"Put down the crack pipes" doesn't go so well - <AUTHOR> http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2013/03/27/roadblock/ <comment><USER4> I made a crack in a leads meeting about another team needing to stop smoking crack.

Later that afternoon, my boss came in and said, "Ry, you don't know what other people are going through in their lives." The lead of the other team (who was in the meeting) had been to rehab for his crack addiction.

<comment><USER5> Not sure what to think of this. To me, it's a well-used expression that does not imply that you actually smoke crack. What other expressions should we not speak in case they literally might offend someone?

<comment><USER6> That expression already indicates an ad-hominem rebuttal, and ad-hominems can offend by definition ("against the person"). By using a higher DH-level (src: <http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html> ) in argumentation, you can avoid a lot of problems and have more meaningful discussions.

<comment><USER7> The goal wasn't argumentation, it was to be heard so that argumentation could begin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm a man, I can't claim to have experienced the first example specifically, but I've faced no shortage of stereotypical assumptions about my role and abilities. I've experienced the second two examples more times than I can count.

In place of gender, I could easily chalk most of these things up to ethnic discrimination and be done with it, but that would be doing myself a huge disservice.

Likewise, I think the author is doing herself a disservice by seemingly looking for bias as a first and only explanation in each case.

It's _exactly_ this kind of hasty generalizing [1] that is surely the root of much discrimination.

1: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization>

<comment><USER9> I've never performed interviews, but I've definitely experienced the latter two examples many times. Perhaps it's more common because of gender, but it's certainly not the only factor, or even the most important. It IS the most fixable, though; if it's a factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, another depressing comment thread. A huge pile on of comments essentially of the form "I'm male/white/straight and have ALSO suffered some of these things, therefore you probably haven't experienced discrimination and you should just lighten up".

Honestly? This is the best you can do? It would be fantastic if people would take a step back for a moment and try and deeply consider _why_ your initial reaction is not disappointment and anger, but an attempt to deflect or belittle the problem, regardless of whether you made a conscious decision to do so. Of course you're not all sexists/racists/homophobes, but tending towards trusting people would probably benefit us all.

<comment><USER11> One way to read the "this happens to me too!" comments is that they're not belittling her experience, but validating it. All of us have been disrespected. We all hate it. That's a very shallow understanding of her point.

If something is annoying when it happens, it's also extra annoying when it happens _just a bit more often_ because the people around might be _just a little bit sexist_. Once this community can realize that, without it feeling like an existential threat, we'll all be better off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> My wife suffers from this - she does DB administration. Successful strategies:

* Dress nicely - like a force to be reckoned with.

* Stop holding back and seek a bit of glory.

* Let others know the importance of what you do - "Oracle DB Admin for company's product line" vs "I just fix the database"

* Don't help jerks - if a jerk asks for a problem to be solved, solve it but report the solution to the jerk's boss so that they don't get the glory.

* Don't train jerks - keep your domain knowledge close to the vest.

* Wear heals - there's an odd correlation with hight and perceived stature.

<comment><USER13> What exactly does a force to be reckoned with wear?

I'm being serious. The more posturing with clothing, the more I assume someone isn't good enough at what they do not to bother.

<comment><USER11> A force to be reckoned with might be just one notch above the average of the environment. Not so overdressed as to be distracting, but polished enough to create a "don't dismiss me" unconscious message.

<comment><USER13> I hold my own opinion here at least a little bit suspect. I certainly wouldn't pass it off as truth or even good advice... but my tendency is to think that by the time you're considering dress, you've already lost the battle you're fighting.

Once you've gotten past doing whatever it is that you deserve respect for in the first place, playing these kinds of games for it establishes weakness and enters into a social negotiation of sorts that I haven't seen won from this position very often.

The spoils here tend go to the person who's earned them, and doesn't give a fuck about whether any particular other person thinks that's true.

<comment><USER11> I'm going to go out on a limb and state that there's a bit of a double standard with how clothes are interpreted with men and women.

I'm only barely wrapping my head around men's fashions, I don't pretend to understand what it's like for women.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yes, yelling out "put down your crack pipes!" will reduce your perf score, and rightfully so.

You are a PROFESSIONAL. A professional does not lose her cool or insult others. When two people have entered into an increasingly intense discussion, they WON'T notice anyone else unless actively interrupted. Once you understand this, the solution to stopping the recursive loop is to force a non-maskable interrupt, like so:

"Uh, guys... Guys. Guys! Hey! Stop! Listen!" You raise your voice just enough to ensure that they hear you, with no irritation present in your voice. Once they're interrupted, you tell them the news. Insulting them with the quip about crack pipes is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and your boss is right in chastising you.

<comment><USER11> _with no irritation present in your voice_

If people are being irritating, showing some irritation should be expected, no?

<comment><USER14> It's far better not to add emotion to an already emotional situation. Be the defuser, not the catalyst.

<comment><USER11> I'll agree that it's better, but it's not entirely realistic to expect (let alone require) everyone to react in a non-emotional way.

I don't agree that the crack pipes comment is exactly wise or tactful, but it's at least understandable in context.

<comment><USER15> it was advice, not an expectation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The preponderance of comments that "this has happened to me and I'm a guy so the world's not sexist" is so discouraging. It's logically inconsistent and a giant sign of a defense mechanism.

It's a problem and you might do some of these things inadvertently, so maybe listen a bit more and figure out how to keep yourself from not doing things like assuming women at a tech conference are in marketing instead of engineering.

The fact this thread is filled with a bunch of guys mansplaining how this wasn't sexist behavior is very telling.

<comment><USER17> In the first part she asks male co-workers if the same thing had ever happened to them. It seems to me that she's prepared to consider if phenomenon X happens due to sexism or it happens to everyone.

It seems that out of the 3 episodes she mentioned, the first one rarely happens to men here, while #2 and #3 happens sometimes do. Of course it might as well be that #2 and #3 happen more often to women, but I don't think anybody is doing a scientific investigation here.

<comment><USER18> Maybe she just dresses much better than the average SE. Some people might be equally confused if they walked into the room and where greeted (without introduction) by a guy who was better dressed than they expected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm a dude, and I can't even count the number of times that I have demonstrated my technical ability, and was subsequently ignored. Happened all the time.

<comment><USER20> Yes. Actually I recently experienced something very odd.

I was recently quite angry with someone, and I told them. I was noticeably, noticeably angry at the time.

Ever since then, that person's taken my professional opinion more seriously.

I suspect that people don't take rational data (like observed technical competence) and apply it to their subconscious reasoning and attention systems. It's a failing of theirs for mis-prioritizing input. To get across it, you've gotta get priority on other planes.

<comment><USER19> What you are basically saying is that they can observe you knowing your shit plenty of times, but they don't actually put a little checkbox in their head next to "this dude know what they are talking about" until you yell at them and say "I have demonstrated plenty of times that I know my shit, and you need to put that checkbox in your head" ?

<comment><USER20> Actually I was pissed at them for something else. I think the act of chastising was what changed our interactions, not the content of said chastization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As a dude, I experience the latter two scenarios frequently.

To bring the topic to a more constructive angle, does anyone have any techniques that might help in these cases?

My default is either extreme ambivalence, or raging hard ass. It's hard to find the middle ground.

<comment><USER22> (1) Part of it is about choosing whom you work with. Be careful about choosing a job that might have fun work, but is with repressed people. (2) If they are ignoring you in a meeting, there is a good chance that they have their self- image caught up in the conversation, and don't want to back down, and are getting emotional. The emotion behind rationality is humility.

Our interview process tries to filter out people that can't collaborate.

<comment><USER23> > The emotion behind rationality is humility.

That's beautiful. May I quote you?

<comment><USER22> Don't attribute it to me --- it didn't originate with me. It is probably a rephrased concept from Erich Fromm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So wait, somebody asks you for an advice, you give advice that they don't like, they don't believe you, go around for more advice and then when everybody says them the same advice they finally realize the advice was right in the first place - you then assume that they didn't accept the advice in the first place because you are "women in industry", not because it is common for people to resist advice they don't like? Well, I don't even know where to start with it...

<comment><USER25> Maybe you could start by dismissing their experience (provided as an _example_ , not as a sum total of the problem) and asserting that they need to provide more data and evidence? It's a pretty good way of marginalizing women in tech if that's what you're shooting for.

<comment><USER24> I don't "dismiss" anything. Dismiss is defined by Merriam Webster as "to reject serious consideration of" (among other, irrelevant, meanings). I am doing quite the contrary - I seriously considered it and arrived to the conclusion that attributing a common, if unfortunate, occurrence in human interactions as a proof of special, discriminatory treatment of "women in industry" is wrong. Just as wrong as assuming anybody disagreeing with you just didn't consider your arguments - instead of entertaining the possibility they did seriously consider them and found them lacking.

I see lately more and more of examples where common problems - from petty nuisances to serious problems between people - are harvested to find various "isms" in them instead of treating them just as problems between humans - <USER2> I personally don't like it.

>>>> It's a pretty good way of marginalizing women in tech if that's what you're shooting for.

