Stanford, Michael Bloomberg Now Back Every Y Combinator Startup - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/15/stanford-michael-bloomberg-now-back-every-y-combinator-startup/ <comment><USER2> Stanford is really an investment fund that runs a school on the side for the tax break. This started in 1991, when Stanford spun off their endowment management as the Stanford Management Company.[1] SMC's headquarters was on Sand Hill Road, across from all the VCs. This ended up putting Stanford into venture capital in a big way.

This was new. Before that, universities tended to put their endowments into passive investments - real estate, stocks, and bonds. Investing in startups worked out very well for Stanford. Stanford had pre-IPO stock in Cisco, Yahoo, Google... They have money in various VC funds. Buying into YCombinator is consistent with that investing approach.

As SMC became more powerful, executives from SMC started moving into positions in the university itself. SMC moved its HQ onto the main campus. Not clear where this will end; we'll have to see who replaces Henessey as president.

[1] [http://www.smc.stanford.edu/](http://www.smc.stanford.edu/)

<comment><USER3> Stanford did not pioneer investments in alternative assets classes (VC/PE etc...) Robert Swenson of the Yale endowment fund was much earlier than that. It also became known as the "Yale Model"

===

 _For the two decades after Swensen took over as manager of Yale's endowment in 1985 (just five years after he'd gotten his economics Ph.D at Yale), this worked spectacularly well — with a 16.1% annualized return compared with 12.3% for the S &P 500 and a remarkable record of sailing through stock market downturns that pummeled most other institutional investors.

[https://hbr.org/2010/04/why-the-yale-model-of- investin/](https://hbr.org/2010/04/why-the-yale-model-of-investin/) _

===

 _The prevalence of Swensen acolytes in leadership posts highlights how dominant the Yale investment model has become among major U.S. universities. Colleges and universities ended 2014 with 51% of their portfolios invested in less-traditional fare like hedge funds, private equity and real estate that Yale favors—nearly double the allocation to those investments in 2001, according to annual surveys done by Nacubo and Commonfund.

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/universities-look-to-yale-for- in...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/universities-look-to-yale-for-investment- managers-1430299801) _

===

 _Swensen's idea, implemented at Yale and copied nationwide, was that universities should shift their endowment money out of traditional investments such as stocks and bonds and into higher-yielding ones like private equity, hedge funds, and real estate. The Yale model, as it came to be known, perennially outperformed stodgier strategies, gaining Swensen gurulike adulation.

[http://upstart.bizjournals.com/executives/2009/03/18/David-S...](http://upstart.bizjournals.com/executives/2009/03/18/David- Swensen-and-the-Yale-Model.html?page=all) _

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You know what would be really awesome / disruptive / game-changing? If YC funded the program via crowdfunding (eg. JOBS Act) monies so that normal peons (sorry, "non accredited investors") could realize gains from a fund of early startups while effectively locking out all these institutional investors.

This would be a real coup for people who believe in Basic or Guaranteed Minimum Income [1], like Sama.

[1] [http://blog.samaltman.com/technology-and-wealth- inequality](http://blog.samaltman.com/technology-and-wealth-inequality)

<comment><USER5> Eh, it might be a good idea for the small population of tech savvy investors in Silicon Valley who make 6 figures and work within the industry so they can make informed decisions. But the whole SEC regulatory dictum that allows only accredited investors (accreditation based on annual income and net worth, not passing a Series 7 test or what not) can invest in certain forms of securities is a good thing.

Imagine if Joe Schmo reads an article on the home page of the tech section of "his Yahoo" about this new investment vehicle, decided to put all of his 401k money that as safely placed in low-load index funds into a YC fund that didn't particularly do so well when the fund finally matured and he cashed out. I've seen people pissed off at losing 10 bucks on Kickstarter prototypes-- imagine how pissed off Joe would be that he lost 200k because he wanted to "get in on this Web 3.0 stuff".

Those accredited investors regulations do more good than harm mostly because people in aggregate are greedy and don't read prospectus' in their entirety. Most people didn't even read their mortgages in 2007 (or now for that matter, even after the systemic ..situation of 2008), look what happened there.

If you're living in SF and married to someone in tech, odds are you make enough to qualify as an accredited investor anyways-- the per annum barrier is pretty low.

<comment><USER6> No it is not a good idea.

The whole "we're protecting you" argument is a line of garbage intended to sway meatheads into thinking that being denied access to ownership and prosperity is a good thing. That these these opportunities should only be given to already wealthy people and that the peons are too stupid to understand concepts like "this is pretty risky, you'll probably lose it all, but if it hits you might make a bundle."

In the meantime, the lobbyist for every other way to lose your shirt have made sure that all the doors are open to everyone. The poor little peons too stupid to understand if Facebook might have been a good risk are still able to: blow all their money in Vegas, invest in penny stocks, buy Apple at a top and sell at a bottom, buy a virtual spaceship for $10K, buy a house with maximum leverage into a bubbly market, have $100K in credit card and vehicle debt, and on and on. There are a million ways to shoot yourself in the foot and they are all perfectly fine, but if you want to put $1000 into Google pre-IPO then WHOA we gotta protect you from that!

I don't know what world you live in, but the accreditation barrier limits investors to the top 1-2% of the US. Very few people make $200K/yr single, $300K/yr married. Plus they changed the net worth provision to exclude home value. How many people do you think there are that have $1M net worth exclusive of their house?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Y Combinator has struggled to hold on to its founder-friendly mentality"

This assertion wasn't backed up by much and it's not my impression.

<comment><USER8> let's pretend it's a TV show. Y Combinator is Blues Clues. pg was Steve. we're currently in the first part of the Joe Era. Joe was actually better than Steve in many ways[1], but he just isn't Steve, and everyone, including the audience, is trying not to notice, because yay, new Blue's Clues.

Now, when it fully pivots into Blue's Room, run.

[1] ways that don't include Steven Drozd.

<comment><USER7> I didn't understand a word you just wrote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >Each startup that goes through the three-month program now receives$120,000 in cash — $20,000 from Y Combinator, plus $100,000 from the outside investors – in exchange for 7% equity in their company.

$120k for 7% in a company!? Is that really a favorable term to startups? There's __no way __I would __ever __, EVER sell 7% of my company for a such a small sum. Who would sell out their passion for such a pittance?

It's very possible I'm missing something here, because my impression is that YC truly tries to act as a partner with founders. I just can't see giving a go at a startup - with all that entails - for an idea I believe is worth only $1.7M (even at the nascent stage).

<comment><USER10> You are wrong. So, so, wrong.

If you were allowed to, the best thing you could possibly do for your early stage company would be to go take $100,000, nay $500,000 plus 30% of your stock and give it to Paul Graham in exchange for being let in to YC.

It's not just the education you get, nor the peer pressure of being in a 'class' with other companies, it's also the social cache, the network of other YC funders, the access to investors, and lately, the benefits of YC punishing investors who treat their portfolio companies badly.

Good/Great investors are all people you would always pay to have on your board, and gunning for your company. The money they give you helps keep the lights on and grow, but it's really a proxy for getting (and holding) their attention and focus on what you need to succeed.

<comment><USER11> The big draw of YC to me seems to be the alumni network, that's the real gold and with every class that network expands.

<comment><USER12> I am wondering hos this dilutes over time though. I mean, if I was in a select group of 100 people, I would pick up the phone if one of them rang and wanted my help. However, as that group grows to 1000, it would be less likely and at 10.000 I would probably not bother. But maybe there are stronger ties within the batches?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Love to see Stanford leverage their successful models in incubating large part of Silicon Valley huge startup and franchise/multiple/clone into Stanford NY, Stanford LA, HongKong, Shanghai, Bangalore, London, etc.

With large amount of the Stanford class contents already online, it is probably just setup small local campus for testing, group study local students and meetup.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if YC's seed investment being LP money changes the incentives/advice on the part of the partners. (?)

<comment><USER11> It should not, they'll try hard not to let it make a difference (and in the case of the Yuri Milner investments it did not as far as I can see) but it _could_ change if decisions made in one funding round would affect their ability to attract capital in the next.

In other words, LPs have bigger influence in follow on rounds if any of the decisions made in the current round turn out bad for YC, but so far there is no evidence of that as far as I can see.

It's a very interesting question though, sources of funds tend to exert pressure on the places those funds flow to. YC has always been 'as much hands on as you need or want' so in that respect they've been very good about letting their portfolio companies run themselves as much as possible while being there when needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thanks, I'll forward this the next time they ask for money. A shotgun approach to investing other people's money in tech startups is fine, but drawing down the $__B endowment in 2008-2009 to avoid salary freezes was too risky.

