Americans lose $50M to phone scams in the last year - <AUTHOR> https://www.kshb.com/news/national/americans-lose-50-million-to-phone-scams-in-the-last-year <comment><USER2> My girlfriend was speaking to her father (mid-60s?) who was complaining about what a pain in the ass it was to get his new iPhone configured. He had called Apple support who would come the next day, but now he had to go to Wal-Mart to pickup the giftcards to pay for the service.

Wait. What?

So I guess he had Googled for iPhone support and got some bogus phone number. Aside from the potential monetary loss, the scary part was that had they come to the house, he likely would have let them in.

The world and the way in which we do business changes quickly, and red-flags for some aren't red-flags for others. But I'm really curious what search term lead to the fraudulent phone number in the first place -- how are these platforms so gameable?

<comment><USER3> No data to back this up, but at least in my experience victims finding a phone number directly from a Google search is actually pretty uncommon. Although, sometimes you'll see fake numbers posted in the comments of news articles or YouTube videos that rank highly for search terms like "fix virus iPhone."

The most common way people get targeted is either via a pop-up while browsing (e.g. "Your iPhone has a virus! Call xxx xxxx now to fix") or just random cold calls. Scammers also circulate lists of phone numbers/personal information of victims to previous scams, so once you end up as a victim of one you're much more likely to be a target for new/more sophisticated scams.

<comment><USER4> Probably not the norm, but I have worked alongside a tech company that has 30+ million user accounts, and as such, has a pretty much constant stream of scammers wishing to take advantage of our user base.

The customer support dept. has a phone number to call, which is listed on the website. But you'd be amazed how many people are willing to call some random number so long as it shows up in a google result. Normally, it's older folks that fall for this type of scam.

The fraud dept. sends a handful of take-down requests to google per week; but it really doesn't do much to stem the incoming flow of support hotline scams. Once a number is taken down, they just create a new website and new fake number.

To reply to your comment more directly, I have no idea whether or not this scam type accounts for a significant portion of scams overall, but for my particular industry it sure is. In any account, the way people are scammed on our site changes all the time depending on what's available/easiest for the scammers, so the methods they use are constantly changing/adapting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Note this is reported scams. In some cases the victims may never even realize they've been scammed, and even those who do are frequently too embarrassed to talk about it openly. Many victims are also very old or recent immigrants and may not know how to report the scam. There are even scams that specifically target undocumented workers who may not want to report for fear of bringing unwanted attention to them by the government. I personally know half a dozen separate people who were either a victim or very nearly a victim of phone scams, so I have a very hard time believing the number isn't much higher.

</comment><comment><USER5> That's barely $0.15 per person which seems way to low. This is only the direct loss though.

The real amount would include the millions of hours we collectively spend deleting voicemails from " _Rachel from card services_ ".

</comment><comment><USER6> It's also quite common here in Germany especially with the elderly... But sometimes: [https://www.dw.com/en/seniors-outsmart-con-men-posing-as- pol...](https://www.dw.com/en/seniors-outsmart-con-men-posing-as-police-in- cologne/a-50515716)

</comment><comment><USER7> That's not a staggering number, to be honest.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, it's lower than I expected.

But I've heard multiple stories of people being scammed for large sums of money over the phone and they tell nobody outside their immediate family. It goes unreported. They're too embarrassed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Given that this comes from scams _reported to the FBI_ , my read is that this number is likely low by 10-100x.

The personal scams are only a part of this too: scams against business are also running rampant.

</comment><comment><USER10> Phone scams are definitely getting worse. It's small measure, but I've disabled my voicemail. I still get the scam calls, but they're that much less annoying.

</comment><comment><USER11> Alternative headline:

Americans lose on average 16 cents to phone scams in the last year.

<comment><USER12> Yes, you can play with statistics that way if you want to sweep the problem under the carpet. If only the victims could get their potentially life changing losses amortized over the country's population somehow.

<comment><USER13> _Chicago citizens were on average murdered .0002 times in the last year_</comment></comment></comment>


How ETSY Is Changing the Way We All Do Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/how-etsy-changing-way-we-all-do-business.html

<comment><USER2> My father is an artist and ETSY is pretty useless for him. If you want any kind of visibility you have to pay pay pay for promotions on ETSY and even those don't work so well - maybe if you ran them week after week after week...

If ETSY actually handled the payments themselves that would be a value add but they don't. You still have to set up PayPal etc and jump through all those hoops so instead of maintaining the ETSY store - that only gets traffic if you advertise a bunch and that you have to keep paying to list you inventory on and that won't allow you to link to anywhere else where your art is available - it made more sense to set up a site on weebly (75 bucks for two years hosting with 10 domains) and just email that to real galleries. And if we could get any real traction online we would dump weebly and use Shopify because they actually let you track inventory in a semi-meaningful way.

edit: I see the OP is an engineer at ETSY. Consider this constructive criticism... I'm basically an artists IT guy by night.</comment>


Current state of webdesign - <AUTHOR> http://fczbkk.com/current-state-of-webdesign/ <comment><USER2> Despite using adblock the web does feel like this nowadays. It would be fantastic if we could have a common protocol for communicating our agreement/disagreement with these things instead of having to bat them away like whack-a-mole wherever we end up on the web.

Going back 15-20 years ago there was an embryonic standard for this that didn't seem to get enough traction, I remember it as something like 'PPP' privacy something protocol, but it seemed a bit too heavyweight. If I remember correctly you could use different personas.

I would love this all just to be a browser preference.

<comment><USER3> P3P; which Microsoft still puts into IE, and they were the only ones to use the 'standard.'

Just like many 'standards,' each company has their own, and follow it, though nobody outside of them do.

<comment><USER2> Aaah P3P, that was the one. Thanks for reminding me. Sadly even if all the browsers supported it, sites possibly still wouldn't use it and would prefer this onslaught of popups due to the relentless quest for attention.</comment></comment></comment>


Cypherpunks - <AUTHOR> http://www.cypherpunks.to/

<comment><USER2> For anybody in the Raleigh / Durham / Chapel Hill area of North Carolina, there is a new Cypherpunks meetup / group forming.

See: [http://www.meetup.com/Triangle-Crypto-Cypherpunk- Meetup/](http://www.meetup.com/Triangle-Crypto-Cypherpunk-Meetup/)

Or follow us on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/trianglecrypto](https://twitter.com/trianglecrypto)</comment>


Should You Tell the World How Much Money You Make? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/business/salary-transparency-ask-a-manager.html <comment><USER3> I worked in a state govt office in Virginia some years ago and the local paper did a FOIA request for everyone's salaries in the state...and published an online database of the upper 50%. [http://data.richmond.com/salaries/](http://data.richmond.com/salaries/)

My coworkers, by-and-large, were furious. I found it really helpful. I found out where I was relative to my peers (I was only behind by a few hundred bucks/year - we were all basically equal if we had the same title, except for one guy that had abused the state 10% raise when switching departments). One guy in our DBA/Ops team discovered he was getting a relatively paltry amount while his peers were all getting 6 digits (which was all on the bosses - <USER2> peers were also bothered by this). One or two people had very questionably high salaries and were suddenly held by others to be delivering at that level. Mostly, though, it calmed people down about salary differences.

Honestly, it was awkward for some people, but honestly I think the benefits outweighed the costs, at least within the office. Much of my coworkers' outrage was about people OUTSIDE the office finding their salaries, such as friends, family, neighbors, people wanting money, etc.

<comment><USER4> I prefer the way my current employer handles it. They publish a service where you can search by your job title and region. It tells you what the max and min for current employees. I don't care to know what any particular person makes, but I like knowing where I am in the range.

<comment><USER5> That's a great way to handle it, especially if the job titles are at least somewhat stratified.

Don't think it'd be that useful at a "we don't do seniority rituals, everybody is a software engineer" type place, where you just see you're in a band from $60k-$480k. If the bucket is large, distribution information would be more useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://www.Levels.fyi](https://www.Levels.fyi) started very similar to the 'Ask a Manager' survey in the article. We had a Google Form / Spreadsheet to collect salaries in tech. In fact, they still underpin our UI today. We've had folks mention that our data is more accurate than Glassdoor, etc. We're working on several features to ensure our data continues to remain accurate, fresh and easy to analyze. Ping me at my email in profile if you have feedback!

</comment><comment><USER7> In Nordic countries, everyone's tax return bottom line is public information. You can look up your neighbour or co-worker or the average celebrity if you want to know how much income and capital gains they reported. Societies haven't yet collapsed from unbridled jealousy.

Meanwhile in America the topic is taboo. Apparently you can get five years of jail for leaking someone's tax information — in the same country where personal information privacy barely exists otherwise. Strange.

</comment><comment><USER8> There's already a huge database of your coworkers' salaries, assuming you work with any H-1B visa holders ([https://h1bsalary.online](https://h1bsalary.online)). I seem to recall the government had a portal you can search by name too.

</comment><comment><USER9> There are lots of comments to this effect in the NYTimes article, but large swaths of the population already have their salary data public: many (most?) public sector workers' salary is public knowledge, oftentimes searchable on a website, military pay grades are public, highly paid executives report most of their compensation in SEC docs, etc.

