What Is It Like To Be an Adult and Not Have Kids?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/12/28/what_is_it_like_to_be_an_adult_and_not_have_kids.html <comment><USER4> The second author is a narcissist and a fool.

People have chosen not to have children for at least as long as people have been writing down their thoughts. Most cultures throughout history have a monastic class of some sort, who renounce many aspects of conventional life to pursue other aims. There are myriad ways to live a significant, meaningful life without children. If you cannot think of a worthwhile use of your life that is not focussed on either your own material enrichment or raising your own progeny, that is merely a reflection of your own worthlessness.

Saying "I regret having children" is one of the most taboo sentences in our society. Until we address that taboo, we are unlikely to find an honest answer as to whether having children really is a source of fulfilment.

<comment><USER5> actually narcissist and fool will be a person who decides that satisfying his own hunger for travel and business is more important than evolution.

<comment><USER6> I have kids, love em, but why the fuck should anyone's life decision be termed narcissistic for not participating in a large scale, indifferent physical process? Am I narcissistic when I jump because I'm (momentarily) defying gravity?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > I mean the screaming kid in the restaurant.

I'll say this for everyone else out there - deciding to not have kids based on bad kids in public is like deciding to not buy a house because of that one guy who never mows his lawn.

My kids have never had an outburst in public. Had one have gone into a temper tantrum or anything of the sort, I would have quietly left the establishment as a courtesy to others.

You don't notice the people who raise their kids well or have good kids because they go out of their way not to be a burden to others.

I'll call myself lucky that I have two great, artistic, and intelligent kids that are also mannered and polite, but it's less about luck and more about parenting.

If you want to have kids, and are scared by that horror scene in the restaurant, rest assured that you can have kids that aren't like that. It's not luck, it's parenting.

<comment><USER8> Even the public tantrums tend to be few and far between. We've had a couple among our three kids. Perhaps others around us were horrified. But other parents aren't- we get it.

Seriously, in the big picture it's no big deal. Downs syndrome, in contrast, is a big deal.

<comment><USER7> Yes. The birth defect thing is terrifying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't speak to the sentiments expressed by the article, as I have not yet reached that point of life.

But as the father of a toddler (and probably another in the relatively near future), I can say that it isn't all reward, at least in the short term. It's exhausting. I have a massive list of ideas and half-started projects that I feel too burned out to work on productively by the time the kid's in bed, and weekends (which used to by my personal project time) are pretty much gone.

If any parent/hackers out there have any tips on how to stay motivated and productive with kids, I'd love to hear it. Or is it just a matter of waiting until they're a bit older?

This isn't just about "personal and financial success", by the way... I am happy to put my kid ahead of personal career and finance (although I actually find that to be fairly compatible, as long as I can get in a standard work week, which my wife graciously allows me). What suffers is my own personal motivations and fulfillment, my own hobbies, education and art.

<comment><USER10> Everyone has excuses for not getting around to the stuff they want to do. When you have a kid, it's the most convenient excuse, but in my experience I've gotten no less done since my daughter's birth.

I was a no kid adult until 37. I had great success, owning bars and restaurants and living a very busy life. I was happy to believe that a childless life was my destiny. My wife was told it was a medical impossibility for her to have children, further reinforcing this mindset.

I had it all, and had no time for children. Having owned fine dining restaurants, I had a dim view of them in social settings, and having a very active social life they were a dirty, smelly, noisy intrusion.

We found out we were pregnant, and it scared us, mostly that we'd be losing out on the life we built for ourselves.

Two and a half years in, I've never been happier, and more motivated. I've been more productive as a father than I ever was with all the other distractions. I've launched 3 companies, consulting on two more, and lost 30 lbs.

A great parent, like a great leader, is made, not born. Inside all of us is a great, loving parent, but there are some who will not bear the risk to their lifestyle, just like we wouldn't.

Staying motivated, honestly, is about realizing that you are ultimately responsible for managing your time. Don't blame your kids. They're hard work, but so is running a company, or leading a revolution. I would argue that they're worth it, even as I'm working from home as I toilet train her.

I wont judge anyone who chooses to avoid being a parent, just as I wouldn't judge anyone who never chooses to start a company, chase a dream, or take a big risk. But I will say this.

The reward far outweighs the risk.

All great things are difficult, all worthwhile achievements demand sacrifice, and while some may be intimidated by a heavy workload, for me it's a clarion call to be the best father I can be.

It has made me the best founder I could be.

<comment><USER11> Yeah if you have a toddler, 3 companies, and have lost 30 lbs, I'd love to know what time-management system you _do_ use.

<comment><USER10> hehe the secret is delegation, and a kick ass to do list. Just like building an mvp, I don't let feature creep seep into the world i'm building.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you choose to not have kids, think very carefully about this. Reading things like this post may help you anticipate some of the emotions you are going to feel.

I say this because I've witnessed a pattern that I find very tragic: A couple in their relative youth (30s) decide that they don't want kids. Later, however, they start having second thoughts. And by the time they decide that they do want kids, they are desperate.

IVF rates, to my knowledge, are still pretty low (once you rule out the four- fertilizations-at-once average-movers), and carrying to term is also hard. So there is depression and tragedy every time the bad news is revealed- the pregnancy didn't take, or the woman miscarried.

I know several people who regret not having kids, but I don't know any who regret having kids (or, to be fair, admit to regretting it).

I'm not trying to preach here, I'm just saying that I would recommend only making the decision not to have kids after giving it a deep, emotional consideration. The rational reasons (I wouldn't be good at it, etc.), may not hold up as you age.

<comment><USER12> This is an extremely important comment that I'm glad has been made in the midst of the other "kids are overrated" comments I see here. If you don't want kids, great. But if you are in your early 30s and don't have much of an opinion yet, _start thinking about it right now_. Fertility drops like a stone in the mid thirties, and due to our delays in this area my wife and I will probably remain childless despite an outlay of many tens of thousands of dollars over the course of seven years towards many failed fertility procedures. If writing a check for $20000 in exchange for absolutely nothing but yet another heartbreak in return doesn't appeal to you, please make sure you make thoughtful decisions about having kids _sooner_ than you might usually think is warranted.

<comment><USER13> Stupid question, I know, but have you considered adoption? I wouldn't exist at all if my grandparents hadn't.

<comment><USER12> Adoption is a $30-$60K process to embark upon and often takes years, featuring many potential roadblocks - the recent Russian decision for example shuts the door to many couples who've been waiting for months or years on waiting lists. Domestic adoption is a complex process also.

Assuming our upcoming donor cycle fails, adoption will be our final alternative. We are in our mid-40s now.

<comment><USER14> Fostering is always in need of more folks. It's not quite the same, but it's an option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a new parent who is unexpectedly a parent earlier than I thought I would be...

I can see why people choose not to have kids. They're expensive, they're noisy, and they really limit your ability to be spontaneous.

That being said, it seems to have become fairly popular to rag on having kids, and I think at least some of the angst is derived from buying into certain cultural expectations about having kids despite rejecting the general cultural expectation to have kids.

American culture makes parenting out to be a lot harder than it is. If you're a mom who doesn't stay at home with her kids, bake cookies for the PTA, send them to a dozen after school activities, etc, you're a bad parent and your kids will grow up to be unsuccessful degenerates.

I think that's overstated. Right now, I'm in New York working while my wife is with my parents in DC taking care of our newborn while she finishes final exams for law school. Out of 5 weeks of the baby's life, I've missed half. And you know what? She'll never remember it. American culture creates this huge conflict between careers and raising young children that doesn't need to be so big. We say "these are the best years, you shouldn't miss them" but that's for us, not the kids. I miss my daughter terribly. She has no idea that I (or anything else) continue to exist when she can't see me. My dad travelled internationally 50% of the time while my brother and I were small children. How was it affected us? Not at all--I don't even remember anything before 5 or 6 or so.

The same thing is true for activities when the child is older. Suburban parents spend enormous amounts of time just driving around, from ballet class to soccer practice, etc. But nobody on their death bed has ever lamented they didn't do ballet as a child instead of just running around in the back yard with friends. Suburbia itself creates huge artificial roadblocks. Commutes that suck away time, big houses that get filled with toys, etc. All that is unnecessary. Entire generations of kids grew up in the city where they could be ditched with the neighbor on short notice if necessary. Those cities still exist. It's still possible to walk from work to your apartment, picking up the kid and some dinner on the way.

All this is not to say that having kids doesn't create real challenges. Infancy is going to be a rough deal for you if you're not good at sleeping in 3 hour blocks. When you go to work, you have to find somewhere to put them for 8-10 hours a day, preferably somewhere they won't get killed. But there is a middle ground between not having kids and having kids then abandoning your career, hobbies, etc, and moving to the sururbs and joining the PTA.

<comment><USER14> I think the popularity of ragging on having kids is because it's finally able to be done in polite conversation without being seen as a monster. Some of us don't want kids, but find that we become second-class citizens when the topic comes up. Last night we had a barbeque with parents of a one-year- and two- year old in attendance. All night the conversation fluttered around nappies and toddler-proofing houses and more stuff about dealing with baby poo and vomit and whatnot.

