Hacker News

We've been tasked by a client for 2 years to create an anonymized survey, and my mind has gone to great lengths to devise a survey where even our own employees (or superusers with full DB access) cannot figure out who a respondent is.

It's been a fun exercise in software architecture. Because I actually care about this.

But we keep pushing this annual survey another year since we never seem to be ready to actually implement it (due to other priorities)

When I was in grade 2 we had a secret santa, but it was the competitive variant, where the "winners" were able to guess who gave them the gift.

So on the card I provided with my gift, I signed off the name of someone else in class, and partially erased it. Made sure it was still somewhat legible and then wrote "From your secret santa" beneath it.

They didn't believe the gift was from me even after the teacher provided them with the original draw, and their supposed gift giver identified someone else as their recipient.

Great teacher gave you an invaluable life lesson.

Yes, 100% this. I learned a similar lesson and will never risk trusting that any survey is anonymous again.

I've seen the pattern repeat with other data collection as well -- "anonymous" data collection or "anonymized" data almost never is.

A simple trick is to write with your non-dominant hand :-)

I think Dilbert's cubicle nightmare frozen in time is somewhat charming.

Sometime in the late 90s Dilbert pretty much became Pluggers but without the attribution to the readers sending in their ideas.

That's true.

Dilbert is about the 90s.

Manifesting is not that wacky.

Of course, you are not going to write down that you will win the lottery and then win.

But most people are their own worst enemy and self limiting to some extent. Focusing on what you want in life, and affirming it to yourself over and over, is effectively a way to brain wash yourself to change your own self limiting behavior and it’s not surprising that this is often successful.

I think the thing with "manifesting" is it's almost impossible to write something down a 100 times a day, everyday without also doing other things about the goal, as it's on your mind so much. Obviously if you write "I'm going to become an olympic athlete" but just sit on a chair nothing will happen. But if you're writing that daily you're going to end up doing more exercise because you're thinking about it. You might spot opportunities that you would otherwise miss because your brain stops skimming over it because it's such a repetitive pathway now.

And while that obviously has limits, and is far from the magical technique some might claim - it's very hard to argue against things that work.

> you write something down 100 times a day every day it will come true

If you are writing "Repetitive Strain Injury".

I think you meant “espouses” not “eschews”.

"eschews" means "To avoid, shun" (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/eschew_v1?tab=meaning_and_use...)

Lol, Garry Shandling "manifested" if you deeply care enough about something to actually spend the time to write it out 100 times in a day, you might also take some other actions...

> inability to process information clearly and think in reality in lieu of ideology is the cornerstone of conservative thinking.

Can we not do this kind of thing please?

The claim that conservatism is rooted in an inability to process reality is a misrepresentation.

The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual preference for stability, order, and the familiar. The danger arises when this instinct is hijacked by a rigid ideology that resists truth and seeks control rather than continuity.

Which is, you know, what the American right is doing.

That is misinformation. There is nothing in traditional conservative thinking which depends on inability to process information clearly or think in reality. Those mental deficits can be found across the political spectrum. We might not agree with conservative value systems but let's at least be intellectually honest in our criticisms instead of using strawman arguments.

> inability to process information clearly and think in reality in lieu of ideology is the cornerstone of conservative thinking.

It is absolutely not a unique failure to conservatives. But it does explain why there is so much interchange between crunchy granola hippies and qanon militias.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> And while that may seem a far cry from the alt-right stuff he eschews

The podcast If Books Could Kill manages to stumble on a fair amount of overlap between "power of positive thinking" / "The Secret" crap, and right wing politics in the books they review.

> inability to process information clearly and think in reality in lieu of ideology is the cornerstone of conservative thinking.

This is rather well said. It explains so much of the draw to conspiracy theories and 'alternate facts'.

> part of the depicted did come from anecdotes

He spoke at MIT (early 90s?) and I remember him talking about making fun of PacBell colleagues in his comic: They would recognize themselves, ask him to autograph the comic for them, and then go away happy (thus making fun of them a second time.)

My one "boomer" take: Something I wish the younger generation would learn is that it's useful to be able to separate a work from its author. Some of my favorite films were produced by Harvey Weinstein. They're still my favorite films. The fact that a slimeball was a force behind making them doesn't detract from their content. I like Robert Heinlein sci-fi, even though, judged by today's moral yardstick, some of his views were... questionable. I still like Harry Potter even though J. K. Rowling went totally bananas. Troubled and/or terrible people can make great art and music, and it's OK to like the art and question the artist.

Wally not washing towels because when he uses them he's the cleanest thing in the house, so logically they should get cleaner every time . . .

Since we're posting favorites, here's one about lawyers, which I show to my contract-drafting students every semester:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230301101359/https://dilbert.c...

