Pharo 4.0 Released - <AUTHOR> http://pharo.org/news/pharo-4.0-released <comment><USER2> Not having heard of Pharo before 10 minutes ago, I wish this website did a better job of explaining what it is.

 _"... an object-oriented programming language and a powerful environment... (think IDE and OS rolled into one)"_

An IDE and OS rolled into one? What does that even mean? I had to go to Wikipedia to learn that this is basically a modern Smalltalk implementation. So why not just say that on the main page?

I once took a glance at IBM's Smalltalk about 20 years ago (in fact, these IDE screenshots remind me of the "VisualAge" IDE that eventually morphed from Smalltalk to Java and was then re-invented as Eclipse). However, I don't know enough about Smalltalk itself for this website to be informative. Does it compile to executables, or does it require an interpreter or VM at runtime? Can applications be built from command-line (or a build script on a CI server), or is it tightly coupled with the IDE? The Wikipedia article mentions some web frameworks, but the Pharo website shows screenshots of what appear to be desktop GUI applications (or maybe data visualizations running inside the IDE, a la R with RStudio?).

Maybe someone with some hands-on experience could provide a TL;DR, for those who aren't willing to read the full book just to get a high-level sense of this?

<comment><USER3> Because if you don't understand "an IDE , OS rolled into one" then you don't understand what Smalltalk is anyway. Its not easy to explain what Pharo is , the same way its not easy to explain what Emacs is , etc. There are may ideas and workflow integrated into it and its development workflow is radically different to normal programming languages. "Does it compile to executables"

No it does not , but there is no need. Pharo can be distributed with your application and it does need to installed its a standalone.

"or does it require an interpreter or VM at runtime?"

its interpreted to byte code and it has a JIT VM. It is always runtime ;) Meaning everything is live and running even your source code. Compilation happens under the hood without the user being aware of it.

"Can applications be built from command-line (or a build script on a CI server), or is it tightly coupled with the IDE?"

There is a command line interface , also any method can be exported to command line and Pharo can run without a GUI.

"The Wikipedia article mentions some web frameworks, but the Pharo website shows screenshots of what appear to be desktop GUI applications (or maybe data visualizations running inside the IDE, a la R with RStudio?)."

There is a web framework which quite popular and actively developed Seaside that allow you to use javascript , html and the usual suspect. Plenty of others frameworks exists as well but not so actively developed. Most success stories in the web site use those frameworks.

"Maybe someone with some hands-on experience could provide a TL;DR, for those who aren't willing to read the full book just to get a high-level sense of this?"

you can also drop in IRC for general directions, and ask questions to the mailing list, the community is very welcomed for newcomers. But give pharo a try and ask questions and you wont regret it Pharo is a great way and fun way to create software.

I have made also video tutorial for newcomers

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5ivaEATLQ&list=PLqbtQ7OkSt...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5ivaEATLQ&list=PLqbtQ7OkSta0ULYAd7Qdxof851ybh- _m_)

I have also made this simple guide to explain what Pharo really is

[http://thekilon.wix.com/pharo-about](http://thekilon.wix.com/pharo-about)

<comment><USER4> How does source control work for Pharo? I know it was an issue with Smalltalk as your "source" was a modified binary image. Is this the same?

<comment><USER3> You can use Pharo with git and github outside the box if you are using MacOS or Linux, there are some issues I think with Windows. Pharo uses Filetree which export source to files and makes commits , pulls , pushs etc. Gitfiletree allows filetree to be managed by git from inside Pharo without the use of a terminal but you can still use the terminal if that is your thing. I explain filetree, git and github in this video

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2WNYDtO0cE&list=PLqbtQ7OkSt...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2WNYDtO0cE&list=PLqbtQ7OkSta0ULYAd7Qdxof851ybh- _m_&index=22)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The changelog is here: [https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo- changelogs/blob/maste...](https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo- changelogs/blob/master/Pharo40ChangeLogs.md)

Things that I find especially interesting, from new stuff:

> TxModel, a modern text model who works with Athens (Preview)

This is very, very nice. New text model was in the works for quite some time now and I'm glad it finally landed. Easy and powerful text editing is important, even in primarily GUI-driven environments. Pharo was a bit behind the times in this regard, which resulted in, for example, Shampoo ([http://dmitrymatveev.co.uk/shampoo/](http://dmitrymatveev.co.uk/shampoo/)).

> OSWindow, a new way to handle windows and input events (Preview)

This allows for creating OS level windows from inside Pharo. IIRC it's supported only on Windows right now, but it's a very nice feature and will make creating apps that "look natively" easier.

> Slots model instance variables as first class enities and enable meta- > programming on this level.

This looks rather important and I remember reading about it some time ago. There's a paper about it: [http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Verw11bFlexibleObjectLayo...](http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Verw11bFlexibleObjectLayouts.pdf) \- I'll need to read it again now that it's implemented.

Then there are updated things, all very nice too. Congratulations to the team and contributors!

<comment><AUTHOR> OSWindow is working nice for the three major platforms, using a SDL2 backend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Updated Pharo by Example book [https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/UpdatedPharoByExa...](https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/UpdatedPharoByExample)

<comment><USER3> here is the pdf

[https://ci.inria.fr/pharo- contribution/view/Books/job/Update...](https://ci.inria.fr/pharo- contribution/view/Books/job/UpdatedPharoByExample/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/book- result/UpdatedPharoByExample.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Awesome work!

I gave Pharo a test drive a few months ago and was pleasantly surprised when I had a little window with a table listing out all of the links and titles on the front page of HN in an afternoon.

