HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Scope in early JS was handled through a parent slot. Self was a big influence but I had no time to honor it properly. JS had ten days till a demo to prove to factions in Netscape and to most of Sun (Bill Joy was ally) that it had a role to play. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krB0enBeSiE&t=2176s (earlier if you have time).

It was the battle for "the web" and the sun+netscape partnership was an actual menace to microsoft's activex and vbscript things. There is an espisode the Lex Fridman podcast with Brendan Eich where he talks a little about that specific time.[1]

The "panic" was right imo (only in that specific area) i mean, there is almost 0 microsoft on the web today.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krB0enBeSiE

⬐ dagw

there is almost 0 microsoft on the web today.

I've worked (as a consultant) on a number of 'boring' B2B web applications targeting 'boring' industries and one thing they all had in common was that they where all in on the Microsoft stack.

⬐ whimsicalism

> 0 microsoft on the web today

Wdym? TS?

⬐ Mikeb85

TS is just fancy JS. If it didn't exist, Flow, Haxe or Dart would just be in the same place (static types languages with JS-ish syntax that compile to JS).

⬐ epolanski

And if Java didn't exist we would have other tools as well. And yet Microsoft has by far the largest share of language adoption on the web, which likely applies to the tooling too.

⬐ _-david-_

Which languages and tooling are you talking about?

⬐ Mikeb85

By far? You really think the majority of websites are using TS-generated JS? The majority of the web is Wordpress and PHP frameworks. TS has only become 'popular' rather recently, and there's still a TON of websites that are full-stack SSR with only modest amounts of JS.

As for tooling, maybe. VS has always had a decent amount of mind-share. Even then though, I can see Jetbrains + Eclipse + Sublime + Emacs + Vim + others capturing at least 50% combined...

⬐ phillipcarter

> TS is just fancy JS. If it didn't exist, Flow, Haxe or Dart would just be in the same place

"TS is just fancy JS" is like saying "Java is just fancy machine code" or something like that. It's a major software project with a much larger scope than simply slapping a few types on top of common JS constructs. More importantly, it's been an innovating force at the language and editor tooling levels for web developers worldwide. I think it's likely to be the most successful language that Microsoft has ever produced in the long run.

⬐ Mikeb85

> "TS is just fancy JS" is like saying "Java is just fancy machine code"

Terrible analogy. TS doesn't compile to WASM or anything, it compiles to human-readable JS. Java doesn't compile to C++ or C. The JVM is an entire platform.

> More importantly, it's been an innovating force at the language and editor tooling levels for web developers worldwide.

MS has always been decent when it comes to tooling but there's nothing particularly innovative about TS.

⬐ phillipcarter

We'll agree to disagree on everything you've said then :)

⬐ epolanski

C#, TypeScript, Azure, Visual Studio, VSCode, GitHub, the npm package ecosystem, Microsoft Edge, having the de facto monopoly of several markets with office and its web integrations, Microsoft Teams suite for enterprise and I think I'm missing a lot more stuff.

Claiming there's no Microsoft on the web seems far fetched when Microsoft de facto controls extremely large parts of producing modern web applications, deploying them and serving the tools necessary for businesses to coordinate.

It may have lost share to competing applications or it missed the train exactly, but I cannot think of any other single company you can lock in your organization from management, production to deployment and even consumption on Microsoft own devices from Surfaces to Xbox.

⬐ oaiey

It is also key to understand that they are far more diverse than ever. Azure earns money independently, so does Office and Windows, XBox, etc. They do not rely on each other anymore.

The only big part which is different is the former developer division. I do not think they earn the money themselves but are more a cost center to everyone else. But considering that everyone else is a giant company with a diverse set of developer needs, maybe that is just okay. Which again is interesting because the rest of the industry is also relying on this part of Microsoft.

⬐ runevault

Even if .NET is technically a cost center, the reduced cost they get from optimizing it making things like Bing faster probably still makes it indirectly a profit center by saving them so much money.

⬐ pornel

This is the "post-apocalyptic" Microsoft. These things are open-source and supporting Linux, which was unthinkable for Bill's Microsoft.

MS used to call Linux cancer, and now they're running Linux servers for people. MS used to spread FUD that it's irresponsible and amateurish to expose source code of programs, and later they had to acquire GitHub and npm to stay relevant.

Microsoft had to adapt, because the old Microsoft has lost. Remember MS was selling very expensive per-CPU licenses for servers to run IIS, ASP.Net, and SqlServer. Admin tasks that we use webapps for were supposed to be a combination of Office, Access, VBA, native Windows applications, and a dash of ActiveX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krB0enBeSiE ICYMI.

Ten day Mocha had strict ==, so better in that regard. History is detailed at https://youtu.be/krB0enBeSiE. Rather than assuming a too-simple version, check out the details for how things went down.

Do-overs not possible, by better new forms over time helped. Honest q: Do you actually use modern JS at all?

Lex Fridman interviewed Brendan Eich earlier this year (a real gem of an interview, in my opinion).

I found all of it interesting, but here's a timecode link where they begin to discuss the current era of "browser wars", technical aspects and history of privacy protections, ads, search, and how that's all related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krB0enBeSiE&t=7652s

similarly to your experience, I'm using Brave browser (based on chromium) since recently (after watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krB0enBeSiE), mostly attracted by the built-in adblocker

⬐ syncbehind

I used to use Brave, but ever since they attempted to modify links without user-consent, I've since left them for Firefox + Edge (for those times I absolutely need a chromium browser).

⬐ NetOpWibby

This is my preference as well.

⬐ 11235813213455

Congrats, you made me switch (back) to FF!

>If only the conversations between Sun and Netscape had gone a little differently back in the day, and we'd had a single language/system in the browser

Brendan Eich said there were discussions with Sun (e.g. Bill Joy) and Marc Andreessen and all agreed[1] there should deliberately be 2 languages instead of 1 in the Netscape browser:

(1) an "easier/simpler" scripting type of language LiveScript aka Javascript

(2) a "professional" compiled type of language like Java for more complex applications

So, it wasn't an accident, or case of NIH Not Invented Here, or corporate bickering.

What they didn't foresee in 1994 is that the non-professional Javascript would end up adding more (pro) features that it enabled it to eliminate the need for Java Applets.

[1] deep link to B.E. explanation: https://youtu.be/krB0enBeSiE?t=24m30s

⬐ BrendanEich

It really was Marc, Bill, Rick Schell (VP Eng at Netscape) and me. No one else involved, and Rick was least involved but he came through at key junctures to preserve JS and also to keep a "third language" (a PHP like server-side thing from the LiveWire team) from being created on the sly/on the cheap.

⬐ mettamage

In many cases user or players (video games) involvement is really tough to predict. IMO, the best people for that are game-designers and their method is to play test. In other words, we can't predict how users react to particular technologies.

⬐ agumonkey

The two programming languages could still have been orthogonal to the presentation layer. Java with Dom or Livescript with Dom. I guess it was impossible to foresee dom/css being sufficient for complex applications though.

⬐ DonHopkins

>So, it wasn't an accident, or case of NIH Not Invented Here, or corporate bickering.

Maybe that's what Brendan Eich claimed at some point in time, but it certainly devolved into corporate bickering pretty quickly.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19837817

>Wow, a blast from the past! 1996, what a year that was. [...]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19846280

[More links and excerpts at the link above, but here is the timeline summary:]

>Ha ha! Yes, the launch of Javagator was a lot like watching the Space Shuttle Challenger blow up.

>Such glorious plans they had, then Sun and Netscape started bickering about who was going to be on top...

>But Rhino, Mozilla and Phoenix eventually rose from the ashes of the Javagator Disaster.

>December 30, 1997: Netscape sharpens Javagator plans [...]

>February 26, 1998: Netscape's Java browser in doubt [...]

>February 26, 1998: Whither Crawls Netscape's Javagator? [...]

>April 3, 1998: Will Javagator be reborn as Jazilla? [...]

>Fortunately, Netscape's Java Rhino JavaScript engine managed to make it out into the world: [...]

>Javascript Jabber: 124 JSJ The Origin of Javascript with Brendan Eich [...]

>Brendan Eich:

>And Netscape had acquired a company called Digital Styles that was known for rendering engines of some kind. And they started doing a next-generation engine in ’97 I think based on Java. And they thought, Netscape’s doing the Javagator, Netscape and Sun are going to kill Windows, Java’s going to be the future on the client side. Let’s build a Java engine. When Java got the plug pulled from it in late ’97, when the Electrical Fire JVM that Waldemar Horwat was building at Netscape got cancelled, when Sun went away because Netscape was basically going out of business slowly, the team that was doing this Java engine, this Java web engine, rendering engine called Raptor said, “Oh, we better rewrite it in,” maybe it was called Xena, I forget. They said, “We better rewrite it in C++.” And then they said, “Let’s sell it to Mozilla.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16354069

>[...] MSFT was even afraid of AOL, Oracle, and others teaming up to offer a home appliance (eg. a net PC) at low prices and undercutting the PC industry. Of course, those partnerships and alliances never did work out. Sun and Netscape hated each other, for example. [...]

Ain't that the truth! The bitter irony is that a bunch of the Sun-hating Netscape programmers went over to AOL after the acquisition, just to be mis-managed into the ground by a bunch of "Alliance" managers from Sun.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aol-woos-netscape-employees/

>Case told the Netscape workers that after the merger is completed next spring, stock options will remain valuable, their sabbatical program will remain in place, and their corporate culture will remain intact.

>"Maybe you joined the company because it was a cool company," he said. "We are not changing any of that. We want to run this as an independent culture."

Pffff!!!

http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-year-ago-friction-behind-aol-...

>Netscape cancelled a project to develop a Java version of Netscape Navigator with Sun Microsystems Inc. because Netscape couldn't afford it, according to Kannegaard. Kannegaard's claims are at odds with the story Netscape told publicly about the reason it killed its so-called Javagator product. "It was explained to me that after Microsoft in their [Netscape's] words undercut their business, they could not afford to continue the project, so they had to reduce their engineering resources and cancel this project," Kannegaard said.

>That is not the story Netscape told the general public. According to a story in ZD Net's sister publication, PCWeek published Feb. 26, 1998, Netscape said it was pulling back on Javagator in hopes of getting help from Network Computer manufacturers such as Sun and Oracle Corp.

Meow!!!

https://www.cnet.com/news/aol-layoffs-slam-sun-netscape-alli...

>After the layoffs, iPlanet will largely be a Sun satellite. As of last July, only one-third of iPlanet's approximately 3,000 employees were from AOL, Sun Chief Financial Officer Mike Lehman said. Lehman has further said that Sun largely owns iPlanet's intellectual property.

Owch.

⬐ kalleboo

The biggest problem with Java was that it sucked. Java took too long (and too much RAM) to initialize, was too slow to add features, and had too poor developer tools to become the runtime for the web.

Instead Flash took that spot! Only because Flash eventually also ended up sucking too bad (on mobile) did we get the Javascript revolution.

If Java sucked less and developed at the same pace as Flash did, but was open enough that the browsers could implement their own <applet> runtime replacements (for instance if Java was more important for the web than for the server, Google may have bought Sun instead of Oracle), we would probably live in a very different world today.

⬐ corpMaverick

From what I remember. IE was the dominant browser. And they refused to upgrade their JVM. I believe it stayed 1.1 for years. So basically, MS knee caped Java.

⬐ jasode

>Only because Flash eventually also ended up sucking too bad (on mobile) did we get the Javascript revolution.

If "mobile" means the Apple iPhone release in 2007 not supporting Flash, I disagree.

The Javascript revolution for serious apps was arguably started by ~2000 Microsoft's XMLHttpRequest() api which other other browsers like Netscape immediately copied. This started the AJAX dynamic web page era ~7 years before 2007. When retrieving new data for a webpage is no longer tied to a user refreshing with F5 key or a HTML form submit() button, it enables a more desktop-like paradigm of apps such as:

- 2000 MS Outlook for Web

- 2004 Google Maps, Google GMail

- 2005/2006 Google Docs & Google Sheets (acquisitions)

These were the type of groundbreaking Javascript apps that convinced many that the often-dismissed "toy language" was viable for complex work. The later innovations such as 2009 Node.js runtime on the server side and 2008 V8 performance optimized js engine in Chrome just further cemented Javascript's domination. The Javascript mindshare momentum was already unstoppable long before Steve Job's declared that Flash sucked.

⬐ agumonkey

flash was adressing another side of that coin, presentation/appeal/multimedia

ajax was big but at best it meant slightly more dynamic business application, flash made only videos and freeform graphics ubiquitous (for better or worse)

⬐ ungzd

Multimedia died in late 90s. No one no longer wanted to read text in tiny unscrollable unsearchable rectangle with "real book-like" page flipping animation and colorful textured background. All these things looked garish and vulgar long before "web 2.0" and mass javascriptization.

Flash was only good for games, short animated movies and tolerable for videos and audio (before web video standards).

⬐ anthk

Eh, no. Bullshit. Computer encyclopedias like Encarta were huge back in the day.

If any, multimedia was HUGE in late 90's. You would have a CD-ROM for ANY content, hobby or knowledge branch.

And OFC things like Shockwave (and previously, Director) made them ubiquitous.

⬐ DonHopkins

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25304202

Reminds me of one of Microsoft's first Dynamic HTML demos:

There were two buttons, one labeled "Our Web Site", the other labeled "Our Competitor's Web Site".

When you moved the mouse over the "Our Competitor's Web Site" button, it would quickly slide out from under your cursor before you could click it!

Then when you stopped moving your mouse, the "Our Web Site" button would slyly slide right underneath your mouse!

Dammit Microsoft!!! ;)

There was this wonderful podcast featuring Eich a few days ago:

"Brendan Eich: JavaScript, Firefox, Mozilla, and Brave"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krB0enBeSiE

⬐ not_knuth

There was quite a discussion on HN about the podcast joined by Brendan Eich himself:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26131043

Recommended "literature":

1. 10 Things I Regret About Node.js - Ryan Dahl - JSConf EU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA)

2. Brendan Eich: JavaScript, Firefox, Mozilla, and Brave | Lex Fridman Podcast #160 (https://youtu.be/krB0enBeSiE)

⬐ redisman

Sure but there are all known issues to any Senior Devs. You don’t have to pull shady hairballs from npm for every little feature you can think of. I’ve ran node in production for the last 5 years so at least to me it counts as battle tested and “boring”.

Lex Fridman just did a great podcast episode with Brendan Eich, credited with creating JavaScript. Lots of great little tidbits of history in the conversation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krB0enBeSiE

⬐ galfarragem

I really like Lex Fridman podcast because his guests don't feel under threat. In the end they open up more than if he had asked loaded questions "a la journalist". Probably this is the main reason why so many illustrious guests accept his invitation.

⬐ tomComb

Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that is a valuable part of a good interview. I enjoyed the recent interview with a prominent American objectivist (Ayne Rand) but some of the stuff he said really need to be challenged and since it wasn't we didn't the opportunity to really be convinced.

