Ask YC:  Do you watch TV? - daniel-cussen Ask YC:  Do you watch TV? <comment><AUTHOR> No. I realized TV was what I would now call a "time sink" (didn't have a word for it then) when I was about 15, and stopped watching it. I've never owned a TV. I do sometimes watch old TV episodes on DVD though. I especially recommend Fawlty Towers, Jeeves and Wooster, The Dick Van Dyke Show, and The Saint.

<comment><USER2> I wish I had that type of willpower.

My Dad always had a TV on. Looking back on it, that really wasn't good for any of us.

How are you able to break such bad habits?

<comment><USER3> Willpower's got nothing to do with it.

That's like saying, "What? You never strike your children? You must have a lot of willpower."

Here's what to do. Put you TV in front of your house with a sign on it, "Do Not Take".

7 minutes later, problem solved.

<comment><USER4> At about 16, when I first got a gig writing reviews I decided TV took up too much time. At that point I simply pulled the cable out the back of the thing and just continued to use it to review games.

Now I simply don't have a TV, I still own one but it's in storage. I have a small problem with DVD's, but mostly because it's rather boring eating alone, and I barely play games on my PC anymore since reviewing them made pretty much 90% of games detestable. I literally had to force myself to play through Metalheart: Replicants Rampage, description claimed it was like a new Fallout; I believe they mixed up the game with the feeling of "Oh dear god, that pain is my life draining away" of radiation poisoning.

Now I have so much time without TV that I'm going to blitz out a novel I've been working on over the next couple of weeks. It's been a while since I tried to get anything published, so its about time I _did_ get something published.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I work best with distractions. My favorite three distractions are music, people (i.e. going to the coffee shop), and tv, in that order. If I'm coding at home, either the music is cranked or the tv is on. Though, I try to watch uninteresting shows, so that I don't get distracted. If either Discovery or the History channel are on, I'm not getting much done.

<comment><USER6> I used to be like you, but now I am appreciating quiet solitude.

I am most effective between 10pm and 2am. It is weird, but knowing everybody else is going to bed, and you are coding, makes you more efficient,

I am also very efficient between 6a.m and 8-9am.

It also might be related that the background sound level drops by few decibels during the night.

I just can't do much work during the day, unless there some other kind of pressure (i.e. I have to finish something by that day).

<comment><USER5> I'm the exact same way. I am most productive from about 11pm to 4am. Luckily my 9-5 only requires me to work "just hard enough to not get fired." I'm also still in college, so my college roomies don't mind the music at 3am, as long as it's not blasting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems like questions like this are trying create some kind of Hacker monoculture. That's lame. Watching TV doesn't make you a bad hacker.

<comment><USER8> I agree. This happens outside of the hacker world too. In general I find people are very boastful about the fact they don't watch TV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> No time. I would include DVDs of TV shows as TV. I used to watch them more. Watching an entire season of a good show over the course of a few days is MUCH better than serial TV.

Even shows like Seinfeld are better. I didn't realize till I watched them in order that they reference previous episodes all the time.

<comment><USER10> This is how I watch TV. I now find waiting a week to see a new episode of some show annoying, more so than being a season or two behind a series.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.thedailyshow.com>

<http://www.videosift.com>

<http://www.theonion.com/video>

<comment><USER12> I use hulu a lot too. A pretty good resource, all in all.

<comment><USER13> Got beta invites?

<comment><USER14> You don't need an invite. Sign up and you should receive an email from hulu within 2 weeks or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Yes, too much though in my opinion. I really only watch 2 types of shows: sports and cartoons/anime.

I should be able to cut down on sports. It's easier if you're engaged in coding to forget to turn a game on.

The cartoons I watch all are shown on Cartoon Network. Since I've seen most of the Family Guy episodes, that's easy to skip. The anime is harder. I find the stories much better than other programs on television.

I recently found a place in NYC that sells some popular anime on DVD imported from Japan. That allows me to get huge chunks of the series in one shot, as opposed to 1 or 2 episodes/week on TV. For example, I bought the entire Death Note series 2 weeks ago. It came in 3 containers with 3 DVDs each.

Since I don't live in NYC, I don't have to worry about frequenting there too often.

<comment><USER15> Well, I live in NYC area and I think I know what store you speak of - in the Village, correct?

Perhaps I shouldn't tell you about "certain" well-developed import sites where you can get a copy of just about anything that comes out of Japan in any version you can dream of ...

And I'm sure you know of Anime Network, all anime, all the time.

Now, be strong! Don't google these things! You have work to do and can't be distracted!

<comment><USER2> The store I'm talking about is actually in Chinatown. I've been to Mondo Kim's in the Village, and their anime section (all half of one side of an island) left something to be desired.

Is there another store in the Village that I don't know of?

Don't worry, I know about Anime Network, and I purposely don't get it.

I won't google anything either.

<comment><USER15> Well I actually forgot the name, but I'm pretty sure it's not Mondo Kim.

It's like straight out of a movie where you find this old, eclectic store and it has all these buildable, multi-scale Gundam models, etc.

I try not to go becuase the first time I went it was like, "Dragon Ball Z - the Uncut, Unedited version" and it was like, "WTF? There's an edited and an unedited version"?

Basically everything they have makes me realize just how much I haven't seen ... by the time I got done with my wish list I had like $15,000 worth of anime I really, really wanted to see.

That's when i realized I lost control, walked out and never came back.

But if you want to chase the anime dragon, let me know - I"ll ask around for you.

But I don't take responsibility if you walk into the anime den never to see the light of day again ...

<comment><USER2> Thanks, that would be great. I know it's not the Tokyo Toy Store on St. Marks Place. They have a lot of action figures (mostly Asian) but no anime.

I don't travel to NYC often, so I'm not worried about being there constantly, and I definitely don't have the kind of money to splurge on a lot of anime. I know I'll be OK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> No.

The only thing I ever watched was football at the local Pittsburgh Steelers bar. Until I did the math for the Monday Night game against the Dolphins on November 26. 206 minutes elapsed time. 60 minutes football clock time. 8 minutes actual football being played. 3 points scored (with 17 seconds left). 7000 commercials.

Funny how much more valuable your time is when you're doing a start-up. Spending 4 hours to see 8 minutes of content is no longer an option.

On the bright side, I have 7 months before next season to find a 12 step program.

<comment><USER16> Living in Pittsburgh, I don't see myself being able to give this up _. Sunday lunch at my parents or in-laws, with the game on, is an entrenched family tradition. Formula 1 or Calcio when the Steelers aren't playing (my father in law is an Italian immigrant, if you hadn't guessed).

I have surprised myself, though, by totally forgetting about some weeknight Steelers games this year. I guess that's progress. Your analysis of elapsed time is sobering.

_For those of you who haven't lived here, the Steelers are basically the city's religion. pg would understand what I mean:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/gateway.html> (grep football)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Asking me if I watch TV is like asking me if I go to the theater to watch new movies. The answer is NO to both (90% of the time), but that doesn't mean I don't consume some of the content through other methods (I download it).

Meaning I won't just drop everything I'm doing on Thursday night to watch Lost, but I'll perhaps catch it on a Saturday afternoon when I have the time or feel like taking a break from my work.

</comment><comment><USER18> Unfortunately yes. I find myself watching HGTV and other home type shows to get ideas for the time when I actually own a home. I don't have Tivo, so it's normally back to a book or papers during commercials. I'm also a big fan of comedies like Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, Family Guy and The Simpsons. I seem to find long marathons of Law & Order as well...

</comment><comment><USER12> Not really. I cancelled cable about 6 months ago, and I haven't looked back. The writer's strike helped a bunch, though.

I'll tune in to broadcast TV to occasionally watch Jeopardy while eating dinner, or to catch a new episode of House (pretty much the only show I watch regularly).

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm a Lost addict. And now Heroes.

I find one of the most edifying things to watch (as TV programs go) is the Charlie Rose show. He basically invites interesting people and lets them talk. Much better than the chopped up sound bites that pass for interviews on American "news."

</comment><comment><USER19> I actually watch some, and it increases during winter. I think it has to do with SAD (considering I am not used to the weather, especially the bleak 4 months that we see here in Columbus, OH). The only show I follow is House (and now Sarah Connor Chronicles) but I am at a point where its sucking up a lot of time. I am going to cut the cable, and go DVD shopping. And of course, commerical free shows are so much better.

Most of my TV watching happens in the background, while I am surfing the web or catching up on my RSS reader, but its still a lousy habit

</comment><comment><USER20> A few years ago, the girlfriend and I spent some time carefully building and configuring a MythTV box, which was fun. Then we proceeded to not actually watch any TV. 6 months later, when we realized we were only keeping the cable subscription so that our Myth project wasn't purposeless, we cancelled it.

We still watch a decent bit of downloaded TV content -- we'll sit down and watch entire seasons in a few evenings. We watch nothing in 'realtime' and we see zero commercials.

(I actually miss commercials and wish people wouldn't cut them out of what I download.)

</comment><comment><USER21> No - I have never owned a tv, and probably never will.

Seems like a waste of time to me.

