ckris

It would likely be very problematic for the security model as it is crucial that you only sign your own requests that you understand what they do. I guess you can technically sign someone else's request made with your identification number today as most service don't use QR codes for presence verification. In general I am also not sure that further expanding, and blurring the line, of what you can do with BankID is a good idea. If anything I would like more limits.

> There is also already a clear precedent to allow delegation of access that require strong authentication IRL. For example, PostNord allows you to retrieve someone else's mail as long as you provide ID for both yourself and the recipient.

They have the same service in their app with BankID + QR code (at least for packages).

I am not so sure. It is hard to teach ethics, but you can have ethics as a basis for a framework. Most MBAs will be very aware of something like compliance or labour law. And if know that framework you can critique them. Not every hardware engineer understand the importance of ethics, but they mostly accept the regulations or principles derived from ethics. In tech we don't really have that, so it is often a non-starter to begin with. The exception being GDPR, but you have probably noticed how messy those discussions are.

These days most shopping streets also tends to be closed from traffic for security reasons. So it is probably mostly an organizational issue.

Honestly it is a bit weird how you seemingly jumped the thread to address my other comment. My point is still the same whether it is about programming or programming culture. This material is mostly produced elsewhere and present in all programming outlets. What makes HN different is to a large extent what they focus on in the article, including the mix of programming and mainstream news. Most other outlets don't allow this, especially not as liberally. It is easy to equate HN with programming culture, but I just don't think it is really how things are. Hacker News also has a specific different culture. Of course one might argue that allowing more popular content makes programming culture more accessible, and exposes more people to it. I just object to the slight dismissal of the article, because that is the topic at hand. But now below the fold.

> I provided the quote because it is specific evidence the author approached the writing with this perspective towards the site, and should one be totally surprised it is the dominant narrative throughout?

At least partly that is about being topical for their audience. What I am trying to point out is that just because it is written from a different perspective or for a different audience doesn't mean that it is wrong. You and I might dislike things about Hacker News, but by being here we have accepted those things. But when they write about Hacker News, they don't have to fit into the Hacker News narrative like we do. They don't have to avoid calling out what they see as bad or find what we see as good.

That certain topics can't be discussed because they disappear from view is a defining characteristic of Hacker News. But on Hacker News it has always been justified by it not being moderation. "It was flagged by users" is the common explanation. But for someone coming from the outside, that isn't blinded by internal politics, it doesn't really matter as the result is the same. The same is true of other dogmas or faux pas. For their perspective to be damaging it has to go beyond valuing different things.

The other reason I have a bit of a hard time seeing it as judgemental is because they provided a lot of space for other perspectives (and even link to discussions). And those perspective seems consistent with the different positions. The article for example does not only address your perspective on the moderation, but conclude with it. They specifically and at length talk about the style of moderation and mention things like dead comments. You might even say it is the entire premise of the article.

That isn't relevant either. I never said it did nor does any of my arguments rest on that. You and "cloakandswagger" are making claims that aren't supported by article, which I have addressed, and should back those up to have an argument.

This is exactly why fact based discussions not only don't work, but don't happen on hacker news. Because you can just say something different. And that is how it always is. Someone posts a citation and someone else goes out of their way to debunk it. Then they just say something else. Next time no one bothers. Because the point isn't to have a fact based discussion, but to not be questioned on an already existing view. And that is what the article correctly caught on to.

It is a pretty common way to setup these stories, to play into stereotypes to disarm the reader (basically acknowledging their fears) and open them up to something else. It just isn't written for this audience or from its perspective.

Sure. I should clarify that I didn't mean "lmgtfy". There are five to ten books that covers things most programmers won't learn by practicing and therefor will uncover most of the mystery experienced by self-taught programmers. There is no need to listening really hard to the lyrics when you can learn how to play. You just need to go and read material that actually covers how to design programs, rather than are about "learning programming". And you will literally find those books about algorithms, design patterns, workflow, refactoring and whatever else by searching for "top programming books". Or in discussion on most platforms. I don't think it is as esoteric as you think.