I really enjoyed the experience of "filling in the blanks," style programming that it introduced to me. I just started by instantiating an object and calling the entry point method... and landed in the debugger. But I was able to fill in the missing methods and data-structures until it finally came out of the debugger and I had a working application.

Can't wait to check out the release notes. I highly recommend spending an afternoon with it just to see what can be done.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Pharo is a pure object-oriented programming language and a powerful environment, focused on simplicity and immediate feedback.

</comment><comment><USER8> It still has a strange non-native user interface. Why would I want another window system in a window in 2015?

<comment><USER9> So does iTunes on windows and Qt (since v. 4) on everything.

But I agree the single-window MDI is a major drawback. I keep checking out Pharo periodically and hoping a UI with multiple, native windows will be present or at least in the works, but sadly that is not yet the case.

There was actually a project many years ago for Squeak to give it native OS windows called Cheese, and the Squeak people, if you can believe this, actually told the author (Boris Shingarov) not to bother, and that if he wanted native windows, he should go use some other Smalltalk instead. They actually preferred their ugly, unprofessional, cartoonish UI that nearly everyone new to Squeak complained about.

I think Pharo is on the right track, but it's sad the developers have to spend so much time paying off the technical debt the Squeak project ran up.

<comment><USER3> We should not forget Pharo IS a fork of Squeak, it goes to a very different direction but is based on the same code. GUI wise Pharo inherited its GUI API, Morphic from Squeak. My personal opinions is that native look interfaces are dead. Nowdays most apps use custom look especially web applications.

Native looks apps look boring. Users don't like boring applications. At least I dont :)

The GUI in Pharo is not ideal but we should not also forget that this is a small community that is able to come up with tons of new cool useful features in each release because of how R.A.D Pharo is.

<comment><USER10> I disagree, native looking applications, while "boring", at least feel natural. Every time I use an application with custom controls (which almost always look pillowy) I feel like it wasn't made by a professional, it tends to respond different and it just doesn't feel right. I have read again and again criticism against Java and how it "failed" in the desktop because every time you used a Java application, it looked like a Java application.

<comment><USER3> I am not going to debate your personal taste, its your right to want "native looking" interfaces.

There has been a project to bring native interfaces to pharo called Mars

[https://marsonpharo.wordpress.com/](https://marsonpharo.wordpress.com/)

but after the student left none took the project further. So yes its possible but for now there zero interest for it in pharo community.

<comment><AUTHOR> I myself also would prefer native windows, and I time to time continue working on Mars... but is a side project nobody has actually expressed interest, so I usually spend my time in other, more required, stuff. But... Mars was loading in Pharo 4.0, and even if _very_ incomplete, is usable for them who want to give it a try and finish it (also people showing interest could help me to get motivation :) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yeah!

Pharo, the 1500HP engine for livecoding.

<comment><USER12> Is anyone using a smalltalk for live coding? It seems like the toplap community [1] who claim to be the home of live coding, are mostly into LISPs.

[1] [http://toplap.org](http://toplap.org)

<comment><USER13> Basically all Smalltalker do live coding. It's not live coding in the sense of building a scene or composing music tough.

The parent probably means live coding his app. If you do Ruby, think about creating your whole program in IRB. You can dump the memory anytime and reload the dump to continue from where you left.

Coding in IRB means that you have access to all the introspection and dynamic analysis while you're coding.

<comment><USER12> The meaning of live coding is quite specific, I mean, there is toplap and even a whole conference on it coming up.

Gilad Bracha likes to push live programming in smalltalk via his newspeak work. No time travel though, which I don't think is supported by any smalltalk environment yet (you can change code via fix and continue, or objects via direct manipulation, but code changes do not update objects retroactively). So the Bret Victor style of live programming probably isn't supportable (without changes to be model/runtime).

<comment><USER14> >>but code changes do not update objects retroactively<<

Can you explain what you mean by that?

 _iirc_ You can step back through the execution stack in the debugger, change code or variable values; and when you resume the new code is used and the new values are used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great ! Congratulation to the whole Pharo community.

</comment><comment><USER16> I installed this for Ubuntu 12.04. When I fired it up, it requested I choose and build a source file (different from Pharo 3). Then when it started, it said, "Pharo cannot locate the source file named /usr/lib/pharo- vm/PharoV40.sources.

Any ideas what to do?

TIA, Steve

<comment><USER17> Sorry about that. The Ubuntu PPA is not yet up-to-date. Please download [http://files.pharo.org/sources/PharoV40.sources.zip](http://files.pharo.org/sources/PharoV40.sources.zip) and extract it in /usr/lib/pharo-vm/PharoV40.sources. You may have to throw your image away and start a new one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Did the compiler overhaul happen in this version?

<comment><AUTHOR> it happened previous version (3.0), this version we started to actually use it :)

<comment><USER18> Very nice! I missed that. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Anyone using this professionally?

<comment><USER20> [http://pharo.org/success](http://pharo.org/success)</comment></comment>


Unskilled and Destitute Are Hiring Targets for Fukushima Cleanup - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/unskilled-and-destitute-are-hiring-targets-for-fukushima-cleanup.html

<comment><AUTHOR> > They ignored alarms warning of an overflow because so many tanks are near > capacity, alarms ring all the time.

Now that's just bad design, an accident waiting to happen. :(</comment>


How Madden NFL became a video game dynasty - <AUTHOR> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=100805/madden

<comment><USER2> *havent finished article yet

But does the supreme courts' ruling on the nfl not being a single entity have no impact on madden being the only nfl-licensed football game around?