Of course that's what I am shooting for. Marginalizing women in tech is my lifelong dream, and every step takes me a bit closer to it. No way it could be I actually want to discuss the particular article and share my thoughts about it - you can easily see thought this ruse and reveal my true and terrible goal. Me pointing out it is a common experience not suggesting any "ism" is just a wheel in the huge oppression mechanism I am constructing. Now you have subverted my plans to oppress women everywhere, but I will retire to my dark fortress and come back with even more evil plan of marginalizing women in tech by pointing out maybe not everybody actually tries to marginalize women in tech. Watch out!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yelling "PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPES!", while effective perhaps the first time, is not a sustainable means of interacting with people, even problematic people. Once you've done something like this a few times, people will begin to associate you with negative outcomes in group discussions, and will thereafter try to ignore you so as not to encourage you. This is a subconscious reaction to shocking behavior.

</comment><comment><USER27> My wife (a software engineer) has complained of this - guys that would just interrupt, ignore or talk over her in a meeting like she is wasn't there.

<comment><USER28> The culture in software discussions in my experience is simply that the loudest, most assertive person dominates the conversation. I don't know if this affects women more negatively than it affects men, but it wouldn't shock me. It certainly harms the quality of the discussion and how fast you can arrive at the right conclusions.

<comment><USER29> > simply that the loudest, most assertive person dominates the conversation.

This is very true. I watch quiet men get rolled over quite a lot. It's also true that in the US, women are socialized to be quiet and non-assertive.

Well. You can figure the sad story out from there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> That second example - not being listened to until it comes from an outside source as well - happens frequently. Not saying the gender angle couldn't exacerbate it, but it really is common.

</comment><comment><USER31> "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"

So I've said this in meetings, hasn't everyone?

(And I bet I would say something like "Put down the crack pipe")

I can certainly believe there would be managers (and companies) that might take exception to this, but it would be justified only if their meetings were exceedingly well run. I'd hate to work for a manager or a company that took exception to that though to the point of dinging me on a performance review.

Most people work at their company's location 8, 10, 12 hours per day. It's one thing to ask employees to not harass other employees. It another thing to demand of all employees they act like robots or be accused of unprofessional behavior.

</comment><comment><USER32> That whole thing where your opinion is overlooked for a second (usually white male) opinion happens to you if you're not white or Asian or ridiculously gifted in programming too.

The first few time it happened, I thought it was just kind of odd and my fault in someway, but after 10 years in the industry, I can tell you categorically that its not a fluke. Reminds me of this quote ...

"White men have to prove their incompetence. Everyone else has to prove their competence"

\--- Mike Perham

That is not to say that everyone in tech is racist and/or sexist, I think its more of an unconscious bias, much the same way someone (even women) might walk into a car parts store and walk right past the female attendant to a male one to ask a question about car parts or how a white kid on a basketball court might be picked last because there are black kids on the court.

I think it is pretty insidious and eventually I think we will figure out a way to help our industry get rid of these unconscious biases

</comment><comment><USER33> For some reason whenever I read something like this I always imagine the workplace being like the environment in Office Space.

I mean, what's a perf score? Why does everyone bureaucratize everything?

We have such finite lives, why are we putting ourselves through this?

Join a startup, go freelance, take the pay cut and enjoy life.

You have a skill that is highly sought after, you'll find a job where you're happier, if you don't, move on.

I swear, I know of so many notable startups (that are real companies with real revenues, with real benefits, great locations) that are dying to have more tech talent.

What I'm saying is that if you're going to be miserable in your work place, move on with your life!

</comment><comment><USER34> I've asked both men and women that have interviewed me if they are engineers.

The OP's anecdote sounds genuinely sexist and in a really bad way, but I can also imagine a situation where someone says he has never been asked if he's an engineer because the question was not confrontational e.g. casually at the beginning of an interview "So what's your role at COMPANY X, engineer?"

<comment><USER35> I've gotten that question, but I've never gotten it until I ask if the interviewee has questions. And it's never been in the form of questioning my credentials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The reason why she got pulled aside was because she wasn't coming across as alpha. Sounds stupid?

Having to use drastic measures such as saying: "Put down the crack pipes" shows insecurity. If she had simply stood up, maybe consistently told the guys:"Hey, hey we don't have these...EXCUSE ME!" and then explained in a calm manner what was wrong, she would have earned respect.

However, this way she more looked like a hysteric, loose cannon.

You have to really be confident (full) of yourself as a woman with a massive personality to guide men in a male-dominated environment and that takes lots of practice and time.

Marissa Mayer I'd say is an alpha.

</comment><comment><USER37> In my experience, all a man needs to do in order for someone to ask if they are, in fact, an engineer, is to dress well. Nice leather shoes and a well fitting suit worn casually will instantly create doubt about engineering interest and capability.

That being said, it's pretty common for the female engineers I know to not be taken seriously, especially at the start of their careers.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've never been asked if I was an engineer, but I've definitely experienced the latter of your two anecdotes. Sometimes it just depends on the person you're talking to.

At one point I learned that the best way to get a certain coworker of mine to finally get what I was saying was to pull another person in front if them, explain myself to the third party, let them acknowledge that I'm right, and then finally ask the original coworker once more if their plan was reaaally the right way to go. Only then would they realize that I had a point. It sucks, but if you have to get someone they trust to repeat what you're saying, you might as well have a reliable backup ready.

As for speaking up in meetings, I was recently told in my review that I needed to be more assertive, because I feared I'd experience the same thing you did. Hopefully I can find a good middle ground between meekly watching people march down the wrong road, and shouting about crack pipes... I haven't found it yet, though.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm a fairly loud guy, and my input used to get ignored all the time. I know it's gut-wrenching to see things going down the drain where you could stop them if only anyone would listen.

In my experience it's not a curse of being a woman or even being a quiet person, it's a curse of being the most competent person in the room. Congrats on that.

<comment><USER11> I think Rachel's point is not that it only happens to her because she's a woman, but that she feels that it happens to her _more often_ or _more acutely_ because she's a woman.

I don't dare presume to know her life enough to tell her she's wrong about that feeling. Saying that it happens to you as well doesn't exactly work as a refutation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> OP is trying to do her job, and prevent issues. They ignore her to the point where she has to do something extreme to pay attention, and then have the nerve to be offended?

Seriously, if you want your company to do well, you don't punish people who speak up to prevent problems. I don't care if it's discrimination, because of her gender, whatever. It's bad for the business.

In general, discrimination is bad for business because it means people do things they shouldn't, like ignore engineers who know their shit, or take extra time to get a second opinion when the first was from a knowledgeable source.

Discrimination costs your business money, and not because of some theoretical lawsuits.

Now, sure people will get ignored when they shouldn't be. People will get second opinions for a variety of reasons when they don't need to. There is no perfect company.

But we know logically, WE KNOW, that it's stupid to discount someone because of their gender. So while we may not be able to prevent all such screwups where smart people aren't heeded, here is an obvious case where this shit shouldn't happen.

And that's the lesson to take away from this. Here is something that is fixable that hurts the business, leads to pointless meetings and the cause is known. If it was an engineering problem in your stack, you'd be fixing it by now.

This is probably going to get buried, sadly. Maybe it deserves it's own post.

</comment><comment><USER41> Been there, done that, got the perf review to prove it :-)

A small anecdote. An acquaintance related a story of fixing the 'drainage' in their back yard. They were trying to grow some plants that were sensitive to excessive moisture, and the plants were dying. Not watering them, watering them a little, didn't seem to change. They died. A professional gardner suggested that their problem was drainage. So they dug down about 3' (where the soil was very very wet) and tried to build in better drainage. As they were on the side of a hill, water table issues were not considered. It turned out their "problem" was that the water main that fed their house and the houses up the hill, was so pressurized at their property (because it had maintain pressure at the top of the hill too) that the pipe seams were leaking and it was pumping gallons of water into the ground underneath their property. The problem wasn't their garden, the problem was that the city water supply was poorly designed.

While I have never been asked if I was an engineer on the phone, I have experienced similar things to Rachel in meetings and with regard to suggestions. Co-workers will create an internal assessment of your value and then respond based on that assessment. If they have written you off they will ignore you, if you prove their assessment wrong in a public forum they will attack you. These are _management_ issues, and something which was sorely lacking in the stories.

If you are the "owner" of a meeting, and someone is trying to be heard and isn't. It is incumbent on you to let them be heard. By your position power as "the boss" you can naturally interrupt a discussion to collect more data from other members. Its also important to ask questions like "does anyone have any concerns?" to draw out people who have valid input but are too timid to share it.

In a highly political environment there are two ways to create change, one is through overt manipulation, which is to collect political power to yourself and then exert it to enact change, and the other is covert manipulation, which is to enact change subtly enough that the political organism doesn't react. (sometimes called "triggering the antibodies").

The problem with the latter is that if you help make positive change while keeping everyone not pissed off, no one attributes it to you (which is good for the change agent because if they knew the anti-bodies would react, but bad if your manager doesn't recognize it). I asked my manager what change he wanted to be 'true' yet he (or others) had been unsuccessful making true, he gave me one, and 18 months later that change was in place. He didn't believe that I was the one who had made the change. I suggested he pick a change he wanted to happen and not tell me, then in 18 months we could see if that one happened :-). But he also didn't understand enough about organizational dynamics to know that making change without having the source of that change point back at you was even possible.

