Yes, it was _that_ long ago) Sometime later we wanted to expand and cover all the trans* options which resulted in that piece of code expanding into a horrible mess of weird cases, and those users not being happy with the result anyway. We got a lot of complaints of the type "I am an X looking for Y, but I don't want to be called Z".

I'd rather program date and time functions than that, ever again. :-)

<comment><USER7> Ha! Natural language _always_ expands into a horrible mess of weird cases. Humanity _is_ a horrible mess of weird cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a guy so obviously don't have the experience (any) women have but I will say this.

Three things will essentially give away your gender:

1\. Your stated gender;

2\. Your name (with a high degree of accuracy in most cultures that I'm aware of); and

3\. Your photos.

So for (1) to have any impact, (2) and (3) must be hidden. Since all profiles are public, I'm not sure you can hide (2).

Give all that, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for hiding gender but, like I said, I don't have the experience.

That all being said, I really don't see the issue with hiding it.

I strongly encourage people who feel strongly about it to be vocal about it and ask for either the ability to have it not stated or to hide it (like you can with things like the number of "followers" you have).

EDIT: on the accuracy of gender prediction from Facebook profiles:

<http://cis.poly.edu/~ross/papers/NameCentric.pdf>

I realize this isn't _exactly_ the issue here. Most people concerned with harassment probably aren't worried about computer models that can predict their gender based on their name, information from their profile or their writing style. I imagine harassment is far less systematic than that.

EDIT2: I would contend that a bigger factor in whether someone gets harassed is how they present their profile rather than a single field.

For example, if your profile is public, has pictures of how partying and getting drunk, has many messages about what a party animal you are and/or your dating life, some will see that (rightly or wrongly) as an invitation for attention (good or bad).

I would be very interested to hear from people who have been harassed or bullied online or have been the victims of such crimes in the real world and hear how they use social networks and how they present themselves online. I suspect they tend to keep everything private.

I'd also be interested to hear how important it is that gender is shown on a profile. It's all well and good for us to speculate about this but I really would like to hear from some people with first hand experience.

<comment><USER9> Sometimes, the way in which you form paragraphs and sentences can give away an individuals gender identity. Check this out, and the accompanying paper.

Female Score: 8

Male Score: 14

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

<http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.php>

[http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/papers/male-female-text- fina...](http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/papers/male-female-text-final.pdf)

<comment><USER10> The problem with this is that it reflects the issues with our society more than people's genders. Having a reasonable education and writing about STEM* tends to make anyone male, according to that.

* Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >Many women grow up with a sense of physical vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them

Daaaaaamn are people ever good at misinterpreting this line. It doesn't matter whether women are at _actual_ risk; it's about the _perception_ of risk. They're your _customers_ , not your students or children or friggin' royal subjects.

Answering the question of actual risk has basically turned into a playground of competitive sophistry. On the other hand, perceived risk is goddamn obvious, and it's what matters. You don't start a social network by alienating people, _regardless_ of whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' to feel the way they do.

<comment><USER12> You're making this into a business decision. I'm sure that google has put a lot of thought into this and made what they think is the best business decision (in addition to the fact that they are testing it in beta).

There are, however, concerns above and beyond profits that could drive this decision.

<comment><USER11> >You're making this into a business decision.

Well... that's the point. I really don't want to talk about it as an ethical decision, and I guess I can avoid that by pointing out that it is more obviously a good business decision. I'm sure Google put a lot of thought into this, but I'm also sure they put a lot of thought into the launch of Google Buzz. Unfortunately, the sheer amount of thinking that goes on doesn't guarantee success.

Of course, now you've cornered me, so I _have_ to talk about it as an ethical decision. So, some things which pop into my head:

1 - the ability to not show your gender does not change the relative status of the genders in public perception (hereafter "gender inequality")

2 - the ability to not show your gender does diminish the importance of gender inequality _w.r.t. setting up a Google+ account_ , i.e., inequality affects you less if you don't have to show your gender

3 - gender inequality is generally considered a bad thing

Per point (1), the negative consequences of allowing people to not show their gender are probably small, and per points (2) and (3), the positive consequences are probably significant. This means that people are probably better off being allowed to not show their gender.

But b'gosh, I've let yet _another_ cat out of the bag by introducing the concept of "perceived risk" and claiming its existence.

 _Why do I think there is perceived risk?_

Personal experience. If you haven't run into a sexism debate yet, you haven't browsed any serious technology forum with any sort of regularity. If, in a sexism debate, you don't see comments about men doing untoward things to women, you probably haven't read the debate very thoroughly. If there is a gorilla in a room, and nobody sees it, nobody talks about it; if there is no gorilla in a room, but everyone thinks they see a gorilla, people talk about it: people talk about what they see. I hear enough talk either from women complaining about creepy guys or from people talking about such complaints that I figure it is commonplace. In lieu of evidence I go with intuition, because at some point I have to make a decision.

I call it perceived risk because, in short form, people think that things they don't want to happen (anything from creepy private messages to violence) will happen if they show their gender. I'm trying not to accuse anyone of malice, negligince, cowardice or irrationality. Perhaps in some ironic twist this itself is cowardly.

So, from an ethical standpoint, I hope this is enough to justify allowing people to hide their gender.

There are many more questions: what risks are perceived, how do they come to be perceived, what risks are real, how do they come to exist, what are the effects of perceiving risk, how can real risk be prevented, and how can negative effects of perceiving risk be prevented, with an eye towards both valid and invalid perceived risk.

In an effort to broadly treat the last two topics:

It is progressively easier to take advantage of people who rank lower on Kohlberg's stages of moral development:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_de...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development)

An conception of the ideal of justice based on categorical imperatives (not necessarily in the Kantian sense) is not a guarantee of making the right decisions. However, it makes many decisions easier. It allows one to have sincere belief in their judgments about a situation, and to recognize irrational and unfair behavior before it has a chance of affecting oneself or others.

Compassion is excellent, but in too many cases trying to make a compassionate decision leads to feelings of uncertainty and powerlessness. Self-interest is necessary for survival, but in too many cases trying to make a selfish decision leads to feelings of isolation and unfairness. Laws are a necessary component of a free society, but they are written by flawed human beings, and often prescribe no choice at all or an obviously bad one.

Conversely:

Making decisions based on rationally chosen principles leads to a better situation for humanity as a whole. Contrast the success of the American revolution with the failure of the French revolution: George Washington adhered to the principles of justice and fairness and Napoleon did not.

<comment><USER12> I suppose I should be clear from this point on: I am against Google+ forcing people to show their gender.

"Well... that's the point. I really don't want to talk about it as an ethical decision, and I guess I can avoid that by pointing out that it is more obviously a good business decision."

In this case, I don't like making it a business decision for two reasons:

1) It is all but certain that Google considered the business repercussions of forcing people to show their gender. They almost certainly balanced the number of people they would not be able to get against the fact that the data is not indexed and searchable and concluded that, from a business point of view, it was worthwhile to force people to show gender. In the end, without real data, there is probably not a good way to make the business argument in a way that convinces google that they are wrong from a business point of view. (Of course, while testing, if the data they gather says that this is killing their business, they'll probably change the way it works).

2) If we can make the moral argument, and Google busy it, they are less likely to start changing their default privacy settings, etc... on people just because its good business.

Of course, I realize there is strength in making something a business decision. It means that even if they don't buy the moral argument, we still get the outcome we want. But, in this case, I think the two reasons stated above outweigh this (especially point number 2 given the experience with facebook).

I'm having some trouble connecting your last few paragraphs ("An conception of the idea..." onward), which are very general in nature, to the specific topic here. As far as I can tell, you are basically arguing for some sort of rules based morality. Without getting into if that's desirable or not (though in many cases, I agree it is), its not clear to me what rules you are in favor of. Please do explain...

(On your moral argument and discussion of perceived risk, I essentially agree).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Guys, lets not get carried away by the issue here.

The issue is NOT about gender identification. It is Google+ not providing the ability to hide your gender on your profile (I won't say they're FORCING you to post your gender).