Two of my favorites:

Catbert on work life balance: "Give us some balance, you selfish hag" https://steemitimages.com/p/7258xSVeJbKnFEnBwjKLhL15SoynbgJK...

The other, I can never seem to find. They're all in a meeting, and the Pointy Haired Boss says, "This next task is critical yet thankless and urgent, and will go to whoever next makes eye contact with me". Everyone stares at the desk, and then Alice pulls out a hand mirror and angles it between the PHB and Wally.

Yeah I remember binging his blog while between classes in university - he wrote well and had interesting thoughts on marketability, mastery, business, etc., all things that I was interested in as someone learning to be an adult and find his place in the world. Then Trump ran for president, and honestly the blog was still good - Adams had some genuinely good insights about why Trump appealed, and suggested that he might be using the Republicans to get into power but he really doesn't share their values and will shake things up for the better. But then somehow Adams' identity got wrapped up in the idea of Trump not being as bad as people think and he just supported Trump more and more even when it became clear that Trump did not have a master plan to liberalize the Republican party.

I liked his blog at first and thought it really declined with video and short form content. It’s like his written editing slowed him down and made him less clickbaity than when he could post a video with no editing in just minutes.

Don't underestimate the extent to which sexism and racism factored in to his victory also. The level of competence, integrity and patriotism between the two candidates was staggering, and yet...

If you've ever read Thinking Fast and Slow, Trump is great at appealing to System 1. He's spent his entire lifetime focusing on his branding and what people think of him. I dislike almost all of Trump's policies and his tactics; however, he's great at oversimplifying things and getting the visceral reactions he wants.

Chapelle's SNL monolog about Trump is pretty spot on too.

[dead]

Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is a vintage meme at this point. He may have been the most famous person to say what so many of us expected first, but it just means he paid attention.

I find it mildly entertaining to watch someone called out as racist by someone else using the phrase "just call a spade a spade" considering that phrase has been deemed risky due to racists using the word "spade" as a derogatory term.

Just to be clear, I'm making zero value judgement about your assertion, I don't know (or care to know) Adams enough to form an option on his character.

> If you squint you'll see that both parties are an expression of the same statist ideology and there's very little difference between them.

If you squint so hard your eyes are closed, maybe

>tech is a lefty hell circle

oh hell, I shouldnt bother. But this isnt really how reality is shaping out and in fact one of techs biggest names is a sieg heiling member of a far right presidential admin.

Even if what you were saying is true (and its most certainly not), its funny how everyone who makes this argument always tends to fall on the conservative side, that in fact does significantly more lying as a verifiable statistic.

> Just because the tech scene became this lefty hell circle

Nah there’s plenty of Trumpers in tech. Go on Blind, you’ll see.

I have to squint to read your post because it is so greyed-out

We have seen this pattern repeated with numerous people who share Adams' political opinions, in that this level of empathy only seems to arrive once they themselves go through a similar experience. People who have that empathy without the need of that direct experience tend to have different politics.

I’m no doctor but I know PSA test would have identified its existence long before this stated progression. It’s a blood test that would be routine for any male his age, he’s probably had them at least annually for decades of his life at this point

The implied timelines don’t match.

There is a NYT article up right now pondering the same question: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/biden-cancer-...

> or that he has known about it longer than he has admitted.

Which is probably true. And it's fine, he has no obligation to disclose this until he wants to. In contrast his dementia though ....... that's something he should have disclosed earlier.

Edit: "Several doctors told Reuters that cancers like this are typically diagnosed before they reach such an advanced stage." from https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-cancer-diagnosis-pro...

That’s not a dig at Biden. It’s just [almost certainly] true.

That does sounds stressful. Sorry he had to go through that.

I have high psa levels. 17.

Had a biopsy. Turns out I have a really large prostate. My doctor said that some just naturally have larger prostates and the larger ones produce more psa. The psa density function put my levels at normal when taking in to consideration the size. The biopsy came back negative.

It's an indication that something's wrong with the system. We'd get better overall health outcomes if we tested everyone and told a large cohort of people "you do have cancer, and there are these possible treatments for it, but we recommend you don't take any of those treatments and just hope for the best". But between doctors and patients and other healthcare participants, we collectively can't do this - a large minority of people will freak out and demand treatment and the healthcare providers will feel compelled to go along with it.

Perhaps this plan just needs better marketing. Instead of dividing tumors into benign and malignant we could have a third category for malignant but slow-growing.

It does depend a bit what the next step is; you can MRI as the 1st step, and that at least is harmless.

Do you mean most would recover by them self?

edit: Ah ok. Risk of over-treatment by broad scanning? "Active surveillance aims to avoid unnecessary treatment of harmless cancers while still providing timely treatment for those who need it." according to NHS.

