Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989) - <AUTHOR> http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm <comment><USER3> Nature "is".

Science is an attempt to explain why Nature is the way it is. Collect data, make a prediction, test it, revise the prediction, rinse, repeat. Granted, there are belief systems aplenty in scientific work (string theory?) but as Kuhn has written, sometimes Nature laughs and forces a change.

And Asimov's "level of error" discussion is valid. Newtonian physics, while "wrong" is perfectly useful when aiming spacecraft away from the sun. Box: "All models are wrong. Some models are useful". And Feynman's talked about this as well.

<comment><USER4> "The map is not the territory" is a concise way to phrase the idea you're pointing at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is amusing, but the key terms in Asimov's argument are ambiguous, and he's taking a very selective look at the history of science. The position that science edges gradually towards theories that are "more right" (or "less wrong") is roughly correct in the sense that science tends to be empirically conservative. That is, when scientists replace theory A with theory B, it's generally the case that theory B accounts for most or all of the data that theory A accounted for. However, if we look at the actual content of scientific theories, it's clear that radical change and total reversal are quite common. E.g., the germ theory of disease and the theory of continental drift bear little resemblance to their predecessors; Rutherford's model of the atom is not a minor revision of the "plum pudding model"; a relative space- time is very nearly the opposite of an absolute space and time; and the thesis that the universe has a beginning in time is the negation of the thesis that it does not. The last example is probably the best one. At various times, the scientific consensus has been clearly for or against steady state models. So we _know_ that the scientific consensus on that issue has simply been flat out wrong at one time or another.

Of course, there are many areas where we do expect progress to be conservative. So for example, we are not going to discover that DNA does not actually exist, or that the Earth is larger than the Sun. But on some issues it is reasonable to assume that the scientific consensus is quite likely to undergo radical revision. As Scott Adams points out in an article that someone else linked to here, the science of diet and exercise is a case in point.

So to my mind, it all depends on the particular issues that Asimov's lazy caricature had in mind. If the "Eng Lit major" was expressing skepticism about, say, the age of the Earth, or the atomic theory of matter, then Asimov's response would be a fair one. If they had something else in mind, then perhaps not.

<comment><USER6> > _As Scott Adams points out in an article that someone else linked to here, > the science of diet and exercise is a case in point._

That's because most of it in the form it reaches people is not actually a "science", but mostly pop culture and BS from mass media.

<comment><USER5> That's true, but it's also true that the actual scientific consensus has changed a lot over time. You can't blame this all on the media and pretend that dietary advice from experts has been fully consistent for the past 50 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a nicely written statement of one of the basic points/counterpoints in the philosophy of science and scientific realism. If you want to read more, you can probably find more by chasing citations from this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article: [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific- realism/#PesInd](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific- realism/#PesInd).

</comment><comment><USER8> Surely everybody knows an "English Lit expert" but even after reading this exquisite requiem to believers I still find it impossibly hard to argue with these people. It always feels like they are trying to make the last stand of humanitarian values against the dictat of science.

In all their glorious "everything science says will be as wrong as religion and you my friend are blindly following it" it seems they can't understand the basic principle of science advancing toward some kind of truth yet admitting it is -still- wrong.

I don't know if trying to convince someone who doesn't trust science - and to some extent, logical thinking - with mathematics really works. Sure it convinces me but does it matter?

<comment><USER9> I'm one of the people you're caricaturing here. I understand science, and mathematics, and logical thinking, which is _why_ I believe (most) people blindly follow science as if it were a religion. (For a very recent example, see this article - io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps- weight-1707251800 )

See also Scott Adams' musings on the subject: [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences- biggest-f...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-biggest-fail)

<comment><USER9> ... and, of course, the rebuttals to this were mostly of the "no true Scotsman" flavor. "It's not the fault of scientists, it's the bad media". Let's ignore [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/) (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) and many other similar results - we have to defend scientists because!

Look - I'm an engineer. I use a sort-of Bayesian reasoning: I started from what I learned as a child and then kept adjusting probabilities. You (plural "you") wouldn't be surprised if I told you I believe most politicians are liars. Well, I got to "most scientists are wrong" the same way. Sure, I didn't actually talk to most scientists, or even heard about them; those I did hear about, though, are at best misguided.

In any case, my original argument wasn't about the scientists; my argument was: most people treat science as a religion. They feel very superior to the religious people who are accepting everything they are told uncritically and then turn around and accept everything that is prefixed with "science says". Ten years ago, I used to make fun of people for believing the Earth revolves around the Sun - I have yet to find a single one who could do better than "that's what scientists say". That is arguably worse than those who accepted the Ptolemaic model - for one thing, they could at least _see_ that the Sun was rising and setting.

(I can rant on this subject for hours but I don't think this is the proper forum.)

<comment><USER10> So we think that is a dangerous thing? Believing the best, tested results of experiments (science) is not superior to random religious tracts written thousands of years ago?

The critical difference between treating science as a religion, and treating religion as a religion, is that the science people have a good chance of being right.

Its rational and reasonable to be uncritical of scientific results - <USER2> scientist has already been critical for you. That's kind of the whole point.