⬐ twright

I think when watching Fridman (and other long-form interviewers) it's important to keep in mind the difference between an interview for the purpose of journalism versus for entertainment versus education. I think Fridman dances between the last two categories, particularly towards entertainment when the subject is outside of his expertise. I watched of the episode you mentioned and stopped about half way because it felt disingenuous that he wasn't asking even the simplest of the questions to the claims that the interviewee was making.

⬐ jariel

I think it's fine.

Charlie Rose, Joe Rogan, Larry King - they didn't really push very hard either.

Sometimes just giving a people a forum to speak works just fine.

Lex has a very odd personality for media - but it works fine for this format, in this industry, and he's smart and curious enough to ask reasonable questions.

He 'talks up' to his interviewees like he's one of their team members of interns and that's fine.

⬐ jasode

>Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that is a valuable part of a good interview.

The biggest part of a "good interview" is getting the guest to say "yes" to being interviewed.

The issue that people overlook with "challenging questions" is that the guest must agree to be interviewed in the first place. If the interview is denied, then the "lack of challenging questions" is a moot point because the guest never made himself/herself available to be made uncomfortable.

In other words, let's say Lex starts out of the gate 3 years ago with a hard-hitting style. This instantly increases his rejection rate and decreases his guest count. Then later guests he tries to pitch to also look at those previous challenging interviews which is distasteful to them and they also decline the invitations creating a snowball effect.

You can't replay history with (as of today) 160 podcasts and say they should have been more challenging -- because we wouldn't even have the 160 podcasts to complain about.

Yes, journalists like Kara Swisher like to challenge/ambush/provoke/etc their guests but not everybody wants to be interviewed by her. See the chicken & egg issue?

Lex isn't poor at challenging questions. In reality, he's building a body of work that solidifies his reputation for interviews in a friendly conversational style that doesn't threaten the guest. This reputation attracts many types of guests that a bigger journalist like Kara Swisher can't get.

⬐ paulryanrogers

The risk is giving a megaphone to manipulative and charismatic people whose words may lead many astray.

⬐ ZephyrBlu

I agree. Plus, it seems like there are a lot of return guests.

By building a relationship over time it's more likely that the guest is more comfortable with "challenging questions" (Whatever that truly means).

⬐ bsaul

Funny how i only now discover the inventor of JavaScript is behind the brave browser. I’ve seen a few stories about brave on HN, but it always looked like a semi-scammy project. This adds a lot to the credibility of that projet...

⬐ tomComb

That's because it is a scammy project. I don't think that creating a popular technology should grant you a pass on the ethical issues of future endeavors.

⬐ BrendanEich

I would not want anyone using Brave because they blindly trust me. On the other hand, you libeling Brave without any evidence (to avoid rehashing, onlookers should see https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1360780527100338177 and do their own research) reflects poorly only on you.

⬐ tomComb

The person I was responding to had already read about the issues - I was confirming their existing impression and, more important, addressing the fact that they were putting them aside for a reason i didn't agree with.

The fact that you would attack me without understanding the thread (and use it as an opportunity to divert people to your Twitter) reflects badly on you.

⬐ BrendanEich

I don't see anything above justifying your "scammy" word, which is libelous thrown without back-up and therefore does reflect badly on you. But please, go on: justify it. I'll help by citing the dictionary definition of "scam":

Noun: a dishonest scheme; a fraud.

"fraud": "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

Also, as the tweet I linked above said, we didn't profit from either the fast-fixed error of showing unverified creators as being tipable with our token grants to users (we don't make money recirculating our own grants) or the refgate case (we turned off that future-share-of-trading-commission affiliate revenue with Binance).

Hanlon's razor explains these blunders without jumping to scam or fraud, which is a crime we have to fight on the Brave Ads front, so I take it seriously.

Should someone not use Brave on account of these two mistakes? Not for me to say; no browser is perfect. But they were not scams or frauds, and we fixed code and design processes to avoid anything like them in the future.

⬐ paulryanrogers

Brave injecting its own ads in place of a publisher's own seems like a scam to me. Even if users knowingly opt into it.

Or collecting contributions on behalf of creators without their knowledge.

⬐ BrendanEich

We don't inject and never have done anything like injecting ads into a publisher's own.

Why did you write this? Where did you read it? It's false, and you can check this by running Brave, even old versions that are still available. Please check your facts.

On collecting contributions on behalf of creators without their knowledge, the collection was a blunder but the funds were ours, from our token user growth pool. We were not taking funds from others. We fixed this as soon as I caught it, and I'm sorry I didn't catch it sooner.

⬐ paulryanrogers

Is this "repeal and replace" assessment inaccurate?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-...

⬐ BrendanEich

Yes, it's inaccurate, and surprising for Keizer who is usually accurate. These are Brave user ads, they run in your ad slots (notifications, new tab pages). They don't go in publisher ad slots and never have.

⬐ tomComb

Also,the fact that you, CEO of an aggressive US corporation, would try to intimidate me like that (with your talk of "libelous" etc.), to stop me from simply repeating the widely held impression that Brave is scammy, is well, really slimy.

Exactly the sort of thing I would expect from a CEO of "Brave".

⬐ BrendanEich

I'm not making legal threats, and the US has weak libel laws anyway. The word fits what you're doing, though. Stop playing the victim and back up your scurrilous charge!

⬐ tomComb

I'd already backed up my accusations, in the other reply, when I wrote the above.

Not that it's really needed when you know exactly what I"m talking about and are just feigning ignorance. Brave has been called out since their first attempts at finding anything, no matter how scammy, to make money at the expense of the web.

Congrats at finally finding something that sticks - few have done as much damage to the public web as you.

⬐ BrendanEich

The only thing you've done is shown your own accusations to be false (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26138152). Ta!

⬐ tomComb

Please don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about or that the idea that Brave is 'scammy' is anything new - Brave is very controversial and its ethical lapses have been discussed extensively including here on HN.

You went thru various dubious business models before you even got to your current incarnation.

But the most current of your controversies is covered here: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we...

And discussed here on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442027

That alone is enough for me to call Brave 'scammy'.

⬐ bsaul

That's exactly why i think knowing that a famous and respectable person (in the sense that he already accomplished great things) is behind the project is important.

When someone creates a browser around token and adtech, and offers to be a gateway between content and ad money, it better has a serious reputation of integrity for me to even start digging into the technical details and see what it's really all about.

Until now, the whole project looked scammy because i only paid a cursory glance at it, because i didn't know who was behind it. Now that i've watched the podcast and understand the whole reasoning behind it actually makes a lot of sense.

⬐ BrendanEich

We never injected ads in publisher pages; we proposed doing this but only with publisher as partner and user opt-in. Brave Rewards are opt-in and put ads in the user's inventory, not the publisher's.

Gerard lies about us "hijacking links", which I'm sure he knows has a well-defined meaning: changing the URL of a link the user clicks on in a page. We've never done any such thing, either.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25841456

If you want to believe we did these things, you're believing misinformation. If you can't verify these claims are false, I can help; many neutral third parties can help too. But it seems to me you want to believe such misinformation. Why?

⬐ christophilus

Brave is excellent. It’s the only browser I know of that — with no configuration— makes the web not suck.

Also, it’s a little ironic that the web sucks mostly due to excessive/ unnecessary JavaScript, so Brendon Eich is responsible for both the disease and the cure. (I say this as someone who actually enjoys writing JavaScript, I should add.)

⬐ BrendanEich

As I said in the interview, I'm Dr. Frankenstein.

⬐ roenxi

Just watching the start of the part on BAT tokens (2:20 - 2:22) - I have a prediction.

Brendan Eich is going to be attacked by Google somehow for something, maybe through lobbying in Congress around cryptocurrencies. These ideas are a credible threat to their advertising revenue.

⬐ phreeza

Do you want to put a timeframe on the prediction to make it falsifiable?

⬐ roenxi

Not particularly, no. I'm not going to track it, and nobody else is in a position to. If anyone were going to try, they should rethink their priorities.

If you like I can say 10 years but that doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way.

⬐ mupuff1234

I believe Google has something pretty similar called Google contributor, not sure what's it's status.

⬐ BrendanEich

Not similar, and it flopped. It requires the user to pay, for one. We pay users. See https://twitter.com/bcrypt/status/706597283219963904.

⬐ ibeckermayer

Hey Brendan, I bought $500 worth of BAT a few days ago under the impression that line would go up, but thus far line has gone down. Think I should sell? Or is it suicide stack time?

⬐ oh_sigh

Is this a "let me trick you into claiming your token is a security" post?

⬐ higerordermap

He is Brendan not Elon.

⬐ echelon

Google is under attack from all sides. Antitrust scrutiny at home, regulations from Australia and Europe. Apple anonymizing iPhone users. Brave picking up steam...

Is their moat as wide as they think it is? They don't exactly have a healthy revenue diversity.

⬐ simias

They own android and chrome, that seems like a very good moat for the time being.

⬐ dano

This is a great interview. The early history of exposure to the Internet at the beginning is exactly as I remember. Brendan is a brilliant man and good conversationalist. He's has the ability to make tough technology simpler, adoptable, and do the right thing for the consumer. I recall several positive encounters with Brendan over the past 35 years, including help over Usenet on an NFS issue while he was at SGI. His impact has been tremendous.

⬐ mongol

I enjoyed this. The only thing I was missing was to hear Eich's view of his departure from Mozilla. It's absence from the podcast made me wonder if leaving questions about that out was a condition or request from Eich.

⬐ BrendanEich

I cannot comment on anything about my exit. You should not assume this is my choice, or assume anything really. Sorry, can't say anything specific at all.

⬐ mongol

Thanks for mentioning that, it is understandable and just good to know.

⬐ stelonix

I really hate how in the US you're not allowed to comment on being fired/leaving your employer. I wish workers' rights weren't so stuck in the 1930s over there...

⬐ jonoon4484

I wish they could have gotten into the Brave/BAT stuff sooner. Also, you don't have to be an apologist for JS. You created something, while not perfect, is awesome. Onward and Upward!

⬐ paulryanrogers

Why sooner?

⬐ TOMDM

I've found myself enjoying these less since Lex rebranded the podcast. I can't quite put my finger on why and I haven't watched the previous few.

Is it worth jumping back in for another try?

⬐ libertine

I haven't seen any change, he just takes the liberty of inviting other type of guests not connected directly or indirectly to AI - which was his main ideia, to expand beyond that.

So now he brings people who study quantum physics, philosophers, thinkers, writers, and he's free to ask more open ended questions.

⬐ blueboo

Yea, there’s definitely been a decline. Conspicuous injection of Lex talking about himself, poetry/love, and (sigh) cancel culture. All feels awfully Joe Rogan-wannabe-ish.

The MIT AI podcast => AI podcast => Lex Podcast worked out great for him, though...but it feels kind of gross. There are some fascinating guests, but it feels like the content is good in spite of Lex and his “journey”.

⬐ ironmagma

The very act of talking about cancel culture is a decline? What?

⬐ monopoledance

He is not talking about cancel culture. He is taking this very overloaded term as premise, as self-evident "fact" for the degeneration of academia and "the public discourse", to pave the way for injecting his super deep ideology about salvation by Love, Elon and Ayn Rand. I am not sure, if you are familiar with Joscha Bach, but he once said something about something, and people think he's super intelligent!

None of these podcasts talking critical about cancel culture. There is a far, far better (critical) take on it within "marxist" culture, e.g. from Natalie Wynn. If Lex wants to talk cancel culture, why not invite her for example? She is an academic, smart and wrote and talked extensively about it. But that would be a little too open-minded wouldn't it?

[§] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMPJVmXxV8

[$] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us

⬐ ironmagma

Maybe he will, I would hardly bet money against it. Maybe two years ago I would have, but probably also would have done the same about him hosting Whitney Cummings. He seems pretty open, why don’t you suggest it to him?

I think you are drawing a false dichotomy though. Somehow, cancel culture is a topic, but they aren’t talking __about__ it. Is there some other preposition that can fill the blank?

⬐ monopoledance

What I meant is, he takes "cancel culture" as self-evident fact, when it's obviously a pretty overloaded term by now (like "fascist"). How could you make cancel culture a topic without specifying exactly what you are criticizing (god forbid even avoid the term altogether...)? That's why Lex is polemic there and not contributing anything really. There is also never even a pro forma attempt at emphasizing with the motivations for cancel-culturing. I mean, if you cannot understand incentives, of course the means feel inappropriate. Sure as hell, there are legit motivations for "cancel culture", but now there are too many cooks involved.

Like, how could you sympathize with spaceflight research spending without talking about possible destinations and why you wanna go to space? Spaceflight, like cancel culture, doesn't happen in a vacuum.

⬐ ironmagma

I for one personally don’t care why we go to the moon but still think going back to the moon would be a boon for technology. Social attitudes are the same way often; it doesn’t matter much why people are anti-science, or pro-violence, both are bad no matter the motivation, even if there is occasionally a good reason to punch someone or disagree with prevailing scientific wisdom.

⬐ monopoledance

I don't think you see the point in my argument. Anyway, this isn't going anywhere. I am out, have a nice day.

⬐ ravenstine

Why is it gross? People change. With Rogan effectively off YouTube, what's wrong with trying to fill at least some of that void? Should Lex talk only talk about AI forever?

⬐ monopoledance

Yeah, he is reiterating the same format for the 100s time. Being openminded my ass.. Well then bring on a proponent of left-wing politics and so on. Lets talk capitalism critical for once, shall we? No, ofc not. Because he's cashing in on the edge-lords, or himself an "intellectual" deep webster.

Gladly, he isn't still Sam Harris (although the "love" and "beauty" is getting annoying too) or Rogan (lol). There are really interesting episodes, and I overall like the naive questions sometimes.

I think The After-On will restart soon and takes the spot filled by Lex right now.

⬐ x86ARMsRace

He's had a few guests on that are outside the realm of a computing/science/ect podcast (IE: Michael Malice, Yaron Brook, Joe Rogan), so I can see where you might be coming from. That being said, I think he's pretty good at doing what he does, and his interviews are engaging. And to an extent, he's an apolitical interviewer, even when his guests are not.

Might be worth another shot, but maybe just pick the podcasts in the areas you're interested in. I can see how some guests may be a turn off.

⬐ Kurtose

Three hours well spent. Never a dull moment in the browser business. From downward—funargs and twinkies to browser wars and bitcoin.

⬐ staticelf

I really like Brendan, I think it's sad that he was let go from Mozilla and I switched to Brave as soon as that was possible.

⬐ lordgrenville

Great interview, what a brilliant guy.

As an aside, I wish there was a simple/standard way to link to podcast episodes.

⬐ adolph

Here you go

https://lexfridman.com/brendan-eich/

⬐ jessaustin

Much better link! Mods, please substitute this one at the top of the page.