<comment><USER16> Wow, any links about Stanford's position on the salary issues? Agree that Stanford putting in so much money (more than YC!!) seems pretty wonky. Perhaps not as bad as Larry Summers blowing billions of Harvard's money on derivatives, though.</comment></comment>


Physically Based Rendering 3rd edition 2018 - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbr-book.org/3ed-2018/contents.html <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18219296](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18219296)

290+ points</comment>


Tomorrow's lotto jackpot offers (slightly) positive EV - <AUTHOR> http://www.exquisitetweets.com/tweets?eids=bND0cGJ5mm.bNE6sFa7yu.bNFwDiQBiv.bNGBiV7RwP.bNHqlE4Dfw.bNIXQ1s5sa.bNI4eWLY9B.bNJK3APA0i.bNJ7ihYl0C.bNKqwCjN4C

<comment><USER2> Many mathematically unbeatable games of chance (lotto, progressive slots, video poker, blackjack, etc.) can become +EV under the right circumstances. That said, the analysis is not quite as simple as quoted:

"Tomorrow's Mega Millions jackpot is $208 million; the odds of winning are 1 in 176 million ∴ the EV for each $1 ticket is positive 18¢!"

...because (as the later tweets point out) you don't know how many tickets will be sold, and the math needs to take into account the possibility of "split jackpots" in which two or more people win the big prize(s).

A more rigorous analysis of "when is it rational to purchase a lotto ticket" in the general case can be found here:

<http://psyllogism.wikidot.com/articles:lottery></comment>


What makes a TV show "good" versus "great"? - <AUTHOR> http://tvgeekarmy.com/post/viewpost/what-makes-a-tv-show-good-versus-great

<comment><USER2> I think that one of the lines between "great" and "good" shows is the writers' and producers' ability to let the viewer draw his/her own conclusion. There are good shows out there with good plots and good acting, but what holds a lot of those shows back from becoming great is where the writing doesn't allow the viewer to turn on that part of the brain that fills in the blanks on its own.

While I'll watch TV that fills in the blanks for me, it really just satisfies a different purpose - typically I find that it creates laughs or provides knowledge useful outside in the real world. That's often good television.

But shows like Mad Men, House of Cards, Breaking Bad - one of the hallmarks in these shows is that the viewer isn't explicitly drawn a conclusion or directly told what is going on. The writers and producers use the dialogue and situation to foreshadow. There are hints dropped along the way but not tied up until the very end of the season. It's a gradual build-up, it allows me to think and enjoy every part of the show - from the cast and scene selection to the dialogue and the cinematography.

That's what I think makes great television.</comment>


The New Man of 4chan - <AUTHOR> http://thebaffler.com/salvos/new-man-4chan-nagle <comment><USER3> What was this article really about? Was it more than "I'd like 3000 words on 4chan and toxic masculinity by Friday, please"?

There are some baffling omissions. The MRA movement/MGTOW? Gamergate? It just reads as though the writer hasn't much familiarity with the subculture.

<comment><USER4> Those omissions would confound things. While some MRAs talk about 'betas', not so many advocate explicit violence or 'uprisings'. And Gamer-Gate is another thing entirely - mentioning it would be explicit stereotyping.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, GamerGate is... well to be honest, I don't think anyone supporting or opposing it really knows what it is nowadays, since it's become a catch all term for:

Anyone a journalist or media figure or opposer doesn't like/thinks is being a jerk on the internet.

Those who oppose corruption in gaming journalism.

Those who don't like 'SJW' types trying to censor things or complaining about privilege.

Certain groups of trolls who want to dox people they find stupid or strange, and need a justification for it.

People who oppose various changes made to localised video games.

Conservatives who think gaming and the media has become too liberal.

People who want to become internet celebrities off the controversy.

Many, many gaming websites and Youtube channels that support some parts but not others.

Basically, it's more divided and semi diverse than the rebel groups in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH- us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us)

Either way, it's split across so many websites and seemingly encompasses so many radom groups that it's really all that associated with chan culture any more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wait - there are people who take stuff posted on tumblr and 4chan seriously?

I purely visit those two places for entertainment. Sure it's a bit repetitive, but the sheer absurdity makes me laugh and that's good enough for me.

<comment><USER7> This was my reaction. It was like someone writing a 3000 word article on "Sociocultural analysis of Gender models relating to HOW the chicken ACTUALLY crossed the road."

<comment><AUTHOR> If a chicken were to go on a murderous rampage (or even orchestrate a campaign that intimidates -- with threats of death, rape and mutilation -- women into withdrawing from online presence) I think such an article might be justified.

<comment><USER7> Hilarious that you blame 4chan. There's hundreds of millions of pageviews every month. Might as well blame AMERICA for school shooters or Islam for terrorists.

Your gut based fear response is uneducated. If you educate yourself your fear will diminish. I promise.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't blame 4chan at all, and neither does the author (who, BTW, doesn't talk about "4chan" but about one specific board). Hilarious that you read it this way. But when writing a piece of cultural criticism, it's important to categorize social groups based on cultural narratives (or currents), and the narratives on that 4chan board overlap with those found in the murderers' manifestos and intimidation campaigns. That within every narrative-group some people take things much, much further than others goes without saying. It also goes without saying that discussion groups -- online or off -- are better indicators of the "mainstream" of the groups they represent rather than the most extreme (people who end up behaving violently often eschew gatherings), and most certainly cannot be blamed for violent action. Nevertheless, all sorts of ideological violence are associated with some non-violent ideological groups in some way, and it is disingenuous to claim that there is no cultural association whatsoever between those anti-women rampages and certain online communities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm impressed. This is possibly the only article I've seen about 4chan whose author actually understands enough about the discussed subcultures to make interesting analyses.

<comment><USER9> > only article ... whose author actually understands enough about the > discussed subcultures

I was thinking that at first, too, until I noticed that the author completely missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is not a positive thing. I mean, she _alludes_ to it, but then takes it all literally. Referring to one's self as beta is generally a self-deprecating statement or a mark of self- resignation. Betas just take whatever they're given. Calling someone "beta" is actually a common insult to many of the sub-cultures that she sweeps together. It's the recognition that someone else is in control.

You have to actually look at it from their perspective to get it. These are outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be like the people who mistreat them because they despise them and their behavior. Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - the types who stand outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain confident and powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds, not the jocks and the bootlickers.

The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks to the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may have done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the dark corners of the internet escapes her.

<comment><AUTHOR> > the author completely missed the fact that calling someone a "beta" male is > not a positive thing. I mean, she alludes to it, but then takes it all > literally. Referring to one's self as beta is generally a self-deprecating > statement or a mark of self-resignation.

Except she says exactly that:

 _The term "beta" ... is an ironic inversion of the fabled swagger of the alpha male._

 _"beta male" is a common term of identification, one of both belonging and self-mockery._

> These are outcasts. They want to be at the top, but they don't want to be > like the people who mistreat them because they despise them and their > behavior. Instead, many of them idolize the sigma and omega types - <USER2> > types who stand outside (or hide within) the hierarchy and still remain > confident and powerful. The chans idolize the rebels and the masterminds, > not the jocks and the bootlickers.

She says exactly that, too:

 _Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes, betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and curatorial in their cultural habits._

 _But how, exactly, does "hegemonic masculinity" accurately sum up a scene explicitly identifying as beta male? And can "traditional ideas about gender" really be bursting forth from an Internet culture that also features gender- bending pornography, discussions about bisexual curiosity, and a male My Little Pony fandom?_

 _In fact, a great deal about the beta-male rebellion runs counter to theories of masculinity advanced by scholars like R. W. Connell and Michael Kimmel. In her 2005 book Masculinities, Connell lists the words "nerd" and "geek" among the terms that stigmatize marginal masculinities. The beta style draws from a countercultural genealogy and identifies itself against feminism but also against social conservatism, political correctness, mainstream consumer culture, and most important, against hegemonic masculinity itself._

 _As one patiently surveys the varieties of online expression favored by beta males, it becomes apparent that, in addition to their all too palpable sense of self-loathing, they're further actuated by a pronounced sort of class contempt. One key source of their rage—against both the sexual pecking order and society at large—is that their own sense of superiority over the masses, the unspecial "normies," is not reflected back to them by others in real life._

> The fact that she can't catch the mockery in all the beta commentary speaks > to the fact that she really doesn't understand this culture at all. She may > have done some research, but apparently the black humor that pervades the > dark corners of the internet escapes her.

Except that it does not escape her, as she says:

 _The casual racism embedded in this geeky beta world comes wrapped in several layers of self-protective irony_

 _Commentators like Coleman have lent a certain credibility to the beta uprising's contention that its motives are misinterpreted by a public that fails to grasp its unique brand of postmodern wit. Some people, they say, simply "don't get" that the betas are in it strictly "for the lulz."_

<comment><USER9> So, let's pull the sections from your own quote that you missed.