On the one hand, it's fine, because these are new sets of parents using a pressure release valve, but on the other hand, it's screamingly boring because I've had to deal with the exact same conversation with new parents throughout my life. Try and change the topic and it comes back to baby vomit on the car seats or how the cat doesn't deal well with fistfuls of fur pulled out of her. It's not socially acceptable to indicate that it's boring to be in this conversation yet again - because to _these_ parents, _these_ kids are special. Which is fine, for them, but for me, the only thing that ever changes are the names.

I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that the ragging on having kids is also an escape valve; that it's a way of highlighting that not having kids is also a valid life choice rather than just bearing it silently. We'll never get to a point where it's perfectly acceptable to say 'No, I don't want kids' without speaking up from time to time.

<comment><USER8> _On the one hand, it's fine, because these are new sets of parents using a pressure release valve_

Actually, that's not why we do it. It's because in that time of our life _it's all we really know that we can talk about to the general population._

If you have specific common interests, then there's that too. But we don't know the stats on the sports teams any more, at least not reliably. We used to be deep into the details of politics or current events, but now we're a little fuzzy on the fifth-paragraph stuff. And some subjects we just let go entirely.

We know what we work at and taking care of the kids.

There are exceptions, of course. There is that guy that still seems to be able to do everything he did before having kids. But you can spot his wife at that same party, and you don't need to be introduced in order to do so. She's surrounded by girlfriends at the party, she looks a bit unhappy around the eyes, and she holds your gaze for a moment too long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm convinced children are one of those things that one is never "ready" for. I was an only child with very limited access to young children even into my 20's. I always was averse growing up to other people's kids, never wanted to touch or hold them and was convinced I didn't want them either. It wasn't until I obliged my wife that we had them. There are plenty of times it is a struggle but I echo the sentiment that until you've experienced that unconditional love, you haven't fully lived. That isn't a judgement on those who choose not too, because, I too was one of those people looking at the crying kid on the airplane with disdain, but, no question, kids changes your whole outlook of the world.

<comment><USER17> Nah, I was ready for children 3 years ago, just hadn't found the right woman until two years ago. Now I'm the proud parent of a 1 year old. I never wanted to have kids until about 3 years ago. I knew I wasn't ready then. Our kid wasn't an accident, she was planned, and I am glad that our plan worked out. She's a delight, and I love every minute that I spend with her.

The decision to have a child isn't about vanity, or narcissism. You have to put up with being kicked, vomited on, abused and hated when you become a father / mother. That comes with the territory. You have to put someone above yourself, and it really is a humbling experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The answer seems to be "depends who you are." Some people have an overriding and insatiable drive to have children, and would be miserable without them. Others have no such drive, or an aversion to children, and are perfectly happy without them.

The trick to to make sure you and your partner are on the same page about this, and I mean long before getting hitched or moving in together. Like third-date long before.

<comment><USER19> This is a tricky issue to sort out because opinions and desires aren't set in stone. I've known more than a few friends who have had relationships deteriorate because initially they were on the same page but one party ended up changing their minds.

As with all relationships whether they be personal or professional the most important part of the relationship is to maintain open lines of communication with the other party.

<comment><USER20> This is where I'm at now.

My wife and I were married when I was 25 and she was 23. I just turned 30, and while back then I was all about having children, I'd like to put it off as I still have a lot of places to visit, things to do, etc.

She, on the other hand, is ready to have children. Now. Since she's 28, she has a plan to have X kids, spaced X years apart.

The next 6-12 months of our relationship will be interesting.

<comment><USER21> Can't you visit those places together with your kids?

I was 38 when we had our son and I already regret being so old. There is the worry of staying fit and healthy as long as possible to be there for him. Also, his grandparents enjoy him very much. Should my son wait as long as I did to have children, I would already be 76 - so probably much less joy with grandchildren. And lots more issues like that.

If you have a kid, being fit and healthy suddenly becomes so much more important. Sure, I wanted to live before I had a kid, too. But the reality is that dieing would bother me much more now than before having a kid (yes I know it wouldn't bother me anymore once I'm dead...).

Also, pregnancy becomes more difficult and risky for older women. And if you have a kid and decide you actually like it, might be nice to have some spare years to create more. Just saying...

<comment><USER20> Antartica. Working for the DPW (Dept of Public Works) at Burning Man one year. Zero-gravity flights. Wing-suit skydiving. Living in Amsterdam for a year.

This is just a short chunk of things copied from my bucket list. Kids don't mix well with the above activities.

<comment><USER21> Actually most don't seem so bad. Burning Man sounds like a normal job - <USER2> people with kids have jobs, too? Zero-gravity flights only take a couple of minutes, maybe a day if you include the trip to the airport. It is actually possible to take a day off even if you have kids (assuming a supportive spouse, or, if you are alone, a suitable babysitter). Same for wing-suit skydiving, although admittedly it seems possible that you would be less keen to do that if you had kids.

Don't know about Amsterdam: they do have kids in Amsterdam, but perhaps you mean "a year living high on drugs surrounded by prostitutes"? No offense - just wondering why it would be incompatible with kids.

Antarctica: again, why not. Depends on what you want to do there. Also you can do some things when your kids are older.

Even taking a few months off doesn't seem impossible, with a supporting spouse. I think there are lots of parents who go away to remote locations for work (truck drivers and oil rig workers for example).

<comment><USER22> I would even say, living abroad for a while with your kids would be a bonus for them (granted they are not just 6 months old but a few years old).

They'll pick up a foreign language (even though Dutch is not the most important one) and see a different culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Married 15 years, no kids, no desire. I _can't_ have kids, I think my wife would have had kids had she married someone else who wanted kids, but has never expressed that she's wanted kids (and has more recently expressed thanks that we don't have any).

What's it like? It's just life. You keep living, with or without kids.

What does bother me some is the moral high ground some people take when they know you don't have kids. "You couldn't _possibly_ understand what it's like." "Once you have kids, you'll know." To some extent, that might be true, but I don't think it's impossible to make judgements about certain situations without being in that situation entirely.

Some people tend to make a lot more judgements about me and my decision not to have kids than I do about their choice _to_ have kids. "But... no kids? That's so selfish of you!" Then 10 minutes later... "aren't you worried about who will take care of you when you're older?". WTH?

<comment><USER24> Funny. I had noted your name after seeing what you did quite some time ago. Now I just updated it with "has no kids". (A bonus to me).

I hired an attorney many years ago and when I found out he had no kids that was a plus. It meant that he would be able to think about law without distraction and I wouldn't be hearing excuses about how he left the office early to watch the soccer game. (I have kids by the way but have managed to still keep work a priority. I haven't found this to be universal though.)

I was right about the attorney. Many Friday's he was at the office late and was generally available any day any time he didn't have many distractions.

Of course I'm not commenting on what is good for him but for me I saw it as a positive.

<comment><USER23> Not sure what I did to get 'noted', but I hope it was good :)

I might dispute your view of that attorney - he may well have many other distractions that prevent him from getting stuff done, but certainly the 'time with the kids' factor isn't there.

Of course, when interviewing people for jobs, we're never supposed to ask about personal/family issues, but I do eventually bring it up (though I haven't been in a job interview in several years). My wife and I are both self-employed, have no kids, and are able to devote stretches of time to work when necessary. I point that out - "if you need someone to travel and stay overnight, I've got no issues with that" sort of thing. Not sure it helped all that much for 'jobs', but it has helped in freelance/consulting. "Yes, I can be there tomorrow, and my fee is $x".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The thing is, having children is a transformative experience. I don't think you can compare the two states of existence in the way the question assumes.

I call kids a "terrible blessing". There's so much downside, yet on the whole its not something you regret, _once you make the transition_. All generalizations are false, yet biologically we are made to sexually reproduce. Therefore reproduction and the creation of replacements is a natural part of life for most of us.

I don't think you can make value judgments about whether one situation is better or worse than another. It doesn't work that way. Having said that, I am reminded of something my adoptive mother told me before she died. Having spent a couple of decades in a very active community of older people, she found the ones without children the saddest. "They don't have anybody," she'd say sadly. Yes, they might have had a great life where they accomplished much and did all they wanted to do, they might even have a Rolodex full of friends, but at the end, there was nobody left for them. There were no replacements or people to carry on their memory long after they were gone. There was a deep loneliness and an empty spot as they socialized with others and enjoyed their last days. This was something others could notice. This was something most of them admitted to feeling.

Take that for what it's worth --- probably not a lot. For me, this is one of those things that looks dramatically different at age 47 than it did at age 17.

<comment><USER26> Having kids doesn't protect one from loneliness in old age. Adult children are independent and choose their own social circles.

<comment><USER27> Daniel was real hinting at the evo bio genetic imperative, and how facing end of life not having kids makes you admit the death of your genetic line. I suspect that elders with nieces and nephews would feel something in between the other two cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm 35, been together with my wife for about 8 years and we're finally expecting our first kid in about 1 month. We were both always firmly in the "no kids" camp, the cost/benefit ratio just never seemed to add up. So what changed our minds? Partly it was peer pressure: everyone I know by this time has had kids, people who I respect, smarter people than myself. But mostly it was two slow realizations I've had:

1\. It is part of the lifecycle, it is part of being an adult. The link at the top is mislabeled, you can't be an "adult" and not have kids. Yes it's grueling and miserable, but discomfort grounds you and gives you perspective. People that never leave their comfort zone never grow... they don't "grow up".