⬐ adolph

As I listen to this podcast I think there should be several HN threads due to its range:

- Browser and JS history - Adtech and trying better with Brave - Has SV run it’s course

⬐ MaxBarraclough

> I wish there was a simple/standard way to link to podcast episodes

Seems to me the way it should work is that a podcast has its own website with a URL for each episode, but makes the episodes available through many different platforms. The indieweb folks have a term for this sort of thing, POSSE, Publish (on your) Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere. [0]

Many podcasts upload to YouTube, which naturally supports linking to a specific time in an episode.

Related: it's a pity so many podcasts seem to view it as a their duty to obscure the URLs of the audio files.

[0] https://indieweb.org/POSSE

⬐ typon

Is worse really better though? Imagine C was designed the MIT way. Sure it would have taken a few more years, but maybe we could have avoided the billions of damages in security bugs and productivity loss. I think worse is better if you want to win the Silicon Valley race, but not if you want to design something useful for society.

⬐ adolph

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine the can design.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/670307.Friedrich_A_H...

Did you listen to Eich’s statements acknowledging the errors and also the hypothesis of what would have been if not JavaScript? Since you have done some accounting, what have been the productivity gains and new frontiers opened by C? What is the amortization of damage over the length of delay?

⬐ bsdetector

Ada was designed a few years before C and it could do much more than C and without the problems you mentioned.

So we don't have to wonder at all, it would have turned out exactly the way it did and the reason is because things like undefined behavior, zero terminated strings, null pointers, etc have positive utility underappreciated by academics.

⬐ bdavis__

In the early 1990's a hardware vendor demo'ed an ada compiler at a customer site. Fortran compile of a subroutine was about 30 seconds, link of an executable was about 5 minutes.

We booted the ada disk first thing in the morning, changed some writeln() statements, and kicked off the build.

After lunch, the executable was ready (this was not "hello world", but a system with maybe 50K SLOC.

Not practical on that date, with machines that existed. As for writing code that worked, and eliminating defects by language design, ada has no peer. Even in 2021.

Today compile time is not a problem.

⬐ throwawayboise

At around that time, I would see multi-hour delays on compiles of COBOL code on a busy mainframe. Not because the compiles really took a long time, but because the development region could not keep up with the submission rate of compile jobs from developers.

That aside, work got done. You spent a little more time checking your code for errors instead of letting the compiler do it.

⬐ csb6

That’s not really a good comparison. The reason C has been so prevalent is because it was used to make Unix, which was distributed widely for decades, and because it was relatively simple to write compilers for it/port it to new platforms. Ada doesn’t exist in the same context; compilers were expensive and not widely distributed, there wasn’t a free, open-source compiler until GNAT in 1995, and Ada was never the default systems language for any widely distributed OS. I mean the circumstances could not be more different.

If C had been designed as a safer language (with even just small improvements that would not have been hard to implement), it would still be widely used and there would be fewer security problems associated with it. It is the Just World Fallacy [0] to assume that the most widespread language became so on its merits and not based on its historical context.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

⬐ jecel

The connection with Unix was indeed a huge factor in the popularization of C.

About Ada, it is actually a decade newer than C. In 1982 I was part of a group that was keeping track of its development and had learned C from old Bell Journals. I was able to a buy a book on Ada and the famous K&R C book and decided I preferred simplicity, so I donated the Ada book and dropped out of the study group. It is ironic that the even more complex (than Ada) C++ was what eventually became popular.

⬐ csb6

Very cool! I’ve used Ada in my spare time, and it has a lot of good features that I wish C-family languages had (like strong typedefs, no implicit conversions, better ways to do things than passing pointers around, arrays that don't decay into pointers, and types constrained to ranges). It is a lot more complex than C, but it feels a lot easier to read, and while it takes longer to write (for me) than C, it has a lot fewer weird edge cases/quirks to it than C does.

It also seems to have more powerful ways to set the exact machine representation of types than C.

⬐ BrendanEich

C history: https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html

Ada history: https://www.adahome.com/History/

FYI, I worked on a self-hosted Ada compiler as a grad student intern at Rolm (the Mil-Spec computer side, not the digital PBX side) in the summer of 1984.

⬐ ZitchDog

The problem is that something worse will always get made more quickly and gain traction.

⬐ BrendanEich

The "gain traction" part requires more care to assert, it's not just something worse getting made that ensures this. Bad is just bad, and so sometimes worse is not better ;-). What RPG described was good-enough but worse in New Jersey vs. MIT sense, not the cathedral or Fabergé egg: the farmer-hack from Murray Hill. Good enough + "Who's on first" and iteration win.

⬐ BrendanEich

Richard P. Gabriel observed WiB in era of Lisp vs Unix, MIT vs New Jersey. Silicon Valley on the other coast and small then. Also see Dorothy Denning, talking about the Windows PC era.

https://faculty.nps.edu/dedennin/publications/National%20Com...

Redmond is in WA not CA. If your point is about commercial pressure, not just SV bashing, then please listen to my tale of David Hyatt and grad school friend (Hyatt writing draft code and rewriting five times) from the interview with Lex. That was an academic assignment, not commercial work.

⬐ BrendanEich

Hyatt anecdote at https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6855&v=krB0enBeSiE&feature=y....

The point is not about Silicon Valley, commercialization of the Web (although as Dorothy Denning observed, the pre-Web Academic Internet was a more secure world only because not many attackers yet), or academic pressure. WiB applies to biology. I have friends at a synth-bio startup, one tweeted humorously the other month about how bad a hack evolution is!

⬐ tdudzik

It's quite ridiculous to see on HN so many claims that his interviewing style is bad. His podcast is really successful, a lot of people want to watch it and a lot of really impressive people want to be interviewed by him. These are the best benchmarks. People like him exactly because of his style, there is no need to change anything.

⬐ gigatexal

I really, really enjoyed this interview. Such an illuminating history of JavaScript and such.

⬐ christocracy

Seatbelts weren’t a thing in the first cars. People weren’t thinking long-term about how fast these things might one day go.

⬐ mind_half_full

+1

⬐ superbcarrot

I would love to know what Lex is doing to get the guests that he's had on. It's an impressive list of people and he certainly isn't attracting them with his charisma or interviewing skills.

⬐ ChefboyOG

Lex is a pretty unconventional interviewer, but I actually think he's pretty fantastic at what he does. In particular, he is one of the best at thinking like a beginner and asking clarifying questions as his guests talk. He interviews a lot of brilliant people who can speak at some depth about topics that need context, and he does a good job of in real time figuring out where they need to clarify without obstructing their explanation. For example, I think he got one of the best interviews I've seen out of Wolfram.

I don't know if you've ever interviewed someone, but that kind of awareness and quick thinking is really really hard.

⬐ zarkov99

Just being a decent human being with no agenda but trying to ask interesting questions. It is shocking how rare and precious simply being genuine is these days.

⬐ itsoktocry

Having an agenda is sometimes the only way to get powerful people to answer for controversy.

It's crazy to me that people are now claiming that asking "hard questions" is what is ruining journalism. As if we need more of Cuomo interviewing Cuomo on CNN.

⬐ zarkov99

Sometimes, maybe even most times, one is more interested in the interviewee than the intervier, not matter how brave and righteous the interviewer might believe himself to be.

⬐ dmatech

Both styles have their merits. That's why we have both adversarial debates as well as collaborative panel discussions.

⬐ bostonsre

Yea.. I'm surprised how negative the comments are here. He seems to be genuinely interested in a wide range of topics. He is able to have intelligible conversations across this wide spectrum and approaches it all with the incredible humility required to learn and teach well. His style is different but I would be hard pressed to think of anyone else that could have these conversations so well.

⬐ spaetzleesser

I think he took Joe Rogan as a template. Be curious, let people talk, maybe know something about the topic, don't judge, don't have an agenda, make the interview about the guest and not about the interviewer. It's kind of interesting that this is a rare thing today.

⬐ sieste

> certainly isn't attracting them with his charisma or interviewing skills.

As a counterpoint, watch the end of his podcast with Elon Musk, where he made him read the Carl Sagan quote [1]. This was quite brilliant I thought.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsZD2wF1vw&t=144

⬐ casi

I really enjoy his interviewing style and calm voice. It is a conversation rather than a list of prepared questions. I get much more from these than say a techcrunch interview.

⬐ superbcarrot

> It is a conversation rather than a list of prepared questions.

In every episode I've seen he's reading from a list of prepared questions.

⬐ Grustaf

I think he's got excellent interviewing skills, but I am still amazed by his guest list, and I would really like to understand how he has managed to pull this off! Very impressive work.

⬐ alexashka

Credentials + persistence + convenient location to get the ball rolling.

Large number of views/listens thanks to Joe Rogan + extremely safe interviewing style to keep the momentum going.

It's really not all that impressive given the absence of alternatives (try searching Wolfram on youtube and see how many other podcasts show up) - it's more surprising how bad the podcast discovery scene is that almost anyone who self promotes through Joe Rogan and puts in the work becomes a top 100 podcast worldwide.

⬐ ianai

Watch where he interviews his dad. Connections, I think.

⬐ gigatexal

You think his interviewing skills suck? I think he’s doing a great job. Brenden sure doesn’t seem to think the questions are terrible.

⬐ galfarragem

Bill Gates, Alan Kay and Steve Wozniak would fit perfectly in this format. Other missing guests (yet) - from the top of my mind - Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook and even Mark Zuckerberg.

⬐ jpalomaki

I’ve felt Lex is more like having a curious conversation with his guest than performing an interview.

For me his style works really well.

⬐ jasode

>and he certainly isn't attracting them with his charisma or interviewing skills.

Your criticism is an example of taking your personal opinion that he has no charisma or interviewing skills and then incorrectly projecting it on to guests that don't share your opinion.

Think about how the guests must voluntarily agree to be interviewed by Lex. Some might go through these steps:

1) get inquiry email from Lex : "Hi, I have a podcast and I'd love to interview you. [... blah blah blah ...] For reference, here are some links to interviews with previous guests [...]"

2) hmmm... who is this Lex guy?!? Let me look at his previous interviews...

3) Ok, he's non-threatening, engaging, and intellectual with his questions. I can sit down and chat with him for few hours.

People oversell the "connections" angle. Yes, he has some connections (Drexel, MIT, ex-contractor at Google, etc) but that just means some warm introductions and a potential guest will politely reply to an email inquiry. Guests can still decline the podcast. Connections don't guarantee the guest will actually agree to talk for 2 hours on camera.

E.g. Chris Lattner has been interviewed by Lex 2 times. Unless he's lying, his comment doesn't seem like he shares your opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24831157

EDIT to reply: "just by cold emailing."

I didn't say he was only sending out cold emails. (I mentioned "warm introductions.")

In any case, the main point of my comment is that you are (inadvertently?) insulting some of his guests. In other words, have you considered the possibility that many of his guests enjoy Lex's interviewing style?

⬐ itsoktocry

He's a non-threatening insider, that's how he gets these guests. For better or worse, the titans of Silicon Valley don't want to be challenged, so they seek out or start their own safe spaces.

⬐ pen2l

No he challenges his guests, he's just not an ass when he does. E.g. see his Jim Keller interview, when he disagrees with Keller when Keller talks about machine learning. And after a couple minutes of back and forth Friedman just lets it go by saying 'yeah we'll just agree to disagree' and moves on instead of making it personal or drawing the point of contention to a long hour because you have to be right! (as some of here may be guilty of doing :))

⬐ adolph

Why does agreeing to disagree and moving on seem like such a radical idea?

⬐ newsclues

Not just a non-threatening insider, but someone who understands what they say and speaks the tech language.

I think the technologist first, interviewer/journalist second is important.

⬐ stickfigure

Hi! I'm starting a podcast where I interview totally random commenters on HN and ask them uncomfortable, hostile questions with the intent of embarrassing them in public. Would you like to be my first guest?

⬐ oh_sigh

I'd love to be. My resume: 4000+ karma, 10+ year account, been warned by dang to stop being a shit at least 6 times.

⬐ lrvick

Sounds fun. I volunteer.

⬐ petercooper

Not going to lie, I would subscribe to this show.

⬐ vulcan01

As long as we're not the commenters being interviewed, am I right? ;)

⬐ superbcarrot

I don't know why you're assuming that he's just sending out emails and finding receptive people on the other end. In my opinion that's the least likely scenario considering the range and calibre of his guests. You don't get to cold-email Eric Schmidt as a relatively unknown person and have him be the guest on the 8th episode of your newly started podcast. You don't get Elon Musk, Ray Dalio, Jack Dorsey, Roger Penrose and the creator of just about every big programming language just by cold emailing.

⬐ mongol

Yes I wonder about that too. It is really impressive. Was he well connected and famous among the famous before starting his podcast?

⬐ dogma1138

I would think he is rather well respected and well connected in the academic and “corporate R&D” world.

He isn’t the best interviewer because he doesn’t have the experience yet but the podcasts are very good because he gives the guests an open stage, he is never adversarial and he never seem to push the interview into a specific direction.

Overall it wouldn’t surprise me if many of the guests would just enjoy to sit down and talk to someone who is without sounding too elitists a smart as they are, being able to reach to a lot of other people is just a bonus.

⬐ TOMDM

Because he doesn't have the experience yet?

He's been running the podcast for two and a half years, and this episode makes 160.

How much experience do you reckon it takes to get "good" at interviewing?

⬐ dogma1138

Look (or we’ll listen) to Larry King’s early years interviews vs later in his career, so I would say probably a life time.

Also keep in mind Lex isn’t a professional journalist he isn’t even what one would call a science communicator.

His podcast is still mainly two people having a conversation than a structured interview but he has gotten better at it overall. His early podcasts had quite a few wired moments where you can see that Lex was somewhere else thinking about something these are rarer now.

⬐ bob33212

Some people don't like his style. I don't think they will ever think he is that good. Someone like Oprah would be considered to be far more talented at driving the conversation where she wants it to be. Personally I a huge fan of Lex, I think because the people and topics are what I'm interested in.

⬐ type0

So much for his style that it makes his podcasts hit or miss (depending on the topic). For some personalities his conversational demagoguery feels nauseating, for others it fits the conversation. In my opinion Sean Carroll (Mindscape) has much more consistent conversational theme that borders on philosophical but still makes it engaging for the listener, where Lex often misses the red thread and rambles in unrelated territory. I don't think his podcasts are bad, just inconsistent, and thinking of how many he manages to do doesn't actually make it that strange. In order to improve Lex needs to curate his ramblings better and learn to read the motivations of his guests.

⬐ dogma1138

I think the biggest thing that Lex “needs” (that’s a bit strong wording because I do like his podcast) to change is that professional interviewers tend to drive the interview towards the benefit of the audience and the guest (the interviewer very well may have a hidden agenda but the good ones hide it well), Lex’s style is more about his own personal interests and anecdotes his uses this interviews primarily to benefit his own curiosity than to the benefit of the of viewership which why he tends to go on so many tangents I think.