The point is that one of the very important jobs of managers is to make sure that people who work for them are contributing as much positive to the company as they can, and when they are being held back from that contribution by people who are oblivious, willful or otherwise, they jump in and fix that.

Just another way that "managing" is different than "engineering" I suspect.

<comment><USER42> In my career I have found a way that has worked for me really well, especially when I am the manager and even more especially given that I manage SMEs with far greater knowledge than I have in their area of specialty.

I have used the following to provoke thought and discussion around problems in a way that does not call anyone out:

Ill recap the decision, design or plan. Putting it on the whiteboard or in print or whatever format the succinct plan is in.

I then ask everyone on the team or in the meeting to look at it and specifically look for why it wont work or what is wrong with the plan.

Not what is wrong with WHO designed what - but tell the team why it wont work.

With the important distinction: Anyone one who brings up a reason why they think it wont work is not only heard, but if their reasoning for why it wont work is incorrect, the team explains why that risk or issue is mitigated by the plan.

For example, you have a design where one person perceives a single point of failure due to X. "well, we'd lose service if this device went down"

Then the team explains "well, actually that doesn't matter because we stay up due to [this design element over here]"

This brings everyone up to speed and educates them as to why the plan is such.

If something is brought up that is a valid miss - then its addressed and a plan on how to redesign for that condition is met.

The point is beat the design to death - not the person or team.

The team is supposed to put all their irons in the fire and forge out a solution together.

<comment><USER43> I like this idea, but I've also seen situations where it's become 1 or 2 holdouts against a chorus of yesses, and then the ensuing resentment against them. And the holdouts had some very good points. I think it can work if the leader/manager is good at this kind of approach, but it can also lead to a lot of conflict as well.

<comment><USER42> Well, I didn't type this in the original post, but I should clarify: When the question of "tell _me_ what is wrong with this idea" - I specifically make the point of being the one to ask the question.

If you make the discussion directed toward the manager/team leader, then the conversation is much easier.

Again, the team needs to put all their irons in the fire to forge a decision. The plan/ideas of the team is the metal to be forged. The fire is the funding and backing for the project. The hammer is the effort of the executing team and the tongs are the skill of the overall project management.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> As a man, I can say I've experienced all the issues described by the OP. Regarding the first one, I was made senior when I was very young, having clients and even certain co-workers at the time respect my opinion was very tough. I got where I was in no small part because of my hard work and my choices, and that was pretty frustrating at first.

The other issues I think are relatively common and apply to most people, at least at some point in their careers. Having constructive arguments and listening to others' is a pretty rare skill, generally speaking.

Now the article seems to present these issues as if they were solely caused by misogyny. I think it's more about general stereotyping, but also about affected people not knowing how to stand their ground. I got pushed around and ignored for a while, like most people will endure at some point. Getting bitter won't resolve anything, it'll just give people around you a wrong justification for their behavior, making you even more frustrated and bitter.

Standing your ground in my opinion is being able to show you didn't get where you are by mistake. And if you happen to be the victim of stereotyping or any kind of discrimination, making a firm point of it will make people think that's all you're about, not your skills or your hard work. It's sad but I guess you can only rise above the bickering, and that in itself can be quite empowering.

And if that sort of behavior is common-place in your workplace (as opposed to isolated in which case simply ignoring it works wonders), then you most definitely aren't working for the right people. I despise ignorant discrimination but I can't support people who make it the source of all their problems either.

</comment><comment><USER45> It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has a great depiction of this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvSx7-CTTl4>

One of the funniest moments in the whole series.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm a guy, and while I've never been mistaken for HR, the other things have happened to me from time to time.

The guy that listened to someone else before accepting the OP's opinion might have done so because he knew the other person better or respected him more for a non-gender based reason. Or maybe the idea didn't sink in until he heard it twice.

Getting attention in a meeting where several loud confident people are pontificating can be difficult if you are not a loud, self-confident person, or if they don't already respect you.

But I don't think the OP needed to escalate to crack pipes right away, although it's a great line. A "Guys, we don't use type-two data!" loud enough to be heard over everybody else's voices and repeated until it worked probably would have done the trick without affecting perf scores. It depends on the culture of the group. There is usually some accepted way in a group to interrupt conversations that are going nowhere. My guess is that anyone would have been dinged by that boss for the crack comment, just because that's his way of dealing with things.

Also, filling unappreciated and oppressed can become a self-fulfilling prophesy in men as well as women. If you go in there unsure they will pay attention to you, they probably won't. If you go in there thinking, "I'm not going to say much, but when I do, they had better pay attention, because I know what I'm talking about," they will sense it and listen, no matter who you are.

One thing I think isn't understood by the women who post things like this is that men are always in competition. It's like a wolf pack where a pecking order must be established.

In any meeting some guys who are trying to be alpha are going talk over or ignore other people they perceive as beneath them, or who they want to put beneath them, men as well as women. It's not a gender thing as much as it's a power thing. The way to overcome it is stand up for yourself and to establish your competence in whatever the group respects whether it be fisticuffs in the Army or technical skill in a company.

I suspect that the crack pipes remark, coupled with her obviously correct understanding of the problem at hand, won her respect points with her co- workers that will make them more likely to listen to her later on, no matter what the boss thought.

In the same way, having her opinion confirmed by another respected person probably made the coworker in the second example more likely to accept her opinion without confirmation the next time.

Basically, nobody gets respect right away. It doesn't come with a title, or even because you are a man. If you don't have the type of personality that immediately commands respect, you'll have to earn it step-by-step. Even if you do immediately command it, you can lose it very quickly if you don't show yourself worthy of it.

Also men test each other and especially newcomers by teasing or pointed jokes. The ability to "take a joke" is highly respected. It's not an attractive trait, but it happens. You can just ignore it (recommended), or you can do it better than they do. Depends on your personality. It usually stops after a while. Complaining about it usually makes it worse. In one sense, if men are doing this to a woman among them, it means they have accepted her to some extent. Now all she has to do is start working her way up the pecking order. A sardonic smile and a comeback (even a dumb one) can work wonders in this situation.

None of this, however should be taken as a reason to accept actual sexual harassment by word or deed. If that happens, a clear, sharp "I'm sorry, _what_ did you just say???" or "Get your hands off me!" is called for, followed by a trip to that person's supervisor or higher until the matter is resolved.

<comment><USER47> _"One thing I think isn't understood by the women who post things like this is that men are always in competition. It's like a wolf pack where a pecking order must be established."_

Not understood? Always in competition? Erm...I think that might be part of the underlying problem she's describing. The whole "boys will be boys" thing is horseshit. Civil, adult people don't want to play the game. I'm a man, and I hate it as much as anyone.

There's no inherent reason that people have to be total pricks in the workplace. Build a social structure where childish behavior isn't rewarded, and childish behavior will be diminished. It works with preschool kids, so there's no reason that adults -- people with fully formed brains and a full cohort of emotional tools -- can't have the same response.

<comment><USER48> _There's no inherent reason that people have to be total pricks in the workplace._

there's some economic theory that's inconsistent with that claim.

in short, in the absence of an ability to concretely measure work product, firms are forced to default to tournament style pay. e.g. a > b > c ... a gets paid more than b, b gets paid more than c, etc etc.

where work product can be quantified (e.g. installing windshields) and you can explicitly tie pay to performance (i.e. you get paid per windshield) you don't have a problem. Top performers get paid more, poor performers get paid less and maybe go do something else.

As soon as measuring the value of work product gets murky that no longer works. Hello, tournament pay.

This also explains why backstabbing work environments are so typical. Nothing evil, just normal incentives at work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'm male, and have had all of these things happen to me. To me this just screams "I'm looking for a reason to espouse my reasoning for my feminism at people". _yawn_

</comment><comment><USER50> Here's a potentially troubling question: Is it considered _X_ ist, for whatever variable _X_ you're concerned about, to infer anything about some proposition _Y_ based on the observation that _X_ = _x_? That is, is it _X_ ist to rely upon prior knowledge that _X_ and _Y_ are correlated? Or is it just _X_ ist to make stronger predictions about _Y_ than are supported by the data?

Another way of asking the question: If we constructed a perfectly unbiased Bayesian robot and fed it the true distributions of _X_ and _Y_ , would we observe its predictions about _Y_ based on given values of _X_ and conclude that the robot is _X_ ist?

<comment><USER15> my take is that this is definitively the case. to correlate Y with X, regardless of context or validity, makes you _X_ ist. yes, this is troubling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Yelling AND saying something insulting at the same time was overkill. Just repeating "Hold on here" or something similar at increasing volumes until other people finally shut up would have had the same benefits. Still insulting, but less so.

I interrupt people all the time, male and female alike. (Hey -- if you're paying my rates, you might want to actually hear what I have to say. :D) It does seem more necessary to then go back and ask the women afterwards what they were trying to say; the men generally don't need that kind of prompting.