<comment><USER9> Just look at this statement:

_Its [sic] rational and reasonable to be uncritical of scientific results_

I do not believe that this person is sarcastic; I say that because I have talked to hundreds of people with the same opinion. People actually believe this. My authority is better than yours so you uncritically accepting your authority is wrong, me uncritically accepting mine is not only right but obviously so.

Ignoring the absurdity of the statement, and the mind-numbing appeal to authority - this also shows a lack of knowledge of history. When people used Aristotle as an authority 500 years ago, they did it using this same rationale: Aristotle had already done all the thinking, who are you to claim to know better?

This is just painful.

<comment><USER11> It's not an argument from authority, just a statement of the implied Bayesian priors. One who gives greater weight to scientific papers than to religious pronouncements is entirely rational in doing so. That is the entire well- argued thesis of the Relativity of Wrong essay we are discussing.

<comment><USER12> Unthinking faith in "the institution of science", particularly the denial that it can be co-opted for certain policy goals, and influenced by funding, and lack the foresight to control for important environmental variables, has and will continue to lead into stuff like eugenics, craniology, and austerity.

I'm still reeling from "Its rational and reasonable to be uncritical of scientific results"\- smh.

<comment><USER11> Nobody used the words "unthinking" or "faith", or anything remotely resembling them. Nobody said it was _ideal_ to be uncritical of scientific results, only that it was _rational_. Rationality is not binary, at least as it appears to be used in a charitable interpretation of the commenter's position. It can be more rational to be uncritical of scientific results (which we can define for the sake of argument any way we like, but probably involving peer review and replication) than to be uncritical of unscientific pronouncements.

Given the available time and energy (or lack thereof) for most of us to examine every scientific result in detail, it can even be _more_ rational (as in best allocation of personal resources) to accept some scientific results uncritically than to study them in detail. I'll note that I would argue for tentative acceptance, with growing confidence over time myself, but the original statement isn't wrong. It's just being interpreted through different vocabularies.

P.S. This next part is not a response to you specifically, just a general comment. I'm really disappointed by the polarizing tone of this thread, the uncharitable readings of others comments, the implications of guilt by association, and the emotionally motivated downvote brigades. HN used to be better; we've discussed this essay before and it wasn't nearly so bad. So I'm disappointed, and I'm disappointed in myself for participating, but feel I must because of how much I like the essay and how important it is for people to understand the concept of the relative wrongness of science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Also see: "A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation": [http://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/technical/](http://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/technical/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's another relatively recent example:

[http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/fake-wonder-cream- ex...](http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/fake-wonder-cream-experiment- shows-why-you-cant-trust-a-clinical-trial/story-e6frfmyi-1227297697113)

Note that these were scientific studies, made by scientific labs. This is _not_ the media misreporting.

</comment><comment><USER14> Another attempt to explain this: [https://medium.com/@maradydd/the-null- hypothesis-loves-you-a...](https://medium.com/@maradydd/the-null-hypothesis- loves-you-and-wants-you-to-be-happy-3189413d8cd0)

</comment><comment><USER15> this is one of my greatest gripes with academics

pedantry directed ridicule

this same essay could have been written exactly as is but with the tone of 'you are so right, here are some examples' but instead he chose to try to make a fan feel like an asshole..

this is my biggest problem with degrasse tyson.. he goes out of his way to make himself a public figure in science but uses the information he has accumulated to make people think they know so much less than he

a perfect example was when he visited the daily show, twice, and complained, jokingly, that the earth was spinning backward in the opening graphic

that graphic was made by some artist and now tyson is using his acquired information to ridicule the individual's effort

if you are knowledgeable then use that knowledge to lift people up

how can we have a graphic of the earth spinning backwards?

perhaps the camera has a capture rate that makes the earth appear to spin backwards, like car tires in films..

or maybe you could talk about geosynchronous orbit and angular momentum and really make people think you know more than them all the while lending excuse for why the earth is spinning backwards..

isaac, you got called out on some stupid thing you said out of a myriad of other entertaining things you have said, have some grace.. or at least a sense of humour

<comment><USER16> hmmm - re asimov: he received a letter from a fan severely lecturing him on a subject. He appears to have read it thoughtfully and then responded in kind - severely, but fairly thoughtfully and with detail.

When I send someone a pithy email/comment on a subject and they respond like asimov did -- its pretty cool to me, even though to an observer it may appear somewhat dickish.

<comment><USER15> yeah i lamented the lack of the actual letter

i recognise the strengths in being able to determine if the kid 'had it coming' but still isaac was in the position of power here, and to me it reads like he was embarrassed to be called out by someone he feels unworthy of correcting him

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17>
      It is only because the difference between the
      rate of change in a static universe and the
      rate of change in an evolutionary one is that
      between zero and very nearly zero that the
      creationists can continue propagating their
      folly.

Well, there's still another part sneaking past the fact that biological differentiation occurs at geological time scales: We haven't been around long enough to witness and record an actual "smoking gun" event, that clearly demonstrates the emergence of a completely new plant or animal.