The issue of Gender Identification is merely an example provided to justify the usage of such a feature. So let's avoid a massive gender debate here, when you can read all about it in the post itself.

<comment><USER14> There absolutely should be an option to hide gender on your profile. I was lucky to get a +1 invite early but didn't create an account because of this issue.

Here's why: I'm a hacker. I do freelance work for a living. I avoid all references to my gender in anything work-related because it creates too much extra mental overhead. Instead of focusing on getting things done I end up wondering whether a disagreement on a technical issue would disappear if I was male. Or wondering if I didn't get a contract because I'm female. Or (worse) if I got a contract because of affirmative action or because a company is trying to cultivate an open forward-thinking culture, rather than for my technical ability.

It isn't that I want to hide that I am female, exactly, its just that it doesn't have any affect on the quality of my work, but disclosing the fact that I am female unfortunately can create unrelated complications that get in the way of doing my job.

<comment><USER15> Don't you think you are doing other females a disservice by doing quality work and hiding the fact that you are a female? Maybe you'll have to deal with those headaches you describe now, but then maybe you can make it easier for your daughter, or inspire other young female hackers. Isn't that worth it?

I can appreciate it if you aren't up for this fight, but think of it like this: wouldn't it have defeated the purpose if Rosa Parks wore a disguise when she sat at the front of the bus, so that no one would be able to tell what race she was?

<comment><USER14> When I was younger I worked for a nonprofit that supported women in non- traditional fields. I guess I'm just too tired to fight anymore. I'm no Rosa Parks. When given the choice of spending my time hacking or discussing gender issues, I will pick hacking every time. I deeply respect the folks who have the energy to tackle the issue head on.

BTW, my clients do eventually find out that I am a woman when we do phone calls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> He's written about gender very well before.[1] It is certainly a subject that I don't know very much about, but I appreciate that it can get very complicated very quickly. What are the good reasons for requiring it to be public?

Secondly, do you think that "other" is enough? To what lengths should developers go to handle rare corner cases?

[1]: <http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/06/sex-and-gender/>

<comment><USER16> I vote for the text field option.

<comment><USER10> The range of answers you get when you give a free text entry field is wonderful, and proves why this is the best route.

On matters like forced revealing of gender, my gender is rage.

I'm in the process of trying to convince an genderfork academic I'm friends with to actually put a 20 marks question on an exam "what is your gender?".

<comment><USER16> Anyone care to explain why they're downvoting this?

<comment><USER17> I found the comment quite difficult to parse. I'm guessing that is why.

<comment><USER10> To be fair, it actually is hard to parse - I'm re-reading it, and trying to work out how to word it better, but the fact that I'm actually using a freeform gender, and the academic term genderfork, makes it hard to see how.

I'll have another stab later if I have time - My gender is currently busy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> FTA:

>> Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them—men who are usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human) occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead, understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble appreciating. <<

I want to comment on the attitude Randall is projecting in the above referenced quote. It's a commonplace attitude in the modern world today. That a woman's only protection is a man's forbearance. I feel this attitude is also toxic to our social fabric -- it really is just another form of gender bias. Attitudes like this lead to strange unintended consequences: Single, unmarried men cannot be seated next to unaccompanied minors on a plane. Men are now less likely to come to the aide of a screaming or crying child in public.

Just because some Vikings rape and pillage does not mean that all men do. Just because my grandfather was of German descent and fought in WWII should you assume he was a Nazi (he was a medic for the Allies).

Google+ is supposed to have privacy options "superior to facebook". (And considering they also have access to our search history and email, they had better be). Women online (and this is likely not their first social networking experience) have the same access to those privacy tools as everyone else. Let them block the harassers and those that objectify them.

(But still some really good points made about co-opting "Other").

</comment><comment><USER19>
        Many women grow up with a sense of physical
        vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our
        culture's relentless treatment of women as objects
        teaches them that they are defined by the one thing
        that men around them want from them—men who are
        usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human)
        occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by
        actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead,
        understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness
        and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble
        appreciating.

This is so absolutely dead right on the money, I find myself wondering where a male author gets such an insight. _I_ feel this way, and I was raised in idyllic suburban circumstances surrounded by loving and honorable men.

(Edit: Here's an old comment of mine on the phenomenon of women preferring gender anonymity online: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750413> )

</comment><comment><USER20> The linked essay[1] is worth reading. I had no idea that sex testing was so complicated - it explained to me a lot about why sex-testing for (usually) women's sport isn't as simple as I'd assumed.

[1] <http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html>

<comment><USER21> i agree that it is a complex issue. the problem is that he negates his argument by saying "many women" and trying to say what they feel. "many women" is pretty much a gender enhancing phrase

<comment><USER22> I actually think that "many women" isn't exaggeration.

Similar issues are discussed frequently in many forums. It's only you don't know what you don't know!

Edit: Ok. I exaggerated. But we really don't know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't get this trend at all. Something is wrong with priorities and perceived risk vs. real risk. It's pretty difficult to assault someone physically over the internet (<http://bash.org/?4281>). On the other hand, woman broadcasts her gender when in public. Will x years from now we all be walking in some kind of uniform enclosures as to protect from anyone knowing if one is male or female?

Also, in some languages name is very clear indication of the gender. And even some ambiguous nickname won't help, because in some languages you usage of verbs, adjectives etc. differs depending on gender.

Recently I saw a story about some kindergarden in Sweden where kids were not allowed to say "he" or "she" when talking about person but rather had to use something equivalent to "it" (I don't think English has equivalent to that, Russian language has "оно" for neuter nouns). To me it looks extremely stupid. But I guess it is easier just to ignore our differences than teach to cherish them and respect the other side.

<comment><USER5> It has nothing to do with assault over the internet and everything to do with the way others perceive you. I would love to imagine I live in a world where it doesn't matter what chromosomes and sex organs you were born with, and really, I have kind of found that in the Cocoa developer community. That is why I enjoy talking to those people.

But just /join an IRC channel with a female nickname. Play online games and talk with a female voice. Someone somewhere is going to make some kind of fuss over it and it is _incredibly_ annoying. I like to do things like raid in WoW...and most raids want people to join ventrilo/mumble voice chat. I _never_ talk unless a friend is in there with me or unless I hear another female voice. Period. I do not want to hear "IT'S A GIRL (or prepubescent boy)!! /whisper Can I see your tits?".

So I may not care about hiding my gender on my google+ profile because it's mostly just a bunch of people that know me already some other way in circles, but there are definitely places where even my thick skinned attitude towards "tits or gtfo" can't help and I don't want anyone to know what I might be. I understand some people may think that about google+ and fully respect and support their desire for such a feature.

I can't say I know the best way to deal with this problem, but I don't think it has as much to do with ignoring differences as much as it is not infusing our own gender biases into the way children think and learn about how to interact with each other. In a way, ambiguity can foster a sense of respect (or at least, caution).

There is no other reason for me to be running around with gender ambiguous usernames on websites, IRC, chat, and more where I am interacting with people I don't know.

<comment><USER24> As a random suggestion for the WOW raids, might it be possible to use software to distort your voice so that it sounds male (or at least androgynous)? Come to think of it, even males might want to do that so they can have, like, a really deep voice that sounds like the big heavy warrior character they're playing, or maybe an old gravelly voice if they're playing a wizard--or a female voice if their character is female, for that matter.

Does anyone else think that would be a cool idea?

<comment><USER5> I've considered it! I used to play with someone that liked doing that to poke fun at someone else who had one of the deepest voices I had ever heard, too.

I think the problem would lie in that the distortions might make it harder to understand someone. The primary goal of talking is to draw attention to a problem or strategy, not to make it harder to understand someone. Hard enough time doing that with accents and varied dialects and fluency of English :(

Usually when I am in a situation where I don't want to talk, I just say that I'm listening but I don't have a mic. It's usually not a problem because I type fast enough that I can yell in text without needing to pause playing my character.

