Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook's hardest year, and what comes next - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/2018/4/2/17185052/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-interview-fake-news-bots-cambridge <comment><USER3> "The Myanmar issues have, I think, gotten a lot of focus inside the company. I remember, one Saturday morning, I got a phone call and we detected that people were trying to spread sensational messages through — it was Facebook Messenger in this case — to each side of the conflict, basically telling the Muslims, "Hey, there's about to be an uprising of the Buddhists, so make sure that you are armed and go to this place." And then the same thing on the other side."

Ok. So Facebook monitors Messenger (not just your public "wall" of Facebook) which has the appearance of being private person to person communication and detects that there are encouragements of violence in Myanmar (written I assume in some language other than English).

That is some impressive operation they have going on.

No wonders that the Chinese did not let get them inside their country.

<comment><USER4> The only thing I'm really amazed by is how the European countries still allow them to operate, they should be fined until they exit the market and their operation made illegal. Probably they provide sufficiently useful information to the security services that governments don't do anything. In effect they are a privatised Stasi.

<comment><USER5> I don't think European people are OK with their politicians taking Facebook from them.

<comment><USER4> Nothing that can't be fixed by a bit of Psi Ops. Pretty much none of the traditional media companies like Facebook and in most of Europe at least one TV station per country is state controlled. So all that needs to happen is ~6-12 months of negative press in the tabloids and constant negative coverage in national television. I think that could easily be arranged.

To paint a picture here are some headlines by BILD (largest German tabloid):

"ZUCKERBERG SCANDAL: So verdient Facebook mit Ihren Daten Geld", (ZUCKERBERG SCANDAL: This is how Facebook earns money with your data), article based on a report by German national television (ZDF)

""SCHADEN FÜR DIE DEMOKRATIE" 60 Prozent der Deutschen fürchten Facebook" (DAMAGE TO DEMOCRACY, 60 Percent of Germans fear Facebook)

<comment><USER6> Not that I feel strongly either way, but deliberately advocating for a strong, centralized, negative propaganda campaign against a company you don't like doesn't seem ethical to me.

<comment><USER7> Seems totally ethical to me IFF you don't make stuff up. In fact, if you can drive a strong, negative campaign solely with actual facts, I find it imperative to do so.

Then again, you did say "propaganda" campaign, so I guess there was your assumption of dishonesty.

<comment><USER6> I think you're well meaning here, but I have two points in reaction:

1) "...[E]thical to me IFF you don't make stuff up." I think you can have propaganda that uses only facts, but in a disingenuous manner. You just don't mention _all_ the facts, and/or put a lens on the wrong perspective. Is that "dishonest?" I'm not sure - maybe a misinterpretation?.

As an example, you can see this all the time with the arguments against global warming: "some studies show that temperatures are not increasing." If you look hard enough, you'll find data points and/or papers that argue against global warming, but they're a very very minor # of studies, that it's not a fair perspective or lens on the arguement.

2) "I find it imperative to do so." I am not a Facebook fan-person by any means, but I'm not sure I find it morally _imperative_ that folks rally against what they are doing. I have a hard time believing that the 1000's of employees that work there are all evil people, but rather the majority are probably well-intentioned and may just need a correction of direction. Can I prove this? No, but if they were, say, selling nukes to ISIS or something at that level, then I might agree with you a bit more.

<comment><USER7> As I said: "propaganda" brings a whole set of assumptions to the table. My point was that if you can sustain a campaign (not propaganda campaign, i.e. just a real strong case) then you should, because that means there is a genuine problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm just so done with Facebook. I know this is said time and time again here on HN but Facebook (and google) provide a lot of stress to me for little value in return. The majority of the stress comes from always having to be "on" and watching for some ambiguously worded pop up, or constantly changing privacy settings, or tracking pixels around the net. I spend more energy trying to run away from fb and google then I so using their service. It's constant and fatiguing.

<comment><USER9> Abstinence does little to help the masses who are still using it. We need good regulation and laws to make it decent, not just abandon our friends and family on it who may not be as aware of the perils

<comment><USER8> I agree with you on that. A service such as social media (the connecting part, not the advertising part) could easily be seen as a necessary service being that we are all social creatures by design. But at this point in time it's a massive Wild West where the laws haven't been able to keep up with the advances in tech. So now we are stuck in this situation where every step you take is one in which you have to be very careful if you don't want to have your personal habits exploited against you. The truth is I have been doing my best to educate the people close to me but up until very recently, with the Facebook scandals, it all fell on deaf ears. And maybe that's another reason why I do find it so unnerving, as people are aware of these things going on but either don't care enough and in some cases fully support their extremely private data being used on them for advertising. It's also very conflicting because in this day and age of big data, real change could be made but all we seem to hear and experience is the opposite of positive change in this era. (I'm not normally this much of a negative guy but this topic specifically makes me feel very powerless)

<comment><USER9> The European laws are actually having an effect. Provided we can get the old hats in Congress to understand the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten, we may be able to curb the tide of mass surveillance that's currently being exploited to make more money and sell more goods

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I want a journalist to ask him what he thinks about the age of post-privacy now, especially regarding his own privacy. But probably they are all scared to cross him - Facebook is too powerful.

<comment><USER11> Here's what he thinks of privacy: he had his own private paramilitary / police force de facto arrest and detain a photographer on a public California road. The photographer was taken to Facebook HQ for interrogation:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5563325/Mark- Zuckerb...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5563325/Mark-Zuckerberg- hypocrite-photographer-breached-CEOs-privacy.html)

<comment><USER12> > Here's what he thinks of privacy: he had his own private paramilitary / > police force de facto arrest and detain a photographer on a public > California road. The photographer was taken to Facebook HQ for > interrogation:

> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5563325/Mark- > Zuckerb...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5563325/Mark-Zuckerb..).

Why inflate what actually happened that much? Checked you on that statement, and even the daily mail article just mentioned it was a security guard who told the photographer to go to HQ, where he was met by two executives. No 'paramilitary force'...

I like neither the company nor the person, but please don't spread false information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This was a good interview to listen to and Ezra Klein asked some good questions. Unfortunately Zuckerberg's answers weren't satisfactory.

Responding to Tim Cook:

>You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth. The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people.

>That doesn't mean that we're not primarily focused on serving people. I think probably to the dissatisfaction of our sales team here, I make all of our decisions based on what's going to matter to our community and focus much less on the advertising side of the business.

>But if you want to build a service which is not just serving rich people, then you need to have something that people can afford. I thought Jeff Bezos had an excellent saying on this in one of his Kindle launches a number of years back. He said, "There are companies that work hard to charge you more, and there are companies that work hard to charge you less." And at Facebook, we are squarely in the camp of the companies that work hard to charge you less and provide a free service that everyone can use.

>I don't think at all that that means that we don't care about people. To the contrary, I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you. Because that sounds ridiculous to me.

The fact is advertising business models, like Facebook, have inherent conflicts that Apple doesn't have. Paying directly for a product that you're going to use creates a beautiful alignment of interests. Even Microsoft wasn't as beautifully aligned as Apple was/is because Windows was sold to CIOs and IT departments and not the person who was going to actually use it.

"Apple is for rich people" would have been excellent jujtsu if not for that leaked memo, at least rhetorically. Unfortunately that memo laid bare for everyone to see exactly what Facebook as an organization and a culture prioritizes, and reveals that all of Facebook's public statements made after privacy scandals over the years, as well as Zuckerberg's protestations that he cares about the user over "connecting the world" (euphemism for increasing engagement and thus ad growth), were complete bullshit. Ezra refers to Tristan Harris' comment that Zuckerberg couldn't do anything that decreased engagement by 50%, which is completely right and zeros right in on that inherent conflict in ad business models.

On the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar and Facebook's role (I'm going to quote Ezra because Mark's answer is garbage and a complete dodge):

>One of the scary stories I've read about Facebook over the past year is that it had become a real source of anti-Rohingya propaganda in Myanmar, and thus become part of an ethnic cleansing. Phil Robertson, who's a deputy director of Human Rights Watch in Asia, made the point that Facebook is dominant for news information in Myanmar but Myanmar is not an incredibly important market for Facebook. It doesn't get the attention we give things that go wrong in America. I doubt you have a proportionate amount of staff in Myanmar to what you have in America. And he said the result is you end up being like "an absentee landlord" in Southeast Asia.

>Is Facebook too big to manage its global scale in some of these other countries, the ones we don't always talk about in this conversation, effectively?

This gets to the heart of the matter. Facebook (and Google with YouTube) are just too big for them to even grasp what's going on on their platforms. "Absentee landlord" is such an apt way to put it. These companies sneeze and the ripples are massively world changing, from election meddling to fucking ethnic cleansing.

The only real solution to this is regulation on a global scale. Antitrust, privacy regulation, Germany's hate speech law applying to social networks (this won't happen in the US for obvious reasons); all of it has to be on the table.

<comment><USER14> Facebook reminds me of the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - <USER2> story of the utopian city whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.

At its heart, Facebook can't be honest with what it is. Mark Zuckerberg can't admit to himself that what's good for Facebook is bad for society. That's why he says a lot about "community" and "connection" but never talks about advertising or monetization. Look at his updates - they never talk about the billions of dollars they make (money talk - that's taboo!)