It should be patient dependent. Screening everyone is not currently thought to be useful but those with risk factors should be screened after a discussion of risks/benefits. Your father having prostate cancer (especially if he was diagnosed before age 65) is a risk and I would advocate for it, especially if it something you are worried about and you understand that sometimes a PSA can be falsely elevated in benign conditions, which may mean you get a biopsy that ultimately wasn’t necessary, and the potential risks that could have.

For a good short overview: https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/psa-fact-sheet

And read “is the PSA test recommended…”

Which carriers are you referring to? Commercial health plans are subject to a minimum medical loss ratio so they don't get to keep any more money by denying coverage for PSA tests. The general issue is that with only a few exceptions, most cancer screening tests haven't been proven to improve patient outcomes.

I have three of the cells, framed in my office. I adored the TV show.

It's very simple.

Many people are incapable of leaving others alone. They think they are right and people who disagree are wrong and must be corrected. Both rich and poor people can be like this. Even if someone else has absolutely no impact on their lives whatsoever, if they are "wrong" they must be demonized.

Rich people have the resources to shout over poorer people and buy influence.

The richest man I know sold his business in an all-cash transaction for $114 million in 2011 when he was in his late 50s. He divided the after-tax sum in half and used one half to write checks based on weeks of service to all of his employees and kept the other half. (I was one of those employees.)

He stuck around for six months making sure the transition was smooth then he fucked off to a beach house in Key West and has spent the last decade fishing and working on vintage Corvettes.

He would look at a trans person, go "well ain't that something" and move on with his life.

He would not wage an international media campaign to demonize them.

I can hear him in my head muttering "what in the hell do they gotta do with me?" just thinking about him being asked about a cultural issue.

Some people (both rich and poor, but you only hear about the poor ones) seethe with hatred and it's sad.

>I just can't fucking fathom being so rich as to never need to work again and then jumping into culture war

If you get rich through putting in consistent "work", you absolutely HAVE to do this through a fundamental belief in what you are doing, where it doesn't feel like work.

Your brain is programed to do a certain thing, and you have no choice but to do this thing - no amount of money can reprogram your brain. This is why so many well off people end up going off the deep end.

There is also a factor in the things that you buy as a rich person actually influencing you in ways that you don't even understand.

> I'd buy a reasonably sized/somewhat large home in the middle of fucking nowhere with a huge garage, and I'd spend my days tinkering on my cars, playing videogames, and working on passion projects.

And being isolated like that is just as likely to make you fall into ideological traps. You think that you can keep yourself happy by doing things you like, but the key thing to consider is why you like them. What purpose do you have for doing the things you do. A lot of times, this purpose is misguided (with cars, its not really about the car as much about the attention you get from others), and when you have the monetary capability to do the thing, you quickly find out that its not what you though it was.

I really respect Jim Davis, believe it or not. Draw the cat, collect the money, keep mouth shut.

Some people believe in things and aren’t minmaxing their life based on what gives them the best return.

Of course, they can be wrong. But I always find it odd when people say “I don’t understand” when it seems so obvious to me. They see things as right vs wrong and want to make things right even if it hurts them.

I'm somewhat familiar with J.K. Rowling's story and she does it because she feels it needs doing for the good of society.

Stupid ideology is still ideology, and people are well-known to do all kinds of crazy, uneconomical things for ideology.

JKR is doing wonderful work in upholding women's rights and helping women in need.

Some of this is her advocacy on social media but most of it is material contributions like starting a centre to help female survivors of sexual violence, donating hundreds of millions of pounds to charities that help vulnerable women and children, and funding court cases that have helped protect women's sex-based rights in law.

Maybe to you this is just "culture war nonsense" but consider how much positive and meaningful impact she's made for so many with her philanthropy.

Markus "notch" Persson is another example.

My physician stopped recommending any testing when I turned 50.

I still ask for the PSA test. I've never been offered ultrasound.

there's two types of prostate cancer - slow, so slow that you'll probably die of something else and fast. you don't want fast. even the chemical castration that they use won't stop the fast-type of prostate cancer if they don't catch it early enough.

far less than dealt by the source. i'll take ugly, and i don't wish cancer on anyone. my thoughts are with his family.

Agreed. Humans are only worthwhile if they are non-formulaic and aren't repetitive.

Generalize almost any group in a derogatory way, get ready for downvotes. As if we can just group anyone and everyone whose employer's corporate policy favors cubicle layouts. Foolish.

I thought it was pretty clear from the start that his observations about Trump's persuasive talents, although valid, weren't his real reasons for supporting Trump (the real reasons being that Scott Adams is wealthy and apparently a bit racist.)

Absolutely agree. Despicable, I would call it.

And to my point, and if we took his argument at face value, he also would have supported Hitler. He was also very good at persuasion.

he said, dressed as a sea lion