Go for Objective-C developers - <AUTHOR> http://runtimeintrospection.tumblr.com/post/76441664061/go-for-objective-c-developers <comment><USER2> I don't feel like I've learned much about Go from this article.

        make(chan bool, 1)

what is that 1 for? Why is it not using constructor sytnax shown earlier? (`Chan{bool}` or `BoolChan{1}`?)

`go function` is nice, but in ObjC there's `dispatch_async()` and `NSOperationQueue`. Go does some magic with green threads, segmented stacks and whatnot, but the article doesn't elaborate.

And for an Objective-C developer Go's lack of proper interoperability with Cocoa is disappointing:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6322194/cocoa-bindings- fo...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6322194/cocoa-bindings-for-the-go- language)

BTW:

       (CGRect){0, 0, 320, 480}

is valid in ObjC (doesn't apply to classes though).

<comment><AUTHOR> As for (CGRect){0, 0, 320, 480}, it is indeed valid, but it's a lot nicer to have a consistent syntax instead of mixing C with Objective-C.

<comment><USER3> There is no mixing. Objective-C is a superset of C, therefore C syntax is part of the Objective-C language.

<comment><AUTHOR> Mixing in the sense that ABAddressBook is a C based API, with no Cocoa wrapper, like how CGRect is a struct, not an class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _If software development is about reducing mental strain on a programmer, > then garbage collection is something that goes a long way to that._

Go's GC has its own caveats that you have to watch out for. It doesn't really save you from having to think about your object graph or architecture design.

<comment><USER5> I thought the GC point was kind of interesting seeing as Objective C does/did have Garbage Collection (if you're an OS X developer). It's been deprecated and ARC is the replacement. There's been a bit of discussion about this in the past. Maybe if the first iPhone had come with the same hardware we're looking at today the story would be different but I tend to agree with the reasoning behind not supporting GC on iDevices. I feel like the hoops (some types of) Game developers have to jump through on Android even with todays hardware is validation of Apple's reasoning.

[http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/xcode/322876-why-arc- ove...](http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/xcode/322876-why-arc-over-garbage- collection.html)

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/19/the- unfamiliar](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/19/the-unfamiliar)

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2484079/how-can-i- avoid-g...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2484079/how-can-i-avoid- garbage-collection-delays-in-java-games-best-practices?rq=1)

<comment><USER6> Apple failed to develop a stable GC for Objective-C, there were lots of issues when linking with libraries that did not make use of it.

Plus the underlying C part, didn't allow for more than a plain conservative GC.

ARC works by generating the retain/release calls the developers would write anyway with NeXTStep/Cocoa framework.

So while it is a good solution for Objective-C, it isn't because it thrumps GC, but rather due to Apple's failure with a stable GC.

<comment><USER4> I would argue a step further and say that it's because Apple chose the wrong solution for an OOP language with C-compatibility. They could have invented a language more like C# for NeXTSTEP, but they chose the route with easier C compatibility. Now they're paying the cost of taking that early shortcut.

<comment><USER5> Given the development timeframe for NeXTSTEP, I don't think that a managed language would have been a likely choice. Remember, this is when your average barn burner workstation came with a 33MHz 386 Class CPU and 4-8MB of memory. The NeXT Computer came with a 25MHz '030 and 8MB of memory.

<comment><USER6> They could, as Xerox PARC machines were not as powerful and offered:

\- Lisp OS

\- Smalltalk OS

\- Mesa/Cedar (a GC enabled systems programming)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Before any insightful discussion, may I suggest that we do not discuss generics?

<comment><USER8> Let me guess, you're worried that the Objective C team will get swamped with requests for generics by developers who behave as if it is impossible to develop software without the feature.

Never happen. The HN community is far too mature for that.

<comment><USER9> The lack of generics in Objective-C is one of my biggest complains with the language. A huge portion of the runtime errors I run into are due to containers not containing the type of object I expected them to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Could Go be used to replace Java on Android eventually? If he's already comparing it to Objective-C, and since it already has garbage collection, it might not be a terrible idea, and it should make it easier for new programmers wanting to develop for Android, since Go is an easier language to learn than Java and much less verbose.

<comment><USER11> Most of Android is written in Java, so no, that's not going to happen in our lifetimes. All we can hope is that ART is good enough that Dalvik goes away and we can start building stable languages on top of ART (as opposed to with Dalvik which only has immature / experimental languages not-named-Java.

<comment><USER12> > Most of Android is written in Java, so no, that's not going to happen in our > lifetimes.

It could easily happen if Google wanted it to. Java can call native code (and vice-versa). Other system vendors have changed core implementations before. Apple has pulled it off 2 or 3 times at least.

It wouldn't be easy, but it's certainly possible.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, absolutely, but they'd have to have a very good reason to do so. I want them to do it too, but I doubt it will happen unless they reach some major roadblock that makes ART unsuitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great article! I'd like to see a part 2 to this article where you go a bit more in depth into some differences, with examples of both golang code and objectiv-c code. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER14> As an Objective-C developer, I simply don't think Go solves the same problems as Objective-C – comparing the two seems very apples and oranges to me. If I ever start using Go, it won't be as a direct replacement for Objective-C.

I don't mean to attack the author (I enjoyed the article) but most of Go's "advantages" are also disadvantages when used in an Objective-C/Cocoa environment.

 _First heading from the article: "Not traditionally object-oriented"_

The problem with this is that much of Objective-C is focussed on the AppKit/UIKit view-hierarchy. As the Rust developers noticed when trying to implement the HTML DOM in their Servo project, large hierarchies of similar entities are cumbersome and require repeating yourself often if you don't have access to traditional subclasses. Rust eventually added single inheritance (despite earlier pushing for a purely Go-like compositional interface approach).

Compositional interfaces are a good thing... but so is data and behavioral inheritance. Taking one of these things away makes the language poorer, not richer. Yes, compositional interfaces would be good in Objective-C but a lack of inheritance in Go isn't a perfect world either.

 _Second heading from the article: "Type inference"_

For the mostpart, this is a point in Go's favor. Although the author might not realise that with ARC in Objective-C you can actually just duck type if you want (type as 'id') and the ARC compiler will do type inference behind your back to track memory so you still get all the compile-time checks and other type inference advantages

 _Third heading from the article: "Garbage collecting"_

Ignoring the technical problems with Apple's GC implementation for Objective-C, there were three real reasons why garbage collection sucked badly: (1) it used too much RAM (standard GC drawback), (2) it was slow (because it used too much RAM – it was otherwise efficient), but most critically: (3) it removed deterministic deletion which is critical in Cocoa.

Cocoa relies on its destructors to perform actual work. With GC, you suddenly can't rely on destructors being invoked when you need them. The idea that GC "reduc[es] mental strain" does not apply if instead of transparent lifecycle management with ARC, you suddenly need completely manual "dispose" methods everywhere.

 _Fourth heading from the article: "Native concurrency"_

Apple's approach to native concurrency is that you should use libdispatch. It's slightly more verbose than prefixing a function with "go" but it handles all that go's built-in concurrency handles and actually much more. I think, from its exclusion, that the author is unfamiliar with libdispatch. I've not seen evidence that go has any built in advantages over libdispatch.

 _Fifth heading from the article: "Packages"_

On namespaces: yes, they allow for ways around conflicts. But there is a double edged sword here: names in different namespaces are going to conflict. If you've used a large library like .NET, you'll know what I mean: lots of different classes in different namespaces conflict so that you can't simply say "using XXX" for each namespace and instead you have to reference the whole path. Instead of NSTimer you have to use System.Timers.Timer or System.Threading.Timer – a two letter prefix is now fourteen or seventeen letters.

Also... it is _really_ annoying attempting to follow sample code when the sample code omits all the namespace inclusions. You're trying to learn the API from the code but the code doesn't explain what API it's using forcing you to trial and error hunt around for the correct namespace.

<comment><USER9> > you can actually just duck type if you want (type as 'id') and the ARC > compiler will do type inference behind your back to track memory so you > still get all the compile-time checks and other type inference advantages

You lose compile-time type checking with id, so it's not at all like type inference. I'm not sure how ARC is relevant at all, as it changed nothing about how id works. Using id everywhere is pretty similar to using void * everywhere in C.</comment></comment>


Open Source Social Network - <AUTHOR> https://www.opensource-socialnetwork.org/ <comment><USER2> Upon logging into the demo account, a clever upsell appears to a $219 product.