We're aware of things like the three-toed horse, and we know they used to exist. But that's just a small difference on an animal that still exists, and other than that whole thing with the toes, it's still pretty much the same thing. We've seen lots of animals disappear, but nothing replacing them.

Maybe insects are a ripe branch of animals that will bear some fruit, since their life cycles are so short, but otherwise, for the most part, modern theory points out that not only will none of us see a new, radically different class of creatures emerge within our own lifetimes, but not even within the projected limits of our modern civilizations and their effective capacity to record history will we be likely to observe such an event.

So, neither since the start of our recorded history, nor until after the history we do manage to record starts to disappear beyond the possibility of rediscoverable recognition by the next order of civilization which may arrise, shall a truly different creature spring forth from the free-for-all of biological propagation.

In other words, we've never actually experienced a period where a certain life form did not exist and then emerged from some other thing, and we'll probably never get a chance to see such a thing happen, not in 5 million years, and even if we do spot a new previously undiscovered animal, and it turns out to be an example of the emergence of a new and distinctly different animal, even if it makes it into the history books, and the animal is hardy enough to persist in nature, our history books won't last forever, and after we're gone, the next civilized culture (human or oherwise) might not find them, and learn to read them before they disintegrate into unrecognizable ash and dust. But we know it's there. We're sure evolution isn't _just_ a theory.

And so too, are we faced with a scenario, whereby even if hypothetical civilized lizard people of the dinosaur era had been there to witness a new class of rodents spring forth, the records of their culture that we do find might not include that one passage. And so too, with civilized trilobite scholars, if they were there to see the original sharks and amphibians emerge, and wrote it down, we'd probably never find that chapter in the trilobite bible where they realized what they had just seen.

That's a tough idea to pitch to people, and in casual conversations at dinner parties, it's devestatingly easy to stymie people who try to explain it.

</comment><comment><USER18> Asimov was ver clever and entertaining. But he was very arrogant to and would never admit someone might have a better idea than him.

<comment><USER19> It's not arrogance, it's authority. Just because someone might have a better idea than you does not mean you have to agree with people spewing stupidities. Especially when the said people didn't even bother coming up with _their own_ stupidities (which warrants at least a modicum of respect).</comment></comment>


Best Decision I've Ever Made - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/code-like-a-girl/best-decision-ive-ever-made-3dae696e9d83#.6tciw9szm <comment><USER2> It's nice to see so many people taking up CS as their major.

But again, just learning to code or design won't help a person in building the greatest product(s). They might just lack something called "Imagination". We see many useless/stupid products these days. Those are the results of lacking a great imagination and a vision.

What you intend to build matters, when you have the skills to do it.

If I give you a blank sheet of paper, what are you gonna paint? ;)

<comment><USER3> Well said. I also would like to point out that the resources are available for free, libraries, coursera, EdX, khan, for programming, you do not need a university diploma to program computers.

<comment><USER2> Yep. Moreover, you need a great logic to be a great programmer. :)</comment></comment></comment>


The Endless Mini $79 desktop PC stores as much of the Internet as it can - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3017993/linux/the-endless-mini-79-desktop-pc-stores-as-much-of-the-internet-as-it-can.html#tk.rss_all <comment><USER2> This sounds amazing. I have been working on a similar sidd project for almost 2 years now to make my pc similar. I briefly wrote about it [1] but have encountered my challenges along the way.

The PCs we have at home are so powerful yet they spend 99% of their life being idle. When your computer is on for the sake of being on, it's an opportunity to have it process information from the web.

I'll get my hand on one of those asap.

[1]: [http://idiallo.com/blog/bringing-back-the- pc](http://idiallo.com/blog/bringing-back-the-pc)

<comment><USER3> > I'll get my hand on one of those asap.

Do a blog post on it? I'd love to see these extended, hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here are the details of the software, it's based on Debian:

[https://endlessm.com/developer/](https://endlessm.com/developer/)

I was hoping it would be available as an ISO, as it would make a great OS for my parents who aren't particularly tech savy.

<comment><USER5> They want to make money on it though... Maybe someone will get their hands on it and extract the ROM.

<comment><USER3> Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Off and on I've made an attempt like this before, turning an external hard drive into an offline repository of things I find interesting.

I used to go through artists and download paintings, photos of international landmarks, books, games, classic shorts, tutorials, etc. with the idea that maybe it'd be useful someday, or a digital archaeologist might somehow run into it sometime. Some of it came straight from Project Gutenberg and Archive.org.

I wasn't very good at keeping up with it, though, but I still think that people rely on the omnipresence of broadband a little too often sometimes. I do still have the archive, though.

I'd love to have some sort of tap where I can just download a whole ton of this crap, possibly curated. Bit torrent is basically that, but its focus is on the new hotness and a hell of a lot less on the classics.

Even a blog that compiles a bunch of random open source stuff into a torrent and shares them with people would be nice. I can find this stuff individually, but that takes a lot of time and hunting.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is great. In 2008 Patrick Collison had a buddy who was using the then undocumented iphone internal apis to make apps. They made a wikipedia dump[0] so they could have the hitchikers guide to the galaxy.