> But how, exactly, does "hegemonic masculinity" accurately sum up a scene > explicitly identifying as beta male

Here she says that they're _explicitly identifying_ as beta males, when nearly every culture she referenced rejects and mocks it.

Also

> this geeky beta world

> The beta style draws from

> Among the stale memes, repeat posts, true-life confessions, pre-rampage tip- > offs, and cock-and-bull stories that make beta forums so impenetrable

The phrase "beta rebellion" is in the article eight times. She is literally basing this entire article on betas, when the groups mentioned inside don't think very much of betas at all. If you're not seeing that, you're projecting an awful lot onto this article. Not only that, her understanding of betas is faulty.

> Whereas alphas tend to be macho, sporty, and mainstream in their tastes, > betas see themselves as less dominant males, withdrawn, obsessional, and > curatorial in their cultural habits.

She's conflating introversion with beta, when they're both orthogonal attributes. And she's claiming this is where the internet misogyny comes from. Betas are perceived as being afraid to speak controversial opinions or in other ways step out of line (they're followers, remember?), and also as people that will say the most pleasing things in order to get attention. _None_ of which lines up with the forums and sub-cultures she's describing. Betas may pop on the internet and try to be tough, but it's usually just them RPing some sort of fantasy. They might talk down on people who reject them, but there's nothing they resent more than their inability to change things.

> the betas are in it strictly "for the lulz."

Here she's claiming that the burn the world down for fun behavior of the chans is _beta_ behavior. She started this whole article with mass shootings, transitions into betas, makes a link with online forums as if the internet is breeding them. In reality, the problems behind people who make IRL attacks don't start in internet forums. The callous spite for anything and everything certainly doesn't help fix them. But the chans talk about these people as beta to mock their weakness. In their minds, they literally didn't have enough guts to do anything about their problems in real life until they snapped.

In summary, no, she doesn't understand the people or the ideas at all. She just cherry-picked words and did some meme research for authenticity. And then she grabbed the biggest brush she could buy to paint everyone the same color.

<comment><AUTHOR> First of all, this is a rather short, non-academic article, not a book, so some generalizations (and catch-phrases) are necessary in order to state any thesis at all. Second, I think you're fixating too much on your disagreement with the author on the use of the word betas. You think she's misusing it and applying it to a different group? Fine. I don't see how her thesis is affected by (what you believe to be) incorrect labeling (I agree with her, BTW[1]).

Broad strokes and catchphrases necessitated by the medium aside[2], I think this is the best article on internet culture I've read in quite some time.

[1]: I think that she (correctly) applies the label as they (or some of them) self-deprecatingly call themselves (in opposition to the jock alphas), rather than as an objective description of "weak(er) followers". She stresses over and over that they don't view themselves as followers regardless of their self-applied label.

[2]: And those limitations are very clear to readers of a high-end magazine like the Baffler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are two important points I think the author of this article doesn't really understand.

1\. "4chan" is not a person, a club, a worldview, or even a reputation-based comment aggregator. 4chan is website with a constant, ephemeral stream of anonymous comments, and the "culture" between different boards varies quite significantly. This system makes it especially prone to misrepresentation by a media that does not understand it. One could easily write an article entitled "The New Man of Reddit" about disturbing subreddits that exist with deep misogynistic hatred, but people understand that one subreddit does not represent the views of everyone that visits the site as a whole. It is even easier to portray 20-30 4chan users as representative of hundreds of thousands because they all post under the same name, "Anonymous". I know several friends who frequent /g/ (the technology board on 4chan), and the discussion is on technical topics virtually all of the time.

2\. There are obviously pockets on certain boards (e.g. /r9k/) with groups of anonymous users that have disturbing thoughts and views. That being said, I think it is a mistake to frame the problem as a website being "like Uber, but for violent misogyny", or making a broad analysis that includes references to decades-long gender dynamics theories. I am NOT defending or endorsing the actions whatsoever of these users.

However, if the author were to engage in conversation with some of the more extreme users, she might realize that what many of these people need is help. If she were to read personal stories threads on /r9k/ she might find that a large portion of those people are there because they are not "doing well" in life, at all, and have not "fit in" to society for a very long time. They are often clinically depressed, or have any number of debilitating mental illnesses. There are people there that are in poverty, have crippling anxiety disorders that prevent them from leaving the house, who are addicted to substances and cannot hold a job, and who have never done so much as held hands with a romantic interest even decades into adulthood. There are a disturbing number of people on /r9k/ that were physically and sexually abused as children, and those stories are excruciatingly sad. I don't exaggerate about the prevalence or severity of these problems, I have seen regular popular threads about child abuse and significant social impairment on boards. Misogyny is often not a calculated tactical hatred on the part of these people, but an unhealthy and abhorrent outlet for their desperation.

Again, I am not defending their actions and I don't think that those 4chan boards are positive places for people to seek refuge. But I think it is important to recognize why many of them are there, and proceed from a point of compassion for another human being, no matter hard that may be. It is easy and tempting to demonize a group of individuals that engage in repulsive misogynistic commentary all day, but that won't solve any of their problems or those of society.

<comment><USER11> This made me remember of when I visited randomly on internet a anti-feminist forum.

I noticed there was a trend, where half of the users just wanted a better world in general, and the other half were extremely violent and hateful... but that hateful half also had the worst personal stories.

One that I thought was particularly interesting, was of a guy that frequently parroted that women are evil, that noone should trust women, and so on, one day in a thread about rape he comments that he was raped, and couldn't get help at all, and that some years later he got a girlfriend, that ended raping him too, and this time when he sought help his treatment was even worse.

I think for a person that was mistreated that way, it is easy to conclude that women are just evil liars and rapists.

The thing is the guy obviously wants help, but he still fails to find it (from comments in several threads I could pick up that he sought help from police, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers... everyone treated him with hostility, or when they actually belived him, thought it was hilarious/entertaining what happened to him).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The details that emerged about Harper-Mercer's online life made it difficult > not to resort to stereotyping. On a dating site, he had listed pop-culture > obsessions typical of "beta" shut-ins, including "internet, killing zombies, > movies, music, reading," and added that he lived "with parents."

Movies, music and reading as hobbies? Yup, that's a killer alright. /s

Man, the media hasn't really progressed since 1991 has it...

<comment><USER13> It has. Doom was released in 1993. Video games have been the leading cause of murders ever since. /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's very small minded of the author implying these role model philosophies originate and are used in 4chan only.

Reddit has /r/theredpill, there's numerous mens activists, and dating groups that all use the model of male gender roles and distinctions that the author has described here.

To me this article is just another subtly disguised insincere 4chan hit piece. I knew by the opening paragraph when the article implied that 4chan aids and abets school shooters.

Also, the joke is kind of on people who actually take 4chan seriously.

</comment><comment><USER14> Almost didn't touch on /pol/, what a missed opportunity

<comment><USER15> /pol/ is a board of peace

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A news article about r9k...

</comment><comment><USER17> That was... surreal.</comment>


How Not To Be An Entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/architecting-a-life/1b0c00966d37 <comment><USER2> The thing with this advice is that it's really great and very sound _but_ I wonder who it is aimed at. If it is aimed at those that really want to take heed of this advice and learn a lesson from it, then great, but if it's aimed at the likes of those mentioned in the article, then i'm afraid to say the advice is going to fall on "deaf ears".

The biggest thing with people like Thomas is that they never learn.

There's a very good reason why he's still acting like a 19 year old at 31. He's clearly got deeper issues regards his self-esteem. Remember, Self-esteem and Narcissism are flip sides of the same coin. People like that are very good at painting a picture of their own versions of reality or making it look like they completely understand what it is you're trying to say, but in reality, their ego gets in the way, and they never really understand your message. It's a never ending battle.

The sad part is there are many wannabe entrepreneurs out there with ego issues such as Thomas, that are very good at convincing the rest of the world that they know what they're doing and that things haven't gone the right way because of 'this reason or that' - and while they're at convincing the rest of the world, they wreck other people's lives in the process because they're so not adept at taking responsibility for their own success (self-esteem issues) and usually wreck other people's sense of self-esteem in the process.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. People like Jesse Thomas usually have had ample advice on how not to be jerk and why, but they ignored it.

Unfortunately I think there are a lot of people out there that think that being a raging jerk is an acceptable and even desirable part of being a leader. Especially those who blindly idolize Steve Jobs. The problem is that many people don't understand that:

A. They are not as talented as Steve Jobs B. Steve Jobs succeeded in spite of his assholery C. Steve Jobs got fired from his own company, partly because of his behavior D. Steve Jobs learned to mellow out a bit in his later years

I live in DC, and I remember when I saw the first JESS3 sticker of his face and thought, "There goes an out of control ego." Didn't know that it would turn out this bad.

