Open Letter from Sandy Hook Parents to Mark Zuckerberg - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/25/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-sandy-hook-parents-open-letter <comment><USER2> Wow. Flagged already. Very telling that the HN community doesn't even want to talk about this.

<comment><AUTHOR> I knew it would be flagged when I posted it but I posted it anyway because it's something people should be talking about.

<comment><USER3> Being important, or something that people should be talking about, doesn't make an article on topic for Hacker News. What I'm seeing in this thread is a lack of focus on the specifics of the story, plenty of generic irritation, and not as much thoughtful and substantive insight. If we're not getting what we're here for—gratifying our intellectual curiosity—then users are right for flagging the post.

<comment><AUTHOR> The social impact of technology built by members of the community is 100% on topic. Sometimes that's messy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just don't get the point of this letter. Why is it so difficult to leave this particular social network?

The biggest problem _I_ have with Facebook is how it evolved from a great place for me to keep up with my more distant friends and family to... whatever it is now. I know I'm an outlier, but I quit Facebook around 2010 or so when I noticed it was being too aggressive in pushing my account to be more public; increasing my curated circle of interest to include friends of friends, and _their_ friends too.

When I found I was spending more time negotiating the byzantine system of settings to keep my page private than actually using the site, I knew it was time to go.

Is it really such an important website that it must change to suit these folks rather than them finding another way to network with _their_ contacts? It's 2018, and there are options.

Perhaps I'm wrong and having a Facebook account is more important in society than I realize?

<comment><USER5> Why should the onus be on those being harassed to leave? Why should the harassers get to win, when these people did absolutely nothing wrong?

<comment><USER4> >Why should the harassers get to win...

Well, I don't really see it as winning and losing. After all, you simply cannot win against crazy people. What's the old saying? About never getting in an argument with an idiot?

My point I suppose (assuming I even have one) is why they would feel the need to stay, rather than just leaving. It didn't impact my life at all to delete my account, and I'm asking whether there were some development since that makes one NEED to stay. I know loads of people have accounts with FB, but the question I asked, and think they should be asking themselves is "why?"

<comment><USER5> "Well, I don't really see it as winning and losing."

But that's not really a position that has basis in reality. To those doing the harassing, getting the people they target off of social media is, for them, a win.

"My point I suppose (assuming I even have one) is why they would feel the need to stay, rather than just leaving."

Because they want to use FB and social media like everyone else is able to?

"It didn't impact my life at all to delete my account"

I'm glad for you, but you're not everyone.

"and I'm asking whether there were some development since that makes one NEED to stay"

NEED doesn't come into it at all. If they want to continue to use the platform, they should be able to without dealing with that kind of harassment, plain and simple.

"but the question I asked, and think they should be asking themselves is "why?""

And I think you should ask yourself why that question has any bearing on the situation. Why they should have to consider whether they can continue to do the same things that most other members of society get to do.

<comment><USER4> I get your point, people should be free from abuse. I agree. I am also asking something you cannot answer, namely "why do _they_ need facebook?" Which is not even what they are saying in their letter to Zuck.

That being said, you are coming off a bit aggressively. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but I'm asking a honest question and you are (it seems) just calling me selfish and thoughtless. These questions are not rhetorical, if that was unclear.

Can you tell me please how you use facebook in your daily life personally and professionally? It may not have bearing on the greater discussion but I _do_ want to know, as someone who hasn't used it in years.

<comment><USER6> For the benefit of those who are off Facebook (each to their own), here's how I use it;

\- my mixed sport team has a group page, where we discuss the next game time, who can make it, etc. We don't need to Friend each other, or sign up to another service. We all have FB, so we just add/remove people very easily. Helps organise and track conversations easily. A new post each week, and everyone just comments on that. \- my sister and brother live in other states of Australia. FB helps me see what they're up to (photos, videos especially). I call them regularly, so FB is just value-add.

\- I have a young (under 2) son, and keep most photos off him off FB. However, occasionally (once every 2-3 months) we will share something so people in our wider network can get an update. It's not for us, it's for them. \- I have a lot of friends I met through a time in my life (university exchange overseas, growing up, living in different cities). FB is a very casual, easy way to stay in touch. The barrier to entry is very low (literally, just click the 'like' button on their post).

\- FB messenger: I use this a LOT. I also use SMS (via Signal), Hangouts and WhatsApp. Yes, they overlap considerably, but FB Messenger has the functionality, and critically the contacts, I need. Lots of group chats about different things (social events, family, etc.) and things like location sharing when I'm on my way home from work.

I don't endlessly scroll through updates on my feed page, and I don't get my news from FB. If I read the feed page (with the updates from friends, etc.), about 50% of content is secondary (meaning someone has shared a viral video, or something) and the other 50% is original content (holiday photos, though of the day, etc.).

Can all of the above be done on systems other than FB, yes. Do other systems have the low barrier to entry now that all of my friends are on FB, no.

[Edit] Formatting

<comment><USER4> sounds like you can still get a lot of value from it, if you know how to use it properly. there's still too much noise to filter (for me) in the news feed from what you say, if half of it is stale memes and stuff.

cheers and thanks for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I step back, I realize there are a lot of good reasons not to police this stuff. However, if I down scale Facebook to a 100 user forum that I control, then I would ban this in a heartbeat. I guess subjective morality doesn't scale?

<comment><USER8> I think it is the power imbalance / reach / social impact / chilling effect.

Subjective morality enforced over 100 people on an optional forum? Meh

Subjective morality over billions on a platform that many consider essential (I know, I know) to daily life? Oooof

<comment><USER9> All morality is subjective, though. Facebook bans some kinds of speech, so the question isn't "should Facebook do that," but "where do we draw the line." Facebook allows almost anything right now, in part because it's a US company and has inherited the US propensity to allow pretty much all speech.

But that's not the only way to do it. Banning certain types of speech doesn't necessarily lead to a slippery slope. For instance, in Germany, you can't deny the holocaust and they haven't become some sort of dystopian Orwellian society. I would argue Facebook needs to move more toward that model. Conspiracy theories and misinformation are spreading right now. Hell, I personally know someone who I considered a pretty normal person who's become caught up in 9/11 and Sandy Hook conspiracy mongering. Banning groups that promote that kind of garbage make them seem illegitimate (as they are) and no, doing so doesn't infringe on any rights. They're free to make their own website somewhere and spout nonsense. But hey, maybe those kinds of things shouldn't be getting hosted by big media companies like YouTube and Facebook. That just makes them seem legitimate.

With great power comes great responsibility. Right now, it seems to me Facebook (and others) want to have the power, but not the responsibility and that's leading us into a new era of propaganda and idiocy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The parents are also suing radio talk show host Alex Jones[1], and Wolfgang Halbig [2] for promoting this idea. There they have a case for defamation. Here's Halbig's Facebook page.[3] But blaming Facebook seems misplaced. These guys are on Youtube, Facebook, talk radio, and their own web sites.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2018/04/17/603223968...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2018/04/17/603223968/sandy-hook-parents-sue-conspiracy-theorist-alex- jones-over-claim-shooting-was-fa)

[2] [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-39458924/conspiracy- the...](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-39458924/conspiracy-theorist- spreads-fake-info-about-sandy-hook-shooting)

[3] [https://www.facebook.com/WolfgangWHalbig/](https://www.facebook.com/WolfgangWHalbig/)

</comment><comment><USER11> It's a complex and emotionally charged issue. A others have said, even truly offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment. A case that went to the Supreme Court back in 2010, Snyder vs Phelps, allowed the Westboro Baptist church to say it's offensive things at the funeral of a slain Iraqi soldier from the location on the sidewalk where the police instructed them to stand.

While the First Amendment protects public speech, that doesn't mean I have to allow somebody to stand on my lawn and spew. They have to be 'in public'. An interesting question for me is, should Facebook be considered 'in public'? Is there an argument that it's a venue that is not public? If Mark Zuckerberg invited everybody in America to a party at his house, he wouldn't be obligated to tolerate speech he didn't like. And the people saying awful things have the opportunity to say what they went in various public forums. Their own blogs, the street corner, email. Suppressing speech in every possible forum is clearly a violation of the First Amendment, but what if it's only suppressed in some forums?

<comment><USER12> The first amendment prevents the government from censoring you. Facebook can be as draconian with the ban-hammer as they want. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private enterprise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> I know they didn't mean to, but Facebook dug their own grave on this as soon as they started applying algorithms to the news feed. It started off as a means to get people to click more, but it's now very clear that people click on what outrages them more than anything else. And for a lot of people, Facebook _is_ the internet - something FB worked very hard to achieve.

So I have sympathy with Facebook because I don't think these issues are easy to solve (yes, of course, ban Infowars. It's a toxic dump. But others will be more debatable). But they also knowingly and deliberately put themselves in the position they occupy today. This mess is making them an obscene amount of money, they should try harder to clean it up.

</comment><comment><USER13> What I still don't understand about Facebook is that they're letting people charge money for Groups, yet the same very strict content guidelines still apply. Paying adults are unable to have "adult content" of any sort on the site (and their definitions are _very_ broad) but hate speech, Nazi propaganda, radical right wing extremism, and out of touch conspiracy theorists that harass tragedy victims are allowed?

Facebook continues to confuse me.