Facebook doesn't make money via advertising. Advertising is a billboard, or a TV commercial. Facebook makes money by selling your private data (oh you're showing signs of depression - try some prozac!). Facebook is a surveillance operation in a way that traditional advertising isn't.

I have a friend who worked on the newsfeed team at Facebook. Nice guy. Smart guy. But he's unable to consider the broader ethical implications of what he's doing. In the Facebook paradigm more engagement = good.

Facebook has contempt for the general public, and for that reason deserves contempt from the general public.

<comment><USER15> Facebook for the most part doesn't sell your data. They sell advertising. They tell you, "If you want to put a billboard for Prozac in front of depressed people, we'll do that for you." But they won't tell you who's depressed and let you do it yourself.

There have been exceptions, but they are broadly speaking either from years ago, or were mistakes in the first place. Facebook is generally uninterested in giving away your information -- that is, after all, a big chunk of what makes them valuable. If everyone had the same information, they wouldn't be as able to sell ads.

<comment><USER16> What is the difference between an ad and abusing somebody who is in a weak position? There is a difference and targeted ads are dancing on that line, if you don't see this you should read on how people get recruited to sects. They don't advertise, they target people who can be easily be taken advantage of based on their behavior or emotions. I'm not saying it's wrong but there should be a limit on how and what can you target with ads or at least be transparent about it. "We have classified you as depressed" and see if users are happy about it.

<comment><USER17> I think the people selling anti-depressants would see themselves at helping the person in a weak position, since the medicine could potentially relieve them of some or all symptoms. The line of "abuse" is very hard to draw when someone is willingly buying and using a product designed to have value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To the people that think Facebook is going to go away you are are in for a rude awakening. The fossil industry has been poisoning people and doing dirty tricks for decades have they gone away? Ultimately they were required for the nation. As the fossil industry loses strength over the coming decades they will be replaced by the tech giants. The tech giants will get regulated but the will never go away. The country needs them. They generate too much GDP.

</comment><comment><USER19> Respect people's privacy, not sell their information to the highest bidder, not spy on private conversations?

No? I'm still out, then. Good riddance.

</comment><comment><USER20> > "We will dig through this hole, but it will take a few years."

I think that pretty much sums it up.

</comment><comment><USER21> >That doesn't mean that we're not primarily focused on serving people. I think probably to the dissatisfaction of our sales team here, I make all of our decisions based on what's going to matter to our community and focus much less on the advertising side of the business.

When you use the word "community" to describe a user base of 2 billion people you've stretched the word beyond all sense or recognition.

</comment><comment><USER22> "The second category is state actors. That's basically the Russian interference effort. And that is a security problem. You never fully solve it, but you strengthen your defenses. You get rid of the fake accounts and the tools that they have."

Frankly, this is a weak answer. They don't have a good solution and this approach is not going to prevent it from happening in future elections.

</comment><comment><USER23> You know what comes next - some other scandal from some other area of the economy (like the financial markets melting down again) and the vast majority of people move on from this and continue using Facebook as they always have. The only reason these issues are getting so much attention is because the mass media is over-clocking their coverage and it's in everyone's face right now. I suspect the media is using the same fear mongering tactics the alt-right typically employs for more hits and increased ad revenue - i.e. "Hey everyone, Facebook has used your private data to elect Trump!"

Does anything Facebook (or third party companies) do with your private data actually have an impact in the day to day lives of the vast majority of the world's population? Sure, hyper-targeted advertising and echo-chamber content curation can have a negative impact to society, but these are macro issues. People will generally follow the path of least resistance and if you give them something of high utility for no cost and no immediate negative impact to their daily lives, they will conveniently ignore many serious issues that should otherwise be concerning.

<comment><USER24> Influencing elections would affect quite a number of people. When its the US elections, then it likely does have an impact on the rest of the world.

<comment><USER23> Even the election of a US President you are viscerally opposed to doesn't usually change long term behavior. What percentage of people that are absolutely appalled at the election of Trump have adjusted their daily lives to make a change - e.g. regularly volunteering for a political cause/candidate (rage tweeting doesn't count)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Good thing he decided to finally start doing is job as a new year's resolution: [https://work.qz.com/1171876/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerbergs- ne...](https://work.qz.com/1171876/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerbergs-new-years- resolution-is-to-do-his-job/)

</comment><comment><USER26> "One thing that's very notable is, they agreed to do all this stuff back in 2011, and it looks like they didn't live up to the promises then. So the question is, _what makes us believe them now_?

...

Yes, I mean, that's the problem, is that _they keep saying this, but, you know, there 's this recidivism problem_. They keep not really doing anything.

And I think that the problem is that their model depends on accumulating data and giving it to advertisers. And anything that comes close to threatening that business model, they don't really seem that interested in doing something _serious_ about it.

...

You know, I understand that, but _I think the time of "trust us" has got to be over._

...

You know, the - fundamentally, Facebook is a surveillance machine. They get as much data as they can, and they _promise advertisers_ that they're able to manipulate us, and that is at the core. And so, you know, they started this by saying, well, this wasn't really a data breach, this is our normal business model, which I think should tell you something, and _then later said, well, it 's not so great_, and so forth.

But they're really showing an _unwillingness to do something more serious_ about this problem. And _it keeps happening over and over again_.

...

There is just something not right here with this company and their _unwillingness to come clean_. And I think that the idea, well, just trust because Zuckerberg wrote a message on Facebook, that _everything is going to be fine_ is really something government investigators cannot trust.

...

And once again, I think the concern in Facebook's heart is that, at some point, this will hurt their advertising revenue and the _promises they have made investors_. And so they're unwilling to take _serious steps_.

...

And I think the fundamental problem is, they're all dependent on this _pure advertising_ model, you know, nothing but trying to get as much data out of us and sell as much as they can of our time and attention to other people.

And that just leads in very dark directions."

Source:

Tim Wu

[https://www.npr.org/2018/03/30/598208043/should-facebook- use...](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/30/598208043/should-facebook-users-trust- ceo-mark-zuckerbergs-apologetic-tone)

"You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the _truth_.

The reality here is that if you want to build a service that helps connect everyone in the world, then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the _only rational model_ that can support building this service to reach people.

...

I think now people are appropriately focused on some of the risks and downsides as well. And I think we were too slow in investing enough in that. _It 's not like we did nothing._ I mean, _at the beginning of last year_ , I think we had 10,000 people working on security. But by the end of this year, we're going to have 20,000 people working on security.

[ __% of total headcount at Facebook ]

In terms of resolving a lot of these issues, I _think_ it's just a case where because we didn't invest enough, I _think_ we will dig through this hole, but it will take a few years. I _wish_ I could solve all these issues in three months or six months, _but_ I just think the reality is that solving some of these questions is just going to take a longer period of time.

Now, _the good news there is_ that we really started investing more, at least a year ago. So _if_ it's going to be a three-year process, then I think we're about a year in already. And hopefully, by the end of this year, we'll have really started to turn the corner on some of these issues."

</comment><comment><USER27> Hardest year so far. The year isn't over.</comment>


People Don't Need Another Mobile App - <AUTHOR> https://latenightcoding.co/whats-the-point-in-building-a-mobile-app/ <comment><USER2> This article does address some common hurdles in onboarding that, in most cases, shouldn't be there - like push notifications permissions.

But I usually find myself talking people out of getting an app made, versus a mobile-friendly website, unless all of the following are true:

\- Your users would be able to access and use mobile apps on their devices.

\- Your competitors' apps are getting a lot of use (or you have no competitors).

\- Your app would have key functionality (not just nice-to-have features) and benefits that a mobile website couldn't provide.

\- You've verified that people need this key functionality via rigorous user research. (Asking loaded questions, like "This would be a good app, right?", is a trap. Don't do it!)

\- Your user research has shown that your customers would be convinced that they should use an app for this. If it's a tough sell, take the website / web app route instead.

According to an article I saw in Recode last year, around half of mobile users no longer download a new app in a typical month.</comment>


Ask HN: As a team, how do you organize your KB/documents? - <AUTHOR>

What kind of tools are you using to store your shared documents & collaborate with your team?<p>I have a pretty bad experience of using Wikis, which are most of the time out-dated. Trello's lists appears to be too limited. And simple Dropbox/GDrive shared folders' hierarchy lack of homepage/cross-reference/UI. <comment><USER2> Generally, a wiki, usually (though not always) internal / accessible via VPN, though increasingly publicly hosted.

I've used, implemented, and/or administered: Twiki, Atlassian Confluence, Mediawiki (the Wikipedia engine), and others. My general preference is for tools which are already well known and supported, with Mediawiki scoring well on these grounds.

 _Simply accumulating documents does not constitute a knowledgebase._

The biggest problem is that information ages, it's hard to correlate with other information (so your KB becomes inconsistent over time), and you _need_ to edit, prune, and review. _Failures of KBs to remain current indicate a problem of_ process _not of_ tools, _and must be remedied by changes to process, not tools._

I'm increasingly partial to systems which support creation of a book-type document, rather than merely an accumulation of articles (though there may be a place for both). In particular, a lightweight markup (my preferences are LaTeX or Markdown), a solid outline, and a regular review process, are probably a best-practice approach to this specific problem.