2\. I personally believe it is the key to immortality. I'm not talking reincarnation or ancestor worship. Just a mental image I have every being that lived and died since the beginning of time to create me (or you), like threads in a fabric, and then you don't procreate and it's like "snip" and that thread ends.

<comment><USER18> > The link at the top is mislabeled, you can't be an "adult" and not have > kids.

I don't know what drive you to that conclusion, or what makes you equate not having children with never leaving your comfort zone.

I know parents who are not "adults" in the grounded/perspective sense, and childless couples with more perspective than I can conceive.

<comment><USER28> I agree with you - absolutely. The potential for growth and perspective as a human being is innate - some people have more of it than others. Though those people with greater potential - an awareness that our experiences can change us - are exactly the kind of people who leave their comfort zone more - <USER3> the author of the linked story who writes: "But when I thought about what it took to get there, the diapers, the soccer games, the braces, the tantrums, the whole enchilada, I knew that it wasn't for me." That was the kind of person I had in mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Ugh. Where did they find those people? (oh, apparently at Quora, which makes me sad for my people)

I, at 33, still wake up at least 3 times a week thinking "thank god I don't have children", and pretty much have felt that way for as long as I can remember. I really like my freedom. I mean, I'm reluctant to buy houseplants because they would tie me to one place to maintain them. Kids would be ok if they could be shipped off to boarding school most of the time, or were adults, but I viscerally hate being around young (under 10-12yo, but especially under 3yo) children.

I am probably less likely to get married (not wanting kids) than I would be otherwise, but I'm fine with living in sin indefinitely. (I see no real benefit to marriage other than the legal benefits, and for me, those seem mostly negative).

<comment><USER21> No offense to you, but I think they asked older people, not people in their thirties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Hurray :) 31 and no kids here, don't plan on having any. My habits and personality would make me a freakin awful parent and I would hate it more than the kids would after they grew up having me a parent.

So no thanks, no kids for me.

<comment><USER30> Wow just read the answer from the guy on there:

"And then it dawns on you, your purpose in life: It's love. A life without love is a life without purpose and completely meaningless. And I'm not talking about the kind of love you feel for your soul mate. That love is not invincible. I'm talking about unconditional love. The kind of love only children have to give and would die inside without it."

What a prick. If your life is meaningless without kids go move to the midwest and shack up with some girl out of highschool desperate to get kids. My life certainly isn't meaningless. I get a lot of enjoyment and meaning out of my life, but perhaps I'm different than most since I actually consider intellectual challenges meaningful.

<comment><USER31> "...move to the midwest and shack up with some girl out of highschool desperate to get kids."

This is more accurate than I care to admit.

<comment><USER30> Haha I know, I lived in South Dakota for a while... its amazing how many of my friends parents were disappointed with them for not being married with children shortly after school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> 45\. No kids. No wife. Just me and a cat. I choose whom I consider my family from among my friends. Beyond that, I doubt I'm in a stable enough situation to have more than that.

<comment><USER33> Nice thing when I hit the end of my 30s, people stopped asking me when I was going to get married and have kids. Just never had the urge for kids and figured if I didn't feel the desire it wouldn't be a good idea. Came close to marriage once or twice and I might again, but kids no.

I like kids. I like my brother's kids. I like my friends' kids. Just don't want my own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Am I the only parent who was surprised how easy raising kids is? All I've heard was how much of a sacrifice and struggle raising kids is. My experience is the complete opposite. You make larger portions of the same meals, run a full washing machine every day instead of a half full one. Play chutes and ladders instead of settlers of catan. Are there constraints on your life that didn't exist before? Yes, but nothing intolerable if you don't obsess about it.

The hard part for a lot of parents is the number of things you 'should do to be a better parent', stretches out into the infinite. No matter what good they do, all they see is an endless list of ways in which they've failed. Keep yourself out of that mental trap and parenting is a piece of cake.

<comment><USER35> While staying clear of that mental trap is key (so easy to forget, at least here in the US), I also think that for it to feel easy, some people have to make a conscious effort to make it easy.

If you're anything like me, any intellectually-gratifying side project I get started on will slowly consume me if I'm not careful. By that, I mean that it's what I'll think about when I get up, before I go to sleep and, yes, during all my free time. I can't do the one hour a day thing.

It's simply impossible to balance that state of mind with young children, at least the first few years, because it's not so much that they'd resent you if you chose to spend your free time on that side project instead of them (although if they're old enough, they will), it's that they physically need you for reassurance, feeding, diaper-changing, etc... That's a lesson I learned the hard way, especially after my second child.

A real danger for people like me is that you could end up resenting your own kid for depriving you of that intellectual gratification you crave. No matter how much fun little kids are (say < 4), they cannot satisfy that craving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> 39\. Married for 11+ years. No kids. We go on vacations, work out, visit friends and family, and I build websites and applications on the side. We both complain we have no time. I could not imagine our lives _with_ kids.

<comment><USER37> I'm a couple years younger than you and have four kids (6yo to a newborn). We do all the things you do except for one thing: complain we have no time (but I do remember doing that before I had any kids!). I think kids give you a new outlook on time and the fact you just have to _enjoy_ what time you do have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Having children is not 'doing your part' anymore, and people need to understand this. We are quickly reaching the point where we have enough humans in the world. Feel free to have children if you want them, but please understand that 'doing your part' is quickly changing to mean 'no children - we have enough'. If you want to do your part, rather adopt a child.

Also, the world isn't all about you.

<comment><USER21> Maybe I would feel worse about having contributed to overpopulation if other people wouldn't multiply in such an unchecked fashion.

What is the world all about anyway?

Since I have a child, I actually want my friends to have children too, so that my child can have friends, too. Rather selfishly (you might even say racist), I want my culture to survive.

The probability seems quite high that my child will be confronted with a difficult future. That held me off from having children for a long time, but ultimately, they deserve their chance. I don't need 10 children, but one or two should be OK.

<comment><USER38> That's a pretty strange and common "us vs them" mentality. Unfortunately it doesn't really work - both your children and everybody else's children are all still human, as much as some people like to believe otherwise. It also doesn't work in the same way that making your adverts on a page bigger than your competitor's adverts doesn't work: eventually both you and your competitor have adverts so big that there is no content left on the page. Then the page is just junk mail and gets tossed in the trash...

<comment><USER21> That's why I said one or two children are enough for me, not 8 or more.

Yes, it's selfish. So is living at all. If you are so concerned, why not commit suicide and donate the resources you would have consumed in the rest of your life to other people and their children?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wait, now Quora is now syndicating answers as blog posts to publications? Do users know this? Does Quora ask permission? Do users get a rev share? Looks exactly like what Instagram was trying to do.

Update: Answered my own question. Looks like Quora does ask permission. At least that's what the announcement of the partnership said: <http://www.quora.com/blog/Quora-Partners-with-Slate>

</comment><comment><USER40> Every day I say a little prayer of thanks for getting to where I am without having kids. Every time I spend time with my (many) friends who have kids (and now grandkids in some cases), I understand why they've made this choice and yet feel even more validated in my own choice.

And every time someone says, "how do you look so young for your age" or "how can you possibly afford to live the way you live and go the places you go and have the experiences you have" - I just smile and say, "no kids."

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm a single dad, like really single. Mom isn't really in the picture and besides from my wonderful girlfriend don't have much help at all. It's getting easier as my daughter gets older (almost 9 now) but wow I really don't want any more kids. I like the idea of it but I think I'm done. I don't begrudge anyone if they love having kids and think it's the best, nor if they never want any kids ever because they're terrible little monsters. On most days I feel both ways. I'll be in my early 40s when I lock my kid out of the house for the last time after I shoo her off to college (or whatever). I don't want to be parenting into my 50s or 60s. I'm done.

</comment><comment><USER42> I think it depends on the why. I have Cystic Fibrosis, which has a 98% infertility rate among males (edit: not so much infertile as much as CF gives you a built-in vasectomy). IVF is an option, but my wife's age (36) means the clock is ticking and nothing is guaranteed. I can't speak for her, but I'd like them, but have put myself in a place where my life's outlook isn't defined by whether or not I'm ever a parent.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think the two voices here are interesting. The first account is very much a personal account (here's _my_ story), the second comes across as much more prescriptive and didactic ( _you_ should have kids). The first person seems content with her choices, these ons comes across as frustrated and unhappy. I found this fascinating and took from it no lesson about whether or not to have children--only that, here, happiness/contentment accompanies humble self- awareness, frustration with the idea that your life should serve as some kind of black & white prescription for the world.

</comment><comment><USER44> My wife and I have no kids but I tell people we're a one child family - I'm the child. ;-)

Children make me smile when I see them but I have no desire to reproduce. Natural selection has selected for parents that experience great joy in having children. Those that didn't have this response probably ate their young. <g>

</comment><comment><USER45> It's amazing. If that's what you want.

If you want kids, have them. That's great, I'll be genuinely happy for you, and I'll come to their birthdays, graduations, and weddings.

We don't want kids of our own, and are very satisfied and fulfilled with our lives. So please, try to understand that, and be happy for us in return.

<comment><USER46> My grandparents make me feel so bad for not having kids. I thought the pressure would go away after my niece was born, but nope. The older people in my life like huge families and a constant stream of babies. The last thing I need in my life is more responsibility and less time, and my SO feels the same way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I admire someone who can conclude that their lifestyle would not be conducive to raising a child as much as I admire a great parent. Ultimately, the worst scenario would be to have a child you were unfit to care for. That said, I think a lot of couples wrestling with this question are rather tough on themselves. More are fit for this sort of thing than they might realize.