</comment><comment><USER14> I really want someone to come along who has an answer to all this. I sure don't. Just some observations.

I think the last decades have been an unprecedented experiment in massively scaled two-way communication. People don't really seem to know how to handle the current stage of this experiment. It was a little easier back when it was much smaller communities on Usenet, or even IRC, and most of the time you recognized the same names and could work things out like everyone had got together for a slightly uncomfortable family dinner.

But it's not like that anymore. Hasn't been for quite a while. The scale and speed of things is just hard to fathom now, and we really aren't equipped for it.

Facebook has shared some responsibility in ethnic atrocities [1] [2] [3]. Different groups are now exploiting Facebook's advertising platform to stir up more social unrest [4]. Facebook isn't the only source of trouble; Reddit and other sites are radicalizing youth [5] and struggling with self-policing their most toxic bits [6].

Everyone's concerned about the loss of free speech. I'm pretty far left politically, I get it. It's a big step, maybe the last, towards tyranny. I've been opposed to forcing websites to police copyrighted content (DMCA, SOPA, PIPA). I've been a little less opposed to forcing them to police sexually exploitative content (FOSTA and SESTA -- although I don't love the execution of it).

For people on the political left, who tend to both support free speech and recognize the danger of unregulated firearms, it might be time to take a more careful look at the damage done by massive social networks and ask: what makes this different from gun control?

And is there any way to effectively reduce the spread of misinformation, radicalization of people, and incitement of violence on massive social platforms, without suffocating the free exchange of ideas?

[1]: [https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2018/04/21/tinderbox-...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2018/04/21/tinderbox- countries-facebook-becomes-match/HK9BykGEbbnpnvWWwS32tJ/story.html)

[2]: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/revealed- faceb...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/revealed-facebook- hate-speech-exploded-in-myanmar-during-rohingya-crisis)

[3]: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya- facebook...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook/u-n- investigators-cite-facebook-role-in-myanmar-crisis-idUSKCN1GO2PN)

[4]: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority- of-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-of-divisive- facebook-ads-bought-by-suspicious-groups-study-idUSKBN1HN2KV)

[5]: [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/all- amer...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/all-american- nazis-628023/)

[6]: [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/19/reddit-and- the...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/19/reddit-and-the-struggle- to-detoxify-the-internet)

<comment><USER12> Excellent points. I'll just take a small bit of one.

> what makes this different from gun control?

In my mind, nothing. Gun control and speech restrictions should be applied with great care, but when there is something that threatens someone, steps need to be taken.

I don't really mind that much if you have an assault rifle in your house. You talking in your living room about Sandy Hook conspiracies is deplorable, but not generally harmful.

If you take to Facebook and start trying to find these parents, get their addresses, where they work, license plates and spread them around, that's a different story. We need to have restrictions on intent to harm. Same as when that assault rifle gets loaded with the intent to shoot people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm expecting some downvotes for this view but in general, Silicon Valley seems to have confused itself on what exactly the first amendment is. That it prevents the GOVERNMENT from stopping you from expressing your views. But even in that case, harassment and abuse isn't protected speech.

But somehow since they're confused they seem to be perfectly fine with allowing hate groups, abusers, and doxxers run wild on their platforms, even though even the first amendment doesn't protect them in real life. As part of some collective twisted libertarian dream, these companies give this scum a platform again and again because they profit from it, but hide behind the ideas of libertarianism.

I hope they come to their senses sooner rather than later. IF not, I honestly hope we start looking at changing the law to making these companies liable for crimes committed on their platforms.

<comment><USER16> Hate groups are certainly protected by the First Amendment; see _Snyder v Phelps_ , for example. It's hard to find any behavior on FB that counts as more hateful than that, and they still won 8-1.

That doesn't mean FB can't ban them, mind you, since as you rightly point out, it's (mostly) a restriction on government, not private companies.

<comment><USER15> Their speech is protected. But death threats aren't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> An internet history has demonstrated since Usenet: not only do moderated spaces generate incredible value, unmoderated spaces generally devolve into toxic cesspools as they grow. The moderators of r/AskHistorians understand exactly how propaganda spreads and combats it with clearly-defined content guidelines and strict enforcement for things like holocaust denialism.[1] Sandy Hook propaganda utilizes the same mechanisms of dispersal, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a link between the sources of this stuff.

1\. [https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians- subre...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subreddit- banned-holocaust-deniers-and-facebook-should-too.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but individuals and journalists alike should really think through the consequences of having Facebook police content more aggressively.

Almost every time I hear someone advocate for speech policing, they mention obviously awful speech (e.g. Nazi Germany, Sandy Hook conspiracy theories) as an example. And I agree, that speech sucks, most of us can agree about that because we have hindsight to educate us. In reality, speech is really murky. From what I recall from history classes, "Nazi" ideas like Eugenics weren't Nazi ideas, they were popular at the time everywhere, including in the US. Anti-semitism was not Germany exclusive (and still isn't). When you find yourself inside a society, it becomes very difficult to separate yourself from its collective delusions. In this, it becomes dangerous for a central authority to police speech: how to agree on which speech is acceptable (past the generally abhorrent speech like that mentioned above) is difficult and bound to either be abused in the worst case or best case many mistakes will be made.

Historically, because of the issues mentioned above, I feel against most speech policing in general theoretically. Admittedly, however, I also demographically don't really feel the effects of hate speech, so it's easy for me to take this emotionally distant stance.

The best solution I can come up with here is, especially online, a series of filters: bifurcate platforms like Facebook into a feed where content is moderated, and give users options to opt into unmoderated streams (unmoderated to the extent the law allows).

<comment><USER19> I don't think your opinion is that unpopular, I just think it often gets drowned in opinions of those that are louder.

Personally, while I can certainly see why people don't like to be offended, policing speech is a slippery slope, because there is absolutely nothing objective about what is offensive/hate speech and what is not. There is no perfect solution for it, but I would personally take the freer of the approaches, come at the cost it will.

Side-note: I don't understand why anyone would downvote this. It's articulate, thought out, and constructive.

<comment><USER20> Here's a truly unpopular opinion: there is another option.

One of the reasons bad free speech is so common on the Internet is because of anonymity. A lot of it like death threats, inciting violence, libel, and more are already illegal. They just cannot be enforced due to anonymity.

I would like for speech on the Internet to be just as free as off the Internet, and have the same consequences socially and legally.

I'm in support of something like the South Korean solution. Tie online identity to real identity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and others hand out megaphones with international reach for free, to anyone, and they accept no responsibility for what people do with their megaphones. Mumbling into your can of lager as you wander down the street, covered in feces? Have a megaphone. 9 years old and alone? Megaphone. Complete psychopath? Megaphone. Out and proud neo-Nazi? Have a megaphone on us guys!

Then they just stand back and try to maximize engagement and total time spent on their service, and have a ratio of moderators to users that's so low it's a rounding error. It's like having a classroom of a million people with two grossly overworked, underpaid, and traumatized teachers trying to keep a semblance of order. Everyone is free to speak, to be drowned out by sheer volume of numbers and _volume_.

Plus half of students are robots who do nothing, but shout at superhuman rates 24/7.</comment>


College tips: Advice from a professor - <AUTHOR> http://matt.might.net/articles/college-tips

<comment><USER2> Great advice here. If you are studying in the realm of science, I would doubly stress finding a job with a professor/group ASAP. If there are no paying jobs, go pro bono.

It's the best way to learn, and my biggest regret that I waited until after my junior year, by which point it's probably too late.</comment>


Super Mario World Memory Map - <AUTHOR> https://www.smwcentral.net/?p=memorymap&game=smw <comment><USER2> This is impressive. We think of Super Mario-style platform games as "simple" but in reality, _wow..._ the engine for Super Mario World really is a state machine with thousands of values.

In many ways, a game like SMW is more complex than a lot of the fully 3D games that came out in the following decade.

Sure, a game like Quake or Tomb Raider had to crunch a lot more math for each frame of their fully 3D worlds. However, 2D games like SMW offered a much richer range of interactions between player/enemy/environment compared to those early 3D titles. It was quite a while before 3D games caught up.

<comment><USER3> This is probably only true if you're thinking of the complexity in terms of board-game style complexity, with characters and items and abilities that you can enumerate in a list. That's the type of thing that digital computers are pretty good at doing and analog systems aren't, so in our digitally-soaked culture we tend to appreciate it more and associate it with being "more complex". But it also hit a saturation point in the 90's, right around the time SMW came out in fact - there are plenty of early 90's PC wargames and RPGs that are just baffling to play because they model the playspace in a way that makes for spreadsheet UI.

Detailed physics and AI, on the other hand, is a thing that is largely beyond the ability of the SNES platform, and that's something that started to pick up along with 3D gaming. We don't greatly appreciate these things in video games because we can pretty easily play with blocks and balls or find live opponents in the real world, but it's a realm that still has a lot of untapped potential.

<comment><USER4> Mario World does have a 2D physics engine with tile-based collision detection that works on 255 objects iirc.

The physics it implements is cartoony in that max velocity is capped such that acceleration is limited, but it's an implementation of verlet integration, more or less.

You can see the devs playing with it in a few levels. For example there's that long vertical fall with multiple objects falling along with you that leads into the 8th world.