What I'd really like to see is a system which marries such an approach with conversations (effectively: a mailing list) and issue tracking (BTS or similar), and which allow for publishing a specific point-in-time document with revision control: PDF, HTML, ePub, etc. The latter are particularly useful as they allow for creating and distributing offline copies of documentation which can prove useful in circumstances in which online access isn't available or convenient (e.g., the server / colo / network has melted down).

</comment><comment><USER3> Google sites can work well, especially if you use Google docs. You can customize the UI to suit your needs, and organize into any kind of hierarchy you want. If your team is working with Gdocs for their actual day to day, the site content can update as they do it (almost), so eliminates the issue of a dead zone wiki. There are a lot of widgets available, so pretty easy to get a 1st version up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sharepoint. It creates internal web sites much the same way that MS Word emits concise, elegant html.

Ugh.

</comment><comment><USER5> I create "intranets" (they are on the internet technically) for my teams using google sites. Its easy and have found it fairly easy to maintain permissions and manage the content.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you use a database when prototyping a web application? - <AUTHOR> I wonder how other HN users approach data storage when iterating on a web application product early in its development. Please share your approach here.<p>To elaborate on the question in the title:<p>* Do you use a "traditional" SQL database like Postgres or MySQL and deal with schema migrations from the start? Do you keep your data denormalized (e.g., as JSON in Postgres) until a certain point in the development process?<p>* Do you use a NoSQL database like Mongo? If so, do you then keep it or do you migrate to SQL?<p>* Do you go with a BaaS?<p>* Do you avoid a database altogether and store your data as flat files? <comment><USER2> tldr; I use a nosql db because you don't need to worry about schema which should give you an initial iteration speed boost, but the database type should be decided based on the data. In the SQL case, you should decide on a migration technology sooner rather than later. Either way, keep good schema documentation (if it's not already in code).

DISCLAIMER: I'm highly partial to rethinkdb ([http://rethinkdb.com/](http://rethinkdb.com/)), though I think I have good reasons

\- Since I find document stores a little easier to setup/work with (especially when they have nice convenient web UIs built in) I've often started with those. The obvious benefit is letting your schema change while you prototype the application. You could easily do this also with JSON in Postgres obviously, but I find the web interface/ease of use that databases like rethinkdb ([http://rethinkdb.com/](http://rethinkdb.com/)) offer to be refreshing.

\- When you decide what database you should use in production, it should be based on the data. Note that most document stores are not actually "schema- less", it's just up to you to properly interact with the tens of schemas that are true at any one point in time. A sane set up will often have the schema documented somewhere.

I find myself writing documentation in files like SCHEMA.md (sometimes in it's own folder with a file for each actual model/collection), if I use a NoSQL database.

If you find that a relational model fits your data best (if your data is highly relational, and very inter-connected -- a lot can be said about when you should use a relational db vs a non-relational one), then I would still suggest documenting your schema, and picking a migration strategy BEFORE you start. Find what technology you're going to use to migrate your database, and start using it from day 1.

\- If you you are rapidly prototyping, it might slow you down to add a BaaS. At least I've found that it's really easy for me to download the binary for a database I want to use, run the binary, connect to it in code.

\- Many frameworks start you out with using an on-disk SQLite database (django, rails). If you mean like an actual flat text file, it really depends on the guarantees you want out of your database. If you are writing a highly functionally-minded app, and know that you are going to essentially keep a append-only log of what's happening, a flat file might be all you need (and of course, you'll need some locking if you want to do more than one thing at a time to the file)</comment>


I wish this was hosted at hackernews.com - <AUTHOR>

I always type in hackernews.com only to find some weird blog. I wonder how much traffic that guy is getting, anyone else fall into this trap? <comment><USER2> If CloudFlare didn't prevent it you could just edit your host file on Windows to make hackernews.com pull from the (real) Hacker News IP Address

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://hackerne.ws](http://hackerne.ws)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wahoo thanks!</comment></comment>


Charles Van Doren, Contestant in Quiz-Show Scandal, Dies at 93 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/charles-van-doren-contestant-in-quiz-show-scandal-dies-at-93 <comment><USER2> RIP. Some benedictions, in the form of his brother's timeless voice ;)

[https://folkways.si.edu/mark-van-doren/reads-from-his- collec...](https://folkways.si.edu/mark-van-doren/reads-from-his-collected- and-new-poems/poetry/album/smithsonian)</comment>


Why the Assholes Are Winning: Money Trumps All - <AUTHOR> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.12177/full <comment><USER3> Agreed. Whenever I hear some big successful entrepreneur saying how everything is better now then it used to be (and sincerely believe this to be the case) - They are proving themselves to be completely out of touch with reality.

Sure, today's working class can get access to more goods and services than ever before but when it comes to things that actually matter like our time and our ability to feel fulfilled in our work; we have never been so poor.

People today are unhappy. Our working conditions are deteriorating and we are starting to feel like slaves. Our rents or mortgages are massive and we cannot afford to lose our jobs. People are no longer allowed to be themselves because saying the wrong thing to the wrong person might have serious negative repercussions for their careers and livelihoods. People are turning to video games and drugs to give themselves the feeling of fulfilment that they desperately need.

Based on US statistics I'm like in the top 5% of household income bracket but I feel like a slave at work - I seriously wonder how people in the bottom 95% must feel!

The distribution of income seems so unnatural: [http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income- rank/](http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/) I bet the distribution of wealth is even worse.

<comment><USER4> _> Our working conditions are deteriorating_

My paternal grandfather, in common with many of his generation was sent to work in a coal mine at the age of 14. Had he not died from a dust induced respiratory disease a few years back I can well imagine him dying from laughter on reading such a ridiculous statement.

<comment><USER5> Todays work places are nearly devoid of physical risks and yet rife with psychological and spiritual ones. Sure, RSI maybe the biggest physical risk. But think of the damage caused by unkind work environments, constant fear of losing one's job, the demand to work 45,55,or 65+ hours per week. Having to work those hours despite the research indicating its idiotic. etc. etc.

People are unhappy because their workplace (and maybe society in generaly) is full of happiness landmines that didnt exist before.

<comment><USER4> You're right of course, silly me. Stupid things like being surrounded by things exploding and the constant possibility of being trapped underground in complete darkness with no possibility of rescue just pale in comparison to your 40 hours in an office with distasteful wallpaper. The horror.

Happiness land mine wise, I am deeply unconvinced. Nothing new under the sun in that department.

<comment><USER6> Being facetious doesn't advance your argument. You are of course right that appalling working conditions are not new. The labor movement was a response that such conditions. But the key point being made is not that conditions today are in all regards worse than all conditions in the past but rather that despite all our much vaunted progress and productivity gains many people don't experience the benefits and are in fact working in toxic work conditions that are profoundly stressful. And that point is, I believe, not especially difficult to substantiate.

<comment><USER7> I'd agree, but a common doom-mongering narrative is "things are worse than they used to be and they're getting ever worse!"

Very few people say "the present has a number of trade-offs that's arguably not much better or about as bad as the past." That said, I think a lot of the gains are invisible to white professional class heterosexual secular/christian males, which is part of the problem.

As a pure issue of labor, the average work conditions are probably the same or worse than in 1970 and purchasing power is about the same. Both of those are bad things that need to change, but there are vast cultural and technological improvements that often get diminished, and I think the comment above is a pushback against that, which does advance their argument.

If you only identify with the historically most privileged group, a lot of the advantages like "not being provided with inferior safety equipment because of your race" or "living in constant fear of your career being destroyed because of your sexuality" don't seem very important. What seems "toxic" to the most privileged group can seem like "acceptable tradeoffs" to other groups, and this also speaks to the attitudes of many immigrants and H1-B employees.

<comment><USER8> In 1900 you would not just have been fired for different sexuality or skin color. The consequences would have been worse.

Racism in any period in time other than today was far, far worse. Not just, of course, for non-whites in Europe. What were the survival chances of a lone white man in Moorish Spain ? Not good. In India ? You would have been attacked and killed because you were probably trading goods they could steal. Africa ? Same. Japan ? It was illegal for foreigners to be in Japan, punishable by death, before the Meji restauration.

Especially for minorities today's living conditions are amongst the best that have ever existed. Even today's Saudi Arabia is more tolerant of women and homosexuals, and especially much more tolerant of black/otherwise different ethnical people, than the Ottoman empire was 100 years ago. Yes, they kill them, however they don't publicly torture them first anymore.

Racism is not something that's new or unique to our portion of history. It is a constant throughout the entire history of the world that not being part of the majority ethnicity was very, very bad for you, with few exceptions, like the Roman Empire.

I think you're on the right track with the second part of your argument though. Working conditions for the middle class today have, imho, clearly deteriorated compared to 10-20 years ago (depending on whether you're talking Europe/America/Asia and which "class"). This is a constant across most (all ?) of the world, and certainly seems to be getting worse. And there is an exception : China, although that's begun to deteriorate as well. India still seems to be moving forward. But today's level in the west is still at 1980-1990 level conditions, no worse. Compared to before that, we've still advanced. But a hell of a lot of middle class people were better off in 2000 than today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord One of the great ironies of contemporary left-leaning commentators is that despite their insistence on paying attention to institutional factors that others allegedly neglect (see how Pfeffer constructs the popular but false dichotomy of "self-interest and profit maximization" versus "human well-being, longevity and happiness"), they are largely stuck in thinking in terms of the very same institutions they abhor. Effectively, the current approach is mostly fine, it just needs a few tweaks and reforms to turn it into a "social democracy".