I do think it is an underappreciated point, but also arguably why politics should be part of discussions. Not having to talk politics is really something that is earned. It is when you have a solid enough foundation to your field or profession that you feel secure enough in to not have to address it. In computing or software, we don't really have that. So people run out of vocabulary rather quickly, ending up in arguments like nationalism or free speech because there often isn't an intermediate layer of something like regulation or duty that you can be discussed by everyone. That is ultimately more a factor of the "everything goes" attitude, because if "everything goes" everything is also relevant to the discussion.

In defense of the article, what you are talking about is a different story more "finding the Internet and programming" that isn't really unique to Hacker News. It can surely be used that way, and people likely do, but you can also find those things by searching for "top programming books" (or hanging around twitter, quora, medium or other sites). They did sort of talk about that with the early motivations for Hacker News. And you could absolutely go to a music festival and write about the food trucks, the people and the atmosphere that if that is what unique about that festival. I think they did a good job in that regard. People don't obsessively read Hacker News to help newcomers, they do so because it is all in all a technical tabloid.

> The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that it attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.

But I doesn't say that. Throughout the paragraph the emphasis is on the recklessness.

"hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative—often masks a deeper _recklessness_"

"_Ill-advised_ citations"

"_thought_ experiments"

"logic, applied _narrowly_, is used to _justify_"

"data, but the _origins_, _veracity_, and _malleability_ of those data [...]"

And that is also in line with the conclusion that "message-board intellectualism that might once have impressed V.C. observers like Graham has developed into an intellectual style all its own" and "can find themselves immersed in conversations that resemble the output of duelling Markov bots". The critique here is essentially that people don't have scientific literacy.

That people on hacker news think they can be rational, dispassionate and authoritative but that their recklessness with citations, logic and data (and their dismissal of other arguments) suggests they can't.

That is the argument.

All of this is questioning the substance of the arguments made, not the substance of such arguments made correctly. The entire point is that they aren't made correctly. You might even read the paragraph as acknowledging that it once worked, when it impressed observers.

> Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point.

You can argue anything you want, but the argument here was made from a basis of facts. If the commentator wants to concede that their argument isn't based on the text itself, then they and you might have a point. But instead the rest of the argument isn't very believable. Which is the logic behind my argument in the first place.

> Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.

Again not relevant to the facts at hand. Especially since again they aren't making those statement. Otherwise we can bring anything into the discussion, from nationality to sat scores.

I don't really see it though. The article seems pretty clear on what kind of discussion they think is unproductive. One can argue whether text is data, but it still has structure and meaning. When they say "ill-advised citation" or "logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify" that is what they are arguing.

You own argument seem much more a moral one though. For one it doesn't even say what you said it says. For example:

> accusing HN commenters [...] abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments"

Actually says:

> humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational

It doesn't say that human arguments are countered with data or logic. That statement is never made. It doesn't imply it either. If it was to be read as implied it would still be logic and data used in incorrect ways. So it seems hard to favor data if you don't even look at the text at hand.

Instead you seem to pretty much make a "slippery slope" argument, which if not outright is at least close to a moral argument. That questioning data dismisses the role of data, and that this leads to anti-intellectualism. Therefor we shouldn't question data in this way. That is, they are morally wrong to do it. Instead of the less moral argument that misuse of data is what leads to people questioning it.

You also back this up with all kinds of appeal to emotion from it being "a smug, flowery dismissal" to "basically saying I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking". I don't see that reading as factual. If anything the article seems to argue that people should start thinking. One could argue that their reasoning for why people isn't thinking is incorrect, but that doesn't change the actual meaning in relation to thinking (that they think people should be thinking more). So again you are not arguing the text, but your moral conclusion from the text.

The more critical reading of your comments would simply be that you don't see the problem with data and therefor you don't understand the article's concerns nor the problems with your own comments. Which is pretty much what the article argues people don't do after observing this very forum.

I have a hard time even reconciling your one sentence in this comment. Because you are essentially saying that you rather have flawed data than a humane or morally superior argument. But that again seems very much in itself like a morally superior argument. It rests on that data is always better than a humane argument. Even when incorrect, and potentially more incorrect, than a humane argument.