<comment><USER2> I agree regards the Steve Jobs example but i think there are other 'role models' that are creating these monsters too. Things like Glengarry Glenn Ross etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Launched my business. Looking for companies to help kick the tires. It's free - <AUTHOR> https://www.gatherli.com/submit-a-job <comment><AUTHOR> Start or finish a project with our freelancers for free. Gatherli has experienced and pre-vetted freelancers from all corners of the planet looking for quality work, and I will pair you with them for free.

The freelancers that have bought-in to my company are truly some of the most talented people I've ever worked with.</comment>


Norway's Island with a Population of 1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/gallery/20190308-norways-wild-isle-population-of-1 <comment><USER2> >> Its two boats – Stjernesund, which accommodates up to 28 people, and Sulejet, carrying up to 16 – also offer twice-daily passenger service for locals year-round [...] Gåsvær is flexible with timings and allows passengers to call in advance to book their spot for 55 kroner (about £5).

I'm missing something here. How can 55 kroner possibly cover the cost of doing anything with such vessels? I assume there is some sort of government backing for this service. That is all well and good, but I live in an area with similar problems (Coastal BC). Maintaining services to remote villages is one thing, subsidizing the retirement dreams of a lucky few is another.

<comment><USER3> Countries often oversubsidize homesteaders at the edges of their territory for strategic protection of that territory. If another country wants to encroach on land it's much harder with a population there. Russia is seeing this encroachment happen on their Chinese border.

<comment><USER2> Indeed. That is basically what canada does with the north. The touchy subject is determining where and if such frontiers exist. And, should they become popular, whether such support should be extended to subsidizing a tourist industry. BC has gone so far as to demolish some remote ghost towns (mining towns) because we don't want them to become tourist destinations.

If you have the time, there are some great youtube vids of Kitsault BC, the famous 1980s ghost town in BC.

<comment> frosted-flakes I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, because it's true.

In the '60s or '70s, the Canadian government actually forced a large group of native people to move from their native lands in Nunavik (northern Quebec) to the far north, where nobody or nothing lived, except seals and fish. I believe this was so that the Canada could claim that they had sovereignty over the Arctic because people lived there, unlike Antarctica. Imagine being dumped on a frozen wasteland thousands of km from civilisation with a few supplies and being told to deal with it, with no recourse. Many people died.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of Port Hood Island in Nova Scotia.

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/port-hood- island-...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/port-hood-island- housing-weather-transportation-climate-change-1.4911933)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm reminded of Lofoten, a peninsula and group of islands way further north in Norway that's a very popular summer tourist destination. It's absolutely beautiful. I wonder why Lofoten has thrived while Solund has not? Relative size of landmass has to be part of it.

<comment><USER6> Lofoten is unique. The rise of social media, the non-stop posts of its picturesque landscape sells it to the masses. The infrastructure is better, it's bigger and there are a lot of inhabitants, hotels and whatnot. Solund is tiny compared to the Lofoten region.

<comment><USER7> Lofoten also has quite a long history of fishing making it known in international trade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think in Greece there are similar cases in small islands eg [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_Ro](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_of_Ro)</comment>


Airbnb TV Episode 1 - Venice Beach Bungalow - <AUTHOR> http://blog.airbnb.com/airbnb-tv-episode-1-venice-beach-bungalow

<comment><USER2> Somewhat of a non-sequiter, but I just had a moment of, "huh, small world". I've been living in Venice for the past week, or so, in my RV. It's a great little town. Weird, friendly, and kinda rough around the edges, making it a very American sort of town. I did not stay with Angie and Danny, though I probably drove through their neighborhood on the way to the beach (it's a small town).

This is a really cool idea for AirBnB. It makes couchsurfing into a lifestyle...a hip and stylish lifestyle. And, we all know how much Americans will spend to obtain a lifestyle (everything, plus whatever someone will lend them).

<comment><USER3> Glad to hear you are in Venice Beach Joe! We miss you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> These guys constantly surprise me. Which I suppose is the complement of relentlessly resourceful.

</comment><comment><USER5> Great production quality and content--it really humanizes the listing.

<comment><USER6> It humanizes _all_ of the listings. Most web companies don't venture out this far, aside from <Company> hosted/sponsored gatherings. I think it shows a ton of maturity for a startup.

I hope I'm not too late to list my couch for SXSW next week.

<comment><USER7> You're definitely not too late. All the hotels are still sold out ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nicely done!

<comment><USER9> Agreed!</comment></comment>


FastMail.FM Security Vulnerabilities - mike-cardwell https://grepular.com/FastMail_FM_Security_Vulnerabilities <comment><AUTHOR>
      I disclosed them responsibly and they were fixed before I published this blog post.

As a Fastmail.fm user, thanks for your work in improving the service by notifying the team of these vulnerabilities.

</comment><comment><USER2> Does anyone else find it rather insane that SVG allows bundling code? "Active" documents like PDF and Office have demonstrated the problems associated. Why does a vector graphic format need scripts?

<comment><USER3> When you consider SVG can be seen as an potential alternative to Flash for some projects, it is not hard to understand why manipulation through scripting is a desired feature.

<comment><USER2> So instead of creating a vector format that can be safely used and manipulated from a containing environment (like any other "dumb" image format), they wanted to go make a whole new rich document system? Sigh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would serving attachment previews from a separate domain, like fastmail- usercontent.fm, help?

<comment> mike-cardwell Using a separate domain to display the attachments is a good idea. Gmail does it. It is mentioned towards the end of the blog post. However, that still doesn't get rid of the vulnerability, it just makes it less dangerous.

There should be a strict whitelist of allowed content types, and anything not on that list should be download only. The trouble is, people tend to put "image/*" on that list, because they don't know what an SVG is or what it can do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice work, and (as another fastmail.fm user) thank you for the responsible disclosure. May it amply repay you in consulting gigs :)

Regarding the script injection from image file names, there is a simple solution to this problem: separate the data types of strings and document structure. For example:

[http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Types- and...](http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Types-and-the- Web.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I noticed my e-mail provider also gave me the JS popup when i clicked the SVG attachment. They are using Horde. Possible horde security flaw?

<comment> mike-cardwell If the JavaScript executed, it's a "probable" critical security flaw, rather than a "possible" one. Are they using the latest version? Would you be able to submit a bug report to your provider and/or the Horde project?

[edit] I have alerted email@example.com

<comment><USER6> I've sent them an e-mail. I will let you know when i know more :)

<comment> mike-cardwell Thanks. I am currently discussing the problem with Jan Schneider (the core developer and a founding member of Horde LLC) in the #horde IRC channel on Freenode.

[edit] They've confirmed the bug and intend to fix it by making "image/svg+xml" attachments download only. This is the same fix that FastMail used. Of course, everyone will need to upgrade when this has been done.

<comment><USER6> My e-mail provider has fixed this by displaying the attachment as plain text. I guess until they update to the newest horde where it has been fixed.

<comment> mike-cardwell That's an impressively fast fix for an e-mail provider. Are you able to disclose who you are using?

<comment><USER6> I agree, i was also impressed. It's a Dutch provider, dds.nl</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kissa.be is open source tinyurl clone - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/kissabe/

<comment><USER2> It's great you provide it as open source so people can install their own server for their own references.

Tinyurl leaves room for enhancement. I use tinyurl when I have to copy a long URL into a mail to avoid that it is wrapped and made inoperable.

Unfortunately tinyurl provides the url in bold. So when I copy/past it with thunderbird, it is copied as bold. This is not what I want. When I send the mail, it is often converted to text and bold is converted to '*' enclosing the url. It's ugly, useless and requires additional actions to get right.

If you could provide references in normal text and different wrappers like [<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=280010>] or (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=280010>)or {<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=280010>} people would save time by picking the format they prefer.

If you could add the format specifications as url arguments, people could save the appropriate url so they get the desired format.

It is a good job.

<comment><AUTHOR> I want to create without advertisements and better web applications. Thanks for message of greetings :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The world does not need yet another shitty PHP tinyurl clone.

Kill yourself.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know, I tried to do mini apps with text shorted feature for big apps. I don't kill myself :D

Thanks</comment></comment>


Obama proposes college-rating system that could increase affordability - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-college-ranking-system-that-could-increase-affordability/2013/08/22/73e674c0-0b17-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

<comment><USER2> A quote: "First, the ratings would reward colleges that offer 'value.'"

"Value?" Who doesn't see the flaw in this suggestion? How is a government agency qualified to judge the value of different educational choices? What metrics will they use?

