The FBI Is Wrong: Apple's Encryption Is in the Public Interest - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/10/fbi-is-wrong-apple-encryption-is-good/ <comment><USER2> > Comey went so far as to claim that Apple's new system risks creating an > environment in which the United States is "no longer a country governed by > the rule of law.

That made me laugh. As opposed to a country where several enforcement agencies including cops can spy on masses of people to their heart's content? It wasn't too long ago that cops could get someone's phone and look through it as much as they wanted. It took a battle to the Supreme Court to stop that from happening (hopefully). So I think there's a much higher chance it's _them_ who are violating them law when the devices aren't encrypted, than the other way around.

I'm glad at least some journalists are calling out FBI director's BS arguments. Others like Washington Post and NY Times seem more than happy to give him a platform on which he can spread his propaganda to millions. It's a good thing for him that spreading propaganda on US soil isn't illegal anymore, I guess.

<comment><USER3> Any arguments about the rule of law from agencies that lie to courts and mislead them about how evidence was obtained so they can't be challenged on using illegal tactics are a mockery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am not sure that people really comprehend what "the rule of law" means, because the FBI's use of the phrase betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.

From the Oxford English Dictionary (also used in the Wikipedia entry): _" The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."_

"Rule of law" is more of a procedural guarantee for the citizenry than an assurance the people will abide by laws.

<comment><USER5> Yes. It is used to contrast with "the rule of men."

In Russia, Afghanistan, and Venezuela, the laws don't seem to matter very much; if Putin or the oligarchs/warlords/chavistas want things to be a certain way, there isn't much to stop them despite laws that in theory constrain them. That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society.

<comment><USER6> "That's the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law, and it's antithetical to a free society."

Not sure the rule-of-law / rule-of-men dichotomy with regards to measuring a free society is as clear cut.

Civil disobedience, corporate political spending, judicial activism, selective legal enforcement at the local level, federal/state disagreement. These are not all good or all bad things.

<comment><USER7> Rule of law is generally necessary, but not sufficient, for freedom, so far as we know human nature. Rule of men is capricious.

Laws that are written up and known ahead of enforcement, and that are enforced fairly and impartially - that's rule of law. But the laws themselves may be unjust or otherwise problematic.

That is, this is a lawful / chaotic axis, not a good / evil axis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The smart criminals, the ones we truly want to catch - like sophisticated terrorists, organized crime, hackers, are already encrypting their communications. Default encryption on ios8 now protects the digital trail of an otherwise lazy criminal who is more than likely leaving breadcrumbs elsewhere and is largely involved only in petty affairs. Law enforcement just needs to go back to more traditional investigative tactics instead of invading everyone's privacy for the purpose of making their jobs a little easier.

<comment><USER9> > The smart criminals, the ones we truly want to catch - like sophisticated > terrorists, organized crime, hackers, are already encrypting their > communications.

I'm pretty sure that most people want the non-smart criminals caught, too. I certainly have not heard too many victims or relatives of victims of murder, sex crimes, hate crimes, robbery, gang violence, and the like say that they don't truly want their crimes solved because they were victimized by non-smart criminals.

<comment><USER10> I think the assumption is dumb criminals are likely to leave other traces. Personally, I would rather pay a little more for policing than give them free access to any and all data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >...it is impossible to create a back door into an operating system that eliminates the possibility that other unauthorized access will occur...

This idea of back doors being opened up to black-hat hackers seems to be the crux of the current leading argument against key escrow. Even the EFF is beating this drum.

Bear with me, I'm not disagreeing with that argument, but isn't there another point to be made here? And that is:

Key escrow systems ask us to assume that the current "good" guys in positions of authority will always remain good. Isn't that a bit too much of an assumption?

<comment><USER12> they are always the 'good guys' until they are coming after you. I can imagine, a time when government would have requested comms from the Occupation movement. The problem is that they get to determine who the current enemy is. We all agree that the extremes are negative (i.e. ISIS, Narc Terr etc.) but what if a government is elected that decides that reproductive rights, equal pay, race equality, pot legalization etc. are an issue...Are you still ok with back doors? There would have been a time in the very near past that these things would have been a very powerful weapon in the authority's arsenal that would have stifled our culture's advancement (imho).

<comment><USER13> >but what if a government is elected that decides that reproductive rights, equal pay, race equality, pot legalization etc. are an issue...Are you still ok with back doors?

To statists, the state is infallible. If race inequality is the standard codified by law, then race inequality is good, because the government has declared it so. So many people operate under these assumptions, giving exception only to a few partisan issues which they've never even thought critically about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ah, let's see: Here in the US we have a Constitution. Now I remember, once I downloaded a copy. Right, here it is. Hmm .... Okay, how about this part:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be _secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects_ , against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note: I added the emphasis. Maybe I'd wish the emphasis would be letters 10 feet high with two pounds of black ink each, but I'm not seeing a way to do that on HN.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Now when I lived near DC, as I recall, the FBI HQ was not far from the National Archives with the original copy and also not far from the Supreme Court where, maybe, the FBI could get some eighth grade civics tutoring on what that part of the Constitution means.

To me, what the part means is, in simple terms, keep your filthy, sticky hands the F off my stuff. That is, unless you have one of those warrant thingies. And I don't even own a mobile device.

I sound pissed off? Right: A lot of really good people fought and died to give us the freedom to write and adopt that Constitution. To track mud all over it now is, in a word, a bummer, and that's putting it very mildly.

The FBI needs to return and repeat eighth grade civics.

I know; I know; apparently some people in the FBI would say that the Constitution was written long ago, and now the FBI has much, much, much more important things to worry about than those old fuddy duddies who wrote that old piece of paper and, besides, they didn't have smart phones then. Some people might say such things, but I don't go along, and we do have a way to get an answer -- that's just what the SCOTUS is there for, in this case for a reading comprehension lesson in eighth grade civics.

That text I emphasized above is difficult to read and understand? Ah, now I get it, for some in the FBI, easy to read and understand but difficult to accept and easy to violate.

<comment><USER15> This gets repeated incorrectly every time this issue comes up, but data you hand over to third parties isn't black and white and is subject to access from other entities.

<comment><USER14> Sorry, I typed quickly. I was referring to encryption on the iPhone, not on some cloud server. From recent media stories, some people in law enforcement want to be able to take a person's mobile device and see what data is on it and also want the right to demand that the owner of the device decrypt the data. My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong.

So, the way I read the Constitution, if I have an iPhone and the data on it is encrypted, then I don't have to give the FBI so much as a spit if they don't have one of those warrant thingies. Even if they do have a warrant, do I have to decrypt the data for them? I'd guess and hope not, but that might need a SCOTUS opinion.

But, for the cloud, hmm, let's see: I write a very personal diary and store it in a safe deposit box at a bank. Now that diary is no longer part of my "personal papers"? I would hope that that part of the Constitution would continue to apply to my diary, even though it is in bank's box.

And if I type my diary into a computer file and store it, encrypted, on a cloud server, again I would think that that file on the cloud server was still my "personal papers and effects".

Maybe we need some SCOTUS cases.

<comment><USER16> _My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong._

You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many _warranted_ searches useless.

<comment><USER14> > distinction?

Yes, in the first paragraph is implicitly assumed that law enforcement didn't have a warrant.

But eventually I also wrote "if they don't have one of those warrant thingies. Even if they do have a warrant, do I have to decrypt the data for them?"

So, there I was considering the distinction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The FBI went through a lot of trouble to invent cell phones, then smart phones, and then to distribute them to every adult in the country just to protect us all from each other. Before cell phones we were overrun by crimes of all nature; there was no hope and no stopping it. Now Apple has the nerve to implement features that might lock out law enforcement from information they have a god given right to? Information critical to preventing your neighbours from killing your children in the dead of night with impunity. Of all the ways we have to communicate and store information securely, it's cell phones that MUST have a law enforcement back door because reasons!

And people have the nerve to COMPLAIN? I bet these same people will be up in arms when law enforcement wants back doors on our 24/7 encrypted voice box recorders @.@

<comment><USER18> > The FBI went through a lot of trouble to invent cell phones

The government has every reason to have us all use as much technology as possible because whenever our life touches technology, it leaves a trace which will eventually be a part of your personal profile.

I doubt that the Apple/Google encryption is a serious hurdle to the government. It's very likely that this is just a campaign to make the consumer trust these brands again because huge tech companies live (some maybe forced to live) in a symbiosis with government agencies. If the government doesn't want tech companies to unite and turn against it, which still hasn't happened yet and probably never will, then they must also give them something after/before they take something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What is in public interest is that these people must be fired from their jobs. Worrying about "rule of law" while wasting taxpayers money.

</comment><comment><USER20> worth reposting ...

"""

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

"""

</comment><comment><USER21> One compromise position in this would be to extend the 5th amendment to include decrypted evidence, and to mandate backwards transparency in the FISA warrant and wiretap processes. The advantage would be a solution to law enforcement's 'ticking clock' scenario, and a solution to privacy advocate's concerns about investigative accountability. Some criminals would walk, but they would do so publicly exposed and ostracized for their misdeeds. This would be a bitter pill for privacy advocates and law enforcement to swallow, but the reality is that neither side wins in an environment of absolute privacy or absolute surveillance.