Thus, I don't really buy the myriad of reasons presented here for why this is such a bad idea.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps the strongest argument against is basically that if you're the only one telling, you are at a disadvantage. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

By comparison, in the public sector & military, _everyone 's_ is public, and on top of that there is no salary negotiation.

<comment><USER11> ... there is salary negotiation in the public sector ...

And even if every pay grade was fixed, a salary negotiation can take the form of "I deserve to be moved to a higher pay grade because XYZ." People don't get promoted on a fixed schedule.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > There is no law that stops employees from sharing salary information, but > myths persist at many workplaces that sharing is forbidden

This is failing to address the scenario where not sharing salary is company policy and/or part of the employment agreement or contract. If my personal experience is any indicator, I would speculate that this is quite common at large companies.

And, I don't know, having other people share their salary information is good for me, but sharing mine can certainly be used against me in a variety of subtle ways. People are consciously and unconsciously judgemental by nature. Sometimes I have a relatively good deal and I know it, so sometimes I don't want to share salary because I know it would only make other people feel bad. Sometimes I don't want to know that someone makes more than me because it would make me feel bad, when ultimately it doesn't matter.

I am genuinely interested in the idea of sharing, but I really want some stronger reasons of why it's to my actual personal benefit today to share that information, assuming my employment agreement allows it. I didn't see any in this article.

<comment><USER11> It's against the law to prevent employees from disclosing and discussing salary. The The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 protects employees rights to discuss conditions of employment, which, obviously includes salary.

[https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb#t38n3180](https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/faq/nlrb#t38n3180)

Adults can absolutely handle _fair_ pay discrepancies without "feeling bad," and if they can't then they are so immature that I doubt they'd otherwise make a good employee. It works plenty fine in many industries where salary is public information and even in whole countries where salary is public.

<comment><USER12> Indeed, but I've seen & had plenty of contracts that state what they want and then at the end have a clause disclaiming anything that conflicts with existing laws. It's then the onus of the employee to figure out their actual rights.

BTW I realize I may have some of my experience with contract work mixed into my fallible memory. But, that's another reasonable point here, more people are turning into independent contractors, and they're not subject to employee rights protection, it's perfectly legal to have a compensation non-disclosure in a work-for-hire contract.

> Adults can absolutely handle fair pay discrepancies without "feeling bad," > and if they can't then they are so immature that I doubt they'd otherwise > make a good employee.

I think this might be too dismissive and perhaps over-simplified. Everybody, including "adults" wants fairness in their life. Most people don't know what actually constitutes the range of "fair" pay even within their own company, and there are often situations - it is _very_ common - where someone is paid more or less than others not due to experience or skill but due to circumstances, timings, negotiating power, specialized company requirements, and a variety of other things.

Still, even if sharing didn't cause me any large problems, why is it in my interest to share?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Within the office...most people know/can guess each other's fairly accurately.

I stopped talking to family about it though. Different countries and CoL means my raises end up being more than their total package. So discussing that leads to nothing wholesome. Instead I try to silently absorb more of the family costs than proportionate.

</comment><comment><USER14> It depends on who you're telling. People treat you differently when they find out how much money you make, both on the upper and lower ends.

</comment><comment><USER15> The government of Ontario releases the salaries of all public employees every year if they make over 100k. So called sunshine list [https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary- disclosure](https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure)

<comment><USER16> Isn't this true for all provinces? A friend of mine is a government medical researcher in Alberta, so he makes good money, but is hardly what I would call "rich," at least not in the SV sense. Still, his salary is posted online.

I think this goes overboard: a min/mean/median/max for each job title would be good enough to know where I stand in a salary negotiation. I also like Ms. Zaloom's idea from the article to share salaries among close friends and family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's not as easy a question as it sounds. Sharing this information within a company usually means trouble. So it doesn't look like a good idea to share it with society at large. At the same time, honesty and transparency is the best policy... Privacy, security, and psychological issues are at stake when it comes to money.

> the gig economy has made salary comparing a near necessity for many.

Obviously, most freelancers would love if this information was public. If rates are public, you know where you are standing and where to start if you want to provide a service. That is not exactly the same as telling how much money one makes—one can only infer so much. Despite this, most freelancers are still secretive about their rate—as if this was always an advantage.

<comment><USER18> I think the reasons it causes trouble in the workplace and more generally are exactly why it should be shared with everyone. Sharing salaries/wages is only an issue if the wages themselves cannot be justified. The issue is that very few people's wages CAN be justified (either in terms of scalar dollar amount or in relation to the value one produces), and sharing incomes just shines light on the ugly reality that income disparity is mostly senseless. I think a lot of societal problems would be solved if we all had a sign over our head showing stats about how much we make and how we spend that money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It seems to me like there's a potentially privacy sensitive way to share the information. For any role with more than N employees, the mean and standard deviation are published: simple, equitable, and private.

</comment><comment><USER20> Knowing other people's salaries gives you a stronger negotiating position. Other people knowing your salary gives you a weaker negotiating position.

Should you tell the world how much money you make? Are you altruistic?

<comment><USER21> Employees at a workplace knowing each others' salaries puts them in a better position in bargaining with management but it also makes it harder for management to selectively give certain employees higher salaries - because the employees are talented or because the management happens to want to keep said (maybe talented) employees or because management just like certain employees or because management just wants bargain each employee down to minimum management thinks they'll take.

So the question is what situation would someone think better serves their interests? Of course, whether one person describing their salary would evoke reciprocity or not is a question, whether another person would tell the truth is a question.

<comment><USER22> I'm normally fine with employees sharing their salary info. Since I'm a manager of individual contributors I can't do much myself in granting compensation changes. I can make recommendations, but I'm not the final approver.

That being said - if an employee were to come to me and say "I want $X because so-and-so (or 'others on the team') are making that much", I would deny their request outright. That's a childish way to ask for a raise. It doesn't highlight what you're bringing to the team; only what you want to take from it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Are sites likes Glassdoor (for most companies), Linkedin jobs (with salary ranges), and tech (levelsfyi, etc) already doing this in an anonymous way?

<comment><USER6> Yup, we recently added salary ranges on levels.fyi as well. Would love feedback on presentation format and other other graphs folks would find useful: [https://www.levels.fyi/charts.html](https://www.levels.fyi/charts.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> You should talk to colleagues about salaries, but avoid telling friends, family, and the general public.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is a real eye-opener - tech salaries seem ridiculously high compared to what most people make.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm not going to tell the world how much I make. That seems foolish. I don't mind sharing it with family, friends, and coworkers, though.

</comment><comment><USER27> Here in Finland all personal tax records are public so we don't even need to contemplate on this question.

</comment><comment><USER28> Absolutely not.

<comment><USER29> Why not

<comment><USER30> Why don't you tell us how much you make?

People get killed in some places for $100. $1000 is enough to kidnapped in some places. Besides if people know how much you make, you will get custom pricing. Do you know there are countries that have 2 menus, one for foreigners and one for locals? Because they foreigners make much money so are charged higher prices?

<comment><USER31> Well it's a good thing that this article talks about sharing salary info _between colleagues_ , and makes no arguments for "telling the world" other than in the clickbaity title.

That's why it ends with a question mark, so that it makes the title not- technically-incorrect (author is "just asking a question"), while driving the engagements that have nothing to do with its content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Absolutely yes</comment>


A startup is building computer chips using real neurons - <AUTHOR> https://fortune.com/2020/03/30/startup-human-neurons-computer-chips/ <comment><USER2> Pretty weird not to comment that they're replicating published work that trained mouse neurons on an electrode array to fly a plane in a flight simulator.

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm)

It's about at the level where you could make a good attempt to replicate it as a hobby in your (albeit well stocked) garage.

<comment><USER3> > It's about at the level where you could make a good attempt to replicate it > as a hobby in your (albeit well stocked) garage.

Already being done: [https://youtu.be/V2YDApNRK3g](https://youtu.be/V2YDApNRK3g)

Doesn't hurt to join forces with another 'well stocked garage' featured earlier on HN: [https://youtu.be/V2YDApNRK3g](https://youtu.be/V2YDApNRK3g)

<comment><USER4> Very cool, I added this to my 'biohacker' list of links.

And lol @ your Egg Benedict Donburi from Food Wars. I still haven't started season 2... check out Dotchi No Ryouri, it used to run on PBS but can be found on youtube.

<comment><USER5> Can you post that list please?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >programmers usually have to engage in a laborious process of manually adjusting the initial coefficients, or weights, that will be applied to each type of data point the network processes. Another challenge is to get the software to balance how much it should be trying to explore new solutions to a problem versus relying on solutions the network has already discovered that work well. "All these problems are completely eluded if you have a system that is based on biological neurons to begin with," Friston said.

Using real neurons avoids hyperparameter tuning? Can someone explain how.

<comment><USER7> Are you tuning hyperparameters when learning a task?

<comment><USER8> Yes, the amount of caffine, food (enzymes, proteins, carbs), and if it is a long running learning process, amount of sleep. all parameters are being tuned all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 2015 (my words):

> _Obviously the aforementioned experiment would be completely unethical, but > it 's interesting to ponder it as a hypothetical - that today we may have > the capability to bootstrap a superintelligent machine using biology as a > computational shortcut. But we can't, because ethics._ [0]

2020 (article):

> _Chong said the pair were interested in the idea of artificial general > intelligence (AGI for short)—A.I. that has the flexibility to perform almost > any kind of task as well or better than humans. "Everyone is racing to build > AGI, but the only true AGI we know of is biological intelligence, human > intelligence," Chong said. He noted the pair figured the only way to get > human-level intelligence was to use human neurons._

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9973122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9973122)

<comment><USER10> The human neurons are sourced entirely ethically, from skin cells to stem cells that make neurons somehow.