If money is the problem, then the solution is not to engage in petty social democratic welfare reforms, but to end the monopoly on currency and allow for communities and individuals to coordinate savings-investment decisions and account for their local capital using the denomination of currency that they have decided to create. This is the mutual credit solution as advocated by 19th century anarchists and a minority of monetary reformers since then.

Pfeffer quotes Article 23 on the "right to work," and indeed full employment has always been a bizarre fetish for Keynesians, social democrats, Marxists _and_ conservatives. The Protestant work ethic is the right-wing version of the labor theory of value. It is a contradiction how so many bemoan the supposed rat race working conditions and then advocate the "solution" of having the state put everyone into the rat race through full employment policy. Nowhere have I seen any social democratic reformer argue for artisanal crafts and decentralized governance. It's always more and more massive centralization. I will note it was the mercantilists who first provided economic rationales for full employment. And they went to great lengths to achieve it: anti-vagrancy and poor laws to forcefully turn people into serfs. The current proposals are more humane, but borne of the same logic of "to live is to toil".

I will also note that a reason why formal models haven't focused that much on things like subjective utility and happiness is because those suffer from intractable aggregation problems. It's easy to speak of the "public interest" in colloquial language, it is brutally difficult to model and quantify it, actually drawing the line of how far it extends. Then, of course, interpersonal comparison of utility is fraught with issues because there is no measurement of utility as such. Robert Nozick's thought experiments have been good at illustrating this.

This trite paternalistic reformism leads nowhere except to further exacerbation of instability.

<comment><USER9> >Pfeffer quotes Article 23 on the "right to work," and indeed full employment has always been a bizarre fetish for Keynesians, social democrats, Marxists and conservatives. The Protestant work ethic is the right-wing version of the labor theory of value. It is a contradiction how so many bemoan the supposed rat race working conditions and then advocate the "solution" of having the state put everyone into the rat race through full employment policy.

There's a _really_ banal reason for this. The vast majority of people want jobs.

In Argentina when they implemented an incredibly popular "right to a job" scheme (Plan Jefes) and then replaced it with basic income (i.e. get the same money but you don't have to turn up to work), a majority continued to do their jobs.

It helped that the jobs that the state were paying them to do were, by and large, necessary and rewarding - looking after the elderly, etc. I doubt if the work they were doing were debt collection or cold calling to sell insurance they'd have wanted to continue working.

<comment><USER10> > The vast majority of people want jobs.

only as a proxy for security

<comment><USER11> I'm a big fan of animalistic reductionism, for personal reasons. And that perspective tells me, from looking at the way well trained and motivated dogs perform tasks, that socialized sentient beings do appreciate being helpful and useful. Also, being an arm chair evolutionary psychologist, I can easily speculate that a species with this trait would continue better than a similar species without that trait. A bit like the aesop fable of the ants and the grasshopper.

And also personally I get a good old dopamine kick out of solving problems in a group. It may be that I'm socialized to behave that way. But then again a culture that ingrains that kind of behaviour... (see above).

<comment><USER12> There are plenty of not so well trained dogs that just do as they please as well.

<comment><USER11> Very true. And there in lies the problem of socialism / communism / guaranteed income. What do you do with the freeloaders? If the basics of life are free, why do anything extra? It creates an economic drag, like physical drag on a wing. Then again Whales have bumpy features on their fins that actually help them reduce drag, kinda like dimples on a golf ball.

[http://www.gizmag.com/bumpy-whale-fins-set-to-spark-a- revolu...](http://www.gizmag.com/bumpy-whale-fins-set-to-spark-a-revolution- in-aerodynamics/9020/)

And then again I'm of the firm belief that parasitism is a basic feature of complex reproducing systems. So, the solution is more of a process, an arms race, than a destination or closed end solution.

[http://infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getalife/coretierra....](http://infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getalife/coretierra.html)

<comment><USER10> There are no freeloaders in a basic income society

<comment><USER11> Then what do you call able bodied people who choose not to contribute, but instead choose to live at the most basic means? That's the very definition of freeloading to me.

freeload - intransitive verb:

to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Age adjusted mortality rates have declined 60% over the past 75 years courtesy of those "assholes" in health care, pharmaceuticals and Wall Street who financed them. (Source: CDC)

College enrollment has increased by more than 1000% and graduation rates have increased by 10% thanks to those "assholes" who run colleges and those "jerks" who underwrite college loans. (US Census)

Those "assholes" in the environmental industry and their "criminal" counterparts in government have cut by about 2/3 air pollution in the US since 1900, while the population has exploded. (US EPA).

Progressives have an important role to play in demonizing business, finance and government. It gets the ball rolling for reform that sometimes creates new businesses. Thank you progressives.

They don't know when to stop and the hysteria/drama engine chugs along causing government to over-reach with feel good legislation and regulation & boondoggles that rob the treasury and business of funds needed to train, hire and maintain a vibrant work force... of good paying jobs... not retail and fast food gigs.

<comment><USER14> That's interesting how the profit seekers get all credit, but you leave out things like public education that train the professionals and do much of the research.

Also interesting how you think in binary, things are either good or bad, assholes or saints. Could it be that some good can come from more access to college, while other negative effects like administrators taking advantage of unlimited financing to naive students that results in crippling lifetime debt happen at the same time?

<comment><USER15> Public education does little to train the professionals or do the research. I went to a major public research university. 20% of our budget came from the state. All of the research and innovation was done pursuant to grants and contracts, many of them related to defense. The educational system is _not_ effective in doing research. The military/industrial/educational complex is incredibly effective at doing research.

<comment><USER16> > The educational system is not effective in doing research. The > military/industrial/educational complex is incredibly effective at doing > research

At the end of the day it's still the same academicians doing the work at these institutions, regardless of the funding source. If the DOD has more success than the NIH for example in funding good research, it's probably because their budget is literally 20 times bigger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Actually, the assholes are winning because they're willing to cheat.

There's a thought experiment called the "Prisoner's Dilemma": two people are caught robbing a bank, and are taken to separate interrogation rooms; they can either rat their "friend" out or stay silent. If they both keep their mouths shut, they both take a short sentence; if one talks and the other doesn't, the rat goes free and the other guy gets a big sentence; if they both talk they both get a mid-range sentence.

The people who play this game can be neatly divided into the ones who play for the minimum jail time, and the ones who play to build trust with their friend.

Now imagine that, instead of reducing your jail time, screwing your neighbor nets you a few thousand dollars.

<comment><USER18> So running a successful business means you are 'screwi ng your neighbor' now?

<comment><USER17> Nah, more like screwing your neighbor makes running your business a bit easier.

<comment><USER19> Have you ever run a business?

<comment><USER17> No, but as I understand it, much of the "screw your neighbor" is things like "use low-end materials", "hold features out until the now iPhone release", or even "increase prices in current territory instead of expanding".

All of those, on some level, are affecting the consumer negatively for profit. They all fail in the long term, but are less expensive in the short term, making business easy for the people who can't run a business to save their life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seems a bit circular. When you define winning as having the most money, then go on to conclude that money trumps all, you're not saying a whole lot.

</comment><comment><USER21> Poor article. Read "Assholes, a Theory"[1] for a serious look at the subject. This focuses on why society rewards assholes. That book makes the case that denial of reality and violating certain other social norms yields social advancement.

For a non-serious look at the subject read "TFM - Total Frat Move".[2] This is a very light book, but it captures the fraternity mindset at a party school. The frat is a training ground for assholes. The important item is in the introduction: "All but two US presidents since 1825, 76 percent of the U.S. Senate, most high-level executives, and all of the Apollo 11 astronauts were in fraternities."

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Assholes-A-Theory-Aaron- James/dp/08041...](http://www.amazon.com/Assholes-A-Theory-Aaron- James/dp/0804171351) [2] [http://www.amazon.com/Total-Frat-Move-W- Bolen/dp/1455515035](http://www.amazon.com/Total-Frat-Move-W- Bolen/dp/1455515035)

<comment><USER22> Those US Presidents didn't go to party schools. They were in different kind of fraternities.

<comment><USER21> DKE, five presidents, including both Bushes. Even the Yale Herald says DKE at Yale is a party frat.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Kappa_Epsilon#Controvers...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Kappa_Epsilon#Controversy) [2] [http://yaleherald.com/sports/bros-booze-and-balls-why- yale-a...](http://yaleherald.com/sports/bros-booze-and-balls-why-yale- athletes-join-frats/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> That is a terrible title to use for that essay.

I'm guessing most people didn't read it through, everything was well written, cited and not vulgar. Ultimately it touches that we need to adjust our values as a society and move away from just raw wealth to more intangible things that are not currently modeled effectively in economics. Things like family, community, feelings of respect and dignity for your self and others.

The title might be off putting but the content of the essay is solid

</comment><comment><USER24> Someone could, perhaps, simply _ask_ Jeff Bezos to create and maintain a sustainable healthy working environment throughout his company, based on metrics such as days called in sick, workplace accidents etc. Or perhaps we need more regulation demanding such.

</comment><comment><USER25> Bit of a clickbait title.

His conclusion seems to be that in discussions of things like Obamacare, the gig economy and Greek austerity people don't focus on the human impact as much as he'd like them to. Which is fair enough I guess but doesn't really justify the title.