[https://www.softlab24.com/product/view/43/premium-social- net...](https://www.softlab24.com/product/view/43/premium-social-network)

</comment><comment><USER3> Product names matter. This needs a more catchy name. Maybe people here could suggest better names that are available.</comment>


Poll: working class or professional? - <AUTHOR>

Perhaps (probably) it's my personal bias, but it seems to me one predictor of "success" is one's family background.
Statements such as "My father was an anesthesiologist"[0] put me off reading narratives of a person's success, because my family background is borderline working/welfare class so I feel pretty much doomed to mediocrity at best.
So, what's your background?
[0] http://www.jeanhsu.com/?p=132 <comment><USER2> HN has a method to create polls. It isn't the transparent request for votes of having 3 comments which you are supposed to upvote.

Also categorizing people's backgrounds is often trickier than you would think. For instance what impression do you get from each of the following statements?

      - I grew up in poverty.
      - I have movie star sisters.
      - My grandfather co-founded a successful civil engineering firm and died rich.
      - I was kidnapped by a crazy man before I was 5.

Each statement contains a life story behind it. None of this complexity is captured in Welfare/Working/Professional.

</comment><comment><USER3> Working class. My parents both grew up poor and left school at 15 - my father lied about his age to join the Navy. He later worked for an elevator company, and during my lifetime was in supervising maintenance through most of Connecticut, with some number of people working under him. He retired from the elevator company in 1996 after 45 years.

</comment><comment><USER4> both parents were blue-collar workers

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Welfare

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Working

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Professional</comment>


Ask HN: Is there an audio search technology that finds exact and similar audio? - <AUTHOR> Audio fingerprinting algorithms such as Shazam are popular, but is there a content-based audio search tool available to find _similar_ audio clips or even parts of audio? Any COTS or OSS tools you are aware of?
Note: I'm not asking about audio metadata search. That is of course a fait accompli <comment><USER2> [http://www.phash.org/](http://www.phash.org/)

[https://code.google.com/p/musicg/](https://code.google.com/p/musicg/)

[http://people.seerc.org/kourtesis/musicuri/](http://people.seerc.org/kourtesis/musicuri/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know what COTS is and this is not OSS, but:

[http://www.midomi.com/](http://www.midomi.com/)

You can sing something and it will _try_ to find it.

</comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of the app the guy was building in that show silicon valley.</comment>


Show HN: Create a Deep Fake Video from Any Image - <AUTHOR> https://myvoiceyourface.com <comment><USER2> This just looks like a simple web app wrapper around First Order Model: [https://github.com/AliaksandrSiarohin/first-order- model](https://github.com/AliaksandrSiarohin/first-order-model)

The license for the code specifically states "Non-Commercial".

Is your code something else? Also seems like you've double posted it.

Edit: Your other posts also have a similar look - are you testing the waters for a viable biz model by adding web-app wrappers around ML papers who have published their code on Github? Not being accusatory or anything, just trying to understand.

</comment><comment><USER3> Quite brave leaving random Internet generated content on the front page of the site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting 1st observation

<comment><USER3> Haha sorry my day job is in security so my mind goes directly to abuse.

The transparency is very appreciated. Nice job putting it together, hope you get some actually constructive (vs mine) feedback from hn

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a huge and qualitative difference between the example video and the 'recent videos' below.

The example video shows the face being stretched mostly around the mouth, and without extreme or sudden changes. Sure, it looks fake, but it seems coherent. It's almost the kind of thing a human would make in a comedy setting. But in the generated videos below, I see a lot of the issues we often get with generative models -- eyes or mouths flickering in and out of existence, a disappearing neck, parts of the background getting mixed with the face, etc. Sort of nightmare-ish, but not at the level of deep-dream dog-worms from 2014 or whenever.

Were these even from the same method? Or is there some about the user- submitted photos that meaningfully differs from those used during training?

<comment><AUTHOR> The instruction wasn't clear, the video and the image both need to have a person's head for this to work.

<comment><USER3> Is this related to avatarify at all? I tried that a few times and the result was very similar to what is in the recent videos section.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be really cool if it actually worked. Saw the recent videos and they are pretty much all a mess.

Anyone knows of something like this that works? Links? Thank you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like people were uploading odd videos/images due to lack of instructions. So I just added them:

Select a headshot video of a person speaking and an image that you would like to bring to life. Make sure both image and the video are cropped so mainly the face is visible. (no rotated images/videos)

</comment></comment><comment> tech-historian Your pricing plans:

[https://myvoiceyourface.com/pay/](https://myvoiceyourface.com/pay/)

$20/mo for 20 videos. While the technical output you've achieved is notable, just curious, who is your target audience? How do you see these videos being used?

</comment><comment><USER6> It works with line drawings.. [https://myvoiceyourface.com/video/?id=355fb6de15](https://myvoiceyourface.com/video/?id=355fb6de15)

</comment><comment><USER7> The website is not opening for me.

<comment><USER8> I think it is being hugged to death atm, can't load it either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yeah this deep fake is flawed enough to be amusing. But I know we're probably only 1-2 years away from producing extremely convincing deep fakes at a whim.

In my mind, blockchain is the only thing that can counterbalance this tech. We need blockchain signed photos and videos to ensure authenticity.

<comment><USER10> What stops me from signing my own deepfaked video and putting that on the blockchain?

<comment><USER11> What stops me from writing a check to myself and cashing it?

<comment><USER12> a) it is absolutely conceivable to write a cheque to yourself. For example, to move cash between bank accounts

b) the bank has a big database and a system of clearing cheques that ensures you cannot double-spend money by writing yourself a cheque. If you try to kite cheques by abusing the latency in the system they notice because it turns out you can just write that down in a central database too and it's pretty effective</comment></comment></comment></comment>


SmugMug bought Flickr - <AUTHOR> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/04/20/smugmug-buys-flickr-verizon-oath/537377002/ <comment><USER2> This is exciting! I've long believed that Flickr should have doubled down on their existing users instead of trying to become another Instagram.

 _A longtime fan of Flickr, MacAskill says before making any decisions, he plans to collect feedback from employees and users._

Hey Don - I used to pay money for Flickr, and I'm happy to start paying again if there is evidence of forward motion. I want to have a place to securely store my RAW files in addition to my edited photographs, and I want to see a focus on community again.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree, I used to pay Flickr for years, but stopped paying a while back. Would be happy to pay again if I can store original files there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very excited for this. It's quite disappointing to see the one/only popular photo sharing app (instagram) work so hard to restrict usage to phone apps.

Sometimes you want to share photos from a non-phone camera, or look at photos on your computer screen.

Rooting for you flickr!

</comment><comment><USER5> Oh wow! I'm cautiously optimistic that Flickr can be brought back from the dead. I loved Flickr's platform to share my photos and find other photographers to follow and get inspiration from.

C'mon SmugMug!

</comment><comment><USER6> It's rare that sites come back from the dead, but Flickr has a great niche if they can fully exploit it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Finally, some hope that Georges Haddad's work can be erased.</comment>


Mayor quits FCC committee, says it favors ISPs over the public interest - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/fcc-broadband-committee-wants-to-restrict-publicly-owned-networks/ <comment><USER2> Although this probably won't get discussed much in the blogosphere, it actually bothers me more than the recent reversal of the Title II classification for ISPs, over which so many electrons were spilled. In my view, actual competition from municipal fiber would produce better outcomes than we could ever get with Net Neutrality regulation. That Pai's FCC is moving in the wrong direction on this front as well is very disheartening, albeit, alas, unsurprising.

<comment><USER3> This is a pretty uncontrovesial opinion. A lot of both pro and con network neutrality advocates will agree on that what we actually need is more competition, rather than more regulation.

In fact those that oppose network neutrality will use this very argument to assert that network neutrality should be repealed and all efforts should be made to advance competition and investment instead.