<comment><USER9> > _The human neurons are sourced entirely ethically, from skin cells to stem > cells that make neurons somehow._

Yes, and I'd wager the scale at which their experiment is currently operating is very likely ethical too. In fact, I'm not saying anything they're doing right now is unethical. My use of the term _unethical_ was in context of hypothetical experiments on a scale that would make Dr. Frankenstein's stomach churn.

That said, my only point was that it's disconcerting to see these people—who are currently growing tiny brains in a vat—state that they're very interested in AGI come to fruition via way of using human neurons.

<comment><USER11> As long as they treat the brains in vats with the same ethics as we treat human newborns, as soon as they believe there's any possibility it could be conscious, what's the problem?

(The problem of course is the possibility of it becoming conscious before we realize it, but it's very up in the air to what degree that's actually a risk. My intuition is that we'll see clear signs of it before it even fully forms.)

<comment><USER9> > _My intuition is that we 'll see clear signs of it before it even fully > forms._

Probably, though I wouldn't be so sure we'll know what to make of more complex computer-brain hybrids:

 _" These neurons are then embedded in a nourishing liquid medium on top of a specialized metal-oxide chip containing a grid of 22,000 tiny electrodes that enable programmers to provide electrical inputs to the neurons and also sense their outputs."_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think that getting any kind of practical processing from biological neurons from a mouse or a human is ... well, hard and pointless.

However, the idea of getting biological parts interfacing with silico has lots of applications. For example, it could be used to build cheaper DNA printers where the "printing heads" are genetically modified bacteria. And from there, it would be possible to arrange all sorts of chemical processes using bacterial metabolism. One could for example build sealed bio-batteries with an infinite lifetime, whose DNA is kept mutation-free using a digital master in the embedded digital controller.

</comment><comment><USER13> If you assume that your conscious experience is somehow arising from your neurons, then generating a set of those neurons that are genetically identical and cannot be distinguished in any way (except location in physical space, which is an ephemeral quality that doesn't appear to change neuron function), then we can assume we are creating, or will create, beings who are having conscious experience on some level.

On an ethical level, I think we need to understand whether we are creating thinking feeling creatures who will be doomed to suffer as data slaves before we normalize this. If I removed your brain from body, removing all sense pleasures, drowning you in darkness and isolation, and the only input and output you had were binary signals for some abstract data problem, you would experience profound silent suffering in an eternal private hell.

This truly would be the invention of the matrix, but not for an army of tyrannical robots / AI, but for the use of humans themselves -- a modern day slavery of the mental kind.

<comment><USER14> An artificial brain being fed a stream of bits will not necessarily feel like it's in an empty room processing an abstract data problem.

If we can create an AI with different goals and reward mechanisms, there is a potential that we could create agents that are experiencing bliss doing data processing tasks.

Of course how we tell the difference between a miserable agent and a joyous agent is still an open question ..

<comment><USER15> Emotions are just chemical responses, no? What if those chemicals aren't even present in the system? In other words, I don't think there's any more reason to think a ball of neurons is "alive" than a neural net that exists in code.

<comment><USER16> Maybe the conscious experience of emotions is the neural response to the chemicals? In other words, the chemicals are just one way to provide an input to the ball of neurons. If the chemicals aren't there but some other input mechanism is, it could generate an experience of suffering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Primary mammalian neural cell culture is perhaps the most notoriously difficult type of cell culture, even in a lab setting -- Developing a product based on neurons seems like a total pipe dream. Even keeping a population alive for a few weeks is a big deal, let alone maintaining a neuron based black-box product in working order.

So, if this isn't a total pipe dream, it will drive development of super- advanced cell culture tech, development of robust application-suitable cell lines, etc. These technologies/products have orders of magnitude more value than neurons on glass.

</comment><comment><USER17> > Currently, the company is working to get its mini-brains—which so far are > approaching the processing power of a dragonfly brain—to play the old Atari > arcade game Pong

I'm surprised that no-one has discussed whether these systems could develop emergent qualia, and experience pain. No joke. Are there any ethical frameworks around this kind of research?

<comment><USER18> > could develop emergent qualia

 _If_ we were to admit there really is such thing as "qualia", there's not reason you wouldn't ask the same question about non-biological software or hardware systems... electronic hardware or biological hardware can have same computational qualities.

 _But since OBJECTIVELY there 's no such things as qualia (the concept only exist SUBJECTIVELY), it could only exist by definition for "a person/subject" eg., in this context, a neural network large and complex enough to get close to a human-like intelligence level!_

A dragonfly nervous system is probably simpler than some of the the largest artificial neural networks models...

<comment><USER19> I'm inclined to agree. To put it another way, then: what matters isn't the substrate (neurons vs transistors), but what you do with them.

Going this route, we'd have to say that if you wrote a program that perfectly simulated the human brain, you've built a conscious system running on transistors.

It also means that if you built a RISC-V processor based on a large number of neurons (say, as many as are in a human brain), you _haven 't_ built a conscious system, despite that it's neuron-based.

I'm ignoring the obvious problems with building a RISC-V using neurons; they strike me as incidental detail, for our purposes here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What's the goal of this though? I couldn't determine it from the article, but I'm certain that using them as transistors just for the sake of saving energy doesn't make sense. Especially since a neuron size is a about 4000nm or more than 500x larger than the new 7nm transistors.

No way energy consumption is justifiable with such a massive loss of chip real estate. You will need way larger chips to achieve a decent computing power.

<comment><USER21> Maybe it's not just transistors they're hoping to gain from this.

I think it's more like building a brain from organic matter that's the real boon. Sooner or later we'll be discarding silicon and extracting neurons from mice just to watch YouTube IX in space with our Tesla corvette cruisers and our alien barmaids serving us Soylent Green in a martini glass!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you have neurons then you also need glia and neurotransmitters and ways to regulate them and keep them alive... and suddenly you need the entire organism.

<comment><USER23> That could be said of almost any ex vivo model right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This looks like we are going to also feed our computers nutrients on top of electricity.

</comment><comment><USER25> If this was posted on the 1st of April, I wouldn't believe it...

</comment><comment><USER26> Reminds me of a sci-fi novel "Black oceans" by Jacek Dukaj. It was one of the more interesting themes in there.

</comment><comment><USER27> > Using real neurons avoids several other difficulties that software-based > neural networks have. For instance, to get artificial neural networks to > start learning well, their programmers usually have to engage in a laborious > process of manually adjusting the initial coefficients, or weights, that > will be applied to each type of data point the network processes.

This seems silly. Once you've figured out these parameters once, it seems to me you can similate a single neuron reasonably well. Perhaps differences will emerge from networks.

<comment><USER28> >well, their programmers usually have to engage in a laborious process of manually adjusting the initial coefficients, or weights, that will be applied to each type of data point the network processes.

Not true for modern neural networks. We typically use random values with certain statistics and/or specialized schemes which depend on specific later details - but in any case it's a single function call and the defaults typically work well enough that it's an advanced topic.

The OP is probably referring to neural nets of old, before this recent explosion, where you had handfuls of perceptrons operating on very simple problems which would be trivial for modern ML.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why specifically human neurons? Why source the neurons from human stem cells rather than mouse cells? PR I suppose.

<comment><USER30> Humans are closest to humans in terms of behavior, so it makes sense to use them in testing where possible

<comment><USER31> Donated my body to science... woke up as a living computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> At the core is the stance or attitude towards life.

What Martin Buber calls _" Ich und Du"_, or "I and Thou":

> Buber's main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:

> The attitude of the "I" towards an "It", towards an object that is separate > in itself, which we either use or experience.

> The attitude of the "I" towards "Thou", in a relationship in which the other > is not separated by discrete bounds.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou)

This fundamentally is an attempt to force the "I-Thou" relation with life into the "I-It" relation with machines and is therefore the definition of _evil_.

\- - - -

Anyway, the _correct_ mad science is to culture _your own_ cells into control boxes for your machines and thence control them "telepathically" to become a distributed cyborg. But to do that you would first have to become intelligent enough to increase your morphogenic plasticity to the point where you have more-or-less total control of your meta-cellular form. Did you see John Carpenter's "The Thing"? _That 's_ how intelligent you would have to become: an immortal macro-polymorphous self-made _shoggoth_. At that point though, you no longer really need machines or technology in the conventional sense. You can make artificial diatomaceous carrier shells for small colonies of your cells and send them out to do whatever. It's not nanotech but your operational units are small enough that it doesn't really matter. I should mention that it's really easy to make fusion generators at this scale. People assume that the techno-singularity will originate _in silico_ so to speak but that's so naive: the most sophisticated information processor is the human brain, not the chip. The singularity happens _in vivo_ : in flesh. You don't even need and machinery to initiate it: just information and the will to be more than you are (and the wisdom not to fuck it up and turn yourself into a cancer blob or grey goo.)