<comment><USER22> Absolute privacy is the natural order. Absolute surveillance requires suppression of knowledge. One is a lot more brittle and costly than the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "The defining characteristic and critical role of the state is maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As time progresses, technological advances change the way individuals and states engage in conflict, and it is incumbent on states to adjust their activities and policies to maintain their control over the use of coercive force. In the Information Age, the Department of Defense (DoD) must develop an understanding of cyberspace and determine its appropriate role in this new domain." \- Nye, Toft

</comment><comment><USER24> Social Scientist view. allegedly opinions will differ. 1.)American colonies go to America to avoid religious perspecution 2.)Churches involved in politics 3.)Prohibition against alcohol 4.)rise of Organized Crime and big syndicates 5.)FBI under Hoover avoids Reno, Nevada and Meyer Lansky, Mob accountant.

6.)FUN FACT. Look up the FOIA records of FBI files on Meyer Lansky. that's the reason why Lansky did so much in the open, with few or NO ARRESTS or 'investigation'?

8.)FBI hoover is master of publicity and crackdown on 'bank robbers' who are small and flashy, but not the BIG PROHIBITION GAMBLING and DRINKING by organized crime.

10.)NO ENCRYPTION ALLOWED. Plenty of ID theft, likely money laundering, medical fraud which will bankrupt the country.

SO THE ENTIRE WORLD DOES NOT NEED ENCRYPTION, nor basic Internet Security.

11.)Does NO encryption work in Mexico with the Mexico Organized Crime? No, why? a.)plenty of informants inisde the law enforcement b.)buy cheap one or two time use phones, which is too expensive for the average citizen. keep changing phones. c.)set up their own cell phone and radio communication towers.

d.)use low tech children to run back and forth e.)other ways that the CITIZEN CANNOT use.

.

<comment><USER25> _1.)American colonies go to America to avoid religious perspecution_

Wasn't it that those "pilgrim fathers" who went to the new world at the time (i.e. the times of the colonies) went there because they _wanted_ religious persecution? At the time, there was too much religious tolerance for their liking (particularly for those who had already tried living in Holland, notorious libertines even then) and by establishing a colony they could enforce their correct religion and not have to co-exist with others (which they promptly did, insisting on their own brand of protestantism).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> >(iOS 8) virtually eliminates the possibility that the encrypted data can be unlocked without the passcode.

I am not the first to point out that it is stupidly easy to bruteforce passcodes that are based on digits (like many phone passcodes are). The FBI lamenting unbreakable phone encryption and the accompanying media buzz borders on farcical and is disingenuous given that there is still a backdoor on the iPhone[1] on port 62078. Am I missing anything?

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8057470](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8057470)

<comment><USER27> With TouchID in all new Apple devices, it is much easier now to have complex passcodes without sacrificing usability.

Also, some of these vulnerabilities are slightly outdated with iOS8.

<comment><USER26> Thank you, I knew I was missing something. Also, I found that iOS 8 (mostly) fixed the backdoor:

[http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=3820](http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=3820)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> has the NSA commented yet?

</comment><comment><USER29> Intelligence agencies != law enforcement agencies

The NSA != your police officers

Just because encryption is a good technique to use against the NSA's surveillance that doesn't mean it's in the public interest in terms of law enforcement.

<comment><USER30> Completely agree. The tech community (including most HN readers) seems to be too closed minded about this subject. Encryption like this is a drastic change in the legal landscape. It means that our property goes from 4th amendment protections to 5th amendment protections. Whether you think that is a good idea is a matter of your own personal politics, but that change can't be easily dismissed.

Could you imagine if there was some new lock technology that came along that forced everyone to abide by vampire rules. This lock would required police to obtain your express invitation to enter your home regardless of whether they had a warrant or not. Now imagine the uproar that would cause. That is exactly what this type of technology does for our phone.

<comment><USER31> > Encryption like this is a drastic change in the legal landscape.

It isn't a change at all. You have been able to anonymously rent a locker at a YMCA or a self-storage unit or a cabin in the woods since forever. Evidence of a crime stored there is inaccessible to law enforcement because they don't know where it is. There is no practical difference between "don't know where it is" and "don't have the password." This is not a new thing.

<comment><USER29> > There is no practical difference between "don't know where it is" and "don't > have the password."

I think you forget you're living in the real world.

There is also no practical difference between accidental and intentional murder, so by your logic we should treat those the same way too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The point that James Comey was trying to make is that we don't want to live in a world without warrants. The prosecution in a criminal case has the burden of proof. It's difficult to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt if key evidence is encrypted and cannot be retrieved, even with a lawful warrant. This means that more criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk, which means that all of us will be less safe. The entire system is built around the idea that law enforcement can search and seize evidence if they have a lawful warrant from a duly appointed judge. Unbreakable encryption fundamentally threatens that framework.

An example the FBI used is a stupid criminal kidnapping a child and leaving their encrypted phone behind somewhere. Even if the FBI got warrants from multiple respected judges, they couldn't go through that phone to look for clues about where kidnapper may have taken the child. There are ticking bomb scenarios and other time sensitive situations. It's reasonable that the law enforcement should have some ability to access information with approval from the judiciary. We don't want to endanger ourselves in order to protect the banal communications on our cell phones or dissemble our legal system for the sake of keeping our sexting private.

<comment><USER31> > This means that more criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk, which > means that all of us will be less safe.

Serving prison time actually increases recidivism (by increasing debt, straining or severing ties with family and community, creating ties to other criminals, making it harder to find a job, etc.), so it turns out that in practice sending criminals to prison makes us less safe.

> The entire system is built around the idea that law enforcement can search > and seize evidence if they have a lawful warrant from a duly appointed > judge. Unbreakable encryption fundamentally threatens that framework.

Putting aside that the system doesn't actually work, it also doesn't require anything you're suggesting it does. Searching a suspect's mobile device is far from the only tool law enforcement has -- and it's one that they _didn 't_ have a decade ago, so suggesting that not having it would cause the world to descend into chaos is disingenuous.

And the way the system actually _does_ work is by creating a nontrivial possibility that committing a crime will result in punishment, thereby deterring the large majority of prospective criminals. This doesn't require anything even resembling 100% enforcement effectiveness. In fact, its actual effectiveness is almost irrelevant because people have no sense of its true effectiveness and the deterrent is based entirely on what prospective criminals think would happen rather than what would actually happen.

That is one of the reasons why the system is so broken -- the deterrent is effective even though the system isn't, so people think it's working and nobody demands that it be fixed.

> There are ticking bomb scenarios and other time sensitive situations.

Hollywood has confused everyone into thinking that ticking bomb scenarios are common. They are not. In the overwhelming majority of cases, law enforcement investigates crimes _after_ they've been committed, not before. Basing major policy on something that occurs in a negligible percentage of cases is just silly.

<comment><USER9> > Serving prison time actually increases recidivism (by increasing debt, > straining or severing ties with family and community, creating ties to other > criminals, making it harder to find a job, etc.), so it turns out that in > practice sending criminals to prison makes us less safe

Are you taking into account that while in prison, the person is not committing crimes (except possibly against other prisoners)?

Prison will cause recidivism in some who would have given up crime if given some non-prison punishment, but it will also reduce crime from people who would have been recidivists anyway by delaying their return to crime.

Offhand, I don't recall seeing data on what the optimal term is for minimizing crime, but I don't recall looking for such, either. Anyone have numbers?

<comment><USER31> > Are you taking into account that while in prison, the person is not > committing crimes (except possibly against other prisoners)?

Their kids will pick up the slack as they grow up without a father.

Also, are you really suggesting that crimes against prisoners are not crimes?

> Offhand, I don't recall seeing data on what the optimal term is for > minimizing crime, but I don't recall looking for such, either.

The optimal term for minimizing crime is obviously life imprisonment but I'm not sure that information can be put to any productive use.

<comment><USER9> > Also, are you really suggesting that crimes against prisoners are not > crimes?

No. I interpreted the original assertion and subsequent discussion to be about the effect of prison on crime against the general public.

> The optimal term for minimizing crime is obviously life imprisonment but I'm > not sure that information can be put to any productive use

My guess is that the crime rate against the general public as a function of prison time curve [1] is not monotonic. I expect that there is at least one local minimum before the absolute minimum reached at life imprisonment.

[1] it would probably be better to say "curves", not "curve", because different kinds of criminals probably have different shape curves.

<comment><USER31> > No. I interpreted the original assertion and subsequent discussion to be > about the effect of prison on crime against the general public.

Even putting aside the implied exclusion of prisoners as members of the general public, it doesn't actually work that way. Prison inmates can cause physical or psychological damage to other inmates who are about to be released, increasing the subsequent drain they put on public resources and their likelihood of re-offending. Inmates can be threatened with violence if they don't convince their families or associates to commit crimes on the outside. Crime bosses can smuggle in cellphones and bribe prison guards to carry on running their organizations. "What happens in prison stays in prison" is the opposite of what happens in prison.

> My guess is that the crime rate against the general public as a function of > prison time curve [1] is not monotonic. I expect that there is at least one > local minimum before the absolute minimum reached at life imprisonment.

