A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.
"What sort of people live in the next town?" asked the stranger.
"What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.
"They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I'm happy to be leaving the scoundrels."
"Is that so?" replied the old farmer. "Well, I'm afraid that you'll find the same sort in the next town.
Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.
Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. "What sort of people live in the next town?" he asked.
"What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer once again.
"They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I'm sorry to be leaving them."
"Fear not," said the farmer. "You'll find the same sort in the next town."
You aren't outright wrong, the problem is that if you are a woman (or black or fill in the blank) and you have been consistently shit all over your entire life because of it, not only do you suffer from burn out on trying to keep your chin up and hope for the best and all that, but you may have zero skills for trying to effectively interact with people in a way that doesn't help recreate the same shitty experiences. And if you actually do have good skills for handling it effectively, actual sexism (racism, etc) can still rear its ugly head even if you are doing everything right.
The other problem with your parable is that it doesn't tell people how to make such outcomes happen, which aren't simply based on some kind of magical "thinking positive" BS. I actually know how to do stuff like that and it is damn hard work that has to happen on top of whatever other work you were actually trying to do or are being paid to do. Even if you do everything right all the time (which you probably won't because people have off days or whatever), it can be a long hard slog and some people will still just be sexist assholes no matter what you do or don't do.
I actually like the parable because it hints at another side to the issue, which is the perceiver, and though I'm not a woman I do get to sit in one type of disadvantaged social role in life, so I can relate. And I've given this some thought.
First off, while it's true that social factors are real, provable with data, and very annoyingly denied by many out there, the degree to which we tie our personal identity to a disadvantaged social identity is up to us. Evidence is pretty easy: talk to people in your disadvantaged social group and ask what they think. Probably most will acknowledge that it's a problem but that they can overcome it through working harder. A few number will not even acknowledge that it's a problem in the first place. And a few number will claim that it's such a big problem that it's insurmountable. I think the first group is probably closest to reality.
Second idea: it's easier to change ourselves than it is to change the world. That is, we can change our outlook on life by changing the narrative we've woven for ourselves. Whole point of therapy and a big part of psychology.
And thus, in order to avoid getting bogged down into hopelessness, at some point you have to maintain a delusion that either you aren't heavily disadvantaged such that working is pointless, or that you are disadvantaged but you're a crazy hard worker who can get things done anyways.
First off, while it's true that social factors are real, provable with data, and very annoyingly denied by many out there, the degree to which we tie our personal identity to a disadvantaged social identity is up to us. Evidence is pretty easy: talk to people in your disadvantaged social group and ask what they think. Probably most will acknowledge that it's a problem but that they can overcome it through working harder. A few number will not even acknowledge that it's a problem in the first place. And a few number will claim that it's such a big problem that it's insurmountable. I think the first group is probably closest to reality.
If you really dig into the details, the odds are good that the differences in their perception is rooted in more concrete and complicated problems than merely perceiving the problem differently. There are quite a lot of seemingly or even literally invisible issues that have substantial impact on social outcomes.
My oldest son walks around with a social black cloud over his head. People read him as defiant of authority and disrespectful merely for opening his mouth. They read me as ass kissingly deferential. We have done quite a lot of research and concluded that he lacks prosody -- he has no ability to tone match, so he gets that reaction of "I don't like your tone." I apparently tone match by default, which gets me read as very submissive and subservient, but the reality is that I do it in part because I am routinely perceived to be a dragon lady, so if I don't go the extra mile to try to be mollifying and build bridges, it is a shit show every step of the way.
I didn't say I dislike the parable. But as someone who does study the social stuff a helluva lot, I can tell you that there are going to be massively more differences between the "positive" traveler and the "negative" one than merely their attitude. I have substantial social astuteness which makes its vastly less dangerous for me to try to navigate situations that many women want no part of. It would be monstrously assholish of me to dismiss their very real problems in life just because "Well, it works fine for me!"
My son will never be able to glad-hand the way I do. He outright lacks the ability to tone match. Saying the exact same words as me to the exact same people in the exact same situation gets very different reactions. I know because I have seen exactly that happen.