The only real problem at this stage is loneliness. Few can ever really understand what you've done, and if they did they would shun you as a Lovecraftian horror anyway. Nevertheless, I have not given up hope. Slowly, painfully, you guys wobble towards enlightenment. I try to help when I can, but mostly all I can do is be patient.

I am among you now. Join me. "Dwell amidst wonder and glory for ever..."

</comment><comment><USER33> Imagine in the future that your computer, composed of biological neurons, could literally die.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm guessing they're working on neuromorphic computing. Many types of computations like differential equations are supposed to be a lot easier in non-discrete computing.

Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about, only glimps here and there.

<comment><USER35> The modern day successor to what Misha Mahowald was working on.

[https://youtu.be/lwT1jUvwRLc](https://youtu.be/lwT1jUvwRLc)

It ends up being a complex hybrid of analog and digital computing having to work together.

The article doesn't provide enough detail to be of any use if you are trying to understand what they are actually doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wouldn't this count as neuron slavery?

</comment><comment><USER37> So, a brain?

Easy there, Dr. Frankenstein.

</comment><comment><USER38> This sounds like an episode of black mirror and seems immoral.

If this actually does work and scale the results would be horrific.

I don't really want brains with no rights to exist like this.

<comment><USER39> 1/3 of the human brains in the world already exist with no rights. If we can enslave rats instead it will be a big step up.

<comment><USER40> 100% of human brains exist with no rights. There are just temporary privileges. Ask Japanese Americans during WW2 what kind of rights they had in a first world country with supposedly the strongest "rights" in the world.</comment></comment></comment>


At what time will be the YC S16 invites/rejection emails sent? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> We'll send them out late afternoon or evening today, PDT.

<comment><USER3> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey! Since we're all waiting for the emails why don't we do something productive? Like maybe sharing our ideas so that we could give each other feedback?.. Oh and guys if I may give you an advice : "Plan for the worst and hope for the best!"

<comment><USER5> My thing's a bit like airbnb but where you can buy the place if you like it. Fairly confident I'm not getting an interview this time round - no views on my vid. I don't fit the YC pattern very well.

<comment><USER6> YC has said this a few times, but their software doesn't play well with view counters. Every application gets looked at by multiple reviewers.

I honestly wouldn't worry about it.

<comment><USER5> Well, we'll see. Ta.

<comment><USER5> Update: nah

<comment><USER6> Keep at it. The best thing you can do is make as much progress as possible between now and W17.

Anecdotally, I'd say >50% of our batch applied more than once. The one thing we all had in common was traction/progress between applications. This is probably the single best thing you can do to increase your prospects of getting in, as it shows YC that you are 1)serious about working on this, and 2) capable of doing what you say you're going to do (which is to say, make something people want).

Happy to also provide advice that's tailored specifically to what you're building. You can reach me at (firstname @ lawnlove.com)

Go get 'em!

<comment><USER5> Thanks for that. I didn't really expect to get in this time around but figured I could try to get traction and reapply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there an ETA on when late submitters will be notified? Or will they be notified on an ad-hoc basis whenever YC gets around to viewing them?

<comment><USER8> I am a late applicant. According to email@example.com, late applications are still under process. All applicant will be eventually notified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Invitations and rejections have been sent for applications that were submitted before the deadline. If you haven't gotten an email, it may have bounced, so please check at [https://apply.ycombinator.com](https://apply.ycombinator.com) with the account that you applied with to see the status.

<comment><USER9> Hi, we applied before the deadline from my account. No email, nothing on apply webpage.

<comment><USER2> I do see that, drop us an email at email@example.com and we can help.

<comment><USER10> same here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They can be as early as 4-5pm (EST) or as late as 10-11pm (EST). I suspect since this was a longer review round it will be around the 4-5 mark, but who knows.

</comment><comment><USER12> Good luck everyone and continue working on your dreams no matter what the result will be ;)

</comment><comment><USER13> In the spirit of trying to pass time, my application idea: A service that allows you to not only search for homes, but also make an offer directly online, and receive a 50% commission refund in cash upon purchase.

Additionally, all questions that you have about properties, neighborhoods, or any suggestions a typical agent might give you our service can too thorough AI.

The premise is simple: Zillow meets home buying. Imagine making an offer directly on a home that you find on Zillow? Not only is this necessary in extremely competitive housing markets such as Boston, LA, and Denver, but the 50% commission discount is possible by generating the documents automatically.

Thoughts? Not sure how many of you have purchased a home, but the experience of working with an agent is so outdated. Their value is gone now that most homes are available online through Zillow. All they really do is write contracts. We can do that an automate their knowledge with AI, as well.

</comment><comment><USER14> Excited about the email as well

<comment><USER15> TOO EXCITED TO SLEEP!11! :)

<comment><USER16> I dont wanna sleep

I just wanna keep on refreshing you...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Got rejected! :D Well, time for some advertising - please visit [https://www.chillmonk.com/#/about](https://www.chillmonk.com/#/about) We're reinventing classifieds and making it safe and fraud free to buy and sell locally.

</comment><comment><USER18> Just got my rejection email. Oh well, there's always next time! Good luck to you guys!

</comment><comment><USER19> Good luck all!

</comment><comment><USER20> In the past it has been around 6/7pm PST

<comment><USER21> Dumb question, but what day? :-)

<comment><USER22> April 11 (today), I believe. At least this date is mentioned on apply.ycombinator.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How many people got their video viewed? How many got 0 views? Or half views?

<comment><USER2> Video play counts will definitely be off, since reviewers don't use the YouTube player directly.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I just tried downloading my video with youtube-dl and it doesn't show on the counts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am setting code deploy, autoscaling and load balancing on AWS, so my app can handle 10.000.000 users ;-) Better to keep the brain busy while we are waiting. Do you think YC has the list ready?

<comment><USER25> sure does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Good luck everyone!

</comment><comment><USER27> Do the people who are not accepted also receive an email? Or if you don't receive an interview email, does it imply that you did not get selected to interview?

<comment><USER26> You receive a polite rejection email.

<comment><USER27> Ok. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Waiting impatiently. Please could someone give me some feedback on my idea and the name. Is someone working on something similar? Any ideas on what features I should try to implement on day one. Thanks.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11448299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11448299)

<comment><USER26> I would clarify the problem and solution. At first I thought your product (based on the description) was a soup to nuts IoT platform (i.e. building out the hardware as well). I might possibly rephrase your product as 'We're like Facebook Connect for Nest.' Or 'We're like IFTTT for IoT.' I think you want to drive home the point that you're connecting devices from different manufactures and adding additional functionality. The social network aspect is probably less important (I used the Facebook analogy since they were a developer platform at one point).

<comment><USER27> Thanks for the feedback.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Since a lot of potential amazing startups here, and an applicant myself, do checkout www.sofia.ai guys! We have worked super hard, just like all of you, and it can hopefully be very helpful to you guys during the growth phase (its free!).

Cant wait for the results!

P.S: would LOVE feedbacks :)

</comment><comment><USER29> We got the invite in positive. Yay!

<comment><USER30> Awesome, good luck !

<comment><USER29> thx

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Rejected, our startup is still in alpha, so see you all in the next round ;)

</comment><comment><USER26> Just got my rejection email. Best of luck to everyone!

<comment><USER26> Quick promotion - I applied as a solo founder. I'm looking for a co-founder with an EE background and an interest in wearables/hearables. The idea is awesome (of course!) - still in the pre-prototype stage. Would be glad to share more!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Guys, anyone got a response for late applications?

<comment><USER31> Hey Pradeep! We still haven't received a response for our late application. Did you?

<comment><USER3> No. I have not heard back yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I submitted my (late) application for the Fellowship program yesterday and just got a rejection email. That was fast!

<comment><USER5> I imagine the system automatically sends a rejection email to all applicants where a human has not clicked an 'invite to interview' button.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> i am freaking out guys.

<comment><USER14> same here

<comment><USER34> Good to see I'm not the only one :D

<comment><USER35> Is there any forecast of when the invites will be sent ?

<comment><USER36> late afternoon or evening</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: RateMyProfessors replacement? - <AUTHOR>

I think it's about time this shoddy site gets replaced. 350 character cap on comments and silly criteria like hot-or-not doesn't make sense when you're deciding how to spend (literally) thousands of dollars. The website is ugly as sin and bears load horribly to boot.
I envision a much cleaner site where comment length is uninhibited and users actually need to log in with a school e-mail to post comments. I'd also like users to be able to reply to each others' comments.
I'm seriously considering going after this. So, Hacker News, you think it's worthwhile? <comment><USER2> Without anonymity, will people post ? If they have to use a school email to post, will they be anonymous ? If you send an "account confirmation" email to the student's address, won't some idiot at the institution read it and try to use it to deduce who is giving certain reviews ?

Maybe one way to get an edge and get started, is to also allow rating of a lot of other stuff besides professors. Rate administrations, lab conditions, dorms, frats, etc. You could even have a way for Professors to rate their students, and for students to rate students.

Maybe to keep it at least slightly positive, make it so there is some kind of reward for posting positive reviews ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great questions, thanks. Ideally, I'd allow the student to choose whether or not they'd like to remain anonymous, but all accounts would initiate to an anonymous state.

Another reason I'd be doing the e-mail verification thing is so professors can't rate themselves highly, which I've heard is rampant on RateMyProfessors.