I agree that it probably isn't monotonic, but it seems like asking the wrong question. If a specific type of punishment causes harm to the convict and causing harm to the convict increases the probability of recidivism then every ounce of that punishment you mete out is counterbalancing itself. Increasing the deterrent also increases the damage. Sure, the two curves may not be perfectly symmetrical and therefore allow you to find a local minimum. But that's like trying to optimize the amount of poison to put in your food as a preservative. Is it not better to just use a non-poisonous preservative?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Can GPS find variations in Planck's constant? - <AUTHOR> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/49135

<comment><AUTHOR> We live in amazing times being massively surrounded with digital equipment constantly collecting and logging data, and we are yet at the beginning of big data processing challenge. This is just an example, probably distant to practical use at this time, but think of obvious like building a global database holding anonymized blood analysis results that can be used in semi- automated discovery of new relationships between diseases and certain person and blood features, etc. This is so powerful and so scary at the same time. The big challange seems to be to promote and accept some general data sanitization rules what would be a natural step but will also change our attitude to privacy completely. Really, amazing times we live in.</comment>


Blockbuster movies made with the help of Linux  - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux-netbook.com/10-blockbusters-made-with-the-help-of-linux

<comment><USER2> What a pointless list. Most movies contain rendered cgi and Linux is popular on render clusters, what a surprise. What would be far more interesting would be a list of movies made with the help of linux on desktop workstations. Or even movies made without the help of linux.

<comment><USER3> from the article: "90% of their desktops running Ubuntu"

It's on the workstations too.

<comment><USER2> That's just one studio. It'd be interesting to see how widespread Linux usage is.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can you recursively grep a website? - <AUTHOR>

I want to use a regular expression on a whole domain.  What is the easiest way to do that? <comment><USER2> Google's site: operator... or write a crawler to parse all within-site text links, download the site source into files on your machine and then grep.

</comment><comment> saiko-chriskun yep either just use google, or download the site as mentioned and use:

grep myTerm path/to/mysite/ __

<comment> saiko-chriskun hm looks like ycombi parsed out my asterisks. at the end of the path should've been two.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What should I do with my abandoned project? - <AUTHOR> I wrote a Clojure IDE[1] in Objective-C with a good chunk of it (parser/lexer) written in C. But I gave up on the effort, because of difficulties integrating a scripting language with C, and because writing in C is kind of annoying.
At this point, the project is probably dead. It's currently only barely useful. Should I take it down, or leave it up?
I could see one argument for taking it down being that it might confuse people who are looking for a real IDE and find it somewhat-broken instead.
On the other hand, one argument for leaving it up could be that someone else might take it over.
And maybe there are more things I'm not taking into account. Hence I come to you for advice.
[1]: https://github.com/sdegutis/leviathan <comment><USER2> Please don't take it down. I'm not even interested in either Clojure, IDEs, or Obj-C, but I ran into many "abandoned" projects before which had a useful part somewhere inside. Or used one api call in a way I wanted, but couldn't get to work because of some silly detail. There's a lot to learn even from completely broken project.

Even if noone uses the project for what it was intended, please leave it there. You marked it as dead already, and that's cool. Since you don't pay for the public repos, just leave it be.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems like it would be difficult to extract useful algorithms from an existing codebase. And the OCD/minimalist in me wants my github to only have useful projects on them.

<comment><USER3> I'd say leave it up. It's part of your history, something that shows that you put a lot of effort into something, even if you didn't perceive it as "successful". You undoubtedly learned a significant amount during the project, and the repo stands as proof of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone should make a github like site specifically for dead or abandoned projects. People could put stuff up there either for advice, or other people could 'take' ownership of them.

</comment><comment><USER5> Put a notice at the top of the readme.md letting everyone know you plan to take it down January 21, 2015 unless there is feedback indicating that people are using it. Provide a means of feedback and make your decision based on what you get or don't get.

<comment><USER6> I think putting a notice is a good idea, but if there's nothing personal or secret in it (db connections or anyting), just leave it in your github so people can find it.

It'd be really cool if github let you mark a project as 'abandoned' so people can easily see that it's not in use.

<comment><USER5> On the top shelf in a box in a closet in my parents' house there is a box of 5 1/4" 360k floppy disks that I saved with the thought that their contents might be useful someday. Now we''re a couple of decades past the time when they were already so old as to be stuck in a box in a box in a closet.

They're no more collector's items or antiques than abandoned half broken code is a valuable resource today. In fact, my old floppy files have the advantage of not cluttering up a Github search when someone is looking for working code.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wrote a Bomberman-like engine in QBasic when I was 13. Many many times since then have I wished I hadn't lost that floppy disk.

<comment><USER7> Man I'm the same way! I would kill to have access to my young teenage QBasic code. No idea how terrible it would be, but I would just love to have it for nostalgia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I remembered there are some forks floating around on github. And while they might not be completely up to date, they probably contain the important parts of the code that someone might want. So I took it down.</comment>


Programming News: A simple chrome extension - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/programming-news/ggmnmmjaecmnabilobpplklijinifpip?hl=en-US&gl=US This is a simple extension that I had a lot of fun making. It collects the front page items from Hacker News and http://www.reddit.com/r/programming, links to the respective comment sections and allows you to maintain a reading list of 100 items. I didn't think it would be worth implementing all of the functionality of each website. I believe there are plenty of apps that do that. Tell me if what you like and dislike about it, if you would like to see more options, different UI, news sites, etc. <comment><AUTHOR> This is a simple extension that I had a lot of fun making. It collects the front page items from Hacker News and <http://www.reddit.com/r/programming>, links to the respective comment sections and allows you to maintain a reading list of 100 items. I didn't think it would be worth implementing all of the functionality of each website. I believe there are plenty of apps that do that. Tell me if what you like and dislike about it, if you would like to see more options, different UI, news sites, etc.</comment>


Crowdfunding - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/16909869?story_id=16909869

<comment><USER2> This isn't a new idea but it's hard to pull off. Especially if you look at the details, these are supposed to be mostly artistic projects(Yes coding is artistic) but not business ones.

I know Seth Godin is a fan of this type of concept.

[http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/05/fundable_a_n...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/05/fundable_a_next.html)

Also here is a blog post by Kevin Kelly of wired Magazine [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fan...](http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php)</comment>


The secret to networking - be yourself online/in person - <AUTHOR> http://blog.monicaobrien.com/the-secret-to-networking-well-be-yourself/

<comment><USER2> "Just be yourself" This is pretty similar to what i remember reading as a teenager when looking for advice on the opposite sex. Though no one ever really told me, how to be me.

There are lots of me's, the one that stays up late watching south park, and the one that enjoys a fine glass of wine. Many of my friends took this phrase as a ticket to be slovenly, thinking that they would attract others by "being themselves". While the advice is sound, it shouldn't be taken as an absolute law.

<comment><USER3> It's a call to integrity. Don't make up new personas for different social situations. You should be the same "you" in every situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So I'm reading the article and kinda getting into it when.. BAM! This message pops up hiding what I was reading.

"Build your business profile by implementing one five-minute tip, every weekday. Enter your name and email address:

Name: Email: Just enter your name and email above and you'll get one implementable tip in your inbox every weekday. And you'll also get... wait. That's it. You only get exactly what you signed up for. Enter your name and email above now!"

No thank you spam

</comment><comment><USER5> The article is pretty trite, but one gem that's worth repeating, is that if you want to be popular, then be "raw". Make yourself vulnerable. Share unpopular opinions.

<comment><USER6> It's the Eddie Murphy school of networking.

<comment><USER7> To paraphrase Bill Cosby:

 _I said to a guy, I said, "Tell me, what is it about being yourself that makes it so wonderful?", and he said, "Well, it intensifies your personality." I said, "Yes, but what if you're an asshole?"_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "So just be yourself already. It's that simple."

It actually applies to everything in general. It's that simple.

<comment><USER9> and it's not actually all that simple

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The title is trite - and fairly useless - advice. But the article actually contains some much more useful tips.</comment>


Tcl fiber package based on Erlang process model - <AUTHOR> http://tclfiber.sourceforge.net/ <comment><USER2> Nice to see the most mature scripting language in action.</comment>


To Decarbonize We Must Decomputerize: Why We Need a Luddite Revolution - <AUTHOR> https://www.notechmagazine.com/2019/10/to-decarbonize-we-must-decomputerize-why-we-need-a-luddite-revolution.html <comment><USER2> Or we keep advancing tech to reduce energy consumption (check out recent interconnect articles as an example / TPUs etc) and solve more problems with better compute.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article presents no evidence to back up its thesis.</comment>


The McDonald's Quotient - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2015/12/the-mcdonalds-quotient/ <comment><USER4> Ironically most of the "out of touch" high achievers have just managed to avoid the misfortune of having to waste moments of their life in menial servitude to some big corporation in exchange for a disgracefully low wage.

The experience is dehumanizing, and I have a hard time buying into the idea that having that experience benefits all but the least empathetic people.

One is likely to come out of such a mechanized experience 1) never wanting to eat the food there again, 2) having committed theft or graft by giving freebies to friends and acquaintances, or 3) feeling like an insignificant cog.