⬐ blackrock

He said he had originally wanted to implement Scheme as the scripting language. But was over-ruled by his managers, and forced to make it look like Java.

I wonder how things would’ve turned out differently, had he implemented Scheme instead. Lisp in the browser.

⬐ AzzieElbab

He pretty much answered that. If they were going for ‘perfect’ we’d ended up using some form of vb from ms instead of anything from Netscape

⬐ blackrock

This really adds nothing to the conversation. Nor does it provide any further insight into my pondering of what if.

⬐ BrendanEich

I think it's a good point because Scheme was not standardized in practice or widely taught in 1995. So whatever happened, it's likely MS would have prevailed with VBScript, which was a real threat and did ship in IE3-4 (I forget when they dropped it).

⬐ cccc4alll

My guess is MS had plans for web dominance. Use Windows to push IE and VBScript and become gatekeeper to the web. Tightly couple Windows and web and have Windows become the web platform.

Until, US anti-trust investigation and law suit against MS. Which hampered MS enough to open the web business to smaller competitors, like Google, Apple, etc.

The fact that Apple now completely owns iOS and is gatekeeper to mobile app store is ironic. And, Google owns online ad services and is gatekeeper to online ad space is also ironic.

⬐ BrendanEich

No need to guess, from

https://thisdayintechhistory.com/05/26/bill-gates-internet-t...

to all the material discovered during US v. Microsoft, we know MS's plan was exactly what you said, after killing Netscape to avoid it becoming the new cross-OS runtime for apps.

Good point about MS leaving the Web fallow, which missed big opportunities Google and Apple (iPhone original app model was Web-only; native came almost a year later for games and for want of WebAssembly :-/).

⬐ skissane

It would be an interesting parallel universe to visit, where the Web runs on VBScript instead of JS. Would we have had node.vb?

VBScript, the syntax is aesthetically less pleasing, but there is no reason why it couldn't do anything that JavaScript can do, if more verbosely. (Of course, the semantics are inferior as well, but if VBScript had taken off, its semantics would likely have been improved at some point.)

⬐ AzzieElbab

I count myself lucky because I don’t really know vbscript. Does legacy vb have a notion of first order functions and async?

⬐ skissane

No it doesn't. But there is every reason to expect those features would have been added at some point if VBScript had been more popular.

Indeed, if we look at VBScript's cousin, VB.NET, we find both first order functions and async functions, at least in its newer versions.

(Keep in mind that those features weren't present in older versions of JavaScript either. Async functions were only added in ECMAScript 2016. First order functions have been there from the start, but ECMAScript 2015 greatly improved the syntax for anonymous functions with its introduction of arrow syntax.)

⬐ AzzieElbab

by async I did not mean syntax sugar. More like way to do async via continuations/callbacks

⬐ skissane

If all you mean by "async" is callbacks, then VBScript already has those.

In VBScript that runs under Windows Script Host, callbacks are implemented using the WScript.ConnectObject method.

(I'm not sure about VBScript running under IE or classic ASP, if they could use the same method or had to use a different one. But anyway, if VBScript can do it in one context but not another, that would be a deficiency they could have easily fixed if there were a demand.)

⬐ BrendanEich

In the multiverse of madness, you are welcome to the universe where we had jquery.vbs ;-).

⬐ the_only_law

> to the universe where we had jquery.vbs ;-)

I'm genuinely terrified.

⬐ charliebrownau

They might find out the true number is 275k , not 6m

Check out * podcasts * Bitchute * Gab/minds/alt tech

If Jews have lied about

- Non white immergration

- Equal outcome

- fait currency + Interest loans

- Anti whitism

- Anti Male

- Anti Merit/hard work

- Feminism

- Diversity

- LGBT

- Globl homo (Depopulation)

- Trans (real name - mental illness + Mulation + Brainwashing)

- Multi culturalism (real name Multi racial)

Is it really a suprise they lied about

- ethnic nationalism - Hilter

- WWII

- Death count

to guilt trip whites into funding their corruption and illegal formation of the state of israel

⬐ blackrock

This was a pretty good interview. Really wish he didn’t create the === implicit equivalence function. And made JavaScript stricter from the beginning.

⬐ BrendanEich

It's == that has implicit conversion semantics. === was the backward-compatible (because extension into formerly illegal syntax, which is reserved to future versions) operator we added that does no implicit conversions.

As I said, in the beginning (Mocha in ten days), == was just as strict if operand types differ: false result. The lesson is to say "no" by default and reflex to RFEs, consider only on repeated request and be willing to find what they truly want that's not a hole in the head ;-).

The other sloppiness in JS is `var obj = {prop:42}; obj.prep` where you get undefined instead of a thrown exception (as you would get in Python). That was due to 10 day rush and little time after for core language work leaving 0 time to add try-catch-finally.

⬐ leoh

What was Tabb's contribution to JS?

⬐ BrendanEich

Do you mean Lloyd Tabb? He was part of a four-person acquihire from Borland. He didn't do anything for JS, but Ken Smith from that team, after the ten days in May, did do the port we all agreed was the right solution: java.util.Date from Java to C. This left us with the same Y2K bugs, 0-based month numbers, and other warts that Java had then.

Lloyd suggested `with` after the ten days, also the String.prototype.{anchor,bold,...}() methods, and I added them in the same spirit that I made == sloppy on request from others in the ex-Borland gang of four (Bill Turpin, I think). I should not have agreed to any of these. Lloyd can take credit for them. The String methods are the least offensive but not that useful, now-archaic.

Someone (I think jevering) wrote a dishonest Quora answer claiming Lloyd wrote an engine and I used or benefited from his code. That's false. Mitchell Baker, who was a Netscape lawyer at the time, came on Quora along with others from Netscape management to back up my testimony.

It's funny people want credit for JS when boosting their resumes (Lloyd did great with Looker and as far as I know doesn't need money), while I get blame still. As I should: again, I'm the idiot who agreed to these Borland-flavored requests: sloppy ==, `with`, HTML helper string methods. My blame and credit, mine! But Lloyd is welcome to a share of the blame if he wants. :-D

⬐ gurumeditations

All you need to know is Brendan Eich is a homophobe.

⬐ irockzz

Netflix isn't working with brave browser? Anyone else?

⬐ BrendanEich

You may have missed or dismissed the prompt to enable WideVine (DRM). Please check brave://settings/?search=widevine.

⬐ gabrielsroka

Only on HN will you find the creator of JavaScript, Firefox, and Brave helping an end user troubleshoot.

Thanks, Brendan!

⬐ mjgs

I really liked this episode.

I think Brendan Eich has got to be one of my favourite people to hear anecdotes about early web history. He was around at some pivotal moments, was in with the business side of things but also super technical. He’s also just very good at talking, he never appears to talk himself into a corner, somehow always avoids getting into the weeds, there’s a lucidity to all his answers that’s somehow very impressive. I wonder how much preparation he puts into his interviews.

As for Lex, personally I really like his style. He operates at a different pace to many of the people he’s interviewing, but I find this often enables him to see interesting parallels and analysis. It’s not always perfect, and maybe there’s room for improvement, though it gives the whole show an authenticity that it might not otherwise have if it were too polished.

I feel like his style works very well with all the guests he has on. They all seem to get on very well, which has a massive positive effect on how the guest interacts. Sure he has some prepared questions, but he also goes off piste quite a bit, and when he gets back to the prepared questions, I generally find they are well researched and very relevant.

I’d also like to know how he gets so many great guests on the show.

⬐ mda

You like his style? Dunno, I watched his interview with Jim Keller, it was terrible and I cringed several times (And Keller rolled his eyes mostly).

⬐ mjgs

I didn’t watch that one.

So far I’ve only listened to a few. I mostly listen via the podcast feed.

I posted the ones I liked to my linkblog (https://links.markjgsmith.com):

[2020-12-26] Lex Friedman Podcast #80 - Vitalik Buterin - Ethereum, Cryptocurrency, and the Future of Money - Fascinating and well paced conversation with the founder of Etherium covering a wide range of topics including Satoshi Nakamoto, blockchains, proof of work and identity, PKI and digital signatures, Bitcoin, money, the Etherium origin story, smart contracts, software engineering and project governance challenges, proof of stake and consensus algorithms, sharding of storage and computation, Etherium 2.0, games built using smart contracts, Uniswap, AI and crypto, and closes on Immortality

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3x1b_S6Qp2Q

[2021-02-13] Lex Friedman Podcast #159 – Richard Craib: WallStreetBets, Numerai, and the Future of Stock Trading - Looks at the recent WalkStreetBets and Gamestop Saga that caused such a stir in the trading markets, then moves on to talk about hedge funds, shorting, new ways crypto and AI could change the world of finance, aswell as more esoteric topics like running a startup and the meaning of life

https://lexfridman.com/richard-craib

I might have a listen to the cringey one you linked to. I wonder if it was just an off day for him or perhaps he didn’t gel well with the guest.

⬐ mjgs

This just landed:

#162 – Jim Keller: The Future of Computing, AI, Life, and Consciousness

https://lexfridman.com/jim-keller-2

I haven’t listened to it yet, the topics covered in the show notes look pretty cool.

⬐ meowface

That one's widely considered the worst, by a lot. I wouldn't judge 160 podcast episodes by just that one.

⬐ mjgs

I listened to it yesterday. I actually liked the episode.

There were a few bits where it got a tad uncomfortable, maybe even cringey (though I think that’s a stretch), sometimes because Lex was being a bit argumentative, or because some of his comments and questions were a bit lame, but there were also some bits where I felt Keller was being a bit prickley.

Overall though I learnt a lot, Keller has a very interesting angle on the tech sector because of where / how he’s been involved.

Even though there were a few places where they clashed a bit, there were also some fun shared humour parts and I felt it ended well. Sounded like they got on quite well despite their differences.

If I have some time (unlikely), I might watch the video version, it would be interesting to see if there’s a big difference in how the interviews come across when there is a video component.

⬐ galfarragem

Bill Gates, Alan Kay and Steve Wozniak would fit perfectly in this format. Other missing guests (yet) - from the top of my mind - Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook and even Mark Zuckerberg.

⬐ mjgs

All the people you listed would be great guests for sure.

My initial reaction was that, of the people you listed, Steve Wosniak would be the best fit. I attended a lecture he gave a number of years ago, it was very inspiring. He’s not very ‘corporate’ so I think he’d get on really well with Lex.

But I am perhaps showing my bias here, I’d also be very interested to see how versatile Lex’s interview style is with Gates, Bezos and Zuckerberg.

⬐ spaetzleesser

I usually prefer to listen to slightly less famous people. The really big names usually are too used to public speaking and not saying anything wrong that they come across as too slick and guarded.

⬐ tomthe

Yes, but if someone with a big name says something stupid, that is interesting because of who says it. If some nobody says something stupid, it is just a podcast.

⬐ spaetzleesser

I don’t find it very inheriting when somebody trips over something. Must of our media already consists of trying to catch somebody saying something. We don’t need more of that.

⬐ pen2l

> somehow always avoids getting into the weeds

I hate to bring this up, but no, he's been given plenty chances and he does not behave responsibly as a person of his intellect and position should. I'd have hoped that he'd learned a lesson or two from the previous fiasco he was involved in, unfortunately he's still spewing some strange stuff on twitter and elsewhere, like saying masks don't work, Fauci is a liar, etc.: (https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1337496169690230784?l...).

I don't doubt his lucidity when it comes to his technical prowess, but it's just hard for me to square this with the fact that he keeps falling along party lines in his public presentation which is divisive and unneeded.

⬐ AlchemistCamp

I've spent the whole pandemic living in Taiwan (and I was here for SARS nearly two decades ago, too). So far it's been seven total Covid-19 deaths here, despite a population on par with that of Australia or Sri Lanka.

Some of Fauci's statements about masks and travel restrictions have looked absolutely mad from this vantage point. So have the WHO's statements and the US media coverage of the entire pandemic. It's been really disappointing to see decision after decision that lead people, rightfully, to lose trust in institutions. High trust in institutions is one of the main reasons it's gone so well here.

IMO, your comment is false, flamewar-inducing and completely off-topic. We didn't come to this thread wanting to talk about the pandemic and now it's a huge portion of the comments.

⬐ BrendanEich

@dang for thoughts on forking the whole thread off.

⬐ specialist

> it's just hard for me to square this with the fact

I don't think that's fair.

I just scanned his twitfeed. It's abundently clear to me that Eich's ethics are just as good as his technical acumen.

⬐ nobodyandproud

One of the most important things our adversarial system does is provide misstep feedback, when nobody else is willing to.

Fauci likely stated the mask trope with the best of intentions, but its also true that it was (in hindsight at the very least) a mistake for the current pandemic.

Most people who like what Fauci is doing would be too polite to call him out on it, but that’s a disservice in the long term. Not just to us but even to Fauci.

⬐ oh_sigh

Don't you remember like 10 months ago when Fauci et al told everyone to not wear masks because masks don't work for COVID, but it was just a lie to prevent necessary mask supplies from getting hoarded?

⬐ bzb6

If you’re on Twitter you will see 99.9% of tech people spend all day posting left wing political takes. Just a bit of counterbalance is not going to hurt you lol

⬐ pull_my_finger

> he does not behave responsibly as a person of his intellect and position should

He actually tried to doxx[1] me right here on HN because I spoke out against Brave.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442203

⬐ mendelmaleh

How is that a dox attempt?

⬐ ttul

Outing someone’s Twitter handle is a form of doxing.

⬐ goatinaboat

Outing someone’s Twitter handle is a form of doxing.

That’s literally a link to his own Twitter, not yours whoever you are??

⬐ BrendanEich

I cited a twitter thread (et seq) relevant to our exchange. You then doxxed yourself in reply on HN. I don't care who you are or what your twitter handle is, honestly.

⬐ chownie

That doesn't read as him accusing you of being that person, but of repeating an argument someone else made.

He literally links it and writes "et seq" ("and the following") ie: read this person who agrees with you and then my reply to them.

⬐ BrendanEich

Thanks for reading and thinking.

I don't doxx. Words matter.

⬐ blub

Fauci is a liar or incompetent. He claimed that masks do not work.

⬐ BrendanEich

Fauci said he lies often, right after the NYT tried to smear me for noticing that Fauci, indeed, lies often.

https://twitter.com/philwmagness/status/1342349517669228544?...

The party-lining here is from you, not me. I gave Fauci credit for giving long-standing advice against mass masking for the whole population in March, 2020. That matched advice over decades from WHO and CDC.

⬐ pen2l

You are a star and a titan, and I hold incredible respect for what you've given to the world. Understand however that you casting aspersions upon a man leading the fight against this pandemic isn't a constructive thing to do. Back when he was iffy about masks in that 60minutes interview, it was because there was actual concern that frontline medical staff might not have enough for themselves. He revised his stance on what public policy should be in an evolving situation as he well should.