<comment><USER22> See _Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered"

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both._ \-- Machiavelli

"The prince" is the best book I ever read on business.

</comment><comment><USER27> Humanity is the species that will never stop producing psychos who will throw people under the bus to get ahead. Moloch does it.

</comment><comment><USER28> Assholes always win, because people who don't win consider the winners assholes. It's a tautology of human nature.

<comment><USER29> I'll assume that you just read the headline, since the article basically posits exactly the opposite of what you claim. Your claim would make sense, but what we find in the wild is that outrageously bad behavior is ignored or explained away when the actor is sufficiently rich or successful.

<comment><USER30> Think about the press. How often do you see "joe schmoe did something stupid" vs "celebrity did something stupid"?

Now, if you are rich and powerful, but not enough so to be famous, then I could see your point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "Vulgar Marxism explains 90% of what goes on in the world." -Bob Fitch

</comment><comment><USER32> If you think about it, the more money you have, it means you've extracted money from more people.

More wealth means you've taken more from more people.

It also means you didn't have to take quite that much but that is a different argument.

I also laugh at how people think we won't have to work someday because robots and automation. Who do you think is going to own all those extremely expensive robots? People with the most money who've taken it from the most people. Certainly not the average person. Now where are you going to get your money?

<comment><USER33> That's the zero sum theory. Fortunately, it's false, and easily shown to be false. If a famous artist sits down and paints a picture, he creates wealth. It is not taken from anyone.

<comment><USER34> Is this actually true if, instead of saying the context is an artist in a room, the context is an artist on planet earth? A man has to eat, where did that energy come from? It definitely wasn't free, popped out of thin air. I'd say until we have a much more advanced handle on the application of physics, wealth is taken from others (and I'm not saying that's wrong persay, it's impossible currently to have it any other way).

Having said that, it's all too easy to find instances of wealth 'created' on the backs of other people, or on the back of natural resources that will run out. I've seen way too many people with college educations get taken advantage of, fresh out of school, just because the employer could. Why not?

<comment><USER35> Your musing poses an interesting question. But I'm writing just against the bit where you say we should default to accepting the zero-sum perspective given a lack of understanding of physics.

The evidence against the zero-sum perspective of wealth is overwhelming.

You can go and harvest the wheat. Or, you can let the wheat rot, and spend your day digging a hole and filling it in. Same energy spent. One creates value, the other doesn't.

You can light the gas under your stove, or you can set your curtains on fire. One destroys value at speed, the other doesn't.

You can sew something with a needle and thread. Or you can use a hand-wound sewing machine you inherited from a relative. Same outcome, one is far more energy-expensive than the other.

<comment><USER36> Indeed. This is the essential difference between capitalism and corporatism (sometimes called crony capitalism). Corporatism is insidious. It enables established players to control markets by manipulating regulations through political favors and disabling competitors through predatory positioning or pricing. It's very unfortunate that many people (including myself in the past) throw out the entire history of prosperity building that capitalism has enabled by conflating it with corporatism. Much of the sentiment driving the distaste for disruptive innovation thinking it will cause a race to the bottom directly supports incumbent large corporations and corporatism. It's easy to fall prey to this, because the narrative can easily have compelling stories of the human harm caused by technical innovation.

<comment><USER35> Right - there's a tendency to see bad things that are done in crony capitalism, and then - in reaction to that - to entrench at the zero-sum fallacy.

I'm interested in this topic - what to do about corporations. Something I think about: if we don't have corporations what replaces them? How do you implement business that require commitments that are larger than family?

For example. Consider a digital social network that was oriented around commercial arrangements. You could form complex contracts in a group, and produce a reputation system formed from sets of people. There would be a deposit system, and an opt-in judiciary for dispute resolution. Could this - <USER2> digital upgrade of the icelandic commonwealth - be a more powerful mechanism than The Corporation?

There's a big difficulty in wanting to get rid of corporations, and that is that they emerged from a process of true evolution. The Dutch and then English East-India companies allowed humans to do things that had just not been viable previously. In fact, they were so successful that they could have obsoleted nation states. Certainly the East India company could have, and was reined in only because its shareholders and employees continued to show deference to the crown. Nation-states got scared at that point, and imposed significant political controls - corporations are not allowed to maintain standing armies. So I think it's important to appreciate what powerful tools they are. Any discussion about getting rid of them needs to consider - how do you implement large-scale projects in a hypothetical world without corporations?

<comment><USER36> Well, I'm not really against corporations per se. I work for one I quite enjoy and whose aims I think are good and in the general interest.

The challenge, as I see it, is to have governments with a spine, but governments not so big that they stifle freedom or crowd out opportunities. Governments need to be powerful enough to overrule the biggest corporations so that corporations can exist without the cronyism. Power alone is insufficient though because even a powerful government is peopled by individuals who can sometimes be bought cheaply.

The East India Company is a somewhat terrifying example of what is possible with unbound power for corporations. It's an equally bad and unsubtle endpoint as an all government central economy. Diversity of thought and composition, as in many places, yields better results than homogeneity.

I think corporations are necessary for large-scale, long-term commercial endeavours. Certain classes of services to both individuals and businesses need continuity and corporations are well-suited to providing that kind of continuity.

Where we are today forgives incumbent large corporations too much and (certainly in Canada) makes it far too difficult for entrepreneurs to start small businesses.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Password Sharing Costs Netflix over $1.5B Annually - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbr.com/netflix-loses-over-1-5-billion-annually-password-sharing/ <comment><USER2> It's the piracy fallacy again. It doesn't cost Netflix anywhere near $1.5B to deliver content to those extra viewers. And if they lost access to the shared password only a fraction of them would pay for their own account. (To be clear I'm not advocating violating Netflix terms of service, just pointing out that the number is wrong.)</comment>


Amazon allegedly stealing tech from startups under the pretext of funding them - <AUTHOR> https://androidrookies.com/amazon-allegedly-stealing-tech-from-startups-under-the-pretext-of-funding-them/ <comment><USER2> Big discussion about this topic a few days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929044](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929044) (1085 points/349 comments)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why bother investing and prying when you can simply buy those companies off once they become large enough?

<comment><USER4> Cheaper to make a small investment, take everything you want and let the company fail. Simple economics.

<comment><USER3> That's true but on the other side, ideas are sold dime a dozen, only their successful implementation proves in hindsight that the idea was worth something. Stealing ideas doesn't mean much as they are available aplenty but a startup which successfully implemented that idea is worth something.

<comment><USER5> Ideas can be promising but implemented sub-optimally. Using this method, they get inside information on where things can be improved. Then they have the financial clout, the data analytics and the resources in place to create a successful final product.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Want To Show Off Your Halloween Costume? Upload it To Costume DB - <AUTHOR> http://tcrn.ch/sdSiqx

<comment><USER2> Here's mine: <http://costumedb.com/151>

It's Daft Punk in _Tron: Legacy_ , complete with electroluminescent tape and light up helmet.

<comment><USER3> Dude your costume was awesome! thanks for uploading it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> why why why do they make it so hard for people to casually vote for this stuff? I have to register first?

<comment><AUTHOR> great suggestion, we are working on that now. This was a weekend project for fun so all the features aren't finished yet.

<comment><USER5> Is there a "see top rated" button I don't see? Because that seems like the most obvious first thing for most viewers to do.

<comment><USER3> i'm coding that as we speak! check back in 30 min! :D

<comment><USER5> Now that's service! :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Top Costumes feature is now done! :D <http://costumedb.com/costumes.php?m=top_costume>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> damn wasn't this just on HN this morning?

now it's on Techcrunch? woahhhhhhh

GJ guys

<comment><USER5> Isn't HN a bigger deal than Techcrunch by now?</comment></comment>


Google Books Android Application Exposes Your Gmail Address on the SD Card - <AUTHOR> http://www.hoogli.com/blogs/hoogli/index.html#Google_Books_Android_Application_Exposes_Your_Gmail_Address_on_the_SD_Card

<comment><USER2> Technically, GET_ACCOUNTS is required to use the AccountManager service, not to avoid knowing the user's primary email address. Applications are free to be stupid and leak information via globally-accessible storage.

I know it feels nice and vindictive to bash Google the Company for making stupid mistakes, but Google Books, like Gmail and Maps, is a wholly-separate team from the core Android team, thus it is a reasonable expectation that they can make the same mistakes as any third-party application developer.</comment>


Working at a startup sucks - <AUTHOR> http://laurentk.posterous.com/working-at-a-startups-sucks

<comment><USER2> The more I think about this the more I think that the startup community has evolved a peculiar brand of hazing, in which small groups of diverse young men attempt to forge powerful emotional connections for pursuing mutual goals by subjecting themselves to absolutely unnecessary and artificial torment and humiliation. The hazing is then paraded around as a badge of perverse pride -- a mix of "we're tougher than anyone else" and "nobody else really understands us, because no one else has gone through it."

<comment><USER3> I agree, but I don't think that this pattern is peculiar, nor is it restricted to the startup community. It's a very common pattern in tech, in big companies and academia as well as startups. I assume that this attitude is a big part of the culture that keeps game developers going, for example.

And it extends to other fields. The finance guys on Wall Street and the Chicago Board of Trade do it. Lawyers do it. Medical interns do it.