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1270959...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127095946&ft=1&f=1001)

American Needle was fighting against the NFL awarding sole merchandising rights to Reebok and they won. EA has sole rights over NFL video gaming, why hasnt this changed?

<comment><USER3> The ruling was only ~2 months ago and video games like Madden aren't simple. Maybe we'll see something next year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That ESPN article felt like a better dive into the tech world of gaming than most articles in tech blogs or magazines.

If you've ever played Madden, I highly recommend the article.

</comment><comment><USER5> Without competition EA puts out the same crap every year. 60 bucks for a updated depth chart.

</comment><comment><USER6> Front Page Sports imploding helped quite a bit on the computer side.</comment>


Why I Left Indie Development - <AUTHOR> http://nickbradbury.com/2014/07/29/why-i-left-indie-development/

<comment><USER2> It makes me sad whenever I hear about indie developers feeling oppressed by customer support, which ought to be source of ideas for improving the product rather than a drag on development. In my mind that's actually what sets indie products apart from the others in a crowded marketplace -- customers have a direct line to the developer, and get nearly instantaneous fixes to their problems.

My basic strategy for reducing the cost of customer support -- and making it a source of valuable information to my business -- is to 1) choose a price point so that potential customers will actually read the app description before buying 2) LISTEN to paying customers and fix common issues they're complaining about 3) constantly obsess over product quality, sometimes at the expense of new features.

Right now I spend about an hour per day doing support, and instead of feeling oppressed, I rather enjoy the process of building relationships with customers, even if they initially emailed me out of frustration about something.

As for the other issue -- having time to be a husband and father and all that -- I don't think there's an easy answer. I was only able to get my apps off the ground financially because I was in a situation where I had nearly unlimited free time. It's only been recently that I could even consider taking on other major commitments.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good to hear from a Delphi Legend

</comment><comment><USER4> would love to hear more. numbers, juicy details, etc.,..

<comment><USER5> Yes, it reads like a longer tweet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Silence is golden.</comment>


Where does the Ubuntu Linux desktop go from here? - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/where-does-the-ubuntu-linux-desktop-go-from-here/#ftag=RSSbaffb68 <comment><USER2> We bought a ZaReason Linux laptop for my wife last year and it has really reset my expectations for what I can expect of a Linux desktop. It works mostly. But things break somewhat regularly and it needs a happy reboot at least once every two days. In short, by 2017 standards it's a buggy piece of shit. For the average computer user who does not want a Mac, I would recommend Windows over Ubuntu at this point. It's more stable and less buggy.

In terms of quality I would put it about 10-15 years behind Mac OSX or Windows. I almost never have to reboot my Mac because something broke, and when I use modern Windows machines I also seldom have to reboot them.

So my message to Canonical is to make something that doesn't suck. My wife doesn't care what window manager is chosen, just pick one and stick with it until it works. And test the crap out of it. test, test, test... Find bugs and fix them. Your geeky Linux user doesn't care about little annoying bugs, but less technical users really do.

<comment><USER3> Sorry to hear about your wife's bad experience.

Never heard of the company, but based on the specs of laptops being offered from the website, I'd hazard a guess that the discrete GPU is probably the source of many of your woes. Linux has always been a second-class citizen for video cards, particularly since NVIDIA's binary blobs fly in the face of the FOSS spirit.

If she doesn't do intense graphical editing or gaming, an integrated GPU from Intel would probably run much better on Linux.

FWIW (and I hate countering anecdotal evidence with more anecdotal evidence), I've got a Dell XPS 13 running Fedora and it will run days/weeks without a problem. I reboot it maybe once a month in order to apply the latest kernel, and that's about it.

<comment><USER4> It baffles me that your recommendation is to get off Nvidia hardware + restricted drivers and use an Intel integrated GPU. Have you had such bad time with Nvidia hardware and their drivers?

<comment><USER3> Personally? No. But as stated, my primary laptop has an integrated GPU. Intel drivers tend to have support in the kernel so everything just works out-of- the-box. It's one of the reasons I tore the Broadcomm wifi card that came with the XPS13 and replaced it with an Intel 7265.

I am not sure whether the parent was using the nouveau drivers or the NVIDIA blobs. It's besides the point either way: GPU's on Linux are notoriously finicky, no matter your stack.

The recommendation to go with an integrated GPU is strictly pragmatic. I personally am a tinkerer and am willing to live with a little bit of pain as far as functionality or configuration for ideological reasons if it means supporting a FOSS distribution. But I can't make that same assumption for the parent's wife, and if she wants something that "just works" because she's unwilling to tolerate that level of pain, then an integrated GPU might be the way to go.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand how that's your go-to suggestion. It just makes a lot of assumptions, it's anecdotal, and I'm just surprised there's this kind of armchair tech support on HN. And then others go on the forum and read it.

Everybody on the below thread is having a tertiary argument thinking I have something to say about GPUs and their drivers. I could not care less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> kde is really very good, maybe because i am used to it, i dont see what it is missing, but i think even if it is missing something, it is probably minor

as Linus Torvalds said in a video on youtube, what linux on the desktop need is to come preinstalled by the major pc vendor ... ubuntu need more deals with big vendors that is all

<comment><USER6> KDE and Gnome are both really good nowadays, but Ubuntu is a buggy piece of shit. I've helped friends install it a couple of times recent years, and seen various desktop program crashes _every time_. It wasn't like this back in the Gnome2 days.