This is a good idea in principle, but it has a huge potential chasm between intent and realization.

I hope this works -- there are any number of colleges that offer seemingly prestigious but worthless degrees, and they should be called out. The problem is that there's no assurance that a government agency can be expected to distinguish between wheat and chaff.

There's another problem. On reviewing my own education, I realize that 90% of what I was taught in the 1950s is now recognized as either flat wrong (all life depends on photosynthesis), or taught a skill that's now obsolete (penmanship, long division). My point? Instead of delivering specific subjects, colleges should teach self-education skills for the long future. Some do, some don't, but that aspect of education is neither recognized nor tested for.</comment>


A Sad Announcement - <AUTHOR> https://www.omniref.com/blog/2016/12/21/a-sad-announcement/ <comment><USER2> This is sad, and a bit perplexing.

According to Crunchbase they had exactly 1 seed round ([https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/omniref#/entity](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/omniref#/entity)) and their project provides a really nice feature for github which is better than githubs existing feature. So I'm perplexed why someone like Github doesn't acquihire them, give them a nice bonus for their work over the last couple of years and add their biological distinctiveness to Github[1]. Or Atlassian integrating it with Jira so that your kanban notes can be attached to code as you're developing a sprint.

[1] Yes that is an old Borg reference.

<comment><USER3> Hi. Founder here.

I wasn't expecting this to be on HN (was kind of hoping for the opposite, actually; I'm not in a mental place where I can write a big, Medium-style, "why my startup failed" missive just yet), so I didn't go into any of this sort of stuff.

The short answer to your question is that companies are bought, not sold. They may seem common, but acquihires are statistically pretty rare, and they usually come with...terms. Which may or may not be good. There's also no guarantee that an acquired product will continue to exist post-acquisition.

Anyway, if enough people are interested, we're considering open-sourcing the annotation tool. I'd like to see that live on.

<comment><USER4> Hey, I don't know what kind of mental state you are in but I imagine your feeling pretty bummed so just wanted to say that I loved OmniRef and you made an incredible product. And though it's shutting down, you are successful. You did what very few people have the courage or ability to do: you started a company. So I can't wait to see what you do next. And I hope you can look back at OmniRef with good memories and keep your head up.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, we really appreciate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This would have been a better project, and had probably gotten a lot more traction, had it provided plugins for the big editor suites -- eclipse, visual studio, etc. As the project stood, it's neat, but at the same time, it's an impedence mismatch. You can't just annotate in your environment of choice, you have to go into a browser window to view the same code you have open in another window and see if there are any annotations. There's a place for something like it, but it needs to be a lot more intimate with how people already work in order for it to get any sort of needed traction.

<comment><USER3> Founder here. Yes, this is absolutely true. Problem is, _one_ editor integration doesn't cut it. Or even two. The editor world is balkanized, and even targeting the "most common" tools wasn't enough. Early adopters are probably more varied in their editor use than the general developer population.

More importantly, that was just one feature in a pile of other "must have" features that people said they needed. It was on the roadmap, but we never got around to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm sorry to hear the news - code annotation is something we need more of, especially for teaching and debating different design choices. I remember your posts on how MRI/Ruby worked from a few years back, which were always fun - and something that I thought other open source projects would have benefited from.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Stupid question: what does Omniref do that can't be done with source code comments? Comments are readable by anyone in any editor and do not require external tools. They are co-located to the relevant lines of code by being part of the source, and are as portable as the code itself. My first impression is that it is a solution seeking a problem.

<comment><USER8> The problem seems to be post-commit code review or something like that. I don't know if they did, but I hope they used git-notes which has been in git core for a while now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm sorry to see this. Before the pivot towards annotation, I used Omniref heavily for its excellent Ruby documentation access; while I hadn't used the newer featureset, I have very fond memories.

</comment><comment><USER10> Would you consider open sourcing some of your work on Ruby analysis?

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, the docs site code is...elaborate, and I don't think anyone could replicate the current site without a ton of effort from us. I don't see us open-sourcing that.

<comment><USER11> I don't understand this. It's not like anyone's asking you to make it easier. A code dump, useless as it may seem, is better than no code than at all. A code dump doesn't mean you owe anything to anyone.

<comment><USER12> He doesn't owe anyone a code dump either.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but he seems to not want to do it because it involves work. It doesn't involve work[1]. Just dump it, in whatever state it is.

\--

[1] Well, other than perhaps and upload to bitbucket or github and slapping a LICENSE file on it, probably. It shouldn't involve any _maintenance_ or _development_ work, is what I mean.

<comment><USER12> As discussed in other threads, he would have to go through the entire code base and determine licensing of all code he was using, talk to investors about being allowed to release, and strip out any confidential information. I honestly wouldn't hassle with it if my company just went belly-up, but it would be nice if it happened :)

I did find out about Git notes through this thread, which seems interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Would you consider open sourcing your work?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I posted this because I needed a code annotation tool to help me understand some C code and I remembered Omniref. I'm sad to see it disappear like this. I hope they will open source the annotations so that others can host it.

My use case isn't anything fancy. I just want to understand what tail is doing behind the scenes with inotify so that I can implement it in another language but I haven't found a rigorous enough outline of tail in pseudo-code to translate it. So now I'm just fighting with it in Vim and VSCode to strip away all the baggage that C forces onto a problem to get to the meat of the actual solution.

I think we all gain when code is more understandable and don't have to individually reverse engineer things to transport the lessons from one code base into another. I thought crowd sourcing the annotation process was an interesting take by Omniref. Maybe it was ahead of its time.

</comment><comment><USER8> If this has been using core git's notes[1] feature, then there's nothing to export from the site. But as export is mentioned in the announcement, it seems unlikely.

[1] [https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git- notes.h...](https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-notes.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting.. I had the idea of code annotation as a service, but gave it up when I saw this was already out there.

</comment><comment><USER15> Has anyone used both this and Code Genius' annotation, and can offer a comparison?

</comment><comment><USER16> This is why I think no one should trust companies that sell you software, that you can't host yourself, for something as critical as documentation and source control. I feel really bad for all the companies that have to jump through hoops to get _their_ data rescued from this company.

It also sucks to loose such a smart company. I wish they had built their solutions as a self hosted system so that people could still use their obviosuly outstanding work.

<comment><USER3> _" This is why I think no one should trust companies that sell you software, that you can't host yourself, for something as critical as documentation and source control."_

Omniref founder here. Please try not to think this way, particularly if you're a small team. I realize that this is kind of an impossible request (especially given the source), but one of the things that makes it _immensely_ difficult to start a software tools company is the unwillingness of developers to use hosted tools, particularly if those tools are new and/or different.

When you're a small team, you can only do so many things at once. Supporting hosted users, even in the best-case scenario, takes a lot of time and effort. It's (sometimes) worth it if you can land bigger clients who are willing to pay a premium for that effort, but often those bigger clients won't pay until you have a reputation with smaller teams, or they require lots of custom development that takes even more of your time. So you have a chicken-and-egg problem. It's not impossible to make it work, but it's harder than it should be.

If you're running a small/medium team, try to realize that innovation can only exist in this area if we're willing to support startups when they're younger. I've personally used lots of startups' services over the years for my dev work. Some succeeded, others failed, but _trust_ has never been an issue.

<comment><USER5> Yes, because tools hosted elsewhere have the problem your shutdown is exemplifying. A definite expiration date /sucks/. Even if it is a month out, that means having to do a lot of retooling to pull out all the bits and pieces that have been built in that rely on the third party. Were it a hosted solution, a transition plan could be made that isn't a mad rush to make sure all the data that's in those annotations is saved once the lights go out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Please don't be snarky toward a fellow user.

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281887](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281887) and marked it off-topic.

Edit: the comment was [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13282118](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13282118). My mistake; undetached.

<comment><USER18> I meant no offense. I love Star Trek and somehow that felt like a great analogy.

<comment><USER17> Ok! Sorry for misreading you. I've put the comment back where it was.

<comment><USER18> Thank you. I felt pretty bad about coming off as being snarky.

<comment><USER19> dang, ianai, _this_ is why I love HN.

Please keep up the good work forever.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Mest – Place to talk with those you disagree with - <AUTHOR> http://mest.io <comment><USER2> While I think that tech tools like this have the potential to be great, so far I think technology has made the problem worse. My conclusion from my recent experiences over the last year or so with the election and before (and volunteering/organizing volunteers therefor) is that people don't just need to communicate, we need to interact, and my observation is that this needs to happen (or at the very least works best) face to face. Talking to someone over the phone or maybe with video chat could work but anything that separates you from the person you are communicating with creates barriers for that communication (I am convinced). Communicating with people face to face (whether they agree with you or not) is one of the most basic and satisfying parts of being human and we're finding more and more ways to not do that.