I was surprised that this was only 32gb as is noted below, but if you figure the entire WP dump is ~27gb unconpressed (from comment below) if that metric is all languages you could download a specific language and then modules i.e

Top 10,000 articles. Nature, mechanics, etc. then this thing likely has a global stylesheet so you are only downloading text. How much info do we really need?

Sure 32GB isnt a lit _comparatively_ but even 24GB of text is a lot. 1gb is like 65k pages in a microsoft word doc

0 [http://www.zdnet.com/article/encyclopedia-offline- wikipedia-...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/encyclopedia-offline-wikipedia- viewer-for-iphone/)

<comment><USER3> Wikipedia currently is ~30-35TB total in size. If storage trends continue, you'll be able to store/run the entire corpus locally in 3-5 years.

<comment><USER8> ?? I have offline copy of entire (en)wiki on my disk, its <100GB for images, 12GB articles compressed (~30GB with entire edit history). All other languages might double that, still nowhere close even one TB.

<comment><USER3> Not according to Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#How_bi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#How_big_is_the_database.3F)

<comment><USER7> Wikipedia EN is 100GB[0] in an xml dump. You linked to the dump of the entire primary db which probably (and this is total spec.) is all users, editors, edits, languages, usage dtatistics and internal metrics.

I don't know if the wouted stat above includes pics, but i believe it is a text dump. You would have to read further to confirm. If they made their usage stats available you could pull 10% of that data (10gb) which corresponds to the most frequented articles

0\. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia)

Edit: maybe you meant what you said and are in fact correct. From a user standpoint, the article text, supplementary material and some edits are likely the most inportant metrics. However a massive dump of the entire site and infra would be about that large. H

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looking at the registration page[1], shows two computers with two configurations each:

                     RAM 24GB   32GB   500GB
      Endless Mini    1G  $79    $99*
      Endless         2G        $189*   $229*
        * Wi-Fi, Bluetooth

If this actually ships, I might buy one. This fits in with my desire to see a computer replace the long forgotten 8-bit price range[2]. Much like Apple PR's foolish Newton claims of handwriting recognition, I don't care for their "internet optional" advertising. A good reminder of just how much text in books and pictures you can put in gigabytes would be fine since I think people forget or never knew.

I would probably order quite a few for the local library.

1) [https://endlessm.com/registration/](https://endlessm.com/registration/)

2) Sinclair for under $100 specifically

<comment><USER10> The 1982 £99 zx spectrum would cost £340 (almost $500) in today's money, when accounting for inflation[1] - well within the price range of "conventional" budget PCs.

[1] [http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/](http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/)

<comment><USER9> This comes every time, and $99 is still the price point people shot for smart phones. I know there still is a huge difference from a kid's perspective of the over / under $100.

I can assure you that in 1982, I would have a had better chance of getting my Dad to buy me a Sinclair than my nephew would have of getting his dad to buy him something costing 3.43 times as much.

[edit] Why when all the other prices have come down in computers do people insist everything's fine because of inflation with the removal of the sub-$200 category when Microsoft and Intel did the most damage to that category.

<comment><USER11> Maybe your dad was just a generous guy ;)

<comment><USER9> Given the different circumstances, I doubt that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Information on the web is distributed in an even more skewed manner than Pareto's law would have you believe. I would bet 1% of the sites on the web provide 99% of the useful information. Thusly, this laptop may prove very useful for many things (excepting the wonders of web based interpersonal communication).

<comment><USER8> Sadly this leads to tragedy of the commons type of situation, best example being TVs version of what people want (ghost hunting shows on discovery "science", etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _How big is the Wikipedia database?

Current revision only of just the text of the articles is 8.8GB compressed, 27GB uncompressed. All revisions, all pages (talk etc. included) of text is around 5 terabytes. [...] Neither of those include media._ [0]

The biggest version of this device has 32GB of storage. The math is not hard to follow. This is the kind of transparently infeasible pipe dream I expect from Kickstarter projects.

[0] [https://www.quora.com/How-many-gigabytes-or-terabytes-of- inf...](https://www.quora.com/How-many-gigabytes-or-terabytes-of-information- is-Wikipedia)

<comment><USER14> > made up of frequently accessed Wikipedia articles

Wikipedia has a very long tail, no need to load articles such as Jabal al Utayfah or Poul Reumert or Screaming Life/Fopp.

<comment><USER15> Huh. What percent of pages would estimate get less than say 100 organic views a month?

<comment><USER14> The data appears to be avaliable here:

[http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts- raw/](http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/)

Might be another way to answer that question, but I didn't find it here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics#Page_view...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics#Page_views)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The perfect PC for disaster preppers who want wikipedia info after the world collapses.

<comment><USER17> I'd rather just download all of wikipedia onto an SSD and plug it into a raspberry pi or something.

<comment><USER18> SSDs are poor for long-term storage, as flash cells need occasional (=every few years) refreshing to not lose their data. Tapes or regular hard disks work better for that purpose.