</comment><comment><USER22> No, and it's given me lots of extra time to concentrate on my drinking habit.

Actually, there was a period in my life when I had neither TV nor a computer. I'm not sure what I spent my time doing...

</comment><comment><USER23> TV came with AT&T Uverse (FiOS) so that I'd have a decent internet connection. Fortunately it also includes a DVR so I can watch my shows when I'm too beat to get any real work done.

Honestly though, for the first 14 years of my life, we didn't have TV. My younger siblings have had TV for all the life they can remember, and I can tell there's a difference. When I was younger I spent my time doing much more productive things... like building a battlebot. I never got to play it though.

</comment><comment><USER24> I stopped watching TV when I moved to the city. Season 2 of Lost was the hardest show to give up. Now I spend more than the time I spent watching TV commuting to the suburbs.

</comment><comment> a-priori Yes, sort of. I don't have cable or anything, and I only follow House (downloaded). My girlfriend and I have also been watching Star Trek (first TNG, now Voyager).

<comment><USER25> WHO ARE YOU AND WHY ARE YOU ME?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I gave up TV and computer games about two years ago. The first was easy, the second was harder. The way to do it is just to have a lot of creative projects on the go. In my case it was a start-up and a band, but it could be anything. As soon as you start creating, you get way more sucked in than you ever do with TV.

The only tricky part is finding something to keep your mind occupied when you're eating. Reading leaps to mind.

</comment><comment><USER27> I stopped watching a lot of TV when I went away to college (didn't have one in the dorm room the first couple years). After I graduated and moved into my own place I never bothered getting cable hooked up, but I still use my TV for DVDs and games. The kind of addiction some people have to TV, I have to the Web. I think that and not getting enough sleep reinforce each other.

</comment><comment><USER28> I gave up TV a few years ago, and now I physically can't stand to watch it. It's the ad segments that interrupt the programming – I cringe at the thought of how many hours and hours of worthless ads I've had pumped into my brain.

That said I do like some shows now (The Office, Stella, and Peep Show), but I absolutely will not watch them in that life-wasting show/ads/show/ads/show format.

</comment><comment><USER13> Didn't have one for several years and got out of the habit for awhile. There is some great drama and comedy and if you keep it to 2-4 hours a week I think it's as valid as any other entertainment. The only reality show that's not crap is Project Runway, all the contestants are real entrepreneurs, and just enough non-stupid-ass-silly stuff slips past the producers.

</comment><comment><USER29> Bike races (classics, Giro, and Tour). After years of being deprived of cycling coverage in the US, I am a slave to the black box during racing season. Well, not really, but I do enjoy it, and I'll haul the computer in front of the tv to keep track of the action while I work.

I've also been watching Doctor Who on BBC world, even though it's from several seasons ago:-/

</comment><comment><USER30> I occasionally watch The Daily Show because I like being able to visually see the stuff I read about online. I also watch DVDs on my laptop, and occasionally box sets of TV shows.

If I don't get enough work done though for more than a day or two I start to feel physically unwell, and watching TV and playing videogames beyond a minimal amount triggers the same feeling.

</comment><comment><USER31> I've been following the new Terminator TV series, and still tune in to the local public broadcasting channel for a while when there's a good documentary or news show scheduled, but network TV in general makes me twitchy and angry more than it relaxes me.

If I had cable, I'd probably watch it, but that seems like as good a reason as any not to get it.

</comment><comment><USER32> No. But sometimes I watch some new TV series on DVD. In 20 years will be something called 'TV' or just 'The Internet'?

</comment><comment><USER33> No. Also, I try to never read newspapers or anything written by journalists. It's basically all lies made to evoke "feelings" in you. There's no shortcut to the truth, no alternative to actually learning the facts and the most extreme and sincere arguments for every side, and choosing for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER34> I often watch television whilst eating dinner, at least a few times a week, and generally watch a couple movies each week (either broadcast on television or on DVD).

Otherwise, my viewing is sporadic, and when it occurs, usually consists of some older programs on DVD, or C-SPAN, or (this year) campaign news updates.

</comment><comment><USER35> Our MythTV ( <http://www.mythtv.org/> ) setup didn't quite survive our recent international move, so we're not watching much. Not that we watched much before - there's not much good stuff on. We'll see what happens when I get around to fixing myth.

</comment><comment><USER36> Mostly, I don't. I was watching almost 0 tv when somebody gave me some Lost Dvds and then I started seeing that. But apart from Lost, I don't see tv. I don't like it... it's very, very boring.

But I like going to the cinema (and I like seeing good movies on tv when I'm on the mood, but that's not usual).

</comment><comment><USER37> Sometimes for background noise/information. I watch very few TV "shows", and what I do watch is usually coming off of Tivo.

Other than 1 or 2 shows I watch with my wife, most of my personal preference is for something that is at least mildly interesting/informative (Myth Busters, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER38> Yes, why do you ask?

Not a great deal, mostly sports, and it is more of background entertainment than my focus.

</comment><comment><USER39> Our family collectively watches about 20 hours of television a year. We only use it when we're all together and some relatively rare event is going on. My wife is a big Tom Petty fan so we had the Superbowl on this year for about 3 hours.

</comment><comment><USER40> Whats funny is...I have a TV which I use to output my computer too and watch tv shows on.

</comment><comment><USER41> Rarely, but I've been watching the Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles. I love robots.

<comment><USER42> great show, especially since the storyline is mainly about AI development.

<comment><USER41> Definitely. I think the twist will be that the Turk becomes an AI on the side of good. The turk inventor's last name IS Goode, after all. Just speculating. Also, I like that the terminator's name is Cameron, after "James Cameron" I imagine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Lately I've been busy and have accidentally not watched TV in a while. Lots of DVDs, though, and a couple trips to the movie theater.

Right now, I'm watching the BBC's "Little Britain" on DVD, though I don't count anything on DVD as television.

</comment><comment><USER44> I watch video podcasts. If you haven't started watching GigaOm, I highly recommend it. It was really bad at first, but some of the VC/CEO/founder interviews they've done are absolutely stellar stuff that have taught me a lot.

</comment><comment><USER45> Only show that I watch on actual TV is The Daily Show. Sometimes when I'm bored I watch lectures/talks/documentaries on the web.

www.ted.com has good short talks (10-20 mins) that can be good to watch when taking a break, or eating, etc.

</comment><comment><USER46> Currently, yes, maybe a few hours per week or so. But soon, thanks to our powerful government, they will stop broadcasting analog TV in this country (Finland) and my home will be TV-free. Sweet.

</comment><comment><USER47> Only when it's not US TV :) Seriously, TV in the US is absolutely nothing like TV in the UK. It's sometimes nice to have on in the background watching some classic comedy or music tv.

</comment><comment><USER48> Maybe an hour a week tops, have never been into it as I find tv far too boring. My biggest time sink is exercising though, which I probably do just as much as most people watch tv lol

</comment><comment><USER49> No - haven't owned one for many years. Occasionally I download or get DVDs of very good TV shows - I watched the Sopranos, for example, and made myself a re-run of Twin Peaks.

</comment><comment><USER50> I was 13-14 when gave it up for good, saved me a lot during the years. Now we are a family, living happily without turning it on, it's reserved for DVD's and SuperMario only.

</comment><comment><USER6> No. Have a HDTV air antena for my tv, but the reception is not that great. I use the TV only to watch the ocassionall rented movie.

Usually I am in front of my computer most of the time.

</comment><comment><USER51> No. I do watch dvds and Joost occasionaly though. Joost is especially good for on demand video - just make sure you don't have any memory hogs running when you use it.

</comment><comment><USER52> I haven't had a TV set now for two plus years. But you need to really have some effective alternatives, otherwise you end up wasting time on something else.

</comment><comment><USER53> I watch House MD (usually I first download the english version of each episodee, see it, and then watch it again in spanish on TV) and Formula 1 races.

</comment><comment><USER54> No. Although I do still watch movies at home, and occasionally I'll get into a series and watch it on DVD. Don't have actual TV service though.

</comment><comment><USER55> I watch with Hulu a fair amount, does that count? Great UI, pretty good selection, good quality, and few ads.

</comment><comment><USER56> Don't own one, but there are a few shows I'll watch online or at a friend's (30 Rock, the Office, etc).

</comment><comment><USER57> Only a few shows that I record with my MythTV (commercial auto-skip is a great feature).

</comment><comment><USER58> Yes. Once a week we sit down and watch the latest two episodes of 24 on Canal+.

</comment><comment><USER59> No, I haven't watched TV in years.

I do watch South Park, The Wire, and Entourage via torrents.

</comment><comment><USER60> In the past I watched TV a lot, but now only watch sparingly at night as a way to relax and get myself off the computer. :)

Beyond that, I do watch a lot of TV/videos online.

Corey Kossack President Club E Network <http://www.ClubENetwork.com>

</comment><comment><USER61> No. Haven't watched TV in over 4 years. It's a giant waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER62> simple, no tv in the room, wait for the season final of the series like lost, heroes, battlestar and get the whole season from torrent, watch them all non- stop : )

</comment><comment><USER63> No. Don't own one, don't ever intend to.