Too bad that when it comes to actually enabling that competition there's a deafening silence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How is quitting going to help anything? If you're in it, at least you can try to fix it. Maybe slow things down a bit like Ron Swanson to minimize the damage they do?

<comment><USER5> Time is a finite resource. At some point it's no longer worth the opportunity cost to stay in for a minimal change in the outcome. I'm sure a mayor has more important things to do.

You're also neglecting the possibility that publicly quitting and explaining why will have a bigger effect than staying in and trying to influence a rigged outcome.

<comment><USER6> How effective are most of the things mayors do?

Trying to steer the ship in a less shitty direction might be the best use of their time

<comment><USER5> If you believe that a mayor's time is worthless, it makes sense to waste it in a useless committee. Apparently this mayor feels differently than you about the value of his time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am an architect at one of the companies that has a representative on this committee. When I have brought up discussions of localized broadband public partnerships I have been mercilessly shut down. Capex is a limited commodity, but so is qualified legal and engineering resources. The short and medium returns on investing our growth capabilities on limited return partnerships is insufficient to warrant the effort.

</comment><comment><USER8> Regulatory Capture background must-read: [https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)

</comment><comment><USER9> I am all for locally based ISPs. It would be amazing if local municipalities could create incentives for financing the last mile of connectivity exclusively to local ISPs.

I absolutely abhor the idea of government supplied Internet. I'm too cynical to believe that there is some magical force field that differentiates local government ethics from federal level ethics. If Snowden tells us our internet habits are snooped at a National level, I expect it at a local level. The current proposals are binary in a stupid way.

Incentives local ISPs, not municipal ISPs.

<comment><USER10> I think it's easy to make this mistake and to associate government == bad ethics, when it's clear that you see similar misbehavior in government AND business.

The problem is size, not public vs. private. Size equals power and that is usually the heart of the problem.

<comment><USER9> Businesses are accountable to local government.

While local government is accountable in elections, I don't think that is a reasonable stick for day to day operations.

I find your contexting my comment as a "mistake" to be arrogant to the point of almost irredeemability. Are you trying to be that obnoxious?

<comment><USER11> We've warned you repeatedly about posting uncivil comments to Hacker News. If you keep doing it, we're going to ban you. Could you please fix this? The idea on HN is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. And personal attacks are right out.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you comply with U.S. Sanctions? - <AUTHOR> Hi.
I've got a new U.S. SaaS company, and want to make sure we don't break U.S. Sanction law by selling to individuals, IPs, or countries that the U.S. will get upset about.
Has anyone found a solution to this? <comment><USER2> [https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN- List/...](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN- List/Pages/sdn_data.aspx)

In banking we gather owner information of businesses in our KYC processes and do OFAC checks using their data. It's an extremely high false positive type process, where if we get a matching name we ask them for further documentation that they're not the person on the SDN list and proceed on the basis of that documentation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. This is what I am considering doing. I am hoping there is a service with an API, and always up-to-date data.</comment></comment>


The Why of Y (2001) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/WhyOfY.pdf <comment><USER2> In case you are wondering about the What of Y (as I was). Here is a paragraph from the PDF:

"The point of Y is to provide a mechanism to write self-referential programs without a special built-in means of accomplishing it. In Scheme there are several mechanisms for writing such programs, including global function definitions and letrec. Here is one way to write the factorial function in Scheme:..."

<comment><USER3> It's an article about the thing this website (and company) is named after. Hence it's probably the most meta-recursive link that ever gets posted on HN. (BTW Dick Gabriel is a Zen-Lisper and poet. Wise programmers read everything he writes.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> David X. Cohen, the Futurama executive producer who also holds an MS in computer science from UC Berkeley, wrote an episode called "The Why of Fry." It involved some time travel, which I always think of as self-referential.

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought this was going to be about how Dijkstra stuck it to the Algol '68 Committee by introducing first order functions to the language after recursion support was rejected...

</comment><comment><USER6> Y Combinator?</comment>


"You alright?" She asks, "We're not even yelling at you...yet" - <AUTHOR> http://d8.allthingsd.com/20100602/mark-zuckerberg-session/

<comment><USER2> The submitted title is pretty much linkbait for "Mark Zuckerberg sweats under lights during interview, gives company line on privacy"

Which seems to be nowhere near as exciting as either the HN submitter or the liveblogger ( _"could this be his Nixon moment?"_ ) think.

Did I miss something?

<comment><USER3> I read the guidelines again, and there's no rule against titles that don't give you any idea what the article is about. I think there should be. It's a big problem on Reddit.

<comment><USER2> To some extent, it seems that it's something the community can self-regulate against. Read it and don't think it was worthwhile? Don't upvote it.

I actually don't mind sensationalist linkbait titles like this, as long as what I'm clicking on is actually worth making a sensationalist linkbait title about. That's clearly 100% subjective, though.

<comment><USER3> The problem isn't sensationalism. It's that I don't know what the article is about. Why not put "Zuckcerburg: " before it, so that I and about half the people on this site instantly know not to waste any more time?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Feel free to downmod, but this article was so boring that I actually yelled at my web browser before I remembered that I could just make it go away.

The drawings of people in the sidebar was nice though. Ballmer and Jobs actually look like nice guys.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think it is totally unfair on the guy. Sure he has made some mistakes, but the people who put their private information online need to take some responsibility!

The interviewers were complaining about having to check over their privacy settings??? Please! This is the _INTERNET_.</comment>


Are there any forums devoted to side-projects - <AUTHOR> I'm mostly looking for forums devoted to non-coding issues like marketing, providing support, acquisition, etc. <comment><USER2> indiehackers but i dislike this community, other than that I am clueless</comment>


When you realize document.designMode is so cool - <AUTHOR> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a9c2NLBPqmxLtM5FO1dSsKbELbX1iSvT/view <comment><USER2> Seems to be cross browser support

[https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/prop_document_designmode.asp](https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/prop_document_designmode.asp)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it is [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/Document/de...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/Document/designMode#Browser_compatibility)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Google Docs video + HN traffic = epic fail. Won't load.

</comment><comment><USER4> Bookmarklet I use for this. Agree it's fun.

javascript:document.body.contentEditable = 'true'; document.designMode='on'; void 0</comment>


Sexism red/yellow cards at Defcon - <AUTHOR> http://singlevoice.net/2012/07/12/sexism-redyellow-cards-at-defcon/ <comment><USER2> Does this happen at non-IT parties where a lot of men gather to get drunk and to try and socialize? I admit I'm not much of a party person, but from what I have seen, the answer is yes.

I do not believe this has got anything to do with IT nor with sexism. If you are an attractive woman (relative to the attending male population), you are going to attract attention. That is how men are wired. That is our culture. Men have to approach women, or they don't laid.

Pure speculation, but the man who grabbed the woman's ass probably did it because he was in a mischievous mood, and to express his sexuality, and he probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be happy. In other contexts, the victim might even have smiled at him (or punched him with a smile on her face). That might be what he needed. I grab my girlfriend's ass sometimes and it feels good to be allowed to do that.

The problem is probably that these are men that don't get out much, have low social skills, don't have experience with how to express their sexuality in an appropriate way, and things go wrong. And things go wrong in ways that make women very uncomfortable.

The problem is probably not that women are not being respected or valued. To me, sexism would be like automatically assuming a woman is not going to be able to perform some task, because she is a woman. Grabbing someone's ass is not sexism, it's inappropriate sexuality.

What can we do about it? Teach men how to express their sexuality in a way that works. Teach men that there are places women go to when they want to receive that kind of attention, teach them to recognize the signals, and teach them that IT conferences are not one of those places.

The cards are a really good idea just because it makes men aware that they are making her uncomfortable. Believe it or not, most do not realize.

<comment><USER3> > I do not believe this has got anything to do with sexism

> That is our culture

Has it ever occurred to you that "our culture" might be a bit sexist?

> Men have to approach women, or they don't get laid

1\. Approach doesn't have to mean sexual harassment

2\. Women can like sex too. And women can approach men too. mind blowing, no?

> He probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be > happy?

What? What if the "something like that" were rape? What if it were murder? This whole paragraph reeks of you not thinking women's consent/feelings on who touches them matter.