<comment><USER3> My school does not supply a school email address. I also remember an article posted here a couple months ago that described Boston College not going to supply students with email addresses any longer. Their reason cited is that students have an online identity prior to college. Perhaps more and more schools will follow the same path.

My point is that requiring a .edu address is artificially restricting your potential, and most certainly legitimate, users.

I read RateMyProfessors and the information given is less detailed than the information I get talking to people in the halls of my school. The site definitely has a use, but a professor rating himself artificially high will probably contradict the actual widely held student view that the reader already knows.

<comment><USER4> Actually if I remember the Boston College change correctly, they weren't supplying students with email _accounts_ , but were switching to an email _forwarding_ service.

The idea is that an .edu address is important and necessary in more places than you think (and beyond the likes of facebook as well) and provides one way of verifying you are in some way affiliated with the .edu in question, but you don't have to check separate inboxes to do so. I know I haven't logged in to my .edu accounts in possibly years and just have them forwarded to my main email address. I can't imagine there aren't a lot of people out there doing the same.

I think this restriction is a valid one provided you have a provision for manually checking users that don't have such an email address (probably a small minority).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yeah, why not. As a student, the hotornot-like criteria is a big turn-off from me rating or reading ratings of teachers. Typically the teachers with high ratings are the easy markers, not necessarily the best professors. A lot of the ratings appear to be the result of personal grudges as well.

So yeah, there's lots of room for improvement here.

<comment><USER4> Lots of room for improvement that is hard to get, perhaps. I'm most likely to leave reviews for professors if they were either exceptionally good or bad, and I'm too lazy to leave one for a mediocre one (the vast majority) unless I was already motivated by an exceptional one. A change in websites wouldn't change much there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would be seriously interested in helping you take on this project. I have spent the last year and a half developing RateMyStudentRental.com for reviewing on- and off-campus rental housing and dorms.

We have developed solutions to many of the problems you're contemplating (school email confirmation, conditional anonymity, etc.), so I think there might be a good opportunity to collaborate here.

Just as we've developed a way to involve landlords and school administrators in the site without compromising the students' anonymity, I've thought of how much opportunity ratemyprofessors is missing out on. Their business model is horribly outdated, and there are so many other ways they could be leveraging their information. Imagine if the site partnered with education specialists to help the poorly-rated professors improve their lessons and teaching. And a comment I had often heard from my professors was that until the site gave them a chance to respond (much like we've done with landlords), they would never take it seriously.

Not to mention the fact that there'd be an excellent opportunity to partner with schools (much like our School Partnership Program) and allow them to incorporate the ratings and website into their online registration process (or offer them an online registration process entirely).

I could go on indefinitely, so I'll just stop here. You get the idea. Please let me know if you're interested and serious about pursuing this venture.

</comment><comment><USER7> We need to talk. I have been working on a competitor to ratemyprofessor for the past few weeks and I am going to be launching it soon. Email me at the address in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER8> I am one of the co-founders of Koofers.com (one of the LaunchBox08 portfolio companies) and we have a VERY in depth professor rating system.

Check out our page and video over at CrunchBase for more info: <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/koofers-com>

Feel free to E-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.com with any of your thoughts, comments, or suggestions.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think that this is an extremely difficult market to break in to, as any advantage your site provides would have to outweigh the large base of reviews that RateMyProfessors already has.

There are already several other sites attempting to do this, with varying levels of success. My school (Marquette University) is currently affiliated with PickAProf.com</comment>


What's awful about being a {software engineer, tech lead, manager}? - <AUTHOR> http://www.onebigfluke.com/2016/04/whats-awful-building-software.html <comment><USER2> As an engineer, my biggest disappointment is this:

I rarely get to work on any algorithms, my work (for 10 years now) mostly involves wiring different things together and controlling problem/code complexity.

Why are algorithms popular in interviews, again?

<comment><USER3> To show the intelligence of the interviewer I think.</comment></comment>


How the Columbine Shooting Changed American Teenhood - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/before-columbine-what-was-high-school-like/587527/ <comment><USER2> As someone who started high school post 1999, I simply can't identify with this. My school never had locked down doors, and nobody was anxious about someone coming onto campus and shooting up the place. The only schools that had police were schools that had lots of kids from bad neighborhoods.

<comment><USER3> The article talks about Columbine because it's the 20th anniversary and they need to fit it in, but my perception is that lockdown drills didn't become popular more recently. They cite numbers from 2016... do they have numbers for 1999-2016?

My admittedly cynical suspicion is that this has more to do with a shift in gun control strategy and less to do with safety. In the 90s, pre-Heller, gun control efforts mostly focused on handguns using the threat of street crime. With crime rates way down and handgun bans nonviable, gun control efforts have shifted to focus on semi-auto rifles using the threat of mass shootings. Lockdown drills keep children and parents fearful, which encourages voters to support gun control, even though mass shootings are statistically quite rare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Talk about American exceptionalism. The stagnation is deafening...</comment>


Ask HN: Why are there still no good ISP options in the Bay Area? - <AUTHOR> Specifically, on the peninsula.  Right now I'm shopping for a new ISP for both my office in Palo Alto and my apartment in Mountain View.  There are simply no good options for either, despite being right in the middle of Silicon Valley.<p>What is going on here?  Anyone have any advice as to how to actually find high quality service? <comment><USER2> Politics. Wired high speed internet requires shorter distances between the ISP's box and your house, and so in suburbia they need to put little boxes down the street at closer interviews for high speed internet. Local city councils block these for reasons: local residents complain about the boxes ruining the look of their street, or simply don't want tech workers to displace them and make rents go up.

Gigabit internet exists in select neighbourhoods, but expect to pay a rent premium for it. Ask the leasing agent what ISPs are available before applying; if their property offers gigabit fiber optic you can bet they'll be happy to tell you they've got Fiber Optic from Sonic or AT&T. If you get the usual "AT&T and Comcast", then stay away.</comment>


Crypto Stick becomes Nitrokey - <AUTHOR> https://www.nitrokey.com/blog/2015/crypto-stick-becomes-nitrokey

<comment><AUTHOR> Because there usually is a lot of snake oil:

In this case hardware and software is Open Source. Crypto Sticks existed for a while.

There are people you can trust behind it, like the German Privacy Foundation and NLnet.</comment>


Programming Skills Most Coveted By Employers - <AUTHOR> http://readwrite.com/2013/04/09/15-programming-skills-most-coveted-by-employers <comment><USER2> I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding in the paragraph about C++: when people say that a programming language is "inefficient," they usually mean that programs written in that language run slowly. That is certainly not the case with C++. The link that the author of the post gives is to a stackoverflow entry that explains why the C++ _compilation process_ is slow. That is of course a different matter. As a matter of fact, C++ aficionados often argue that the efficiency of C++ programs is the one thing that outweighs all its disadvantages, like the slow compilation process.</comment>


How is WordPress.com made? - <AUTHOR> http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/how-is-wordpress-com-made/ <comment><USER2> One interesting thing about how Automattic works is that they don't hire engineers without first going through a trial contract. Instead of the normal interview process where they ask you arbitrary questions, you work on the actual codebase solving real bugs.

This ultimately answers the questions of a) whether or not you can work with PHP and the WordPress code, and b) whether or not you can work and collaborate with the team remotely. If hired, you can then immediately start contributing without much more ramp up time.

<comment><USER3> This is true. After a person has received and accepted an offer for employment, they work as a member of the Happiness (support) team for three weeks before starting on their own job. When WordPress.com opened, everyone in Automattic (Matt, Ryan, Donncha, myself) got a copy of every support request in email. So the support tour is a part of a long tradition. It's also a good way to learn the ropes according to those who have done it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I help make WordPress.com. Any questions?

<comment><USER4> Can you talk a bit about how you scale it? I'm especially interested in if you use a shared filesystem like NFS to keep the blogs.dir consistent across multiple web front ends, or do you use something like fuse on top of mogilefs or HDFS? Do you use varnish? Could you share your config?

Thanks a lot!

<comment><USER5> A good place to start would be Barry's blog: <http://barry.wordpress.com/>

Hes not updated it in quite awhile though.

<comment><USER3> Barry has the strength of ten sysadmins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So out of curiosity, how many _actual_ people work on WordPress.com - Matt has gone on a hiring-spree in the past year or two apparently:

<http://automattic.com/about/>

It used to be only a handful of people and I know the usage stats haven't grown that much.

20 people for _all_ of Automattic in June 2008:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20080624032336/http://automattic....](http://web.archive.org/web/20080624032336/http://automattic.com/about/)

Today there are like 50 people on that page, some of them are for Gravatar and InstantDebate and PollDaddy, so what's the current headcount for wp.com ?

<comment><USER3> Automattic has around 70 people working full time. I can't keep track. Not everyone works on WordPress.com. Without referring to any records, I'd guess we have a couple dozen on technical, a dozen on support, a handful on design, and a handful on business.</comment></comment>


Reddit's favorite programming books, from 3.5B comments - <AUTHOR> https://redditfavorites.com/books/programming/ <comment><USER2> I've read most of those books, and while I wouldn't discourage anyone from reading them, I don't think it's a great reading list either. You'll have to dig through a bit of cruft to get to the gems.