</comment><comment><USER64> i dont watch tv, i download it :V

</comment><comment><USER65> No. Now I read Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER66> hulu.com and adultswim.com and joox.net

</comment><comment><USER67> The Wire, Lost

</comment><comment><USER68> Mixed Martial Arts

The Wire

Other Sports

</comment><comment><USER69> TV contains lots of information about our culture.

<comment><USER70> Trying to learn something worthwhile with TV is like trying to get rich with the lottery.

Sometimes you do indeed learn a little something/get a little cash, but at least 99% of the time you're wasting your fucking time/money.

And if you still manage to be lucky enough to learn something/win cash, it's still not very edifying (I'd rather make a million by myself than 30 millions with the lottery).

<comment><USER69> hexstream and jward,

i was suggesting you can learn about the target audience, by watching TV. this works even if the content is bad. like our culture or not, i'm interested in what it's like (which is important to know, if you hope to improve it).

for me at least, tv is not dangerous. i don't drool, i don't buy stuff b/c it says to, i don't like stuff b/c it says to, etc</comment></comment></comment>


Nytimes is now letting readers upmod good comments (e.g.) - <AUTHOR> http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09rich.html?sort=recommended

<comment><AUTHOR> Just noticed this, I don't know how long they've been doing it. But it makes me think (along w/ other of their moves) that they "getting it" as far as bringing news online.

</comment><comment><USER2> Um, they haven't bought Disqus yet?</comment>


After harsh criticism, Facebook quietly pulls services from developing countries - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/4383/facebook-quietly-ended-free-basics-in-myanmar-and-other-countries <comment><USER2> "A couple of hours outside Yangon, the country's largest city, U Aye Swe, an administrator for Sin Ma Kaw village, said he was proud to oversee one of Myanmar's 'Muslim-free' villages, which bar Muslims from spending the night, among other restrictions.

'Kalar are not welcome here because they are violent and they multiply like crazy, with so many wives and children,' he said.

Mr. Aye Swe admitted he had never met a Muslim before, adding, 'I have to thank Facebook because it is giving me the true information in Myanmar.'"

[1] [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar- roh...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya- ethnic-cleansing.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur)

<comment><USER3> Facebook has nothing to do with Sin Ma Kaw having anti-Muslim laws, and Muslim free areas have been instituted by the Burmese army all over Myanmar since at least 2012. Ethnic cleansing and ethno-religious conflict with Rohingya has been happening and accelerating since before Facebook existed.

Widespread hatred for Muslims existed long before widespread usage of Facebook in Myanmar.

There's also no evidence Facebook pulled Free Basics because of media pressure. Commercial reasons are obvious. Burmese now have a much larger mobile internet and phone market with better penetration, so Facebook doesn't gain as much now.

<comment><USER4> > Ethnic cleansing and ethno-religious conflict with Rohingya has been > happening and accelerating since before Facebook existed.

Just because the problem existed before Facebook doesn't mean Facebook is completely free of responsibility. It amplifies existing prejudices in those echo-chambers we know so well from American politics; and it provides practical help to the organization of "grassroots" violence. From this New York Times article on the similar Sri Lankan situation:

> "We don't completely blame Facebook," said Harindra Dissanayake, a > presidential adviser in Sri Lanka. "The germs are ours, but Facebook is the > wind, you know?"

<comment><USER5> this argument can be made for any piece of technology humanity has ever invented

<comment><USER6> which is precisely why those who create technology must consider how it will be used.

<comment><USER7> Yes. Roads can service vehicles used by terrorists or invading armies. Roads are a necessary evil that should be heavily moderated, and any road makers must be held accountable to who uses their roads.

<comment><USER8> I do wonder why the Valley has such an aversion to defense contracts then if other non-defense related "necessary" technologies cause guaranteed collateral damage.

Is it because these technologies such as self-driving cars will only kill people accidentally?

<comment><USER9> That's a new thing. Silicon Valley was built on defense money after WWII. The microcomputer and BBS world there was very connected to utopian and pacifist ideals, which is where a lot of the anti-military ethos present today comes from. That was later, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Users who sign up for Internet.org are required to sign up for Facebook first, and Free Basics works by not counting Facebook use against a limited data plan; therefore, if users do most browsing through Facebook, they can use the "internet" essentially for free."

Sure, connecting billions of underserved people to the internet is great and all, but it's all in the name of growing Facebook's user base and numbers. Any philantrophic / good will effort that has a business agenda behind it can't really be trusted. Not to mention putting Facebook as the access vehicle and introduction to the Internet for folks who have barely or never been connected before, is like giving drugs to a new born.

There are ways to get people connected to the Internet, without requiring them to "browse through Facebook", for example by spending your billions and building infrastructure. Try again, MZ.

<comment><USER11> Wouldn't it be possible to make a tunnel, such that the users can use internet, while Facebook receives essentially zero information?

<comment><USER12> When FB was trying to peddle "Free Basics" in India, I looked up the rules for a website to be supported, and FB demanded no communication between the user and websites be encrypted.

The problem is not a technical one.

<comment><USER13> The problem was technical (due to the way it was initially built, I think it was using facebook domain for zero rating). Currently, encryption is supported: end-to-end on app, for mobile browser facebook apparently still decrypts the traffic.

[https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet- org/platform-t...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform- technical-guidelines)

"HTTPS support

We encrypt information for Free Basics wherever possible. When people use the Free Basics Android app, their traffic is encrypted end-to-end unless you specify that your service should be HTTP only. For the Free Basics website in a mobile browser, we use a "dual certificate" model to encrypt traffic between a person's device and our servers in both directions. If your server supports HTTPS, we will also encrypt traffic between our servers and yours. Even if your service doesn't yet support HTTPS, where possible we will encrypt that information between our servers and people's devices unless you ask us to not use dual certificate HTTPS. When people use the Free Basics mobile website, information is temporarily decrypted on our secure servers to ensure proper functionality of the services and to avoid unexpected charges to people.

We preserve the privacy of that information while it's decrypted by only storing the domain name of your service and the amount of data being used—the same information that would be visible using end-to-end encryption—as well as cookies that are stored in an encrypted and unreadable format."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> temp-dude-87844 There's several distinct issues intermingled in this reporting, muddying the lessons.

First, there's issue of ethnic violence in Myanmar, fueled by hate speech on and off of Facebook. While the article acknowledges that Facebook's digital distribution allowed hoax stories designed to incite ethnic violence to spread very fast, it says a lot about a society when isolated instances of trolling can lead to real people being killed. It said a lot about the US' fears and anxieties when foreign agents were discovered to have been generating content to amplify sectarian divisions, but it was also remarkable how similar their products were to organic content produced by various factions of true believers within the US. If domestic agents are posting hate speech in Myanmar, the only explanation is that Myanmar is a sharply divided tinderbox with many prejudices and preconceptions, and some people will latch onto a rumour that in their mind provides the necessary justification to commit violence and murder against another ethnicity. It's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an environment, Facebook must somehow do _more_ to counteract the undercurrents of society.

Then there's the issue of Facebook and certain websites being zero-rated on some phone networks. This is popular in countries where no organized lobby against it exists, and has been withdrawn in some places where activist groups have succeeded in framing it as a foreign company picking winners and losers. Zero-rating is the new frontier in net neutrality that was punted even in the US, where the old FCC never banned it outright, the new FCC is declining it investigate it, and telcos are vertically merging with content providers, which seems to lay the groundwork for more zero-rating to come.

<comment><USER2> > _It 's difficult for me to accept the article's insinuation that in such an > environment, Facebook must somehow do more to counteract the undercurrents > of society_

Facebook went into a troubled situation to make money and made it worse. They don't have to solve Myanmar's problems. But if you're getting paid to throw fuel on a fire, you accept liability for the houses it burns down.

<comment><USER14> One wonders if anyone got value from it. Many realize the ratio of negative articles to positive ones regarding Facebook domestically far outweighs the ratio of negativity to positivity in people's lives (maybe not most here, but in general).

I personally feel like I'd be someone unfamiliar with a situation looking down and judging all peoples of a society as too irresponsible for Facebook, so I don't. If anything, I think Facebook would be wise to temper growth as it is guaranteed that no matter what happens, there is no outlet for it to be seen as a positive by anyone whether it is or not.

(not completely excusing FB here, just not sure they are more complicit than any other messenger...I see too few articles suggesting action taken against the message senders)

<comment><USER15> The previous junta in Myanmar would definitely have silenced the message senders. (And the people committing the violence. And likely any people who agreed with the people committing the violence. And probably their families just to be sure. Etc etc etc. It wasn't a fun time to be a hater in Myanmar.)

Point is, the previous "government" kept more control over this sort of violence and hatred, BUT... they did so at the barrel of a gun. What was the cost there? (Does the cost even matter in view of the fact that we can now see that they did save tens of thousands of lives? All really tough moral and ethical questions.)

What's disheartening to me is the fact that, it seems that humans haven't evolved past that. The only demonstrably effective method of controlling this sort of tribalism, seems to be at the barrel of a gun.