<comment><USER25> There is free (as in beer) software to change the pitch of voices:

<http://www.screamingbee.com/product/MorphVOXJunior.aspx>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've always found Munroe's position on gender equality weird - despite what he says, he 'others' women in his main work. Female stick figures have long hair, even if the strip has nothing to do with gender. Male stick figures have no such indication. That is: 'male' is 'default'.

<comment><USER27> I fail to see how the males aren't just the female stick figure with short hair. Your viewpoint is at fault here, not the comics.

I see what you mean in a way - that the male stick figures don't have long hair. Again, though, this is only your viewpoint - very rarely is the stick figure's gender actually mentioned in the text of the comic or otherwise. Besides, not all females have long hair, many of the not-overtly-female stick figures may also be female despite not having long hair. Only your viewpoint, again.

The internet: where you can argue about the gender of stick figures.

<comment><USER26> Well, a couple of things here. Firstly, when the gender of a character is revealed, it's in line with what I've said. There are no long-haired males or hairless females.

Secondly, long hair denoting femaleness is a cartoon trope and that's how it's used in xkcd (note my issue is not the trope itself here, but that it is used by someone who says they're passionate about equality). Using your argument, you could argue that the cartoon characters with long eyelashes and pink bows in their hair _could_ be male, but of course in real terms that's never how they're seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> One advantage of publicly disclosing information about gender is that you know it's public. It's possible to glean someone's gender from the language they use (see <http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php>), meaning people who kept their gender private may be lulled into a false sense of security. Admittedly I still agree that you should always have to option to select which of your details to make public (or to limit which groups/circles this information is available to), but thought I'd chuck in a counter argument to keep things interesting.

</comment><comment><USER4> He's quite a bit harsh with his own culture (presumably the American culture). American culture is way ahead of most cultures in terms of respect for women. Travel to Africa, Asia or South America and you'll realize your culture isn't all that bad. (Disclosure: I'm not American)

<comment><USER29> I would argue that it's better to rate something based on how it should be, not on alternatives.

It drives me mad when people say "<so and so country> is better than <other country> because they only lock up gay people, not kill them" or "country A is better than country B because women there can go outside without a man, even if they can't vote". Sure, it might be better, but can we not agree that it's still shit?

I can't really speak to sexism in America (I'm English, and on my trips to NYC/LA I haven't personally experienced it at all) - I'm not saying you should hate America because of problems, but don't brush them away as being fine just because there are far worse situations elsewhere.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you, but in this case it seemed that the author was putting emphasis on his own culture as opposed to other cultures. Replace "Our culture" with "America" here:

> America's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they > are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them

I might be wrong though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not sure why Google is getting a free pass on the public profiles requirement. Every other social network I've used has an option to block search engines from indexing your profile.

<comment><USER31> There is an option -- check near the bottom at <https://profiles.google.com/me/about/edit/d> .

<comment><USER32> "If you currently have a private profile but you do not wish to make your profile public, you can delete your profile. Or, you can simply do nothing. All private profiles will be deleted after July 31, 2011."

[http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#...</a> <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2321727" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2321727</a>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why not simply reword the question to ask whether you prefer to be referred to as a "he" or "she"? In the rare case that it doesn't align with your genetic or anatomic gender, it's not exactly the end of the world.

<comment><USER13> At first glance at your comment I said "how would that help". Then I thought about it a second time, and I think this is actually a legitimate way to approach the problem of gender identification. So +1 for me.

Wonder what others think

<comment><USER34> Some might prefer the gender-neutral pronoun "they".

However, I think doing things this way is going to be quite difficult to implement when you consider multiple languages. Male/Female/Other with an option to hide this information is much easier a solution.

<comment><USER35> They is traditionally plural.

<comment><USER36> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Generic_they> It's been around for a very long time.

<comment><USER35> Are you saying that usage is common or are you showing me the exception that proves the rule?

I Don't think I'd ever use a "They" in a way such as being described here.

"John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic."

Or is it "They was caught in traffic." ?

<comment><USER25> > "John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic."

It sounds ungrammatical because the gender-neutral pronoun follows a gender specific name. The actual use is more like

"A friend of mine was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic."

<comment><USER35> This conversation is regarding asocial network where your name is always public.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Some data points:

1) I'm a 6'3" brown guy. I never get heckled when I walk down the street. I'm reasonably handsome, but in general, I don't have the sense that a lot of women are checking me out as I go about my daily business.

I was surprised to learn that my wife would get catcalls when she wasn't with me in our old somewhat sketchy neighbourhood. It never happened when she was with me, so I was like "WTF, people actually do that?"

2) At a previous job, I had a long walk to the coffee shop in suburbia. One time I was walking about 20 m behind a couple of women. I found one very attractive. I noticed that almost without exception, guys driving in oncoming traffic would crane their necks to look at her. I sometimes do this too, so I'm not suggesting that this is wrong per se, but it is _very_ noticeable.

Imagine you're just stepping out to run some errands. Almost every guy you see checks you out. I'm not going to argue about whether this is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that many women's experiences are _very_ different from men's. It's a weird vibe when you can't go anywhere without being obviously on display.

3) Tall people get paid more than short people. Many short people I know are very aggressive, as though they've become accustomed to defending their turf. I'm taller than almost everyone I meet, so when I'm in an elevator with someone taller, it feels _wrong_. Subconsciously I'm thinking about how I'd win a fight with them. You could argue that this is just weird and neurotic, but my wife says the same thing. She knows how to incapacitate a man, but again there's just this back-of-the-mind threat assessment that's overlaid on everyday situations.

4) Sexually, mechanically, it's less threatening to probe things with your appendage than to let something into an orifice. In a non-sexual context, you'd poke a lot of stuff that you wouldn't eat. In many cultures male-male anal sex isn't considered gay for the top. Only the bottom is gay. So there's probably something biological going on here.

So to all those arguing about probability of violent sexual assault, etc. You're missing the point. It's a completely different vibe, and you won't be able to speak intelligently about gender and social issues until you understand that.

<comment><USER37> EDIT> I feel different when I'm in a good neighbourhood versus a bad one. In a bad neighbourhood, I'm on guard -- my spidey-sense is tingling.

Now imagine that for roughly half the population it feels that way even in good neighbourhoods. How does it feel to always be on guard?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm all for _not_ asking for gender information in the first place. It's completely irrelevant in all but very few situations. Ending up in bed with someone who has different bits than you expected, is awkward. Everything else is just pointless.

The only real reason why computer systems ask for gender information is so they can address you "properly". Some languages have neutral pronounds (their, them, etc) for that, others don't. If your users are using a language where this doesn't exist, tough luck for them. I'm sure every language at least has some kind of rule (ie "use male pronouns when in doubt") of dealing with these situations.

My Facebook profile at least has the option of not showing my gender, even if it doesn't let me select Other or NoneOfYourDamnedBusiness.

</comment><comment><USER39> The reason is this: Advertisment!

Advertizers pay more if the ads are "targeted", the more information you have the more "segments" of customers you got. Google gets 98% their revenue from advertizing, which means they want as much information as possible to target as good as possible so that they can sell you more crap!

Just try to give as little information as possible everytime you deal with companies as google.

</comment><comment><USER40> This seems like a really pointlessly long rant that boils down to a feature request: Change the "other" category to "other/not-disclosed".

Also do these women who don't want to disclose their gender really need Randall Munroe to file the bug report for them?

<comment><USER41> "Also do these women who don't want to disclose their gender really need Randall Munroe to file the bug report for them?"

That's disingenuous. He's simply acting as a good "beta tester" by filing a report on what he sees as a bug. I don't think he's setting himself up as "representing women", just someone who noticed a problem and has the ability to act on it (which is true of very few people in this case; how many Google+ users have used the feedback option?)

<comment><USER42> >which is true of very few people in this case; how many Google+ users have used the feedback option?)

I have, but for more mundane UI issues. Though I suspect that Mr. Munroe has considerable amplification power of his opinions. I have multiple reshares of that post at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I understand the issues that arise with forcing people to expose more about themselves, than they are comfortable with. From a personality standpoint, my google+ account is a well defined sliver of who I am as a whole, by design. Mostly because I consider it something that could be put on a resume.

