12 Coders Get Naked for a Good Cause | Hacker News Reader

12 Coders Get Naked for a Good Cause

coderswithoutclothes.org

71 pointsvaltsu37 comments

Who says gender inequality doesn't have consequences?

Look how the light catches the delicate pubic hairs. The skin dry from too much air-con and not enough moisturiser.

"I want a naked coder calendar" said nobody ever.

A better idea would have been to photograph coders at their messy workspaces, or portraits of coders taken immediately after resolving a tricky bug. Or just something that won't scare little kids.

There's a series of videos of 30 Linux kernel developers in their workspaces if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04VpdhLccqk

Yep interested, thanks.

Are only male coders included or female as well?

OT: I'm wondering what that big screen in the back of the header video on their company website is for and how it works. http://reaktor.com/

It's a huge multi-user touchscreen. Nasdaq's got one as well: http://reaktor.com/work/nasdaq/ We (I work at Reaktor) use it to keep tabs on our projects and see who's doing what: http://multitouch.reaktor.com/visual-asset-management-tool

The actual screen is built by Multitaction (http://www.multitaction.com/) and Reaktor creates custom software for it.

nice, thx larry!

Reminds me of that IT Crowd episode.

"Cavort!"

When the rowing team at Oxford does this they post the pictures on the website.

Let's admit it, we just want to see the pictures and compare them to ourselves.

OK, but really, who is going to buy this? Reddit did something similar and it was a disaster.

I saw this and was a bit sad "100% of the profits (post-shipping, post-tax)"

Does Finland tax charitable donations? Seems like governments would want to encourage things like giving money to help kids with cancer.

If you're selling something, there's VAT on it.

The Economist argues that it makes sense to tax charitable donations: http://www.economist.com/node/21556570

"The idea that the state should subsidise giving to good causes..."

Their argument starts with the idea that letting people keep their own money is a subsidy, and that giving to charity is a form of personal consumption.

Those are non-starting opinions for lots of people, including me. The government works for the people and taxes are the only equitable way for it to generate income. And giving away to charity is the exact opposite of personal consumption, since a person is helping society, not themselves, in ways they find most meaningful.

Ugh, just turns my stomach "gives the wealthiest taxpayers a disproportionate role in allocating public resources." A person's income is not a public resource, it's their income, which we vote to tax a portion of.

Yeah, that's the way the statist, collectivist mind works. It's pretty sickening and I consider those with that mentality enemies.

I think it's reasonable to say that it's a subsidy to tax everything except one thing, since it makes investment in that one thing relatively more attractive than it otherwise would be.

But charities are, by their very definition, not an investment. The only attraction is how you think it will help society.

This is a philosophical question at its heart, and really balances on is government best at spending your labor, or are you?

I think part of the justification is that people who donate sometimes donate to charities that they own or control and promptly spend the money on themselves to avoid taxes. This isn't even mostly true but there are cases where this happens.

> giving away to charity is the exact opposite of personal consumption, since a person is helping society, not themselves, in ways they find most meaningful.

A charitable foundation can be just about anything. Many wealthy people have their own that almost entirely further their own interests (e.g. an "art museum" next door to them, open only by appointment with them). Or a political advocacy group can be structured as a charity. Or something indistinguishable from an ordinary business (e.g. IKEA). It's very possible for charities to act against the interests of society at large.

If you really want your money to help society, tax is the best way for it to do so. I can maybe see an argument for a narrow class of charities being tax-exempt, but not charitable donations in general under our current definitions.

> And giving away to charity is the exact opposite of personal consumption, since a person is helping society, not themselves, in ways they find most meaningful.

But see, for a counter example, Eton which is an exclusive fee-paying school and also a charity.

There was an interesting debate about this on Radio 4 the other day > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03bxk7l

I'm not sure I was fully swayed by the arguments made, but certainly the current Gift Aid scheme in the UK is not ideal.

it's VAT. It's up to EU country if they are doing VAT exemption for charity.

Rebol with a cause.

mindlessly clicked, so my fault, but NSFW tag would be nice

This link is quite safe, actually.

It would have been nice —having noticed your mindlessness after clicking— that you not mindlessly comment too.

If you work at the sort of place where a "bit of knee" isn't tolerated, I think you need to stop working in the Victorian times.

If you're just worried about the words, "without clothes" is in the title here. That should be enough for anybody infer that there might at least be discussion about nudity.

Bare skin is SFW in most of Europe. NSFW is an American invention.

> for a good cause

Right, because there's such a big market for calendars with naked coders. You totally don't have to guilt-trip people into buying them with some leukemia sap story.

Stole it from the Dice ads all over town

But will it blend?

Isn't there an old Dilbert about this?

But it's a hardware problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com