<comment><USER2> > _humans haven 't evolved past that_

As long as there is scarcity, it will be game theoretically efficient to form violently competitive in and out groups.

That said, cynicism is misplaced. We are in a centuries-long progression of falling per-capita rates of violent death. Perpetuating that virtuous spiral is our tendency to shame, as this article goes, enablers of violence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Are we now accusing Facebook for not having enough censorship power?

Their response to the ordeal is way better than what I would expect, and I blame humanity more than the platform it uses to communicate.

<comment><USER2> > _Are we now accusing Facebook for not having enough censorship power?_

No, we're accusing Facebook of selling ads next to a system known to prioritise sensational junk. When your ad platform rolls out before your moderation system, your priorities are wrong and you are morally culpable.

There is also the problem of disparate treatment. "'Facebook is quick on taking down swastikas, but then they don't get to Wirathu's hate speech where he's saying Muslims are dogs,' said Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Asia division" [1].

[1] [https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/w...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/myanmar- government-facebook-rohingya.amp.html)

<comment><USER17> They tried a moderation system. An active and passive moderation system. Conservatives in the U.S. claimed it was "biased" so they stopped. Despite the fact that Facebook had clear records about disinformation campaigns and how untruthful they were. To keep the faux appearance of "intellectual curiosity" they scrapped the moderation team and now eventually the news feed. Talk about political correctness.

When rolling out their platform to other countries they obviously "learned" from yesteryears experience about dealing with disinformation and decided that doing nothing was better than doing something (no matter how perceivably flawed, or how substantially flawed it actually was, which is just foolish). Boy did they learn their lesson here, at the cost of other people's lives. Fortunately, such rhetoric rarely has jarring repercussions in the U.S. (for now).

Blame humanity. Some of the best engineers in the world tried to solve the problem but were only meant with whining about unfairness. No doubt had they employed enforceable, decent standards when moderating content on the implementation of their platform for other countries it would have just been dragged under the meaningless label of "censorship." So they didn't bother apparently. Foolish and privileged.

But at least we treated all sides equally. It only was paid in blood.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This article talks about two issues at the same time: the first is Facebook's insidious "free basics" plan, which I'm 100% against, but the second is Facebook's role as an "accelerant" in Burma, for which I can't really blame them - censorship is pretty hard and you'll always have someone complaining.

<comment><USER19> It's easy to be against "free basics" when you can afford internet access.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> One more case of the technical progress causing a great amount of harm by being ahead of the ethical progress.

"Educating the world" should come before "connecting the world".

<comment><USER14> > "Educating the world" should come before "connecting the world".

That's a scary thought in several ways. At the very least it's a chicken-and- egg conundrum. Also, it robs large groups of responsible people from beneficial communication tools because of how it's used by others. It often occurs with progress and advancement though, those that have it often only see the negative side of sharing. The positive side rarely gets coverage.

<comment><USER20> "Should come before" implied shifting priorities: I didn't suggest to rob somebody of beneficial tools but to provide at least basic training before giving access to a potentially dangerous technology.

<comment><USER14> These aren't technology trees you control in a game of Age of Empires where things are all bad or all good. There is not a single door with which you prioritize access serially. Often progress has both good and bad tenets. I am just saying on the outside we are only made aware of the bad, so we aren't informed enough to say what should come and in which order. In the meantime putting artificial limits on tech only benefits the powerful who can circumvent them.

<comment><USER20> _> we aren't informed enough to say what should come and in which order_

I'd say we are since we have artificial limits for the technologically advanced activities like driving cars or installing electrical wiring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The thrust of the article kind of seems like it wishes Facebook was a better censor so it could more aptly shape the course of the society at hand in a better fashion and its hard to imagine a more backwards perspective.

Who can look at Zuckerberg and instead of thinking why would I want that guy deciding the course of my nations fate preceed to lament that he doesn't do so slightly differently.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article presents no evidence that Facebook ended Free Basics because of media pressure.

The likely reason is commercial. Many of those areas now have better internet and phone penetration, so there is less to gain for Facebook.

<comment><USER22> You're speaking of presenting no evidence...?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's ridiculous to cut Facebook services in Bolivia because of what's happening in Myanmar. In Bolivia, Facebook _is_ the Internet. There's an opportunity here for a company to step into the breach. Tencent (WeChat) will ramp up in Myanmar, but Bolivia is a little far from their normal markets.

</comment><comment><USER24> >"Perhaps Facebook should consider not aggressively getting more people online through its free internet program, and on its platform, until it has fully realized the scope of various ways it impacts a society, and often the whole nation,"

Imagine the amount of first world privilege you need to have to be able to say this with a straight face. While we're at it how about we don't spread education and vaccinations across developing countries as well, until we "fully realized the scope of various ways it impacts a society, and often the whole nation".

</comment><comment><USER25> I suppose division used to grant some folks power or followers is more profitable.

I wish we saw similar movements to bring people together that seem as effective.

I think at one point simply being able to communicate would do the good thing, I'm not sure that is the case... :(

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd love to hear someone's analysis as to why these things happen. Like these major, major fuck ups by some super national organizations and governments. Is this due to scale? Lack of accountability? Perverted incentives?

I feel like some sort of super national government is needed. I hate the idea but like there needs to be some sort of counterweight to supernational organizations. Local governments trying to punish them is like a game of what- a-mole.

<comment><USER27> That would be the UN but with policing power.

I'm not opposed to the idea either. I'd also like it to hold government ministers/officials personally responsible for a states breaches of basic human rights. But the problem lies in it's structure, accountability and execution. It would be very hard to make a stable system that was objective and neither corrupt nor possible to subvert in some way.

<comment><USER28> As witness the current UN: stable, but not objective, thoroughly corrupt, and constantly subverted by pretty dictators and wannabe genocides. I think giving an organization like that enforcement power over anything would be a disaster — even if it weren't an affront to every sovereign nation on Earth.

<comment><USER29> The UN is a place to talk and conduct diplomacy. It is very intentionally intended to be the minimal, reliable set of international services needed to try and keep nations diplomatic channels open.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CTO/Co-Founder Clay.io - <AUTHOR> http://zolmeister.com/2014/07/cto-cofounder-clay-io.html

<comment><USER2> Sorry, if you're there after the company's been around for 6 months, and after a seed round has been raised - you can't call yourself a founder. Not to be negative.... I wish you all the best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Go Zoli.</comment>


Hacking law - polish creativity - <AUTHOR>

I just heard about one of the best system hacks ever.
In Poland, as in most of the European countries, it is forbidden to sell or posses drugs. As in case of many other countries in the past couple of years the whole network of shops selling druglike substances (technically not drugs, but the effect is similar) were opened.
Two months ago our government closed down all shops and passed the law forbidding sales of these substances. One can still posses them and order them from abroad (via mail) though.
And here comes the best hack I've seen in a long time. One entrepreneur just announced a launch of a network of "Dopalaczomaty" - vending machines that sell these substances to anybody. How can that be?
A client uses his cellphone to send an sms (or use a mobile website) and makes the purchase in Czech Republic. He then receives a special code that allows him to take the drug out of the vending machine. The purchase was made abroad, so everything is legal.
The network of "Dopalaczomaty" is due to start in six days. I'm still not sure if this is not a hoax by one of the creative agencies here, but if it isn't - that's one of the most interesting "away from keyboard" hacks I've seen ever :) <comment><USER2> These substances are significantly more dangerous than hash. They are periodically banned and so there is high churn of new concoctions. People have been smoking hash for thousands of years and it is probably the safest drug out there. But being illegal, it forces people to try out poorly tested substitutes. If you really want a high, better get the illegal stuff, it's safer.

<comment><USER3> When you've been around for a little while longer you will realise that pretty much all recreational drugs are harmful if you don't exercise moderation. Just because you can't detect damage now doesn't mean it isn't there.

Anyway, by your reasoning people should stick to alcohol because it is well established, well understood and has unsurpassed purity.

<comment><USER2> There are no known deaths or crippling longterm effects of THC, as opposed to alcohol.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best way to archive old pictures? - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN,
So I recently went back home and found my family's old pictures. Some of these date back to the late 19th century.
As you can imagine, a lot of these images are not in the best of shape. I don't think they will survive the next two decades.
I want to create a digital archive of these images that's accessible to all my family members. Essentially, I'm looking for:
1. Cloud based storage
2. Ability to create albums
3. Ability to tag people
4. Can make albums selectively available to some people
5. Can give 'admin' rights to some family members so they can add/remove pictures as needed.
I'm willing to pay good money for a solution like this. Obviously, want something that won't shut down in six months.
Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Use google photos it has unlimited storage for free. Just add email id of people whom you wish to share with.

Most people do have gmail id.

<comment><USER3> how easy is it to get your photos off a stock nexus 5 and onto google photos?

<comment><USER2> Download google photos app click on upload and all photos will be in cloud. Use google photos app on desktop and download them back if needed. Or via photos.google.com</comment></comment></comment>


RFC 7282 – On Consensus and Humming in the IETF - <AUTHOR> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

<comment><USER2> Very cool, and applicable to engineers of all stripes on teams of all sizes. Learning to communicate and build consensus among your colleagues is as much a life-long learning endeavor as becoming a master engineer.