As far as the social issues of such public knowledge, I wonder, is hiding from the problem, by sexually, racially, and or religiously homogenizing profiles ever going to help cure the problem in society that makes, making these things public, an issue? Certain males, act like jackasses around women, is putting them in an isolated bubble going to cure the problem?

Does training people that you can't say xy or z around people of a certain race, stop them from being racist? It just makes them Pavlov's Dog, they know saying those things are socially bad, and keep saying and doing the same exact things, when society is more lax about those things being said or done to a different group of people, say, homosexuals.

Sure it makes it harder for them to find people to act that way around, making it seem like its less of an issue, but does nothing to change the mentality that causes the behavior, they'll just find someone else to do it to, that is more socially acceptable, like Muslims. Hiding from it, is not the way, dealing with it, which is going to cause some discomfort is the you cure it.

<comment><USER44> Are you saying you should be allowed to use racial slurs because disallowing people to say them doesn't make them less racist?

<comment><USER43> Well technically you can use racial slurs all you want, the only thing stopping people, is the social circles around them's willingness to accept such behavior. Or if you are a media figure, loosing your job.

If it was me, I'd rather know they were, than have them hide it, at least I would know who I could trust. And I think once exposed, its a problem that could be better dealt with. Instead of teaching people just keep those thoughts to your self, and let your racist, sexist, ways come out more passively. Which allows people to constantly be suspicious about other peoples motives and causes a lot of tension between people.

Though admittedly, getting people to stop needing some other group to put down, so they can feel better about themselves, is not ever going to be easy. Its a shame, in the "survival of the fittest" certain members of the species, find it easier to hold people down, than excel at it themselves. But we are what we are, and have been. At some point in our history there may have been a point to all this, but not anymore. Maybe it made more sense when we were doing these things over food, because there wasn't enough? Who knows.

I think its more effect to actually talk to people about why they think this way, what caused it. It was socially acceptable when they were kids, some one picked on them, stole their girl friend, cultural conflicts, etc. Getting to the root of the problem, than just telling them, you can't say it, but keep on thinking it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Is there any particular reason that Buzz and Plus need public profiles? I really like Plus, but I have a friend who has voiced a few significant concerns where it defaults to public on some occasions(such as when you change your picture). Especially given that Plus is so integrated with the rest of Google's services, I want to fully understand the privacy implications before committing to it.

</comment><comment><USER46> So he's saying extend the ability to make profile details private to the gender field. Sounds fine and logical to me.

</comment><comment><USER21> i'd love to know what makes "Radall" the expert on what "Many women grow up with"

<comment><USER47> I've seen a video of Randall talking about a variety of stuff (I think it was "Google Tech Talks" or so), and I got the impression that he just talks to people, and listens to what they say. While reading his comics I also thought multiple times that he must be a very good observer.

That doesn't necessarily make him an expert in the sense that conducting a scientific study would make him, but it's still worth listening to him.

<comment><USER21> i don't doubt it. i just question his ability to talk about what many women feel. how many women do you have to "talk to", "listen to" and "observe" before you can consider yourself to be assigning what "many woman feel" without ever being capable of feeling it yourself?

<comment><USER48> We all draw conclusions about the feelings of groups of people without experiencing what the group actually feels. Making observations and conclusions based on those observations is necessary to reason. "Many women that I've talked to" should be the read version of all group observing statements. Then the conversation can continue about how someone else's observations may differ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I don't think most posters in this thread realise how many flat-out nutcases there are out there.

My girlfriend's 90+ year old grandma used to be occasionally harassed on the phone because she was listed as "Maria Lastname" in the phone book (in Denmark, where this is common). I can only assume that the callers didn't expect her to be 90+. The harassments stopped a while after she changed it to "M. Lastname".

My conclusion: some people will go pretty far to get in touch with the other gender. If people want to hide their gender online, they should be given the possibility to.

</comment><comment><USER50> The argument that it follows from name is a red herring. If I create a photo sharing service, should I require you to list a race and justify it by saying that it can be inferred from your photos anyway? To summarize:

name: relevant because it's the center of identity, which is what the product is about. sex: not a necessary feature of a public profile.

If 99.9% of your users say "um, sure, I wouldn't mind sharing that", and 0.1% say "hell no, I absolutely don't want to share that", then you make it optional unless there's some important reason to not make it so.

</comment><comment><USER51> i don't see how an option to hide your gender solves randall's problem. if most people who are hiding their gender are women then hiding your gender is a credible signal that you are a woman.

</comment><comment><USER35> Every single reply to his post includes a picture. Tempest in a teapot.

It seems even people who care about this issue enough to post don't care enough to protect their likenesses.

<comment><USER52> Ever think that people who care about the issue aren't going to use the service or going to use a "fake" photo?

<comment><USER35> So what problem are we talking about them? People who care don't reveal that information. Problem solved.

Fake photo, fake sex, fake name.

<comment><USER52> Forcing your users to lie is not a good starting point for a relationship.

<comment><USER35> Google is forcing people to use their free service now?

<comment><USER52> No they are not and you sadly you went with the snarky comment. If you are a user, you need to make public your sex or lie (other is not undisclosed and has a different meaning to a part of the population).

Yes, there is always the "don't like - don't use it" defense. On the other hand, they could simply not make it public without permission and save the trouble. Downplaying the concerns of people just because you don't have the life experience to see the problem is not the best way to run a product. Understanding the concerns and making a good faith attempt to provide a solution or at least an explanation why you won't / cannot beyond "get over it" will win respect if not customers.

<comment><USER35> Sadly? Are you disappointed in me? Who are these abused females you are white knighting for?

<comment><USER52> "white knighting"? This is HN not Fark.

I find a lack of compassion for the difficulties of other people or their exclusion because of dogmatic rules not very helpful to the world. It is quite a lot like the proposed change to the WoW forums to require real names. The "it works for me" brand of design is not a good one.

The basic government stats and research are here: [http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/violence-against- women/w...](http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/violence-against- women/welcome.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Google have taken Randall's feedback into consideration and have added the feature to hide one's gender on Google+ profiles.

Women using the service are reporting that their low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability has lessened somewhat as a result.

"Hiding female identity from male view on the internet is very important and is likely to lead to real social change," a spokesperson from Google added.

</comment><comment><USER54> This all could be have been averted had Google not forced its users to make their profiles public.

</comment><comment><USER55> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct to say that there are two _genders_ , but not that there are two _sexes_? Since gender is only a social construct, presumably the prevailing views of the society in question are what defines it?

<comment><USER56> Sex is physical. There are more than two sexes. Some examples are female, hermaphrodite, and male (among others).

Gender is social. There are more than two genders. Some examples are masculinity, femininity, and androgyny (among others).

Edit: (expanding upon the above)

Sexuality is social. There are more than two sexualities. Some examples are heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality (among others).

A person's sexual identity is the triplet defined by these three items. For example, one could be an androgynous male homosexual.

<comment><USER57> I'd add a couple more things to condition your list:

* people are sometimes contextually gendered or contextually express specific sexuality (I know people who might describe themselves - and present that way too - as TV in some situations, but not others. I might imagine certain contextuality in sex is possible also, but with rather more logistical difficulty

* people sometimes change over time, and while they may choose to simply identify as their current (or desired goal situation) sex/gender/sexuality/... some people are happy to identify some or all aspects of their history, such as visible trans people

It's a pretty diverse world out there if you pay attention, even in somewhat conservative communities, so take care out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> As a heterosexual, male-identifying, rather vanilla-sexed individual, I instinctually chose 'Other' nonetheless when I signed up for Google+, much like Facebook, which still refers to me as "you" or something like that. Computers are not for that.

</comment><comment><USER59> This is why social networking sucks: It's all about putting yourself in a box, which is the last thing I want to do socially. I want to express myself, not be placed in an echo chamber.

