Hacker News Reader

Comment by dickfickling | Hacker News Reader

While I don't think she ought to have been charged as a criminal, calling this "an unauthorized science experiment which lightly damaged an eight ounce plastic water bottle" is blatantly dishonest. As others have said in previous threads, this girl wasn't conducting a science experiment, she was blowing something up. People could have been injured (google drano bombs). Again, I don't condone legal action against her, but praising her as a scientist doesn't seem like the right course of action either.

Edit: To be clear, I have no problem with explosions - 'for science' or otherwise. I have a problem with explosions on school property, unsanctioned by professors, and without proper (or any) safety equipment.

View on HN

Blowing something up--even for only the sake of seeing what happens (exclusive of malicious intent)--is at it's core a scientific endeavor. From DNLee at the Scientific American blog[1]:

>I can’t name a single scientist or engineer, who hadn’t blown up, ripped apart, disassembled something at home or otherwise cause a big ruckus at school all in the name of curiosity, myself included. Science is not a clean. It is very messy and it is riddled with mistakes and mishaps.

I think it's time we start making a distinction between an explosion which is made with the motivation of violence and destruction, and just explosions.

[1]: http://goo.gl/8Lpp2

So I should be able to manufacture pipe bombs because I'm curious how big the explosion is, then? Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, just curiosity to 'see what happens', so by your logic I should be square right?

Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, because I have no malicious intent and just want 'see what happens'?

There's a difference between science and doing something reckless that could, theoretically, endanger others without scientific safeguards in place. Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.

>Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent,

I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't.

>Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work,

That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.

Yeah, that was called for. Thanks for the rational, objective discourse, there, by telling me I should kill myself with anthrax because I disagree with your opinion. Just reminds me why I love the Internet.

It was your idea. You were blowing things way out of proportion too, and I don't really mean it. I'm sorry. Now come down from there.

If you knew inhaling anthrax powder would kill you, why did you suggest it in the first place?

To be fair, it wouldn't kill all of us to do such an experiment. Not that anyone would think it was a good idea either way. So even assuming the other comment was telling you to "kill yourself" is dishonest on your part.

> Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.

No, lots of public commentary is condemning her for what she did but not want to see her entire future destroyed by federal conviction. Even if she's acquitted it's traumatic and destructive.

It's the kind of thing that could have been dealt with entirely within the school.

I was referring mainly to Hacker News and similar communities. Everybody condemning her has been downvoted to oblivion on these threads.

I condemned her for what she did, but I also said that it was stupid for the school to involve police, and that it was something that should have been dealt with in school.

I was not downvoted.

Comparing a pipe bomb to a plastic bottle pressure "bomb" is like comparing a gun shot to a nerf dart.

Most of the backlash comes from the over reaction of the school and the DA. While her decision was not wise and definitely had some risk, I do not know exactly how she cared out this demonstration so the amount or risk is rather unknown to me, she is faced with punishment that could reasonably cripple her future.

To answer these questions in the order they were posed: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Yes, if you're curious what a pipe bomb explosion would be like, then I think you should investigate that curiosity safely with safeguards in place.

If you want to 'see what happens' with anthrax, then by all means you should study its properties at your desk at work--inside a laboratory--with safeguards in place.

And if you want to see what happens when you combine two chemicals in a science class, then by all means. I think students should be able to reasonably assume that the safeguards are in place. Because if we're giving our children materials to build the equivalent of a pipe bomb in science class, then that is our fault. We're the adults. We bring the safeguards, and they bring the scientific curiosity.

And by the way, a discussion of recklessly carrying out science is independent of a discussion of whether an act can be scientific in nature.

Your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

You're completely ignoring the context and scale. She put some household chemicals in a soda bottle that caused a minor explosion. You're attempting to compare that to highly controlled biological weapons.

Do you really think it's justified to charge her with a felony?

My highschool physics teacher used to say that children are the world's youngest scientists. Every time they throw something, drop their food on the floor, climb something, fall down, etc. they are conducting an experiment to study the laws of physics.