</comment><comment><USER52> I have a hard time with these examples.

I fully accept that sexism could be driving all of the incidents laid out.

But ...

If one person tells you r=2 is a bad idea, maybe you listen. If two people say it, then three. Well at some point you are an idiot if you keep ignoring. And Google(?) is not known for employing idiots.

If you have to interrupt your co-workers discussion with "put down the crack pipes", I would like to suggest that it might be worth considering that being blanked in the aggressive and frustrating way described is _really_ unprofessional. I mean deeply revealing of a lot of anger and problems. Which means her team is made of of men who have some serious issues, life-crippling levels of sexism.

Or

Well, maybe being prepared to shout that the team is so wrong they are smoking crack, indicates that it is worth looking at the glass house around us.

Getting on with others is hard. In a high pressure work environment it's very hard, in one where Aspergers is just next door for most of the industry, then its even harder.

Running good technical teams is hard and we get it wrong more often than not. Which is why "don't flip the bozo bit" is a vital piece of advice.

But I would also suggest that don't flip the -ism bit without looking deeply at our own behaviour is important.

We live and we die. I was born in 1971, the year of a sitcom called "Love thy neighbour" where the 'joke' was a black family moved in next door. The range of deep seated -isms in my head is vast. But it is a fallacy to think that my head is the only broken one on the planet.

I take my steer from a man with a truly broken head - John Nash was right - <USER3> live in a Game Theory world, where actions breed reactions and re-reactions.

In some egregious cases the -ism is so bad it is clearly offensive, and clearly intolerable. Let's say it's order of magnitude out of whack.

In other cases, less so. Women, ethnic minorities, LBGTG and others are at disadvantages because of who they _are_ thats got to be wrong. But we are in a ever shifting game. And the secret of winning the game is not winning, it's improving - changing us.

Want my opinion on the best path to business success. Therapy. Seriously.

I have met billionaires and tramps, people who sold all their possession dn people who have ten of everything, the ones I am jealous of are the ones who have peace. They were not the ones with the money.

There is sexism, racism and every other ism around. It seeps into every day life and it is never acceptable to just let it lie. But just as challenging something there and then is cause for for ing those responsible to look at and question their base assumptions about how they behave, there is always room to look at our own assumptions, for we are all playing a game called life, there is no umpire, no final score, no second round play offs.

Sometimes other people's problems are an opportunity for us. Sometimes just move on.

Edit: I got a bit carried away sorry

<comment><USER53> And that's what the author is exactly outlining in her post: everytime someone brings those things up, a lot of the answers are like yours.

"What if it was just a misunderstanding or a coincidence?"

That's bullshit. You weren't there, OP was.

I love the innate nerd skepticism, but at times like this it really is our worst enemy.

Who would you rather listen to- a sane, reasonable and relatively smart person (based on her credentials and accomplishments) giving you their take on things for which they were physically present; or the little voice in your head that says "but it was probably just a coincidence!", even though you have _zero_ knowledge of the situation except for what you just read of it?

<comment><USER52> If there were two blogs, written by sane nice sounding engineers, and they gave two different sides to an unpleasant story?

I ammcoming at this from the point of view of a ex-manager who has had to deal with situations where, yes, something and someone has gone too far, but it is far from obvious that there is a guilty party and an innocent party. Just a seeping morass of grey and you get to play referee.

I think I am saying that it's the tiny daily cuts that really deeply wear people down, but it's the big obvious infractions that we can actually spot, call out and deal with.

So as far as I a middle aged white guy understand it, the -isms are mostly background radiation, in some teams and organisations there are great people who act as boron rods, soaking up the crap and turning things into a pleasant place to work. At other places not so much. Work at the former.

Eventually the others will go out of business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> When I'm being interviewed I ask everyone involved where they are coming from. It's de rigueur for a number of reasons. First, one of the best ways to understand someone is to listen to their perspective. Second, it's good etiquette and people will like you more if you listen to them talking about themselves. Third, how am I supposed to sell to you if I don't know you?

How could you _not_ ask this question of your interviewer and expect it to go well?

edit: looking back on how many interviews where I've done this. I hope I've not offended anyone by not assuming they were a certain <status_jobtitle>. Frankly, I just don't know enough about them to guess. So I have to ask. If they're the type that gets bent out of shape because I couldn't tell job title from their halo then perhaps we aren't a good fit anyway.

</comment><comment><USER55> If you want to convince someone who doubts the existence of the "cat food factory", these examples suck. Okay, the assuming the woman is from HR but that the guy is from Eng, yeah, we all believe that one. It hasn't happened to us guys, maybe we can imagine making that mistake (and regretting it), etc. But the other two stories? That shit happens to guys all the time.

Yeah, sometimes people won't believe you. And then they'll ask someone else. And eventually they'll believe someone else, maybe. And that someone else will probably be a guy.... because almost everyone in tech _is_ a guy. I'm constantly getting ignored, and then some guy gets listened to (I'm a guy). And as for the "crack pipes" story, we don't really have enough details, but it's VERY easy to read that story and think "damn right you screwed up". And I've been ignored and talked over (I'm a _loud_ guy). So, yeah, that stuff happens to men.

Of course, the real question is not "do these things happen to women and not men". That's like saying "[all] men are taller than [all] women", it's obviously false, because sometimes I meet women over 6' tall. But of course we know that both mean and median female heights are lower than male... the whole curve is offset by like 5" in the USA. It's totally plausible that the distribution of respect at technical skill discriminates in favour of males. It's plausible that it doesn't, or that the effect is pretty small. If you want to convince _an unbeliever_ , a few examples of moderate disrespect are like pointing out a few examples of 5'6" guys (taller than the median US female). It's just not persuasive!

And, in fact, in my opinion, it's worse than non-persuasive. It gives the people who don't believe you (and don't want to) a straw man to fixate on. "That shit happened to me too [and it did!] and therefore her claim about privilege is wrong [wait, what]." If you want to advance a cause, you would do well to make sure you only emit Grade-A arguments.

I don't know whether there is a "cat food factory" chopping up "fish" in the tech industry. I would guess rachelbythebay knows better than me (she's closer to the issue, and IIRC she's logged more time in the industry), but I am skeptical about whether or not _she_ really knows either. Maybe I'm wrong and she has attempted to do science on the subject. But if she has only her own experience (as I have only my own), then her interpretive bias will be a huge factor in her conclusions (as mine is in mine). Just as my ego benefits when I fool myself into believing that my privilege plays only a tiny role in my success (mock me here, please), her ego would benefit if she were to fool herself into overstating the benefits of the privilege that she does not have (and understating the benefits of the privileges she does have).

</comment><comment><USER56> > "This is materially affecting your perf score."

No one said which direction the effect went.

<comment><USER57> Being pulled aside by your boss after rocking the boat is not likely to be interpreted as anything but negative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> It _should_ have materially affected the perf score; you saved them how much trouble by eventually getting them to notice this? That should be a 10-20% bump at least.

</comment><comment><USER59> What sort of chickenshit operation dings people for getting a bunch of bickering morons to listen to reason?

Fuck them. And fuck you if you think there's some sort of more workplace appropriate way to get someone to pay attention when you're being ignored.

<comment><USER60> In this case, presumably, Google.

<comment><USER24> Google is big. Big companies are usually run by bureaucracy and policies. Leave and go work in startup, which are usually run by people. I know, working in Google is cool and pays well. But there's no free lunch. I've always preferred smaller companies where you can actually talk to the CEO (and all people in between) and it's not that bad a place to be.

<comment><USER61> I thought all the food at the Googleplex was free, breakfast, dinner, and lunch.

<comment><USER24> Turns out, you pay for it, just not in money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Well, being ignored is something that should never be done in a business model, be it a coffee shop or the biggest tech company in the world. However, that statement was completely out of line.

<comment><USER63> Sometimes a minor offense needs to be committed to avoid a larger problem.

<comment><USER64> OR you could try a simple "excuse me" first. I try reserve the unprovoked belligerence for Plan B, but I guess I'm just classy like that.

<comment><USER65> Yeah, she tried that.

Assuming she doesn't have a glass and a fork, or a convenient lightswitch... I might suggest knocking loudly on the table before mentioning crack pipes. But I can't really fault her for missing out that step.

<comment><USER62> That is a great idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Seriously, get together with Michael OChurch and do a YouTube/podcast show "Everyone in Tech is Evil and Dumb". It would be super entertaining, and you could sell premium ad space for those techie eyeballs.

</comment><comment><USER67> This woman is just an extremely negative and hostile personality. She's technically competent, so she can justify her behavior in her own head, but she's basically a female bully who thinks people don't like her because she's female. No, they don't like her because she is an unpleasant and caustic personality. After leaving Google, for years she writes stories about how smart she was, how irrationally they discriminated, how dumb they all were, and so on.

Yet last I looked Google was still standing up on its own hind legs without her. Just a little more than that, in fact. Maybe they just didn't want to work with a smart asshole with a perpetual chip on her shoulder.

<comment><USER68> > This woman is just an extremely negative and hostile personality.