<comment><USER19> News to me. what is your source?

<comment><USER20> [http://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd- data-...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/9248/the-truth-about-ssd-data- retention)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems like we should make something that this that could last for a thousand years. And then house them throughout the world in case of disaster or make them so cheap that everyone could afford to buy one as a novelty.

<comment><USER22> It would be easier/cheaper to print out physical copies of the same resources and place them in archives around the world.

<comment><USER23> Perhaps not. Thinking about other comments referencing Wikipedia:

"This may be the first attempt to print Wikipedia to succeed in the sense that all of Wikipedia has been formatted as printable pdf files and made available for individual printing. The task has taken 3 years, and the upload process took 24 days, 3 hours and 18 minutes. It was completed 12 July 2015. PediaPress had attempted to raise money for a full Wikipedia print out on Indiegogo in 2014, but the project was pulled. Michael estimates that the printing costs of a full printout are around $500,000."

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

<comment><USER24> Assuming you can get this 1000-years-proof Wikipedia laptop down to $50 a piece, that's still 1 Wikipedia printout per 10 000 people buying the laptop. If people were buying that machine as much as they're buying smartphones, that would be equal to having a printed copy of Wikipedia in every city in the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I can't help but think of [https://youtu.be/Y5BZkaWZAAA](https://youtu.be/Y5BZkaWZAAA)

</comment><comment><USER26> On a related note, if only for context & scale, Netflix fits in about 100TB - small enough they actually give away entire copies, server included, to ISPs. [http://gizmodo.com/this-box-can-hold-an-entire- netflix-15925...](http://gizmodo.com/this-box-can-hold-an-entire- netflix-1592590450)

<comment><USER8> probably <20Tb once you standardize on fullhd h.265 and drop the rest. Afaik netflix keeps copies in wide range of resolutions and codecs for bw/platform scaling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I love the idea of mini-pcs, but the specs are always dismal.

To me is teems like a single-purpose machine deisgned for web-surfing. People do more than surf and so I see less utility in this that I do in a ChromeBook.

Maybe with 4GB with root access and allowing me to change the distro and operate a lightweight server. Say SABnzbd, or plex media server(but not for transcoding, of course).

I bought a Zonbu when they appeared and ran mine until it died a few years back. It was handy for quick local network admin tasks and ran a few low priority cron jobs. Very cheap to operate, too.

<comment><USER28> You're probably not in the target market for this one.

> The computer revolution is one of the greatest revolutions in human history. > And yet, 75% of the world still lives outside of its reach, struggling to > fulfill the most basic of needs... This product has been designed in > emerging markets, with our users. During our three years of research, we > encountered thousands of ways in which technology today does not meet the > needs of our users. And during those same three years of development, we > have built the solutions that do.

[https://endlessm.com/about-us/](https://endlessm.com/about-us/)

<comment><USER27> Perhaps not, but I'm willing to help support their efforts, I just don't want any more dusty hardware on the shelf than I have. I think that adding a couple GB to the package or a second slot would boost demand and drive down unit cost.

I'm not looking for something powerful, just a small, low-power box to run daemons, but 2GB is limiting it's usefulness.

Even when they are distributed exactly to their demographic, that 2GB will be a wall they hit as they become adept at computer use. Then they'll have hardware that is not quite big enough.

I want it to succeed, but I can see it becoming obsolete in a couple of years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This has great potential to take off

</comment><comment><USER30> > The Endless Mini $79 desktop PC stores as much of the Internet as it can

which is barely anything...</comment>


Now that you know "trolling", also be aware of "brigading" - <AUTHOR> DEFINITION - BRIGADING -
A concentrated effort by one online group to manipulate another. (e.g. by mass commenting) https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brigading [Sorry in advance for using urban dictionary]
Online brigading used to be a simple harmless and funny thing like influencing the name of a sea vessel to become "Boaty Mc Boatface".
The Internet currently consists of major social media sites now, It's very hard for us to tell when we are brigaded online, because we have very rudimentary insight into metrics for posts and articles we engage online. The moment you may say one simple negative thing about a company on social media, if it gets no views, or gets down-voted, that may well be a case of brigading. A lot of these social media sites, like Reddit have removed most of the indicators we previously had to tell us what was realm and now it's easy for one user to register multiple accounts, and a click farm to register thousands of accounts.
Now that companies have brought in new blood, they realize the power of brigading. It's covert, can be very subtle, and when combined with the learned expertise of click farms, it can generate lots of sales, remove legal hurdles, and even make painful lawsuits simply go away, among other uses. New companies, even new political candidates, hire and recruit groups to create brigades, we're talking about groups that suppress valid information about safety and public policy that we would normally be able to read online, they diminish our ability to see real and trustworthy feedback and stories, and they are now frequently used to drive deception in stock markets.
I'll keep this post short and follow up in comments, but there are several ways permitting online brigading by companies and political candidates can go very wrong for the world. If we remain largely unaware about it, and don't hold companies and individuals responsible for destructive brigading, you may never see a bad review of a company ever again. <comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bernie-sanders- socia...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bernie-sanders-social-media- attacks-invs/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm a little lost here as far as to why this is in the "Ask" section of HN. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like this is already a well understood concept on HN and, not a question / ask.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't really get a choice when I made the submission... It was just added under the "submit" section. But it wouldn't hurt to get input from others here about how modern online brigading affects us all...</comment></comment>