Or a few levels where an enemy causes chaos with a turtle shell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Always found it interesting how the entire state of the game is statically allocated. This places hard limits on the game's engine. For example, there can only be so many active objects at the same time. I wonder how they determined these limits.

Static memory allocation also makes things easier for hackers. No need to find and follow pointers. Many emulators have Lua support and it's possible to interface with the game this way. Amazing tools can be built. For example:

[https://github.com/brock- heinz/NESDev/blob/master/Emulators/...](https://github.com/brock- heinz/NESDev/blob/master/Emulators/FCEUX/luaScripts/MegamanII-LaserEyes.lua)

More data:

[https://datacrystal.romhacking.net/wiki/Category:RAM_maps](https://datacrystal.romhacking.net/wiki/Category:RAM_maps)

[https://datacrystal.romhacking.net/wiki/Category:ROM_maps](https://datacrystal.romhacking.net/wiki/Category:ROM_maps)

[http://tasvideos.org/GameResources.html](http://tasvideos.org/GameResources.html)

<comment><USER6> Games are engineered products in heavily constrained environments. General software is more like: clever ways to automate annoying tasks. General software can be maximally lazy or elegant or both. Games are clever yet practical and efficient. What baffles me is how often I find a game design to be far more elegant than that of common software..

<comment><USER5> > General software can be maximally lazy or elegant or both. Games are clever > yet practical and efficient.

Video games are soft real time applications: performance visibly degrades if the targeted frame rate is not met. Given the hardware of the time, they _had_ to be practical and efficient.

This might not be the case anymore. Today we have hardware with incredible performance but some of that speed powers abstractions that make it easier to develop the game. Older games had complete control of the machine but now they are merely one program scheduled to run by the operating system.

> What baffles me is how often I find a game design to be far more elegant > than that of common software.

I think it's because of how little abstraction there is. The data structures we find in the code of older games are directly related to the game itself. It's rare to find a retro game with a separate game engine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One thing that's interesting about this memory map is how much is crammed into the first 8KB of the SNES's 128 KB main RAM, while the rest is mainly used to store large blocks of uncompressed data. This is probably a remnant of how the SNES was originally designed have just 8KB of RAM. ([http://www.chrismcovell.com/secret/SFC_1988Q4.html](http://www.chrismcovell.com/secret/SFC_1988Q4.html))

<comment><USER8> It's likely due to being easier to deal with across various memory mapping modes. There's a Retro Game Mechanics Explained video about it that I can't seem to find right now.

<comment><USER9> This. The Super NES memory map is divided into 256 banks of 64KB each. The bottom 8KB of RAM is visible in 128 of these banks, but the remaining 120KB only appears once. The bottom 8KB of RAM is therefore faster to access (at any time, it's more likely to be visible in the "current" bank).

Of course, game developers tried to put as much data as possible into the part of RAM that is faster to access.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is really cool. I know people have been messing around with Gameshark codes for decades, but I'm finally getting to the point where this type of stuff doesn't seem out of reach anymore.

I just don't know what to do with the information!

<comment><USER11> There is a very vibrant SMW hacking community with very functional GUI editor that can act as a springboard for getting into assembly patches ranging from simple changes to sprite behavior to whole new game modes. If you love the game, it's a joy.</comment></comment>


Student sues Amazon after Kindle eats his homework - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/30/student-sues-amazon-after-kindle-eats-his-homework/ <comment><USER2> The fact that he is suing over his lost homework is almost totally irrelevant. It is just a brilliant way to hold Amazon responsible for their actions. Once a book is purchased he owns the rights to that material and he did not initiate or consent to the removal of the book.

If you read the PDF draft of the lawsuit it clearly says that Amazon does not tell users in the Terms & Agreements that they have the ability to remotely delete e-books and in fact says that "...Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times..."

Amazon should never be allowed to change data on an individual's kindle without their express written consent. Its criminal.

<comment><USER3> _Once a book is purchased [the customer] owns the rights to that material [indefinitely]_

According to most people's common sense, maybe, but certainly not according to US copyright law. Copyright law is very clear about under what what terms authors may license their work, and licensing it for indefinite time is not a requirement.

Edit: I'm just stating facts, not saying it's right. Personally, I see both sides. But if one argues that copyright law should be changed, I don't see why Amazon, a public corporation, should take away rights from publishers which have granted to them by the laws passed in a government supposedly representing the will of the people.

<comment><USER4> For physical books, you're wrong. See the first sale doctrine.

For digital goods, the precedents are mixed.

Despite the claims and agenda of copyright lobbies, US law has always had limits and exceptions on a rightsholders' ability to dictate all terms of their works' use and reproduction.

The resolution isn't fixed; it's up to us: what we tolerate, what we legislate, what we build.

<comment><USER5> Excellent point. Once they have sold me a copy of a work, I cannot then reproduce and distribute that work without permission (or waiting a very long time indeed for the copyright to expire), but there are a great many other rights that I have without any need for permission.

And that is under current law, the laws can be changed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I didn't realize that kindle users could make notes on books. That makes what amazon did even more egregious.

</comment><comment><USER7> According to the Wall Street Journal article ([http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate- my...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my- homework/)) about the suit, he did not lose the notes; he is upset because the notes are no longer linked (or whatever) to the text they refer to. >>Amazon didn't delete the file containing Gawronski's notes on the Kindle device. But since the book text "no longer exists, all my notes refer back to nothing," he said. "I can't really use it for much."<<

Also, they are supposedly suing to prevent Amazon from doing this again, which Amazon has already said they will not. This is just a sleazeball lawyer going for his own benefit and a teenager trying to stretchout his 15 minutes of fame.

</comment><comment><USER8> More information at [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon- ate-my...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my- homework/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Proof that children should not be able to bring suit until they are of age. Losing your homework is not reason for a lawsuit, if you get a device like the kindle you should learn how to make backups. And if your chosen device for your homework can not make backups you only have yourself to blame, you should use something else.

Personal responsibility seems to be in short supply, blame somebody else is so much easier. Electronics can fail, the kindle is no exception. If you made your homework on a piece of paper I'm sure it would not be lost so easily, but then again pieces of paper can blow away, burn, get lost and so on. The kindle - and any other piece of complex tech - is not infallible. At that price point it can't be expected to be infallible. The fact that amazon initiated the failure is a systemic issue with the kindle, nothing to be surprised about. If you choose a medium with all kinds of weird DRM then you can't really blame the vendor.

Is it frivolous lawsuit week or did I miss the memo ? First that real estate company over a tweet and now this.

Personally I think amazon deserves a boycott for the kindles DRM but you can't really sue them over a 'feature' that has been well advertised. The kindle is broken by design.

<comment><USER10> This is like saying that someone who takes notes on paper, then subsequently loses those notes when the paper manufacturer steals the paper back, is to blame for losing the notes because they didn't take a photo copy. It's a total cop-out.

<comment><USER3> _This is like saying that [...] the paper manufacturer steals the paper back_

No, it's really nothing like that. Semantics aside, intellectual property is _not_ like physical property: it's not subject to the laws physical property is subject to, nor to the right of physical property.

<comment><USER11> You're absolutely right. A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning.

Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them.

I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside". Are you intentionally saying something that is equivalent to "Ignoring the meaning of 'intellectual property' and 'physical property', intellectual property is not like physical property?" I assume not, but I'm not sure what you meant to say there.

<comment><USER8> "Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them."

The annotations were not destroyed. The work they referenced was removed. The claim is that, absent that work (with its particular page numbers , etc. I'm guessing) those notes are essentially useless, since they now refer to a void.

<comment><USER11> Are you sure the annotations weren't removed as well? Not having a Kindle, I don't know, but some of the articles covering the matter have said that they were.

<comment><USER8> [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate- my...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my-homework/)

'Amazon didn't delete the file containing Gawronski's notes on the Kindle device. But since the book text "no longer exists, all my notes refer back to nothing," he said. "I can't really use it for much."'</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Feature for Twitter, Follow, and REALLY Follow. - <AUTHOR>

Getting lots of followers on twitter by following lots of people works well enough, but increases the noise to where you miss stuff from those you really want know about.  Let me create a REALLY Follow list that bubbles up tweets from these people to the top and hides everyone else's tweets further down on the page or on a completely different one. <comment><USER2> Like a priority inbox for Twitter. I've wanted this since very early on. Some of the best tweeters get drowned out.

It says a lot that Twitter basically gave this power to advertisers (promoted tweets) for them to put themselves in front of us more visibly.</comment>


Ask HN: What radio stations are you listening to while working? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://oe1.orf.at/](https://oe1.orf.at/)

However, I typically have a randomized playlist of around 1k tracks of a certain genre playing while hacking at work. The genre changes on a daily or weekly basis. Sometimes I have a blues/metal rotation, sometimes I need a bit of extra punch which is when I am playing Acidcore. On very relaxed days I drop down to a mix of ambient psychedelic sounds.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://deepmix.eu/](http://deepmix.eu/)

A DJ has been streaming this from his living room for many years now. Not always good, but every now and then a nice alternative to Spotify</comment>


The story of the financial crisis, from one of the people who predicted it - <AUTHOR> http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/09/15/it%e2%80%99s-hard-being-a-bear-part-four-good-economic-theory/

<comment><USER2> Maybe someone who knows more than me about this can tell me: why, on panels of industry experts deconstructing the crisis, do we constantly hear the assertion that nobody saw this coming? And what really confuses me, is why do the experts participating in such panels/media interviews/round tables not challenge that assertion?