> I grab my girlfriend's ass sometimes

Can you really not see how this is different from grabbing the ass of a random stranger at a professional-ish conference?

> Teach men how to express their sexuality in a way that works.

Damn, I was really hoping you were going to end that sentence with something like "that doesn't make women very uncomfortable" or "that doesn't make women feel undervalued or disrespected". I guess this far into your post I should have realized that your "solution" would also be entirely from the man's perspective of "getting" sex from women. And herein lies the problem that both you and the men at the conference share: you view women primarily as a means to sexual gratification. If you view men primarily as intellectual peers and women first as sex objects and only secondarily as intellectual beings, that is sexism.

<comment><USER4> News flash: all men, deep down, view (attractive) women as a potential means to their sexual gratification. We cannot suppress it, short of, you know, lopping it off. We also _happen_ to respect, admire, love, and look up to a good deal of women...but that would not make a very interesting article to talk about that stuff.

EDIT: for those who don't understand what I am saying, let me clarify:

Take special note of my words above, particularly "DEEP DOWN" -- by this, I mean at the subconscious level, the id, human nature, whatever you want to call it. Yes, I can control my sex-drive like anyone else, and I don't go around raping women because I feel sexual attraction to them. Just as well, I am capable of feeling love without sexual connotations, but deep down I understand that the reason my brain loves is because it has found a worthy mate. Argue with Scientific American, not me, if you have a problem with that.

<comment><USER5> No, not all men think this way. I don't, gay men don't, and I think many men (perhaps the majority) who find women attractive don't. You don't speak for me, and I think what you're saying is vile.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, all straight men who are sexually healthy -- you know what I mean.

If you are sexually healthy, I hate to break it to you, but the reason your mind loves, respects, and is otherwise polite to women is because nature has made sure that you will do whatever you can to procreate with the mates you see fit. Nature has designed your mind such that it experiences a higher order of sexual attraction, which is called love. This attraction is based on judgment of a mate in terms of their physical and mental capacity. If you do not believe me, why have you never fallen in love with an obese or dim-witted person?

If you want to argue that nature has not designed you to seek reproduction...maybe you are the type of person that believes in soul-mates, one true love, and all that stuff, in which case I'm probably not the best person to argue with as our views are inherently different.

Nested too deep, but to reply to the comments below:

@hythloday - There are natural inclinations which we have deemed socially acceptable, and ones we have not. If you desire to murder someone, you are probably a sociopath, and obviously no one is going condone you murdering people. On the other hand, if you experience sexual attraction, you are probably normal (ask any scientist if that is hard to believe). If deep down, you desire to rape somebody, you are abnormal. If deep down, you feel sexual attraction towards someone, there is nothing wrong with that.

@swa14 - Have you ever tried to argue with a believer of god (from an atheist perspective)? It is pretty fruitless, which is why I would advise to avoid it, just as I would advise arguing against me if you believe in mysticism like soul-mates. Anything which cannot be scientifically proven or disproven (like the existence of a god) generally leads to fruitless arguments.

<comment><USER3> [citation needed]

I would love to see the study that demonstrates this, controlling for all societal factors.

<comment><USER4> Do you need a citation if I tell you the sky is blue? What would you argue love is based on? Magical unicorns?

<comment><USER3> For the claim that all forms of love, respect etc. Boil down to sexual attraction? Yes. I don't know where you've been for the past 40 years, but Freud's theories on sexuality had no basis in empiricism and are no longer accepted among modern psychologists.

<comment><USER4> If you want to argue a counter theory, that is fine, but simply saying "you are wrong" is not sufficient. Like I said, what biological impulse would YOU account for love? What is the reason for love, evolutionarily speaking? The answer is pretty clear, and is not nearly exclusive to Freud's theories alone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe the title is link bait, but I don't think this is "sexism" by definition. Sexism:

"Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

A bunch of males were hitting on the author, crassly or awkwardly, but they were not denying the author equal rights. If a female asked a male to show their privates, no one would call it "sexism"; it might be rude, uncalled for, or strange, but not sexism. At a place like DefCon, most of the males are probably not regular bar-hoppers -- they mostly introverted, and probably fail miserably when trying to approach the opposite sex. (Not to knock on anybody, I am introverted/awkward myself.)

Long story short, if you step into a bar full of males who normally have few opportunities to make contact with women in a social context...yes, you are stepping into the lion's den. Males are sexual, but not necessarily "sexist" -- don't confuse the two.

<comment><USER6> _Prejudice_ , as in, a default judgment/assessment weighing against an individual? I submit that the idea that _it's permitted to treat this person less respectfully because they are a woman_ is such a judgment, and it is on the basis of sex.

 _Stereotyping_ , as in _a belief... about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality_. Again, I submit that the entire story is about OP having to contend with the notion that _any and all_ women are available and open to sexual advances, and that the prejudice against respectful behavior toward them makes it easier/permissible to make those advances.

The fact that you simply cannot conceive of a plausible reverse scenario does not mean that something is not sexism. There doesn't have to be a reverse scenario, nor do mitigating life circumstances matter; everyone has a back story.

Your last line is one small step away from saying that women who wear short skirts are asking to be groped. It's tantamount to saying women don't deserve to be treated respectfully or feel safe, if enough of the males surrounding them are losers.

You might as well be saying, "don't have boobs, some men haven't seen those."

<comment><USER4> Wow, way to put a bunch of words in my mouth.

 _Actually,_ what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the situation. Go to Cancun if you want to see males in their most animal-state. Is it condonable? I do not know, but it is the way nature made us. Nature designed us to want reproduce - without our rules, morals, and what-have-you, we would be doing much worse things than asking to see private parts. Unfortunately, nature also gave us language, which means a lot of times males will utter really stupid things because their sex-drive takes over and their brain reaches a state of near-retardation (hence the popular phrase "show us your tits").

In shorter words - if you are a female in a bar that is overwhelmingly packed with males -- yes, you should very much expect to get harassed. Yes, it is not "right", but its the way nature made us so there is not a lot of sense in complaining about it. You could just as well complain about people being obese, because nature designed us to enjoy food. Am I saying women deserve to be harassed when they dress sexually? No, of course not. But what I am saying is that some males have less super ego than others, and it varies with the situation, so there are certain situations (like this one) in which a female could certainly _expect_ to be harassed.

<comment><USER7> Upvoted you to counter-act the "college P.C." brigade.

<comment><USER8> "PC" just means "Being polite to _everyone_ "

<comment><USER4> Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused.

One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.

<comment><USER9> No. You are not supposed to use retarded because that word has consistently been used to insult and denigrate disabled people. It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult. It doesn't matter whether the person you are insulting is gay or not.

<comment><USER4> My gay friends prefer "gay" or "queer" over homosexual. My black friends prefer "black" over African American. I could very well be wrong about the word retarded though. :)

<comment><USER9> You did not understand me. Using "gay" as a positive term isn't a problem. "He came out first as a gay footballer" is a perfectly alright sentence. Using "gay" (or "retarded") as an insult is where the problem lies (with "retarded" the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive term – and since it's so overwhelmingly used negatively, using it neutrally isn't really possible).

When someone tells you he likes My Little Pony and you respond with "Man, you are so gay!" then that's a problem. You are using "gay" as in insult, as if being gay were a bad thing. That's the reasoning behind why many people think using "gay" in that manner is a bad idea. That works analogously for "retarded".

That's not to say you can't express, say, disgust at someone liking My Little Pony. "Man, your taste fucking sucks!" is a perfectly alright response no one will have a problem with (beyond disagreeing whether My Little Pony is good or bad).

Again, I don't want to ban people from using "gay" or "retarded" as insults. But when they do I will call them out and explain my reasoning.

<comment> jack-r-abbit > _with "retarded" the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive > term_

Not true. In the automotive world "retarded" is used quite often in regards to your distributor, vacuum and timing. By adjusting things, your timing can be advanced or retarded. It is not a negative thing. It is simply how engines are tuned.

[http://georgiajag.com/Documents/Vacuum%20Advance%20versus%20...](http://georgiajag.com/Documents/Vacuum%20Advance%20versus%20Vacuum%20Retard.htm)

<comment><USER9> Exception accepted! I don't think anyone has a problem with that kind of use. I certainly don't.