<comment><USER3> I think modern transportation and communication have contributed to our increasingly divided society... by extending our interactions over larger areas, those tools allow us to naively fall into our own physical "filter bubbles".

Modern transportation contributed towards physical obesity. Technology became so efficient and so cheap that we became isolated from physical reality... we have to work out in order to stay physically fit.

I propose that modern communication has had a similar impact. We've been binging on the conflict-free interactions we enjoy, but we haven't been eating our veggies or working out. This is a mental "obesity epidemic".

We drive between similarly minded social gatherings. We keep contact with similarly minded people by calling them. We're in constant communication with our social groups with little time for disruptive ideas to slip in... each of us is deeply connected to our pocket of the world, but many of us are equally disconnected from the rest of the world.

<comment><USER4> I agree with these statements. Debate has become an offensive action many will go to great lengths to avoid.

<comment><USER5> I don't avoid "debate" because I fear disagreement or attacks. I avoid "debate" because so often when I enter one, the person engaging with me immediately employs ad hominem attacks or strawmen or appeals to emotions or any number of other unconstructive argumentation techniques. I am tired of engaging people who cannot argue using logic or rationality. I avoid it because it will be tedius and draining and there is no hope against someone not using logic. (Obviously this whole statement is merely an anecdote, and I'm not trying to explain trends.)

<comment><USER6> People aren't good at rationality and logic. They are too abstract, so they wield abstract (read: stereotyping) tools to combat it. To successfully debate people, focus on actions and consequences that are relevant to their life, and back it up with an understanding of what their life is and _evidence_ that these considered actions lead to undesirable consequences for them and/or others.

Debating in the abstract is something you need passion or training for. Our brains aren't built for it. Logic isn't what you need to wage debate, evidence is.

<comment><USER7> > Logic isn't what you need to wage debate, evidence is.

Depends on your goal and your audience. When talking to people who aren't particularly interested in the logic of a given argument, evidence won't help you.

>To successfully debate people, focus on actions and consequences that are relevant to their life, and back it up with an understanding of what their life is

However, you nailed it with this!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone,

Recently, given the results of the election and the divisiveness that's been revealed because of it, it seems like the country isn't talking to one another anymore. We're afraid of one another and the polices the other political party will put in place. A lot of this, I think, has to deal with the lack of communication between actual human beings that lie on both sides of the isle. I made this app, Mest, to try and get people who hold different opinions talking to one another. We just have to start doing something to deal with the ever increasing division in the U.S.

<comment><USER8> This is stupid. One side is saying "we want to get rid of all the immigrants." My disagreement with that is not a communication problem, it's that that position is a red line. There's no chance of me being convinced that forcibly removing immigrants is a good idea. So why even have the conversation? What good could that possibly do?

<comment><USER9> I've had what I thought were pretty constructive and interesting conversations about this topic right here on Hacker News.

Maybe you could talk about smaller and more specific aspects of the issue with people, like

* How has present-day opposition to immigration in the U.S. developed? Was there always strong anti-immigrant sentiment in this country? How were immigrants viewed in different eras? Were parts of those views accurate or inaccurate?

* What are the moral arguments in favor of people's right to migrate? What are the moral arguments in favor of a nation's right to prevent or limit migration? Is it important what existing citizens of a country think? Is it important why they think it?

* Is the present-day international system of nation-states and borders a good idea? How about various notions of citizenship? Are some criteria for citizenship obviously reasonable or unreasonable? Should criteria for citizenship be decided politically by existing citizens or are some kinds of decisions they might reach clearly unfair or morally wrong?

* Should people who live in a country feel proud that others want to move there? Should they feel proud of allowing or encouraging others to do so?

* Why are so many economists so strongly in favor of unrestricted or nearly unrestricted migration? Why have other people found the economists' consensus hard to accept?

* How do immigration restrictions interact with policy mechanisms like a welfare state and minimum wage?

* Is it good, bad, or neither for a government to favor the interests or preferences of existing citizens over others' interests? If it's not bad to do so, are there clear limits to how or to what extent the government may neglect or override foreigners' interests?

* What do we think about cultural differences between people living in different parts of the world? Would we like to acculturate as many people as possible to our own culture and way of life if we had the opportunity? Do we think that acculturation of this sort is inherently good? Do we think existing cultural differences are good, bad, or neither, and do we think at least some cultural differences can be placed on a hierarchy where one culture gets something more right than another?

* Are immigration critics right to worry that a culture could be made worse (and in some way less effective) by the arrival of lots of people with different cultural values? Are immigration supporters right to hope that a culture could be enriched by the arrival of lots of people with different ideas and traditions?

* Is there a meaningful moral difference between trying to deport existing residents who entered a territory without following its official migration rules, and trying to prevent other people from doing so in the future?

* What are the differences between population growth through migration and population growth through reproduction? Doesn't this undermine a simple intuition that migrants take away jobs from existing residents?

* How legitimate is it for members of an ethnic or cultural group to want to have their own nation-state and to make that nation-state somehow reflect the character or interests of that group rather than other groups?

* Is it true (as an article recently posted to HN suggested) that migration almost always makes the economy bigger and creates more total employment, but that the benefits of this growth may be quite unequally distributed or captured? Could migration economically benefit most people while economically harming some people?

* To what extent should a country try to assimilate migrants and to what extent should it be proud of having done so? Are there likely problems if large-scale migration happens without a corresponding assimilation? How successful has assimilation been in the past? Is there something legitimate in the preferences of migrants who don't want to assimilate (or only want to assimilate a little bit)? Is there something legitimate in the preferences of people who strongly want migrants to assimilate?

* Is there some kind of hypocrisy in creating or enforcing significantly stronger immigration restrictions today than those that prevailed in the past?

* Are there reasons for migration that are more or less important than others? How much should discussions about immigration address migrants' motivations? Are there motivations that change the moral status or significance of someone's desire to migrate?

* Many governments have created programs that try to draw distinctions among would-be migrants on the basis of their desirability. Have these programs worked well on their own terms? Who proposed them, and who got to create the criteria for desirability?

* What could governments reasonably know or ask about visitors or would-be immigrants?

* How much migration might occur if practical restrictions on it were removed? What might the long-term consequences be?

* If it's legitimate to physically restrict some kinds of immigration, what kinds of enforcement measures are proportionate and should people be punished somehow for circumventing or attempting to circumvent them?

* What if a country allows people to immigrate easily but makes it difficult or impossible for them to acquire citizenship? (How about temporary "non-immigrant" work visas?)

I bet there are about a dozen more things that could be discussed in this area.

I mention these things because I think it's possible to learn something from talking about them with people who radically disagree with you (and you don't have to give up your moral outlook on the situation, nor your political goals!).

<comment><USER8> And if this were a normal election we would have time for genteel debate about this subject, but currently, the President-elect is preparing a plan to send armed paramilitary troops into neighborhoods like mine to try to forcibly remove 11 million people. So those are all real cute cocktail party questions and all but all of them are meaningless until I can answer the question of how can I prevent the promised onslaught of violence in communities like mine? How do I keep my friends and neighbors safe? How do we keep families together? It's pretty unseemly to be asking abstract, philosophical questions about immigration generally when, across the street, armed goons with assault rifles are physically separating families from each other and dragging people off to detention centers.

<comment><USER9> I respect your commitment to protecting people and I hope you succeed.

Earlier in this thread you were saying that there was no point in talking to your opponents. The way you phrased it looked to me like you meant that there was nothing that you could learn from each other and nothing that you could convince each other about. As you can see, I don't think that's right. Now, it seems that you meant to make a narrower point that talking to your opponents won't stop deportations _now_ , which is probably true.

Depending on hard-to-predict factors, there might be conversations you could have that would convince some people _not to turn their neighbors and coworkers in for deportation_ even if they strongly disagree with you about immigration in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Really like the idea. Messages wouldn't go through though after a few interactions and couldn't submit a bug.

There is clearly a need for dialogue after such a divisive campaign, it would be even better before people cast ballots though. The media clearly don't help facilitate interaction between different elements of society, but rather act as an echo chambers for a lot of people. Whether it is The Guardian, Washington Post or Fox News and Breitbart. I'm British and was surprised by Brexit, however this didn't catch me by surprise. Such a huge disconnect has formed in both the US and UK. Although there are valid concerns as to how we implement dialogue the potential is huge. If we don't take these attempts seriously we risk becoming so polarised that ugly outcomes will be guaranteed.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone, this has been a pretty crazy day for me, and I'm pretty sure it's been crazy for everyone else as all. Sorry for only just responding to everyone on this thread, I've been super busy and have only just gotten a chance to sit down and get to work.