</comment><comment><USER48> So Q and A mined from Quora qualifies for Slate now? Oh well.

Kids or no kids are definitely a YMMV issue. I have a 18mo old daughter who I love dearly and is "the light of my life" _yawn_. But I'm also aware enough to know the tradeoffs of children and belive that it is just as equally possible to be wonderfully happy without them as it is to be miserable with them.

Please. Children != happiness.

In fact I believe this has been studied at length, but I can't recall the source now. That said, sharing your life with a child or two can be highly rewarding.

</comment><comment><USER49> > We've always had two or three dogs at a time, and they've had our love, > attention, and affection. They're spoiled rotten. Better dogs than children.

One very common trait among people I know who don't have kids is that they have dogs. For them, dogs help to fill the need they have for unconditional love and the seemingly built-in paternal/maternal need to care for someone. That's great. Nothing wrong with that.

I've had lots of dogs in my life. In my experience, the dogs were fun. We played and wrestled and went on walks and went to the park. I was sad when they passed away.

I also have three children. I can honestly say that I never experienced anything close to the feelings I have for my children with the dogs. My children look like me, and like the woman I love. They think deep thoughts and ask questions and figure things out.

Instead of teaching them to sit or rollover (though you have to start somewhere!) I teach them to reason and understand. I try to teach them as best I can to be a good person. That's a process that has inspired deep introspection and personal growth, as well as some of the best work I've done in my career and my community.

Owning a dog is certainly _easier_ than having a child, by which I mean it's a lot less work. So if _easy_ is your metric for _better_ you could probably say something like "Better dogs than children." But using every other metric that I can think of I would say the opposite.

<comment><USER26> Context. The author said it's better that they spoiled their dogs rotten than spoiled kids rotten. She's not saying that dogs are better than children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I find the first author's comment a bit funny. Not because of her decision to not have children, but because of the reasons.

\- Diapers, Soccer Games, Braces, Tantrums. -

Those are pretty poor reasons to me.

A good reason to me is "I am fulfilled doing what I do and have no reason to want children" or even "I have never wanted to have kids"

But the way she writes, it sounds like she actually really wanted children, but was afraid that they would tie her down too much, ruin her life, and make her do icky things like change diapers, and make her feel uncomfortable when they threw tantrums. Her response to getting her tubes tied was "Freedom." as though there was this specter of child-rearing that she was so afraid of. Her followup states that she is afraid she would have been a bad mother anyways so it was probably for the best.

As someone else said, the decision should be to have kids, not deciding to not have kids. But the first author sounds more like she wanted kids but was afraid, regrets the decision and is spending her time trying to justify, to herself, that decision to get her tubes tied back at 30 now that she is getting to the point of no return.

Second author would have sounded a lot better if he had written it in the first person instead of second person. He's describing his experience, not mine. It's pretty presumptuous to tell me how I feel, or will feel.

</comment><comment><USER24> Would like to point out something here that might not be obvious to those discussing the pros and con's of having kids.

Some people are really into kids and have made that choice and couldn't do without kids. They enjoy kids like some of us enjoy computers. They want as many kids as they can and don't think of any of it as a burden or "work". It's just pure joy to them. Just like some of us like to program and "play" with computers and find it fun. Then there are as you know people who don't derive any enjoyment from kids and would rather just work and do what they want. Just like there are people who find no enjoyment in doing the things that some of us do for fun. Nothing wrong with that. Don't be pressured into having kids just because it's what society seems to tell you is the best thing to do. It definitely doesn't float the boat of everyone just as everyone is not all into computers, cars, skiing, knitting or pets. Everyone is different.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What's strange (sad?) is that I am most definitely adult age but, being someone who lives in NYC and works at a startup, my mindset was "I wonder what I'll do when I'm at that age?"...I guess I'm qualified to answered: for me, not having kids now is not different than not having kids in college. Not enough philosophically about my life (marital status ir probably the key one) has changed since then. Very few of my friends, the same age or older in NYC, have children either. And my guess is that this state of affairs could exist for years to come until suddenly I'm thinking, "I wonder if I should've tried to have children?"

</comment><comment><USER51> _I wasn't "made" to be a mother. I had spared a child from having to have me as one._

I believe some people are born with DNA that enables them to be great athletes, scholars, parents, etc. I always tell my friends and family that it's not in my DNA to have kids.

I honestly don't know the exact science behind DNA to know if my statement holds true or not, but figuratively speaking it delivers the point that I believe I lack the traits to be a good parent, including the motivation to become one.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm still 24 and I have no intention of ever having a kid, but one year ago, I thought I would never want a girlfriend again either. I still don't want a girlfriend, but my best friends started some really serious relationship and they can't be with me all the time anymore, so I had to start thinking about dating again. Maybe some day something will happen and I will need to think about having children too.

</comment><comment><USER53> "We've always had two or three dogs at a time"

Damn... all that time walking the dogs... coulda had a kid!

The thing about people hating shrieking children, that seems to be a very strong sentiment among those who feel the same. I really wonder what it is, because I really am able to tune it out, or at least not let it bother me much. Is it about taking it personally, or is that a condescending (and incorrect) theory?

</comment><comment><USER54> have a 3 and a 5 year old. coincidentally, they came into my life when i was starting my own startup and i'd have to say it wasn't easy but doable. the time i get to work on my projects are limited for sure but the time you get to spend with your kids trumps any other activities. i can honestly say that you haven't found happiness until you've got kids. just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER55> I think when you have kids, you accept that you are no longer fully in control of your life; you are forced to let go and accept your humanity. This is quite a healthy thing to do, among other things that sense of control was mostly illusory anyway. People who don't do this and keep trying to swim against the current of life end up pretty strange and warped I think.

<comment><USER56> You seriously think people who don't want to have kids are inhuman, strange and warped?

<comment><USER55> "Inhuman" connotes differently from what I was trying to express.

As for the other two, perhaps I should specify: I believe that this is true specifically for people who openly proclaim childlessness as their free choice, who defend it as a superior option, and who counter-attack and try to de-normalise having kids. People in other words who flaunt childlessness and try to pretend that having kids is not really an important issue. All of the people I have met who act in this manner have been strange, warped people. One lady told me she couldn't stand the idea of an "alien parasite growing inside of her." Others I have met scream about the horrors of childbirth, or the disgusting, pathetic and needy nature of babies. None of them seemed to have enough love in their hearts to care selflessly and unquestioningly for another human being, and all seemed to be gripped by pretty nasty self-loathing fears of their own humanity/mortality.

On the other hand, I am sure there are many people who for whatever reason miss on out on having kids or choose not to for decent reasons, but maintain good perspective about their decision/fate, and feel a measure of quiet regret and curiosity about the road not taken, which helps keeps them soft and human.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Pretty freakin' cool.

One thing the world doesn't need more of is Westerners living Western lifestyles. In addition to the freedom to focus on _your_ life (if, like me, you are too selfish to give your life away for the sake of a child then you're better off not having a child), your conscience is soothed by the fact that you're sparing the world additional Westerners.

</comment><comment><USER58> My wife and I never wanted children. Neither of us needed to convince the other. We did agree that, if either of us did change our mind, adopting would be the right path.

I don't get the idea that you need to hate kids to decide that having your own is something you don't wish to do.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand why people are saying "I have so many things left to do and so many places to visit, I can't have kids now". But you can do all that with kids and have even more fun than doing all that by yourself...

<comment><USER59> >I don't understand why people are saying "I have so many things left to do and so many places to visit, I can't have kids now". But you can do all that with kids and have even more fun than doing all that by yourself...

Exactly. I have a 2 year old, two months after he was born I founded a security company (so you could say I'm a hacker). I have visited more places in this 2 years than in the 32 years before that. It's crazy sometimes, all the work, no sleep, wife hates me when I come too late from work, etc. But I love my son, I wish I could have 100 like him. Matter of fact I can, but wife doesn't approve :) Protip: If you want kids DONT wait until you have a nice job, house, car, etc. by that time you are in your 40's and it's way more difficult.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm confused by the first author's response: part of the way through the article she explains she regrets it and then quickly contradicts herself.

Did she truly regret it or not? Or has she not yet decided?

</comment><comment><USER61> _Protip:_ have or not have kids.

</comment><comment><USER62> "We've always had two or three dogs at a time"

A dog is not a human child. It's not even close. I've had dogs and kids. I know the difference. Why childless people compare their dogs to human children is beyond me. It's a dog. In the wild they run in packs and kill moose and stuff. It's not a child and never will be, so please stop pretending that it is.

<comment><USER21> Also, I suspect dogs are actually a lot more work to maintain than kids. Changing diapers was actually no big deal at all, but I can't imagine having to pick up my dogs feces from the road (because if you are a nice dog owner, you do that, right?).

<comment><USER59> >Also, I suspect dogs are actually a lot more work to maintain than kids.

Ha, lets see: a Dog can raise a litter of 6 puppies every year with no effort, but to correctly raise 2 or 3 humans you need the time and income of at least two adults, for a lifetime. Which looks more difficult to you?