So, yes, sometimes "retarded" can be a neutral term.

<comment> jack-r-abbit There is also the case of fire/flame retardant.

It truly is a shame that a very legitimate word ( _retard_ ) with a very legitimate meaning ( _to delay or slow progress_ ) that had been used in legitimate ways for years was co-opted to insult people with diminished metal capacity. (While technically true, it is mean. Much like calling me _whitey_ is technically true as I am white... it is generally an insult.) If not for that, the use of phrases like "well that was retarded" would still be legit uses since it is in spirit of the original meaning and not too far from saying "well, that was stupid". One could even argue that in a slightly less PC world we could still be using it to describe things and actions... just not people. But that is wishful thinking. The damage has been done.

Side note: It is some what also the case with the word "gay" which used to just mean "happy". Although, when people say "well, that was gay" they are generally not meaning "happy" so we've pretty much departed from that. I don't know the whole history of the N-word, but I don't believe there was ever a non-hateful use of the word (even taking into consideration its origin).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What I don't understand is why this happens anymore. Surely no one can think it is acceptable in this day and age. I know we're talking about some of the least socially adept group of people, but come on. I don't see how you can even operate in society if you're literally trying to lick other people in public.

Disclosure: I went to DEF CON 2 in 1994 when I was a shy 15 year old and there were no women around and apparently, better manners.

<comment><USER11> Here is my theory.

A bunch of the people present think that they can hack systems. And have read articles about pickup artists and have come to the theory that what women really want is a guy who has the balls to be up front about what he wants. So being over the top seems to them to be a way to hack human relationships.

Maybe there are some women who respond well to that. I don't know. I've never had a reason to try to act like that. But even if a hypothetical minority of women will respond well, the vast majority simply won't. And you'll leave a trail of offended people behind you.

So overconfidence combined with stupidly wrong theories about what women will respond to, and a complete lack of respect for feelings hurt lead to over the top jerks. There are not a lot of these. They are probably a very small minority. But even a small portion have a disproportionate impact on the experience that women will have.

<comment><USER12> The thing is that pickup artistry is a school of thought developed in the part of society populated with folks who like to get fake tans and club every weekend with girls whose lack of wit is matched only by their lack of self- respect.

<comment><USER13> I wrote a paper once in college over this. It wasn't a master thesis or anything, but the conclusion I reached was that pick up artist stuff was really just hooking emotionally crippled men up with emotionally crippled women.

I read "The Game" by Neil Strauss as part of my paper and the guy he follows in it, Mystery, is very emotionally under developed. He throws temper tantrums continually. Both Neil and Mystery seem to have huge self esteem problems and use pick up artist tricks to try to make themselves feel better without ever addressing their core problems.

The women they meet on their journey, according to them, are fantastic looking, but they too have huge emotional problems, mainly very very low self worth.

So you have these guys who are pretty intelligent from a sort of book stand point and these girls who have very low self esteem. In the end everyone in the book seemed to be worse off. Many of them spiral out of control and end up pretty bad.

It was pretty sad. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Prediction: The sexism in IT problem will never end.

Here's my hypothesis:

1\. Women and men are different. We see this played out all around us, all the time, both sides happily make and laugh at jokes about it, and no one has a problem acknowledging this fact during discussion of other topics, but when certain subjects are being discussed, these very same people will assure you, with total sincerity, that there is no difference between men and women.

2\. IT is a male dominated field, and it is distinctly different from other "professional" fields. There is something about IT that either appeals especially to males, or males are particularly skilled at. I have no idea why. And, a significant portion of these men have very high technical skills, but relatively undeveloped social skills, which shouldn't be surprising. Other professions require social skills _in addition to_ the skills dedicated to the profession. IT does not.

I'm not saying this is righteous, or the ways things _should be_ , but that people continuously seem to be amaaaaaazed that this stuff still happens is getting a bit ridiculous.

<comment><USER3> > There is something about IT that either appeals especially to males, or > males are particularly skilled at. I have no idea why.

Really? You have no idea? You don't think it might possibly have something to do with sexism in society and in IT culture?

From early childhood, girls are taught that the ought to be interested in princesses, dolls, and playing house, while boys are taught that they ought to be interested in LEGOs, trains, cars, building things, computers, math, science, sports, etc. When you go to McDonalds, they ask if you are a boy or a girl, and if you are a girl, they give you a Barbie, while if you are a boy, they give you a car. If for some reason you are a girl and would prefer to play with LEGOs, your peers make fun of you relentlessly. Boys get to play with LEGOs without the stigma. And don't start telling me about reverse sexism and how hard it is for boys who want to play with dolls - the media doesn't portray the gendered interests as separate but equal. It portrays the boys' activities as "cool" and the girls' activities as domestic. The grown-up version of playing with LEGOs has much higher social standing in society than the grown-up version of playing with dolls. It is not a valid comparison.

It continues from there. Teachers tend to call on boys more often than they call on girls. Boys are taught to be aggressive while girls are taught to be submissive. This leads to aggressive girls being called "bitches" while boys who behave the same way are praised for being "assertive". The list goes on and on and on, and the only way you could not notice it is if you have the privilege of not having to pay attention because it doesn't detrimentally affect you.

And then we have articles like this. Say you're a smart, college-age woman. You are really good at computer science, and you are also really good at, say, writing/things that might be pre-law. You know that if you pursue computer science, you will be one of the only women and will have to put up with the kind of behavior the article talks about, potentially for your entire career, whereas if you pursue law, you will be surrounded by a somewhat even mix of men and women, and that kind of behavior will be much less tolerated. Tell me which field it makes sense to choose, and then tell me again that sexism doesn't play a role.

<comment><USER8> > Boys get to play with LEGOs without the stigma.

But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly even by his own parents.

> while boys who behave the same way are praised for being "assertive".

... and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years younger than women.

Everything cuts both ways. _Everything._

<comment><USER3> > But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly > even by his own parents.

I already pre-empted this. Read my comment again. Barbies are sex objects. LEGOs are precursors to a respectable career path. It's not a valid comparison.

> and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years younger > than women.

Please, tell me more about how women are systematically oppressing men. Sure, there are some areas in which women have an advantage. The life expectancy thing is likely biological. Many other apparent examples of "reverse sexism" are in fact products of the other kind of sexism - e.g., the oft-cited statistics about divorce law and custody battles - women have an advantage here because society, and the law, tend to see women as being in the domestic sphere while men are supposed to be the ones with careers. Is it sexist? yes. Does it show that sexism isn't an issue? not in the slightest.

<comment><USER8> > Please, tell me more about how women are systematically oppressing men.

I never said that. I said sexism and sexist attitudes hurt men as well.

> "reverse sexism"

No such thing. There is only sexism. It is always wrong.

> Does it show that sexism isn't an issue?

Only an idiot would claim sexism isn't an issue. Don't accuse me of being an idiot.

Also, this article is interesting:

[http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/156194/what_abou...](http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/156194/what_about_the_men_why_our_gender_system_sucks_for_men%2C_too?page=entire)

(I've posted it elsewhere in this comment page, but it deserves a bit more attention.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Whilst there appear to be many reasonable male members of the IT community, one thing holding us back is the number of people who attempt to justify a blatantly wrong situation.

Examples include arguing over the definition of sexism, saying stuff like "that's just the difference between men and women," or coming up with hyperbole about how it's not now possible to talk to woman without being labelled a creep.

I do wonder how much is because, to badly misquote Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, of males believing that they're too intelligent to be sexist.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. If anyone politely asks you to stop what you're doing, you should seriously reconsider it, period. Women complaining about behavior they find creepy is just a special case of this general rule.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The recent rash of articles on HN re: sexism leaves me feeling hopeful that our industry is inching closer to being a place were women feel welcome.

I would love to see men handing out these cards too.

<comment><USER9> No, those articles leave me depressed because of all the idiotic sexists that rear their ugly head in the comments.

I mean: What. The. Fuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's not that I disagree with the general sentiment, but there's an undertone of self-righteousness there.

" I was already thinking about what clothes I would avoid taking to Las Vegas for Defcon. Short skirts, low cut tops, tight dresses, and anything that might be overtly attention-grabbing have been bumped to second priority on that packing list.