Much of success has to do with believing you are right in spite of others' doubts, and seeing the world in a novel way. In my opinion, oppressive institutional environments crush those aspects of people... Poverty and financial desperation crushes them too. Both force a kind of mental toil and constant stress.

So I'd advise a young person to perhaps find a way to do a job like that for about a week to gain that empathy and then never look back. The soul is enriched by addressing high quality problems, not low quality ones like someone in a hurry who wants french fries that need to be carried from the machine to the drive-up window.

<comment><USER5> have you worked such jobs yourself? i'd guess not from the tone and content...

... there is a lot of value in learning to be common. you might also come out of such experiences with 4) an understanding of day-to-day terms that prevent you from giving away your origins in conversation, 5) good friends who will bring joy to your life long after you leave the job, 6) understanding the benefits of speaking up at the right time in an oppressive environment, 7) understanding how privileged people with desk jobs are etc. etc...

<comment><USER4> Those are valid points. There is a lot to learn from any job, I think it's just a question of how quickly you learn those things and start to stagnate... Stagnation happens in any job, and becoming friends with coworkers also can happen in any job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "[Mcdonald coefficient] In Silicon Valley and the larger startup and VC investing world, I often find that it's surprisingly low, or even non- existent." Source?

That was a self congratulating article filled with cynical judgments on people the author doesn't really know.

Many successful and wealthy people come from humble beginnings. Even many of the people I know who were well off since birth, do have their share of working in low wage industries. In Canada where the author is from, you cannot graduate from high school without 30 hours of work experience which will most likely be in "blue collar" industries. This is way before your shinny degree

This is in fact one of my favourite attributes of the American Culture and perhaps the main reason why US leads economically around the world. Work is valued and is not beneath anyone.

<comment><USER7> >>"I often find that ..."

>Source?

His personal experience, clearly

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I worked at a Regal Cinema when I was 16 for a year, so I guess that counts. There was a lot of monotony, but the experience still managed to be relatively interesting for my younger self. And I got to participate in a different social circle outside of my school.

My favorite times were cleaning out the theaters with the other guys, who were slightly older and would sometimes discuss abandoned houses they wanted to explore. And I remember optimizing how to rip and count movie tickets, having authority over who can go into the theaters, coordinating with other employees, counting inventory. The endless minutes I waited for the clock to slowly tick forwards so I could leave... It was a very memorable experience. In a strange way I kind of miss it.

It's kind of funny how the amount of money I made there over a year is like a stock market fluctuation over a single day now.

</comment><comment><USER9> "majority of entry level jobs didn't hire people who looked like the people I worked with. At McDonalds there were people with disabilities, overweight people, people who weren't conventionally attractive, people that couldn't speak much English, young teenagers, and a lot of racial diversity." [0]

But the above quote doesn't really work for Starbucks. They hire the acceptable people, people that would seem at home on a college campus - <USER2> students or as teaching assistance.

I'd say _that 's_ your opportunity (and something you didn't express well in your essay). That there are people who are good workers but wouldn't pass the conventional smell test at more artisinal entry level jobs. Your online application can filter the worker that "has it together" from a work history and appearance that would suggest otherwise.

[0] [https://medium.com/@katenorquay/what-i-learned- from-4-years-...](https://medium.com/@katenorquay/what-i-learned-from-4-years- working-at-mcdonalds-f278ad27faee#.6ochagagq)

</comment><comment><USER10> We're in this industry too, and I believe the HR/talent management/recruitment space is potentially huge and still nascent.

But after going to your web site and clicking "start hiring now", I'm afraid that I too don't get it. Unless I'm overlooking it, the site is entirely content free as to how/what your product actually does.

</comment><comment><USER11> super pedantic but the coloquial usage of "working class" is not "middle class", but lower-earning wage brackets.

Even more OT but there's a pretty interesting study about how something like 80% of Americans think they're middle class when they're much poorer (or richer, sometimes) than the median household income.

Which gets you to the slightly absurd WSJ inforgraphic that showed a "Middle Class family" with $150k of income...

<comment><USER12> There's a lot of conceptual baggage that comes with the term "middle class", which makes it non-trivial for people to agree on. For example, is home- ownership important to being considered middle class? If so, how does any median income number make sense when there are areas where entry-level houses cost 3-4 times what they do in other areas? Cost of living is different in different areas. It's very easy to feel middle class with $150k a year in income when you work it out and find that after all expenses (mortgage, non- obscene car payments, utilities, insurance, food) you have a few hundred dollars each month to do with as you like, and you can live semi-comfortably, or you can save, but doing both doesn't seem to be in the cards. The common refrain of "move somewhere cheaper" doesn't look all that appetizing when it also means a massive pay-cut, and moving away from all friends and family.

So, can a person that makes $150k actually be middle class? I think so. There's so much more than just salary that goes into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> this guy is clearly not very good at explaining things. even though he says a lot of stuff here there is nothing to substantiate why - specifically, he didn't really explain why this potential investor having not worked a normal job in his life was preventing him from understanding what the deal was.

i agree with the sentiment, but it seems much more likely that the author is actually terrible at explaining things.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the feedback :)

One challenge of writing an article for a large audience is trying to keep things brief. Since I wasn't really writing about the investor experience - <USER3> was writing about tech having a blind spot for the way a giant part of America lives - I didn't want to spend too much time on the investor anecdote.

A more detailed way to explain it would have been that the investor absolutely "got what we did" \- it really isn't that complicated.

But at the same time, he didn't "GET IT" \- he didn't grasp the massive opportunity in front of us (millions of brick-and-mortar retail locations with no HR technology in place, 75 million hourly workers having to put up with terrible online applications, etc), or why what we've built is so useful for our specific market - and I think that's reflective of a larger blind spot in technology for this slice of the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> not related but I noticed this website is ridiculously fast to load.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's funny how we've let success become something for rich people.

But hey, as long as I self-sacrifice to make sure that the wealthy can create more jobs, the good karma will eventually come back to me, right?</comment>


Oklo's Jacob DeWitte on Building a Nuclear Reactor People Want (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ycombinator.com/jacob-dewitte-oklo-interview/ <comment><USER2> Interesting but went to the oklo.com web site after reading the article and WTF guys a bit too zen!</comment>


The Accidental History of the '@' Symbol - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-accidental-history-of-the-symbol-18054936/ <comment><USER2> > The symbol later took on a historic role in commerce. Merchants have long > used it to signify "at the rate of"—as in "12 widgets @ $1."

Many of my Indian coworkers will also say "at the rate", whereas I (a native speaker of American English) would just say "at".

For example, in the context of a Java annotation like `@Singleton`, I would say "at singleton", and my Indian coworkers would say "at the rate singleton".

It was a fun bit of cultural exchange when I first heard this said out-loud.</comment>


Scientists measure half-life of element longer than the age of the universe - <AUTHOR> https://news.uchicago.edu/story/scientists-measure-half-life-element-thats-longer-age-universe <comment><AUTHOR> xenon-124's half-life: 18 billion trillion years. So, "longer than the age of the universe" is a good candidate for the understatement of the year.</comment>


Dollar Street – photos as data to kill country stereotypes - <AUTHOR> https://www.gapminder.org/dollar-street/ <comment><USER2> I gues the street would have to be half a mile long to show the truely richest</comment>


The Paradox of Precision Medicine - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-paradox-of-precision-medicine/ <comment><USER2> When I was in grad school (Biophysics) I mentioned to somebody that I thought that sequencing the human genome would lead to huge medical discoveries quickly. They asked, "why?" and I was unable to provide a good response. They were right: the premise that sequencing the human genome would lead immediately to recognizable, huge improvements that impacted a lot of people in a positive way, was simple a false premise.

Now, sequencing the human genome was tremendously useful as a reference dataset for further research. But it was no panacea. Basically, what we've learned (and this shouldn't be too surprising to people who studied biology from the perspective of molecular biology, rather than genetics), is that the mapping between genotype and phenotype, in humans, is tremendously more complex than the simple stories told in genetics class.

$30K treatments for rare diseases may be heartwarming but the implications for the costs of healthcare are dire.

I don't think it's impossible to believe that in the future we will get significantly better at classifying diseases and coming up with solutions, but we need more fundamental research into the genomic etiology of disease, in addition to drastic changes to the clinical trial process, if we want to simultaneously meet the goals of having a huge positive impact and keeping the costs affordable.</comment>


The iPhones XS - <AUTHOR> https://daringfireball.net/2018/09/the_iphones_xs <comment><USER2> Hi, camera designer here. There are few issues in this article.

"The other explanation I can think of is that this almost certainly isn't Apple's own sensor." \- Correct, it's a Sony sensor. Apple has been using Sony sensors since they dumped Omnivision back in the iPhone 4 days.

"Why isn't Apple touting this larger sensor?" Maybe because the sensor got _smaller_ in the previous iphones (1/2.5") compared to the iPhones before that (1/2.3"). I guess they've gone back to 1/2.3" now?

" Android handset makers can't just buy a "neural engine" chip and stick it in a phone. " Yes, you absolutely can. [1] This chip is in all the DJI drones, also in the "google clips" camera. OK, it's not an A12, but it is exactly the kind of thing that Gruber is describing - it's a neural image processing chip.

[1] [https://www.movidius.com/myriad2](https://www.movidius.com/myriad2)

<comment><USER3> What exactly is a "neural image processing chip"?