He's one of the people leading this battle now, and for this battle to be won the public has to have trust in him, the public has to listen to him when he says wear masks, get vaccinated, etc. For folks in NIH and sciences, he's long been known to be a man of integrity, no doubt his scientific output has been pristine, no doubt he's the man for this job, yes that whole bout with the masks was an unfortunate happening, and I think I even agree he did not handle that situation in the most ideal way, but you're smart enough to know what a mucky situation that was and he deserves a pass for that.

edit: I misread you. You're still arguing against mask-wearing as public policy. Come on man, what is going on here? This is not up for debate, there is strong consensus from just about all medical scientists and medical organizations that mask-wearing is very important and effective in fighting coronavirus.

Please give this a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19...

Numerous prestigious peer-reviewed journals have confirmed this studies. There is no conspiracy here. Masks work. It is dangerous for you to say otherwise with the platform you command.

⬐ BrendanEich

On Fauci, see https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1342752109486166016 among other tweets from me naming him.

I think Fauci fell a beat behind the narrative marching band in March when he said no to masks for the general population, and so had to make up a dumb story in June about how he nobly lied to save PPE for frontline workers in March. This is obviously false (HCWs wear fitted N95 or better masks, must maintain and keep both good fit and a working backup; these masks are not for gen-pop) and still bad for credibility (lying for the greater good is lying, and the greater good story of PPE conservation was itself a lie).

Fauci is a dishonest careerist who has harmed many people over decades and misspent huge budgets. Larry Kramer knew this. Kary Mullis agreed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtgUGxxzB_c.

On masks, see https://rationalground.com/mask-studies and read the linked papers yourself, don't rely on Wikipedia. The Danish RCT was held up for political reasons (https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1317875526997102594), then published only with some weasel words added as quote-bait to deflect from the actual results: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817.

Coronaviruses show strong latitude-dependent seasonality per Hope-Simpson's pioneering work on respiratory viruses. NPIs don't much affect disease progression. Correlation is not causation but anti-correlation is a big problem for those arguing masks help:

https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/

https://rationalground.com/more-mask-charts/

I'm old, and per the CDC's estimated age-cohort IFR (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena... — see Scenario 5 column, note IFR figures there are per unum not percentages), therefore more at risk of death from Covid-19. I wear a mask in any bad, mixed, or unknown-quality indoor air environment. This is my risk analysis and my choice, not yours. I don't wear outdoors and no one should, all contact tracing studies I've read agree on this (so do the many hypocritical politicians who've gone maskless without fear). So I object to gray-area-legal mandates for all, especially for young people.

The policy reversal on masks last spring was not based on new science. It was in part a big rip-off (Newsom paid 4x and spent >$1B of the California taxpayers' money, this was obviously skimmed here before net-settled to China), and in large part a compliance exercise. That you jump into HN to police my dissenting stance is frankly worse in my view than Fauci being a corrupt careerist. I expect better from hackers and engineers.

⬐ invisible

I follow you on Twitter and think some of your ideas are great. That being said, a lot of the COVID graphs you retweet ignore population density and contend that COVID isn’t a pandemic. (Some suggesting it’s the same as a cold.)

Also, flatly saying that mask mandates don’t work is wrong. The evidence is (and has been) that they are effective if used properly. (Don’t touch them, wash hands, and single use or clean them.) Unfortunately, lots of people don’t use them properly and that lessens their effectiveness. You have retweeted things implying that masks don’t work.

⬐ BrendanEich

I don't believe I've ever said "it's the same as a cold" or linked to anything saying that. Cite it if you can. I don't delete but I'll quote-tweet it to correct the record.

If you can't cite, as I suspect, what are you doing here?

Population density early tweet: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1259222845353103360?s... (worth a look at the linked thread).

Pop. density, latent immunity due to ancient CoVs (this seems to matter a lot in Asia), other particulars do not excuse the NYC and NY state record. Also you hear people claim Sweden has low density but that's not the case.

Your second paragraph shows you didn't read the comment from me to which you replied, in particular this part:

"NPIs don't much affect disease progression. Correlation is not causation but anti-correlation is a big problem for those arguing masks help:

https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/

https://rationalground.com/more-mask-charts/"

What "The evidence is (and has been)" do you mean? Cite it. Use those famous hyperlinks we worked so hard to make useful back in the day at Netscape. Ignoring what I wrote and asserting your assumptions is not helpful.

⬐ invisible

Hopefully 0-10 help illuminate what I’m talking about.

I think 11 and 12 point to masks being a good idea. The graphs you linked ignore population density and seasonal increases in transmission of viruses. An increase after a mask mandate isn’t proof that the mandate had no impact.

0. https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1360069067017748480?s=21 — “Reminder: with flu and RSV down ~98% and replaced by COVID, which is far less dangerous to children, we are in literally the mildest respiratory illness season for children in recorded history.”

1. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1336918916895965185?s...

2. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1336920895344975873?s...

3. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1335840898807070720?s...

4. https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/1335346330500141056?s...

5. https://twitter.com/davidbcollum/status/1329789976683409408?...

6. https://twitter.com/ianmsc/status/1333851832205012992?s=21

7. https://twitter.com/hold2llc/status/1328879434456330242?s=21

8. https://twitter.com/ewoodhouse7/status/1323115034239737856?s...

9. https://twitter.com/ianmsc/status/1320811573682728960?s=21

10. I can’t go back far enough, but there were a series of graphs from EthicalSkeptic which seemed less than ethical.

11. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1279750/retrieve

12. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...

⬐ BrendanEich

You wrote "(Some suggesting it’s the same as a cold.)" and I asked you to cite even one tweet saying "it's the same as a cold". None of the links you gave says any such thing. Were you lying?

You seem upset about tweets that I RTed or replied to, which I can and will defend, but you can't attack them on substance. In particular, your [0], from https://twitter.com/kerpen, is correct per CDC Flu and RSV monitoring. Those viruses are way down in 2020, no one knows exactly why, but given antibody studies, it seems SARS2 spread widely and preempted them, possibly in the human nose (not lungs). This needs more study but it is nothing like saying "it's just the cold".

Kerpen is right (again, CDC has IFR by age figures) that Flu and RSV are much deadlier than Covid for children.

So you don't like my opinions but you can't refute them, yet you can gather a bunch of tweet-links. What's the point? If we are not going to argue substance, all you've done is identify me as on Team Reality. But we knew that. What's up?

⬐ invisible

There are multiple replies and retweets that compare COVID-19 to flus/colds in a “COVID-19 is the same” context. Or suggesting that drastic measures are unwarranted or unreasonable.

The kerpen tweet thread is troubling because it suggests that the CDC is both providing accurate data and that they are only providing guidance for political reasons. So they aren’t lying, but they are? Then he compares COVID-19 to the flu and cold, ignoring that transmission by children can affect adults.

Here is another one (in addition to the one above about children):

> No lockdown in 2017-2018 cold season!

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1335873383209177088?s...

That is ignoring that the fatality rate and transmission rate is significantly higher in COVID-19.

Maybe all of these things comparing the equivalence of the cold and COVID-19 mean nothing to you, but they seem significant to me. Perhaps you’ll defend these by saying, “in isolation this data is accurate.” That point falls flat when taken in context to our situation — they are marketing a perspective.

You asked me for some citations for my comments and then criticized that I provided citations for why I said what I said. Nobody said you’re on “Team Reality” but you.

(Oh, and also: I can’t go back further than 10/10 on your tweets but there were a number of retweets from EthicalSkeptic saying that the death count was a lie and suggesting that COVID-19 wasn’t a big deal.)

Edit: Here is a comment from someone in the thread discussed. This is the “subtext” I see. https://twitter.com/MarkChangizi/status/1282074580350312450?...

⬐ BrendanEich

No one in any tweet said "it's just the cold" so you were misreading or misrepresenting — which is it?

From my "No lockdown in 2017-2018 cold season!" tweet you linked, straight up the thread two tweets, everyone can see the quoted tweet:

https://twitter.com/MarkChangizi/status/1330594561635315724

where Mark Changizi wrote:

"Overwhelmed hospitals everywhere!

...in 2017/18 cold season.

US: https://nytimes.com/2018/02/02/health/flu-symptoms-virus-hos...

UK: https://nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-heal...

Italy: https://thelocal.it/20180119/italy-worst-flu-season-in-14-ye...

Japan: https://japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/22/national/science-he..."

Obviously the point is that we had overwhelmed hospitals in 2017-2018 (almost every year, the Guardian runs an "NHS overwhelmed" story in the UK) but no lockdowns.

This was not to make light of that (bad) flu season, or to say "it's just the cold". Rather, the link pointed out that we didn't lock down over elevated mortality in bad flu years. That is relevant because WHO and CDC long-term policy guidance was and is against lockdowns:

CDC 2007: https://cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigat... p. 25:

“... the effectiveness of pandemic mitigation strategies will erode rapidly as the cumulative illness rate prior to implementation climbs above 1 percent of the population....”

WHO 2006: http://upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2... argues against lockdowns.

If you can't follow this context without misreading as "just the cold", I say it's time to stop reading Twitter and HN right now.

(BTW, Alex Petrescu in that thread ended with a gracious concession about overreacting by using troll-form rhetoric: https://twitter.com/SeyelentEco/status/1336043936238845953?s....)

⬐ invisible

What does the word “suggesting” mean to you (in the sentence as I used it)? I’m guessing “some leading the reader to believe that it is the same as a cold” would have been more clear.

⬐ BrendanEich

No, "suggesting" doesn't help, you are still misreading. The argument was about no lockdown in 2017-2018 in spite of bad cold season. It was an argument against lockdowns, not a claim that Covid-19 is just the cold.

Perhaps you are assuming lockdowns are good policy and help. Or you think Covid mortality is much worse than the worst post-1918 flu pandemics. Neither is true.

⬐ invisible

The argument against lockdowns was based on it being comparable to a cold/flu season.

The number hospitalized so for COVID-19 in the US exceeds the 2017-2018 season. Additionally, the mortality rate is an order of magnitude higher (61k in 2017-2018 flus vs ~500k+ for COVID-19 so far, US). Dealing with dying patients is harder on hospital staff. Treating a new illness was challenging for hospitals. That result is with the extraordinary measures that we, as a society, have taken.

>Neither is true.

I’ll admit, it’s tough to say what the lockdowns did to/for us. I’m not prepared to assert the truth as willingly as you are. I’m going to have to defer to the only study I could find on this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8

⬐ BrendanEich

> The argument against lockdowns was based on it being comparable to a cold/flu season.

No:

CDC 2007: https://cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigat... p. 25:

“... the effectiveness of pandemic mitigation strategies will erode rapidly as the cumulative illness rate prior to implementation climbs above 1 percent of the population....”

WHO 2006: http://upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2... argues against lockdowns.

The argument against lockdown as ineffective above 1% spread is based on models, see the references. Whether these are good models or not, that's what CDC policy guidance was.

Western lockdowns with many essential workers spreading the virus, especially nosocomially, are even less justifiable. Wrecking the economy, including health care sector employment and facilities, while leaving people worse off on all other health fronts (deferred checkups and treatments), plus the psychological toll culminating in elevated suicides, is not worth hard-to-measure reduction in spread. Lockdowns actually focus spread into shared housing, notably nursing homes. They also select adversely in the face of mutated variants.

Lockdown policy guidance was not based on cold vs. flu or severity of either. I have no idea why you thought this.

⬐ invisible

I'd like to point out the obvious but those links are written about flus.

Here is the advice that replaces that 2007 CDC paper (from 2017):

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm

> NPIs can be phased in, or layered, on the basis of pandemic severity and local transmission patterns over time.

It goes on to explain that it may suggest "lockdowns" if the pandemic is severe enough.

Here are the two actual papers that other link is based on (the 2nd of these is more applicable):

- https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1370_article

- https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1371_article (see phase 6)

Some quotes:

> A 1959 WHO consultation concluded, "In the Northern hemisphere at least, the opening of schools after the summer holidays seems to have played an important role in initiating the main epidemic phase" (13). Despite the propensity of influenza epidemics to be amplified in primary schools (14), data on the effectiveness of school closures are limited. Apparently no data or analyses exist for recommending illness thresholds or rates of change that should lead to considering closing or reopening schools.

> Apparently no controlled studies assess the efficacy of mask use in preventing transmission of influenza viruses.

> As noted above, influenza virus isolation rates decreased, but since multiple measures were implemented, the contribution of mask use, if any, is uncertain (20). In case-control studies conducted in Beijing and Hong Kong, wearing masks in public was independently associated with protection from SARS in a multivariate analysis.

These papers are from 2006. They are also very clear that the circumstances matter. Regarding international travel, it seems they suggest that restricting travel would be difficult, if not impossible. They suggest closing schools if a link is unknown or found between schools and transmission.

⬐ BrendanEich

School closure efficacy has been well researched, you found the same links I did when I researched this years ago. We were talking about lockdowns, so why switch to school closures? No need to answer.

Viral family, Flu or CoV, is not material to the modeling work as far as I can tell. The models consider respiratory viruses and attack rate and other such parameters.

No authority that I know of has suggested lockdown in the past for anything similar in mortality to Covid-19. If it's severe enough... but it isn't. Please focus on this. The CDC IFR estimates show Covid-19 as worse for older cohorts, much less severe for younger, than Flu.

⬐ blub

I'd like to add a couple of points:

1. It's not that hard for the general population to wear an FFP2 mask properly. I'm reasonably sure that this also applies to N95 masks. If you'll read the instructions that come with e.g. Dräger or Moldex masks, you'll see that the fitting procedure doesn't include anything as complicated as smell tests, but instructs the wearer to do a rather obvious leak test instead.

Dräger is now selling FFP2 masks directly to end customers: https://ffpshop.de/de/ffp-maske/draeger-x-plore-1720-ffp2-ma.... Check out the instructions, it's nothing fancy.

2. There are studies that indicate that surgical masks reduce risk even at population level. I've referenced them in a previous comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25479729.

The conclusion of was "Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission."

Finally, I'd like to address the RCT you've linked to from Denmark which I found interesting, but not particularly consequential. For me the biggest concerns are that:

* many things were self-reported.

* previous studies have found massive differences in wearer protection for surgical masks. Did they get a crap batch from China? It's not clear to me how they used masks. I can't reconcile 1.7 masks per weekday with the idea that such a mask should not be worn for more than a couple of hours or until it gets wet and the typical shift duration of 8h.

* didn't look at disease severity (or maybe I missed it?)

* didn't (couldn't) look at source control. For an individual it's important that they don't get sick (FFP2 preferred), for a government it's important that not too many people get sick (anything preferred, as long as it reduces transmission, even if it makes the wearer sick).

⬐ BrendanEich

"as long as it reduces transmission, even if it makes the wearer sick"

So the only risk in life is Covid, there's no such thing as relative risk, masks could never be a net loss for anyone? No. Again, by all long-term studies, and with anti-correlation headwinds all over the place, mask mandates are not justified.