What we really need is Red Hat to start selling Fedora computers. And KDE Neon to ship laptops based on Debian stable. And obviously at least one big retailer to have them in a physical store, so we tell our friends where to go.

<comment><USER7> A Fedora "leap" release, same as with OpenSUSE Leap, with a 3 year support cycle would be the ultimate system for me.

I've been using Fedora for the last 7-8 years, but I have to upgrade every 13-14 months or so. And CentOS is not suited for a modern development/workstation environment.

<comment><USER8> I like it. Fedora upgrades are mostly painless and 3 year support cycles means more outdated software.

<comment><USER7> Yes I like it too, but think farther ahead.

Why is Ubuntu the defacto supported Linux distro? Why is,quite often, steam so difficult to install, while it's a breeze to install on Ubuntu?

You can't expect people to consider you as a legitimate target if you're constantly moving :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> While Linux developers and users endlessly argued about, and worked on, different UI environments, display server stacks, etc., Android's UI became the world's most used computer interface environment (around 1.5 billion devices, at last count):

[http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/android- statistics/](http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/android-statistics/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems)

Market relevance aside, I view Ubuntu's return to Gnome as a Good Thing. It means there will be more work towards common goals by Canonical and Red Hat.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just give a Linux desktop which is a smooth as macOS.

<comment><USER11> Oh god please no. I would really prefer that we stop the experimentation and just go back to implementing the standard desktop. Linux got its success by being a Unix clone, down to copying the syscall numbers. We should mimic that on desktop by just copying Windows, rather than chasing unproven weird ideas. OSX succeeds not because it's quirky, but because it is backed by a company with massive resources. And even OSX is much closer to Windows than Gnome is. Please stop innovation for innovation's sake and just make Windows 98 again.

<comment><USER12> > OSX succeeds not because it's quirky, but because it is backed by a company > with massive resources.

If deep pockets was all it took to make an OS succeed, Windows Phone wouldn't be dead.

On the desktop, OSX, Windows, and most Linux variants are all good enough. What matters is application support. For my job, 50% of the applications I use run on Linux, 75% run on OSX (natively), and 100% work on Windows. Can you guess which OS I use at work?

Thanks to Valve, Linux has a real shot at picking up some steam in the gaming space. Without Adobe and Microsoft, it probably won't go anywhere on corporate or consumer desktops.

<comment><USER13> > 100% work on Windows

Make that 110% if you include Visual Studio. The degree of polish that Visual Studio has just isn't available anywhere else. At some point early this year I was considering Linux+VSCode. VS2017, with F5-to-Docker debug, launched and everything else looks like a giant pain in the ass once again. The Azure integration is anticompetitive but, wow, is it also so much better than the alternative.

XCode is a hilarious joke that Apple is playing on developers.

Linux IDEs, while much better than XCode, would have been competitive in 2003 (unless you use Java/IntelliJ exclusively).

It's no wonder that Windows is the only platform where developers shy away from text editors - it's the only platform where the alternatives to text editors don't absolutely suck. It's really not that text editors are better than IDEs - an good IDE and a good text editor are complementary, not competitive.

Where I'm going with this is that a good IDE begets a quality application. That 100% doesn't arise from the ether. Alongside your game argument comes another indicator of this: Windows has a very mature graphical debugger[1] (having been growing it since DX9) where, so far as I have read, both competing operating systems lack this functionality _entirely._

Balmer might have looked like a fool with his "developers, developers, developers" dance. The thing is that he was completely correct - instead of mocking his monkey dancing, Apple and Linux should have been paying attention to the people that he was praising.

If Ubuntu want to compete in this space the developer experience must be fixed.

[1]: [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/hh315751.aspx](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/hh315751.aspx)

<comment><USER14> _The degree of polish that Visual Studio has just isn 't available anywhere else. _

I like Windows more than before but people saying VS is fantastic are starting to annoy me.

My VS _crashed_ 3 times today (!). This comes on top of almost not having any refactoring support unless you buy ReSharper.

I was really excited to get to try .Net three months ago.

Now I'm really looking forward to go back to Java and Netbeans (even if I will miss some things.)

 _It 's no wonder that Windows is the only platform where developers shy away from text editors_

This developer love Netbeans on KDE.

<comment><USER13> ReSharper? I typically run lightweight in terms of extensions and I've heard woes from others that don't.

<comment><USER14> But without ReSharper, Visual Studio (at least the community edition) can't refactor almost anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> While I like Ubuntu going back to Gnome for desktop, it is unfortunate this lessens the chance of running Linux on mobile phones anytime soon.

<comment><USER12> Linux already is running on the majority of mobile phones. :)

That said, the UI has never been what's holding back Ubuntu on the phone.

<comment><USER16> What was the issue?

Lack of apps? Marketing?

<comment><USER14> My guess is the biggest issue is almost every phone is locked down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone here use Budgie as their main DE? I've been following Ubuntu Budgie since the official flavor was announced last year. I played with the unofficial version a bit in a VM and it worked relatively well. I would love to hear some insight on it's performance and stability.

</comment><comment><USER18> More stability, add gaming support.

I moved to fedora because Ubuntu tends to break and guzzle resources.

</comment><comment><USER19> How I wish that Canonical would have chosen MATE instead, Wimpy is already working for them.

<comment><USER8> MATE is a dead end if you want a modern, Wayland-based desktop.