The world if full of fascinating invisible forces, including pheromones, verbal cues and a million other details. Pretending that this parable is merely about having a good attitude is a gross oversimplification.
Tell the story again and say that one of the travelers is black and the other white or one is male and the other female or one is rich and the other poor and see how you feel then about acting like your attitude alone determines your social outcomes.
Didn't say the story was meant to be taken at face value, only that the idea that you have some degree of control over your life is empowering and I think leads to more happiness.
It's useful to look into research into optimism and pessimism: especially Learned Helplessness, which is what happens if (as I had in the past) one slips into thinking that they have zero power over their lives, and that your social factors determine everything.
I recall that a study found that pessimists were actually more accurate in that their perception of reality was closer to what actually happens. But optimists were happier.
I don't know the specifics of your situation, but if prosody can be at all learned or improved, then that's something that can be changed, which is a lot more than some of the other stuff out there like skin color or height.
Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I don't want to dissuade anyone from standing up/fighting the good fight for social causes. But as someone who naturally skews pessimistic and struggled with depression, maintaining the semblance of control over my life, even if it's not real, has helped tremendously. And I hope it helps others too.
----
> Tell the story again and say that one of the travelers is black and the other white or one is male and the other female or one is rich and the other poor and see how you feel then about acting like your attitude alone determines your social outcomes.
I'm not sure that's the way I'd think of it. More like: imagine two travelers, both are black, or both are gay, and they're exactly the same in all regards (thought experiment!), and one person believes that them being in group X means people treat them unfairly, while the other doesn't. They will have different interpretations of events, leading to different responses, leading to different lives. As I said above, taking the stance that we can control our lives leads to improving our lives, taking the stance that social factors are the biggest leads to us I think improving society in the best case, or learned helplessness in the worst case. The former is easier to do than the latter.
And that's a practical thought experiment, because you can change your outlook over time, it's the whole point of therapy. Those two travelers are the same person at different points in their lives.
There is lots of interesting stuff about optimism out there, some of which shows that optimists handle certain things differently. One experiment did something like asked how many pictures were in a fake newspaper they had printed and gave you a time limit. On some page (like page 2 or some other early page), it announced "This paper has X number of pictures." The optimists would see that and stop counting. They had their answer. The pessimists were so focused on counting pictures, they failed to read this big, bold statement.
So, basically, many optimists know how to hack the system instead of literally doing what they were told. This is part of what I am talking about. I am an optimist, but it isn't merely "think shiny thoughts." It is "I think I have the skillz to handle this and get a better outcome than what most people would expect or are predicting." And it is really problematic when the message is "you just need a better attitude." In my experience, a better attitude grows out of having the skills you need to tackle the problem. Many people don't have that. If you give them that, changes in attitude follow.
I don't really disagree with anything you have said here, except for the detail that this question was posted by a woman in tech on an overwhelmingly male forum. So, this parable tends to come across as suggesting that women merely have an attitude problem. I am the highest ranked woman here. Trying to establish the ability to open my mouth and get real engagement without it being a shit show has been a long, hard slog. Having done that, I am noticing more women able to open their mouths.
So, if the parable is helpful to you, awesome! But I didn't want to just stand by and say nothing knowing how such subtext can have a chill effect that is enormously harmful to already silenced minorities.
Yes, though the truth of your statement doesn't detract from the truth of my statement. We can't change our gender or race but we can change our outlook.
The problem here is that "outlook" hardly does justice to a very complex situation.
The implication that oppressed peoples who have been genuinely wronged merely need to put on a happy face and change their attitude is pretty horrendous. It ignores the fact that smooth social skills take time and opportunity to develop. It ignores the fact that if you are "the wrong kind of people" you do not get the benefit of the doubt that "the right kind of people" get. (This is a thing I have gotten to experience firsthand from both sides of the equation. Being homeless has been a huge education in just how much that benefit of the doubt greases the wheels of polite society. When that lubrication is missing, your life can grind to a painful halt.) And a thousand other factors here.