</comment><comment><USER3> What is "humming" in this context?

<comment><USER4> Humming is the making of a low, steady continuous sound like that of a bee, as described in the dictionary.

In the IETF, we use this as a variety of voice vote. However, we don't take formal decisions using it; we use it to get a "sense of the room". The chair will make a statement, and say "if you agree, hum... if you disagree, hum... if you didn't express an opinion, hum...". And people hum.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone here using Facebook Workplace? - <AUTHOR> Was curious how the onboarding and UX was, and how well the company adjusted to a familiar Facebook experience. <comment><USER2> I work with a nonprofit that uses it (for free!). It does help that it's a familiar interface to most people, and I think the UX is pretty good. Like most 'corporate social networks', good useability is necessary, but not sufficient to get people to use the system, you have to change your processes so that the only way to do something is to use the new system.

It would be nice if it was a little more configurable, we'd like users to be able to have their own detailed profiles, or maybe import data from a linked in profile so that other users can find people with specific backgrounds or experience, but there's nothing like that at the moment, we can't even add a text field to paste into!

</comment><comment><USER3> Hard to recall the onboarding experience, typical FB really. They seem to load in a lot of team/job profile stuff so you can easily connect with your own dept and teams. The UX is very similar to consumer FB, though they've lost some stuff and added others. Not a lot of third party integrations, but events and notes, as well as markdown support. Messaging is convenient, but not as capable as Slack. We share release notes, interesting articles, photos from events and stuff, and end up getting a lot of bug reports through it. Sadly, we've lately used private groups as a way to collect photos and parting words for people leaving the company.

</comment><comment><USER4> Like any other social media there are those few people who always share thing in there and other 90% that never use it

</comment><comment><USER5> We use it and it changed how we communicate internally -- We have groups for teams / orgs / company-wide and you get to see projects and hear about things you wouldn't normally, as easily.

Also social groups are cool (For Sale, Memes, Computer Games, etc)</comment>


Win 1/10 tickets to BBM workshop in NYC w/ free hotel - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbmnyc.com/02_details.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Although it is during the week so probably not good for people with jobs.</comment>


The subversive messages hidden in The Wizard of Oz - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20190808-the-subversive-messages-hidden-in-the-wizard-of-oz <comment><USER2> One think I didn't realize until my daughter and I read the book together: in the book there were two good witches, the witch of the North (the first one Dorothy meets after landing on the witch of the East), and the witch of the South (the one that tells her she can use the shoes to get home). The movie combined the two characters. Then they had to come up with a reason why the good witch didn't immediately tell Dorothy to click her heels together and go home. In the book, only the Witch of the South knew this.

<comment><USER3> Hmm, that is kinda of strange - especially since there's two evil witches, right? She kills the first one in the begging of Act 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also interesting are the jokes that were removed and added.

The Lion gets his courage from a bottle in the original (the joke being a reference to a common joke at the time that some people get their courage from a bottle of liquor) But 1939 was so close to the prohibition fiasco, it seems the producers did not like this joke.

Likewise, the scene in the field of (presumably opium) poppies that put everyone to sleep was only added in 1939. It's hard to imagine that joke being added in, say, the time of height of the war on drugs: could Bart Simpson play with opium poppies and pass out to audience laughter 1980's?

<comment><USER5> "The Simpsons" are a bad example for your point, I think. I've been watching episodes again and they often put the kids in morally questionable scenarios (much to my laughter). Lisa got drunk at Duff Land (a theme park devoted to beer), for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Funny TV Guide description: "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first person she meets and then teams up with three strangers to kill again."

<comment><USER7> I sometimes wonder if those TV Guide descriptions were intentionally funny and deranged like that because they had such little space to summarize an entire movie. The TV Guide description for the 1985 Cher / Eric Stoltz movie MASK was "A teenage boy has a wild mom and a misshapen face."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I suspect for most of this, they were just trying to be funny or weird rather than intending this symbolism/meaning to come across to the audience.

One of my economics textbooks contained an explanation of the theory that the yellow brick road was a reference to monetary policy (gold standard), but that theory seems to have been heavily challenged (See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz)).

<comment><USER9> Perhaps we had the same textbook, because that's also where I heard that from. Krugman and Obstfeld, International Economics?

<comment><USER8> You're probably right. I've forgotten at this point, even thought I apparently remember the content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From "Debt, The First 5000 years":

L. Frank Baum's book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which appeared in 1900, is widely recognized to be a parable for the Populist campaign of William Jennings Bryan, who twice ran for president on the Free Silver platform – vowing to replace the gold standard with a bimetallic system that would allow the free creation of silver money alongside gold. … [O]ne of the main constituencies for the movement was debtors: particularly, Midwestern farm families such as Dorothy's, who had been facing a massive wave of foreclosures during the severe recession of the 1890s. According to the Populist reading, the Wicked Witches of the East and West represent the East and West Coast bankers (promoters of and benefactors from the tight money supply), the Scarecrow represented the farmers (who didn't have the brains to avoid the debt trap), the Tin Woodsman [sic] was the industrial proletariat (who didn't have the heart to act in solidarity with the farmers), the Cowardly Lion represented the political class (who didn't have the courage to intervene). The yellow brick road, silver slippers, emerald city, and hapless Wizard presumably speak for themselves. "Oz" is of course the standard abbreviation for "ounce."

<comment><USER11> How far we've drifted as a nation.

People then seemed to realize the danger of fiat money, yet The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on December 23, 1913, when most lawmakers had already left the Capital for their home states -- and it passed on a simple majority of those present vote. The Federal Reserve (a cabal of international banks that is not part of the US Government) seized control of the US monetary system and their policy of deliberate inflation has eroded purchasing power 97+% (50% reduction since just 1970!). Even though the constitution still describes the value of a dollar as a specific weight of gold, like most other things in that document it is ignored.

Private ownership of gold was decreed to be illegal just 20 years later -- Presidental Executive Order 6102, signed on April 5, 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States" was designed to prevent an internation run on our (drastically less valuable) dollar. Silver was removed from the coin in 1965, completing the transition to fiat money.

President John F. Kennedy voiced support for returning America to the Gold Standard. He was assassinated soon after. His Vice President, who assumed the Presidency, wasn't so foolish as to express support for that idea.

Now it seems to be a spending free-for-all, as if there is no concern whatsoever for the peril that debt (national or private) presents.

What a dangerous time we live in. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!" Who, then, was Glenda, the Good Witch meant to represent?

<comment><USER12> > President John F. Kennedy voiced support for returning America to the Gold > Standard. He was assassinated soon after.

He also voiced a million other things that you might as well pin his assassination on, if you're so willing to jump to conclusions.

<comment><USER13> The Netflix movie The Irishman is about a labor union organizer/mob hitman [1] who claims to have assisted in JFKs assassination at the behest of the mob/ Jimmy Hoffa.

You can literally spin a wheel of different motivations for groups who wanted JFK dead and they all have their own convincing reasons. Except hackjack's little conspiracy here, which seems to be missing a final paragraph about why we need to switch to using Bitcoin as our standard currency.

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

<comment><USER14> Frank Sheeran is widely thought to have made up pretty much everything in that book I wouldn't take his claims seriously at all.

<comment><USER13> No worries, I don't. That's why I included it in my example of a fictional roulette wheel of reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Mocking people in power is a time-honored tradition. It's not even really all that subversive: they were playing with well-worn, easily recognizable tropes. It's all part of the film's pretty conventional message: believe in yourself.

</comment><comment><USER16> This kind of thing is why I love that JRR Tolkien spent a whole introduction page lambasting people who read too much into symbolism in books and stating explicitly that Lord of the Rings was written as an exercise in long-form storytelling with no hidden meaning.

<comment><USER17> That just sounds like a (very) elaborate troll. Write a three part book stuffed full of symbolism and then write an essay complaining how people read into the symbolism.

And surely what the reader sees in a work is at least as valid as what the author intended. If I see Mordor as Stalinist Russia, isnt that my prerogative? Its selling the art form short if the only possible interpretation is the authors own. /rant (against a dead guy)

<comment><USER16> >And surely what the reader sees in a work is at least as valid as what the author intended.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on that one.

<comment><USER17> In the entire concept, or just the degree of importance?

Lets take the example of Farenheit 451, wikipedia [1] suggests an evolution (at least) in Bradbury's own interpretation of his own book:

"In a 1956 radio interview, Bradbury said that he wrote Fahrenheit 451 because of his concerns at the time (during the McCarthy era) about the threat of book burning in the United States. In later years, he described the book as a commentary on how mass media reduces interest in reading literature."

So which is right? And neither of those seem to match up with the popular interpretation of it being against state surveillance and censorship. If that's what it says to so many people, if that's why it's so popular it seems strange to discount that interpretation.

Then we look at older works where the cultural nuance passes us by. Should we not be allowed to enjoy Shakespeare on our cultural terms instead of (always) through the prism of Elizabethan culture?

Then you've got things like Anne Franks diary. I suppose half the point is getting inside her head, but on the other hand you're reading it knowing what's going to happen, and interpreting it as the author intended is, impossible?