Partly, it's that programming books have such low lifespan that the ones that still get recommended after a decade are often deeply assimilated into programmer culture already. For example, when I read Clean Code and Pragmatic Programmer last year, I didn't find any of it to be interesting or remotely surprising - but I have been working at "agile" shops for a while, and perhaps those ideas were more revelatory when the books first came out.

Here's a more fun reading list, based off my own tastes. Maybe some of these are on the list, but I found it hard to scroll past a certain point as well:

\- Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets

\- The Nature of Computation

\- The Little Schemer

\- Programming Pearls

<comment><USER3> The Little Schemer is indeed a fun read, and it's relatively short and digestible (compared to SICP which I have on my reading list but is daunting to me). If you are used to languages with imperative loops it will give you a nice perspective on recursion. Slightly related but I found myself using Reduce/Fold pattern a lot more in my everyday languages after reading it.

Maybe following a tutorial in Erlang/Elixir might have the same effect, in addition to being more actual and practical, but also maybe less fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looking for recommendations on a "best" one or two books to read on SQL / PostgreSQL.

Have any of you read _Mastering PostgreSQL in Application Development_ [+]? I'm aware it's a fairly recent title, but I'm in need of something like that and am wondering if it's worth the money. The free sample chapter looks promising, I'll give it that.

I'm working my way through the official PostgreSQL docs, and they're really good, but I find myself struggling a bit (a lot). I'm fluent in a handful of programming languages (dabbled in many), and appreciate abstractions like HOFs and monads, but I'm finding it difficult to express myself in SQL, and that tells me some underlying concepts haven't quite clicked.

[+] [https://masteringpostgresql.com/](https://masteringpostgresql.com/)

<comment><USER5> I don't know about books, but I've found the website use the index luke to be helpful with sql in general. I've also heard good things about joe celko's books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm sure the comments that were analyzed span many years: 2 Perl books and "Javascript: The Good Parts".

The Art of Computer Programming, SICP and Introduction to algorithms are books that are commonly recommended but very few people have finished reading them.

<comment><USER7> "Javascript: The Good Parts" is often shown as an example of just how bad JavaScript is because it's almost like a pocket edition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Solid list, but didn't see any of Scott Meyers C++ books there, which is pretty surprising. Unlike other C++ books he tends to discuss the "why" along with the "what". Nice to see Reddit knows about SICP though!

<comment><USER9> > Nice to see Reddit knows about SICP though!

...truly a tome from the abyss of obscurity.

<comment><USER10> Seems super common and overhyped for the HN or /prog/ community, sure. Though, at 5 jobs over 3 years I haven't worked with a single person who's ever heard of SICP (or really any programming book for that matter). That includes security & big Data work at a Fortune 500.

Quite few professional programmers (in the grand scheme of things) actually read programming books unless they're forced to.

<comment><USER9> > Quite few professionals (in the grand scheme of things) actually read > programming books unless they're forced to.

FTFY. I agree, it's a shame but at the same time I understand.

<comment><USER11> Why should a barber, mechanic or whatever be expected to read books about programming? Your fix makes the sentence easier to read, but only with a trade-off

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> needs more Aho books

also no physics or maths ?

oh and Loomis is everywhere in the drawing list, pretty cool

</comment><comment><USER13> Nice to see SICP growing.

</comment><comment><USER14> Outside of the standard literature, those are some of the worst book covers I've ever seen. I refuse to look into this any further, as I don't trust reddit's taste anyways.

<comment><USER8> Literally judging books by their covers?

<comment><USER14> I now go out of my way to do so, in most shopping. I figure if their marketing team is tasteless, there's not much hope for the rest of the business's operations. (In the sense that bad marketing implies bad product; good marketing can go either way)

I mean just compare SICP and TAOCP covers to.. head first *; the latter look like self-help trash in b&n.

Now O'Reilly, they've got covers you can really believe in

<comment><USER15> > I figure if their marketing team is tasteless, there's not much hope for the > rest of the business's operations.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. I can't even think of a comparison to further illustrate the stupidness of this sentence.

<comment><USER14> Its the primary public facing function of a consumer-facing business. Its really a lot more difficult to argue that they _shouldn 't_ be judged on for it, when its specifically the main thing a business is _trying_ to be judged on. The only immediate argument I can think of is that

A) mass marketing is, and should be, frowned upon as a field, due to their use of extremely abusive strategies

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate those who advertise well, and that all of marketing should be frowned upon

B) marketing doesn't imply anything about the business

But in a lot of cases, it does, because they're either in a market where they should (most consumer products), or they're in a market where there's no need to (free software, extremely cheap retailers. business to business, non- finalized products, middlemen like amazon, monoprice, etc). And if they're in the former, and they pull off a shitshow, I don't see how its reasonable to _not_ judge them for it.

There's a reason a large chunk of silicon valley puts such a massive strain on look&feel, UX, and all the shitty css frameworks, despite tech having the history of not giving the slightest shit.

They've moved into a market where marketing does play a major role, and their success at it should be indicative of other successes. The backend stuff might not have to care (but, it turns out, they still do; just a different fashion), but any final product landing on your phone as an "app" certainly does care, and they should be judged for trying, and failing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Wikimedia Foundation statement about the recent YouTube announcement - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/973978414553149456 <comment><USER2> It's not strong-worded enough imo.</comment>


Bending Over Backwards - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/bending_over_backwards

<comment><USER2> So I guess Gruber is just giving up on even trying to be a bit objective anymore? This read more like a hurt comic book fan forum post about a bad review of his favorite superhero's movie than anything else. Worse battery life, a non improved screen, weak cameras and lack of 4G/flash are drawbacks, no matter how you slice it.

The funny thing is Mossberg's review is overwhelmingly positive.

<comment><USER3> The point is, the iPad's real competitors don't beat it in any of those categories except for camera. (Also, Gruber said in his own review that he got identical battery life to the previous model.) The Xoom is the only tablet that promises 4G and Flash and got mediocre reviews even without those components, which will probably make it run worse.

<comment><USER4> I have a Xoom and I don't know why people are giving it such a bad rap. It does everything I want it to do and it does it really fast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm now going to be That Guy: one person disputing another person's statements about a mainstream consumer electronics device? Hacker News?

</comment><comment><USER6> He missed the criticism of the iPad covers:

 _"Unfortunately, I found the cover's magnetic latch came open in my briefcase, turning the screen on and wasting the battery. Also, the light gray color I had picked up smudges."_

</comment><comment><USER7> Great, a review of a review.</comment>


The Controversy Behind Nike's Vaporfly Running Shoe, Explained [Video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVXrIaPuP7c <comment><USER2> Basically no explanation of how it works or why it's better. I suspect the extra thick foam sole and embedded carbon plate are acting as springs that return some energy to the runner as the heel lifts on each step. Kind of similar to those running stilt things that are basically bent carbon fiber sheets working like a bow.

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems more like a long Nike ad than an explanation of any controversy.

Also, having worked in a machine shop, I freaked out watching the guy operate the band saw.</comment>


Ask HN: Create API without coding? - <AUTHOR> I need to share/integrate some data with a business partner. They need the data in a format called JSON. Problem is: I don't code and the budget is very limited. Any quick & easy ways? I have two spreadsheets. Google? <comment><USER2> Fieldbook.com

</comment><comment><USER3> Airtable.com?

<comment><USER3> restdb.io

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> studio.nuchwezi.com</comment>


Lyoluminescence – light from dissolving γ-irradiated solids in liquid solvents - dfeojm-zlib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyoluminescence <comment> dfeojm-zlib _Lyoluminescence intensity can be increased by performing the dissolution of the solid in a solution containing conventionally chemiluminescent compounds such as luminol. These are thus called lyoluminescence sensitizers._

Hey @AppliedScience[0], please make vijeos. ;))

0\. [https://www.youtube.com/AppliedScience](https://www.youtube.com/AppliedScience)

Also, it might be fun to play with Luminol and Bluestar (an improve chemiluminescent) plus blood vs. cleaners

\- sodium hypochlorite (bleach)

\- sodium percarbonate (OxyClean)

\- hydrogen peroxide

\- hydrochloric acid (Muriatic acid)

\- dilute acetic acid (vinegar)

\- Iron OUT [https://summitbrands.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Iron- OUT...](https://summitbrands.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Iron-OUT-Powder- English-GHS-Rev-11-30-2018.pdf)

\- Baking soda + lemon juice</comment>


Show HN: Try new GraphQL Editor with schema libraries support - <AUTHOR> https://graphqleditor.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> New features:

\- schema libraries enabling you to reuse GraphQL schemas

\- GraphQL Error checking in code

\- Directives support

\- Private projects

\- Mock backend

\- Teams

For devs - github link: [https://github.com/graphql-editor/graphql- editor](https://github.com/graphql-editor/graphql-editor)</comment>


Spotify announces music app store - Spotify Platform - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/spotify-announces-music-app-store-1044396

<comment><USER2> This seems like a wonderfully pointless gimmick.

Plus, last I checked, Spotify is en route to implosion with so many people realizing it's hurting more than piracy is.

A very profitable collapse, by the looks of how much they pay out ;)

<comment><USER3> Spotify has always operated at a loss. They lost 40 million dollars last year. If they implode it will be due to economics not sympathy for musicians.

<comment><USER2> Ouch, their record label contracts must be AWFUL.