A cursory search didn't turn up anything simple to understand.

My uninformed guess is that it's a chip that does neural network stuff to offload image processing for antialiasing, scaling and such.

But I would guess they do a lot more.

Could you elaborate a bit?

Seems pretty interesting that my phone might be already using "AI" algos for taking better pictures!

<comment><USER4> These chips, like GPUs, are optimized for parallel processing, but they are also designed for lower precision math which requires less memory and fewer transistors/operation and hence are considerably more power efficient.

<comment><USER5> So it's just a GPU optimised for half-floats and/or integers?

I remember reading that it's optimised for matrix calculations. Is that true? If so, what is it about matrix calculations that makes a GPU not the most optimised for this task?

<comment><USER4> Yes it's optimized for 8 bit matrix multiplication.

> If so, what is it about matrix calculations that makes a GPU not the most > optimised for this task?

Well this gets into what is a GPU since now NVIDIA and others are making special tensor GPUs that are also good at this. Most GPUs are optimized for 32 floating point math though, you're probably familiar with "8-bit graphics" being synonymous with 80's NES console quality.

<comment><USER5> I see. When I said GPU, I meant a normal GPU, not a special tensor GPU. BTW, what makes tensors / matrices hard for GPUs to handle?

<comment><USER4> AFAIK GPUs are ok at matrix math, it's just they are typically built for higher precision. AI chips probably have some other advantages but I'm not the best person to speak to them. Here's my simplified understanding:

CPUs are optimized for taking a decent amount of data and doing anything with them, especially if the order counts as is often the case with algorithms.

GPUs are optimized for taking a lot of data and doing the same few things to a lot of them (shaders, physics).

AI chips are optimized at taking a massive amount of data and doing a large number of calculations on all of them. In a neural net each "neuron" and/or "synapse" can represent a function/weight that needs to be calculated across many inputs.

In a deep learning set, this could be millions of weights and the more weights you have the more important memory and power efficiency become. When a NN is being looked up into (as opposed to the initial training) it's often in real time (self driving cars, "hey siri", etc.) so the demand to finish all those calculation's faster is even higher. OTOH the accuracy is less important, as neural nets - like people - are good at filtering out noise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing that seems suspect about this article is when he mentions that nobody else can put a chip like the neural engine in a phone. He says Google does it in the cloud. I don't think he's tried a Google Pixel (2) device before. Put it in airplane mode and take some (portrait) shots. There are a number of articles talking about the Pixel 2 Visual Core, which sounds similar to the neural engine, and predates it: [https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/05/the- pixel-2s-visual-core-p...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/05/the- pixel-2s-visual-core-photo-processor-now-works-with-instagram-whatsapp-and- snapchat/)

Some basic research would be nice.

<comment><USER4> > which sounds similar to the neural engine, and predates it

Apple's neural engine shipped in the A11, a few weeks earlier than the Pixel 2.

<comment><USER7> Correct, I believe it wasn't enabled when shipped on the Picel 2. It was sometime later.

Maybe he's ignorant there, but I think the point should've been that outside of Google nobody else is doing the same on android.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> (Following on Gruber's examination of the camera lenses on the XS)

I have a full-size mirrorless camera with interchangeable lens (Sony alpha-5000), and I love it. I usually import all pictures I take with it to Photos, and you can immediately tell if a picture was taken with it or with my current iPhone 7 (no surprise).

But here's the catch: I understand many principles of photography, but I'm no professional photographer. I try to make adjustments to focal distance, aperture, manual focus, and etc when taking pictures, but the results are usually not good (it's all fun though, especially when you get it just right).

Therefore, even when I take my camera with me, I will still snap pictures with my phone because the balance between how easy it is vs the quality of the product really favours smartphones. And it only gets exponentially harder with difficult light conditions (overcast skies, moving vehicles, etc). I've ordered a XS despite the high price but I'm really looking forward to using its camera and comparing it with my Sony camera.

<comment><USER9> I use something in the middle of a mirrorless interchangeable lens and a smart phone camera. The Sony RX100. Because of the lack of too many manual controls, its a good point and shoot, and because of the large sensor size, the photos are better than current best-camera smartphones. Thats the next target for smart phones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's strange that there is an apparently objective, value-free aesthetic ideal for personal photographs. What is the endgame here? The look of fashion magazines and advertisements?

Because hey, like Gruber, I'm also an unattractive mid-30s gremlin, nothing like a fashion model. My wife, whom I love, is not Kate Moss either.

I used to run around with Dianas and Holgas - plastic cameras with plastic lenses that expose 120 film (medium or 4x5 format). Half of the shots turn out unusable, which gets really expensive -- but the half that turns out good is great. Unlike my (cheap SE) iPhone images, they have a quality that's uncannily "real". Like real people living real lives.

And when I say "strange" I don't necessarily mean "bad"; just that it sure looks that we will soon be normalizing the hard-to-notice glitches of ML models and miss them in "normal" photos. With cheap plastic cameras you knew that the artifacts (light streaks, dust on lenses...) were artifacts.

\---

Next up: thanatropism complains about auto-tuners in modern pop music.

</comment><comment><USER11> _> Google does advanced machine learning — including for photos — but they do it in the cloud._

This is just wrong; Google is doing lots on the Pixel devices in hardware (HDR+, Portrait, Motion Photos, etc):

[https://ai.google/stories/ai-in-hardware/](https://ai.google/stories/ai-in- hardware/)

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm very pleased with the point cloud technology called "depth cameras". What was, and is, a gigantic attachment to the xbox is now smaller than my fingernail and there's two of them in the Iphone X series.

What I'd like is for greater range and more situations for the algorithmic depth to kick in (ie Instagram's focus camera). My use of exchangeable lens cameras in traditional form factors is about to disappear if I can use it for selective focus on subjects 20 feet away. (Note: my use of cameras are a means of expression, and although I'm well versed in the technology and discipline I don't have any interest in the elitism of how an image was captured.)

I don't think this new generation of Iphones achieve that, but its an area I'm watching.

The other improvements suggest a 2019 or 2020 model will be amazing.

<comment><USER13> What I would like is for a non processed photo to be stored along with every processed photos. I have multiple photos on both the Pixel2 and IPhone where the computational photograhy algorithms got the scene very very wrong. Would have been great to have a non processed fallback in these cases.

<comment><USER12> that would be good, for now there are apps for that. Your pixel2 should make it easy for any third party camera to be your main camera app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Apple describes the glass (front and back) on the iPhone XS as "the most > durable glass ever in a smartphone". I asked, and according to Apple, this > means both crack and scratch resistance.

I feel like I hear this statement every other year. I'm not invested enough to go back and actually validate my theory, but this definitely isn't the first time I've heard that from a phone company. They always seem to fail the 6ft drop test.

<comment><USER15> I guess they get a little bit better each year, just a little bit. But not enough.

<comment><USER16> You don't have to upgrade every year though. Still happy with my 6S.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > _… to play with the bokeh depth of field f-stops, you have to use an iPhone > XS because it depends on the A12's Neural Engine. An iMac Pro has a more > powerful CPU than an iPhone XS, but it doesn't have a Neural Engine, and the > bokeh effect depends upon it._

This doesn't bode well for anyone who cares about being able to manipulate their photos without being _too_ tied into Apple's ecosystem.

I hope that Adobe and the developers of other photo editing programs manage to reverse engineer this.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Not just a Mac but any PC should be able to adjust the aperture using software. Let it be slow. Better than not being able to do it at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Apple describes the glass (front and back) on the iPhone XS as "the most > durable glass ever in a smartphone". I asked, and according to Apple, this > means both crack and scratch resistance.

This is great news if it is solid enough. I would happily spend +$1k for a phone only if I can let it fall without causing damage.

</comment><comment><USER19> I can't be sure, but I think that there's an error on the 5th photo: the column in the background, between his right temple and his right ear should also be processed.

<comment><USER20> It also looks like part of the outside edge of the ear got blurred mistakenly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why should we consider this fawning opinion piece by a world renowned Apple fanboy, a review?

iPhone cameras haven't been the best on smartphones for years now, let alone among all camera devices.

<comment><USER22> Those of us with iPhones are interested in how the new generation compares to the old.

He's not comparing the cameras to other phones, although he does briefly discuss the device vs cloud processing approaches.

And, shockingly, even fanboys can have useful information to share.

<comment><USER21> Indeed they can. "Is the iPhone XS the world's greatest phone of the year, or all time?"

"No science involved, but Apple engineers and I agree that the iPhone XS camera is the best"

I bet fanboys print out DXOMark as cleaning paper for their iPhone lenses - "best lens cleanser for the iPhone is DXOMARK ratings of other phones being better"

<comment><USER22> HN is really not the appropriate forum for this sort of straw man hyperbole.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The great purge of YouTube has begun: I won't be around much longer - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8HJrr4-7B8 <comment><USER2> So use another site then. These people are all about the free market and right-to-work until it turns out in a way they don't like.

<comment><USER3> Is he calling for the government to step in and force Google to monetize his channel?

<comment><USER4> Hahahahaha that actually would be painfully ironic.