<comment><USER3> The people who saw it coming are not saying no one saw it coming. Ron Paul and those who study the Austrian School saw it and acknowledge it. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School>

I think some of the people saying no one saw it coming are the engineers of this crisis. No one wants to admit they saw it coming and continued to build it -- especially if they benefited from the crisis. It's been argued that the banks created this mess _intentionally_ because they need a large enough catastrophe to be bailed out by the tax payers.

If you acknowledge that you saw it coming, then the next question is, "Why didn't you do something or say something?" When faced with that question, people appear in a very negative light.

And if _no one_ saw it coming, then you can't be held responsible. It's a freak of nature. An act of God. Uncontrollable.

What if I said, "I saw it coming?"

Would you believe me? What's my evidence? How can I prove I saw it coming? If I saw it coming why didn't I say or do something about it?

It's easier to go with the herd and say not only did I not see it, but no one saw it. To have seen it coming and kept going causes cognitive dissonance and it hurts. Avoid it with ignorance.

<comment><USER4> "What did you do about it?" is really the kicker. The foresight to say something bad is coming without being able to predict when doesn't impress many people.

Anyone with a level head knew there was a housing bubble. But if you're working as an investor, you don't get paid to sit back and watch your rivals get rich while you're waiting for the pop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Unfortunately, this doesn't provide any useful actions to the individual; by his own admission, he would've invested as if expecting a depression in 1987.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article just spurred a thought about our health care crisis.

How are they connected? Debt enabled consumers to pay more for products, so the price of the product increased. They could pay more, because the monthly payments were low -- even for very large mortgages.

The same thing happens in the stock market. One of the original reasons the stock market collapsed before the great depression was that traders were over leveraged. You could leverage up 10x back then.

This level of leverage is possible today in the commodities market and I predict a similar collapse of the commodities market due to this. We saw a little of this as oil speculators deleveraged their holdings.

Back to health care. Health insurance enables large expenditures of health care costs for a low monthly payment. Because consumers can buy large amounts of health care for not a lot of money, they spend more, doctors spend more, hospitals spend more.

Insurance companies _cut out the tumor of debt_ by canceling the insurance plans for those who over extend themselves and cost the insurance company more than their monthly payments can afford.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I suppose a) health care bubble fueled by low monthly payments. b) collapse of health care bubble will reduce innovation in health care industry. c) insurance companies will over extend themselves and increase risk for shareholders and the insured...

I don't know, just something that popped into my mind that seems to be a common pattern here...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The analogy begins :

You have just come from your annual medical checkup, where your doctor assures you that you are in robust health.

Walking jauntily down the street, you bump into a practitioner of alternative medicine. He takes one look at you and declares "You have a serious tumour! It must be removed or you will die".

You ignore him as you always have, and continue your merry way down the street. One day later, a stabbing pain suddenly cripples you, and you collapse to the pavement.

</comment><comment> onreact-com I prefer the original headline: "It's Hard Being a Bear (Part Four): Good Economic Theory"</comment>


Spying on HDMI on my mobile TEMPEST / van Eck setup - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpNP9b3aIfY <comment><AUTHOR> Before watching this, I did not know that this was possible...</comment>


The End of TechCrunch Would Be a Good Thing - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/07/the-end-of-techcrunch-would-be-good/?iid=SF_F_LN

<comment><USER2> There's a great comment there, by David Diaz:

tl;dr version: "We hope TechCrunch fails so our tech site gets more pageviews as a result."

<comment><USER3> This is such a superficial comment, so obviously something anyone could say without even reading the article (which I know you did) that I'm compelled to ask you to defend it.

Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?

I found the article compelling and, within the confines of the format of a mainstream media "blog", not at all superficial.

<comment><USER2> I didn't think much of the article at all. Looks like the HN consensus agrees with me: mine's the top-rated response, and hopeless' comment agreeing with me ranks above yours.

> Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for > startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of > professional rivalry?

Is it really the case that you infer this from my comment? I'm compelled to ask you to list ten other reasons I might not be impressed with the article.

<comment><USER3> Yes, that's what I inferred from your comment. Because TechCrunch is so on- its-face terrible that a defense was was an interesting idea. But, do you have one? Or did you just an opportunity to snark about Fortune writing something negative about a competitor.

I am very impressed by your ability to harness the "consensus opinion of HN", as an aside. You'll have to teach me that trick sometime. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _And it creates a feedback loop: TechCrunch is the most-reputed site because of its scoops. Startups offer TechCrunch scoops because it's the most-reputed site._

Jumping to the conclusion that the end of TechCrunch is a good thing from that observation is bizarre. You could say the same thing about almost any major site, like Reddit or even Hacker News. HN has a good reputation and large userbase because it has so many awesome links. Why does it get so many awesome links? Because of its good reputation and large userbase. Not exactly a good reason to wish something dead though.

<comment><USER3> You've taken a quote from the article out of context and skewed its meaning.

That quote follows a graf in which it's asserted that TechCrunch directly reaches out to startups with news and harasses them for not providing TC with the scoops. For a variety of reasons I find this accusation --- the implication being that you can be punished for not playing quid-pro-quo with TC --- _highly credible_.

You cannot say the same thing about Reddit or Hacker News.

I would also note that Hacker News _is_ rigged in favor of YC companies, in ways subtle and not. We don't mind, because whatever the sub- and super- rosa things being done to promote YC companies on HN, HN is up front about its bias; it's right there in the name.

<comment><USER5> "HN is up front about its bias; it's right there in the name"

True but it's not immediately obvious to everyone who reads HN and certainly those new to HN which companies are YC and which are not. And assuming someone from traditional media followed a link they most likely wouldn't see the connection and know of the bias.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Exactly who would this be good for besides the other publications?

If it's not Techcrunch that you have to cold email then it will be Venturebeat, AllThingsD, Forbes, CNN, etc.

Startups need PR (just like most other companies), so removing TC from the equation will only push that energy elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER7> Typical outside-the-bubble-looking-in thinking TechCrunch is some kind of kingmaker in the valley. In reality, the only thing TC truly helps with is fundraising, and that's far from an exclusive.

<comment><USER3> ... so the only thing TC truly helps with is the only thing early stage startups really --- if you put it to them --- actually care about: their runway. Got it. They're not at all in a position of abusable power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The self-proclaimed "journalist" calls this piece journalism? Uh huh.

</comment><comment><USER9> Pathetic.</comment>


GNU Guix Wants to Replace the Linux-Libre Kernel with the Hurd Micro-Kernel - <AUTHOR> https://www.linuxtoday.com/high_performance/gnu-guix-wants-to-replace-the-linux-libre-kernel-with-the-hurd-micro-kernel.html <comment><USER2> Debian tried that ~15 years ago with debian gnu/hurd.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, and Hurd is still supported in Debian. It seems the underlying Mach microkernel is still in active development and most Debian packages have been ported. I was tempted to give it a try back in the day, but it wasn't far enough along for my lack of skill. Maybe now is the time.</comment></comment>


Hike planning app calculating total hiking time including altitude difference - <AUTHOR> http://hikeplan.zakjan.cz/ <comment><USER2> It doesn't seem to work. I just get a Heroku get started page.

<comment><AUTHOR> DNS issues :( try again please</comment></comment>


Ensure your env keys are set on secrets.yml are set with SecretService (Rails) - <AUTHOR> https://labs.kollegorna.se/blog/2015/01/secret-service/

<comment><USER3> > Mike Burns has pointed out that you can accomplish more or less the same > thing by using ENV.fetch to pull in your environment variables

Not trying to criticize, but from my experience this shows the difference between good, enthusiastic, but probably less experienced developers - <USER2> would be happy to build something cool, write some tests, and make it work, and old-timers lacking such energy - who can recall a one-liner (or a sed/grep/awk combo) that does the same thing...</comment>


The Auden Poem Auden Hated - <AUTHOR> https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-auden-poem-auden-hated/ <comment><USER2> Poetry presupposes that insight is important and I don't think this value has survived the internet. It's generational. Summing up something complex in a pithy statement cuts off discussion, and with it, the narcissistic supply that people call empathy these days.

Auden was a fey sentimentalist, and of poets whose work is relevant today, the other ones mentioned in the article (Larkin, Frost, and I'd add, Blake) should be the first stop.

<comment><USER3> I have little comprehension of what you've just said, but for any other philistines like me, who like their poetry like they like their coffee - regular, and in black and white - your first stop with Auden should be aboard this: [https://youtu.be/zmciuKsBOi0](https://youtu.be/zmciuKsBOi0)

<comment><USER4> You can also hear Auden himself recite "As I Walked Out One Evening"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q__Z185H8I&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q__Z185H8I&t=2s)

<comment><USER3> Arresting. Thank you for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the better remembered and quotable poem by W.H.Auden is [https://poets.org/poem/i-walked-out-one- evening](https://poets.org/poem/i-walked-out-one-evening).

> _You shall love your crooked neighbour_ / _With your crooked heart._

Not that this sentiment is original with Auden.