As others have said in previous threads, this girl wasn't conducting a science experiment, she was blowing something up.

Those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

True, but in this case, they were, because she was blowing something up... not conducting a science experiment. Which was the point of his post.

"Experiment" in this case has, I think, a somewhat fuzzy definition. From her perspective, calling it a "science experiment" probably makes perfect sense.

Yeah, maybe cooking meth is a science experiment too in a certain light.

OK, well call it what it really is then: a science demonstration.

Her first statement while being interviewed was that she was performing a science experiment. That story changed under interview, and she later admitted someone told her how and encouraged her to do it.

How is the former different from the latter? Is that not still science? Are you not doing science if a teacher directs you to perform experiments for a grade?

You mean, aside from the one being empirical, and the other just being a pyrotechnics demo?

It makes no difference with respect to her punishment. It was unfair no matter what. I'm just pointing out the technicality.

The point of mixing the chemicals and doing the procedure yourself is to understand it properly. Just being told about it in vague terms is far inferior in terms of learning.

It becomes a mere 'demo' once you're well-practiced in the specific procedure. And she wasn't.

@dylan -- no kidding, that's why my comment says "With respect to her punishment"

I'm curious, what is your underlying motivation for taking a contrarian position in this discussion?

Edit: I ask because I'd like to think that a thread on HN can come to some kind of understanding instead of an escalating spiral of heated arguments.

Look around at the replies to me and the downvote beating I'm taking for sharing my opinion. Turn on showdead for an even more depressing trip through my replies. Then ask yourself if this can ever come to an understanding without me seeing the "error of my ways" and adopting the "acceptable" position of this community. Then, go even further, and ask yourself if it matters one iota of a shit more than the several minutes I've already spent subjecting myself to this beating, including someone telling me I should play with anthrax and die for fuck's sake. Then turning it around on me and calling it my fault after I called him out on it (and got downvoted yet fucking again for doing so!).

The answer is, very clearly, absolutely not on all accounts. Hacker News does not tolerate dissenting opinion and that should scare you. The continued existence of this community and any contribution is plainly pointless, and while I'd invest a little time demonstrating that to you, I know that nobody will listen, I'll turn light gray, and this community will go back to having a grand old time patting themselves on the back throwing money at a Florida teenager they have never, and will never, meet nor hear about ever again.

One of the (many) problems in our discourse today is that there is no middle. No compromise. Ever. Look at American politics for an example. Even in this discussion here, there was no possible suggestion that I might be a little right, no possible seeking of an understanding, no middle ground. You either think this girl deserves our showering of praise and affection or you suffer the consequences and get grayed to nonexistence.

No, nitrogen. I'm done. You guys can have your polarized, pointless discussion, and I will go back to keeping my opinions to myself. Just like I'm pretty much done with this industry, as well, because it seems like the number of intolerable people that I have to spend nine to five arguing with, over pointless shit like this, continues to multiply until I don't want to listen any more.

I started this account when a good guy, Jesse Noller, had has life threatened by the very people in this industry for daring to intervene in the PyCon situation. I hoped that maybe, just maybe, I could effect some change and get people to see that there is a middle, there is a compromise, there is an opportunity for discussion. When I follow the community, I am rewarded with heaps of karma -- including one comment with dozens of upvotes for saying what HN wants to hear. When I dare speak against the community, as I have here, I am reminded why I keep my distance and why those of us who think rationally consider this community a heaping pile of arrogant shit. You should hear what people outside HN say about it, based on discussions like this. Congratulations, HN. You're now Slashdot. You're now the community that in a single thread compared a teenager that built a bomb in a two-liter bottle to Alfred Nobel and Marie Curie.

In the hours since you left this question for me, I went to see a film and forgot about Hacker News for four hours, and it was four glorious, wonderful hours I intend to repeat. Continuously, for the rest of my days.

If it means anything, in my opinion, we are observing a selection bias here: sociopaths and psychopaths feel the need to demonstrate the acceptable social behavior and, as additional safety measure, outrage over deviant behavior. Since they cannot tell either of these they end up mimicking each other and going ballistic over anything that differs from themselves.