</comment><comment><USER60> That Randall Munroe is a real person's person.

</comment><comment><USER61> Diaspora got this right, and Google+ should have copied it that way they copied the UI for aspects for "circles".

</comment><comment><USER62> The main question to ask is: do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? For developers, when google opens up their platform, having the gender by default will make it easier to make a better interface and use pronouns correctly. On the other hand, i dont know many apps that distinguish gravely between men and women. The name of a person and their photo is usually enough to infer sex anyway. So, they're just making it easier for a developer to have the sex of the user. Another useful variable would be language.

I actually think the friends' list maybe should be private, but gender should be public by default. I think Mr. Munroe's concerns are completely unjustified. It's kind of horrifying too, it paints things as being really bad for women in america; I doubt it's really that bad. I find the whole "attracts more attention" argument rather weak. After all, when you introduce yourself in the real world, its apparent from either the looks or voice whether you're male or female.

<comment><USER63> "After all, when you introduce yourself in the real world, its apparent from either the looks or voice whether you're male or female."

Apparently, it's really not. I get called 'sir' all the time, and I'm a tall skinny chick with long hair. One memorable week, it happened four times. On another memorable occasion, I was wearing a bright pink coat.

"it paints things as being really bad for women in america; I doubt it's really that bad."

Let me tell you my experiences as a woman in America.

Online, we get to deal with turds like these: fatuglyorslutty.com. You know what else? 50-year-old men private messaging you pictures of their penises. It's happened three times. o_O

Maybe it's the anonymity, as one poster suggested, and clearly face to face interaction isn't that bad? I had a classmate tell me that I only got into college because of my gender. Never mind that my GPA nearly two points (out of four) higher than theirs.

Ever been flashed trying to work a drive thru? I have.

"having the gender by default will make it easier to make a better interface"

If your developers are worth their paychecks, they can probably figure out to handle 'decline to answer' and 'other' as the same case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I support the ability to hide sex as an option, clearly on the grounds that more options are better. But the logic presented here to support it is really wrong. It's the same logic by which women hid themselves in burqas, long dresses, and the shadows of their men for centuries. If anything, having sex open might encourage everyone to be more aware of the issues that arise and fix them.

<comment><USER64> No it's not. It's the same logic that by which women choose gender-neutral or masculine nicknames when interacting with strangers on the internet. I do this.

<comment><USER62> Because you believe that the men of the internet are hostile towards women, you can't do anything to fix that, so it's best to hide?

<comment><USER44> Because when they complain about being sexually harassed or uncomfortable with the attention they get by being seen as a pair of tits, men invariably say or imply that they're being unreasonable for being offended, which doesn't solve the problem itself (which is that they're offended)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> This BLEW MY MIND.

</comment><comment><USER66> This subject is so much interesting it is now the top submission of HN frontpage⸮

</comment><comment><USER67> Everyone, including Randall Munroe, is free to note the "obvious fact" that men make most unwelcome sexual advances.

No one is free to note the "obvious fact" that men make most of the welcome technological advances.

</comment><comment><USER68> Oh fuck off! If you want to be a woman, you're a woman, a man, then you are a man.</comment>


Cheap Is No Bargain - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124846388343379781.html <comment><USER2> Another elitist attempting to impose her values on the world. Her assumption is that consumers aren't able to make tradeoffs on their own but by her own admission, people who buy the cheap DVD player recognizes that it might not last - and it's not like there isn't choice in the market and the option for the consumer to buy a more expensive DVD player but they chose not to.

Further, this assumption that made in the USA naturally means higher quality is bunk. As someone who does a lot of buying of machined parts, Asian sourcing is often cheaper and better in quality if you do your research. Finally, this assumption that buying cheap naturally means buying from sweatshops is simply protectionist and untrue. Nor does offshoring low end production mean that the US is losing jobs as Apple shows repeatedly - <http://reason.tv/video/show/834.html>.</comment>


Transcript from Elena Krasnoperova's Learning Hacks for Bootstrappers - <AUTHOR> http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2017/01/27/transcript-from-elena-krasnoperovas-learning-hacks-for-bootstrappers/ <comment><USER2> Hi, Elena here (the founder of Calroo). To answer your question of why we started with iOS: 1. the installed base in the US is roughly 50-50, 2. as dragonwriter pointed out, iOS users are more likely to spend money on apps than Android users, and it is overrepresented in the Bay Area where we are based, and 3. my husband (who is also my co-founder) happens to be an iOS developer, who worked at Apple for 17 years. With all of that said, rest assured, we have full intention of quickly following up with an Android app - in fact, it's already half-built. Think of it as us "practicing" on iOS users first before giving you the perfect Android app :-) Please do sign up for our Android beta list at www.Calroo.com - we'd love to get your feedback on it.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> She offers a seven step approach for bootstrappers

1: Make time for learning new skills – your startup's success depends on it

2: Figure out your preferred learning style, as that will determine your learning medium.

3: Master the basics – start by reading (or listening to) these 3 recipe books: Lean Startup, Traction, and Lean Analytics

4: Figure out what skills you need to acquire next that will be most helpful to your startup.

5: Acquire the knowledge (in your preferred learning style)

6: Collect examples of what works and absorb the knowledge implicit in them by taking notes, using a swipe file, and creating a reference library.

7: Apply the knowledge. Do a (small) real project to solve a real problem for your startup

</comment><comment><USER3> I need that app. Why does anybody start with Apple in today's world? Isn't android 80% of the market?

<comment><USER4> Android is more of the userbase, but the Apple userbase is disproportionately willing and able to spend money, so it remains attractive to target.

It's also probably overrepresented among influencers in many areas, making it attractive to target for other reasons.</comment></comment>


How I Got Fired from the Job I Invented - <AUTHOR> http://aroundtheworldin80jobs.com/how-i-got-fired-from-the-job-i-invented/? <comment><USER2> The internet is a funny place a guy with no real traction on his project (sadly because his idea sounds great ).

68 subscribers 16,535 views Youtube

2,2k Twitter

just has to reach out to the right channels reddit/twitter/fb to start a PR disaster for a Adecco.

Around the world in 80 (days/jobs/parties/x)

Lets see how they will turn it around, they got bitten by a mistake of not doing enough market research.

<comment><USER3> _they got bitten by a mistake of not doing enough market research_

Alternatively, they don't see it as a mistake at all (as you pointed out, a whopping 68 subscribers) and did the math and decided to go with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As far as I can tell the agency responsible for the campaign is Mortierbrigade [1]. I haven't been able to confirm it for sure but the original source [2] I found it for seems to be quite knowledge about the Belgian advertising scene.

Adecco's/Mortierbrigade attempts to defend themselves on Facebook have been rather halfhearted so far.[3]

[1]: [http://mortierbrigade.com](http://mortierbrigade.com) [2]: [http://creativecriminals.com/online/adecco-way-to- work/](http://creativecriminals.com/online/adecco-way-to-work/) [3]: [https://www.facebook.com/AdeccoWayToWork/posts/5588127241617...](https://www.facebook.com/AdeccoWayToWork/posts/558812724161752)

<comment><USER5> Halfhearted is a charitable way to put it.

They made it clear that they see nothing wrong with this in principle, they act as if it's all an accidental naming collision, and they start right out of the gate with the old "we're sorry some people are upset" non-apology.

<comment><USER6> How distinctive is the actual video of the "doppelganger"? I'm genuinely curious, since it's now been taken down.

The name alone could easily have been an accidental collision from a concept developed independently; I'm pretty sure I've searched for available _around the world in 80..._ variants as possible name ideas for a travel site, and I'd never seen Turner's site before (I have read Jules Verne though)

It's a shitty excuse for a nonapology even if it was a genuine accident though.

<comment><USER7> Considering the actual name of their project is his exact blog URL [1], I can't imagine they looked that hard to see if anyone else had the idea first.

[1] [http://aroundtheworldin80jobs.com/](http://aroundtheworldin80jobs.com/)

<comment><USER8> "Around the world in 80 days" is a well-known title, it's not impossible to comes up with using the same title for "job" related topic.