The "basin" verse gave me chills the first time I heard/read it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wish they would post the full text of the poem... [https://poets.org/poem/september-1-1939](https://poets.org/poem/september-1-1939)

edit: Added full text instead of text.</comment>


U.S Officials Betray Foreigners Tech Investments Due to Forbidden Exposed Files - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@cloudstories2017/u-s-officials-betray-foreigners-on-technology-investments-due-to-forbidden-exposed-files-showing-f92f8f203034 <comment><USER2> So, the person behind this page doesn't seem to be a native English speaker/writer.

Indeed, they are bad enough that it's really hard for me to figure out what they're trying to say.

Does anyone have a better translation available?</comment>


Ask HN: Why is the top bar red? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> This year's thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13254232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13254232)

</comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR: Christmas

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8796932](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8796932)

</comment><comment><USER4> Christmas. They're being festive!

</comment><comment><USER5> The ranking numbers also alternate red and green.

Probably for the holidays.

</comment><comment><USER6> Red represents the blood of a famous man who was supposedly killed many years ago for spreading some controversial ideas.

<comment><USER7> That'd be more fitting for Easter though

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Because it's the day that we celebrate the birth of a man who was nailed to a tree over 2000 years ago for saying how wonderful it would be if we could be nice to people for a change. Even though today isn't his birthday.

<comment><USER8> No love for H2G2 here, evidently...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is this really a mystery to you? It is clearly a Christmas thing along with the red/green alternating colors for posts.

<comment><USER10> I'm kind of curious about the code for alternating red/green. Could anyone share the Lisp/Arc snippet?

<comment><USER11> Alternating styling for even/odd elements is doable in CSS.

[https://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/evenodd.en.html](https://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/evenodd.en.html)</comment></comment></comment>


For Gmail Safety, Google Recommends Chinese Product with Government Connections - <AUTHOR> https://chinachange.org/2018/08/23/google-recommends-product-from-a-chinese-company-with-communist-party-and-military-ties-for-its-advanced-protection-program/ <comment><USER2> amazed this hasn't attracted more attention.</comment>


Winner Takes Most - <AUTHOR> http://avc.com/2015/10/winner-takes-most/ <comment><USER2> Is there a business in creating/investing in only market follower companies? They won't ever be the biggest, but they might take 10% of a market, and the winner has done all the hard work of proving that the market exists and creating a viable product.

<comment><USER3> Being a fast follower is a very valid business strategy (see e.g. [https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fast- follower](https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fast-follower)).

Some fast followers actually do end up being the biggest. (In evidence is the trope of the innovator's gripe that someone stole 'his' market.) See: Microsoft (OS, office software), Apple (iPod, smartphones), Google, Facebook. None were first to market. Google entered its market after search was considered a solved problem.

<comment><USER4> To be fair to Google though, their search was orders of magnitude better than the predecessors best (Altavista, Inktomi and a whole raft of others). If it had not been for that then they would have been an also ran. I think the 'fast follower' label should be restricted to be used when the new competitor does something that is for the most part on par with whatever the original is doing, only marketing it better or to a different audience. Otherwise it is more of a 'fast innovator' or simply better execution.

<comment><USER3> I guess it's a matter of perspective?

For example, tech people tend to single out Google as a 'fast innovator', while attributing the success of Windows or the iPod to superior marketing or some other aspect of business hacking (as opposed to perhaps their success at building better product ecosystems).

One could argue that the iPod was a 'fast innovation'. Or conversely that Google followed quickly behind a host of others, simply building on what their predecessors had done before (and in some way at reduced risk, since 'Internet search' was known to be a viable market at Google's inception). The categories are fuzzy -- although hopefully not for those making the decisions!

Either way, the larger point I was making was that yes, being a fast follower is a legitimate business strategy. There are a lot of risks to being first, and the benefits of being first may not outweigh the risks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The Chinese have dealt with that issue by protecting their market."

Can anyone explain why this ends up not being a bigger international trade issue? It seems to me like it would be a giant flashpoint, but it seems not to be.

<comment><USER6> What makes you think it chinese protectionism would be a trade issue? Not trying to be sardonic, just curious.

<comment><USER5> My perception is there's dissatisfaction with Chinese trade in many parts of American politics. So that there's an eleven-figure (or so) protection system in place seems like it would trigger howls of outrage and condemnation, and doesn't.

(I'm not sure it should, but "should" doesn't seem like a big obstacle to political outrage, normally. :-))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is this always true?

Or can we just not come up with compelling counter-examples, because the brands that won in their category are more compelling than the brands that split a category?

<comment><USER8> The IM market in the 2000s, a market where you would expect the _most_ network effects, remained fairly evenly split between ICQ, MSN and AIM for a long time.

This always struck me as one of the most interesting counter examples since it seemed so utterly defiant of the model.

<comment><USER9> I think part of it is that with IM clients you're mostly talking to a closer group of friends first then random strangers next so whatever your group chose you would use but there was no strong incentive to join with what everyone was using because you'd just be chatting with unidentified strangers if you moved out of your friend group into chat rooms.

Also the barrier of entry is really low and there's minimal effort in using two or more IM clients running, you could have both running and easily jump into whichever had the group you wanted to chat with. And unlike social media, like Myspace vs Facebook (when they were still competing), participating in both wouldn't mean uploading everything twice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Death from a thousand cuts. The only way a distributed system could take on a monster is by VCs investing in 50 $100 million dollar companies using a distributed communication platform. Because the way it is now most of the investments go to winner take all companies. And in order for the market to use something different at scale it needs to be 10x. so a 50B company would need to become a 5B dollar open market with 5 or 10 winners.

</comment><comment><USER11> Something's going on that's more than just network effects. Google was arguably not the first dominant search/advertising company, and Facebook was not the first social network, etc. But these companies can convince very good engineers that it's more profitable to join them than to compete against them, whereas their predecessors failed to do that. How they do this merits more investigation.

<comment><USER4> > How they do this merits more investigation.

It's easy:

The first group they get straight out of the gate with the certainty of 150K+ salaries for as long as they're employed. Life-style adapts to new stream of income, hooked, threat of potential start-up neutralized.

The second group goes against the grain, refuses the initial bait and starts a competitor and then gets bought out at a significant multiple of their real life value - if you ignore the threat to the top dog. If you don't ignore that threat it makes good business sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Lately, we've been wondering if there is an end to this pattern on the Internet and mobile. We think it is possible that an open data platform, in which users ultimately control their data and the networks they choose to participate in, could be the thing that undoes this pattern of winner takes most." Urbit?

<comment><USER4> Urbit is neat but ultimately not practical. It would have to be something drastically simpler for end users and packaged in an extremely clever way. Not everybody is born to administrate the systems that hold their data. A federated social network that gains sufficient traction to warrant further development would be a major achievement. (And if such a thing were to come to fruit it should definitely worry linkedin, facebook, twitter and the remnants of g+).

<comment><USER12> Not practical in principle? Or just at this point in time? I think Urbit is still in developer preview mode.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple fined for slowing down old iPhones - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51413724 <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22266966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22266966)</comment>


Ask YC: Feedback for programming code/info sharing site - <AUTHOR>

We could really use some feedback on our site... we want to make it useful but we don't really know if we've succeeded or not :-/<p>The site is for sharing and finding code and programming knowledge... you can read about it at www.siafoo.net/help/about <comment><USER2> The site as a whole is a good start, I'd say. I like the filter setup, it may get unwieldy as the number of languages/subjects multiplies, so you'll want to think ahead on scaling.

I think a little less text in the bubbles on the about page is a good idea. You can catch it all in the backup text below if you've caught the reader with the short version above. But the page layout looks pretty good overall. Maybe give it one more coat of polish, then try a couple of divergent ideas and mock them up, then ask us to take a look and compare?

I'll admit to being favorably prejudiced toward your site's purpose, BTW, so my response may be more enthusiastic than you'd get from most of your targets. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah... the filter design is pretty much a short term fix, I'm not sure what the next stage in its evolution should be. Maybe start limiting the displayed keywords to the more popular ones, I dunno.

I think I agree about the bubbles on the about page... I suppose it's better to have shorter text blocks and more bullet points, images, etc?

I'm glad you like the site's purpose at least... it would be really unfortunate if we had designed this to solve a problem and everyone had just said, 'what problem?' ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's an actual link <http://www.siafoo.net/help/about>

In general we want to know what wastes most of your time when writing code... and how Siafoo can reduce this wastage.

<comment><USER4> Well, I'm not really sure I grasped the most important features in the first 10 seconds of browsing. Perhaps a few example projects? For instance, it would be a good move to put up a pre-built page for someone interested in learning a new language or framework - Lisp, C, Python, Cocoa Touch. This way devs could immediately see how the service would help them (since most devs don't know all of these languages).

You should also consider a screencast demo.

<comment><AUTHOR> You didn't grasp the most important _features_ , but did you understand the purpose of the site? Because that is perhaps the most important thing, I think. If we can get people interested in the site then they will read about the features (maybe?).

<comment><USER4> I just took another look. The purpose is pretty clear, and like you say, that's really important. But I think it is also important for your site to show (not just describe) a prospective user how they can benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It looks to me like there too much info on the homepage, like explaining all ur features. Even your "about" is in the homepage itself. Maybe you want to trim down the content on the homepage

<comment><AUTHOR> Well... it is more like the home page bubbles are on the 'about' page :-D They originally existed to solve the problem of 'how can we tell people what the site is about if they only go to the home page?'... maybe they still aren't concise enough? We already trimmed out so much, the first drafts were _huge_!