It's funny, video distribution isn't a terribly expensive problem anymore. Maintain a devout forum of followers and debate, and release videos on Mega or Vimeo or etc. Or ask people to mirror.

Of course this is all about the youtube ad bux and discovery.

But it is not a right for a public company to allow you on the platform no matter what.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure he understands that. I don't think that was the point of the video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can someone give some context as to who this is?

<comment><AUTHOR> A prominent "alt-light" youtuber with > one million subscribers.</comment></comment>


TIOBE Feb 2018: The last gasp attempt of Visual Basic to score? - <AUTHOR> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ <comment><USER2> I have a hard time taking things like TIOBE seriously, Visual basic and VB.NET are 12th and 6th respectively?

<comment><AUTHOR> What is even more surprising is the 2 year evolution of vb.net. If you click on the line, it shows a chart consistently going up.

I am less surprised by VB. After all this is the only way to script Microsoft Office and it's not like VBA had gone away, lots of users actively build stuff now in VBA.</comment></comment>


Southern Europe Has Not Seen Net Job Creation in over a Decade - <AUTHOR> http://thesoundingline.com/southern-europe-has-not-seen-net-job-creation-in-over-a-decade/ <comment><USER2> Is not even an issue of number of jobs, but of quality of labor. Spain grew economically in the 70s and 80s because it was a developing country, and could provide cheap labor to neighboring countries. The growth in the 2000s came from a massive housing bubble that didn't end well for most involved. As we became a developed country we didn't know how to reorient our economy. Now we are too expensive for cheap labor, which is relocating elsewhere, neither we are specialized or competitive enough to oppose other strong economies. Some times I have evaluated the possibility of going back there and try to make a career in tech. It just takes a couple of conversations with locals to erase that idea from my mind. The country is not socially tailored to attract and retain highly skilled specialized workers, and sadly it's an issue that I don't hope to see changed in the future.

<comment><USER3> Having a single monetary policy for countries as different as Spain and Germany, with no real shared fiscal policy, is a direct contributor to this malaise.

If they had separate currencies, Spain could inflate away a lot of their debt. This would cause a bunch of pain for your average Spaniard, but it would also mean that Spain's currency devaluation could drastically help its exports (and of course one of Southern Europe's most valuable "exports" is tourism). A direct consequence of being on the Euro is exactly what you point out: labor isn't really cheap enough to be competitive.

<comment><USER4> > If they had separate currencies, Spain could inflate away a lot of their > debt.

Which is why Euro is good for Southern European countries: it forces them to concentrate on productivity rather than economic alchemy. Spanish labor got too expensive? You don't need a government to inflate your currency, you just start lowering your rates. My fellow Italian workers cannot find a job? Stop talking about "articolo 18", stop looking for assured indefinite term contracts, accept the reality! Enterprises know ups and downs: when thing go well, they'll be happy to pay you good money for your services, but when hell breaks loose your salary will be a burden for them. Either accept that employment contracts can be terminated before your retreat, or keep up the good work... uh, keep up the work... just keep up!

<comment><USER5> The Euro has caused their debt to appreciate, so now they owe more money in real terms because the currency doubled in value. Meanwhile, Germany is able to export their goods without any currency risk. And now you have another layer of bureaucracy. The real issue is that when they created the Euro, they failed to consolidate the debt of all the nations. It's only a matter of time before the whole thing collapses.

<comment><USER6> The Euro took away the single most painful thing still plaguing travel between EU countries. These days an EU citizen can up and leave to a different EU country with very little friction (aside from the language in some places), which was the idea. That goal was achieved.

It is unrealistic to expect that countries will somehow not be able to solve their financial issues just because they lost one tool. That's an excuse, not a reason.

<comment><USER7> They lost control of their own currency. That's not just "one tool". It doesn't work and without full economic integration it never will. I think I know what I'm talking about as I'm living with this problem, have analysed it thoroughly because I have nothing better to do, know the history of this southern European country and their people, and as a result of all this I can't trivialize it by simply making up the belief that it'll be fine at some undetermined point in the future. It's more like the death by one thousand cuts, in slow motion.

<comment><USER4> > They lost control of their own currency.

Germany lost it, too. If it worked for Germany, why not trying to learn from their experience rather than keeping complaining?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For the same reason jobs are not created as much in Wyoming or Vermont so much as they are in LA or NYC ... the jobs are being created, it's just that they're in Germany and the UK and not Spain.

Part of the issue is that Spain & periphery tend to have fewer 'large industrial conglomerates' that enable profitable things to be done at scale (i.e. making cars etc.). % people employed at companies with >1000 people is much bigger in Northern Europe - which makes it more difficult to compete in the periphery.

But really, this is what can be expected with a true Union in Europe, and it's why Germany is so keen on it, and of course the Lib Dem (i.e. business types) are super keen on it in the UK, despite populist upset over Brexit.

The short run advantages of common market and supposed common risk of the Euro (which never happened), the downside is that skilled people are flooding out of the mediocre areas into the competitive areas.

Portugal is turning into a nation-sized retirement home, sadly.

In an odd way, this might actually be a 'net good thing' economically, because Germany might be better at putting people to productive use in industry ... which is why the Lib Dem types like it (i.e. they see the economics) ... but really this speaks to an existential challenge to the very nature of European nations and peoples.

<comment><USER9> Portugal seems to be very attractive to northern European tech and media freelancer types, know a couple of guys who live and enjoy Portugal and work for German companies remotely. Pretty attractive, would do it myself if it wasn't for the kids. Those guys are more likely to expand, build startups and employ people, who knows what it might lead to.

<comment><USER10> I too am excited by what's happening in Portugal. Safe place, good food, great weather, internet is improving. These things get noticed by mobile professionals. I'd not be surprised to find myself there next year.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for embellishing Portugal. As a local, I'm not as bullish as you.

Portugal is nowadays a paradox: it has 2 contrarian political systems. One for locals (pro-socialist) and another (raw liberal) to attract foreign money.

E.g: Foreign pensionists don't have to pay taxes, €500k 'investment' (buying an house is enough) will grant you citizenship, Websummit (and consequently raw capitalism) was seen as the Truth by government. All this done while rising taxes for local middle class (freelancer's taxes are a joke), advocating a rigid job market and other ideologic measures that promoted a brain drain like never before.

Yes, Portugal is a great contry for hollydays and retirement, but, sadly, it stops there. However, if you afford to live as a semi-retired (like many remote devs) it might worth it: sun, sea, food and safety (on the places where you'll be at least).

<comment><USER10> I don't understand. If one becomes a citizen, doesn't one become a "local"?

<comment><USER11> Citizenship buyers don't want to be a 'local', they just want full access to the EU.

My point here is that Portugal literally sells EU passports without many (if any) questions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow...about the same level of journalism/fact checking as expected these days....none.

Let's compare the workforce of countries with an ageing population and rapidly dropping net population with countries like Australia that are absorbing 250k immigrants per year into "self employed" (read: rich third worlder's buying a house and a passport) of course you're going come up with a figure like that.

Throw in some countries with massive populations who have also got an ageing population but have 20x the population of Portugal to make them look bad on absolute numbers and you have a winner. Of course a tiny change in employment is going to look amazeballs or on the other hand terrible.

The difference is..being in one of those countries right now but from the greedy nation of Australia is that sustainability is practised. It's not all about greed here. You don't need to destroy the planet to have a family here so seriously a big middle finger to anyone who thinks that Europe not growing is a "problem".

<comment><USER13> Economic growth = learning to do more with less, and arbitraging profits.

The myth that economic growth means more waste is just wrong. Compared to the early 20th century we use ~90% fewer resources per dollar of GDP created.

<comment><USER14> You forgot to subtract inflation * population growth.

You can grow your economy, without actually becoming more efficient, or profitable, by tweaking either of those parameters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash I wish TFA had more detail about the conditions within each country. You can't just treat northern Italy and southern Italy like they're the same economy.

<comment><USER15> As someone unfamiliar with Italy, would you mind to explain a bit?

<comment><USER16> The (far) north of Italy is a bunch of Germans that happen to speak Italian and wear better-looking clothes. The South of Italy is a bunch of nogoodniks who live on handouts from the north unless they... I'm tired of overblown stereotypes already and can't find a suitable mafia-related slur.

But even though that previous paragraph was overblown there are differences. Maybe because of the Mafia's firm grip, maybe for other reasons. The Italians seem to feel rather strongly about the differences. Google for "italy mezzogiorno" if you want more.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostrada_A3_(Italy)#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostrada_A3_\(Italy\)#History) and ponder the sums and delays. It'll make you feel better about the cost overruns wherever you live ;)

<comment><USER17> Maybe, but at the same time, a bigger country is always better. Splitting Italy into two would be worse long term for both halfs.

You have the same talk in US, that California and New York pay all the taxes and carry on their back other "unproductive" states.

<comment><USER18> > at the same time, a bigger country is always better

Why so? And for whom, exactly? Do you think the US would fare better overall if they joined with southern countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Colombia?

Also, Italy is inside the EU. I'm not sure that inside a supra-national entity as the EU the reasons for building bigger nation-states- reasons that were surely valid in the 19th century- still stand.