If you take them seriously it's rather disgusting. However, I look at this as teenagers talking about sex (that they have not had yet), when everyone thinks he is the only virgin and is vigorously trying to hide this fact from his peers (who are doing exactly the same).

Can you be seriously offended by them? I cannot.

I'm glad you took the time to write this response. Part of the problem with this thread is that people defending Kiera Wilmot aren't just defending her, they're defending themselves. They did similar (or more extreme) things, and they know their lives would have been ruined by the kind of response demonstrated by school and government officials in her case. They know that society might lose decades of valuable contribution from a healthily curious girl, and think of what their lives would be like if their youthful indiscretions had destroyed their own careers.

People implicitly defending their own identities have a much harder time backing down or seeing the implicit defense of identity in the other side's arguments, so you have two sides escalating to ever more extreme examples until the discussion devolves into shouting and namecalling.

There were some deplorable comments that will no doubt be cited by others as examples of HN's terribleness (though you should note that you're the one who brought up anthrax). But there was also an inspiring rally around someone who looked like she could use some support. Sadly, not everyone who deserves this kind of attention gets it (like the Novato teenagers you mentioned in another comment).

In the end, your life will be perfectly fine without HN, HN will carry on without you, and eventually it'll either get better, or reach the point where everyone interested in rational discussion will leave. But if not HN, where? HN seems to have much less of a hivemind than, say, Groklaw. What other community is as consistently articulate (outside of stories about Apple ;-P), even if they're articulately vile and wrong?

> That story changed under interview,

You've said that before. Do you have a cite for it please?

That story changed under interview

You've mentioned that a couple of times here. Can you point us to a link?

To be as blunt as possible, if you take "blowing stuff up" off the table of inquiry then you are stunting intellectual curiosity by an enormous degree.

Lest we forget, the most prestigious prizes in all of science, the Nobels, were created by a man who invented explosives.

It is a strange world we live in when making Drano bombs at a high school is compared to the work of Alfred Nobel.

Dude, everyone starts somewhere. She was 16 year old honor student when she did this. With the interest and aptitude she will go somewhere.

You or your friends didn't do anything destructive in high school and get away with it? I did...

The point is that the spirit of scientific inquiry cannot be divorced from risk, danger, and even the occasional mischief. As we've heard over and over and over again, it is commonplace for folks who are going through their formative years and interested in science to do things like create experiments which go horribly awry or even to get up to dangerous mischief. As I mentioned elsewhere, there are appropriate ways to ensure that people learn the right lessons about potentially dangerous activities. And the right way is not "don't ever do it, don't even think about it, you'll be punished severely".

The Nobel prize was specifically invented so Nobel would be remembered for something other than blowing things up, after he read an obituary describing him as "the merchant of death"

The funny thing is that by far the bulk of commercial explosives have always been used in industry, not in war.

To add another person into the equation, consider Fritz Haber. He invented a process to synthesize ammonia on commercial scales cost effectively. In doing so he made explosives and gun powder far more economical, but also fertilizer. His work is responsible for a significant escalation in the efficiency and lethality of warfare (he also pioneered chemical warfare, as an aside) but also for feeding roughly half of the entire population of Earth at this point.

That's the nature of science, it's not easy it's not safe it's not without risk, it's not without moral quandaries. The way to attack these problems is not to try to neuter intellectual curiosity, to replace everything in a chemistry set with water, to replace tools with their nerf equivalents, to put people in jail when they venture too close to danger. The correct way is to ensure that people learn from their mistakes, and to make sure that people acquire a sense of what sorts of things tend to be dangerous and how to be properly prepared for handling those situations, or, when warranted, avoiding them.

The same lessons apply to using computers. It's simply not possible to have a robust curiosity about programming, systems, or computing in general without acquiring dangerous knowledge. And it's extremely unlikely for folks to go through their formative years of learning these things without one or more excursions into dangerous behavior.