Google Pixel Slate review: An expensive work in progress - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2018/11/27/google-pixel-slate-review-an-expensive-work-in-progress/ <comment><USER2> Exactly what I expected this device to be. Mine is on its way to me, scheduled for tomorrow. Can't wait.</comment>


Net successfully snares space debris - <AUTHOR> https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/net-successfully-snares-space-debris <comment><USER2> Wikipedia has more information about the experiments it is performing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RemoveDEBRIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RemoveDEBRIS)

Note that it caught a 'fake' piece of space debris that it launched specifically for this experiment. I'm curious how it would fare when trying to snag a real chunk moving at higher relative velocities.

I also had no idea it had a harpoon on it!

<comment><USER3> Here is a good mission simulation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CEH9V9psKY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CEH9V9psKY)

I feel oddly letdown that the harpoon won't be fired at a free floating object.

I am glad that they are testing a drag sail. It would be nice to require these in future LEO objects if they prove successful.

<comment><USER4> In the early plans the harpoon was launched at a moving target. But in addition to the complexity and the risk associated with that, this prevented having a close-up look at the target after the operation. A harpoon for debris removal is only useful if it does not create too many debris and you cannot really assess how many were generated if the harpoon and it's target are floating away.

I concur with you in the drag sail. So many LEO projects are planning on using propulsion for deorbiting, which requires having a fairly working spacecraft. Drag sails or other deployables do not require a lot of power, are completely passive once deployed, and make the object even more trackable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most people don't realize that any space debris removal tool is actually considered a weapon, so it's kinda hard to deploy them for real production usage.

<comment><USER2> What? It's only a 'weapon' if you intentionally de-orbit debris with a real chance of hitting something of value. We have a hard time calculating where current space junk will de-orbit because we don't control any variables. With this thing, we would control enough variables to calculate when/where the space junk will impact the earth (assuming it doesn't burn up..), with sufficient accuracy that we could (for example) always hit the middle of the Pacific.

<comment><USER6> > It's only a 'weapon' if you intentionally de-orbit debris with a real chance > of hitting something of value.

A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger.

<comment><USER2> > A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger.

Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'. I suppose you think hammers, shoestrings, pebbles, carrots, and and a rotting fish are all weapons too, since they could cause damage if used in anger?

<comment><USER6> > > A weapon is a weapon even before it is used in anger.

> Only if you use an incredibly loose definition of 'weapon'.

No, by the standard definition. A gun is a weapon even before you shoot someone with it, it doesn't transform from a non-weapon to a weapon when that happens.

<comment><USER7> Based on the standard definition of weapon:

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

A firearm is not a weapon it is an armament. An armament only becomes a weapon when it is used to inflict harm.

<comment><USER8> Your link starts with: "A weapon, arm or armament is any device that _can be used_ with intent to inflict damage or harm." Which is means a bat is a weapon even if it's never used in anger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seems like an important and potentially lucrative project but I'm a bit worried about its future - what happens after Brexit?

It's lead by a British team, but many of the components are made on the continent, and it looks like half the funding came from the EU...

<comment><USER10> Well there was a South African university involved in the consortium, so EU membership was not apparently mandatory for this. But regardless, as long as the results of the experiment are available, then both the EU and the UK (and perhaps other friendly governments such as Japan, U.S., etc.) could benefit from the knowledge gained.

<comment><USER4> EU membership played a key role in this project though. The consortium would not have had the same funding from the European Commission if the UK was outside EU.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If SpaceX's BFR is a success, I hope it is used to launch a huge number of space debris removal satellites.</comment>


Are you a TJ? - <AUTHOR>

What is a TJ? My friends and me are used to use this abbr for "technique jockey". Isn't this new way to combine techniques, programming patterns, programming languages, APIs to useful Mashups a way of art?<p>What do you think about it? <comment><USER2> Shit, I thought you were referencing Myers-Briggs -- I'm INTP, although I know plenty of INTJs...</comment>


Social banking startup SmartyPig explained in 1 minute - <AUTHOR> http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2010/02/social-banking-startup-smartypig-explained-in-1-minute-10-seconds

<comment><USER2> In my opinion the words "social" and "banking" should never go together. But that is just me. While I can appreciate the concept it is not something I could trust. I do however wish them the best of luck and do understand that it could become very popular since it is "social".</comment>


Ask HN: I have some generic Twitter usernames - what should I do with them? - <AUTHOR>

I have 'query' and 'dir' Twitter usernames. I built a simply query service and attached it to these accounts (not up atm, moving it to another server tonight) but does anybody have a better idea of a good service to build around these accounts?
The service I built only had support for weather queries (ie @query weather <postcode>) with the intention of adding more services. What else could I add along with weather etc?
Willing to listen to any ideas or if anybody wants to work with me on building something more useful at these accounts. <comment><USER2> With 'dir' you could build a directory service where users send you a tweet containing another user name and you would return a link to a page with all the info you could find about them. For example: '@dir paulg' would result in me getting a link to a page that contains other public profiles from pg and links to his personal site and YC. Not sure how much of a business this is, but I guess it could be like the yellow pages for twitter.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this suggestion, I will be building something similar :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> im sure your history on HN proves otherwise, but this almost reads like a veiled attempt to sell twitternames you've squatted.