<comment><USER19> Induction gives a hood answer. Would your country be better off balkanized with many small territories feuding and redundant administration on every new level? While there are occasional scaling issues there is a synergistic effect to larger unified territories - as opposed to actively occupied ones.

Joining together would be a long term investment for the US. Given how well trade matches as size of neighbors attenuated by distance roughly it would pay off long term. Short term at least a significant minority would probably be discontent about it given what happened just with German reunification and they weren't even apart for a century.

<comment><USER20> Redundant administration? By that logic, you might as well create a one world government, but it's a piss poor idea.

Consider that redundancy is good in that it creates multiple points of failure. Consider that bureaucracy will scale with the size of the country and not necessarily in the efficient way you think it would. Consider that regional needs and cultures vary dramatically. Even in individual countries, subsidiarian governance is good in that it best matches law and policy with the particularities of each region because local authorities have better grasp of local issues (and where matters are escalated only as necessary). Blanket statements about bigger being better are flatly wrong. And where the US is concerned, the US benefits greatly from a very fortuitous combination of geopolitical factors. Russia, on the other hand, expanded eastward with no such commensurate benefits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am every time astonished by the low level of analysis of this kind of situation and how dogmatic is the explanation : too high taxes, too much regulation. First of all taxes can seen as an investment of the citizens for better life. So the problem is not the high level of taxes, but how they are used and in what purposes. Certainly, PIGS should optimize many processes and promote initiatives ( business but also social....). Remember that PIGS are the most impacted by migration now. Remember that most were dictatorships many decades ago and have not the same foundations of democracy and economic prosperity than other countries. Remember that many young people that could create jobs just moved in others countries and didn't come back. Remember that you don't have the same impact when you are poor than when you rich. We you are poor you look for more immediate results because it is a matter of life. Remember the role that play mafia/corruption/ criminality, especially the white collar one!! I don't think the Euro has a so big impact and there are plenty to doin order to reach a good growth. However the growth is the result of wise and pragmatic moves which can reach a 2% per year in long term ( according to Angus maddisson from OECD). But it is the good decisions and actions that provides efficiency and so growth, not stupid and blind cut in budget. For OECD , the top down approach of spending money is always bad ( Keynesian approach), but the top down of saving money is ever good. What an hypocrisy which can influence a policy that can destro many life's.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's funny how Germany is called out here again and again.

The EUR was forced on Germany by France (Mitterrand) as a precondition for reunification. Germany was dragging its feet with a common currency and needed be dragged towards a EUR.

The French intention was to controll a unified Germany with a common currency.

</comment><comment><USER23> I searched for "underground", "black" (market/economy) and "undeclared" in the article, but it yielded no results. I am surprised given that (1) the rise of the underground economy is common knowledge for people knowing a bit about the region and (2) measuring its size is a mainstream academic question.

<comment><USER24> Same reason that watching pirated movies/shows is not counted in viewership statistics. It's illegal, you don't get credit for it. Taxes exist for a reason.

<comment><USER23> Viewership statistics of movies do not take into account pirated movies mostly because it's difficult to count. Tax offices might only care about movies sold, but producers regularly try to estimate their losses due to pirate channels, and I am sure that people who measure viewership as a proxy for impact on the popular culture would love to have to be able to count everyone.

The article's author makes some observation on employment volumes in Southern Europe, then decries _" the Eurozone's failure to implement meaningful pro- growth reforms"_. In that context, It makes sense to try to estimate how much of the economic activity has simply been reclassified. The fact that it isn't taxed makes it, once again, more difficult to measure (if that's what you meant by your _" Taxes exist for a reason"_ truism) but not irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The first graph is in absolute numbers, shouldn't it be in percentages?

Along the same lines, where is the birth rate? And death rate? And general population growth / delta?

Finally, has, for some reason, automation been a better fit for the industries in these regions?

I need more data. I need more information.

<comment><USER26> Well, there's hundreds of abandoned-looking industrial buildings in my area that are actually filled with CNC machines and only have 3,4 employees

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wonder how much of that is gray economy. Greece has massive underreporting of anything tax and business related, because they don't verify it. Farms and businesses don't report actual sales, earnings, probably even employees (anecdotally from locals reporting of income is less than 10% of actual).

Spain has a problem with permanent labor given to senior employees with most youth being excluded from full time jobs. There is also some type of earn-in system to get to a full time job. If a lot of local industry is tourism, those can be filled with temporary work as well, that is probably not accounted for in these statistics.

<comment><USER28> > _anecdotally from locals reporting of income is less than 10% of actual_

Factually this is BS. While there's underreporting in Greece, way more than "10% of actual" income is reported -- closer to 70% or 80% [1].

And one of the reasons it's not higher it's that there are quite high taxes (including a 24% VAT on most purchases) for little to no return from the state (no good healthcare, no money for schools, no road maintenance, etc). It's like sinking money down the drain.

([1] In fact a study by the Applied Economic Research at the University of Tübingen in Germany puts the whole Greek "shadow economy" to 20% of the GDP -- for comparison Germany's is around 10% and USA's around 5%: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/02/09/where-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/02/09/where- the-worlds-shadow-economies-are-firmly-established-infographic/#27d5abe7742c) ).

<comment><USER29> > no good healthcare

I'm sorry, what? The WHO puts the Greek healthcare system at #14. The UK is at #18, Sweden at #23, Germany's healthcare system is at #25, and Canada, Finland and the US are at #31, #31, and #37, repsectively [1][2]

And a more recent paper from The Lancet[3] puts Greece at #19. Sweden, Finland, and Canada have usurped Greece coming in at #4, #7, and #17, repsectively. That means that your healthcare system is still objective scoring better than Germany, the UK, and the US (the last of which is arguably a low, low goalpost, I admit).

[1]: [http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf](http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf) [2]: [http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care- information...](http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care- information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/) [3]: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(17\)30818-8/fulltext)

<comment><USER28> > _I 'm sorry, what? The WHO puts the Greek healthcare system at #14._

Statistics are not necessarily the same as "ground truth".

\- Hospitals are under-stuffed,

\- doctors make a pittance and ask for side-money to take care of patients (what is known as the "envelope" system, from small mail envelopes where such money are customarily handed over in),

\- rooms are full and patients are stuffed in beds in the hospital corridors (called "camp beds")

\- waiting times are horrid

\- lack of modern clinical equipment

\- hospital workers are overworked

\- drugs are often lacking or late

\- doctors and nurses are underpaid horribly (think McDonalds level money at public hospitals)

\- lack of ambulances and people dying after waiting for 2-3 hours to be taken to a hospital and so on.

Now, despite that, there are a few things that make the Greek healthcare system still rank high: good doctors (some of the best in Europe), and a legacy of free access to healthcare for working people (who are mandatory insured) -- that is increasingly corroded and people are asked to pay ever more of medical expenses, drugs, etc.

Still better than the US, of course, but that, as you said is a pretty low bar.

Here are some more modern sources for the current (last 5-10 years situation, although some of the above issues are much older):

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/01/patients- dying...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/01/patients-dying-greece- public-health-meltdown)

[https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/bjyyp8/the-corruption- i-s...](https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/bjyyp8/the-corruption-i-saw- working-for-a-greek-public-hospital)

[http://www.ekathimerini.com/225105/article/ekathimerini/news...](http://www.ekathimerini.com/225105/article/ekathimerini/news/greek- hospitals-struggling-over-equipment-shortages)

[https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-02/7th-year- austerity...](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-02/7th-year-austerity- greek-hospitals-have-become-danger-zones)

<comment><USER30> Uh, so like America? I have experiences most of these things.

<comment><USER28> Yes, but for mostly free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wonder how much Germany using the Southern Europe to suppress Euro to drive their own economy, is affecting the economies of Southern Europe.

</comment><comment><USER32> The ECB should just do more QE. Monetary policy solved all the US's problems following 2008 - should work for Europe too. Printing money to buy bonds definitey doesn't cause inflation in asset prices or real estate. Furthermore, buying bonds is totally different than simply buying stocks. Additionally, I think people really like when the interest they're paid on their savings is below the rate of inflation. In fact, they should follow Japan's lead and start printing money to buy ETFs! This will definitely incentivize the creation of high quality jobs.

<comment><USER33> > _The ECB should just do more QE_

To be fair, the ECB has been saying as much. Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece have needed to make structural changes to their labor markets, pension benefits, and tax and regulatory systems for years. Unfortunately, their voters prefer things like screaming at Macedonia about what it calls itself [1].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/17/macedonia- gree...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/17/macedonia-greece- dispute-name-accord-prespa)

<comment><USER34> Those "structural changes" are called austerity and they have not worked well where they have been tried. There is a very strong argument that the Euro currency is deflationary and is causing many of the various issues like unemployment, government debt crises, etc. See Stiglitz's book The Euro for an in depth argument.

Or just look at the unemployment statistics. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment- rate...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate-in-eu- countries/) The countries outside of northern Europe that are on the Euro or pegged to it have much higher jobless rates than those with their own currency. Czechia, Romania, Poland, Hungary are not pegged while Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia are. Similarly outside the EU, Bosnia is pegged and doing poorly, Iceland is not and doing fine even though they were very hard hit by financial crisis.

It's exactly analogous to the way the fixed gold exchange rate was deflationary during the Great Depression and as soon as countries dropped the gold standard they started recovering.