I've been wondering what to say to you to get you to wise up for the last half hour, you usually have some pretty interesting stuff to say but this is such a personal attack that I give up. Why? What are you trying to achieve other than profiling yourself as nasty, negative and hostile yourself?

<comment><USER69>
      | I've stopped yet another half-assed idea from
      | going into production, but at what cost?

I will say that this statement definitely gave me the, "I'm the only smart person here, everyone else is just dumb," vibe.

<comment><USER70> Well. At that instance she was. Fiercely discussing solutions to a problem without first checking if it existed is dumb behavior.

<comment><USER69> Maybe, but "yet another" implied other instances too.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


GCHQ GitHub account - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gchq <comment><USER2> also mentioned 2 years ago [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732267](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732267)

also specific repos have been mentioned before: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13056254](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13056254)

<comment><USER3> The one posted two years ago links to a repo with no public repositories.</comment></comment>


Low-background Steel - <AUTHOR> http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel <comment><USER2> The facts in this article are somewhat incongruous:

Radiation levels due to nuclear testing were elevated 7% over normal

The major source of radioactivity in steel is cobalt 60, which has a half life of 5.27 years

In which case one could just wait a year and the radioactivity of your steel would drop by 7%, making up for the effects of nuclear testing contamination. Put another way, steel from 1944 has been around for some 10 half-lifes of cobalt-60, meaning it has 1/2^10th as much 60Co radiation as when it was made. Why would it matter if the radioactivity was 1/2^10th or 1.07/2^10th as much as the background radiation?

I'm sure there are other isotopes which make this more of a problem, but the facts as presented in this article don't make much sense.

<comment><USER3> That's why low background steel isn't as much in demand as it used to be. It helps that it's easier to make it from scratch by filtering the air better.

Even so, there are still some rare cases where it's easier to use older steel to ensure that there is much lower background radiation. Co-60 isn't the only source of radiation, and even 1/1,000th of peak levels can still be fairly high for applications like neutrino detectors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's interesting and all, but why do we get a mildly-interesting wikipedia article every couple of days without any context or commentary?

I've half a mind to write a bot that submits a random article every 48 hours.

<comment><USER5> This particular one was taken from Reddit: [http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1p56pz/til_st...](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1p56pz/til_steel_made_since_the_1950s_is_radioactive_and/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could someone clarify how radiation dosing and dose rates are measured?

The article says background radiation levels peaked at .15 mSv in 1963. Looking at the wikipedia page on Seiverts, I am trying to compare this to other radiation examples, but not sure how to draw a comparison.

Would a human standing outside be receiving .15 mSv per hour? year? total?

<comment><USER7> Radiation units are a bit weird. Sieverts are normalized to biological damage, because units of energy are insufficient to differentiate between 1 J of sunlight and 1 J of x-rays.

I think the 0.15 mSv the article mentions is per year. The next sentence says per year explicitly.

<comment><USER8> It's an odd reference in the context of reduced need for special pre-war II non-irradiated steel.

From the article if looks like the most important factor for that would be atmospheric concentration of Cobalt-60 (in ppm or ppb).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are four "[citation needed]"s in the first paragraph. Surely there must be some substance out there? I did some quick Googling and couldn't find much beyond what the article already has.

<comment><USER10> The first source from the article has a list of sources of its own:

[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2971/is-steel- from-...](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2971/is-steel-from- scuttled-german-warships-valuable-because-it-isn-t-contaminated-with- radioactivity)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If world-war-2 steel still emits too much radiation for your application, maybe you'll want to shield your experiment with 2000 year old lead bricks from a sunken roman vessel?

[http://www.aspera- eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=v...](http://www.aspera- eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=418&Itemid=98)

</comment><comment><USER12> What a mess we've made of this planet over just 100 years.</comment>


Love Thy JSON - <AUTHOR> http://eduvoyage.com/love-thy-json.html

<comment><USER2> Might want to fix up the `obj` vs `name` discrepancies in those examples... EDIT: You beat me to it.

</comment><comment><USER3> JSON always seemed so obvious to me; I'm amazed it wasn't "invented" sooner.

<comment><USER4> It was. <http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Sexp.txt></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Will you be switching to Chrome? - <AUTHOR>

I think I'll be switching to Chrome. I always thought IE and Firefox could be slimmed down. What are your thoughts? <comment><USER2> Not until Chrome gets extensions/addons. I absolutely cannot live without ad blocking, better tab management, NoScript and my check-multiple-gmail-accounts addons.

<comment><USER3> I always found it somewhat contradictory and hypocritical that the very people that live off ad-based websites (webbased entrepreneurs and founders) are so highly correlated with the group of people that absolutely cannot live without adblocking software - thereby robbing the siteowners of their income model.

Note: spydez - this isn't in any way meant as a personal attack, it just seemed like the right place to put my opinion on the matter.

<comment><USER2> No offense take. I'm not an entrepreneur. ;)

But if I ever do come up with an awesome idea, I'm determined I'll create it and make money off of it without putting up adverts. I _hate_ adverts with a burning passion and I'm not about to force them down my potential users throats.

<comment><USER4> Advertising is one of the only ways to monetize free visitor aspects and paths. Advertising is one of the last American innovative markets. As soon as you start trying to bring any type of content that that is free, I am sure you will change your ways.

Blocking ads is like anti-bacterial soap. It makes your immunity to these things much lower if that is why you are so bothered by ads. Block ads on sites that you don't frequent, but ones that you do, throw some pennies in the hat.

<comment><USER5> There are lots of ways to monetize free sites. See Kayak or TicketStumbler. There's also the freemium service.

The reality of ad blocking software (which is spreading quickly and won't stop until it's as ubiquitous as popup blocking is now) is that you'll have to find a better, more integrated business model at some point.

<comment><USER6> My hunch is that ad blocking is a huge threat to Google. So if they can control the browser space...

I still don't know why IE doesn't ship with ad blockers. Would it hurt them? Perhaps in the short run. But in the long run, it would do far more damage to G.

<comment><USER7> anti-trust

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Perhaps when there is a stable linux client.

<comment><USER6> agreed

<comment><USER9> yup

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> No real choice but Firefox as my main browser since my main web activity is development. Chrome, Safari, IE all can't compete with Firebug, YSlow, etc for web development, so for expediency I have to develop in Firefox first and test in the others afterwards. I think that's a big part of what makes Firefox such a compelling browser, it's developer heaven compared to the others.

It looks like Opera is starting to recognize this too, which should help increase support for their browser eventually too.

<comment><USER11> I agree with what you have said about Firebug. I absolutely cannot live without it. The Inspect feature of Firebug is priceless especially when working with the DOM. It's easy to use and it is in the same window. I do not have to switch windows to look at the html source.

For now, I just use Chrome for my "24/7" tabs like feeds and online email. I never have to close them and it loads at "notepad-like" speed :)

<comment><USER10> I've actually been using Fluid (<http://fluidapp.com>) for all my 24/7 stuff -- gmail, basecamp, github, hacker news ;) It really already does what Chrome's detachable websites feature kind of does, only better (for now at least, I'll give it time :).

<comment><USER11> thanks for this ^__^

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Switched yesterday. I transferred 8 tabs from FF3 and 8 tabs from IE (formerly ran both, for different sites), and started using Chrome exclusively. So far, 100% perfection, 100% stability. All the financial sites, news sites, Amazon, ..., everything works perfectly. Great performance. Very slick developer tools built-in.

<comment><USER13> Ditto. However, I switched from FireFox and I'm starting to miss FoxMarks. (I have four computers that I switch between.)

<comment><USER14> 1\. Work Computer 2\. Home Computer 3\. Home laptop 4\. ???

<comment><USER13> 4\. Home theater PC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Haven't tried it yet since I use Linux at work and Mac at home.

If nothing else I think Chrome sets the bar higher for the incumbents - process isolation in a browser is a nice innovation.

Cheers

</comment><comment><USER16> Chrome will not interest me until there is some ad-blocking available. Yes, it is superior to anything else out there, but my killer app for the web is still being able to surf the web sans irritating advertising.

<comment><USER17> why is ad-blocking so important?? please someone explain me...

<comment><USER18> popups and intrusive flash

<comment><USER19> Google has a popup blocker, I'm thinking something like Flashblock is probably next.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> need a mac version first. then i'll see.

<comment><USER21> Seconded. They say that they are working on a mac version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm kind of using both right now. I like Chrome, I might gradually migrate to it... it reminds me of Opera's sleekness.

The biggest irritations so far are the lack of "View Selection Source", and of course, no Firebug (though the built-in element inspector in Chrome is very impressive, but I haven't played enough with it to be convinced it can do everything Firebug can).

</comment><comment><USER23> 'I always thought IE and Firefox could be slimmed down'

Have you tried Opera? I use Windows and FreeBSD, so as Chrome isn't availble on FreeBSD yet I'll probably run Chrome on Windows and Opera on FreeBSD.

<comment><USER24> The main problem I have with Opera is that my first user experience was one of abject confusion ;)

The UI is really cluttered in terms of all the different bars and buttons that I didn't quite know what to do with.