<comment><USER3> Yea they were like freshman year term papers...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd just like to say here that we were science majors and have no idea what we're doing as far as marketing the site goes... so thanks for all your inputs.</comment>


Albert Hofmann discovers the effects of LSD (1943) - <AUTHOR> https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/intoxication/exploring-alternate-universe <comment><USER2> Given that he didn't know what we know now about LSD (that it's not going to kill you or cause brain damage), his experience was probably a lot more terrifying than the usual bad trip. Not being able to remind yourself that you're safe and that the drug's effects will wear off would make it a lot more scary.

<comment><USER3> Not only that, but I was struck by the realization of how devastated he must have felt to be dying (or so he thought) after consuming 250 MICROgrams of a substance.

The part where he worried about whether his family would think he was reckless for doing this was poignant, because there was no way anyone could have expected 250 micrograms of ergot to produce any sort of observable effect.

<comment><USER4> [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a14442546/two...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a14442546/two- drops-mercury-poisoning)

<comment><USER3> That dose was a few thousand times larger, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _A peculiar presentiment—the feeling that LSD-25 could possess properties other than those established in my first investigations—induced me, five years after the first synthesis, to produce it once again so that a sample could be given to the pharmacological department for further tests.

This was quite unusual; experimental substances as a rule were definitely stricken from the research program if once found to be lacking in pharmacological interest. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1943, I repeated the synthesis of LSD-25. As in the first synthesis, this involved the production of only a few centigrams of the compound._

I absolutely love this writing. Reminds me of the great "scientific gothic" novels like _Frankenstein_ and _Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde_.

<comment><USER6> > As in the first synthesis, this involved the production of only a few > centigrams of the compound.

At ~0.1mg per dose, this translates to "only" a few hundred doses.

<comment><USER7> I found the documentary "Orange Sunshine" to be a very illuminating tale of licit (and then illicit) synthesis and distribution of psychedelics, mainly LSD-25 but they do mention psilocin, etc.

At one point they had produced 10,000 doses in one synth, a grief-fueled synth. An anecdote to be sure, but a hell of an anecdote I won't ruin by paraphrasing any further.

This naturally leads into the story of ALD-52, also known as Orange Sunshine. The analogue people liked more than LSD-25 itself. Which is an entirely new interesting tale of injustice and prosecutor overreach, with an entirely new bunch of folks.

"...And Justice for All" indeed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This encouraged me to read his book "LSD: my problem child" (where this article pulls this excerpt from). I would recommend anyone interested in psychedelics to give it a read! It's available for free on the internet archive: [https://archive.org/details/LSDMyProblemChildByDr.AlbertHoff...](https://archive.org/details/LSDMyProblemChildByDr.AlbertHoffman)

</comment><comment><USER9> > I was just barely capable of asking my companion to summon our family doctor > and request milk from the neighbors.

Hah, hah, a sign of the times. That's the last thing I'd want to injest when in the throws of a deep, harrowing LSD trip, yuck.

Really the only thing that "helps", I find, is a watch (if you're able to read the watch that is). Time can help ground you in the sense that you know roughly when the peak will occur, so if you're already overwhelmed 2 hours in, that means "only" 2-4 hours before you're over the hump ;-)

Taking LSD is very much continually answering the question, "here, ultimate (un)reality, isn't that what you asked for?", with "Yes". Easier said than done when you're in the thick of it...

<comment><USER10> We always carried "totems".

Little trinkets that we'd hold while waiting for the effect while silently repeating to ourselves that this would remind us we're just high.

Be damned if you lost that thing though.

Mine was a toy kitten holding a cheeseburger.

<comment><USER11> Something I've gotten into the habit of doing actually involves writing on my arm in sharpie. I notate what I took, how much, and at what time.

I got the idea from a friend, who likes to experiment with some psychedelic RCs. The idea is, if for some reason he ends up in the ER, unable to communicate what he has taken to the doctor trying to help him, it's on his arm!

<comment><USER10> Thats a pretty good idea!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The comparison of lsd to overclocking a processor is a pretty good one. Someone I know describes the experience in a similar way: "In normal waking life, data comes into my brain in a singular stream. On lsd my brain feels like it has the ability to process more at once- more streams."

Interesting things happen with all this input. Sensations get mixed around and felt in odd ways. For instance synesthesia... You make hear colors, or see emotions.

Here's an article about LSDs effects on the brain: [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/11/lsd- impact-b...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/11/lsd-impact-brain- revealed-groundbreaking-images)

<comment><USER13> In my experience it feels more like you're _underclocked_ than overclocked. Sensations become so overwhelming at times it's hard to interpret them in ways that can be useful to you. I think in normal waking life, your brain interprets these sensations for you and narrows the amount your conscious mind actually has to deal with.

<comment><USER12> I would imagine it depends on the dose. An large dose of lsd would render just about anyone completely incoherent and possibly, absolutely insane. However, there is a reason many are gathering behind the idea of microdosing lsd for productivity. Here's an article on microdosing: [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gv5p5y/a-brief- hi...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gv5p5y/a-brief-history-of- microdosing)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What's interesting is when LSD was first discovered and popularized with psychiatrists, it was considered a "model psychosis" - inducing a temporary state of psychosis which researchers could use to study mental problems. That theory was discredited in the late 60's when it got banned (it was one of the reasons why it was supposed to have no medical value).

I believe there's a lot of truth to it, from my experience it totally matches a mini psychotic event.

<comment><USER15> Looking at the definition of psychosis:

> a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that > contact is lost with external reality.

Based on my research, typical (and even greater than typical) recreational doses of LSD do not cause a "severe mental disorder" as described in the definition.

At "raves", for example, lots of people are under the influence and yet they have not lost contact with external reality.

<comment><USER16> > At "raves", for example, lots of people are under the influence and yet they > have not lost contact with external reality.

Taking LSD is a strange choice for a rave, IMO; you want less visual and audio stimulation under it's influence, not more.

MDMA, MDA, 2CB, amphetamines, mephedrone and other similar substances (and their mixes in ecstasy pills) are much more rave-friendly.

<comment><USER17> Not very strange in the psytrance scene.

<comment><USER16> True, but I would hardly call a trance open-air a "rave". But the use of the term probably depends on local music culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _She was no longer Mrs. R, but rather a malevolent, insidious witch with a colored mask_

it feels like I'm reading the memoirs of Dr. Frankenstein

</comment><comment><USER19> Disclaimer: I probably shouldn't be posting this, even under a throwaway, but I'm on the other side of the international date line, and I've had a few beers tonight. This post is in response to several comments on this thread.

I've done quite a lot of LSD, and I feel that I have some anecdotal input that might be valuable to some. First, some background regarding my usage:

I've been using hallucinogenic substances for about 20 years (I was sixteen when I had my first LSD trip); at this point in my life, I like to have about four solid trips per year. In total, I've had around 200-250 trips on various drugs. At one point, I was doing mushrooms so frequently that they essentially stopped working (there was a week during college when I dosed on high-grade cubensis mushrooms eight times - by the end of the week, it took a full ounce before I could feel any effect). I've done most of the 2C drugs, DMT, ketamine, and every drug about which you've ever seen a cautionary after- school special. I've micro-dosed on LSD, and I've thumb-printed raw crystal. I've had multiple "level five" experiences. I've worked in tech for years, at companies that you've heard of.

First off: please be aware that hallucinogens are _very_ powerful drugs, and they should never be taken lightly - I make no pretense of being a role-model. I knew a man who was absolutely addicted to LSD (he tripped every day, give or take since the early sixties - during the time that I knew him, he had a week or so when he couldn't trip, and he was truly frightening to be around sober. If you've ever seen anyone go off of anti-psychotics cold-turkey after prolonged usage, it was similar.)

That said, I believe that hallucinogens, and particularly LSD, have profoundly improved my life. The shift in perspective has helped me to defuse many emotional and psychological issues, and heightened my understanding of people, programming, and society as a whole.

To the person who wonders if they are too old to try LSD, I think you most likely are not. Most people who I have seen lose their shit on hallucinogens had it happen in their 20's - if you've made it to 30 without issues with psychosis, you're most likely in the clear.

All first time users should have their first experience in a comfortable setting, ideally with an experienced guide. I think it's tragic that modern society has all but eliminated the role of a shaman - it is very helpful to have someone who has walked the path before you show you the way.

One point that I would like to emphasize is that you shouldn't do hallucinogens to have fun. The experience is, of course, very frequently enjoyable, but these experiences should not be taken lightly. Personally, I believe that there is no such thing as a "bad trip". Some trips are challenging, and unpleasant, but if they are viewed with the proper perspective, they are still useful. Indeed, I have purposely taken trips in unpleasant circumstances in order to help me transcend various issues (again, if you have pre-existing psychosis, or are under ~25 years old, a trip might trigger some underlying issues).

If you're curious, and reasonably stable, I strongly recommend that you give it a try. LSD is the safest option - be wary of "designer" drugs, which can have much more dangerous side effects. As in all things, research is your friend, do some reading on erowid.org before you try any new drug. Be wary of LSD look-alikes, namely 25-I, which is increasingly common these days.