I am a woman and I try to tell other women what they can do differently in the face of living in a sexist world. I am routinely accused of blaming the victim for trying to empower women. I find that very frustrating because I do my level best to provide solid data and practical how-tos. I do my best to avoid suggesting that women merely have an attitude problem.
So while I am sympathetic to the idea that wherever you go, there you are and I am also sympathetic to the idea that it makes vastly more sense to focus on changing the things within your own control, given the larger context of life, I think this point you are trying to make about "just change your attitude" is a really crappy message to put out there. It is akin to telling someone maimed by abuse "It's in the past -- it doesn't matter!" and overlooking the very real legacy of impairment those past actions have left behind.
We can change the environments we participate in to correct for measurable bias, though, and it is reasonable for people being discriminated against to expect us to.
First of all, it is a republic and not a democracy. The difference is quite important. Secondly, to attribute the problems to the constitution is mistaken. That founding document is the only thing standing in the way of a complete and total disaster for the country.
Nearly all the problems can be traced back to where politicians are ignoring the constitution in part or in full and thereby eroding the public protections built into the republic.
On the other hand, the US has a legalistic style of politics which you could blame on people relying too much on the constitution. The US is like an oppositional court room, with each side tearing at each other to get as much benefit as they can. It does diminish the shared duty to do what is right and good for the country and the democracy.
Although of course the US is also a relatively fractured country by its nature, so perhaps can't rely on a vague, shared sense of what is good and decent, in the same way as a small European country, with more or less a common ethnic and cultural identity.
The purpose of the constitution is to protect the public from the tyranny of the government. And within the public, to protect the minorities from the majority.
> First of all, it is a republic and not a democracy.
That's like saying it's a dog not an animal; our republic is also a democracy, they are not mutually exclusive terms so please stop saying this nonsense.
No, we have a republic. Fundamentally different animal.
In a democracy, the public could vote to do something that would be considered wrong such as stripping voting rights from everyone who likes country music. And with majority rule, that would pass and become law of the land.
In a republic like ours, the constitution governs what can and cannot be enacted by the majority. Since such an act would take away guaranteed minority rights, the constitution prevents the majority from doing something like that.
> No, we have a republic. Fundamentally different animal.
No it's not, and it's really sad and tiring such a simple concept escapes so many people. Please take a course in government and learn the difference between these things you're conflating. Republics don't have to have constitutions and constitutional governments aren't necessarily republics. Republics can be democracies or not, ours is, not all are.
Our minority rights are protected because we're a constitutional government who has protections for those things; that has nothing to do with our being a republic.
No, ours is, but not all republics are democracies. Republic just means we don't have a monarchy and leaders are chosen by some other means. It doesn't mean that means is a democracy.
No, it's a republic because it has a constitution that sets out the rules for what the government is and is not allowed to do. Democracies give the people absolute rule, whereas the constitution denies a majority from enacting certain laws that violate the constitution.
Having a constitution just makes a country "constitutional", it doesn't make it a republic. You're conflating being constitutional with being a republic, they are different things; we are both of those things, but they are unrelated things. We are a republic because we don't have a monarchy, that's all it means. Our minority rights are protected because we're a constitutional government who has protections for those things; that has nothing to do with our being a republic.
It's a shame that in closing the door to the pernicious "meta nitpicking", whatever that is, the possibility for constructive analysis of how HN's algorithms shape and mould the behaviour of its dedicated community has also been removed.
Everything is tradeoffs. Time spent educating outsiders who may or may not be useful can be spent doing other things, like work that moves the ball forward.
Someone once did an analysis on HN posts and their ranking relative to the time they were posted and votes. And they found posts with certain keywords were heavily penalized and sort of soft banned from the site. IIRC it included stuff like "NSA" and "HN" and posts from certain sites like reddit and youtube (but I could be remembering.)
Having the full list of banned keywords, or even acknowledging there is a list, could cause drama. And it's easily evaded if people know about it, like when reddit banned "Tesla" posts got through by misspelling it "Telsa".