<comment><USER20> Not true. Wayland's on MATE's Roadmap. [http://wiki.mate- desktop.org/roadmap](http://wiki.mate-desktop.org/roadmap)

<comment><USER21> Well, from what it says there, it sounds like "yeah, we will have to do that sometime".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Do not talk about - make my desktop experience last forever by upstreaming unity in a fork. This will be my reality for years :)

I will be agnostic - won't change a lil thing even if the distro changes the wm. watch the progress. i will keep unity .. forgive me. i even would backport - if it doens't happen.

</comment><comment><USER23> I miss Gnome 2 Ubuntu.

<comment><USER24> You can use the Mate Desktop Environment [1], it's pretty close to Gnome 2.

[1] [https://mate-desktop.org/](https://mate-desktop.org/)

<comment><USER23> That is what I use these days, although I've switched to Mint instead of Ubuntu.

<comment><USER25> How are you liking Mint so far? Comparison with Cinnamon?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Herd Mentality - <AUTHOR> http://quillette.com/2016/01/03/herd-mentality/ <comment><USER3> > As a lifelong supporter of social justice, the new wave of "social justice > warriors" and their denunciation of healthy debate has come as a horrifying > shock to me. Until recently, I believed that the fight for equality would > herald a new age of empathy, diversity and understanding. Instead, many of > my previously liberal allies have been taken over by the cult of victimhood > and a collective fear of rejection. Like teenagers, they constantly check in > with each other to affirm whether what they think is acceptable – and who > can blame them? The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the > tribe.

Seriously, latest season of South Park seems the best depiction of this phenomenon that I've seen so far.

<comment><USER4> It is mostly signaling + one upping each other.

But they managed to turn me from moderate liberal (in the EU sense, I guess I am raving socialist by US) to complete nihilist. I want to see Trump elected just to piss them off.

<comment><USER3> Labels are stupid anyway.

I got detained by police on a demonstrations in support of gay rights and democratic elections. But at the same time, I believe that flat tax (not flat tax rate as in % of income, but flat tax as in constant amount of money per month) is the most just form of taxation. Not even remotely feasible, of course, and it would be very stupid to even try to implement it, but still, the most just in theory.

Now — does it make me left or right?

<comment><USER5> > Now — does it make me left or right?

I think it makes you confused. :-) Which is an OK state to be in, and it's up to you if you want to change that. Let me explain.

I think left vs right means how much you care about people when it comes to their relative power and social status in society. If you don't like power inequality, then you're on the left. If you enjoy it or are indifferent to it, then you're on the right.

Now democracy is a distinctly leftist concept, because it explicitly gives everybody the same political power. Gay rights, well, it's a little aside from this classification but basically equal rights for everybody is in the same ballpark (that's why most equal rights movements are considered leftist).

On the other hand, supporting flat tax is somewhat alluding to the idea that money do not influence power relationships in society. Which is AFAICT empirically false. I do however think that you can recognize flat tax as being just under that assumption.

You do seem to care about distribution of power in society, which makes you leftist. So I think the question is, do you believe in that assumption, that income has no influence on political power (and it cannot, for instance, limit personal freedom of other people)?

<comment><USER3> > I think left vs right means how much you care about people when it comes to > their relative power and social status in society. If you don't like power > inequality, then you're on the left. If you enjoy it or are indifferent to > it, then you're on the right.

So, you not only think that there's a universal definition of left vs right in politics but also that it's all about one single problem?

> On the other hand, supporting flat tax is somewhat alluding to the idea that > money do not influence power relationships in society.

I don't support flat tax, it would be an insane and idiotic idea.

I just think it's the most fair and just tax scheme. But I don't even remotely support it.

> So I think the question is, do you believe in that assumption, that income > has no influence on political power (and it cannot, for instance, limit > personal freedom of other people)?

You intertwined a lot of very complicated issues with your comment. First of all:

1) Power inequality is not good or bad; it's too broad of a definition. In order to attach moral value to it, you have to look at a concrete example in context, not an abstract concept.

For example, I think you would prefer for a few of leading climate scientist to have more power over environmental policy than of people who don't believe in evolution, right? But this is power inequality, too.

2) Taxes are, in theoretically just world, should be a form of payment for government services. Government is an entity that provides us with invaluable services like justice system and other perks, from certification of medication to protection from foreign threats. It's good stuff, worth paying for. But in theory, I don't see any moral reasons for some people to pay more for these services than others.

You, on the other hand, want to use taxes as a tool to solve power inequality, because you decided that it's a bad thing. Not only this decision is rather strange (as I already discussed in point 1), but you're using a hack to implement a unrelated requirement with the help of a feature that was implemented for completely different reason. Once again, _in theory_ this makes no sense at all.

3) And finally, when you involve terms like "personal freedom" into equation, I can almost guarantee that we will end up arguing about what "personal freedom" really is, where it starts and where it ends, and will not able to come to a conclusion.

However.

You might have guessed that I separate the political theory of what just and what is not from political reality. In political reality that we have, democracy did not appear because of theoretical considerations of what is the best form of government: it evolved as a compromise between different parties who would've otherwise kill each other to determine who's right. So were the taxes. And our discussions about what is good and bad, in theory, have very little dent on reality, which is shaped by power struggles of millions of people acting of their self-interest; all we can hope to achieve is to solve these conflicts in the most peaceful way possible. Trying to construct the perfect government system out of theoretical considerations is futile if you're lucky, and if you're not, you get North Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

<comment><USER4> > But in theory, I don't see any moral reasons for some people to pay more for > these services than others.

If you have more property, you should pay more for protecting said property. So while life and limb protection should cost the same, property protection should be payed by people that actually have property.