This is obviously a throw-away account, but I'll try to respond to any questions or comments tomorrow (GMT+8).

<comment><USER20> You're recommending that the general public engage in consuming LSD. This is so incredibly irresponsible that I'm at a loss of words. Simply, there's no reliable way to assess whether someone will have a bad reaction. Your recommendations for assessing safety are not reliable. And, trips are a one- way journey. You'll never be the same after you trip.

Just keep in mind that you're getting advice from someone who has already fried his/her brain on acid, and isn't in any position to say whether that crap will affect you in any bad way, and they certainly don't care, despite carefully framing their bad advice. This person is interested in "enlightening" as many people as possible, and his/her friends will disembowel you because there's "twelve" of them. Quite simply, some people have a brain chemistry that doesn't mix well at all with LSD.

You're really irresponsible for posting this. Shame on you. How dare you post such a recommendation. Someone could listen to your advice here, think that because they're stable that they're safe, have a bad reaction and never quite be the same.

That garbage is pure evil poison for some, and one simply has no way of ensuring they won't have a bad reaction, regardless of whether they are stable or not. One will _never_ be the same after dosing, for better or worse. Johnny 95 IQ quarterback might not be profoundly impacted, but a typical nerd with an already creative mind will certainly have a life changing experience, and such changes are not always roses for all, despite your anecdotes.

I am cognizant of the fact that my viewpoint on this subject is not the norm in these parts, but someone needs to offer a responsible counterbalance. I recommend that most people do not try LSD at all.

<comment><USER19> It seems that you or someone you know has had a bad experience with LSD - I'm very sorry about that. I've known a couple people for whom LSD triggered or exacerbated some underlying conditions; however, when I looked deeper into these cases, there did seem to be a strong correlation with them having pre- existing issues.

If you look into the statistics, I think you'll find that most of the cases where LSD has triggered other issues, the unfortunates tend to be under the age of 25 (it seems that most of the neurochemical issues that don't play well with acid manifest in the early 20s for most people).

I agree that LSD will almost certainly cause a life changing experience, and that such experiences are "not always roses for all", however, I do believe that life changing experiences are, in general, good things if taken with proper perspective. Again, YMMV.

I kind of resent your statement that I've fried my brain - I think that anyone who knows me would disagree with that assertion, but I understand that you're presenting the perspective of someone who has had a bad experience (or who knows someone who has had a bad experience). Any chance you'd like to discuss the motivation for your viewpoint further? I'm very interested in more data on the subject!

In any case, my apologies if I have offended; my intent was to share my experience.

I'll emphasize again that anyone considering taking _any_ drugs should do some research first (erowid.org presents both the good and the bad), and should know themselves well before experimenting.

I truly hope you'll share some more about your experience(s). Thanks!

<comment><USER21> You and the rest of this Silicon Valley hippie love fest is infested with possessed fried self important humans that live in a goddamn bubble. (Note how the previous comment was down voted). You don't know what you're talking about. You don't have the whole picture at all, and your promotion of LSD here is damaging to society.

Oh, and you use the word "I" too often. You're selfish. "Oh I hope you share your experiences!" I've never done that garbage, but I've known folks that had no indication of any mental issues totally lose their minds and never recover. Frame it however you want; had they not taken that poison, they wouldn't have had that experience and wouldn't have ruined their lives. One can have no indication of any mental hangups, dose on LSD in what they believe is a sound state of mind and trustworthy set/setting, and never be the same thereafter, for the far worse. It's Russian Roulette for the mind.

There's obvious survivorship bias here. Someone who lost their shit and ruined their life likely isn't posting on hacker news. And such forgotten acid casualties are presumed to have already had pre existing issues by folks like you, which is just more self serving nonsense. It's part of the counter- culture mental-tough-guy mentality. "Can you handle it?" "Yo that guy who went nuts on acid was already crazy". Well maybe, not in every case, but his brain chemistry didn't mix well with LSD.

People get damaged from that shit permanently (LSD) and there's no way to know in advance if that's the case. Your "research" on that subject isn't relevant at all. You and the rest here are spreading dangerous information.

Check your ego, son. Your brain is fried. At the least I'm hoping this response doesn't get totally flagged. It's personal to me, very much, when you (and others, but you're the worst offender in this thread) promote that poison in a place where people lurking don't understand the hippie underpinnings of this community.

<comment><USER22> I think the down votes are due to you and the previous person attacking the poster instead of his post. I think you present some valid points and they would come through a lot better if you focused on them instead of attacking the poster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You can't get high from LSD by touching it. Albert is a liar. He nibbled some.

My theory is, he knew those in the know know that this is an impossible way to get high, which is why he stuck with it (a crafty wink). He could have simply said he got a little on his finger and touched his mouth, but he stuck with the skin absorption story.

Just a little harmless tinfoil.

<comment><USER24> Perhaps with microgram amounts - common dosages. He was working with a huge amount ... milligrams. The idea that a microgram may transmit transdermally is not inconceivable at that amount.

<comment><USER25> I'd also challenge the idea of an active scientist "getting things in his mouth" or ingesting new chemical compounds for the heck of it (at doses almost legendarily small compared to most drugs etc)...

Knowing that the compound is not dangerous or toxic handling some with the hands, or improper inhalation, sounds reasonable. Being in the habit of nibbling on your synthesized chemicals sounds kinda wonky.

Not to mention, there is no real motivation to lie here, unless Hofmann were a routine imbiber of random chemicals and wanted to keep his dark secret. LSD was legal at the time.

<comment><USER26> > I'd also challenge the idea of an active scientist "getting things in his > mouth" or ingesting new chemical compounds for the heck of it (at doses > almost legendarily small compared to most drugs etc)...

We're talking about the 1940s, when things were a bit different.

See the history for saccharin, cyclamate, and aspartame for other examples of accidental ingestion.

<comment><USER25> Have any chemicals been ingested accidentally since 1940? Sure!

Are trained chemists with PhDs in the subject working with complex synthesis and dangerous chemicals in the habit, from 1929 to present day, of putting those things in their mouths? Awwww heck no.

And 1940 is near the point we cracked the atom... we knew oodles about dangerous chemical and safe handling practices. Accidents will happen, but the (speculative) fiction we are discussing here is Albert Hoffman intentionally eating LSD and lying about it :)

\----

Saccharin, the oldest artificial sweetener, was accidentally discovered in 1879 by researcher Constantine Fahlberg -- Fahlberg was working with coal, and had no PhD AFAICT.

Cyclamate was discovered in 1937 at the University of Illinois by graduate student Michael Sveda. Sveda was working in the lab on the synthesis of anti- fever medication. He put his cigarette down on the lab bench, and, when he put it back in his mouth, he discovered the sweet taste of cyclamate -- a student, smoking in his messy lab

Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by James M. Schlatter, a chemist working for G.D. Searle & Company. Schlatter had synthesized aspartame as an intermediate step in generating a tetrapeptide of the hormone gastrin, for use in assessing an anti-ulcer drug candidate.[65] He discovered its sweet taste when he licked his finger, which had become contaminated with aspartame, to lift up a piece of paper -- an actual chemist, but working with something with a well known composition and known to be relatively harmless

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Imagine riding your bike home on acid in 1943.

</comment><comment><USER27> I love reading his trip report, it really pulls you in.

But what irks me is the website. I opened it on my pixel c and started reading, after about one paragraph the whole screen went dark.

I didn't understand why, checked my screen light level from the shortcut menu but moved on thinking the light sensor was wack and wanting to keep reading.

Several paragraphs after the first image I see the damn pop up.

This frenzy of gathering email addresses under the guise of newsletters irks me to no end.

<comment><USER28> I have this handy bookmark that will remove all top-level unmovable HTML on a page. One click will generally remove all popups and banners that obstruct viewing:

       javascript:(function()%7B(function%20()%20%7Bvar%20i%2C%20elements%20%3D%20document.querySelectorAll('body%20*')%3Bfor%20(i%20%3D%200%3B%20i%20%3C%20elements.length%3B%20i%2B%2B)%20%7Bif%20(getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position%20%3D%3D%3D%20'fixed')%20%7Belements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B%7D%7D%7D)()%7D)()

(I hope that doesn't get mangled by HN formatting)

For a tiny piece of javascript, it works amazingly well on so many websites. Give it a try!

<comment><USER29> Here's my modified version of Kill Sticky:

      javascript:(function()%7B(function()%7Bdocument.body.style.overflow%20%3D%20'auto'%3B(function%20()%20%7Bvar%20i%2C%20elements%20%3D%20document.querySelectorAll('body%20*')%3Bfor%20(i%20%3D%200%3B%20i%20%3C%20elements.length%3B%20i%2B%2B)%20%7Bif%20(getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position%20%3D%3D%3D%20'fixed')%20%7Belements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B%7D%7D%7D)()%7D)()%7D)()

The nice part is that some websites do the stupid scroll block thing, where you can't scroll even after removing the elements. This script undoes that.

I'll give yours a try too.

<comment><USER3> Would you like to share your version with [https://twitter.com/alisdair](https://twitter.com/alisdair)? Maybe he'll update his, as this is very useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> bicycle day is April 19 why is this published now?