<comment><USER21> Not sure about that: have you had dogs raise 6 puppies in your house?

If you argue like that, kids can be raised much cheaper, too. And there are even examples of kids being raised by wolves, I think? Hm, problem solved: get a dog and a kid, let the dog raise the kid?

<comment><USER59> Have you raised a kid? lets try another example, you get fed up with the puppies barking all day, you could legally kill them all in the spot (horrible I know, but some people do that).

Now compare that with raising a kid. If HE don't like the food and gets too thin, YOU may end in prison for kid neglecting. So you better cook nice food to your kids. Still think it's easier than a dog?

<comment><USER21> If you don't like raising the kid, you could look into boarding school or adoption. Admittedly that's more expensive than killing a dog, but still.

Also we were talking about maintaining a dog, not getting rid of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I believe the future will see far fewer people having children simply because it won't be necessary. I've captured a lot of this idea here: [http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-future-of-human- identity-...](http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-future-of-human-identity-and- reproduction) .

Basically, as we move from 100,000 years ago to 1000 years from now we'll have gone from needing to have children to survive to essentially living forever. All the way back there was zero individuality, and we have more now, and we'll have more in the future.

Individuality is the opposite of parenting. That's why women are still behind. To a larger extent than men they live their lives for their children. And when you pour your entire life force into another human, you simply cannot achieve the same as someone who does that to create art or music or literature.

Men started being individuals before women did, and they are ahead as a result. Women are catching up, though, and that's a good thing. The important thing is that in the distant future we won't have the requirement.

When we are creative life forces with arbitrary bodies that live (effectively) forever, what will be the need for reproduction? At that point we'll be enlightened entities providing services for each other.

In short, reproduction is a vestigial requirement that we sill possess. And because it's evolutionary it provides us pleasure, but it will give out to advanced happiness in the future, and that happiness is the happiness of creating art, music, literature, etc.

There will still be children for a long time, and they should be celebrated and loved enjoyed when they do happen. But we've long since past the time where everyone needs to make them. In fact, it's nearly becoming criminal to keep making them when so many exist that have no loving parents.

As for the article's direct point of whether one can be happy without them, I think the answer lies in how much happiness one can gain from being an individual. If you are an author or a painter or a musician, and you truly love what you do because it helps other people then you likely are tapping into the same sensation that parents get--and likely something more as well. For people like that, having children is not a requirement.

And since this should be the goal anyway, i.e. people CREATING things for others to enjoy (as opposed to [http://danielmiessler.com/blog/parent-to- child-propagation-o...](http://danielmiessler.com/blog/parent-to-child- propagation-of-false-meaning)) then those who can do so should pursue this course without fear.

As for those who simply feel elation from raising children, there should be no shame in that either. Opposing nature in the name of a distant, future type of happiness that may not be possible for that person is not likely to be fulfilling.

It's not time to abandon parenthood. But it is time to adopt adoption, and to look forward to a time when creation of art and beauty should become the goal of everyone living rather than a default action of creating new humans who will participate in a mostly meaningless means of making money so that their offspring can do the same.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I think a lot about this.</comment>


The Man Who Built the Bauhaus - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/29/the-man-who-built-the-bauhaus <comment><USER2> There is a whole district in Tel Aviv in this style, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_City_(Tel_Aviv)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_City_\(Tel_Aviv\))

</comment><comment><USER3> Highly recommend visiting the Gropius House. It's a wonderful example of what modern residential architecture could, maybe should, be. What I appreciate most about it is the obvious restraint applied to the design and focus on functionality without sacrificing a unique aesthetic. It will certainly influence any structure I may be involved with building for my family.

</comment><comment><USER4> Good article! Just one nitpick: Weimar cannot be called the center of German Enlightenment. That title would probably go to Potsdam/Berlin. Not sure what Weimar's claim to Enlightenment would be - there was Wieland in Weimar during the German Enlightenment, but he was a poet and not theorist of Enlightenment. Perhaps the author is conflating German Classicism and German early Romanticism with Enlightenment.

</comment><comment><USER5> And here silicon valley is the land of Eichlers... Great read.

<comment><USER6> And interestingly, Eichler was also about building houses for the common man as well. Ironically, Palo Alto Eichlers seem to be selling at $2.5 million+ these days. Not exactly a "common man" house. But design heavily influenced by the Bauhaus and very beautiful. SoCal has Neutra, we (Bay Area) have Eichler, and they all seem to derive from Bauhaus. There is also Dieter Rams and the influence of Bauhaus on him and product design — which then influenced Ive and Apple which then of course, influenced Samsung. And it all started with one dude in Germany. Fascinating!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I totally thought we were talking about Eddie Huang [https://ny.eater.com/2017/7/27/16051922/baohaus-nyc- chinatow...](https://ny.eater.com/2017/7/27/16051922/baohaus-nyc-chinatown- expansion)

<comment><USER8> Dunno why you are getting downvoted, its a fair mistake to make (Bauhaus vs Baohaus), especially if you aren't aware of Bauhaus to begin with.</comment></comment>


StrongPity: Advanced Persistent Threat - <AUTHOR> http://usa.kaspersky.com/about-us/press-center/press-releases/2016/Kaspersky_Lab_Reveals_Advanced_Persistent_Threat_StrongPity <comment><USER2> Still missing details on how this qualifies as an APT, this seems nothing more than a basic trojan horse unless Kaspersky is for whatever reason neglecting to talk about whatever persistence mechanisms it has in place beyond the basics (startup entry of some form).

Malware explicitly targeting crypto software is scary regardless, however.

<comment><USER3> The "persistent" in APT refers to the threat actor, not the tools themselves. So this is an APT because the threat actor has shown persistence by e.g. using multiple SWCs over a period of time and evolving their techniques. The individual tools used by the threat actor may not persist and in fact often don't, as APTs are much more likely to cover their tracks since they have a longer-term vision.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not to mention they can reinfect via download and the malware scans the system[1] for:

\- putty.exe

\- filezilla.exe

\- winscp.exe

\- mstsc.exe

\- mRemoteNG.exe

The malware also has the capabilities to fetch new instructions, so there's no telling what happens when any particular software is detected.

[1] [https://securelist.com/blog/research/76147/on-the- strongpity...](https://securelist.com/blog/research/76147/on-the-strongpity- waterhole-attacks-targeting-italian-and-belgian-encryption-users) (linked in the first line of this thread's article)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems like there could be a use for a distributed service that automatically checks the signature of common downloaded executables --especially for in Microsoft world. It's not enough for vendors to simply put the signature on their website.

<comment><USER5> This exists, it's not 100% effective because it's generally implemented as a UI flow change where less trusted binaries get scarier "are you sure?" popups and only the most obviously malicious files are blocked.

Edge has Microsoft SmartScreen[1], Chrome has CAMP[2] / Safe Browsing and Firefox has a system that also uses Google's data[3].

[1] [https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/microsoft- edge/sec...](https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/microsoft- edge/security-enhancements-microsoft-edge)

[2] [https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~moheeb/aburajab- ndss-13.pdf](https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~moheeb/aburajab-ndss-13.pdf)

[3] [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reputation_Design_Doc)

Edit: I missed that part where you were meant pro actively check against publisher provided signatures. The above systems do that only via looking at the code's embedded signature and indirectly via "wisdom of the crowds" style reputation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since the article mentions nothing about veracrypt I assume veracrypt downloads/mirrors for windows users were unaffected. Does anyone know if this is true?

</comment><comment><USER7> Personally the only site I'll trust downloads of Truecrypt is GRC (Gibson Research Corporation) in US: [https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm](https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm)

<comment><USER8> It was on the Win-Rar site through this [http://www.win- rar.com/173.html?&L=0](http://www.win-rar.com/173.html?&L=0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ah, just realized that I haven't heard from antivirus people for a while.</comment>


Astronaut's Video Satirizes NASA Bureaucracy - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100346538

<comment><USER2> Direct link to the video:

<http://youtube.com/watch?v=_424YskAfew>

The thing that makes it watchable is the speech bubbles above the actors' heads point out the subtext of the conversations at each step in the bureaucracy.

Not surprisingly, it's very applicable outside of NASA, we've all seen some of the patterns of behavior in private industry, in both organizations large and small.</comment>


Ask HN: is Django Authentication Complex? - <AUTHOR> Is it me or is Authentication hard to customize in Django? <comment><USER2> now m sure many people will say no but imo YES it is hard to customize. problem i faced with django is, if you go with defaults, it is pretty easy. but once you start customizing, you end up overriding lot of methods. so much DRY & magic. you can't code without api doc. for some people it may work but i don't like magic at all. i have seen lot of bad django code in production. people just copy paste from stack over flow without understanding and make requirement work.