<comment><USER9> Of course. But you google names you come up with to check if somebody didn't found it earlier. It's hard not to do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised that anyone can get a trademark on "Around the World in 80 Xs." I would think that you'd have to get "Around the World in 80 Dishes _with Slavko Slobovich_ " or " _John Johnson 's_ Around the World in 80 Trees." Maybe changing the number of Xs or going "Around the Channel Islands" or something.

I would think anything built on the bare single variable snowclone would be too cliche to be exclusive.

</comment><comment> mark-r I hate to be a downer, but this is why Trademark law was invented. If you don't or can't get a trademark on your brand, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time, money, and energy promoting it.

There are a lot of slimy people in the world, and if you aren't protected eventually one of them will take advantage. Even a trademark might not stop it, but it gives you some ammo to fight back.

<comment><USER11> You don't lose trademark rights just because someone else files a trademark on a name you're already using in commerce prior to that registration. In fact, trademark rights are common law rights -- you don't need to file a trademark to claim a priority right to that mark.

In this case, his prior usage trumps any attempt for Adecco to claim ownership on the mark for their subsequent usage -- no matter how much they try to register those rights with the government. A trademark registration is exactly what it sounds like a - registration of a mark with the government. It doesn't give you any rights to ownership over a mark that pre-existed the registration.

<comment><USER12> You're confusing copyright and trademark. If he didn't challenge the trademark registration in the required period he will have a nearly impossible time challenging it now.

<comment><USER11> You don't lose rights to a pre-existing mark, even if someone subsequently registers it. And a challenge is only valid during an opposition period for a registered mark. This mark is not yet registered! So yes, he could challenge it during opposition.

As indicated by the USPTO TESS Database, the mark was filed on April 9, 2013, but it hasn't even been processed, let alone registered by the US PTO [5]. This means that the opposition period hasn't come yet. That means that oh yes sirree, Turner definitely has a chance to oppose this mark! And oppose he will. And win he will. So, nothing lost here. A TM symbol confers no rights to the claimant other than common law rights, which Turner has a pre-existing claim on.

But he wouldn't even need to challenge it - a subsequent registration does not entitle ownership for pre-existing marks. See all the citations below [1-4]

[1] [http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html](http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html)

[2] [http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426712](http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426712)

[3] [http://tcattorney.typepad.com/ip/2008/06/what-are- common.htm...](http://tcattorney.typepad.com/ip/2008/06/what-are-common.html)

[4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Enforcing_rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Enforcing_rights)

[5] [http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:jyex1k...](http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:jyex1k.2.1)

<comment><USER12> Ah, great. So he does have time to oppose it. Even though it's relatively simple to oppose he'll probably still have to put up a ~$6K retainer for a lawyer to oppose. And if he wanted to challenge their use of his trademark (even though he didn't register yet) he'd probably have to pay out ~$25K for a retainer, but realistically, he'd probably spend around $50k to challenge use of the trademark.

Further, if he wasn't using the trademark for commerce but the new registration is using it for commerce he isn't guaranteed to win. Trademark is not the same as copyright - that's why apple can take over the apple trademark for music.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Apparently their reaction page is up - [http://www.adecco.com/en- US/Media/Pages/reaction.aspx](http://www.adecco.com/en- US/Media/Pages/reaction.aspx)

<comment><USER14> "We're sorry for some recent negative comments." What a poorly written reaction.

<comment><USER15> "We've worked to resolve this and to create a mutually beneficial solution" \- well, go on, what is it!?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Not down, but 403'd.

Cached version: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aroundt...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aroundtheworldin80jobs.com%2Fhow- i-got-fired-from-the-job-i-invented%2F)

<comment><USER4> Perhaps Adecco/PR firm reached out to the author, to solve the matter. Or that is what we can hope at least.

The site appears to be password protected now so something definitely happened. Or the site just got overloaded and the author decided to pull the plug.

<comment><USER17> The whole site is down, which makes me wonder if they exceeded their bandwidth due to coverage of this. If so, at least the story is getting attention.

Another possibility is that they were advised by council to take it down, but it does no good to speculate.

<comment><USER18> "website is still being worked on. Stay tuned."

[https://twitter.com/80worldjobs/status/348094066929590272](https://twitter.com/80worldjobs/status/348094066929590272)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Amusing: Adecco's website has a live twitter feed widget on it. And it's a constant stream of tweets ripping on Adecco for this.

<comment><USER20> They must have turned that off now?

<comment><USER21> As of 2:03pm EST- no. They are getting destroyed (rightfully so).

<comment><USER22> It's still up

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sounds like an opportunity for Turner to use this situation and the attention this can generate to amplify his own idea, brand and work.

</comment><comment><USER20> If he used "Around the world in 80 jobs" prior to their use, they shouldn't have received a trademark.

<comment><USER24> That's not how trademark works.

<comment><USER25> It depends, you can win a trademark dispute if you have been using the mark for a sufficent period before someone else registers it. _Assuming that a trademark qualifies for protection, rights to a trademark can be acquired in one of two ways: (1) by being the first to use the mark in commerce; or (2) by being the first to register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ( "PTO"). _ [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm](http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hilarious watching the live twitter feed on their (adecco's) homepage.

</comment><comment><USER27> It's funny watching the twitter feed on Adecco's website:

[https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/around-the- world](https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/around-the-world)

</comment><comment><USER28> It blows my mind that [http://www.adecco.com/en- us/Pages/default.aspx](http://www.adecco.com/en-us/Pages/default.aspx) is up today...

</comment><comment><USER29> It seems like every other issue of _Private Eye_ has something almost exactly like this in their Ad Nauseum column. A lot of marketing companies are stealing ideas from old viral videos and art projects.

<comment><USER30> I wonder if this is due to the age boundary between old farts and digital natives. A young YouTube-aware creative could easily filch ideas knowing there's a good chance that the senior suits who will sign off the campaign will likely never have come across the source.

(In fact, my teenage kids also do this to me all the time, but I read rather more of Reddit than they suspect)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This was on reddit last night - I can't access the article, but the people in the comments on the reddit thread were having massive misconceptions about trademark vs copyright. Also, anyone can put TM next to something - it doesn't mean they trademarked it. It's the (R) that means you actually put forth effort to trademark something.

</comment><comment><USER32> Google cache mirror: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aroundt...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aroundtheworldin80jobs.com/how- i-got-fired-from-the-job-i-invented/)

</comment><comment><USER33> Let Adecco know how you feel in their contact form too should you feel so inspired (keep it civil though)

[https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/contact](https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/contact)

I just put one through, feels good.

</comment><comment><USER34> While the site is down, you can watch the author talk about this on YouTube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjPP6fgpkTE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjPP6fgpkTE)

<comment><USER35> You can also go downvote Adecco's ripped off video. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpvBfGUeaZs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpvBfGUeaZs)

<comment><USER11> It's down now. Not because they regret making the video. Oh no, they don't have that sense of regret quite yet. It's down because they can't handle the velocity and fierceness of the negative comments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> FWIW, and it's different from trademark, the Addeco.com website is showing "© 2011 Adecco"

At least they are consistently not paying attention to details.

</comment><comment><USER37> "401 Authorization Required" What is username and password?

</comment><comment><USER38> the twitter feed on the ripoff homepage is priceless right now :)

</comment><comment><USER39> Site is down...

</comment><comment><USER40> Great introduction and images, you worked hard on this! Get any lawyer and kick their billionairism ass five ways to Sunday for $$$treble$$$ psychotic grief damages. Site shows they ruined you.

So an effective cease and and desist letter. Prepare to doubly rebutt these criminal butts' rebuttal:

how-to-write-a-great-response-to-a-cease-and-desist-letter

into: =====>

how-to-write-an-overwhelmingly-terrifying-cease-and-desist-letter:

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5907732](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5907732)

[http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/how-to-write-a-great- response...](http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/how-to-write-a-great-response-to- a-cease-and-desist-letter)

<comment><USER41> This comment reads like a Dr. Bronner's soap label.