That seems like a huge straw man. What they say is that people use data improperly on Hacker News, which is also my experience. Very frequently things like papers posted as supporting evidence don't really support the posters position. Sometimes they don't say even remotely what the poster thinks. But that takes time to figure it out, at that point it has already fulfilled its purpose and people don't care anymore.

The structure of Hacker News just makes it very favorable to muddy the waters until the story disappears. And I think they correctly call that out in the article.

Tildes is a bit ironic.

Overall it is a lot better. The topics, timeline, moderation, structure and even comments. And a think some people might enjoy that.

But it also sort of highlights the greater problem which is that most people who frequent these forums these days just aren't that interesting, or interested. Or it is at least hard for those who are to show that and get something out of it.

You can have a good discussion with it being an expert discussion. Hacker News largely has neither. It really appeals to people who like, or at least can stand, the noise. As the articles says it is its own thing, but it isn't unique as phenomenon. There are many parallels to other forms of consumption, like that of sports or reality television where people create their own reality.

2019 is the year when reality caught up with the Internet in a way that it hasn't since before social media. Internet culture was never really about unequivocally accepting things, but about thinking for yourself. The need to rationalize the Internet only happened once the Internet started to mean money. Which resulted in many holding opinions that are more the idea of an idea, rather than the idea itself. That will usually mean, at least perceived, "flip-flopping" once something is challenged. And that is to some extent what is happening now.

> What kind of power do you think we have?

Not having power, or having less power than before, makes the discourse even more important.

> We can't even convince our friends and family to stay the fuck off of Facebook.

The idea that people should stay off Facebook is part of that narrative. That is how the industry can claim that they are changing the world, but at the same time aren't to answer for any of the changes.

> Aside from the fact that some people from our industry have a shitton of money I don't see us having any kind of social influence.

Social influence isn't so much what is said and done in isolation, but what is and isn't accepted. Things like what you see as a problem, why it is a problem and how it should be addressed influences what happens next.

I wouldn't say most cities unfortunately. European cities are quite walkable and not as sprawling as American ones. But it is still pretty easy to end up were only cars can go not that far from the city center, or where there is only the occasional bus. Asia is really the leader in public transport now. I think the article is slightly misleading. Currently in Europe things like bike infrastructure and public transport is sort of like the development of drones. Everyone is saying they are doing it to claim they are keeping up, but not a lot is happening. It isn't like Shenzhen were every year there is a new pedestrian street, bikes, subway line, train line or something became electrified.

In Stockholm it was decided to connect all public housing, which was ~25% of the housing stock at the time. Owned apartments being coops, and presumably being able to make majority decisions, probably helped as well. That said, I don't think it is that impressive these days. Most digital or infrastructure things are very "1.5" compared to for example some parts of Asia.

That is more one type of tax, being punitive taxes. Laws used in tax avoidance are generally designed to make things easier. The flaw isn't usually in the host country (the US is sort of an exception), but more a feature in the tax haven. A simplistic version would be that you say "we shouldn't pay tax here, but there" and then you don't pay much tax there either, because the tax haven is in on it. But you can argue that there are many parties also in the host country who are just as in on it. There are just plenty of people who support that powerful people shouldn't pay much tax, and sometimes they manage to convince everyone else.

But overall you can't really stop anyone doing almost anything. If people don't want large companies to pay taxes, or favor property values instead of building more housing, or reward working in finance instead of engineering so be it. Just don't come and complain a few decades later when everyone is greedy and things are falling apart. Because if moving money around is the way to make money successful companies are going to be just as good at that as anything else.

I guess my comment can be read both ways, but for what it is worth I support unions. It is just that people tend to discuss it like it is a choice of equal difficulty. The tech companies now are so large, and have so much capital and influence that it might take 10 years in the best case scenario to even have a choice to sustain a union. Unions just like any other organization are effective because the things they have. You would have to build the capital, institutions and influence in face of the companies. And that only happens when they are afraid of conflict. But the only thing they are afraid of is losing is influence so the might for example have to tax their offshore earnings to contribute to infrastructure spending and social reforms. So they will fight unions at all cost, because that is one of the few ways that could happen.