And this is why amigo you should try Flask. Its simplicity will blow your mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks I'll check it out</comment></comment>


Why Poetry Matters - <AUTHOR> https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2019/10/why-poetry-matters <comment><USER2> I've been writing poetry for about a decade and a half now and have published three collections so far. It's extremely therapeutic, helping to deal with depression and anxiety, etc. If I go too long without writing these days I can tell emotionally that I haven't been taking advantage of some kind of meaningful creative outlet. If anyone is interested, here's one of my ebooks:

[https://www.amazon.com/That-Which-Gets-Way-Langston- ebook/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/That-Which-Gets-Way-Langston- ebook/dp/B0764K882V/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=that+which+gets+in+the+way+langston&qid=1572286700&sr=8-2)</comment>


US Customs Database Of Traveler Photos Was Hacked And Stolen - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/the-us-governments-database-of-traveler-photos-has-been <comment><USER6> > On May 31, 2019, CBP learned that a subcontractor, in violation of CBP > policies and without CBP's authorization or knowledge, had transferred > copies of license plate images and traveler images collected by CBP to the > subcontractor's company network

> CBP ... is closely monitoring all CBP work by the subcontractor

What. In the private sector, they'd have been fired and probably legal action levelled against them. The CBP's punishment for this is 'monitoring'? Please tell me I'm reading this wrong...

<comment><USER7> "In the private sector" covers a lot of ground and I have extreme skepticism about your faith in the process unfolding that way: ask yourself how many breaches you've been part of and whether anything more than a press release happened along with waiting for the news to die down. How many customers did Experian lose?

(In the enterprise software world, I can tell you how epic failure to perform on an 8+ figure contract unfolds: the sales guy takes a VP out to the next game so they can discuss it over drinks in the corporate box and nothing will change)

<comment><USER8> > How many customers did Experian lose?

Experian didn't lose any customer data, though. They only lost data on their products. Their actual customers had no reason to stop paying for their services.

<comment><USER9> It was Equifax not Experian.

<comment><USER10> It think it's telling that, in this instance, it really doesn't matter. It could have been Experian, with the wave of a butterfly's wings in Himalayas, it was Experian and nothing changes in that alternative universe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The only way to prevent hackers from getting access to databases that contain our names, picture, and license plate number - is to never create such a database.

<comment><USER12> Correct me if I'm being overly cynical, but this is an oft-repeated truism that is as useless as "the only winning move is not to play." It's technically the truth, but what are we supposed to do, revert all information systems to non-electronic media? What is the intended takeaway from this statement? If anything, it absolves data security efforts of responsibility by pointing out that there's always a chance of data breach as long as there is data.

That's trivially true, but the proper response to bad security is good security, not shutting down the whole system.

<comment><USER13> 1\. Do not collect unnecessary information.

2\. Delete information after use.

<comment><USER14> This will only happen when information becomes a liability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is yet another reminder that managing the security of your company's third party contractors is just as important as managing your own company's security. Security is a game of weakest links, and it wouldn't have mattered if CBP's internal security was the best in the world if they were allowing access to a third party that doesn't have good security.

It is naturally very difficult to enforce security mandates on a company that isn't your own, but I feel that this is one of the best ways we can improve security overall in our society: companies need to start requiring that everyone they do business with have a strong, independently certified security program, or else no contract will be signed. This is already done for things like data center contracting, but it should be much more widespread and encompass every type of b2b deal.

<comment><USER16> From the article: "The subcontractor's network was then hacked, though CBP said its own systems had not been compromised."

No, actually your system _was_ compromised by allowing the subcontractor to copy the data to another, more insecure network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Quote from the article:

"There should never have been the ability to download a database like this off of government servers."

Sorry that I don't have a ton of links to support this claim, but "believe me" (as our Commander-in-chief would say) that the US Government would cease to function if it were not for subcontractors (read, private companies) performing tasks on behalf of the government. Personally, I don't agree with this way of our government doing business, but that is the way it is.

When I was in college, I worked for an archeology lab, and our lab was the subcontractor, of the subcontractor, of the contractor that had contracted to provide a service to the USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). And every way along the way, money was skimmed off of the top. It's just "the American way" of doing business.

People lament regulation all the time. I have a feeling the executives of Ingersoll Rand love it every time a new regulation is put into place.

Follow the money.

</comment><comment><USER18> > "CBP learned that a subcontractor, in violation of CBP policies and without > CBP's authorization or knowledge, had transferred copies of license plate > images and traveler images collected by CBP to the subcontractor's company > network," said an agency statement.

How long will it take the general public and elected officials to understand that the only authorization that matters for digital data is the actual implementation. Policies, legalese, mandates or any other agreements are meaningless.

If the data can be get at from or transferred to outside of a controlled environment, it will.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'll just keep saying this, and getting dismissed by everyone I know - <USER2> data security discussion around a centralized data store that doesn't begin with the recognition that that data store _will_ be compromised, is a discussion that is just a joke.

<comment><USER20> You and a whole bunch of other people making the same extremely basic observation. It would be good if you would suggest some alternative strategies, since 'don't bother keeping that data' isn't a realistic option in this context.

<comment><USER21> Part of my job is designing software that is resistant to amplification once the hacker is already in, so maybe I can help here.

When you plan your security, step 1 is making it hard to get in, step 2 is making it hard to persist, i.e. plant a command and control process somewhere inside the perimeter, and to move laterally in the system, i.e. get from one service into a more important service.

There's some basic stuff, such as firewall rules that prevent outbound traffic from ports/processes you aren't expecting. That makes it harder for the hacker's command and control systems to get instructions. There's other stuff like using separate credentials for low sensitivity vs high sensitivity systems, two-stage approval processes for especially sensitive operations to prevent a single compromised user from being able to get to the good stuff, automatic password rotation so that exfiltrated tokens aren't valuable, and more.

Those are just single things though. I think the more interesting part is an exercise like this: assume that the hackers have compromised a developer's computer. In that case, what does a system look like that would prevent that developer from exfiltrating payment info? I would argue that the developer doesn't normally need access to real payment info, so maybe the network should be configured so that the developer is unable to SSH into that set of database servers without first requesting a special short-lived SSH keypair. That at least means the developer has to explicitly ask for access. That doesn't make the hacker's job impossible, it just makes it harder. Also makes things less convenient for the developer, so is it worth the trade-off? For especially sensitive data, it probably is. With this setup, maybe the hacker gets to the account information, but they're stopped short of account numbers long enough to notice the breach.

This is all on the theoretical side, but that's the thought exercise once you go "let's pretend someone compromised ____ system."

<comment><USER22> One of my favorite Hacktober tricks was putting an alias around SSH on the developers machine, so the next time they used 2FA to get into a remote host I would drop a note into their MOTD (to prove persistence). That short-lived SSH token would be enough to install persistence.

So obviously, your payment hosts should be very wary of things like port forwarding over SSH, and any unknown outbound traffic.

<comment><USER21> Yup, at some point it just becomes an arms race.

The fundamental imbalance in such an arms race is that the tech giant might have countermeasures that would prevent the SSH alias from working (my team does), but the level of paranoia required to get those countermeasures in place is beyond what a bank could effectively implement. This particular battle disproportionately favors the red team.

And that's not to say that my team has everything covered. The red team consistently manages to find forehead slapping holes in our defenses. There's just too much surface area to cover.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great job, thanks guys. Shouts to NSA and the whole security industrial industrial complex for looking out for us. Glad to see all the research and 0day hoarding paid off. Really appreciate it.

</comment><comment><USER24> You can outsource work, you can't outsource responsibility. It will likely be a long time before the various powers that be really get this.

<comment><USER25> Isn't monetary liability a form of "outsourced responsibility"? I'm not understanding why damages from lawsuits are not sufficiently motivating the industry to take data breaches seriously. Maybe they just aren't awarding enough damages to change behavior?

<comment><USER26> Think liability insurance, by the same companies who charge you healthcare. We are spreading the cost of irresponsible folks across society then bailing out the companies who make those choices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The photos were transferred to a subcontractor's network and later stolen through a "malicious cyberattack," a CBP spokesperson told TechCrunch in an email.

Anyone think they approved the security of that subcontractor before giving sensitive information to them?

More importantantly, why is that type of data leaving CBP in the first place?

<comment><USER15> > Anyone think they approved the security of that subcontractor before giving > sensitive information to them?

They almost certainly did, actually. FIPS [1] and FISMA [2] are pretty strict requirement for every company contracting with a government agency. IMO it's one of the rare situations where, at least conceptually, the federal government has done something right in terms of security.

Now whether FIPS/FISMA, and the people enforcing it, actually have any teeth or effectiveness is a different topic entirely.

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Processing...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Processing_Standards)

2: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_Management_Act_of_2002)

<comment><USER28> If Fedramp is like other security certifications, written policies can be used in lieu of actual enforcement.

A policy could be something like:

"Vendor shall not move sensitive data out of CBP's secure network"

So it's pretty much on the honor system. And some new employee at the vendor may not even be aware of all of the policies they are supposed to be following. The vendor is still reponsible for that employees actions, but it can be discovered too late (as in this case, the breach was already made)

But instead of just a written policy (among dozens or hundreds of others) that people are expected to abide by, this could be enforced by limiting the vendor's access to the network. For example, by counting how many records they access, how many bytes of data they download over their connection to the secure network, or not giving them direct access at all and exposing only an API controlled be CBP that gives them access to only the data they require)..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Don't worry folks, I'm sure this won't hinder the CBP and other related agencies from continuing to roll out systems that capture ever more of our data.

</comment><comment><USER30> The sad truth is Congress is the biggest offender of poor network security practices. Every time they bring in Equifax, DHS, etc to explain why they didn't practice basic IT security due diligence or due care I am reminded of the time smart people were hired to implement basic network security for Congress. Once they realized Joe in IT (who was hired to keep hackers out) can see Congressman Bob has a foot fetish, fish fetish, whatever, Congress told IT to turn everything off.