Chrome just feels nice. There are some tabs, theres an address bar, and there is a back/forward and reload. I think there are other features too, I just don't see them ;)

<comment><USER23> I get rid of everything except the address bar. Previously I didn't even have that showing most of the time, as there was a keyboard shortcut to hide and show it (which has since been removed).

Once you've taken away all the clutter, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome all look quite similar (you can't remove much from IE7). Chrome is still the fastest by a huge margin, which is why I'll probably start using it on Windows.

<comment><USER24> Yah, as a first time user though, I wasn't sure how to get stuff back after I hid it unfortunately.

I got used to it after awhile though, so I guess it was okay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I have used Opera for years because of its speed compared to Firefox.

However, every Opera 9.5X release has had at least one major, show-stopping problem for me. I'm pretty sick of it, so as soon as Chrome gets AdBlock, I'll seriously consider switching.

</comment><comment><USER26> I use Mac at work and Linux at home, so I'm SOL for the time being. Chrome looks nice, though, and I'll probably end up switching when they port to the platforms I use.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm currently using it, but I'm switching back to firefox on single core machines -- the multiple process method doesn't work too well on an older machine.

</comment><comment><USER28> Chrome certainly looks very promising. However it is still lacking many features. Until they get it all put together I doubt that I will be switching.

I've also read that IE8 has some nice features that Chrome does not have or doesn't do as well. I'd prefer to avoid IE8, but you never know, maybe MS got something right this time around??

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm using it as my primary browser, but I'm seeing several errors (or at least inconsistencies). Sometimes, paste+undo when composing in gmail gets me the sad tab. Three downloads have resulted in all of chrome (not just one tab) crashing and burning. Alt-d (which acts as ctrl-l in ff and ie) works properly but boops at me; I feel scolded and when I'm feeling emotionally fragile it's really hurtful. Webkit's developer functionality does most of what I need firebug for, although I haven't used it extensively. The speed, clean ui, and novelty are keeping me happy for the time being, although I do wish they had a handy feedback system so I could bitch right back when alt-d bitches at me.

<comment><USER30> I use alt-d too, but I didn't notice any weirdness. A "default beep" you mean by "boop"? Control Panel -> Sounds -> Scheme: No Sounds. :)

I filed irritation bugs via the "Page menu"->Report bug or broken website..., but I don't know if they go anywhere useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Not right now, the Chrome on my machine is constantly crashing :(

I'd like too though.

</comment><comment><USER30> Nope, not yet at least. I don't honestly find FF "fat" and requiring slimming/speeding up. Of course, faster JS is a good thing, maybe I'll switch when some app more or less needs the performance to be usable.

It's also too obsessed with tabs, which I find dumb (I already have a taskbar in my OS, thanks), and a few UI bugs are stopping me.

I'd prefer to have Flashblock/Adblock Plus too.

[edit] Oh, and from a tech point of view separate "process" pages I find interesting, but I'm not sure that it's solving a problem I currently have.

</comment><comment><USER32> If it sucks less than firefox, when the linux version comes out. Im to lazy to reboot to windows to try it out right now, and i usually switch a few weeks after something new comes out.

<comment><USER19> It is definitely faster and has a nice interface to boot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I won't be switching, at least not yet. I think as a technical innovation, Chrome is amazing. But in terms of user friendly features (who doesn't prompt to close a window with tabs?) it has a long way to go. Google has a history of this write strong powerful utilities and make them shiny later. I have nothing wrong with this, as long as they realize they are doing it. It is the Unix way after all, and we all know the Unix way is the right way :p

</comment><comment><USER34> I wont be switching. Firefox is perfect for my use case and has features I want/need.

Portable Firefox: I use workstations at three different locations during the course of my day. Using Portable Firefox to keep my settings, bookmarks and saved passwords consistent on each machine is a MUST for me.

Adblock: Not necessary, but definitely nice to have.

So yeah, while my use case is pretty specific, Firefox fits it to a T.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm using it as soon as I get a Linux version, stable or not. If the core is solid, then crashes will be confined to tabs. Of the three extensions I use, one is already built into Chrome (incognito mode), one is a proxy extension, and one is NoScript. I use NoScript to keep my browser from crashing all the time, but hey, if it has the process isolation, then I'm not going to worry about it.

</comment><comment><USER36> I won't be switching as long as the new FF coming out is faster than Chrome (as they say it is). It also has to come out on the Mac first. ;)

</comment><comment><USER37> Not yet. I wanted, but it's still too beta:

      - I got hard crash, real BSOD, not just browser
      - constant disk trashing (comes from "Phishing and malware protection" feature)
      - Flash is actually much slower than FF/Opera/Explorer
      - no way for me to import Firefox bookmarks (it doesn't appear in menu)
      - don't try "about:%"

<comment><USER38> Could someone try "about:%" and let me know what happens? I would, but I'm on a linux box.

<comment><USER30> It crashes when you type the %.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> yep... I set it as my default. Now FF is just for development until Chrome has extensions and firebug comes over.

</comment><comment><USER40> yeah until they get ad block I'm not switching, that is the killer feature for me and a lot of people.

<comment><USER41> ++adblock - I'm using it for feed-reading and that's about it until adblock arrives, which might take a while given google's main revenue stream :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I might use it for Google Apps. For those, Crome is and probably alway will be the fastest browser and for those they got all my private data already. I hesitate to allow them to store my complete browse and search history. I kind of beginning to feel watched by Google.

</comment><comment><USER43> Once they include a way to password protect stored logins, I'll probably use it more heavily.

</comment><comment><USER44> Not until Chrome has been out for a while and has proven its security and stability.

Firefox has gone through many years of trial by fire and I am reasonably sure that I am not going to get pwned by browsing to a malicious site with firefox.

</comment><comment><USER45> Don't see a reason to switch from FF and IE.

For lightweight browsing, K-Meleon or Epiphany do the job fine.

For lighterweight browsing, Dillo, lynx, w3m.

I don't see the problem Chrome is trying to solve.

</comment><comment><USER46> I want but it is not ready yet.

I love the "incognito mode", but while playing youpr0n flash movies it will freeze once and a while, and especially if you scrolled up and down.

Not industrial grade yet. :P

</comment><comment><USER47> I think I already have. It's not really intentional. I just keep using it. Wish it had some of the extensions I'm used to though. I'm just keeping a FF window open as well at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER48> I use gmail and google docs quite a bit and chrome they work a lot faster. But for the rest of my browsing needs it's Firefox all the way. I stopped using IE longtime ago.

</comment><comment><USER49> Not sure yet, I need a Mac version and extensions (with a very active community building cool stuff) before I switch (or try even, don't have a Windows machine!)

</comment><comment><USER50> No. The competition will be good for all though. I'm anticipating a similar performance boost in Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER51> Yes -- I'm already using chrome for my everyday browsing. The speed is just too good to ignore.

</comment><comment><USER52> Yes. I've already done so on all 3 computers. I'll see how long it lasts. So far so good.

</comment><comment><USER53> Yes, already made the switch on my work laptop (PC). Waiting for a mac version for home.

</comment><comment><USER54> Touchpad scrolling doesnt work. So I have uninstalled it. Shall be using Opera n FF

</comment><comment><USER55> PPC GNU/Linux please.

<comment><USER56> Are PPC machines still even available on the desktop? I know IBM is still selling servers, but obviously a browser isn't much use on an 8 node node Power6 server. Seems like maybe PPC isn't a platform worth targeting new desktop software to...though, since it's open source, as long as its endian- sane, it ought to just be a recompile away, once it works on Linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would, but there are FF extensions I can't go without.

</comment><comment><USER57> Delicious support would really help make up my mind...

</comment><comment><USER58> I will be moving to chrome when it gets extensions!

</comment><comment><USER59> I have switched to Chrome mostly.

</comment><comment><USER60> Need an Ubuntu version.

</comment><comment><USER61> Yes

</comment><comment><USER19> Already have.

</comment><comment><USER62> I'm writing apps for people with browsers. Right now that means I have IE and FF on my machine.

If Chrome gets a big following, I'll download it. But I don't have a particular problem that I need fixing. If the JS performance is as slick as they say, then perhaps a killer web site will come along and cause me to download and use Chrome more. So far, that ain't happening.

</comment><comment><USER63> I don't really need the addons I use in Firefox except the developer tools, but I use FreeBSD and Linux so Chrome isn't available, unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER64> Chrome is a good app. I played around with it yesterday. Sad that they are doing it "open source". They should license it, then they could get the revenue they need to be a serious competitor to IE. As it is, nor matter how good technically Chrome is, it will be a curiousity. Without revenue from licensing you can't play with the big boys. "Open source"/free software sounds good in a college sociology paper, but sucks as a business model. It's like flying a 4-engine aeroplane with two engines off. It's stupid. But on the technical side, it is good, and so I'll probably use it. I just feel bad for google's shareholders. They could really be doing a lot better off.

<comment><USER3> What Google is doing is commoditizing the browser in order to make the web more accessible - and most importantly more like an operating system by including a (supposedly) superior javascript engine that makes it possible to create real apps in a browser window.