<comment><USER3> Not sure why you were downvoted. They are awful, that is why they are losing money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Link to the apps page on spotify site <http://www.spotify.com/apps/>

[edit] - seems you can now get the preview of apps on <http://www.spotify.com/uk/download/previews/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Awesome. It's starting to dawn on me that audio is increasingly powerful in an ever more "mobile" world. I take in more and more content via audio (audiobooks, The Economist, a widening array of podcasts, I'm even playing with text-to-speech apps for Twitter and web articles). It's more convenient while I'm on the move and I find it more conducive to actually focusing on long form, high-value content. A music service with a strong API really creates the opportunity for a platform to grow out of these disparate content sources.

<comment><USER6> I love that spoken word radio is basically back.

Perhaps you would enjoy our fine BBC Radio 4, broadcasting on matters intellectual since 1939?

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I tested it and I love it! The biggest deficit of spotify for me was that music discovery somehow lacked (compared to last.fm, etc.) Now I can use a bunch of services to help me discover music inside (!) of spotify. I don't know about the business and monetary aspects of this which are discussed here - but as a user I think its great (and maybe thats the best indication for a successfull product anyhow?)

</comment><comment><USER8> Rdio has the same API, except it's web based so you can integrate into websites.

</comment><comment><USER9> I can't find any info for developers. Has anyone else?

<comment><USER4> Not yet, but I would check <http://developer.spotify.com/en/> in a couple of days

edit: More quickly than I thought - <http://developer.spotify.com/en/spotify- apps-api/overview/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This sounds awesome! It reminds me of Winamp plugins from back in the day -- only hopefully with all of the advantages of modern technologies.

</comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.spotify.com/us/download/previews/></comment>


Suster on how to approach, pitch and powerpoint a VC - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWHm5cfUBPs&feature=player_embedded Great youtube video from Mark Suster of GRP partners <comment><USER2> Wish I'd had this info 15 years ago, would have saved me a lot of trouble</comment>


How the Book Business Invented Modern Gift-Giving - <AUTHOR> http://lithub.com/how-the-book-business-invented-modern-gift-giving/ <comment><USER2> It's interesting how no one has tried to figure out a way to facilitate the giving of ebooks as gifts. For this to be effective, there has to be a cross- over between the digital and analogue worlds. Why not sell ebooks like gift cards? I'm surprised no one is doing this.</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on Languages to Learn - <AUTHOR>

Trying to get some advice...
My highschool is offering a AP Computer Science class next year which is based on Java (not javascript).I was wondering if it would be worth it to learn Java, or take a class at my local community college on C++?
(I want to pursue computer science and already know javacript, and ruby)
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Doesn't matter that much. C++ is better to know, but you should do whichever one of those options will look better for your college applications. Then, if you have the time/energy, do the other one as well.

There are a billion jobs in Java, and I think the language itself is ok in a lot of ways, but many Java projects are monsters. Learning Java is a helpful way to understand the pros/cons of using a highly rigid language (and I'm strongly in favor of rigid languages).</comment>


F1 student visa OPT extended from 12 months to 29 months - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/04/07/DHS-extends-time-foreign-students-can-stay-in-US_1.html

<comment><USER2> Wow. That's very powerful for F-1 students starting start-ups. The OPT is very flexible, and you don't have to pay yourself a lot of money during that timeframe unlike an H-1B. Precisely what you need to do when you start up (assuming you've at least reasonable savings to sustain yourself.)

<comment><USER3> Can you work on a startup on your own during OPT? What do you do after, if you can do the startup during OPT?

<comment><AUTHOR> 29 months is a long time to start something and launch. I think finding a local co-founder would always be helpful!</comment></comment></comment>


Teachers Are Panicking About Schools Reopening in the Fall - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/m7j9nv/teachers-are-panicking-school-reopening-covid-19-pandemic <comment><USER2> Studies from Europe should allay fears about schools contributing to the spread of the virus: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.15371](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.15371) [https://www.thelocal.no/20200511/opening-schools-has-not- rek...](https://www.thelocal.no/20200511/opening-schools-has-not-rekindled- epidemic-in-norway)

If open schools is one of the main drivers of the epidemic, then teachers in Sweden, were elementary schools never closed, should be infected at a much higher rate than the rest of the population. That has not been the case, hence schools are likely not one of the main drivers of the epidemic.

Big caveat being that the Nordic countries have very generous sick leave rules. Parents get paid for staying home with sick children.

The kids will already have to deal with the consequences of climate change. Also robbing them of education and social development because we failed to properly isolate senior citizens if cruel and unjust.

<comment><USER3> The article cited by the OP (which I read) suggests that the 'studies from Europe'(which I read - it's apparently largely based on unpublished studies) are somehow different from those in Israel:

"what happened in Israel, where schools reopened on May 17. On that day, Israel added only 10 new cases. By the end of June, the country had added 1,400 cases—657 of which contract tracers tracked to schools."

I've been following Covid closely since it appeared, and if I was a teacher I would _not_ even _consider_ returning to school at this time. It looks like many, many college teachers agree.

<comment><USER4> So do you expect to be paid while you refuse to work?

<comment><USER3> As essential and needful as the teaching profession is, a lot of people actually pay a financial penalty for the privilege. They, like everyone else, are free to choose a better-paying job. That's certainly a saner and safer course of action than the one being contemplated for them ... especially for those over 40.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article starts by confusing cases with infections in a recently published study. The study says 8% of children who are infected get admitted to the ICU; the linked study says 8% of children studied were admitted to the ICU, all of whom were known _cases_. This potentially ignores a large number of children who were infected and not symptomatic enough to get tested.

<comment><USER6> This kind of confusion happens in newspapers and other coroprate media so often that one is left to wonder if it is intentional. After all, the fear porn sells.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We could have this disease under control by the time school starts by giving everyone (or at least everyone in highly affected areas) tests every day.

This is possible, practical, and affordable.

The technology for fast pregnancy-test style tests for COVID-19 exists right now, and they could cost as little as $1 per test.

The reason these tests aren't being used yet is because of the FDA's misguided requirements for extremely high sensitivity for COVID-19 tests. If these requirements could be relaxed to allow lower-sensitivity tests, then these tests could go out on the market... or, better yet, the government could take over and ensure everyone gets tested with these tests every day for $1 a test.

Even a more limited plan of testing just all schoolkids every day for $1 a test would be way better than what we've got now.

Details regarding these tests, the science behind them, and the plan outlined above can be found in the latest episode of _This Week in Virology_.[1]

Let's not miss another opportunity to stop this disease!

[1] - Starting at about 6'20" in to episode 640: [https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-640/](https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-640/)</comment>


San Francisco Comedy Show for Technology Nerds - <AUTHOR> http://www.comedyvsnerds.com/?secondshow

<comment><USER2> Do you guys offer travel packages for this? Coming from South Florida...I am going to have to fly out for this!

<comment><AUTHOR> That would be awesome, if you fly here for this - admission is free and I'll get you a drink</comment></comment>


More undergraduates are majoring in philosophy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/education/06philosophy.html?em&ex=1207627200&en=cf253583648590d5&ei=5070 <comment><USER2> It sounds like I'm one of a number of philosophy major who reads this site (and who works as a software engineer), and I'd like to second that philosophy can be a great major as long as you don't plan on being a philosophy professor (which, for most people, isn't an option). You can kind of take what you want from the major, so if all you want is to bullshit people that's what you might end up learning.

As for myself, I learned a lot about how to carefully construct arguments, how to make my arguments clearly so that people who disagreed with me could easily point out why they disagreed, how to critically analyze and (civilly) disagree with someone else, how to care more about getting to the right answer eventually than about being right in the moment, and how to be willing to change my mind when someone did make a well-reasoned criticism of my argument.

I studied mainly the ethics and political philosophy, rather than the more logic/cognitive science side of things, but I've still found it incredibly useful to my work as a software engineer. The process of breaking a complex argument down into appropriately sized chunks that say enough to be meaningful but little enough to be clear and (hopefully) self-evidently correct is incredibly similar to the skill of breaking a complex program down into parts that are large enough to do something useful but small enough to be correct.

<comment><USER3> Way back in the 80's I doubled in CS and Philosophy. I had a philosophy professor who was a noted expert in symbolic logic. After my last course with him, Dr Aycock was hired by an AI company to do pure research. He left behind a tenured position to go into the private sector. He probably spent the next few years pecking on a Symbolics keyboard.

Philosophy was very important to me because it showed me how thinkers over thousands of years have struggled with corner cases, figured them out, integrated them into routine thinking, then moved onto the next set of corner cases.

Read David Hume for a mind expanding experience. He is surely is one of the most brilliant minds of record that humanity has ever produced.

With regard to philosophy's influence on the hard sciences, Immanuel Kant plays a fundamental role in undergraduate study, as well as Descartes. It's said that he discovered Cartesian coordinates during his "Meditations."

<comment><USER3> Legend has it that as Descartes had exhausted himself meditating on the notion of "thinking and being" one day, he saw a fly on the wall in the room he had cloistered himself in. It occurred to him that he could map the position of that fly on the wall in two-dimensional space, and graphing was born. And guess what database methodology will supercede the relational model?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand it's great that students are realizing they don't need to take something that seems pragmatic in college/university, but on the other, I wonder if they're really learning anything useful other than how to bullshit.