There's also other stuff like a controversy filter, that detects articles with more comments than votes and penalizes them. I try to avoid commenting in articles that are getting close to the limit to avoid triggering it.
Security by obscurity is precisely defined as security that relies on the algorithm/implementation itself being private to be able to function. Key material being private does not qualify for this. The alternative is that security through obscurity becomes such an all-encompassing term as to become meaningless
It would be easier if they had a injectable function to handle moderation / anti gaming etc. Release the code publicly with a stub function, then run the real one in prod.
Hacker News deviates from the original Arc code, though. Unfortunately, because YCombinator wants to protect their secret sauce, they're not likely to release anything interesting.
It's not like the tech behind Hacker News is what gives it its value. It's because it's associated with Y Combinator. Not sure why they aren't willing to release it.
Because, for some stupid reason, having your startup or blog post appear on the Hacker News frontpage is a Really Big Deal, and the staff don't want anyone peeking at their algorithms to find ways to game the system. Which means the really interesting problems they have to solve like voting ring detection, spam detection, etc. are the ones they don't want anyone to see their solutions to.
Also (personal theory of mine) maybe the code doesn't have the degree of abstraction or separation of concerns necessary to allow open sourcing without also exposing YC business concerns or parts they want to keep secret.
There is one problem with this service offering (and it isn't insurmountable). Put yourself in the position of a founder who just spent the last 12-18+ months building your startup. Would you then be willing to hand over the reigns to someone else or to some firm to do the launching for you? Especially when the launch is pretty much the one and only chance the company has to get off the ground? Outsourcing really only makes sense when you can transfer the risk in a way that mitigates it. Here it feels like you would be increasing risk of failure if for no other reason that the launch firm has less to lose if you fail than you would.
I have the TCP/IP Guide you mention and I'd recommend it, also. I'd also suggest if the asker buys the Interconnections book, that they also go ahead and buy the TCP/IP Illustrated (volumes I-III) as well. They are textbooks, to be sure, but if you find this stuff interesting, you'll be happy to have them. Very high knowledge density, though a bit outdated. And while we're talking about some of those old textbooks, I'd recommend the newest editions of the Unix Network Programming books [0], the earlier editions of which were really helpful to me when I was learning this stuff way back in the day. I'm a huge fan of textbooks, so maybe I'm going a bit overboard, but I did really enjoy them.
The new focus on the 'automation push' is for political reasons and not for any other real concerns. Ask yourself what changes in society are being agitated for the most? What is being put forward for the solution to the automation push?
It is not very different than the political handling of man-made global warming. The solution is for affluent nations like the US to reduce its standard of living and cede more control to international bodies. We can debate the merits of the science all we want, but the solution put forward promotes a pre-determined political agenda.
We're seeing the same type of thing starting now with the talk of the automation crunch. Ideas like UBI are declared the solution and a shift to greater reliance on government because we will all soon be unable to have good enough jobs to look after ourselves.
> The solution is for affluent nations like the US to reduce its standard of living and cede more control to international bodies. We can debate the merits of the science all we want, but the solution put forward promotes a pre-determined political agenda
Where is this solution put forward? By what politicians is this "political handling" being done? What legislation has been proposed, let alone passed?
Maybe online software as a service? Lufthansa does something similar with their backend airline systems to defray the development and operating costs (and turn a profit). Maybe more uptake of the product from California wineries.
Well, it is SAAS software. I am trying to sell it locally first, but it is tough sale. Most of the wineries I spoke to are fine with pen and paper or maybe some Excel if they feel really advanced.
I don't blame them, most of the laws actually require them to keep paper version of their documents filled in special purpose paper notebook with numbered pages. Law mentioned that you can keep your document in computer format, but this software have to be accepted by ministry of agriculture and after speaking with them the chances of getting this permission is very slim.
I keep trying, but it is uphill battle. Well at least I have some activity to fill my rainy days.
Consider the alternatives to the index fund:
1. Pick individual stocks and directly buy those. (A lot less diversification and a lot more hands-on management required.)