<comment><USER4> Yep, I've experienced it first-hand in the game industry - it's bizarre when it feels like you're the only one who notices what's really going on. But especially in the startup world it seems like you're pretty free _not_ to go down that route. But maybe once you've had your fair share of failure it's the only thing left you feel you can be somewhat proud of, so you cling to it.

<comment><USER5> I imagine startups (especially when you're watching your money shrinking every day) can induce desperation, and when you're desperate, working crazy hours seems logical. You feel like the world is closing in around you... you have to do something

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sensational link-bait title.

A better title would be "Working at a startup is hard"

<comment><USER7> Here's an idea: Start a website where _you_ suggest to bloggers a better title for _their_ blog posts.

Seriously, I think the whole blogosphere could better counter one another's hype through your solid, middle of the road editorializing.

<comment><USER8> This might be a fun weekend project, heh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In summary, hard work is hard.

I know HN is targeted towards the startup crowd, but do we constantly have to vote up these self-aggrandizing, self-congratulating posts about how it takes some kind of special breed of human to work hard for a year or two?

<comment><USER10> Hey aminuit The post isn't especially self-congratulating. Actually it's almost the contrary... Hard work is hard, whether you're a pin pusher, an agile railer or biz guy trying to make it. The idea behind the post is especially this: we are ordinary man facing ordinary (hard) challenges, and it's meant as a reminder for aspiring entrepreneurs who only see the bright techcrunch-like side of the coin. Thoughts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It sure can suck, but it's all choices. You don't have to get investment, don't have to hire employees. You can do consulting on the side so you're not poor. You can even take holidays if you plan for it.

So a lot of it is just down to planning.

It's pretty similar to having a baby I think. It can suck sometimes, but it's pretty much the best experience you can ever have.

Good luck for the release in Sept :)

<comment><USER10> Hi Axod, Yes, it's down to planning and foreseeing, true. And there's two reason I wrote that post like this: 1) to poke the bear, and specifically address the young aspiring entrepreneurs who only read about the good side of it. 2) not hiring, doing consulting on the side, not getting investment is a great way to go, the 37 signals way. we chose the other alternative to get where we wanna go faster. future will tell if we were right :))

Anyway thx for the comment, and finger crossed for the sept release :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Working at a startup sucks_

So does pushing a cart, to a horse.

The problem is that OP has it backwards. He complains about how hard it is to do all the things you don't have to do.

You don't have to endure multiple "No's" finding investment; you can bootstrap or use friends and family.

You don't have to endure multiple "No's" trying to convince clients to accept your offering. You can find out what they need and build that.

You don't have to hire. If Version 1.0 of what you're building can't be built by one or two people, you may want to rethink what you're doing.

Starting a business and building software is tough enough when you do first things first. No need to pile on.

<comment><USER13> The author also mentions that negative things or problems are almost never blogged about.

I guess thats at least partially because the founders are busy fixing things and have not enough time / patience to blog about it. Positive blogs can be seen as marketing efforts and justify taking half a day off for it, but do negative ones too?

<comment><USER10> Hey Chris, I'm the author. That was exactly the point, fed up of reading the "it's fantastic, we rock !!" posts. So just an honest feedback on our first 6 months on my 3rd startup ....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think he's focusing on all the hardships instead of why he's doing it in the first place. Working at a startup is a choice.

<comment><USER8> It's a choice that many people trivialize. The point of the post was, I think, a bit of a warning to think about startup life seriously before diving in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You're totally right, the daily slog is tough, but the spurts of success or the rush of failure make it worthwhile. If we wanted safety, we'd get a 9 to 5.</comment>


The BBC is turning off its international Internet radio for the Olympics - <AUTHOR> http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_radio_progs/radioonline_olympics/ <comment><USER2> This is an absolute non-story and a terrible title.

The BBC only has the rights to broadcast the olympic games within the UK. So they cannot legally provide that service outside of the UK. This is the exact same situation with the radio service they provide for the popular English Premier League (soccer), and likely make other events.

As a Brit living in the US I've been well aware of such situations since I moved here in 2002. This is nothing new. This is not specific to the IOC, despite the great lengths they go to in order to enforce their trademarks, and the linked article makes no mention of the IOC.

This is ill-informed internet band-wagoning at its worst and not the sort of nonsense I expect to be upvoted on HN

</comment><comment><USER3> The 1984 has now officially arrived, under a flag with five colored rings.</comment>


YouTube is racking up page views like crazy: 4B per day - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/23/youtube-daily-pageviews/ <comment><USER2> sorry, similar thing was submitted about 3.5 hrs ago (that one was link to the engadget article)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3500202></comment>


Show HN: Outpour – anonymity for good / the anti-Secret. - <AUTHOR> http://www.outpour.io

<comment><USER2> Brilliant idea to share good!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's great to hear :)</comment></comment>


"My iPhone" (iPhones, Oranges, and Identity Politics) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jebdm.net/post/67003892/my-iphone

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I created an account and self-posted, but Zed seems to like you (<http://www.zedshaw.com/blog/2008-12-25.html>) and I wanted to share.</comment>


'Crazy' Tape Holds Weight of Man - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/tech/gecko-tape-111107.html

<comment><USER2> So why don't we harvest gecko feet and use them in industry?</comment>


Ask HN: What's Your Companies Paternity Leave Policy? (Bay Area +) - <AUTHOR> My company (Bay Area, public SaaS company) offers 8 weeks paid maternity (+ 16 week unpaid, protected), but only 1 week paid paternity.<p>This seems well below what friends who have had children received at other bay area tech companies. Curious to know where this fits on the region/industry bell curve. <comment><USER2> Google: 12 weeks "baby bonding" accessible to either gender and also in cases of adoption. Take it within a year.

Also: birth mom's get ADDITIONAL medical time off, something like 6-8 weeks depending on delivery method, and another 4 weeks of pre-delivery time off.

Also: fully paid salary at 100% in all cases, including both health insurance AND vesting.

</comment><comment><USER3> Earlier this year Recode compiled a list of parental leave policies from various tech companies: [https://www.recode.net/2018/1/31/16944976/new- parents-tech-c...](https://www.recode.net/2018/1/31/16944976/new-parents-tech- companies-google-hp-facebook-twitter-netflix)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm a freelancer now but at my previous company both genders get 26 weeks fully paid leave.

</comment><comment><USER3> Asana: 16 weeks for either gender to be taken in the first year following birth or adoption. The leave can be split into two parts (e.g. 2+14, 8+8).

Full salary and benefits but vesting is paused.

<comment><USER5> Is paused vesting common? I've always assumed vesting continues while on leave.

<comment><USER3> AFAIK it's at least not unusual. It e.g. also pauses at Salesforce.</comment></comment></comment>


Starbucks: Numbers do lie. Sometimes pathologically so… - <AUTHOR> http://gapingvoid.com/2010/04/19/numbers-do-lie/ <comment><USER2> If by "Numbers do lie" the author means "Numbers don't lie, and also some models of human behavior are less useful than others", then this essay is adequately titled.

<comment><USER3> Or alternately, "Don't let accountants determine your policies."

<comment><USER4> Accountants almost always make bad decisions. Because they measure only the money. Its takes real leadership in the company to consider the import of each choice. Add another column to the ledger, so to speak, such as Quality or Customer Satisfaction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem with the soundbite summary is that the analysis presented is incomplete. On the one side, 10% of customers might have noticed the drop in quality, but we have no idea how many of them would actually go somewhere else to get their coffee. On the other, while 100% would notice the higher price, we again don't know what the demand curve looks like so we don't know how many sales they would lose.

</comment><comment><USER6> a) Story has nothing to do with its conclusion.

b) So when _did_ Starbucks start using the awful coffee it uses nowadays? Or do they merely buy good beans and roast them badly?

<comment><USER7> I'm no coffee expert but I've heard it said that Starbucks' coffee is not so much _bad_ as it is _different_ and an _acquired taste._ Of course, these could be the words of apologists, but if so, is Starbucks entirely living on the dollars of coffee dilettantes?

<comment><USER6> I hate to start a coffee snob thread, but Starbucks right now lives off the dollars of the 90% of people who couldn't tell the difference between Starbucks and better coffee.

I get the impression that Starbucks in its early days _was_ a coffee snob place, but at some point it transitioned into a mass-market coffee place. It would be fascinating to be able to try a coffee from the original Starbucks in the 1970s to find out whether it has got worse or whether the tastes of the US coffee snob have got more sophisticated.

<comment><USER8> It could be that you are coming to your coffee with preconceived notions as to its quality. I wonder what a blind tasting between Starbucks and your favorite coffee would tell us.

<comment><USER9> Hard to say, as everyone that knows how to taste coffee already knows what Starbucks tastes like. It has a distinct flavor.

Given a shot of espresso from each of the coffee places I visit regularly, I could tell you which is which just from the aroma. So there is never going to be a "blind" test.

<comment><USER5> I believe that assertion is exactly what the previous commenter proposes to test.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think part of the success of this option is how Star Bucks wants to represent itself to its customer base. Had Dunkin Donuts chosen to raise prices in face of an almost unnoticeable drop in quality I'm sure their customers would have been less receptive.

<comment><USER11> I don't know about that. For a while, at least, people raved about DD's coffee.