Why?"

Maybe because it's a good idea to dress as part of the business, not part of "the entertainment", if you want to be taken seriously.

And no, women should be able to dress in whatever fashion they please without being worried about being assaulted verbally or otherwise, but that doesn't imply the right to be taken seriously.

I'm just not sure whether behaviour of that kind is a net-positive in solving the gender-issues during conferences.

<comment><USER19> Defcon and Blackhat are two different animals. Blackhat is the "business" conference, whereas Defcon is where mohawks and whacky t-shirts are the norm. Dressing as "business" at Defcon will get you accused of being a Fed.

<comment><USER18> I'm sorry. I meant "the business" as in "the business you're representing", not the "business" as in suits. So in this case dressing in wacky t-shirts and mohawks.

Actually, as you put it, wearing a nice business suit might be a good solution for women at defcon. It would buck the trend of dressing whacky forced-casual, making you stand out and garner attention, _and_ , noone is going to grab the ass of a suspected federal agent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I really don't understand how men, and women, can sometime come to the conclusion that grabbing this gal/dude's ass is a good idea.

Like, how does one come up with the mental process of doing this? Is it something like:

1\. Homo erectus identified other gender specimen.

2\. Homo erectus will walk to specimen and grab specimen ass.

3\. Logicaly, Homo erectus is expecting wild sexual intercourse as a result.

4\. Homo erectus carry on with brilliant idea.

Is it something so deep inside one's primale instinct that they simply can't resist? Is it the rapist sleeping inside one's subconscient?

<comment><USER21> The thing is that unattractive men observe attractive and/or rich men doing these things and so get an idea that they can do them too.

The difference between being arrested or getting laid can be the difference between being John Doe or Bradd Pitt.

Can they not resist? Testosterone is one hell of a drug.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The way to reduce this type of sexism and increase understanding is through more interaction, and not less.

Yellow and red cards may achieve segregation, but they'll also introduce fear into the mix. A man who receives one of these cards, for whatever reason, will think twice before he talks to a girl at a conference again, just as a girl who has been grabbed once at Defcon thinks twice before ever going to Defcon again.

People deal with fear and stress in funny ways. Adding one more layer of fear in a society that is already a little too afraid of the opposite sex will only backfire more in some other way.

Men who grab women do so because they're afraid to talk to them. Similarly, every time a guy says "hello" to an overly paranoid girl, she'll think that he wants to get in her pants.

<comment><USER23> A little fear on the part of a man given one of these cards isn't equivalent to the fear of a woman who has been grabbed.

<comment><USER22> You're nitpicking. My stance is that they're both fears and they'll both result in more fear, which is counterproductive to a society that is trying to reduce sexism.

<comment><USER23> An imbalance of power isn't "nitpicking".

In this situation, it's not incumbent on the women to educate the men. It's a bar, or a party, not a classroom. The men are being told about the problem, and need to get their act together.

Maybe the way to do it is to hold a class on sexism and behavior at defcon.

<comment><USER22> Nitpicking is when someone loses sight of the big picture when they perceive imperfections in a part of it. You're definitely nitpicking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> With any large gathering of people you are certain to find a number of outliers with disrespectful social impositions (being racist, sexism or anti- techism.) Defcon is no exception, so it is a grave presumption to place the blame an event itself for the disrespectful actions of a handful of attendees (unless there is a track of "how to seduce women by licking tattoos" at the event.) Furthermore, the fact it is Defcon is held in Las Vegas which only fuels any such flames of inappropriate behaviour with litres of alcohol and tourists who may just be at the casino bar per-chance.

This said, I am for these cards. Sometimes people simply need to be told in a direct matter to knock it off. However, please do not cast blame on an entire event for the misguided actions of a few people.

I hope this individual has an enjoyable time this year, at the least it appears they plan on returning so whatever misdoings of last year were not enough to dissuade a return visit (even if they plan to now be armed with Defcon funded "creeper cards" it should make the whole experience fare more interesting or enlightening for all involved.)

</comment><comment><USER25> I like the idea of the cards. I couldn't read them. Partly because they're weirdly using text in a jpeg.

I'm gently worried about how well they'll be received. Already in this thread there's disagreement. Imagine what that's like when you're surrounded by drunk men. But good luck to them.

Clear colour / symbol coding is used sometimes with people who have learning disabilities. For example, when they need to go to a hospital for treatment they can have a sheet with "green square - things I like" and "red circle - Things you must not do" lists. Or cards at meetings to suggest people slow down or take turns in speaking. These ideas are simple, and work really well, and some people are trying to expand them into use for the general population.

</comment><comment><USER26> I hope the cards won't end up becoming badges of honor for creeps.

</comment><comment><USER27> How many creepers are going to start collecting these cards? You know, like a creeper leaderboard...

</comment><comment><USER28> Jesus H. Christ, these wilting flowers are never going to accomplish anything in life.

</comment><comment><USER29> Here was me thinking that the guys attending defcon were more introverts than sleezes.

<comment><USER30> In my experience, the introvert/extrovert trait is orthogonal to whether someone is sleazy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I tend to believe that women initiate encounters with men with unconscious non-verbal signals. A man who is able to read these signals will have a good success rate in meeting new women. A man who cannot will be pegged as a "creeper".

I think it's not only true in real life, but on dating sites as well. Women receive so many messages from men that you are probably just going to get buried in all the noise if you send one. The best approach would be to make a good profile, and wait for them to message you. I'm not saying males initiating contact on these sites won't have any success, but I'd say it's statistically unlikely, comparatively.

It is also a strange coincidence that even on a biological level millions of sperm must compete to fertilize one egg. In lieu of absolute scientific proof (which may or may not exist) I'm fairly confident women are the ones who do the choosing, not us.

For the best results in approaching women, please consider the following flowcharts:

Pre-Approach Flowchart:

        <eye contact?> --no--> STOP
               |
              yes
               |
        <did it seem adverse?> --yes--> STOP
               |
               no
               |
        <is boyfriend present?> --yes--> STOP
               |
               no
               |
            APPROACH

Approach Flowchart:

        <Did you open by sexually assaulting
         this woman, such as by unwanted
         touching?> </comment><comment></comment><comment>-YES---> GO TO JAIL
                        |
        <Did you open with a pick-up line?> --YES--> FAIL
                        |
        <Did you open with a cowardly question
         such as: do you have the time?>    --YES--> FAIL
                        |
        <Did you confidently introduce yourself
         or say something very interesting?> --NO--> FAIL
                        |
                       yes
                        |
        <Was it reciprocated?> --NO--> Nice try anyway
                        |
                       yes
                        |
       +-- <Are you and her still exchanging mutual -- NO
       |    conversation?>                              |
       |                |                               |
       |               YES                              |
       |                |                               |
      NO---<Do you think it is time to end it?>         |
                        |    +</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--+
                       YES   |
                        |    |
                        |    |
                  <Did you end it?>--NO---[Your odds worsened]
                          |                      |
                         YES                     |
                          |                      |
                  <Did you agree to meet </comment><comment>--+
                   again or go somewhere
                   else together immediately?>--NO--+
                          |                         |
        WIN  </comment><comment></comment><comment>YES                        |
                                                    |
                          +</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--
                          |
                   <Did you get her number?>--NO-- Maybe you
                          |                  will see her again.
                         YES
                          |
                    Call soon or she will forget who
                    you are. Don't leave a message the
                    first time. Don't call more than
                    two times in the first week. If
                    very desperate and no luck after two
                    you may try calling once more in a week,
                    but seriously, move on...

<comment><USER32> "Did you open by sexually assaulting this woman, such as by unwanted touching?"

Touching someone on the shoulder is not sexual assault. Let's try to keep things in perspective, please--if simply touching a member of a particular group warrants jail time, that group is an overclass.

<comment><USER25> Depends on the touch. No one has suggested this warrants jail time. People are saying, and quite reasonably I think, that you should keep your hands to yourself.

Shaking hands = fine.

Tapping shoulder or top outside of arm = less fine, but acceptable in a narrow range of situations.

Placing cupped hand on shoulder of a stranger, with squeezing or stroking, with "friendly banter" = really not okay.