The financial interest of Google is not to make money on the browser, but to change the game and move as many apps on to the Internet and away from the computer as possible. This is where their strength lies, and they know it.

In my opinion this is a genius and bold move to which Microsoft basically has no countermoves. If they play along and get better javascript performance in IE apps move to the web, if they don't IE will fall behind firefox and chrome. Either way Google wins.

They don't care about making money on the browser. They care about moving everything into the(ir) cloud.</comment></comment>


The Problem with Believing What We're Told - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-problem-with-believing-what-were-told-11567224060?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> I think a lot of people don't really care or want to know what is going on in the world, they prefer watching "entertaining" high speed car chases, tornado reports, animal rescues, special guest "experts" that shout ideas over one another, and whatever other wild things the news can come up with these days. I'm in Poland right now, the latest "big" news was that the son of some rich guy died jet skiing and that a thunderstorm killed some people in the mountains, not the crisis in Venezuela or protests going on in Hong Kong. I recommend Anchorman 2, if you haven't watched it already, great comedy and commentary about the state of the current news.

<comment><USER3> >I'm in Poland right now, the latest "big" news was that the son of some rich guy died jet skiing and that a thunderstorm killed some people in the mountains, not the crisis in Venezuela or protests going on in Hong Kong. I recommend Anchorman 2, if you haven't watched it already, great comedy and commentary about the state of the current news.

I was with you when you offered a critique of the news-cycle and the banality of infotainment, until you segued into recommending a comedy film, as a way to gain further insight and draw parallels with serious matters.

<comment><USER4> Comedy can absolutely be critique, I don't know why you would dismiss it out of hand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Something very important with reading news: you have to understand reported speech.

If you see "a spokesman for the president says the moon is made of green cheese", and that spokesman did actually say that, _that passes a fact check_.

The fact that the moon is not made of green cheese is not considered to be in the remit of journalism.

<comment><USER6> Reminds me a bit of "peer reviewed" vs. "reproduced."

One would hope those journalists would employ some type of standards on what they choose to report, and how deep they investigate it to avoid confusion.

<comment><USER7> Peer review can be pretty shit too, and should be viewed as a spam-filter more than anything. There isn't really a _fast_ way to know if some work is good and reliable if its about something new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > "A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compared the spread of > fake news and real news on Twitter in a 2018 study published in the journal > Science. Looking at 126,000 tweets of news stories over the previous 11 > years, _they found that fake news stories were 70% more likely to be > retweeted than true stories_. Real news took about six times as long to > reach a benchmark audience of 1,500 people as fake news did."

<comment><USER8> I think there is an information theoretic explanation for this.

The content of fake news tends to be more surprising than factual news. It is surprising because it is less likely.

Generally speaking, the more unlikely a message is, the more information it carries. Thus, fake news appears to have higher information content then factual news to people unable to detect that it's fake.

<comment><USER9> The spectacle of seeing a nominal fact-checking site go after an overtly satirical one has been an astounding result for our day.

I like to point out the rose colored glasses of the early internet, when the awesome signal-to-noise ratio was going to have a catalytic effect on human knowledge.

#Whoops

<comment><USER10> Do you remember Bonsai Kitten, and the breathlessly horrified email campaigns against it? People have had difficulty determining real from fake for a long time.

<comment><USER11> It's way older than that. This is just one I know off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many other, older, examples.

[https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial- life-...](https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life- today/fake-news-is-nothing-new/)

<comment><USER10> Yes of course; but it's the earliest one I remember being a purely online phenomenon that suckered people in.

Besides, of course, the stupid lists of factoids that used to get emailed around - duck quacks don't echo etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The conclusion of this WSJ piece -- organ of the Murdoch disinformation empire, though generally the WSJ's news reportage continues to enjoy a reputation no longer afforded its opinion pages -- is that we need better media literacy.

That is: it's a plea for a dodge of responsibility by media organisations themselves.

My conclusion is the opposite: we need better reputational and accountability systems and institutions. The idea that a media channel, editorially controlled, AI heuristics driven, or "wisdom-of-the-crowd" determined, can act in complete disregard (or open opposition) to the truth and reality, and fail to be held to account, is a key problem.

To those who respond with "but who then would determine the truth": these institutions are _already_ determining at least the _perception_ of truth, through what they promote. Repetition, as the WSJ article and its cited research show, _create_ impression of truth. And whilst not all ground truths can be known, _some can be well established_ , as can be deliberate campaigns to obviate and obscure truth.

Dante's deepest circle of hell was reserved for the betrayers of others. But immediately above this was the circle reserved for the bearers of false witness. An arrangement in an age where virtually all information _was conveyed through witness,_ either oral or spoken testimony. Much of the social, religious, and communications institution of the time was devoted to establishing the importance of truth, and the consequences for falsehood, where independent verification was difficult or impossible.

Advances in information technology have offered increased opportunities for verification, but also broken down many of the foundations of trust in individuals and institutions. Some recent tools -- Bitcoin comes to mind -- are expressly founded on removing the role of trust within sectors of activity. This is a bad idea for multiple reasons, two of the principle ones being that trust itself has an extreme function in improving efficiency, and that its removal proves instantly and deeply toxic socially and institutionally.

We need to reestablish trust, adherence to trust, accountability to trust, and institutional trust. Information technology to date has worked in the opposite direction.

This ends poorly.

<comment><USER13> You make some excellent points, but your dig at Murdoch undermines your point. The fact is that we live in an age of pervasive _advocacy._ Everyone has a side and everyone musters the best arguments for their side. It's something we expect of lawyers—to make whatever arguments on behalf of their client that can be made within the threshold requirements of good faith and plausibility. But now we see it everywhere. News media, public interest organizations, academia, etc. It's not just WSJ or Fox News, but the NYT, ACLU, EFF, etc. And people find that disconcerting. People don't really expect when reading content from such organizations, that they're being lawyered. But every time I read an ACLU blurb in my email and dig into the facts to see how much spin there was on the story, it makes me feel like when I was clerking first a judge and would see the amount of spin with which the trial record was portrayed in the briefs. Even when it comes to organizations I respect a lot (I rag on the ACLU, but I'm a member) it's tiring. I feel like I'm engaged in a mental joust rather than being educated.

Part of this is, I think, the degree to which electronic media and modern society has allowed us to self-segregate. Increasingly, our communications are directed to people who already agree with us, which allows us to communicate in a code of canned talking points. Given the self-selection in media consumption, that applies to media organizations as well.

<comment><USER12> Some advocate.

Some advocate, knowingly, willingly, and with great compensation, for the Devil.

Which would you do?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The real lie is the implied premise that if people only knew the 'the truth' it would somehow cause them to act in a certain way.

Which is categorically and empirically false. But I don't want to be too hard on them, they are journalists after all.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think I have the opposite problem now where I don't believe anything I'm told. Especially from friends and relatives.

<comment><USER16> I get the impression that that's the desired effect of foreign-funded fake news compaigns.

<comment><USER17> While I agree with the sentiment, I'd like to point out that not all of them are foreign-funded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ted Bundy's mom Louise refused to believe her son was a murderer despite all evidence to the contrary. Her son admitted that he was the culprit and only that made her come out of her denial.

In a lot of third world countries it is pretty common and even expected that the average Joe will vote for whomever appeals to their emotions. Every sin of the politician is forgotten and forgiven even if the said politician has a history of inciting murder or being corrupted etc.

There is a good chance that people who voted for their candidate made up their minds long before any kind of "fake news" hit their newsfeed.

<comment><USER19> In a lot of first-world countries, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is similar to publication bias for news outlets and even scientific journals, just with progressively lower standards. Each party wants to publish the most interesting things they can, therefore take it as close to the line as their reputation/judgement allows.

</comment><comment><USER21> The first part of Neal Stephensons latest novel "Fall, or Dodge in hell" explores exactly this topic in the context of social media. The possible consequences of a post-truth world where people cannot agree on facts are stunning. An interesting read.

</comment><comment><USER22> Not to mention the political advantage of framing your opponents base as having poor judgment or lacking discernment by producing fake stories you know they are more likely to read, share and believe than your own base.

Politics today is far more deceptive because the speed of delivery and feedback for communications allows it to be.

Only going to get worse unless a new platform/network/protocol is created for the future of "trustless" news and publications.

<comment><USER14> It's always been this way, politics is a zero sum game.

<comment><USER22> All things are zero-sum if you try hard enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I tend to be very skeptical and have a good sense of whether somebody's feeding me bullsh*t. I'm genuinely surprised by some of the things I see those around me just blindly accept. I hope when I'm a parent, I can instill a healthy sense skepticism in my child.

<comment><USER24> My proudest moment of parenting so far was when my son told me how much he appreciated being brought up to question and not to blindly accept groupthink.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The correct term is "propaganda".

We shouldn't use the term "fake news", which is a term designed to undermine trust in news institutions. When we use the term, we contribute to the undermining.

<comment><USER26> That is confusing terms. Propaganda can and usually is built out of true news as well as fake stories - true news presented selectively, given a specific interpretation etc. can be a very powerful tool.