⬐ blub

At least in Germany the potential social benefit was weighed against the personal discomfort and the latter was not considered significant enough. There are people that can't wear masks for various reasons and they can get a doctor's notice for that. In fairness, that's not working so great, since they're exposed to a lot of social pressure, especially since it was discovered that some doctors rubber-stamp these notices.

In the end, even a surgical mask will prevent e.g. the janitor from spitting on me for the 5m he comes by to check on things. If I'm wearing a FFP2, I'm also quite safe from aerosols, so it's a win, especially since maintaining distance is not something humans are reliably able to do.

Take this and multiply it by hundreds of situations and millions of people and you're bound to reduce contagion risk. I don't see why that's bad... especially since surgical masks are really cheap and not too inconvenient. Now if everyone were mandated to wear an FFP2 mask which is inconvenient maybe that would require more consideration.

⬐ BrendanEich

Masks that don't seal tightly against skin vent (backwards as well as up and down). You feel "quite safe from aerosols" but the empirical studies don't back this up across real world large-N groups. So mandating an insufficient mask is worse than mandating one that might make a measurable difference, but in any event: mandates are not justified in my view, on also not advised by long-term WHO and CDC guidance, and they are in a legal "gray area" in the US.

Germany and USA: https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1359677558829191169

⬐ blub

I am not a large-N group though, so my main interest is whether a properly worn FFP2 mask can protect me. Everything indicates that it can. My only worry was FFP2 vs FFP3, since the former is not actually recommended to be used to protect against aerosols, but it seems that it's the default even for medical personnel - high aerosol inducing procedures aside.

The fact that others are wearing surgical or even FFP2 masks is a protective bonus for me, even if the former vent or it doesn't protect them in all cases. I believe this was the reasoning of the German original fabric mask mandate starting spring/summer 2020: mask + no mask = 0, but mask + mask = good protection against droplets. Whether that made any significant difference with the transmission in aggregate is probably impossible to tell now, but it probably did prevent at least some infections. More importantly it made masks more normal, compared to spring where you were looked at like a maniac for wearing one.

Regarding the graph, Germany was and still is in a lockdown, so numbers will be going down masks or not. Upgrading the mandate to surgical/FFP2 was done more out of fear of the new mutations and it wasn't FFP2 only because it's economically / socially not tenable. I don't know why the US decreased, but the US is way ahead on vaccines and also had more infected, so I assume it will continue to do so.

⬐ kodah

Just going to preface with I don't agree that masks didn't help.

The clean fit to a face is pertinent to zero exposure. This is a common test in the military: dawn your mask, cover the vents, and suck in. If you don't feel immense pressure on your face, if you can't shake your head and do it again then you're metaphorically dead. Part of this fit is having a mask that fits your face and being clean shaven.

I don't know that COVID protection needs to hit this mark, since this is designed for nerve agents and nuclear fallout. It seems like trapping quantities of the virus is good enough, since it takes some threshold of exposure to get someone infected.

⬐ BrendanEich

Microdroplets, aerosol flows. This isn't a matter of stopping large droplets, where masks are more effective provided they don't nebulize. See also

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse...

for surprising null or even slightly negative result of surgeons masking vs. surgery patient wound infections.

Assuming linear scaling or other naive-model benefits from masks runs into large-scale gen-pop experience, which has now been studied by enough RCTs to cast doubt on the assumption. Long-term WHO and CDC policy guidance was based on empirical science showing non-pharmaceutical interventions are not very effective against respiratory viruses.

⬐ B1FF_PSUVM

> police my dissenting

Lots of that going around, thanks for standing up.

⬐ pen2l

> I think Fauci fell a beat behind the narrative marching band in March when he said no to masks for the general population, and so had to make up a dumb story in June about how he nobly lied to save PPE for frontline workers in March.

Consider this interview, done early March, in which Fauci argues against masks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI . You don't even have to read between the lines because he explains his reasoning bluntly: "Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for people [(healthcare workers)] who really need it." He never at any point thought masks were ineffective. When he did say so in March as you see from this interview, he said it because he was concerned about shortages for medical staff. There doesn't exist evidence with which one can credibly accuse him of committing this sort of revisionism.

Bringing up Kramer betrays a lack of familiarity with Fauci's history. Kramer and Fauci eventually came to be very close friends, and Kramer is on record saying Fauci was LGBT community's best friend. Mullis lost his marbles later in his life, sounding fringe views on HIV, astrology and lots of other stuff. His contribution of PCR technique is undeniably one of the great discoveries in chemistry, but he's not an authority on much else.

⬐ BrendanEich

I read reports of Kramer patching things up with Fauci. Excluding the ones from after Larry died that were sourced to Fauci alone, what do you know? Thanks for any links.

March 8, 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6pEcgDmEUk&feature=emb_logo

This video shows Fauci saying people should not wear masks, that they get a false sense of security, that there are unintended consequences: fiddling with masks, touching masks, dirtying masks/failing to clean, etc. At end "you should think of healthcare providers and people who are ill."

Also, that last point about conserving PPE doesn't apply to cloth, which health orders allow instead of polyprop. Surgical masks were plentiful in March.

Again, right there in this video, Fauci did not argue against civilian masking solely based on shortages. He really did say that most people should not be wearing. Right or wrong, he was giving advice consistent with the US Surgeon General, CDC at the time, and WHO (which has varied its advice in the last year).

⬐ pen2l

> Fauci did not argue against civilian masking solely based on shortages.

No, he did. You linked the same clip I linked, except minus the 20 seconds where he reveals his reasoning. Please refer to slightly longer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI

I agree it wasn't a great thing to play down masks to the extent he did, but as someone else pointed out, explaining the nuance of the situation to 350 million people is a tough task. Remember the toilet paper situation? Imagine if he'd sold masks as the solution, people would try to get their hands on one at all costs, they would not have faith in home-made cloth masks, they'd want what doctors are wearing because those are the ones that really work (is what they'd be saying)! Stories like these would be commonplace: https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/160-pieces-of-n95-surgical-masks-... I frankly don't know how else he could've handled this if at the time the information available to them indicated a possible shortage of masks. What would you have done in his place at that time in that situation? And coming back to my original point: doesn't Fauci deserve a pass on this one, considering how sticky the situation was?

Give me a few minutes to find a link on Kramer talking about Fauci

⬐ BrendanEich

I saw the longer version, it ends with Fauci saying "that's the point." But he made several points, as did the Surgeon General. The policy guidance was not in favor of mandates for several reasons. I don't know how else to say this clearly.

It seems from a recent comment from somenone in Taiwan (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26139550) that masks were not mandated apart from trains and certain private settings until recently. There may be ancient inherited CoV partial immunity operating across much of Asia, people may be tidier and more careful, etc.

Masks are just one of several tools, with downside risks. From the Danish RCT and many others, they seem not significantly effective in general populations against respiratory viruses. Mandates, especially with such selective enforcement and hypocrisy in high places, plus overpaying and probably skimming a la Newsom, stink.

⬐ pen2l

In saying "that's the point, it could lead to a shortage of masks for people who really need it" he's giving away his awareness of the need for masks, and the reason for why he at all suggested to avoid masks in the first place. That's to say he never had a change of mind about the effectiveness of masks.

Here are two links I could find in which Kramer talks nicely about Fauci: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a32688094/anthon... < As recently as March of this year, Kramer said of Fauci, “We are friends again. I’m feeling sorry for how he’s being treated. I emailed him this, but his one line answer was, ‘Hunker down.’” > & https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/health/larry-kramer-antho...

There should be a quote of him saying something to the effect of "Fauci is LGBT community's best friend" dated around 2015 but I'm unable to find a source for this at the time, I'll continue my search though and link when I find it.

The downside risks to mask-wearing are marginal next to its benefits. I'm reviewing Danish RCT and other papers you linked now.

I'll say one other thing: I think it was poor form on my part to steer this thread off and bring to view here before everyone something you'd said that I perceived to be bad. Because I think that goes against the principle of giving everyone the benefit of doubt, it goes against the principle of charitable interpretation and really it's bad form to unnecessarily remind folks of past wrongs (because indeed when we just _expect_ better of people, they come through most of the times, so one really ought to just forget old wrongs and be more forward-looking). For your part in being one of the initial designers of Rust, you deserve some leeway anyway. Crucially though, I in a way made the error I accused you of committing in slandering Fauci. For this, I am sorry.

⬐ BrendanEich

Thanks for that last paragraph.

⬐ pen2l

Regarding Danish study, here's what I found: the authors concluded that “the 95% confidence intervals are compatible with a possible 46% reduction to 23% increase in infections among mask wearers. These findings do offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendations for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although this was a well-designed study, it had several key limitations. During the study period, there was a low burden of community COVID-19 infections in Denmark, and the study intervention only lasted for 1 month. Cafés and restaurants were closed for the first half of the study. Mask adherence relied on retrospective self-reports. Participants in the mask group had more documented household COVID-19 infections (n= 52) than in the control group (n=39). The antibody test used for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection had a sensitivity of only 82.5%. Finally, there was a trend toward protection in the mask group, which could have been significant had more subjects been recruited to the study or if the community burden of COVID-19 had been higher.

Please consider following two writings:

[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v...

[2]: https://wmjonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/119/4/229.pdf

⬐ jariel

Wow, this is not a good look.

There was absolutely a shortage of PPP among healthcare institutions in the areas that were hit by COVID.

If 350 million Americans in a giant panic, decided to make a run on PPE, then there would be serious supply chain problems and it could have adversely affected the medical system.

The strategy of prioritising Hospitals, in face of a pandemic (and they use all kinds of masks, not just N95) - was actually quite rational.

In the initial phase of the pandemic, masks should be allocated where they have a very obvious effect.

Then, once they can be produced in much greater quantities, then it makes sense for individuals to start wearing them whereby we can help a little bit with transmissibility in the general population.

'The Lie' was to downplay the effectiveness of masks early, and then embellish the effectiveness later on - but that is the communications strategy behind a rational plan.

In a war, it's probably more important that the soldiers have access to weapons, they are the most effective at leveraging them. Having weapons at the home front might be helpful, but much more marginally so.

There was a 'policy reversal' due to material facts on the ground with respect to PPE availability, but that's consistent with the overall strategy.

As far as 'mask wearing in public' - it's not just 'your decision' because of the fact that you're putting others at risk and that due to the high nature of transmissibility, it becomes a systematic problem.

It's not like wearing seatbelts where it affects mostly you.

It's like if you were in an accident and not wearing a seatbelt, and as a result, you hurt 10 other people.

⬐ BrendanEich

Daigou shoppers did buy up all over-the-counter masks in January and February, for some strange reason :-/. Amazon N95 and hazmat stocks ran low in those months too:

https://www.junglescout.com/blog/coronavirus/

Purell and water bottles ran short and gougers gouged.

By March when Fauci spoke against mask mandates, civilian-mandated mask supply chains had recovered. We bought a bunch then without trouble.

But early shortages and gouging for various products are all beside the point. Mandates on civilians that passed in March and April by county and state health orders were for people to wear polypropylene and cloth masks, not N95s or hazmat suits.

Cloth and polyprop are not used by HCWs, and Fauci was not saying "yes" to people wearing those mandated kinds of masks, while saying "no" to people buying N95s. He was saying no to masks, period, full stop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06a4RriBrhg&feature=emb_logo

He gave the same long-standard talking points against mass masking that the WHO and CDC, as well as the US Surgeon General, had made.

⬐ jariel

So there are some things that are 'slightly off' in your statement, enough to cause some odd conclusions - especially in the context of public communications.

With respect to timing, there was no pandemic in January, we're not going to see 'public fear and pandemonium' until it hits home, which wasn't until March. It wasn't until this point could there have been a true run on anything at least in the US.

The delineation between HCW PPE and 'civilian' PPE is basically moot: both N95 and surgical masks are widely used by civilians and HC.

Given the above, if there were any real impetus by 'the nations top doctor' to buy masks there would have been a massive run on all kinds of masks.

The reason that 'you are able to buy something' is precisely because the policy was 'masks are not important'.

Understand that in 2020 (and arguably today), nobody knew the difference between the various kinds of masks. 'N95' was not in the public lexicon. Masks are Masks. If the 1/2 of Americans that seem to be concerned about COVID felt that they needed masks, they would have bought them.

It would be impossible for Dr. Fauci or anyone else to say: "Buy this kind of mask over here, but that other kind of mask, don't worry about that, you don't need it" - this is beyond the threshold of complexity of something you can effectively message to 350 Million people.

The amount of pricing pressure etc. would have made it clearly more difficult for HCW around the world to get access to much of the gear they needed - we know this because even without face masks doctrine, there were a lot of shortages.

Doctors in many facilities were resigned to having to re-use a lot of gear - including masks.

If there were a public stampede for those masks, they would have had critical shortages that would have materially affected outcomes.

It wasn't until summer 2020, when COVID numbers started to come under control, that 'resource sharing' started to become effective, and that supply chains truly started to be able to handle demand did things start to seem more reasonable.

Only in June/July did a lot of HC centres across the nation start to receive major shipments of PPE.

At that point 'we made it through Phase 1' - at which time, it started to make sense to make masks part of the public health strategy.

So then the communication shifts: they start telling us how great masks are, how they can help us, and that we should wear them.

Obviously, this feels disingenuous, but it's not.

Given the risk in the system, even in hindsight, it was a perfectly reasonable strategy.

Finally, it was not 'Dr. Fauci' - it was the same across the Western world. UK and Canada started mandating in July, France in August.

⬐ adolph

was no pandemic in January

It was known in January.

On January 24, 2020, the Senate Committees on Health and Foreign Relations held a closed meeting with only Senators present to brief them about the COVID-19 outbreak and how it would affect the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_tra...

⬐ ketamine__

> If there were a public stampede for those masks, they would have had critical shortages that would have materially affected outcomes.

In my state close to 50% of deaths were attributed to nursing homes. So either N95 wasn't available or healthcare professionals were careless. Either way it led to a lot of deaths.

What sort of outcome do you think was prevented?

⬐ jariel

Responding to _ketamine:

"In my state close to 50% of deaths were attributed to nursing homes. So either N95 wasn't available or healthcare professionals were careless. Either way it led to a lot of deaths."

So the problem with this statement is the implied assumption that 'masks are the thing'.

They are not 'the thing' just 'one of the things'.

LTC homes are very sensitive, we didn't have policies and procedures for protecting everyone. They are not Hospitals with highly paid professionals. They don't always have the best PPE. They know nothing about transmission, procedures etc. and generally have nobody to support them whereas Hospitals are full of smart, connected people.

My hunch is that many of them were totally caught off guard, had no idea as to N95 or Surgical, they don't have any special supply chain power, they didn't have testing.

They were in a chaos state and realized too late they had major outbreaks in their homes and then reacted - in some cases, too late.