<comment><USER31> Not far off from what it turns out (after investigation) really happened![1]

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Awan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Awan)

<comment><USER32> > Not far off from what it turns out (after investigation) really happened![1]

> [1] > [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Awan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imran_Awan)

I don't see how that link supports your conclusion? From my reading of it, no data was stolen by Imran Awan?

<comment><USER31> There were more serious allegations against the individual, but the gov't dropped those claims. All that was left was the fact this individual had extensive access to Congressional servers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Rule #1 about databases: It will be hacked. Rule #2: see rule #1

<comment><USER34> That would imply that security is irrelevant. Maybe you should re-work your rule the say that it will attempt to be hacked. Therefore you should always worry about security.

<comment><USER35> I'm with OP here. You just shouldn't have unencrypted, sensitive data in a database.

<comment><USER34> I kind of think you've misunderstood something. This person said "You will be hacked". A guaranteed absolute. If that were the case then why bother protecting anything?

His wording was misleading. Not his intentions. Nobody is in disagreement that security is very important.

<comment> munk-a I disagree, his wording was pretty spot on. Don't collect personal data - <USER3> will be hacked. At many of the businesses I've worked at I've made an effort to lower our PII data blob purely to reduce liability for when it was compromised. If you can see some information, a hacker eventually will.

Granted, lowering liability is apparently something I shouldn't worry about since no one is ever held to account for breaches these days.

<comment><USER34> If that is what he was going for then alright. My bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Just another reminder that there is no accountability left in America, and you reap what you sow. If you want a society that is accountable, you need to start with a culture that values honor and takes shame seriously. You can't impose a sense of honor from the outside without building it slowly from within, any more than you can impose respect without earning it.

If you ignore these principles, you make room for people who lack self-worth, and those are the most destructive forces in a society because they have nothing to lose.

</comment><comment><USER37> Can I play devils advocate here?

This is, of course, a serious breach and there will and should of course be consequences for the negligent parties

but

I am struggling to see the threat model being faced here.

biometric data is _just_ a username. I flash my face around all day, and am careless as to where I leave my thumbprint.

The loss of so many photos and names is unlikely to have national level consequences (Compare this to say the Office Of Personnel management breach from some years back - that has horrible implications for US National security for decades) and the personal level consequences are ... hard to see

What this _does_ underline is that we are outrageously careless as an industry with our data (comparable to early industrial "pollution" as Schneier points out). And it is not going to get better without a) career and business ending consequences b) new ways to store / secure data c) a new way of thinking about who owns and what is personal data

Personally I think we need a new form of intellectual property (just as we are trying to work out what kind of company FAANG are (not telcos, not newspapers, what _is_ a platform?) we need to ask what is personal data

This comment is presumed under law to be _my_ property, my copyright. I might license that property away (dunno never read HN T&Cs) but it is mine. But google and apple and others will track that I sat down at a certain time and place to write it, my ISP will see when I sent to which servers.

All of that data is also _created_ by my conscious actions - should that data not also be _my_ property. And if need be licensed - and compensated for its use?

And when (if) my data is held - then we should presume that it can be accessed by my agents for my benefit (from spending patterns to heart data). I would argue that Sometimes surveillance can be good for us - but only in ways similar to doctors knowing more about me can be good for me - the entire industry of medicine has individual interests at its heart and took a long time to get there.

We are heading in that direction (perhaps) but till we get there, carelessness will be the cheapest option, surveillance always bent agansit is (by state or other actors). We should rail against this stupid dumb breach, but punishing the "bad guys" is not even the first step on the road.

If I can make a bad analogy - It's not one incident that people got sick from one chef badly cooking chicken - it's we need to look at factory farming and meat consumption and healthy eating and marketing bias as a whole.

<comment><USER38> >I am struggling to see the threat model being faced here.

We don't really know the full details of the breach, but if the facial recognition database contained names in a column associated with pictures, that data can absolutely be leveraged and cross-referenced against other "fullz" for fraud that even passes a lot of online verification procedures.

<comment><USER37> I agree that we don't know what was lost, and it could _easily_ be waaay worse than I imagine

But this kind of comes back to my point - why do we have online verification systems that rely on things like knowing my address in the last three years - Equifax breach should have meant we gave up on using a credit risk scoring system as an identity provider.

But we don't.

We need to rethink what is identity (start with web of trust) and who owns data that links to that identity.

I mean this could be the start of a positive identity provider - grab that downloaded database and provide a system that says this is a picture of Paul Brian's face, and his passport, and on the 20th August last year a official of the US government compared them in real life and verified they matched (there may even be a hash of the digital images made at the time but I should not get my hopes up)

Now make that globally available. Is that useful and valuable - I think so. I would prefer if I had been able to upload my public key to that at the same time (I can always visit NYC again) but you get the idea. This leads to question like why does my passport not generate a key pair for me to use? Can I use facial recognition to match my gravatar / facebook / twitter ? Why is knowing a non-secret (mother's maiden name, passport or drivers license number, three digits on back of credit card) seen as security?

Why is it we use what we have to hand and not what is needed? Why don't american banks use chip and pin?

It's not bad that my online identity is clear and visible - as long as the legal and practical frameworks exist to support it - which they basically don't right now but we could make it happen

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> They've helped themselves to what seems to be limitless legal power as well as a functionally infinite budget... and still this type of incident doesn't surprise us in the least. Everyone just expects them to be one of the least competent actors in the space. And they don't disappoint. Hmmm.

</comment><comment><USER40> If only someone could have seen this coming, you know, outside of the thousands of people that saw this coming. This is just one of many reasons why mass surveillance is a terrible.

<comment><USER41> Why is it terrible. Sure this has the potential to have negative consequences for the people who's data it was but as far as the government cares it's working fine.

<comment><USER42> Now the innocent muslim community (who I expect are over-represented in these databases) gets to enjoy identity theft.

It's just a pile on at this point.

<comment><USER43> It says license plate images from a single point of entry so it probably represents majority Mexican or Canadian people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Who could have predicted this would happen?

<comment><USER45> anyone ? Why is a 3rd party given the ability to store such a large database to conduct such business ? They should at most store the last 3 months border documents, nothing older than this.

<comment><USER46> I _think_ OP was trying to be sarcastic.

<comment><USER47> I think you can remove the "think".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> CBP database with images of travelers and license plates breached via a subcontractor with access to CBPs network. Updates to follow.

Nothing else in the article.

</comment><comment><USER49> "First you say don't take your pictures. Then you say don't lose them in a breach. Make up your minds!"

</comment><comment><USER50> If CBP is not directly forthcoming with facts relating to the breach (specifically, whose information was unlawfully taken from the CBP production network) how does one seek redress for the harms created by the actions of the contractor?

</comment><comment><USER51> I haven't crossed the border in twenty years but I'm probably in this or a related database.

I'm a long distance trucker. A few weeks ago I was traveling north from Laredo. When i drove through the border patrol checkpoint, a bank of five or six cameras to my right flashed, i assumed getting my face, license plate, and likelihood of committing a crime in the near future.

The truck is registered to my employer, but I'm sure that can lead to me with a WHERE clause.

At the least they would know where they've seen this face in this truck. I wonder if being in a different truck would be suspicious. I guess it would be if they needed it to be.

</comment><comment><USER52> Seems reasonable for the federal government to pay states to send new license plates to affect the compromised ones? I'm not under the impression license plates aren't recorded in public anyway, but still.

</comment><comment><USER53> "...though CBP said its own systems had not been compromised."

That's one way of looking at it.

</comment><comment><USER54> The amazing thing is we became aware of this practice back in early May. It is now June and it has been hacked.

</comment><comment><USER55> A large collection of valuable data that was questionably secured was somehow stolen!? Say it ain't so!

</comment><comment><USER56> > "Initial information indicates that the subcontractor violated mandatory > security and privacy protocols outlined in their contract," the statement > read.

Could this lead to criminal charges? Perhaps charging the contractor under CFAA for unauthorized access?

<comment><USER57> Only if the contractor was not meant to have access to this data. I would put money on them being contracted to "securely manage" the data CBP accrued without consent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Sounds like Perceptics.

<comment><USER59> seems very likely, wapo journo broke this and it's alluded to: [https://wapo.st/2ItjHfW](https://wapo.st/2ItjHfW)

<comment><USER60> The Register reported the Perceptics breach on May 23: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/23/perceptics_hacked_l...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/23/perceptics_hacked_license_plate_recognition/)

<comment><USER59> Sorry I was unclear and linked to the wrong article, I meant that wapo journo poking around led to DHS & CBP responding on the record. It was one in the line of recent articles about facial recognition that travelers can opt-out of but nobody is sure how exactly you are supposed to do so. The wapo article I linked did attribute The Register info linking Perceptics. Both wapo articles are linked in this tweet: [https://twitter.com/geoffreyfowler/status/113817627922244403...](https://twitter.com/geoffreyfowler/status/1138176279222444032)

> And on Monday, after I published this column online, Department of Homeland > Security officials called me to disclose that photos of travelers were > recently taken in a data breach, accessed through the network of one of its > subcontractors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> And that's why I don't want my face as my passport.

</comment><comment><USER62> Funny how I was just reading another article about this this morning..