<comment><USER42> I never heard of that man or the soap before, and this made my day. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Bronner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Bronner)

The label in all its glory: [http://all-one-typography.com/](http://all-one- typography.com/)

<comment><USER43> I feel obligated to note that the soap is as great as the label is crazy. As a bonus, you have something entertaining to read if you ever get bored in the shower.

<comment><USER44> ^^^ This! I love the soap, and the label is crazy, so was the man.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment - <AUTHOR> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/05/14/1817205116 <comment><USER2> EDIT: The title has been updated: it used to say: "Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise to exceed 2m by 2100"

_________________________________________________________________

Incredibly misleading title. The expected ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise are, per the article:

26 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions from the Paris agreement)

51 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions in line with current emissions)

69 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions in line with current emissions and incorporation of thermal expansion)

The 2m value comes from the large error bars in the predictions. Global climate change is a huge problem, but misrepresenting results from a scientific study like this is just presenting ammunition to climate change deniers on a silver platter. I suggest replacing 'to' with 'may' in the title, as that is a better summary of the article.

<comment><USER3> It's definitely ammunition, deservedly so. This sort of misrepresentation is par for the course. "The world is ending in 12 years." I seem to hear that every 12 years just when people have forgotten about how the world was supposed to have been flooded already. Activists seem to have a ha but if exagération, if not downright lying.

<comment><USER4> Please read the IPCC reports, not ... whatever your current source is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To be clear, the 2m increase is the analyzed 95th percentile (very high end) of the estimates of this meta-study, when you take both glacial melt and glacial expansion. The median values for low and high estimates are 69cm and 110cm.

Not that this isn't still terrifying, worth of action, worthy of international collaboration, and so on. Just let's be accurate about our titles.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't Earth's being a spinning oblong sphere mean some places will experience only minimal change while others will see significant change? So all this is "average" rise.

<comment><USER7> It's a much more complicated process (e.g. the weight of the ice changes the shape of the mantle). The Verge did a good high level overview of some of the different factors in play here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA5zh3yG_-0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA5zh3yG_-0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're interested in getting involved in addressing climate change, here are two options for citizens to get involved:

1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby has been around ten years, and it currently has a bill in Congress that has bipartisan (1 Republican) support: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act ([http://energyinnovationact.org/](http://energyinnovationact.org/)). With this plan, all the revenue from a carbon tax* is directly returned to citizens as a yearly check--no enlargement of the state. This is the organization cofounded by NASA scientist James Hansen, who first testified to Congress about the perils of climate change over 30 years ago.

2) If you're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based solution, the Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement are making waves. Rather than a concrete policy in Congress, they have a set of principles/values that they are pushing forward. This includes economic and social justice issues.

*Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change. The idea is to internalize the _real_ costs of climate change into the price we actually pay--ramping up the price on carbon over time until it is prohibitively expensive to use fossil-fuel-expensive products, and incentivizing the economy to adapt. That fundamental price signal, where renewable energy becomes cheaper relative to fossil fuels (and similarly less fossil fuel-intensive goods are cheaper relative to fossil-fuel-expensive ones) reverberates throughout the economy. However, it's worth noting that while this solution should theoretically appeal to Republicans, almost none have stepped forward...

<comment><USER9> > Green New Deal

Aren't they strongly anti-nuclear? Putting science behind ideology is not a very good position to take about climate change.

<comment><USER8> I think their position is: 1) don't shut don't existing nuclear plants to replace them with fossil fuels and 2) wind and solar should make up the new energy mix. But for what it's worth, the membership has diverse views. I'm pro-nuclear.

CCL tends to be more pragmatic and have many more nuclear proponents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So how much was the actual global sea-level rise in the past 10 years and how does it relate to previous estimates?

<comment><USER11> Maybe something like this?

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm)

I don't doubt humans are affecting the climate. I do doubt that humans can extrapolate the effects of what they are doing out into the future very well.

<comment><USER12> That article describes one scientist's hypothesis based on an extreme year - another more conservative scientist is quoted also. The thing to pay attention to is peer reviewed consensus, which is still alarming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not to hijack this thread but does anybody know of a list of companies/start- ups who are trying to combat climate change/protecting the environment especially if they are hiring?

With a brother who has a master's specialising in glacier reduction (and a keen interest in data science) he is finding it a demoralising experience looking for companies who actually seem to be taking action.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you are interested in seeing a map of sea level rises, the NOAA publishes a website with one. At 7 ft there are significant coastal differences.

[https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/](https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/)

<comment><USER10> Here's a more complete picture for the case when _all_ ice melts and sea levels rise by 60+ meters: [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html) (note: by a "skeptic")

> _Today the Earth has 148 million sq. km of land area, of which 16 million > sq. km is covered by glaciers. A sea level rise of 66 meters would flood > about 13 million sq. km of land outside Antarctica. Without polar ice, > Antarctica and Greenland would be ice free, although about half of > Antarctica would be under water. Thus, ice-free land would be 128 million > sq. km compared to 132 million sq. km today._

I can't check all the calculations, but this result doesn't seem too terrible since we'd likely be able to migrate affected people in time.

<comment><USER15> The amount of migration that has completely upended political systems in the United States and Europe since 2010 or so will be a historical footnote compared to the migration we will experience due to climate change. The United States elected a professional wrestling character to the Presidency because he promised to be cruel to immigrants. Forgive my pessimism but I do not think "we will be able to migrate affected people in time" barring a major transformation of our society.

<comment><USER16> > United States elected a professional wrestling character to the Presidency > because he promised to be cruel to immigrants

Seriously, if that is what you honestly think happened without hyperbole... I worry for 2020.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anyone have any idea what a 1m and 2m rise in sea level looks like in terms of impact to land that is currently dry but will eventually end up underwater?

<comment><USER18> I wholeheartedly recommend the 2006 _An Inconvenient Truth_ [1] as it shows nice animations of expected flooding of, for example, the Manhattan.

[1] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth))

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's quite clear that in 2019 it is not possible to get all powerful entities in the world to work together on an issue like climate change. We should focus on band-aid solutions like reflectors in space above the poles that prevent sun from hitting the earth at all. We are past the "if only everyone bought electric cars" phase of solutions and need special projects that assume the amount of CO2 emitted stays the same or increases.

<comment><USER20> There's no stationary orbit over the poles

<comment><USER19> I have no idea if that's possible, what I mean is we should stop trying to get the US and China to agree on anything let alone climate change so we need grand silver bullet solutions.

<comment><USER21> China does accept the reality of climate change and is enacting policies against it. It might not be nearly enough but it's not fair to lump them with the USA on this one.

<comment><USER3> Have you been to Beijing? China is in a class all of its own when it comes to pollution. It's not fair to lump the US in with China.

<comment><USER22> Have you bought products manufactured in China? That's your pollution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Are humans advanced enough to engineer around sea rise and temperature changes?

<comment><USER24> Humanity should be fine. The problem is how to deal with millions of displaced people. We will probably need a few wars to figure that one out.

<comment><USER25> Humanity may be fine but we're also disrupting other life on the planet that we can't predict the impact of. Humanity may not be so fine after all..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> potentially very dumb question but could you build hydro power solutions(from the ice melt/run off) that you then get clean power from / help cool ice...? So out of my depth here but genuinely curious. Also appreciate building a hydro power plant on a very unstable platform (ice) is problematic just curious of other solutions to generate hydro power...

<comment><USER27> Most of these ice sheets are already quite close to sea level and distributed across vast areas - like most of the coastline of Antarctica. Hydro power works best with significant altitude drops across very narrow choke-points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can't we make solar powered ice makers on a huge scale and just re freeze it?

<comment><USER24> You understand that a refrigerator puts out heat so in the end it's a zero sum game?