There are plenty of issues that should be on the table when it comes to technology workers like equity arrangements, severance at high risk companies, systems for promotions, actual vacations, open source funding, health care between employment etc. The reason it won't happen isn't because there isn't cause, or that employees would suddenly sabotage the company, but that any such organization would be a politic force. Especially in a country like the US where there are only two parties as contenders and only 50% of the eligible population votes. It doesn't take that much to change the political landscape, which is why no one can be allowed to.

Companies view everything as a cost whether it is infrastructure, health care or rights. They lobby broadly to minimize those costs and to keep their own position. And that is unlikely to change. If there is any argument against unions it is that it is already too late. Unions ultimately work by having a war chest for strikes. The company, or the employer organization, then have their own war chest. Tech companies have so much cash, and the cost of living is so high, that a strike wouldn't even be thinkable for many many years. Making an effective union impossible.

I think the quality of life in the Nordic countries is somewhat overrated these days. It was really dependent on having a low cost of living, but now many things have been sort of left up to the market. Which means that property is quite expensive, and so is everything else. Social systems are less extensive. But there are high taxes, punitive taxes and somewhat low salaries for professionals. So the culture is sort of adapted for all this, but that only really works for those who have been grandfathered in. So regardless of the specifics it definitely isn't something to jump into without thinking. Unless you are aware and that is the idea.

Good points.

I think the key for those places wanting to attract people is to not be beholden to overall developments. On the one hand they can't rely on large changes because they take too much time and often are marginal. Instead of making the Internet better overall (which of course be the ideal thing) they could make sure that hotels in one area have good Internet, and that there is for example a lesser tax rate for monthly stays. On the other hand they also need to offset local changes, like the area becoming expensive, to keep the ball rolling.

I think that is partly why these places became hotspots. Because as you said they already had the backpackers, expats, surfers or fighters, and therefor the facilities. But also because when things got popular, they just move down the road and open up another place. And it seems that places like Lisbon can't really compete in that way. When it gets more popular it gets less accessible and more expensive a lot faster than opportunities to for example stay longer. So they end up in the same place as somewhere like London, but on a smaller scale.

I guess they would see it as a good thing as it makes more money, but it also hiders the "catalyst" or the further development, which should be their ultimate goal. At least that is my current impressions, but maybe that is just the way of the world and part of the fun. It just seems like a bit of a wasted opportunity. I guess I will know a bit more when I travel again in the autumn.

Looks interesting. That website is extremely fluffy in the usual 'next silicon valley way', but it should mean that you could find someone who at least knows where to get some hardware done. Which isn't nothing for a smaller city.

I'm sure it's a decent deal for anyone who has a connection to the place. There are just a lot more competition in being able to bike into a smaller city (which is almost any university town) compared to being able to live in a smaller city, being able to bike into a larger city or being able to bike in a larger city. For someone moving into the area it would then be more a matter of cost, opportunities and other things.

I am not so sure Stockholm is that car-hostile. There is a congestion tax, but they just spent $3 billion dollars on the Stockholm Bypass motorway. It is just very centralized, made worse by the housing market. Rush hour traffic gets jammed quickly in bottle necks. They also haven't built much subway in the last few decades. There isn't for example really a ring line, which most other systems have. So going anywhere but the city center is hard. Stockholm also has very near suburb, there are single family homes just a few kilometers from the city center. Built for cars no less, but quite expensive. They sort of tried to complement that with the "job/housing/work-areas", but that idea is mostly lost to time. I think it is more that greater Stockholm just isn't very well planned these days. But I guess Copenhagen could be similar, because it isn't cheap either.

Aarhus looks relatively car-centric overall on satellite images. But I guess that is partly because it is small. It seems like you would have to live inside the few km of the city proper though.

From an international perspective that is usually a completely different deal though. Second tier cities can sometimes be overvalued because of the premium paid by local residents, in this case being relative to Copenhagen. It really depends on the bang-for-buck for jobs, housing and entertainment etc.