I think that once you charge someone with a felony for something that is pretty clearly not felonious, you basically eliminate the possibility of a middle ground. She'll be glorified or vilified (or both), but I think the ship has sailed for anything else. It would be nice if we could all sit down and have a rational discussion about just when it's OK to blow stuff up and what was right and wrong about this instance, but it seems to be essentially impossible now.

She is 16. I made far larger explosions when I was younger and older. Of course, I didn't do it on school property, but it's clear her interests were not at all sinister. Criminal charges are ridiculous. I would think detention would be more appropriate or calling her parents.

Have you ever tried making a drano bomb?

It's dangerous because its possible to lose some digits if you hold the thing in your hand too long, but if someone were intentionally trying to lose a finger that way, they would find it more difficult than they imagined.

I blew up all kinds of stuff when I was a kid. Why? because I was interested in seeing what woud happen. That doesn't make me a criminal.

I completely agree. She went back on her story that she was doing a science experiment while being interviewed, but everybody wants to stick to that story anyway. It's almost like everybody in the world wants her to be a scientist, and I pay dearly every time I raise this point here. I don't get it.

I don't get it.

Maybe it's because actual, grown-up scientists who nurtured their youthful interest in science by blowing things up were hoping that she'd be impressed by their support and decide to become a scientist herself.

And if she had hurt or, worse, killed herself or other people? Reckless is not a quality of a scientist. Why didn't we, the public, extend an invitation to "become a scientist" and pour support and legal defense funds to the Novato teenagers arrested for making the exact same thing OFF school property[1]? It's a felony charge in California, as well.

> But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive.

Let me be clear: mishandling one of these devices can blind you and remove limbs, and even if you buy the "I'm doing a science experiment" angle, she's doing it without training or safety considerations. This is a safety issue, not a science-hating issue, and there have been many charged and convicted before this young lady. I hate that we absolutely cannot have an objective conversation about this.

[1]: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-t...

As duaneb below points out, her intentions were not sinister. Negligence can be a crime, but do we really charge minors with crimes of negligence? Isn't that part of the problem of being a minor?

Given that it wasn't done with malicious intent, this is a matter for school disciplining, not court time.

Can you point to any specific incident of anyone anywhere on Earth at any time in human history being blinded or losing a limb, or even a finger, by either a dry ice bomb, draino bomb, or an HCL bomb in a plastic bottle?

How many people out there didn't do something reckless in their youth? By the standards modern society seems to be applying to youth, the vast majority of present day adults should have been charged with felonies in their teens.

From your link: Police said no one in Novato has been injured by a bottle bomb so far. But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive.

Note that nobody was hurt, and that the teenagers were using an open space. That sounds like the teenagers were following reasonable safety precautions.

From another HN thread on the subject: ... 2Al + 3H2SO4 -> 3H2 + Al2(SO4)3 is not on the prohibited list of reactions that are federally impermissible without a license. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5636823)

What felony would these kids be guilty of committing?

You know who should have been arrested? The guy I knew years ago (whose dad was a sheriff letting him off the hook, and who was definitely not a friend) who threw a Drano+foil bomb at a pedestrian and drove off. His favorite part of the story was the "hilarious" screams of the victim as the bomb exploded: "It burns!"

And if she had hurt or, worse, killed herself or other people?

God damn it this is the whole point! Obviously if she had killed other people the story would be different. But she didn't. She blew shit up in an open place for reasons that were not sinister.

Motive matters. The reason she's getting so much support is because what she did resonates with so many of us, and we sense a kindred spirit.

Maybe you see her as a little terrorist-in-training who will use her new-found knowledge to blow up a marathon or something, but I have no reason to think that. I see a kid who heard about this from someone and thought "Wow, if I mix these ingredients in a plastic bottle there will be an explosion. Cool!" And then because she got off her ass and actually DID something rather than watch youtube videos or TV, she's far ahead of her peers.

I lived at a dorm at MIT which was known for several times a year making a coffee-mate bomb. The explosion was loud and the flames leapt up 5 stories, and then everyone would scatter before the MIT police inevitably arrived. It was fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com