<comment><USER29> Not exactly a zero-sum game because the earth isn't a closed system. We're constantly getting heat energy from the sun and radiating it back out into space at an equal rate. The composition of the atmosphere (greenhouse gasses) decides what equilibrium temperature will be. So if we had big refrigerators refreezing the arctic (without creating greenhouse gasses), they would put a ton of heat into the air but it would radiate away into space just like any other heat captured by the sun, and wouldn't really affect the earth's average temperature.

<comment><USER24> By that thinking you could just cool down the air. No need to freeze the arctic.

<comment><USER28> freezing is white and reflects more

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is speculation not actual scientifically demonstrated furthermore it's speculation based on the most catastrophic predictions.

On top of that, sea-level rise is not some even distribution around the globe, some places will get more others will get less. It's a very local phenomenon.

This is so misleading yet this level of inaccurate reporting is the basis for the current political debate.

Meta studies are to often used as political tools NOT science.

I 10 years when the climate catastrophism hopefully have subdued we will se a host of lawsuits against the words offenders of this scaremongering and "cry wolf"

Yes the climate is changing yes it's getting slightly hotter.

No there isn't any scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change we don't know how to deal with.</comment>


Fokus - new UI concept that emphasizes text-selection - <AUTHOR> http://lab.hakim.se/fokus/

<comment><USER2> Pretty sweet, although I'd prefer seeing it as an optional user agent feature than a web page feature. When reading long articles, I regularly use the text selection highlight to back-reference as I continue reading, or to mark my spot while I skim back. Obviously this breaks with a concept like Fokus.

<comment><USER3> A Fokus Chrome extension exists: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/flkkpmjbbpijiedjdg...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/flkkpmjbbpijiedjdgnhkcgopgnflehe)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am just amazed by the creativity of the author. All his projects look interesting.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice, but I _really_ like this one: <http://lab.hakim.se/meny/>

<comment><USER6> I tried Meny in my phone, using both: Dolphin and Chrome. I had problems with both. In Dolphin, sliding from the left edge makes the Bookmarks menu appear, and with Chrome that gesture makes it switch to the previous tab.

<comment><USER5> That's a problem with those browsers. They shouldn't hijack a gesture as common as "swipe".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The idea is nice. I'm one of those few geeks who actually does select text as I read it, but the implementation makes changing highlighted paragraphs non- intuitive. Re-selecting something to move doesn't seem right. This _thing_ has been created on my screen and I want to move it... maybe arrow keys, maybe clicking to where I want it to go.... click-dragging some other piece of text on the screen is just a very non-intuitive means of motion control.

</comment><comment><USER8> Neat idea, but its a bit harsh. Maybe instead of a black overlay, fade the text and images not selected to a lower opacity? Probably would be very intensive to act on all those individual elements though.

<comment><USER9> No need to do it on individual elements. If instead of the black overlay you use an semi-transparent overlay with the same color as the background behind the text/images, you will get the same effect as if you would reduce alpha on all of the text/images individually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone who compulsively text-selectors when I read, this is neat.

<comment><USER11> Neat? I thought it sucks for me for the same reason… Once I started text selecting as I usually do, it went black, then back, then black… annoying.

<comment><USER12> I agree with you, it'd drive me crazy for a long article. It would be really useful as a bookmarklet for presentations or something though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Also check out his other project: <http://rvl.io> Nice. (if it could go full screen it'd be even better)

<comment><USER14> I believe it can ! <http://lab.hakim.se/reveal-js/#/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I get

        Uncaught TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'getRangeAt'

on Chrome on Linux.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd merge some ideas here:

      - Different trigger
        Double click is too proactive, maybe a timed click
        2s + mousedown => focus.(or on drag)

      - Smooth transition between selections
        If on a focused state, don't fade in the page to fade it out entirely, or slower and darker.

Great thing though, similar to the minimalist/darkroom trend

</comment><comment><USER17> Nice idea but it doesn't work with selections that are changed using the keyboard (in Chrome on OSX). That is, if I make a selection using the mouse and then use the keyboard to alter it using Shift+Down, the focused area does not get updated and the browser continues to select text in the blacked-out area.

<comment><USER18> That's been fixed now, thanks for the heads up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Very cool. I love all the experiments on the site. Really creative stuff.

</comment><comment><USER20> This seems like it would be good for watching videos at night (if the wrapping div can be selected). Many are embedded on white pages and this would help a lot.

</comment><comment><USER21> Cool, but selecting text is awkward (especially on a MBP) and I only do it to copy/paste.

Maybe hover is a better trigger?

<comment><USER22> Single finger click and drag on the pad thing to select?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Very cool! It would be even cooler if there was some way to turn the page with highlighted text into a named anchor link.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is cool. Would love to see it as a bookmarklet.

</comment><comment><USER25> I love meny too, but fokus is not working at all on iOS - then again I have no idea of the js model on iPad.

Overall I think these just point to firefox os and chrome os as becoming the whole experience for most devices most ofbthe time.

I mean I am on paper an IT professional at the cutting edge. Most of my domestic surfing is on iOS devices in e kitchen. It is only frustrating 1/10 times</comment>


TLS certificates for home/office LAN devices (letsencrypt?) - <AUTHOR> Is there any solution at the moment for deploying arbitrary systems in a home/office LAN and giving them usable SSL/TLS certificates?  They don't have deterministic names, let alone some sort of system administrator to do the work.
An example I have seen is how plex did it - https://blog.filippo.io/how-plex-is-doing-https-for-all-its-users/ - but that solution would then have to be duplicated for each piece of hard/software.
I was hoping letsencrypt had a plan for this. <comment><USER2> I'm not aware of anything like that existing, but this would be a nice side- project.

The solution I'm thinking of - pretty much the same thing Plex is doing, but more generalized - would allow clients to register a DNS label under a generic domain (think: DynDNS) and then request certificates from Let's Encrypt for that label (or any sub-labels) using DNS-based verification. This would support something like ip.userid.example.com, which could then resolve to your router's IP (or any other LAN device).

Deployment could be completely automated behind the scenes. This could be hosted for free like various DynDNS services (possibly by Let's Encrypt), but vendors could also easily run a service like that on a custom domain for the branding effect.

<comment><AUTHOR> You seem to mostly be thinking about external access. I'm more concerned about internal LAN access, eg a printer, fridge, hifi receiver. Plex's solution of a .direct DNS domain would be a great pattern since routers etc could resolve them without even having Internet connectivity (think netgear/linksys style boxes).

There would only be Internet access needed for the intial setup to get the certificate, plus each renewal.

There is already a .local domain used by ZeroConf so maybe all this could be glued together to work?

<comment><USER2> No, this solution would work with LAN devices and internal IPs as well, although there would be some extra requirements if it needs to work without internet connectivity¹.

Some things to keep in mind:

* Publicly trusted CAs are not allowed to issue certificates for internal IPs (private network space) or internal hostnames (anything that doesn't end with an ICANN domain).

* .direct is a regular TLD; I'm not aware of anything that would make routers resolve them without internet connectivity. Plex solves this by simply replying to a query for ip.user.plex.direct with "ip".

¹ If you need offline support, or if your DNS cache refuses to accept replies with private IPs (some do, but I think you'd be fine with most SOHO devices), you'll need to manually add those hostnames to your DNS resolver or host file, or alternatively configure your router to resolve hostnames from DHCP leases (many routers do this automatically) and use your "public" DNS label as the device's hostname.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd hope that some sort of DNS namespace could be carved out with appropriate rules followed by everyone.

The automatic resolution is an optimisation I am suggesting. If ip.whatever.domain always resolves to ip then your local network infrastructure can do that without requiring external Internet connectivity at the time of resolution. You shouldn't require Internet connectivity for internal access!

<comment><USER2> The problem is that you'll still need some kind of unique "domain space", i.e. you can't have just <ip>.vendor.direct (or whatever the TLD would be), because then multiple users could get a signed certificate for the same FQDN, which would allow interesting MitM scenarios (that was one of the main motivations behind the decision to forbid CAs from issuing certificates for internal names).

Anyway, I think that the public DNS solution + DHCP hostname mapping + manual DNS configuration as a last resort would be good enough for almost every scenario I can think of.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>