<comment><USER12> People in Boston still do. I don't really understand why.</comment></comment></comment>


Y Combinator vs. Graduate School - <AUTHOR> http://startupboy.com/2010/02/08/y-combinator-vs-graduate-school/ <comment><USER2> After your YC startup fails, you have 2 less years of your life and "failed startup" on your resume. After graduate school, you have letters after your name that makes it easier to get jobs.

Just sayin', this article is very fanboish. Startups are for people that want to do startups, not for people that want to "do something" after college. In many cases, starting a startup can be a bad decisions. (And in some, like Google, it can be pretty good.)

<comment><USER3> A failed startup is not necessarily a bad thing. Depends on a lot of factors like how far it got, what funding was used, and challenges that were overcome.

A person who has business, financing, customer, technical, and product management exposure is likely a very promising asset to a company.

How often do you find those qualities in a graduate student where academia itself gives you little real world experience? Need some good internships to back up that degree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're "repeating the works of the greats" in grad school, you're doing it wrong. That's what undergrad is for, and maybe a masters, but getting a PhD is supposed to be all about producing something new. By the end you should be _the_ world expert in your (admittedly narrow) area, and have produced published scientific results that were previously not known to the field.

Overall though, they're two totally different things, and if you don't know which of the two is more appealing to you, you don't have a very good idea of what you want to do. Do you want to advance the current state of scientific knowledge? Or do you want to produce products and services that people will find useful? The two occasionally overlap, but in general they're fairly different occupations.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you're paying to go to grad school, you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER6> Can you expand on this idea? Law school can be expensive but worth the cost, for counterexample.

<comment><USER5> I'm talking specifically about CS, as CS students would be the main group of people who can choose between grad school and YC. The point is probably valid for all science courses.

Good students get paid to do PhDs in science. That's not generally true for grad school in arts and humanities, but those students would rarely be looking to apply to YC/techstars, etc.

<comment><USER7> Perhaps he was thinking more of MS programs for which I think most people pay.

<comment><USER5> Maybe. I wouldn't use the term 'grad school' for an MSc program, unless its the first two years of a US PhD.

I think the OP is talking about PhD programs too. After all, doing a short MSc doesn't prevent you doing YC afterwards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Far be it from me to suggest that YC is not good for people, but...

 _After school, you get a job. After YC, you create jobs._

Not necessarily.

 _You repeat the works of the greats in school. YC expects you to do original work._

There is value in standing upon the shoulders of giants.

 _"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana_

</comment><comment><USER9> Two years of industry experience can be a wonderful thing, too. Ideally your job will teach you all the bits of professionalism that your schooling left out (a short list from mine: SQL, SVN, and how to obsessively document _everything_ ), and you'll probably get good exposure to an industry. If you want ideas of things which need fixing, work for a living; you'll end up with more than you could ever use.

</comment><comment><USER10>
       "Y Combinator" is a generic term

Well that is interesting. Why shouldn't YC be a xerox or kleenex brand? PG seems consistently annoyed with naming and labels applied to YC, but I don't think he'd mind a generalization of the name.

</comment><comment><USER3> Agreed contingent on two points of concern:

1\. Did you gain enough practical/technical knowledge before or during undergrad to attack a given problem with a profitable solution?

2\. Can you convince an investor of point #1?

</comment><comment><USER11> Most people don't go to grad school to start companies.</comment>


Millionaire gives away fortune which made him miserable - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/7190750/Millionaire-gives-away-fortune-which-made-him-miserable.html

<comment><USER2> This article is so true. People seem to think money and materialistic things will make them happier. In reality, it's the exact opposite. The best things in life aren't things at all.</comment>


Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy. - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2184487/?from=rss <comment><USER2> This was posted just two days ago. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=121673>

Maybe the mods should merge the two?</comment>


Show HN: Markdownbin.com Write markdown and get a link - <AUTHOR> https://markdownbin.com <comment><AUTHOR> You write markdown and get a rendered url.

Wanted to do a project with minimal features but still something that can be used, that takes me through php development (composer, Slim Framework), server setup (DO) and deployment (using a pre-receive git hook). Markdownbin is the result.</comment>


Mapping Where Arrests Frequently Occur in San Francisco Using Crime Data - <AUTHOR> http://minimaxir.com/2015/12/sf-arrest-maps/ <comment><USER2> This is a really interesting post with some cool maps, but it's a little surprising because the author keeps saying he cannot finding reasons. Just that 4-5pm on Wednesdays are high-time for getting arrested in the Tenderloin or 16th and Mission.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure why that should be surprising. Perhaps it's surprising only because it's so unusual for academics to publish 'negative results'. I think this post shows how interesting and useful it can be to do so though, even if it's frustrating because we want to know 'the answer'.

My guess is it's got something to do with police schedules, priorities, and focuses, rather than with crime distribution. Do cops need to make some kind of weekly report of what they've done on thursday mornings? Do they have more time to make arrests on Wednesdays? Something like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting analysis. I would love to learn more about the crime data collection though.

From the what I see the provided data is pretty darn detailed including category of the crime, category, and even down to location coordinate, which is pretty incredible IMO (I couldn't even get any information on recent crime from my local PD).

How do the police collect all these data? Are they entered in real time as the officers make the arrests? or is there people at the office who are responsible to compile these data? Do they have some kind of GPS-equipped device that is used to make the report? Or are these some kind of estimation made by people at the office?

</comment><comment> nevi-me This was previously submitted earlier in the week, can't find the link though.

Someone suggested talking to the PD to find out whether there were specific operations being undertaken at that time. Very good analysis nonetheless!

<comment><AUTHOR> I previously submitted Part 1 which is different. This is Part 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If I see this correctly it's not adjusted for population density?</comment>


Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon, CIA and NSA - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307 <comment><USER2> Propaganda is just as pervasive in the west as it is in the the various totalitarian regimes around the world where we see the more overt and sometimes comical (from our perspective) types of propaganda.

It's just a lot more subtle here.</comment>


WhatsApp founder rejected by Twitter and...Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://uncrunched.com/2014/02/19/fail-fail-win-never-give-up/ <comment><USER2> Acton is 40 years old. I wonder how much his age had to do with his rejections four years ago? At 36 he certainly would've stood out at Facebook in 2009.

</comment><comment><USER3> ... and please tell me it's because they didn't like his answer to why manhole covers are round.

<comment><USER4> Why are they round?

<comment><USER5> It is an awful question because not all manhole covers are round. There are plenty of rectangular manhole covers, semi-round hinged ones, triangular ones, etc.

<comment><USER4> Ah I thought it was because the Ninja Turtles like pizza and they live in the sewer and the the easiest way to get a round pizza into the sewer is though a round manhole cover.

<comment><USER6> But ... pizza boxes are square.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nearly half of young people say tracking partners using technology is acceptable - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/24/nearly-half-of-young-people-say-tracking-partners-using-technology-is-acceptable <comment><USER2> I leave my phone lying around, no security on it whatsoever, leave Facebook, my email, everything logged in on my laptop. My partner of 15 years (lived together for 7) is the same. We're in our early 30s.

I certainly have never had the urge to go through her stuff and I don't believe (although to be fair it's not something we've discussed) she's ever looked at mine either. As well as being a couple we're both individuals with our own lives and dealings and interests, and to be breathing down each others' necks 24/7 would imply a massive lack of trust. I genuinely don't get why being in a relationship should mean giving up privacy and personal space - it seems incredibly unhealthy to me.

<comment><USER3> My wife and I are the same way.

Giving up privacy and personal space in a relationship IS unhealthy.

To feel that one has a right to search through one's spouses belongings is a sign of immaturity and insecurity. There's no way to have a healthy meaningful relationship with someone when one feels that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        > believe tracking their partner by going through their
        > computer or phone, or by installing phone and
        > computer tracking software

One of those things is not like the others. Many of the married couples I know have "Find My Friends" on their phone for them and their partners, consensually, and it's exceptionally useful for short-term planning. This does not feel anything like going through their emails...

<comment><USER5> Also, how many couples actually keep their email secret from each other? How many would have no expectation of privacy here, and hence view the subject differently?

<comment><USER6> My BF knows my email address, and I know his, but going through each others computers/phones/whatever is a big nope.

<comment><USER7> Going through anyone's things (digital or physical) without their permission is obviously very wrong. But can I ask you what kinds of things you have on your computer/phone that you don't want you BF to see?

Edit: My girlfriend and I have permission from each other to go through each other's phones/computers etc. and as a result of that we don't feel like the other person has anything to hide, and it brings us closer to each other. I have no interest in going through my girlfriend's phone/laptop, but if she refused to let me do that it would instantly bring up red flags that she doesn't trust me and that she can't be open with me. That's not the kind of relationship I'd like to be in.

<comment><USER8> Nothing or everything, what is there shouldn't be a/the question.

Humans have a rare trait in being able to develop cyborg transparent interfaces with our tools. A hammer becomes your hand, as far as your brain is concerned, after you've used it long enough.

Phones and other technology do the same thing for our minds. The photos we snap but never review are memories we're trying to collect. Phone calls or IMs a better history of conversations we've had.

Someone else going through this technology w/o permission is like them having a way to psychically read your mind. Both are a violation of your self -- your identity, memories, what have you. It's a violation because just as we learn to use tools as physically indistinct appendages, so to do we use ways to capture our minds as indistinct appendages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Humans are awful, and we're still in the stone age as far as social advancements go. News at 11. :( (bearing in mind that the article also talks about shockingly high numbers of respondents classifying rape and domestic violence as "acceptable," for those who haven't read The Fine Article)

 _"In August the Victorian government announced religious instruction during school hours would be scrapped and replaced with education about building respectful relationships."_

That's about the only positive take-away from the article. All ministers responsible for education everywhere should follow suit.