<comment><USER4> Nothing wrong with getting some generic domains, nothing wrong with getting some generic Twitter usernames.</comment></comment>


Bronze Age Greek city found underwater - <AUTHOR> http://www.speroforum.com/a/TJGTRQPMJA31/76356-Bronze-Age-Greek-city-found-underwater#.VeBmtWeFMoA <comment><USER2> This site, like many others on the northeastern Mediterranean coast, is most likely submerged due to earthquake activity in the region. The site here is on the coast of the Argolic Gulf, which is a graben (down-dropped tectonic block). The main fault is on land, on the southern shore[1].

I want to say some of the temples where Paul lectured to the Corinthians are also underwater due to faulting (the Gulf of Corinth is tectonically subsiding) but I can't find the reference. (I'm not actually sure that he gave lectures, either; I think I heard this in a geology class).

[1]: [http://eqgeogr.weebly.com/blog/active-faults-of-greece- map-a...](http://eqgeogr.weebly.com/blog/active-faults-of-greece-map- available-for-downloading)

<comment><USER3> _most likely submerged due to earthquake activity in the region_

It's shoddy journalism that the word "earthquake" appears nowhere in that article. Nor did I see an alternate explanation proffered.

That's the very first question I had: "how did it become submerged?".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The picture of the photovoltaic deck led me to a page describing a catamaran powered exclusively by 512 square meters of solar panels:

[http://www.planetsolar.org/boat/sections/the_boat](http://www.planetsolar.org/boat/sections/the_boat)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, it's very cool! Sadly it doesn't seem to have great performance for a multihull. The spec sheet says 14kn top speed and 5kn average, which is rather poor for a 115' cat! A sailing cat of that size should be able to get 15-16 knots running and even more on a reach. An average speed of 7-8 is not unheard of even for 40-50' cats, let alone twice that. Must be very heavy in the water.

I've read of a number of sailboat people who've replaced their old diesels with electric motor/solar panel combos and done quite well out of it. Whilst, for example, a motor can do 8kw at top speed, you usually only cruise at 3kw in and out of harbour and use the sails for the rest. Fitting enough solar for that is very doable on even a modestly sized boat. Then you can use batteries for any prolonged becalmings.

<comment><USER6> I worked for a company that did a cat electrification project circa 2008. 90ft mast 1300 sq feet of living space. Replaced a diesel in each hull with 16kw motor, inverter, and batteries. Main diesel generator remained but was only for backup. You could run the props as generators while under sail for a cost of 1/2 knot you could run all electric loads including air conditioning while charging the batteries. I guess solar could be useful at the dock...

<comment><USER7> I'm purchasing a cat for a circumnavigation. Where could I have such a conversion done?

<comment><USER6> >> I'm purchasing a cat for a circumnavigation. Where could I have such a conversion done?

That company does not exist any more - it got bought and ultimately disbanded. The boat did cross the Atlantic BTW and IIRC used no fuel to do so. I always thought it was a really good use of the technology. There are independents and small companies out there that can do that type of work - search for electric aircraft projects and find the people behind those. For a single boat you'll want an industrial drives and controls guy who can also deal with the battery and system issues.

<comment><USER7> Thanks! I'm pretty familiar with energy management, having designed stand- alone power systems (renewables + inverters + battery storage + generators) previously. I may give it a go alone, but I'll definitely start looking for the folks you mentioned if (most likely, when) I get stuck.

Thank you for taking the time to reply; I really appreciate it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This really reinforce something I have thought for some time now, mainly that due to sea level changes, many ancient sites are now underwater.

I even have a pet theory about Atlantis, which I will repost from /r/AskHistorians:

"Though it is probably confirmation bias due to my particular interest in Sumer, there is much evidence that what is now the Persian Gulf was flooded quite suddenly, With evidence that many of the settlements post-flood were quickly setup, in places where formerly only nomad hunter/gatherers lived.

What you have to consider is the origin of the myth when compared to the archeology. The myth starts with Plato, who cites Solon visiting Sais, Egypt and learning of Atlantis. Plato says Atlantis existed about 9600 BC.

My theory goes like this:

What Plato/Solon called Atlantis is actually the civilization that once existed in the unflooded persian gulf, from which refuges of the flood fled to surrounding areas (and further) and brought with them the knowledge of civilization they possessed. When I say civilization, I mean the transition from hunter/gatherer society to agricultural society, and possibly writing/proto-writing. (Not the super civilization myth many imagine it as)

Allow me to explain and support this assertion as best I can.