<comment><USER3> Huh, that's a really interesting argument. I would love to come up with a counter-argument, but I'll have to think about it for a while. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is a nasty nest of people who seem to relish in the pain and suffering that they cause.

It is not an intellectually stimulating activity - it doesn't further any particular ideological cause, and I find it extremely troubling. Last night a friend of mine was set upon by a group of (self-declared) Libertarians for having the temerity to tweet about being disabled.

I can't quite get into the mindset of the people who harass others online. Is it juvenile lashing out? The uncontrolled rage of the impotent? Or people who get a sadistic thrill from detached torture?

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand this question is examined in Jon Ronson's recent book _So You 've Been Publicly Shamed_[1]

I haven't read it but I've heard him discussing it on The Nerdist[2] and The Joe Rogan Experience[3] podcasts, both of which were very entertaining and insightful.

Though I never stooped to the level of harassing and shaming people, I did go through an _angry white male libertarian_ stage, and having been through that I think the underlying motive for the asshole behaviour is something to do with entitlement and resentment. I.e., "I deserve better than this (more money/status/respect/sex etc), if the world's not gonna give me what I deserve, then at least I can make other people as miserable as I am".

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Shamed)

[2] [http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon- ronson/](http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-ronson/)

[3] [http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1](http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1)

<comment><USER7> Sartre remarked on the pleasure one gets out of this type of behavior:

"I was, as it were, doubled. On the one hand, I was 'I'; Jean-Paul Sartre, you know, the person. On the other hand I was the chronicler of hell, the privileged young writer allowed to observe all the torments of the modern personality. I was extremely happy, fake and hoodwinked to my very soul"

\- From his autobiography _Les Mots_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _" At its worst, it gives us mindless thuggery, the kind of collective violence exemplified and explored in Golding's Lord of the Flies."_

There's a reason kids are made to read/watch this book in school. The author was an English Master at Bishops [0] while he wrote this book. That's why it rings true. First hand knowledge of the pecking order and the herd in action.

 _" The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the tribe."_

Excommunication is dangerous because it can result in death.

[0] UK, COE Grammer, Salisbury, Wiltshire. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Not...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Notable_staff)

</comment><comment><USER9> So this feels relevant. I spotted this piece in this morning's NYTimes front page:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think- your-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-your-sisters- boyfriend-is-gay.html?_r=0)

"My sister has been dating her boyfriend for two years. They live together and seem mostly happy. And I am happy for them, except for one thing: I am about 99 percent sure he is gay. Now, I have no problem with homosexuality, but you can understand my concern. Also, I am not the only one who thinks this. Several male friends have told me that he has tried to kiss other men or grab their crotches. I would like to bring this up with my sister. How should I do it?

Michelle, New York"

The response:

"Request denied! Before you say anything hurtful to your sister, let's take a peek at some of the (homophobic-adjacent) assumptions that you've made on your (probably well-intentioned) road to judgment. Your 99 percent certainty rests on unknown evidence. (Spare me your gaydar.) But I am willing to bet that much of it involves silly stereotypes about masculinity. Is the boyfriend effeminate? Does he follow fashion or musical theater? News flash: He can still be straight."

"More problematic is the "gay panic" of your male friends, whose gossipy stories may rely on secondhand reports from still other men. Not so reliable. What's more, I don't buy it. Gay men and lesbians have long been, and often still are, a persecuted minority. (Have you seen the excellent film "Carol" yet?) The idea that a gay man could blithely and repeatedly "grab the crotches" of his straight cohorts is absurd. There would be consequences."

This story was linked on the front page of the NY Times this morning. I may be completely uncalibrated and out of touch with modern values and sensitivities. But I don't think I am. So I'm curious: Does anyone else see anything a little odd about this piece?

<comment><USER10> It's odd because someone is looking for advice and in return were shamed. Being concerned for one's sister is not a shamable offence...yet...uhh...check your privilege or some such.

Funny enough, the slogan "Check Your Privilege" has come full circle and become the battle cry of the Social Justice Warrior, alienating all that are on the receiving end of its blow. Whereas its original intent was to help the receiver do some contextual introspection.

<comment><USER11> Moreover, they were shamed for things the writer assumed about their evidence, while dismissing the actual stated evidence as implausible.

There is some good advice here: Consider carefully whether your belief that they're gay isn't based on homophobic assumptions. But rather than frame it like that, they are instead assumed to have already made these assumptions, and berated for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Recently, I have found myself drawn to a range of people who describe themselves or are described by others as "libertarians" – only to find once again that there's a hymn sheet of horrors that many seem to sing from._

 _[...] Another commonly displayed "libertarian" approach that I struggle to respect is the puerile desire to offend, bolstered by the dubious claim that this is somehow a noble and worthwhile antidote to the equally tedious culture of taking offence._

 _[...] There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone's personal liberty is furthered by such infantile sneering; yet swarms of supposedly liberal followers rejoice in this toxic effluence with excited applause, like an encouraging mother will celebrate her toddler's first shit in the potty._

I long had libertarian-ish leanings, but I agree with the author's points above. By coincidence, in another tab I was just reading "The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon or Why I Don't Support Libertarian Organizations" \- [http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663](http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663). It's an interesting read for those of similar mind.

<comment><USER13> I also conceptually like the idea of libertarianism, but recognize that it's an impossible form of society and you can't really create a government around it. What I recommend to everyone is that they go around trying to be a libertarian - respect everyone else's rights like they'd like their own to be respected.

With regard to the author's interaction with a "pack" of libertarians - <USER2> can find quite a few of groups but they rarely agree with each other.