<comment><USER5> After 4 years in college for a CS major, I count only two classes as having been worth my time:

Intro to Philosophy

General Psychology

And I mean that both from a knowledge-for-knowledge sake point of view, and a pragmatic view.

In contrast, it was the courses I took related to my major which were utter bullshit.

<comment><USER6> I had a similar experience in undergrad EE, an excercise in pragmatic uselessness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not even all that old (32) and even I recall at least two previous cycles where "philosophy was fashionable again" and newspapers wrote about it after which philosophy was pretty much ignored for a few years.

And I'm willing to bet that in five years or so there will be yet another one.

</comment><comment><USER8> Frankly, at least as an American, I'll take a few more well-schooled philosophy grads who ask tough questions over technically brilliant bio- weapons researchers who do what they're told by Uncle Sam.

(I know that's a false dichotomy, but it has a nice ring, doesn't it? :-))

<comment><USER9> I'll take a few more brilliant bio-weapons researchers who do what they're told by Uncle Sam over a few more brilliant bio-weapons researchers who _don't_ do what they're told by Uncle Sam.

<comment><USER10> I don't know; it seems like 'bio-weapons researchers" are the only people today capable of exercising the 2nd amendment as purposed, and therefore should really be well-trained in matters such as the difference between morality, ethicality, and legality ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Useless degree. Seriously, what happened with college preparing you for life? I think this country would be much better off if people start studying more concrete sciences. Doing biology, math, physics, bio-chem, computer science, accounting... so we have the talent of actually solving real world problems, energy, polution, less co-2 emissions, alternatives to oil, better design and architecting of towns, less sprawl, etc.

How is a society going to advance with a bunch of people majoring in b.s., All they would be able to do is complain about how pollution is wrong to society, yet being unable to do anything practical about it. How does a society advance with only people being able to talk the talk, but not walk the walk?

Studying Philosophy would be great if it is a minor, or a second major in school. Plus, you could learn a lot more by yourself, by reading books and such. While hard sciences are much more difficult to learn by yourself.

<comment><USER2> Before I went to college, I read a lot of philosophy, and I thought I was learning a lot. But there's a huge difference between reading Plato or Nietzche or Rawls or whatever else you like and having to write papers that critically analyze said works. For all its reputation as a haven for people who bullshit a lot, I've never had a paper more savagely ripped apart than by an analytic philosophy TA. It's an experience I never got in other departments, and it's something that everyone, especially know-it-all-type high school students, can really benefit from. Learning how to be wrong is an important life skill, and reading books just doesn't teach you that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm taking this as a very good sign. Seems for a while now that U.S. culture has gone heavily in the direction of anti-intellectualism. It would be nice for a swing in the other direction.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure if Philosophy is the kind of intellectualism we're looking for...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Philosophy is a fantastic major, so long as you don't plan on being a professional philosopher.

<comment><USER15> Clerk: "Occupation?"

Comicus: "Standup Philosopher!"

Clerk: "What?"

Comicus: "Standup Philosopher! I coalesce the vapor of human experience into a viable and logical comprehension."

Clerk: "Oh - a Bullshit Artist!"

Comicus: "Hmmmmmm...."

Clerk: "Did you bullshit last week?"

Comicus: "No." Clerk: "Did you try to bullshit last week?"

Comicus: "Yes!"

[http://woodmoorvillage.typepad.com/zendo/2005/02/bullshit_ar...](http://woodmoorvillage.typepad.com/zendo/2005/02/bullshit_artist.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am shocked by the people who allegedly switch from maths to philosophy. Seems to me that maths is the real philosophy. Usually whenever I pick up a philosophy book (rarely, I admit), there is a wrong assumption in the first paragraph and I can readily dismiss it as worthless.

Any philosophers the news.yc crowd could recommend?

<comment><USER17> Most philosophers start from a premise they want to be true and work it out until they have a proof, (sometimes) claim they did it the other way around and make use of one or more subjective statements in their proof. The subjective statements are usually true to some people and false to others and therefore arguments about a proof are almost always about one statement and evidence to support or refute its viability.

I was a CS major and a minor in philosophy. I think philosophy is a good major and a good minor. On the major side, if you're talented and ambitious you could have a degree in performing arts and succeed far better than a lazy or incompetent person with a CS degree.

On the minor side, I understand your argument that mathematics is the "real" philosophy as it is more directly applicable to pure CS. However, math has nothing to do with human motivation, ethics or other such philosophical concerns which are very, very applicable to working for a company that happens to be doing CS ;-)

Plus, metaphysics is pretty damn fun.

<comment><USER16> My impression is that maths has everything to do with human motivation, ethics and so on, when you consider economics and evolution.

For example, with respect to ethics, it seems to me the only sensible way to look at them is the desired outcome, which you determine with maths. The rest is just arbitrary preferences of people, so discussing it is meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Given how many people here are philosophy majors (lots), it can't be an entirely bad thing.

And provided you treat it as 'figuring out how to argue rationally about difficult topics' rather than 'being able to namecheck dead philosophers', it's probably as useful as any other non-applied degree course.

<comment><USER19> It's also good for people who later work in Cognitive Science or Artificial Intelligence.

<comment><USER20> I'm just finishing up a course on the "Philosophy of Mind" and I can not agree more.

<comment><USER21> I took a class with the same title and it was fascinating. Unfortunately it didn't reach to far into the digital age, but it was just good to get a broad sense of the arguments before delving into any new writings on the subject.

I also think I learned more in my Philosophy classes than my Comp Sci classes, but then I dropped out of the CompSci program and majored in Philo, so I am probably biased.

I'd judge myself better off than a significant number of technical majors that just were trying to get a good job after graduation. I had the benefit of a Liberal Arts school too, so I also took a lot of CompSci classes (How many Philo majors do you know that took Digital Electronics and had to build up an simple computer on a breadboard?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> At Carnegie Mellon, Philosophy majors essentially do Computer Science with more of a theoretical bias.

<comment><USER15> Yep, I majored in Logic and Computation not quite two decades ago.

<http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/undergraduate-bs.php>

The thing that pulled me in was all the possible paths to graduation (see "Sample Curricula" on the linked page). CS and ECE basically had every course laid out from freshman to senior year, which seemed really constraining to someone not quite sure what I wanted to do yet. (I ended up in the natural language processing track, now the "Language and Information Technologies" track under the Sample Curricula.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why not just study math instead when you want to learn how to argue?

<comment><USER6> What if you are not interested in math?

<comment><USER23> That's a point.

(I could have figured it out on my own. It's just so far away from me that I did not think of it in the first place.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Philosophy is a fantastic undergrad degree to apply to higher learning or practical work.

If it's philosophy for philosophy sake...well...have fun.

</comment><comment><USER25> Better switch majors-- in a few years, the market's going to be glutted with philosophers!

</comment><comment><USER13> Submarine alert ;)

</comment><comment><USER26> I am a college dropout, but I completed all the philosophy parts of my degree requirement.

There is a divide in philosophy departments in the US. The divide is between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy. Programs strong in analytic philosophy are great. They will provide a strong grounding in formal logic. Continental programs, while they might have there own set of virtues, are full of bullshit.

This is only good news if analytic leaning philosophy departments are seeing the big half of the bump.

<comment><USER27> Is there actually a 'divide'? I was under the strong impression that analytic philosophy completely dominates American universities. Continental philosophy is mostly discussed in English Lit., Cultural Studies, etc.

For instance, Harvard has a 100% analytic faculty, MIT has a 100% analytic faculty, Princeton, Stanford, ...

Analytic philosophy seems boring and pedantic to me. For example, in one class we discussed Lewis' theory that "properties" are any subset of the set of all possible entities. So the property of being red is the mathematical set of all real and possible red things. This basically strikes me as "how many maths can dance on the head of a pin?"

<comment><USER26> Well, yeah, at the good schools there is analytic philosophy. But at local community college or state universities (where most people get degrees), it's a mix.

And dancing maths on the head of a pin, that could never be a useful skill to develop?

<comment><USER27> Ah, I never realized that. Thanks for the clarification.

I do think that analytic philosophy is a useful point of view. It just frustrated me that at my school, it was the only point of view offered.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can a bill be introduced to stop HFT? - <AUTHOR> HFT is not trading. It is gambling. It has killed stock market. <comment><USER2> Bernie Sanders has an interesting idea based on some research done by economist.

He calls it the "Robin Hood Tax". Essentially you charge a small fee whenever any trade happens in the market.

The opponents of this idea state that it will prevent the market from being efficient as trading would slow down - undermining the Efficient Market Hypothesis.

However his argument is that a small enough charge will not prevent genuine investor from trading and just discourage the speculative traders.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is already a trading fee which equates to 'Robin hood tax'. Each platform has their own number for e.g. scottrade charges $7 for each buy and sell. I think HFT traders don't pay that fee for each trade.

HFT is just evil. Direction less buy\selling based on the trend that is currently prevalent in the market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes, such a bill can be introduced. I doubt it could pass, though, unless there's _much_ more documented _and publicized_ evidence of damage caused by HFT.

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the biggest reasons for market crash is automated selling that gets started by computers.

<comment><USER4> Macroeconomics is a _little_ more complicated than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The other thing that I like to be stopped is giving stock ratings. If a fund manager wants to buy a stock then they would cut down its rating and other way around if they want to sell it.</comment>