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451)

<comment><USER18> I think the most controversial thing you actually said is "valid". That word is very ambiguous, and it's no surprise there's disagreement around it.

You can definitely make any interpretation you want. They will be _valuable_ as long as you can take something from them, regardless of the author intent. As you have just shown, even authors might change or make additional interpretations as time passes. The world keeps changing, the contexts change, and we make new interpretations. That's pretty cool. But the other thing is whether they are _true_ or not (whether they reflect something that the author really attempted to express). In this case, it's not strange to me that many authors want to explicitly say that they didn't attempt to hide some political meaning or similar behind their works. The problem is not that people reads into what they write, but that they attribute to them things they never meant. And that's an imposition on an author, which is not nice, and that's what a lot of people will discuss with you when you say that any interpretations are "valid".

<comment><USER19> If a politician tells you what he meant to say in a speech do you take it at face value? People lie to themselves and others all the time about what they have said and why they said it.

The text is the truth. What the author says about it is useful but not the end of the story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz) is an interesting read

</comment><comment><USER21> I've heard that the Cowardly Lion was played according to pretty much every gay stereotype of the day. That seems to fit the thesis of this article very well.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've always meant to go through and read the entire Oz series by Baum. I've heard that it's surprisingly enjoyable from start to finish, given the number of books.

<comment><USER23> I've read them all but it's been years. I want to go back to them. They are great books. Silly, goofy, and weird but very enjoyable. The world of Oz books is surprisingly complicated[1] but I would say the original series penned by Baum is definitely worth checking out.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A detail of history connected to The Wizard of Oz that I particularly like, is that when the US Navy heard about 'Friends of Dorothy', they set up an investigation to try and catch Dorothy, to find out what she knew about gays in the military. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_of_Dorothy#Military_inv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend_of_Dorothy#Military_investigation)

</comment><comment><USER25> While there may be political or allegorical undertones, I generally try to enjoy things like movies at face value.

Reading into the story like this ruins the escapism.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've read the comments and wanted to write another, but then remembered that a smarter man had written a better one already.

> "I don't understand this at all. I don't understand any of this. Why does a > story have to be socio-anything? Politics... culture... history... aren't > those natural ingredients in any story, if it's told well? I mean...' [...] > 'I mean... can't you guys just let a story be a story?"

> \- Stephen King, "It"

</comment><comment><USER27> One realization I had about the movie: the witch writes a message to Oz to send Dorothy. He immediately tricks her into going there; presumably to her death.

Not a very good man.

</comment><comment><USER28> the book series is interesting. one of the main characters (Ozma, the queen of oz) spends her childhood as a boy and then is transformed back to a girl.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is it though? There are a hundred different interpretations of Hotel California too, but in the end it was about the excesses on the music industry.

</comment><comment><USER30> I always enjoyed Peter David's review of The Wizard of Oz.

[https://www.peterdavid.net/2002/07/25/bid-3-pay-no- attention...](https://www.peterdavid.net/2002/07/25/bid-3-pay-no-attention-to- that-fan-behind-the-curtain-aug-10-1990/)

</comment><comment><USER31> This kind of analysis is the more intellectual equivalent of finding hidden messages in the Bible.

</comment><comment><USER32> The real hidden promise is the promise of a portal (rabbit hole) that will turn your normal grey daily life into technicolor, and that you can bring what you find through this portal back to enrich your own little house in the prairie.

</comment><comment><USER33> "The message is that people will march behind any authority figure who makes a splash, however undeserving they may be"

Funny how BBC's view remains true whether it's 2019 or 2009.

</comment><comment><USER34> For the bimetallic - Oz of course is an abbreviation for ounce which was how the precious metals were priced.

</comment><comment><USER35> I can't remember the book now, but it was about a 1984-like state. There was a passing reference to their revision of "The Wizard of Oz" in which the Wizard gave Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow tools (weapons) they needed to defeat the wicked witch.

Until then, I'd taken the Wizard of Oz at face value.

</comment><comment><USER36> "Hidden"?

</comment><comment><USER37> How does all of this connect with The Dark Side Of The Moon?

<comment><USER38> Watch Wizard of Oz with the sound off. Just as the MGM lion finishes roaring, drop the needle[1] onto the Dark Side of the Moon LP, and watch as the songs sync up to the imagery.

\--

[1] Or un-pause the CD/MP3 etc.

<comment><USER17> "Pink Floyd band members have repeatedly said that the reputed phenomenon is coincidence"

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

<comment><USER38> I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with the concept, merely pointing out how it's done. Also even as a life long Floyd fan, I have never done it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Universe expands. What's the area outside the universe called? - <AUTHOR>

Eternity? <comment><USER2> The Universe is infinite: it has no bounds, or limits.

For instance, you can go on a straight line forever.

It "expands", but it does not "swell", because it does not mean anything for a boundless space to be "swelling".

The "expansion" phenomenon, known as "metric expansion of space" [1], is not "swelling" at all. Only the spatial scale of the Universe is expanding.

Furthermore, this process is isotropic, which means wherever you are observing from, it will always seem like you are at the center of the expansion process.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space)

EDIT: fixed typos (damn keyboard)

</comment><comment><USER3> if you mean "what does the universe expand into?" then the answer, as far as we know, is that "it doesn't work like that".

another way of saying the same thing is that the maths used in the physical models doesn't "embed" the universe in anything. there's no need for an external reference. you can do everything internally, consistently. it's quite neat, actually.

that doesn't mean that there "really is" nothing. just that nothing extra is needed for the theory, and since nothing extra can be observed, it's simpler to not have anything.

in other words - you can mathematically describe a universe that expands, but doesn't need anything to expand into. since that fits observations (within reason) and is simpler than a model that needs something extra "outside" that also needs explaining (and how would you explain that?!), it's preferred.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suppose there are some things that cannot be explained such as gravity and that "something extra 'outside' "

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From what I understand two terms you use would be inaccurate. First of all it's not an area, as it has no physical dimensions. Second of all it could not be called 'eternity' as it is composed of nothing and therefore no change to it is occurring, and change is the fundamental principle behind time.

Everything that exists, exists within the universe, there is nothing 'outside', there is no 'outside'. At least under the classical understanding, or theory, of existence. Some multiverse models posit that there may be other universes that we may one day expand into. Others yet posit that these other 'bubbles' might have differing laws of physics to us, and could destroy us on contact. Fun.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's not called anything because it doesn't really exist, it is outside the horizon of events. Think of it same way as about volume which is inside a black hole. It doesn't exist... until you get there. Then the world outside the hole will become nonexistent to you, exactly same way as the area 'outside the universe' is to us now. Because the black hole will become your universe. In a way, we are sitting in a giant black hole.

</comment><comment><USER6> The simple answer is: the universe.

Just today, Fraser Cain posted a video to answer this question.

Have a look : [http://youtu.be/Kj0TwTonG_8](http://youtu.be/Kj0TwTonG_8)

Hope it helps!

</comment><comment><USER7> you can also search/post on reddit.com/r/askscience

</comment><comment><USER8> Exoverse.</comment>


SenCSs 0.7 (CSS Baseline framework) is out - <AUTHOR> http://kilianvalkhof.com/2010/sencss/sencss-0-7-is-out/ <comment><USER2> Doesn't seem to work too well on webkit-based browsers. Each <h3> on <http://sencss.kilianvalkhof.com/> shifts the baseline up a few pixels.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, I've pushed a fix :) Thanks</comment></comment>


How can we improve Netflix? A survey - <AUTHOR> http://edu.surveygizmo.com/s3/846135/How-can-we-improve-Netflix-Survey

<comment><USER2> Note that this is a third-party survey, _not_ sponsored by Netflix itself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. I made sure i highlighted that point before the survey begins</comment></comment>


New open source android music player - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/reyanshmishra/Rey-MusicPlayer <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys I have created an open source music player in android and I have garnered only 75 stars till now I don't know how to make it more popular but will you guys help me to reach 100 stars and may be fork it for your own use. Thanks</comment>


Dawn of kitchen sink libraries in Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://codemancers.com/blogs/2012/05/dawn-of-the-kitchen-sink.html

<comment><USER2> _Now at its core, handling file uploads is very simple and straightforward affair_

I understand the concerns the author is raising and having a single responsibility for a library is definitely ideal. But as far as I have experienced, file uploads are never as trivial as author is pointing them out to be.

Most of the times you need some kind of post processing for the files, sometimes you need multiple file uploads, sometimes you want to do it asynchronously. It just never ends up trivial.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats true, but often times a complicated library that makes these choices for you gets in your way, rather than helping the case.