<comment><USER14> >you can't really create a government around it

You say that as if it's a bug and not a feature...

In all seriousness, I'm not sure I understand your claim that it's an impossible form of society. I understand the argument that the US or other existing nation states aren't going to become libertarian societies, but I see no theoretical reason why the creation of such a society is impossible (particularly when sea and space colonies start opening up new frontiers). I think this Startup School presentation by Balaji Srinavasan is relevant: [https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A](https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A)

<comment><USER13> I didn't mean to make it sound that way - I think it's a feature. Many of the libertarian groups don't seem to recognize this and are proposing we try to create Xanadu (and I don't mean Ted Nelson's product - it's more likely to exist).

I agree that these societies could exist outside of a formal government - they'd need the ability to evict people which probably means everyone would need citizenship elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There a particular personality that is given to self righteousness and imposing on others, and these self appointed arbiters quickly attach to these causes and use them to police other people, nevermind the cause. The internet has made this kind of self righteous mob effortless, and they feed off each other making justice or the original cause completely secondary to their own need to impose their views.

Civilized society depends on the rule of law. There is a large mechanism in place in any civilized society with an extensive process to first decide guilt and then give the guilty an opportunity to pay the price, reform and try again. This by definition rules out arbitrary individual perceptions of justice or injustice, discrimination or organizing to 'directly' deliver it, to prevent anarchy. Justice by definition cannot empower some arbitrary individuals or groups views over others.

Activism targets laws or injustice based on reason and not individuals. The objective is not to shame or deliver consequences for an individual but change the law. Self righteous mobs on the other hand driven by their own opinions and the need to impose their views, rather than justice, target individuals.

Discrimination is illegal and has a huge social, personal, and professional consequences. If an individual escapes that somehow it indicates a flaw in the rule of law which activism would target, not the individual. But that's not fulfilling for those driven by self importance.

You may decide something is wrong but only the rule of law can make that decision objectively and enforce consequences. A mob convinced of its own infallibility sidetracks all that, evades accountability in favour of their own perceptions and in an exercise in pure self importance and injustice delivers consequences. That is little to do with justice and everything to do with vanity, self importance and inability to recognize the limitation of one own views, and the value of activism and rule of law.

</comment><comment><USER16> _This surely sums up the unambitious and self-seeking aims of those who make it their business to offend_

No, it doesn't. There's just one Milo Yiannopoulos while there are thousands upon thousands of purposely anonymous channers making memes and cracking jokes.

I don't know how to say it without sounding negative but this is an uninsightful article based on little more than outcast mood affiliation.

<comment><USER17> I found the article insightful because it puts in words what I also felt sometimes. The tone of your comment reminds of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have trouble endorsing positions like this just at the level of ethics. Refusing to work with others because of 'disagreements,' even those as similar as her fellow writers, is a good way to never have an impact on the world and change it for the better. I think it's easy to be among 'the herd', working with people of diverse backgrounds, while also staying true to yourself, and I think you could argue it's an essential skill if you ever want to accomplish something great. What does that say about your strength of person that you find it threatening, or at the minimum, a 'big deal,' to associate with those you disagree with?

<comment><USER19> I think she meant the group kicked her out because the other members were unable to work with someone who openly disagreed with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have anti-herd mentality. When a large group of people unanimously agree about something, I get an insatiable urge to argue against the consensus. Does that make me a troll?

I think I'm just against extremism. To me, herd mentality is a form of extremism. Whenever I argue, I'm not trying to convince the other person of my argument for the sake of winning; I just want them to meet me half way.

In summary, I'm against people believing in anything with 100% certainty. Doubting things and changing your mind often is the right approach to life... I think.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm not active on Twitter and I think I've missed the SJW movement and it's effects. Perhaps the problem is that complex nuanced ideas can't be expressed in 160 characters?

<comment><USER21> Good point. I think that is a often overlooked observation. People incited often have a tendency to invite an onrush of thoughts with a desire to express them in direct proportion to their "excitability factor". When a character limit is imposed, their tweet may as well be an empty beer bottle hurled towards their target.

IMO, why one becomes incited in the first place comes from the drunken sense of control one feels when all they think they are revealing is their gravatar/profile. However, it is relatively easy to reciprocate with a "herd agenda" of one's own and launch an attack without the need to extract any real facts to damage the target's reputation.

If I were to insult an individual in front of a group all physically present, I would most likely be doing so in a way that the "herd" clearly understands my message rather than the target. I have always despised this type of thinking as many do, yet it has become increasingly popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's interesting to note that many public intellectuals were publicly shamed for their opinions, and it was later pretty much reconsidered. Two examples come to my mind, Noam Chomsky and Tomas Garrigue Masaryk.

Also interestingly these two guys have very strongly opposed most sorts of elitism, while the phrase "herd mentality" is often used by elitists to justify their beliefs.

</comment><comment><USER22> Site appears down.

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fa...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fautiYJ:quillette.com/2016/01/03/herd- mentality/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

<comment><USER23> Works for me...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah looks like it's back now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> SJWs are a new breed of idiots we have to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER25> Thus, esoteric philosophy will return to the world.

</comment><comment><USER26> The wasps who sense any idea within remote proximity to their hive will instinctively attack.

</comment><comment><USER27> 1\. She's describing "in-group" preferences in most of the latter part of the article, not herd mentality. These are two separate things.

2\. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly wanting more government restrictions on what is a _fundamental constitutional right_ makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this front are correct.

