throwaway9324

I found it quite fluffy and sensationalist. Basic geopolitics and the recent history of Iraq meets basic unconventional warfare. Outstanding journalism for me would be more like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleea... http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/state-of-decept...

Edit: Since I'm traveling I don't have my bookmarks available, but there are much better articles on the subject. This article takes a single event and extrapolates from it instead of, as you should, placing the event in a bigger context. It's dangerous because it makes the reader believe things that are just concluded by the reporter and not necessarily supported by facts.

It isn't private though, but corporate. You're communication is generally not protected as an employee (expectation of privacy etc. depending on jurisdiction) and a lot of things people considers personal (gossip, health, locations) generally isn't protected either.

> I thought the initial concept of wikileaks was to publish documents that would reveal scandals"

Well. From an early version of wikileaks website:

"Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations."

http://web.archive.org/web/20070114162346/http://www.wikilea...

> Most documents were, at most, of interest to diplomats and historians. But no major scandal came out of these leaks.

What people don't seem to get is that the cables wasn't about the US. But about what every other government where doing with or saying to the US behind their own peoples back. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_d...

It's not a "diss" though, but a legitimate opinion on copyright which is found both in discourse and in law. Just because the author is opinionated and throws around rhetoric emotional words like "toxic" and "nihilistic" doesn't make his opinions any more supported.

On income/happiness:

"It’s a little easier to see why people would pass along the wrong story here, since it’s easy to misinterpret the data when it’s plotted against a linear scale, but it’s still pretty easy to see what’s going on by taking a peek at the actual studies."

Googling

http://wws.princeton.edu/news-and-events/news/item/two-wws-p...

"People’s life evaluations rise steadily with income, but the reported quality of emotional daily experience levels off at a certain income level, according to a new study by two Princeton University professors [...]"

So seemingly that has nothing to do with the scale used, but with the definition of happiness. Guess someone didn't look "at the actual study"?

I realize that it can look that way. But what could I do to have a fair chance to refute something that is made to be hard to disagree with, as most opinion pieces are? Where the subject is also something that I and the audience are inexperienced with and where the audience share the emotion being expressed in the article.

Regardless, here is my on-topic opinion. Colleges are one of the few places in society where you can experiment with different ideas. If those ideas always have to be holistic in regards to the schools well-being or in-line with that the NY times thinks they will very easy be limited. Wildly disagreeing is a good thing, including disagreeing with what, how, when and where you can disagree. Say you weren't able to try to censor something, then few people would see the importance of free speech.

If there's anyone who should be criticized, to the extent they are guilty, it's not those who express their opinions, but the schools themselves. They are the "referees".

The article of course on purpose disregards the fact that these kind of groups, regardless if you agree with them or not, often have very well-thought out arguments, stories and reasons behind their actions.

I wouldn't think so. Being actively involved in things in college seem to be one of the better indicators of success in those areas. I know many geeks who aren't especially successful in those areas and I don't think less of them because of it.

As I said I think it's a bad piece because it uses cheap rhetorical devices rather than providing a nuanced view of the subject. And, as I also said, I don't think this kind of angled article is appropriate if articles from the other angles of the same subject aren't being presented on HN.

Those who upvoted it probably have a different view or they don't think the quality of the article matters as long as they agree with it.

You can find almost every opinion possible on the Internet. They have no value unless there's an argument behind them. I'm not going to write an essay for deaf ears, but I did express my opinion with initial argumentation. So don't act like I didn't and there's nothing to refute.

Edit: I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it's grey at the bottom of the page. Talk about tolerance.

"This part"

Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the article is important?

"And this part"

I don't sympathize with people that actively constructs an environment where they will meet the least resistance. It's one thing if opinion pieces of different views on this subject was posted regularly, but they aren't. Quite the opposite.

"the vindictiveness and prejudice"

Maybe the biggest reason I left the mainstream tech industry is because of the judgement you meet when expressing an opinion that is seen as even remotely devaluing tech.

I'm having a much better time traveling and running my own business than being overworked, arguing about some library on a mailing list while trying to get some hobby project functional for production. Maybe that is prejudice, but it also how a lot of the tech industry works.

"are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate"

Or maybe it's just far easier.

"Hope your day gets better"

My day is going fine. My interaction here is very much conscious and not because I had a bad day.

I don't see how geeks aren't as much of a "trophy generation" as it gets. So I think you know the answer o your question. Yes, there are exception. But the ration between opportunity and chip on their shoulder seems pretty high.

This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject.

I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance.

Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying.

"Then you had the UN weapons inspectors who kept being thrown out of Iraq."

One of the reasons Iraq didn't co-operate with weapons inspectors was because they were infiltrated by US and UK intelligence. As far as I know they were never actually "thrown out". The other big reason is that the weapons inspections was the only bargaining chip they had left.

"If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to remain and do their job, there wouldn't have been a second Iraq war."

That is not what happened. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/weapons-inspectors-leave-iraq/

It does for the people being discussed.

"we cannot force the cost of living to drop"

That's exactly what rent control does. I guess it's ok to not even try to make an argument on HN these days.

Building isn't the main difference between SF and NY. If everyone in Brooklyn want to live in Manhattan prices would be very different.

If anything SF has become more centralized and companies keep paying high salaries and other perks playing in to the whole thing.

The article presents a huge falsification of history. I dare to say that most of the technical development was made by people who doesn't fit into the narrow definition of "nerd" as presented.

The impression I got when I got started in technology two decades ago was that being weird was accepted because we all liked technology. Not that you had to be weird to like technology. Heck, today you don't even have to like technology. Just know the right cultural-references and you're in.

"That's as good as calling him out by name."

As far as I know the guys name was not widely, if at all, published.

It's not controversial because it's largely confirms the view of nerds that "outsiders" agree with.

Like a lot of these essays it long winding, full of generalizations and in-group cultural references which makes it hard work to disassemble and disagree with. And most of those that disagree passionately enough with this to do it wouldn't be regulars at HN.

One of the few concrete things in this article is how "we won the cryptowars". Which isn't very convincing these days.

It would never have reached the proportions it did if it wasn't for all the people "defending" the guy and then keep bringing it up time and time again to make an argument.

I'm not sure what you mean. The "infosec scene" has always had stricter social codes than any other form of hacking.

The people who claim "hacking" today didn't start it. In fact "hacking", to the extent it ever had a common definition, has changed to accommodate the people that are more interested in being part of some culture rather than having an interest in technology.