⬐ BrendanEich

Your "hunch" is wrong. Here's the letter sent by LTC worker organizations immediately upon learning of Cuomo's deadly order on 3/25 to discharge recovered elderly Covid cases to nursing homes:

https://paltc.org/sites/default/files/AMDA-AHCA-NCAL%20State...

Any fool by that point in March knew that the virus was highly transmissible. Nursing homes and LTCs did not have extra staff or isolation wards, sanitarium-level protection — but they could have. Funds wasted on the Mercy ship and Javits Center, which were barely used, should have been spent on isolation.

Civilian mask mandates have nothing to do with this, but even with N95s, nosocomial spread is a problem in hospitals, never mind nursing homes. NY intake was mixing known-infected with unknown-status/no-symptoms patients. This too was not a case of being "caught off guard". It was negligent or worse, and it relates to vent overuse.

⬐ jariel

LTCs are like hotels with under-paid immigrants changing diapers.

Of course they knew 'there was a transmissable virus' - but what does that mean?

"Nursing homes and LTCs did not have extra staff or isolation wards, sanitarium-level protection"

How?

With what money?

Who is going to mandate it?

Who is going to 'hire a bunch of new, trained staff immediately'?

This would bankrupt Private LTCs and the Public one's had no access to funds.

How does the mid-level manager of an LTC have the knowledge or ability to come up with emergency protocols?

These hotels were not prepared, they responded with PPE, by isolating workers to floors and residents, they increased testing, closed of visitors - and possibly, as you say did something about the air ventilation.

.. and masks were one part of the policy ...

... and now it seems they have it mostly under control.

⬐ BrendanEich

> How?

With the money blown on Javits, Mercy Ship, Seattle field hospital that went utterly unused, etc.

Lots of money was spent last spring: https://patch.com/new-york/harrison/new-york-coronavirus-sta... is one link.

I've been through this line of argument before. First it was "no one knew" (just a hunch). When I produce evidence in the form of that letter from PALTC et al., the argument shifts to "nothing could have been done" — at the same time that tens of millions were misspent on underused or unused facilities.

Public spending went way up, including (Newsom's $1B rip off) on masks. Why are you so keen to feign helplessness and avoid accountability? Trump family taxpayer rip-offs get and deserve condemnation, but it's ok when Cuomo or Newsom does it? A pox on all of them.

⬐ dboreham

I see masks as having two distinct purposes : 1. To protect me and my family members when we need to enter a "hot" area such as a virus-denier-owned business or other place with large numbers of people and poor ventilation. We use best available N95 type masks (KN95 for example are widely available now) for this purpose. 2. as a signal I can read from other people as to whether or not they take virus spread mitigation measures seriously. So if I see someone not wearing a mask in a store, I can reasonably assume that person is more likely to transmit the virus. Not because the mask they're not wearing is not effective, but because the lack of mask tells me that they probably mix with other people, frequent places with large numbers of other people, are friends with people who don't take quarantine seriously, and so on. So even if masks had zero effectiveness for virus transmission, they're still very useful to me in identifying people and places to avoid.

⬐ BrendanEich

I agree with both of these as good personal policy in mixed indoor settings.

I reject "virus denier" as bait. Look at Newsom and the many other hypocrites caught in flagrante maskless. They were not denying the virus exists in their public words, but their nominally private deeds said something about their sense of relative risks that doesn't fit your cult-like "denier" language.

⬐ dboreham

Ok, I admit there are "virus-lazy" people as well as virus deniers. I'm in Montana and here I believe it's a reasonable assumption that someone without a mark in a mask-required scenario is a denier, based on my f2f (outside!) discussions with people. Many deniers. Full blown FoxNews regurgitation.

⬐ BrendanEich

Newsom may be lazy or not, but his mask-free dinner out didn’t show sloth, it showed corruption and lack of concern (probably in part based on him being young and fit enough to have low risk per the CDC age-grouped IFR table).

What are your neighbors denying, exactly?

⬐ dboreham

That the virus exists or is a practical problem. I'm in deep QAnon territory here.

⬐ BrendanEich

Stick to the topic: Fauci said no masks (of any kind), then flipped. He did so on no new science.

People knew in January and were ringing the bell. UW made their own test based on the viral genome finally released on or around the 12th of January. The Daigou shoppers were in the US stripping shelves, and I linked to a chart of Amazon sales in the first two months of the year.

What's slightly off is your rewriting of this history to make it sound like nobody new anything. Many knew, and took steps. I don't fault Fauci for what he said in March, because it was consistent with longstanding policy guidance. But his claim in June that he lied nobly for the greater good is b.s. and it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Polypropylene (surgical) masks don't stop aerosol transfer of the virus. This was known for ages. They're for fungi, pollens ,and droplets, not microdroplets. Cloth masks are even less effective and quickly become moldy face-fomites.

If you want to defend mandating these for everyone, even small children, do it directly. But don't excuse Fauci on the noble-lie pretext as if his March "no masks" advice saved polyprop or cloth for HCWs who cannot use those masks on the job. The polyprop masks come in boxes with black letter language disclaiming their ability to prevent infection. The noble-lie excuse makes no sense.

⬐ jariel

1) "It was Dr. Fauci" --> This is not true.

(Edit: As per 'BrendanEich' - point below, I had misread his earlier statement with respect to his view that this was mostly about Dr. Fauci - he didn't indicate that it was specifically about Dr. Fauci directly. That said - statements are all directed at Dr. Fauci when these policies are fairly consistent around the West and even in the US, these policies decisions are made by the CDC, Fauci, others.)

It was Dr. Fauci, the CDC, the WHO and the entire Western World i.e. Canada, UK, Germany, France, Europe etc. (not so much Asia).

"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,"

Dr. Mike Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO, March 30

The same policy in Canada, UK, France, Germany.

Here is UK's policy evolution over time [1] [2].

So why are you focused on Fauci, who is doing the same thing (in coordination) with everyone else?

2)"Dr. Fauci said no masks" --> This is a misrepresentation.

Here is the WHO policy in late March:

"Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the WHO: "We prioritize the use of masks for those who need it most, which would be frontline health care workers. In the community, we do not recommend the use of wearing masks unless you yourself are sick and as a measure to prevent onward spread from you if you are ill" [3]

Here is a public statement by Dr. Fauci, via CBC/60 Minutes, early March:

"In March, Dr. Fauci told 60 Minutes that masks should largely be reserved for healthcare providers. In April, the recommendations were broadened to include simple masks for the general public." [4]

Dr Fauci + CDC, Late March:

"The idea of getting a much more broad, community-wide use of masks outside of the health care setting is under very active discussion at the task force. The CDC group is looking at that very carefully, Fauci told CNN. The thing that has inhibited that a bit is to make sure that we don’t take away the supply of masks from the health care workers who need them," he continued. “But once we get in a situation where we have enough masks, I believe there will be some very serious consideration about more broadening this recommendation of using masks.” [5]

The policy was always, and repeatedly: "Don't wear masks, because our healthcare workers need them" - and they do, HCW use both N95 and Surgical Masks.

There's tons of evidence available as to the material shortages of masks and other PPE well into summer.

3) "Polypropylene masks don't stop aerosol transfer of the virus." --> this is a misrepresentation.

Yes, it's public information Surgical Masks do not filter the virus directly - do you think that millions have been duped, that the 'World Powers' have tricked us, if only we could read the label?

Here is the Mayo Clinics statement:

"A cloth mask is intended to trap respiratory droplets that are released when the wearer talks, coughs or sneezes. It also acts as a barrier to protect the wearer from inhaling droplets released by others." [6]

Surgical Masks won't directly filter COVID, however, there is evidence to support the notion that COVID is spread often in water vapour and droplets, and that Surgical/Cloth masks can at least help to minimize the risk via these vectors.

See here for a litany of studies which provide some evidence as to the effictiveness of surgical masks in HCW environments [7]

3) "But don't excuse Fauci on the noble-lie pretext as if his March "no masks" advice saved polyprop or cloth for HCWs who cannot use those masks on the job. "

The objective was to prevent a run on N95s as much as Surgical Masks - and everything else.

It wasn't a 'lie' it was 'guidance' or what we call 'Public Communications' and it's what we do in Emergency Situations to try to get 350 Million people acting consistently within a short period of time.

4) "Don't re-write history" - the timeline is in full public display.

This is what happened, it happened in public, for everyone to see, and it was orchestrated by the WHO, CDC/Faci, and his equivalents in the rest of the modern world.

It's hard to tell how much of an effect the March 'save the masks for hospitals' policy had, however, it's very rational policy, even in hindsight.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53397617

[2] http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/blog/post/mask-or-no-mask-a-look...

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-r...

[4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/preventing-coronavirus-facemask...

[5] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/31/fauci-mask-recommen...

[6] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...

[7] https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/masking-during-covid-19-pan...

⬐ BrendanEich

When you reply to me seeming to quote my words, try using exactly what I wrote. I did not write "It was Dr. Fauci" anywhere in the parent at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26138420, so your "This is not true" is refuting someone else or knocking down your own straw-man.

Also, kindly cut the "misrepresentation" nonsense. I wrote polyprop masks don't stop aerosol transfer and that's true as stated, and relevant. In returning to mask efficacy vs. droplets (which in no way refuted the problem of microdroplets smoking around polyprop mask margins) you also left out how masks can nebulize droplets, which all else equal makes things worse.

Fauci had no reason to lie in March to save polyprop or cloth masks as HCWs do not use either in Covid-isolated floors. As I wrote way above, by the time he said this, polyprop were in good supply — we bought many.

However many fancy link footnotes you add, you can't overcome the problem that his March no-mask advice was based on sound long-term policy, no new science arose to revise it, and mandates arriving in our county and state that same month allowed cloth(!) in addition to polyprop.

Let's talk about cloth masks. Anyone can make a cloth mask. If you contend Fauci was saving cloth for HCWs (obvious nonsense), please cite the hospital that allowed cloth masks, and show the evidence of nationwide cloth shortage.

If you think Fauci was lying about cloth, but that cloth masks (as allowed to satisfy the mandates) save lives, then how dare Fauci cost lives! Right?

⬐ tasty_freeze

> It was in part a big rip-off (Newsom paid 4x and spent >$1B of the California taxpayers' money

Are you really claiming that Fauci is making national statements because he is trying to provide cover for Newsom? You live in California so Newsom's policies are in the front of your mind, but people outside California don't give a rat's ass.

COVID-19 is a new virus and at the time Fauci made that statement there were a few hundred cases total in the US and research had barely begun. We've learned a lot more about the virus since then, and I'd be surprised if the advice hadn't changed over time, similar to the early aggressive use of ventilators.

⬐ BrendanEich

I never said Fauci did something connected to Newsom. Read more carefully, stop jumping to conclusions. Also, Fauci was a beat behind in March by arguing against civilian masking, so how could he be helping Newsom? He didn't flip-flop until April, and no one said this had a thing to do with Newsom. It had to do with general narrative shift to push masks on the general population.

The Newsom-overpaying example was just one of many. Mask profits shot up due to mandates. This was front-run by sharpers.

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1345074213107892224

> COVID-19 is a new virus ...

Please educate yourself better before coming at me with such gaffes. COVID-19 is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus, and as its name suggests, it's not entirely novel. Masks were known not to help with respiratory viruses (Flu, CoV, etc.) and WHO + CDC policy advised against mass masking. Asian populations did start masking due to SARS1 and those habits endured, but there is simply no evidence this mattered across real populations. Cherry-picked two-week-long studies in Kansas to the contrary notwithstanding!

On ventilators: they were abused to control nosocomial spread to the point of causing lung injury. This was inexcusable, it was not just innocent "ignorance" of a "new virus". Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell blew the whistle in early April, but the NY medical staff who overused vents had no excuse in March. Sweden and other countries' medical professionals knew better.

⬐ httpsterio

as a Scandinavian, Sweden is one of the worst examples you could've picked for how COVID was handled.

⬐ ketamine__

It depends on what you are optimizing for...

⬐ BrendanEich

Agreed.

In any case, Swedish docs knew not to abuse ventilators, as did doctors in many other places. This point got lost in the usual assumptive attack on Sweden, but it's the only reason I mentioned Sweden. A friend in biotech talked to an ER doc in Stockholm who confirmed that their protocols would never, ever intubate + vent on a closed system, as NYC hospitals apparently did in an unethical attempt to control spread.

⬐ BrendanEich

Agreed.

In any case, Swedish doctors knew not to abuse ventilators, as did doctors in many other places. This point got lost in the usual assumptive attack on Sweden, but it's the only reason I mentioned that country. A friend in biotech talked to an ER doc in Stockholm who confirmed that they would never intubate + vent on a closed system, as NYC hospitals apparently did in an unethical attempt to control spread.

⬐ lr1970

> as NYC hospitals apparently did in an unethical attempt to control spread.

I am curious where did you git this from? In the spring 2020 COVID patients in New York City ICUs were intubated not to control spread of the virus (there were many more actively shedding virus patients on regular hospital floor) but to sustain patients' life when their oxygen saturation drops dangerously low. Some patients were so bad that they were put on ECMO. Putting people on a ventilator was not an issue in itself, it is keeping them on ventilator for weeks on time that was problematic.

⬐ BrendanEich

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS... (Baltics and UK added for perspective).

The fact is Sweden lies in middle of the Eurozone pack. It had low excess mortality in recent years, which left many very old people likely to die of/with Covid if they were not protected. I'm not switching topics to defend Sweden's policy. My note was about pop. density.

If you want to go at it about Sweden vs. other countries in Scandinavia, we can take it to Twitter:

https://twitter.com/geenlid/status/1360771792105730049 (thread)

https://twitter.com/jhnhellstrom/status/1354051901751484419 (radial excess mortality plot)

⬐ cygx

The fact is Sweden lies in middle of the Eurozone pack.

But at the bottom of the Nordics: It is somewhat suggestive that none of Sweden's direct neighbours show significant excess mortality in 2020...

⬐ BrendanEich

There are differences among these countries, but first, let's talk about reporting. Sweden says any death within a month of a Covid diagnosis (no PCR+ required, another can of worms) is due to Covid. Other Nordics are less sloppy. This makes Sweden count more deaths.

Finland is a hot mess on all health stats.

Norway has done better but also disavowed lockdowns.

⬐ cygx

Policy concerning covid diagnosis is not relevant when the metric under discussion is excess mortality.

⬐ BrendanEich

I agree (modulo "top" vs. "bottom" when we're talking about worse being greater-than), but your "at the bottom of the Nordics" was not about excess mortality.

⬐ cygx

Quote: "It is somewhat suggestive that none of Sweden's direct neighbours show significant excess mortality in 2020..."

Also, I wonder what you mean by Norway disavowing lockdowns? Because they did institute fairly strict measures on March 12, eventually going so far as forbidding people to travel to their cabins to avoid putting strain on rural infrastructure.

Was there some sort of public disavowal after the fact?