2. Hire a stock broker to invest for you. This is like #1 except now you are at the mercy of someone else whose interests you cannot be guaranteed to align with you.
3. Managed investment fund. Funds are diversified based on the discretion of the funds manager. Big fees are required for the privilege of having one pick stocks to buy and sell for the portfolio.
4. Real estate. Good investment but exceedingly high initial capital requirements.
5. Commodities - gold, silver, oil, pork bellies, etc. Less diversity of investment and specialist knowledge of the commodity are required.
Index funds are low cost to run, have a low capital requirement, require little to no active management, are highly-diversified, and get a fairly good rate of return. As a default option of 'do nothing and some money comes in', that's hard to compete with.
Oh I agree. They're a good deal considering the alternatives but they also carry a lot of risk. Less risk than individual stocks of even specialized baskets but a lot of people throw the term around as if its magic. Several source I've read also assume that you'll constantly be putting money into the market and never withdrawing it to actually buy that house you start this whole thing for. Withdrawing the money means your rate of return depends on which cycle the market is in when you do it and to get the best rate, you need to withdraw when its peaking. That's timing the market. That's misleading...
But overall, I agree with your analysis. It's a great vehicle for people who either lack the time or knowledge required for investing. If you decide that stock investment is the best way forward for you...
So if your time horizon is short buy bond index funds instead. The context of recommending index funds is almost always when saving for your retirement. Don't invest 100% in equities unless you're very young and can stomach the volatility. Your asset allocation should tilt more towards less volatile assets like bonds and cash as to get older. You slowly enter the stock market as you save up, and slowly exit it into other assets as you age.
Yep, I'm aware of the recommendation to use your age as a rough percentage to how much you need to have invested in more secure vehicles. Solid advice I guess.
I still haven't looked at the numbers to see if it's worth it. In Australia, we're expecting a market correction to happen initiated by the real estate bubble finally busting. Which means that bonds would gain while the market loses. Of course people have been expecting that for many years now and statistically speaking it will have to happen at some time... Knowing this, I am still not sure whether to just invest and deal with the consequences if and when they happen or keep my money in my sock drawer.
Don't forget the opportunity costs! Money sitting in a sock drawer is losing value to inflation. That's years of dividends and growth you could be missing while you try to time the market. If you are really conservative, try 60/40 bonds/equities. Or invest outside of Australia. I'm Canadian, and Vanguard has "all world, excluding Canada" funds, I'm sure they have something similar for Australia. That way you can hedge against risks in your local market.
I have a 6.5% interest rate savings account I still have back home so I guess you can call that some form of investment. Definitely one that beats a 4% inflation rate. Our currency is also fixed against the US dollar. But I don't believe this is sustainable.
I also don't believe this is going to last more than a few more months until the bank has attracted as much cash as it needs. Of course that's also a third world middle eastern country and so lots can go wrong there which I have no control over. Thus my interest in moving it here. Vanguard is looking more interesting by the day. And yes, they do have a similar option.
The credit managers at one of the Big Four Australian banks are waiting for the real estate market to burst before they swoop in and buy investment properties. It would be better to wait on any sort of real estate based investments or other stocks that move with real estate.
I am starting to think the best investment possible is in your own business/company. That way there is a direct correlation between what you can control and what you put in to what you earn back out. Obviously you can't predict what the future will hold, but you at least can manage your endeavor prudently so as to better minimise damage in the face of bad circumstances.
Index funds don't require you to manage your investment. Basically, there is a simple rule set the fund follows to diversify your portfolio and grow your money. Unlike managed funds, there aren't fees to the fund manager to eat into the profit/growth rate.
North America
A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment. "What sort of people live in the next town?" asked the stranger.
"What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.
"They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I'm happy to be leaving the scoundrels."
"Is that so?" replied the old farmer. "Well, I'm afraid that you'll find the same sort in the next town.
Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.
Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk. "What sort of people live in the next town?" he asked.
"What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer once again.
"They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I'm sorry to be leaving them."
"Fear not," said the farmer. "You'll find the same sort in the next town."
Source: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/traveltales.html#twotravelersandfa...