The Egyptian town Solon visited was the home town of the goddess Neith as far back as 3000 BC, and it was the priests of Neith which gave him the information about Atlantis. Neith is likely to be associated with the god Tanit, who in turn may be associated with the Akkadian god Ishtar, which is actually the counterpart of the Sumerian Inanna.

That's a lot of connections to make, but what does it matter relevant to this? Well, it matters in two main ways. First, the greek Athena (and hence Athens) is actually derived from, if the above connection is true, the Sumerian Inanna. Plato/Solon placed too much importance on this connection, and in seeking to tie their Athens to the myth of Atlantis, fouled the myth up a bit. (The part about Atlantis and a war with Athens) This is why for so long before the good science of plate tectonics and geology Atlantis was sought in places it could never have been, such as the Atlantic and Mediterranean. The real connection is Sumeria and before.

The second part about why the Sumerian connection is so important is purely about timelines. If indeed there was a flood in the Persian Gulf as some of the recent science suggests, at around 8000 BC, it could possibly match the Sumerian King's list, which states there was a flood roughly that long ago. (the oldest king on the list verified is back to about 2600 BC, past that the list itself is the only source, which is why I say roughly) So I find it highly likely that much of the ancient history known by the priests of Sais that told Solon about Atlantis is actually the slightly adopted and modified version of the Sumerian flood myth, and this is supported by the study of the evolution of Egyptian religion/history as supported by archaeology.

So there you have it. My theory that the flooded southern tip of the fertile crescent at about 8000 BC is the true "Atlantis". Feel free to poke holes in it or make corrections for any sloppiness on my part. This is something I have thought about for a while but just now put into words.

The key thing I would focus on to expand this would be the writings of Plato regarding Solon. I have heard that it was a mistranslation that Plato said 9000 years and that it really reads 900 years, but I have not yet been able to find out where the original text is to ask to for a picture in order confirm/deny this."

[http://phys.org/news/2010-12-lost-civilization-persian- gulf....](http://phys.org/news/2010-12-lost-civilization-persian-gulf.html)

[http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-civilization- existed-b...](http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-civilization-existed- beneath-persian-gulf.html)

[http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Sarepta-Phoenician-City- Exc...](http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Sarepta-Phoenician-City- Excavations/dp/0691002134)

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

[http://www.academia.edu/386944/New_Light_on_Human_Prehistory...](http://www.academia.edu/386944/New_Light_on_Human_Prehistory_in_the_Arabo- Persian_Gulf_Oasis)

<comment><USER9> Didn't Plato specifically place Atlantis West of Gibraltar placing it squarely in the Atlantic Ocean?

<comment><USER10> He Said beyond the pillars of Hercules which could be referring to Gibraltar or it could be the edge of the Blacksea or somewhere else entirely.

<comment><USER11> Black Sea also got flooded and in similar time (although how catastrophic and sudden that was is under debate). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis)

edit: oh and apparently some of these floods were caused by draining of a glacial lake in the middle of North America [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's always the last place you look. (If you had to look further, then _that_ would be the last.)</comment>


The Hi-Tech Gift Economy (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://firstmonday.org/article/viewArticle/1517/1432 <comment><AUTHOR> It should be mentioned that the paper was originally published in 1998. This version, from 2005, contains an update from the author, Dr. Richard Barbrook. The original paper was itself a remixed extract from _The Holy Fools: a critique of the avant-garde in the age of the Net_.</comment>


Which Comes First? The Person or the Job? - <AUTHOR> http://betashop.com/post/4658974162/which-comes-first-the-person-or-the-job

<comment><USER2> Sounds like you are confident that this is REALLY what he wants to pursue for the foreseeable future, so applause for finding a way to keep good talent.

But maybe it boils down to this, was it an honest mistake?

It happens to all of us, we start a new gig it doesn't turn out the way we want, we change what we want or move on. The sooner this comes out in a relationship the better. What you have done is create a new burden for yourself - managing a transitional employee.

Now it's on you to make the "transitional role" work which always proves difficult. Many an employee has been brought in under the guise of temporarily filling a need and then moving towards their true desire only to find the organization can't pull it off.

a side note:

I've always had a hard time believing that talented people only want to do one thing. To limit them to it is likely to bight you in the long term if not sooner. You just don't want to end up in a "Bo knows ..." situation where the desire is constantly changing.

Of course, if come two weeks priorities change again...

</comment><comment> ahrens-editions Tough call. But hiring for talent vs. skills was probably a good move on your part as a start-up venture. Having the right people offering their own ideas is infinitely better than just filling a position.

I'm in a similar position, but on the other side of the equation. While I also run my own small business I'm looking for secondary employment offer a wide range of skills and experience. I was interviewed last week for a position I'd be really interested in with flexible part-time hours (bonus for the already self-employed). The only catch is I would offer them more than they bargained for, but I don't perfectly fit all the skills they are looking for. I would be capable of doing the job required and more, but I don't bear the corresponding position title on my resume. Anyhow, I find out next week.

So, kudos to you for taking a chance on talent when you recognized it. It may or may not work in your favor but run with it and see what ideas your new hire will bring to the business.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this?</comment>