<comment><USER32> "Placing cupped hand on shoulder of a stranger, with squeezing or stroking, with "friendly banter" = really not okay."

Nope, still not worth jail time. Move away from the person or grab their hand and remove it from your shoulder. I'm sorry, but you do not get to have people arrested for giving you an unwanted shoulder rub. If they persist, then yeah, they're assaulting (and harassing) you. Again, let's have some perspective.

<comment><USER25> Why do you keep mentioning jail time? Especially when I specifically said that no-one is claiming jail time is warranted.

<comment> jack-r-abbit I think they were getting confused. It was the Flowchart Guy that said it: _< Did you open by sexually assaulting this woman, such as by unwanted touching?> \</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-YES---> GO TO JAIL_

</comment><comment><USER33> I think it's great to recognize when someone is inappropriate -- but I can only imagine pervy young boys seeing these as another collectable item from DefCon.

My concern is that the cards put a humour or reduced weight to something that is extremely serious.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is if anything a sad state of affairs. Maybe as a reaction to this, locally, there is a women only developer user group where men can only attend if invited. The other user group has a 50:1 ratio of men vs. women.

</comment><comment><USER35> More women complaining about how the world isn't tailored to their every want and need, and they get all the sympathy in the world in spite of how plain whiny they're being. On the other end of the spectrum, I invite you to read this article, written by a woman, on how funny male rape is:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129385/Exhausted- ma...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129385/Exhausted-man-flees- night-stand-demands-sex.html)

I don't know much about Defcon, but I get the idea that the person that wrote that post isn't organizing it, nor is a prominent figure in the scene. I also gather that the general atmosphere at that is.. fun-ish.

If you don't like that kind of fun, have you considered, um, not attending? Or did you just go ahead and demand that everyone at defcon behaved like you want them too, because, obviously, you're at the centre of the universe and everyone at defcon is just there to do what you please?

If you go to a gay bar you'll get your ass grabbed, if you go to the sketchy part of town at 2 am you'll get mugged, and if you go to defcon with a shoulder tattoo showing and you're flirting with some guy, you might get the tattoo licked. If you're not into these things, don't go to these places.

EDIT: looks like my link's story has been edited to remove the snarky comments first posted by @NatalieEvans85. Good for them

<comment><USER36> _If you don't like that kind of fun, have you considered, um, not attending?_

Lame.</comment></comment>


Mapbox makes all their map APIs free until June 11 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mapbox.com/developer-maps-platform-5d05e670cf76 <comment><AUTHOR> You can check out the docs here:

[https://www.mapbox.com/api-documentation/](https://www.mapbox.com/api- documentation/)

Gallery here:

[https://www.mapbox.com/gallery/](https://www.mapbox.com/gallery/)

I'm not affiliated with Mapbox in any way btw. Just a fan of their products :)

</comment><comment><USER2> I always thought that anyone competing with Google Maps API would likely remove the "private access" restriction, but this service keeps it behind a $500 paywall - I guess that's significantly better than Google's cost for the same thing ($10k IIRC)</comment>


Seven-year-olds as hackers, and why we should imitate them - <AUTHOR> https://herebeseaswines.net/essays/2020-05-29-seven-year-olds-as-hackers-and-why-we-should-imitate-them <comment><USER2> Following this article I would have to say my 2-year-old is obviously also a hacker and we should not imitate him because we have to spend all our time standing next to him ready to save his life when he does something really stupid to get the result he wants, but not well.

<comment><USER3> One of my favorite sayings, first seen tacked on the door of a rock climbing school, explains it better: \--- Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. \---

Of course, the trick is to ensure that the bad judgement is not bad enough to take you out of the game.

Seems that's what the parent is around for - let the kid explore while acting as the safety net.

<comment><USER4> Yes, this is a favorite of mine. I had an old wooden plaque with this saying on my wall. Got lost when I moved homes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _As adults, we can 't progress at the same speed as kids,_

This is definitely not true. Adults have more trouble learning some kinds of new motor skills up to expert level, and if the physical skill requires e.g. extreme flexibility kids sometimes have a less fixed bone structure, but adults are a lot faster at getting to basic competence in new physical tasks by building from past experience, and for any other kind of skill adults can learn much faster than kids.

The real problem adults have vs. kids is available time to spend thinking about things (because they have other responsibilities), not raw learning speed.

<comment><USER6> But this is also true in the brain. A child's brain isn't limited by what it already knows.

Their brains are more flexible and don't have a "fixed [mental] structure", and this is why I think it's very important to promote and encourage creativity and passions from a young age.

There's a lot we can learn from kids, even if we need to filter some things through the wisdom that comes with age. Sometimes they have a tendency to have a machine-learning-esque approach to trying new things, which is fascinating to watch, and then how they take instructional guidance to alter their approach.

This might be an easy article to critique, but there's some good points to be gleamed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The author might like an illustrated summary of a talk given by Sir Ken Robinson about "Changing education paradigms"[0], which includes some of the essence of this article (particularly referring to studies about how many uses one person can think of for a paperclip)

[0] RSA Animate: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U)

[1] Full talk (55 mins): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCbdS4hSa0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCbdS4hSa0s)

<comment> claes-magnus I actually link to [0] in my text in the end when I say we should 'rethink education'. :) I did not know of the full talk, and I am very grateful for your link [1]!

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry I missed that! I did read the rest but must have been so eager to share that fascinating talk that I overlooked this mistake. Thanks for the article!

<comment> claes-magnus No worries. Also, I don't count on people clicking on all links. Further also, I totally understand what you mean: you want everyone to see it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > My general point is that sometimes we're so focused on producing (2) 'an > incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that > produces exactly what is needed' that we fail in (1) '[producing] what is > needed, but not well' (and thus end up failing in general). In this respect, > we should take inspiration from our seven-year-olds. In the best of worlds, > we could take inspiration from them with regard to point 1, mentor them to > respecting point 2 while making sure not to smother the essence of point 1 - > not in them, nor in ourselves.

> Adults fail, seven-year-olds are just sad (in the moment) because they were > not able to materialize some grande vision. This is two separate > experiences; and perhaps this is precisely why seven-year-olds are better > hackers than adults? …because they don't really fail?

Woah boy, this hit home. I really ought to get back in touch with my inner seven-year-old self.

</comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately the current 'education' system beats most creativity out of children. Just ask Michio Kaku and de Grasse Tyson.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thank you, I've never thought about it but it takes great courage to show skill that may be judged as inferior. And most of the children skills are not of levels of adult. Adult skills are not as good as industry standards either. My position was "with experience grows skill" now I see it contains judgement. Which may be discouraging. Both to other and to myself.

</comment><comment><USER11> Taking some arbitrary definition of the word "hacker" and interpreting that rather freely makes the title look like click-bait.

<comment> claes-magnus Aren't all definitions arbitrary? If we would only go by how words are used 'in general', who would want to be a 'hacker'? ;) And I don't think the definition of 'hacker' in The Jargon File is just... arbitrary in the context of Hacker News? However, I am guilty as charged of making a very free, playful interpretation. Also, I am guilty as charged for trying to have a title that makes some people curious. I am sorry you did not like the post, but that's life! Cheers and thank you very much for reading!

<comment><USER12> First off, having a seven year old, I thank you for your words. They resonate with me.

I think perhaps arguing about the arbitrary nature of definitions will devolve into pedantry. While you are completely correct (e.g. the meaning of "toilet" over time). There is perhaps a better current arbitrary word (mouth hole sound) that implies something deeper. There are immutable essences (or platonic forms) that cannot change that we have been describing with different language since the very beginning. It kind of reminds me of that scene in the matrix where Neo meets the machine father with his daughter who tells him how "love" is just a word. What it implies is what matters. It doesn't matter how you describe it visually or audibly, if you are communicating with someone else, and they are trying to understand you, the reason they ever can is because something exists independent of either communicator, and both have recognized that thing and are willing to acknowledge that.

<comment> claes-magnus Glad to hear so!

About the later part: yes, I actually agree!