<comment><USER3> Which is exactly why I'd rather use a library that _doesn't_ make the choice of Rails and ActiveRecord for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I tend to take a pragmatic approach about this. The question is, how much you want to deviate from convention of underlying framework when developing? 90% of Web applications out there, can reliably stick to rails conventions and they will be well served by it. But from my personal experience - handling file uploads, processing them is often very different from app to app. What we need is composaple modules not a single monolithic library that does everything and there lies my gripe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I haven't been doing much Ruby for a while, I agree somewhat with the article. Personally, I think it boils down to composability. Building simple, modular functionality with clearly defined borders _should_ enable both a larger library composing these modules together and offering a unified interface towards them _as well as_ a developer hand-picking and using these modules by hand as he/she needs them. The Prismatic blog published a good post recently where the problem with libraries vs frameworks was highlighted, and I agree with that post. I'm not saying it's easy, and it's certainly easier in some languages than others, but most of us could probably agree that it's the way we would like it to be done, no?

<comment><USER5> Talking about 'libraries vs frameworks', tenderlove spoke about frameworks providing bare-metal interfaces for libraries and let libraries implement those interfaces in whichever way they want. but its still not sure to what extent that would solve the problem. Recently, bare-metal queue implementation in Rails [https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/adff4a706a5d7ad18ef053...](https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/adff4a706a5d7ad18ef05303461e1a0d848bd662) has been discussed 'for and against' extensively.

<comment><USER4> I'm not quite sure I understand. Speaking of the generic case, the (quite broad, I admit) statement that modular and composable functionality should enable both the unified-libraries-approach (or frameworks) and pick-and- choose-approach should (when applied) solve the OPs problem of not wanting to use what he/she doesn't need, shouldn't it?

I support the idea of a framework essentially being a light-weight layer on top of libraries, but if the framework just uses a single monolithic library then little (but something!) is gained. If it uses one or more libraries that are all properly composed of smaller modules, etc, etc, then a lot of flexibility is gained.

I'm not very familiar with Rails - especially its internals - so it's hard to comment on this particular case. However, making job queueing modular seems to have found the approval of most people in the commit comment thread you linked.

But I agree that the distinction is never clear cut, and everything needs a discussion on a case-by-case basis...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I personally liked the days where the libs did one thing best. Probably that was why even the gem management was supported from a very long time in the past.

</comment><comment><USER7> in relation to rails, i feel like it's tending towards perl.

gems are becoming cpan...</comment>


Ask HN: programmer-analyst student looking for a great internship (Europe) - <AUTHOR>

I'll start my last year as a programmer-analyst student in September and the second term consist of an internship. I believe it's a wonderful opportunity to do something great in an interesting company and that's why I came to ask you guys.
Accordingly, I am looking for a meaningful and interesting internship of 15 weeks starting in February 2014.
I'm a French-speaking Belgian guy, but I speak English fluently and I'm minded to travel in Europe (I'll study in Copenhagen for the first term).
Up to now, I mainly developed for the web, but I'm currently broadening my skills (by learning Objective-C, for example) and will learn any language rapidly as needed.
If you're interested (or have any tips), please get in touch: my email is on my profile page. <comment><USER2> What specific areas are you interested in?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your comment. I'm especially interested by home automation and data mining.</comment></comment>


The Woeful Inadequacy of School Reopening Plans - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/17/the-woeful-inadequacy-of-school-reopening-plans <comment><USER2> It's possible to safely reopen schools provided there is a consistent and regular testing scheme. This isn't doable with PCR tests due to the expense and lab requirements. But in the "This Week in Virology" podcast, virology researchers suggest deploying cheap and rapid testing methods regularly to school children. It's possible to design cheap $1 per test paperstrips that diagnose saliva samples that can be administered by teachers (or even parents). The technology is there, but it's not approved by the FDA because it's not reliable at very low dosages (where the individual isn't probably infectious anyways). But the goal of those tests is to fight the pandemic on a population scale, not to help with diagnosis on the individual scale, so the criteria for the test should be different. Non-N95 masks aren't 100% effective either, but they have an effect that does save lives. With a regular testing scheme in place, reopening schools should be safe enough.

See also these resources:

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

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDj4Zyq3yOA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDj4Zyq3yOA)

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/opinion/coronavirus-tests...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/opinion/coronavirus-tests.html)

<comment><USER3> > It's possible to design cheap $1 per test paperstrips that diagnose saliva > samples that can be administered by teachers (or even parents). The > technology is there, but it's not approved by the FDA because it's not > reliable at very low dosages (where the individual isn't probably infectious > anyways).

Is this "possible" in that it exists and the FDA hasn't acted on it or this is test only theoretical?

<comment><USER2> The tests exist in drawers of various companies but they aren't certified, at least back when those videos were released (maybe it's different now). The price depends on the scale the tests are deployed at, that's why I said "possible to design".

[https://www.stopcovid.science/](https://www.stopcovid.science/)

> IMPORTANT NOTE: The STOPCovid kit and protocol should not be used for > clinical purposes. Although we have validated the kit on patient samples, > this test is not FDA authorized. We welcome researchers working with > COVID-19 samples to request a starter kit for further experimental testing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It feels like to me there's no good answer to this problem. If we don't open schools there is two options that I can think of. One that a parent quits their job and stays home to care for the kids which is probably what most of the HN crowd can do, but more and more families require two incomes. The other option is the kids get sent to a day care or study pod that we don't have the resources to inspect on the same basis as schools and the spread is worse. A part of me thinks we should open school for the younger ones, halve class size, require masks, introduce daily disinfecting, and have the older kids do distance learning but it seems too many schools have put off prep because they were sure that the virus would be gone.

For our daughter we are still up in the air on what to do and school begins in a week or two and they are doing distance learning for the first quarter of the year.

Note I am assuming kids can spread it as well as adults there may not conclusive evidence of this but it's the safest assumption route to go down.

<comment><USER5> This might not be very popular among the "think of the children" crowd, but what if we plainly stop classifying 12-year old kids staying at home alone as child neglect for the duration of this crisis? Asking kids to run a gauntlet of bureaucratic strictures with all of the stress that school entails but not half the socialization and fun is not going to do them any better in terms of mental health. And parents are spending as much time with their children as never before (see [https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2017/11/27/parents-...](https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2017/11/27/parents-now-spend-twice-as-much-time-with-their-children- as-50-years- ago#:~:text=Daily%20chart-,Parents%20now%20spend%20twice%20as%20much%20time,children%20as%2050%20years%20ago&text=PARENTS%20these%20days%20spend%20a,but%20104%20minutes%20in%202012). ); it's not like we're in danger of getting wolf children if we turn the crank down a bit.

<comment><USER6> Has that been prosecuted as neglect? I was left alone from and earlier age.

<comment><USER7> I was babysitting younger cousins at 13.

As in, I actually took babysitting classes at that age, it was common and socially accepted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You have to have the virus under control to even consider a plan. Denmark reopened schools months ago, after painful negotiations with the government, parents, and faculty. There were new rules and lots of remodeling (I think they even added bathrooms).

We don't have any of this, and it's aggravated by a large population of aggressively ignorant and anti-science parents.

Israel was one of the models for controlling COVID-19, and school reopening completely wrecked their progress.

<comment><USER9> If people think school is so important that it needs to open even though the virus is spreading, then we need to help them find the best way possible to do that. Throwing our hands up and saying there's no way to even consider a plan won't stop schools from opening - it just means they'll open with bad plans or no plans.

<comment><USER8> Schools are not an island in this plan. Any strategy, without proper federal plan, resources, money, tests, and tracing is going to fail. A municipality or a city is not going to single-handedly solve this while a pandemic is raging all around, with the President golfing for the 9th weekend in a row.

With our level of infections, and essentially none or useless testing, there is no need to plan. We are all agreeing we are creating a massive spike.

<comment><USER9> The point of a school reopening plan isn't to "solve this" \- as you say, there's no way to escape the fundamental problem that the coronavirus will spread at school. The point of a plan is to make targeted reductions in the spread while accounting for the likely secondary effects. Paulding County has chosen to allow the virus to spread, and whether or not we agree with that choice, it would still be better if they didn't have students jammed shoulder to shoulder in interior hallways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I live in Ontario, Canada. To be honest, I'm going to be pretty pissed if schools are a major reason why a second wave happens in the fall largely because the government basically did nothing to help schools reduce the likelihood of transmission via decreasing classroom sizes. Where I live, they even had the gall to say that schools should use cafeterias as spaces for teaching in spite of the fact that most schools here don't have cafeterias.

I also dislike the fact that they haven't even bothered to experiment with different ideas, but are instead just going full steam ahead with normal school schedules in spite of the fact that literally every sector in the province is doing things very differently to suppress the spread of the virus.

<comment><USER11> not sure what you are expecting. We wont be able to deal with this unless we get a vaccine and if we dont exactly what are you expecting us to do? The consequences of keeping things in lockdown are plentiful and we already know children arent being affected. So protect old and frail and lets get back to a semi normal reality taking all the precausions we can.

<comment><USER12> Lots of teachers are old and/or vulnerable. Lots of people who work or volunteer at the schools are old and/or vulnerable. Lots of parents are old and/or vulnerable. Lots of grandparents - same.

And then all of the people those people interact with.

Children do not exist in a vacuum. This is the point.

<comment><USER11> lots of teachers are young. Lots of people who work at schools are young. Let the old stay home, there is no reason to keep the young and healthy home. Again what are you going to do if we dont get vaccines?