⬐ BrendanEich

The “bottom of the pack” was in reference to ourworldindata cumulative Covid deaths (counted differently in different countries). Could you please link me to the multi-country excess morality data?

⬐ cygx

> Could you please link me to the multi-country excess morality data?

Not sure if there's something better, I just clicked through https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-deat... via 'Change country'.

As the graphs can be misleading due to the different scaling of the y-axis depending on the country, I also pulled the data and did my own analysis, eg comparing 'Sweden' against 'all Nordics' and 'all Nordics but Sweden'.

For Denmark, Finland and Norway combined, there were fewer deaths at the beginning of the year compared to the previous 5-year average, and a bit more deaths in April and May - basically a wash, ie 'no worse than the flu'.

The situation in Sweden is different, with significant excess mortality.

⬐ BrendanEich

Thanks. Any age-cohort data?

⬐ cygx

No, my own dive down the Covid rabbit hole has been fairly shallow so far (I used to keep track of local numbers, but eventually stopped; a couple of weeks ago, I looked at excess mortality in the Nordics because Sweden continued to pop up in online discussions).

⬐ cygx

> Masks were known not to help with respiratory viruses (Flu, CoV, etc.)

The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1 - emphasis mine:

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Although respiratory viruses usually only cause minor disease, they can cause epidemics. Approximately 10% to 15% of people worldwide contract influenza annually, with attack rates as high as 50% during major epidemics. Global pandemic viral infections have been devastating because of their wide spread. In 2003 the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic affected ~8000 people, killed 780, and caused an enormous social and economic crisis. In 2006 a new avian H5N1, and in 2009 a new H1N1 ’swine’ influenza pandemic threat, caused anxiety. Single measures (particularly the use of vaccines or antiviral drugs) may be insufficient to interruptthe spread. Therefore, we searched for evidence for the effectiveness of physical barriers (such as handwashing or wearing masks) in reducing the spread of respiratory viruses, including influenza viruses.

We found 60 studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias.

Respiratory virus spread can be reduced by hygienic measures (such as handwashing), especially around younger children. Frequent handwashing can also reduce transmission from children to other household members. Implementing barriers to transmission, such as isolation, and hygienic measures (wearing masks, gloves and gowns) can be effective in containing respiratory virus epidemics or in hospital wards. The more expensive, irritating and uncomfortable N95 respirators might be superior to simple masks. It is unclear if adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing with soap is more effective. There is insufficient evidence to support screening at entry ports and social distancing as a method to reduce spread during epidemics.

⬐ BrendanEich

Shorter form: N95s might be better and "barriers to transmission and hygienic measures (wearing masks, gloves and gowns) can be effective". This is mush.

The RCT papers on hospital mask users I've read either count only N95s, or confound them as the main mask type by including polypropylene masks too. The statistically significant results support N95s when fitted well.

Mask mandates for civilians are polyprop or even cloth. Not N95s, which are infeasible for general population members. WHO and CDC did not recommend masks for general populations in past respiratory virus outbreaks/pandemics. Are we done yet?

⬐ cygx

For reference, the paper I cited is available online [1], but it's different from the version I used. In particular, the section I quoted from now reads "We found no evidence that the more expensive, irritating and uncomfortable N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks".

A citation of interest might be [2].

> Are we done yet?

I probably am, but feel free to comment if you think there's still something of value to add.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6993921/

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19797474/

⬐ BrendanEich

I've read other studies that show N95s as superior, which you'd expect. They are fitted, they use an extra polyprop layer. But we can stop here, because this finding (like the many I read for N95 superiority among HCWs) did not cause WHO or CDC to advise mask mandates for all. That was novel last spring, and WHO later backed off for children.

⬐ tasty_freeze

> I never said Fauci did something connected to Newsom. Read more carefully, stop jumping to conclusions.

The comment I was referring to was this statement of yours:

> The policy reversal on masks last spring was not based on new science. It was in part a big rip-off (Newsom paid 4x and spent >$1B of the California taxpayers' money,

You talk about Fauci flopping his stance on masks, you talk about policy reversal on masks, you talk about Newsom's mask expenditures, you call Fauci a corrupt careerist in the comment I'm replying to and mostly in consecutive sentences.

No doubt my reading skills could be better, but perhaps you should stop and realize that while what you intend to say may be crystal clear in your head, you perhaps could have stated things more clearly.

> Please educate yourself better before coming at me with such gaffes. COVID-19 is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus,

Are you always this pedantic? And always so belittling?

⬐ itbeho

> for this battle to be won the public has to have trust in him

But many don't, for reasons of Fauci's own making. You can't rally people around a person that lies and flip-flops on issues as important as this.

⬐ dwd

The problem is that truth is always nuanced and never as simple as it needs to be to get a clear message out. It's fluid and a lot of people don't understand it can and will change - or worse conditioned to think changing your opinion due to changing or additional facts is flip-flopping and therefore bad.

The problem is that to keep it simple you have to omit information and sometimes lie to get the needed outcome and sometime not correct incorrect but not harmful advice to keep it simple.

But I do think they screwed up with the early mask advice. With masks, they are not effective protection if it's just you wearing the mask - but there is some value when everyone does. They should have mandated wearing masks from the start like in Taiwan, Singapore, HK. Simple.

⬐ AlchemistCamp

I agree that Taiwan has done an exceptional job, but we weren't required to wear masks anywhere outside mass transit and some privately owned establishments until very recently when there was a spike in infected nationals returning.

Now, we wear masks in most indoor commercial places, excluding dining areas. For the most part, all of last year was just life as usual. There have been large outdoor events, including a marathon in December with 28000 participants.

⬐ dwd

I'm in Brisbane, Australia and we only had mandatory mask wearing recently due to someone testing positive to the UK variant.

Been life as usual more or for six months, but that's the advantage of getting it under control early so the contact tracing isn't overwhelmed each time there's an outbreak.

⬐ BrendanEich

I didn't prepare and to tell the truth, I was getting over a cold (which is why I was rubbing my nose so much). What helps me, beyond watching other good long-form speakers in similar interviews: reading and thinking at length, using the Socratic method in my own head.

⬐ mjgs

There were no signs of your cold on the audio podcast version of the interview :)

One issue I’ve had with Greek philosophy is that although I know there’s interesting content within the stories, it all feels very distant, I can’t pronounce many of the names, a lot of the stories don’t feel super relevant, so there isn’t much that ‘sticks’ in my head.

It’s a bit like reading Shakespear, I rarely get into it, spending all my thought decrypting low level meaning/semantics, and I just never get to the interesting higher level story arcs, or when I do, my flow is too easily broken by some weird old English saying that I am unacquainted with. I guess it’s like any language, lots of practice necessary.

I’ll have to take another look at the Socratic method in more detail. If it’s a technique you are using, based on your interviews that I’ve listened to, then it’s clearly beneficial.

⬐ brailsafe

Sounds like there's a market for a derived work that uses contemporary rhetoric.

⬐ mjgs

Yeah I think there might be.

One which I really enjoyed was:

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycl...

I don’t know of many others like it.

I’d really like to ‘get into’ the classics, but it’s like I need to onboard by reading a bunch of contemporary motorcycle style versions first, so I have some familiarity with the concepts.

⬐ brailsafe

I've been reading it slowly for a little while, and quite like it. I think it's a book that really is not for everyone, or at least only for a certain time, but it's worthwhile.

⬐ BrendanEich

I read ZatAoMM as undergrad, it made a big impression. Forgot to get to it with Lex (his pre-show questions included "your top books").

⬐ brailsafe

I'm a little ways in so far, and I think—maybe unless you're a certain type of person—it's a book that you hopefully get lucky with in terms of when in your life you read it. It's a slow read, but the first few chapters have been nice so far, while some others I know have just not clicked with it.

⬐ mjgs

That’s an interesting book to have on a computer science undergrad course. I guess many of the themes are very relevant, repairing, problem solving, the knowledge that different people approach technology in different ways, etc. Plus I can see it being a cool book to read at the same time as a other folks studying computers.

⬐ brailsafe

I think he was referencing just happening to have read it while simultaneously being an undergrad, not that he was assigned it required reading. Could be wrong though.

⬐ mjgs

You’re right I might totally have misread that.

It got me thinking though, about the value of having some philosophy in comp sci courses.

Back when I was doing my masters (2002-2003) it was a different era for the web, there wasn’t much thought to ethics or philosophy, but I think it could be very relevant these days. It strikes me that it could be a particularly good time to read the ZAMM book.

I don’t know much about comp sci courses these days, maybe they do have such modules included.

⬐ brailsafe

Ya, that seems like a good idea. As of the last few years, philosophy courses at my school were not required, but you'd do them as part of your electives. I don't know how you'd actually formulate a comp sci specific ethics course, but it's an interesting thought experiment

⬐ mjgs

About the only non-computery course we had was a business / management / entrepreneur type course. I don’t remember if it was something we chose to do, but it wasn’t part of the core set of courses that made up the degree.

⬐ brailsafe

I feel like we may have had completely different undergrad structures from reading your other comments in this thread. I took my CS degree in the CS department of a liberal arts Uni, and so had a bunch of optional arts credits to fulfill along with some amount of science and then a bunch of specific CS courses.

Having had a glipse of a CS degree that's part of another school's engineering department, I believe their structure is more rigid, and specifically detailed for 4 years.

⬐ BrendanEich

My high school AP credits let me waive a bunch of Freshman math and science so I took philosophy, theology, etc. courses at SCU. Pirsig was assigned in one of the philosophy classes.

⬐ mjgs

Philosophy and theology on a comp sci course is pretty wild, and I guess a good place to meet folks from other departments?

⬐ BrendanEich

As noted in the interview, I was a Physics major for the first three years. Also in the Honors Program, which helped get in some of the non-science classes.

⬐ mjgs

I mentioned you in my latest javascript, technology and web development newsletter.

https://markjgsmith.substack.com/p/mark-smiths-newsletter-20...

I’d be honoured to have you as a reader, no pressure though, I bet you are super busy, and you probably get a zillion requests like this.

⬐ brailsafe

I'm still gradually working on my undergrad. Most times when I'm out of work as a developer I return and complete some of my coursework. As time goes on, I'm finding a much stronger interest in the less-testable and more human oriented classes such as those you mention, but also History, language, and cultural geography. Meanwhile the CS courses are the ones that I'm struggling to be drawn towards; particularly as some of the former desirable compabies to work at face more and more human ethical dilemmas where the computer bit isn't the complicated bit. I suppose since it was my intense motivation to design and build websites that got me in various doors without a degree, as those things become more commodified, it would be expected to look elsewhere for that inspiration, but did you ever find that true for yourself?

⬐ cccc4alll

I just want to say thank you for all your contributions to advancing web technologies.

Javascript is still the only meaningful "Full Stack" platform and responsible for Billions of dollars in online business and Trillions of dollars in business value.

⬐ paulryanrogers

Is JS really the fundamental, responsible part in all that business? Would it have been so much worse with a full page refresh per click?

⬐ cccc4alll

What would handle the click on the client browser? How would you handle all the user events in the client browser? clicks, mouse overs, selections, etc.

The Javascript platform is used to capture user behavior in the most efficient manner. This is the fundamental basis for all the online business processes and resulting business value.

⬐ paulryanrogers

Before JS browsers handled clicks without any 3rd party code. They were much more predictable and easier to reason about as a user.

Those clicks usually translated to HTTP calls.

What is so fundamental about business processes that they can't do an extra page render and HTTP call? (I imagine there may be some, I just can't see how they are so fundamental and on the order of billions.)

⬐ BrendanEich

Hotmail, Oddpost, Gmail, Gmaps, YouTube comments, etc etc.

⬐ paulryanrogers

Funny enough I hear Gmail's plain HTML version is preferable for some here on HN.

Regardless I don't see how JS is fundamental to any of those services, not even Maps. Instead I suspect HTML would have become more feature rich sooner than HTML5.

I also don't believe JS itself contributes significantly to the trillions of dollars involved in online business.

⬐ BrendanEich

Why introduce counterfactuals? Flash existed, it had a full JS-variant language. It was taking over restaurant and other sites due to the IE monopoly stagnating HTML/CSS/JS. We don't need to appeal to an imaginary Turing-incomplete no-JS world to argue that JS didn't contribute enough. Flash was clearly the answer! Right?

⬐ paulryanrogers

Turing incompetentes can be a feature IMO.

Anyway, my point is that none of the interactivity as delivered by JS / ActiveX / Flash are themselves reason for all the money in online business. Before graphical browsers there were probably billions in transactions happening on computer networks. And likely would have grown to similar highs without the ability to run untrusted, 3rd party code on demand.

⬐ BrendanEich

Go prove it. Meanwhile, back in reality, Flash was taking over and it did have better JS-variant, better graphics, etc. before we in the HTML5 WHATWG group got browsers upgraded. No-JS happy talk about better Turing-incomplete HTML is idle talk. Go on if you must, but I'll stop here.

"I do not entertain hypotheticals. The world as it is is vexing enough." - Col. Stonehill, "True Grit"

⬐ BrendanEich

Second reply, sorry — I meant to agree that Turing incomplete languages for things like bounded runtime / all-paths constant time algs are an underutilized toolset. They're coming back on Blockchain, also for browser compositor-thread scripting.

But the pressure on the Web to be interactive enough vs. fat or old clients, never mind plugins, pushed not only JS but Java into the Netscape browser in 1995. I don't see how that could have gone another way in time to avoid MS doing the same.

The idea of a general Web scripting language was to make a relief valve where developers ran up against the limits of existing markup and less expressive languages the browser processed. Then standards bodies were supposed to study the top JS libs and absorb their Turing-incomplete bits into new HTML and CSS. This happened eventually, but not for so long that we had to invent XUL at Mozilla, Adobe did Flex, etc.

⬐ dboreham

...or Java.

⬐ httpsterio

Even if you might be right, your combative style is very off-putting. You could choose not to reply at all, the comment wasn't directed at you and I personally would've liked to entertain the idea of a more server-side rendered present, but you're shutting down the discussion.

⬐ BrendanEich

I didn't even shut you down. What are you talking about? This is HN and you're on the Internet. Toughen up.

⬐ cccc4alll

The top 5 biggest companies rely on javascript for huge portion of online business.

Microsoft - introduced AJAX to support their web enabled servers and online services. Have since morphed into Cloud based company.

Apple - lots of iOS apps are simple webviews that use javascript.

Amazon - online sales and cloud services using javascript.

Google - online ad services using javascript.

Facebook - online user behavior analytics using javascript.

Pretty much the entire online economy has huge dependency on javascript.

⬐ paulryanrogers

Granted. And PHP runs like 30% of public websites. I doubt it's the JS driving most of the value though. I suspect much of their success was/is still possible without requiring trusting novel, 3rd party code, to be run on demand.

⬐ christophilus

Loved the interview and love Brave. Keep up the good work!