<comment><USER12> If you missed it, that was my best 7-year old hack at Greek philosophy :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Be like the boy.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3jfDT5Rx30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3jfDT5Rx30)

</comment><comment><USER14> Your typical 'we should all follow the children' kind of article. Dumbest kind of reasoning I have ever heard in my life.

<comment> claes-magnus Hmm. I liked your other reply. I don't agree with you upon this one. I write:

> It's sound that our children have us, adults, as role models, that they are > inspired by us, by what we do, what we say, and by how we act. However, > wiIt's sound that our children have us, adults, as role models, that they > are inspired by us, by what we do, what we say, and by how we act. However, > with regard to creativity and hacking, you don't have to spend much time > building with lego, drawing, playing and discussing to realize that you > won't match your seven-year-old in terms of getting things done, solving > problems related to creative tasks.th regard to creativity and hacking, you > don't have to spend much time building with lego, drawing, playing and > discussing to realize that you won't match your seven-year-old in terms of > getting things done, solving problems related to creative tasks. [...]

> My general point is that sometimes we're so focused on producing (2) 'an > incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that > produces exactly what is needed' that we fail in (1) '[producing] what is > needed, but not well' (and thus end up failing in general). In this respect, > we should take inspiration from our seven-year-olds.

But what you insinuate in your other reply may still be correct! Perhaps this usage makes the notion of a hack, hacker, hacking empty? I believe it's important to be able to say 'I am wrong'. And perhaps I am here. I have not decided what I think yet.

<comment><USER15> You don't need to defend yourself against every critique, including this one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I agree with this, and it's something that's been on my mind recently.

I've dabbled with trying to make a game over the last 5 years or so, and run into this problem every time. As a kid, I learned computer programming partially by making little Visual Basic programs and partially by making a couple dorky little 2D games.

At no point do I ever remember stepping back at my "work" and being frustrated to the point of giving up that whatever I was building didn't look like some professional thing I was trying to emulate.

I was mostly just happy that I could put something together, understand it and learn from it, and then see all the possibilities I could add to it and refine.

That feedback loop of "learn something new", "mess around with it", and then sort of spontaneously refine it and add new features, was super fun, and is what drove me to software engineering as a career.

For example, if I wanted to make a game, I would learn how to import a "sprite". I'd spend a little time drawing a crappy spaceship, and then be thrilled to see it on the screen, responding to key presses. Then, excitedly, I'd add an enemy. Then, "cool, I can have him shoot bullets and add to a counter every time I dodge one".

At no point did I say "my spaceship sucks, and I have no idea if I'm doing this scoring code right... I'm a loser and I'm done". I was having too much fun in the process for that.

But now? My attempts at making a game all start and stop with "I want to make an overhead shooter" and then I try to draw a pixel art spaceship and after a few hours of comparing what I do with the art in "real" games, get frustrated and give up. I want it to look and feel a certain way, and when I don't get that, I feel like the whole project is doomed to failure.

I don't feel this way with what I do professionally, which is primarily front and back end web and mobile app development. When I have to learn something new, I'm confident enough in my ability to learn and improve.

But my hobby stuff, and particularly artwork? Not happening, and I'm not sure how to get past this.

Some of this, I wonder, comes down to expectations of adults vs kids. As a kid, I never expected my stuff to be perfect or professional, and neither did anyone else.

Your picture of your kid's wall hit me. As a kid, I would proudly display my creations, and not care if someone nitpicked it. And of course, nobody did, because I was "just a kid".

But, honestly, if an adult proudly displayed a bunch of amateur artwork he/she drew, that would be really weird, right?

I'm capable of professional quality web development work, because it's what I've focused on for the last 6-8 years, but if someone were to see my amateur "pew pew" spaceship game, it would just be sad... if I haven't magically developed good skills here at this point of my life ("this point" being any point at which you are considered an adult), then I must just be bad at it, right?

I'm sure I can improve, but the combination of being embarrassed by everything I produce, along with a preoccupation with what everyone would think of it, and an impatience for being able to produce something good... it feels like a lot of barriers to get through.

And as a kid, I don't know what the "end goal" was, other than it was just fun to mess around. When I did release something online, I wasn't bothered by criticism and was happy at the praise, but mostly I just liked making the actual thing.

As an adult? Somehow the end goal feels like it's about the end result of releasing the thing, more so than the actual process of making it.

There's something about the lower expectations placed on a kid, and a lack of comparing everything I make to the gobs of talented people on Twitter or Pinterest, combined with a focus on the fun of just "messing around", that makes the whole process of getting better at something (and discovering new things along the way) much less frustrating.

<comment> claes-magnus Thank you for reading and sharing your interesting story and your experiences! I am also struggling with what you describe, and this is why I wanted to play around with the notion of hack and hacker. The word in itself is no holy cow to me. I want to get better at just 'messing around'. And in this very limited sense, I do think kids should inspire us, and that a connection to hack-ish things exists. It's about a mentality, not only skills and knowledge. I lack your vast experience (I am a quite old junior front-end developer), so you can imagine what I feel when showing what I've done. Why should one be embarrassed? If you worked professionally for years on some application and had lots of experience and the app sucked, perhaps it would be motivated (or more reasonable to think, the team or management had issues) - but otherwise? I love this sentence: 'a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.' I read it is a description of a mentality, a quite amateur-sh DIY spirit. Or at least it was fun to play around with the meaning in that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I thought we called this Front-end Development</comment>


Show HN: Ola.js, a library for smooth realtime number interpolation - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/franciscop/ola/ <comment><AUTHOR> Didn't really expect this to reach Show HN! I made this because I wanted to be able to update a number (motor angle) with a control that could be changed any time through external input

Couldn't find any library on the topic, since all of them would just turn around sharply, risking breaking the motor. So I made this.</comment>


Making Instant C# Viable - Vizualization - <AUTHOR> http://ermau.com/making-instant-csharp-viable-visualization/

<comment><USER2> I've been planning to do something similar, but at run-time where the last known value of each variable is shown. This would complement my stuff nicely - <https://github.com/swax/CodePerspective>

<comment><USER3> Very cool.

Just a quick caution from someone who has been building similar tools (not as fancy though), is that runtime instrumentation can often severely slow down the main app to the extent that people often don't want to run such tooling.

<comment><USER2> There are a bunch of settings where you can define the level of tracking. The state tracking is very low overhead though because it's on demand. So if you run your asp server through code perspective and then deploy it, you can at any time connect to it with the viewer and check out the current state information for all the classes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been using NCrunch for some time now, and really enjoy the instant feedback it gives on failed tests. It constantly chugs away in the background like a faithful dog.

I can see things like Instant C# meaning I have to build less: a great productivity enhancer.

<comment><USER5> There's lots of places we can take this, which is why I categorize it as a research project.

Being able to create unit tests from this, or being able to look at calls from unit tests here has definitely been on my mind. The way you enter the "test code" right now is not ideal in the slightest as I talk about in my post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks very interesting.

How would Instant C# scale up to real code? What about that bank application that has the side effect of throwing 100$ away from your account on each execution?

<comment><USER4> I see it working hand-in-hand with dependency injection. So resolved mock interface implementations will be used by Instant.

<comment><USER5> Wow, this is a great idea!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It would be cool to see this integrated with the system used in the backend at Pex for Fun (<http://www.pexforfun.com/>), which tries to automatically find "interesting" inputs for a function given the code.

<comment><USER5> This is a great idea!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In Tao, we have been trying to do it

1) for coordinates and graphical shapes 2) so that it works both ways, i.e. from code to visualizer, but also so that manipulating makes it possible to change the code.

See <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpPwjB46E5I> for an example of how this works in practice (look around 1:20 in the video)

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice.

I see this as a nice stepping stone in between coding and creating and creating unit test.

I have been a fan of Bret Victors work, but the video here has gotten me really excited.

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's the link to the Bret Victor presentation where he talks about this concept: <http://vimeo.com/36579366>

</comment><comment><USER10> Very nice. I'm a bit confused as to how basing this on Roslyn will allow for a MonoDevelop plugin, however. Or did Mono copy the entire Roslyn API, as well?

<comment><USER5> At current, I'm going to have to port it to NRefactory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is awesome. That is all.

</comment><comment><USER12> Cool! Nice work.</comment>