<comment><USER12> _lots of teachers are young. Lots of people who work at schools are young._

[https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how- man...](https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/how-many- teachers-are-at-risk-of-serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/)

"one in four teachers (24%, or about 1.47 million people), have a condition that puts them at higher risk of serious illness from coronavirus. This percentage is the same as the one we found for workers overall"

 _Let the old stay home_

How will the 1.47 million teachers mentioned above pay their bills and put food on the table?

 _Again what are you going to do if we dont get vaccines?_

That's what everyone is trying to figure out. Telling the old and frail to quarantine themselves just _isn 't the answer_, because old and and frail people work for a living, and live with relatives who have children, and live alone but have family members that come to care for them, etc. etc.

<comment><USER11> the old and frail teachers can teach from home for some of the classes.

its still 75% who are not in danger and even among the 25% there are still many who would teach anyway. Of course its the answer to tell the old and frail to quarantine just like we are now. putting the eorld to a stop is what is not an answer

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There is an organized labor fight brewing at the New York City Dept. of Ed.: [https://www.badassteacher.org/bats-blog/dear-uft- president-r...](https://www.badassteacher.org/bats-blog/dear-uft-president- represent-your-members-by-dr-michael-flanagan)

<comment><USER14> As someone who lives in NYC and follows these movements closely, there is always a level of animus at the institutional/political level between the UFT and the DOE. This animus does not escape the political realm, relationships between on the ground and central admin and teachers are professional and serve the interests of the children.

Infighting _within_ the union, however, is new, and sad. Both are true-

* the plans that have been made are very far to the conservative- preservation of health and safety- end of the spectrum.

* any return involves risk of infection, and with that risk of death or permanent health damage. During the awful spring peak, more than 100 teachers and low level staff and administrators died.

Teachers sign up for extremely difficult work- dealing not only with the dynamics of their children in the classroom, but because children are sensitive lenses for their families, with the dynamics of the families as well. That emotionally difficult work is fundamentally different from work that is risky from a health perspective.

In an ideal world, all workers would continue to be paid, and those who decided to subject themselves to these new hazards would receive hazard pay for doing so, as well as additional insurance and care protections, but would not be required to and could work fully remotely. That's what would be right, but that's not what is happening, and that it's not happening is not the DOE's fault, nor the union's fault. It's the fault ultimately of the US political leadership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am really surprised that we haven't seen some high quality remote learning platforms. I expected that problem to have been aggressively solved over the past few months.

A lot more resources should have been put into that instead of 100 COVID tracker apps.

<comment><USER16> A younger ages I don't see it as a platform problem — humans rely on a plethora of non verbal social and environmental cues which are not replicable when every interaction is disintermediated by a screen.

<comment><USER14> Speaking as an ed-tech advocate and practitioner, having written games and platforms for kids, worked in schools, have kids who program- I can't align with this perspective enough.

We are biological/physical/chemical/etc embodied entities, with a spectrum of interactions, especially sub-teen- the range of which far exceeds present understanding.

Children need literal human contact, on real-life modalities, to survive and thrive. A child raised by screens would die.

For the later high school set, potential improvements within the limited screen modalities have some value, but still- this all reminds of early AI framings, where a machine playing chess was thought to be the sum total of human engagement capability. Those making the argument didn't even know how not-even-wrong they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, let's face it, people who are stakeholders have a bias.

Parents who can work at home who have children may want the schools closed. Parents who can't work at home may want them open. And full-time teachers and administrators would want them closed because they'll still get paid.

As a 57 year old who never had children, I wonder why can't they have some sort of compromise. A-L goes to school from 8-11, M-Z goes to school from 12-5. Classrooms are half-empty and separated, and they don't have lunch service in school (except for needy famillies) to minimize risk of spreading COVID. I've never seen things like this proposed. Certainly the teachers won't want it--because they'll have to work.

</comment><comment><USER17> > If there is to be any hope for in-person schooling not only in the fall but > in the spring—when a safe vaccine, even if one exists, might not be fully > available—a rapid change in course is necessary.

Consider how much is riding on a vaccine now. The CDC is a non-player at this point and hasn't been since March. The three pillars of rolling back a pandemic (testing, contact tracing, and isolation) lie in shambles. Other countries' success in rolling back infections point to a massive failing within the US.

And that leaves the vaccine. The consensus is that early next year one will be available.

What if that doesn't happen?

It wasn't too long ago that Americans were being asked for "15 days to stop the spread." What if the actual time turns out to be measured in years? Decades?

What effect will a protracted period of wave after wave of infection transmitted through well-meaning but ignorant school administrators have on public education? On the fabric of society?

<comment><USER18> Fortunately for the rest if the world, this is a very US problem.

For citizens of the US, it sucks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am a fan of the author, but the headline is far stronger than the piece itself, which is weak and weakly argued.

Behavior at the federal level on COVID overall-

        * refusal to engage
        * denial of reality
        * hiding of data
        * propagation of false information and fraudulent non-solutions
        * obstruction of useful state and city-level plans

plus indications of misappropriation for financial gain are plainly criminal. That criminal acts are carried out by elected officials at the time of pandemic is a level of sociopathic abuse that cannot be tolerated in democratic society.

Actions in the context of schools derive from the sociopathy. Only one district- the largest, NYC, operating in the context of NYC's largely self- governing citystate bubble- has been able to even get into a position to have a rational, non-politicized conversation about reopening.

As a parent in NYC following the conversation very closely I am engaging with the school system to continue the discussion about return and can see best case circumstances that permit me to feel comfortable with my kids attending in person- which IMO is much, much better from social/emotional and intellectual perspectives than remote. But given the chaos and worse orchestrated at the federal level, I expect the in-person program to not last even to the end of the first quarter, and as winter sets in, expect a grim, difficult lockdown.

I find behavior and reports eg. from Georgia so saddening, and so utterly astonishing. Even theories like Stockholm Syndrome fail to explain to me the degree to which families are willingly marching to their own needless, often permanent harm.

The bottom line is that the most important interests a community and society serve are those of its children. A democratic society expects elected officials not only to act in accordance with those interests but to possess the attributes that allow them to hear and listen and respond in a balanced way across the range of views of their constituents. That's not what we are seeing.

Many officials presently in power at the federal level- and many of a particular party at the state and municipal levels- are not fit for that level of public service, should resign or be expelled, and should face the consequences of their criminal actions, including forfeiture of their private assets, which many have grown through graft, misappropriation, and corruption.

Whether or not one thinks these consequences can actually be brought to bear is a different question. One has to identify the right answer first, then fight to achieve it.

Best wishes.

</comment><comment><USER19> Here's a modest proposal, an idea I got from reading Supernova Era by Cixin Liu: we could send the kids to boarding schools in China. They have covid under control and we already outsource a lot of industrial production to China so why not outsource education too. Shipping kids over there and back could help stimulate the airlines and maybe Trump could negotiate a deal to pay for it via subsidized soybeans and other excess agricultural products. The parents would still have an externalized child rearing service and the kids would get a nice cross-cultural experience. There's probably excess real estate in Chinese boomtowns that could house the American students. Then when covid is under control here and Trump and his immigration restrictions are in the past the Chinese can resume sending their kids back here to the US to study.

<comment><USER14> Excellent- please flesh out and send to the NYT OpEd page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> No vaccine = No school

<comment><USER21> What if there never is a vaccine? How long do we wait before deciding to go a different direction?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It is such a different story to talk about prek-5 vs "old enough to learn via YouTube".

Send little kids to school. Don't send older kids. The nuance starts there.

<comment><USER23> No indication that smaller children won't spread the virus just as much if not more so to their adult caretakers at school and at home. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/health/coronavirus- childr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/health/coronavirus- children.html)

<comment><USER22> In the Netherlands, even runnynose toddlers are allowed to attend. No issues yet. I'd say that is a pretty major indication, a test by an entire country.

[https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus- covid-19/children-a...](https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus- covid-19/children-and- covid-19#:~:text=Younger%20children%20with%20nasal%20colds,do%20not%20have%20a%20fever).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Amazing that the author can expend so many words without an honest discussion of the drawbacks of leaving schools closed and children at home.

School closures are having a disproportionately negative impact of poor and middle class families, whose parents can't work from home. These families relied on schools to not only teach but to supervise and feed children.

Both Cuomo and POTUS agree on this, which tells me there's more to the story than what the author is letting on.

<comment><USER25> > _School closures are having a disproportionately negative impact of poor and > middle class families, whose parents can't work from home._

Using schools for daycare facilities isn't an honest discussion of the drawbacks of leaving schools closed either.

<comment><USER22> Why not? What do you suggest people do with their kids, if they need to work and don't have resources for private babysitting/tutoring?

<comment><USER26> I know "schools aren't daycare" is one of the talking points for a number of the unions in particular. But it sort of is (among other things). The alternative is for the government to have someone else provide the childcare-- which doesn't really change the problem. Or parents have to figure things out on their own however they can.

<comment><USER25> > _The alternative is for the government to have someone else provide the > childcare_

Another alternative is to pay workers a fair living wage sufficient for everyone to afford private care.

<comment><USER22> How would that be different from teachers providing child care?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>