<comment><AUTHOR> No reason beyond the fact that I thought it was interesting. I knew the basic outlines of Hofmann's bicycle story but had never read the full account before.</comment></comment>


The Forest Spirits of Today Are Computers - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/82/panpsychism/the-forest-spirits-of-today-are-computers <comment><USER2> Warhammer 40k universum had technopriests - a caste of people maintaining technology and treating that as spiritual rituals (blessing the doors with sacred oils so that they become content and don't scream :), etc).

Funny how we could actually get to a similar point with computer technology.

<comment><USER3> Babylon 5 had technomages. Similar, if a little less sinister.

<comment><USER4> JMS obviously wanted to sneak in some high fantasy into his SF. The mystical themes (an epic battle between beings of light versus beings of shadow, resurrection, reincarnation, immortality, fate versus free will) names like Lorien, Morden, Zha Ha Dum, technomages (wizards - the "techno" part was just a thinly veiled contrivance, they were obviously just wizards) and the like are all basically fantasy tropes.

The Minbari were space elves and I defy you to prove me wrong.

And then you watch Crusade and realize it's literally an RPG party doing quests in a spaceship.

<comment><USER5> As opposed to Legends of Tomorrow, which is an RPG party doing "adventure of the week" on a timeship. (I enjoy Legends of Tomorrow a lot. It totally feels like the writers are running weekly gaming sessions and turning them into scripts.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article argues that because each little computer is a little "sentient", and because machine learning builds algorithms that are intractable to the people who nurture them, and because in a house there will be lots of these sentient and intractable "learning" machines, that therefore the house (and car and office...) is full of consciousness, much like primitive ancients would have imagined a forest to be. This is simply terrible logic. It certainly resembles the logic of those primitive ancients. It does not follow that just because you don't understand something or find it awe-inspiring, that it is therefore conscious, or a spirit, or a god. This is a dangerous error, because to worship, or merely believe in, the consciousness of one's house is to cling to a fantasy and to place personality where there is no personality. Why don't you continue to attribute consciousness to the human beings around you who actually have it, rather than wasting regard on soulless man-made calculators? Is humanity doomed to always revert to creating their own gods and worshipping them? What is it in us that longs to do that?

<comment><USER7> You posit your position as being strictly rational, but do you have any evidence that the machines we built to emulate a component of human thought aren't a little conscious? ...what, precisely, is the mechanism by which networks of neurons conveying electrical signals given rise to consciousness, but networks of metallic fibers conveying electrical signals do not?

It seems to me that you're telling people they're wrong based on your opinion — and not a scientific conclusion.

Similarly, the human proclivity to invent "gods", "spirits", etc is because that's the historic mechanism to discuss the behavior of complex systems — in analogy to our own complex behavior arising from the chemical and electrical interactions of brain regions. This is actually an effective mechanism, as we see that it semi-routinely identifies a phenomenon faster than a strictly "rational" approach. (I put that in quotes because it's mostly a religious claim; it's neither a rational conclusion such things don't exist nor a rational approach to not use semi-accurate estimators when doing analysis.)

Let's talk about a forest. Do you have any support for the position that the complex interplay of chemistry and other signaling along mycelium networks, etc in a mature forest doesn't give rise to some form of consciousness in the same way that our brains do? ...what precisely is the distinction in your mind between neuronal networks and mycelium networks, which indicates that while both give rise to complex feedback and behaviors, only one has any kind of consciousness?

It seems to me that the minimal position is any system based on signal passing of a certain complexity begins to develop an awareness, given the huge diversity we've seen across the animal kingdom.

What's the support for your position?

<comment><USER8> To further your point, there definitely seems to be a collective conciousness that emerges from human networks, very evident in the markets, where it is expressed in bull and bear markets, confidence and panic, and the collective concious is aware of itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For me, the mystique and beauty of forests lie in that they grow and thrive without intervention. They are a beautiful, unintentional, complex anarchy. They are the product of millions of years of millions of species going extinct, an incomprehensible sum of events, an unconscious wandering to its current state.

Human inventions and ecosystems are boring in comparison. Every choice was to serve a human desire, and 99% are boring logical reasons. Why does the toaster have a handle? To pop the bread out. Why does the server have a status light? It was a feature request. Why does the computer recognize faces? Because there was a business case for it.

Nature's causal "why" is "because that's the way things worked out", and that's magic. There's a beauty in asking "why are bluejays blue" and not being able to know.

Computers operate semi-autonomously, sure, but so do stand mixers and water- treatment facilities. These are still just human machines built for human uses. Until we have computers that reproduce and thrive alongside us rather than act in our servitude, they haven't even scratched the surface of the magic of an earthworm.

<comment><USER10> I think this is a matter of perspective. Nature is stochastic - everything in nature happens for a sensible reason, though we may not ever know it in our lifetime. There's as much (or as little, if you prefer) mystery in the toaster as the bluejay. Why are there different colored toasters? Why do so many have chrome? Why do humans like chrome and other shiny things? Why do humans make toast at all, when the bread has already been cooked once? Conversely, some boring questions about nature: why does the sun appear to rise and fall? Why is grass green? Every effect has cause, and if you trace it far back enough, you get to "it just worked out that way" no matter where you start, and asking past that is getting into cosmology and religion, aka the realm of pure speculation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The forest spirits of today are the forests. We haven't destroyed them completely. So far.

<comment><USER12> The _random_ forests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace

by Richard Brautigan

I like to think (and

the sooner the better!)

of a cybernetic meadow

where mammals and computers

live together in mutually

programming harmony

like pure water

touching clear sky.

I like to think

(right now, please!)

of a cybernetic forest

filled with pines and electronics

where deer stroll peacefully

past computers

as if they were flowers

with spinning blossoms.

I like to think

(it has to be!)

of a cybernetic ecology

where we are free of our labors

and joined back to nature,

returned to our mammal

brothers and sisters,

and all watched over

by machines of loving grace.

</comment><comment><USER14> As Arthur C. Clarke say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws)

<comment><USER15> It's easy to distinguish magic from technology, if it works it's technology.

<comment><USER16> There was a chance for a punchline here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I call this the "Daemon-Haunted World" in reference to Carl Sagan's book "Demon-Haunted World", where he talks about the triumph of reason over the "spooks" and demons of superstition. It seems highly ironic to me that we have not yet finished banishing our old demons before conjuring up new ones to confuse and confound ourselves.

Wherever you have a departure of mental model from reality that misunderstanding can give rise to irrational behavior. In the simplest case we have the old lady who, on being told that electricity is like water, went around putting tape over her unused outlets so that the electricity wouldn't leak out... Pretty harmless.

I was watching some normal (non-technical) folks trying to modify something in their office mgmt software a few months ago, and I was struck by the _cargo cult_ nature of their understanding of the internal model of the software. They eventually figured out how to do it but it took ten minutes for something that would have taken ten seconds in an old paper-based system. The core of the problem was the mismatch between users' mental models and the actual (software) machine in front of them.

When these inaccurate models take the form of _imaginary entities_ we have digital ghosts or spooks, and already some have names: Alexa, Siri, Cortana, these are strange new gods with opaque and intricate priesthoods. Their cathedrals are datacenters. They have catechisms and rituals. "Did you try turning it off and on again?"

Multiplication of unnecessary entities is to be avoided, yes? Ockham's razor...

\- - - -

Second, without getting into a big long thing about it, _forest spirits_ are the forest spirits of today. It's not hard to communicate with them if you have a good attitude and some basic respect. We are literally of the same family. One life, One Love.

Science is starting to get into the act, backing up and filling out the requisite hard science to explain what's going on when, e.g. you talk to your ficus.

"Wood-wide web" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network)

Levin's lab, ambient biological intelligence, "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" (youtube.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698)

"every good regulator of a system must be (contain) a model of that system." (Conant and Ashby, 1982) [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/LAW_MODEL.html](http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/LAW_MODEL.html)

Living systems are evolving self-regulators, they therefore must have self- models, our own is called "ego", etc. Because these models are "software" running on the biological wetware there's no _a priori_ reason why we shouldn't be able to communicate. It's the same software running on the same hardware with the same communication protocols.

Neuro-somatic circuit of the "8-Circuit" model: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight- circuit_model_of_conscio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight- circuit_model_of_consciousness)

As I say, people have been communicating with forest spirits and such for pretty much all of recorded history (and pre-history if you want to interpret cave paintings that way...) so from my POV science is just filling in the details of a phenomenon that is already commonplace.

It also means that, at least to some degree, Sagan was wrong about the old spooks and demons.

<comment><USER18> >I call this the "Daemon-Haunted World"

Otherwise known as an application bug dependent on a random initialization variable. It can lead you to believe there are ghosts in your code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What are the forest spirits of the past then?</comment>


Ask HN: What are your favorite short and concise books? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> _The Art of Worldly Wisdom_ \- Gracian

[http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=art+of+worldly+wisdom](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=art+of+worldly+wisdom)

</comment><comment><USER3> _The Prince_ \- Niccolò Machiavelli.

</comment><comment><USER4> _War is a Racket_ \- Smedley Butler (2x Medal of Honor, Marine General)

</comment><comment><USER5> _Animal Farm_ by George Orwell springs to mind.

</comment><comment><USER6> _Anatomy of the State_ \- Murray Rothbard

</comment><comment><USER7> Letters To A Young Poet - Rainer Maria Rilke

</comment><comment><USER8> _Them_ Jon Ronson</comment>