3\. She's quite insulting. "most sane individuals on this side of the Atlantic," implying one must be _insane_ to respect and honor 2nd amendment rights? "Preening contrarians," "infantile sneering," "rejoice in this toxic effluence." Yikes. Exactly how full of disdain and contempt is she regarding anyone's opinions that don't precisely align with her own? I find it rather hard to believe anyone she is criticizing is as vitriolic as the author seems to be.

4\. The important thing is, she's found a way to feel superior to everyone..

[https://xkcd.com/774/](https://xkcd.com/774/)

<comment><USER4> > 2\. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights > outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly > wanting more government restrictions on what is a fundamental constitutional > right makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this > front are correct.

Actually true libertarian would think even the constitution as too restricting and prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone. Realpolitik all day all night long.

<comment><USER14> >would prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone

Regardless of whether such libertarians are right or wrong in their beliefs about private governance, this is completely inaccurate depiction of their views. Peter Stringham's book _Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life_ explores theoretical and empirical foundations for private governance and why it would not amount to sorting things out based on raw power.

The book received praise from Peter Thiel: "Stringham dispels state- worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it fails."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Justine Sacco didn't suffer a "devastating online lynching". She got a ton of nasty tweets and emails, and she got fired from her job. She found a new job (one she likes) and the internet fury eventually blew over. Unpleasant? Certainly. A lynching? Heck no.

There are people who do get beaten or killed for who they are. Transgender people regularly fear for their physical safety. Minorities get abused and even killed by the police on a daily basis. So when people protest this sort of injustice online or in real life you'd expect the author to be supportive of this. Except no, she apparently considers this horrifying mob-like behavior of social justice warriors.

It's the lazy stance where she supports social justice activism in theory, but when it comes down to actually protesting abuses of power (which can include rioting and other mob-like behavior) she considers it unacceptable. Never mind that historically speaking large scale public protests (= mobs) have often brought meaningful social progress. I wonder if democracy can even function without it, because people must have a way to make their voices heard when the official channels are closed to them.

Don't get me wrong. Mobs are blunt instruments and without question scary. However, they're not uniquely or especially scary. So when I hear something like "[mobs] are the thing that frighten me most in the world" I have to roll my eyes. Other political issues are scarier by several orders of magnitude. Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war. Not on this list: Internet rage directed at Sacco.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sacco was home-bound for a year and now carries a stain on her character that will be with her for her entire life. All for a badly executed joke that was _liberal_ in its intent.

Sure, plenty of people have it worse in this world, but that does not mean what happened to her was "fine" and that she was/is totally "fine".

 _Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war._

All these issues depend on level-headed, reasoned debate. Mass hysteria will only make it more likely that we succumb to these threats.

<comment><USER28> What happened to Sacco was without question unjust. And nowhere did I suggest it was fine. Mobs are a morally neutral instrument that can be used for good or evil.

If people just wanted to make the point that it's unacceptable to attack an unknown person based on a single tweet (regardless of how bad the tweet is), then that's fine. Except people extrapolate from the Sacco incident to make sweeping claims about political correctness and mob behavior.

Level-headed debate is just one part of the puzzle. There's no point in having a debate if the outcome of the debate doesn't matter because the people who are having the debate are disenfranchised. At that point protests are needed. This isn't "mass hysteria". People protest because it works.

<comment><AUTHOR> No-one disputes that protests like those seen in the Indian independence movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Iraq War opposition, the Arab Spring, the gay rights movement etc are extremely valuable and necessary.

Where people object is where justifiable protest switches to ugly mob behaviour, including things like looting of innocent business operators, indiscriminate violence and vandalism, etc , just like what happened in Tottenham.

Mob behaviour, by definition, is where people stop thinking critically about issues and blindly follow whatever their peers are doing. This can never be beneficial. Independent, critical thought is essential for positive change to be effected.

The problem with the modern Social Justice Warrior movement is that it is _counter_ to the interests of true social justice, as the people who need the most protection are the smallest minorities, and these are the people who lose out the most when everyone is banding together in mobs and deliberately shutting silencing debate and individual expression. Meanwhile, the "social justice warriors" are far too busy focusing on how moral they _seem_ rather than how much real social justice they're achieving.

If your response is - as I would hope - that true campaigners for social justice are not like this, then that's ok - they're not the ones being criticised.

<comment><USER28> Looting and rioting is critical component of a public protest, and it's morally justified. I draw the line at hurting people, which is never justified. I'm not outraged at property damage when people protest racism or police brutality, because I value people more than I value things.

As for your claim that rioting and the like can never be beneficial, that's plainly wrong.

Take for instance the Curaçao uprising in 1969 [1]. Workers protested wage discrimination and it turned into a mob that burned down 43 businesses and 10 other buildings, primarily those owned by white people. Guess what? The protest was a complete success, they got the wage they asked for and they got new democratic elections to boot.

I reiterate: people protest and riot because it works.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Cura%C3%A7ao_uprising](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Cura%C3%A7ao_uprising)

<comment><USER29> "Looting and rioting is critical component of a public protest, and it's morally justified."

No, it really isn't. Quite aside from the immoral way you have just cheerfully sacrificed strangers' homes and livelihoods in the name of your transient political goals, looting and rioting leads to businesses and productive citizens leaving and a collapse of the local economy. Go to Detroit if you want to see how that works out in the long run.

Incidentally, even if somehow rioting is okay as long as just people of the appropriate skin color are the ones being harmed, perhaps you should keep in mind that the folks who start businesses in low-income areas of American cities tend to be either local black people or immigrants. That's who suffers when buildings get burned down in the name of "justice."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>