<comment><USER33> > _Those "structural changes" are called austerity_

These terms have wildly different meanings depending on the context. In my use, structural change refers to revenue-neutral economic rule making. Austerity means deficit reduction.

Making it easier to hire and fire employees is a structural change. Making it cheaper to form a new business, or increasing funding to courts, is also structural change. Removing requirements that _e.g._ hairdressers be licensed [1] is another. Some of these measures may actually _increase_ deficits, at least in the short term.

[1] [http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/15/texas-supreme-court- stri...](http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/15/texas-supreme-court-strikes- stupid-licensing-law/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem – magnetism in solids is a quantum mechanical effect - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93van_Leeuwen_theorem <comment><USER2> Neither can even basic chemistry. Intro to chemistry is sort of just a giant hint at quantum mechanics. When you get into electron shell configurations, inevitably there will be a student who will ask why electrons arrange themselves like this. The teacher will say "well, it's complicated". But it's just basic quantum mechanics. I wish they would have explained the concepts at least. Obviously the math is complicated but the ideas really aren't too bad.

<comment><USER3> I'd love to read more. Can you or someone else provide a relevant link?

<comment><USER4> Well classically, atoms wouldn't even be stable. Their electrons would radiate energy when orbiting and therefore spiral into the nucleus. So without quantum physics you don't have fundamental properties of atoms like energy levels which explains their chemical properties.

<comment><USER5> > Their electrons would radiate energy when orbiting

What phenomenon would make them lose energy?

<comment><USER6> Under the assumption that the electron is a point charge moving in a circular path, it radiates electromagnetic energy as it moves, in the form of field ripples.

This gif is for a 1d oscillation rather than an orbit, but it does a good job of conveying the idea.

[https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ExhaustedAlarmedDeinonychus- size_r...](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ExhaustedAlarmedDeinonychus- size_restricted.gif)

Interestingly enough, if the electron were a continuous ring (like Saturn's rings) rather than a point charge, it could orbit without losing energy, generating only a static magnetic field. I don't know why this model rarely comes up in explorations of classical physics models of the atom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)

Richard Feynman explaining magnets is one of the best layman explainers I've seen (in between the ranting). I honestly didn't understand why magnets worked and found this on a late night youtube binge.

(But don't search youtube for anything related to magnets, you end up amongst the perpetual motion nuts)

Edit: Just to be clear with this video (it had been a while since I last watched it), he doesn't 'explain' magnets as much as he hints at the concepts involved. I already knew about the spins being lined up etc but it was the "you can't put your hand through the chair" comment that gave me the eureka moment.

<comment><USER8> I don't know, maybe I'm the odd man out, but I've been linked to this video tens of times and always hated it. I find Feynman comes across extremely condescending and wastes time explaining that the interviewer is too dumb to understand in a very roundabout way. One thing I've come to really respect in my CS career are people not only able but willing to distill knowledge down into an approachable way. I've come across so many people with the same attitude as seen in the video, especially in the DNS world for some reason, maybe that's why it strikes a nerve.

<comment><USER9> I agree with this. I found it very off putting and not what I'd expected from someone lauded as an amazing teacher.

Having said that, there is a lot to think about in his irritation. For example: the mysteries of magnets are no more mysterious than lots of other things that we take for granted and treat as entirely unmysterious. To priviledge magnets with an almost magical respect when we haven't spotted that gravity is at least as mysterious is a failure of imagination.

There's also the question 'what kind of answer would you accept'? When we can only express bafflement about a phenomenon, we're still in the prescientific myths and magic world. You can't really get to the scientific world until you can formulate some kind of question. The passage from Hitchikers about the Ultimate Question touches on something pretty profound.

Still, I think an honest expression of bafflement is an excellent beginning (or at least it's where I often find myself), and I think there may have been more sympathetic ways Feynmann could have expressed his thoughts on the topic.

<comment><USER10> I understood that differently:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22816968](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22816968)

Hint, the questions were:

"Now, what is it, the _feeling_ between those two magnets?"

" _There 's something there_, isn't there?"

" _what 's going on_ between these two bits of metal"

" _What does that mean, or why are they doing that, or how are they doing that?_ "

I don't know what phenomena you study, but I assure you that "magnets" aren't the only topic for which the "feeling" and "what does that mean" and "why" questions would warrant the same answer.

And where answering "how" would be cheating if the answer would use some false analogy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Magnetism is a side effect of special relativity: moving charges have length contraction (depending on frame of reference) which makes them appear more/less dense and therefore an attractive/repulsive force.

Veritasium on YouTube made a much better explanation: [https://youtu.be/1TKSfAkWWN0](https://youtu.be/1TKSfAkWWN0)

<comment><USER12> Yeah but that doesn't explain permanent magnets, which is the subject of this theorem.

<comment><USER13> This video was a collaboration between Veritasium and Minute Physics.

They did a second one on that subject on the other channel: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXdXZ5TM](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXdXZ5TM)

<comment><USER12> Indeed, that is one of my favorites; I should have pointed that out in my comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why is it called the most deflationary finding of all time? What does deflationary mean in this context?

</comment><comment><USER15> For me [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration) really opened my eyes to post-classical physics. Not only is it a great way to understand entropy, but soon we may have quiet and efficient refrigerators in every home thanks to this research!

I wish there was a similar intuitive application for quantum plasma and superfluidity too, but the existence of high-temperature superconductivity seems to indicate there is none as of yet.

</comment><comment><USER16> There is an interesting answer here with regards to how the Pauli Exclusion principle is related to magnetism.

[https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/246439](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/246439)

As I understand it, with my limited knowledge, deeper down it involves the exchange of virtual photons between electrons. I can see how this explains repulsion.

Though how this leads to attraction and how this looks as a Feynman diagram I'm not sure.

</comment><comment><USER17> > *"and means that classical physics cannot account for diamagnetism"

[assuming classical statistical physics assumptions, such as nothing special happens at the boundary]. The whole result is due to unrealistic boundary condition (for magnetic materials) that the Boltzmann isotropic distribution of momenta is valid at the boundary. Diamagnetism is present in classical physics, for example, electron(s) circling in magnetic field create magnetic moment opposed to the magnetic field.

</comment><comment><USER18> The reason why electrons don't fall into the nucleus due to Coulomb attraction is QM. So from there, you can say that a lot of things are actually a QM effect.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm always fascinated how discoveries like this can often be simultaneously discovered only a few years apart, like what happened here.

</comment><comment><USER20> During my classes, I always see waves going up and down to represent sound or magenetic waves. I really cannot visualize in real life. What exactly the ups and down in real time?

<comment><USER21> For sound, at least, the waves are not up and down, but longitudinal. Perhaps most easily illustrated using a slinky:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIkeGBXqWW0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIkeGBXqWW0)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxQj- wPePBU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxQj-wPePBU)

For electromagnetic waves, as i understand it, there isn't actually movement up and down in space; there are oscillations in the electric and magnetic fields. Which do somehow have a spatial direction, which is why light can be polarised. I don't have an intuition for it at all!

<comment><USER22> The challenge with the longitudinal example, which is of course technically correct, is that it's hard to map it to the spherical shells that most of these phenomena radiate into.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Also, it is a widely known fact that classical electrodynamics is not compatible with classical mechanics.

</comment><comment><USER24> >"The significance of this discovery is that classical physics does not allow for such things as paramagnetism, diamagnetism and ferromagnetism and thus quantum physics are needed to explain the magnetic events.[5]"

Well, that might be true and all, but I like the following simpler explanation:

1) There is an extra dimension in space.

2) This extra dimension in space can be occupied by magnetic and other fields. They are unseen, but present when a magnetic object is present, much like radio or other electromagnetic waves are unseen, but can be present.

3) These fields, when present, exert a force on the magnetic objects they occupy, and can be used to exert force on other magnetic opjects, without the two objects ever physically touching.

Which also means that:

4) Magnetic fields are somehow intricately related to the materials they occupy, that is, the matter, at either the molecular or atomic levels...

If this is true, then one weird model for magnetism might exist as the "displacement of space"...

For example, you take a stone, you put it in some water, it displaces a little bit of that water.

But not enough to really see anything...

So now the $64,000 question:

What happens when you have a fixed ditch/gutter/trench/trough/channel/container of water, and you start to cram in stones, a whole lot of stones, such that each stone starts to displace more and more water?

?

Oh, and lets suppose that it's open on one side... and in that side is a much thinner open trench, which loops around to the other side, the closed side of the container?

Well, put enough stones (atoms, molecules) there, and they'll displace the water such that it flows into the small looped external open trench...

So, is a magenetic field -- actually the _displacement of space_?

I don't know, but there might be a case to be made for it...

Also, other observation: IF a magnetic field is in fact the displacement of space -- then this would mean that the magnetic field lines... represent a different kind of space than regular space... in other words, _there are at least two kinds of space_ , _regular space_ and _magnetic field line space_.

Then of course the next question is, how are these two types of space the same, and how are they different?

How do you make one from the other (without using a magnet!), and vice-versa?

But of course, all of the above is highly speculative...

</comment><comment><USER25> Magnets are teleological, whereas classical mechanics is entirely efficient and material causes.</comment>