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/10/your- fa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/10/your-face-is-now- your-boarding-pass-thats-problem/?utm_term=.a6fafa0861f4)

</comment><comment><USER63> To me the real question is why is a subcontractor able to copy the entire database? Why wouldn't the government only allow limited access to the database to these contractors?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Fair compensation to those whose biometric information has been compromised should, at the very minimum, include free plastic surgery - in similar situations where social security numbers have been offered the government has provided new replacement social security numbers, so there is precedent. Seriously though, this highlights the danger of databases of biometric information, there's no way of remedying the damage because there's no credible way of altering one's personal biometric markers.

<comment><USER64> Or let this be proof that biometrics are a terrible way to verify someone's identity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Where did the license plate information come from?

<comment><USER65> I would think it's from cameras at vehicle border crossings. You can see an example here: [https://goo.gl/maps/GRAY5GVnAYLr7aSZ8](https://goo.gl/maps/GRAY5GVnAYLr7aSZ8)

<comment><USER66> Not just land border crossings - there are also CBP-maintained checkpoints [1] within the '100-mile zone'.

[1]: [https://goo.gl/maps/Nfk1XjUFGsNh5QD29](https://goo.gl/maps/Nfk1XjUFGsNh5QD29)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I would like to know:

how many individuals and vehicles has been impacted?

anyway we can hold the agency and its contractors accountable for this issue?

</comment><comment><USER68> > CBP requires that all contractors and service providers maintain appropriate > data integrity

Requires, but how do they enforce it?

</comment><comment><USER69> According to the report, CBP is passing the buck on this one.

They created policies that could be ignored. That's on them. They shouldn't be able to use their position to avoid accountability or to scapegoat their contractors (that they likely hired without due diligence).

Government agencies should never be seen as victims. They hold power and authority that nobody else can hope to enjoy. There is no higher power to hold them to account because the electorate had already been subverted to maintain their position. So they should not be protected from fucking up. In this context, God or the Lord is not a higher power, it is also a scapegoat.

With great power comes everybody else's responsibility... said only by people in this century.

Edit: to follow this up, CBP is also the agency that sucks up all the data on your phone and laptop. They have treasure troves of license plates, passport photos, and titty and dick pics.

They cannot absolve themselves of liability when they are invading everybody's privacy. If they say they don't use the data, and they are acting out of ignorance, then that's a solid case for not collecting it in the first place.

As it stands, the US needs a GDPR.

<comment><USER70> Indeed. CBP made the choice to subcontract w/o proper controls. It is still CBP's fault.

<comment><USER71> Given that the contractor violated the data handling rules in their contract, the only possible remedy is revocation of their facility security clearance, followed immediately by revocation of the personnel security clearances of everyone who claimed that these systems were operating in accordance with their SSPs.

I'd like to believe that this will happen, but I've seen plenty of cause for FSCs to be revoked and almost no FSC revocations.

<comment><USER72> And remunerations for all citizens that were affected in the form of cash payments.

<comment><USER73> S/citizens/Anyone/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Great, maybe it can fine itself for the breach. And by that, meaning it can return my tax money to me.

</comment><comment><USER75> It is clear from the tenor of some of the posts here that more of you need to work for some non-zero time in the government so you can have some empathy / appreciation here. They're hiring.

<comment><USER61> The same org separating children from their families at the border in violation of a court order? Why would I take a pay cut to work for that mission?

I don't fault the engineers in any case, it seems like their technical security wasn't tested here; it was some kind of policy failure that lead to the information leaving government control. And that's the problem, we don't solve this with engineering, or empathy for engineers, we solve this by letting legislators know what we feel and know as members of the industry, through letters and the ballot box.

<comment><USER75> I meant government in general - not CBP. Without having worked in the federal space, it's likely a lot of the context of this - policies, procurement, onboarding, security, etc is lost. Probably should have clarified and I deserve the downvotes. Agreed that CBP's mission at the moment is a serious problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Can I sue them for negligence with my personal information under GDPR as a EU citizen?

</comment><comment><USER77> Nobody saw this coming or warn about this...

</comment><comment><USER78> It's not clear to me if the whole database was downloaded and leaked or just part of it. Anyone know?

</comment><comment><USER52> > CBP's networks were unaffected by the breach.

Why did citizens' private data leave CBP systems in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER79> Ccdwd

</comment><comment><USER17> Same story that is also trending on the HN homepage right now... My comment from that story which is from ([https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/the-us- govern...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/the-us-governments- database-of-traveler-photos-has-been)):

Quote from the article: "There should never have been the ability to download a database like this off of government servers."

Sorry that I don't have a ton of links to support this claim, but "believe me" (as our Commander-in-chief would say) that the US Government would cease to function if it were not for subcontractors (read, private companies) performing tasks on behalf of the government. Personally, I don't agree with this way of our government doing business, but that is the way it is.

When I was in college, I worked for an archeology lab, and our lab was the subcontractor, of the subcontractor, of the contractor that had contracted to provide a service to the USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). And every way along the way, money was skimmed off of the top. It's just "the American way" of doing business.

People lament regulation all the time. I have a feeling the executives of Ingersoll Rand love it every time a new regulation is put into place.

Follow the money.

<comment><USER80> > _Quote from the article: "There should never have been the ability to > download a database like this off of government servers."_

I love when I read quotes like this that are so obviously written by non-tech people that have no idea what they're talking about.

As we at HN all know, if it exists digitally, it can - and will - <USER4> downloaded. End of story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> The government is never held accountable for mistakes they make. They are, in fact, too big to fail.

<comment><USER81> > The government is never held accountable for mistakes they make.

In a functioning democracy "they" is "us".

<comment><USER82> We don't necessarily have a functioning representative democracy, though - <USER5> much power is held by lobbyists, the fact that politicians can lie to the population, and the fact that our votes don't 1:1 elect officials due to gerrymandering and voter suppression.

<comment><USER69> Too much power is given to money and wealth. This has held true for thousands of years in Western civilisation (back in Ancient Greece, wealth was measured by output, the Pentekosiomedimnoi being the aristocrats).

The whole setup seems more and more like a grand cash grab.

<comment><USER72> It's actually mostly just pure laziness.

[https://history.house.gov/Historical- Highlights/1901-1950/Th...](https://history.house.gov/Historical- Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/)

 _The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929_ was enacted because it was "too hard" for Congress to rezone/redistribute House of Representative members. This measure, and ones like it both in law and in business, create large bureaucratic organizations that move slowly and are prized for their stability, which is another word for "zero accountability or disruption."

Very few people set out to have growing inequality of resources or to amass power for the sake of doing it, though of course the people in power now seek to keep it for the sole reason of not wanting to lose it (they frame it as "too big to fail," "stability is important," and so forth).

It's just pure inertia. We went away from smaller regional governments that reports up to a lightly-empowered federal one with a lot of individual liberty step by step, for convenience and for "safety" (any number of military or police actions, foreign and domestic), and we get what we deserve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> We are living in a boring, yet somehow equally terrifying, dystopia.

<comment><USER84> [https://www.reddit.com/r/aboringdystopia](https://www.reddit.com/r/aboringdystopia)

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Astonishing! I never thought for a moment this data would end up getting lifted !</comment>


Techniques and Systems for Training Large Neural Networks Quickly [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://stanford.edu/~rezab/nips2014workshop/slides/jeff.pdf

<comment><USER2> It's a slide show. Is the talk its self available somewhere? Link anyone?</comment>


What I learned from working with my first client - <AUTHOR> http://fredandrandall.com/blog/2011/04/30/what-i-learned-from-working-with-my-first-client/

<comment><USER2> "Then I added a little padding time because everything always takes longer than expected."

If you are implementing something which is almost exactly like something you personally have implemented before, then your estimate will be almost exact because you should have tracked how much time you spent on the original ... and assuming that too was a re-implementation of something you'd already done the R&D on. IOW, this is at least your third time.

If you are implementing something for which you have references that are very close to what you are building (but you didn't build it) and you already understand them, then you can make a reasonable estimate of the time to implement. In this case the OP's advice works .... add some padding. The more granular your breakdown of the problem, the better you estimate will be.

But when there is R&D on the problem, you are not talking about 'padding', but 'factors'. If you are doing something that is new to you, but you think you have (or can find) decent references, then you can estimate based on how you hope it will go (based on your breakdown of the problem), and multiply by 2.

If you can't find references, then factors of 3 or 4 beyond your ideal development scenario will be more realistic.

It's worth noting that if you are in the last scenario, then you probably weren't a good choice for the project. Also, 'agile' pricing would be better, but either fixed pricing or giving clients some idea of what to budget is more typical.

</comment><comment><USER3> Like many things, knowing what you're worth (how much you should charge) and estimating project time take practice. The more you do it, the better you get (hopefully).

</comment><comment><USER4> > You suck at estimating!

Took me a while to learn that one, but it's so true.</comment>


Show HN: Retrieve your Twitpics using PHP and Gearman - <AUTHOR> http://www.github.com/Meuk/Twitpic-Fetcher

<comment><USER2> Usually when attempting to take a backup or download multiple pages from a site I add pauses between requests in an attempt to limit the burden I place on the servers I'm fetching from. I'm sure twitpic will have no trouble handling this rate of requests but I would council against pursuing speed with too much zeal.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> An article / howto will be published later on <http://www.meukinc.nl></comment>