EDIT: using punctuation is hard, man.

<comment><USER10> You sure we're not _behind_ the Stone Age? The mainstream paleoanthropological position is that hunter-gatherers were completely egalitarian socially. Inequality is something that came up (resurfaced actually, because apes have it) only in the last 10-12 thousand years as a result of owning property and land and some people owning more of it than others.

Again, this is not my theory, this is what anthropologists actually believe.

In the interest of giving both sides, there's a recent book, that I haven't read (yet), called _Constant Battles_ , which disputes all of that.

Also: giving classes on this kind of thing solves nothing; see below.

Also: the upside of Religious Education is that it was practically a free period, at least where I'm from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is that the headline when the article contains the much more worrying

"And 20% of those surveyed said women often said "no" to sexual activity when they meant "yes", and 18% agreed if a woman was raped while affected by alcohol or drugs she was partly responsible."

<comment><USER12> "partly responsible" is a highly context-dependent weasel word. You can be "partly responsible" for a brick hitting you on the head, since you didn't look up. You can be "partly responsible" for being raped while drunk, because you chose to get wasted in unsafe company. Your parents are also "partly responsible", because they raised you in a neighbourhood with a high number of violent young men. The bar is, indeed, also "partly responsible", for not hiring competent bouncers to prevent this situation. And so on and so forth until we get to the Big Bang, which is also partly responsible, because it set up the initial conditions which evolved to the current predicament. In short, "partly responsible" can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean, and you can get most people to answer whatever you want to that question by first priming them with other questions.

<comment><USER13> _You can be "partly responsible" for a brick hitting you on the head, since you didn't look up._

Or because you were in a marked hardhat zone without a hardhat.

Designing properly ambiguous wording for surveys must be a lot of fun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are some arguments here that go like "oh, how wrong and stupid people are" \- but you have to turn it around to understand the situation. These young people are living in a modern surveillance society and they are learning their whole life that surveillance is normal - of course they adapt to their environment.

The "immature" mindset they develop is of course a mirror of the deep misantropic, paranoid and life-disrespecting mindset produced by the Leaders of Your Society (TM), that serves only the war industry, but creates more and more distrust, chaos and destruction everywhere on this planet - for some this might be a welcomed result.

This is an interesting study and our generation can learn a lot from it. It also shows why it is so dangerous to establish surveillance and control technologies everywhere like we do nowadays - kids will always do what their parents did.

<comment><USER15> Conversely, you old people grew up in a disconnected, technologically backwards society and you've learned your whole lives that electronic communication is something to be feared.

The simpsons has a famous quote for people like you. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdozkeNqNQk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdozkeNqNQk)

<comment><USER14> Sorry, you missed the topic here - it is about surveillance and control and abuse of powers. Nice try to put it "fear of technology" \- too obvious and simplistic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Honestly - When I see these attitudes from 16-24 year-olds, I simply think, "Uneducated about reality, as you would expect at that age"

I don't necessarily "worry" about it as much as hold it up as proof that this stuff needs to be taught in the schools or where ever most effective.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, "young people" are dumbasses, but for some reason we give much credance to their survey answers.

<comment><USER18> you can be sure some politician will try to capitalize on it.

the question I have is, where do they get the idea that this is acceptable? What are they teaching in schools?

<comment><USER19> I think acceptable is the default for most behaviors. Give into whatever urge you have, etc. It's age/experience that eventually labels things as unacceptable.

<comment><USER17> Pretty much. They've yet to live in the real world, experience things and gain insight into how things work. Unless they've a good reason to believe otherwise most things will be 'acceptable' by default.

I'm sure you could poll a cohort of <21s to tell you that thermonuclear obliteration is 'acceptable', if only because they've never actually thought about it or the consequences. That result wouldn't tell us the world at large is heading straight for nuclear war, it tells us our respondents are morons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What were the actual survey questions asked? This sort of thing is very sensitive to how you phrase the question.

<comment><USER20> It should also be followed up by: "Would you be okay with your partner tracking you, without your consent?"

The problem with tracking quickly becomes apparent when you're on the wrong side of the fence. If a person honestly believe that it would be okay to track their partner, but not vice-versa that person is an asshole.

<comment><USER21> Completely agree. My boyfriend and I share all of our passwords. We are completely transparant with each others life and the trust is 100% there. He scrolls through my phone and I his and we're on each others fbk quite a bit to. But here's the difference. When I'm bored, I scroll through my phone to see what's new.. usually nothing. So I do the same on his ... it's simply just another source of entertainment (if you can even call it that, normally when there's jack sht on tv).

If I'm meeting up with him, he'll send me his location on when he's being super lazy just put on his tracker to make him easier to find. Sometimes .. he leaves it on forgetting to switch it off and I tell him to as it'll drain his battery. When you have trust, stuff like this doesn't come up in conversation at all. It's more of a 'what's mine is yours and do whatever...' BUT yes, tracking someone WITHOUT their consent, completely different story ... that's NOT right. Defo needs to be rephrased.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This sounds more like a characteristic of immature people who haven't yet learned how relationships work than a new technology trend.

</comment><comment><USER23> Just wait till they have kids. I bet they will be called NSA parents!

</comment><comment><USER24> It'd be more interesting to ask the inverse question - asking someone if they think it's ok to track their partner could result in a very different answer to asking if they believe it's ok for their partner to track them.

</comment><comment><USER25> How is this meaningful without knowing the survey questions or their context? If asked in isolation, what percentage would say that it is acceptable for their partner to track them?

</comment><comment><USER26> Is that the male half? (Anyone got a link to the actual survey data?)

</comment><comment><USER27> The other half does not think it is acceptable</comment>


Pickle - <AUTHOR> https://docs.python.org/3/library/pickle.html <comment><AUTHOR> According to a recent post [1], "Pickle, number #1 source of critical vulnerabilities in python applications since 1991" which was interesting & newsworthy to me. I've used Python for a long time and was unaware of this

[1] [https://thehftguy.com/2020/02/18/jwt-is-awesome-heres- why/](https://thehftguy.com/2020/02/18/jwt-is-awesome-heres-why/)</comment>


Zepp's Last Stand (1979) - <AUTHOR> http://reprints.longform.org/zepps-last-stand <comment><USER2> Stuff like this makes me ashamed of my country.

You cannot send people to die against their will in a war that makes no sense whatsoever. WWI is considered the worst war in history, both sides deploying weapons that were later just flat out banned as immoral, and drove insane a man that later became the Chancellor of Germany... and we know how that turned out.

We've seen the photos of soldiers suffering from being shell shocked in the trenches. All of them came home broken, just in different ways. We had no right to ever ask that of them.

And what is the use of a soldier that objects? In the end, he will not follow orders, he will hesitate, and he will die.

War has no place in modern society, and we knew that 102 years ago. We knew it 77 years ago. We knew it 66 years ago. We knew it 60 years ago. We knew it 26 years ago. We knew it 15 years ago. We knew it 13 years ago. And since we invented a new enemy, Isis, we will know it again in the next few years.

We keep wasting lives, we keep wasting money, and we keep the military industrial complex alive when it should be put down like a rabid dog. The enemy of today is not a foreign country ready to attack us: the enemy of today is civil unrest, the enemy of today is the cost of education, and the cost of living, and the cost of having such a broken inefficient system throw everyone under the fucking bus.

And you know what most people are doing right now? Arguing which turd is shiniest so we can catapult them into the White House instead of a prison cell?

Those soldiers died to protect what? Because I sure as hell don't fucking know anymore.

<comment><USER3> I'm tired of even debating war. I just want a draft. A draft for all. You can't get out of it for because your in school, rich, or female. The only out would be a disability. Those disability doctors would be highly scrutinized for any sign of corruption by the FBI.

If Chelsea Clinton was required to serve, or Trump's spoiled brats had to walk into a hot zone; I don't think we would see another war for a long time.

(I once had a nephew want to join the Army. I took him to Tiburon, CA for a day of just people watching. It was a sunny day. Even the locals were out. On the way in I was pulled over because I drive an old car, and had long hair at the time. My inner voice said great! We sat in the park, but I wanted him to get a first had seat for the show. Basically a show of people, and their spawn with way too much money. On the way home, I asked him, "You would die for these people?" Well my ploy didn't do much, but he did join the Navy instead of the Army.)

<comment><USER4> A draft worked well enough in WW II, when the Army fielded one hundred or so divisions. DOD doesn't want larger ground forces than we have now. What do we do?

The disability doctors of the Vietnam days could be very flexible. Would the FBI ask that charges be brought against a doctor who simply objected to the draft and disqualified anyone who was nearly on the borderline?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Was disappointed to find that this is not about Led Zeppelin

<comment><USER6> Found what you're looking for: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWOuzYvksRw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWOuzYvksRw)

<comment><USER7> Indeed! I thought for sure it was going to be about Knebworth!

I went for Kashmir though to nurse my disappointment:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTOmK-4y9EE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTOmK-4y9EE)

Top of their game there.</comment></comment></comment>