Fake stories and their spread are a different matter - they can be a form of propaganda as well, but they can also serve other properties (selling ads, such as in spam, is a major reason for fake stories).

<comment><USER27> I've been using the word "paltering" or "to palter" to help make this distinction. Once "lying by being truthful" has a concrete name like paltering, it is easier to get others to start to see the different kinds of propaganda and label them.

Paltering is what Chomsky rails against in traditional media in his books such as _Manufacturing Consent_. Ex: tortured Polish Solidarity Catholic priests in the USSR get national headlines, but Catholic Priests murdered by US-funded death squads in Guatemala do not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's a rare parent that wants their children questioning what they're told. It's one of the reasons the Greeks killed Socrates.

That's the fundamental aspect of human nature that needs to somehow be changed. It's not that hard to develop critical thinking skills — but parents don't want it, corporations don't want it, politicians don't want it. Where is the constituency that is going to push for and pay for critical thinking skills in childhood education?

<comment><USER29> > corporations don't want it, politicians don't want it

Hmm, the question that then arises in my mind is: are parents that _do_ encourage their children to question them properly preparing those children for a society that will disregard them with that attitude?

(Working from your assumptions here - I'm not necessarily sure how widespread the disregard for a questioning attitude is.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Wait, so you mean Dorian _won't_ hit Alabama!?</comment>


Ask HN: Is There a Future for Unionized Software Engineers? - <AUTHOR> After hearing about the petition and recently planned protest by Google employees in opposition to the Dragonfly project, I have been thinking a lot about the future of software development. I would love to hear peoples thoughts on the following…
1. How likely are these efforts by Google employees to succeed in swaying the direction of the company?
2. Are there any existing software developer labor unions that have a focus on keeping companies ethically accountable? (If any at all)
3. Are there any other better ways for developers to collectively keep companies ethically accountable? <comment> crooked-v > 2\. Are there any existing software developer labor unions that have a focus > on keeping companies ethically accountable? (If any at all)

[https://www.iww.org/pt/unions/dept500/iu560](https://www.iww.org/pt/unions/dept500/iu560)</comment>


Man buys $27 of bitcoin, finds they're now worth $886k - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/29/bitcoin-forgotten-currency-norway-oslo-home <comment><USER2> Assets are really weird. To make money you have to go to work. To save lots of money ($886k) you have to really push hard: Have a high-end job (at Google or a Big.Co.), have a university degree (better with a phD) and spend 20 years or more of your life to make that amount.

But somehow this guy made the same amount without putting really any effort or taking any risks. It's like inheritance when you are suddenly rich and collected all these years efforts.

What I'm trying to convey is that living without any assets is pretty darn hard in today life. As many (the majority) of people are inheriting wealth from their grand-parents and countries, they find life much easier.

I guess this also made life more expensive. Since they have the assets, this group can raise the prices (virtually) infinitely. They can exchange assets between each other, but people who are new to the game will be screwed.

I think the same thing is happening to Bitcoins. It's becoming too expensive that we'll see the 0.01% and the remaining of the 100%. It'll be probably as worse or much worse than real life.

<comment><USER3> > without putting really any effort or taking any risks

He sunk $27 into an investment that (from his knowledge at the time) had a high chance of ending up completely worthless, and a low chance of exploding in value (if bitcoin took off).

That isn't "without taking any risk". On the contrary, it was a very _high_ -risk investment. In this case, it paid off. (It was a low _value_ investment, but that doesn't change the relative risk: making lots of (un- or anti- correlated) low-value, high-risk investments, instead of one big one, is a way to reduce your total risk).

<comment><USER2> The guy is living in a Norwegian country. So $27 is probably the price of a meal in an expensive restaurant. I'm assuming he didn't make any investment but was rather curious how this thing work and wanted to hold some of this digital currency.

If he was making an investment, he'd have probably followed and tracked it. That was not the case. He just found out about it.

Otherwise, my comment wasn't about that particular detail.

<comment><USER4> FYI, there's only one Norwegian country. It's Norway.

<comment><USER5> Minnesota?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article really just tells the story that when there is a fixed supply of something, and demand increases, price increases of that thing. In some cases people have that thing stored in their attic and forget about it, in which case they get a pleasant surprise that they now can trade it for a greater value than they first purchased it for (assuming there is liquidity in the market).

Granted - the speed of the price increase of Bitcoin is very impressive - other examples from history:

\- Man buys $27 of Gold Coins, finds they're now worth $886K

\- Man buys $27 of Tulips, finds they're now worth $886K

\- Man buys $27 of Railroad shares, finds they're now worth $887K

\- Man buys $27 of (insert .com boom company) Shares, finds they're now worth $886K

\- Man buy $27 of Beanie Babies, finds they're now worth $886K

<comment><USER7> Except there are many more people who earned a lot on Bitcoin purposefully, not by accident.

<comment><USER6> I think what you're suggesting is there are more people speculating on bitcoin's value than the value of some of these other examples - that is probably accurate, as in many ways the barriers to entry to start speculating on the value of bitcoin are low.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Someone bought two pizzas for 10,000 bitcoin in 2009. So... that's looking like a wise investment.

[http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/](http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/)

(From the 20/20 hindsight department.)

<comment><USER3> > So... that's looking like a wise investment.

Article claims it was "the first real-world bitcoin transaction". Without those first few transactions from enthusiasts, bitcoin may well not have taking off. And those 10,000 wouldn't have been Laszlo's only bitcoins. So from that POV, maybe it was a pretty wise investment :)

<comment><USER8> That is a good point, bitcoins would be worthless if no one had been willing to spend them. It makes me wonder if buying those pizzas was a hard decision, or if it was just an impulse buy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Remember this day when explaining the Bitcoin Bubble to your kids.

<comment><USER10> At this rate, the kids will ask "what's a Bitcoin?" and you'll respond "shut up and eat your rat...it's almost time for Two Minutes Hate."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Bitcoins are reaching lottery-level payoffs. In 5 years, will be see a lot more of these stories?

<comment><USER7> In 5 years it'll become world currency and in 10 years all other currencies will hyperinflate relative to it and will be abandoned. Gold will go down too as more people will learn that Bitcoin is more flexible way of "storing wealth".

<comment><USER12> Knowing the bitcoin fanboys, I can't really tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

<comment><USER7> Send me a message on email@example.com (twitter: @oleganza) in 5 years and ask for 1 BTC if Bitcoin is not yet recognized as international financial instrument. I will gladly give it to you if BTC price is below $10000 or it's still not possible to pay in Bitcoin in any major city for about anything.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the offer! [http://i.imgur.com/UnOIGpT.png](http://i.imgur.com/UnOIGpT.png)

I hope Google doesn't kill Calendar before 2018.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> lol enjoyed the comments section

shirotsku 29 October 2013 2:31pm

"Go back in time to the 80s. Buy shares in Apple. Sell shares in 2009. Buy BitCoins. Sell BitCoins in 2013. Profit."

JenniDark "Directions unclear. Bought Blackberry shares. Now what?"

</comment><comment><USER7> Only this year Bitcoin price went up from $14 to $200 and counting. The all- time high $266 (this April) can be reached once again before Christmas.

<comment><USER14> So could the $14 mark.

<comment><USER7> Let's bet on that. I can put 1 BTC that the price by the end of the year will be greater than $266. If it's below $14 I'll pay you 19 BTC or more (equivalent of $266 at the current prices).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Worth $886K to whom? It's worth nothing if you can't find a buyer (a la what happened temporarily in the housing markets).

</comment><comment><USER16> I spent the last year of my bachelors mining, earned something like £6 worth of Bitcoins and decided I would never spend them and donated to archive.org.

Shortly after the price skyrocketed... safe to say the biggest donation I've made to date. Oh well, can only hope it is helping them out!

</comment><comment><USER17> This article briefly mentions the Silk Road "bust"; wasn't there much speculation that they could not actually seize his money because of the crypto nature? Does that mean they got his key?

<comment><USER7> The bigger story about SR is that Bitcoin price did not collapse 10x after the shutdown. Which shows that Bitcoin is used as gold, speculative store of wealth. And so it reasserts itself as a viable wealth transport.

<comment><USER18> Why on earth would BTC collapse 10x after the SR shutdown? If anything, it'd drive the value up as a significant portion of the money supply just evaporated.

<comment><USER7> That's also a way to look at it. But also consider that if there was significant demand in BTC just to spend on Silk Road, it would go away after SR is gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > to buy an apartment in Toyen, one of the Norwegian capital's wealthier > areas.

Most definitely not. It's more like an immigrant ghetto, together with Grønland.

</comment><comment><USER20> Sounds like my story... just that I've sold mine for $1k :)

<comment><USER21> I have a lot of BTC lying around somewhere from way, WAY back when BTC was in its infancy. It kills me everyday not knowing how to get it back. I've been through a few computers so far and most of my data is gone.

Anyone know how to retrieve it?

<comment><USER22> Take it to a data recovery expert?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Biggest news around the world. How people found such type of news with 100% accuracy like 26.xyzasd $ Bit coins.</comment>