First off, I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback of gotten on the project, both positive and negative. As was revealed by the ton of technical difficulties and ridiculously sized bundle.js file, this was a hashed together project that was more of a proof of concept rather than a final app. Now that I know that there's a lot of interest in at least some sort of app developed along these lines, I'm going to spend a lot of time polishing the site and exactly how one expresses belief "for" or "against" topics or people. I also plan to look into research as posted on how to work against polarization in the country. I pushed a couple changes that should hopefully account for some of the technical problems people were having earlier, but I won't have time until the weekend to dive deep into it.

Secondly, I totally agree with okreallywtf that technology like this has the potential to be great, but so far tech's only made the problem worse. As the interest from HN shows, I think that there's a lot of room for developers to actually go out into more bridge-building type projects that work to get people to interact with those on the "other side." To get moralistic, I think that there's not only room for development here, but that we have the duty to explore these options. We have to prevent division from becoming further entrenched in this country. In this vein, I want to especially point out comments that highlight other sites that try to bring people together and become more informed about government like Placecot and pol.is. Maybe there's still ways that social media and technology can change the ways we interact with people. Perhaps we just have to be more aware of the forces that keep us within our own ideological bubbles.

We have a lot to work to do in this country to try and bring everyone together after this election. Let's see what can be done.

<comment><USER11> Is there a way I can get in touch with you, just want to bounce some ideas around

<comment><AUTHOR> Not at the moment, I'm going to set up an email for the site over the weekend

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Your bundle.js file is 4.4MB and took 30 seconds to load (given several attempts). I would consider getting that under control, at the very least gzip the file.

<comment><USER13> How can a site like this require that much clientside javascript?

<comment><USER14> it's 2016

<comment><USER14> what compels someone to downvote this?

<comment><USER15> It's not clear what point you're making and it doesn't seem to add much to the conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'd be interested in a non-binary option.

I am neither for nor against Trump, rather I'm interested in the relative merits or faults inherent in his policy proposals (where possible to investigate) and discourse.

<comment><USER17> This tool is still very primitive (i'm still working on it) but it does what you're looking for:

[http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/](http://consensus-148618.appspot.com/)

You construct an argument like a proof, with supporting arguments. People can share their opinions on each step of your argument.

It doesn't allow direct back and forth yet; you'd ahve to pass the link around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Came across this paper this AM regarding the attempts to get non-alike people to mingle:

"In this paper, we hypothesize, first, that previous approaches have not worked because they have been direct -- they have tried to explicitly connect people with those having opposing views on sensitive issues."

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481](https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00481)

</comment><comment><USER19> Love the concept -- I think it is sorely needed -- but my messages didn't post and I got disconnected after a single exchange.

</comment><comment><USER20> It doesn't seem to be working for me after I match. I enter some text and nothing updates.

<comment><USER20> It seems to be working now

Edit: its somewhat working. I think the issue is if the person disconnects it looks like your messages aren't being sent (theory).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why do I have to be "for" or "against" anything?

Why can't people evaluate the evidence and THEN decide?!?

It feels like these sorts of things make polarization worse.

<comment><USER22> Because many people don't evaluate evidence. They join and defend tribal positions where one side is completely right. and the other side is completely wrong.

The details of the argument don't matter. It's pure identity politics and herd affiliation.

I've been exploring some of the politics groups on FB, and the level of interaction in many groups is middle school level. There are a lot of juvenile insults, preachy testimonials to a particular view - usually one that loudly insults the other side - and a lack of interest in nuance, evidence, or curiosity.

HN may not be perfect, but you don't get many comments here that simply say "The other side sucks."

I don't know if it's even possible to move past that. A primary problem seems to be that the concept of evidence-based reasoning is completely alien and exotic to many voters. It looks very much as if they're literally not able to use their minds in that way. Instead of trying to understand an issue they repeat the same insults and cliches over and over for a quick emotional hit which satisfies them they've won the argument.

The Internet - and FB - is terrible for this, because it's much easier and quicker to type a one-sentence put down than to craft an argument.

You can try to fix this by banning flames and trolling, but then a lot of the people you're trying to persuade go elsewhere for their hit.

I have no idea what a solution would look like, or where to start looking for one.

<comment><USER23> Can FB/Twitter be somewhat effective if you've broken down a debate to tiny points, and gradually find common cause or identify real issues?

The alternative is giant blocks of text which are off-putting to many, harder to parse, hard to find time for, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I like the idea, but the chat doesn't work. The first message will send, but after that it freezes. I press escape twice to disconnect and nothing happens.

<comment><USER25> Same for me. Too bad, the idea is cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There are two problems I see with this.

I had 3 conversations.

ME: Hi Other side: Hello

That's it. stopped working

</comment><comment><USER27> Some feedback:

It's really strange how new messages appear at the top of the conversation instead of at the bottom. It's kind of unintuitive.

It would also be nice that with the browser at 100%, the chat window was big enough to reach the "new message" box. There's a big empty gap that's kind of awkward.

Edit-- Also, pressing escape twice either doesn't work for me or there's no feedback to confirm that I disconnected successfully.

I like it a lot, though, awesome job!! :)

</comment><comment><USER28> I would love to see something like this for broader issues and I see two big benefits.

1) I think it could be really helpful to bloggers. If I wrote a post on a divisive topic, I would love to have it reviewed by respected people who are on the other side (not sure exactly how you would work out the respected part). When we write it's too easy for us to build up a scarecrow argument then knock it down to the delight of those who already agree with us. For example imagine a metric that showed how much people who disagree with the article respect it anyways. If I saw something like that on my Facebook feed I would be more likely to read it.

2) A place for us to get experience on how to debate better. There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote. For example, when you disagree with someone ask a question you actually want the answer to, then talk about it. It sounds easy but it can only become a habit with deliberate practice. I have seen a number of other TED talks that go over these kinds of things.

<comment><USER9> > There are a number of principles that a site like this could promote.

One list is

[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

I can also recommend

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)

although I'm not positive of its educational value. :-)

Edit: This version of the sketch has what I find to be kind of pointless violence at the end.

<comment><USER29> Also

\- Crocker's Rules: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12881288)

\- Principle of Charity: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774600)

\- Rapaport's Rules: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12774692)

<comment><USER9> There's also this thing that Eliezer Yudkowsky observed

[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers)

It includes the impulse to suggest that things we favor have no negative consequences (or reasons to doubt them), while things we oppose have no positive consequences (or reasons to believe them).

In some forms of high school and college debate, you can lose points if you don't rebut every single argument raised by your opponent (but your rebuttal doesn't necessarily have to be _good_ in the ordinary sense of the word!). In policy debate this can lead to spreading, where people speak absurdly quickly because they want to be counted as having formally responded to everything the other side said, or having introduced points that the other side failed to rebut.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delive...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Style_and_delivery)

This is kind of wacky because it gets into a stylized activity far removed from what most listeners would understand as substantively discussing an issue. And it doesn't seem to admit the possibility that both sides might have some points to which there is no convincing rebuttal (which Eliezer suggests is actually a normal state of affairs for talking about real-world issues).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not US citizen but I follow US politics closely and from where I stand you guys (democrats) will not be able to do much about the situation now, you lost and you need to wait for the next election to give it a fight. And let me tell you, people who voted for Trump in 4 years from here will feel betrailed again and will flip to the other side (yours). This situation happened before in other countries and it always have the same outcome. at least 50% of Trump promisses are populist and infaisable, if you add on top of that his lack of experience, diplomacy and his bad temper after 4 years no one will want to vote for him or any other republican. So understanding the other side is not critical here, they will understand by them selves.

</comment><comment><USER31> It would be nice if it worked for more than 2-3 messages at a time.

</comment><comment><USER32> Another app I would like to suggest is Placecot. It allows you to post to neighborhoods and places nearby. So post to your local coffee shop or neighborhood and have a discussion. Better yet, meet those people in person. Part of the problem with society is we are all in filtered bubbles and no one meets and talks anymore.

You can find it on the app store here: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/placecot/id1024884410?mt=8)

I hope your journey meeting humans is as eye opening as mine has been. P.S. I am the founder. Feedback welcome.

<comment><USER33> Feedback: Apple only? Not interested in walled gardens.

<comment><USER32> It will come for Android as well but probably next year. Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It stopped working after I said "Hi" so it didn't work out for me, but I like the idea. I guess maybe it's being hugged to death at the moment.

I fear that once The Internet finds it, going there will stop being a pleasant experience.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's enough of a challenge to communicate effectively through text-only discussions with people I like. I like this idea, but wish it were full video chat so I could get facial expressions and tone.

<comment><USER36> No, no you really don't. Didn't Chatroulette teach anyone anything?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This site seems to be broken, I get matched but most messages don't post. In the meantime the best way to have a discussion with Trump supporters is not to vote them to negative infinity on HN :-)

</comment><comment><USER38> Great idea! We really have to work on not demonizing the 'other side'. I spent some time during the primaries trying to read through subreddits of supporters for the opposite candidate, trying to understand where they were coming from. That didn't work very well.

Learning to disagree constructively is a really important skill that we don't often get a chance to work on.

</comment><comment><USER39> I start conversations but then it just stops working

<comment><USER40> I am using IE Edge, it works there

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think the concept of having a single person - President, being head of the country is outdated.

We do not need a President. This ancient concept has to go. We have congress, senate, house of reps, judges, courts. Enough to make decisions and develop policies.

There would be less drama without President in America.

</comment><comment><USER42> Whipped this up, should be more reliable:

[https://tesm.sircmpwn.com](https://tesm.sircmpwn.com)

Code here, feel free to use it for mest: [https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm](https://gogs.sr.ht/SirCmpwn/tesm)

<comment><USER43> Knew your name looked familiar, thanks for your awesome work on Sway!

<comment><USER42> No problem, I'm glad you like it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> There are disagreements over opinions and there are disagreements over basic facts, and I'm just _done_ with arguing with crazy people who have their own weird realities.

<comment> at-fates-hands Even in the face of basic facts, people are still not very forthcoming in wanting to engage in a rational discourse.

For instance, people who lost their minds that Bush misled the public on the WMD's in Iraq, were just fine arguing the fact that Obama lied when he said if I like my doctor, I can keep my doctor or when he said my health care costs would go down $2,500/year. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse one party of lying, then defend _your_ guy when he lies.

The problem with where we are now is that people's _realities_ are too closely tied with their political views. So even when they are presented with facts, it's hard for them to accept it as being true or reliable.

<comment><USER45> I think most people would agree "ObamaCare" is a disaster. Most rational people could look at it and go "Yeah, we should do something differently".

"Republicans" say rip it out, go back to what we had before, don't adopt anything from it.

"Democrats" say to keep it and try to fix it.

Can it be fixed? Who knows. But ripping something out because it isn't perfect after two years is completely insane.

The US has a completely broken healthcare system and handing it back to corporations isn't going to fix it.

<comment> at-fates-hands The other thing is that it's the first thing they want to do now that they have both houses of congress and the white house.

Problem is, they don't have anything to replace it with yet.

I don't think the Republicans want to go back to what it was before. I think they want to keep some of the good things about it like being covered for preexisting conditions. I also know Republicans want to allow insurers to sell across state lines which would increase competition and drive down costs. People on both sides of the aisle have been saying this for years.

confirmed:

 _Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up._

[https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare- reform](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform)

There's actually some other good ideas in there too.

<comment><USER46> This always happens, one party rarely destroys the previous party work, what they often do is claim to completely undo it, but in reality they simply build on top of it. It's a marketing game. This way, you can claim the previous party was completly 100% wrong and did nothing good. And we rebuilt from scratch and deserve all the credit. Then you can say: See, we should have been the elected party all along.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> How about other topics to debate?

</comment><comment><USER48> I love this idea, but the chat system doesn't appear to work after 1-2 messages.

<comment><USER49> This was also my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Gah! I can't get a conversation to stay connected. So many cool people I would love to keep talking to. Is there an alternative that is not getting HN hugged?

</comment><comment><USER51> This concept is a troll haven. Politically motivated trolls have become a rampant problem online. I think they are the single biggest obstacle to the progress social media (in the broadest definition, which includes this project here) can effect towards non-partisan goals like empathy and factuality. How will you deal with this issue?

</comment><comment><USER52> Seems to be no "ambivalent" option on Mest :(

</comment><comment><USER53> Great idea, trying to use it but it seems broken. Chat cuts off after two lines. Have tried it about 10 times. Please fix?

</comment><comment><USER54> Neat idea - but messages would not send and hitting escape twice as instructed didn't end the session.

</comment><comment><USER55> What is the origin of the name Mest? I can't help but think of that emo band from the 00's.

<comment><USER56> It means "revenge" in russian.

<comment><USER57> It means "manure" in Dutch :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> It doesn't work on Firefox

</comment><comment> d--b Somehow, I think there's not going to be a lot of trump supporters out there.

<comment><USER59> Well, there's a lower bound of around 50 million trump supporters in the US based on last night's election results...

<comment><USER60> Yes, but Hacker News is not exactly a random slice of American voters. I would expect to find some, but not many, Trump supporters who are going to find and use a site like this.

<comment><USER61> I don't think Peter Thiel is trolling Hackernews for ways he can explain why he's supporting Trump.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I've had a far more elaborate idea incubating for at least 8 years... I have many mockups, some pocs and a bunch of notes if someone is interested.

There's no plans for capital extraction so there's no money...

<comment><USER63> I'm interested in at least the elevator pitch. What's your basic idea?

<comment><USER62> I don't know if you'll see this but email me. Use my hn handle @ yahoo and I'll write it up. I'll need to write this document eventually if I want it to be a reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> If the experience I'm having is any indication (very clunky, conversation works 50% of the time), I think you might want to iron things out a bit more before a Show HN like this.

</comment><comment><USER65> It crashed in latest Safari pretty much soon as the chat started...

</comment><comment><USER66> Yeah, I'm sure the racist, xenophobic, sexist deplorables can't wait to chat with those who've been demonizing them for an entire year.

</comment><comment><USER67> Great idea, love it!

</comment><comment><USER68> I like this idea, but unfortunately the site is broken. Made a throwaway account - I voted for Trump, want to talk about it?

</comment><comment><USER69> wow! last night I got inspired to create exactly this concept while watching this interview [https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal)

</comment><comment><USER70> It requests connections on port 8080 as well.

This may inhibit its use from some people behind a corporatish proxy/firewall.

</comment><comment><USER71> Isn't that what the internet is for?

<comment><USER72> Until most communities naturally dissolve into "subreddit"-esque groups where users share similar views to enjoy validation and avoid being downvoted. Explicitly encouraging opposing viewpoints may help alleviate this problem.

<comment><USER36> Not really. It just encourages people to fight for their team.

You need a place where there are no teams, where it's not A vs. B, but a place where you're tackling smaller problems and talking solutions which can be understood and validated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Site is a mess while using Tor Browser. Double Esc doesn't work. Messages aren't going through.

</comment><comment><USER74> Looking for Partner FOR Donald Trump... And looking... and looking... and looking...

<comment><USER50> ...partner found: Whats up man, aer you doing OK?

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Couldn't connect to a partner. So far it looks like a topic oriented Omegle.

</comment><comment> obj-g Ah yes, bringing people together by dividing them into two groups.

</comment><comment><USER76> Feature request: Need to know when somebody is actively speaking to you.

</comment><comment><USER77> its pretty cool. but as for me, i already spend 80% of my interactions talking to people i disagree with, i think i have enough of it already =)

</comment><comment><USER78> Sorry but humanity needs more self-understanding, empathy towards others and non-political activism. Arguing on the Internet does not help or we would be living in utopia since 90s.

</comment><comment><USER79> there is 4chan for that.

<comment><USER80> 4chan is an echo chamber, especially /pol/. The other echo chamber is 8chan's /leftypol/. What's good about them is that if you're a rightwinger you can go to /leftypol/and if you're a leftie you can go to /pol/.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> idea: interesting, execution: fail

</comment><comment><USER82> The time for talking seems over. The days of toleration, of nodding along and trying to engage with the crazy uncle over thanksgiving dinner seem to have failed. It may be time for more direct action, for properly ostracizing such people. The racists and homophones aren't going to be invited to my family gatherings anymore. And when they ask I will make sure they understand why.

Everyone thinks that such people can be negotiated with. I don't think they can until they understand exactly what they are doing. They don't know that they are racist, they now believe they are the normal people. They need to told exactly how dangerous we believe them to be.

<comment><USER83> >The racists and _homophones_

Oh dear lord.

<comment><USER84> Claire and Clare are no longer welcome!

<comment><USER85> Brian and Bryan are out, too.

<comment><USER86> How about Don and Dawn, though?

<comment><USER85> Depends on the regional accent, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let me tell you why dialogue doesn't work in this case:

Now discussing Donald Trump Now Talking with nigger lyncher nigger lyncher's Description: i love to lynch niggers

That conversation is over before it can start. I'd rather fight these idiots in the streets for the next 4 years than make any type of attempt at dialogue.

<comment><USER51> You're dealing with a troll there, not an idiot. A troll.</comment></comment>